Depends on your definition of fun. Based on watching today's MMO player, I think I could make an accurate moonbase simulation where you spend 4 hours at a time sitting in front of a panel and watching the CO2 filter stats and occasionally pushing a button to equalize it. Add in the necessity to walk back and forth to the bunk and you've got a game.
But seriously, give them some 'real' tasks like monitoring experiments and such and I think there's plenty of people who would play it, at least for a while.
On the other hand, the first time you tried to type was a lot of work, too. There's nothing saying that there isn't a way to get good at typing like this... Nobody has even tried yet.
There aren't enough nerds? You mean that you don't want to pay what nerds charge for what they do.
There's plenty of us out there... Enough that many are unemployed. Businesses just want more nerds on the field so they can pick better ones and pay them less.
By that same token, I declare that there are too many: CEOs, mechanics, doctors, etc etc.
But by the same logic, I could write a virus that hides itself in files called edb.chk and mail.log and keep the code that a virus scanner would find in there. Then just load that into memory from some stub program.
And as others are saying, they -should- have disqualified them, instead of changing the game mid-stream and hiding things. The hiding is why people are -really- mad right now.
Don't get me wrong, the pro-MJ people would be pissed either way... But now -everyone- is pissed instead.
Oh, I dunno, maybe because this is AN ENTIRE COUNTRY and not some playground fight. They are charged with being reasonable and running this country properly, but instead BOTH SIDES squabble and stick to their own party like it's some kind of moral offense not to.
It only cost $300. It also had opportunity cost, which is not something that can be calculated reliably. If his other opportunities for that time would all have gained him $0, then his opportunity cost was $0. In this economic climate, that's a distinct possibility.
Considering that requests for the raw data go unanswered, I seriously doubt most of those scientists have seen the raw data. They can't make an informed decision without it.
I don't care how many agree or disagree. I care that they are deliberately hiding things from others.
They are claiming that the raw data is fundamentally flawed (it is) and that only someone who understands -all- the factors that could affect it can use that data to produce an accurate view of the climate's changes.
Honestly, I don't think THEY know enough about the climate to fix the data, either. They clearly haven't gotten weather prediction right yet, and to claim that the information is different because it's historical and over a long time is stupid as well. Each data point is individually affected by many, many influences. Yet they pretend they can look at the data as a whole and massage it into 'correct' data. If it was that easy, it wouldn't need a PhD. And if it's as hard as they say, nobody has all the facts needed to do the work.
#3 is only true so long as the 'experts' are given unimpeded access to your ear and those 'experts' aren't all in collusion. Since it has been shown time and time again that skeptics lose funding when they speak out, their voice is being impeded quite actively. And it could very well be in all their interests to make you think something is true that isn't. Only when you let everyone, including the crackpots, look at the data can you be relatively sure you're getting all the options.
Actually, many of them DO go out of business because it's really, really hard to get 'unlimited' right, including making it a good deal for the light eaters as well as the gluttons. Sometimes it's not even possible.
But those restaurants don't implement a 'neutrality' scheme, either. Many of them put up more of the cheap food than the expensive food. (No, not all... But then, not all ISPs will limit, either.)
I never said ISPs would go out of business. I said they would solve the 'unlimited' problem in some fashion.
Because there's no 'unlimited' plan for electricity.
If ISPs charged people according to usage, there would be no need for a 'net neutrality' bill... ISPs would be loving people who used more, instead of hating them. But then the users would be angry because they've had 'unlimited' so long.
Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those people. And I'd love to have my cake and eat it, too... But the simple truth is that I use WAY more than most people and they get to pay for some of it and that kind of thing is going to come to an end one way or another.
It's not truly an OS. It can run either on a Linux-based kernel or another, and which they choose depends on the hardware configuration for some reason. It's more of a series of layers on top of an OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on your definition of fun. Based on watching today's MMO player, I think I could make an accurate moonbase simulation where you spend 4 hours at a time sitting in front of a panel and watching the CO2 filter stats and occasionally pushing a button to equalize it. Add in the necessity to walk back and forth to the bunk and you've got a game.
But seriously, give them some 'real' tasks like monitoring experiments and such and I think there's plenty of people who would play it, at least for a while.
On the other hand, the first time you tried to type was a lot of work, too. There's nothing saying that there isn't a way to get good at typing like this... Nobody has even tried yet.
There aren't enough nerds? You mean that you don't want to pay what nerds charge for what they do.
There's plenty of us out there... Enough that many are unemployed. Businesses just want more nerds on the field so they can pick better ones and pay them less.
By that same token, I declare that there are too many: CEOs, mechanics, doctors, etc etc.
But by the same logic, I could write a virus that hides itself in files called edb.chk and mail.log and keep the code that a virus scanner would find in there. Then just load that into memory from some stub program.
That's what the article is warning about.
And as others are saying, they -should- have disqualified them, instead of changing the game mid-stream and hiding things. The hiding is why people are -really- mad right now.
Don't get me wrong, the pro-MJ people would be pissed either way... But now -everyone- is pissed instead.
True. But it's ironic that is the message they -want- you to learn.
That's because you don't speak English well enough to parse the sentence.
"be all shame on you" = "say 'shame on you' empathically"
There's a lot of nuance missing as well, but that's the closest you'll get.
Why shouldn't they oppose it?
Oh, I dunno, maybe because this is AN ENTIRE COUNTRY and not some playground fight. They are charged with being reasonable and running this country properly, but instead BOTH SIDES squabble and stick to their own party like it's some kind of moral offense not to.
Just because it's a different genre doesn't mean there's nothing to be learned from it, or that the concepts can't apply.
Ditto.
Considering that he had a "flood" of offers in his email before most of the world even heard of it? Yeah, I'd say it's a PR stunt.
It only cost $300. It also had opportunity cost, which is not something that can be calculated reliably. If his other opportunities for that time would all have gained him $0, then his opportunity cost was $0. In this economic climate, that's a distinct possibility.
The future? Sounds like today. Try to make a GPU or CPU and see how that goes.
"Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant,"
A policy that isn't written down can't be relied upon. It's subject to change at a moment's notice.
Oh, they're out there... So far I've just seen the highlights, but I'm sure people have them all.
Considering that requests for the raw data go unanswered, I seriously doubt most of those scientists have seen the raw data. They can't make an informed decision without it.
I don't care how many agree or disagree. I care that they are deliberately hiding things from others.
They are claiming that the raw data is fundamentally flawed (it is) and that only someone who understands -all- the factors that could affect it can use that data to produce an accurate view of the climate's changes.
Honestly, I don't think THEY know enough about the climate to fix the data, either. They clearly haven't gotten weather prediction right yet, and to claim that the information is different because it's historical and over a long time is stupid as well. Each data point is individually affected by many, many influences. Yet they pretend they can look at the data as a whole and massage it into 'correct' data. If it was that easy, it wouldn't need a PhD. And if it's as hard as they say, nobody has all the facts needed to do the work.
#3 is only true so long as the 'experts' are given unimpeded access to your ear and those 'experts' aren't all in collusion. Since it has been shown time and time again that skeptics lose funding when they speak out, their voice is being impeded quite actively. And it could very well be in all their interests to make you think something is true that isn't. Only when you let everyone, including the crackpots, look at the data can you be relatively sure you're getting all the options.
I agree. Almost everyone has a problem of 1 sort or another. Does that mean everyone is entitled to getting things free?
Yes, I feel pity for blind people... That doesn't mean everyone owes them something for it.
Actually, many of them DO go out of business because it's really, really hard to get 'unlimited' right, including making it a good deal for the light eaters as well as the gluttons. Sometimes it's not even possible.
But those restaurants don't implement a 'neutrality' scheme, either. Many of them put up more of the cheap food than the expensive food. (No, not all... But then, not all ISPs will limit, either.)
I never said ISPs would go out of business. I said they would solve the 'unlimited' problem in some fashion.
Because there's no 'unlimited' plan for electricity.
If ISPs charged people according to usage, there would be no need for a 'net neutrality' bill... ISPs would be loving people who used more, instead of hating them. But then the users would be angry because they've had 'unlimited' so long.
Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those people. And I'd love to have my cake and eat it, too... But the simple truth is that I use WAY more than most people and they get to pay for some of it and that kind of thing is going to come to an end one way or another.
They changed it already. That option now hides your friends list from everyone, even your friends.
Your friends list can be hidden from strangers, it's just not in the privacy settings.
You have to go to your profile page, then click the pencil icon in the upper right corner of the friends box. Uncheck 'show my friends in my profile'.
It will still show your friends to your other friends, though.
I had to dig into the developers pages to find it. They definitely made it sound like it was custom from the ground up.
It's not truly an OS. It can run either on a Linux-based kernel or another, and which they choose depends on the hardware configuration for some reason. It's more of a series of layers on top of an OS.