I've known about this for years, but it's still quite fascinating. A 30-year-old game featured AI more sophisticated than what you'll find in most games today. Or at least AI appears more stupid and easier to foil today.
If I remember correctly Ms. Pac-Man added a randomization factor to avoid ghosts falling into set patterns.
I hate to break it to you, but Japan wasn't all honor, philosophy and appreciation of beauty like popular culture loves to depict it. There was plenty of turmoil and poverty for centuries in Japan, if not millennia. A lot of people struggled merely to survive. Ask the Ainu if their lives consisted of honor and philosophy and being at peace with nature. Certainly, Japanese aren't going to argue about how their history has been romanticized, and they engage in plenty of that themselves.
American's haven't corrupted their culture. I don't think anyone can rationally disagree that Japan isn't way better off today than it was 60+ years ago. And Japan's culture is so strong that I don't think it's seen any real American influence in decades. If anything I'd say they've influenced some aspects of American culture more strongly, and at least it's been mutual. That's the way of the world.
Culturally Japanese have embraced technology on a level American will never fathom. But that's no because of evil American meddling; especially given they build everything themselves. I'd love to see Americans embrace some of that Japanese work ethic and national pride. Because both are seriously lacking.
Why the hell don't they just go with a utility model? Extremely low cost per MB, for example. You don't pay if you don't use it, but you're not looking at outrageous costs for going over your allowance.
What they're doing now is sucker consumers into paying for speed but then screwing them over because they can't use that speed anywhere near fullest potential.
ISPs all started offering unlimited plans back when there was little chance of anyone taxing their network. They basically followed the model of pay TV. But TV is transmitting the same amount of data constantly, whether or not it's consumed. Internet is more like electric or gas usage.
However, the prevailing model put the consumer in a situation where they were overpaying. At least until streaming media, torrents and whatnot came along. Now the tables have turned and ISPs are scrambling to find ways to put us back in a situation where we're getting screwed.
Very interesting, but I get the impression that NASA is merely trying to demonstrate to the public why they're important and why they deserve our tax dollars. Not that they need convincing me, but they've got a lot of competition for tax money right now.
I just read that the House passed a $4.5 billion child nutrition bill apparently intended to promote better eating habits. $4.5 billion for the government to do something kids will ignore and parents should be responsible for anyway. And in the meantime NASA gets screwed.
As far as I could tell nobody thought it was impossible, perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. There are other organisms that already use arsenic in their system, although not to this extent. Scientists have even speculated on boron and silicon as alternatives to carbon.
I'd argue that life is more likely where we are for the simple reason that this is where we exist. I would have thought there's a lot more potential for encountering harmful radiation, among other things, closer to the core.
The Disney Channel is generally utter garbage, especially the live action shows. Basically, it's nothing but a bunch of self-centered twats running around being totally unproductive. Stupid parents completely miss the far more subtle and long-term detrimental impact of that programming. Those shows feature non-stop idolizing of celebrity culture; they essentially perpetuate the notion that any kid can be a superstar.
They never depict anyone who's done something constructive in a scientific field, for example, but instead constantly feature singers, actors and athletes. They depict characters who never seem to have any responsibilities and instead spend all their time socializing. They're entirely superficial and obnoxious.
Spend any time watching this junk and it becomes immediately obvious why so many American kids struggle at things like math and science compared to their foreign counterparts, especially in Asia. And if you've had the opportunity to watch television for adolescents in Asia the difference is even more apparent. Although they do seem to be slowly moving in our direction.
There is no black monolith on Mars. There is a small one on the moon and a larger one in orbit of Jupiter, or on one of the moons of Saturn, depending on if you subscribe to the books or the movies. Arthur C. Clarke is my hero.
You mean if you subscribe to the first book, or the movies AND the rest of the books in the series.
So far a lot of the stuff I've seen leaked hasn't been particularly shocking. A lot of it covers things people have already known or at least strongly suspected but for whatever reason hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. These leaks simply drag those details out into the light of day to be openly acknowledged and discussed. It seems to me like the media and government officials are making a bigger deal of this than the general public. On the other hand, I also believe that it's entirely possible to cross the line and start causing some real harm, even if it hasn't happened yet.
I don't have a particular good impression of Assange; I get the impression he has too big an ego for his own good. I also have questions about about bias. I think Wikileaks can provide a valuable service, but only if it operates as an equal opportunity offender. There's a real problem if members of the organization can't see beyond personal biases, if they show reluctance in releasing information damaging to their particular worldview, for example. Or worse, they decide they have it in for a particular entity, in this case, the United States. Of it may be a problem that the US isn't nearly as good at securing it's sensitive information as, let's say, China.
I'm placing bets on the bank in question being Bank of America. They're quite despicable, but then that's already well-known which again raises my point of Wikileaks releasing information that's generally common knowledge.
Like everything else, the more you buy of something the cheaper it gets. Buying an individual can of beer is more expensive, per can, than a six-pack. Getting 50 business cards printed is considerably more expensive, per card, than getting 1000 printed.
A similar principle presumably applies here although I'm sure some other factors come into play.
Actually, trucks cause less traffic because they act as traffic dampers. They're slower to speed up and slower to stop so their drivers tend to maintain a greater distance from traffic ahead of them. This enables to maintain a more consistent speed. Unlike the pinheads in cars who are always compelled to tailgate and end up slowing each other down.
That sounds wonderful until you realize that the world isn't so simple. Because of America's role as a superpower, not just militarily, but economically, they have to be involved in global affairs. Could the United States have been more subtle about it? Perhaps, and perhaps not.
When the US was still on the way up the global dynamic was quite different from what we have now. America had the Soviet Union to worry about. You could argue the cold war was foolish, and in principle certainly it was. The problem is that not everyone feels the same way. The American government could have decided they weren't going to meddle and inevitably someone would come along to exploit that and stick it to us.
Another reality is that much of the world depends on American military might. For all the complaints we get, if our government decided one day they were going to bring all our military home and that Europe, Japan, South Korea and others would have to fend for themselves I'd guarantee you they'd all be quite upset. A lot of nations have the luxury of not having to spend so much on defense because we're spending that money for them.
Of course, currently China is wisely spreading their influence around the world through economic means. Look at their investments in Africa. They're creating dependencies. And they're exploiting a lot of the long-standing ill will towards America and even Europe. But they're also still investing heavily in their military. And ultimately their goals are no different than America's or anyone else's; they want to be at the top of the heap.
It's easy to piss and moan about what America has done. And they've certainly done a lot of bad. But the fact is that the American government's activities, over the last century or two, have ensured a prosperous middle-class. They've enabled a lifestyle, for good or ill, that allows Americans to keep themselves quite entertained 24-hours a day. We enjoy a life where we generally aren't struggling to survive and have enough leisure time that we can all be armchair historians, social scientists, diplomats, military strategists and a million others things.
Having had both dogs and cats as pets I'd say dogs definitely have the edge but generally they're comparable. I've seen some massively stupid dogs and some genius cats.
They problem with cats is that they don't normally do something when you ask them, they get around to it when they feel like it. They also don't convey emotions quite as openly and certainly aren't always as expressive as dogs. But it doesn't mean the feelings aren't there.
Up until about two years ago we had 5 cats. The cat who died was respected by the others and he carried himself with authority. Two of the cats, who are extremely close, clearly deferred to him probably because they tended to perceive him has a parent of sorts who had cared from them since they were kittens. Also, when two cats started arguing with each other, he came running to break things up, although he was normally more protective of those two particular cats. That cat was respectful towards kittens and I had seen him back away from food in order to allow kittens to eat first. When he died there was a noticeable change in the household and there was a bit of disarray for a good while.
The cats all are eager to be around us humans, even if it's simply to sleep nearby. They're not the sort who crave attention only when they're hungry. Whenever we get home late, they get excited and start running around the house, running around us and playing with each other and myself, particularly the cat most attached to me.
As I've mentioned, the funny thing with cats is that they normally aren't expressive, especially to strangers. I have friends who have cats, and even with my own experiences many of them come off as expressionless, but cute, beasts. In the strange environment of a research lab, or merely with strange people around, I can't imagine they're getting honest results from cats. My own experiences with cats, and given the benchmark applied to this research, would imply they're a lot smarter than these guys are suggesting.
That would be nice, but cars and operating systems are a totally different dynamic. The interface for all cars is virtually identical: two or three pedals, a shift lever and a steering wheel. Virtually car will run on public roads, regardless engine size, number of doors and even wheel count. Even something more exotic, like a tank or construction equipment will run on the road, even if it does damage pavement in the process.
Operating systems, however, are a totally different animal. First, you've got user interface which has an impact on user-friendliness and functionality. Second, you've got the applications available on each system. Then you've got a host of other factors, like software lock-in, marketing prowess, established user base, etc. All these factors contribute to a particular platform being popular.
I suppose, in theory, various companies could developed their own OS and then follow certain standards. That already exists to some extent. But you're still dependent on software developers offering a version of their application that runs in your OS. That's not a trivial undertaking in the least, even selecting which operating systems to support is daunting.
But building the OS itself is a massive undertaking, and everyone's got their own vision about what it should do, so this inevitably breeds incompatibility. What you're suggesting almost sounds like everyone should go with a single base OS and then do nothing more than skin their version.
Did you just miss the story about the Oregon senator blocking COICA? I had to consult Wikipedia to find out that the guy was a democrat. Every time I've ever seen a story regarding specific politicians I don't recall seeing party affiliation. And Ron Paul is high profile enough that if you don't know his affiliation then you're not paying attention and not interested in these kinds of stories anyway.
I tend to find that Slashdot's readership is left-leaning, but you're really grasping at straws here and it's embarrassing.
I anticipated this would happen from the start. Even back at the release of the Wii the limited power of the hardware and the standard definition graphics was a sore point. The novelty of the controllers, however generally beat back those concerns, at least initially. But then it also become apparent that while the Wiimote is great with some games with many others it hinders gameplay. And things were worse when cross-platform games where significantly scaled back for the Wii.
So I anticipated that Nintendo would follow a shorter lifespan for the Wii, replacing it with a more powerful version. This model is similar to what Nintendo has done with the DS, moving from the original to the DS Lite, then the DSi, and now there's the 3DS.
Of course, the irony here is a selling point for the Wii was it's lower cost. But it's looking like over the lifespan of an Xbox360 or PS3 you're faced with purchasing two different Nintendo consoles and possibly no backwards compatibility.
I would guess that Nintendo is wrestling with what the Wii 2 should be. Should it simply be a more powerful Wii or a completely revamped system, more powerful or more featured than Sony's and Microsoft's consoles. An upgraded Wii would mean quicker to market and a lower cost, but it would also only put them at parity with the competition. A few years later Sony and Microsoft will inevitably be announcing new consoles.
Of course, at this point what can they really offer beyond better graphics and maybe more precise motion control? I'm guessing the shift might be towards a more complete home entertaining/computing experience. An alternative to both something like Apple TV and a netbook.
The catch is that those efficient diesels also feature extremely small displacements, are low on power and are normally coupled to subcompact cars. By subcompact I mean the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, VW Polo and others. Size is one issue. A microcar is great if you're single, but even Europeans buy larger cars when they have families. But even those cars come with small engines, much smaller than what's available in the US in a comparable car.
And that gives rise to a second, and probably larger, problem. Americans are spoiled by horsepower. From the perspective of the average person in Europe a sport car is one that will hit 100km/h in 8 - 9 seconds. In the US it's 6 - 7 seconds and there are some who already consider that to be on the lower side. Your average fuel efficient vehicle in the states hits 100km/h in 8 or 9 seconds, in Europe the average is closer to 12 seconds, and a lot of cars are slower.
For your average American driver, regardless of their driving ability or how often they mash the throttle, that's slow. It's a sluggishness you definitely feel when you've been spoiled by the performance of the average car available in America. It's the sort of thing that's apparently when you're doing 70mph - 80mph on the highway and the engine is screaming at 4000rpms.
Some of these issues aren't as pronounced with diesel engines, but you're still looking at slow cars. The whole appeal of hybrids is that you get a bit of a compromise. Drivers can have a more practical car, slightly better performance but still enjoy improved fuel economy, even if it's a marginal improvement in a lot of cases.
This is exactly what I want in a tablet. This is the biggest turnoff for me with the iPad, being chained to iOS.
What's important is that a proper interface is running on the device. That was the biggest problem with tablets from 5-8 years ago. They were running straight Windows XP which made for a clumsy experience. But on the other hand, the OS made those tablets quite useful and a viable alternative to a laptop.
What's important is that a fluid experience is offered when you're using the device as a tablet. The complexity of the OS shouldn't get in the way of the experience. That's what Apple does well. But it's nice to have that extra depth available when I need it.
Those early PC tablets were generally panned in the media. The same "experts" soiling themselves over the iPad failed to see the potential in those forerunners. Granted, display and touchscreen technology wasn't where it is today. And both Microsoft and those hardware companies, Sony and others, totally missed the boat on providing a proper user experience. But they haven't gotten any credit for breaking ground with tablets.
The problem now seems to be that PC-makers seem to be afraid of committing to a real tablet and instead are offering these odd half-breed devices. I guess Dell and others feel they're absolved of the expense and effort of designing a proper GUI is they basically market laptops with tablet-style gimmickry. Either that or they're going to sit around waiting for Google to develop a direct knockoff of iOS for tablets. All this means we'll likely never see a proper full-featured tablet.
I thought this kind of font fell under the purview of pixel fonts. So it's not really anything new except that this particular font uses shades of grey to indicate certain shapes. I'm hard-pressed to call it truly legible. It's borderline; I have to concentrate a bit to identify certain letters and some of it I'm deciphering mostly because of context.
I do think this font may have a future as legal info and disclaimer copy.
Likely what happened is that government officials first held a few meetings to organize and coordinate task force. Then they started investigating possibilities, starting first with the most extreme (ET, China, terrorists, etc). Then they got in touch with the FAA who probably indicated it was an aircraft, but then they had to go back through their records to be absolutely certain.
Some genius in the PR department decided that they were going to be "honest". They should have said, "we're investigating this and we'll get back to you when we have a definitive answer". Instead by displaying uncertainty they opened up this huge window for conspiracy theorists to jump through. Of course, most people, like myself, hunger for something more sensational and conspiratorial and they should have realized this.
I'd say a missle flying overhead isn't something that goes unnoticed. Perhaps I haven't followed this story closely enough, but my understanding is that outside of this sensational video there weren't a deluge of calls to the authorities regarding some rocket. I'd guess that anyone who happens to live in the vicinity of airports might be able to observe this sort of phenomenon from time to time.
The funny thing is that you ask anyone and they'll generally agree that government bureaucracy is quite inefficient and ponderous. But then in a situation like this, when they don't provide an answer instantly suddenly it's a conspiracy.
No military should be considered superheroes. They just glorify violence and legalized murder.
I'm sure that's exactly what those prisoners at Auschwitz thought when Allied soldiers showed up. That's certain one particular example, but nearly every war in history has been fought for far more complex reasons than simply because a bunch of guys were bloodthirsty.
Unfortunately you have a simplistic and unrealistic impression of how the world works.
Soldiers don't do any of the things you suggest. The entertainment industry (ironically pacifist) glorifies violence and the government defines policy regarding death and/or murder.
I'm really curious about where Slashdotters live that they keep encountering all these fundamentalists who refuse to accept the scientific explanations for how the universe works.
I've got a fairly broad range of friends, a couple who are fairly religious and have always been so. And I know a few others who are born-agains and frequent the kind of church you'd expect to be a problem. But they all accept the concept of evolution, the big bang, and everything else that's been proposed by science. I don't know a single person, religious or otherwise who doesn't generally accept any of this.
And the big irony here is that these fundamentalists would embrace all this. A universe billions of years old, where life evolved, is far and away more impressive than a 6,000 year universe where everything was created as it exists now.
I mean, how awesome are dinosaurs, or the life cycles of stars, or quantum mechanics? If you want to believe in a creator it takes a staggering one to have come up with all that. Not the feeble, unimaginative one fundamentalists adhere to.
I've known for years now that close door buttons in elevators have no effect. I've been in dozens of elevators and have tried the button for the hell of it to no avail. I don't bother anymore. I always assumed there was some kind of associated safety law. What I don't get is why they keep the damn button there; I assume it's cheaper to do so than to remove the button for the US market. I do know for a fact that the button does work overseas. It's why I would try the button when I got back to the States.
Honestly, I don't know if in this particular case it's a placebo effect so much as Americans being conditioned to believe that anything in a public space is likely busted or not working properly. There seems to be a general state of disrepair in the US that I haven't really encountered in other countries. On the one hand, you've got ham-fisted oafs and outright vandals who are compelled to break everything in sight. And on the other hand, you've got service people who can't be bothered to do their jobs, or management which apparently doesn't take enough pride to pay to get things fixed. But then, if something keeps getting broken, eventually you just give up and leave it be.
Several years ago a friend of mine was pitched Xserve by someone from Apple. His impression was that the salesman wasn't trying very hard to promote the servers and wasn't speaking to the points he cared about. The pitch seemed to boil down to Xserve is great because Macs and OSX is great.
Even if he could have convinced management to spend such a big premium over other solutions the company would now be faced with equipment that's been discontinued, and knowing Apple, wont be supported for long.
I suspect the problem is that ISPs set themselves up for failure by offering unlimited packages. They were so intent on getting subscribers that they didn't think about the implications of heavy usage. And they probably never thought people would be hitting caps in such large numbers.
In the early days of broadband they were probably milking users; people were paying $50 a month for maybe $10 of usage. But now the tables have turned and ISPs aren't raking in what they used to. And honestly, it's entirely possible they're in a situation where they can't realistically upgrade their infrastructure to sustain the increased load.
ISPs probably should have gone with a utility style model from day one. That would mean paying for what you use like every other utility, electricity, water gas and even telephone. And they could have tiered it based on speed, much like a higher fuel octane is more expensive. And this way caps would be a non-issue because heavy downloaders would already be paying for heavy usage.
Of course, this model would also enable ISPs to sneak in rate increases more easily. But really, it seems like a more logical model to me. But at this point I don't see it going over well. And more concerning, if ISPs were to implement this we would all start paying more from the get go.
Slashdot Mirror
I've known about this for years, but it's still quite fascinating. A 30-year-old game featured AI more sophisticated than what you'll find in most games today. Or at least AI appears more stupid and easier to foil today.
If I remember correctly Ms. Pac-Man added a randomization factor to avoid ghosts falling into set patterns.
I hate to break it to you, but Japan wasn't all honor, philosophy and appreciation of beauty like popular culture loves to depict it. There was plenty of turmoil and poverty for centuries in Japan, if not millennia. A lot of people struggled merely to survive. Ask the Ainu if their lives consisted of honor and philosophy and being at peace with nature. Certainly, Japanese aren't going to argue about how their history has been romanticized, and they engage in plenty of that themselves.
American's haven't corrupted their culture. I don't think anyone can rationally disagree that Japan isn't way better off today than it was 60+ years ago. And Japan's culture is so strong that I don't think it's seen any real American influence in decades. If anything I'd say they've influenced some aspects of American culture more strongly, and at least it's been mutual. That's the way of the world.
Culturally Japanese have embraced technology on a level American will never fathom. But that's no because of evil American meddling; especially given they build everything themselves. I'd love to see Americans embrace some of that Japanese work ethic and national pride. Because both are seriously lacking.
Why the hell don't they just go with a utility model? Extremely low cost per MB, for example. You don't pay if you don't use it, but you're not looking at outrageous costs for going over your allowance.
What they're doing now is sucker consumers into paying for speed but then screwing them over because they can't use that speed anywhere near fullest potential.
ISPs all started offering unlimited plans back when there was little chance of anyone taxing their network. They basically followed the model of pay TV. But TV is transmitting the same amount of data constantly, whether or not it's consumed. Internet is more like electric or gas usage.
However, the prevailing model put the consumer in a situation where they were overpaying. At least until streaming media, torrents and whatnot came along. Now the tables have turned and ISPs are scrambling to find ways to put us back in a situation where we're getting screwed.
Very interesting, but I get the impression that NASA is merely trying to demonstrate to the public why they're important and why they deserve our tax dollars. Not that they need convincing me, but they've got a lot of competition for tax money right now.
I just read that the House passed a $4.5 billion child nutrition bill apparently intended to promote better eating habits. $4.5 billion for the government to do something kids will ignore and parents should be responsible for anyway. And in the meantime NASA gets screwed.
As far as I could tell nobody thought it was impossible, perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. There are other organisms that already use arsenic in their system, although not to this extent. Scientists have even speculated on boron and silicon as alternatives to carbon.
I'd argue that life is more likely where we are for the simple reason that this is where we exist. I would have thought there's a lot more potential for encountering harmful radiation, among other things, closer to the core.
The Disney Channel is generally utter garbage, especially the live action shows. Basically, it's nothing but a bunch of self-centered twats running around being totally unproductive. Stupid parents completely miss the far more subtle and long-term detrimental impact of that programming. Those shows feature non-stop idolizing of celebrity culture; they essentially perpetuate the notion that any kid can be a superstar.
They never depict anyone who's done something constructive in a scientific field, for example, but instead constantly feature singers, actors and athletes. They depict characters who never seem to have any responsibilities and instead spend all their time socializing. They're entirely superficial and obnoxious.
Spend any time watching this junk and it becomes immediately obvious why so many American kids struggle at things like math and science compared to their foreign counterparts, especially in Asia. And if you've had the opportunity to watch television for adolescents in Asia the difference is even more apparent. Although they do seem to be slowly moving in our direction.
You mean if you subscribe to the first book, or the movies AND the rest of the books in the series.
So far a lot of the stuff I've seen leaked hasn't been particularly shocking. A lot of it covers things people have already known or at least strongly suspected but for whatever reason hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. These leaks simply drag those details out into the light of day to be openly acknowledged and discussed. It seems to me like the media and government officials are making a bigger deal of this than the general public. On the other hand, I also believe that it's entirely possible to cross the line and start causing some real harm, even if it hasn't happened yet.
I don't have a particular good impression of Assange; I get the impression he has too big an ego for his own good. I also have questions about about bias. I think Wikileaks can provide a valuable service, but only if it operates as an equal opportunity offender. There's a real problem if members of the organization can't see beyond personal biases, if they show reluctance in releasing information damaging to their particular worldview, for example. Or worse, they decide they have it in for a particular entity, in this case, the United States. Of it may be a problem that the US isn't nearly as good at securing it's sensitive information as, let's say, China.
I'm placing bets on the bank in question being Bank of America. They're quite despicable, but then that's already well-known which again raises my point of Wikileaks releasing information that's generally common knowledge.
Like everything else, the more you buy of something the cheaper it gets. Buying an individual can of beer is more expensive, per can, than a six-pack. Getting 50 business cards printed is considerably more expensive, per card, than getting 1000 printed.
A similar principle presumably applies here although I'm sure some other factors come into play.
Actually, trucks cause less traffic because they act as traffic dampers. They're slower to speed up and slower to stop so their drivers tend to maintain a greater distance from traffic ahead of them. This enables to maintain a more consistent speed. Unlike the pinheads in cars who are always compelled to tailgate and end up slowing each other down.
That sounds wonderful until you realize that the world isn't so simple. Because of America's role as a superpower, not just militarily, but economically, they have to be involved in global affairs. Could the United States have been more subtle about it? Perhaps, and perhaps not.
When the US was still on the way up the global dynamic was quite different from what we have now. America had the Soviet Union to worry about. You could argue the cold war was foolish, and in principle certainly it was. The problem is that not everyone feels the same way. The American government could have decided they weren't going to meddle and inevitably someone would come along to exploit that and stick it to us.
Another reality is that much of the world depends on American military might. For all the complaints we get, if our government decided one day they were going to bring all our military home and that Europe, Japan, South Korea and others would have to fend for themselves I'd guarantee you they'd all be quite upset. A lot of nations have the luxury of not having to spend so much on defense because we're spending that money for them.
Of course, currently China is wisely spreading their influence around the world through economic means. Look at their investments in Africa. They're creating dependencies. And they're exploiting a lot of the long-standing ill will towards America and even Europe. But they're also still investing heavily in their military. And ultimately their goals are no different than America's or anyone else's; they want to be at the top of the heap.
It's easy to piss and moan about what America has done. And they've certainly done a lot of bad. But the fact is that the American government's activities, over the last century or two, have ensured a prosperous middle-class. They've enabled a lifestyle, for good or ill, that allows Americans to keep themselves quite entertained 24-hours a day. We enjoy a life where we generally aren't struggling to survive and have enough leisure time that we can all be armchair historians, social scientists, diplomats, military strategists and a million others things.
Having had both dogs and cats as pets I'd say dogs definitely have the edge but generally they're comparable. I've seen some massively stupid dogs and some genius cats.
They problem with cats is that they don't normally do something when you ask them, they get around to it when they feel like it. They also don't convey emotions quite as openly and certainly aren't always as expressive as dogs. But it doesn't mean the feelings aren't there.
Up until about two years ago we had 5 cats. The cat who died was respected by the others and he carried himself with authority. Two of the cats, who are extremely close, clearly deferred to him probably because they tended to perceive him has a parent of sorts who had cared from them since they were kittens. Also, when two cats started arguing with each other, he came running to break things up, although he was normally more protective of those two particular cats. That cat was respectful towards kittens and I had seen him back away from food in order to allow kittens to eat first. When he died there was a noticeable change in the household and there was a bit of disarray for a good while.
The cats all are eager to be around us humans, even if it's simply to sleep nearby. They're not the sort who crave attention only when they're hungry. Whenever we get home late, they get excited and start running around the house, running around us and playing with each other and myself, particularly the cat most attached to me.
As I've mentioned, the funny thing with cats is that they normally aren't expressive, especially to strangers. I have friends who have cats, and even with my own experiences many of them come off as expressionless, but cute, beasts. In the strange environment of a research lab, or merely with strange people around, I can't imagine they're getting honest results from cats. My own experiences with cats, and given the benchmark applied to this research, would imply they're a lot smarter than these guys are suggesting.
That would be nice, but cars and operating systems are a totally different dynamic. The interface for all cars is virtually identical: two or three pedals, a shift lever and a steering wheel. Virtually car will run on public roads, regardless engine size, number of doors and even wheel count. Even something more exotic, like a tank or construction equipment will run on the road, even if it does damage pavement in the process.
Operating systems, however, are a totally different animal. First, you've got user interface which has an impact on user-friendliness and functionality. Second, you've got the applications available on each system. Then you've got a host of other factors, like software lock-in, marketing prowess, established user base, etc. All these factors contribute to a particular platform being popular.
I suppose, in theory, various companies could developed their own OS and then follow certain standards. That already exists to some extent. But you're still dependent on software developers offering a version of their application that runs in your OS. That's not a trivial undertaking in the least, even selecting which operating systems to support is daunting.
But building the OS itself is a massive undertaking, and everyone's got their own vision about what it should do, so this inevitably breeds incompatibility. What you're suggesting almost sounds like everyone should go with a single base OS and then do nothing more than skin their version.
Did you just miss the story about the Oregon senator blocking COICA? I had to consult Wikipedia to find out that the guy was a democrat. Every time I've ever seen a story regarding specific politicians I don't recall seeing party affiliation. And Ron Paul is high profile enough that if you don't know his affiliation then you're not paying attention and not interested in these kinds of stories anyway.
I tend to find that Slashdot's readership is left-leaning, but you're really grasping at straws here and it's embarrassing.
I anticipated this would happen from the start. Even back at the release of the Wii the limited power of the hardware and the standard definition graphics was a sore point. The novelty of the controllers, however generally beat back those concerns, at least initially. But then it also become apparent that while the Wiimote is great with some games with many others it hinders gameplay. And things were worse when cross-platform games where significantly scaled back for the Wii.
So I anticipated that Nintendo would follow a shorter lifespan for the Wii, replacing it with a more powerful version. This model is similar to what Nintendo has done with the DS, moving from the original to the DS Lite, then the DSi, and now there's the 3DS.
Of course, the irony here is a selling point for the Wii was it's lower cost. But it's looking like over the lifespan of an Xbox360 or PS3 you're faced with purchasing two different Nintendo consoles and possibly no backwards compatibility.
I would guess that Nintendo is wrestling with what the Wii 2 should be. Should it simply be a more powerful Wii or a completely revamped system, more powerful or more featured than Sony's and Microsoft's consoles. An upgraded Wii would mean quicker to market and a lower cost, but it would also only put them at parity with the competition. A few years later Sony and Microsoft will inevitably be announcing new consoles.
Of course, at this point what can they really offer beyond better graphics and maybe more precise motion control? I'm guessing the shift might be towards a more complete home entertaining/computing experience. An alternative to both something like Apple TV and a netbook.
The catch is that those efficient diesels also feature extremely small displacements, are low on power and are normally coupled to subcompact cars. By subcompact I mean the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, VW Polo and others. Size is one issue. A microcar is great if you're single, but even Europeans buy larger cars when they have families. But even those cars come with small engines, much smaller than what's available in the US in a comparable car.
And that gives rise to a second, and probably larger, problem. Americans are spoiled by horsepower. From the perspective of the average person in Europe a sport car is one that will hit 100km/h in 8 - 9 seconds. In the US it's 6 - 7 seconds and there are some who already consider that to be on the lower side. Your average fuel efficient vehicle in the states hits 100km/h in 8 or 9 seconds, in Europe the average is closer to 12 seconds, and a lot of cars are slower.
For your average American driver, regardless of their driving ability or how often they mash the throttle, that's slow. It's a sluggishness you definitely feel when you've been spoiled by the performance of the average car available in America. It's the sort of thing that's apparently when you're doing 70mph - 80mph on the highway and the engine is screaming at 4000rpms.
Some of these issues aren't as pronounced with diesel engines, but you're still looking at slow cars. The whole appeal of hybrids is that you get a bit of a compromise. Drivers can have a more practical car, slightly better performance but still enjoy improved fuel economy, even if it's a marginal improvement in a lot of cases.
This is exactly what I want in a tablet. This is the biggest turnoff for me with the iPad, being chained to iOS.
What's important is that a proper interface is running on the device. That was the biggest problem with tablets from 5-8 years ago. They were running straight Windows XP which made for a clumsy experience. But on the other hand, the OS made those tablets quite useful and a viable alternative to a laptop.
What's important is that a fluid experience is offered when you're using the device as a tablet. The complexity of the OS shouldn't get in the way of the experience. That's what Apple does well. But it's nice to have that extra depth available when I need it.
Those early PC tablets were generally panned in the media. The same "experts" soiling themselves over the iPad failed to see the potential in those forerunners. Granted, display and touchscreen technology wasn't where it is today. And both Microsoft and those hardware companies, Sony and others, totally missed the boat on providing a proper user experience. But they haven't gotten any credit for breaking ground with tablets.
The problem now seems to be that PC-makers seem to be afraid of committing to a real tablet and instead are offering these odd half-breed devices. I guess Dell and others feel they're absolved of the expense and effort of designing a proper GUI is they basically market laptops with tablet-style gimmickry. Either that or they're going to sit around waiting for Google to develop a direct knockoff of iOS for tablets. All this means we'll likely never see a proper full-featured tablet.
I thought this kind of font fell under the purview of pixel fonts. So it's not really anything new except that this particular font uses shades of grey to indicate certain shapes. I'm hard-pressed to call it truly legible. It's borderline; I have to concentrate a bit to identify certain letters and some of it I'm deciphering mostly because of context.
I do think this font may have a future as legal info and disclaimer copy.
Likely what happened is that government officials first held a few meetings to organize and coordinate task force. Then they started investigating possibilities, starting first with the most extreme (ET, China, terrorists, etc). Then they got in touch with the FAA who probably indicated it was an aircraft, but then they had to go back through their records to be absolutely certain.
Some genius in the PR department decided that they were going to be "honest". They should have said, "we're investigating this and we'll get back to you when we have a definitive answer". Instead by displaying uncertainty they opened up this huge window for conspiracy theorists to jump through. Of course, most people, like myself, hunger for something more sensational and conspiratorial and they should have realized this.
I'd say a missle flying overhead isn't something that goes unnoticed. Perhaps I haven't followed this story closely enough, but my understanding is that outside of this sensational video there weren't a deluge of calls to the authorities regarding some rocket. I'd guess that anyone who happens to live in the vicinity of airports might be able to observe this sort of phenomenon from time to time.
The funny thing is that you ask anyone and they'll generally agree that government bureaucracy is quite inefficient and ponderous. But then in a situation like this, when they don't provide an answer instantly suddenly it's a conspiracy.
I'm sure that's exactly what those prisoners at Auschwitz thought when Allied soldiers showed up. That's certain one particular example, but nearly every war in history has been fought for far more complex reasons than simply because a bunch of guys were bloodthirsty.
Unfortunately you have a simplistic and unrealistic impression of how the world works.
Soldiers don't do any of the things you suggest. The entertainment industry (ironically pacifist) glorifies violence and the government defines policy regarding death and/or murder.
I'm really curious about where Slashdotters live that they keep encountering all these fundamentalists who refuse to accept the scientific explanations for how the universe works.
I've got a fairly broad range of friends, a couple who are fairly religious and have always been so. And I know a few others who are born-agains and frequent the kind of church you'd expect to be a problem. But they all accept the concept of evolution, the big bang, and everything else that's been proposed by science. I don't know a single person, religious or otherwise who doesn't generally accept any of this.
And the big irony here is that these fundamentalists would embrace all this. A universe billions of years old, where life evolved, is far and away more impressive than a 6,000 year universe where everything was created as it exists now.
I mean, how awesome are dinosaurs, or the life cycles of stars, or quantum mechanics? If you want to believe in a creator it takes a staggering one to have come up with all that. Not the feeble, unimaginative one fundamentalists adhere to.
I've known for years now that close door buttons in elevators have no effect. I've been in dozens of elevators and have tried the button for the hell of it to no avail. I don't bother anymore. I always assumed there was some kind of associated safety law. What I don't get is why they keep the damn button there; I assume it's cheaper to do so than to remove the button for the US market. I do know for a fact that the button does work overseas. It's why I would try the button when I got back to the States.
Honestly, I don't know if in this particular case it's a placebo effect so much as Americans being conditioned to believe that anything in a public space is likely busted or not working properly. There seems to be a general state of disrepair in the US that I haven't really encountered in other countries. On the one hand, you've got ham-fisted oafs and outright vandals who are compelled to break everything in sight. And on the other hand, you've got service people who can't be bothered to do their jobs, or management which apparently doesn't take enough pride to pay to get things fixed. But then, if something keeps getting broken, eventually you just give up and leave it be.
Several years ago a friend of mine was pitched Xserve by someone from Apple. His impression was that the salesman wasn't trying very hard to promote the servers and wasn't speaking to the points he cared about. The pitch seemed to boil down to Xserve is great because Macs and OSX is great.
Even if he could have convinced management to spend such a big premium over other solutions the company would now be faced with equipment that's been discontinued, and knowing Apple, wont be supported for long.
I suspect the problem is that ISPs set themselves up for failure by offering unlimited packages. They were so intent on getting subscribers that they didn't think about the implications of heavy usage. And they probably never thought people would be hitting caps in such large numbers.
In the early days of broadband they were probably milking users; people were paying $50 a month for maybe $10 of usage. But now the tables have turned and ISPs aren't raking in what they used to. And honestly, it's entirely possible they're in a situation where they can't realistically upgrade their infrastructure to sustain the increased load.
ISPs probably should have gone with a utility style model from day one. That would mean paying for what you use like every other utility, electricity, water gas and even telephone. And they could have tiered it based on speed, much like a higher fuel octane is more expensive. And this way caps would be a non-issue because heavy downloaders would already be paying for heavy usage.
Of course, this model would also enable ISPs to sneak in rate increases more easily. But really, it seems like a more logical model to me. But at this point I don't see it going over well. And more concerning, if ISPs were to implement this we would all start paying more from the get go.