I want to know how they are gonna divide the games, will the Linux guys only be able to buy from a special Linux section? The reason I ask this is the one criticism I have for Steam is on their big sales it is often difficult to see at a glance which games use ONLY Steam DRM, and there are plenty of games on steam that use TAGES, SecuROM, even GFWL ON TOP of Steam. of course since all of these require kernel hooks Linux simply won't allow none of these games will be available.
The steam platform itself and Valve's source engine games will be available on Linux (I assume that means linux native ports), and no source engine games have DRM other than Steam, that I'm aware of. I imagine this will be like their ports for Mac in that only some titles run on mac, and I don't know how mac users can tell which titles they can play other than to read the system requirements. The nice thing is you just buy the game and it knows which version to download AND you then own it on whatever platform you want to use. You can download it onto multiple machines, you just can't be logged into the same steam account on multiple machines at once.
One thing *I'm* curious about - will the Linux games run as well in Linux as Windows on the same hardware? My guess would be no, since they've added a compatibility layer that translates direct3d calls to OpenGL, but I'm curious how close it is. When they ported the Games to Mac I looked for some performance comparisons between the mac and windows versions and couldn't find anything.
Arguably, wind and tide are other forms of solar energy. You say of solar-thermal "just heat a working fluid so that it pushes a turbine". That's a good description of wind power.
If not our government, will anyone fund these immense projects or will physics slowly grind to a halt due to fiscal constraints?
Yes, if the cost of pushing the frontiers of science continues to increase, we'll hit a limit where we can't fund the next step. However, I don't think we're there yet. The world economy just isn't doing that well now. When the economy picks up again, the funding will probably come back.
I'm not finding fault with this study, but the conclusion seems to have stepped outside the realm of science and into politics by assuming (at least this is the impression the article gives) that government policy is the only way to limit the growth of our ecological footprint.
The good old freedom-loving alternative has inspired such movies as Mad Max 2.
It's peculiar how science is only OK as long as its conclusions are harmless to powerful interests.
These models aren't science. They are at best educated guesses, based on mathematical models that are necessarily unable to predict changes to birthrate or sustainability that occur in the future. This isn't a problem with the models or science: the problem is in granting these models more power than they have. I have little doubt that the models are correct: if the present trends stay exactly the same, collapse will happen when they say it will.
The trends never stay the same. Little exercise: create a population (or economic) model for human civilization using any time in history. It will predict a peak population (or population explosion) at some other point in history (usually a couple hundreds years from the chosen time). Yet guess what? Humanity has continued to expand well past that predicted limits, because these models are inherently unable to predict changes in the trends: they can only be based on current or historical trends, and those always change unpredictably.
Population growth is a great example. China decided regulation ("one child" policy) was necessary to slow population growth, but many countries have reached low or negative growth without any such measures.
However, the study said "unlimited economic growth" is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint.
There was an article a while back about a decline in conservatives' trust of science. This is an example of why, in my opinion. I'm not finding fault with this study, but the conclusion seems to have stepped outside the realm of science and into politics by assuming (at least this is the impression the article gives) that government policy is the only way to limit the growth of our ecological footprint.
The unspoken premise is that leading more democratically is better. I don't know if that's accurate in all cases. Decision by consensus isn't always better, especially in a small group.
film making. Imagine.... ground shaking... startled cries.... LOOK! Run! It's House-Ra and its coming this way! Oh No! Out-House-Zilla is with him, and now he flies!! Aieeee! Flea! Flea for your lives... ewwww!
The summary makes it sound like these new metrics were "discovered" to have a strong correlation with school quality. The article suggests that these are just 3 metrics some guy decided to use. It's an interesting article, but not very scientific.
Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong.
is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar.
So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
Mod parent up. The whole thing COULD be true, but it's interesting how quick people can be to believe anything that backs up their preconceived notions (e.g. rich executives are evil) and then pile on with "yes, we all know that" sort of comments without even reading, much less questioning, the story.
There is a certain amount of selection bias going on here... For every solid-as-a-mountain 200-year old farmhouse still standing today or 400-year old pub or 800-year old cathedral or 4000-year old monument, there were probably 99 more built at the same time that have since fallen down. We only see the survivors, so we think that those survivors are 100% representative of the time they were built. Truth is, you pick any time period and you'll find there were well-designed and built buildings (or, in the case of really old stuff that predates a meaningful understanding of structural engineering, luckily-designed buildings!) and shoddy ones.
Just like everyone nostalgically thinks music from X years ago was better because nobody ever bothers to replay the endless dross from that era, they only play the good stuff.
100 years from now people will be saying how the people in the early 2000s really built to last, just because a tiny minority of today's McMansions actually will be well-designed / well-built / lucky enough to survive a century.
I'm sure there is a selection bias, but don't get too biased the other way. Houses sometimes burn down, get torn down, get neglected, etc. The fact that few make it 100 years doesn't necessarily mean that the rest weren't built well enough to last that long. I suspect many fall to neglect. I used to own a 150 year old home, and was surprised at what some previous owners had done to it, but then it occurred to me that at some point before it became a rare historic house, it was just an old house.
Would you agree or disagree that "there is no climate change" is a valid talking point? To "go after" people who say "there is no climate change" is valid because these people are morons. The geological record shows that climate changes constantly and to deny it without scientific reasoning is unscientific and backwards and should be assailed. Furthermore, to refute that humankind can cause climate change with an empty and baseless statement of religious conviction is not science, it's idiocy.
Long live the debate as to whether humans can cause climate change! Bring the facts! Leave the religious voodoo mumbo jumbo in church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever.
The U.S. is not a theocracy, but nor is it a technocracy (is that a real word?). Religious teaching disagrees with scientific consensus sometimes and both groups have a concern about kids being "indoctrinated" in the public schools. I don't see how this kind of debate is avoidable without getting rid of either free speech or the public school system.
Yes, but how many Stephen Colbert heads do you get per spool?
My problem with these 3d techs online is that there's no good way to know exactly how much you can DO with a given amount of raw material. At some point, i'm going to have to break down and purchase things, just to get a baseline on cost.
He claims in the video that the material is so cheap you can just give things to friends and print more, but... Somehow, I doubt it's that cheap.
The raw material is plastic wire. It is melted and molded, not really "consumed", so I expect you could easily calculate how much plastic a given print will require. The other main resource is electricity, and I think these things output a fairly constant volume / hour, so again, you just need to know the volume.
Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,
No, sane person would prefer 4 more years of Obama to any of the candidates in the field (even Dennis Kucinich is likely to be a better choice than 4 more years of Obama).
Interesting, how was this post any more "flamebait" than it's parent? Does Obama pay people to moderate slashdot?
And I guess the only phrase for "too conservative" has become "right wing nutjob", which gives it a pejorative rather than descriptive feeling, and thus removes its effectiveness.
I suspect that in this context "right wing nutjob" here means "religious conservative". Appealing to evangelicals *is* playing it safe, particularly for a Republican race in Iowa.
I will close by passing on Hitch's legacy in the form of a question that he was fond of asking believers: Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived of by a person of no faith. Tough question, right? Ok, here's an easier one: Name me one wicked action that was committed in the name of religion. Chew on that one for a little bit, and the cognitive dissonance might wake you up from your intellectual coma.
I am utterly unimpressed. Maybe it sounded better in context of a bigger argument. Just turn the questions around: "Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived by a person of faith. Name one wicked action not committed in the name of religion". I suppose the first question was intended to prove that religion isn't necessary (which to me it doesn't - I don't need God to tell me what is good, I need His help to *be* good), and then when the first question had you off balance the second by contrast was supposed to prove that religion makes things worse (which it doesn't prove - there have been plenty of *secular* atrocities in history). That's just rhetorical trickery, IMO.
People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution.
Um, that's the definition of boiling: Dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Can be induced by heating the fluid, lowering the atmospheric pressure, or both.
I'm not sure either of you are right. Boiling is when something changes state from liquid to gas. If you lower pressure enough, your blood (the water in it anyway) would literally boil at room temperature. However, decompression sickness - gases coming out of solution - is a different phenomenon that would probably happen first (at a higher pressure).
Although I don't immediately know the specifics for mosquitos, not everything in nature serves a useful purpose.
Like, for instance, humans. Nature would get along much better without us, probably.
Define "better". If you mean better by some human standard, then if humans don't exist, the human standard goes away, too, and your statement has no meaning.
In real life it will be covered in dust and hair and stick to that crap instead of your surface after a few removals.
One interesting thing about geckos - their feet continue to stick even after walking through dirt and dust. If this tape can really work like gecko feet, the dirt and hair might not be a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to know how they are gonna divide the games, will the Linux guys only be able to buy from a special Linux section? The reason I ask this is the one criticism I have for Steam is on their big sales it is often difficult to see at a glance which games use ONLY Steam DRM, and there are plenty of games on steam that use TAGES, SecuROM, even GFWL ON TOP of Steam. of course since all of these require kernel hooks Linux simply won't allow none of these games will be available.
The steam platform itself and Valve's source engine games will be available on Linux (I assume that means linux native ports), and no source engine games have DRM other than Steam, that I'm aware of. I imagine this will be like their ports for Mac in that only some titles run on mac, and I don't know how mac users can tell which titles they can play other than to read the system requirements. The nice thing is you just buy the game and it knows which version to download AND you then own it on whatever platform you want to use. You can download it onto multiple machines, you just can't be logged into the same steam account on multiple machines at once.
One thing *I'm* curious about - will the Linux games run as well in Linux as Windows on the same hardware? My guess would be no, since they've added a compatibility layer that translates direct3d calls to OpenGL, but I'm curious how close it is. When they ported the Games to Mac I looked for some performance comparisons between the mac and windows versions and couldn't find anything.
Sturgeon "argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc., are crap."
So Sturgeon was the first slashdotter?
Arguably, wind and tide are other forms of solar energy. You say of solar-thermal "just heat a working fluid so that it pushes a turbine". That's a good description of wind power.
If not our government, will anyone fund these immense projects or will physics slowly grind to a halt due to fiscal constraints?
Yes, if the cost of pushing the frontiers of science continues to increase, we'll hit a limit where we can't fund the next step. However, I don't think we're there yet. The world economy just isn't doing that well now. When the economy picks up again, the funding will probably come back.
I'm not finding fault with this study, but the conclusion seems to have stepped outside the realm of science and into politics by assuming (at least this is the impression the article gives) that government policy is the only way to limit the growth of our ecological footprint.
The good old freedom-loving alternative has inspired such movies as Mad Max 2.
It's peculiar how science is only OK as long as its conclusions are harmless to powerful interests.
These models aren't science. They are at best educated guesses, based on mathematical models that are necessarily unable to predict changes to birthrate or sustainability that occur in the future. This isn't a problem with the models or science: the problem is in granting these models more power than they have. I have little doubt that the models are correct: if the present trends stay exactly the same, collapse will happen when they say it will.
The trends never stay the same. Little exercise: create a population (or economic) model for human civilization using any time in history. It will predict a peak population (or population explosion) at some other point in history (usually a couple hundreds years from the chosen time). Yet guess what? Humanity has continued to expand well past that predicted limits, because these models are inherently unable to predict changes in the trends: they can only be based on current or historical trends, and those always change unpredictably.
Population growth is a great example. China decided regulation ("one child" policy) was necessary to slow population growth, but many countries have reached low or negative growth without any such measures.
However, the study said "unlimited economic growth" is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint.
There was an article a while back about a decline in conservatives' trust of science. This is an example of why, in my opinion. I'm not finding fault with this study, but the conclusion seems to have stepped outside the realm of science and into politics by assuming (at least this is the impression the article gives) that government policy is the only way to limit the growth of our ecological footprint.
The unspoken premise is that leading more democratically is better. I don't know if that's accurate in all cases. Decision by consensus isn't always better, especially in a small group.
film making. Imagine.... ground shaking ... startled cries.... LOOK! Run! It's House-Ra and its coming this way! Oh No! Out-House-Zilla is with him, and now he flies!! Aieeee! Flea! Flea for your lives ... ewwww!
Is that flea as in flea speach?
The summary makes it sound like these new metrics were "discovered" to have a strong correlation with school quality. The article suggests that these are just 3 metrics some guy decided to use. It's an interesting article, but not very scientific.
Sorry, I have worked with to many public business at the C*O level. frankly, you are wrong. is that some peoples point of view? yes. But it's not common, and it is not the 'American Business school ethic'
Did you read the article? it's form a Con-Man with no collaboration, and it reads like a classic tale that would be woven by a pathological liar. So, long term Con-Man and liar, no confirmation, any of the alleged specifics are common knowledge, and then the feds do nothing with this information. His interaction with Google certainly doesn't sound like the typical advertiser interactions
Too Many Red Flags. Let me know when a reputable source confirms it. Until then, I'll choose to ignore the pathological liar.
Mod parent up. The whole thing COULD be true, but it's interesting how quick people can be to believe anything that backs up their preconceived notions (e.g. rich executives are evil) and then pile on with "yes, we all know that" sort of comments without even reading, much less questioning, the story.
There is a certain amount of selection bias going on here... For every solid-as-a-mountain 200-year old farmhouse still standing today or 400-year old pub or 800-year old cathedral or 4000-year old monument, there were probably 99 more built at the same time that have since fallen down. We only see the survivors, so we think that those survivors are 100% representative of the time they were built. Truth is, you pick any time period and you'll find there were well-designed and built buildings (or, in the case of really old stuff that predates a meaningful understanding of structural engineering, luckily-designed buildings!) and shoddy ones.
Just like everyone nostalgically thinks music from X years ago was better because nobody ever bothers to replay the endless dross from that era, they only play the good stuff.
100 years from now people will be saying how the people in the early 2000s really built to last, just because a tiny minority of today's McMansions actually will be well-designed / well-built / lucky enough to survive a century.
I'm sure there is a selection bias, but don't get too biased the other way. Houses sometimes burn down, get torn down, get neglected, etc. The fact that few make it 100 years doesn't necessarily mean that the rest weren't built well enough to last that long. I suspect many fall to neglect. I used to own a 150 year old home, and was surprised at what some previous owners had done to it, but then it occurred to me that at some point before it became a rare historic house, it was just an old house.
Would you agree or disagree that "there is no climate change" is a valid talking point? To "go after" people who say "there is no climate change" is valid because these people are morons. The geological record shows that climate changes constantly and to deny it without scientific reasoning is unscientific and backwards and should be assailed. Furthermore, to refute that humankind can cause climate change with an empty and baseless statement of religious conviction is not science, it's idiocy.
Long live the debate as to whether humans can cause climate change! Bring the facts! Leave the religious voodoo mumbo jumbo in church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever.
The U.S. is not a theocracy, but nor is it a technocracy (is that a real word?). Religious teaching disagrees with scientific consensus sometimes and both groups have a concern about kids being "indoctrinated" in the public schools. I don't see how this kind of debate is avoidable without getting rid of either free speech or the public school system.
I think the humane thing to do with this thread is let it die and get back on topic.
Yes, but how many Stephen Colbert heads do you get per spool?
My problem with these 3d techs online is that there's no good way to know exactly how much you can DO with a given amount of raw material. At some point, i'm going to have to break down and purchase things, just to get a baseline on cost.
He claims in the video that the material is so cheap you can just give things to friends and print more, but... Somehow, I doubt it's that cheap.
The raw material is plastic wire. It is melted and molded, not really "consumed", so I expect you could easily calculate how much plastic a given print will require. The other main resource is electricity, and I think these things output a fairly constant volume / hour, so again, you just need to know the volume.
Most sane republicans would prefer 4 more year of Obama,
No, sane person would prefer 4 more years of Obama to any of the candidates in the field (even Dennis Kucinich is likely to be a better choice than 4 more years of Obama).
Interesting, how was this post any more "flamebait" than it's parent? Does Obama pay people to moderate slashdot?
And I guess the only phrase for "too conservative" has become "right wing nutjob", which gives it a pejorative rather than descriptive feeling, and thus removes its effectiveness.
I suspect that in this context "right wing nutjob" here means "religious conservative". Appealing to evangelicals *is* playing it safe, particularly for a Republican race in Iowa.
Ditto. I read this and thought, "Good, I've got support till April 2014. I'll probably be building a new system by then anyway."
I will close by passing on Hitch's legacy in the form of a question that he was fond of asking believers: Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived of by a person of no faith. Tough question, right? Ok, here's an easier one: Name me one wicked action that was committed in the name of religion. Chew on that one for a little bit, and the cognitive dissonance might wake you up from your intellectual coma.
I am utterly unimpressed. Maybe it sounded better in context of a bigger argument. Just turn the questions around: "Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived by a person of faith. Name one wicked action not committed in the name of religion". I suppose the first question was intended to prove that religion isn't necessary (which to me it doesn't - I don't need God to tell me what is good, I need His help to *be* good), and then when the first question had you off balance the second by contrast was supposed to prove that religion makes things worse (which it doesn't prove - there have been plenty of *secular* atrocities in history). That's just rhetorical trickery, IMO.
People say "your blood will boil", but that's not actually what happens; the bubbles will be dissolved gasses coming out of solution.
Um, that's the definition of boiling: Dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Can be induced by heating the fluid, lowering the atmospheric pressure, or both.
I'm not sure either of you are right. Boiling is when something changes state from liquid to gas. If you lower pressure enough, your blood (the water in it anyway) would literally boil at room temperature. However, decompression sickness - gases coming out of solution - is a different phenomenon that would probably happen first (at a higher pressure).
Although I don't immediately know the specifics for mosquitos, not everything in nature serves a useful purpose.
Like, for instance, humans. Nature would get along much better without us, probably.
Define "better". If you mean better by some human standard, then if humans don't exist, the human standard goes away, too, and your statement has no meaning.
A Series of Tubes, eh?
Jen: "It's so light!"
Moss: "Of course, Jen. The internet doesn't weigh anything!"
I read the article and I'm still not sure I understand:
...and that heat is converted into chilled water using a liquid cooling system of absorption chillers that IBM and SU created.
So, is that saying the turbine heat powers something like a heat pump that then cools the computers?
Or for the tropical fish department of PetsMart.
What were we talking about?
I usually pronounce that "ghoti".
I thought "ghoti" was pronounced "".
Assuming "our own" is the United States, there are twenty according to this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_index
Note that is an index of the PERCEPTION of corruption. The ones scoring better than the U.S. might just be better at hiding it.
In real life it will be covered in dust and hair and stick to that crap instead of your surface after a few removals.
One interesting thing about geckos - their feet continue to stick even after walking through dirt and dust. If this tape can really work like gecko feet, the dirt and hair might not be a problem.