In reading his site, though, I don't see that attitude. He pretty clearly has a "prove it" attitude, or else his million dollar prize doesn't make any sense. The worst I've seen is that he has no compunction about pointing out pretty clearly that past failures are, in fact, failures. He'll often suggest theories on what's going on (e.g., he'll point out that so-called psychics use cold-reading techniques), but I don't see a "that's impossible" attitude.
One thing charlatans don't like about him is that he doesn't care to hear their explanations of why something supposedly happens. He always cuts to the chase and demands a demonstration. A lot of con artists work by overwhelming the marks with a bunch of technical-sounding gobbledy-gook. As a professional magician, though, he's already familiar with most of their ploys.
Not to defend that sort of behavior, but he's gotten enough of that sort of stuff hurled at him from con artists that over the decades he probably sees it as "sauce for the goose".
Actually, I'll just concede the whole thing on the basis of the used game market. I was just talking with a coworker a few days ago on this very problem. We both buy far more PC games than we have time to play, just on the theory that we'll get around to it "some day". Obviously, it's a sucking waste of money to buy games new if they'll be in the discount bin by the time we get around to installing them. Half the time, though, games we like (or assume we'll like) are commercial flops, so they're in the bin for all of a weekend before they vanish forever.
That forces us to be wa-a-ay too price conscious for something we'd prefer to buy on a whim, so... yeah, the PS2 is nice.
I don't recall off-hand, but I think the GeForce 2 was $40. My Voodoo3 up and died suddenly, and not surprisingly, replacements are hard to come by. I didn't want to wait, so I didn't bother comparison shopping (having an out-dated motherboard limited my choices severely).
I, too, insisted on getting away from TV, and getting a PS2 helped. I hadn't touched it in months, but finally got True Crime here a few days ago. Part of my problem is that my TV is smaller than my monitor. Perhaps that colors my opinion too much.
Okay, sounds reasonable, but... if you're waiting a year or two to buy the console, you're automatically foregoing the "new" games by default. The end outcome is the same as not upgrading PC hardware and sticking with StarCraft for another year.
(I guess it's not a point in my favor if I said I'd only be inclined to play two of those four games you listed, eh?)
I think that must be the case. Of course, since I use Linux most of the time, it's rare that I install anything on my Windows partition (except games, obviously). I suspect the fact that it's nearly empty is why I run into so few problems. No Office, no ISP software, no spyware, yada yada. Of course, Galaxies proves that I'm going to have to break down and upgrade soon anyway.
Anyways, that was $75 for a whole system, not just a video card.
Point taken. My point was that people always compare the cost of an old system to a new video card. It's just not fair.
I can get video cards for 5 or 10 bucks too, but then I'm limited to Puzzle Master 4.
I guess I carry more cash than you.;-) Seriously, my GeForce 2 is quite nice, and didn't cost much at all.
And now I don't have to read tiny system requirements boxes, just look for the big words that say "Playstation 2".
Good point. It also makes buying gifts easier since you might not know the recipient's configuration.
Besides, who wants to hunch over a tiny computer screen when they can lie down on the couch to play games?
I don't know what sorts of games you play, but the ones I get are rarely sedate enough to allow me to lie down. Maybe I'm just the excitable type, but video games tend to get me worked up.
I'll see your "codswallop" and raise you a "piffle". My current hardware is as follows:
Pentium III 550 MHz
256 MB RAM
20 GB HD (Windows partition is 3 GB)
GeForce 2, AGP (don't recall the memory; 32MB or 64MB)
Gaming OS: Windows 98 SE
Star Wars: Galaxies is the first game I've encountered that doesn't run at a decent frame rate (btw, TVs run at 60Hz, so that's what I assume you consider "decent"). It runs dog slow (usually <20fps), but it doesn't lock up or crash.
Again, I assert that the money people spend upgrading their hardware is more than is necessary to a decent gaming experience.
Finally, I suspect you're artificially narrowing the definition of "new games" to those which require bleeding edge hardware. Consider Runaway or Hearts of Iron. These games are fairly new and have rather modest hardware requirements. I buy new games all the time, and don't really find my gaming experience unacceptable.
For the social gaming I prefer (i.e. multiplayer but not online) consoles are the only game in town.
Fair enough. I don't do that sort of thing too often, so that didn't occur to me.
I'll also agree with the blurring you mention, though sometimes the fuzziness gives me a headache.
In general, I don't have a preference one way or the other. On a lot of PC games, I can't see how one could get by without the keyboard (I don't recall if PS2's have a keyboard you can get; by that point, I might as well buy the PC version of the game).
Also, in the last year or two, I've seen a lot more in the way of buggy console games (Enter the Matrix is the obvious example), and I don't know that patching is easy (or even possible, for that matter).
Was your PS2 new or used? I can get used video cards for the cash I carry in my pockets. Plus, as I mentioned above, you don't have to stay bleeding edge to play current games.
With crappy resolution. Plus, the screen can't usefully occupy more than 100% of your retinas. Most people sit very close to their PCs.
The cost is comparable or possibly much less than the cost of keeping a PC up to date w/ video cards and what not.
I'm not so sure. If you insist on staying bleeding edge, sure, but how many PC games insist on it? If I'm willing to put up with 640x480@60Hz (same as TV), I can go years between upgrades.
I thought LFS was great, right up to the point that I had to uninstall stuff. I can't see any reliable way to do it (make uninstall isn't always implemented well).
Ever since I got a broadband connection, I've been using Gentoo. This doesn't make any sense to me, but I swear Gentoo runs slower than LFS, which leads me to my other LFS complaint: any peculiarities to your system need to be documented thoroughly by you.
I love LFS, but after a point, I just get tired of being a full-time, unpaid sysadmin.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but Christianity fits your description pretty well. Almost everything about it is borrowed from other traditions, and it enjoys a rather large degree of success.
If a learning experience is what you're after (and you're not averse to a little pain), I recommend Linux From Scratch. There's none of that messy "automation" to get in the way.
Now that I have broadband, I much prefer Gentoo, if only for its ability to uninstall stuff. But nothing makes you more comfortable hacking on the source than being forced to compile everything yourself. I'm more reluctant to do that sort of stuff with Gentoo, just because I'm afraid I'll "break" something it unexpectedly depends on.
Technology, along with social 'altruism' has resulted in a situation where behavior which should result in its actor dying off and failing to reproduce [for example, morbid obesity due to being too dumb to stop eating] failing to do so, since we save them.
You're overlooking something rather obvious: any self-destructive behavior that doesn't kill you before you reproduce isn't self-limiting. Even if our appendices routinely burst at the age of forty-five, it still wouldn't count as "self-limiting", because most people reproduce before then. Only when a destructive habit/genetic flaw/whatever kills you or renders you sterile before you can spawn progeny does it count as "self-limiting". Obesity doesn't qualify, because it doesn't often kill before puberty.
Then it follows that survival of the fittest is not true for humans?
No. What it means is that we've managed to change what qualifies as fit to be something independant of the environment.
Re:For Those Who Haven't Played the first....
on
Max Payne 2 Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
...popping pills to replenish health instantly,...
Technically speaking, you didn't have a health bar; it was a "pain meter" (hair-splitting ensues). The pills were referred to as "painkillers". The point was that you were still injured, but the pills allowed you to ignore the negative effects because you were, in effect, hopped up on goofballs.
I still think it's a depressing statement to scientifically "disprove" a practice that is not only harmless but beneficial if only by improving one's outlook on life, by giving one hope.
What you're describing is called "the placebo effect". The whole point of this study was that prayer doesn't do anything if you aren't aware it's happening.
animals are sent out on their own using their own instinct once they are able to fend for themselves. the human world is far more complex, it's not possible for humans to just go out on our own without having learned anything from our parents and elders.
Emphases added.
Please explain the difference between the two highlighted statements.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but the old "someone lost an 'I'/eye at Bingo" joke doesn't seem that old.
In reading his site, though, I don't see that attitude. He pretty clearly has a "prove it" attitude, or else his million dollar prize doesn't make any sense. The worst I've seen is that he has no compunction about pointing out pretty clearly that past failures are, in fact, failures. He'll often suggest theories on what's going on (e.g., he'll point out that so-called psychics use cold-reading techniques), but I don't see a "that's impossible" attitude.
One thing charlatans don't like about him is that he doesn't care to hear their explanations of why something supposedly happens. He always cuts to the chase and demands a demonstration. A lot of con artists work by overwhelming the marks with a bunch of technical-sounding gobbledy-gook. As a professional magician, though, he's already familiar with most of their ploys.
Not to defend that sort of behavior, but he's gotten enough of that sort of stuff hurled at him from con artists that over the decades he probably sees it as "sauce for the goose".
Actually, I'll just concede the whole thing on the basis of the used game market. I was just talking with a coworker a few days ago on this very problem. We both buy far more PC games than we have time to play, just on the theory that we'll get around to it "some day". Obviously, it's a sucking waste of money to buy games new if they'll be in the discount bin by the time we get around to installing them. Half the time, though, games we like (or assume we'll like) are commercial flops, so they're in the bin for all of a weekend before they vanish forever.
That forces us to be wa-a-ay too price conscious for something we'd prefer to buy on a whim, so... yeah, the PS2 is nice.
I don't recall off-hand, but I think the GeForce 2 was $40. My Voodoo3 up and died suddenly, and not surprisingly, replacements are hard to come by. I didn't want to wait, so I didn't bother comparison shopping (having an out-dated motherboard limited my choices severely).
I, too, insisted on getting away from TV, and getting a PS2 helped. I hadn't touched it in months, but finally got True Crime here a few days ago. Part of my problem is that my TV is smaller than my monitor. Perhaps that colors my opinion too much.
Okay, sounds reasonable, but... if you're waiting a year or two to buy the console, you're automatically foregoing the "new" games by default. The end outcome is the same as not upgrading PC hardware and sticking with StarCraft for another year.
(I guess it's not a point in my favor if I said I'd only be inclined to play two of those four games you listed, eh?)
I think that must be the case. Of course, since I use Linux most of the time, it's rare that I install anything on my Windows partition (except games, obviously). I suspect the fact that it's nearly empty is why I run into so few problems. No Office, no ISP software, no spyware, yada yada. Of course, Galaxies proves that I'm going to have to break down and upgrade soon anyway.
Point taken. My point was that people always compare the cost of an old system to a new video card. It's just not fair.
I guess I carry more cash than you. ;-) Seriously, my GeForce 2 is quite nice, and didn't cost much at all.
Good point. It also makes buying gifts easier since you might not know the recipient's configuration.
I don't know what sorts of games you play, but the ones I get are rarely sedate enough to allow me to lie down. Maybe I'm just the excitable type, but video games tend to get me worked up.
I'll see your "codswallop" and raise you a "piffle". My current hardware is as follows:
Star Wars: Galaxies is the first game I've encountered that doesn't run at a decent frame rate (btw, TVs run at 60Hz, so that's what I assume you consider "decent"). It runs dog slow (usually <20fps), but it doesn't lock up or crash.
Again, I assert that the money people spend upgrading their hardware is more than is necessary to a decent gaming experience.
Finally, I suspect you're artificially narrowing the definition of "new games" to those which require bleeding edge hardware. Consider Runaway or Hearts of Iron. These games are fairly new and have rather modest hardware requirements. I buy new games all the time, and don't really find my gaming experience unacceptable.
Fair enough. I don't do that sort of thing too often, so that didn't occur to me.
I'll also agree with the blurring you mention, though sometimes the fuzziness gives me a headache.
In general, I don't have a preference one way or the other. On a lot of PC games, I can't see how one could get by without the keyboard (I don't recall if PS2's have a keyboard you can get; by that point, I might as well buy the PC version of the game).
Also, in the last year or two, I've seen a lot more in the way of buggy console games (Enter the Matrix is the obvious example), and I don't know that patching is easy (or even possible, for that matter).
Was your PS2 new or used? I can get used video cards for the cash I carry in my pockets. Plus, as I mentioned above, you don't have to stay bleeding edge to play current games.
Apples to apples, it's largely a wash.
With crappy resolution. Plus, the screen can't usefully occupy more than 100% of your retinas. Most people sit very close to their PCs.
I'm not so sure. If you insist on staying bleeding edge, sure, but how many PC games insist on it? If I'm willing to put up with 640x480@60Hz (same as TV), I can go years between upgrades.
I thought LFS was great, right up to the point that I had to uninstall stuff. I can't see any reliable way to do it (make uninstall isn't always implemented well).
Ever since I got a broadband connection, I've been using Gentoo. This doesn't make any sense to me, but I swear Gentoo runs slower than LFS, which leads me to my other LFS complaint: any peculiarities to your system need to be documented thoroughly by you.
I love LFS, but after a point, I just get tired of being a full-time, unpaid sysadmin.
I suppose you've never heard of the Buddha (563 B.C.E. - 483 B.C.E.)?
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but Christianity fits your description pretty well. Almost everything about it is borrowed from other traditions, and it enjoys a rather large degree of success.
If a learning experience is what you're after (and you're not averse to a little pain), I recommend Linux From Scratch. There's none of that messy "automation" to get in the way.
Now that I have broadband, I much prefer Gentoo, if only for its ability to uninstall stuff. But nothing makes you more comfortable hacking on the source than being forced to compile everything yourself. I'm more reluctant to do that sort of stuff with Gentoo, just because I'm afraid I'll "break" something it unexpectedly depends on.
You're overlooking something rather obvious: any self-destructive behavior that doesn't kill you before you reproduce isn't self-limiting. Even if our appendices routinely burst at the age of forty-five, it still wouldn't count as "self-limiting", because most people reproduce before then. Only when a destructive habit/genetic flaw/whatever kills you or renders you sterile before you can spawn progeny does it count as "self-limiting". Obesity doesn't qualify, because it doesn't often kill before puberty.
No. What it means is that we've managed to change what qualifies as fit to be something independant of the environment.
Technically speaking, you didn't have a health bar; it was a "pain meter" (hair-splitting ensues). The pills were referred to as "painkillers". The point was that you were still injured, but the pills allowed you to ignore the negative effects because you were, in effect, hopped up on goofballs.
Ah, if only all Slashdot arguments were this efficient: declare a stance; don't bother backing it up; move on to the next article. Everybody wins!
Not in general, but I would argue that 17 USC, section 1201, specifically, is unconstitutional.
[Insert rant about Slashdot's lack of support for basic HTML entities, in this case §.]
I challenge that assertion. Consider:
What you're describing is called "the placebo effect". The whole point of this study was that prayer doesn't do anything if you aren't aware it's happening.
Isn't the whole concept of prayer a bit arrogant?
Dear Lord,
I know You have a perfect plan for all of mankind, but please change it for my benefit.
Hugs and Kisses,rizzo420
Emphases added.
Please explain the difference between the two highlighted statements.