You know how in Pitch Black, Riddick was a true anti-hero: A complete asshole who only looked out for himself, and several times almost abandoned his party to save himself? And then in Chronicles of Riddick he was a PG-13 action hero who lost all of the qualities that made him so interesting in the first one? Yeah, in this new movie they should do the opposite of that and make him back into a criminal who takes the path of least resistance to make his life better, not a brooding, angsty douche bag.
The original Rainbow Six had this figured out. It was really really hard to hit a moving target while sniping, the hitboxes were very precise (unlike CS) forget about trying to snipe anything while moving and camping led to a frag to the face because the grenades actually worked in that game (again, unlike CS).
It was the most realistic game I've ever played, and it wasn't lame because they made sure it wasn't tedious to play. It's quite possible to have realism that isn't lame, it's just hard to do, which is probably why no one tries.
This whole thing is a load of crap. Look at how small computers have gotten in the past decade. In 1999, the smallest cell phone was the size of a computer mouse, and had basic calling and texting capabilities. Current phones are smaller, and can browse the internet, play video games, take videos and pictures, and act as GPS devices. Just because our computers aren't getting faster in the area of pure brute strength doesn't mean progress is slowing down.
Look at cars. In 1999 a car with 300 horsepower was ungodly powerful, and was probably expected to get about 12/18 city/highway. Today, a car with anything less than 250 horsepower is probably going to be in an entry level market and is expected to get at least 20 mpg city. All but the most basic and barebones cars sold today have traction control systems with a computer making a hundred measurements a on speed, wheelspin, yaw, braking force every second. Cars today are emitting less pollutants but making more horsepower.
In 1999, I was one of maybe 20 kids in my rather affluent high school of about 4000 with a cable connection, and then it was only because I got my dad hooked on Rogue Spear, and it wasn't cheap either. We had a really good connection at about 800kbs down and 20kbs up. Now, it's blase to have a 10/1mbps connection.
Again, just because our processor speed isn't increasing as fast as it once did does not mean that our progression is slowing down.
What if it's a hundred monkeys? A million monkeys? A billion? What if there's a 5% chance it might help? What if it's a researcher who thinks it might help, but hasn't been right to date?
To the victor go the spoils. Sorry monkeys, but we're more evolved, and even though it might be horrific, we're going to use you to make sure that we, the more highly evolved humans, continue to stay on top and prosper. Thanks though, we appreciate your willingness to get shot into space.
It seems to me that if you want people to like Brian Cox for his scientific merits, you probably shouldn't mention his science consulting for Sunshine.
I have no idea whose side he's on... science's, or woo-woo Earth First nutcases.
See, stupid me, here I wasn't aware you had to pick sides. I thought beliefs could lie throughout a spectrum and they didn't have to be some sort of diametrically opposed "you're either for me or against me" nonsense. Silly me.
But people might then think, hey why bother landing humans on Mars, we'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars, while we mine the asteroids (and build more probes if necessary).
I disagree. There will always be explorers and adventurers in the human race. The people that sailed West to get to the Orient, the people who wanted to be the first to break the sound barrier, the first men on the moon. There will always be humans who want to leave their comfy homes and explore new places.
What's frustrating to me is that of all the nations who ratified the Kyoto protocol, 3 of them have done anything about it, yet people are still harping Americans because a former president didn't sign it.
If we're around in 100,000 years, and we're still fawning over a footprint on the moon, then our species will have failed. This will only be significant for us, now, when the moon is an unreachable and distant object. It's not unreasonable to think that in the future, traveling to the moon will be as blase as traveling from Europe to America . The spot where Columbus landed isn't that important today, what's important is that he took the voyage. In a few hundred years, if we're going back and forth between earth and the moon very often, where Armstrong stepped off the lander won't be nearly as important as the knowledge that we did it back then and it got us to where we are today, which is actually tomorrow.
On the other hand, Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy, so we don't even know what his stances are on this issue...
What the fuck does Mr. Obama's stance on privacy have to do with this? He's the president, not king. He doesn't really have any say in the matter, believe it or not.
It feels like you're missing the parent comment's point over semantics.
Regardless of which members of the German military were responsible for extermination, his point remains valid - we're only shown the clean, good, "let's have a go at this jolly old war" point of view in video games. Video games about war are where movies about war were in the 50s and 60s. It's unrealistic, idealistic and naive.
But this presents a problem: I personally don't want to play a game where I'm torturing people, or killing civilians, but I also don't want to play a game that is supposed to be a realistic account of war where morality and right and wrong slide into a gray area. And to further the point - games are starting to or have addressed this, but exactly in the way that the grandparent comment specify: The latest CoD game starts with you being rescued from being tortured by some 'faceless evil nip.' Games always place you on the side of the good and the righteous fighting against the evil.
Have you ever tried to land even a small Cessna 152? It's fucking hard, and those are the most user friendly planes on the planet. I couldn't imagine an autopilot, which essentially just maintains a heading and trim level, would be able to land the most complex glider humanity has ever constructed.
Next, we are going to see a new feature to our javascript blocker that asks us if we are sure we want to block access to javascript for a given site, "cause they really, really want it!"
Slashdot Mirror
You know how in Pitch Black, Riddick was a true anti-hero: A complete asshole who only looked out for himself, and several times almost abandoned his party to save himself? And then in Chronicles of Riddick he was a PG-13 action hero who lost all of the qualities that made him so interesting in the first one? Yeah, in this new movie they should do the opposite of that and make him back into a criminal who takes the path of least resistance to make his life better, not a brooding, angsty douche bag.
The original Rainbow Six had this figured out. It was really really hard to hit a moving target while sniping, the hitboxes were very precise (unlike CS) forget about trying to snipe anything while moving and camping led to a frag to the face because the grenades actually worked in that game (again, unlike CS). It was the most realistic game I've ever played, and it wasn't lame because they made sure it wasn't tedious to play. It's quite possible to have realism that isn't lame, it's just hard to do, which is probably why no one tries.
This whole thing is a load of crap. Look at how small computers have gotten in the past decade. In 1999, the smallest cell phone was the size of a computer mouse, and had basic calling and texting capabilities. Current phones are smaller, and can browse the internet, play video games, take videos and pictures, and act as GPS devices. Just because our computers aren't getting faster in the area of pure brute strength doesn't mean progress is slowing down.
Look at cars. In 1999 a car with 300 horsepower was ungodly powerful, and was probably expected to get about 12/18 city/highway. Today, a car with anything less than 250 horsepower is probably going to be in an entry level market and is expected to get at least 20 mpg city. All but the most basic and barebones cars sold today have traction control systems with a computer making a hundred measurements a on speed, wheelspin, yaw, braking force every second. Cars today are emitting less pollutants but making more horsepower.
In 1999, I was one of maybe 20 kids in my rather affluent high school of about 4000 with a cable connection, and then it was only because I got my dad hooked on Rogue Spear, and it wasn't cheap either. We had a really good connection at about 800kbs down and 20kbs up. Now, it's blase to have a 10/1mbps connection.
Again, just because our processor speed isn't increasing as fast as it once did does not mean that our progression is slowing down.
What if it's a hundred monkeys? A million monkeys? A billion? What if there's a 5% chance it might help? What if it's a researcher who thinks it might help, but hasn't been right to date?
To the victor go the spoils. Sorry monkeys, but we're more evolved, and even though it might be horrific, we're going to use you to make sure that we, the more highly evolved humans, continue to stay on top and prosper. Thanks though, we appreciate your willingness to get shot into space.
A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.
Sweet, another "my country could beat your country up" pissing match.
meaning, this could be an old strain of aids.
AIDS != HIV.
Somewhere, someone was either very desperate, brave, stupid or all of the above to be getting busy with a gorilla.
You forgot drunk.
Antisubmarine Warfare is, after all, an important mission area for Destroyers.
Whose submarines are we fighting, again?
It seems to me that if you want people to like Brian Cox for his scientific merits, you probably shouldn't mention his science consulting for Sunshine.
Until science starts answering "why?", religion and science will always be compatible.
I have no idea whose side he's on... science's, or woo-woo Earth First nutcases.
See, stupid me, here I wasn't aware you had to pick sides. I thought beliefs could lie throughout a spectrum and they didn't have to be some sort of diametrically opposed "you're either for me or against me" nonsense. Silly me.
But people might then think, hey why bother landing humans on Mars, we'll just stay in our comfy space stations and send robot probes down to mars, while we mine the asteroids (and build more probes if necessary).
I disagree. There will always be explorers and adventurers in the human race. The people that sailed West to get to the Orient, the people who wanted to be the first to break the sound barrier, the first men on the moon. There will always be humans who want to leave their comfy homes and explore new places.
We're supposed to have Mr. Fusion by 2015, you know,... Of course, we were supposed to have flying cars 9 years ago, too,... ;-)
According to TFA you linked to:
vehicles seen in Back to the Future Part II don't have a Mr. Fusion, and the Texaco service station in 2015 is still in operation.
Really quite frustrating.
What's frustrating to me is that of all the nations who ratified the Kyoto protocol, 3 of them have done anything about it, yet people are still harping Americans because a former president didn't sign it.
In Soviet Russia...
How about you lead by example, rather than berating?
If we're around in 100,000 years, and we're still fawning over a footprint on the moon, then our species will have failed. This will only be significant for us, now, when the moon is an unreachable and distant object. It's not unreasonable to think that in the future, traveling to the moon will be as blase as traveling from Europe to America . The spot where Columbus landed isn't that important today, what's important is that he took the voyage. In a few hundred years, if we're going back and forth between earth and the moon very often, where Armstrong stepped off the lander won't be nearly as important as the knowledge that we did it back then and it got us to where we are today, which is actually tomorrow.
You left out the best part: "In fact, forget the lunar lander.... ah screw the whole thing"
Ahem, we're whalers on the moon...
On the other hand, Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy, so we don't even know what his stances are on this issue...
What the fuck does Mr. Obama's stance on privacy have to do with this? He's the president, not king. He doesn't really have any say in the matter, believe it or not.
Federalist 10 deals somewhat with the issue of political parties.
It feels like you're missing the parent comment's point over semantics. Regardless of which members of the German military were responsible for extermination, his point remains valid - we're only shown the clean, good, "let's have a go at this jolly old war" point of view in video games. Video games about war are where movies about war were in the 50s and 60s. It's unrealistic, idealistic and naive. But this presents a problem: I personally don't want to play a game where I'm torturing people, or killing civilians, but I also don't want to play a game that is supposed to be a realistic account of war where morality and right and wrong slide into a gray area. And to further the point - games are starting to or have addressed this, but exactly in the way that the grandparent comment specify: The latest CoD game starts with you being rescued from being tortured by some 'faceless evil nip.' Games always place you on the side of the good and the righteous fighting against the evil.
Have you ever tried to land even a small Cessna 152? It's fucking hard, and those are the most user friendly planes on the planet. I couldn't imagine an autopilot, which essentially just maintains a heading and trim level, would be able to land the most complex glider humanity has ever constructed.
Next, we are going to see a new feature to our javascript blocker that asks us if we are sure we want to block access to javascript for a given site, "cause they really, really want it!"
Hey, can you hear me way back there in 1999?