Instead of saying that science is running out of interesting stuff to find out I could say that scientists are simply too concerned in publishing meaningless articles to stride forward and find the "great" stuff.

Or that we hit a point in our natural science studies that does not offer that many opportunities for major applications.

Other way to look at this is that with so much information available scientists can exchange more information and many people works in smaller fractions of the same problem and help each other in a more predictable way. There is no huge, instantaneous development, or said development takes time to become really meaningful on that area.

But in the end here is my opinion: Here in /. I find, every week, things that are truly amazing scientific developments. Maybe the writer is just numb due to so many incredible discoveries.

Women and men are equally bad at math. Specially at teaching math. It's not an easy subject and it's not a natural way to think about anything.

If smart is the capability of intellectually adapting to accomplish tasks then computers are in trouble for now. If academia overall stops chasing it's own tail worried about publishing papers in great volume of questionable relevance and resumes the publishing of meaningful developments then maybe we can get a good breakthrough in ten years. And that is a big maybe.

I am not particularly thrilled to create an AI good enough to be like us. /. is nice enough but humans overall are dicks. Anything we create will follow this tendency. We are not good enough to avoid that.

Sure, the Internet was not designed to stream HD videos, but neither it was designed to play games, or make telephone calls. The only thing they designed it for in the beginning was simple http. But all those things work now. The Internet is flexible. The companies want to kill net neutrality because the Internet is a strong competitor in many services they have a stake in too. Examples: Skype can replace telephones. Netflix can replace cable. And the Internet allows for people to create new, better solutions at any time and over the already established infrastructure. Having a tenth of my download rate as my upload is already a spit on my face, and now they want to control what services I can properly use or not? That's not acceptable.

Besides, if they charge more to not limit Netflix bandwidth, most people will likely pay for it and keep using the same amount of bandwidth, only now the ISPs are getting some money for that. This is only about profit, that they have more than enough.

Im not a physicist, but hear this. Imagine for a second that most of the photons that gets trapped on a black hole will certainly head towards the singularity. Now, there is a certain distance where the orbital speed is the same as the light's speed, and that is not at the core, presuming that at the core the gravity must be strong enough to stop light from going out even at the perfect escape vector. Therefore it is possible, but very unlikely, that this orbiting light around the black hole is enough to melt or crisp any objects that care about being burned.

Please correct me if I'm in any way wrong.

Just remember: When you try to patent such idiocy I will be pretty pissed off. Nice rule of thumb.

... if /. will be the first site to have flesh-eating posts.

"Don't worry about it, it's not that serious."

Well, you are wrong, your head is up your ass, and this kind of stuff is why guys like you hire guys like me, even if you don't know that. So, let the IT dept. do it's job, dammit!

Let's just say I'm not including only direct physical harm in my definition of violence. We may not hit ourselves in each other faces all day long, but:

1- Our culture, more and more, represents violence. All kinds of media. Every time. All around.

2- Look at the Internet. Look at comment sections (/. excluded, and that's why I still read comments here). That should be the new definition of verbal violence.

3- Any way we deprive someone from their basic means of survival can be considered violence IMHO. All societies I can think of had, to their core, a way from taking something from most people to concentrate in the hands of fewer. The difference now is that with better transportation, entire countries can be screwed in favor of other countries. That is true for socialism and communism too. That is human nature, and that's my point.

Since the human nature is a violent one, I don't think violent behavior is abnormal, only not accepted in most circumstances by our social standards. The robot will detect behavior disapproved by the government that bought it.

Through a thing called programming language. The same way we all need to learn how to speak with one another, we need to learn how to properly communicate with a computer.

Not saying we should not teach machines how to understand "natural" language, text interpretation and so on, but that headline is horrible.

When you write the message on a typewriter then scan it to be transmitted through a well-known IM system.

I agree that if you want to make a game you must understand that you don`t have the resources to do everything. Being so, the secret here is what you do first and when to stop making new stuff to make the stuff you already have the best you can.

That said there is reason why publishers are hated. They are business only. They care little for creativity. They care only for profit. And you may say that for capitalism in general, but you can`t let that be the guiding line in a creative industry. A industry that relies on creativity to make a profit. That is the great contradiction that publishers face every day.

And what do they seek to solve this problem? QA, Focus group testing, yearly franchises and so on. This industry is inherently risky, and even the most profitable franchise will cease to be profitable on the long run. I don`t know how long it will take for that to happen with CoD but I hope it happens sooner rather than later. If you want to make sure money, go work in a bank or be a MD. This industry is where guys take huge risks, where you bet on competent people and new ideas.

Well... It is very common to go over-budget in most, if not all, games. And the costs of running a business are no secret. Any local, trustworthy accountant (yeah, pretty limited bunch but they exist) can tell exactly how much it will cost. But Kickstarter stretch goals are a completely new beast, and therefore hard to predict.

I don`t have business experience, but it`s pretty obvious to me that, as you make a bigger project, more and more money is spent in management. Management that can barely keep things on track. So, too much management is a money burner, and the reason why I think big corporations are such a waste.

Yes, Tim is pretty good at his job. Full Throttle would be at my Top5 game of all time if I ever bother to make such list. What I meant is all this discussion is blown out of proportion because of hype. If it was a non-kickstarted project it would be canceled and thrown into Limbo until someone really asked about it and the fate was revealed. They were open about what is happening and deserve some kudos for that. And while you can say they have the moral obligation to be open in this case, they could simply smooth talk us all the way into believing everything was fine.

It is a symbol that one of the most successful crowdfunded projects is in such trouble.

Also, I`m very curious to see how many people will get the game at Steam`s Early Access. I believe that crowdfunding completely changes how finished product sale forecasts works. I think veteran devs are expecting to finish the game and still sell as much as they are used to with a strong launch and longtail sales. Remains to be seen.