Because I like this city and the population density it provides without the over-urbanization in bigger cities. I don't have a problem with my commute at all, my comments are directed at those that feel everyone should drive manuals and I'm giving counterpoints. The stupidest thing about this whole debate is that he's saying manual
As for the second part, no they did not get in accidents due to poor health conditions and bad driving. One was my dad falling out of the attic and shattering his left foot, the other is my co-worker who got hit by a reckless driver and has long-term medical problems as a result. It doesn't hinder their ability to drive, but strenuous or repetitive physical actions like driving a manual in bad traffic can agitate it. If it can be avoided, why not?
Just because your situation doesn't require it doesn't mean its not required in some situations. I live in a city with a million people, and the transportation you describe does not exist. Not driving is not an option unless you live downtown and work downtown, which isn't the majority of people. Even if you do work downtown, most people don't make the kind of money required to live comfortably in that location. My condo would cost 400% more if it was within 2 miles of my old office. Also, peoople change jobs and would have to change housing under your ideal. It isn't practical to do what you suggest.
You would rather people be left without options than allow your idealism to be dented. This is the same radical behavior used by left and right purists who can't get shit done because they don't comprimise. I suggest you step back and look at your ideas from a birds eye view and evaluate it more logically.
Thank you for pointing out heavy traffic, its nice to know some manual drivers understand that facet. As someone who drives 30+ minutes 2x a day 5x a week in stop-and-go traffic, I would never touch a manual. Some things are worth effort, and shifting my car every 15 seconds for 5 hours a week is not one of them.
Another point is out-of-shape or old people: I know some older people here who have switched from manuals solely due to the soreness in their leg from driving in that same traffic. I'd rather other drivers not be focused on the pain in their leg and be more focused on the road. No, telling them to get in shape is not an acceptable option: two of these people were in major accidents that weren't their fault, and have medical reasons they can no longer maintain strong muscles.
A majority of Google's business model relies on an open and free internet. Censorship and government control pass the decision-making on what product the use from the consumers to government authorities. To play in to that philosophy is the beginning of the end of Google.
Also, their stance gives them a selling point and differentiator in their domestic market. There are significant benefits for their decision that do not comprimise the core company values, thus hurting the identity of the company. When the scales are even, you go with the gold not the gamble.
A CEO getting butthurt over not following something in their company core values shouldn't be running that company. Not everything can be easily quantifiable by dollars and cents, but you can bet your ass that that corporate philosophy has made them money over the years. Schmidt is short sighted.
Bigger PVA LCD panels already introduce significant input lag to the point where its noticeable to the avid gamer, with a difference of only ~40ms to TN panels. This would add a very significant number to a system that is already very close to the breaking point. An above poster mentioned that this would be good for trade shows or marketing displays, which seems to be significantly better application. Marketing based on fan noise is pretty rediculous when water-cooled systems are already economical.
Furniture is a fairly high margin good, much higher than most items in a all-purpose store like Wal-mart. They don't need to sell nearly as many to make the retail space worthwhile.
I wonder how big the batteries will need to be to balance style and weight with the need to recharge the glasses. People will not be too receptive to something like this if they have to recharge it on a daily basis or if it as bulky as the powered 3d glasses. That seems like a significant hurdle that will need to be overcome before these are even remotely practical.
Would this system fail in an EMP situation? For the record, I have no idea if the steam-powered one would have the same problem. It seems like if an EMP were to hit your carrier, it'd most certainly be the most important time for you to be capable of launching. I could see shielding protecting the power generation equipment in either system, but see difficulty in shielding the actual launch system for this setup.
That's a pretty damn good idea, albeit a very expensive method to simply remove battery weight. Also, I'd be very surprised if the resolution was as good as today's optical mice.
I could see that being useful in a living room environment for use with an HTPC though.
I probably should have added this too, but I think its important to note that I'm not raving Halo and CoD as the pinnacle of FPS gaming and everything else before it crap. I actually hate both franchises for riding a theatrical big-budget story rather than focusing on improved gameplay. I was more referring to how Half Life and its mods blew GoldenEye out of the water so shortly after its release.
I see where you're coming from, but I felt that GoldenEye had some serious gameplay limitations that the genre that has built on, which makes it hard to stomach. The old school classics were practically re-invented with new iterations, leaving the older games with a unique gameplay that doesn't feel washed out. The problem I have is that GoldenEye is too similar to the FPSes of today, so it ends up feeling like a primitive version of its peers rather than a legacy gaming experience. There is a unique challenge to 8-bit sidescrollers or old zeldas that can't be found in the new version, GoldenEye really doesn't have that differentiation.
Reading over it, I probably worded it in an overly abrasive way. Read my reply to the AC for the reason behind the snarkiness.
It appears I'm being misunderstood. I was being a bit snarkey, referring to how several people consider GoldenEye the pinnacle of FPS gaming to this day, and cut on decent stuff like the Orange Box games because "they aren't GoldenEye." It was great for its time, but to continue to say it is rediculous. I'm not saying Halo or these FPSes like CoD that focus heavily on theatrical single player are the pinnacle of gaming, but am more focused on how quickly GoldenEye was blown out of the water by Half Life and its subsequent mods. Its really a fairly small blip on the genre's history when you look at it from the oldies like Doom and Wolfenstein to present.
GoldenEye 64 may have been a great console FPS for its time, but the game is god awful compared to the FPSes of today. The game brings back nostalgia, but to call it a real fps or true gaming like some people do is ignorant at best. Thinking about not being able to move past a 1 foot cliff, only taking damage once per half-second, and easily memorizeable spawn orders after experiencing much better FPS improvements over the years makes me want to puke. This realization came to me in 2004 when I tried to play it again, and I can only imagine it has gotten worse as time goes on.
Don't get stuck in the past, guys. GoldenEye had its day, and that day has passed.
I disagree with Michael Moore, as a political figure of controversy, trumpeting his donation to a party that is supposed to remain as neutral as possible. If he was really supportive and understood the situation, he would donate anonymously or at least not boast about it. When you do this, you get a "friend of the enemy" effect and damage Wikileak's ability to reach out to people who contain a substandard ability to think rationally. He couldn't give a fuck about the relevance of Wikileaks among people who don't agree with him, he only cares about using it to grandstand for the topic at hand.
It would be in the best interest of Wikileaks to refuse donations from people who incite controversy, unless they do it anonymously. Freedom of speech should have no political leaning, creating a situation where irrational people or a political party equate freedom of speech = liberal is incredibly dangerous.
I disagree. As a moderate with some libertarian-leaning views of government, he's taking Wikileaks and putting it firmly on one side of the fence in politics. This is almost as bad as politicizing AGW.
Sure Wikileaks has dug its own left-leaning hole with its choice of document releases, but being associated with a figure as polarizing as Michael Moore takes it 10 steps farther and solidifies the organization on one side of the fence in the minds of the idiots who see everything in black and white. Yes, they probably don't like Wikileaks already, but they listen to it and don't dismiss it as liberal propaganda. When the listening stops, thats when it gets out of hand. The smartest thing Assange could do in this situation is refuse the bail money (if thats even possible).
You know one thing I love about conspiracy theorists? They really make me appreciate my sanity. Watching those wackos on the history channel conspiracy shows gives me a huge appreciation for rational thought.
It is certainly true that some game types are much more conducive to a controller. Playing fighter games like soul calibur/street fighter/smash bros or some action rpgs like zelda64/mario64 with a keyboard is absolute torture. I really wish the 360 or ps3 had more enjoyable games in those categories, like the wii has. It'd allow me to justify my purchase.
I understand the realism argument, but the problem is that the skill ceiling is lower. It makes competitive play very lackluster. I enjoy the competitive factor, and anything that takes away from that has a tendency to ruin it for me. It wouldn't be a problem if I didn't play computer FPSes at a high level, but since I do, I can see and feel the differences. Its like watching a movie on a 19 inch TV in SD when you know you have a 56 in HDTV with surround less than 15 feet away. We are clearly different types of players: I play for the competitive thrill and to win, you play for fun and immersion.
Your mouse example is a very outdated and lackluster. I'm referring to modern FPSes where you compete online against other players in multiplayer. Some mice exist for the PS3, but are not allowed for those games, and no official mice exist for the XBox. The skill ceiling and reaction time is so different that it would create a massive rift in the player base...eventually "requiring" mice in online play to not get teabagged nonstop. This is the reason that console communities and PC gamers are separated to different multiplayer environments while playing the same game.
There are hardhacks out there that cost $100+ that are not sanctioned by MS or Sony, and its essentially cheating. I'm not interested in playing against handicapped players with an unfair advantage, I'm interested in playing against the best with the best input devices possible.
I disagree. Something like this might get me to buy a console (I know it says PSP, but it will filter to the back of console controllers if successful). The touchpad emulates a mouse much better than a joystick, and is perfect for the types of games consoles are using as a driving force today: FPSes. Playing Halo/CoD/etc on a console vs. on a computer is like the difference between a high school football game and the NFL solely due to the input device. Look at the modifications necessary to HL2 games for the 360 as proof: auto aim toggle and 50% bigger hitbox size. Since I've played FPSes at a high level on computers, I can't enjoy the mind-numbingly slow experience given by console FPSes unless there is a change in the standard input device.
On a side note, I'd love a KBM setup for a console, but I understand the reason it is not allowed. This is a happy medium, attaching a mouse-like option right to the controller.
Those are the heavy particles like sulfur emissions, which are controlled close to the coast. The ships switch fuel when they are like 50 miles from a port. I think the logic is that these heavy emissions actually sink into the ocean in international waters at diffuse levels not harmful enough to do damage (also that it would significantly increase the cost of all overseas goods).
Something of note is that those ships are the single most efficient way to move massive amounts of cargo in the world. I can't find the graph, but there's one online somewhere that shows the difference between flight, car, rail, and ship efficiency, and it looks like an exponential growth curve.
One thing about the industry is that fuel costs are the single highest expense (even over the $100m/piece containerships), so it is in their best interest to be as efficient as possible. The most efficient container line has the lowest cost, and thus the highest profit or lowest rates. As long as regulations are in place to protect people from known harmful practices (like the fuel change in national waters), I don't think any more is necessary.
I honestly can't tell if this is flamebait or if you lead a rediculously sheltered life in a big city. I live in a fairly big city (Charlotte), and your idea is so rediculously financially infeasable even for the population density of the 20th biggest city in the US. It would cost literally TRILLIONS to implement something like that for the eastern seaboard alone, and you haven't even taken into account the 10 pp/sq mile that exists over a large portion of middle US.
I'm all for ideas, but some sense of realism and rational thought must go into them. The world isn't black and white and isn't one-size-fits-all.
The impression that I get after seeing training and hearing stories from vets who used to be in the profession & friends is that its more about planning than quick reaction time. "A reactive pilot dies, a proactive pilot lives." It doesn't matter if you need to turn immediately, your body can't take the G's that the jet exerts if you've already put yourself in that poor of a situation. On a side note, the job takes a serious toll on the body and is certainly not as glamorous as a lot of people make it out to be.
However, I can't think of any better examples of professions, so maybe they are on the money.
I wonder if its because of MS's bad loss-leader habits. The Xbox was more expensive to manufacture initially than its retail price, and they expected to make money in the long term or by games. If the Xbox could be used for more than gaming, making buying the standalone system commonplace, it becomes a financial disaster.
If, when designing the Kinect, they couldn't make the system price competitive for the specs they wanted, they may have taken this route. Of course, if this is the case, Kinect sales that aren't pushing game sales will be a perpetual red mark until they cut hardware cost or quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I like this city and the population density it provides without the over-urbanization in bigger cities. I don't have a problem with my commute at all, my comments are directed at those that feel everyone should drive manuals and I'm giving counterpoints. The stupidest thing about this whole debate is that he's saying manual
As for the second part, no they did not get in accidents due to poor health conditions and bad driving. One was my dad falling out of the attic and shattering his left foot, the other is my co-worker who got hit by a reckless driver and has long-term medical problems as a result. It doesn't hinder their ability to drive, but strenuous or repetitive physical actions like driving a manual in bad traffic can agitate it. If it can be avoided, why not?
Just because your situation doesn't require it doesn't mean its not required in some situations. I live in a city with a million people, and the transportation you describe does not exist. Not driving is not an option unless you live downtown and work downtown, which isn't the majority of people. Even if you do work downtown, most people don't make the kind of money required to live comfortably in that location. My condo would cost 400% more if it was within 2 miles of my old office. Also, peoople change jobs and would have to change housing under your ideal. It isn't practical to do what you suggest.
You would rather people be left without options than allow your idealism to be dented. This is the same radical behavior used by left and right purists who can't get shit done because they don't comprimise. I suggest you step back and look at your ideas from a birds eye view and evaluate it more logically.
Thank you for pointing out heavy traffic, its nice to know some manual drivers understand that facet. As someone who drives 30+ minutes 2x a day 5x a week in stop-and-go traffic, I would never touch a manual. Some things are worth effort, and shifting my car every 15 seconds for 5 hours a week is not one of them.
Another point is out-of-shape or old people: I know some older people here who have switched from manuals solely due to the soreness in their leg from driving in that same traffic. I'd rather other drivers not be focused on the pain in their leg and be more focused on the road. No, telling them to get in shape is not an acceptable option: two of these people were in major accidents that weren't their fault, and have medical reasons they can no longer maintain strong muscles.
A majority of Google's business model relies on an open and free internet. Censorship and government control pass the decision-making on what product the use from the consumers to government authorities. To play in to that philosophy is the beginning of the end of Google.
Also, their stance gives them a selling point and differentiator in their domestic market. There are significant benefits for their decision that do not comprimise the core company values, thus hurting the identity of the company. When the scales are even, you go with the gold not the gamble.
A CEO getting butthurt over not following something in their company core values shouldn't be running that company. Not everything can be easily quantifiable by dollars and cents, but you can bet your ass that that corporate philosophy has made them money over the years. Schmidt is short sighted.
Bigger PVA LCD panels already introduce significant input lag to the point where its noticeable to the avid gamer, with a difference of only ~40ms to TN panels. This would add a very significant number to a system that is already very close to the breaking point. An above poster mentioned that this would be good for trade shows or marketing displays, which seems to be significantly better application. Marketing based on fan noise is pretty rediculous when water-cooled systems are already economical.
Furniture is a fairly high margin good, much higher than most items in a all-purpose store like Wal-mart. They don't need to sell nearly as many to make the retail space worthwhile.
I wonder how big the batteries will need to be to balance style and weight with the need to recharge the glasses. People will not be too receptive to something like this if they have to recharge it on a daily basis or if it as bulky as the powered 3d glasses. That seems like a significant hurdle that will need to be overcome before these are even remotely practical.
Would this system fail in an EMP situation? For the record, I have no idea if the steam-powered one would have the same problem. It seems like if an EMP were to hit your carrier, it'd most certainly be the most important time for you to be capable of launching. I could see shielding protecting the power generation equipment in either system, but see difficulty in shielding the actual launch system for this setup.
That's a pretty damn good idea, albeit a very expensive method to simply remove battery weight. Also, I'd be very surprised if the resolution was as good as today's optical mice.
I could see that being useful in a living room environment for use with an HTPC though.
I probably should have added this too, but I think its important to note that I'm not raving Halo and CoD as the pinnacle of FPS gaming and everything else before it crap. I actually hate both franchises for riding a theatrical big-budget story rather than focusing on improved gameplay. I was more referring to how Half Life and its mods blew GoldenEye out of the water so shortly after its release.
I see where you're coming from, but I felt that GoldenEye had some serious gameplay limitations that the genre that has built on, which makes it hard to stomach. The old school classics were practically re-invented with new iterations, leaving the older games with a unique gameplay that doesn't feel washed out. The problem I have is that GoldenEye is too similar to the FPSes of today, so it ends up feeling like a primitive version of its peers rather than a legacy gaming experience. There is a unique challenge to 8-bit sidescrollers or old zeldas that can't be found in the new version, GoldenEye really doesn't have that differentiation.
Reading over it, I probably worded it in an overly abrasive way. Read my reply to the AC for the reason behind the snarkiness.
It appears I'm being misunderstood. I was being a bit snarkey, referring to how several people consider GoldenEye the pinnacle of FPS gaming to this day, and cut on decent stuff like the Orange Box games because "they aren't GoldenEye." It was great for its time, but to continue to say it is rediculous. I'm not saying Halo or these FPSes like CoD that focus heavily on theatrical single player are the pinnacle of gaming, but am more focused on how quickly GoldenEye was blown out of the water by Half Life and its subsequent mods. Its really a fairly small blip on the genre's history when you look at it from the oldies like Doom and Wolfenstein to present.
GoldenEye 64 may have been a great console FPS for its time, but the game is god awful compared to the FPSes of today. The game brings back nostalgia, but to call it a real fps or true gaming like some people do is ignorant at best. Thinking about not being able to move past a 1 foot cliff, only taking damage once per half-second, and easily memorizeable spawn orders after experiencing much better FPS improvements over the years makes me want to puke. This realization came to me in 2004 when I tried to play it again, and I can only imagine it has gotten worse as time goes on.
Don't get stuck in the past, guys. GoldenEye had its day, and that day has passed.
I disagree with Michael Moore, as a political figure of controversy, trumpeting his donation to a party that is supposed to remain as neutral as possible. If he was really supportive and understood the situation, he would donate anonymously or at least not boast about it. When you do this, you get a "friend of the enemy" effect and damage Wikileak's ability to reach out to people who contain a substandard ability to think rationally. He couldn't give a fuck about the relevance of Wikileaks among people who don't agree with him, he only cares about using it to grandstand for the topic at hand.
It would be in the best interest of Wikileaks to refuse donations from people who incite controversy, unless they do it anonymously. Freedom of speech should have no political leaning, creating a situation where irrational people or a political party equate freedom of speech = liberal is incredibly dangerous.
I disagree. As a moderate with some libertarian-leaning views of government, he's taking Wikileaks and putting it firmly on one side of the fence in politics. This is almost as bad as politicizing AGW.
Sure Wikileaks has dug its own left-leaning hole with its choice of document releases, but being associated with a figure as polarizing as Michael Moore takes it 10 steps farther and solidifies the organization on one side of the fence in the minds of the idiots who see everything in black and white. Yes, they probably don't like Wikileaks already, but they listen to it and don't dismiss it as liberal propaganda. When the listening stops, thats when it gets out of hand. The smartest thing Assange could do in this situation is refuse the bail money (if thats even possible).
You know one thing I love about conspiracy theorists? They really make me appreciate my sanity. Watching those wackos on the history channel conspiracy shows gives me a huge appreciation for rational thought.
It is certainly true that some game types are much more conducive to a controller. Playing fighter games like soul calibur/street fighter/smash bros or some action rpgs like zelda64/mario64 with a keyboard is absolute torture. I really wish the 360 or ps3 had more enjoyable games in those categories, like the wii has. It'd allow me to justify my purchase.
I understand the realism argument, but the problem is that the skill ceiling is lower. It makes competitive play very lackluster. I enjoy the competitive factor, and anything that takes away from that has a tendency to ruin it for me. It wouldn't be a problem if I didn't play computer FPSes at a high level, but since I do, I can see and feel the differences. Its like watching a movie on a 19 inch TV in SD when you know you have a 56 in HDTV with surround less than 15 feet away. We are clearly different types of players: I play for the competitive thrill and to win, you play for fun and immersion.
Your mouse example is a very outdated and lackluster. I'm referring to modern FPSes where you compete online against other players in multiplayer. Some mice exist for the PS3, but are not allowed for those games, and no official mice exist for the XBox. The skill ceiling and reaction time is so different that it would create a massive rift in the player base...eventually "requiring" mice in online play to not get teabagged nonstop. This is the reason that console communities and PC gamers are separated to different multiplayer environments while playing the same game.
There are hardhacks out there that cost $100+ that are not sanctioned by MS or Sony, and its essentially cheating. I'm not interested in playing against handicapped players with an unfair advantage, I'm interested in playing against the best with the best input devices possible.
I disagree. Something like this might get me to buy a console (I know it says PSP, but it will filter to the back of console controllers if successful). The touchpad emulates a mouse much better than a joystick, and is perfect for the types of games consoles are using as a driving force today: FPSes. Playing Halo/CoD/etc on a console vs. on a computer is like the difference between a high school football game and the NFL solely due to the input device. Look at the modifications necessary to HL2 games for the 360 as proof: auto aim toggle and 50% bigger hitbox size. Since I've played FPSes at a high level on computers, I can't enjoy the mind-numbingly slow experience given by console FPSes unless there is a change in the standard input device.
On a side note, I'd love a KBM setup for a console, but I understand the reason it is not allowed. This is a happy medium, attaching a mouse-like option right to the controller.
Those are the heavy particles like sulfur emissions, which are controlled close to the coast. The ships switch fuel when they are like 50 miles from a port. I think the logic is that these heavy emissions actually sink into the ocean in international waters at diffuse levels not harmful enough to do damage (also that it would significantly increase the cost of all overseas goods).
Something of note is that those ships are the single most efficient way to move massive amounts of cargo in the world. I can't find the graph, but there's one online somewhere that shows the difference between flight, car, rail, and ship efficiency, and it looks like an exponential growth curve.
One thing about the industry is that fuel costs are the single highest expense (even over the $100m/piece containerships), so it is in their best interest to be as efficient as possible. The most efficient container line has the lowest cost, and thus the highest profit or lowest rates. As long as regulations are in place to protect people from known harmful practices (like the fuel change in national waters), I don't think any more is necessary.
I honestly can't tell if this is flamebait or if you lead a rediculously sheltered life in a big city. I live in a fairly big city (Charlotte), and your idea is so rediculously financially infeasable even for the population density of the 20th biggest city in the US. It would cost literally TRILLIONS to implement something like that for the eastern seaboard alone, and you haven't even taken into account the 10 pp/sq mile that exists over a large portion of middle US.
I'm all for ideas, but some sense of realism and rational thought must go into them. The world isn't black and white and isn't one-size-fits-all.
The impression that I get after seeing training and hearing stories from vets who used to be in the profession & friends is that its more about planning than quick reaction time. "A reactive pilot dies, a proactive pilot lives." It doesn't matter if you need to turn immediately, your body can't take the G's that the jet exerts if you've already put yourself in that poor of a situation. On a side note, the job takes a serious toll on the body and is certainly not as glamorous as a lot of people make it out to be.
However, I can't think of any better examples of professions, so maybe they are on the money.
err, disregard...someone debunked it below
I wonder if its because of MS's bad loss-leader habits. The Xbox was more expensive to manufacture initially than its retail price, and they expected to make money in the long term or by games. If the Xbox could be used for more than gaming, making buying the standalone system commonplace, it becomes a financial disaster.
If, when designing the Kinect, they couldn't make the system price competitive for the specs they wanted, they may have taken this route. Of course, if this is the case, Kinect sales that aren't pushing game sales will be a perpetual red mark until they cut hardware cost or quality.