Sorry, I will have to call RTFA on myself here. The article shows some badges that are red (with white AMD logos so it doesn't look like Christmas). It will still be interesting to see if they eventually shed the red the same way they are shedding the ATI brand name.
Without the red ATI logo, will they continue to use red as the brand color of their graphics products? Or, will people now be choosing between AMD green and Nvidia green? It may sound superficial (because, by definition, it is), but rival groups always seem to have different colors. It makes for a nice mental distinction when looking at their products. My only guess is that it will probably look like the "AMD Vision" logo or might even be an extension of that branding.
A piece of fine art is more than just a pretty thing to look at. Some artists' works become pieces of history. When people start forging a piece of history it is pretty bad. At it's most innocent a forger creates and sells a copy of an already existing piece of work. At it's worst, the forger creates a new work by forging the style of a respected dead artist and sells it as one of that artists newly discovered pieces. In the latter case you are altering historical records. If you don't find fault in that then there is nothing more to talk about, but I and many other people view such actions as particularly heinous. It should also be noted that there is a difference between a forgery and a reproduction of a piece of art. A good and ethical artist can make good money producing reproductions.
First, I am not an educator and I do not and have not claimed to have the answers to how to achieve these goals. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that these goals are the kind we should have. I like to think that we can have lofty goals with no idea how we to achieve them.
Furthermore, you have idealized the situation with the very large fallacy that you are building your argument on. That is, the assumption that people who try hard will always succeed. There are plenty of parents who try to give their child the best, but simply cannot give them the same kinds of opportunities as kids whose parents might not work nearly as hard. Sure, a lot of these children should not have been conceived in the first place, but here they are and they need help. Ignoring them only makes the problem grow.
You flipped his point around to fit your argument. He is not saying, "good parents should suffer to support children with bad parents or in bad situations". The point is that, "a child's future should not suffer from having bad parents or being raised in a bad situation". As a prosperous country, we (in the USA) should be giving all of our children the opportunities to excel to their potential. That is the point. I can't understand how any person, regardless of country, could disagree with that.
Don't get me wrong. I know television is a profit driven business and even the most profit driven shows can still be entertaining. I was ranting about the notion that the longer a series is on the air, the better it must be. In that same line of thinking, people seem to view the end of a series as some sort of failure. To this end, many shows seem to prefer drawn out, slow story arcs that in some cases just keep branching and never come to any clear resolutions.
cut short when it has plenty of life in it
That phrase, I believe, illustrates my point. People view these shows in terms of how long people could be interested and not as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. Sure, some shows are meant to be "monster of the week" episodic content. It just frustrates me that people find it unacceptable for a show with great ratings to write an end and move on to new projects.
In some ways it exceeds it, because it has managed to sustain itself with many more episodes
I really hate this idea. If there is a story to tell, then it should get told. Keeping a show going for so long is a purely profit driven paradigm. Two good examples. "Heroes" should have ended and the end of the first season. Instead they refused to really resolve anything so they could keep the same thing going for more seasons. "Lost" completely jumped the shark and played out more like Ad-Libs: TV Drama Edition the last time I watched it(which was quite a while ago). "The Office"(USA) did copy a good deal from the original series, but then decided to go in a different direction. It is now more like a sketch comedy/improv show than a real story driven series. I still watch it because I happen to like sketch comedy/improv, but the story and characters are getting a bit absurd. One funny thing is that "The Office"(UK) actually involved the fact that the cameras were filming a show, but the fact that the cameras in "The Office"(USA) have been there so long without any story involvement is almost comical.
Planescape: Torment is an amazing game. If I remember correctly, I tried to get through without fighting at all, but it is near impossible( I think you might even have to bash a zombie to get out of the first room ). That said, you can get through many if not most parts of the game through dialogue. In fact, you can gain new abilities and bonuses just by talking to your party NPCs. Also, unlike a lot of Japanese RPGs, the dialogue really was worth reading. It was really a well-written, revolutionary game. It's right up there next to Fallout and Fallout2 in my list.
Can a cartoon with stick figures and witty dialogue really be considered ripping off anything? I know, Tevis pays homage to XKCD, so there is definitely a connection here, but does every middle schooler drawing a cartoon stick figure in the corner of the pages of a spiral notebook need to give credit to XKCD? It's like how Walmart was claiming some sort of trademark on the yellow smiley face. Besides, I didn't even see a hat. Just a bunch of side-parts, a mustache, and a beard (none of which are regular on XKCD anyway).
This looks like they are going after people like me. I don't like buying CDs because the markup is absurd and I don't feel like contributing to that industry. When I like an artist, I will typically checkout things like their MySpace( or PureVolume if that is still going ) and listen to their songs. If I wanted to load that on to my computer or portable player, I simply fired up Audacity, selected the Mix as a source and recorded it as it played. Yes, I know that this will produce the lowest fidelity recording short of recording over a phone line, but for most of these songs I simply don't care. It is clear enough for my casual listening enjoyment.
Here is the kicker though; if I couldn't do that, I still would not buy the CD. On the contrary, being able to sample music like this brings me closer to caving in and buying a CD( but I typically only buy used CDs because I am more willing to pay the discounted, still marked up price when I know the profit goes to the small business, so suck on that secondary market RIAA ).
That was very well said. Whenever I am surprised at a person with a lack of understanding of computers and technology in general(like my pastor who needed my help with his cable tv), I take a minute to think of all of the things I need people to do for me. Beyond the most simple things (like changing an air filter or adding coolant) I am helpless when it comes to my cars internals. I have become handy around the house, but there are things that I would only let a professional handle. So I pay people to do these things for me, and I probably pay much more than if I were to do it myself.
This should be understood as well. Apple typically aims more at high priced markets. In any industry, it is almost always true that if you aim at the high end, your profit margins are bigger. This is because the difference in manufacturing costs between a budget Dell and a $1500+ Apple are very small. The housing market is a good example. Developers want to build the nicest houses the market can afford, because there is much more profit there than in low income housing. If Apple customers were not willing to pay the high price, then the price would drop. As it stands, the typical Apple customer wants a nice, fashionable computer with all of the bells and whistles already installed, and they can afford it.
If you can't see how a person can get rich without screwing over other people then you don't seem to have a very good understanding of how people get rich. What about somebody making big money playing the stock market? They put in the work and the risk, therefore they reap the rewards if they are good at what they do. Or what about the person in a tech startup, a musician, profesional athlete, an engineer top in his field, or even a professional gambler? Are these all people who you would immediately describe as brutal and ruthless and assume they screw people over? Have they not worked hard and taken risks?
I see you decided to ignore my first comments about you being rich. So who did you screw over to get as rich as you are?
I am going to assume you live in a First World country. Let us assume it is the USA. You probably have greater than 100 times the wealth of most of the people in the world. So on a world scale, you are "rich". Does that make you a bad person? Should you, as you so eloquently put it, be shot? No. What you seem to be suggesting is communism. Good luck with that. Maybe you can make it work in a way that still lets individuals focus on family, friends, hobbies, learning, and self improvement.
Sure, I think most CEO salaries are absurd. Threatening to take their money away is not a productive idea. Convincing them that paying their employees better salaries will increase the quality of work they do is a better approach, in my humble opinion. Having rich people is not the necessity. The necessity is having a system where hard work and risks are properly rewarded.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone else immediately think of "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance"? That is a seriously disturbing movie.
Sorry, I will have to call RTFA on myself here. The article shows some badges that are red (with white AMD logos so it doesn't look like Christmas). It will still be interesting to see if they eventually shed the red the same way they are shedding the ATI brand name.
Without the red ATI logo, will they continue to use red as the brand color of their graphics products? Or, will people now be choosing between AMD green and Nvidia green? It may sound superficial (because, by definition, it is), but rival groups always seem to have different colors. It makes for a nice mental distinction when looking at their products. My only guess is that it will probably look like the "AMD Vision" logo or might even be an extension of that branding.
"I don't know why people say a double-edged sword is bad. It's a sword. With two edges." -Kamahl, pit fighter
We have the same thing here in Arizona as well. http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2010/03/02/wtf-lawmakers-no-more-creating-goat-people
A piece of fine art is more than just a pretty thing to look at. Some artists' works become pieces of history. When people start forging a piece of history it is pretty bad. At it's most innocent a forger creates and sells a copy of an already existing piece of work. At it's worst, the forger creates a new work by forging the style of a respected dead artist and sells it as one of that artists newly discovered pieces. In the latter case you are altering historical records. If you don't find fault in that then there is nothing more to talk about, but I and many other people view such actions as particularly heinous. It should also be noted that there is a difference between a forgery and a reproduction of a piece of art. A good and ethical artist can make good money producing reproductions.
First, I am not an educator and I do not and have not claimed to have the answers to how to achieve these goals. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that these goals are the kind we should have. I like to think that we can have lofty goals with no idea how we to achieve them.
Furthermore, you have idealized the situation with the very large fallacy that you are building your argument on. That is, the assumption that people who try hard will always succeed. There are plenty of parents who try to give their child the best, but simply cannot give them the same kinds of opportunities as kids whose parents might not work nearly as hard. Sure, a lot of these children should not have been conceived in the first place, but here they are and they need help. Ignoring them only makes the problem grow.
You flipped his point around to fit your argument. He is not saying, "good parents should suffer to support children with bad parents or in bad situations". The point is that, "a child's future should not suffer from having bad parents or being raised in a bad situation". As a prosperous country, we (in the USA) should be giving all of our children the opportunities to excel to their potential. That is the point. I can't understand how any person, regardless of country, could disagree with that.
I hope the files did not include the full dossier of Ding Chavez and his detailed plans for hostage rescues.
"PC Gaming" is not equal to "Gaming PC"
cut short when it has plenty of life in it
That phrase, I believe, illustrates my point. People view these shows in terms of how long people could be interested and not as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. Sure, some shows are meant to be "monster of the week" episodic content. It just frustrates me that people find it unacceptable for a show with great ratings to write an end and move on to new projects.
In some ways it exceeds it, because it has managed to sustain itself with many more episodes
I really hate this idea. If there is a story to tell, then it should get told. Keeping a show going for so long is a purely profit driven paradigm. Two good examples. "Heroes" should have ended and the end of the first season. Instead they refused to really resolve anything so they could keep the same thing going for more seasons. "Lost" completely jumped the shark and played out more like Ad-Libs: TV Drama Edition the last time I watched it(which was quite a while ago). "The Office"(USA) did copy a good deal from the original series, but then decided to go in a different direction. It is now more like a sketch comedy/improv show than a real story driven series. I still watch it because I happen to like sketch comedy/improv, but the story and characters are getting a bit absurd. One funny thing is that "The Office"(UK) actually involved the fact that the cameras were filming a show, but the fact that the cameras in "The Office"(USA) have been there so long without any story involvement is almost comical.
Yeah, I [in the USA] had never even heard of Torchwood before that episode. Was it ever aired here? It's on my Netflix queue now.
If by "invasion of Earth", you mean "wiping out of all matter in this and every parallel universe"[1], then yeah that's about it.
"It is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Internet's cost
So how much does Google pay for it's usage of the Internet?
Planescape: Torment is an amazing game. If I remember correctly, I tried to get through without fighting at all, but it is near impossible( I think you might even have to bash a zombie to get out of the first room ). That said, you can get through many if not most parts of the game through dialogue. In fact, you can gain new abilities and bonuses just by talking to your party NPCs. Also, unlike a lot of Japanese RPGs, the dialogue really was worth reading. It was really a well-written, revolutionary game. It's right up there next to Fallout and Fallout2 in my list.
Until they come up with a way to compromise butterflies, the only thing they will pick up from from my keyboard is: C-x M-c M-butterfly
Can a cartoon with stick figures and witty dialogue really be considered ripping off anything? I know, Tevis pays homage to XKCD, so there is definitely a connection here, but does every middle schooler drawing a cartoon stick figure in the corner of the pages of a spiral notebook need to give credit to XKCD? It's like how Walmart was claiming some sort of trademark on the yellow smiley face. Besides, I didn't even see a hat. Just a bunch of side-parts, a mustache, and a beard (none of which are regular on XKCD anyway).
It might end up that at some point Microsoft just open ups .net, like Sun did with Java, that's always a possibility.
When you put it into the context of the history of Java, it is not all that far fetched.
This looks like they are going after people like me. I don't like buying CDs because the markup is absurd and I don't feel like contributing to that industry. When I like an artist, I will typically checkout things like their MySpace( or PureVolume if that is still going ) and listen to their songs. If I wanted to load that on to my computer or portable player, I simply fired up Audacity, selected the Mix as a source and recorded it as it played. Yes, I know that this will produce the lowest fidelity recording short of recording over a phone line, but for most of these songs I simply don't care. It is clear enough for my casual listening enjoyment.
Here is the kicker though; if I couldn't do that, I still would not buy the CD. On the contrary, being able to sample music like this brings me closer to caving in and buying a CD( but I typically only buy used CDs because I am more willing to pay the discounted, still marked up price when I know the profit goes to the small business, so suck on that secondary market RIAA ).
When I read the title, I geared myself up for a cool G8 vs Pirates naval campaign. Instead of awesomeness, I got "music piracy". Oh well.
That was very well said. Whenever I am surprised at a person with a lack of understanding of computers and technology in general(like my pastor who needed my help with his cable tv), I take a minute to think of all of the things I need people to do for me. Beyond the most simple things (like changing an air filter or adding coolant) I am helpless when it comes to my cars internals. I have become handy around the house, but there are things that I would only let a professional handle. So I pay people to do these things for me, and I probably pay much more than if I were to do it myself.
This should be understood as well. Apple typically aims more at high priced markets. In any industry, it is almost always true that if you aim at the high end, your profit margins are bigger. This is because the difference in manufacturing costs between a budget Dell and a $1500+ Apple are very small. The housing market is a good example. Developers want to build the nicest houses the market can afford, because there is much more profit there than in low income housing. If Apple customers were not willing to pay the high price, then the price would drop. As it stands, the typical Apple customer wants a nice, fashionable computer with all of the bells and whistles already installed, and they can afford it.
If you can't see how a person can get rich without screwing over other people then you don't seem to have a very good understanding of how people get rich. What about somebody making big money playing the stock market? They put in the work and the risk, therefore they reap the rewards if they are good at what they do. Or what about the person in a tech startup, a musician, profesional athlete, an engineer top in his field, or even a professional gambler? Are these all people who you would immediately describe as brutal and ruthless and assume they screw people over? Have they not worked hard and taken risks?
I see you decided to ignore my first comments about you being rich. So who did you screw over to get as rich as you are?
I am going to assume you live in a First World country. Let us assume it is the USA. You probably have greater than 100 times the wealth of most of the people in the world. So on a world scale, you are "rich". Does that make you a bad person? Should you, as you so eloquently put it, be shot? No. What you seem to be suggesting is communism. Good luck with that. Maybe you can make it work in a way that still lets individuals focus on family, friends, hobbies, learning, and self improvement.
Sure, I think most CEO salaries are absurd. Threatening to take their money away is not a productive idea. Convincing them that paying their employees better salaries will increase the quality of work they do is a better approach, in my humble opinion. Having rich people is not the necessity. The necessity is having a system where hard work and risks are properly rewarded.