Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:P2P for all updates (Score 1) 176

I totally agree, but when we look at the big economic picture, essentially what this practice does is transfer the cost of bandwidth / traffic from the companies offering the downloads to the isps.
many isps, especially in the states, can't do their one single job properly; transfering data. they dont want to put money into upgrading their infrastructure, they want to make the net a one-way street and they want to get paid handsomely for it.
isps having to pick up their own slack and actually doing properly what they're paid to do is one of the arguments against net-neutrality.

it makes sense for companies offering updates. I can only imagine they don't want to use torrent tech because of the "bad" image it has in the public - thanks to the lying and misleading media.

Comment Re:Swastika's are a legal issue. (Score 1) 548

Actually some letter-combinations are in fact banned:
SS (Schutzstaffel), SA (Sturmabteilung), AH (Adolf Hitler), HH, 88 (Heil Hitler), NSDAP and others. Obviously, youre not going to get charged for scribbling them on some paper, but you won't be able to get a personalized number-plate (for instance) with those abbreviations (on that note, the Brits also ban certain number-plates. usually not in connection with the second WW, though.).

Comment Re:Big news... (Score 2, Insightful) 461

yes and no - any id game I actually bought was usually the windows version followed by a quick dl of a linux bin and a replacement of the windows exe (so, yes, they have general stats - ie apache logs (or do they actually sell linux/mac only versions in the states or elsewhere? they don't to my knowledge in Germany or the UK [I've seen mac and windows versions of other games, but nothing non-windows])) - seeing as they used to use opengl for everything.
it sounds like this time id went for dx10 - even though they claim the (possible) pc and mac versions are based on opengl (I'm still slightly puzzled by this claim tbh). I ("only") minor in CS, but to my understanding, if you dev an application on a certain (cross plattform) api, it should easily be adapted to other plattforms. Seeing as one of those plattforms is mac - which to my knowledge only 'understands' opengl (no directx port) - their statement makes little sense. why should they be easily able to dev for mac but not for linux, seeing as the general basis is the same and they both work really well with opengl?

-sniff sniff- I smell bacon!

id used to offer a linux bin for basically any of their games - why is it so hard this time?! are they maybe not actually using opengl..? are they snubbing the nix market? are they going to make the effort for the mac market? if so, if they have to port it to opengl for the mac (or has ms actually released dx10 for the mac?!), why can't they type a "couple lines" of code and port it to nix afterwards? hell, chuck me the code - I've been looking for an excuse to read up on opengl and the *nix kernel - as long as I can put it in my CV!

id is one of those dev groups that have always gone out of their way to please the open sourcers, the modders, the community. it's no coincidence that most of their games were used in lan competitions.

for now, I have this big muthaf*cka of a question mark on my head. and any which way I look, I'm not really happy. id is (was) one of those game devs I could look up to and that gave me hope for free software - even if it meant buying the windows version and later dl'ing the linux version.

(having said all this, I might be totally wrong - or not hehe! please correct me if neccessary)

Comment Re:Ahh the social sciences. (Score 1) 590

it's not really my branch, thus I am confused and interested;
could you describe why psychoanalysis is not to be taken seriously by modern psychologists / scholars? (I'm not taking a bite at you, I'm genuinely interested). what about depth psychology? (I'm not sure if this is the proper term)
I know most of the sh*t freud spewed is close to fraud nowadays, but (tbh, without having done the research) I thought psychoanalysis was one of the things one could actually attritube to him and was worth working with (judging by my implied knowledge stemming from professors that are way behind, not my field work).

Comment Re:Ahh the social sciences. (Score 1) 590

I do not believe your summary of clinical psychology - if indeed this is what you're refering to - to be accurate.

furthermore, resting your case on one sole psychologist is pretty demeaning to those that work in this field. Any and all serious psychological research is peer-reviewed. just like any other science.
I will give you this though; people do not like psychology. it's like the female of science. men only reluctantly give her the right to vote. there's another more interesting metaphor about our societies in there.
I take solace in the fact, that I can manipulate a common audience better than any politician.

people who visit freudian leaning psychiatrists have essentially only themselves to blame.
I know the states, for instance, are very big on Freud. what the general public doesn't know, is that apart from depth-psychology and psychoanalysis (which are important but not major parts of clinical treatment), Freud was essentially a Fraud.
yeah yeah, freudian slipped and can't get up. spare me.

Comment Re:Ahh the social sciences. (Score 1) 590

I wasted like 5 paragraphs on that troll. I have much to learn from your charm, eloquence and dry humour. personally, I always take such a boring scientific approach. But you summed it up in one! kudos!

please don't mod him funny, afaik it doesn't add to karma. mod him insightful / informative / etc instead.
great post!

Comment Re:Ahh the social sciences. (Score 2, Insightful) 590

there's a grave difference between psychology and sociology. For this post, I'm going to assume you meant what you typed and know the difference between the two, although the alternative is more likely.

you are absolutely correct that psychology cannot ever offer corporeal results ("the capture of the invisible", Moravia 1983). Psychology can easily offer empirical evidence though. (certain) methods of testing give statistical probabilities and reinforce or deny a theory. I don't use the term "theory" lightly here - psychological research, when done properly, is as stringent as physics or maths. In fact, maybe even moreso, as we do not deal with corporeal results and thus (dis)proving something on a chalk board is very hard for us (I might be punching over my weight here, I have little knowledge of applied physics, plus I'm thinking more of mechanical physics than quantum physics..). furthermore, of course psychologists understand and use the null hypothesis. disregarding or using a null hypothesis as grounds for research is the dumbest idea I've ever heard! we use the same formal defintion of theory as the physicists and chemists, just fyi.

the formal definitions of psychology are:
- applied science
- theoretical / formal science
- and has roots in the humanities.
(I apologise for the language barrier - it might not be technically accurate for the english language)

blabbering that psychology isn't debatable and lacks rigor in experimentation is laughable, at best. we get papers over papers of psychologists citicizing each other over the smallest mistakes, loopholes and possible inconsistencies. if you'd like to see a shit storm a psychologist (well, behaviorist) started (nowadays, more or less the status quo [makes /. arguments look bland tbh], although less public) check out W. James ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James ) or Darwins later years (yeap, many of his works fall into the category of psychology. He did a lot for evolutionary psychology.).

disclosure: I study cognitive science (to put it bluntly, a mix of CS and PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science) of which one main field of application is R&D (yeah, the skynet guys :-\ ).

p.s. tbh, whoever modded you up most likely got triggered by your yellow press style. just to formalise my point; you are incredibly wrong. see above why.
I'll answer any questions.

Comment Re:Before the arguments start? (Score -1, Troll) 517

no shit, buddy.
today, tenenbaum went down.
you can kill the revolutionary - you can't kill the revolution!

I am pretty fucking sick of what 'upstairs' is feeding me. so are most europeans.
I see this gleaming sparkle in the eyes of many americans and europeans - but obama just ain't the hot shit we make him out to be. as soon as a judge is bribed or they judge against the people, the basics of "from the people for the people" have been betrayed.

SOAP, BALLOT, JURY, AMMO!

Comment Re:I thought this was the whole point? (Score 1) 652

The total amount of goods produced goes UP. Prices go DOWN. Standards of living goes UP. This is economic progress.

you fail to incorporate purchasing power in your model. cheapest goods possible are useless if no one can buy them.

you'd think ol' Ford knew what he was talking about when he said:
"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." -Henry Ford

After all, he did usher in the 2nd industrial revolution.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...