I'm a nintendo fanboy, but OH MY GOD does Oblivion look sweet on the 360. Anything less than HD is going to feel a bit lacking as we move forward. I'll admit I'm a bit disappointed in Nintendo for the lack of HD support, but you're right-- HDTVs are not yet the norm, and Nintendo may pull a marketing coup if they can launch cheap enough and with enough must-have games to be everyone's second console.
While an FPS or a grand, "realistic" RPG beg for HD, the next Mario Kart will probably fare just fine and be a blast without it.
Is it just me, or does this happen a lot? Clearly, this is an article that would be greatly improved by a picture of the thing in question. Not even a thumbnail. Ridiculous! If I was elected Supreme Chancellor of Teh Intarwebs, I would mandate high-resolution images for all news articles concerning things that it would be easy to take a picture of.
This one isn't the worst I've seen, though-- the worst are articles *about pictures* that don't include the picture in question. Frequently, they don't even make it up to the 1000-word level that is proverbially regarded as equivalent to a picture.
Note to reporters: if you write about a legged fish fossil, include a picture of the damn thing! How else am I supposed to get it made into some sort of bumper magnet?
Used to, but I don't anymore. For a while in between I was on a job next-door to a gym, and I worked out a deal with them. For the time being, though, I just make time to excercise elsewhere.
If you live somewhere nice, start biking until you handle the distance to bike to work. I substituted a bike commute for my regular commute for three seasons of the year, and I could make the 10-mile trip in almost exactly the same time as I could in a car. Net result: 60 minutes a day of outstanding cardiovascular excercise with no impact on my schedule whatsoever.
And of course, a 30-minute run is no huge time drain, either. Do it in the morning before you shower, and there's no second-shower time penalty either.
My apologies for the sloppy wording. I should have said "since eMusic changed their all-you-can-eat and the RIAA forced everything else into using DRM."
No kidding. It's been years since I bought a CD. Last time I bought any significant amount was during emusic.com's all-you-can-eat-for-a-monthly-fee years, and since they've killed that and made everything online all DRM-pain-in-my-ass and the shady online alternatives legally dangerous, I'm just not interested in screwing around with it anymore.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and I like listening to the news in the car better.
Or maybe the lack of variety in radio airplay fails to expose me to anything new and interesting that might tempt me into purchasing.
I catch the symphony and local Jazz bands live when I can, and that seems to fill the music need in my life pretty well. The RIAA can suck it.
You're right that there are many, many unanswered questions. Your condition of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" before action, however, is somewhat in opposition to your first point-- if we can never answer all the questions because there are so many variables, we can never meet your criteria to act.
What we do have now is historical correlations between natural CO2 and warming, recent correlations (adjusted for natural emissions) between human CO2 and warming, and a reasonable (but obviously incomplete) set of of variables controlled for in the model.
While it would be entirely possible for the first correlation to indicate that natural CO2 emissions occur because of warming, and not vice versa-- this becomes highly unlikely in the case of man-made emissions. We do not emit carbon because it's warmer-- we emit it because we drive to work and use energy. Since our own increases in carbon produce an identical warming correlation with the natural carbon, it seems likely that carbon does in fact cause warming.
We are well past the point of "reasonable doubt," although I agree with you that we can't know for certain "that it will kill us all" or whether or not we have passed or ever will pass some sort of "tipping point" or "point of no return." All we know for sure is that carbon warms things, nature emits carbon, and we emit more than nature. Will the warming be devastating, or just a widespread annoyance? Why not take the conservative approach and make small, inexpensive changes now rather than rolling the dice on the future?
I don't have a mac, but I could see using one for work-- and dual-booting later for games. The things I'd use both OSes for are almost entirely mutually exclusive.
While your average run-of-the-mill "I'm on the internet" environmentalist may not be aware of those factors, most of the current research is. All the studies I have seen recently talk about warming in addition to the amount we expect to see from natural CO2 and Methane emissions, as well as solar increases. We're not just up-- we're up past where we would be if it was only natural causes. These variables are widely known and controlled for-- just perhaps not by the "hippies" with their slightly-less-than-scientific version of the global warming theories.
A similar mistake made by the other side is that because there is natural CO2 and Methane, our own emissions do nothing. If natural emissions raise temps, and our own emissions (depending on the particular chemical) are either significant fractions (Methane) of or greater than (CO2) the natural emissions-- then why would anyone expect them to not add to the effect?
Perhaps, at 29, I'm too young to have ever really experienced the "magic" of cinema. Or perhaps my local theaters just don't have it. Theaters have always just seemed like crowded rooms with giant televisions.
The darkness is about as magical as watching TV in my basement.
I think you're right about one thing-- perhaps when theaters ditch the low-end and return to being someplace worth going with a dedicated crowd, the magic will return.
No kidding! How the hell can anyone keep a straight face while claiming that 20 minutes of previews and commercials, unmaintaned projection equipment, uncomfortable seats, the occasional mobile ringing, people talking, and lousy (but extremely loud) sound is better than popping in a DVD at home?
A significant fraction of our local theatres have equipment so lousy/dirty/scratchy/unfocused that I'm confident watching a DVD at home has better picture quality. When the HD formats take hold, there will be no contest.
He bitches and moans about how "cheap" movie tickets are compared to things like symphonies-- but honestly, a live performance by hundreds of musicians is worth a tad more than some kid hitting "start" on the projector.
I like your list, but would add a bit:
1. Boot phone/noise offenders. Ban repeat offenders. 2. Pay a professional to maintain your equipment. 3. Eliminate ads, run previews *prior* to published start time only.
I'm surprised a nigerian scammer hasn't already clicked the "buy it now" option and attempted to pay with a forged paypal email that doesn't even have the right return email address.
It's happened to me four times in the last six days.
The distortion has never bothered me, even when sitting waaaay off to the side at a 3D film. Human brains are remarkably good at dealing with unrealistic perspectives and distortions. I can use my binoculars without issue despite the dramatic collapse of depth perception they produce. I can look at an image taken with a fisheye lens from the side and still make sense of it. Seeing skewed off-center 3D is just one more thing your brain needs a second to get used to. I don't really think it would be a huge issue, especially if they have good beer at reasonable prices.
It was a commodore 64. If my recollection of the mapping of the video memory is incorrect, I apologize-- I'm not quite as young as the original poster. My memory must be going.
I read a few books on an old Palm V five or six years ago. That was fine, until the Palm V fell in a lake.
What did I learn from my clumsy anecdote?
1. Nobody sold books I wanted in a format that worked on the device without a crack.
2. The device was expensive compared to a book.
3. The display was workable, but lousy compared to a real book. It did work at night without a light, though.
4. The batteries in a real book last much longer.
5. You can't read an e-book until you reach cruising altitude on a plane.
These days, I just take a paperback, and there's a small waterproof LED headlamp in my bag that gets something like 120 hours to a set of AAA batteries.
Somebody will eventually nail the device form factor-- small super-hi-res high-contrast screen that doesn't cost so much you worry about it and batteries/solar panels/whatever that never let you down. Airplanes will allow them during takeoff, and book companies will sell universally compatible files of their entire in-print and out-of-print collections.
I don't know why so few homes do this. Simple changes that quickly pay off in energy savings are often overlooked. Heck, even turning our house 90 degrees would have made it a more efficient layout. Proper window sizing and placement, awnings designed for the proper winter/summer shading angle like you suggest, insulation and attic vents are all things that any home should have-- leaving them out of the design is just lazy.
Other than that, I just want a simple, clean design with a layout that has some flexibility left for future demands. (wiring conduits, etc...)
You're not supposed to enjoy it. That's like arguing that stop signs every block ruin your enjoyment of driving-- the rules are the same for both. For pure enjoyment, we have bike trails and country roads.
Either stop at the signs, or find a long uninterrupted stretch of road to make your ride fun.
Crossings equivalent to jaywalking on an empty street are no big deal, but cyclists here often blow 4-way stops with traffic just to keep up their speed. And any downtown intersection with buildings at the corner that block your view should be a stop every time. You may think it's clear because nobody's coming, but they may very well enter the intersection just as you blow the stop sign.
Drivers do stupid stuff, too, but they blow significantly fewer stop signs. Turn signals are underused, for one-- and when passing, be aware that while your truck may fit, your rearview mirror may hit me in the back of the head.
Is not how much coffee you have, but rather balancing whether or not you have the gene that makes coffee bad for you.
I don't believe "being born with a slow caffeine-metabolism gene" is something you can do in moderation. For everyone else, as many as four cups a day is still good for your heart attack risk.
Fair enough, and just another example of one of those things people might see as a "contradiction."
Brushing my teeth is good! Wait, now it's bad after eating apples! Science can never make up it's mind!!
(Assuming this info is true) You should eat the occasional apple, chew xylitol gum afterwards, and continue brushing your teeth the rest of the time.
Incorrect conclusions: "I should stop eating apples!" "I should stop brushing my teeth!" "I should eat 100 apples every day because they're healthy!" "I should chew Xylitol gum every waking moment!" "I should quit listening to scientists!"
Pardon my exasperated screaming-- people seem to be totally misreading this study.
This study is not showing that moderation is key, it is showing that the genes you carry are key. Previous results that as many as four cups of coffee a day reduce risk of heart attack still stand for folks not carrying two copies of the slow-caffeine-metabolism gene.
In other words, keep it to a cup or two a day and you'll be fine.
According to the study, two cups a day raised the risk of heart disease by 36% over one cup in people with the gene. The article does not say how much a single cup raises your risk.
It's not the !@#!@#!! dose in this case, as so many people are wrongly pointing out, it's whether or not you carry a particular gene. Without the genes, coffee reduces your risk of heart attack.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a significant difference between saying someone has Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, vs Acute Myeloid Leukemia.
Around here, we refer to both of those as "Opportunities for Synergistic Patient-Doctor Care Interaction."
Precision is critical. Nonsense-crap like this accomplishes nothing except to hide the actual facts.
I'm a nintendo fanboy, but OH MY GOD does Oblivion look sweet on the 360. Anything less than HD is going to feel a bit lacking as we move forward. I'll admit I'm a bit disappointed in Nintendo for the lack of HD support, but you're right-- HDTVs are not yet the norm, and Nintendo may pull a marketing coup if they can launch cheap enough and with enough must-have games to be everyone's second console.
While an FPS or a grand, "realistic" RPG beg for HD, the next Mario Kart will probably fare just fine and be a blast without it.
Is it just me, or does this happen a lot? Clearly, this is an article that would be greatly improved by a picture of the thing in question. Not even a thumbnail. Ridiculous! If I was elected Supreme Chancellor of Teh Intarwebs, I would mandate high-resolution images for all news articles concerning things that it would be easy to take a picture of.
This one isn't the worst I've seen, though-- the worst are articles *about pictures* that don't include the picture in question. Frequently, they don't even make it up to the 1000-word level that is proverbially regarded as equivalent to a picture.
Note to reporters: if you write about a legged fish fossil, include a picture of the damn thing! How else am I supposed to get it made into some sort of bumper magnet?
Used to, but I don't anymore. For a while in between I was on a job next-door to a gym, and I worked out a deal with them. For the time being, though, I just make time to excercise elsewhere.
Get out and do something, folks.
If you live somewhere nice, start biking until you handle the distance to bike to work. I substituted a bike commute for my regular commute for three seasons of the year, and I could make the 10-mile trip in almost exactly the same time as I could in a car. Net result: 60 minutes a day of outstanding cardiovascular excercise with no impact on my schedule whatsoever.
And of course, a 30-minute run is no huge time drain, either. Do it in the morning before you shower, and there's no second-shower time penalty either.
My apologies for the sloppy wording. I should have said "since eMusic changed their all-you-can-eat and the RIAA forced everything else into using DRM."
It was a lousy sentence. Sorry for the confusion.
No kidding. It's been years since I bought a CD. Last time I bought any significant amount was during emusic.com's all-you-can-eat-for-a-monthly-fee years, and since they've killed that and made everything online all DRM-pain-in-my-ass and the shady online alternatives legally dangerous, I'm just not interested in screwing around with it anymore.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and I like listening to the news in the car better.
Or maybe the lack of variety in radio airplay fails to expose me to anything new and interesting that might tempt me into purchasing.
I catch the symphony and local Jazz bands live when I can, and that seems to fill the music need in my life pretty well. The RIAA can suck it.
You're right that there are many, many unanswered questions. Your condition of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" before action, however, is somewhat in opposition to your first point-- if we can never answer all the questions because there are so many variables, we can never meet your criteria to act.
What we do have now is historical correlations between natural CO2 and warming, recent correlations (adjusted for natural emissions) between human CO2 and warming, and a reasonable (but obviously incomplete) set of of variables controlled for in the model.
While it would be entirely possible for the first correlation to indicate that natural CO2 emissions occur because of warming, and not vice versa-- this becomes highly unlikely in the case of man-made emissions. We do not emit carbon because it's warmer-- we emit it because we drive to work and use energy. Since our own increases in carbon produce an identical warming correlation with the natural carbon, it seems likely that carbon does in fact cause warming.
We are well past the point of "reasonable doubt," although I agree with you that we can't know for certain "that it will kill us all" or whether or not we have passed or ever will pass some sort of "tipping point" or "point of no return." All we know for sure is that carbon warms things, nature emits carbon, and we emit more than nature. Will the warming be devastating, or just a widespread annoyance? Why not take the conservative approach and make small, inexpensive changes now rather than rolling the dice on the future?
I don't have a mac, but I could see using one for work-- and dual-booting later for games. The things I'd use both OSes for are almost entirely mutually exclusive.
While your average run-of-the-mill "I'm on the internet" environmentalist may not be aware of those factors, most of the current research is. All the studies I have seen recently talk about warming in addition to the amount we expect to see from natural CO2 and Methane emissions, as well as solar increases. We're not just up-- we're up past where we would be if it was only natural causes. These variables are widely known and controlled for-- just perhaps not by the "hippies" with their slightly-less-than-scientific version of the global warming theories.
A similar mistake made by the other side is that because there is natural CO2 and Methane, our own emissions do nothing. If natural emissions raise temps, and our own emissions (depending on the particular chemical) are either significant fractions (Methane) of or greater than (CO2) the natural emissions-- then why would anyone expect them to not add to the effect?
Perhaps, at 29, I'm too young to have ever really experienced the "magic" of cinema. Or perhaps my local theaters just don't have it. Theaters have always just seemed like crowded rooms with giant televisions.
The darkness is about as magical as watching TV in my basement.
I think you're right about one thing-- perhaps when theaters ditch the low-end and return to being someplace worth going with a dedicated crowd, the magic will return.
No kidding! How the hell can anyone keep a straight face while claiming that 20 minutes of previews and commercials, unmaintaned projection equipment, uncomfortable seats, the occasional mobile ringing, people talking, and lousy (but extremely loud) sound is better than popping in a DVD at home?
A significant fraction of our local theatres have equipment so lousy/dirty/scratchy/unfocused that I'm confident watching a DVD at home has better picture quality. When the HD formats take hold, there will be no contest.
He bitches and moans about how "cheap" movie tickets are compared to things like symphonies-- but honestly, a live performance by hundreds of musicians is worth a tad more than some kid hitting "start" on the projector.
I like your list, but would add a bit:
1. Boot phone/noise offenders. Ban repeat offenders.
2. Pay a professional to maintain your equipment.
3. Eliminate ads, run previews *prior* to published start time only.
I'm surprised a nigerian scammer hasn't already clicked the "buy it now" option and attempted to pay with a forged paypal email that doesn't even have the right return email address.
It's happened to me four times in the last six days.
The distortion has never bothered me, even when sitting waaaay off to the side at a 3D film. Human brains are remarkably good at dealing with unrealistic perspectives and distortions. I can use my binoculars without issue despite the dramatic collapse of depth perception they produce. I can look at an image taken with a fisheye lens from the side and still make sense of it. Seeing skewed off-center 3D is just one more thing your brain needs a second to get used to. I don't really think it would be a huge issue, especially if they have good beer at reasonable prices.
I think you have a rather misguided concept of how big an adult is supposed to be. I'm 6'2", and I fit in the seats comfortably.
Maybe it's a regional thing? Perhaps the seats where you live are tiny?
It was a commodore 64. If my recollection of the mapping of the video memory is incorrect, I apologize-- I'm not quite as young as the original poster. My memory must be going.
Looks like the "psylons" got fixed, but there's still at least one "Pylon" in there.
Now THAT would make good TV!
*gasp*
"Boomer is a PYLON!!!!!"
(cut to closeup of small orange cone)
What are you, 9? Sweet jesus, man, I'm in my 20s and had a machine with less than 1MB of video memory as recently as my college years.
My *first* computer had 64k of total memory, of which only 16k could be used for video.
I read a few books on an old Palm V five or six years ago. That was fine, until the Palm V fell in a lake.
What did I learn from my clumsy anecdote?
1. Nobody sold books I wanted in a format that worked on the device without a crack.
2. The device was expensive compared to a book.
3. The display was workable, but lousy compared to a real book. It did work at night without a light, though.
4. The batteries in a real book last much longer.
5. You can't read an e-book until you reach cruising altitude on a plane.
These days, I just take a paperback, and there's a small waterproof LED headlamp in my bag that gets something like 120 hours to a set of AAA batteries.
Somebody will eventually nail the device form factor-- small super-hi-res high-contrast screen that doesn't cost so much you worry about it and batteries/solar panels/whatever that never let you down. Airplanes will allow them during takeoff, and book companies will sell universally compatible files of their entire in-print and out-of-print collections.
I don't know why so few homes do this. Simple changes that quickly pay off in energy savings are often overlooked. Heck, even turning our house 90 degrees would have made it a more efficient layout. Proper window sizing and placement, awnings designed for the proper winter/summer shading angle like you suggest, insulation and attic vents are all things that any home should have-- leaving them out of the design is just lazy.
Other than that, I just want a simple, clean design with a layout that has some flexibility left for future demands. (wiring conduits, etc...)
You're not supposed to enjoy it. That's like arguing that stop signs every block ruin your enjoyment of driving-- the rules are the same for both. For pure enjoyment, we have bike trails and country roads.
Either stop at the signs, or find a long uninterrupted stretch of road to make your ride fun.
Crossings equivalent to jaywalking on an empty street are no big deal, but cyclists here often blow 4-way stops with traffic just to keep up their speed. And any downtown intersection with buildings at the corner that block your view should be a stop every time. You may think it's clear because nobody's coming, but they may very well enter the intersection just as you blow the stop sign.
Drivers do stupid stuff, too, but they blow significantly fewer stop signs. Turn signals are underused, for one-- and when passing, be aware that while your truck may fit, your rearview mirror may hit me in the back of the head.
Is not how much coffee you have, but rather balancing whether or not you have the gene that makes coffee bad for you.
I don't believe "being born with a slow caffeine-metabolism gene" is something you can do in moderation. For everyone else, as many as four cups a day is still good for your heart attack risk.
Fair enough, and just another example of one of those things people might see as a "contradiction."
Brushing my teeth is good! Wait, now it's bad after eating apples! Science can never make up it's mind!!
(Assuming this info is true) You should eat the occasional apple, chew xylitol gum afterwards, and continue brushing your teeth the rest of the time.
Incorrect conclusions: "I should stop eating apples!" "I should stop brushing my teeth!" "I should eat 100 apples every day because they're healthy!" "I should chew Xylitol gum every waking moment!" "I should quit listening to scientists!"
Pardon my exasperated screaming-- people seem to be totally misreading this study.
This study is not showing that moderation is key, it is showing that the genes you carry are key. Previous results that as many as four cups of coffee a day reduce risk of heart attack still stand for folks not carrying two copies of the slow-caffeine-metabolism gene.
In other words, keep it to a cup or two a day and you'll be fine.
According to the study, two cups a day raised the risk of heart disease by 36% over one cup in people with the gene. The article does not say how much a single cup raises your risk.
It's not the !@#!@#!! dose in this case, as so many people are wrongly pointing out, it's whether or not you carry a particular gene. Without the genes, coffee reduces your risk of heart attack.