Have you even read some of the entries and comments? You might want to try reading them before commenting.
These people are probably the loudest critics of Microsoft, and because he and most people who comment have an internal perspective, their strikes are direct and to the point too, not like the drivel that gets reiterated here.
Marketing? How can exposing things like the company's recent trend in hiring MBA middle managers be good PR? How can saying things like the company's growth going to the single digits in the last 5 years be a marketing ploy? How can complaints about delays in projects like Longhorn, Office, etc. due to the internal bureaucracy be good in any way? There's even a mention of Office for Linux in one of the comments (though it's presented as an extreme example to drive a point home). How does this serve MSFT? Will investors go "yea, let's keep jacking up the share prices because insiders say Ballmer is a poor leader and Gates a poor software architect?"
This guy isn't around to deal with rumors. In fact, some rumors are being upheld (or confirmed for the optimist) by what the entries and comments hit at. This guy is exposing the problems that are in the way M$ works internally. If he was going on about how everything's fine and dandy inside, and everyone's full of love and bliss, then maybe it's a marketing ploy. But I, stretching my imagination to its limits, would not able to show how exposing and ranting about problems will drive stock prices up.
So no, sorry, the blog does not appear to have anything to do with marketing.
Personally, when words like "Freak" and "Darn" are used in place of their vulgar counterparts, I tend to laugh at the person using them. It just sounds wrong.
The word itself isn't supposed to matter (let's see, I learned fuck meant having sex in the fifty grade, which is about three years after I began using it), but the force, intent, and attitude behind the word. Using an alternate word changes this in the speaker, especially if the speaker is used to the vulgar forms, and thus conveys a different sense to the listener. For me, it's comical, like a turtle on its back trying to flip itself over but can't. But when these alternate words convey the same sense (and I've seen them used in this way), they really are the same as vulgar varieties.
When I can't use words like fuck, shit, and damn, I use the more subtle facial expressions. Snorting, rolling my eyes, grimacing, clenching my teeth, etc. all serve the same purpose. After all, it's a quick stress reliever for quick stress buildup.
There isn't a good formula because the screen size/device size curves don't intersect. Compromising screen size for device size will make the screen too small. Make the screen big enough, and the device becomes too big to be portable (think portable DVD players). Either way, a large chunk of people won't buy it. It won't be until this can play motion pictures that this problem will be worked out. By then, the iPod would have gone the way of the dinosaur in favor of Apple's newest MP3 player.
Then, there are the codecs. Knowing Apple, it'll probably be MPEG2 and Quicktime for MPEG4. I have doubts on the inclusion of Xvid, or any MPEG4 codec other than the latest Quicktime for that matter. None of them have really been popular enough as encoders (you don't see people ripping their DVD collections to Xvid the way they do their audio CD's), partly because they're annoyingly complicated to use correctly.
Finally, the question remains as to how useful a portable movie player would be. Unlike music, movies require active attention. That means the movie feature would only be of any use when people have nothing else they can do. Train/plane rides, road trips (for everyone except the driver), while waiting in line, etc. Not very useful at all, especially compared to when people can listen to music passively, which basically means whenever, where ever.
This is true too. SSN's are guaranteed to be unique (though international students tend to invalidate this), and schools take the easy way out. Actually, SSN's are almost ideal for keeping track of students. If someone transfers to another school, the new school would need to be able to request information from the old school. Using anything other than the SSN would be unreliable (duplicate names and DOB, addresses change, etc.). And if the SSN is going to be the unique ID, which is true in many places, then all the other information would be superfluous for the purposes for record keeping.
As for the data lasting for so long, well, if you ever need to go through the hiring process 20 years from now, there's a chance you'll still need to submit your transcript. Schools tend to and should keep student records for many years. After all, once the student records are gone, there's little way of proving that you'd actually graduated from the school if you've also lost your diploma. That said, it's rare that with 20 years of experience, a potential employer would ask for proof of having gone to college, but it has happened.
Securing the information is a separate issue. I'm of the opinion that schools should treat student information as being classified. Student records are all on a completely separate network through separate computers, accessible only on a need-to-know basis. What's visible on the public network is the temporary ID that students are given (for things like ID validation and class registration). The downside to this would be that there would have to be some form of medium used to transfer student data like grades from one network to the other and then to verify that the data is the same. But, it's so much easier to just have one database that anyone and everyone can potentially access from anywhere.
Yet, here it is, with a name that sounds exactly like it's directly competing with Flash. Along those lines, why Sparkle? Flash sounds cool, but Sparkle sounds...girly.
Otherwise, the concept actually sounds really cool, like the visual component of Visual Studio on steroids. Replacing the windowing interface with purely vector graphics sounds promising, though it also sounds a little too abuseable. Still, this might herald the beginning of an actually innovative M$, seeing that they now have Google and FOSS knocking on its doors.
I wonder if it'll make use of the GPU to do the rendering.
A large object flying towards Saturn and cutting through the rings might cause this kind of pattern, but the large object wouldn't necessarily break apart. It'd just cause a noticeable displacement in the ring material. It'd probably look like a large hole or gap. But that doesn't account for the rings actually getting brighter at these points, which is probably due to an increase in matter. A small object probably wouldn't cause anything noticeable.
Something with a large gravitational pull flying increasingly close to the rings without actually passing through the rings might do this too. But then, we should be able to see such objects, as they'd have to be pretty big (like a moon perhaps), and their shadow against the rings would likely be visible, as well as their impact into Saturn. And the effect on the rings wouldn't end out of nowhere. It might not be noticeable until the gravitational pull of the object became strong enough, but since things fly in elliptical orbits, the streak would cut across the rest of the rings.
While the essence of your post is spot on, the example you use is probably not the best.
Might I remind you that we use satellites, not humans in space, to monitor the happenings back on the planet. There's a very big difference between that and putting a person into space. Satellites are easy to put up. You just need enough fuel and the right trajectory to shoot the thing up there. The technology, while new in application, is really not that advanced. If people had a powerful enough cannon back in the 1600's, they'd be able to shoot cannonballs into space too. Fill the center of a cannonball with a satellite, and that's essentially the technology we use today to send satellites up.
The thing about sending humans up is that success is measured not by their achievement of orbit, but by their return. A lot of money gets put into this part of the trip. And if we can substitute humans for machines with the same result, then any money put into a manned space program will likely be a waste of money; the money that gets spent ensuring the safety of the occupant during the trip up and back down could be better spent making more progress if there weren't to be any occupants.
But what you say about trying to push past our limits is true. What's important though, is in what direction we push towards. As an example, we could push for better oil drilling and refinement methods, or, we could push for alternative energy development. We might gain a bit more oil for the former, but that'll eventually end, no matter how much technology we put behind it. On the other hand, we might actually find a viable renewable (free) source of energy that'll last us until the end of civilization, and that might also help clean up this planet as well.
Of course, there's no way of actually knowing what will happen until we do it. But, we can forecast, predict, based on what we do know, and compare with possible alternatives.
While I don't think contribution of content to the game by the players is a wise idea at all (besides the inherent security risks, few would actually want to contribute to a game they paid for without due acknowledgement, something that a company cannot legally offer if the content actually goes into the game), you do make a very good point. Changing the game every so often will contribute to the game's longevity. By changing, this can mean anything, from new places to explore, new items, new features, to even new mini-games.
Gaming companies have been doing this, to a certain extent. However, they have always released them as expansion packs that people have to buy. This fragments the community, as some people will inevitably buy the expansion, and some will not. Repeated fragmentation will eventually lead to the downfall of the MMORPG, as the player base is really what makes a MMORPG. The key is to force updates on everyone. It is safe to assume that anyone playing something like WOW will have broadband. By periodically releasing patches that add content, this continously freshens the game, keeps it interesting. Somewhat aside, not all new content needs to be done client-side either.
Psychologically, people will tire of a game eventually. That's how it is. And more often than not, they take some of their RL (Real Life) friends with them when they leave. To attract new members into the community, it is important to do a significant name change. Name changes, subtle or not, (and box/title artwork redesigns along with it) after a major patch that changes the game significantly would make the game sound new. There will be a little confusion, but good customer service policies can satisfy the people who bought the same game twice, once under a different name.
Finally, there are several drawbacks to long-running MMO games, especially MMORPG's, that will also prevent the attraction of new players. Uber-high level l33t characters might bully the n00bs and discourage them from playing. People might also want to go back, and be discouraged by the need to rebuilt their character from the ground up. Items of great rarity or very rare unique items might already have been found, leaving the newer gamers with no hope of ever getting any prized item. There are many ways to fix these, especially if the game is continuously getting updated with new content or features for the latter issue.
Oh yes, as for money, well, a new release of a game or an expansion will create a quick infusion of a large amount of money. However, putting money into maintaining a fanbase is nowhere as risky or as expensive as completely redesigning a game from the ground up. In fact, if done right, it could almost be like releasing a new game every so often, but with the same graphics and sound engines (with a few bug fixes and internal updates perhaps), and with the added advantage that new gamers get all the features of the old game, and old gamers get to keep whatever they've built up.
Anyway, it's a little off topic, but these are my thoughts on how to make a MMORPG last for a long time. As I'm typing this last bit, I have in my head Highlander. In the end, there can be only one...
The director of the library was suspended, not just any librarian. TFA doesn't go into the details too much, but the city officials were orchestrating this, and she have a hearing. That's pretty much how serious it is. Start thinking criminal charges. Maybe not jail time, but possibly community service.
Nor was it kiddy porn that the people surfed. They just charged the sex offender with possession, but TFA states that he (and some underaged boys, big surprise there) had looked at adult material using library computers.
The real purpose of a sequel is to sell subsequent games based on the reputation of the original. Final Fantasy exemplifies this intent. Save for a few names, they're all completely different games (with the exception of X2, though its exclusion is arguable). Mostly though, people don't quite pull it off. For most game sequels there's a lot of technical and often gameplay advances in sequels, but the story tends to be a (often poor) continuation or rehash of its predecessors. In that sense, the statement you've quoted is quite accurate. But games tend to be the exception to the rule in that its interactive medium allows for improvements in areas other than the story itself.
If the partial information is positive, its sender needs to communicate this number of quantum bits to the receiver; if it is negative, the sender and receiver instead gain the corresponding potential for future quantum communication.
At risk of oversimplifying, negative information is information that is not known, but soon will be. It's not unlike what we would think of as a prediction, or more accurately, a premonition.
I'm not entirely certain of the specifics of the application of the paint. However, last I heard, it was being researched as a means to invisibility. I'd imagine that it would work amazingly well at night, though that's a no-brainer.
The question is whether the human brain will trick a person into seeing beyond the object. I believe the article in question used the term "shrinking the object" to create the invisibility, which might imply an optical illusion rather than real invisiblity (absolute transparency, camera/projection system, light bending, etc.).
At the end of the wikipedia article is a remark along those lines. It's somewhat amusing that the term "Black Hole" was not always the name for these things, as translating "Black Hole" to other languages sometimes produced something obscene. I'd hazard a guess that the objectable translations were probably along the lines of your comment.
Black holes are called that because even light particles cannot escape its gravity. Color is caused by the reflection (or production) of light on a surface. If no light gets reflected, then it is black.
Interestingly enough, there was an article some time back about turning things invisible by painting them with a black paint that absorbs almost all light. Because the paint does not reflect light for your eyes to see, you effectively cannot see the object.
The principles are the same. For all intents and purposes, the black hole is the blackest of all black colors (imagine that, there are different shades of black!), and is quite aptly named.
I'm not sure anyone's really set down formal guidelines for classifying all the celestial bodies. I'm not so sure it's possible to do so in generic terms such as "planet" or "moon" when there are so many possible variations. What we probably should have done was formalize a classification system based on size (which largely determines physical appearance) and location. But now that people are used to Pluto being a planet like the other 4 solid ones closer to the Sun (Earth and its ilk), it won't be easy to change their habits.
Besides, discovering another "planet" out there sounds far more exciting than finding a Kuniper Belt Object. The media, at the very least, won't give up that classification even after all the astronomers have.
Open minds will listen to all perspectives before judging. Everyone should have their chance to speak, not just the people whose words are nice or pretty. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to receive exposure to multiple points of view, especially when those views do not conform to the local social norm.
For example, let's take the story about boycotting IE7. The point of that particular blurb is that IE7 has no intention of passing Acid2 on initial release, so people should use something else that is about to or aiming to feature Acid2 compliance. If you read the developer's blog that one post links and contrast that to what people were saying in other posts, you'll quickly realize that the reality is that passing Acid2 is not on the development team's priorities. Instead, securing the browser and providing additional security features is.
My point is that the way we view things depends on our priorities. While I am a big fan of Firefox myself (I'm especially fond of the Adblock extension), I don't see Acid2 compliance as a reasonable justification for boycotting IE7. Sure, web developers will code to the lowest common denominator, thus making everyone's internet experience a little less enjoyable. But, when given a choice of whether to have Microsoft come out with a Acid2 compliant browser or one that keeps Joe Sixpack from getting his identity stolen by a phishing site, I think I would prefer the latter.
Whether MS will be successful in making IE7 airtight, or that the new features will be at all effective is another story. And if IE7 doesn't live up to its hype, then I will start calling it a piece of shrimp stool so vile its very existence creates a dead zone.
For the same reason, I'm very interested in reading what these Linux gurus in Microsoft have to say. What they say might not necessarily be agreeable, and I know of at least one major difference between us (I have no intention of compromising what I stand for for the sake of survival), still, I will not even attempt to discredit what they have to say until I have first heard it. And, if they throw in a few pieces of PR BS every now and again, well, I'm confident I have enough intelligence and knowledge to see through any such attempts. And quite frankly, I'm sure there are many others here who do too.
Yes. The day when Freedom fell in two terrific acts.
Funny that construction on the so-called Freedom Tower still hasn't begun. We were supposed to build a new tower to symbolically flip the terrorists the bird. They can't change our way of life, we said, they won't succeed. We won't allow them to achieve their goals of terror. We will fight to preserve our freedom and democracy. So it was said, and not just by New Yorkers, but by the whole nation.
Hah and bah I say! What tower? The redesigns to the foundation of the structure are still ongoing. And if and when we've finally built the Freedom Tower, I wonder what freedoms will there be left for it to represent?
The UN didn't believe anything. They went and checked.
Might I remind you they found nothing. And therefore, the UN refused to attack Iraq, forcing the US to pretty much go it alone with whatever allies it could muster.
If you really think Saddam would destory his weapons when he realized he was losing a war, well, I can't argue then. I mean, obviously, he's insane, 'cause instead of using those weapons to wipe out his enemies, he had them secretly destroyed and subsequently went into hiding, hoping that not having found any weapons, the US would just apologize, pack up, and leave.
Where do people get these ideas from?
Believe what you want. But in my humble opinion, it'd be better to not believe anything (at least not hold anything absolutely certain) without first procuring overwhelming evidence to the extent that there's no reasonable (read probable) doubt as to otherwise and/or putting a lot of thought into the matter before deciding whether there is such reasonable doubt or not. You might not be as happy on the whole, but at least when someone decides to shove a shaft up your ass, you wouldn't be nodding and smiling.
...has anyone else felt that the interview ended rather abruptly? I mean, just as they were starting to debate over the issues of technological improvement versus stability, there was nothing left. Was the ensuing conversation too embarassing to be recorded, or did the interviewer get too engrossed in listening to the arguments to write the rest of the interview down? Usually, the interviewer gets the last word (whether it's a brief "thank you for your time" or a quick summary/conclusion). What happened this time?
Otherwise, I found this a very interesting read. I've always wondered why people prefer signature-based active detection over the passive method of hashing (and checksumming) all the critical system files. I use the freeware Tiny Personal Firewall 2 (subsequent versions suck), which happens to include a feature that informs me if an application trying to connect out or listen for connections has had its MD5 changed. While it is particularly painful when a system file gets tampered with (a message pops up every time the modified executable tries to interface with the network and the messages won't stop appearing until the change is accepted), it was crucial in my finding that my Firefox executable had been modified without my knowledge.
The other thing I found interesting is the remark that the internet has lost its innocence. Back even ten years ago, so-called hackers were either kids too smart for their own good, or script kiddies wanting to impress their friends by opening CD trays. Those who exploited security holes for money were a minority. These figures have flipped over the past seven or eight years; today's equivalents are largely in it for the financial gains, with the ones feeling adventurous being in the minority now. When they were talking about worms being less prevelant these days and how it's possible we've seen the end of virii like Sasser and Code Red, I find myself wondering if the internet has left (or is in the process of leaving) its adolescence phase and has fully matured.
I think we have yet to see a common murderer/rapist cost too much in terms of property and human lives to catch and jail. It's not that I'm exactly refuting your point, but that we won't actually know what we'll be doing in such a situation until that time comes. And judging from the fact that common criminals tend to be fairly easy to take out once they are known, such a situation wouldn't be at all likely.
This makes no mention of the possible murderers/rapists that have been allowed to go because the human and financial resources were estimated to be too great to actually catch the person(s). But since I know of none myself, there's no real point in considering this as anything more than possible.
Moral clarity is an illusion of moral absolutism. One simply cannot impose what one thinks (about anything) to anyone else. The concept of "civilians" being different from the "military" itself does not exist in every culture. And when one culture puts a hand into the happenings of another, the former cannot cry foul when the latter play by a different set of rules.
I'll humor you and accept the absolute distinction between civilian and military (the Swiss, for example, would not fall well into this categorization). The definition of patriot and terrorist have in fact, nothing to do with whom they attack, but the purpose of their attacks. Well, they really aren't mutually exclusive, but let's just redefine the two terms for a moment: patriots attack for love of the country; terrorists attack for hate of the country. While this intention results in primarily certain types of targets (military vs. civilian), it all depends on the country they are attacking. Both groups' objective is to see the fall of that country, and both groups, regardless of their intention, will use the most effective means of attack to bring about this downfall. For a free country, the most effective form of attack would be against the people, whom the government serve, because the people dictate the government. For a monarchy or another dictatorship, the most effective form of attack would be against the leaders, for nations under such systems of government would fail without an effective leadership.
OK, now, let's move the word "terrorist" back to its proper definition. A terrorist is one who incites terror in the civilian population. There are many things for people to be terrified of, the most profound of which is death. Terrorists however, do not necessarily need to incite terror by threatening death. If, for example, a society was more terrified of dictatorship than death, then it would theoretically be possible for one who threatens the society with dictatorship to be labeled correctly as a terrorist. For the most part, that's unrealistic and wishful thinking. People are scared of death. Period. People might be afraid of their own death, or of the death of others around them, but either way, it is still a fear of death. So terrorism has been associated with killing.
But if you think about it, a great many wars are a product of terror. Take the US Civil war. The South was afraid of having slavery abolished, and thus their way of life taken from them--more afraid, it could be said, than they were of death. And they fought for it. Well, they fought for the right to secede, but the purpose behind secession was slavery and their lifestyle. And well, everyone fought for their own reasons, but the reason for the war was this fear. So, by this definition, the North were terrorists (legally, but no one says that terrorism is illegal, only the effects of this terrorism, which more often than not, happens to be murder). But they were also patriots, who loved their country and did not want to see it split into two. So "terrorist" and "patriot" are not mutually exclusive. Of course, if you disagree with my definition of terrorism, please, by all means, clarify why terrorism is called terrorism and the difference between that and rebellion or guerrilla warfare.
Well, the debate between moral relativity and absolute can only be reduced to ad hominem attacks, since the views are pretty much mutually exclusive, or so either side perceives. Since you seem to fall in with the latter, let me ask this of you for the purposes of providing you a little bit of food for thought: If there is such a thing as moral absolute, what is right (and consequently wrong), and how do you know what you think to be right is actually right? Or to word it differently, whose version of "right" is absolutely right, and why?
Of course, the moral relativists have their own problems, but since it doesn't seem like you are one, there's no point in asking you to answer for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you even read some of the entries and comments? You might want to try reading them before commenting.
These people are probably the loudest critics of Microsoft, and because he and most people who comment have an internal perspective, their strikes are direct and to the point too, not like the drivel that gets reiterated here.
Marketing? How can exposing things like the company's recent trend in hiring MBA middle managers be good PR? How can saying things like the company's growth going to the single digits in the last 5 years be a marketing ploy? How can complaints about delays in projects like Longhorn, Office, etc. due to the internal bureaucracy be good in any way? There's even a mention of Office for Linux in one of the comments (though it's presented as an extreme example to drive a point home). How does this serve MSFT? Will investors go "yea, let's keep jacking up the share prices because insiders say Ballmer is a poor leader and Gates a poor software architect?"
This guy isn't around to deal with rumors. In fact, some rumors are being upheld (or confirmed for the optimist) by what the entries and comments hit at. This guy is exposing the problems that are in the way M$ works internally. If he was going on about how everything's fine and dandy inside, and everyone's full of love and bliss, then maybe it's a marketing ploy. But I, stretching my imagination to its limits, would not able to show how exposing and ranting about problems will drive stock prices up.
So no, sorry, the blog does not appear to have anything to do with marketing.
Personally, when words like "Freak" and "Darn" are used in place of their vulgar counterparts, I tend to laugh at the person using them. It just sounds wrong.
The word itself isn't supposed to matter (let's see, I learned fuck meant having sex in the fifty grade, which is about three years after I began using it), but the force, intent, and attitude behind the word. Using an alternate word changes this in the speaker, especially if the speaker is used to the vulgar forms, and thus conveys a different sense to the listener. For me, it's comical, like a turtle on its back trying to flip itself over but can't. But when these alternate words convey the same sense (and I've seen them used in this way), they really are the same as vulgar varieties.
When I can't use words like fuck, shit, and damn, I use the more subtle facial expressions. Snorting, rolling my eyes, grimacing, clenching my teeth, etc. all serve the same purpose. After all, it's a quick stress reliever for quick stress buildup.
There isn't a good formula because the screen size/device size curves don't intersect. Compromising screen size for device size will make the screen too small. Make the screen big enough, and the device becomes too big to be portable (think portable DVD players). Either way, a large chunk of people won't buy it. It won't be until this can play motion pictures that this problem will be worked out. By then, the iPod would have gone the way of the dinosaur in favor of Apple's newest MP3 player.
Then, there are the codecs. Knowing Apple, it'll probably be MPEG2 and Quicktime for MPEG4. I have doubts on the inclusion of Xvid, or any MPEG4 codec other than the latest Quicktime for that matter. None of them have really been popular enough as encoders (you don't see people ripping their DVD collections to Xvid the way they do their audio CD's), partly because they're annoyingly complicated to use correctly.
Finally, the question remains as to how useful a portable movie player would be. Unlike music, movies require active attention. That means the movie feature would only be of any use when people have nothing else they can do. Train/plane rides, road trips (for everyone except the driver), while waiting in line, etc. Not very useful at all, especially compared to when people can listen to music passively, which basically means whenever, where ever.
This is true too. SSN's are guaranteed to be unique (though international students tend to invalidate this), and schools take the easy way out. Actually, SSN's are almost ideal for keeping track of students. If someone transfers to another school, the new school would need to be able to request information from the old school. Using anything other than the SSN would be unreliable (duplicate names and DOB, addresses change, etc.). And if the SSN is going to be the unique ID, which is true in many places, then all the other information would be superfluous for the purposes for record keeping.
As for the data lasting for so long, well, if you ever need to go through the hiring process 20 years from now, there's a chance you'll still need to submit your transcript. Schools tend to and should keep student records for many years. After all, once the student records are gone, there's little way of proving that you'd actually graduated from the school if you've also lost your diploma. That said, it's rare that with 20 years of experience, a potential employer would ask for proof of having gone to college, but it has happened.
Securing the information is a separate issue. I'm of the opinion that schools should treat student information as being classified. Student records are all on a completely separate network through separate computers, accessible only on a need-to-know basis. What's visible on the public network is the temporary ID that students are given (for things like ID validation and class registration). The downside to this would be that there would have to be some form of medium used to transfer student data like grades from one network to the other and then to verify that the data is the same. But, it's so much easier to just have one database that anyone and everyone can potentially access from anywhere.
Yet, here it is, with a name that sounds exactly like it's directly competing with Flash. Along those lines, why Sparkle? Flash sounds cool, but Sparkle sounds...girly.
Otherwise, the concept actually sounds really cool, like the visual component of Visual Studio on steroids. Replacing the windowing interface with purely vector graphics sounds promising, though it also sounds a little too abuseable. Still, this might herald the beginning of an actually innovative M$, seeing that they now have Google and FOSS knocking on its doors.
I wonder if it'll make use of the GPU to do the rendering.
I think it has something to do with financial aid, work study, etc.
This is unlikely.
A large object flying towards Saturn and cutting through the rings might cause this kind of pattern, but the large object wouldn't necessarily break apart. It'd just cause a noticeable displacement in the ring material. It'd probably look like a large hole or gap. But that doesn't account for the rings actually getting brighter at these points, which is probably due to an increase in matter. A small object probably wouldn't cause anything noticeable.
Something with a large gravitational pull flying increasingly close to the rings without actually passing through the rings might do this too. But then, we should be able to see such objects, as they'd have to be pretty big (like a moon perhaps), and their shadow against the rings would likely be visible, as well as their impact into Saturn. And the effect on the rings wouldn't end out of nowhere. It might not be noticeable until the gravitational pull of the object became strong enough, but since things fly in elliptical orbits, the streak would cut across the rest of the rings.
While the essence of your post is spot on, the example you use is probably not the best.
Might I remind you that we use satellites, not humans in space, to monitor the happenings back on the planet. There's a very big difference between that and putting a person into space. Satellites are easy to put up. You just need enough fuel and the right trajectory to shoot the thing up there. The technology, while new in application, is really not that advanced. If people had a powerful enough cannon back in the 1600's, they'd be able to shoot cannonballs into space too. Fill the center of a cannonball with a satellite, and that's essentially the technology we use today to send satellites up.
The thing about sending humans up is that success is measured not by their achievement of orbit, but by their return. A lot of money gets put into this part of the trip. And if we can substitute humans for machines with the same result, then any money put into a manned space program will likely be a waste of money; the money that gets spent ensuring the safety of the occupant during the trip up and back down could be better spent making more progress if there weren't to be any occupants.
But what you say about trying to push past our limits is true. What's important though, is in what direction we push towards. As an example, we could push for better oil drilling and refinement methods, or, we could push for alternative energy development. We might gain a bit more oil for the former, but that'll eventually end, no matter how much technology we put behind it. On the other hand, we might actually find a viable renewable (free) source of energy that'll last us until the end of civilization, and that might also help clean up this planet as well.
Of course, there's no way of actually knowing what will happen until we do it. But, we can forecast, predict, based on what we do know, and compare with possible alternatives.
While I don't think contribution of content to the game by the players is a wise idea at all (besides the inherent security risks, few would actually want to contribute to a game they paid for without due acknowledgement, something that a company cannot legally offer if the content actually goes into the game), you do make a very good point. Changing the game every so often will contribute to the game's longevity. By changing, this can mean anything, from new places to explore, new items, new features, to even new mini-games.
Gaming companies have been doing this, to a certain extent. However, they have always released them as expansion packs that people have to buy. This fragments the community, as some people will inevitably buy the expansion, and some will not. Repeated fragmentation will eventually lead to the downfall of the MMORPG, as the player base is really what makes a MMORPG. The key is to force updates on everyone. It is safe to assume that anyone playing something like WOW will have broadband. By periodically releasing patches that add content, this continously freshens the game, keeps it interesting. Somewhat aside, not all new content needs to be done client-side either.
Psychologically, people will tire of a game eventually. That's how it is. And more often than not, they take some of their RL (Real Life) friends with them when they leave. To attract new members into the community, it is important to do a significant name change. Name changes, subtle or not, (and box/title artwork redesigns along with it) after a major patch that changes the game significantly would make the game sound new. There will be a little confusion, but good customer service policies can satisfy the people who bought the same game twice, once under a different name.
Finally, there are several drawbacks to long-running MMO games, especially MMORPG's, that will also prevent the attraction of new players. Uber-high level l33t characters might bully the n00bs and discourage them from playing. People might also want to go back, and be discouraged by the need to rebuilt their character from the ground up. Items of great rarity or very rare unique items might already have been found, leaving the newer gamers with no hope of ever getting any prized item. There are many ways to fix these, especially if the game is continuously getting updated with new content or features for the latter issue.
Oh yes, as for money, well, a new release of a game or an expansion will create a quick infusion of a large amount of money. However, putting money into maintaining a fanbase is nowhere as risky or as expensive as completely redesigning a game from the ground up. In fact, if done right, it could almost be like releasing a new game every so often, but with the same graphics and sound engines (with a few bug fixes and internal updates perhaps), and with the added advantage that new gamers get all the features of the old game, and old gamers get to keep whatever they've built up.
Anyway, it's a little off topic, but these are my thoughts on how to make a MMORPG last for a long time. As I'm typing this last bit, I have in my head Highlander. In the end, there can be only one...
Read TFA.
The director of the library was suspended, not just any librarian. TFA doesn't go into the details too much, but the city officials were orchestrating this, and she have a hearing. That's pretty much how serious it is. Start thinking criminal charges. Maybe not jail time, but possibly community service.
Nor was it kiddy porn that the people surfed. They just charged the sex offender with possession, but TFA states that he (and some underaged boys, big surprise there) had looked at adult material using library computers.
Nice try, troll.
The real purpose of a sequel is to sell subsequent games based on the reputation of the original. Final Fantasy exemplifies this intent. Save for a few names, they're all completely different games (with the exception of X2, though its exclusion is arguable). Mostly though, people don't quite pull it off. For most game sequels there's a lot of technical and often gameplay advances in sequels, but the story tends to be a (often poor) continuation or rehash of its predecessors. In that sense, the statement you've quoted is quite accurate. But games tend to be the exception to the rule in that its interactive medium allows for improvements in areas other than the story itself.
I meant S.
Gotta remember to preview.
It's the totalitarian version with the T instead of the E.
The abstract says all:
If the partial information is positive, its sender needs to communicate this number of quantum bits to the receiver; if it is negative, the sender and receiver instead gain the corresponding potential for future quantum communication.
At risk of oversimplifying, negative information is information that is not known, but soon will be. It's not unlike what we would think of as a prediction, or more accurately, a premonition.
I'm not entirely certain of the specifics of the application of the paint. However, last I heard, it was being researched as a means to invisibility. I'd imagine that it would work amazingly well at night, though that's a no-brainer.
The question is whether the human brain will trick a person into seeing beyond the object. I believe the article in question used the term "shrinking the object" to create the invisibility, which might imply an optical illusion rather than real invisiblity (absolute transparency, camera/projection system, light bending, etc.).
Whoops, meant to write the first section of the wikipedia article.
At the end of the wikipedia article is a remark along those lines. It's somewhat amusing that the term "Black Hole" was not always the name for these things, as translating "Black Hole" to other languages sometimes produced something obscene. I'd hazard a guess that the objectable translations were probably along the lines of your comment.
Black holes are called that because even light particles cannot escape its gravity. Color is caused by the reflection (or production) of light on a surface. If no light gets reflected, then it is black.
Interestingly enough, there was an article some time back about turning things invisible by painting them with a black paint that absorbs almost all light. Because the paint does not reflect light for your eyes to see, you effectively cannot see the object.
The principles are the same. For all intents and purposes, the black hole is the blackest of all black colors (imagine that, there are different shades of black!), and is quite aptly named.
I think without Pluto, we'd have 8 planets.
I'm not sure anyone's really set down formal guidelines for classifying all the celestial bodies. I'm not so sure it's possible to do so in generic terms such as "planet" or "moon" when there are so many possible variations. What we probably should have done was formalize a classification system based on size (which largely determines physical appearance) and location. But now that people are used to Pluto being a planet like the other 4 solid ones closer to the Sun (Earth and its ilk), it won't be easy to change their habits.
Besides, discovering another "planet" out there sounds far more exciting than finding a Kuniper Belt Object. The media, at the very least, won't give up that classification even after all the astronomers have.
Open minds will listen to all perspectives before judging. Everyone should have their chance to speak, not just the people whose words are nice or pretty. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to receive exposure to multiple points of view, especially when those views do not conform to the local social norm.
For example, let's take the story about boycotting IE7. The point of that particular blurb is that IE7 has no intention of passing Acid2 on initial release, so people should use something else that is about to or aiming to feature Acid2 compliance. If you read the developer's blog that one post links and contrast that to what people were saying in other posts, you'll quickly realize that the reality is that passing Acid2 is not on the development team's priorities. Instead, securing the browser and providing additional security features is.
My point is that the way we view things depends on our priorities. While I am a big fan of Firefox myself (I'm especially fond of the Adblock extension), I don't see Acid2 compliance as a reasonable justification for boycotting IE7. Sure, web developers will code to the lowest common denominator, thus making everyone's internet experience a little less enjoyable. But, when given a choice of whether to have Microsoft come out with a Acid2 compliant browser or one that keeps Joe Sixpack from getting his identity stolen by a phishing site, I think I would prefer the latter.
Whether MS will be successful in making IE7 airtight, or that the new features will be at all effective is another story. And if IE7 doesn't live up to its hype, then I will start calling it a piece of shrimp stool so vile its very existence creates a dead zone.
For the same reason, I'm very interested in reading what these Linux gurus in Microsoft have to say. What they say might not necessarily be agreeable, and I know of at least one major difference between us (I have no intention of compromising what I stand for for the sake of survival), still, I will not even attempt to discredit what they have to say until I have first heard it. And, if they throw in a few pieces of PR BS every now and again, well, I'm confident I have enough intelligence and knowledge to see through any such attempts. And quite frankly, I'm sure there are many others here who do too.
Never forget September 11, 2001.
Yes. The day when Freedom fell in two terrific acts.
Funny that construction on the so-called Freedom Tower still hasn't begun. We were supposed to build a new tower to symbolically flip the terrorists the bird. They can't change our way of life, we said, they won't succeed. We won't allow them to achieve their goals of terror. We will fight to preserve our freedom and democracy. So it was said, and not just by New Yorkers, but by the whole nation.
Hah and bah I say! What tower? The redesigns to the foundation of the structure are still ongoing. And if and when we've finally built the Freedom Tower, I wonder what freedoms will there be left for it to represent?
The UN didn't believe anything. They went and checked.
Might I remind you they found nothing. And therefore, the UN refused to attack Iraq, forcing the US to pretty much go it alone with whatever allies it could muster.
If you really think Saddam would destory his weapons when he realized he was losing a war, well, I can't argue then. I mean, obviously, he's insane, 'cause instead of using those weapons to wipe out his enemies, he had them secretly destroyed and subsequently went into hiding, hoping that not having found any weapons, the US would just apologize, pack up, and leave.
Where do people get these ideas from?
Believe what you want. But in my humble opinion, it'd be better to not believe anything (at least not hold anything absolutely certain) without first procuring overwhelming evidence to the extent that there's no reasonable (read probable) doubt as to otherwise and/or putting a lot of thought into the matter before deciding whether there is such reasonable doubt or not. You might not be as happy on the whole, but at least when someone decides to shove a shaft up your ass, you wouldn't be nodding and smiling.
...has anyone else felt that the interview ended rather abruptly? I mean, just as they were starting to debate over the issues of technological improvement versus stability, there was nothing left. Was the ensuing conversation too embarassing to be recorded, or did the interviewer get too engrossed in listening to the arguments to write the rest of the interview down? Usually, the interviewer gets the last word (whether it's a brief "thank you for your time" or a quick summary/conclusion). What happened this time?
Otherwise, I found this a very interesting read. I've always wondered why people prefer signature-based active detection over the passive method of hashing (and checksumming) all the critical system files. I use the freeware Tiny Personal Firewall 2 (subsequent versions suck), which happens to include a feature that informs me if an application trying to connect out or listen for connections has had its MD5 changed. While it is particularly painful when a system file gets tampered with (a message pops up every time the modified executable tries to interface with the network and the messages won't stop appearing until the change is accepted), it was crucial in my finding that my Firefox executable had been modified without my knowledge.
The other thing I found interesting is the remark that the internet has lost its innocence. Back even ten years ago, so-called hackers were either kids too smart for their own good, or script kiddies wanting to impress their friends by opening CD trays. Those who exploited security holes for money were a minority. These figures have flipped over the past seven or eight years; today's equivalents are largely in it for the financial gains, with the ones feeling adventurous being in the minority now. When they were talking about worms being less prevelant these days and how it's possible we've seen the end of virii like Sasser and Code Red, I find myself wondering if the internet has left (or is in the process of leaving) its adolescence phase and has fully matured.
I think we have yet to see a common murderer/rapist cost too much in terms of property and human lives to catch and jail. It's not that I'm exactly refuting your point, but that we won't actually know what we'll be doing in such a situation until that time comes. And judging from the fact that common criminals tend to be fairly easy to take out once they are known, such a situation wouldn't be at all likely.
This makes no mention of the possible murderers/rapists that have been allowed to go because the human and financial resources were estimated to be too great to actually catch the person(s). But since I know of none myself, there's no real point in considering this as anything more than possible.
Moral clarity is an illusion of moral absolutism. One simply cannot impose what one thinks (about anything) to anyone else. The concept of "civilians" being different from the "military" itself does not exist in every culture. And when one culture puts a hand into the happenings of another, the former cannot cry foul when the latter play by a different set of rules.
I'll humor you and accept the absolute distinction between civilian and military (the Swiss, for example, would not fall well into this categorization). The definition of patriot and terrorist have in fact, nothing to do with whom they attack, but the purpose of their attacks. Well, they really aren't mutually exclusive, but let's just redefine the two terms for a moment: patriots attack for love of the country; terrorists attack for hate of the country. While this intention results in primarily certain types of targets (military vs. civilian), it all depends on the country they are attacking. Both groups' objective is to see the fall of that country, and both groups, regardless of their intention, will use the most effective means of attack to bring about this downfall. For a free country, the most effective form of attack would be against the people, whom the government serve, because the people dictate the government. For a monarchy or another dictatorship, the most effective form of attack would be against the leaders, for nations under such systems of government would fail without an effective leadership.
OK, now, let's move the word "terrorist" back to its proper definition. A terrorist is one who incites terror in the civilian population. There are many things for people to be terrified of, the most profound of which is death. Terrorists however, do not necessarily need to incite terror by threatening death. If, for example, a society was more terrified of dictatorship than death, then it would theoretically be possible for one who threatens the society with dictatorship to be labeled correctly as a terrorist. For the most part, that's unrealistic and wishful thinking. People are scared of death. Period. People might be afraid of their own death, or of the death of others around them, but either way, it is still a fear of death. So terrorism has been associated with killing.
But if you think about it, a great many wars are a product of terror. Take the US Civil war. The South was afraid of having slavery abolished, and thus their way of life taken from them--more afraid, it could be said, than they were of death. And they fought for it. Well, they fought for the right to secede, but the purpose behind secession was slavery and their lifestyle. And well, everyone fought for their own reasons, but the reason for the war was this fear. So, by this definition, the North were terrorists (legally, but no one says that terrorism is illegal, only the effects of this terrorism, which more often than not, happens to be murder). But they were also patriots, who loved their country and did not want to see it split into two. So "terrorist" and "patriot" are not mutually exclusive. Of course, if you disagree with my definition of terrorism, please, by all means, clarify why terrorism is called terrorism and the difference between that and rebellion or guerrilla warfare.
Well, the debate between moral relativity and absolute can only be reduced to ad hominem attacks, since the views are pretty much mutually exclusive, or so either side perceives. Since you seem to fall in with the latter, let me ask this of you for the purposes of providing you a little bit of food for thought: If there is such a thing as moral absolute, what is right (and consequently wrong), and how do you know what you think to be right is actually right? Or to word it differently, whose version of "right" is absolutely right, and why?
Of course, the moral relativists have their own problems, but since it doesn't seem like you are one, there's no point in asking you to answer for them.