Aside from the question of the status of the issue, what's the status of the discourse? Are we talking about the role that skepticism plays in science? The basic premise of falsifiability? The relationships between theory and observation? The triad of induction, abduction, and deduction that Pierce wrote about? Has slashdot taken a look at the mathematical and computer models involved with various predictions? Or are we throwing rhetorical rocks at one another and angling for the cheap shot?
CyberLord Seven writes: The Washington Post has an article on a proposed new standard that would allow co-pilots, and co-pilots only, to gain most of their flight experience through flight simulators rather than through actual flight on smaller planes.
If this passes will we one day be able to train as co-pilots on the living room couch in our underwear on our brand new Nintendo Ding-A-Ling?
On a more serious note, will this be safe? As the article states, co-pilots perform many of the same tasks as pilots. One of my friends is a commercial pilot. Back when he was a co-pilot, flying from California to Hawaii, he used to tell me that he and the Captain would switch off on flying the plane. One would fly to Hawaii, and the other would fly back to California. Now before the flamers get started, please recognize that this is anecdotal and that I doubt that it was as simple as I just stated. Still it makes me wonder.
sudnshok writes: Last week, an article was posted where an EA executive discussed the high cost involved with next-gen game development. While I agree that sports games do benefit from a high-resolution 3D environment, do all games have to be developed that way? Why can't game companies develop 2D games for these systems? I would assume the development cost would be much lower. As a gamer who grew up on the NES, I'd love to see a new 2D side-scrolling installment of Castlevania or Zelda. I'm curious if other gamers would buy 2D games for next-gen systems.