When I was an instructor the first thing I told my students was NOT to buy the textbooks in the syllabus (I wouldn't even have put them *in* the syllabus if the department hadn't made me). It used to get me into trouble with the department chair (I always suspected he or someone above him was getting some under-the-table or not-so-under-the-table kickbacks from the publisher). But at least the students loved me. And I saved them a LOT of money, considering that some of my classes "required" books were $300+ in total.
What's more, the books the department tried to foist on my students weren't even that good. Some of them were downright abysmal.
When I was in college (not so long ago), getting a Ph.D. was basically considered an insane pursuit. The professors (whatever their motivation) would explicitly tell their students this. Aside from the grueling work and tough admission requirements for most programs, the end result was a mountain of student loan debt and a degree that was unlikely to even get you a tenure-track position anymore (since those were being phased out). You would end up $100,000 of student loan debt and a part-time instructor (or low-level researcher) job that barely paid your rent.
If the U.S. government wants more Ph.D.-level scientists so bad; start encouraging universities to open up more admissions slots, offering grants (instead of loans) for qualified candidates, and offering better paying post-doc positions. Otherwise STFU and stop complaining that no one is insane enough to go into serious research (more like serious *debt*).
I don't care if the man waited until he was filthy rich to become a philanthropist or not. He's still given more and done more in places like Africa than any 10 other billionaires in Silicon Valley combined. Compare that to/. luminaries like Steve Jobs (who has, to date, given NOTHING to any charity--save his own bank account). Among individuals, only Warren Buffet even comes close to the very real positive impact that Bill Gates has had. And, unlike many previous industrialist philanthropists, this isn't just money given to museums, art galleries, and universities. Gates gives most of his money to the people who actually need it most.
Gates himself is under no such illusion, only the writer of the article. But Gates does know a thing or two about how to motivate politicians. And he *certainly* knows the tech industry (you know, the people who will have to develop this technology). Combine that with his well-respected reputation for philanthropy and you could have a lot worse advocates on your side for something like this than Mr. Gates. He may have a nasty reputation on/., but to the general public there are very few leaders in technology that command the kind of instant respect and name-recognition that he does.
Seems more like a win-win. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world rich enough to really put some serious money into alternative energy. And without serious money, alternative energy isn't going anywhere (the current state of the tech is just too inefficient and impractical to every really put a dent in conventional energy). So, without a serious investment from the U.S. (for altruistic reasons or otherwise), the future for the technology seems a lot bleaker. Gates is just couching it in terms that are an easier political sell (i.e., scare tactics).
In all fairness, TX and FL are the closest U.S. states to the equator. And that makes it technically easier to use momentum from the earth's spin to launch into space. Of course that didn't stop both states from politicizing their status since then, and to jealously guard appropriations for NASA (and you can bet their politicians will be the first to howl about any plans to scrap a NASA program now).
The ISS would make a poor staging area for anything. If we're going to go with the "space station as staging area" idea it would likely require a new station anyway. The ISS is ill-suited for anything but experiments and PR stunts.
Yeah, but doing a knockoff is hardly an assurance of co-opting those kinds of sales. As I said, the Wii *has* the casual market. And there is a lot of money in that market, yes. But I think MS and Sony's assumption that they can cut into that so easily is misguided (especially at the rumored $150 price point of the Natal), and it does a disservice to the market they already *do* have (the more serious gamer).
It wouldn't be so bad if it actually worked that way. But with all the multiple disc games I've seen so far, the appropriate disc has to still be in the DVD drive, regardless of whether or not you've installed it to the hard drive (much like with PC games requiring the disc in the drive even if your installed them). So even if you install both discs of Mass Effect 2 on the hard drive, you still have to swap out the discs when the time comes. Not sure if this is true with some of the other multiple disc releases, but I suspect so.
And if their main competitor released a new console next year that blew away the PS3, do you really think that they would wait 5 years to respond? That was just PR talk (aimed at convincing PS2 users to upgrade).
That Bowser always was a smug jackass. You would think the royal family would have stepped up security by now though, wouldn't you? If the U.S. President was kidnapped, I would hope we wouldn't have to resort to sending a plumber and his brother to rescue him.
There was an HD-DVD add-on drive for the 360, but MS (foolishly, IMHO) restricted it to playing HD-DVD movies and didn't allow developers to use it for games.
If you go back and look at the release dates between consoles, you'll see that the 5-year rule holds going all the way back to the Atari VCS. The only exceptions are the 360 (at 4 years) and the PS3 (at 6 years). But even giving them 6 years, we should already be hearing about a next-gen 360.
Because I chased that rabbit for too long in the 90's. When the Xbox 1 came along, I finally had a system that could deliver a comparable experience without having to constantly be upgrading (or worrying about the latest pain-in-the-ass DRM) to keep up. Ditto for the 360 and PS3. PC gaming is superior in many ways, no doubt. But it can also be a huge hassle.
And please don't give me that "You don't *have* to upgrade, you can just ramp down the settings on the latest games" argument. Yes that's true. But we all know that most self-respecting gamers *hate* to do that. No one likes to be the guy with an out-of-date system not getting the full experience of the game.
It's a shame that MS and Sony seem to be investing all their efforts into jumping on a motion controller fad that's already fading fast (seriously, how many gamers have Wii's gathering dust in their closets already?). Meanwhile, MS is on the verge of breaking the 5-year rule with the 360, with Sony soon to follow--with no next-gen systems in sight. Both consoles are already showing their age--especially the 360 with its DVD drive, already necessitating several multi-disc releases.
I know there is a recession on and all, but the 5-year rule has held through recessions before. It even held during the early 80's console "collapse." Every day these systems age is another day that PC gaming starts to look more and more attractive to many of us gamers. And I really don't want to go back to PC gaming. But I also don't want to be playing on a console that's viewed more and more as a "toy," rather than a serious gaming platform.
I know that MS and Sony want to capture the casual market, but it seems misguided to me. Wii already *has* that market, and a knockoff copy of their controller probably isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, they risk losing the gamer market and ending up not pleasing anyone (by trying to please everyone).
Finally, you'll all see that there *were* aliens at Roswell. "Those Air Force bases were just testing secret aircraft and spy-gear," you said. "The military cover-ups were to keep the Soviets from finding out about our secret spying programs," you said. "It's no coincidence that all those UFO sightings just happened to be around secretive military bases at the height of the Cold War," you said. "Move out of my basement," my Mom said.
Now you'll all see, and you'll finally respect me for realizing that the most obvious explanation for strange lights around Air Forces bases and secretive military coverups during the Cold War-era was that we were being visited by aliens who had traveled across the vast distances of interstellar space to shove probes up our asses.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was an instructor the first thing I told my students was NOT to buy the textbooks in the syllabus (I wouldn't even have put them *in* the syllabus if the department hadn't made me). It used to get me into trouble with the department chair (I always suspected he or someone above him was getting some under-the-table or not-so-under-the-table kickbacks from the publisher). But at least the students loved me. And I saved them a LOT of money, considering that some of my classes "required" books were $300+ in total.
What's more, the books the department tried to foist on my students weren't even that good. Some of them were downright abysmal.
Normally AT&T is so beloved here on /. A story like this could ruin their reputation. It's almost as inconceivable as /.ers losing faith in Bill Gates.
When I was in college (not so long ago), getting a Ph.D. was basically considered an insane pursuit. The professors (whatever their motivation) would explicitly tell their students this. Aside from the grueling work and tough admission requirements for most programs, the end result was a mountain of student loan debt and a degree that was unlikely to even get you a tenure-track position anymore (since those were being phased out). You would end up $100,000 of student loan debt and a part-time instructor (or low-level researcher) job that barely paid your rent.
If the U.S. government wants more Ph.D.-level scientists so bad; start encouraging universities to open up more admissions slots, offering grants (instead of loans) for qualified candidates, and offering better paying post-doc positions. Otherwise STFU and stop complaining that no one is insane enough to go into serious research (more like serious *debt*).
I don't care if the man waited until he was filthy rich to become a philanthropist or not. He's still given more and done more in places like Africa than any 10 other billionaires in Silicon Valley combined. Compare that to /. luminaries like Steve Jobs (who has, to date, given NOTHING to any charity--save his own bank account). Among individuals, only Warren Buffet even comes close to the very real positive impact that Bill Gates has had. And, unlike many previous industrialist philanthropists, this isn't just money given to museums, art galleries, and universities. Gates gives most of his money to the people who actually need it most.
Gates himself is under no such illusion, only the writer of the article. But Gates does know a thing or two about how to motivate politicians. And he *certainly* knows the tech industry (you know, the people who will have to develop this technology). Combine that with his well-respected reputation for philanthropy and you could have a lot worse advocates on your side for something like this than Mr. Gates. He may have a nasty reputation on /., but to the general public there are very few leaders in technology that command the kind of instant respect and name-recognition that he does.
Seems more like a win-win. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world rich enough to really put some serious money into alternative energy. And without serious money, alternative energy isn't going anywhere (the current state of the tech is just too inefficient and impractical to every really put a dent in conventional energy). So, without a serious investment from the U.S. (for altruistic reasons or otherwise), the future for the technology seems a lot bleaker. Gates is just couching it in terms that are an easier political sell (i.e., scare tactics).
In all fairness, TX and FL are the closest U.S. states to the equator. And that makes it technically easier to use momentum from the earth's spin to launch into space. Of course that didn't stop both states from politicizing their status since then, and to jealously guard appropriations for NASA (and you can bet their politicians will be the first to howl about any plans to scrap a NASA program now).
The ISS would make a poor staging area for anything. If we're going to go with the "space station as staging area" idea it would likely require a new station anyway. The ISS is ill-suited for anything but experiments and PR stunts.
Hey, who you calling uncultured?
The $10 million isn't the *cost* of the house. It's what lobbyists and big business will *give* you if you live there.
Yeah, but doing a knockoff is hardly an assurance of co-opting those kinds of sales. As I said, the Wii *has* the casual market. And there is a lot of money in that market, yes. But I think MS and Sony's assumption that they can cut into that so easily is misguided (especially at the rumored $150 price point of the Natal), and it does a disservice to the market they already *do* have (the more serious gamer).
It wouldn't be so bad if it actually worked that way. But with all the multiple disc games I've seen so far, the appropriate disc has to still be in the DVD drive, regardless of whether or not you've installed it to the hard drive (much like with PC games requiring the disc in the drive even if your installed them). So even if you install both discs of Mass Effect 2 on the hard drive, you still have to swap out the discs when the time comes. Not sure if this is true with some of the other multiple disc releases, but I suspect so.
And if their main competitor released a new console next year that blew away the PS3, do you really think that they would wait 5 years to respond? That was just PR talk (aimed at convincing PS2 users to upgrade).
That Bowser always was a smug jackass. You would think the royal family would have stepped up security by now though, wouldn't you? If the U.S. President was kidnapped, I would hope we wouldn't have to resort to sending a plumber and his brother to rescue him.
There was an HD-DVD add-on drive for the 360, but MS (foolishly, IMHO) restricted it to playing HD-DVD movies and didn't allow developers to use it for games.
Maybe the avatar can't lift his forearms all the way up. ;-)
That's a good point. Development costs (and the time involved) seem to be getting *way* out of hand these days.
When I was a PC gamer, I had to upgrade a lot more often than every 5 years. My credit card company can attest to it ;-)
If you go back and look at the release dates between consoles, you'll see that the 5-year rule holds going all the way back to the Atari VCS. The only exceptions are the 360 (at 4 years) and the PS3 (at 6 years). But even giving them 6 years, we should already be hearing about a next-gen 360.
Because I chased that rabbit for too long in the 90's. When the Xbox 1 came along, I finally had a system that could deliver a comparable experience without having to constantly be upgrading (or worrying about the latest pain-in-the-ass DRM) to keep up. Ditto for the 360 and PS3. PC gaming is superior in many ways, no doubt. But it can also be a huge hassle.
And please don't give me that "You don't *have* to upgrade, you can just ramp down the settings on the latest games" argument. Yes that's true. But we all know that most self-respecting gamers *hate* to do that. No one likes to be the guy with an out-of-date system not getting the full experience of the game.
It's a shame that MS and Sony seem to be investing all their efforts into jumping on a motion controller fad that's already fading fast (seriously, how many gamers have Wii's gathering dust in their closets already?). Meanwhile, MS is on the verge of breaking the 5-year rule with the 360, with Sony soon to follow--with no next-gen systems in sight. Both consoles are already showing their age--especially the 360 with its DVD drive, already necessitating several multi-disc releases.
I know there is a recession on and all, but the 5-year rule has held through recessions before. It even held during the early 80's console "collapse." Every day these systems age is another day that PC gaming starts to look more and more attractive to many of us gamers. And I really don't want to go back to PC gaming. But I also don't want to be playing on a console that's viewed more and more as a "toy," rather than a serious gaming platform.
I know that MS and Sony want to capture the casual market, but it seems misguided to me. Wii already *has* that market, and a knockoff copy of their controller probably isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, they risk losing the gamer market and ending up not pleasing anyone (by trying to please everyone).
A holiday in Cambodia?
Poetic justice, that. Think of it as payback to the Brits for burning our White House in 1814.
Ditto. But I do share the Japanese love of robots. Rape porn and hentai, not so much.
Finally, you'll all see that there *were* aliens at Roswell. "Those Air Force bases were just testing secret aircraft and spy-gear," you said. "The military cover-ups were to keep the Soviets from finding out about our secret spying programs," you said. "It's no coincidence that all those UFO sightings just happened to be around secretive military bases at the height of the Cold War," you said. "Move out of my basement," my Mom said.
Now you'll all see, and you'll finally respect me for realizing that the most obvious explanation for strange lights around Air Forces bases and secretive military coverups during the Cold War-era was that we were being visited by aliens who had traveled across the vast distances of interstellar space to shove probes up our asses.