Like many others here I use gmail to make spam negligible, and I'm sure enterprising people will do the same for twitter should spam become a real problem. Twitter's value comes in what you stand to gain by using it, not by what you think is currently necessary. Think about the effects of #cnnfail or Kevin Smith's Southwest Airlines incident. Compare the effects of a single subversive tweet to all the hundreds of letters you might write your congressman. But aside from its role in society, its personal value is in who you choose to communicate with, just as with email.
The best evidence that the environment is warming is the sudden interest in Arctic ownership and access. The same governments and businesses which undermine climate change are jockeying for rights and access here. Do they know something we don't?
You don't know about the fight for arctic oil? That probably has something to do with it.
Can someone please explain why a show on television is considered more profitable to advertisers than the same one streamed online? Do ad agencies just have too much faith in the old model to consider adopting a new one, or is there a better reason? I haven't seen the Canada on Strike episode yet..
After reading the article, it is apparent that EBERT HAS NOT PLAYED ANY OF THE GAMES HE IS CRITICIZING! This would be like saying A Clockwork Orange isn't art while refusing to watch it. Worse than that, it is like claiming that all of film cannot be art because some TEDster can't prove it from stills of Kubrick's films. And for crying out loud, if you want to give good examples of videogames-as-art, the terrorism scene in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 spoke volumes to millions of people around the world, more so than that POS Waco Resurrection. Or, sit down with GTA IV for five minutes. Don't do any of the missions, just walk around and experience an entire world devoted to critiquing post 9-11 American consumerism, paranoia, and even health care. Ebert shall shit his pants when he realizes that not only are videogames art, they are capable of expressing the artist's intent in deeper ways than film ever could.
Re:temp storage and important people
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
A life recorder doesn't just deter criminals, it also deters abusive police officers, molesting teachers/parents, and the like. Those terrified of surveillance should realize that it is a double edged sword and it can be used to benefit us as much as harm us. I for one am tired of waiting for camera phones to be on when cops are literally body-slamming teenagers on the concrete.
My comparison was not to justify starcraft as a sport. It was more like an emotional response to blind_biker. I don't believe starcraft needs any justification - it should be able to stand on it's own merits; anyone looking into the matter should be able to tell.
You could make the same argument to disqualify any sport. Do you think a cylindrical lump of wood is really the best interface for directing projectiles?
I started following Starcraft a couple years ago, mostly through YouTube commentaries like diggity, klazart, moletrap, and their ilk. Anyone following the scene knows this is seriously bad news for our fledgling sport, and for e-sports in general. Perhaps it's a sign of maturity, or maybe it's just in time for new blood - for StarCraft 2 to take root. Still, it's very disheartening to hear.
Honestly, I'm going to have to go with FourSquare on this one. Why should the most innovative companies get swallowed by bigger fish? It only takes away control over their product, causing untold suffering to millions (\s). Do you applaud every time banks buy each other out? Let the mom and pop tech start-ups find their own way.
By the way, Julian Assange said they are about to release the bombing video as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3SHumK2UY
I was pretty shocked the first time I saw the attack, and I couldn't bring myself to watch it again. But when MSNBC plays it on a loop like that, it's hard to feel the same emotions again.
So a photojournalist taking a picture of a helicopter and kids with water guns deserve a Darwin Award? Shouldn't there instead be some kind of Chaos award for trigger-happy men in uniform?
Geneva conventions state that a person who "has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself, provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape" is hors de combat.
I know the gunner sounded pretty adamant about keeping him from getting away - I wonder if being taken to the hospital is considered "trying to escape"? Anyway, my point is that I am not reassured at all even if what the gunner did could be construed as legal. If I understand you, it's legal to shoot an enemy but it's not illegal to kill them. It seems to me that being a soldier requires a lot of double-think and would have to lead to some horrifyingly ludicrous decisions.
Which is actually rather reassuring, since he didn't fire then. Which means that, no matter what his personal take on it is (he may be thinking that a good enemy is a dead enemy - which is very common among those who watch the war unfold among them, and not on TV), he's still obeying by the rules of engagement and laws of war.
Had he killed the man in the first run, everything would have been legal. If the man barely survives, then killing him is suddenly illegal. If he has authorization to fire on the van, then it's legal again. How is this reassuring?
I agree, it does seem like there's really nothing average Americans can do. However, there's a positive side to this that should not be missed: the fact that this story is not being covered in the mainstream media even though it is blowing up on youtube (although the viewing counter seems suspiciously stuck at 359) is a sign of the times. As another commenter mentioned, CNN's page is focused entirely on Tiger Woods and the iPad right now and I didn't bother to check FOX and friends. My point is, the youtube generation is going to see this video as additional proof that traditional media has failed them, that old media have been corrupted by our government, and that there is no moral high ground for our government to stand on when all our civilized weapons could not distinguish the difference between a camera and a gun. I don't know how this will play out - I'm finding it difficult to predict even the most inconsequential turn of events - but my gut tells me that something is changing in the way the world runs.
You've hit the nail on the head. It seems like the human mind has to take some leaps of faith when it comes to everyday tasks. In your example, when a person gets on an airplane for the first time, there is a certain level of doubt. When it's the fifth time, your confidence is probably not based on your knowledge of aerodynamics, but simply your trust in the pilot and the folks at Boeing in addition to the first four successes. Could an abstraction of faith be a requirement for "good" AI?
Slashdot Mirror
Like many others here I use gmail to make spam negligible, and I'm sure enterprising people will do the same for twitter should spam become a real problem. Twitter's value comes in what you stand to gain by using it, not by what you think is currently necessary. Think about the effects of #cnnfail or Kevin Smith's Southwest Airlines incident. Compare the effects of a single subversive tweet to all the hundreds of letters you might write your congressman. But aside from its role in society, its personal value is in who you choose to communicate with, just as with email.
The suggestion that we should stop using twitter because of spam is quite strange. Has spam stopped you from using email?
The best evidence that the environment is warming is the sudden interest in Arctic ownership and access. The same governments and businesses which undermine climate change are jockeying for rights and access here. Do they know something we don't?
You don't know about the fight for arctic oil? That probably has something to do with it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=arctic%20oil&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=6sl&tbo=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=nws:1,qdr:w&ei=5BPSS9D1IYKKlwfV3bXuDA&sa=X&oi=tool&resnum=5&ct=tlink&ved=0CCwQpwU
Can someone please explain why a show on television is considered more profitable to advertisers than the same one streamed online? Do ad agencies just have too much faith in the old model to consider adopting a new one, or is there a better reason? I haven't seen the Canada on Strike episode yet..
After reading the article, it is apparent that EBERT HAS NOT PLAYED ANY OF THE GAMES HE IS CRITICIZING! This would be like saying A Clockwork Orange isn't art while refusing to watch it. Worse than that, it is like claiming that all of film cannot be art because some TEDster can't prove it from stills of Kubrick's films. And for crying out loud, if you want to give good examples of videogames-as-art, the terrorism scene in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 spoke volumes to millions of people around the world, more so than that POS Waco Resurrection. Or, sit down with GTA IV for five minutes. Don't do any of the missions, just walk around and experience an entire world devoted to critiquing post 9-11 American consumerism, paranoia, and even health care. Ebert shall shit his pants when he realizes that not only are videogames art, they are capable of expressing the artist's intent in deeper ways than film ever could.
A life recorder doesn't just deter criminals, it also deters abusive police officers, molesting teachers/parents, and the like. Those terrified of surveillance should realize that it is a double edged sword and it can be used to benefit us as much as harm us. I for one am tired of waiting for camera phones to be on when cops are literally body-slamming teenagers on the concrete.
My comparison was not to justify starcraft as a sport. It was more like an emotional response to blind_biker. I don't believe starcraft needs any justification - it should be able to stand on it's own merits; anyone looking into the matter should be able to tell.
You could make the same argument to disqualify any sport. Do you think a cylindrical lump of wood is really the best interface for directing projectiles?
For more info, you can follow the coverage at teamliquid's forums. Click to expand the "spoilers". http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=119403
Funny, that's exactly what I thought when I heard about Tiger Woods.
For starters, try googling it in Korean?
I started following Starcraft a couple years ago, mostly through YouTube commentaries like diggity, klazart, moletrap, and their ilk. Anyone following the scene knows this is seriously bad news for our fledgling sport, and for e-sports in general. Perhaps it's a sign of maturity, or maybe it's just in time for new blood - for StarCraft 2 to take root. Still, it's very disheartening to hear.
Honestly, I'm going to have to go with FourSquare on this one. Why should the most innovative companies get swallowed by bigger fish? It only takes away control over their product, causing untold suffering to millions (\s). Do you applaud every time banks buy each other out? Let the mom and pop tech start-ups find their own way.
Well now I know why astronomers have such huge error bars - they've been using pulsars to tell time!
By the way, Julian Assange said they are about to release the bombing video as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3SHumK2UY I was pretty shocked the first time I saw the attack, and I couldn't bring myself to watch it again. But when MSNBC plays it on a loop like that, it's hard to feel the same emotions again.
So a photojournalist taking a picture of a helicopter and kids with water guns deserve a Darwin Award? Shouldn't there instead be some kind of Chaos award for trigger-happy men in uniform?
If I understand you, it's legal to shoot an enemy but it's not legal to kill them!
Geneva conventions state that a person who "has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself, provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape" is hors de combat.
I know the gunner sounded pretty adamant about keeping him from getting away - I wonder if being taken to the hospital is considered "trying to escape"? Anyway, my point is that I am not reassured at all even if what the gunner did could be construed as legal. If I understand you, it's legal to shoot an enemy but it's not illegal to kill them. It seems to me that being a soldier requires a lot of double-think and would have to lead to some horrifyingly ludicrous decisions.
Which is actually rather reassuring, since he didn't fire then. Which means that, no matter what his personal take on it is (he may be thinking that a good enemy is a dead enemy - which is very common among those who watch the war unfold among them, and not on TV), he's still obeying by the rules of engagement and laws of war.
Had he killed the man in the first run, everything would have been legal. If the man barely survives, then killing him is suddenly illegal. If he has authorization to fire on the van, then it's legal again. How is this reassuring?
I agree, it does seem like there's really nothing average Americans can do. However, there's a positive side to this that should not be missed: the fact that this story is not being covered in the mainstream media even though it is blowing up on youtube (although the viewing counter seems suspiciously stuck at 359) is a sign of the times. As another commenter mentioned, CNN's page is focused entirely on Tiger Woods and the iPad right now and I didn't bother to check FOX and friends. My point is, the youtube generation is going to see this video as additional proof that traditional media has failed them, that old media have been corrupted by our government, and that there is no moral high ground for our government to stand on when all our civilized weapons could not distinguish the difference between a camera and a gun. I don't know how this will play out - I'm finding it difficult to predict even the most inconsequential turn of events - but my gut tells me that something is changing in the way the world runs.
You've hit the nail on the head. It seems like the human mind has to take some leaps of faith when it comes to everyday tasks. In your example, when a person gets on an airplane for the first time, there is a certain level of doubt. When it's the fifth time, your confidence is probably not based on your knowledge of aerodynamics, but simply your trust in the pilot and the folks at Boeing in addition to the first four successes. Could an abstraction of faith be a requirement for "good" AI?
Right, I'm sure NASA has some great FORTRAN subroutines that will sort this whole mess out, pronto.
To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a Dollfuß. He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich. Think of him as Mini-Hitler.
I think you're forgetting the first rule of Godwin's Law.
Good point, but what I don't like about motorcycles is the lack of peripherals for protecting my squishy bits.
So organ printing is decades away, huh. Man, you're living in the past: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/13751901.html