Right. This idea would just seem to rule out it being the same as the host, whether intentional or not. Obviously there are a near infinite number of reasons you'd want a simulation with identical physics to your own, and an equal number of reasons why you'd want to run simulations with different laws.
That would be my thought as well, though a counter argument is some advanced humans are the ones that started the simulation. In which case the narcissism makes some sense.
It does at least narrow the pro-simulation argument.
If it is a simulation it is either intentionally different from the "host" reality, or imperfect.
Many of the pro-simulation arguments also depend on the hosts intentionally obfuscating the simulation's nature from humanity, which in the end is not much different from saying God is hiding from us as well, and not really a point that can be proven or disproven.
Apple didn't buy their way in (in the sense of taking over an existing player), they just came in cold and leveled every major industry player.
Mackey was largely correct. Amazon couldn't compete on their own. Whole Foods was not blind sided or left a smoking ruin like Nokia or Palm. They got paid!
This is insane. It is never wrong to help homeless children, especially in a country as rich as the US and a city as rich as Seattle. The risk of accidentally helping some homeless children that also don't have the right papers is an especially dumb reason to not help homeless children.
I was thinking of this in the wake of the K04 election last night. There is a lot of places where it seems no matter how bad Republicans govern, they will not be punished by voters. The incentive for corruption and poor management is extremely high. The reverse does not seem to be true in many "liberal" places, like New York City, NJ, or Massachusetts where there is a strong preference for Democrats but where Republicans can still win if the Dems fuck up enough.
From the article: "That repetition of the “any device” point point suggests this will be a web-based effort, rather than an app."
This is going to be a web-based platform, probably geared primarily towards browsers but with tablet and phone support. I am assuming your data will be stored and managed on a server somewhere. It would be pretty inept to have any user generated data locked to a specific piece of hardware.
I also assume it will be trivial to download a print version of your character sheet, but I guess who knows.
These warnings would be more helpful in places where a high percent of the student body rejects the scientific consensus around climate change, because that is what they were taught. I am sure those colleges would be thrilled to host a Q&A with someone like Bill Gates.
I was confused on this as well. For a long time I assumed it was being sold in the same manner as the Occulus development kits, the intent being for developers to begin tinkering with it in anticipation of a better retail release down the road.
I don't recall ever seeing any software reviews or anything like that. Surely someone somewhere is making games for this thing, why haven't even game experiments popped up on sites like Polygon or Kotaku?
A 7+ year old PC is fast enough for most. This is the only reason PC sales are not what they once where.
This pattern seems to be settling in with phones and tablets now, too. Sales are flat, but people are using phones/tablets more than ever. For most people, it makes no sense to buy a new tablet or phone every 1-2 years. My wife's iPad Mini 2 continues to perfectly serve all her computer-related needs.
First of all, Gears sold THREE million by Jan. 19th.
Second, Gears was an early, exclusive game on a new system with a user install base between 7-10 million, whereas Cars came out on every platform under the sun, probably including cell phones.
Third, an increase in 'softcore' gamers does not mean a decline in 'hardcore' gamers.
Considering the 360's install base, Gears is a phenomenal success.
There is a single state senator calling for it, and not a single legislator or public commentator is echoing his comments. This has been picked up by the media purely because it IS absurd. It will never get passed. It is transparently stupid and not enforcable.
Nintendo does not sell consoles at a loss. The Wii in particular likely has a huge profit margin. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii profit margin was larger than the retail cost of a DS.
I've seen this article linked to on several websites, and everyone seems to think they're grading the lifetime achievements of the consoles, which is not the case. Giving them letter grades implies this, which was misleading and a mistake IMHO.
Our panel of experts scrutinizes every game console currently on the market to determine which will offer the most bang for the buck.
However, whether or not you agree with them, the grades are being handed out based on what is the best purchase right now, just in time to start thinking about Christmas shopping. Seen in that light, it makes a lot more sense.
The first articles (the older ones) were linked to in order to show a history of problems. The last link, and the subject of the post, goes to a story posted Nov. 2, a.k.a., yesterday.
The article also talks about SanDisk's subversive new anti-iPod advertising campaign which calls iPod owners 'iChimps' and uses a 'street graffiti style' to create the illusion of a 'counter-culture uprising against the iPod'.
Their argument that iPod users are chimps would be a tad more convincing if, when seeking evoke urban street style 'counter-culture', they didn't turn to the same method every other ad agency does: aping Shepard Fairy's decade old Obey posters.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish they would just make YouTube Kids not a useless dumpster filled with trash.
Traits which people generally confuse with intelligence.
Unless they are confident things like us can't interfere with whatever it is they do care about.
Right. This idea would just seem to rule out it being the same as the host, whether intentional or not. Obviously there are a near infinite number of reasons you'd want a simulation with identical physics to your own, and an equal number of reasons why you'd want to run simulations with different laws.
That would be my thought as well, though a counter argument is some advanced humans are the ones that started the simulation. In which case the narcissism makes some sense.
It does at least narrow the pro-simulation argument. If it is a simulation it is either intentionally different from the "host" reality, or imperfect. Many of the pro-simulation arguments also depend on the hosts intentionally obfuscating the simulation's nature from humanity, which in the end is not much different from saying God is hiding from us as well, and not really a point that can be proven or disproven.
Apple didn't buy their way in (in the sense of taking over an existing player), they just came in cold and leveled every major industry player. Mackey was largely correct. Amazon couldn't compete on their own. Whole Foods was not blind sided or left a smoking ruin like Nokia or Palm. They got paid!
And neither do most of his handlers. It was a line they put in to pad out a speech, and they could not care less if it was accurate or meaningful.
This is insane. It is never wrong to help homeless children, especially in a country as rich as the US and a city as rich as Seattle. The risk of accidentally helping some homeless children that also don't have the right papers is an especially dumb reason to not help homeless children.
I was thinking of this in the wake of the K04 election last night. There is a lot of places where it seems no matter how bad Republicans govern, they will not be punished by voters. The incentive for corruption and poor management is extremely high. The reverse does not seem to be true in many "liberal" places, like New York City, NJ, or Massachusetts where there is a strong preference for Democrats but where Republicans can still win if the Dems fuck up enough.
From the article: "That repetition of the “any device” point point suggests this will be a web-based effort, rather than an app." This is going to be a web-based platform, probably geared primarily towards browsers but with tablet and phone support. I am assuming your data will be stored and managed on a server somewhere. It would be pretty inept to have any user generated data locked to a specific piece of hardware. I also assume it will be trivial to download a print version of your character sheet, but I guess who knows.
These warnings would be more helpful in places where a high percent of the student body rejects the scientific consensus around climate change, because that is what they were taught. I am sure those colleges would be thrilled to host a Q&A with someone like Bill Gates.
I was confused on this as well. For a long time I assumed it was being sold in the same manner as the Occulus development kits, the intent being for developers to begin tinkering with it in anticipation of a better retail release down the road. I don't recall ever seeing any software reviews or anything like that. Surely someone somewhere is making games for this thing, why haven't even game experiments popped up on sites like Polygon or Kotaku?
A 7+ year old PC is fast enough for most. This is the only reason PC sales are not what they once where.
This pattern seems to be settling in with phones and tablets now, too. Sales are flat, but people are using phones/tablets more than ever. For most people, it makes no sense to buy a new tablet or phone every 1-2 years. My wife's iPad Mini 2 continues to perfectly serve all her computer-related needs.
First of all, Gears sold THREE million by Jan. 19th. Second, Gears was an early, exclusive game on a new system with a user install base between 7-10 million, whereas Cars came out on every platform under the sun, probably including cell phones. Third, an increase in 'softcore' gamers does not mean a decline in 'hardcore' gamers. Considering the 360's install base, Gears is a phenomenal success.
There is a single state senator calling for it, and not a single legislator or public commentator is echoing his comments. This has been picked up by the media purely because it IS absurd. It will never get passed. It is transparently stupid and not enforcable.
Nintendo does not sell consoles at a loss. The Wii in particular likely has a huge profit margin. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii profit margin was larger than the retail cost of a DS.
The first articles (the older ones) were linked to in order to show a history of problems. The last link, and the subject of the post, goes to a story posted Nov. 2, a.k.a., yesterday.
The first 'scientist' mentioned, Bob Carter, has a history of denying human impact on the environment. More Carter opinions here.
The article also talks about SanDisk's subversive new anti-iPod advertising campaign which calls iPod owners 'iChimps' and uses a 'street graffiti style' to create the illusion of a 'counter-culture uprising against the iPod'.
Their argument that iPod users are chimps would be a tad more convincing if, when seeking evoke urban street style 'counter-culture', they didn't turn to the same method every other ad agency does: aping Shepard Fairy's decade old Obey posters.
Just a note to illustrate how far back Windows is, friday is the 5th anniversary of OS X.
according to 1UP.com:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3148775