Explains the silence, they all did it before...
on
LHC Flips On Tomorrow
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Coming to think of it, maybe that's why it's so hard to detect alien civilisations similar to us in the universe. We only have the tiny window of time between when they discover radio transmission and until they make their LHC and wipe themselves out.
My point pretty much. There's already so many broken rules, breaking more only makes it worse. You pretty much have to break rules to make a game, that's a must, but the fewer the better, no matter the genre. It's just wrong to think that because you've broken a few rules it means you can break as many as you like.
However, I've seen absolutely no indication that Apple paid him.
However, Apple recently contacted Kramer and hired him as a consultant in a legal case against another company that claimed the iPod infringed on its own patents, Burst.
Sounds like they did give him money if they hired him.
Not only did I read the summary, but I also RTFA! (sorry if I just blew anyone's mind). Mmmh let's see, he took the Walkman idea, replaced the tape with an EPROM, patented it, and 20 years after the patent expired he wants money from anyone who had a vaguely similar idea? That's what I don't get. And as it's been pointed out, it's not like the iPod claimed to be the first such player anyways, so I really don't get it..
There are cases in which the original idea is everything, the implementation can be done by anyone (i.e. the egg of Columbus). In this case, the idea is obvious, the implementation is the tricky part. That Kramer guy was just the 'first poster', he did what anyone else eventually thought about, only he patented it first.
He didn't invent the iPod, he patented (and didn't actually develop if I understood correctly) a digital music player.
Here's what I don't understand : what does it have to do with the iPod, shouldn't every other digital music player be equally affected, the patent slipped in the public in 1988, so why on Earth is that guy getting compensated by Apple??
Newtonian physics? I haven't seen any of that in the video linked in the summary. The thrusters stay on to keep roughly the same speed, it turns like an aircraft (and yet a very arcadish aircraft) instead of positioning itself to use its thrusters for that, and so on..
I seem to recall reading in a scientific magazine that it had recently been discovered that something like the folding of something, maybe the DNA double helix thing or something related to RNA, could have a role.
And no, that's not what you said, I was talking about creating a viable cell to begin with, you were talking about making that cell grow.
Unfortunately the game industry is roughly following the same path as the movie and music industry. Big budgets, always the same sounding/feeling crap following the big successful formulas. When what you care about is money, innovation doesn't sound like a necessarily sound risk to take. Allow me to predict that in 30 years you'll still be doing headshots by pointing and clicking.
reality is going to take a back seat when it interferes with fun
Not really. Realism always takes the back seat, period. I strongly doubt that these game designers considered even a second going with proper inertia/thrusting (unlike what you think there's not much gravity involved in this setting), or proper sound propagation. It's just out of the norm, out of the space shooter genre, out of the tiny box game designers restrict their thinking to when it comes to making a game. They don't omit realism because they deemed it not fun, they omit realism because they probably didn't even consider it, because no one does that sort of stuff anymore.
Of all the science-fiction movies I've seen, 2001 was the most realistic one, with regard to sound, vacuum, distances, etc.. everything since then has been about entire planetary systems that look like distances have been shrunk 1,000 times, going 10 times faster than light, shading that doesn't even look right, asteroid belts so packed you can't see through them, etc... Same sort of reason why most movie plots involve super natural stuff or unlikely plot elements, people can't be bothered with realism, I believe they don't appreciate vraisemblance anymore..
Why would it necessarily be a bad thing? Instead of trying to solve the problem for a game designer point of view, try to solve the problem from the point of view of an hypothetical spacecraft designer from the futuristic future. The problem remains, you naturally don't hear a sound in reality. So what do you do? You equip the spacecraft with sensors that can detect the kind of dangers you care to be warned about and you give them a warning sound or visual indication. That's actually how it works in modern fighters, because you can't hear it either when a missile is fired at you from 25 miles away.
Realism isn't such a bad thing unlike what so many game designers seem to think, and when it comes to space stuff they violate so many rules it's not a bit funny. It's a bit painful to think that 1961 Spacewar! was so much more realistic than all of these games. Realism isn't the enemy of fun, it can even enhance it.
What's worse, gameplay wise it looks like it's all about point and click shooting. While the graphics are nice, looks like the gameplay doesn't really bring much over the "dogfight" sequence of the 1983 Star Wars game.
Shiny graphics on top of antiquated gameplays! Welcome to the late 2000s!
Good point, although it wasn't my point. My point was that there probably was more to heredity than just a sequence of proteins. I.e. I'm not sure you can reconstruct a human being (or even a rat) by just having their digitized DNA, even if you could synthesise it.
It's the DNA _data_ that is stored on a hard drive, not your DNA itself, so no chance to mutate. And let me bet that on top of failing to make sure they sent the thing on a non-fastly decaying orbit, failing to put it on a long lasting media, and failing to provide something to read the data on the drive and interpret it, they also failed to provide information on what to do with that sequence information. Really just a cheap (or technically not so cheap) PR stunt.
1. They store the sequenced DNA digitally. Do we *know* we can rebuild a fully functioning creature from just that?
2. If we all died today the ISS would burn down in the atmosphere in only a few months due to atmospheric drag.
3. What kind of media is that anyways? Doesn't look like it's the type of thing that you could still read 1,000 years later.
OK, so it's a sort of new finger print, interesting. A few things though, why "terrorists"? Why not just every other wanted fugitive? Because that's what it's for, identifying fugitives, not telling who's a terrorist without knowing who we're looking for.
And then this : "Extending the idea to satellites could prove trickier, though. Space imaging expert Bhupendra Jasani at King's College London says geostationary satellites simply don't have the resolution to provide useful detail. "I find it hard to believe they could apply this technique from space," he says.". I don't know whether that expert's quote has been taken out of context by a clueless journalist (which is most likely the case), but that's such a retarded claim as a whole that it's not even funny. Of course geostationary satellites don't have the resolution, they're 22,000 MILES AWAY!! Which is why no one's retarded enough to use geostationary satellites for such tasks as spying, they all use low Earth orbit satellites which are like 100 times closer and hence have 100 times the resolution, making the best spy satellites able to read a newspaper's headline over your shoulder when you're outside (and if they can't then close enough).
So yes this identification technique may be used using the NRO's best spy satellites (which resolution remains a source of speculation). And since you would most likely use it in areas you can safely go to you can as well use an airplane.
Slashdot Mirror
Coming to think of it, maybe that's why it's so hard to detect alien civilisations similar to us in the universe. We only have the tiny window of time between when they discover radio transmission and until they make their LHC and wipe themselves out.
We're doomed!! Oh God, I can't die a virgin! Virgins may all go to heaven, but only to get screwed by Muslim terrorists!
My point pretty much. There's already so many broken rules, breaking more only makes it worse. You pretty much have to break rules to make a game, that's a must, but the fewer the better, no matter the genre. It's just wrong to think that because you've broken a few rules it means you can break as many as you like.
It's not a crime if you used your powers to make it not be defined as one.
Yes, I do now, thank you, I missed the part about Apple using him in another suit for related reasons.
However, I've seen absolutely no indication that Apple paid him.
However, Apple recently contacted Kramer and hired him as a consultant in a legal case against another company that claimed the iPod infringed on its own patents, Burst.
Sounds like they did give him money if they hired him.
Not only did I read the summary, but I also RTFA! (sorry if I just blew anyone's mind). Mmmh let's see, he took the Walkman idea, replaced the tape with an EPROM, patented it, and 20 years after the patent expired he wants money from anyone who had a vaguely similar idea? That's what I don't get. And as it's been pointed out, it's not like the iPod claimed to be the first such player anyways, so I really don't get it..
How, that's what I don't understand.
There are cases in which the original idea is everything, the implementation can be done by anyone (i.e. the egg of Columbus). In this case, the idea is obvious, the implementation is the tricky part. That Kramer guy was just the 'first poster', he did what anyone else eventually thought about, only he patented it first.
He didn't invent the iPod, he patented (and didn't actually develop if I understood correctly) a digital music player.
Here's what I don't understand : what does it have to do with the iPod, shouldn't every other digital music player be equally affected, the patent slipped in the public in 1988, so why on Earth is that guy getting compensated by Apple??
Newtonian physics? I haven't seen any of that in the video linked in the summary. The thrusters stay on to keep roughly the same speed, it turns like an aircraft (and yet a very arcadish aircraft) instead of positioning itself to use its thrusters for that, and so on..
It's called critical thinking.
Yeah, and you fail at using it.
I seem to recall reading in a scientific magazine that it had recently been discovered that something like the folding of something, maybe the DNA double helix thing or something related to RNA, could have a role.
And no, that's not what you said, I was talking about creating a viable cell to begin with, you were talking about making that cell grow.
Unfortunately the game industry is roughly following the same path as the movie and music industry. Big budgets, always the same sounding/feeling crap following the big successful formulas. When what you care about is money, innovation doesn't sound like a necessarily sound risk to take. Allow me to predict that in 30 years you'll still be doing headshots by pointing and clicking.
reality is going to take a back seat when it interferes with fun
Not really. Realism always takes the back seat, period. I strongly doubt that these game designers considered even a second going with proper inertia/thrusting (unlike what you think there's not much gravity involved in this setting), or proper sound propagation. It's just out of the norm, out of the space shooter genre, out of the tiny box game designers restrict their thinking to when it comes to making a game. They don't omit realism because they deemed it not fun, they omit realism because they probably didn't even consider it, because no one does that sort of stuff anymore.
Of all the science-fiction movies I've seen, 2001 was the most realistic one, with regard to sound, vacuum, distances, etc.. everything since then has been about entire planetary systems that look like distances have been shrunk 1,000 times, going 10 times faster than light, shading that doesn't even look right, asteroid belts so packed you can't see through them, etc... Same sort of reason why most movie plots involve super natural stuff or unlikely plot elements, people can't be bothered with realism, I believe they don't appreciate vraisemblance anymore..
Why would it necessarily be a bad thing? Instead of trying to solve the problem for a game designer point of view, try to solve the problem from the point of view of an hypothetical spacecraft designer from the futuristic future. The problem remains, you naturally don't hear a sound in reality. So what do you do? You equip the spacecraft with sensors that can detect the kind of dangers you care to be warned about and you give them a warning sound or visual indication. That's actually how it works in modern fighters, because you can't hear it either when a missile is fired at you from 25 miles away.
Realism isn't such a bad thing unlike what so many game designers seem to think, and when it comes to space stuff they violate so many rules it's not a bit funny. It's a bit painful to think that 1961 Spacewar! was so much more realistic than all of these games. Realism isn't the enemy of fun, it can even enhance it.
What's worse, gameplay wise it looks like it's all about point and click shooting. While the graphics are nice, looks like the gameplay doesn't really bring much over the "dogfight" sequence of the 1983 Star Wars game.
Shiny graphics on top of antiquated gameplays! Welcome to the late 2000s!
Good point, although it wasn't my point. My point was that there probably was more to heredity than just a sequence of proteins. I.e. I'm not sure you can reconstruct a human being (or even a rat) by just having their digitized DNA, even if you could synthesise it.
It's the DNA _data_ that is stored on a hard drive, not your DNA itself, so no chance to mutate. And let me bet that on top of failing to make sure they sent the thing on a non-fastly decaying orbit, failing to put it on a long lasting media, and failing to provide something to read the data on the drive and interpret it, they also failed to provide information on what to do with that sequence information. Really just a cheap (or technically not so cheap) PR stunt.
1. They store the sequenced DNA digitally. Do we *know* we can rebuild a fully functioning creature from just that?
2. If we all died today the ISS would burn down in the atmosphere in only a few months due to atmospheric drag.
3. What kind of media is that anyways? Doesn't look like it's the type of thing that you could still read 1,000 years later.
That's what sucks about being too smart, there's hardly anything that makes you think hard.
I got only 0.18% of 800x480's on this site. How many unique visitors make up your 11%?
OK, so it's a sort of new finger print, interesting. A few things though, why "terrorists"? Why not just every other wanted fugitive? Because that's what it's for, identifying fugitives, not telling who's a terrorist without knowing who we're looking for.
And then this : "Extending the idea to satellites could prove trickier, though. Space imaging expert Bhupendra Jasani at King's College London says geostationary satellites simply don't have the resolution to provide useful detail. "I find it hard to believe they could apply this technique from space," he says.". I don't know whether that expert's quote has been taken out of context by a clueless journalist (which is most likely the case), but that's such a retarded claim as a whole that it's not even funny. Of course geostationary satellites don't have the resolution, they're 22,000 MILES AWAY!! Which is why no one's retarded enough to use geostationary satellites for such tasks as spying, they all use low Earth orbit satellites which are like 100 times closer and hence have 100 times the resolution, making the best spy satellites able to read a newspaper's headline over your shoulder when you're outside (and if they can't then close enough).
So yes this identification technique may be used using the NRO's best spy satellites (which resolution remains a source of speculation). And since you would most likely use it in areas you can safely go to you can as well use an airplane.
Not at all. A 13,600 year old skeleton is to a necrophile as a Château Margaux 1787 is to an oenophile.
In other news, Slashdotters discover Newspeak is creeping in.