I wish places would just stop with April Fool's Day jokes. None of them are ever funny, and they serve no purpose.
Well, ok, thegia.com's April Fools Day joke from a few years back was funny. They said they were shutting down on April 1, but, they really did shut down. Now, that was good.
1.5, 2.8, I forget the exact number. Something like that, yeah. Either way, the DS had a massive lead in 2004, which, despite the PSP's small lead in 2005, still means the DS is in the overall lead by a large amount.
In the article linked, it says "PSP is kicking some major butt right now, besting its bigger brother, the DS, the GBA, everything."
That link completely ignores 2004 sales, where the DS sold about 1.5 million. Over their lifespan of the systems (which launched a couple of weeks apart), the DS is outselling the PSP by around 1.3 million.
In my mind, if a review is good, all the "scores" should be obvious from reading the review itself.
If one reads a review and the reviewer is making the game sound great, and then there's a score of a 4/10 stuck on the end (or whatever), that's because the reviewer didn't do a good job of explaining themselves.
Too often with reviews, though, people don't even bother reading the review, and just go by the score. In my mind, reviews in general would be much better if scores were completely omitted. That way, people would be forced to actually read the review, and the reviewer would be forced to make sure their opinions come through with what they're writing.
Scores are just a value assigned to how a particular reviewer felt everything came together. I could sit here and write a review about (say) a puzzle game, describe everything about it, and give it a 10/10 at the end. However, if the person reading the review doesn't like puzzle games, of course they're not going to think the game is a 10/10. Hopefully from reading the review itself however, they've found out it's a puzzle game, realized it's not something they're going to like, and made their decision based on that, not what score it was given at the end.
On the other hand, I suppose that's a rather idealistic view, actually expecting everyone to read through and process what was written. Most people seem happy enough to say "That game got a 9.4, so it must be better than that other game which got a 9.1!" without taking anything else into consideration.
So, while I feel scores should be irrelevant, they're probably here to stay, because that's all most people really care about. Oh well.
Sure, they're posting the IP addresses and all, which is aparently getting everyone all riled up, but if people think that information isn't easy to get, they're mistaken. Seriously, websites like hitbox (and others) provide even just your casual, not knowing much, webmaster to monitor IP addresses (and other stuff) of anyone to visit a given page. Any common person could make a blank website, submit it to all search engines with keywords involving a ton of sexual words, and then monitor and do whatever with the IP addresses of people who visit.
>>> Another thing...how can you be so ignorant as to think that we are the only planet in the UNIVERSE to host intelligent life?? Do you KNOW how many planets there are out there? So what are the odds that a planet in the universe will host life? One in a hundred billion? Make a random number generator that takes a number out of a hundred billion and see how often the number 1 comes up. Eventually there have to be more planets than Earth that host life. If one accepts a purely scientific view of the universe, then yes, there absolutely must be life on other planets, it would be stupid to think otherwise. but from a religious point of view, lets say you take a plain cookie. lets say you take 100 billion plain cookies. lets say you put frosting on top of one of them. how many cookies have frosting on them? one, obviously, because that was the only one you put frosting on. obviously if you randomly went through every cookie store and got 100 billion cookies, you would be stupid to think you would only get 1 with frosting on them. but if it's a designed thing (you putting frosting on one), then obviously that's all there's going to be. I'm not saying there isn't life on other planets, I don't know anywhere in the Bible where it specifically says "there is only life on this planet", just, from a religious point of view, that's how it could be. and as far as "blind faith" goes, sure, the better part of any religion is "blind faith". but lets look at the universe from a scientific point of view. "how was the universe formed?" "Big Bang, an explosion of an immense amount of matter that heated up and exploded" (or whatever the exact way that goes). "Well, where did all that matter come from?" "It was just always there". So even in science one runs into numerous cases of "blind faith". I'm not saying that "disproves science", just that religion isnt the only thing with "blind faith"
I'm a Christian, and I believe in God. I'm also very interested in scientific things. I "believe in" Black holes, and I think worm holes may well be possible, although that still needs to have a bit more research put into it. I also, although again same comments as with worm holes, think time travel may well be possible. I dont seem to see any huge major contradictions in any of those things. I don't belive in evolution, but then, that's a pretty mixed bag as far as people who believe it and don't believe it. But as far as the other stuff goes, I don't find any problems with being a Christian and believing in God, and at the same time accepting stuff like Black Holes and the possibilty of Worm Holes and other such things. So, to address both sides of the arguement to the "religious" side: Why does everyone always assume most of science can't be true because of religious beliefs? to the "science" side: Not all religious people are, excuse the term, morons, who think that most of science can't be true because of other beliefs. There do exist people who, while believing in something, such as God, can also accept life as a reality and deal with things in it as such. So don't just get a negative view of a group because of a few people.
the thing is, one can't make something that travels faster than the speed of light (going on most theories), and if one did, one would have some other problems (again, going on most theories). so even if we were to someone invent some machine that traveled "just under the speed of light", virtually all of the universe would still be unexplorable to us. sure then we could take a 4-year journey (8 years round trip i believe) to the nearest star, but that's just one point. unless one can invent something that can transmit matter anyhwere in the universe without having to have a reciever on the other end, one cant do much more than ponder about these kind of things
>>As far as the big bang goes, i happen to believe in God. >So what existed before God? as i said before, one basically either has to assume 1) God "always" existed or 2) "A big hunk of matter" floating in space "always" existed. in either event, one has to accept that one just "always was". needless to say, because our minds can't comprehend such a span of time as "always", it's not exactly something one can comprehend. but if one is assuming that one cant get everything out of nothing (which aparently some people are making a case for), one has to assume that something "always was"
well, as i said, one of them had to "always have existed". you cant (in my mind) get something when NOTHING else existed. if one believes in a God, one can believe he created everything else. If one doesnt, then one has to assume that a bunch of matter was "always there". in either event, one has to take as fact that one of the two "always was". unless one believes that "nothing" can produce "something", but I'm going on the assumption that isnt the case
As far as the big bang goes, i happen to believe in God. However, putting my religious beliefs aside for a second, what that comes down to (in very simple terms) "You either have to believe a omniscient being always existed, or that a big hunk of matter floating in space always existed". Personally, even putting aside my religion, I find it rather hard to believe that there just always "was" this big piece of matter hanging around in "nothing", and just one day felt like exploding. and of course, that would bring up the questions "where did this matter come from" "What was it in before it exploded if it made everything" and all those other sorts of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that anyone cares, just thought I'd share.
Still, nifty to have them all in once place.
Don't blame them.
I wish places would just stop with April Fool's Day jokes. None of them are ever funny, and they serve no purpose.
Well, ok, thegia.com's April Fools Day joke from a few years back was funny. They said they were shutting down on April 1, but, they really did shut down.
Now, that was good.
1.5, 2.8, I forget the exact number. Something like that, yeah.
Either way, the DS had a massive lead in 2004, which, despite the PSP's small lead in 2005, still means the DS is in the overall lead by a large amount.
In the article linked, it says "PSP is kicking some major butt right now, besting its bigger brother, the DS, the GBA, everything."
That link completely ignores 2004 sales, where the DS sold about 1.5 million.
Over their lifespan of the systems (which launched a couple of weeks apart), the DS is outselling the PSP by around 1.3 million.
In my mind, if a review is good, all the "scores" should be obvious from reading the review itself.
If one reads a review and the reviewer is making the game sound great, and then there's a score of a 4/10 stuck on the end (or whatever), that's because the reviewer didn't do a good job of explaining themselves.
Too often with reviews, though, people don't even bother reading the review, and just go by the score. In my mind, reviews in general would be much better if scores were completely omitted. That way, people would be forced to actually read the review, and the reviewer would be forced to make sure their opinions come through with what they're writing.
Scores are just a value assigned to how a particular reviewer felt everything came together. I could sit here and write a review about (say) a puzzle game, describe everything about it, and give it a 10/10 at the end. However, if the person reading the review doesn't like puzzle games, of course they're not going to think the game is a 10/10. Hopefully from reading the review itself however, they've found out it's a puzzle game, realized it's not something they're going to like, and made their decision based on that, not what score it was given at the end.
On the other hand, I suppose that's a rather idealistic view, actually expecting everyone to read through and process what was written. Most people seem happy enough to say "That game got a 9.4, so it must be better than that other game which got a 9.1!" without taking anything else into consideration.
So, while I feel scores should be irrelevant, they're probably here to stay, because that's all most people really care about.
Oh well.
Sure, they're posting the IP addresses and all, which is aparently getting everyone all riled up, but if people think that information isn't easy to get, they're mistaken. Seriously, websites like hitbox (and others) provide even just your casual, not knowing much, webmaster to monitor IP addresses (and other stuff) of anyone to visit a given page. Any common person could make a blank website, submit it to all search engines with keywords involving a ton of sexual words, and then monitor and do whatever with the IP addresses of people who visit.
>>> Another thing...how can you be so ignorant as to think that we are the only planet in the UNIVERSE to host intelligent life?? Do you KNOW how many planets there are out there? So what are the odds that a planet in the universe will host life? One in a hundred billion? Make a random number generator that takes a number out of a hundred billion and see how often the number 1 comes up. Eventually there have to be more planets than Earth that host life. If one accepts a purely scientific view of the universe, then yes, there absolutely must be life on other planets, it would be stupid to think otherwise. but from a religious point of view, lets say you take a plain cookie. lets say you take 100 billion plain cookies. lets say you put frosting on top of one of them. how many cookies have frosting on them? one, obviously, because that was the only one you put frosting on. obviously if you randomly went through every cookie store and got 100 billion cookies, you would be stupid to think you would only get 1 with frosting on them. but if it's a designed thing (you putting frosting on one), then obviously that's all there's going to be. I'm not saying there isn't life on other planets, I don't know anywhere in the Bible where it specifically says "there is only life on this planet", just, from a religious point of view, that's how it could be. and as far as "blind faith" goes, sure, the better part of any religion is "blind faith". but lets look at the universe from a scientific point of view. "how was the universe formed?" "Big Bang, an explosion of an immense amount of matter that heated up and exploded" (or whatever the exact way that goes). "Well, where did all that matter come from?" "It was just always there". So even in science one runs into numerous cases of "blind faith". I'm not saying that "disproves science", just that religion isnt the only thing with "blind faith"
I'm a Christian, and I believe in God. I'm also very interested in scientific things. I "believe in" Black holes, and I think worm holes may well be possible, although that still needs to have a bit more research put into it. I also, although again same comments as with worm holes, think time travel may well be possible. I dont seem to see any huge major contradictions in any of those things. I don't belive in evolution, but then, that's a pretty mixed bag as far as people who believe it and don't believe it. But as far as the other stuff goes, I don't find any problems with being a Christian and believing in God, and at the same time accepting stuff like Black Holes and the possibilty of Worm Holes and other such things. So, to address both sides of the arguement to the "religious" side: Why does everyone always assume most of science can't be true because of religious beliefs? to the "science" side: Not all religious people are, excuse the term, morons, who think that most of science can't be true because of other beliefs. There do exist people who, while believing in something, such as God, can also accept life as a reality and deal with things in it as such. So don't just get a negative view of a group because of a few people.
the thing is, one can't make something that travels faster than the speed of light (going on most theories), and if one did, one would have some other problems (again, going on most theories). so even if we were to someone invent some machine that traveled "just under the speed of light", virtually all of the universe would still be unexplorable to us. sure then we could take a 4-year journey (8 years round trip i believe) to the nearest star, but that's just one point. unless one can invent something that can transmit matter anyhwere in the universe without having to have a reciever on the other end, one cant do much more than ponder about these kind of things
>>As far as the big bang goes, i happen to believe in God. >So what existed before God? as i said before, one basically either has to assume 1) God "always" existed or 2) "A big hunk of matter" floating in space "always" existed. in either event, one has to accept that one just "always was". needless to say, because our minds can't comprehend such a span of time as "always", it's not exactly something one can comprehend. but if one is assuming that one cant get everything out of nothing (which aparently some people are making a case for), one has to assume that something "always was"
well, as i said, one of them had to "always have existed". you cant (in my mind) get something when NOTHING else existed. if one believes in a God, one can believe he created everything else. If one doesnt, then one has to assume that a bunch of matter was "always there". in either event, one has to take as fact that one of the two "always was". unless one believes that "nothing" can produce "something", but I'm going on the assumption that isnt the case
As far as the big bang goes, i happen to believe in God. However, putting my religious beliefs aside for a second, what that comes down to (in very simple terms) "You either have to believe a omniscient being always existed, or that a big hunk of matter floating in space always existed". Personally, even putting aside my religion, I find it rather hard to believe that there just always "was" this big piece of matter hanging around in "nothing", and just one day felt like exploding. and of course, that would bring up the questions "where did this matter come from" "What was it in before it exploded if it made everything" and all those other sorts of things.