Bungie is a fantastic developer. The Marathon series is one of the best line of games I've ever played. Myth and Oni series were great l too. Of course, to you Bungie probably equals Halo.
Halo wasn't popular because of marketing, it was popular because it was so incredibly fun to have LAN parties with it and spread like a wild fire with college kids and highschoolers (not to mention it was the only good release title for Xbox original and for most people the only reason they got an Xbox). This is the sole reason it was so widely loved, not because of advertising. Come to think of it, I don't think I saw a single ad for Halo 1.
Halo 2 was popular because of the first, and because of the Xbox Live multiplayer, especially since many of the same people that LAN'd Halo 1 were no longer in LANing distance once the second arrived. The Xbox 360 Live interface was largely based off of the mechanisms that Halo 2 designed, which was far above all the other XBL games.
To call the Halo games terrible is plain ignorant or plain jealous. They were very hit or miss in terms of handling (just like console gaming in general) and whether the asthetics/physics appealed to you; but they weren't bad by any means (I'll let you call Halo 2 and ODST bad though, because of glitchiness and tiredness respectively). They were popular because they did appeal to very very many, not because of some supposedly shifty online reviews. Personally, my days playing Halo 1 with a bunch of friends are some of my fondest memories, and I loved the campaign/story (particularly complemented by the excellent novels Eric Nylund wrote) and I'm not about to let some misplaced prejudice keep me from enjoying both console and PC games.
MOD PARENT UP. Creating electonics of this this sort is akin to connecting a lego head to a lego body; a small child or perhaps even a baby could do it. If Apple was the one trying to do it, it would be a work of genius, since the inevitably sleek, cool look could only be concocted by Steve Jobs himself!
Being the kinds of people who participate in online dating, particularly with one named 'OkCupid'; a group I don't feel is enough to represent any ethnicity/gender with acceptable accurately.
This is ridiculous for a number of reasons. Speed limits are there for a reason: safety. I don't trust people to know what they're doing on the road as it is; give people a license to speed and it'll make it that much worse. You can expect road rage to increase significantly, both by people pissed off at the 'legally' speeding jack heads and the guys with the license at those who don't for slowing them down (which I can see them doing intentionally). This promotes irresponsible driving.
The whole idea is flawed anyway. The city generates revenue off those who speed by ticketing them. In generating revenue by allowing these people to speed, they pull directly from the first source of revenue. Even if the suggestion became a reality, it wouldn't take due to the inconvenience of car inspection and an incredible loss of privacy.
And the police force are supposed to tell who is speeding legally because of a transponder? These things can be faked. I trust that this won't get anywhere though.
This is mostly a 'slake my ignorance post' but where do they pull a probability like a 1 in 1000 chance? Either the comet is going to hit us, or it isn't. So wheres the uncertainty coming from? Inaccurate measurement? or leaving margin for external unforeseeable (or at least currently unpredictable) forces acting on comet?
Either way, I don't see a reasonable way to derive a probability like that from. Perhaps they came up with a margin of error and treated every possible position within that margin of error with equal likelihood. Or maybe they've an empirically derived likeliness-that-significant-steller-object-will-enter-solar-system-and-infuence-comet's-path number laying around. Still, 1 in 1000 seems rather arbitrary (and slightly ridiculous) to me, like C3-PO saying the odds of navigating an asteroid field are approximately 3,720 to 1.
What you don't understand (and apparently whomever downrated my comment as overrated to score 0) is that I'm not arguing my viewpoint, I'm merely providing a counterexample to the parent of my comment. I understand the difference between climate and weather, but I'm not confident the average non-specialized person will.
Predicting anything is effortless, predicting accurately is not. The primary difference here is that we've been observing weather patterns for many years and creating models for these predictions. Climate on the other hand has had a much easier observable pattern: it stays the same with minuscule fluctuation (and perhaps in recent years may rise in temperature very very slightly).
This is why its so difficult. For all these years the pattern has been to not change, and now scientists are predicting a drastic change based on discoveries and facts not well understood. The sciences trying to explain the last ice age and now being applied prophetically. See, your prediction is based upon pattern and theirs are based upon a piece of the pattern we've never seen before extending over several hundreds of thousands of years, supposedly accelerated by factors that didn't apply before. So don't try telling me global warming prediction is easier.
Not even that is true. It isn't unreasonable to be skeptic, considering the massive complexities that it takes to predict anything in the weather. If our weather men can't even predict the weather to an acceptable degree of accuracy the day before, than why should people believe predictions that far out. Any minute oversight in the equation, and the whole thing could end up balancing out; and when we're talking globally, it becomes that much more fragile. Our recorded history is extremely narrow, and our recorded climate conditions even narrower. We could merely be at the crest of a low amplitude sin wave.
Point being: No, it doesn't take a retard to be incredulous, especially when it's so hard to get any of the actual 'facts' notated by an actual unbiased specialist, rather than by a blogger or politician.
The site then automatically uploads the photos (with just the bare minimum blur to not get a takedown) to facebook and tags you, and then tags your genitals.
And then friends your friends.
Woo, my confirmation bias tells me your incredulity is confirmation bias.
In my experience people who bemoan others for 'preconceived notions' are most often the ones truly guilty of it. Similarly, to be 'open-minded' has simply come to mean 'alternately' or 'unconventionally' 'minded'. Sad world we live in where cultural-mental 'progress' is merely a shift and all the same problems exist; but I've gotten off topic.
This. There are two main problems with this and thats that the best criminal hacker they pick up can't be better than the best "good guy" and that the pay off of cybercrime can be incomparably greater than the salary they'd be taking from the government (and every cybercriminal knows this).
That's not to say that there are no hackers that it'd be good to reach out to, it's just an extreme risk they'd be taking.
No, it's not. People with disabilities can't be charged more for their inherent inconvenience because they're protected by the government. Whether or not that should be so is a moral discussion for a different topic.
Ethnic backgrounds don't cost airlines more money, the people who have actually caused problems do; your extension of "logic" is ridiculous. The grandparent is absolutely right, you're buying an exertion of energy to move mass (your own) to a desired location and buying filled capacity on the plane. It would make perfect sense to cost more for your weight, they just never do this because it wouldn't fly with the public.
He means competitive reproductively. Unless the released malaria immune mosquitoes either outnumber or have some mating advantage against the local population there is little guarantee that the gene will spread throughout the region
The less ubiquitous the disease the lower the rate of mutation. If this plays out optimally you're not just rewinding the state of the disease, you're also potentially preventing more strains to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
China gave birth to 4 times as many babies as the US in 2010, so obviously they just love making tons of babies over there.
He was jabbing at the lack of specificity. Woosh yourself.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission bans lawn darts, therefore Americans are 'fucking morons'.
Excellent extrapolation, except the only thing you proved is that the CPSC and you have something in common.
Bungie is a fantastic developer. The Marathon series is one of the best line of games I've ever played. Myth and Oni series were great l too. Of course, to you Bungie probably equals Halo.
Halo wasn't popular because of marketing, it was popular because it was so incredibly fun to have LAN parties with it and spread like a wild fire with college kids and highschoolers (not to mention it was the only good release title for Xbox original and for most people the only reason they got an Xbox). This is the sole reason it was so widely loved, not because of advertising. Come to think of it, I don't think I saw a single ad for Halo 1.
Halo 2 was popular because of the first, and because of the Xbox Live multiplayer, especially since many of the same people that LAN'd Halo 1 were no longer in LANing distance once the second arrived. The Xbox 360 Live interface was largely based off of the mechanisms that Halo 2 designed, which was far above all the other XBL games.
To call the Halo games terrible is plain ignorant or plain jealous. They were very hit or miss in terms of handling (just like console gaming in general) and whether the asthetics/physics appealed to you; but they weren't bad by any means (I'll let you call Halo 2 and ODST bad though, because of glitchiness and tiredness respectively). They were popular because they did appeal to very very many, not because of some supposedly shifty online reviews. Personally, my days playing Halo 1 with a bunch of friends are some of my fondest memories, and I loved the campaign/story (particularly complemented by the excellent novels Eric Nylund wrote) and I'm not about to let some misplaced prejudice keep me from enjoying both console and PC games.
I share all the same sentiments. Don't even bother with The Flood, and read Fall of Reach and First Strike if you're at all interested.
MOD PARENT UP. Creating electonics of this this sort is akin to connecting a lego head to a lego body; a small child or perhaps even a baby could do it. If Apple was the one trying to do it, it would be a work of genius, since the inevitably sleek, cool look could only be concocted by Steve Jobs himself!
...people who believe what's in 'em should be rounded up and euthanized
It never ceases to amaze me how the[y] are arrogant enough to believe that they are better than the other animals...
Hmm
Being the kinds of people who participate in online dating, particularly with one named 'OkCupid'; a group I don't feel is enough to represent any ethnicity/gender with acceptable accurately.
This is ridiculous for a number of reasons. Speed limits are there for a reason: safety. I don't trust people to know what they're doing on the road as it is; give people a license to speed and it'll make it that much worse. You can expect road rage to increase significantly, both by people pissed off at the 'legally' speeding jack heads and the guys with the license at those who don't for slowing them down (which I can see them doing intentionally). This promotes irresponsible driving.
The whole idea is flawed anyway. The city generates revenue off those who speed by ticketing them. In generating revenue by allowing these people to speed, they pull directly from the first source of revenue. Even if the suggestion became a reality, it wouldn't take due to the inconvenience of car inspection and an incredible loss of privacy.
And the police force are supposed to tell who is speeding legally because of a transponder? These things can be faked. I trust that this won't get anywhere though.
There is no real reason to want people to be addicted to porn unless you directly profit from it.
This is mostly a 'slake my ignorance post' but where do they pull a probability like a 1 in 1000 chance? Either the comet is going to hit us, or it isn't. So wheres the uncertainty coming from? Inaccurate measurement? or leaving margin for external unforeseeable (or at least currently unpredictable) forces acting on comet?
Either way, I don't see a reasonable way to derive a probability like that from. Perhaps they came up with a margin of error and treated every possible position within that margin of error with equal likelihood. Or maybe they've an empirically derived likeliness-that-significant-steller-object-will-enter-solar-system-and-infuence-comet's-path number laying around. Still, 1 in 1000 seems rather arbitrary (and slightly ridiculous) to me, like C3-PO saying the odds of navigating an asteroid field are approximately 3,720 to 1.
What you don't understand (and apparently whomever downrated my comment as overrated to score 0) is that I'm not arguing my viewpoint, I'm merely providing a counterexample to the parent of my comment. I understand the difference between climate and weather, but I'm not confident the average non-specialized person will.
Predicting anything is effortless, predicting accurately is not. The primary difference here is that we've been observing weather patterns for many years and creating models for these predictions. Climate on the other hand has had a much easier observable pattern: it stays the same with minuscule fluctuation (and perhaps in recent years may rise in temperature very very slightly).
This is why its so difficult. For all these years the pattern has been to not change, and now scientists are predicting a drastic change based on discoveries and facts not well understood. The sciences trying to explain the last ice age and now being applied prophetically. See, your prediction is based upon pattern and theirs are based upon a piece of the pattern we've never seen before extending over several hundreds of thousands of years, supposedly accelerated by factors that didn't apply before. So don't try telling me global warming prediction is easier.
Not even that is true. It isn't unreasonable to be skeptic, considering the massive complexities that it takes to predict anything in the weather. If our weather men can't even predict the weather to an acceptable degree of accuracy the day before, than why should people believe predictions that far out. Any minute oversight in the equation, and the whole thing could end up balancing out; and when we're talking globally, it becomes that much more fragile. Our recorded history is extremely narrow, and our recorded climate conditions even narrower. We could merely be at the crest of a low amplitude sin wave.
Point being: No, it doesn't take a retard to be incredulous, especially when it's so hard to get any of the actual 'facts' notated by an actual unbiased specialist, rather than by a blogger or politician.
The site then automatically uploads the photos (with just the bare minimum blur to not get a takedown) to facebook and tags you, and then tags your genitals. And then friends your friends.
Woo, my confirmation bias tells me your incredulity is confirmation bias.
In my experience people who bemoan others for 'preconceived notions' are most often the ones truly guilty of it. Similarly, to be 'open-minded' has simply come to mean 'alternately' or 'unconventionally' 'minded'. Sad world we live in where cultural-mental 'progress' is merely a shift and all the same problems exist; but I've gotten off topic.
Citation needed.
David Deutsch, Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3197–3217 (1991)
The point is that he nor anyone else 'knows' that, and it's pretentious to pretend like you do. So sure, Deutsch may theorize this.
Citation needed.
be played at terrifying frames per second?
An inordinate amount of attention for simple game.
In other headline news, Starcraft 2 can be played as anything, thanks to a gnarly editor.
This. There are two main problems with this and thats that the best criminal hacker they pick up can't be better than the best "good guy" and that the pay off of cybercrime can be incomparably greater than the salary they'd be taking from the government (and every cybercriminal knows this).
That's not to say that there are no hackers that it'd be good to reach out to, it's just an extreme risk they'd be taking.
No, it's not. People with disabilities can't be charged more for their inherent inconvenience because they're protected by the government. Whether or not that should be so is a moral discussion for a different topic. Ethnic backgrounds don't cost airlines more money, the people who have actually caused problems do; your extension of "logic" is ridiculous. The grandparent is absolutely right, you're buying an exertion of energy to move mass (your own) to a desired location and buying filled capacity on the plane. It would make perfect sense to cost more for your weight, they just never do this because it wouldn't fly with the public.
He means competitive reproductively. Unless the released malaria immune mosquitoes either outnumber or have some mating advantage against the local population there is little guarantee that the gene will spread throughout the region
The less ubiquitous the disease the lower the rate of mutation. If this plays out optimally you're not just rewinding the state of the disease, you're also potentially preventing more strains to deal with.