Have you seen the games section in an average wal-mart? Granted, I only go into wal-marts once every couple months at most, but I always take a look at the games section in case there's any good deals on a game I wanted (which they occasionally have).
Normally, at least 1/3 of the shelf space per console is empty. They'll have plenty of the newest games of the week, but if a game's a month old or so they will probably be sold out. They'll get more in stock eventually, maybe. In the mean time the space on the shelf is empty.
It's impossible to browse visually, because they put them recessed in dark glass cases. They'll sometimes have new releases only in a separate glass case on an end-cap, which you might easily pass by on your way to the normal section. They're overflowing with budget and heavily discounted games - all the crappy ones no one wants to buy at any price. You very rarely do find some gems there, as I alluded to earlier.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that the games section at a typical wal-mart is horrible (which fits right in with the rest of the store). Target is generally the best at presenting games in retail right now (no glass cases). I don't ever go to Best Buy, but I think some of their stores are switching to the Target type of display. Gamestop and other game stores are generally OK too. Fry's is similar to game stores but with a worse selection (for PS3 anyway), but is usually discounted a few dollars even for new releases.
So, granted that the games section is horrible (besides the fact that they surely make a lot of money there), there's huge room for improvement. I don't see why trying some other selling strategies, such as selling AAA games at a massive discount (maybe not $1, but $20-30 for something that normally would sell for $60), couldn't happen.
I currently use a Macbook Pro too, from Fall 2009. My previous was a Thinkpad T61 from early 2008 (which I got pre-installed with Linux), which is still running strong as a server/torrent box. The aluminum macbook pros blow the thinkpads out of the water on build quality. And the LCD screen on the thinkpad is horrible (resolution is high, but it's dim and has unbelievably poor viewing angles). I think Thinkpads are pretty similar to what Mac laptops were like before they went to aluminum, to be fair.
And yet, Thinkpads (other than the screens) blow away all the cheaper stuff I've handled! The Thinkpad was fairly similar in price to the MBP, and the specs aren't as good as you'd get as a base on a macbook pro. If you spec them the same they'll easily be roughly the same price.
Even if you're not going to use OS X, I really see no reason why anyone would buy anything other than a MBP if you need a laptop... costs more, but it's not disposable like the cheaper options - quality is more than the difference in price higher. And OS X is pretty great, too.
I see what you're saying overall, but OS X really isn't "locked down so that it's harder to use non-approved products." Sure, iTunes, Quicktime, and now the Mac Store are installed... all of these things are optional to use, and don't bug you if you don't (although the quicktime libraries are used by most other software for media playback, you can use VLC and other alternatives too, which don't rely on quicktime - and there are plenty of alternative music players). The only thing from that list I use on my macbook pro is Quicktime, the latest version of which is quite nice, although I use VLC for a lot of videos too.
I think perhaps what you're saying is that Apple steers you toward their monoculture of products designed for the Mac. Well, that's true. How could it be any different? They're not going to steer you toward products that aren't fully compatible. And it's the same deal with Linux... it all depends on third-party support. And third-party support for OS X is lightyears ahead of Linux. And there's nothing in OS X stopping you from trying to use any third-party solution that isn't "officially approved" - most any Linux program will work if you try hard enough (usually there's a better alternative anyway, so it isn't necessary), for one thing, and as I said already there's plenty of third-party support for almost anything you can think of.
Again, any shortcomings are not because Apple is limiting anything. There's no approval process for things to work with Macs or OS X (like there is with for iOS). The OS X App Store is optional and you're free to install software you downloaded from the web, or got wherever. You're free to use any hardware that's compatible, and compatibility depends only upon the manufacturer making it compatible, not Apple deciding whether or not to allow it.
I believe they cite fair use in most cases that aren't CC - fair use is one of the things they're most passionate about, much more so than creative commons. The LIFE photo in your first link, for example, I'd consider fair use (IANAL of course). I'm sure their two lawyers do spend a lot of time defending their fair use, and the reason they hired those lawyers is because they're passionate about fair use and don't want to see fair use rights diminished. Fair use extends much further than the corporations who hold all the rights want the public to believe, so it's no surprise you need lawyers on hand if you want to fully use your fair use rights to the extent of the law.
Also, I would guess that either the London photo is under a CC license that doesn't require attribution, or they just forgot to include the attribution. The EXIF info remains and includes copyright information, but not what license it's under. If you can show proof that it's not CC that's one thing, but you've just linked to it and assume the worse - the burden of proof is on you.
You've complained at least twice in this thread about Boing Boing, but I'm really not sure why you're so uppity about them. They're not ripping people off, they're doing what's allowed under the licenses people apply to their flickr photos, or using copyrighted imagery legally under fair use (for purposes of discussion and criticism). Just because it seems like they're doing the same things other blogs do - ripping off random photos - doesn't mean they actually are. I mean really, a lot of the flickr photos they post these days were posted in the BoingBoing flickr pool - the photographers probably hoping to get exposure on BB.
The Wired link, sure - that's a license violation. So complain about them, not BoingBoing, who I consider to be among the best of the good guys when it comes to copyright, and activism regarding sane copyright laws.
By the way, I've got a couple thousand photos on flickr, I'm a halfway-decent photographer, and I add a lot of tags to my photos to make them easy to find. Actually, I'm going into business as a photographer right now (though I have an MS in geology, I can't find a job). As such, my images get lifted - probably a lot more than I realize. They're all set to "all rights reserved." My point is I understand where a strong attitude against people ripping off your photos comes from, and I love to see stories about companies getting caught doing it.
He refers to BC2, which is Bad Company 2, and I've been experiencing the exact same problems as he has with it. It's a popular game, and a DLC expansion pack (set in the Vietnam War) was just released so there are a lot of people playing. Yet sometimes a "No Games Available" message pops up when you try to play online, and if you go look at your stats they're all reset to zero. If you then quit the game and start it again, it will find plenty of games and your stats are back. It didn't used to do this. It's mangling the connection to their servers somehow.
Also, there aren't "ads" in the way you are probably thinking, but when you start the game you *have* to watch the game studio logos. I don't know if it's just loading or what, but it's annoying. If it's loading, it should still let you skip the logo animations and give you a screen that just says "loading." At least it's not as bad as Civ V, where if you're on a slower computer will play a minute or more of the intro animation before letting you skip to the menu!
These are game-specific problems, and as far as I can tell (I don't play a whole lot of games on the PS3) it's not common to have so many problems with a single game. For such a popular one, though, it's quite annoying.
Regarding the first issue, I think you're right that it's just lag that they try to smooth out. The exact same experience happens in other first person shooters on the PS3 - your abilities seem to vary widely from day to day, and not just because you're playing with better or worse players (it's more obvious when that's the case).
Navigation systems never are *that* useful in downtown areas like that... Google certainly isn't in e.g. Manhattan, where I tried to use it once. I ended up just pulling into a side street and studying the map for a minute so I would know where to go instead of trying to follow the navigation (that's how I normally navigate anyway - I rarely need to have a GPS nav system actively running). I mean really, driving in places like that if you're not intimately familiar with the area is going to be a problem no matter how good your navigation system is.
I've also used Google Navigation in Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as plenty of smaller cities and towns, and I've driven from California to New York using it. It's definitely useful in most places. But cities like Manhattan and Stockholm (from your description) are worst-case-scenarios for it.
Indeed. Civilization Revolution on the iPhone/Touch is great. I got a free iPod Touch when I bought a macbook pro, and after playing the demo I immediately put down the $5 for CivRev. I think that's the only thing I paid for on there that wasn't 99 cents. I've since given the iPod to a friend, because I got a Nexus One.
Now, even when I was carrying around the iPod for a few months and I had access to good games, I didn't play them that much. I've never been the type to get into situations where I don't have anything to do and can only access a mobile device - I've never lived anywhere with good public transport, and I've usually had access to my own vehicle. However, for a couple months I was letting a friend borrow my car and she'd pick me up from the university at night (grad student). In those cases, I'd be standing around outside for a while and I really appreciated being able to play a quick game.
The ones I really liked (and paid the 99 cents for) were Drop 7, GeoDefense Swarm, and Flight Control. I tried dozens of other games, but none really grabbed my attention. It took months for Drop 7 to become available on android. When it was finally available, it was free for a week or so, but I was out of the country and outside of regular internet access - now it's $2.99! To be fair, I just looked it up in iTunes and it's now $2.99 there too, but it was 99 cents before. Let's be honest: this is not a $2.99 game. It's very simple. They were assholes about getting rid of a copy-cat android version before the official version was available, too.
GeoDefense is a tower defense game, executed perfectly. I'm not normally into those games, but this one was great. The android equivalents are laughable in comparison - there's one OK one (Robo Defense), but it has several major shortcomings and isn't as much fun. Never tempted to play it (besides the fact that the full version with more than one map is $2.99 - if it was as good as GeoDefense I'd pay $2.99, even though GeoDefense was 99 cents).
Flight Control has a very good copy (Air Control) on android. Flight Control is much more polished, but otherwise gameplay is the same.
It's the lack of polish that really makes android feel shitty in comparison, and the fact that the esoteric and cool new puzzle games are always on iOS first, if they ever get to android at all. I see stories about cool new puzzle games fairly frequently, and they're always on iOS only. I can't even think of any because I forget about them, but I would love to have been able to play them (and even pay for them).
There are some decent games on android. I don't ever play them, but I've got a bunch installed and try new ones occasionally because my girlfriend likes them. Besides Air Control, she likes Frozen Bubble (same as the linux game), Glow Puzzle, BitBlocks (the best Tetris clone for android IMO), and a couple others I can't remember (your basic bejeweled clones and stuff like that - some of which are actually quite polished).
There's an excellent port of Scrambled Net, the great KDE game. I don't play it often, but I was addicted to the original KDE version for a while a few years ago so I keep it handy in case the urge strikes:) I've also got Angry Birds, and that is pretty good.
RE: the spherical cow: I tried a joke like that on slashdot once (it was assuming a spherical/cylindrical penis), and got several whoosh-worthy replies. It may not have been funny, but rather than ignore it (most of my comments are ignored), people chose to reply and question what I meant.
I, too, would love to be able to regularly make jokes like that "in real life," by the way. It's one slashdot-type joke that I don't think ever gets old. The non-geek equivalent might be "that's what she said" - although that got old real fast when everyone was saying it, now if you're clever you can whip it out unexpectedly and get a great response (I've never said that one myself but I think the comparison is apt).
Yes, but a lot of geeks (including myself) feel that it's completely alien... I am familiar with all your examples outside of the show, yet when I see stuff like that on the show (I've only seen it a few times, granted), it doesn't connect with me. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of less geeky types like the show because of the characters and general humor, and have no idea if the things they reference are real or made up. Maybe they even like it because they feel like it makes fun of geeks (they certainly do poke fun at themselves... seems to be one of the main aspects of the humor).
To be fair, Google already has the infrastructure set up in the form of Google Voice. It seems like all they've really done is set up a Google Voice voicemail box that posts the recorded message to twitter.
I've driven from NY to CA and back a few times. The last time, driving to NY, I did it in 2.5 days. I wasn't driving while tired - I always took breaks at the first sign of drowsiness - but as you can imagine I wasn't in the friendliest and peppiest state. In Indiana, I waited in a large line for the cash toll booths - it was something like a 50 cent toll - how hard can it be?
I get up to the booth, and the middle-aged lady notices my California license plate and starts chatting me up. "Oh, you're from California? Where are you going?" "Really! What are you studying?" etc., all while I'm holding my hand out with the toll ready, and with a grimace on my face as I gave my curt responses. Meanwhile cars are piling up behind me.
In other words: you do not "need people in those toll booths to greet people"!
Try driving to/from NYC - the bridge tolls are ridiculous. There's at least one route without a toll, but all the most commonly-used bridges have tolls as high as $8 (one way). Gold Gate Bridge is similar, not sure what the price on that one is right now though.
I really like your ideas for better education - when I was a TA in grad school I taught like that (to the extent that my limited time and other resources allowed). The reason I was able to do so is that I had no direct supervision and no specific syllabus for the class (it was geology 101 lab but included short lectures and other things not typical of a lab class), and I could be as flexible as I wanted with the grading and so on. Some students responded very well, and some didn't - many students came expecting a class where you could do all the tricks you mention that don't involve actual learning but which result in a good grade in a typical class.
There are several barriers to this working in the "real world" of teaching, though, by which I mean below the university level. First is that schools have all sorts of standards and mandates they have to meet, meaning ultimately teaching to the standardized tests. Second is that most teachers are given very little freedom, no matter how idealistic they are, and can't take any sort of risk.
Third is that teachers do a ton of work for very little pay. Assignments are designed around being easy to grade, and it can still take hours a day - grading things properly as you suggest will take too much time, even if the number of assignments is greatly reduced (as it should be). The solution, I think, is to hire more teachers - and pay them more so that better people are attracted to teaching - and build more schools, so that class sizes are smaller. And no one will be willing to pay for that.
Among other things I dislike, that's such a strange omission. I never truly understood the threading system in the previous design (clicking get more comments would make new comments appear randomly throughout the whole thing, making reading more than the first page of comments impossible... I must have been missing something) and now this is the same but worse!
I think violent/aggressive games are an outlet for the natural violent/aggressive behavior that everyone has (some more than others of course). In other words, if you give a kid who is violent and aggressive toward others in real life violent video games, by taking out their aggression in the game perhaps they'll show less of it in real life. Kind of like how football players fit a certain stereotype - they're outgoing and aggressive both on and off the field.
I don't have any studies to back it up, but it seems a lot more plausible than what they're claiming here.
Many aspects of society are built around violence and aggression - especially sports. Sports is basically the main outlet that most people had up until recently to get this natural aggression out of their system. Knute Rockne (who won "one for the gipper") recognized this in the 20's as the Notre Dame football coach when people wanted to crack down on football and violent sports. I saw the film Knute Rockne, All American recently and was struck by this point in the film and its similarity to today's attitude of certain people against video games.
Now, video games fill the same role for many people - and much better, because you can play video games a lot more often than you can play aggressive sports. It's just harder for older people to see the connection, and that the positive aspects of sports (building teamwork and leadership and whatever) come from video games as well. Of course, you don't get the exercise benefit, but that's a different story.
As a disclaimer, I'm not into sports in the slightest and I play(ed) lots of video games.
I don't wear glasses or contacts. Both eyes are 20/20 or better. The 3D effect doesn't work for me, though. I'm not sure it's entirely a matter of being able to focus - I can see stereograms fine, for example (although with some effort required). I can't do Magic Eye-type things though.
The problem for me comes with motion. If there's a perfectly still shot in a 3D movie, I can see it fine, just like a stereogram. As soon as things start moving - at all - it falls apart and everything becomes blurry and flickers and so on. I don't bother to even try seeing 3D movies because of this - Avatar, Tron, and most 3D movies are all about lots of motion (and I don't mind missing them since they seem to be mainly about the effects).
I tried it a couple of times when they first started coming out, and realized it just wasn't in the cards for me. I have also been to most of the 3D movies in places like Disneyland and Universal Studios, and those never worked either (the CGI character in the Muppets one works, as well as some of the CGI liquid metal in the Terminator one - I think the very simple nature of those things helps - although the Shrek one, also fully CGI of course, didn't work so well so who knows).
I tried a 3D display at Fry's that was running a loop of 3D video game footage. Again, it totally fell apart because of the motion. I was really disappointed because I'm sure if it works for you it would be awesome.
Outside the US I've used bathrooms while women were cleaning them - not little old ladies either, fairly young (20's) in one case. It feels a little odd, but I'm sure that they're much more uncomfortable than all the men, and do their best to stay out of the way and to not try to sneak a peak or anything.
Oh, I forgot to mention - it's a disgrace that they put Mach 3 style razors in with gift sets that include nice brushes and so on. I've seen them in fancy department stores and I'm guessing what you got is one of those. How ridiculous - a fancy (made in china) handle with a cheesy mach 3 head on it:)
The soaps and so on they sell are probably great, but expensive - I've tried various puck soaps and they're ok, but I like shave creams (not foam or gel). Trader Joe's makes a really nice one, and it's inexpensive.
Why this came up in an article about AOL I'm not sure, but there's really no excuse to stay with a Mach 3 or whatever. Just buy a double-edge already. It's an amazing difference.
They are hard to find in stores in the US (inexpensively anyway - check out cutlery/sword&knife stores in malls for nice expensive ones), but everywhere else in the world they are found in normal drug stores for $5-10. I bought my first one in Thailand (~$3), a slightly upgraded one in London about a year later (~$8), and finally found an awesome all-steel model with a neat mechanism from the 60's at a flea market (like another replier) for $4. All of them perform identically - the blade does all the work - the only difference is how it feels in your hand.
My point is - just order one online, and there's no need to pay more than the cost of a pack of mach 3 refills - shaving enthusiast sites are all about the ridiculously expensive ones (same you'll find in the cutlery shops), but it's really not necessary. Enthusiast websites are money traps - you'll walk away thinking the only acceptable option is the most expensive one. Sometimes it's true, but often it isn't, as in this case.
Well, your answer kind of dances around the real problem - the high-paying jobs are not in science. In fact, it is unbelievably difficult for recent science grads to find any kind of job right now, and universities can't get enough funding for tons of grad students, even if there were enough professors to support them academically.
I mean, how exactly did all those well-off parents get to be where they are today? Evidently it was not by doing well in school, or else they would probably encourage their kids to do that more than sports and so on.
There's a similar film called "Meet John Doe", starring Gary Cooper and directed by Frank Capra. Basically, a bumpkin-type becomes famous and amasses a huge grassroots following. As his following increases in the film, I was struck with the similarity between that - from 1941- with today's tea party movement.
Thing is - I'd take the uneducated John Doe from the film over at least 2/3 of the politicians in the US today. His platform was based on solid principles, and wasn't willing to give in to business interests or be corrupted in any way.
My point is that these kinds of politicians aren't necessarily bad. Although I guess it's much easier for the Face in the Crowd type to gain power than the honest type, as evidenced by those that actually come to power (including people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who hold considerable sway amounting to actual power).
That said - it wasn't until fairly recently that I fully understood how anti-intellectual and, ultimately, uneducated most of the population in the US is. In grad school I taught intro geology lab classes to mostly non-science-majors. Granted, it wasn't a particularly prestigious university, but the general attitude of some of the students astounded me - why they were even going to university is beyond me. Also at that time I started being exposed to more people who didn't attend a prestigious university for an undergrad degree, as all of my high school friends and most other people I knew had. After I got to know several people like that well, I began to notice that most random people I saw out and about were like that. Call me imperceptive and naive, but I guess I gave people the benefit of the doubt before that time that at the very least they weren't anti-intellectual.
Do many 14-year-olds you know really play Gran Turismo? It's quite difficult and boring to most people (I personally quite enjoy it, but don't really see it as a "game"). I'd think 14-year-olds would be more interested in the latest Need For Speed, or whatever's cool these days:)
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen the games section in an average wal-mart? Granted, I only go into wal-marts once every couple months at most, but I always take a look at the games section in case there's any good deals on a game I wanted (which they occasionally have).
Normally, at least 1/3 of the shelf space per console is empty. They'll have plenty of the newest games of the week, but if a game's a month old or so they will probably be sold out. They'll get more in stock eventually, maybe. In the mean time the space on the shelf is empty.
It's impossible to browse visually, because they put them recessed in dark glass cases. They'll sometimes have new releases only in a separate glass case on an end-cap, which you might easily pass by on your way to the normal section. They're overflowing with budget and heavily discounted games - all the crappy ones no one wants to buy at any price. You very rarely do find some gems there, as I alluded to earlier.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that the games section at a typical wal-mart is horrible (which fits right in with the rest of the store). Target is generally the best at presenting games in retail right now (no glass cases). I don't ever go to Best Buy, but I think some of their stores are switching to the Target type of display. Gamestop and other game stores are generally OK too. Fry's is similar to game stores but with a worse selection (for PS3 anyway), but is usually discounted a few dollars even for new releases.
So, granted that the games section is horrible (besides the fact that they surely make a lot of money there), there's huge room for improvement. I don't see why trying some other selling strategies, such as selling AAA games at a massive discount (maybe not $1, but $20-30 for something that normally would sell for $60), couldn't happen.
I currently use a Macbook Pro too, from Fall 2009. My previous was a Thinkpad T61 from early 2008 (which I got pre-installed with Linux), which is still running strong as a server/torrent box. The aluminum macbook pros blow the thinkpads out of the water on build quality. And the LCD screen on the thinkpad is horrible (resolution is high, but it's dim and has unbelievably poor viewing angles). I think Thinkpads are pretty similar to what Mac laptops were like before they went to aluminum, to be fair.
And yet, Thinkpads (other than the screens) blow away all the cheaper stuff I've handled! The Thinkpad was fairly similar in price to the MBP, and the specs aren't as good as you'd get as a base on a macbook pro. If you spec them the same they'll easily be roughly the same price.
Even if you're not going to use OS X, I really see no reason why anyone would buy anything other than a MBP if you need a laptop... costs more, but it's not disposable like the cheaper options - quality is more than the difference in price higher. And OS X is pretty great, too.
I see what you're saying overall, but OS X really isn't "locked down so that it's harder to use non-approved products." Sure, iTunes, Quicktime, and now the Mac Store are installed... all of these things are optional to use, and don't bug you if you don't (although the quicktime libraries are used by most other software for media playback, you can use VLC and other alternatives too, which don't rely on quicktime - and there are plenty of alternative music players). The only thing from that list I use on my macbook pro is Quicktime, the latest version of which is quite nice, although I use VLC for a lot of videos too.
I think perhaps what you're saying is that Apple steers you toward their monoculture of products designed for the Mac. Well, that's true. How could it be any different? They're not going to steer you toward products that aren't fully compatible. And it's the same deal with Linux... it all depends on third-party support. And third-party support for OS X is lightyears ahead of Linux. And there's nothing in OS X stopping you from trying to use any third-party solution that isn't "officially approved" - most any Linux program will work if you try hard enough (usually there's a better alternative anyway, so it isn't necessary), for one thing, and as I said already there's plenty of third-party support for almost anything you can think of.
Again, any shortcomings are not because Apple is limiting anything. There's no approval process for things to work with Macs or OS X (like there is with for iOS). The OS X App Store is optional and you're free to install software you downloaded from the web, or got wherever. You're free to use any hardware that's compatible, and compatibility depends only upon the manufacturer making it compatible, not Apple deciding whether or not to allow it.
I believe they cite fair use in most cases that aren't CC - fair use is one of the things they're most passionate about, much more so than creative commons. The LIFE photo in your first link, for example, I'd consider fair use (IANAL of course). I'm sure their two lawyers do spend a lot of time defending their fair use, and the reason they hired those lawyers is because they're passionate about fair use and don't want to see fair use rights diminished. Fair use extends much further than the corporations who hold all the rights want the public to believe, so it's no surprise you need lawyers on hand if you want to fully use your fair use rights to the extent of the law.
Also, I would guess that either the London photo is under a CC license that doesn't require attribution, or they just forgot to include the attribution. The EXIF info remains and includes copyright information, but not what license it's under. If you can show proof that it's not CC that's one thing, but you've just linked to it and assume the worse - the burden of proof is on you.
You've complained at least twice in this thread about Boing Boing, but I'm really not sure why you're so uppity about them. They're not ripping people off, they're doing what's allowed under the licenses people apply to their flickr photos, or using copyrighted imagery legally under fair use (for purposes of discussion and criticism). Just because it seems like they're doing the same things other blogs do - ripping off random photos - doesn't mean they actually are. I mean really, a lot of the flickr photos they post these days were posted in the BoingBoing flickr pool - the photographers probably hoping to get exposure on BB.
The Wired link, sure - that's a license violation. So complain about them, not BoingBoing, who I consider to be among the best of the good guys when it comes to copyright, and activism regarding sane copyright laws.
By the way, I've got a couple thousand photos on flickr, I'm a halfway-decent photographer, and I add a lot of tags to my photos to make them easy to find. Actually, I'm going into business as a photographer right now (though I have an MS in geology, I can't find a job). As such, my images get lifted - probably a lot more than I realize. They're all set to "all rights reserved." My point is I understand where a strong attitude against people ripping off your photos comes from, and I love to see stories about companies getting caught doing it.
He refers to BC2, which is Bad Company 2, and I've been experiencing the exact same problems as he has with it. It's a popular game, and a DLC expansion pack (set in the Vietnam War) was just released so there are a lot of people playing. Yet sometimes a "No Games Available" message pops up when you try to play online, and if you go look at your stats they're all reset to zero. If you then quit the game and start it again, it will find plenty of games and your stats are back. It didn't used to do this. It's mangling the connection to their servers somehow.
Also, there aren't "ads" in the way you are probably thinking, but when you start the game you *have* to watch the game studio logos. I don't know if it's just loading or what, but it's annoying. If it's loading, it should still let you skip the logo animations and give you a screen that just says "loading." At least it's not as bad as Civ V, where if you're on a slower computer will play a minute or more of the intro animation before letting you skip to the menu!
These are game-specific problems, and as far as I can tell (I don't play a whole lot of games on the PS3) it's not common to have so many problems with a single game. For such a popular one, though, it's quite annoying.
Regarding the first issue, I think you're right that it's just lag that they try to smooth out. The exact same experience happens in other first person shooters on the PS3 - your abilities seem to vary widely from day to day, and not just because you're playing with better or worse players (it's more obvious when that's the case).
Navigation systems never are *that* useful in downtown areas like that... Google certainly isn't in e.g. Manhattan, where I tried to use it once. I ended up just pulling into a side street and studying the map for a minute so I would know where to go instead of trying to follow the navigation (that's how I normally navigate anyway - I rarely need to have a GPS nav system actively running). I mean really, driving in places like that if you're not intimately familiar with the area is going to be a problem no matter how good your navigation system is.
I've also used Google Navigation in Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as plenty of smaller cities and towns, and I've driven from California to New York using it. It's definitely useful in most places. But cities like Manhattan and Stockholm (from your description) are worst-case-scenarios for it.
Indeed. Civilization Revolution on the iPhone/Touch is great. I got a free iPod Touch when I bought a macbook pro, and after playing the demo I immediately put down the $5 for CivRev. I think that's the only thing I paid for on there that wasn't 99 cents. I've since given the iPod to a friend, because I got a Nexus One.
Now, even when I was carrying around the iPod for a few months and I had access to good games, I didn't play them that much. I've never been the type to get into situations where I don't have anything to do and can only access a mobile device - I've never lived anywhere with good public transport, and I've usually had access to my own vehicle. However, for a couple months I was letting a friend borrow my car and she'd pick me up from the university at night (grad student). In those cases, I'd be standing around outside for a while and I really appreciated being able to play a quick game.
The ones I really liked (and paid the 99 cents for) were Drop 7, GeoDefense Swarm, and Flight Control. I tried dozens of other games, but none really grabbed my attention. It took months for Drop 7 to become available on android. When it was finally available, it was free for a week or so, but I was out of the country and outside of regular internet access - now it's $2.99! To be fair, I just looked it up in iTunes and it's now $2.99 there too, but it was 99 cents before. Let's be honest: this is not a $2.99 game. It's very simple. They were assholes about getting rid of a copy-cat android version before the official version was available, too.
GeoDefense is a tower defense game, executed perfectly. I'm not normally into those games, but this one was great. The android equivalents are laughable in comparison - there's one OK one (Robo Defense), but it has several major shortcomings and isn't as much fun. Never tempted to play it (besides the fact that the full version with more than one map is $2.99 - if it was as good as GeoDefense I'd pay $2.99, even though GeoDefense was 99 cents).
Flight Control has a very good copy (Air Control) on android. Flight Control is much more polished, but otherwise gameplay is the same.
It's the lack of polish that really makes android feel shitty in comparison, and the fact that the esoteric and cool new puzzle games are always on iOS first, if they ever get to android at all. I see stories about cool new puzzle games fairly frequently, and they're always on iOS only. I can't even think of any because I forget about them, but I would love to have been able to play them (and even pay for them).
There are some decent games on android. I don't ever play them, but I've got a bunch installed and try new ones occasionally because my girlfriend likes them. Besides Air Control, she likes Frozen Bubble (same as the linux game), Glow Puzzle, BitBlocks (the best Tetris clone for android IMO), and a couple others I can't remember (your basic bejeweled clones and stuff like that - some of which are actually quite polished).
There's an excellent port of Scrambled Net, the great KDE game. I don't play it often, but I was addicted to the original KDE version for a while a few years ago so I keep it handy in case the urge strikes :) I've also got Angry Birds, and that is pretty good.
RE: the spherical cow: I tried a joke like that on slashdot once (it was assuming a spherical/cylindrical penis), and got several whoosh-worthy replies. It may not have been funny, but rather than ignore it (most of my comments are ignored), people chose to reply and question what I meant.
I, too, would love to be able to regularly make jokes like that "in real life," by the way. It's one slashdot-type joke that I don't think ever gets old. The non-geek equivalent might be "that's what she said" - although that got old real fast when everyone was saying it, now if you're clever you can whip it out unexpectedly and get a great response (I've never said that one myself but I think the comparison is apt).
Yes, but a lot of geeks (including myself) feel that it's completely alien... I am familiar with all your examples outside of the show, yet when I see stuff like that on the show (I've only seen it a few times, granted), it doesn't connect with me. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of less geeky types like the show because of the characters and general humor, and have no idea if the things they reference are real or made up. Maybe they even like it because they feel like it makes fun of geeks (they certainly do poke fun at themselves... seems to be one of the main aspects of the humor).
To be fair, Google already has the infrastructure set up in the form of Google Voice. It seems like all they've really done is set up a Google Voice voicemail box that posts the recorded message to twitter.
I thought of that too, but that one is pretty much like any other one used for mining, and mining trams were mentioned several times :)
c) Terrists invent a code phrase that makes people's heads explode when they read it.
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
I've driven from NY to CA and back a few times. The last time, driving to NY, I did it in 2.5 days. I wasn't driving while tired - I always took breaks at the first sign of drowsiness - but as you can imagine I wasn't in the friendliest and peppiest state. In Indiana, I waited in a large line for the cash toll booths - it was something like a 50 cent toll - how hard can it be?
I get up to the booth, and the middle-aged lady notices my California license plate and starts chatting me up. "Oh, you're from California? Where are you going?" "Really! What are you studying?" etc., all while I'm holding my hand out with the toll ready, and with a grimace on my face as I gave my curt responses. Meanwhile cars are piling up behind me.
In other words: you do not "need people in those toll booths to greet people"!
Try driving to/from NYC - the bridge tolls are ridiculous. There's at least one route without a toll, but all the most commonly-used bridges have tolls as high as $8 (one way). Gold Gate Bridge is similar, not sure what the price on that one is right now though.
I really like your ideas for better education - when I was a TA in grad school I taught like that (to the extent that my limited time and other resources allowed). The reason I was able to do so is that I had no direct supervision and no specific syllabus for the class (it was geology 101 lab but included short lectures and other things not typical of a lab class), and I could be as flexible as I wanted with the grading and so on. Some students responded very well, and some didn't - many students came expecting a class where you could do all the tricks you mention that don't involve actual learning but which result in a good grade in a typical class.
There are several barriers to this working in the "real world" of teaching, though, by which I mean below the university level. First is that schools have all sorts of standards and mandates they have to meet, meaning ultimately teaching to the standardized tests. Second is that most teachers are given very little freedom, no matter how idealistic they are, and can't take any sort of risk.
Third is that teachers do a ton of work for very little pay. Assignments are designed around being easy to grade, and it can still take hours a day - grading things properly as you suggest will take too much time, even if the number of assignments is greatly reduced (as it should be). The solution, I think, is to hire more teachers - and pay them more so that better people are attracted to teaching - and build more schools, so that class sizes are smaller. And no one will be willing to pay for that.
Among other things I dislike, that's such a strange omission. I never truly understood the threading system in the previous design (clicking get more comments would make new comments appear randomly throughout the whole thing, making reading more than the first page of comments impossible... I must have been missing something) and now this is the same but worse!
I think violent/aggressive games are an outlet for the natural violent/aggressive behavior that everyone has (some more than others of course). In other words, if you give a kid who is violent and aggressive toward others in real life violent video games, by taking out their aggression in the game perhaps they'll show less of it in real life. Kind of like how football players fit a certain stereotype - they're outgoing and aggressive both on and off the field.
I don't have any studies to back it up, but it seems a lot more plausible than what they're claiming here.
Many aspects of society are built around violence and aggression - especially sports. Sports is basically the main outlet that most people had up until recently to get this natural aggression out of their system. Knute Rockne (who won "one for the gipper") recognized this in the 20's as the Notre Dame football coach when people wanted to crack down on football and violent sports. I saw the film Knute Rockne, All American recently and was struck by this point in the film and its similarity to today's attitude of certain people against video games.
Now, video games fill the same role for many people - and much better, because you can play video games a lot more often than you can play aggressive sports. It's just harder for older people to see the connection, and that the positive aspects of sports (building teamwork and leadership and whatever) come from video games as well. Of course, you don't get the exercise benefit, but that's a different story.
As a disclaimer, I'm not into sports in the slightest and I play(ed) lots of video games.
I don't wear glasses or contacts. Both eyes are 20/20 or better. The 3D effect doesn't work for me, though. I'm not sure it's entirely a matter of being able to focus - I can see stereograms fine, for example (although with some effort required). I can't do Magic Eye-type things though.
The problem for me comes with motion. If there's a perfectly still shot in a 3D movie, I can see it fine, just like a stereogram. As soon as things start moving - at all - it falls apart and everything becomes blurry and flickers and so on. I don't bother to even try seeing 3D movies because of this - Avatar, Tron, and most 3D movies are all about lots of motion (and I don't mind missing them since they seem to be mainly about the effects).
I tried it a couple of times when they first started coming out, and realized it just wasn't in the cards for me. I have also been to most of the 3D movies in places like Disneyland and Universal Studios, and those never worked either (the CGI character in the Muppets one works, as well as some of the CGI liquid metal in the Terminator one - I think the very simple nature of those things helps - although the Shrek one, also fully CGI of course, didn't work so well so who knows).
I tried a 3D display at Fry's that was running a loop of 3D video game footage. Again, it totally fell apart because of the motion. I was really disappointed because I'm sure if it works for you it would be awesome.
Outside the US I've used bathrooms while women were cleaning them - not little old ladies either, fairly young (20's) in one case. It feels a little odd, but I'm sure that they're much more uncomfortable than all the men, and do their best to stay out of the way and to not try to sneak a peak or anything.
Oh, I forgot to mention - it's a disgrace that they put Mach 3 style razors in with gift sets that include nice brushes and so on. I've seen them in fancy department stores and I'm guessing what you got is one of those. How ridiculous - a fancy (made in china) handle with a cheesy mach 3 head on it :)
The soaps and so on they sell are probably great, but expensive - I've tried various puck soaps and they're ok, but I like shave creams (not foam or gel). Trader Joe's makes a really nice one, and it's inexpensive.
Why this came up in an article about AOL I'm not sure, but there's really no excuse to stay with a Mach 3 or whatever. Just buy a double-edge already. It's an amazing difference.
They are hard to find in stores in the US (inexpensively anyway - check out cutlery/sword&knife stores in malls for nice expensive ones), but everywhere else in the world they are found in normal drug stores for $5-10. I bought my first one in Thailand (~$3), a slightly upgraded one in London about a year later (~$8), and finally found an awesome all-steel model with a neat mechanism from the 60's at a flea market (like another replier) for $4. All of them perform identically - the blade does all the work - the only difference is how it feels in your hand.
My point is - just order one online, and there's no need to pay more than the cost of a pack of mach 3 refills - shaving enthusiast sites are all about the ridiculously expensive ones (same you'll find in the cutlery shops), but it's really not necessary. Enthusiast websites are money traps - you'll walk away thinking the only acceptable option is the most expensive one. Sometimes it's true, but often it isn't, as in this case.
Well, your answer kind of dances around the real problem - the high-paying jobs are not in science. In fact, it is unbelievably difficult for recent science grads to find any kind of job right now, and universities can't get enough funding for tons of grad students, even if there were enough professors to support them academically.
I mean, how exactly did all those well-off parents get to be where they are today? Evidently it was not by doing well in school, or else they would probably encourage their kids to do that more than sports and so on.
There's a similar film called "Meet John Doe", starring Gary Cooper and directed by Frank Capra. Basically, a bumpkin-type becomes famous and amasses a huge grassroots following. As his following increases in the film, I was struck with the similarity between that - from 1941- with today's tea party movement.
Thing is - I'd take the uneducated John Doe from the film over at least 2/3 of the politicians in the US today. His platform was based on solid principles, and wasn't willing to give in to business interests or be corrupted in any way.
My point is that these kinds of politicians aren't necessarily bad. Although I guess it's much easier for the Face in the Crowd type to gain power than the honest type, as evidenced by those that actually come to power (including people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who hold considerable sway amounting to actual power).
That said - it wasn't until fairly recently that I fully understood how anti-intellectual and, ultimately, uneducated most of the population in the US is. In grad school I taught intro geology lab classes to mostly non-science-majors. Granted, it wasn't a particularly prestigious university, but the general attitude of some of the students astounded me - why they were even going to university is beyond me. Also at that time I started being exposed to more people who didn't attend a prestigious university for an undergrad degree, as all of my high school friends and most other people I knew had. After I got to know several people like that well, I began to notice that most random people I saw out and about were like that. Call me imperceptive and naive, but I guess I gave people the benefit of the doubt before that time that at the very least they weren't anti-intellectual.
Do many 14-year-olds you know really play Gran Turismo? It's quite difficult and boring to most people (I personally quite enjoy it, but don't really see it as a "game"). I'd think 14-year-olds would be more interested in the latest Need For Speed, or whatever's cool these days :)