Control scheme design? Hell no. Vast, overwhelming majority of those who think they have the new revolutionary thing in that aspect create a horrifying abomination that should have never left designer's desk. While all the best schemes typically use derivates of well known control schemes.
After all, we've been working on control schemes for far longer than we had games, or even computers. We know what works and what doesn't. The only shifting goal post is the advancement of technology, and more often than not it results it complete and utter shit anyway, such as kinect motion controls.
No, if you keep the control scheme optimized for controller when controller is plugged in, but enable a mouse based control scheme as well for mice, mouse as a superior controller that has pixel perfect controls will win.
It's a very simple fact. Controllers do not have pixel perfect precision. Mice do. That means that a mouse will essentially always be a superior control input device when pixel-perfect input can be beneficial.
And there are very few game genres where it's not.
Bungie of the old got destroyed into halo-excreting studio by microsoft just as much if not more.
I still remember Oni with nostalgia. It's the game that set the bar for spectacle fighter genre in 3d. Halo on the other hand was just a demonstration that even crappy console controllers can be used to play first person shooters if you make the game forgiving enough in terms of aim.
It actually works better than on controller when done properly due to pixel perfect control scheme. It's similar to one used in flight sims - you make an elliptic control field around the ball and guidance is done through both distance and direction from centre point of the field with orientation arrows going from the centre to provide feedback.
When you do this scheme right, and then put people with KB/M against people with a controller, people with controller stand no chance. Controller simply stumbles on its main problem - lack of pixel perfect control.
The only problem there is money. Not intelligence. In fact, a lot of researchers doing research everywhere in the world are in fact foreigners in the country doing research.
The issue is that of funds. This research is astronomically expensive and extremely difficult, requiring very expensive hardware, extremely specialized workforce and solid infrastructure.
If you're trying to push for american exceptionalism line here, you certainly can. It won't make you any less silly, as this kind of research also happens in all other rich countries. It just doesn't face the same pressure on the embryonic cells as it does in US due to prevalence of certain religious groups and their grip on power that is largely absent in Europe and Japan, the other two giants in the field.
Are you really so ignorant of the world that you think that any of these countries have christian majorities?
In Japan, extremist taoists and buddhists are the problem. In India, usually hindus and buddhists. And China has strong enough central government to suppress such people.
Except that most "bible thumpers" hate embryonic stem cells and often hail induced pluripotent stem cells as the "religiously ethically correct alternative", as they do not require embryo to produce.
That sounds like the actual reason and the main problem behind iPS. They are about as high of a hanging fruit as there is on that particular tree of science right now. A lot of research into inducing cell into becoming a stem cell has been done, and the only methods that work are extremely difficult and expensive to implement.
As a result, there's a lot less research on the topic, simply because we have already picked all but the highest hanging fruit already. Most methods are either impractical or are being outed as either mistakes or fraud (read up on STAP cells for a good recent example, they were outed as fraud just a week ago by the same research institute that hailed their invention in january). So if internal review board can't find good research, it's likely not because of politics, but because there simply is very little promising research available on the subject.
This is actually correct, as the article talks about induced stem cells. Induced means they are not stem cells naturally (i.e. embyonic).
Without getting into the whole "who believes in god, life and are adults with invisible friends silly" argument, the point is that this field of research is about making stem cells out of cells that are not stem cells. In other words, from cells that we don't have to extract from embryos.
This is why the research is so difficult in largely fruitless.
If you don't know, that's the umbrella term for all stem cells that are NOT derived from embryonic material. Effectively if you're against embryo-related stem cell research, but would like stem cell research itself to continue, iPS research is what you're going to be investing into. One of the main points of iPS research is about getting a cheap way to manufacture stem cells without having to extract them from an embryo.
Pretty much this. And frankly, even without NAT, you're still safe as long as your software firewall is functional.
Functionally, you need two things to infect a machine. A weakness you can exploit on target machine and a vector through which infection goes in. If you lock up the latter, having former doesn't matter.
You definition is not just idiotic - it's downright insane. Applied to both software and everything else actually.
"Why would I pay for Photoshop when I can have Gimp for free?" "Why would I pay for a car when I can walk for free?" "Why would I pay for a soft drink when I can get water for free from the tap?"
Paying often gets you something you wouldn't get from free option. Such as convenience, additional functionality and so on.
People are intolerant, regardless of their personal preferences. It's a tribal thing, prefer those who think like me, discriminate against those who have the opposing view.
It seems that many people actually assume that being gay makes for more tolerant people. I've been rolling in amateur level sports for a long time, and I've known gays and lesbians as they tend to congregate there, especially among women side of sports. In their ranks they have some of the least tolerant manhating lesbians who will stick a knife in your back just because you happen to be a man, and some of the most tolerant people who will not condemn even those among them who are anti-gay to the point of absurdity. In this case Internet has worked as a good echo chamber as usual, gathering the least tolerant bunch among gays for lynching.
Because that's what this thing was. Lynching by a lynch mob. Whether he was oppressing anyone in the workplace or not was wholly irrelevant to the lynch mob. What mattered was that they are going to get some blood.
On a completely disgusting note, can you image the fallout if there was a hounding like that because he happened to be pro gay marriage forcing him to resign?
That is a placebo. Positive psychosomatic effect is the proper medical term for "placebo".
And it's important to understand that some people are far more affected than others, and while your aunt's problems are psychosomatic, the symptoms are in fact real. I.e. if you see someone having a psychosomatic asthma attack, telling him it's just his imagination is not a good idea.
Thing is, it's very hard to predict the impact of psychosomatic knowledge on the patient because everyone reacts to knowledge differently. Some people can develop severe life-threatening asthma just from knowledge of the disease or at least exhibit its symptoms for example. It's important to note that even if patient is not actually asthmatic, the symptoms are REAL and can be life threatening requiring medical treatment.
Same thing in the opposite direction. Positive psychosomatic effect is often called placebo effect and is well researched. It's in fact so efficient, that medical studies have to have control groups in place just to differentiate between those who's condition improves from actually tested medication and those who's condition is improved from psychosomatic effect.
So you can certainly claim that there is no solid knowledge on this specific disease and effect of psychosomatic effect on it in either direction. But you cannot claim that it will not impact people with it - we already know that most medical conditions known to us are impacted by it. If you tried to present a study on the cure or symptom relief for any disease without control group for psychosomatic effect, you would be laughed out of the room, no matter how credible it would otherwise be.
As a result, you should always assume that psychosomatic effect will impact patients unless otherwise proved. This is widely accepted consensus in medical science today.
As population in US realises that many more of them can't get insurance, while the few that get insurance understand that they would likely get off much cheaper if they didn't have insurance, you'll likely see the push for universal healthcare using one of European models.
So I would suggest that beyond short term, this will likely be extremely destructive for private insurance companies.
This is false due to the problems that arise from psychosomatic influence if the knowledge.
Just knowing that you have a chance to be inflicted with illness will likely increase chance to get this illness, or at least some of its symptoms, causing the real problems.
This is why dispensing knowledge to patients is always difficult. Not only must doctor consider the illness itself, but also the psychosomatic effect of knowledge on the patient.
Slashdot Mirror
Games design? Certainly.
Control scheme design? Hell no. Vast, overwhelming majority of those who think they have the new revolutionary thing in that aspect create a horrifying abomination that should have never left designer's desk. While all the best schemes typically use derivates of well known control schemes.
After all, we've been working on control schemes for far longer than we had games, or even computers. We know what works and what doesn't. The only shifting goal post is the advancement of technology, and more often than not it results it complete and utter shit anyway, such as kinect motion controls.
I just played one finger death punch. Relying on just two buttons can make for a very compelling experience as well.
That doesn't mean that it would work in most use cases.
No, if you keep the control scheme optimized for controller when controller is plugged in, but enable a mouse based control scheme as well for mice, mouse as a superior controller that has pixel perfect controls will win.
It's a very simple fact. Controllers do not have pixel perfect precision. Mice do. That means that a mouse will essentially always be a superior control input device when pixel-perfect input can be beneficial.
And there are very few game genres where it's not.
Bungie of the old got destroyed into halo-excreting studio by microsoft just as much if not more.
I still remember Oni with nostalgia. It's the game that set the bar for spectacle fighter genre in 3d. Halo on the other hand was just a demonstration that even crappy console controllers can be used to play first person shooters if you make the game forgiving enough in terms of aim.
Mine cost me about 700 euro, and it still runs almost everything on very high detail three years after the purchase.
It actually works better than on controller when done properly due to pixel perfect control scheme. It's similar to one used in flight sims - you make an elliptic control field around the ball and guidance is done through both distance and direction from centre point of the field with orientation arrows going from the centre to provide feedback.
When you do this scheme right, and then put people with KB/M against people with a controller, people with controller stand no chance. Controller simply stumbles on its main problem - lack of pixel perfect control.
The normal approach to parasitic treatment is to give patient drugs that are highly toxic to the parasite and much less so to the host.
You are asking the question that is in fact answered in the post you answered to.
The only problem there is money. Not intelligence. In fact, a lot of researchers doing research everywhere in the world are in fact foreigners in the country doing research.
The issue is that of funds. This research is astronomically expensive and extremely difficult, requiring very expensive hardware, extremely specialized workforce and solid infrastructure.
If you're trying to push for american exceptionalism line here, you certainly can. It won't make you any less silly, as this kind of research also happens in all other rich countries. It just doesn't face the same pressure on the embryonic cells as it does in US due to prevalence of certain religious groups and their grip on power that is largely absent in Europe and Japan, the other two giants in the field.
Err, why are you talking about traces of infection and other subjects utterly irrelevant to topic discussed?
Are you really so ignorant of the world that you think that any of these countries have christian majorities?
In Japan, extremist taoists and buddhists are the problem. In India, usually hindus and buddhists. And China has strong enough central government to suppress such people.
Bible is the outdated version. More modern version is called Quran.
In before someone tells us that all this fancy 2.0 stuff is lame and that real men use Torah.
Except that most "bible thumpers" hate embryonic stem cells and often hail induced pluripotent stem cells as the "religiously ethically correct alternative", as they do not require embryo to produce.
That sounds like the actual reason and the main problem behind iPS. They are about as high of a hanging fruit as there is on that particular tree of science right now. A lot of research into inducing cell into becoming a stem cell has been done, and the only methods that work are extremely difficult and expensive to implement.
As a result, there's a lot less research on the topic, simply because we have already picked all but the highest hanging fruit already. Most methods are either impractical or are being outed as either mistakes or fraud (read up on STAP cells for a good recent example, they were outed as fraud just a week ago by the same research institute that hailed their invention in january). So if internal review board can't find good research, it's likely not because of politics, but because there simply is very little promising research available on the subject.
This is actually correct, as the article talks about induced stem cells. Induced means they are not stem cells naturally (i.e. embyonic).
Without getting into the whole "who believes in god, life and are adults with invisible friends silly" argument, the point is that this field of research is about making stem cells out of cells that are not stem cells. In other words, from cells that we don't have to extract from embryos.
This is why the research is so difficult in largely fruitless.
This is about iPS.
If you don't know, that's the umbrella term for all stem cells that are NOT derived from embryonic material. Effectively if you're against embryo-related stem cell research, but would like stem cell research itself to continue, iPS research is what you're going to be investing into. One of the main points of iPS research is about getting a cheap way to manufacture stem cells without having to extract them from an embryo.
Pretty much this. And frankly, even without NAT, you're still safe as long as your software firewall is functional.
Functionally, you need two things to infect a machine. A weakness you can exploit on target machine and a vector through which infection goes in. If you lock up the latter, having former doesn't matter.
Welcome to capitalism. Amen.
Well done. Not only are you in for the fines for illegal subletting, you're also in for a fraud charges.
You definition is not just idiotic - it's downright insane. Applied to both software and everything else actually.
"Why would I pay for Photoshop when I can have Gimp for free?"
"Why would I pay for a car when I can walk for free?"
"Why would I pay for a soft drink when I can get water for free from the tap?"
Paying often gets you something you wouldn't get from free option. Such as convenience, additional functionality and so on.
People are intolerant, regardless of their personal preferences. It's a tribal thing, prefer those who think like me, discriminate against those who have the opposing view.
It seems that many people actually assume that being gay makes for more tolerant people. I've been rolling in amateur level sports for a long time, and I've known gays and lesbians as they tend to congregate there, especially among women side of sports. In their ranks they have some of the least tolerant manhating lesbians who will stick a knife in your back just because you happen to be a man, and some of the most tolerant people who will not condemn even those among them who are anti-gay to the point of absurdity. In this case Internet has worked as a good echo chamber as usual, gathering the least tolerant bunch among gays for lynching.
Because that's what this thing was. Lynching by a lynch mob. Whether he was oppressing anyone in the workplace or not was wholly irrelevant to the lynch mob. What mattered was that they are going to get some blood.
On a completely disgusting note, can you image the fallout if there was a hounding like that because he happened to be pro gay marriage forcing him to resign?
That is a placebo. Positive psychosomatic effect is the proper medical term for "placebo".
And it's important to understand that some people are far more affected than others, and while your aunt's problems are psychosomatic, the symptoms are in fact real. I.e. if you see someone having a psychosomatic asthma attack, telling him it's just his imagination is not a good idea.
Thing is, it's very hard to predict the impact of psychosomatic knowledge on the patient because everyone reacts to knowledge differently. Some people can develop severe life-threatening asthma just from knowledge of the disease or at least exhibit its symptoms for example. It's important to note that even if patient is not actually asthmatic, the symptoms are REAL and can be life threatening requiring medical treatment.
Same thing in the opposite direction. Positive psychosomatic effect is often called placebo effect and is well researched. It's in fact so efficient, that medical studies have to have control groups in place just to differentiate between those who's condition improves from actually tested medication and those who's condition is improved from psychosomatic effect.
So you can certainly claim that there is no solid knowledge on this specific disease and effect of psychosomatic effect on it in either direction. But you cannot claim that it will not impact people with it - we already know that most medical conditions known to us are impacted by it. If you tried to present a study on the cure or symptom relief for any disease without control group for psychosomatic effect, you would be laughed out of the room, no matter how credible it would otherwise be.
As a result, you should always assume that psychosomatic effect will impact patients unless otherwise proved. This is widely accepted consensus in medical science today.
As population in US realises that many more of them can't get insurance, while the few that get insurance understand that they would likely get off much cheaper if they didn't have insurance, you'll likely see the push for universal healthcare using one of European models.
So I would suggest that beyond short term, this will likely be extremely destructive for private insurance companies.
This is false due to the problems that arise from psychosomatic influence if the knowledge.
Just knowing that you have a chance to be inflicted with illness will likely increase chance to get this illness, or at least some of its symptoms, causing the real problems.
This is why dispensing knowledge to patients is always difficult. Not only must doctor consider the illness itself, but also the psychosomatic effect of knowledge on the patient.