As much as I hate MS, the fact is that I've never had a more comfortable controller than the ones they sell for the Xbox 360. (No, I don't own an Xbox, some PC games are borderline unplayable without it)
The controller that they include with the PS3 is really, really bad. It's made for little kids and they've refused to offer a controller designed for adults. I get that there's a cultural thing about face in Japan, but ruining products with this sort of lack of attention to detail is ridiculous.
That's not true. Emulation isn't illegal and the DMCA didn't change that. ROMs themselves are a bit greyer in terms of legality, the last court decision making personal on that being a really long time ago and during a time when getting replacement carts was a lot easier. ROM private ownership
It depends greatly upon how competent the teachers are at assessment. One of the big problems is that these periodic tests just don't work very well. And the big standardized tests are essentially a complete waste of time and we're likely better of ditching them entirely.
The problem is that by the time you get to the end of the unit exam, it's way too late to do anything about any lack of knowledge. Doing small assessments constantly at least gives you some ability to make adjustments and clarifications as necessary. The whole idea of testing students and grading them on what they know completely misses the point that education is about thinking, learning and mastery, none of which typically shows up on standard tests.
Woz is correct in that having larger projects which span classes would definitely be a welcome addition, you just have to be very careful how its structured. Students tend to learn a lot more when the topics have some logical relationship to each other.
And I'd very much like to see an engineer working under a system that's comparable to what teachers have to work with. Ultimately, it's the voters and the people who refuse to provide the necessary funding that are primarily to blame. You can't change course completely every couple years and expect to make progress. I have a hard time imagining a system of education so incompetently run that there isn't even one aspect that deserves to be preserved.
Trust me, education is a lot harder to provide than you think. You don't get to work with these nice clean materials that do mostly what you want them to. You're dealing with people, people who may or may not be interested, willing to work or even be able to see things the way that you were taught to see them.
It depends where you're traveling. In some parts of the world having encrypted files is illegal whether or not the contents of the files are. So, if you've got financial documents stored on your computer they had damn well better be in plain text.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue
In other words, because he made an ad hominem argument, I was perfectly fine calling attention to the fact that those that do so, him being one example, do instantly lose their argument because it is insufficient a nail to hang an argument on.
The major difference is containment. Hazmat equipment for dealing with chemical spills is much more effective than the gear for dealing with radiation. It does depend which type of particles you're dealing with, but some of them are pretty nasty and can penetrate thick concrete walls.
Nuclear clean up can take a really long time, just because the exposure is harder to manage and the steps involve more complicated. The world famous Hanford Site was last shut down in the late 80s, and we're still barely into the process of getting the site cleaned up. Granted it was established in the 40s for the purposes of creating nuclear weapons, but the site itself is still a mess and it's likely to still be a mess in 30 years at the rate things are going.
I don't see a problem there. Just because it's OK to let them go extinct doesn't necessarily mean that it's optimal to do so. Technically though, you're referring to a particular type of banana with no genetic variation and a complete inability to reproduce itself. The bananas that most of us know as bananas are in essence already extinct, they just haven't yet disappeared.
Not really, I use my GBA to relax, basically I focus on playing the game without elevating my pulse, blood pressure or getting stressed. When I'm really playing well, there is not impact whatsoever on any of those things.
Indeed, it's OK to let things go extinct, at as far as the populations in the wild go, but the determination ought to be whether it's our fault or natural, not whether or not its cost effective. We're unlikely to know the cost of letting a species go extinct until it's gone. Beyond that though, this is like climate change in that the sooner you start to deal with the problem the less costly and the simpler the fix is.
The problem is that the rate of decline at this point has rarely if ever been seen before. The argument you're making there is one which isn't based upon any actual scientific evidence or theory. The problem is that it's unusual for an animal to go extinct without there being repercussions along the food chain. In the past when it was happening naturally, it wasn't that big of a deal because the rate of change was sufficiently slow that things would evolve to fill the hole.
These days though, it's happening a lot faster, and a lot of the space which previously would have been inhabited by new species is taken up by us, and we've got basically no genetic diversity.
Consequently the whole idea of prioritizing in this fashion isn't going to be helpful in the long run as the few animals that are going extinct over just one or two factors are likely to both be easy to save and probably not very useful anyways.
The issue is that evolution isn't controversial. Hell, even the Catholic Church recognizes it. What you've got is a large number of ill-educated hicks that refuse to accept reality. Suggesting it's controversial is giving credence to all manner of silly beliefs which are demonstrably false. It's one thing to believe that God kicked off the progress, that at least isn't known to be false.
Same goes for climate change, there's a lot of idiots out there that don't believe it, but in terms of the people who actually study it, there's very little actual argument going on about it being real. The real controversy at present is over what to do about it, precisely how bad will it be and how long do we have to do something about it.
And go where? That's the point. The only way you can avoid this is by either not having a phone at all or restricting yourself to landlines. And if you're in public, good luck finding one of the increasingly hard to find pay phones.
That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm sure once they have that they'll turn their attention to forcing people to pay for products they think about releasing.
The issue is that up until relatively recently there was some degree of agreement about roughly what a numbering system should look like. It wasn't prefect and it wasn't universally accepted, but you could be relatively sure that if you were hitting the 1.0 release that it should be relatively stable and feature complete. That a 1.1 release shouldn't require retraining or make any significant changes to the way the program was used or operated. An Alpha release wouldn't be feature complete typically, but a beta release should and a release candidate had better be in the ball park.
The reason for that is that if you're offering these things up to the public, then courtesy dictates that you give them some hint as to what state the code is in. Release notes are nice, but I don't think that it's a good idea to waste people's times looking at the release notes, if they know that using release code isn't OK in their environment.
Google OTOH, is using a revision system that's in keeping with their asinine perma-betas that they like to have. For a situation like that it makes some sense, but for organizations that realize the impact that beta code has on people, it's a stupid version naming scheme to use.
The big deal, is that you're watering down the number system. Changing it to one that conveys no meaningful information at all. I get that the folks over at Google like to be disruptive, but this is retard stuff. You increment the major number when you break or modify backwards compatibility, make substantial changes to the way the program functions or if it's been a long time since the last upgrade. Making minor releases into major releases just confuses everybody and removes any hints about how much caution one ought to be using when upgrading.
You're trolling, right? Believing isn't necessarily silly, but using that belief to dismiss actual evidence is. Science is far from conclusive, but it gets closer with every generation, I doubt you can substantiate a similar claim about religion.
You do realize that a considerable portion of the dictionary is dedicated to slang and typos, right? I realize that there's a lot of l33t English majors out there that stroke off whenever somebody misspells something, but such people really ought to just go fornicate with some sort of sharp pointy object, and leave the language to those that actually use it.
But, that's the problem, in order for a password to work, somebody has to collect it. And a properly designed password system wouldn't allow for the server admins to gain access to the password in order to hand it over to somebody else. Sure, they could change it or delete the account, but they shouldn't be able to provide the password.
I guess, this only doesn't effect sites that use 3rd party authentication, in which case you'd have the same problem with the sites that are handling that having to provide your information in an easily stolen format.
It's a little bit more, they do apparently have some sort of proprietary Commodore OS that you can use. Not sure what they mean by that, if it's the old one or one that's been designed to be compatible with the original ones. Screen shot at the bottom of the page.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I hate MS, the fact is that I've never had a more comfortable controller than the ones they sell for the Xbox 360. (No, I don't own an Xbox, some PC games are borderline unplayable without it)
The controller that they include with the PS3 is really, really bad. It's made for little kids and they've refused to offer a controller designed for adults. I get that there's a cultural thing about face in Japan, but ruining products with this sort of lack of attention to detail is ridiculous.
That's not true. Emulation isn't illegal and the DMCA didn't change that. ROMs themselves are a bit greyer in terms of legality, the last court decision making personal on that being a really long time ago and during a time when getting replacement carts was a lot easier. ROM private ownership
It depends greatly upon how competent the teachers are at assessment. One of the big problems is that these periodic tests just don't work very well. And the big standardized tests are essentially a complete waste of time and we're likely better of ditching them entirely.
The problem is that by the time you get to the end of the unit exam, it's way too late to do anything about any lack of knowledge. Doing small assessments constantly at least gives you some ability to make adjustments and clarifications as necessary. The whole idea of testing students and grading them on what they know completely misses the point that education is about thinking, learning and mastery, none of which typically shows up on standard tests.
Woz is correct in that having larger projects which span classes would definitely be a welcome addition, you just have to be very careful how its structured. Students tend to learn a lot more when the topics have some logical relationship to each other.
And I'd very much like to see an engineer working under a system that's comparable to what teachers have to work with. Ultimately, it's the voters and the people who refuse to provide the necessary funding that are primarily to blame. You can't change course completely every couple years and expect to make progress. I have a hard time imagining a system of education so incompetently run that there isn't even one aspect that deserves to be preserved.
Trust me, education is a lot harder to provide than you think. You don't get to work with these nice clean materials that do mostly what you want them to. You're dealing with people, people who may or may not be interested, willing to work or even be able to see things the way that you were taught to see them.
I'm always shocked by how much load is put on a server by people not reading the article.
It depends where you're traveling. In some parts of the world having encrypted files is illegal whether or not the contents of the files are. So, if you've got financial documents stored on your computer they had damn well better be in plain text.
I like how you invoked your own law to instantly dismantle your own point.
Um, no, just no.
From the wikipedia
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue
In other words, because he made an ad hominem argument, I was perfectly fine calling attention to the fact that those that do so, him being one example, do instantly lose their argument because it is insufficient a nail to hang an argument on.
The major difference is containment. Hazmat equipment for dealing with chemical spills is much more effective than the gear for dealing with radiation. It does depend which type of particles you're dealing with, but some of them are pretty nasty and can penetrate thick concrete walls.
Nuclear clean up can take a really long time, just because the exposure is harder to manage and the steps involve more complicated. The world famous Hanford Site was last shut down in the late 80s, and we're still barely into the process of getting the site cleaned up. Granted it was established in the 40s for the purposes of creating nuclear weapons, but the site itself is still a mess and it's likely to still be a mess in 30 years at the rate things are going.
Hanford clean up
I don't see a problem there. Just because it's OK to let them go extinct doesn't necessarily mean that it's optimal to do so. Technically though, you're referring to a particular type of banana with no genetic variation and a complete inability to reproduce itself. The bananas that most of us know as bananas are in essence already extinct, they just haven't yet disappeared.
Yes, the Onion has fewer boobs per page.
Not really, I use my GBA to relax, basically I focus on playing the game without elevating my pulse, blood pressure or getting stressed. When I'm really playing well, there is not impact whatsoever on any of those things.
Not really, however, people who make ad hominem attacks like you do in fact lose instantly.
Additionally, "sheeple" is a perfectly cromulent malamanteau.
You're admitting to not having seen Star Trek IV here?
Indeed, it's OK to let things go extinct, at as far as the populations in the wild go, but the determination ought to be whether it's our fault or natural, not whether or not its cost effective. We're unlikely to know the cost of letting a species go extinct until it's gone. Beyond that though, this is like climate change in that the sooner you start to deal with the problem the less costly and the simpler the fix is.
The problem is that the rate of decline at this point has rarely if ever been seen before. The argument you're making there is one which isn't based upon any actual scientific evidence or theory. The problem is that it's unusual for an animal to go extinct without there being repercussions along the food chain. In the past when it was happening naturally, it wasn't that big of a deal because the rate of change was sufficiently slow that things would evolve to fill the hole.
These days though, it's happening a lot faster, and a lot of the space which previously would have been inhabited by new species is taken up by us, and we've got basically no genetic diversity.
Consequently the whole idea of prioritizing in this fashion isn't going to be helpful in the long run as the few animals that are going extinct over just one or two factors are likely to both be easy to save and probably not very useful anyways.
The issue is that evolution isn't controversial. Hell, even the Catholic Church recognizes it. What you've got is a large number of ill-educated hicks that refuse to accept reality. Suggesting it's controversial is giving credence to all manner of silly beliefs which are demonstrably false. It's one thing to believe that God kicked off the progress, that at least isn't known to be false.
Same goes for climate change, there's a lot of idiots out there that don't believe it, but in terms of the people who actually study it, there's very little actual argument going on about it being real. The real controversy at present is over what to do about it, precisely how bad will it be and how long do we have to do something about it.
And go where? That's the point. The only way you can avoid this is by either not having a phone at all or restricting yourself to landlines. And if you're in public, good luck finding one of the increasingly hard to find pay phones.
The difference is that Google at least lubes up before performing the search...
That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm sure once they have that they'll turn their attention to forcing people to pay for products they think about releasing.
The issue is that up until relatively recently there was some degree of agreement about roughly what a numbering system should look like. It wasn't prefect and it wasn't universally accepted, but you could be relatively sure that if you were hitting the 1.0 release that it should be relatively stable and feature complete. That a 1.1 release shouldn't require retraining or make any significant changes to the way the program was used or operated. An Alpha release wouldn't be feature complete typically, but a beta release should and a release candidate had better be in the ball park.
The reason for that is that if you're offering these things up to the public, then courtesy dictates that you give them some hint as to what state the code is in. Release notes are nice, but I don't think that it's a good idea to waste people's times looking at the release notes, if they know that using release code isn't OK in their environment.
Google OTOH, is using a revision system that's in keeping with their asinine perma-betas that they like to have. For a situation like that it makes some sense, but for organizations that realize the impact that beta code has on people, it's a stupid version naming scheme to use.
The big deal, is that you're watering down the number system. Changing it to one that conveys no meaningful information at all. I get that the folks over at Google like to be disruptive, but this is retard stuff. You increment the major number when you break or modify backwards compatibility, make substantial changes to the way the program functions or if it's been a long time since the last upgrade. Making minor releases into major releases just confuses everybody and removes any hints about how much caution one ought to be using when upgrading.
You're trolling, right? Believing isn't necessarily silly, but using that belief to dismiss actual evidence is. Science is far from conclusive, but it gets closer with every generation, I doubt you can substantiate a similar claim about religion.
You do realize that a considerable portion of the dictionary is dedicated to slang and typos, right? I realize that there's a lot of l33t English majors out there that stroke off whenever somebody misspells something, but such people really ought to just go fornicate with some sort of sharp pointy object, and leave the language to those that actually use it.
But, that's the problem, in order for a password to work, somebody has to collect it. And a properly designed password system wouldn't allow for the server admins to gain access to the password in order to hand it over to somebody else. Sure, they could change it or delete the account, but they shouldn't be able to provide the password.
I guess, this only doesn't effect sites that use 3rd party authentication, in which case you'd have the same problem with the sites that are handling that having to provide your information in an easily stolen format.
It's a little bit more, they do apparently have some sort of proprietary Commodore OS that you can use. Not sure what they mean by that, if it's the old one or one that's been designed to be compatible with the original ones. Screen shot at the bottom of the page.