As long as the App Store is being so tightly controlled by Apple, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with Windows Mobile. For all its flaws (like insane UI lag at times), it's at least mostly an open development platform, with a C64 emulator, Amiga emulator, DOS emulator and an application for just about anything you could imagine. As long as Apple keeps the App Store locked down, it's never going to be able to match the versatility of the WinMo application spectrum.
It's too bad, because from what I've seen, the iPhone OS seems to be a better OS, but crippling its software development is just a deal breaker for me.
"it may make sense for them to leave the Lithium where it is, collecting interest as an investment of sorts"
What needs to also be remembered is that what is valuable today may not be valuable tomorrow.
Lithium may be valuable today for batteries, but what happens when a new battery technology is invented that is based on something other than lithium?
It would be smart to sell your lithium resources before that happens.
So just waiting and saving your natural resources may not always be the smartest move. Like stocks, you want to sell them at their peak value. Will lithium be more valuable or less valuable in the future? That is the question to ask here.
"I know lots of people who don't care to read quest texts"
And I do believe there is some psychological reason behind that.
In single-player games, like the Infinity Engine games, I always read the dialogue.
In MMOs like City of Heroes or D&D Online, I rarely do.
Why is that?
Potential reasons: 1) MMOs do not have dialogue trees. They only have "accept" and "decline" options, spruced up a little with flavor text, but by and large, they do not have the feeling of choice. Conversely, single-player game dialogues have the feeling of choice, that if you pick the right dialogue choices you may get more information and additional xp and additional quests. MMOs need to motivate the reader to read the dialogue by having some *reason* to read them.
2) Singleplayer games you can play at your own pace. In MMOs, you have to rush because your party is waiting for you to get the quest and you don't feel like you have the right to make them wait while you read the dialogue with thought. MMOs need to do something to mitigate the constant feeling of rushing.
3) Frankly, even when I *do* read MMO dialogues and story, they pale in quality compared to a good singleplayer game. MMOs need to write better quality story so people will bother to read them.
4) MMOs rarely have voiceovers or cutscenes. Voiceovers and cutscenes have an INCREDIBLE boost to immersion in singleplayer games. MMOs need to increase the amount of voiceovers and cutscenes.
So rather than just saying, "oh, it's the player's fault, they didn't read the story", it is long-term more productive to ask, "WHY did the player not read the story?" and try to fix those issues so players will read the story in the future.
Or, I suppose, they can just cross their arms, and stubbornly insist that "no, the player has to do it OUR way", and continue for the next ten years hearing bitching about no story and seeing their storywriting efforts go down the drain.
Play to how your audience wants to hear a story. Don't insist that your audience change. Change for them. That is, if you want to maximize your audience.
"But wait, that was assuming the ideal case, where you magically apply _exactly_ the amount of force to stay always at X metres drom the asteroid. Reality is much less ideal. Such a tractor would probably have to fire rocket engines back and forth, just to stay anywhere near the prescribed distance. I.e., it would use extra fuel for positioning and maneuvering, whereas a lander with a big jet pointed "upwards" would have no such worries."
This would indeed be a problem if you had rocket engines. And if you built an orbiter with rocket propulsion, then I agree, it makes more sense to do it as an impactor than a long-term orbiter/gravity tug.
However, if one wants to go with the long-term orbiter/gravity tug, then I would assume ion thrusters are the chosen method of propulsion. I mean seriously, you can't do anything long-term with rocket engines. Ion thrusters are the propulsion of choice for anything long term.
Ion thrusters would have no problem (and in fact would be very efficient used in this manner) applying a minute constant force for years, using very little fuel. So you wouldn't be constantly firing rockets on and off, you could have the ion thruster constantly on.
"its first-ever forthcoming many-core architecture, codenamed Larrabee"
The Core architecture has duos and quads. Nehalem is just about to launch, going up to octocores at least.
The point of the article eluded me until I went to Wikipedia and discovered that the Larrabee being talked about is a *GPU* rather than a CPU.
Could have used that information somewhere in the original post.
Obama plans to cut all manned spaceflight program, which includes the shuttle replacement (Crew Exploration Vehicle/Orion). So while NASA's current plan might be 2014 for the shuttle replacement, if Obama is elected, we'll be looking at 2019 at the earliest. It'll probably be even longer than that, because after budget is slashed, come on now -- do you really believe it'll go back up again? It's always easy to slash, but NASA will have to fight tooth and nail to get those monies back again after the five years delay is over.
Bottom line, if Obama is elected, the US is facing a decade+ of lacking the capability of sending humans into space.
I'm probably going to pass. A lot of the changes make it "not D&D" for me. It's like learning a completely new game system, like moving on to GURPS or Rolemaster or what have you.
Everybody can heal themselves? That's not D&D, you're *supposed* to have a cleric (or a druid, or a bard, or a paladin, or potions) for healing. That's the whole point of the D&D flavor.
You can cast magic missile infinite times per day? That's not D&D, you're *supposed* to have a limited number of zots for blasting. That's the whole point of the D&D flavor.
Now, I'm not saying these are *bad* changes. I'm fully open to the idea that they may make the game flow better and so on.
I'm just saying it's like moving on to a completely different game system. And I haven't been convinced why I should do that when I'm enjoying my 3.5 games highly.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the App Store is being so tightly controlled by Apple, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with Windows Mobile. For all its flaws (like insane UI lag at times), it's at least mostly an open development platform, with a C64 emulator, Amiga emulator, DOS emulator and an application for just about anything you could imagine. As long as Apple keeps the App Store locked down, it's never going to be able to match the versatility of the WinMo application spectrum.
It's too bad, because from what I've seen, the iPhone OS seems to be a better OS, but crippling its software development is just a deal breaker for me.
"it may make sense for them to leave the Lithium where it is, collecting interest as an investment of sorts"
What needs to also be remembered is that what is valuable today may not be valuable tomorrow.
Lithium may be valuable today for batteries, but what happens when a new battery technology is invented that is based on something other than lithium?
It would be smart to sell your lithium resources before that happens.
So just waiting and saving your natural resources may not always be the smartest move. Like stocks, you want to sell them at their peak value. Will lithium be more valuable or less valuable in the future? That is the question to ask here.
I guess everybody is having Christmases. It's damn near dead all over the Internet.
"I know lots of people who don't care to read quest texts"
And I do believe there is some psychological reason behind that.
In single-player games, like the Infinity Engine games, I always read the dialogue.
In MMOs like City of Heroes or D&D Online, I rarely do.
Why is that?
Potential reasons:
1) MMOs do not have dialogue trees. They only have "accept" and "decline" options, spruced up a little with flavor text, but by and large, they do not have the feeling of choice. Conversely, single-player game dialogues have the feeling of choice, that if you pick the right dialogue choices you may get more information and additional xp and additional quests. MMOs need to motivate the reader to read the dialogue by having some *reason* to read them.
2) Singleplayer games you can play at your own pace. In MMOs, you have to rush because your party is waiting for you to get the quest and you don't feel like you have the right to make them wait while you read the dialogue with thought. MMOs need to do something to mitigate the constant feeling of rushing.
3) Frankly, even when I *do* read MMO dialogues and story, they pale in quality compared to a good singleplayer game. MMOs need to write better quality story so people will bother to read them.
4) MMOs rarely have voiceovers or cutscenes. Voiceovers and cutscenes have an INCREDIBLE boost to immersion in singleplayer games. MMOs need to increase the amount of voiceovers and cutscenes.
So rather than just saying, "oh, it's the player's fault, they didn't read the story", it is long-term more productive to ask, "WHY did the player not read the story?" and try to fix those issues so players will read the story in the future.
Or, I suppose, they can just cross their arms, and stubbornly insist that "no, the player has to do it OUR way", and continue for the next ten years hearing bitching about no story and seeing their storywriting efforts go down the drain.
Play to how your audience wants to hear a story. Don't insist that your audience change. Change for them. That is, if you want to maximize your audience.
Actually, probably ion thrusters.
A solar sail is an interesting idea for this sort of stuff, too.
"But wait, that was assuming the ideal case, where you magically apply _exactly_ the amount of force to stay always at X metres drom the asteroid. Reality is much less ideal. Such a tractor would probably have to fire rocket engines back and forth, just to stay anywhere near the prescribed distance. I.e., it would use extra fuel for positioning and maneuvering, whereas a lander with a big jet pointed "upwards" would have no such worries."
This would indeed be a problem if you had rocket engines. And if you built an orbiter with rocket propulsion, then I agree, it makes more sense to do it as an impactor than a long-term orbiter/gravity tug.
However, if one wants to go with the long-term orbiter/gravity tug, then I would assume ion thrusters are the chosen method of propulsion. I mean seriously, you can't do anything long-term with rocket engines. Ion thrusters are the propulsion of choice for anything long term.
Ion thrusters would have no problem (and in fact would be very efficient used in this manner) applying a minute constant force for years, using very little fuel. So you wouldn't be constantly firing rockets on and off, you could have the ion thruster constantly on.
"its first-ever forthcoming many-core architecture, codenamed Larrabee" The Core architecture has duos and quads. Nehalem is just about to launch, going up to octocores at least. The point of the article eluded me until I went to Wikipedia and discovered that the Larrabee being talked about is a *GPU* rather than a CPU. Could have used that information somewhere in the original post.
Ahh, "Trouble With Tribbles", classic.
Obama plans to cut all manned spaceflight program, which includes the shuttle replacement (Crew Exploration Vehicle/Orion). So while NASA's current plan might be 2014 for the shuttle replacement, if Obama is elected, we'll be looking at 2019 at the earliest. It'll probably be even longer than that, because after budget is slashed, come on now -- do you really believe it'll go back up again? It's always easy to slash, but NASA will have to fight tooth and nail to get those monies back again after the five years delay is over. Bottom line, if Obama is elected, the US is facing a decade+ of lacking the capability of sending humans into space.
I'm probably going to pass. A lot of the changes make it "not D&D" for me. It's like learning a completely new game system, like moving on to GURPS or Rolemaster or what have you. Everybody can heal themselves? That's not D&D, you're *supposed* to have a cleric (or a druid, or a bard, or a paladin, or potions) for healing. That's the whole point of the D&D flavor. You can cast magic missile infinite times per day? That's not D&D, you're *supposed* to have a limited number of zots for blasting. That's the whole point of the D&D flavor. Now, I'm not saying these are *bad* changes. I'm fully open to the idea that they may make the game flow better and so on. I'm just saying it's like moving on to a completely different game system. And I haven't been convinced why I should do that when I'm enjoying my 3.5 games highly.