It may not be your cup of tea or very original, but the games aren't bad. I know there's a tendency to see lots of people going nuts over something and have high expectations for it, and then be disappointed when it's not God's gift to the earth, but the games are well suited to their target audience.
Well put. Yet all the same, I wish that the gaming audience as a whole had more variance/(even money split).
I'd agree with you that appeasement isn't going to bring about perfect peace.
But the way you're post is worded, it's militantly anti-Muslim.
If extermination or force indoctrination (Yay let's force everyone to obey western thinking!) is the only way to attain perfect peace, then fuck "perfect peace". It's as bad as being a extremist like the Al-Qaeda, only in reverse.
The leading robot (CHARLI) at least is a quite significant improvement over last year's video. Sure it's not running, but the precision and recognition of the ball are very noticeably improved.
We shouldn't expect it to happen overnight, it's an extremely complex process. Baby steps, baby steps...
That show was so absurd. They'd always make up a huge mathematical theorem that took several days to write, only to come up with a solution that could have been reached in 2 seconds by any normal human brain with a bit of intuition.
Large Scale firepower? A couple of old soviet jets/tanks doesn't really compare to a full out war between superpowers.
Exactly how would having laser guns suddenly have helped in any of the above mentioned wars? It's not like we need to spend billions in R&D to beat north Korea for example.
A lot has changed in the aftermath of WW2 and the Cold War. The political climate today is such that war between superpowers is extremely unlikely/borderline impossible.
I kinda see it as the US being a lone kid playing rock, paper, scissors, tank, airplane, nuclear bomb... all the while the rest of the kids in the playground have realized how silly that game was getting and moved on to better things.
For example, every time I go to a doctor, he gives me a diagnosis, and I accept on faith that he is giving me the right treatment. It could be called faith, as I don't have necessary education to really test is. But if it is faith, it's definitely not a blind faith. That's the difference between faith in a doctor and faith in a God. It's okay to be 95% sure that the doctor is right, and believe what he says, while still keeping your mind open to the possibilities that he could be wrong. But there is still evidence at hand to base my conclusions on, namely the fact that he's been to school, that his diagnosis makes sense, that its corroborated by other doctors, that going to the doctors has repeatedly ended up in the curing of my ailment. Sure, I can't prove 100% that the cream he's giving me for my rash is going to work, but that's not the evidence I'm basing decision on. It's all the other things.
This is a blind faith based on nothing more than stories handed down through generations with no anchor in tangibility.
The difference is all there in your opinion. Faith in God has credentials, but you don't acknowledge them as being valid. It's not "blind faith", only a matter of people viewing the credentials in an entirely different manner.
The system has worked just fine for countless other users who are capable of logical, rational thought processes. Just because a bunch of morons now have access to computers doesn't mean we need to change them.
In summary: stop trying to dumb everything down for the stupidest members of society. If we do that everywhere, then we'll train everyone to not use their brains, and everyone will be equally stupid, and then society will crumble and collapse as there's no way a society run by idiots can succeed. Brains are like muscles: use them or lose them. Even if you're born a smart kid, it's pretty easy to become a moron adult by being coddled and treated like one, and never being pushed to exercise your brain.
By this logic, the GUI should never have been invented, and computer code should be typed in assembly. And only people with a degree from MIT should be able to operate them because dumbing it down so the general population can use it is sooooo not kosher.
Simplification is a good thing, it frees up more time you can spend actually thinking about the stuff you're doing, and less time spent wrestling with an obfuscated and overly difficult system.
Even "facts" can be distorted. There's a lot of wiggle room in picking which statistical interpretation to say is "correct" and which is "not correct". People use that all the time to bias the argument.
If it became a government organization, I would imagine it would take all of two seconds before it becomes a tool for +1-ing statistical interpretations that support the party line.
Think of chess, small set number of pieces and places to move, but the number of combinations can quickly scale beyond what most modern computers excepting supercomputers can do.
There are vastly more scenario combinations that can occur on the open road with hundreds of cars and a whole slew of weather conditions.
It "can" be done, but it is by no means an easy task. The human brain is pretty amazing, we're not anywhere close to training machines how to react as well as we do in bizarre situations.
That's a good thing? I don't know how people don't go insane using those noisy things. Every time I've had to use one I get an irresistible urge to throw it on the floor and stomp on it.
I would actually totally play such a game, if it worked out like Aiur Chef (StarCraft addon).
Bonus points if you get to use the pan as a weapon against fellow chefs!
Is this really where tax dollars need to be spent? I'm all for space, but I'd rather that budget go to NASA to get some exploring done, not to hire a private contractor to put an F-16 in orbit to defend against... what exactly?
I find the Win2k theme to be a lot like Mac OS9 was. It's space efficient (a little too much so, buttons were hard to click/fonts hard to read at higher resolutions), drab, and unappealing to the eye.
I can understand why people would use it, I just don't like it all that much myself. Given how bad the XP interface was I can't say that I blame people for doing ANYTHING to avoid the Fisher-Price.
There have been plenty of creditable attempts at claiming the multi-purpose set-top box market
Apple would have to be kinda suicidal to try a Set-top-box with Sony and MS hogging that spotlight, and the last time they tried it it didn't work so well.
The iPad is not a universal set-top box for playing "traditional" (AKA console controller based) games. The iPad/iPhone have a heavy dose of casual/popcorn/social network gaming, and that has been a huge part of their success. That type of gaming is shooting through the roof while more "traditional" gaming struggles.
TL:DR version:
You won't be using an iPad to play Gears of War, but since everyone in the future is playing Angry Birds...
The more time you spend learning one method, the more comfortable you'll be with that method. The comfortable familiar trumps the slightly faster new method.
To that extent, there is a downright massive section of the "geek" community that looks down on change.
I really don't see how spaceX is going to get the kind of money that a mars mission would need. Props to them if they can actually get investors to line up for it.
competition can sometimes be at odds with designing something purely for the sake of fun.
Not entirely. What's being described here is the difference between perspective-based "fun" and competitive "fun".
Perspective based "fun" is something along the lines of one player getting to use something absolutely overpowered to decimate their opponent. This is a pretty key cornerstone of single-player. Some examples (Halo's Tank sequences, CoD Helicopter/Tank sequences, Nuclear Frikkin' Bombs, The Laser Drill on The Dig in SC2) This is bad for multiplayer.
Competitive "fun" means that everyone has a more-or-less level playing field, and it is skill/strategy/reactions that win the day. This is great for multiplayer, but can make single-player rather dull.
Slashdot Mirror
It may not be your cup of tea or very original, but the games aren't bad. I know there's a tendency to see lots of people going nuts over something and have high expectations for it, and then be disappointed when it's not God's gift to the earth, but the games are well suited to their target audience.
Well put. Yet all the same, I wish that the gaming audience as a whole had more variance/(even money split).
Which is unrealistic and silly, but oh well...
Ah but there is still a much larger terrorist group still at large. I think it's called "The American People" or something like that...
I'd agree with you that appeasement isn't going to bring about perfect peace.
But the way you're post is worded, it's militantly anti-Muslim.
If extermination or force indoctrination (Yay let's force everyone to obey western thinking!) is the only way to attain perfect peace, then fuck "perfect peace". It's as bad as being a extremist like the Al-Qaeda, only in reverse.
The leading robot (CHARLI) at least is a quite significant improvement over last year's video. Sure it's not running, but the precision and recognition of the ball are very noticeably improved. We shouldn't expect it to happen overnight, it's an extremely complex process. Baby steps, baby steps...
That show was so absurd. They'd always make up a huge mathematical theorem that took several days to write, only to come up with a solution that could have been reached in 2 seconds by any normal human brain with a bit of intuition.
The Spi-err... Urine must flow?
Large Scale firepower? A couple of old soviet jets/tanks doesn't really compare to a full out war between superpowers.
Exactly how would having laser guns suddenly have helped in any of the above mentioned wars? It's not like we need to spend billions in R&D to beat north Korea for example.
A lot has changed in the aftermath of WW2 and the Cold War. The political climate today is such that war between superpowers is extremely unlikely/borderline impossible. I kinda see it as the US being a lone kid playing rock, paper, scissors, tank, airplane, nuclear bomb... all the while the rest of the kids in the playground have realized how silly that game was getting and moved on to better things.
/Agree It's so rare to find political satire/humor that isn't partisan these days. The Onion is brilliant work.
It's interesting how much farther the US has taken it.
Comic Books/Superheros became a massive industry the likes of which makes the efforts of the German/Soviet propaganda offices look petty.
For example, every time I go to a doctor, he gives me a diagnosis, and I accept on faith that he is giving me the right treatment. It could be called faith, as I don't have necessary education to really test is. But if it is faith, it's definitely not a blind faith. That's the difference between faith in a doctor and faith in a God. It's okay to be 95% sure that the doctor is right, and believe what he says, while still keeping your mind open to the possibilities that he could be wrong. But there is still evidence at hand to base my conclusions on, namely the fact that he's been to school, that his diagnosis makes sense, that its corroborated by other doctors, that going to the doctors has repeatedly ended up in the curing of my ailment. Sure, I can't prove 100% that the cream he's giving me for my rash is going to work, but that's not the evidence I'm basing decision on. It's all the other things.
This is a blind faith based on nothing more than stories handed down through generations with no anchor in tangibility.
The difference is all there in your opinion. Faith in God has credentials, but you don't acknowledge them as being valid. It's not "blind faith", only a matter of people viewing the credentials in an entirely different manner.
The system has worked just fine for countless other users who are capable of logical, rational thought processes. Just because a bunch of morons now have access to computers doesn't mean we need to change them.
In summary: stop trying to dumb everything down for the stupidest members of society. If we do that everywhere, then we'll train everyone to not use their brains, and everyone will be equally stupid, and then society will crumble and collapse as there's no way a society run by idiots can succeed. Brains are like muscles: use them or lose them. Even if you're born a smart kid, it's pretty easy to become a moron adult by being coddled and treated like one, and never being pushed to exercise your brain.
By this logic, the GUI should never have been invented, and computer code should be typed in assembly. And only people with a degree from MIT should be able to operate them because dumbing it down so the general population can use it is sooooo not kosher. Simplification is a good thing, it frees up more time you can spend actually thinking about the stuff you're doing, and less time spent wrestling with an obfuscated and overly difficult system.
Even "facts" can be distorted. There's a lot of wiggle room in picking which statistical interpretation to say is "correct" and which is "not correct". People use that all the time to bias the argument. If it became a government organization, I would imagine it would take all of two seconds before it becomes a tool for +1-ing statistical interpretations that support the party line.
Think of chess, small set number of pieces and places to move, but the number of combinations can quickly scale beyond what most modern computers excepting supercomputers can do.
There are vastly more scenario combinations that can occur on the open road with hundreds of cars and a whole slew of weather conditions.
It "can" be done, but it is by no means an easy task. The human brain is pretty amazing, we're not anywhere close to training machines how to react as well as we do in bizarre situations.
That's a good thing? I don't know how people don't go insane using those noisy things. Every time I've had to use one I get an irresistible urge to throw it on the floor and stomp on it.
I would actually totally play such a game, if it worked out like Aiur Chef (StarCraft addon). Bonus points if you get to use the pan as a weapon against fellow chefs!
I suppose that's a lot more benign then my first reaction.
But I can't help but wonder if they use it as an excuse for a lot of bad things later on down the line.
Is this really where tax dollars need to be spent? I'm all for space, but I'd rather that budget go to NASA to get some exploring done, not to hire a private contractor to put an F-16 in orbit to defend against... what exactly?
I find the Win2k theme to be a lot like Mac OS9 was. It's space efficient (a little too much so, buttons were hard to click/fonts hard to read at higher resolutions), drab, and unappealing to the eye.
I can understand why people would use it, I just don't like it all that much myself. Given how bad the XP interface was I can't say that I blame people for doing ANYTHING to avoid the Fisher-Price.
There have been plenty of creditable attempts at claiming the multi-purpose set-top box market
Apple would have to be kinda suicidal to try a Set-top-box with Sony and MS hogging that spotlight, and the last time they tried it it didn't work so well.
The iPad is not a universal set-top box for playing "traditional" (AKA console controller based) games. The iPad/iPhone have a heavy dose of casual/popcorn/social network gaming, and that has been a huge part of their success. That type of gaming is shooting through the roof while more "traditional" gaming struggles.
TL:DR version: You won't be using an iPad to play Gears of War, but since everyone in the future is playing Angry Birds...
Osama missed the memo, the rest of the world is playing Sardines with China.
The more time you spend learning one method, the more comfortable you'll be with that method. The comfortable familiar trumps the slightly faster new method. To that extent, there is a downright massive section of the "geek" community that looks down on change.
I really don't see how spaceX is going to get the kind of money that a mars mission would need. Props to them if they can actually get investors to line up for it.
competition can sometimes be at odds with designing something purely for the sake of fun.
Not entirely. What's being described here is the difference between perspective-based "fun" and competitive "fun". Perspective based "fun" is something along the lines of one player getting to use something absolutely overpowered to decimate their opponent. This is a pretty key cornerstone of single-player. Some examples (Halo's Tank sequences, CoD Helicopter/Tank sequences, Nuclear Frikkin' Bombs, The Laser Drill on The Dig in SC2) This is bad for multiplayer. Competitive "fun" means that everyone has a more-or-less level playing field, and it is skill/strategy/reactions that win the day. This is great for multiplayer, but can make single-player rather dull.
Oh crap... Now you've done it, now Lucas knows. Incoming Jar-Jar edition in HD 3D Blue Ray Directors Edition With Extra Bonus Jar-Jar Contentâ.