You're not like that already? I always need headlights for the drive home during the winter. I actually take it as a sign of approaching spring that I start to squint into the sunset on the drive home.
Half-life and the sequel were seen as huge improvements to their predecessors (Quake1 and 2). This was because of two things mainly.
1. Interactivity: It felt like you could touch the world a little more.) 2. Story: Not only was the narrative you were a part of better fleshed out, but more importantly, the characters were as well. Most of this story came from the people with you, and not so much what you did.
FarCry came out and it improved on that a bit. Halflife had very small corridors that you were allowed to walk down. FarCry had an entrance and an exit, and how you connected the two was entirely up to you. The story was just told in-between levels.
Call of Duty didn't learn that lesson though and started another 'phase' (which I'd call a decline.) It turned on tighter rails than halflife had. Not only could you only walk down a small corridor, you had to be looking the right way too. The 'vehicle' scenes didn't even allow you to drive, you just were along for the ride. I totally skipped the 'Call of Duty' series because of that. Even up to the current (unreconizable) MW2 variants.
I'd say that COD supports his statement that story has stolen too much from gameplay. However, FarCry is a better example of good balance.
Story is fine, rails are not. Unfortunately it's difficult to enforce your story if you don't have rails up. (Difficult doesn't mean impossible.) One of the things that story helps with is giving the character a goal.
On Omaha Beach, it helps to know WHY you're fighting this battle, and what you can expect on the other side. However, as soon as you tell me I can't walk "other there" instead then I could care less about your silly story.
Don't worry. They didn't say it was 200,000 years old. They said according to their measurements it appeared to be 200,000 years old. Once they get past a certain date, they don't have any documentation of how old something is and they are simply relying on one set of measurements to confirm another set of measurements.
I'm sure they did their best and were very very careful, but in the end the measurements are still based on assumptions that have no empirical proof. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying that their information is resting on a theoretical foundation that you have to just accept in order to proceed.
Yup...same here. From reading the summary (and only that...yeah me!) I assumed that 'once all the resources run out the war happens.' And Mad Max shows up.
Wait a minute? What about all the 'small' radio stations that are always getting pressed for 'royalty' money because they are playing these songs? We hear it all the time, "These stations need to pay for the right to play this music." and they keep asking for MORE money. However, this list is the opposite. The artist is paying for the right to be on the radio.
Who the crap is getting all the money? How can they take money from one side saying 'get us on the radio', and take money from the other side saying 'let us put that on the radio?' Does it really cost $15,000 to collect royalties from a popular song?
I guess this is to get your song on the radio when it isn't popular. Still seems kinda fishy that someone collects money from both sides like that.
If you read that again, you'll see that he doesn't ride in the cars with the people who sit on top of their seatbelts. At least that's how I read his comment.
Whenever there is an article pointing out an 'obvious' spy mission, I wonder what they are trying to distract attention away from. If we know what those CIA staffers are doing all day (spying on incomplete space stations...poor bothans) and we can see it's quite transparent and not so nefarious after all, then we don't need to worry about them anymore.
There is a Del Taco here that does that. They actually make some of their menu and put it out in a display case. However, they don't have this magic 'sealant' that you suggested. That means after only about 20 minutes this display case contains a plate full of disgusting brown guacamole and wilted lettuce, with some crusty beans.
It's definitely not what you'd call a 'good' advertisement.
Speed:
Channel switching speed: It keeps getting worse. Analog TV's were instant channel switchers. Even analog TV's with digital readouts were instant switchers. "Digital" TV can't do that. Cable boxes and their insane 'menuing' system. It's supposed to help you see what's on, but it makes 'flipping through the channels' more like 'trudging' through the channels. Even with OTA HDTV, there's a pause while it gets enough signal to show you a picture. They need to be working on eliminating that pause.
BOOT up speed: I'm lucky. I have an HD CRT. There aren't many of those. You push power, the screen makes a funny noise. The CRT warms up in a second or two. You're in business. The experiences I've had with LCD screens aren't good. When you turn it on, you get a POST screen, a manufacturer logo, some other 'boot-up' processes. It takes a LONG TIME. If I had one of those I'd be tempted to never turn it off because I wouldn't want to wait through the boot-up. That definitely needs to be fixed. If there was ever a place for 'instant on' technology, it's in the TV.
Cost:
It's hard for me to complain here because I don't pay for it, but I think the fact that I refuse to pay for it should say something. I've never caved to the 'Pay TV' bandwagon. No cable, no satellite. Over the Air all the way. I actually do pay for TV now. It's called Netflix. It's $8 instead of $50, and I get to pick what's on. (And no commercials.) Pay TV is way too expensive and doesn't make any sense. That needs to be fixed.
Now to be hypocritical. My wife won't watch commercials. She rather skip the program than watch a commercial. Not only is she always annoyed by them, she's often offended by them. I'm pretty sure commercials are the most heavily studied aspect of Television, so I don't really have any suggestions that the 'experts' haven't already beaten to death.
As for Content. I don't think that's part of the discussion. (We'll at least the FA. which I didn't read.) The shows are not the technology. I don't think you can 'fix' the shows. That's like dictating what music will be popular with teenagers. Good luck with that.
This is what I'm interested in. So Perl isn't that great for the first program you ever write. However, after you've written 10,000 lines of code, which is better?
I read their example scripts. Quorum was annoyingly wordy and I had to 'tune out' the English words in there to see what the data was doing. Randomo was difficult because it broke conventions that I've been using for 20+ years (e.g. / as an assignment operator). However, Perl I'm very fluent in, and it was a breath of fresh air to read, (except they are lousy Perl programmers and I would have written the program differently.)
I figure another experiment would be to give these same people a week worth of instruction and have them start writing programs and judge that.
I think what this study might say is that 'Intro to Programming would do well to start with a 'novice friendly' pseudo code. The major drawback to that is that if you don't have something that can compile and run, you lose almost all of the positive reinforcement that programming affords.
I thought it was specifically because there wasn't "some corporate shell relationship" between the two that RightHaven started losing all their cases. They simply didn't have the rights to sue because they were just a contractor of MediaNews and didn't own anything.
Is this meant to fake out two phones, or just a mega-profile? Phones are all about service plans. If you have a 'virtual' phone does that require it's own service plan?
Does the same phone number ring both phones? (If it does how do you know if you should pick up with the Business profile or the Private profile.)
Do you need 2 SIM cards? (Not even sure how that would work.)
Sounds like it's just a mega-profile, and in that case it sounds like overkill.
The author of the Business Insider article seems to think that a 'driverless car' killed his mother or something. Every sentence was a scathing attack on the audacity of Google to even be running these tests. He also never once entertains the idea that this might have been a normal fender-bender between normally driven vehicles. He just assumes Google's responses are bald-faced lies and implies what really happened is that the computer decided to try to kill everyone else on the road.
What I don't get is why does he hate the car so much? It thought these cars were an exciting new technology. Why would he go out of his way to demonize it?
If the first time you quantify an idea's market share it's below 9, you're screwed. Otherwise, I agree with you. How would you ever GET to 10% if 9.8% means nobody will ever care.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, Speaker for the Dead...in fact it was the titular speaking in which he did it.
You're not like that already? I always need headlights for the drive home during the winter. I actually take it as a sign of approaching spring that I start to squint into the sunset on the drive home.
Half-life and the sequel were seen as huge improvements to their predecessors (Quake1 and 2). This was because of two things mainly.
1. Interactivity: It felt like you could touch the world a little more.)
2. Story: Not only was the narrative you were a part of better fleshed out, but more importantly, the characters were as well. Most of this story came from the people with you, and not so much what you did.
FarCry came out and it improved on that a bit. Halflife had very small corridors that you were allowed to walk down. FarCry had an entrance and an exit, and how you connected the two was entirely up to you. The story was just told in-between levels.
Call of Duty didn't learn that lesson though and started another 'phase' (which I'd call a decline.) It turned on tighter rails than halflife had. Not only could you only walk down a small corridor, you had to be looking the right way too. The 'vehicle' scenes didn't even allow you to drive, you just were along for the ride. I totally skipped the 'Call of Duty' series because of that. Even up to the current (unreconizable) MW2 variants.
I'd say that COD supports his statement that story has stolen too much from gameplay. However, FarCry is a better example of good balance.
Story is fine, rails are not. Unfortunately it's difficult to enforce your story if you don't have rails up. (Difficult doesn't mean impossible.) One of the things that story helps with is giving the character a goal.
On Omaha Beach, it helps to know WHY you're fighting this battle, and what you can expect on the other side. However, as soon as you tell me I can't walk "other there" instead then I could care less about your silly story.
Don't worry. They didn't say it was 200,000 years old. They said according to their measurements it appeared to be 200,000 years old. Once they get past a certain date, they don't have any documentation of how old something is and they are simply relying on one set of measurements to confirm another set of measurements.
I'm sure they did their best and were very very careful, but in the end the measurements are still based on assumptions that have no empirical proof. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying that their information is resting on a theoretical foundation that you have to just accept in order to proceed.
Yup...same here. From reading the summary (and only that...yeah me!) I assumed that 'once all the resources run out the war happens.' And Mad Max shows up.
Wait a minute? What about all the 'small' radio stations that are always getting pressed for 'royalty' money because they are playing these songs? We hear it all the time, "These stations need to pay for the right to play this music." and they keep asking for MORE money. However, this list is the opposite. The artist is paying for the right to be on the radio.
Who the crap is getting all the money? How can they take money from one side saying 'get us on the radio', and take money from the other side saying 'let us put that on the radio?' Does it really cost $15,000 to collect royalties from a popular song?
I guess this is to get your song on the radio when it isn't popular. Still seems kinda fishy that someone collects money from both sides like that.
I wonder what that says for Theoretical Physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVPsBmhgjTk [big bang theory]
If you read that again, you'll see that he doesn't ride in the cars with the people who sit on top of their seatbelts. At least that's how I read his comment.
Whenever there is an article pointing out an 'obvious' spy mission, I wonder what they are trying to distract attention away from. If we know what those CIA staffers are doing all day (spying on incomplete space stations...poor bothans) and we can see it's quite transparent and not so nefarious after all, then we don't need to worry about them anymore.
"yet they can't track the speed or position of any of the 42 cars on the track at a specific moment in time"
It's good you didn't say "speed AND position" I hear that gets REALLY tricky.
There is a Del Taco here that does that. They actually make some of their menu and put it out in a display case. However, they don't have this magic 'sealant' that you suggested. That means after only about 20 minutes this display case contains a plate full of disgusting brown guacamole and wilted lettuce, with some crusty beans.
It's definitely not what you'd call a 'good' advertisement.
Speed:
Channel switching speed: It keeps getting worse. Analog TV's were instant channel switchers. Even analog TV's with digital readouts were instant switchers. "Digital" TV can't do that. Cable boxes and their insane 'menuing' system. It's supposed to help you see what's on, but it makes 'flipping through the channels' more like 'trudging' through the channels. Even with OTA HDTV, there's a pause while it gets enough signal to show you a picture. They need to be working on eliminating that pause.
BOOT up speed: I'm lucky. I have an HD CRT. There aren't many of those. You push power, the screen makes a funny noise. The CRT warms up in a second or two. You're in business. The experiences I've had with LCD screens aren't good. When you turn it on, you get a POST screen, a manufacturer logo, some other 'boot-up' processes. It takes a LONG TIME. If I had one of those I'd be tempted to never turn it off because I wouldn't want to wait through the boot-up. That definitely needs to be fixed. If there was ever a place for 'instant on' technology, it's in the TV.
Cost:
It's hard for me to complain here because I don't pay for it, but I think the fact that I refuse to pay for it should say something. I've never caved to the 'Pay TV' bandwagon. No cable, no satellite. Over the Air all the way. I actually do pay for TV now. It's called Netflix. It's $8 instead of $50, and I get to pick what's on. (And no commercials.) Pay TV is way too expensive and doesn't make any sense. That needs to be fixed.
Now to be hypocritical. My wife won't watch commercials. She rather skip the program than watch a commercial. Not only is she always annoyed by them, she's often offended by them. I'm pretty sure commercials are the most heavily studied aspect of Television, so I don't really have any suggestions that the 'experts' haven't already beaten to death.
As for Content. I don't think that's part of the discussion. (We'll at least the FA. which I didn't read.) The shows are not the technology. I don't think you can 'fix' the shows. That's like dictating what music will be popular with teenagers. Good luck with that.
This is what I'm interested in. So Perl isn't that great for the first program you ever write. However, after you've written 10,000 lines of code, which is better?
I read their example scripts. Quorum was annoyingly wordy and I had to 'tune out' the English words in there to see what the data was doing. Randomo was difficult because it broke conventions that I've been using for 20+ years (e.g. / as an assignment operator). However, Perl I'm very fluent in, and it was a breath of fresh air to read, (except they are lousy Perl programmers and I would have written the program differently.)
I figure another experiment would be to give these same people a week worth of instruction and have them start writing programs and judge that.
I think what this study might say is that 'Intro to Programming would do well to start with a 'novice friendly' pseudo code. The major drawback to that is that if you don't have something that can compile and run, you lose almost all of the positive reinforcement that programming affords.
That was my thought. If it's true to the book at all that means the despite your best efforts, if you're the main character, you'll lose.
It's twitter...read from the bottom up.
Isn't Gnome the window manager already? So picking Gnome is the user defining the window manager? Or did you mean something else?
I thought it was specifically because there wasn't "some corporate shell relationship" between the two that RightHaven started losing all their cases. They simply didn't have the rights to sue because they were just a contractor of MediaNews and didn't own anything.
Is this meant to fake out two phones, or just a mega-profile? Phones are all about service plans. If you have a 'virtual' phone does that require it's own service plan?
Does the same phone number ring both phones? (If it does how do you know if you should pick up with the Business profile or the Private profile.)
Do you need 2 SIM cards? (Not even sure how that would work.)
Sounds like it's just a mega-profile, and in that case it sounds like overkill.
You'll find it very hard to sell your 'copy' while someone across the street is distributing it "with no money being exchanged."
There are a lot of transcontinental railroads in the US. I'd assume they have some in Russia too. This would be an 'intercontinental' railroad.
(It's possible it could be called 'trans-oceanic' but that would be only a technicality.)
The author of the Business Insider article seems to think that a 'driverless car' killed his mother or something. Every sentence was a scathing attack on the audacity of Google to even be running these tests. He also never once entertains the idea that this might have been a normal fender-bender between normally driven vehicles. He just assumes Google's responses are bald-faced lies and implies what really happened is that the computer decided to try to kill everyone else on the road.
What I don't get is why does he hate the car so much? It thought these cars were an exciting new technology. Why would he go out of his way to demonize it?
I was under the impression that Google (maybe I mean 'Android') just licensed someone else's database for their WiFi location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_Wireless
Maybe it has something to do with observation?
If the first time you quantify an idea's market share it's below 9, you're screwed. Otherwise, I agree with you. How would you ever GET to 10% if 9.8% means nobody will ever care.
Keyboards? The plug on the end changed...the keys stayed the same.