and when it renders on the console, it becomes GPU bound, limiting the number of controllers that can handle it. (WiiU only allows 1 controller with a display)
The old Dreamcast was great at multiplayer because each controller would have its own display, letting each player pick plays and so on secretly from the others...
No, it's not - a gun can only kill the individual it's pointed at, one at a time. Conversely, a can of gas can be used to burn entire buildings down, killing everyone inside simultaniously.
So no, that's a statement of fact, not a generalization.
No, it's an incorrect generalization.
You can kill more people with one gun than a gallon of gasoline.
I'll let you figure out how. I'm sure you already know.
BTW notice how you never see "wish lists" from iPad users..
"Wish lists" are only for those with flawed devices.
And, does anyone actually use Android tablets? All the web usage stats show iOS devices leading by a massive margin.
What exactly are Android tablets used for? Doorstops?
They really are useless junk. Just get rid of them, replace them with iPads, so you don't have to waste everyone's bandwidth trying to fix them through more useless "wish lists"..
Really, we should all be thanking Steve Jobs for creating the entire modern tablet industry, something that wasn't even thought about 4 years ago. His vision of tablet computing was far more useful than any other predecessors... far more usable than the Newton or Windows tablets.
Keep dreaming. Regulation has nothing to do with the cost of your avionics.
Your avionics costs are high because of low volumes. Very few people own airplanes or are interested in purchasing one.
In cases like that, $50k is nothing for industry-specific devices. This is in any industry. In photography, for example, I can spend $50k on one medium format digital camera. Or 1 oscilloscope. Actually, I don't even need electronics, as I can spend that much on a few Broncolor umbrellas. Or a single lens.
In fact, regulation keeps your costs down, as it almost always provides a level of standards in many cases that does increase common supply volume.
You want demographic sampling? An average score from many unqualified reviews is the best sampling you can get for free, funnily enough. So by your own standard, reviews by random people are useful.
A professional reviewer already knows the audience through interaction and sampling, and will include that in their opinion, and will explain why their tastes are terrible or agreeable.
Amateur opinions are generally completely worthless.
This is idiotic at best, blatantly bigoted at worst. Collective reviews are changing the dynamic of consumer reporting.
Any professional reviewer would be able to predict the public's opinion as well, since an experienced reviewer knows the audience well enough to predict their patterns.
This is for any field.
There is absolutely no need for non-professional reviewers.
At worst, amateur opinions lead to unrefined tastes.
So at the end of the day, when planes are faster for passenger movement, water transporation is already available and vastly cheaper for goods movement, why on earth would anyone in the US build high speed rail? What's the advantage?
Should we mention that there are 30,000 automobile deaths a year? Or the hundreds of thousands of injuries? You ARE scared to death of driving a car, right? You did develop your own survival instincts to fear an automobile transportation system, right? Those are what you should be training yourself to do.
Learn to fear cars.
Meanwhile, the leading economic factor is train is far more energy efficient than any other form of transportation, and therefore, cheaper.
Right now it is your friendly neighborhood energy companies that are preventing you from using a train system. They want to force you to pay to do any movement across the country. Train is their ultimate enemy, because it is so much more efficient.
The worst part of the automobile transportation system is that it requires individual labor. I can't read a book or sleep while driving a car. I can do that while on a train. Cars force me to become a lowly laborer, a very inefficient and expensive use of my time.
Also, you don't need high-population densities for train. Not sure why that helps? Wasn't the US rail system built on rural west? In higher density areas, you just end up building more rail lines.
There is absolutely no value in having random people review things. Criticism isn't a democratic principle.
Reviews are only valid from people that maintain that as their profession. There is a level of experience that comes with reviewing and editing that can't be achieved casually. Even many professional critics don't have this skills.
In each field, there are only a few peoples opinions that matter. The rest can be determined by demographic sampling.
In American we do not quarantine all dangerous infectious disease carriers. What country do you live in, the fake one that plays fast and loose with facts?
I'll let you go ahead and Google the cases where Americans were forcibly quarantined to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases.
It is because it is the "law-abiding gun owner" that is actually a threat to society.
I don't really care about criminals. I know when/where they will strike, so I just avoid them. Maybe move to a safer neighborhood or avoid check-cashing establishments, for example.
But, we don't know when or where the "law-abiding gun owner" will strike.
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" shoot up a mall?
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" share her weapon with her son so that he kills 20 first-graders and 6 teachers?
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" kill his wife at her office?
Who knows? Which is why we need a database to track and monitor all these dangerous "law-abiding gun owners" so I know the places and people to avoid.
Sorry "law-abiding gun owners", but if you didn't want to be perceived as a dangerous threat, then perhaps you should have worked harder at making sure you didn't do all these horrible crimes. Maybe your lobbying group should have done a better job at making sure the system worked, instead of making the system worse?
Man up, take responsibility. You broke it, you pay for it.
By "well-regulated militia" the founding fathers meant that individual citizens are trained to use guns, to secure a free state. Free from what? Tyranny and fascism.
Incorrect. The founding fathers supported Tyranny and Fascism. They weren't against it. This is why they supported the Whiskey Rebellion.
The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have government use you as tools to defend its powers against foreign invaders.
I hope everyone understands that, the only people that have "freedom", are the people with unlimited power. And, power doesn't come from legal documents.. it comes from actual force. That means its the people the biggest guns with real power. In modern society, that highest power is the nuclear armed US Federal Government.
Libertarians absolutely hate the idea that someone else could have more power than them, but unfortunately, that's how the power-structure of society is. Yet, for some reason they seem to think of themselves as ultimately powerful? Maybe they were bred with too much precious snowflake self-esteem development by their mommies while growing up.. who knows? But it's a delusion common to all these libertarians..
I guess it's the political equivalent of the Dunning-Kreuger effect, where instead of stupid people not knowing their own stupidity, we have weak people not knowing their own weaknesses.
Smart people know their weaknesses. This is why they say "Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom"
However, if we are to make the assumption that gun owners in the aggregate cannot be trusted to be 100% vigilant in securing their guns and therefore pose a risk to others, then we must assume the same of disease carriers.
And we do, which is why we quarantine dangerous infectious disease carriers, to limit their rights and freedoms, in order that they don't harm others.
Now, we need to limit the rights and freedoms of dangerous gun-owners by taking away their guns from them, so they are not afforded that sense of power that guns provide them. It is that sense of self that we have to crush.
Many of these libertarians mistakenly believe they were allowed to have guns in order to defend themselves against government. Wrong. The 2nd amendment was only designed so that government can use you to defend against foreign invaders. You were never allowed to defend yourself against government.
Government has ultimate power over you, something libertarians wishes weren't true, but unfortunately for them, will always remain the case. This is because power comes from real force, and not from a legal document. Government can kill you if it wishes. Government has the biggest guns. They are nuclear armed. You are not. Government will do what it wishes, because they can. We liberals know the power structure of society. I would encourage libertarians to understand this as well, in order to serve your own personal agenda, which everyone has. As they say, "Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom."
We need to make sure that all these law-abiding gun-owners understand that government is their ultimate ruler.
Slashdot Mirror
and take away all gun rights from the American public.
Let them be defenseless.
Government should be the only entity that is allowed to kill someone.
We need more government, not less government.
Nothing related to guns can ever be considered "smart", since guns are for weak and fearful.
Smart people never own guns, because smart people know guns are more harmful than they are helpful.
4mg of Risperdal will stop government tyranny or your home intruder much more effectively than your gun ever will.
Sorry I had to burst your gun-safety bubble to all our junior McVeigh's and Alex Jones's fans out there on Slashdot!
and when it renders on the console, it becomes GPU bound, limiting the number of controllers that can handle it. (WiiU only allows 1 controller with a display)
The old Dreamcast was great at multiplayer because each controller would have its own display, letting each player pick plays and so on secretly from the others...
WiiU renders on the console, not on the controller.
And in theory internet speeds are fast enough to make this work.
Internet speeds aren't fast enough to make this work, not just bandwidth, but also latency.
Local ping times are far too high to be usable. Local Verizon FIOS has 25ms pings across the city, nevermind across the country.
You need sub 3ms ping times.
Would be an excellent part for the upcoming console generation.
I miss the old Dreamcast controller with its LCD display in it.
A modern take on that would have a nice 5" touchscreen LCD with built-in GPU.
It would be expensive as hell of course...
No, it's not - a gun can only kill the individual it's pointed at, one at a time. Conversely, a can of gas can be used to burn entire buildings down, killing everyone inside simultaniously.
So no, that's a statement of fact, not a generalization.
No, it's an incorrect generalization.
You can kill more people with one gun than a gallon of gasoline.
I'll let you figure out how. I'm sure you already know.
Would you kindly point to us where in the Constitution of the United States (or the Bill of RIghts) that gave the right to the government to levy tax?
wow you just got owned.
never talk again.
I read the entirely of the post and I agree it is overgeneralized and condescending.
And the problem with being condescending is?
Protip: No one on the Internet is here to change any views. Comment boards are inappropriate places to change views.
Instead, we are here to score troll you for our entertainment.
Internet debate is just the equivalent of playing multiplayer Call of Duty, with words.
My entertainment is the end goal.
BTW notice how you never see "wish lists" from iPad users..
"Wish lists" are only for those with flawed devices.
And, does anyone actually use Android tablets? All the web usage stats show iOS devices leading by a massive margin.
What exactly are Android tablets used for? Doorstops?
They really are useless junk. Just get rid of them, replace them with iPads, so you don't have to waste everyone's bandwidth trying to fix them through more useless "wish lists"..
Really, we should all be thanking Steve Jobs for creating the entire modern tablet industry, something that wasn't even thought about 4 years ago. His vision of tablet computing was far more useful than any other predecessors... far more usable than the Newton or Windows tablets.
Keep dreaming. Regulation has nothing to do with the cost of your avionics.
Your avionics costs are high because of low volumes. Very few people own airplanes or are interested in purchasing one.
In cases like that, $50k is nothing for industry-specific devices. This is in any industry. In photography, for example, I can spend $50k on one medium format digital camera. Or 1 oscilloscope. Actually, I don't even need electronics, as I can spend that much on a few Broncolor umbrellas. Or a single lens.
In fact, regulation keeps your costs down, as it almost always provides a level of standards in many cases that does increase common supply volume.
that "Descent is the highest form of Patriotic"?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/unpossibles/3462246191/
You want demographic sampling? An average score from many unqualified reviews is the best sampling you can get for free, funnily enough. So by your own standard, reviews by random people are useful.
A professional reviewer already knows the audience through interaction and sampling, and will include that in their opinion, and will explain why their tastes are terrible or agreeable.
Amateur opinions are generally completely worthless.
This is idiotic at best, blatantly bigoted at worst. Collective reviews are changing the dynamic of consumer reporting.
Any professional reviewer would be able to predict the public's opinion as well, since an experienced reviewer knows the audience well enough to predict their patterns.
This is for any field.
There is absolutely no need for non-professional reviewers.
At worst, amateur opinions lead to unrefined tastes.
So at the end of the day, when planes are faster for passenger movement, water transporation is already available and vastly cheaper for goods movement, why on earth would anyone in the US build high speed rail? What's the advantage?
Should we mention that there are 30,000 automobile deaths a year? Or the hundreds of thousands of injuries? You ARE scared to death of driving a car, right? You did develop your own survival instincts to fear an automobile transportation system, right? Those are what you should be training yourself to do.
Learn to fear cars.
Meanwhile, the leading economic factor is train is far more energy efficient than any other form of transportation, and therefore, cheaper.
Right now it is your friendly neighborhood energy companies that are preventing you from using a train system. They want to force you to pay to do any movement across the country. Train is their ultimate enemy, because it is so much more efficient.
The worst part of the automobile transportation system is that it requires individual labor. I can't read a book or sleep while driving a car. I can do that while on a train. Cars force me to become a lowly laborer, a very inefficient and expensive use of my time.
Also, you don't need high-population densities for train. Not sure why that helps? Wasn't the US rail system built on rural west? In higher density areas, you just end up building more rail lines.
There is absolutely no value in having random people review things. Criticism isn't a democratic principle.
Reviews are only valid from people that maintain that as their profession. There is a level of experience that comes with reviewing and editing that can't be achieved casually. Even many professional critics don't have this skills.
In each field, there are only a few peoples opinions that matter. The rest can be determined by demographic sampling.
All I have to do is find cases where this doesnt happen, chief.
And yet, we have cases where government forcibly quarantines people.
And, if they can do that to people, they can do that to all the dangerous law-abiding gun-owners.
QED.
Ergo, might-makes-right. QED.
Might makes society.
There is no "right" or "wrong" in that statement.
In American we do not quarantine all dangerous infectious disease carriers. What country do you live in, the fake one that plays fast and loose with facts?
I'll let you go ahead and Google the cases where Americans were forcibly quarantined to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases.
Thanks.
Libertarians do understand this, they just don't think that might-makes-right is a good organizing principle. Are you just trolling with this stuff?
No, many (most) libertarians actually think that they can do what they wish against a federal government.
They are sadly mistaken, and need to stop being libertarian, and learn why socialism is a more powerful individual position.
Besides, who said anything about "might makes right"?
Are you saying "might makes right"?
It is because it is the "law-abiding gun owner" that is actually a threat to society.
I don't really care about criminals. I know when/where they will strike, so I just avoid them. Maybe move to a safer neighborhood or avoid check-cashing establishments, for example.
But, we don't know when or where the "law-abiding gun owner" will strike.
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" shoot up a mall?
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" share her weapon with her son so that he kills 20 first-graders and 6 teachers?
Will the "law-abiding gun owner" kill his wife at her office?
Who knows? Which is why we need a database to track and monitor all these dangerous "law-abiding gun owners" so I know the places and people to avoid.
Sorry "law-abiding gun owners", but if you didn't want to be perceived as a dangerous threat, then perhaps you should have worked harder at making sure you didn't do all these horrible crimes. Maybe your lobbying group should have done a better job at making sure the system worked, instead of making the system worse?
Man up, take responsibility. You broke it, you pay for it.
By "well-regulated militia" the founding fathers meant that individual citizens are trained to use guns, to secure a free state. Free from what? Tyranny and fascism.
Incorrect. The founding fathers supported Tyranny and Fascism. They weren't against it. This is why they supported the Whiskey Rebellion.
The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have government use you as tools to defend its powers against foreign invaders.
I hope everyone understands that, the only people that have "freedom", are the people with unlimited power. And, power doesn't come from legal documents.. it comes from actual force. That means its the people the biggest guns with real power. In modern society, that highest power is the nuclear armed US Federal Government.
Libertarians absolutely hate the idea that someone else could have more power than them, but unfortunately, that's how the power-structure of society is. Yet, for some reason they seem to think of themselves as ultimately powerful? Maybe they were bred with too much precious snowflake self-esteem development by their mommies while growing up.. who knows? But it's a delusion common to all these libertarians..
I guess it's the political equivalent of the Dunning-Kreuger effect, where instead of stupid people not knowing their own stupidity, we have weak people not knowing their own weaknesses.
Smart people know their weaknesses. This is why they say "Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom"
However, if we are to make the assumption that gun owners in the aggregate cannot be trusted to be 100% vigilant in securing their guns and therefore pose a risk to others, then we must assume the same of disease carriers.
And we do, which is why we quarantine dangerous infectious disease carriers, to limit their rights and freedoms, in order that they don't harm others.
Now, we need to limit the rights and freedoms of dangerous gun-owners by taking away their guns from them, so they are not afforded that sense of power that guns provide them. It is that sense of self that we have to crush.
Many of these libertarians mistakenly believe they were allowed to have guns in order to defend themselves against government. Wrong. The 2nd amendment was only designed so that government can use you to defend against foreign invaders. You were never allowed to defend yourself against government.
Government has ultimate power over you, something libertarians wishes weren't true, but unfortunately for them, will always remain the case. This is because power comes from real force, and not from a legal document. Government can kill you if it wishes. Government has the biggest guns. They are nuclear armed. You are not. Government will do what it wishes, because they can. We liberals know the power structure of society. I would encourage libertarians to understand this as well, in order to serve your own personal agenda, which everyone has. As they say, "Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom."
We need to make sure that all these law-abiding gun-owners understand that government is their ultimate ruler.
I don't get this either.
NO ONE should ever shoot a burglar because they're stealing stuff.
Stealing stuff is not a capital offense. People have far too much attachment to their "things".
Retail corporations know this, so they let robbers steal their stuff and call on the police and their insurance company afterwards, if at all.