It could have been dust storms. Eastern China suffers some pretty bad dust storms from sand blown out of the Gobi desert and it gets as far as Japan sometimes.
This reminds me of how news networks, after bombarding the public with stories about unimportant or sensationalized garbage, will air a navel-gazing piece where they raise the question whether or not they went to far. Not that it keeps them from doing the same thing over and over again.
the entire viewing audience of Jersey Shore. Put them on a 1 way rocket to Mars with a crap load of Cheetoes and snack foods. Throw in Lohan as a plaything, she's too cracked out to even notice these days...
Are these the kinds of people we want to be ambassadors to Earth? Any alien race who came across them would be compelled to destroy the Earth in order to prevent our stupidity from spreading.
Even if all current life on Mars were there solely because of our probes I think it goes to show just how hardy life is. Not only did it survive the vacuum of space, but it's been able to not only survive a few decades on Mars but thrive. That being the case, it's rational to assume that we will find life elsewhere in the universe.
How much processing power does a spacecraft need anyway? It's not like these CPUs are burdened with the overhead of running a desktop OS. These things are completely dedicated to number crunching on whatever task they've been assigned to. And power draw and heat are probably minor issues compared to more current processors. Chances are anything more current will simply be overpowered for the job.
And given how long it takes to design and build a spacecraft by the time that vehicle is actually being used, the computer hardware inside it will be considered outdated from the perspective of the average consumer. But then, we're dealing with the iPhone generation here, where technological advancement is dictated by yearly, incremental updates and how pretty a product looks. I get the feeling they love gloating about how awesome their cute portable devices are with no appreciation whatsoever of what it took to get technology to its current state.
While I think religion can have an influence on society from a political standpoint I think religion's impact is marginal. Interactions between nations are driven by a desire for land, resources, wealth or power. Religion is simply the justification, and perhaps in some cases a motivator and manipulator of the masses. But there are many other tools a government can use to accomplish the same thing. An atheist state would just as easily go to war, for example, and use the belief in atheism as the justification. And the zealots would be just as crazy.
I suppose from a social engineering standpoint it could be interesting, but I don't think the game has lost anything by having that component removed.
I personally thing the impact of religion on world affairs is seriously overblown. Take a hard look at any conflict in history and you'll be able to identify more practical motivations. Most "religious" people don't care nearly as much about religion as some seem convinced they do.
Let's face facts. Most college kids are going to use these iPads to dick around. The college where I taught a course a couple of years back had given MacBooks to all their students. If I wasn't standing over their shoulders they'd be happily chatting away with friends or wasting time on some other site. It was routine to be going over something with them and have a chat window pop up. What was especially ridiculous was that the classroom, like many others around the campus, was equipped with desktops so there was no real need for these laptops. But it certainly was more convenient that they worked on their own machines.
I suppose in retrospect I could have demanded they close chat programs and browsers. But then, we're talking about a university class here. If I wanted to babysit a bunch of children I'd go teach in an elementary school. And if you're teaching a class with upwards of 20 or 30 students what do you do then? You could demand they keep the computers turned off, but then the school provided the damn things.
It would be nice to see universities expend this much effort on controlling costs. Why the hell is a college education so damn expensive anyway? The professors I've encountered seem to have a carefree attitude towards spending, something I had never experienced in the corporate world. What incentive do they have to care when there's a steady stream of income? They can endlessly raise tuition and nobody seems to care.
The problem is, both the 360 and the PS3 are priced at ARS3000, which is almost USD 800. One has to wonder why they can't offer the product as the same price as in USA.
Companies don't arbitrarily decide to charge more for products, especially in a country with a lower standard of living than the US. Products are expensive because of taxes and import tariffs. Argentina has a 21% VAT. Retail goods are also subject to a 3% anticipated profits tax. Those are the ones I could dig up quickly. There are a variety of other taxes imposed on goods.
For good or ill the US doesn't tax imported goods all that heavily. It's why imported products cost nearly as much as they do in the country of origin. If you're in a country where stuff costs twice what it costs in the US chances are it's the fault of your government.
I'm fairly certain this will never see the light of day. I'm doubt it will even get beyond the concept art phase.
Michael Jackson's musical talent aside, who in their right mind would care enough to play a game like this? The kind of people who might actually care that much about him are unlikely to ever touch an MMO. Unless it's developed as a Facebook game perhaps.
I swear occasionally and sometimes more than I should. But I do make effort to keep it in check; for example, I never swear at work and I avoid swearing in front of my daughter. I don't have a problem with swearing, but I absolutely think it's a sign of class or lack thereof. Whenever I come across someone who's every second word is a swear they just come off as stupid like they don't care about having a good presentation. And too many people seem to have this immature notion that swearing makes you an adult.
I prefer physical copies of my games because I don't want to have to face the ordeal of having to download everything all over again if something happens to my system. But more importantly, I don't like being at the whim of an online retailer or publisher, worrying about my account expiring for whatever reason and no longer having access to something I've purchased. And I don't think broadband is still at the point for a lot of people where it's realistic downloading a game that would occupy the majority of a Blu-ray disc.
As for Blu-ray movies why the hell would I want compromised quality in the form of a download? It's one of the reasons why I prefer CDs over something like AAC format. I can tolerate it when I need the convenience of portability, but when I'm home why should I be subjected to poor quality audio or video? It would suck to end up in a situation where there were no options but downloading content online.
I don't necessarily have a problem with tax increases at the high end, but $200k is a low threshold. At $200,000 a year a family is living comfortably, but not lavishly. And many small businesses are easily bringing in significantly over $200k a year. Hire 4 employees at $50k each and you have to be earning much more than that simply to keep the company afloat. And then you get into the perception of wealth. Go to some communities and they'll tell you $80k is wealthy and that they could stand to lose another $10k in taxes.
These are a few issues here. First, the more people earn the more they spend, even if it's something as simple as buying a home in a nicer community. People might want to live in a safer environment, maybe they want access to more services, perhaps they're interested in better public schools. It isn't necessarily driven by avarice. But it does mean that they're going to be spending a greater portion of their income on living expenses. And in many cases, simply living in a different part of the country means you're paying considerably more for the same thing. It's not like there's a baseline for expenses and anything above that is simply net profit. A reasonably educated household where both spouses are employed wont have much difficulty getting into the $150k+ range.
The second issue is with regards to business. A massive corporation earning hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars simply wont see the kind of hit that a small business will. They earn so much money that they have some flexibility in how to deal with expenses. But even if push came to shove they've got a variety of methods of dealing with tax increases. Raise the price of products, cut costs via decrease in quality, lay off employees or outsource their jobs. Worst case they could just move the headquarters overseas. Clearly none of these solutions is good for your average worker, the sort of people ironically intended to be helped by these tax increases.
As for small companies, well, let's take the company where I work. We're very small, employing 4 full time employees, 1 part time and a number of freelancers. I don't know what we bring in, but my guess is that we've got to be bringing in at least $400k a year. And we had a rough year, and for a while were looking at the prospect of pay cuts. In some cases a tax increase might not be a big deal, in other cases it could mean someone's salary or their job outright.
A good ten years ago I had a girlfriend who's parents owned an asian grocery store. Anyone walking into that shop probably wouldn't have guessed it. It was far from being anything fancy. Everything was purchased second-hand and was aged. It certainly was nothing like walking into a Whole Foods. One time she disclosed to me that her parents were bringing in $1 million a year, gross. I guessed that perhaps 3/4ths were going to restocking the shelves, but that's still a very healthy sum of money and subject to tax increases according to these proposals.
These are two examples, but it goes to show that it isn't all that difficult to get into the $200k. Certainly, I wish I were earning that kind of money, but it doesn't make a person inherently wealthy to earn so much. I personally think tax increases, for individuals, should begin at $500k to $1 million and up. And in some cases they could stand to be higher than proposed. There is a point at which you can earn considerably more than you can realistically spend and an increase isn't going to be much of a hit in the scheme of things.
And the thing to keep in mind is that we're talking about an increase in the state of Washington. What happens when that gets coupled with Federal tax increases? And I'm not optimistic that we won't see tax increases trickle down to lower incomes. Too many people seem to be driven by a vindictive nature and too many politicians are pandering for votes. Just because it feels good to screw someone earning more than you doesn't mean it's necessarily good for the country. Maybe it is a good thing but no one has been able to convince me yet.
It's my understanding that a sequel was planned before the first was even released. Whether it would be produced was dependent on the success of Avatar. And I have to admit I'm looking forward to it. As goofy and simplistic as the plot was I found Avatar to be very entertaining, and normally it's quite difficult for me to get past a weak plot.
While certainly not cheap, why is the Japanese robot so much cheaper than what the American company is offering, especially when it seems to be more sophisticated?
I'd like to know what Japanese companies have figured out that Americans are incapable of. Whenever a Japanese company begins selling some fairly high technology to the public it ends up being substantially cheaper than what an American counterpart would have asked. Is it that much more expensive to run a business and manufacture something in the US? Are Americans simply more likely to overcharge? Whatever it is, it seems to be a recurring pattern. If it's a product from an American company, and it isn't cheap crap made in China, then you're going to pay through the nose for it.
Like everyone else, they're never going to be able to completely address security. I suppose the goal should be to eliminate any glaring flaws and stay on top of things for as long as the platform is being used. But people are going to always reveal flaws as quickly as they can be patched. Being open-source doesn't provide any inherent level of security simply because anyone has access to the code.
If anything, it's only a matter of time before we see a fork. Someone is going to decide they can do without certain features for the sake of security. Or someone else doesn't something else works and decides they'll do things differently. But once the base starts fragmenting I'm fairly certain Diaspora is doomed and will never be able to unseat Facebook.
In principle it's a great thing that someone is working on this. But I also think it's been over-hyped, especially since nobody has even interacted with it much. I think they've got the underdog factor going for them. Maybe it will end up being a success, but at this point I have my doubts.
has proven to be a severe safety hazard (loses control in the snow/rain/ice easily if your tires can't handle it; loses control trying to take off into a hard turn, so don't merge into cross-traffic from a stop
Time and time again I hear this nonsense. Yes, all things being equal a rear-wheel drive car is more capable. If you're a very competent driver. I'd argue that 95% of the world's driving population is not competent to the level that RWD provides a benefit over front-wheel drive. As a matter in fact, the handling traits exhibited by RWD make it a greater hazard for many, if not most drivers. People are more likely to lose control in RWD vehicles. All-wheel drive real benefit is getting unstuck and being able to get around in slippery conditions more easily. In terms of handling, while in some cases AWD offers some real advantages but more often than not AWD cars have a strong tendency towards understeer followed, in come cases, by snap oversteer.
The fact is, the car doesn't make a driver. Discounting automotive extremes a competent driver can manage to do well in almost any car. In a panic situation you're not going to be fiddling with gears. You're going to either veer out of the way or brake really hard. If you have time to downshift you probably also had time to brake normally. Most drivers in a panic situation aren't going to have the sense to modulate braking or steer around whatever they're facing. They're going to stop on the brakes and hope the car stops in time. All that talk about handling capabilities brought up as an ego booster is ultimately meaningless.
I want a car with capable handling myself. But there's a threshold at which any additional benefits are irrelevant for most drivers because they'll never be able to exploit them limits. I'm sure there's a lower limit which is a detriment, but what modern car isn't sufficiently competent, especially for a properly defensive driver?
It's going to be a challenge. I thought a game design course a couple of years ago, taking over the course from a friend. The course was based in the media studies department and pretty much the entire class majored in media except for one student who was studying design.
Our platform was Flash, using Actionscript 2. I'd say this is the easiest platform available because the basics are so simple and require little coding. Artwork was done in Illustrator and Photoshop and even that required some instruction. We were pretty much starting from scratch. We began with simple things like mouse clicks using buttons. I also got into keyboard and mouse control and basic collision detection. But ultimately it wasn't so much them absorbing anything from me as it was me simply providing them with snippets of completed code. You're going to have a hard time getting them to learn the basics, let alone being able to build a game out of it.
My course was more about the process of game design. But because it involved actually going through the process the bulk of the course was spent on simply learning how to accomplish this. If I had continued with the course I would have changed the curriculum quite heavily. I would have based the entire class around a single project with everything working towards that. I'd provide the code and give them a few options for game types. They would then spend the semester, planning out the game first, then creating the assets, then building it with my guidance.
There are a few important things I took away from the experience: 1) Keep things extremely simple. People who haven't programmed before are going to have a hard time understanding it. Be prepared to spend entire classes just going from student to student helping with issues they're having. I had 8 or 9 students in my class and still it was a challenge to help everyone out. Granted my class met once a week and was 2.5 hours long.
2) Anyone who misses even a class or two is going to fall dramatically behind.
3) Some students tend to be overly ambitious and take on way more than they can handle. It's your responsibility to rein them in.
4) Don't put them in groups for actual projects. But a big problem I found with them working together on a final project was that I'd have one student doing all the coding and everyone else watching. The others were supposed to create assets but of course they'd rush through that. Then they'd spend the rest of the time talking or chatting with friends on IM.
Each student should be responsible for their own project. I had the idea of grouping them for the conceptual phase. They would work together on coming up with an idea for a game, and then each building their own interpretation of that concept.
You're in a more fortunate position that you're working with fine arts students. So ideally you've got a class that's creative and has access to the resources needed to create the art for these games. So I'd have them create those assets as homework and then spend class time doing development. Like I said, they wont be able to get very far on their own.
I don't know enough about the platforms you're proposing. But from the quick look I've taken those don't look particularly easy to pick up for someone who doesn't have any background in this stuff. At least Flash is heavily used in the design community so there's something to take away from this. And you can actually build something without requiring much coding.
From what's been revealed of Diaspora it looks exactly like Facebook. So what's the point of switching? I realize it's open-source, but that doesn't matter to the vast majority of people. Most who will come across Diaspora will see it as a Facebook-clone, with the huge shortcoming that no friends are on it. Most people simply want something that works sufficiently well and is used by a lot of other people. Companies are lured to Facebook because of the significant potential for marketing.
This is a problem with the majority of open-source projects I've come across. They don't try to improve on an idea or at least reinterpret it. They merely recreate it.
That said, I think the project is a good one. Perhaps the eventual release will be more compelling than what's been revealed. It's certainly got its strong points but it's got to have some hook that will lure people.
Ubuntu may be getting better. But it still looks amateurish in comparison to Windows or OSX. It just doesn't feature the polish of those other OSs. Windows has a lot of clutter, but it is still a cohesive and fairly consistent experience. It doesn't seem like they gave enough thought to usability in Ubuntu, they simply copied bits of and pieces of what Microsoft and Apple have already done.
Designing a user interface is actually quite challenging. It's not as simple as designing something pretty. Apple and Microsoft expend a lot of effort in this area. Apple has a fairly consistent vision which is why they generally do a good job, although I think they've blown it with the new version of iTunes. The problem with Microsoft is that they have too many different divisions with different ideas of what should be done and reinterpretations with every release. But even then they're clearly a lot of thought put into things, as much as possible given the complexity of functionality. And a lot of times it's small stuff that most people don't think is important, but taken as a whole becomes very crucial.
I can't speak to the other items since I haven't used the OS enough, but I would have graded Ubuntu more harshly in this area.
Every parent has the power to enforce a violent game ban -- in their own home. Forbid their kids from playing these games.
Better still they should talk to their kids about violence and it's implications. Perhaps point out the stupidity of turning violence into a fetish. Point out that violence does not a mature game make. This way, even if your kids are exposed to this stuff outside the home they'll at least be able to approach all this from a more informed perspective.
As a kid I enjoyed violent games, although many did pale in comparison to what's available nowadays. But the point is that I wasn't as fixated on excessive violence as so many kids seem to be. I could have a good time, but I didn't need my games to be violent and didn't have this immature expectation of blood and gore.
All these stupid parents clamoring for this ban are handing over power to the politicians. They're giving the government the power to control our lives and ultimately those politicians will decide they need to ban something these parents don't agree with.
I'm a complete layman here, but it seems to me that friction from air would be a serious problem at the speeds a vehicle would have to be propelled off this launcher. By the time conventional rockets have achieved a significant speed they're already fairly high in the atmosphere. I can't see a launch tower being practically ramped up high enough to overcome these effects. The vehicle would have to survive the stresses of heat and friction at launch and reentry. There's also the matter of drag kicking in before the second rocket fires. And I suppose another question is how many Gs would be placed on a vehicle using this method compared to traditional launches. This sounds comparable to firing a bullet from a gun which seems like it would be a rather violent launch.
Maybe it's all a non-issue. On the surface it seems really neat.
I married my wife overseas. Barely a month later we started preparing paperwork for her green card. It was a relatively effortless process. Going from green card to citizen was just as trivial, although it wasn't cheap and got even more expensive shortly after we applied. Often times it comes down to the individual you're dealing with. We have friends who were in a similar situation, but were married longer, and they had to deal with a jerk who gave them a hard time, partly due to them having a baby. But the process was generally the same otherwise. But this is probably one of the easier ways to immigrate.
On the other hand, an uncle of mine wanted to come to the US with his family and had to wait 7 years before he got the papers. There was a ton of paperwork, some expense and having to deal with lotteries to get a place in line. Part of the reason for this is because of people who come here illegally. Illegals aren't only coming from Mexico. It's relatively trivial to get a visitor's visa and just not go back. In certain communities it's not that difficult to get fake paperwork.
From what I've seen it's actually a lot easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to most countries. And, the US is far, far less restrictive about what you can do when you're here. In some countries, on a work visa you can't even get a mobile phone. You have to purchase one under a citizen's name. Good luck trying to buy a car and getting it registered, or owning property.
But too many people, Americans ironically, are intent on perpetuating this notion that America is hostile to foreigners. Foreign immigration, unlike anywhere else in the world comprises the backbone of the country. That said, I have no sympathy for illegal immigration. Countless people have made the effort to go through the process legally. And we have this huge group of people who have decided they don't want to deal with those hassles. So instead, they open themselves up to exploitation, both from those helping them across the border and those who ultimately decide to employee them in the States.
Even more offensive is the suggestion by many that we should accept illegal immigration and that we're bigots by not doing so. We can't deport those already here. We have to give them green cards. But, it should have a few conditions. First, they have to have clean records and they have to be able to find work. Secondly, depending on age, they have to learn a reasonable level of English within a few years. I don't think that's unreasonably at all. But also important, and this should happen first, the borders have to be closed. Build a proper wall and put national guard troops along the border. And the Mexican border isn't the sole problem. Employers who hire illegals need to be dealt with harshly. Not just fined, they should be put out of business. Period. We need to deter illegal immigration as much as possible while embracing legal immigration.
That's what we have here. If she's not happy with her job, find another one. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who have this sort of attitude. I'll go into stores and routinely encounter jerks moping around, rude, inattentive and apparently upset. Like that ass flight attendant who made that scene. What I find ridiculous is that there are idiots out there who have glorified what this jerk has done.
I've worked with quite a few people over the years who hated where they worked. It's not that it was that bad, but there was something about it they couldn't stand. But despite being perfectly able to go and find another job they wouldn't do so. It's like they had gotten too comfortable with their situation. Almost like there was satisfaction in being able to stew in their apparently misery. It allowed them to be self-righteous and gave their griping a purpose.
I always find it ridiculous when people working office jobs complain about grueling work environments, especially in the West. It's not that the work can be stressful and frustrating, but it's a far cry from what is faced in other fields and elsewhere in the world, especially Asia.
From personal experience everything I've encountered in the States pales in comparison to my work experience in Asia. One time over the period of 3 or 4 months I worked every single day, literally. I was averaging 75 - 80 hour work weeks. The work was tedious and the client frustrating to deal with. Many of my friends there worked long hours, although rarely on the level of what I've faced. However, I knew quite a few people who were openly abusive. They would insult employees, in some cases shoving them around and throwing papers in their faces.
In the States I've seen people throw a fit because they were facing the prospect of having to work until 8pm. Hell, I've seen employees at the supermarket piss and moan about being forced to stay at work 5-10 minutes late. Europe seems to be as bad, perhaps even worse in this regard. I guess once people have established a certain level of expectations any small deviation from that causes an uproar.
Without question things go too far in Asia at times, but people in the West seem incapable, or unwilling, to acknowledge how easy they have it.
I'm curious where they plan on finding the orchestra to play this music with such a small budget. People still need to be paid for their time and effort. Then there's finding a proper studio with high quality recording equipment. That isn't cheap and plopping down a microphone on stage isn't going to cut it. And who will decide how the music will be played? What interpretation will they follow? Things get complicated quite quickly.
Then there's the matter of the ultimate format these compositions would be provided in. What are they going to use, AAC or some other crap-quality lossy format? That alone would defeat the purpose of this whole exercise. If they devised a process for disseminating this music, on CD or better yet, SACD or DVD audio, perhaps there might be something here. But it's unlikely that will ever happen.
The reasons I indicated above is why it costs money to buy a classical music recording. Simply because a score is copyright-free doesn't mean that this music suddenly becomes free to play, record and distribute. And it's already trivial to go online and find any of these compositions anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
It could have been dust storms. Eastern China suffers some pretty bad dust storms from sand blown out of the Gobi desert and it gets as far as Japan sometimes.
This reminds me of how news networks, after bombarding the public with stories about unimportant or sensationalized garbage, will air a navel-gazing piece where they raise the question whether or not they went to far. Not that it keeps them from doing the same thing over and over again.
Are these the kinds of people we want to be ambassadors to Earth? Any alien race who came across them would be compelled to destroy the Earth in order to prevent our stupidity from spreading.
Even if all current life on Mars were there solely because of our probes I think it goes to show just how hardy life is. Not only did it survive the vacuum of space, but it's been able to not only survive a few decades on Mars but thrive. That being the case, it's rational to assume that we will find life elsewhere in the universe.
How much processing power does a spacecraft need anyway? It's not like these CPUs are burdened with the overhead of running a desktop OS. These things are completely dedicated to number crunching on whatever task they've been assigned to. And power draw and heat are probably minor issues compared to more current processors. Chances are anything more current will simply be overpowered for the job.
And given how long it takes to design and build a spacecraft by the time that vehicle is actually being used, the computer hardware inside it will be considered outdated from the perspective of the average consumer. But then, we're dealing with the iPhone generation here, where technological advancement is dictated by yearly, incremental updates and how pretty a product looks. I get the feeling they love gloating about how awesome their cute portable devices are with no appreciation whatsoever of what it took to get technology to its current state.
While I think religion can have an influence on society from a political standpoint I think religion's impact is marginal. Interactions between nations are driven by a desire for land, resources, wealth or power. Religion is simply the justification, and perhaps in some cases a motivator and manipulator of the masses. But there are many other tools a government can use to accomplish the same thing. An atheist state would just as easily go to war, for example, and use the belief in atheism as the justification. And the zealots would be just as crazy.
I suppose from a social engineering standpoint it could be interesting, but I don't think the game has lost anything by having that component removed.
I personally thing the impact of religion on world affairs is seriously overblown. Take a hard look at any conflict in history and you'll be able to identify more practical motivations. Most "religious" people don't care nearly as much about religion as some seem convinced they do.
Wow. Talk about an overreaction.
Let's face facts. Most college kids are going to use these iPads to dick around. The college where I taught a course a couple of years back had given MacBooks to all their students. If I wasn't standing over their shoulders they'd be happily chatting away with friends or wasting time on some other site. It was routine to be going over something with them and have a chat window pop up. What was especially ridiculous was that the classroom, like many others around the campus, was equipped with desktops so there was no real need for these laptops. But it certainly was more convenient that they worked on their own machines.
I suppose in retrospect I could have demanded they close chat programs and browsers. But then, we're talking about a university class here. If I wanted to babysit a bunch of children I'd go teach in an elementary school. And if you're teaching a class with upwards of 20 or 30 students what do you do then? You could demand they keep the computers turned off, but then the school provided the damn things.
It would be nice to see universities expend this much effort on controlling costs. Why the hell is a college education so damn expensive anyway? The professors I've encountered seem to have a carefree attitude towards spending, something I had never experienced in the corporate world. What incentive do they have to care when there's a steady stream of income? They can endlessly raise tuition and nobody seems to care.
Companies don't arbitrarily decide to charge more for products, especially in a country with a lower standard of living than the US. Products are expensive because of taxes and import tariffs. Argentina has a 21% VAT. Retail goods are also subject to a 3% anticipated profits tax. Those are the ones I could dig up quickly. There are a variety of other taxes imposed on goods.
For good or ill the US doesn't tax imported goods all that heavily. It's why imported products cost nearly as much as they do in the country of origin. If you're in a country where stuff costs twice what it costs in the US chances are it's the fault of your government.
I'm fairly certain this will never see the light of day. I'm doubt it will even get beyond the concept art phase.
Michael Jackson's musical talent aside, who in their right mind would care enough to play a game like this? The kind of people who might actually care that much about him are unlikely to ever touch an MMO. Unless it's developed as a Facebook game perhaps.
I swear occasionally and sometimes more than I should. But I do make effort to keep it in check; for example, I never swear at work and I avoid swearing in front of my daughter. I don't have a problem with swearing, but I absolutely think it's a sign of class or lack thereof. Whenever I come across someone who's every second word is a swear they just come off as stupid like they don't care about having a good presentation. And too many people seem to have this immature notion that swearing makes you an adult.
I prefer physical copies of my games because I don't want to have to face the ordeal of having to download everything all over again if something happens to my system. But more importantly, I don't like being at the whim of an online retailer or publisher, worrying about my account expiring for whatever reason and no longer having access to something I've purchased. And I don't think broadband is still at the point for a lot of people where it's realistic downloading a game that would occupy the majority of a Blu-ray disc.
As for Blu-ray movies why the hell would I want compromised quality in the form of a download? It's one of the reasons why I prefer CDs over something like AAC format. I can tolerate it when I need the convenience of portability, but when I'm home why should I be subjected to poor quality audio or video? It would suck to end up in a situation where there were no options but downloading content online.
I don't necessarily have a problem with tax increases at the high end, but $200k is a low threshold. At $200,000 a year a family is living comfortably, but not lavishly. And many small businesses are easily bringing in significantly over $200k a year. Hire 4 employees at $50k each and you have to be earning much more than that simply to keep the company afloat. And then you get into the perception of wealth. Go to some communities and they'll tell you $80k is wealthy and that they could stand to lose another $10k in taxes.
These are a few issues here. First, the more people earn the more they spend, even if it's something as simple as buying a home in a nicer community. People might want to live in a safer environment, maybe they want access to more services, perhaps they're interested in better public schools. It isn't necessarily driven by avarice. But it does mean that they're going to be spending a greater portion of their income on living expenses. And in many cases, simply living in a different part of the country means you're paying considerably more for the same thing. It's not like there's a baseline for expenses and anything above that is simply net profit. A reasonably educated household where both spouses are employed wont have much difficulty getting into the $150k+ range.
The second issue is with regards to business. A massive corporation earning hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars simply wont see the kind of hit that a small business will. They earn so much money that they have some flexibility in how to deal with expenses. But even if push came to shove they've got a variety of methods of dealing with tax increases. Raise the price of products, cut costs via decrease in quality, lay off employees or outsource their jobs. Worst case they could just move the headquarters overseas. Clearly none of these solutions is good for your average worker, the sort of people ironically intended to be helped by these tax increases.
As for small companies, well, let's take the company where I work. We're very small, employing 4 full time employees, 1 part time and a number of freelancers. I don't know what we bring in, but my guess is that we've got to be bringing in at least $400k a year. And we had a rough year, and for a while were looking at the prospect of pay cuts. In some cases a tax increase might not be a big deal, in other cases it could mean someone's salary or their job outright.
A good ten years ago I had a girlfriend who's parents owned an asian grocery store. Anyone walking into that shop probably wouldn't have guessed it. It was far from being anything fancy. Everything was purchased second-hand and was aged. It certainly was nothing like walking into a Whole Foods. One time she disclosed to me that her parents were bringing in $1 million a year, gross. I guessed that perhaps 3/4ths were going to restocking the shelves, but that's still a very healthy sum of money and subject to tax increases according to these proposals.
These are two examples, but it goes to show that it isn't all that difficult to get into the $200k. Certainly, I wish I were earning that kind of money, but it doesn't make a person inherently wealthy to earn so much. I personally think tax increases, for individuals, should begin at $500k to $1 million and up. And in some cases they could stand to be higher than proposed. There is a point at which you can earn considerably more than you can realistically spend and an increase isn't going to be much of a hit in the scheme of things.
And the thing to keep in mind is that we're talking about an increase in the state of Washington. What happens when that gets coupled with Federal tax increases? And I'm not optimistic that we won't see tax increases trickle down to lower incomes. Too many people seem to be driven by a vindictive nature and too many politicians are pandering for votes. Just because it feels good to screw someone earning more than you doesn't mean it's necessarily good for the country. Maybe it is a good thing but no one has been able to convince me yet.
It's my understanding that a sequel was planned before the first was even released. Whether it would be produced was dependent on the success of Avatar. And I have to admit I'm looking forward to it. As goofy and simplistic as the plot was I found Avatar to be very entertaining, and normally it's quite difficult for me to get past a weak plot.
While certainly not cheap, why is the Japanese robot so much cheaper than what the American company is offering, especially when it seems to be more sophisticated?
I'd like to know what Japanese companies have figured out that Americans are incapable of. Whenever a Japanese company begins selling some fairly high technology to the public it ends up being substantially cheaper than what an American counterpart would have asked. Is it that much more expensive to run a business and manufacture something in the US? Are Americans simply more likely to overcharge? Whatever it is, it seems to be a recurring pattern. If it's a product from an American company, and it isn't cheap crap made in China, then you're going to pay through the nose for it.
Like everyone else, they're never going to be able to completely address security. I suppose the goal should be to eliminate any glaring flaws and stay on top of things for as long as the platform is being used. But people are going to always reveal flaws as quickly as they can be patched. Being open-source doesn't provide any inherent level of security simply because anyone has access to the code.
If anything, it's only a matter of time before we see a fork. Someone is going to decide they can do without certain features for the sake of security. Or someone else doesn't something else works and decides they'll do things differently. But once the base starts fragmenting I'm fairly certain Diaspora is doomed and will never be able to unseat Facebook.
In principle it's a great thing that someone is working on this. But I also think it's been over-hyped, especially since nobody has even interacted with it much. I think they've got the underdog factor going for them. Maybe it will end up being a success, but at this point I have my doubts.
Time and time again I hear this nonsense. Yes, all things being equal a rear-wheel drive car is more capable. If you're a very competent driver. I'd argue that 95% of the world's driving population is not competent to the level that RWD provides a benefit over front-wheel drive. As a matter in fact, the handling traits exhibited by RWD make it a greater hazard for many, if not most drivers. People are more likely to lose control in RWD vehicles. All-wheel drive real benefit is getting unstuck and being able to get around in slippery conditions more easily. In terms of handling, while in some cases AWD offers some real advantages but more often than not AWD cars have a strong tendency towards understeer followed, in come cases, by snap oversteer.
The fact is, the car doesn't make a driver. Discounting automotive extremes a competent driver can manage to do well in almost any car. In a panic situation you're not going to be fiddling with gears. You're going to either veer out of the way or brake really hard. If you have time to downshift you probably also had time to brake normally. Most drivers in a panic situation aren't going to have the sense to modulate braking or steer around whatever they're facing. They're going to stop on the brakes and hope the car stops in time. All that talk about handling capabilities brought up as an ego booster is ultimately meaningless.
I want a car with capable handling myself. But there's a threshold at which any additional benefits are irrelevant for most drivers because they'll never be able to exploit them limits. I'm sure there's a lower limit which is a detriment, but what modern car isn't sufficiently competent, especially for a properly defensive driver?
It's going to be a challenge. I thought a game design course a couple of years ago, taking over the course from a friend. The course was based in the media studies department and pretty much the entire class majored in media except for one student who was studying design.
Our platform was Flash, using Actionscript 2. I'd say this is the easiest platform available because the basics are so simple and require little coding. Artwork was done in Illustrator and Photoshop and even that required some instruction. We were pretty much starting from scratch. We began with simple things like mouse clicks using buttons. I also got into keyboard and mouse control and basic collision detection. But ultimately it wasn't so much them absorbing anything from me as it was me simply providing them with snippets of completed code. You're going to have a hard time getting them to learn the basics, let alone being able to build a game out of it.
My course was more about the process of game design. But because it involved actually going through the process the bulk of the course was spent on simply learning how to accomplish this. If I had continued with the course I would have changed the curriculum quite heavily. I would have based the entire class around a single project with everything working towards that. I'd provide the code and give them a few options for game types. They would then spend the semester, planning out the game first, then creating the assets, then building it with my guidance.
There are a few important things I took away from the experience:
1) Keep things extremely simple. People who haven't programmed before are going to have a hard time understanding it. Be prepared to spend entire classes just going from student to student helping with issues they're having. I had 8 or 9 students in my class and still it was a challenge to help everyone out. Granted my class met once a week and was 2.5 hours long.
2) Anyone who misses even a class or two is going to fall dramatically behind.
3) Some students tend to be overly ambitious and take on way more than they can handle. It's your responsibility to rein them in.
4) Don't put them in groups for actual projects. But a big problem I found with them working together on a final project was that I'd have one student doing all the coding and everyone else watching. The others were supposed to create assets but of course they'd rush through that. Then they'd spend the rest of the time talking or chatting with friends on IM.
Each student should be responsible for their own project. I had the idea of grouping them for the conceptual phase. They would work together on coming up with an idea for a game, and then each building their own interpretation of that concept.
You're in a more fortunate position that you're working with fine arts students. So ideally you've got a class that's creative and has access to the resources needed to create the art for these games. So I'd have them create those assets as homework and then spend class time doing development. Like I said, they wont be able to get very far on their own.
I don't know enough about the platforms you're proposing. But from the quick look I've taken those don't look particularly easy to pick up for someone who doesn't have any background in this stuff. At least Flash is heavily used in the design community so there's something to take away from this. And you can actually build something without requiring much coding.
From what's been revealed of Diaspora it looks exactly like Facebook. So what's the point of switching? I realize it's open-source, but that doesn't matter to the vast majority of people. Most who will come across Diaspora will see it as a Facebook-clone, with the huge shortcoming that no friends are on it. Most people simply want something that works sufficiently well and is used by a lot of other people. Companies are lured to Facebook because of the significant potential for marketing.
This is a problem with the majority of open-source projects I've come across. They don't try to improve on an idea or at least reinterpret it. They merely recreate it.
That said, I think the project is a good one. Perhaps the eventual release will be more compelling than what's been revealed. It's certainly got its strong points but it's got to have some hook that will lure people.
Ubuntu may be getting better. But it still looks amateurish in comparison to Windows or OSX. It just doesn't feature the polish of those other OSs. Windows has a lot of clutter, but it is still a cohesive and fairly consistent experience. It doesn't seem like they gave enough thought to usability in Ubuntu, they simply copied bits of and pieces of what Microsoft and Apple have already done.
Designing a user interface is actually quite challenging. It's not as simple as designing something pretty. Apple and Microsoft expend a lot of effort in this area. Apple has a fairly consistent vision which is why they generally do a good job, although I think they've blown it with the new version of iTunes. The problem with Microsoft is that they have too many different divisions with different ideas of what should be done and reinterpretations with every release. But even then they're clearly a lot of thought put into things, as much as possible given the complexity of functionality. And a lot of times it's small stuff that most people don't think is important, but taken as a whole becomes very crucial.
I can't speak to the other items since I haven't used the OS enough, but I would have graded Ubuntu more harshly in this area.
Every parent has the power to enforce a violent game ban -- in their own home. Forbid their kids from playing these games.
Better still they should talk to their kids about violence and it's implications. Perhaps point out the stupidity of turning violence into a fetish. Point out that violence does not a mature game make. This way, even if your kids are exposed to this stuff outside the home they'll at least be able to approach all this from a more informed perspective.
As a kid I enjoyed violent games, although many did pale in comparison to what's available nowadays. But the point is that I wasn't as fixated on excessive violence as so many kids seem to be. I could have a good time, but I didn't need my games to be violent and didn't have this immature expectation of blood and gore.
All these stupid parents clamoring for this ban are handing over power to the politicians. They're giving the government the power to control our lives and ultimately those politicians will decide they need to ban something these parents don't agree with.
I'm a complete layman here, but it seems to me that friction from air would be a serious problem at the speeds a vehicle would have to be propelled off this launcher. By the time conventional rockets have achieved a significant speed they're already fairly high in the atmosphere. I can't see a launch tower being practically ramped up high enough to overcome these effects. The vehicle would have to survive the stresses of heat and friction at launch and reentry. There's also the matter of drag kicking in before the second rocket fires. And I suppose another question is how many Gs would be placed on a vehicle using this method compared to traditional launches. This sounds comparable to firing a bullet from a gun which seems like it would be a rather violent launch.
Maybe it's all a non-issue. On the surface it seems really neat.
I married my wife overseas. Barely a month later we started preparing paperwork for her green card. It was a relatively effortless process. Going from green card to citizen was just as trivial, although it wasn't cheap and got even more expensive shortly after we applied. Often times it comes down to the individual you're dealing with. We have friends who were in a similar situation, but were married longer, and they had to deal with a jerk who gave them a hard time, partly due to them having a baby. But the process was generally the same otherwise. But this is probably one of the easier ways to immigrate.
On the other hand, an uncle of mine wanted to come to the US with his family and had to wait 7 years before he got the papers. There was a ton of paperwork, some expense and having to deal with lotteries to get a place in line. Part of the reason for this is because of people who come here illegally. Illegals aren't only coming from Mexico. It's relatively trivial to get a visitor's visa and just not go back. In certain communities it's not that difficult to get fake paperwork.
From what I've seen it's actually a lot easier to immigrate to the US than it is to immigrate to most countries. And, the US is far, far less restrictive about what you can do when you're here. In some countries, on a work visa you can't even get a mobile phone. You have to purchase one under a citizen's name. Good luck trying to buy a car and getting it registered, or owning property.
But too many people, Americans ironically, are intent on perpetuating this notion that America is hostile to foreigners. Foreign immigration, unlike anywhere else in the world comprises the backbone of the country. That said, I have no sympathy for illegal immigration. Countless people have made the effort to go through the process legally. And we have this huge group of people who have decided they don't want to deal with those hassles. So instead, they open themselves up to exploitation, both from those helping them across the border and those who ultimately decide to employee them in the States.
Even more offensive is the suggestion by many that we should accept illegal immigration and that we're bigots by not doing so. We can't deport those already here. We have to give them green cards. But, it should have a few conditions. First, they have to have clean records and they have to be able to find work. Secondly, depending on age, they have to learn a reasonable level of English within a few years. I don't think that's unreasonably at all. But also important, and this should happen first, the borders have to be closed. Build a proper wall and put national guard troops along the border. And the Mexican border isn't the sole problem. Employers who hire illegals need to be dealt with harshly. Not just fined, they should be put out of business. Period. We need to deter illegal immigration as much as possible while embracing legal immigration.
Torvalds did it the right way.
That's what we have here. If she's not happy with her job, find another one. I'm sick and tired of dealing with people who have this sort of attitude. I'll go into stores and routinely encounter jerks moping around, rude, inattentive and apparently upset. Like that ass flight attendant who made that scene. What I find ridiculous is that there are idiots out there who have glorified what this jerk has done.
I've worked with quite a few people over the years who hated where they worked. It's not that it was that bad, but there was something about it they couldn't stand. But despite being perfectly able to go and find another job they wouldn't do so. It's like they had gotten too comfortable with their situation. Almost like there was satisfaction in being able to stew in their apparently misery. It allowed them to be self-righteous and gave their griping a purpose.
I always find it ridiculous when people working office jobs complain about grueling work environments, especially in the West. It's not that the work can be stressful and frustrating, but it's a far cry from what is faced in other fields and elsewhere in the world, especially Asia.
From personal experience everything I've encountered in the States pales in comparison to my work experience in Asia. One time over the period of 3 or 4 months I worked every single day, literally. I was averaging 75 - 80 hour work weeks. The work was tedious and the client frustrating to deal with. Many of my friends there worked long hours, although rarely on the level of what I've faced. However, I knew quite a few people who were openly abusive. They would insult employees, in some cases shoving them around and throwing papers in their faces.
In the States I've seen people throw a fit because they were facing the prospect of having to work until 8pm. Hell, I've seen employees at the supermarket piss and moan about being forced to stay at work 5-10 minutes late. Europe seems to be as bad, perhaps even worse in this regard. I guess once people have established a certain level of expectations any small deviation from that causes an uproar.
Without question things go too far in Asia at times, but people in the West seem incapable, or unwilling, to acknowledge how easy they have it.
I'm curious where they plan on finding the orchestra to play this music with such a small budget. People still need to be paid for their time and effort. Then there's finding a proper studio with high quality recording equipment. That isn't cheap and plopping down a microphone on stage isn't going to cut it. And who will decide how the music will be played? What interpretation will they follow? Things get complicated quite quickly.
Then there's the matter of the ultimate format these compositions would be provided in. What are they going to use, AAC or some other crap-quality lossy format? That alone would defeat the purpose of this whole exercise. If they devised a process for disseminating this music, on CD or better yet, SACD or DVD audio, perhaps there might be something here. But it's unlikely that will ever happen.
The reasons I indicated above is why it costs money to buy a classical music recording. Simply because a score is copyright-free doesn't mean that this music suddenly becomes free to play, record and distribute. And it's already trivial to go online and find any of these compositions anyway.