Comment Someone contact Chris Hadfield! (Score 3, Funny) 172
Hubble Reveals a Previously Unknown Dwarf Galaxy Just 7 Million Light Years Away 70
Comment Escapism (Score 5, Insightful) 292
The Growing Illusion of Single Player Gaming 292
The article's author uses a couple recent major titles as backdrop for the discussion: "With both Diablo III and Destiny, I'm not sure where and how to attribute my enjoyment. Yes, the mechanics of both are sound, but given the resounding emptiness felt when played solo, perhaps the co-op element is compensating. I'd go so far as to argue games can be less mechanically compelling, so long as the multiplayer element is engaging. The thrill of barking orders at friends can, in a way, cover design flaws. I hem and haw on the quality of each game's mechanics because the co-op aspect literally distracted me from engaging with them to some degree."
Comment Strawman argument from climate denialists (Score 0) 441
C'mon, Slashdot. You need to retract that editorial - and Timothy needs to have a think about his credentials.
Six Electric Cars Can Power an Office Building 296
Comment Re:Bit torrent (Score 1) 136
But it's actually legit - you can follow the link from the OP to get there as well.
Comment Re:Bit torrent (Score 5, Informative) 136
Comment Trade-offs (Score 5, Interesting) 384
The biggest drawback, as I see it, is longer term not being able to pass the games on to family/friends to play. Perhaps an option is to have a higher tiered pricing which gives you the ability to resell the game later?
UK Green Lights HS2 High Speed Rail Line 329
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option 373
Iran Shuts Down US Virtual Embassy 451
Comment Re:Rewards for contributors (Score 1) 153
(Even the nuclear bomb research probably helped spur nuclear power, which in turn staved off climate change. And, of course, views are divided on whether more or less lives were lost due to the bombs. So yes, I definitely meant broad generalisation rather than absolute statement
Comment Rewards for contributors (Score 4, Insightful) 153
Another issue though is that all of humanity benefits from scientific advances. If government funding were to reduce and be replaced by fund raising drives, then (in the simplest case) those who don't contribute would be getting all the benefits (alternatives to fossil fuels, medical advances, etc) but with none of the upfront cost. Of course, we already have some fund raising for breast cancer/prostate cancer/MS/other specific disease but I would imagine this makes up a fairly small portion of their research budgets (and in some cases genuinely represents an investment in their personal future).
The obvious way around this is through a Kickstarter style reward system, where people who contribute get some specific rewards. But what would you offer? You get a share of the profits? (Well, now you're actually a corporation.) You get early access to the treatment? (That's not going to fly politically.) You get your name on the side of the particle accelerator? (That might work.)
Obviously, people are welcome to do whatever they want with their money, but I think government funding of science for the common good is the fairest scenario, and what we should be encouraging.