I was not referring to faith as in faith in their not being a God; I was referring to faith in such things as evolution, the big bang theory, etc.
Because we do not have any way to prove or disprove any theory regarding such things, it all comes down to faith in the end. Religion does not require a God, only faith.
Some will argue that one theory or belief is more plausible, some will argue otherwise, but in the end we don't have enough fact on either side to forgoe faith in what we believe in.
Valid points, but what if both sides believe in a different monster? One side believes they have proof in a small number of pink scales...
We are ALL atheists, some just believe in one less god than others. But at the same time we are ALL religious, some just put that faith into things other than a God.
From TFA: "Sun looks forward to returning to school and getting on with his life. The first task on his agenda when he gets home: Get online. He needs to tell his worried Internet friends where he was these past few weeks."
Obviously he is totally cured of his "internet addiction..."
You're mincing words here. I was obviously referring to an improvement for the species itself. I was not making an overall value judgement of any kind in this case.
An understandable and valid viewpoint, put turn it around and look at it from the other side. Assume every publication you read referred to mutations in bacteria as "The hand of God strengthening the plague" or something to that effect.
What would you think then? Wouldn't everyone who is not a religious fruit loop take issue with that? Just as much, if not more than in this case. The irony that most people neglect to point out in these arguments is just how religious atheists can be.
Of course, it is at this point in the argument that someone will jump in and say "but it's ok, because the religious fruit loops are wrong and we are right!" However, in the eyes of a religious person, the situation is again reversed; to the religious fruit loop, you are wrong and he is right. And this kind of thing can be argued all day long, but the long and short of it is that until one theory or another can be conclusively proven, there can be no 'winner' in the debate. And of course, a debate could go on for hours with one side showing all these reasons why their side is proven, while the other points out gaping holes in the theories (real or imagined), and never end; we simply are not at a point where we can conclusively prove or disprove either side.
Because using the terminology of either side will offend the other, the only 'safe' step in a free society is to use terminology that differs from either, as is the case here. It's a cop out, but it's a necessary step as far as PR goes.
We're going to have to suffer from annoyances such as this from time to time; its better than the alternative. We have the luxury of living in societies that allow religious freedom, which includes the option to not have a religion at all. Many places in the world still have a state religion, and in these areas, choosing to not have a religion, or any other religion can mean anything from public scorn to death.
As I have always understood it, evolution in and of itself implies beneficial changes that allow the species to survive. The individual changing you are referring to is mutation, not evolution. Mutation is a part of evolution, wherein the mutations that benefit a species tend to be passed on, but evolution is by definition always an overall improvement.
When I got mine, about 2 weeks ago, from the White Marsh, MD Best Buy, they had 50 units in and there was a long line outside the store 2 hours before it opened. I had never 'camped out' for something before but, having gone months without one, I finally broke down and did it once I got a tip that they would have some in stock that day.
They gave out vouchers to those in line about 1 hour before the store opened until they had given out a voucher for each wii they had. Some of those who were in line could not get one.
In my case, more than a full month after christmas, the local Best Buy was still selling out before the store even opened.
If you attempted to travel next to the trapped light while in the same conditions, you would die almost instantly. Keep in mind that this is at near absolute zero.
What exactly am I supposed to be giving up? I'm just stating my own personal observations on the matter, I have nothing to gain or lose out of it either way. Sorry if I offended a Sony fanboy?
Two pretty pictures. Two pretty, interesting looking pictures. Two pretty, interesting looking, but completely unlabeled printers.
This is the sort of thing an IS representative would show at a meeting with non tech-savvy personnel.
All it shows is two messes of lines, one more tangled at the top, the other the bottom.
It would be more helpful if there was some indication of what was causing the different calls.
On another note: How is this windows vs. linux? The article would indicate it was a comparison of windows and linux in general, but its actually comparing two types of web server, and last I checked Apache can be run on a windows machine...
My local Best Buy store has PS3s sitting on its shelf, and has had them in stock for some time now. On the other hand, there are people camping outside of the store every day now hoping that they will get Wiis in stock on that day...
Some of these mornings we've had wind chill factors of -5 F or lower. I may be giving people in my area the benefit of the doubt in this, but I don't think this has to do with the console being cheaper; this behavior is not a symptom of being 'cheap' as far as I know.
What I'd like to know is whom, exactly, the target audience for this article is.
At a glance, one would assume that the target is for someone relatively unfamiliar with Ubuntu, attempting to make it run more efficiently on a slower system. However, all the article states is _what_ to do. I could be wrong, but I would say that anyone unfamiliar enough with Ubuntu (or Linux in general) to actually need this information would not have any idea how to actually implement these changes.
So is the article then targeted for experienced Ubuntu users who are trying to streamline a system? I would wager that any Linux user savvy enough to know how to implement the stated changes would also be savvy enough to have already made them.
The article is a good premise to start from, I suppose, but in its current state I don't see how it is really helpful to anyone.
I don't really think AI or enemy design are related to counterstrike at all, unless you're playing with bots or something. On most CS servers, you'd be likely to find "I" let alone AI.
If you are hosting the file, and distributing it freely, how is it illegal to display an ad just before it? Lots of video sites display banner ads, and many others will display a short advertisement clip before the video itself loads. Are these also illegal?
While I can understand some of the frustrations stated, there are some things I disagree with- one of those being the complaint the enemy mechs would fire at the player while the player was on foot.
How is this a bad thing?
One thing thats always bugged me about FPS styles of games- You carry a whole arsenal of weaponry, and can switch them out to accomodate different situations. Why can't the enemy? I'd like to see a game with sufficient AI and enemy design that after seeing several of his allies laid low by my shotgun, the enemies switch to their longer range weapons. A game where rather than blindly rushing me all the time, the enemy will fire at me from a mech while I'm earthbound? Sounds good to me.
That aside, the poor quality of the AI described is somewhat of a letdown, admittedly. But it seems like the author keeps alternating between complaining that the game is too easy or too hard. Maybe that is the case; randomly fluctuating difficulty does sound pretty frustrating.
I'm just not seeing exactly where the gain lies in this kind of action.
Intel pays Dell to carry only Intel's products, rather than AMD's as well.
In order to make this worthwhile to Dell, the payment has to be significant enough to not only outweigh the potential loss from NOT carrying AMD's project, but to also outweigh the legal risks that have suddenly become quite apparent. We're probably looking at quite a chunk of change here.
On the other hand, Intel still needs to make a profit, so they have to stand to gain from the deal, meaning that they have to make more money extra than they lose with the bribe, and preferably outweigh those legal risks at the same time.
These numbers are all arbitrary for the purpose of example. Don't criticize the exact values please.
Lets say the average Processor goes for 300, and the final product averages 1k, and Dell ships half Intel and half AMD, and is pushing a margin of 1k units, so 1mil cash coming into Dell, 700k after cost for the processors. Lets assume 80% of Dells customers dont care about the processor, 10% will NOT buy AMD, and 10% will NOT buy Intel. In this scenario, Dell loses 100 sales, or 100k out of 1mil, reducing their gross to 900k. Assuming they don't prebuy each processor, That drops them to 630k after processors- a loss of 70k per 1000 units that would have sold previously.
For Dell to break even with that loss of sales, Intel would have to pay 70k to Dell per 1000 units, or 70 per unit (nearly a quarter of their per processor rate in this model). To break even as far as gross sales go, Intel would have to sell 153 more units. This, however, would still be at a reduced percent profit. In reality, Intel would be selling 400 more units with this model, at roughly 75% of their former profit margin. 243k vs. 150k gross.
Of course, breaking even wouldn't be enough, given that there needs to be incentive for Dell to do this, and that there are potential legal issues involved. In this scenario, Intels bribe is 70k per 1000 units for Dell to break even, with Intel getting just under 100k extra in gross sales, not factoring in the lost profit margin per unit. Rounding it up to 100k, and giving all that to Dell for the sake of argument: Dell gets an extra 100k above and beyond what they would have gotten otherwise- a 10% increase in profits. Expanded over a larger volume, I'd say that that is just incentive enough to risk the legal issue in and of itself- but consider that by doing this, Intel actually grosses less than in the original model, and at a lower profit margin per each item as well.
Obviously, the numbers wouldn't be anywhere near those, but the idea is the same.
In this model, how does ANY side benefit?
I think it's a good move trying to get these things out of the dark corner they've ended up stashed in. I wish I could be a little more descriptive than that, but the article really doesn't give much to go on. I'm normally one to encourage others to read the whole article before posting, but in this case, the synopsis given on slashdot almost contains more actual information than the article itself...
I think that likely the biggest obstacle Linux faces, as far as wide-scale adoption goes, is the fact that it is open source. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong, per se, with open source, just that it has its own set of problems, some completely different than those of proprietary software.
As open source projects, each build is constantly a work in progress. Individual features and builds can be rated as 'stable,' but what exactly is the criteria for that, and who determines it? Not only that, that work in progress is being worked on by an indeterminate number of developers. While one person can easily troubleshoot their own code, when you start getting more and more people together, the task of squashing bugs becomes astronomical. (this is also likely one of Microsoft's problems...)
In addition to that, accountability when something goes wrong is an issue (excepting cases like Red Hat); the relatively insignificant number of Linux 'flavors' that have support and accountability available essentially prevents most flavors from being even thought about in a corporate environment. Because of this, one of Linux' biggest advantages is essentially shot in the foot.
I don't think its a lost cause by a long shot, but it's likely going to take a lot more work yet to get linux ready for mainstream use.
I noticed you typed an 'a' in the second word. You could have moved your finger a centimeter to the left and made yourself look much more intelligent. But then again, it is an AC...
How was the playing field rigged exactly?
I will concede that today most of the market is locked into Microsoft products. But it hasn't always been that way. Microsoft had a small start as well, and through a combination of business deals and good marketing, managed to acquire and lock in the majority of the market over time.
Microsoft dominates the market now, but it only got that far because companies and individuals bought their products to begin with. It's capitalism and free enterprise. Microsoft didn't have the financial power to illegitimately dominate the market until it ALREADY dominated the market. As far as I'm concerned, they got where they are legitimately, and the only 'evil' comes in the way they hang onto that position.
Companies, nations, religious groups, and any form of organization for that matter, are often judged based off of their most prominent members, which in most cases are leaders, but in other cases are just simply those who stand out.
Examples of this can be seen everywhere; Many people view citizens of the United States in a rather unflattering light, but that view is based largely off of impressions given off by our leadership and those people who stand out more, who really are not representative of everyone who lives here.
Many people view certain religious groups rather poorly as well, but that judgment is based largely off of observations of the extremists in that group.
Why then is it strange that many people would judge Microsoft based off of Bill Gates' actions?
It doesn't necessarily make a viewpoint correct, but its just the way most people work.
Slashdot Mirror
I was not referring to faith as in faith in their not being a God; I was referring to faith in such things as evolution, the big bang theory, etc. Because we do not have any way to prove or disprove any theory regarding such things, it all comes down to faith in the end. Religion does not require a God, only faith. Some will argue that one theory or belief is more plausible, some will argue otherwise, but in the end we don't have enough fact on either side to forgoe faith in what we believe in.
Valid points, but what if both sides believe in a different monster? One side believes they have proof in a small number of pink scales... We are ALL atheists, some just believe in one less god than others. But at the same time we are ALL religious, some just put that faith into things other than a God.
Case in point, North Korea. The average citizen is a KJI fanboy. Of course, they're brought up with propaganda from infancy, but still...
From TFA: "Sun looks forward to returning to school and getting on with his life. The first task on his agenda when he gets home: Get online. He needs to tell his worried Internet friends where he was these past few weeks." Obviously he is totally cured of his "internet addiction..."
You're mincing words here. I was obviously referring to an improvement for the species itself. I was not making an overall value judgement of any kind in this case.
An understandable and valid viewpoint, put turn it around and look at it from the other side. Assume every publication you read referred to mutations in bacteria as "The hand of God strengthening the plague" or something to that effect. What would you think then? Wouldn't everyone who is not a religious fruit loop take issue with that? Just as much, if not more than in this case. The irony that most people neglect to point out in these arguments is just how religious atheists can be. Of course, it is at this point in the argument that someone will jump in and say "but it's ok, because the religious fruit loops are wrong and we are right!" However, in the eyes of a religious person, the situation is again reversed; to the religious fruit loop, you are wrong and he is right. And this kind of thing can be argued all day long, but the long and short of it is that until one theory or another can be conclusively proven, there can be no 'winner' in the debate. And of course, a debate could go on for hours with one side showing all these reasons why their side is proven, while the other points out gaping holes in the theories (real or imagined), and never end; we simply are not at a point where we can conclusively prove or disprove either side. Because using the terminology of either side will offend the other, the only 'safe' step in a free society is to use terminology that differs from either, as is the case here. It's a cop out, but it's a necessary step as far as PR goes. We're going to have to suffer from annoyances such as this from time to time; its better than the alternative. We have the luxury of living in societies that allow religious freedom, which includes the option to not have a religion at all. Many places in the world still have a state religion, and in these areas, choosing to not have a religion, or any other religion can mean anything from public scorn to death.
As I have always understood it, evolution in and of itself implies beneficial changes that allow the species to survive. The individual changing you are referring to is mutation, not evolution. Mutation is a part of evolution, wherein the mutations that benefit a species tend to be passed on, but evolution is by definition always an overall improvement.
When I got mine, about 2 weeks ago, from the White Marsh, MD Best Buy, they had 50 units in and there was a long line outside the store 2 hours before it opened. I had never 'camped out' for something before but, having gone months without one, I finally broke down and did it once I got a tip that they would have some in stock that day.
They gave out vouchers to those in line about 1 hour before the store opened until they had given out a voucher for each wii they had. Some of those who were in line could not get one.
In my case, more than a full month after christmas, the local Best Buy was still selling out before the store even opened.
If you attempted to travel next to the trapped light while in the same conditions, you would die almost instantly. Keep in mind that this is at near absolute zero.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j113/ffutahw/gue st_house.jpg
Look! a 3 foot tall house!
What exactly am I supposed to be giving up? I'm just stating my own personal observations on the matter, I have nothing to gain or lose out of it either way. Sorry if I offended a Sony fanboy?
Two pretty pictures. Two pretty, interesting looking pictures. Two pretty, interesting looking, but completely unlabeled printers. This is the sort of thing an IS representative would show at a meeting with non tech-savvy personnel. All it shows is two messes of lines, one more tangled at the top, the other the bottom. It would be more helpful if there was some indication of what was causing the different calls. On another note: How is this windows vs. linux? The article would indicate it was a comparison of windows and linux in general, but its actually comparing two types of web server, and last I checked Apache can be run on a windows machine...
My local Best Buy store has PS3s sitting on its shelf, and has had them in stock for some time now. On the other hand, there are people camping outside of the store every day now hoping that they will get Wiis in stock on that day... Some of these mornings we've had wind chill factors of -5 F or lower. I may be giving people in my area the benefit of the doubt in this, but I don't think this has to do with the console being cheaper; this behavior is not a symptom of being 'cheap' as far as I know.
What I'd like to know is whom, exactly, the target audience for this article is. At a glance, one would assume that the target is for someone relatively unfamiliar with Ubuntu, attempting to make it run more efficiently on a slower system. However, all the article states is _what_ to do. I could be wrong, but I would say that anyone unfamiliar enough with Ubuntu (or Linux in general) to actually need this information would not have any idea how to actually implement these changes. So is the article then targeted for experienced Ubuntu users who are trying to streamline a system? I would wager that any Linux user savvy enough to know how to implement the stated changes would also be savvy enough to have already made them. The article is a good premise to start from, I suppose, but in its current state I don't see how it is really helpful to anyone.
I don't really think AI or enemy design are related to counterstrike at all, unless you're playing with bots or something. On most CS servers, you'd be likely to find "I" let alone AI.
Which makes it benefit Intel even less, I would presume, even if it benefited the Dell execs more
If you are hosting the file, and distributing it freely, how is it illegal to display an ad just before it? Lots of video sites display banner ads, and many others will display a short advertisement clip before the video itself loads. Are these also illegal?
While I can understand some of the frustrations stated, there are some things I disagree with- one of those being the complaint the enemy mechs would fire at the player while the player was on foot. How is this a bad thing? One thing thats always bugged me about FPS styles of games- You carry a whole arsenal of weaponry, and can switch them out to accomodate different situations. Why can't the enemy? I'd like to see a game with sufficient AI and enemy design that after seeing several of his allies laid low by my shotgun, the enemies switch to their longer range weapons. A game where rather than blindly rushing me all the time, the enemy will fire at me from a mech while I'm earthbound? Sounds good to me. That aside, the poor quality of the AI described is somewhat of a letdown, admittedly. But it seems like the author keeps alternating between complaining that the game is too easy or too hard. Maybe that is the case; randomly fluctuating difficulty does sound pretty frustrating.
I'm just not seeing exactly where the gain lies in this kind of action.
Intel pays Dell to carry only Intel's products, rather than AMD's as well.
In order to make this worthwhile to Dell, the payment has to be significant enough to not only outweigh the potential loss from NOT carrying AMD's project, but to also outweigh the legal risks that have suddenly become quite apparent. We're probably looking at quite a chunk of change here.
On the other hand, Intel still needs to make a profit, so they have to stand to gain from the deal, meaning that they have to make more money extra than they lose with the bribe, and preferably outweigh those legal risks at the same time.
These numbers are all arbitrary for the purpose of example. Don't criticize the exact values please.
Lets say the average Processor goes for 300, and the final product averages 1k, and Dell ships half Intel and half AMD, and is pushing a margin of 1k units, so 1mil cash coming into Dell, 700k after cost for the processors. Lets assume 80% of Dells customers dont care about the processor, 10% will NOT buy AMD, and 10% will NOT buy Intel. In this scenario, Dell loses 100 sales, or 100k out of 1mil, reducing their gross to 900k. Assuming they don't prebuy each processor, That drops them to 630k after processors- a loss of 70k per 1000 units that would have sold previously.
For Dell to break even with that loss of sales, Intel would have to pay 70k to Dell per 1000 units, or 70 per unit (nearly a quarter of their per processor rate in this model). To break even as far as gross sales go, Intel would have to sell 153 more units. This, however, would still be at a reduced percent profit. In reality, Intel would be selling 400 more units with this model, at roughly 75% of their former profit margin. 243k vs. 150k gross.
Of course, breaking even wouldn't be enough, given that there needs to be incentive for Dell to do this, and that there are potential legal issues involved. In this scenario, Intels bribe is 70k per 1000 units for Dell to break even, with Intel getting just under 100k extra in gross sales, not factoring in the lost profit margin per unit. Rounding it up to 100k, and giving all that to Dell for the sake of argument: Dell gets an extra 100k above and beyond what they would have gotten otherwise- a 10% increase in profits. Expanded over a larger volume, I'd say that that is just incentive enough to risk the legal issue in and of itself- but consider that by doing this, Intel actually grosses less than in the original model, and at a lower profit margin per each item as well. Obviously, the numbers wouldn't be anywhere near those, but the idea is the same. In this model, how does ANY side benefit?
I think it's a good move trying to get these things out of the dark corner they've ended up stashed in. I wish I could be a little more descriptive than that, but the article really doesn't give much to go on. I'm normally one to encourage others to read the whole article before posting, but in this case, the synopsis given on slashdot almost contains more actual information than the article itself...
I think that likely the biggest obstacle Linux faces, as far as wide-scale adoption goes, is the fact that it is open source. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong, per se, with open source, just that it has its own set of problems, some completely different than those of proprietary software. As open source projects, each build is constantly a work in progress. Individual features and builds can be rated as 'stable,' but what exactly is the criteria for that, and who determines it? Not only that, that work in progress is being worked on by an indeterminate number of developers. While one person can easily troubleshoot their own code, when you start getting more and more people together, the task of squashing bugs becomes astronomical. (this is also likely one of Microsoft's problems...) In addition to that, accountability when something goes wrong is an issue (excepting cases like Red Hat); the relatively insignificant number of Linux 'flavors' that have support and accountability available essentially prevents most flavors from being even thought about in a corporate environment. Because of this, one of Linux' biggest advantages is essentially shot in the foot. I don't think its a lost cause by a long shot, but it's likely going to take a lot more work yet to get linux ready for mainstream use.
I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey on my machine... this may be my last post.
I noticed you typed an 'a' in the second word. You could have moved your finger a centimeter to the left and made yourself look much more intelligent. But then again, it is an AC...
How was the playing field rigged exactly? I will concede that today most of the market is locked into Microsoft products. But it hasn't always been that way. Microsoft had a small start as well, and through a combination of business deals and good marketing, managed to acquire and lock in the majority of the market over time. Microsoft dominates the market now, but it only got that far because companies and individuals bought their products to begin with. It's capitalism and free enterprise. Microsoft didn't have the financial power to illegitimately dominate the market until it ALREADY dominated the market. As far as I'm concerned, they got where they are legitimately, and the only 'evil' comes in the way they hang onto that position.
Companies, nations, religious groups, and any form of organization for that matter, are often judged based off of their most prominent members, which in most cases are leaders, but in other cases are just simply those who stand out. Examples of this can be seen everywhere; Many people view citizens of the United States in a rather unflattering light, but that view is based largely off of impressions given off by our leadership and those people who stand out more, who really are not representative of everyone who lives here. Many people view certain religious groups rather poorly as well, but that judgment is based largely off of observations of the extremists in that group. Why then is it strange that many people would judge Microsoft based off of Bill Gates' actions? It doesn't necessarily make a viewpoint correct, but its just the way most people work.