That's sort of how I try to approach my own game reviews on my site...I usually give a paragraph to the story or whatever, but most of my reviews focus on the experience of playing the game.
I don't care what things look like on paper...I care what it's like to actually interact with them.
..is that they never do proper critique of products that are shit. instead they hype up something that's safe to hype up.
This boils down to one, major problem: most game reviewers review games like they're critics, rather than gamers. That's one big reason why I love Ben Kuchera's reviews on Ars Technica. He's had some public confrontations before in the comments and on his twitter, but his reviews almost always read like they were written by a gamer, not a journalist.
If you've got a Windows PC, unless you have it locked down like crazy behind a hardware firewall and never visit any websites or open any email, you very likely have a virus on there...even if it isn't really affecting anything, chances are you have SOMETHING.
Note that this isn't an indictment against Windows PCs, but merely a statement of fact. (Two of our five PCs at home run Windows 7 64, both using Avast. They likely aren't virus free, but they're free of anything Avast can find/anything that affects day-to-day usage.)
If what's being reported is accurate, they've discovered a life form whose DNA was previously thought to be completely, unequivocally, no-exceptions impossible. Not just "we haven't found it", but impossible.
The point is that it means that life could exist in ways we haven't even conceived of yet. It's not the finding itself that's important, but rather the implications of having hard confirmed evidence that what we have long thought was wrong.
The point was that it means that life could exist in ways we haven't even conceived of yet. It's not the finding itself that's important, but rather confirmation that we don't know dick. The confirmation of such a thing widely expands the possibility of finding life elsewhere, because it is a direct example of how much we could potentially have wrong.
Again, it's not the finding itself that's important, but rather the implications of this type of discovery.
If what's being reported is accurate, they've discovered a life form whose DNA was previously thought to be completely, unequivocally, no-exceptions impossible. Not just "we haven't found it", but impossible.
In theory, life on this planet is an absurd idea. Think about it: we're on the fringes of the galaxy, out in the boondocks...one of the emptiest, coldest, and darkest part. If anything, life would be most likely to exist closer to the core.
I can't wait for the public to give a collective yawn over this exciting news. I've been trying to educate people at work today about why this is such a big deal, but their responses have generally been "oh, more bacteria...yay."
If you read it, then you would have known that ALL bills are crazy long because they're double-spaced, written in a large font, and have massive borders (this is done to make it easier to hand-write markup on them.)
I don't have the exact number on hand, but it takes something like 4-6 "legislative" pages to equal one "actual" page of text.
While that is funny, it's also very appropriate. Back in '08, Palin said she had little to no interest in running for President in 2012, a statement she backed up by quiting her job as a politician and going on a media rampage (numerous interviews and appearances, as well as her own TV show.) Now she's dropping hints that she would in fact run in 2012.
Assuming that she was on the fence about the idea, I wonder what changed her mind...
I don't really know what you mean by "communicate with them on a fairly deep level"... sounds a little... mystical to me.
Not at all. I meant that you can communicate with them as if you were one of them. You can get them to grok your intentions, what you want them to do, if something is going on in another room, your mood, etc. It takes some time to learn, but it's fairly easy. Once you have learned the physical cues (both general and cat-specific), it all seems intuitive and, dare I say, instinctive.
This. We had a couple copies of it in our waiting room back when I was an auto tech. We also had the portions most people would be interested in hanging on the wall, printed up on a 36"x24" poster.
From a young age, I was taught to interact with cats as if I were another cat (when I wanted them to do something specific or get a point across, of course.) This has served me quite well...in my experience, cats respond FAR better if you approach them as a member of their species, rather than as a "human".
Dogs, on the other hand, seem to fare better when taking the opposite approach.
Not really indicative of intelligence one way or the other, just the difference in how to communicate with either one. Whether this is due to evolutionary/instinctual change since domestication or just because of the way their brains are wired is completely beyond me.
I think we need a turing test of sorts, for intelligence. Some extremely simple criteria to judge by. Like the ability to consciously be aware of danger and avoid stress. Of course then we need a way to measure this.
That's a good idea, but it would be extremely difficult to seperate "instinct" from "intelligence" under those circumstances...
It seems I've done it again and misrepresented what I meant:/
I didn't mean to imply that physical gestures don't work on dogs, but rather that physical gestures work far better with cats than aural gestures. I was using the dog example for what I have to say next:
From my own experience , training a dog through aural gestures alone is usually easier than through physical gestures alone. Of course, a combination of both is ideal.
You ignored the question. Why are you trying to apply human facial expressions to your cat? It's a completely different species with a completely different means of communication.
My point was that observation of similarity is not the same as directly comparing emotional intent. It was meant as a way of getting my point across through the cold vacuum of forum talk, nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
It's eerily similar to our patent laws, communication laws, and copyright laws.
That's sort of how I try to approach my own game reviews on my site...I usually give a paragraph to the story or whatever, but most of my reviews focus on the experience of playing the game.
I don't care what things look like on paper...I care what it's like to actually interact with them.
..is that they never do proper critique of products that are shit. instead they hype up something that's safe to hype up.
This boils down to one, major problem: most game reviewers review games like they're critics, rather than gamers. That's one big reason why I love Ben Kuchera's reviews on Ars Technica. He's had some public confrontations before in the comments and on his twitter, but his reviews almost always read like they were written by a gamer, not a journalist.
If you've got a Windows PC, unless you have it locked down like crazy behind a hardware firewall and never visit any websites or open any email, you very likely have a virus on there...even if it isn't really affecting anything, chances are you have SOMETHING.
Note that this isn't an indictment against Windows PCs, but merely a statement of fact. (Two of our five PCs at home run Windows 7 64, both using Avast. They likely aren't virus free, but they're free of anything Avast can find/anything that affects day-to-day usage.)
Does anyone actually use AVG anymore? There was a time when it was awesome, but it just got crazy bloated and slow...
Just like the discovery, it's a confirmation of something that's been previously discussed.
BAZINGA!
That's also assuming that certain lifeforms wouldn't be resistant (or possibly even immune) to such radiation.
Exactly the kind of thing this discovery means...we now have hard evidence in front of us that what we thought were the rules were completely wrong.
Combined from two other posts I made:
If what's being reported is accurate, they've discovered a life form whose DNA was previously thought to be completely, unequivocally, no-exceptions impossible. Not just "we haven't found it", but impossible.
The point is that it means that life could exist in ways we haven't even conceived of yet. It's not the finding itself that's important, but rather the implications of having hard confirmed evidence that what we have long thought was wrong.
The point was that it means that life could exist in ways we haven't even conceived of yet. It's not the finding itself that's important, but rather confirmation that we don't know dick. The confirmation of such a thing widely expands the possibility of finding life elsewhere, because it is a direct example of how much we could potentially have wrong.
Again, it's not the finding itself that's important, but rather the implications of this type of discovery.
::facepalm::
If what's being reported is accurate, they've discovered a life form whose DNA was previously thought to be completely, unequivocally, no-exceptions impossible. Not just "we haven't found it", but impossible.
HOW IS THAT NOT AWESOME???
In theory, life on this planet is an absurd idea. Think about it: we're on the fringes of the galaxy, out in the boondocks...one of the emptiest, coldest, and darkest part. If anything, life would be most likely to exist closer to the core.
We're not special...we're the exception.
I can't wait for the public to give a collective yawn over this exciting news. I've been trying to educate people at work today about why this is such a big deal, but their responses have generally been "oh, more bacteria...yay."
-_-;;
If you read it, then you would have known that ALL bills are crazy long because they're double-spaced, written in a large font, and have massive borders (this is done to make it easier to hand-write markup on them.)
I don't have the exact number on hand, but it takes something like 4-6 "legislative" pages to equal one "actual" page of text.
And in 2006, Hilary Clinton stated uncategorically that she would not run for president. So what, people can't change their minds?
If you had actually quoted my entire post instead of leaving off the last sentence, you would see that I finished up with this:
"Assuming that she was on the fence about the idea, I wonder what changed her mind..."
I never said anything remotely close to "people can't change their minds."
While that is funny, it's also very appropriate. Back in '08, Palin said she had little to no interest in running for President in 2012, a statement she backed up by quiting her job as a politician and going on a media rampage (numerous interviews and appearances, as well as her own TV show.) Now she's dropping hints that she would in fact run in 2012.
Assuming that she was on the fence about the idea, I wonder what changed her mind...
I don't really know what you mean by "communicate with them on a fairly deep level" ... sounds a little ... mystical to me.
Not at all. I meant that you can communicate with them as if you were one of them. You can get them to grok your intentions, what you want them to do, if something is going on in another room, your mood, etc. It takes some time to learn, but it's fairly easy. Once you have learned the physical cues (both general and cat-specific), it all seems intuitive and, dare I say, instinctive.
Check the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
This. We had a couple copies of it in our waiting room back when I was an auto tech. We also had the portions most people would be interested in hanging on the wall, printed up on a 36"x24" poster.
I still can't believe no one in the "adult" industry has managed to bottle that scent. Seriously.
How do you know you married the right woman? When she complains about having a headache AFTER sex, rather than before ;-)
From a young age, I was taught to interact with cats as if I were another cat (when I wanted them to do something specific or get a point across, of course.) This has served me quite well...in my experience, cats respond FAR better if you approach them as a member of their species, rather than as a "human".
Dogs, on the other hand, seem to fare better when taking the opposite approach.
Not really indicative of intelligence one way or the other, just the difference in how to communicate with either one. Whether this is due to evolutionary/instinctual change since domestication or just because of the way their brains are wired is completely beyond me.
I think we need a turing test of sorts, for intelligence. Some extremely simple criteria to judge by. Like the ability to consciously be aware of danger and avoid stress. Of course then we need a way to measure this.
That's a good idea, but it would be extremely difficult to seperate "instinct" from "intelligence" under those circumstances...
Your post is precisely the reason I included the "in my own experience" qualifier :-)
It seems I've done it again and misrepresented what I meant :/
I didn't mean to imply that physical gestures don't work on dogs, but rather that physical gestures work far better with cats than aural gestures. I was using the dog example for what I have to say next:
From my own experience , training a dog through aural gestures alone is usually easier than through physical gestures alone. Of course, a combination of both is ideal.
Pfft...try biscuits DURING sex.
She knows me too well -_-;;
You ignored the question. Why are you trying to apply human facial expressions to your cat? It's a completely different species with a completely different means of communication.
My point was that observation of similarity is not the same as directly comparing emotional intent. It was meant as a way of getting my point across through the cold vacuum of forum talk, nothing more.