I disagree - the central premise of Blade Runner wasn't flying cars, it was vat grown Human 2.0s and how we deal (or fail to deal) with the responsibilities inherent in such advanced technology. Inception didn't particularly need to be about technology at all. The technology was there to explain how they got into someone's head, but it could have been about a bunch of people using psychic techniques to achieve the same thing, it wouldn't have changed the story one jot, it was just a convenient metaphor to exlain how this can happen. It said nothing useful about our use of technology, it was entirely about human psychology and the nature of what is real.
What's to stop them doing this already? Are you saying you've never encountered a teacher who had students they favoured or students they plain disliked? The only difference here is that it's a bit more transparent so it's less likely to be abused than in the classroom environment. I can understand if a teacher is already abusing the relationship then it's not in their interests, but I have no problem with that kind of behaviour being exposed, whereas at the moment the system seems set up to hide it and refuse to acknowledge it happens (much like bullying in schools - the schools would rather pretend it didn't exist than spend the time and resources and risk the social stigma necessary to fight it).
Might work both ways too - a teacher might find it easier to engage and meet the learning needs of students if they understand more about what's happening in their life outside of school. Maybe there's some game or show that's popular and the teacher can hook into that to make class work more relevant. It feels a little odd to me as I'm from the generation that enjoyed privacy and the idea of a teacher being able to see my movements and social interactions is a little creepy, but for kids who have grown up in the current environment there are a lot of potential advantages.
Tracking systems don't work too well with roof mounted arrays (you can track a little vertically if you're prepared to build the array into the roofspace, but likely the small increase in power would be offset by the energy required to drive the tracking system). Meanwhile a tree system could stand in a garden without depriving the owner of usable ground space. Even if it's not a massive revolution in solar energy gathering, it's a useful experiment in different configurations that are more lifestyle friendly.
For more irony, there are plenty of examples of the music industry ripping each other off left, right and centre (well, when they can get away with it). They're not against copying, they're against copying that they don't get a chunk of cash from.
The way I see it, the only way this is going to turn out good is if it's in the same universe but not about the same characters (I'll allow a couple of cameos). The world Scott built was amazing, surely there's room for more stories there than Deckard (who should be dead at any meaningful point in the future anyway).
I'll give you Dark Knight (although I thought it was about 45 minutes too long, they should have done Harvey as a separate movie and not tried to bundle him in with Joker), and I haven't seen the new Tron, but the reboot of Spiderman was so stale that we're already seeing another reboot a scant ten years later.
Don't forget unecessary 3D. It wouldn't be a modern remake without lots of people holding everyday items meaningfully towards camera, running at the camera or exploding in the direction of the camera. I'll put my money right now on seeing at least one scene where Tyrell Corp's owl flies at the camera.
Some kind of in-game timeline would be a big help so I can not only see what I was doing but in what order I did it. I'd also like more help with in game functionality. If I've spent a week learning some combat system or how to craft item X or master spell Y, summarise that for me so when I take a few months off it can at least jog my (increasingly flaky) memory. Borderlands was good at recording everything but I seem to remember it did so in a big flat list, I'd have liked some organisation based on the order I was doing stuff so I could see at a glance that I was in the middle of following a particular line of quests the last time I played.
The guys on the street should get a lot more than 4 years, plus have to pay FULL restitution to those affected. Yes, I know the damages runs into the billions but the taxpayers or other insurance holders should not have to pay for it.
The majority of those on the streets were unemployed, so ultimately under your scheme it would still be the taxpayers who ended up footing the bill even if we took it from their welfare payments. It's harsh on insurers but this is what insurance is for - if someone steals my TV I want a new TV paid for out of my insurance, I don't want to have to rely on the police finding the culprit then taking £8 per week from his benefits cheque for X months until it's paid off.
Hiring a hitman wouldn't be inciting murder though, it would be accessory to murder, which carries exactly the same penalty in English law as the murder itself. If, on the other hand, you simply made a vague statement in public like "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" then it's much more grey - did you incite the murder? Would a reasonable person expect someone to take that as an instruction to commit murder? That's why we have gradation of sentencing and it should certainly take into account the likelihood of any action arising from the request, whether the request was made in jest and any damage caused as a result of the request.
This is a golden opportunity for the government. At a time when we should be angry at them for the ongoing economic problems, this is something to split or dilute that anger, so of course the government will sieze on it to look like they're dynamic and effective. They were doing this to some extent with the NoW scandal, but of course that was much more difficult because all of the people involved are close personal friends of Mr Cameron. This new scandal is much better for him - everyone in the party can get behind a push to lock up chavs as the answer to all society's ills (while ignoring everything that caused those ills).
Theoretically you can't but in practice this clearly happens and can depend on political pressure, the mood of the public or even just the personal bias of the judge. For instance, in another case the sentence was a 3 month curfew and a 12 month social network site ban for inciting riots. Ah England. Not only is our health care, housing and welfare system pretty much a huge lottery, it seems our sentencing policy is too.
Because with 8,000,000 patents on the books, the chances are someone already has some patent out there that's vague enough to cover your invention (with a creative interpretation and the lawyers to make it stick) without having done any actual work, and they'll just sue everyone who goes near it.
I'm not sure. I have as intense a dislike for Zuckerberg and his site as the next guy, but whichever way this goes he's going to be richer than god. If, on the other hand, he was caught (or someone acting as his agent, with or without his explicit knowledge but for whom he was ultimately responsible was caught) fabricating evidence, that's a jail sentence, right? I could understand taking that risk if he was going to lose everything, but since that's not going to happen it's far more likely that Ceglia is mistaken.
Because the IT guys can potentially do a lot more damage to your business (personal injury/loss of life aside) without even needing a gun. And they can do it from the comfort of a beach in some country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the company's country. It's incredibly unprofessional on the part of the IT guy, of course, and not something I would ever advocate (especially if you intend to ever get another job) but it's certainly in the company's interests to at least part on good terms if you have to part ways (and always have off-site back-ups of everything mission critical, of course).
I think you're onto something - I doubt there is any one single reason at play here, but for a lot of people money just got a lot tighter. Suddenly that bit of extra cash they didn't mind dropping on the game so they could casually dip in and out when they wanted might be better saved or used elsewhere. Couple that with several reasonable "free to play" alternatives on the market at the moment, and for the non-hardcore gamer it makes more sense to pick up one of those games instead of having a WoW account on standby. It might not be the sole reason people leave, but it's one more good reason.
And by the sounds of it, you will still be able to - they'll just be two separate products. Meanwhile everyone who already has a heatsink or who wants to install their own brand doesn't get a big, ugly, sharp-edged paperweight with every chip. Win-win:)
Exactly - I think Intel already sell the chip minus heatsink for OEM use (I'm sure I've bought a couple that were labelled OEM and came without heatsinks in the past). The packaged heatsink is a pretty big, heavy, dead weight if the average customer is just going to throw it in the bin on arrival. Cutting it out might cost them a little markup, but if it saves them on storage and distribution costs (and makes them seem more competitively priced vs. AMD chips) then it might be worthwhile.
Yeah, I'd say this is more likely them moving out of the heatsink market - in so far as they will probably trial selling the chips sans heatsink and, if that results in much more demand for the naked chips, they'll just drop the heatsink range entirely. It lets them put out a less pricey product and it cuts down on packaging and shipping costs. I think they already do this for the OEM market, they probably just want to test the waters in the home builder market before going ahead and announcing they're dropping heatsinks entirely.
Then there's also maintenance. You might not need to buy a bunch of chips for build, but you might want a stock of them hanging around for repairs (and that's probably a valid reason why you'd not need a bundled fan if you're only swapping out the chip and the existing heatsink is fine).
I'm not sure how this is any different to you telling your friends in the local pub about a drug you're being prescriped and having it get back to your boss that way. If it's private, don't share it in public, full stop. People should have (certainly by now, with all the slips in the past) zero expectation of privacy with regards to anything they post on Facebook.
Yes, it seems ridiculous to say they don't want customers sharing their experiences of side effects and the like. If the drugs company has listed all the side effects (as I believe they're meant to do by law) they shouldn't have anything to worry about from government bodies since they've already disclaimed said effects, but to turn down valuable data from the people buying your product seems like they have no intention of making a better product - in other words they're happy selling products with bad side effects and using marketing spin to smooth over the cracks. Nice work, big pharma, like we didn't already know how profit driven you were, why bother even taking the opportunity to engage with the public and improve your appearance, huh?
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree - the central premise of Blade Runner wasn't flying cars, it was vat grown Human 2.0s and how we deal (or fail to deal) with the responsibilities inherent in such advanced technology. Inception didn't particularly need to be about technology at all. The technology was there to explain how they got into someone's head, but it could have been about a bunch of people using psychic techniques to achieve the same thing, it wouldn't have changed the story one jot, it was just a convenient metaphor to exlain how this can happen. It said nothing useful about our use of technology, it was entirely about human psychology and the nature of what is real.
What's to stop them doing this already? Are you saying you've never encountered a teacher who had students they favoured or students they plain disliked? The only difference here is that it's a bit more transparent so it's less likely to be abused than in the classroom environment. I can understand if a teacher is already abusing the relationship then it's not in their interests, but I have no problem with that kind of behaviour being exposed, whereas at the moment the system seems set up to hide it and refuse to acknowledge it happens (much like bullying in schools - the schools would rather pretend it didn't exist than spend the time and resources and risk the social stigma necessary to fight it).
Might work both ways too - a teacher might find it easier to engage and meet the learning needs of students if they understand more about what's happening in their life outside of school. Maybe there's some game or show that's popular and the teacher can hook into that to make class work more relevant. It feels a little odd to me as I'm from the generation that enjoyed privacy and the idea of a teacher being able to see my movements and social interactions is a little creepy, but for kids who have grown up in the current environment there are a lot of potential advantages.
Tracking systems don't work too well with roof mounted arrays (you can track a little vertically if you're prepared to build the array into the roofspace, but likely the small increase in power would be offset by the energy required to drive the tracking system). Meanwhile a tree system could stand in a garden without depriving the owner of usable ground space. Even if it's not a massive revolution in solar energy gathering, it's a useful experiment in different configurations that are more lifestyle friendly.
For more irony, there are plenty of examples of the music industry ripping each other off left, right and centre (well, when they can get away with it). They're not against copying, they're against copying that they don't get a chunk of cash from.
The way I see it, the only way this is going to turn out good is if it's in the same universe but not about the same characters (I'll allow a couple of cameos). The world Scott built was amazing, surely there's room for more stories there than Deckard (who should be dead at any meaningful point in the future anyway).
I'll give you Dark Knight (although I thought it was about 45 minutes too long, they should have done Harvey as a separate movie and not tried to bundle him in with Joker), and I haven't seen the new Tron, but the reboot of Spiderman was so stale that we're already seeing another reboot a scant ten years later.
And really, I'd prefer just IV, V and the Tatooine portion of VI.
Yes. Right up to - but not including - the ridiculously stupid and wasteful Boba Fett death scene.
Don't forget unecessary 3D. It wouldn't be a modern remake without lots of people holding everyday items meaningfully towards camera, running at the camera or exploding in the direction of the camera. I'll put my money right now on seeing at least one scene where Tyrell Corp's owl flies at the camera.
Some kind of in-game timeline would be a big help so I can not only see what I was doing but in what order I did it. I'd also like more help with in game functionality. If I've spent a week learning some combat system or how to craft item X or master spell Y, summarise that for me so when I take a few months off it can at least jog my (increasingly flaky) memory. Borderlands was good at recording everything but I seem to remember it did so in a big flat list, I'd have liked some organisation based on the order I was doing stuff so I could see at a glance that I was in the middle of following a particular line of quests the last time I played.
The guys on the street should get a lot more than 4 years, plus have to pay FULL restitution to those affected. Yes, I know the damages runs into the billions but the taxpayers or other insurance holders should not have to pay for it.
The majority of those on the streets were unemployed, so ultimately under your scheme it would still be the taxpayers who ended up footing the bill even if we took it from their welfare payments. It's harsh on insurers but this is what insurance is for - if someone steals my TV I want a new TV paid for out of my insurance, I don't want to have to rely on the police finding the culprit then taking £8 per week from his benefits cheque for X months until it's paid off.
Hiring a hitman wouldn't be inciting murder though, it would be accessory to murder, which carries exactly the same penalty in English law as the murder itself. If, on the other hand, you simply made a vague statement in public like "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" then it's much more grey - did you incite the murder? Would a reasonable person expect someone to take that as an instruction to commit murder? That's why we have gradation of sentencing and it should certainly take into account the likelihood of any action arising from the request, whether the request was made in jest and any damage caused as a result of the request.
This is a golden opportunity for the government. At a time when we should be angry at them for the ongoing economic problems, this is something to split or dilute that anger, so of course the government will sieze on it to look like they're dynamic and effective. They were doing this to some extent with the NoW scandal, but of course that was much more difficult because all of the people involved are close personal friends of Mr Cameron. This new scandal is much better for him - everyone in the party can get behind a push to lock up chavs as the answer to all society's ills (while ignoring everything that caused those ills).
Theoretically you can't but in practice this clearly happens and can depend on political pressure, the mood of the public or even just the personal bias of the judge. For instance, in another case the sentence was a 3 month curfew and a 12 month social network site ban for inciting riots. Ah England. Not only is our health care, housing and welfare system pretty much a huge lottery, it seems our sentencing policy is too.
The "it was a joke" line has already been tried and failed here in the UK, in a case where it was actually more obviously a joke.
Because with 8,000,000 patents on the books, the chances are someone already has some patent out there that's vague enough to cover your invention (with a creative interpretation and the lawyers to make it stick) without having done any actual work, and they'll just sue everyone who goes near it.
I'm not sure. I have as intense a dislike for Zuckerberg and his site as the next guy, but whichever way this goes he's going to be richer than god. If, on the other hand, he was caught (or someone acting as his agent, with or without his explicit knowledge but for whom he was ultimately responsible was caught) fabricating evidence, that's a jail sentence, right? I could understand taking that risk if he was going to lose everything, but since that's not going to happen it's far more likely that Ceglia is mistaken.
Because the IT guys can potentially do a lot more damage to your business (personal injury/loss of life aside) without even needing a gun. And they can do it from the comfort of a beach in some country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the company's country. It's incredibly unprofessional on the part of the IT guy, of course, and not something I would ever advocate (especially if you intend to ever get another job) but it's certainly in the company's interests to at least part on good terms if you have to part ways (and always have off-site back-ups of everything mission critical, of course).
I think you're onto something - I doubt there is any one single reason at play here, but for a lot of people money just got a lot tighter. Suddenly that bit of extra cash they didn't mind dropping on the game so they could casually dip in and out when they wanted might be better saved or used elsewhere. Couple that with several reasonable "free to play" alternatives on the market at the moment, and for the non-hardcore gamer it makes more sense to pick up one of those games instead of having a WoW account on standby. It might not be the sole reason people leave, but it's one more good reason.
And by the sounds of it, you will still be able to - they'll just be two separate products. Meanwhile everyone who already has a heatsink or who wants to install their own brand doesn't get a big, ugly, sharp-edged paperweight with every chip. Win-win :)
Exactly - I think Intel already sell the chip minus heatsink for OEM use (I'm sure I've bought a couple that were labelled OEM and came without heatsinks in the past). The packaged heatsink is a pretty big, heavy, dead weight if the average customer is just going to throw it in the bin on arrival. Cutting it out might cost them a little markup, but if it saves them on storage and distribution costs (and makes them seem more competitively priced vs. AMD chips) then it might be worthwhile.
Yeah, I'd say this is more likely them moving out of the heatsink market - in so far as they will probably trial selling the chips sans heatsink and, if that results in much more demand for the naked chips, they'll just drop the heatsink range entirely. It lets them put out a less pricey product and it cuts down on packaging and shipping costs. I think they already do this for the OEM market, they probably just want to test the waters in the home builder market before going ahead and announcing they're dropping heatsinks entirely.
Then there's also maintenance. You might not need to buy a bunch of chips for build, but you might want a stock of them hanging around for repairs (and that's probably a valid reason why you'd not need a bundled fan if you're only swapping out the chip and the existing heatsink is fine).
I'm not sure how this is any different to you telling your friends in the local pub about a drug you're being prescriped and having it get back to your boss that way. If it's private, don't share it in public, full stop. People should have (certainly by now, with all the slips in the past) zero expectation of privacy with regards to anything they post on Facebook.
Yes, it seems ridiculous to say they don't want customers sharing their experiences of side effects and the like. If the drugs company has listed all the side effects (as I believe they're meant to do by law) they shouldn't have anything to worry about from government bodies since they've already disclaimed said effects, but to turn down valuable data from the people buying your product seems like they have no intention of making a better product - in other words they're happy selling products with bad side effects and using marketing spin to smooth over the cracks. Nice work, big pharma, like we didn't already know how profit driven you were, why bother even taking the opportunity to engage with the public and improve your appearance, huh?