My new laptop has a GeForce 310M which can't handle Civ V. It wasn't top of the line, but it wasn't bargain bin either.
Sure, devs shouldn't make games for the weakest link, and I didn't buy a laptop thinking I could run the newest games. Still, it's annoying when your computer can't run a game, and I've never understood the typical PC gamer response of "You're an idiot if you can't run this game, just get a new computer." He said he's a grad student supporting a family of three. A $200 PC for one game considering the computer he has now apparently suits his needs for everything else? That's not a very helpful suggestion.
There is apparently an Islamic sect that believes in their version of Rapture and they believe it will be triggered by Israel's attack on Iran. Iran cannot be the aggressor here - that's the belief at least. Iran will then be saved by the 12th Imam. And that's the Islamic version of Rapture.
So religion is going to keep a country from going to war? That's awfully optimistic. With the right spin, rationalization, and perspective, Iran could do anything and still not be "the aggressor".
"Countrymen, believe me, nuking Israel, Iraq, all of Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, South AND north Korea, Australia, and Israel again was the LAST thing I wanted to do, but I had no choice. You see, God told me to. He said they had ALL already launched nukes at US but these were really slow nukes that would be destroyed if we nuked their countries of origin first. Yeah, God talked to me personally. What can I say, that's probably why you all voted for me even though you didn't think you did."
Brilliant - let's get one up on the Iranians by messing with their nuclear reactor controls! What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe less than would go wrong if Iran got the bomb?
I don't know how likely that is, but I'm guessing whoever did this probably has a different calculus than I do for weighing the two, like (Iranian civilian deaths)= 0.1(own civilian deaths). So from their perspective, probably not much could go wrong.
The pendulum of a government-sponsored police state has swung too far for people in my region to feel comfortable. The gun-rights advocates are pushing it back in their own way.
I'm not sure how effective that will be. By pushing it in that way, you know they're making some people assume that crime has gone up, encouraging them to support the police state, and people who are opposed to guns are certainly going to push for more gun control.
it's way too expensive for them to take much risk these days and pretty much everything coming out of the U.S. these days is the same old tired formulas with better anti-aliasing and more accurate physics...
How many counter examples would I need to cite before you'd admit you're wrong? Is one enough? Portal. Two? Mirror's edge. How many? Red dead redemption fits too much into the "Sandbox western themed formula" that have been all you see on shelves these days?
Too much budget is the problem you say? So is there a reason we're overlooking smaller releases, downloadable games, and indie games? Those don't count for the US? Because it seems odd to make an argument that games in the US are too big budget and not innovative enough, by specifically overlooking the low-budget, innovative games like limbo or braid. Look at the xbox live indie games or whatever they're calling it now. Last time I checked, those were mostly near zero budget games. Most of the top selling ones were apps to make the controller vibrate. None of the demos I tried seemed worth the time it took to download them.
The vast majority of games coming out are going to be shlock. That's a given, and is true for all art, painting, music, books, movies, is true everywhere, and has nothing to do with formulas or budgets.
I understand that you clearly think it's uncool to like anything popular, being a young, elitist idiot.
Not only that, he posted as AC and thus would not accrue any status with his fellow young elitist idiot peers by bashing those popular studios. Kind of like vandalizing something with invisible ink.
I have a fear of falling (and the more likely to my brain falling is the more the fear kicks in), glass or transparent anything that I'd stand, sit, or other hope to hell is going to support me would give me a full blown panic attack...
Truth be told, it scares us too. The main reason we're developing these airplanes is for the youtube videos of people falling asleep on the planes, waking up, looking at the floor, and freaking out.
I keep thinking Sony has delivered an answer to a question nobody is asking.
I'm guessing it's because their -investors- are asking "Why did Sony spend all this money on a fancy console that isn't nearly as popular as a remote control you can wave around, and how can we get some of that money?" This is the same company that saw Nintendo was making motion controls, so they quickly said "hey, you can tilt our controller, so it has motion controls!" Sony's best and brightest seem to have retired somewhere during the last generation of consoles.
Yep, because discharging a firearm at night in an urban setting to kill rodents and small mamalls is an intelligent thing to do.
Trust me on this, using a firearm is MUCH more intelligent (not to mention sanitary) than trying to kill rodents or small mammals the natural way, by biting or scratching them to death.
I am not a big Bill O'reilly fan but basing your whole existence on lampooning Bill O'Reilly is getting stale.
Bill O'Rielly and fox news are still on the air, being hypocrites, lying through their teeth, and reaffirming some beliefs widely held in America that really need to be challenged rather than reinforced. THAT to me is what's getting stale.
how hard would be for anyone to run a video clip of a public figure (either side) followed by a long pause with a straight face and make fun of them.
Not very hard. I was just hearing about a conservative show that did just that in fact. Why didn't you hear about it? Because it wasn't funny.
Making a statement and being funny at the same time IS in fact quite hard, which is why so few people do it successfully.
My point is, the audiences of these shows are mostly young liberal and uninformed. Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. Try audience replacing his studio audience with middle aged tax payers or people working two jobs to pay their mortgage and see how funny they are!
I reject your premise that most young liberal people don't work two jobs, pay mortgages or taxes, and aren't concerned about big government.
Perhaps I am simply too contemplative, but that is something I simply cannot turn off except when I am sleeping.
Oh, woo me, the intelligent creature who suffers and is "always on". All those other stupid fucks sleep well and go about their meaningless lifes...
It's okay, there are plenty of drugs that can replicate those feelings of "my brain is always on" and the delusions of grandeur. I suspect GP may be on some of them.
This is purely a marketing ploy to see if they can sucker consumers into accepting, so that can generate an additional profit line.
That was my thought too. $50 is not a huge amount of money, if they simply raised the price of this chip $10 and didn't bother with the unlock technology that is going to be cracked anyway, does anyone doubt they'd make the same amount of money as they will from this?
Since I am not a sci-fi snob, only saw it once, don't have a blu-ray player, and don't actively look for places on the internet to talk about how mediocre the movie was, I escaped your scathing criticism. So... HOORAY!
Did I say sequel to Avatar? I meant it was a sequel to "Titanic." It's a tragic love story between two deep-sea invertebrates living on the hull of the titanic.
"a good paper of theirs gets turned down, or when a bad paper they disagree with gets published"
This basically says it all. No one ever submits a bad paper, in their own opinion, and bad papers are limited to the ones that they disagree with.
Forgive me for being unclear, but that's not what I meant. If a -good- paper were published that disagrees with a scientist's prize hypothesis, then I think a good number of scientists would admit they were wrong and modify their hypothesis rather than attack the peer review system. Not all, but good scientists don't hold -faith- in their hypotheses and are open to the possibility that they were wrong in whole or part.
On the other hand, when a scientist is presented with a paper that disagrees with their hypotheses, they do tend to scrutinize it more carefully. There will be some occasions when there's a paper published that disagrees with your hypothesis, and you read the paper and come to the conclusion that the paper is wrong and you were right.
Those are some of the times you question the peer review process the most: when you realize that this paper that is disagreeing with you IS a bad paper.
In other words, I was in no way implying that a paper that disagrees with my hypotheses is automatically a bad paper.
It just carries no weight with the public. We've seen how twisted it can get.
Really? Because I don't think the public generally knows what "peer review" is in the first place.
That is why mob review has supplanted peer review.
It has? Because I don't see the "mob" giving two shits about my research in the first place, let alone understanding the strengths and weaknesses of my papers, and I don't see other researchers giving two shits about what the mob thinks of my research either.
Using a model? Guess what, there are people who love to dissect models. Using statistics, lots of statisticians running around that are going to poke at yours.
I feel like you're talking at climatologists here rather than me. I do cell biology. To poke holes in my models, you'd need an expensive microscope, not statistics.
Many scientists don't spend much time thinking about the peer review process itself. Maybe they question it when a good paper of theirs gets turned down, or when a bad paper they disagree with gets published, but they don't spend a lot of time thinking about what could replace it.
Indeed, what COULD replace it? No review at all? A system where you get to strike one reviewers comments?
Anyway, for most scientists, it's just something that exists and you just deal with it. I certainly have no intention of trying to change the peer review system: I'd rather do science.
if he seeks help the psychiatrist MUST report him to the cops where he will be thrown in prison and then booted out into a world where he is a pariah just for THOUGHTS he may have had. So instead of this man being able to seek professional help(which could include chemical castration), he is now forced to battle his demons on his own and is probably MORE likely to molest a kid than if he had been able to get help.
These days I'm usually not to skeptical when someone mentions laws which seem horribly unconstitutional. I know I'm probably going to be disappointed by the answer, but I still have to ask: are you sure that having a certain attraction without doing anything is actually a crime? I'm going to ask for a citation for that, and a real citation, not a caller on Dan Savage's show. Because while there are some terrible laws, I thought we hadn't ventured into the territory of bona-fide thought crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Now here's a nice scenario for you...what if Palin got the bomb?
Hopefully she'd quit before nuking a random "istan" country.
My new laptop has a GeForce 310M which can't handle Civ V. It wasn't top of the line, but it wasn't bargain bin either.
Sure, devs shouldn't make games for the weakest link, and I didn't buy a laptop thinking I could run the newest games. Still, it's annoying when your computer can't run a game, and I've never understood the typical PC gamer response of "You're an idiot if you can't run this game, just get a new computer." He said he's a grad student supporting a family of three. A $200 PC for one game considering the computer he has now apparently suits his needs for everything else? That's not a very helpful suggestion.
I wasn't going to buy Civ V, but I'm so exhausted from playing Civ IV all night that I forgot.
There is apparently an Islamic sect that believes in their version of Rapture and they believe it will be triggered by Israel's attack on Iran. Iran cannot be the aggressor here - that's the belief at least. Iran will then be saved by the 12th Imam. And that's the Islamic version of Rapture.
So religion is going to keep a country from going to war? That's awfully optimistic. With the right spin, rationalization, and perspective, Iran could do anything and still not be "the aggressor".
"Countrymen, believe me, nuking Israel, Iraq, all of Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, South AND north Korea, Australia, and Israel again was the LAST thing I wanted to do, but I had no choice. You see, God told me to. He said they had ALL already launched nukes at US but these were really slow nukes that would be destroyed if we nuked their countries of origin first. Yeah, God talked to me personally. What can I say, that's probably why you all voted for me even though you didn't think you did."
Brilliant - let's get one up on the Iranians by messing with their nuclear reactor controls! What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe less than would go wrong if Iran got the bomb?
I don't know how likely that is, but I'm guessing whoever did this probably has a different calculus than I do for weighing the two, like (Iranian civilian deaths)= 0.1(own civilian deaths). So from their perspective, probably not much could go wrong.
The pendulum of a government-sponsored police state has swung too far for people in my region to feel comfortable. The gun-rights advocates are pushing it back in their own way.
I'm not sure how effective that will be. By pushing it in that way, you know they're making some people assume that crime has gone up, encouraging them to support the police state, and people who are opposed to guns are certainly going to push for more gun control.
If the government takes away all the rich person's money (say 100% income over 1 million) then the rich can't hire anyone.
Maybe that's why NO ONE was talking about taking away all the rich people's money over 1 million.
it's way too expensive for them to take much risk these days and pretty much everything coming out of the U.S. these days is the same old tired formulas with better anti-aliasing and more accurate physics...
How many counter examples would I need to cite before you'd admit you're wrong? Is one enough? Portal. Two? Mirror's edge. How many? Red dead redemption fits too much into the "Sandbox western themed formula" that have been all you see on shelves these days?
Too much budget is the problem you say? So is there a reason we're overlooking smaller releases, downloadable games, and indie games? Those don't count for the US? Because it seems odd to make an argument that games in the US are too big budget and not innovative enough, by specifically overlooking the low-budget, innovative games like limbo or braid. Look at the xbox live indie games or whatever they're calling it now. Last time I checked, those were mostly near zero budget games. Most of the top selling ones were apps to make the controller vibrate. None of the demos I tried seemed worth the time it took to download them.
The vast majority of games coming out are going to be shlock. That's a given, and is true for all art, painting, music, books, movies, is true everywhere, and has nothing to do with formulas or budgets.
I understand that you clearly think it's uncool to like anything popular, being a young, elitist idiot.
Not only that, he posted as AC and thus would not accrue any status with his fellow young elitist idiot peers by bashing those popular studios. Kind of like vandalizing something with invisible ink.
I have a fear of falling (and the more likely to my brain falling is the more the fear kicks in), glass or transparent anything that I'd stand, sit, or other hope to hell is going to support me would give me a full blown panic attack...
Truth be told, it scares us too. The main reason we're developing these airplanes is for the youtube videos of people falling asleep on the planes, waking up, looking at the floor, and freaking out.
sincerely,
Airbus
I don't really notice anyone calling net neutrality a government takeover. Maybe because I don't watch cable news.
I keep thinking Sony has delivered an answer to a question nobody is asking.
I'm guessing it's because their -investors- are asking "Why did Sony spend all this money on a fancy console that isn't nearly as popular as a remote control you can wave around, and how can we get some of that money?" This is the same company that saw Nintendo was making motion controls, so they quickly said "hey, you can tilt our controller, so it has motion controls!" Sony's best and brightest seem to have retired somewhere during the last generation of consoles.
Yep, because discharging a firearm at night in an urban setting to kill rodents and small mamalls is an intelligent thing to do.
Trust me on this, using a firearm is MUCH more intelligent (not to mention sanitary) than trying to kill rodents or small mammals the natural way, by biting or scratching them to death.
I am not a big Bill O'reilly fan but basing your whole existence on lampooning Bill O'Reilly is getting stale.
Bill O'Rielly and fox news are still on the air, being hypocrites, lying through their teeth, and reaffirming some beliefs widely held in America that really need to be challenged rather than reinforced. THAT to me is what's getting stale.
how hard would be for anyone to run a video clip of a public figure (either side) followed by a long pause with a straight face and make fun of them.
Not very hard. I was just hearing about a conservative show that did just that in fact. Why didn't you hear about it? Because it wasn't funny.
Making a statement and being funny at the same time IS in fact quite hard, which is why so few people do it successfully.
My point is, the audiences of these shows are mostly young liberal and uninformed. Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. Try audience replacing his studio audience with middle aged tax payers or people working two jobs to pay their mortgage and see how funny they are!
I reject your premise that most young liberal people don't work two jobs, pay mortgages or taxes, and aren't concerned about big government.
Is there no place left that politics has no grasp?
It's true! Politics have taken over the sanctuary that is "Idle!" NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Our only hope of restoring this as a non-political place to discuss the latest youtube videos, is to whine about it!
Perhaps I am simply too contemplative, but that is something I simply cannot turn off except when I am sleeping.
Oh, woo me, the intelligent creature who suffers and is "always on". All those other stupid fucks sleep well and go about their meaningless lifes...
It's okay, there are plenty of drugs that can replicate those feelings of "my brain is always on" and the delusions of grandeur. I suspect GP may be on some of them.
This is purely a marketing ploy to see if they can sucker consumers into accepting, so that can generate an additional profit line.
That was my thought too. $50 is not a huge amount of money, if they simply raised the price of this chip $10 and didn't bother with the unlock technology that is going to be cracked anyway, does anyone doubt they'd make the same amount of money as they will from this?
Can those crazy blue alien people now ride 7-mile-deep diving creatures of some sort
That would be slightly more absurd than a planet full of terrestrial creatures which could interface through what appear to be USB 5.0 connections.
Since I am not a sci-fi snob, only saw it once, don't have a blu-ray player, and don't actively look for places on the internet to talk about how mediocre the movie was, I escaped your scathing criticism. So... HOORAY!
Did I say sequel to Avatar? I meant it was a sequel to "Titanic." It's a tragic love story between two deep-sea invertebrates living on the hull of the titanic.
Well then how can we show that something is uniquer than something else, but that something else is fairly unique itself?
I guess I could just stick to describing things as uniquest or semi-unique.
"a good paper of theirs gets turned down, or when a bad paper they disagree with gets published"
This basically says it all. No one ever submits a bad paper, in their own opinion, and bad papers are limited to the ones that they disagree with.
Forgive me for being unclear, but that's not what I meant. If a -good- paper were published that disagrees with a scientist's prize hypothesis, then I think a good number of scientists would admit they were wrong and modify their hypothesis rather than attack the peer review system. Not all, but good scientists don't hold -faith- in their hypotheses and are open to the possibility that they were wrong in whole or part.
On the other hand, when a scientist is presented with a paper that disagrees with their hypotheses, they do tend to scrutinize it more carefully. There will be some occasions when there's a paper published that disagrees with your hypothesis, and you read the paper and come to the conclusion that the paper is wrong and you were right.
Those are some of the times you question the peer review process the most: when you realize that this paper that is disagreeing with you IS a bad paper.
In other words, I was in no way implying that a paper that disagrees with my hypotheses is automatically a bad paper.
It just carries no weight with the public. We've seen how twisted it can get.
Really? Because I don't think the public generally knows what "peer review" is in the first place.
That is why mob review has supplanted peer review.
It has? Because I don't see the "mob" giving two shits about my research in the first place, let alone understanding the strengths and weaknesses of my papers, and I don't see other researchers giving two shits about what the mob thinks of my research either.
Using a model? Guess what, there are people who love to dissect models. Using statistics, lots of statisticians running around that are going to poke at yours.
I feel like you're talking at climatologists here rather than me. I do cell biology. To poke holes in my models, you'd need an expensive microscope, not statistics.
Many scientists don't spend much time thinking about the peer review process itself. Maybe they question it when a good paper of theirs gets turned down, or when a bad paper they disagree with gets published, but they don't spend a lot of time thinking about what could replace it.
Indeed, what COULD replace it? No review at all? A system where you get to strike one reviewers comments?
Anyway, for most scientists, it's just something that exists and you just deal with it. I certainly have no intention of trying to change the peer review system: I'd rather do science.
if he seeks help the psychiatrist MUST report him to the cops where he will be thrown in prison and then booted out into a world where he is a pariah just for THOUGHTS he may have had. So instead of this man being able to seek professional help(which could include chemical castration), he is now forced to battle his demons on his own and is probably MORE likely to molest a kid than if he had been able to get help.
These days I'm usually not to skeptical when someone mentions laws which seem horribly unconstitutional. I know I'm probably going to be disappointed by the answer, but I still have to ask: are you sure that having a certain attraction without doing anything is actually a crime? I'm going to ask for a citation for that, and a real citation, not a caller on Dan Savage's show. Because while there are some terrible laws, I thought we hadn't ventured into the territory of bona-fide thought crimes.
Now -THAT- is a scary bear.