"Your role?" You think anyone gives a rat's ass about your idiotic ramblings?
Why not? There are plenty of other idiotic ramblings on Slashdot as well, as you so ably demonstrate.
I was making a rhetorical comment about the number of Nintendo-defense posts I've made lately, not trying to posit myself as "THE die-hard Nintendo fanatic." You were the one to write THE in allcaps, not I.
I considered it to be self-effacing, instead of boasting, because on the big list of Life Goals, being a die-hard loyalist of a videogame company falls somewhere behind Setting The Lifetime Crap Record.
But this can probably be chalked up to misunderstanding.
"Oh boy, I get to go to Slashdot and read MilliCentens latest thoughts on Nintendo!" You think anyone knows who you are? Get over yourself, jackass.
No, I do not think these things. But at least whatever it is I say, I'll stand up behind it, rather than hiding behind an AC post....
Also, you could have least spelled my handle correctly. I mean, geez.
These are problems with the institution of unions as they are implemented here, not with the very idea of unions.
The fact is, in the employer/employee relationship in the U.S., what with employees being so utterly beholden to their bosses what with having to pay for room, food, gas, etc., and with the nation's economy riding on that relationship, there needs to be some sort of balance in the power structure.
...It's all a matter of games, namely whomever releases Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger first wins [My money].
So, we already have a winner in the portable race! Not all the states have reported in yet, but we're calling it, fairly confidently, in favor of... the SNES!
Too old? How about the PS1 (which has ports of both FFVI & CT)?
I wouldn't say a portable FFVII is not a sure-win for Sony this time, as the game's original impact was from its huge wow-factor. A new FF installment (in the core line, not a port) would give the PSP better chances.
But then, FFVII marked the moment that I lost interest in the Final Fantasy series -- I didn't get further than halfway through it before getting fed up with combat and load times. And now I'm not even looking that favorably upon the old Final Fantasies, I find myself more interested in the Dragon Quest way of doing things more and more now.
I messed around with the DS at a local Wal-Mart where it was on display. It seemed really, really cool, especially when I figured out how to set Metroid Hunters for the mouselook-ish control scheme.
Sometimes it seems like it must be my role on Slashdot to be the die-hard Nintendo fanatic, but I wouldn't discount Sony yet (though I, myself, am not a fan of many PS2 games). I think the DS will at least be modestly successful, and may be much more successful. Who knows, maybe there's room for two portable successes...?
Pedantically, that is exactly backwards. To be technical about it, what we often call "games" like Doom and Half-Life are not games at all, but puzzles.
By definition, a "game" requires competitiveness, so nothing single-player need apply.
So, Solitare is not a game?
If it's not in the defined meaning of "game," then it's certainly in the colloquial meaning.
Wait a minnit... here we go. From the definition on Dictionary.com:
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.
All computer games fulfill this definition, even weird ones like SimCity, but probably an argument could be made that a new meaning should be introduced to specifically account for them.
The game theory meaning of "game" is more specific than the general meaning, and takes in account games no one would really play (or would rather avoid playing, such as Prisoner's Dilemma).
Which is a lot of verbiage to expend in replying to someone who basically agrees with me (since competitive games are time-focused puzzles for the same reasons), but I can be rather pedantic myself if need be.
I personally loathe puzzles, riddles and jump games.
Wow, way to dismiss about half of computer gaming in one statement. Using this he is responding to the 3D Zelda games (which don't feature "jump games" as such, in fact they have an auto-jump feature in order to avoid that).
While riddles and "jump games" (his term of dismissal is telling) may or may not be arguable, puzzles are one of *the* integral elements to gaming. All games are a puzzle of some sort, held to different standards of timing. (In Robotron, for example, the puzzle is deciding which ways to run and shoot in the split-second usually available to you.) And his argument that making a virtual rave in a mission into a "real" one, and calling that an improvement, falls flat with me.
Also, I was struck by his stock answer to the XP-penalty-for-dying issue: To get you to emphathize more with your character, next question. Surely there are better ways to do that than docking the player on the experience count. His response to the "grinding" charge is similar.
He also dismissed user-created content, apparently ignorant of the fact that no game can possibly keep all its players interested with a "top-down" approach to content. Also, user-created content (*if well implemented*, and allows players to genuinely create new experiences) can have a way of building on each other to "evolve" into new concepts in a way that a team of explicit designers can never match. Yeah, lots of user content sucks, most of it in fact, but that isn't always the user's fault. Also, you could view the web as the ultimate user-content-created MMORPG; there's huge numbers of pointless websites, but the best ones are what people visit over and over again. Find a way to reward those people for producing content with an in-game mechanism, and give people a way of finding those players (like a search engine), and the problem should solve itself. (Not that I consider this to be easily done. But someday, someone will do it right.)
I was considering playing City of Heroes before this interview -- I had heard it approached a number of problems in a novel way, maybe even the right way, but I am less certain now. It's starting to seem more like the novelty arises out of setting rather than being truly different gameplay.
You seem knowledgeable - i wonder if i could ask you a question (well 2 actually), is that number correct or did you just make it up?
The additional days are measured from Inauguration Day to Inquguration Day, which is always January 20th, not election day to election day, which is the Thursday after the first Monday in November. Even if Kerry had won, we'd still have to suffer through Bush to January 20th. Now, we'll have to suffer through him for four additional January 20ths.
For the record, the number of days is 1,461, or 365 x 4 + 1 for leap year.
EA reducing the quality of their games? Is that even possible?
This is the company that pioneered selling new editions of the same sports game every year. EA used to be pretty cool, back in the 8-bit days, but these days, they sure ain't no Nintendo.
It's taken me forty minutes to write all this out. Why do I do this to myself?
Mine: The people who speak out about a bias in the media and sciences do so by reacting to the percieved bias, thus making themselves guilty of the thing they complain about, whether their compaints were valid or not.
Yours: Not at all. I claim bias in the media because they state as settled fact things very much in dispute, like Global Warming, they report the claims of left leaning groups as fact and the claims of the right as "claims from the right wing thinktank.....". And so on and so on.
Everything is in dispute. I can spuriously dispute anything you, or anyone else, says just because I don't like it. Dispute is cheap, even the dispute of think tanks. It is true, of course, that I can invent spurious theories. Research is expensive however, and the people who believe global warming is real tend to have fewer vested interests than those who think it is not.
I was speaking in general there, for starters. That is a trend that provides a lot of the right's energy, the perception that they are somehow discriminated against unfairly. But their reactions to it are often filled with the same kind of discrimination. That's the core process that fuels Fox News, and other like-minded groups and sources.
Global warming is a difficult matter to make conclusive arguments about, since of course we have only one planet and cannot infalliably see into the future. But it *is* possible to look at the composition of our atmosphere, and compare it to measurements taken some time ago, and see that there's quite a bit more carbon dioxide in it now than previously, check here.
The biggest area of debate these days, or at least the one I hear the most about, is the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design argument, which is very bitterly-fought these days, and has the most junk science proping it up.
Further, there are more and more junk studies out there, produced to confuse the issue, usually without sufficent scientific backing and funded by heavy polluters. This tactic is being used more often, and these studies tend to be pounced upon, disproportionately, by the current U.S. administration against all other evidence.
But here's what I consider to be most telling: What is it that makes global warming a controversial issue? What is the connecting logic that equates increased CO2 emmisions to a left-wing agenda? There is a lot of support for global warming, and although it is not *completely* proven, there are many more scientists who think it is wisely cautious to reduce emissions levels than those who think, damn the tiller, full speed ahead.
Mine: Doesn't this at least cause you to examine your own beliefs?
Yours: Not a bit. What do clostered ivory tower intellectuals know about the real world?
Your words are telling. I was saying that *everyone* needs to examine their own views, and was hoping to spark something of that in yourself by saying it. Self-examination is, in this age, just about the only route to truth that could be considered remotely objective.
Also, your word "cloistered" implies an ivy wall, but in fact I don't see much reason to assume they are all that separate from "real" people. Getting a job in academia, especially these days, isn't all that different form getting a job elsewhere, and that's the only way I can see someone thinking them separate from the rest of the world. They still have the same television news shows to choose from, the same newspapers to pick from, the same websites to browse. Old cliches about them being away and apart haven't been true for a long time, not since the creation of mass media at least.
Yours: And I don't trust their paid for research anymore than I buy into the NSF's when it is on a political subject. Both are pushing a political agenda and trying to gain respectabil
Exactly. And the bigger problem is science is highly politicized. So it would be great if journalists put some effort into debunking bad science, but then most journalists are just as biased and in the same way.
Oh, really? That would explained how the mainstream media has allowed the Bush administration, and campaign, to blithely lie about so many things. But don't take my word for it, take Dick Cheney's (corrected) word: http://www.factcheck.org/
Yeah, Kerry's campaign did it too (though not as much). But these are things the press in the U.S. are just not reporting, and it favors whoever's in office at the time, not "liberals" or "conservatives." Indeed, the way the press has almost coddled this administration speaks volumes against your point.
And no one has done more coddling than Fox News, who would like us to believe that they're just balancing out the rest of the press.
But it's just not true. A truly balanced would be scarcely useful, because all they could do is report what the two "sides" in a debate are saying, without being allowed to do their own searching for the truth, which would immediately be pounced upon by the side (or both of them!) who is found lacking.
The only time they present opposing views is to either ridicule them or create some sense of conflict to sex up their story. Neither scientists or journalists are very interested in searching for the Truth if it collides with their politics.
Don't you see some sort of irony in your words?
Mark this ladies and geeks, mark what I'm about to say because it's becoming obvious that it's going to become more and more relevant in the coming years:
The people who speak out about a bias in the media and sciences do so by reacting to the percieved bias, thus making themselves guilty of the thing they complain about, whether their compaints were valid or not.
Lets look at the Science game for a moment. Just who are those grant providers you speak of? Major universities and government agencies like the NSF, staffed with academics from the university world.
And, you know, big corporations that do a lot of funding and are increasingly using universities as a sort fo extended job training that doesn't actually promise a job at the end of it.
If you haven't figured out yet that universities are 0wn3d by the left/socialists/progressives/whatever they call themselves this week you probably are one of the ones who think the Red states are filled with idiots and want to leave for Canada.
Doesn't it seem at all strange that so many universities, places of Higher Freaking Learning, have so many people there who subscribe to a worldview opposed to your own? Doesn't this at least cause you to examine your own beliefs?
Part of the journey to getting a doctorate degree is to defend your beliefs, or your thesis anyway, against attack. I've done a hell of a lot of self-belief examining in my life, but I'm not at all sure I've done enough. I think every damn human who lives on this damn world needs to. My question to you is, do you?
As for the red states -- many of them are not *that* red, there were a lot of close calls across the country, and Bush won by only 3% of the vote, which means that if 1.5% had voted the other way, it would have been a popular tie. And you don't have to be an elite-Jewish-doctor-commie to think that this country is going to get a lot loonier during those additional 1,461 days.
So there are no 'respectable' scientists who hold opposing views on politicized scientific issues because by definition you can't BE a 'respectable' scientist since the people who decide who gets to be a scientist won't allow those with opposing views to stay in the club.
Are you arguing this because you've found actual bias, or are you arguing it because it has to be argued in order to preserve the moral superiority of your beliefs?
Like giving me a checkpoint as my warthog was flying off the side of a cliff. I had to restart the level because the checkpoint was just me and my partner dying over and over.
"Here we are back ag... AAAAAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!!"
"So, this is what Heaven is... AAAAUUGGGHHHHH!!"
"So, anything new this ti-- AAUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!"
"I have a new novel in my po--- AAAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!"
"Pocket, I figure I can re- AAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!"
"Read a few words every ti- AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!"
"Time, until the player hi- AAAAUUUUGGGGGGHHHH!!!"
Dude, chill. They said "theoretically" because they don't know yet how many users it can support. I assume they've run some tests in-house. Also, I think it has less to do with hot-spots as games being played over the Internet, which wouldn't be limited to one hotspot.
I kind of understand your point, it's like being told that a battery promises "up to six hours of life," when that's actually a best-case scenario that applies to no-one.
I'm a lefty, and I've never really had problems with supposedly right handed control schemes.
Really? Well obviously you're just an idiosyncratic, fringe opinion who is well within the margin of error....
Seriously, cool. You don't have problems pressing buttons with your "off" hand? Would you still appreciate a game that had a "left-handed" option?
In fact, there are games already existing that use a diamond-shaped button arrangement as a sort of second control pad. I'm thinking particularly of the emulation of Robotron: 2084 (one of the coolest games ever made by the way) in the Dreamcast version of Midway Greatest Hits. The original game used a dual joystick control scheme, which the Dreamcast simulated by using the controller buttons to simulate a second pad.
It worked okay, but I greatly prefer playing it in Midway Arcade Treasures with two joysticks.
While this would indeed be helpful, in fact the buttons are probably arranged that way because most systems do it like that, from the SNES on, including the PS1 and 2, N64 (C buttons), Dreamcast and Xbox.
Most of those systems could change their control schemes to suit left-handed gamers, but few do. If Nintendo truly is making an effort to accomodate left-handed players then that's great, but it's happened surprisingly rarely thus far given the potential size of the left-handed audience.
Remember that GBAs can play video, and they're much less powerful (and that the DS can run GBA software).
Processing power is most useful for 3D games. The GBA's underpowered (by today's standards) processor has sufficed to make it the most popular system in the world -- and people have even figured out how to make 3D games (of a sort) for it. Even so, 2D games seem to be what Nintendo will continue to focus on, and that just may work out for them.
Of course, Metroid Prime Hunters still looks amazing.
Nintendo did things like this in the old NES days (chip shortage my ass), but there are reasons to believe they're not doing it now.
One of the biggest I can describe in three words: Pee. Ess. Pee.
Still, it's heartening news for Nintendo that the DS is proving so popular, even before release. Anyone want to place bets that Sony will anounce something similar in the near future?
How it seems to be shaping up: The DS' drawback is graphics power, and the PSP's drawback is battery life. This is absurdly reductionist, both systems have unique features (with the DS looking towards PDAs for theirs, and the PSP looking towards portable DVD players), but I think this is how most gamers will see it.
I, and probably a good many people, will buy a DS regardless of what Sony does. But I really think Nintendo should consider cutting the price a little more in response to Sony's highly aggressive $200 point.
The DS is probably priced to make Nintendo a profit on units sold, while the PSP is *definitely* being sold at a tremendous loss. A further reduction to around $120 would make it a lot more attractive to parents, some of whom may still be smarting from a recent purchase of a GBA SP, and would be unlikely to be followed-up by Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
"Your role?" You think anyone gives a rat's ass about your idiotic ramblings?
Why not? There are plenty of other idiotic ramblings on Slashdot as well, as you so ably demonstrate.
I was making a rhetorical comment about the number of Nintendo-defense posts I've made lately, not trying to posit myself as "THE die-hard Nintendo fanatic." You were the one to write THE in allcaps, not I.
I considered it to be self-effacing, instead of boasting, because on the big list of Life Goals, being a die-hard loyalist of a videogame company falls somewhere behind Setting The Lifetime Crap Record.
But this can probably be chalked up to misunderstanding.
"Oh boy, I get to go to Slashdot and read MilliCentens latest thoughts on Nintendo!" You think anyone knows who you are? Get over yourself, jackass.
No, I do not think these things. But at least whatever it is I say, I'll stand up behind it, rather than hiding behind an AC post....
Also, you could have least spelled my handle correctly. I mean, geez.
These are problems with the institution of unions as they are implemented here, not with the very idea of unions.
The fact is, in the employer/employee relationship in the U.S., what with employees being so utterly beholden to their bosses what with having to pay for room, food, gas, etc., and with the nation's economy riding on that relationship, there needs to be some sort of balance in the power structure.
Oh sure, if you don't mind being a filthyevilpirate.
You're not filthy and evil... are you?
(P.S. Arrrrr!)
Hmmm. I wonder if they'll modify the menu system to support the touch-screen?
So, we already have a winner in the portable race! Not all the states have reported in yet, but we're calling it, fairly confidently, in favor of... the SNES!
Too old? How about the PS1 (which has ports of both FFVI & CT)?
I wouldn't say a portable FFVII is not a sure-win for Sony this time, as the game's original impact was from its huge wow-factor. A new FF installment (in the core line, not a port) would give the PSP better chances.
But then, FFVII marked the moment that I lost interest in the Final Fantasy series -- I didn't get further than halfway through it before getting fed up with combat and load times. And now I'm not even looking that favorably upon the old Final Fantasies, I find myself more interested in the Dragon Quest way of doing things more and more now.
I messed around with the DS at a local Wal-Mart where it was on display. It seemed really, really cool, especially when I figured out how to set Metroid Hunters for the mouselook-ish control scheme.
Sometimes it seems like it must be my role on Slashdot to be the die-hard Nintendo fanatic, but I wouldn't discount Sony yet (though I, myself, am not a fan of many PS2 games). I think the DS will at least be modestly successful, and may be much more successful. Who knows, maybe there's room for two portable successes...?
Pedantically, that is exactly backwards. To be technical about it, what we often call "games" like Doom and Half-Life are not games at all, but puzzles.
By definition, a "game" requires competitiveness, so nothing single-player need apply.
So, Solitare is not a game?
If it's not in the defined meaning of "game," then it's certainly in the colloquial meaning.
Wait a minnit... here we go. From the definition on Dictionary.com:
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.
All computer games fulfill this definition, even weird ones like SimCity, but probably an argument could be made that a new meaning should be introduced to specifically account for them.
The game theory meaning of "game" is more specific than the general meaning, and takes in account games no one would really play (or would rather avoid playing, such as Prisoner's Dilemma).
Which is a lot of verbiage to expend in replying to someone who basically agrees with me (since competitive games are time-focused puzzles for the same reasons), but I can be rather pedantic myself if need be.
Ah, but I didn't say 1,461 days from now, but 1,461 additional days. That is, that many more days after the next inauguration.
How so?
I personally loathe puzzles, riddles and jump games.
Wow, way to dismiss about half of computer gaming in one statement. Using this he is responding to the 3D Zelda games (which don't feature "jump games" as such, in fact they have an auto-jump feature in order to avoid that).
While riddles and "jump games" (his term of dismissal is telling) may or may not be arguable, puzzles are one of *the* integral elements to gaming. All games are a puzzle of some sort, held to different standards of timing. (In Robotron, for example, the puzzle is deciding which ways to run and shoot in the split-second usually available to you.) And his argument that making a virtual rave in a mission into a "real" one, and calling that an improvement, falls flat with me.
Also, I was struck by his stock answer to the XP-penalty-for-dying issue: To get you to emphathize more with your character, next question. Surely there are better ways to do that than docking the player on the experience count. His response to the "grinding" charge is similar.
He also dismissed user-created content, apparently ignorant of the fact that no game can possibly keep all its players interested with a "top-down" approach to content. Also, user-created content (*if well implemented*, and allows players to genuinely create new experiences) can have a way of building on each other to "evolve" into new concepts in a way that a team of explicit designers can never match. Yeah, lots of user content sucks, most of it in fact, but that isn't always the user's fault. Also, you could view the web as the ultimate user-content-created MMORPG; there's huge numbers of pointless websites, but the best ones are what people visit over and over again. Find a way to reward those people for producing content with an in-game mechanism, and give people a way of finding those players (like a search engine), and the problem should solve itself. (Not that I consider this to be easily done. But someday, someone will do it right.)
I was considering playing City of Heroes before this interview -- I had heard it approached a number of problems in a novel way, maybe even the right way, but I am less certain now. It's starting to seem more like the novelty arises out of setting rather than being truly different gameplay.
You seem knowledgeable - i wonder if i could ask you a question (well 2 actually), is that number correct or did you just make it up?
The additional days are measured from Inauguration Day to Inquguration Day, which is always January 20th, not election day to election day, which is the Thursday after the first Monday in November. Even if Kerry had won, we'd still have to suffer through Bush to January 20th. Now, we'll have to suffer through him for four additional January 20ths.
For the record, the number of days is 1,461, or 365 x 4 + 1 for leap year.
EA reducing the quality of their games? Is that even possible?
This is the company that pioneered selling new editions of the same sports game every year. EA used to be pretty cool, back in the 8-bit days, but these days, they sure ain't no Nintendo.
Er... I agree with all these things. I think you meant to reply to the post one level further up the thread.
It's taken me forty minutes to write all this out. Why do I do this to myself?
Mine:
The people who speak out about a bias in the media and sciences do so by reacting to the percieved bias, thus making themselves guilty of the thing they complain about, whether their compaints were valid or not.
Yours:
Not at all. I claim bias in the media because they state as settled fact things very much in dispute, like Global Warming, they report the claims of left leaning groups as fact and the claims of the right as "claims from the right wing thinktank.....". And so on and so on.
Everything is in dispute. I can spuriously dispute anything you, or anyone else, says just because I don't like it. Dispute is cheap, even the dispute of think tanks. It is true, of course, that I can invent spurious theories. Research is expensive however, and the people who believe global warming is real tend to have fewer vested interests than those who think it is not.
I was speaking in general there, for starters. That is a trend that provides a lot of the right's energy, the perception that they are somehow discriminated against unfairly. But their reactions to it are often filled with the same kind of discrimination. That's the core process that fuels Fox News, and other like-minded groups and sources.
Global warming is a difficult matter to make conclusive arguments about, since of course we have only one planet and cannot infalliably see into the future. But it *is* possible to look at the composition of our atmosphere, and compare it to measurements taken some time ago, and see that there's quite a bit more carbon dioxide in it now than previously, check here.
The biggest area of debate these days, or at least the one I hear the most about, is the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design argument, which is very bitterly-fought these days, and has the most junk science proping it up.
Further, there are more and more junk studies out there, produced to confuse the issue, usually without sufficent scientific backing and funded by heavy polluters. This tactic is being used more often, and these studies tend to be pounced upon, disproportionately, by the current U.S. administration against all other evidence.
But here's what I consider to be most telling: What is it that makes global warming a controversial issue? What is the connecting logic that equates increased CO2 emmisions to a left-wing agenda? There is a lot of support for global warming, and although it is not *completely* proven, there are many more scientists who think it is wisely cautious to reduce emissions levels than those who think, damn the tiller, full speed ahead.
Mine:
Doesn't this at least cause you to examine your own beliefs?
Yours:
Not a bit. What do clostered ivory tower intellectuals know about the real world?
Your words are telling. I was saying that *everyone* needs to examine their own views, and was hoping to spark something of that in yourself by saying it. Self-examination is, in this age, just about the only route to truth that could be considered remotely objective.
Also, your word "cloistered" implies an ivy wall, but in fact I don't see much reason to assume they are all that separate from "real" people. Getting a job in academia, especially these days, isn't all that different form getting a job elsewhere, and that's the only way I can see someone thinking them separate from the rest of the world. They still have the same television news shows to choose from, the same newspapers to pick from, the same websites to browse. Old cliches about them being away and apart haven't been true for a long time, not since the creation of mass media at least.
Yours:
And I don't trust their paid for research anymore than I buy into the NSF's when it is on a political subject. Both are pushing a political agenda and trying to gain respectabil
Exactly. And the bigger problem is science is highly politicized. So it would be great if journalists put some effort into debunking bad science, but then most journalists are just as biased and in the same way.
Oh, really? That would explained how the mainstream media has allowed the Bush administration, and campaign, to blithely lie about so many things. But don't take my word for it, take Dick Cheney's (corrected) word: http://www.factcheck.org/
Yeah, Kerry's campaign did it too (though not as much). But these are things the press in the U.S. are just not reporting, and it favors whoever's in office at the time, not "liberals" or "conservatives." Indeed, the way the press has almost coddled this administration speaks volumes against your point.
And no one has done more coddling than Fox News, who would like us to believe that they're just balancing out the rest of the press.
But it's just not true. A truly balanced would be scarcely useful, because all they could do is report what the two "sides" in a debate are saying, without being allowed to do their own searching for the truth, which would immediately be pounced upon by the side (or both of them!) who is found lacking.
The only time they present opposing views is to either ridicule them or create some sense of conflict to sex up their story. Neither scientists or journalists are very interested in searching for the Truth if it collides with their politics.
Don't you see some sort of irony in your words?
Mark this ladies and geeks, mark what I'm about to say because it's becoming obvious that it's going to become more and more relevant in the coming years:
The people who speak out about a bias in the media and sciences do so by reacting to the percieved bias, thus making themselves guilty of the thing they complain about, whether their compaints were valid or not.
Lets look at the Science game for a moment. Just who are those grant providers you speak of? Major universities and government agencies like the NSF, staffed with academics from the university world.
And, you know, big corporations that do a lot of funding and are increasingly using universities as a sort fo extended job training that doesn't actually promise a job at the end of it.
If you haven't figured out yet that universities are 0wn3d by the left/socialists/progressives/whatever they call themselves this week you probably are one of the ones who think the Red states are filled with idiots and want to leave for Canada.
Doesn't it seem at all strange that so many universities, places of Higher Freaking Learning, have so many people there who subscribe to a worldview opposed to your own? Doesn't this at least cause you to examine your own beliefs?
Part of the journey to getting a doctorate degree is to defend your beliefs, or your thesis anyway, against attack. I've done a hell of a lot of self-belief examining in my life, but I'm not at all sure I've done enough. I think every damn human who lives on this damn world needs to. My question to you is, do you?
As for the red states -- many of them are not *that* red, there were a lot of close calls across the country, and Bush won by only 3% of the vote, which means that if 1.5% had voted the other way, it would have been a popular tie. And you don't have to be an elite-Jewish-doctor-commie to think that this country is going to get a lot loonier during those additional 1,461 days.
So there are no 'respectable' scientists who hold opposing views on politicized scientific issues because by definition you can't BE a 'respectable' scientist since the people who decide who gets to be a scientist won't allow those with opposing views to stay in the club.
Are you arguing this because you've found actual bias, or are you arguing it because it has to be argued in order to preserve the moral superiority of your beliefs?
Kinda like why you don't find many pro life
Like giving me a checkpoint as my warthog was flying off the side of a cliff. I had to restart the level because the checkpoint was just me and my partner dying over and over.
"Here we are back ag... AAAAAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!!"
"So, this is what Heaven is... AAAAUUGGGHHHHH!!"
"So, anything new this ti-- AAUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!"
"I have a new novel in my po--- AAAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!"
"Pocket, I figure I can re- AAUUUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!"
"Read a few words every ti- AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHHHH!!"
"Time, until the player hi- AAAAUUUUGGGGGGHHHH!!!"
"Hits the reset button... AAAUAUUUGGGGHHHH!!"
The Slashdot prime directive is:
If it's mainstream, we hate it.
1. Shouldn't you be saying: "If it's mainstream we hates it, my precious?"
2. I refute you in one word: Google.
Or Thir-thirteen-en Ghosts.
Dude, chill. They said "theoretically" because they don't know yet how many users it can support. I assume they've run some tests in-house. Also, I think it has less to do with hot-spots as games being played over the Internet, which wouldn't be limited to one hotspot.
I kind of understand your point, it's like being told that a battery promises "up to six hours of life," when that's actually a best-case scenario that applies to no-one.
(No, I didn't mean that to be a Sony jab.)
I'm a lefty, and I've never really had problems with supposedly right handed control schemes.
Really? Well obviously you're just an idiosyncratic, fringe opinion who is well within the margin of error....
Seriously, cool. You don't have problems pressing buttons with your "off" hand? Would you still appreciate a game that had a "left-handed" option?
In fact, there are games already existing that use a diamond-shaped button arrangement as a sort of second control pad. I'm thinking particularly of the emulation of Robotron: 2084 (one of the coolest games ever made by the way) in the Dreamcast version of Midway Greatest Hits. The original game used a dual joystick control scheme, which the Dreamcast simulated by using the controller buttons to simulate a second pad.
It worked okay, but I greatly prefer playing it in Midway Arcade Treasures with two joysticks.
While this would indeed be helpful, in fact the buttons are probably arranged that way because most systems do it like that, from the SNES on, including the PS1 and 2, N64 (C buttons), Dreamcast and Xbox.
Most of those systems could change their control schemes to suit left-handed gamers, but few do. If Nintendo truly is making an effort to accomodate left-handed players then that's great, but it's happened surprisingly rarely thus far given the potential size of the left-handed audience.
I followed the link and was dumbstruck. 800+ pages?! Every monster in the manual??!
I'm so not going to buy it (a hundred bucks, c'mon get real) but I have to admit, I'm curious.
Remember that GBAs can play video, and they're much less powerful (and that the DS can run GBA software).
Processing power is most useful for 3D games. The GBA's underpowered (by today's standards) processor has sufficed to make it the most popular system in the world -- and people have even figured out how to make 3D games (of a sort) for it. Even so, 2D games seem to be what Nintendo will continue to focus on, and that just may work out for them.
Of course, Metroid Prime Hunters still looks amazing.
Nintendo did things like this in the old NES days (chip shortage my ass), but there are reasons to believe they're not doing it now.
One of the biggest I can describe in three words: Pee. Ess. Pee.
Still, it's heartening news for Nintendo that the DS is proving so popular, even before release. Anyone want to place bets that Sony will anounce something similar in the near future?
How it seems to be shaping up: The DS' drawback is graphics power, and the PSP's drawback is battery life. This is absurdly reductionist, both systems have unique features (with the DS looking towards PDAs for theirs, and the PSP looking towards portable DVD players), but I think this is how most gamers will see it.
I, and probably a good many people, will buy a DS regardless of what Sony does. But I really think Nintendo should consider cutting the price a little more in response to Sony's highly aggressive $200 point.
The DS is probably priced to make Nintendo a profit on units sold, while the PSP is *definitely* being sold at a tremendous loss. A further reduction to around $120 would make it a lot more attractive to parents, some of whom may still be smarting from a recent purchase of a GBA SP, and would be unlikely to be followed-up by Sony.