and they'll tell you what the tallest building in the world is: the Sears Tower. It's stupid to say a 101-story building is the tallest in the world when the Sears Tower has over 110 floors and the highest occupied floor in the world at 1,450 ft. Anyone from Chicago can tell you these shoddy knockoffs are just that.
Coicidentaly, I went to the Sears Tower Skydeck (the observing floor on 103) and their informational video actually had pics of the Kuala Lumpur towers. One of the narrators (an animated bird) asks the other, "But what about those towers in Malaysia?" and was of course brushed off with, "Well, if adding some sillt piece of masonry can get you a title, let them have it. We know we're truely the tallest."
Also of intrest, I remember when the Kuala Lumpur towers were finished and the owners of the Sears Tower (don't remember if it was still Sears at that point) looked into adding two or three 'dummy' floors, which would be all that was nescesary to beat the Kuala Lumpur towers. Unfortunatly, with the Taipei tower 'officially' measuring over 1,600 feet, that'd be a few too many dummy floors.
But anyone from Chicago can tell you why these imitations don't measure up to the real thing.
finkploud said, "I notice quite a lot of people up in arms over the free speech aspects of this. So I have to assume you guys are all ok with anti-abortion internet websites listing doctor's home address and encouraging people to kill them right?"
I believe the analogy others have used is "Your right to swing your arm ends the exact place my nose begins." This has been applied to free speech of telemarketers ("Your right to free speech ends when I don't want to listen") but could also apply here.
You are no longer gauranteed free speech when your speech endangers my safety or privacy.
And a quick note, to cut off possible counter-arguments. Sites or people that promote racist views or, as in the case of anti-abortion sites, may lead to violence are a tricky issue. But even if I disagree with what they say and they seem likely to promote violence, if they're not actually pushing violence it's hard to shut them down without violating the their freedom of speech. This really needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It's possible to have an anti-abortion site without it promoting violence.
Personally, having glanced at these websites, they may or may not prmote violence, but I would say they are NOT extreme enough to classify just viewing them as somehow supporting terorism...
Okay. You guys got me. I honestly pulled Homeworld and Homeworld 2 out of my ass because it was the first sequel that came to mind. But you're right, Homeworld is a bad example both because of the source code and because the first Homeworld still probably sells in the bargin bin.
But I think the general principal I was promoting is sound.
I think that more companies doing stuff like this (that is, releasing a large amount of free content with no or very little strings attached) could do more to counteract fears of piracy than any DRM could.
By releasing free content or making a big deal about free stuff when you pre-order you're going to be building customer loyalty. I realize console game piracy isn't as big of a problem as PC game piracy (at least in America) so this isn't the perfect example, but Nintendo probably ended up selling more Wind Waker copies because of the pre-order deal than they would have otherwise. Likewise with the new Rogue Squadron and Mario Kart games.
PC game companies should follow this lead. Releasing a previous game, in the case of a sequel, or a large number of exclusive demo levels, if it's a new game, can only be a good thing. Homeworld 2 might have sold more copies had you gotten a copy of Homeworld free with your pre-order. Or just free, period.
I remember the demo to Starcaft being three or four 'prequel' missions that took place within the storyline of the game, but were exclusively playable in the demo. I downloaded it even though I'd already bought and enjoyed the retail game. Customers like getting extra cool stuff for free, and will remember you for it.
The extension of that, and the subject of this post, relates to filesharing and piracy fears. If I feel company loyalty to the Hidden and Dangerous guys (because, hey, they gave me this really cool free thing!) I'm going to be less likely to pirate their software, and more likely to frown on those who do so.
I know there are people who will crack and distribute games ilegally just 'because they can' and those who aren't going to pay for a game no matter what. That's not who I'm talking about. There are people, like myself, who do actually buy games, but may occasionally also download illegal versions off Kazaa or the like. And getting our loyalty could do wonders to prevent a company's game from being downloaded without paying for it.
I know I'll be less likely to ever download Hidden and Dangerous 2 because of this. I'll remember that the company is obviously interested in customer loyalty and willing to make an effort to provide a quality product. Even if they're doing it for financial reasons rather than to get a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside (they may have followed the same line of reasoning I did) the end result is the same.
The doctor in question says, "In my professional opinion, growing up in the age of video games has helped me to learn how to perform laparoscopic surgery more easily and quickly."
I would have to say that while he may believe videogames helped him perform surgery, and they very well may have, he has no legitimacy to place a 'professional' opinion on it. His profession would be surgery, not hand-eye coordination or visual skills. To have a professional opinion on the subject, he would need to have studied it specifically and extensively.
It would seem this is geared, rather, towards his personal opinion. A study (or at least a look-over by someone in the field of hand-eye coordination or visual research) would be required for anyone to voice a professional opinion.
I don't want to say history isn't interesting, but it's hard to compare Morrowind or Knights of the Old Republic to European geography. Morrowind is fun for reasons unrelated to the geography or history, although they both make the game feel like a real world.
But it's going to be hard to make wandering around Europe that exciting. Especially because it'll be hard to justify giving the player magic or Force powers.
There is definatly a possibility for Age of Empires type games to succesfully teach history, but it would be difficult to apply many real world situations to enjoyable games.
Shoptroll said, "*Bzzzt* Wrong....Basically 1/2 the games available for bundle are now $30. Do the math = you come out $20 richer than before...."
Well, sort of. As far as I can tell, including looking around the Nintendo sight, I am right about Nintendo dropping the bundle. But I didn't say it wasn't a better value than it used to be, because in that respect you are correct. Getting a $99 Gamecube and a newly added $19.99 or $29.99 players choice game is cheaper than the old bundle, $149 for a GCN and a game. In addition, the new price breaks the $100 price barrier, which is a mental thing.
But when I origonally said "I think this is a poor choice," I should have expanded on that. What I meant was that, while I think the price drop is great, I think removing the bundle is a poor decision. That's because, as I said before, with a bundle there's actual incentive of getting a game, but there's also, I would argue, a higher mental incentive. People see paying one price for 2 things, even when the new deal offers 2 things for 2 prices that total cheaper than the old 1 price. If that makes any sense.
So I applaude Nintendo dropping their price and really do hope it works to sell more systems and games. But I think it would have been even BETTER had they included some game. Any game. Pikmin. Luigi's Mansion. As far as I can tell, not many people are buying them. I said it before and I stand by my claim the added percieved value to the bundle would outweigh the cost to Nintendo.
According to an article on IGN Cube [ http://cube.ign.com/articles/451/451364p1.html?fro mint=1 ] Harsison, VP of marketing and communications had a conference call with media reps and such. Durring the call he fielded questions, and IGN posted quotes of the call. Here are some of the choice picks:
"This is an aggressive move by Nintendo. This is an indication that this generation of consoles is about to enter the mass market." "We believe this [GCN price at $99] is the best value in the history of videogames." "Between now and the New Year more than 100 new GameCube titles will hit the shelves." On GBA and GCN now selling at the same price: ""I don't think it creates a problem. In fact, you can buy an SP and a GCN for the price that you now pay for a PlayStation 2 bundle. We continue to sell as many GBAs as we can get."
And, perhaps most interesting to those without GC's or (like myself) those with but still interested in how Nintendo is planning their marketing strategies:
"We don't have any plans to do any software bundles."
Personally, I think this is a poor choice. Even a Player's Choice bundle worth $20 (with Star Fox Adventures, Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion now at $19.99) there's a mental bonus to getting a system with a free game. And, as far as I know, those games are not huge sellers so I doubt Nintendo would lose a huge number of game sales from the deal...
Also of intrest, Harrison said, "GameCube production will begin again later this fall."
Sparr0 said: "where we have the UCC which says they have to give you a refund (yeah, theres restrictions. no, joe gamer isnt affected by any of them). they dont like it? tough titties. Always take a copy with you when you go to return a game. has never failed."
Could you be more specific? I would seem you're talking about the Uniform Commercial Code. I looked it up (yay Google) and found it online here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html
Looking under section 2, Sales, offered no obvious example of what you seem to be talking about. That a seller is obligated to give a refund for a returned product. Even running a query for "return", I could find nothing helpful. There were a couple sections that talking about the provisions for returning sold goods if the two parties _AGREED_ the buyer would have the right to return them, but nothing that seemed to simply say "All bought goods may be returned."
Am I missing something? Becuase if you're right, that would definatly be nifty.
tomhudson said, "6pm EST, Sept 12, 2003, after repeated nmappings and traceroutes (as curious/.ers try to find out why their site melted, what they were running, etc.), Department of Homeland Security claims that site is under cyber-attack."
As of 5 PM CST (6 PM EST) I'm unable to connect to energy.gov and am getting a IE "This page cannot be displayed" error. A quick hop over to netcraft shows that no uptime data is available on energy.gov, which may or may not mean anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than there are GameCubes, but it damn sure isn't 15 million. As anyone who reads games.slashdot regularly, Nintendo does continue to beat out XBox worldwide. Admitadly, not by much, and the majority of that is due to the Japanese market. But the market does exist for GameCube. I _just_ bought one, the first and only of ANY of the Next Gen systems I plan to buy. And I'm here in the U.S. of A. F-Zero GX, Zelda, Mario, and Samus, to name a few, continue to be a bigger draw for me. In addition, as someone who starts college in less than two weeks, I'm looking forward to having the system with the best party games out there.
The fact of the matter is, Nintendo sales WILL decline if companys continue to state the 'obvious': that "GameCube is a declining business." Bullshit. It's declining because you're helping it to do so. Nintendo isn't doing all they can to sell the system either (and from other posts and storys on Slashdot, Europe gets the short end of the stick again and again), but if a company leaves a system then that company will sell no games on that system...
Why does Nintendo continue to get the bad rap? I do fear that the GameCube will go the route of the N64, but I can only plan so far ahead. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the fun-as-hell games that are out there now, and coming out soon. Mario Sunshine, Super Monkey Ball, F-Zero GX, Rogue Leader, Pikmin, Eternal Darkness... And soon, stuff like Rogue Squadren 3 and a new Mario Kart.
The GC may end up 'losing' the console wars, but that doesn't mean owners won't have a damn good time playing what comes out for it for the next couple years. Or even longer. I still play my old-school Nintendo Entertainment System. And y'know what? I still find it damn entertaining.
BJZQ8 Said, "Hyrdrogen "clean" fuel is a misnomer...since the hydrogen you get from one of these California H2 stations is made from natural gas, and not electrolysis. You end up using fossil fuels just the same."
That's an over simplification. I've seen three levels of understanding with the use of hydrogen fueling, and the two most common are wrong.
The first is the (seemingly) obvious: hydrogen doesn't emit greenhouse gasses, and is cleaner to use.
Digging slightly deeper, some people notice that, in fact, there isn't a lot of easy-to-access hydrogen sitting around. So getting that hydrogen will use the fossil fuels we were trying to avoid using. At this level, people say, "Well, hydrogen fuel is nice and all, but it just moves the problem from the car itself emitting gasses to the hydrogen plant. We shouldn't bother with hydrogen."
But saying hydrogen fuel just moves the problem of pollution one step back doesn't dig deep enough. Because at a large factory designed to extract hydrogen, you're going to be able to get much more efficiency out of the process. A quick Google search pointed to a number of webpages saying the average car internal combustion engine gets between 20% and 30% of the possible energy out of its gas. Most cars are on the lower end of that spectrum. The rest is of the energy wasted as heat and whatnot. But at a multi-million or billion dollar extracting plant, that efficiency is going to rise, so that extracting hydrogen DOES become more environmentally friendly. When you're doing something on a large scale, you can afford to get more efficient. Even counting in the extra step of converting the energy from fossil fuel to hydrogen (which, of course, means you're going to lose some of that potential energy) you should be able to pollute less than current gas cars.
That isn't to say the problem of fossil fuel pollution is entirely removed. People who hearald the coming of the hydrogen age as an immediate and simple sollution to pullotion need to think a little harder. But people who laugh at hydrogen use, saying it will be just as polluting, need to think a little harder too.
-Trillian
Other notes (all from easy google searches): A Clinton-era paper on the possibilities of hydrogen cars: http://www.llnl.gov/str/Hybrid.html A spec-sheet of the above concept car: http://www.clean-air.org/hybrid_hydrogen_concept_c ar.htm
Viewsonic said, "Why would this be bad? Vivendi make **PC** games.Not console games! Both mediums are entirely different. Trying to mix the two together would be a horrible mistake. I know Microsoft needs games, but come on, who the heck wants to play games that were designed for PCs?"
Mircosoft has done a really good job ignoring consumers and doing what they feel will be the best for their market share. While no one wants to play computer games for PCs, if Microsoft felt they could increase XBOX sales by releasing exlusives (which they probably could) do you honestly think they wouldn't do it?
What's to stop them from releasing a "XBOX Commander" (like their failed PC RTS controller) and releasing Starcraft II as an XBOX exclusive? If they buy the company that makes the game, then nothing. They could even release a RTS game for the XBOX and just have crippled controls using the XBOX controller.
"They're treating it like all games PC games are couch potato games, which they most certainly are NOT."
That's the whole point. Personaly, I think console first person shooters are a crime against nature. Sniping with a controller? HA! Give me a mouse and a keyboard any day. (I know Microsoft is not the only one releasing FPS games on consoles.) The point is companies are ignorring the difference in the advantages of keyboard/mouse vs. controller, and the ability to 'fun-ly' play Diablo II on computer compared to Legend of Zelda on a console.
Personally, I don't want to see the two cross over. I hope to Jebus this buyout won't happen, partially because I hate to see anything that gives Microsoft an advantage, but more because I think it will result in poor games. When you try to make a PC game for a console or a console game for a PC, the gamer usually ends up with the short end of the stick.
I was (and still am) driving a 1984 Tercel Hatchback 2-door. Myself being 18 (born in 1984), it's probably older than I am.
I inherited it from my grandmother, the traditional "once a week to the grocery store" lady. The car is 18+ years old and has a whopping 45,000 miles on it...
Still running great, by the way! I love my car!
-Trillian
deop wrote: "Isn't it important to get beyond icons? What good are these symbols of freedom and liberty, if the land for which they stand no longer holds firm to those ideals in the face of some threat from abroad? How can Lady Liberty mean anything in this country today, where immigrants are rounded up and shipped off for the slightest violation of the conditions of their stay?
Map the monuments, but understand that without truth and ideals behind them, they are only rusting metal and eroding stone."
I don't totaly disagree. I think some of our current foriegn and domestic policies are abysmal and tragic, and I honestly fear for what the future of the USA could look like. But I think the Statue of Liberty (just look at the _name_, I mean come on...) or the Lincoln Memorial (or etc. etc. etc.) are still important.
While their truth and ideals may not currently hold as strongly in this country as many of us would like, I don't think they _can_ be errased entirely. Regardless of the actions of whoever is in the White House, Dr. King, Jr stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and communicated to the world how there were still people would not stand for inequality. Even if we bomb another country without merit (or UN approval...) the monument is still to someone who kept the nation united, for better or for worse, and struck down slavery, one of the most disgusting human practices.
Lady Liberty might cry at the denial of civil rights to immigrants or illegal detainees, held with secret evidence and no legal council, but she has seen worse. She watched across the Atlantic while Hitler slaughtered millions, and back to America while the National Guard gunned down our own students for protesting our own war. But she has also seen America at its best.
We're going through a rough time, yes. I looks like, with the possible invasion of Iraq and trouble with North Korea, that things will get worse. But our current actions can NOT erase what has gone before.
Lincoln curtailed civil liberties of reporters in the North who felt the South should be let go, and many (all?) of the Founding Fathers kept slaves. America does not have a 'pretty' history, full of love and peace. But America's monuments are built to remind us of when we were at our best.
We DO need to learn from past mistakes, and try to prevent and undo mistakes we're making right now. But to say the Statue of Liberty or Lincoln Memorial are without meaning is bullshit, regardless of what America's actions are. We could slaughter Iraqi women and children wholesale and have a party about it, and the Lincoln Memorial will still and always stand for a time when people would have stood up and protested. As long as we remember what is true and good, the truth and ideals behind our monuments will remain.
Lady Liberty stands for Liberty, and when she cries for our poor choices she continues to stand tall in remembrence of better times, and hope that they will return.
I agree, to some extent, that the idea of replacing the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, the Capitol Building, or any other well-known national monument as exactly as possible is slightly silly. The comment made about replacing a car after a crash, and not wanting to replicate all of the origonal dings and scratches is somewhat reasonable.
But I think you're missing the point about the symbolism and memories contained in these monuments. If my car was totaled, I would be sad not only because I would have lost simply a means of transportation, but I would have lost a location where memories were made. Driving on the highway while friends taunted the 18 year-old engine ("Wow! It hit 55! You think it can get to sixty?"), packing 7 people into a 2-door hatchback, etc. I'd miss all that had happened in the car, as well as the car itself.
Likewise, losing the Statue of Liberty to terrorists, a giant space-crane, Godzilla, or whatever won't simply mean there's new real-estate open on Liberty Island. It'll mean a national monument that watched over hundreds of thousands of immigrants, saw the USA through two World Wars, a presidential assasination, putting people on the moon, the Cold War, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc, will be gone.
I use the Statue of Liberty as an example because I think it's America's 'best' and 'most important' monument. I don't particularly care for Mt. Rushmore (I think it's vaguely creepy), and the Capitol Building doesn't impress me much. The Statue of Liberty represents ideals that America hasn't always been great holding true to, I admit. I'll be the first to criticize the current administration and have no problem pointing out ways we've screwed up in the past. We've fucked up a lot, both internaly and with the rest of the world, and I'm sure we'll continue doing it. But I think the Statue of Liberty, or the Lincoln Memorial, or the Jefferson, or the Washington represent what is, has, and (I _really_ hope) will continue to be great about the USA.
So. I don't think mapping these monuments down to a quarter inch is 'silly' or 'stupid' or a 'waste of time.' Having recently visited New York and seen Lady Liberty up close, and still strongly remembering my 8th grade clase trip to Washington D.C., I would be heartbroken if any of a number of our national monuments fell. I can't honestly say I would support rebuilding the Statue of Liberty exactly as she stood. It would be kind of weird, I recognize that.
But I definatly think we should have the option. At the very least, it will allow for faithful 3D models to be replicated. Maybe someday my kids will be able to walk through a 3D model of New York City _exactly_ the way it stood on September 10th, 2001.
So maybe these 3D models will be completely useless, either because the monuments will not be attacked or because people won't want to rebuild them exactly the same.
But I think it would be a horrible shame not to have the option.
I was just looking at download.com's user opinions of Microsoft's newly released DirectX 9. Most of the reviews were positive, with the unsurprising comments that it crashed a couple systems and such. One review, however, caught my eye:
""THE BEST VIDEO-AUDIO EnhanceX YET!!!!" DirectX 9.0 definitely delivers the future of gaming straight into your computer. I run a Pentium IV 2.2 GHz, ATI Radeon 9700 All-IN-Wonder 128 MB Video Card, and I have 2 GB of Ram. Now you may think that my computer is really great, but in fact, my XP crashes a lot due to viruses downloaded with KaZaA, so they slow it down considerably. I can proudly say that DirectX has solved this problem for my gaming abilities. My games ran slower before when I played Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, Max Payne, NHL 2003, Nascar 5, Mafia and Grand Theft Auto 3. Now, I can run all of these games at the maximum graphics resolution, with superb audio and video enhancements. With my Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound System, I can really feel the crisp and clear 3 Dimensional Sound delivered to my computer with DirectX 9.0. This is the best thing that I have downloaded on the internet. Even if you have previously never noticed the difference when uploading to DirectX 6, to 7, to 8, to 8.1, you will now!!!! The performance is incredible. Don't delay!!!! Download it to play your games like you've never felt adrenaline more in your entire life!! Microsoft RULES!!!! By the way, don't forget to buy XBox, it's a sick system. They may be releasing PS3 in a few years, but I don't know if they'll have online gaming for that or not. XBOX is so souped up with it's hard drive, and the touch-sensitive buttons on the controller, and the online play, that you just cannot get enough from playing racing games and Amped on XBOX. By the way, if you're REALLY serious about buying XBOX, then get it on E-Bay. I got a really good deal, it was a bit used, but I got XBox, with 2 controllers, Halo and Amped for only $120 (US that is), about $250 Canadian I think, I'm not sure."
No one _actually_ writes like that. I'm sorry. There's a million-to-one shot that's an actual user review, but I'd bet good money it's not. Lets go through why:
*"I run a Pentium IV 2.2 GHz, ATI Radeon 9700 All-IN-Wonder 128 MB Video Card, and I have 2 GB of Ram" is believable. I know I love talking about how wonderful _my_ gaming computer is, and expect others to act the same.
*"Now you may think that my computer is really great, but in fact, my XP crashes a lot due to viruses downloaded with KaZaA, so they slow it down considerably." Ooooh. KaZaA. Buzzword. But wait! KaZaA is EVIL!!! It carries VIRUSES! That somehow do nothing but slow down the computer. Right.
*"My games ran slower before when I played Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, Max Payne, NHL 2003, Nascar 5, Mafia and Grand Theft Auto 3. Now, I can run all of these games at the maximum graphics resolution...." Buzzwords galore. I defy you to find one person who would actually list anything like that, and not simply say 'Before DirectX 9, Games would run too slow.' The reviewer is attempting to 'connect' with gamers by proving he's 'in the know' about cool games. Bullshit.
*"With my Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound System, I can really feel the crisp and clear 3 Dimensional Sound delivered to my computer with DirectX 9.0" Again, no one uses product placement like that.
*"Even if you have previously never noticed the difference when uploading to DirectX 6, to 7, to 8, to 8.1, you will now!!!!" I'm glad the 'average user' knows all the recent version changes, and feels it helpful to list them.
*"XBOX is so souped up with it's hard drive, and the touch-sensitive buttons on the controller, and the online play, that you just cannot get enough from playing racing games and Amped on XBOX." Oh just shut up. It's enough to pretend and review DX9, now you're ADVERTISING for OTHER Microsoft products? Just go fuck yourself.
*"By the way, if you're REALLY serious about buying XBOX, then get it on E-Bay. I got a really good deal, it was a bit used, but I got XBox, with 2 controllers, Halo and Amped for only $120 (US that is), about $250 Canadian I think, I'm not sure." Man, am I REALLY serious about buying XBOX! So serious I'll list possible US and Canadian prices to help all my REALLY serious friends!
The whole review feels fake, overly thought-out, and as 'real' as whore's tits.
Moral: Examples of Microsoft using false means to convey their message can be found anywhere and everywhere. I agree with the sentiment that ANY positive Microsoft press should be taken with a large bucket of salt.
According to the "Official Foosball Rules" that came with my foosball table (which came with the house when we bought it...) spinning is _not_ allowed in tournament games.
As I've never played a 'tournament' I play with spinning allowed, but YMMV.
-Trillian
Three YEARS of Spam!!
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Can you imagine leaving your email accounts for three years?! He'll have gone over the storage limit a hundred times over, what with the revolutionary new offers for penis growth offers, mortgage payments made easy, and little RC race-cars.
How much email do you think your accounts would collect in THREE YEARS?!
-Trillian
I don't think it's wishfull thinking
on
Christmas in 2050
·
· Score: 1
...assuming technological progress had all the funding it desired. With the exception of intelligent robots (and nuclear war, i'd hope) all the items you listed would have been possible (although flying autos might have been a _dumb_ idea) had they gotten as much funding as some people wanted.
Your list: "When I was a kid in the '50s, the futurists predicted routine space travel by now, commuting by flying automobiles, the hyrdrogen economy, copious nuclear power production, intelligent robots, oh - and the end of the world by nuclear war."
*Space travel could have been rutine (or at least pretty commonplace) had we not 'given up' after reaching the moon. Establishing a lunar colony and going to Mars were all possible, but went unfunded.
*Flying autos aren't technologicaly impossible, they're just not too smart of an idea. I'd hate to see the type of accidents people could accomplish given all three dimensions to move through...
*The hydrogen economy, again, was (and still is) in technological reach. Economic reach? Maybe next Christmas...
*Nuclear power, along with the hydrogen economy, are possible but not as imediatly profitable as some would like...
*Intelligent robots may be the only idea that is truly the stuff of sci-fi for the forseable future.
*And nuclear war? One item from your list I'm rather glad _didn't_ happen.
I'm not saying the article's predictions will come true, but that if (when?) they don't it won't be because the technology _COULDN'T_ have been developed, but because someone didn't get the money to do it. I think most technological delays aren't from lack of knowhow or scientific ability, but from lack of grant money....
Robotic cooking helpers, barbie dolls that walk and talk, nanotechnology assisting in cooking and making make-up better... Most of the examples from the article are not amazingly far off. The robotics to make a 'cooking companion' exist today and it's not far-fetched to have an 'intelligent' kitchen, with moniters and sensors in the oven and such, hooked up to the Internet to have it search for recipie ideas and help check to see how your food is doing.
The only thing I'd say is totaly out of reach, even with infinite research money, is 'mind reading' technology, especialy cheap enough to be had around the dinner table. Other than that, the article only sounds far fetched because people don't like putting money into ideas that may not be profitable.
(Were I to bet on it, I'd say the walking/talking Barbie WILL exist by 2050, and one that can do an okay job of interacting with the kid. I'll bet you anything. Toys make money, probably faster easier than an intelligent kitchen or mind-reading makeup. What these toys will do to the imagination, when it goes un-needed and unused, is a whole other issue....)
Slashdot Mirror
and they'll tell you what the tallest building in the world is: the Sears Tower. It's stupid to say a 101-story building is the tallest in the world when the Sears Tower has over 110 floors and the highest occupied floor in the world at 1,450 ft. Anyone from Chicago can tell you these shoddy knockoffs are just that.
Coicidentaly, I went to the Sears Tower Skydeck (the observing floor on 103) and their informational video actually had pics of the Kuala Lumpur towers. One of the narrators (an animated bird) asks the other, "But what about those towers in Malaysia?" and was of course brushed off with, "Well, if adding some sillt piece of masonry can get you a title, let them have it. We know we're truely the tallest."
Also of intrest, I remember when the Kuala Lumpur towers were finished and the owners of the Sears Tower (don't remember if it was still Sears at that point) looked into adding two or three 'dummy' floors, which would be all that was nescesary to beat the Kuala Lumpur towers. Unfortunatly, with the Taipei tower 'officially' measuring over 1,600 feet, that'd be a few too many dummy floors.
But anyone from Chicago can tell you why these imitations don't measure up to the real thing.
-Trillian
finkploud said, "I notice quite a lot of people up in arms over the free speech aspects of this. So I have to assume you guys are all ok with anti-abortion internet websites listing doctor's home address and encouraging people to kill them right?"
I believe the analogy others have used is "Your right to swing your arm ends the exact place my nose begins." This has been applied to free speech of telemarketers ("Your right to free speech ends when I don't want to listen") but could also apply here.
You are no longer gauranteed free speech when your speech endangers my safety or privacy.
And a quick note, to cut off possible counter-arguments. Sites or people that promote racist views or, as in the case of anti-abortion sites, may lead to violence are a tricky issue. But even if I disagree with what they say and they seem likely to promote violence, if they're not actually pushing violence it's hard to shut them down without violating the their freedom of speech. This really needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It's possible to have an anti-abortion site without it promoting violence.
Personally, having glanced at these websites, they may or may not prmote violence, but I would say they are NOT extreme enough to classify just viewing them as somehow supporting terorism...
-Trillian
Okay. You guys got me. I honestly pulled Homeworld and Homeworld 2 out of my ass because it was the first sequel that came to mind. But you're right, Homeworld is a bad example both because of the source code and because the first Homeworld still probably sells in the bargin bin.
But I think the general principal I was promoting is sound.
-Trillian
I think that more companies doing stuff like this (that is, releasing a large amount of free content with no or very little strings attached) could do more to counteract fears of piracy than any DRM could.
By releasing free content or making a big deal about free stuff when you pre-order you're going to be building customer loyalty. I realize console game piracy isn't as big of a problem as PC game piracy (at least in America) so this isn't the perfect example, but Nintendo probably ended up selling more Wind Waker copies because of the pre-order deal than they would have otherwise. Likewise with the new Rogue Squadron and Mario Kart games.
PC game companies should follow this lead. Releasing a previous game, in the case of a sequel, or a large number of exclusive demo levels, if it's a new game, can only be a good thing. Homeworld 2 might have sold more copies had you gotten a copy of Homeworld free with your pre-order. Or just free, period.
I remember the demo to Starcaft being three or four 'prequel' missions that took place within the storyline of the game, but were exclusively playable in the demo. I downloaded it even though I'd already bought and enjoyed the retail game. Customers like getting extra cool stuff for free, and will remember you for it.
The extension of that, and the subject of this post, relates to filesharing and piracy fears. If I feel company loyalty to the Hidden and Dangerous guys (because, hey, they gave me this really cool free thing!) I'm going to be less likely to pirate their software, and more likely to frown on those who do so.
I know there are people who will crack and distribute games ilegally just 'because they can' and those who aren't going to pay for a game no matter what. That's not who I'm talking about. There are people, like myself, who do actually buy games, but may occasionally also download illegal versions off Kazaa or the like. And getting our loyalty could do wonders to prevent a company's game from being downloaded without paying for it.
I know I'll be less likely to ever download Hidden and Dangerous 2 because of this. I'll remember that the company is obviously interested in customer loyalty and willing to make an effort to provide a quality product. Even if they're doing it for financial reasons rather than to get a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside (they may have followed the same line of reasoning I did) the end result is the same.
Just my two cents.
-Trillian
The doctor in question says, "In my professional opinion, growing up in the age of video games has helped me to learn how to perform laparoscopic surgery more easily and quickly."
I would have to say that while he may believe videogames helped him perform surgery, and they very well may have, he has no legitimacy to place a 'professional' opinion on it. His profession would be surgery, not hand-eye coordination or visual skills. To have a professional opinion on the subject, he would need to have studied it specifically and extensively.
It would seem this is geared, rather, towards his personal opinion. A study (or at least a look-over by someone in the field of hand-eye coordination or visual research) would be required for anyone to voice a professional opinion.
-Trillian
See subject.
They've covered the N-Gage in detail, making fun of it since it was announced, and this pretty much sums their position:
"I really wish that these media outlets would stop pretending the N-Gage is a real game system."
(that quote was in response to this article about the worldwide N-Gage launch and the 'parties' at different stores)
They also have this insightful comic.
-Trillian
I don't want to say history isn't interesting, but it's hard to compare Morrowind or Knights of the Old Republic to European geography. Morrowind is fun for reasons unrelated to the geography or history, although they both make the game feel like a real world.
But it's going to be hard to make wandering around Europe that exciting. Especially because it'll be hard to justify giving the player magic or Force powers.
There is definatly a possibility for Age of Empires type games to succesfully teach history, but it would be difficult to apply many real world situations to enjoyable games.
-Trillian
I, for one, welcome our new un-funny overlords.
Shoptroll said, "*Bzzzt* Wrong....Basically 1/2 the games available for bundle are now $30. Do the math = you come out $20 richer than before...."
Well, sort of. As far as I can tell, including looking around the Nintendo sight, I am right about Nintendo dropping the bundle. But I didn't say it wasn't a better value than it used to be, because in that respect you are correct. Getting a $99 Gamecube and a newly added $19.99 or $29.99 players choice game is cheaper than the old bundle, $149 for a GCN and a game. In addition, the new price breaks the $100 price barrier, which is a mental thing.
But when I origonally said "I think this is a poor choice," I should have expanded on that. What I meant was that, while I think the price drop is great, I think removing the bundle is a poor decision. That's because, as I said before, with a bundle there's actual incentive of getting a game, but there's also, I would argue, a higher mental incentive. People see paying one price for 2 things, even when the new deal offers 2 things for 2 prices that total cheaper than the old 1 price. If that makes any sense.
So I applaude Nintendo dropping their price and really do hope it works to sell more systems and games. But I think it would have been even BETTER had they included some game. Any game. Pikmin. Luigi's Mansion. As far as I can tell, not many people are buying them. I said it before and I stand by my claim the added percieved value to the bundle would outweigh the cost to Nintendo.
-Trillian
Sorry about the above link. Guess it didn't like me. Here's a link to the IGN Cube story. -Trillian
According to an article on IGN Cube [ http://cube.ign.com/articles/451/451364p1.html?fro mint=1 ] Harsison, VP of marketing and communications had a conference call with media reps and such. Durring the call he fielded questions, and IGN posted quotes of the call. Here are some of the choice picks:
"This is an aggressive move by Nintendo. This is an indication that this generation of consoles is about to enter the mass market."
"We believe this [GCN price at $99] is the best value in the history of videogames."
"Between now and the New Year more than 100 new GameCube titles will hit the shelves."
On GBA and GCN now selling at the same price: ""I don't think it creates a problem. In fact, you can buy an SP and a GCN for the price that you now pay for a PlayStation 2 bundle. We continue to sell as many GBAs as we can get."
And, perhaps most interesting to those without GC's or (like myself) those with but still interested in how Nintendo is planning their marketing strategies:
"We don't have any plans to do any software bundles."
Personally, I think this is a poor choice. Even a Player's Choice bundle worth $20 (with Star Fox Adventures, Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion now at $19.99) there's a mental bonus to getting a system with a free game. And, as far as I know, those games are not huge sellers so I doubt Nintendo would lose a huge number of game sales from the deal...
Also of intrest, Harrison said, "GameCube production will begin again later this fall."
-Trillian
Sparr0 said: "where we have the UCC which says they have to give you a refund (yeah, theres restrictions. no, joe gamer isnt affected by any of them). they dont like it? tough titties. Always take a copy with you when you go to return a game. has never failed."
Could you be more specific? I would seem you're talking about the Uniform Commercial Code. I looked it up (yay Google) and found it online here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html
Looking under section 2, Sales, offered no obvious example of what you seem to be talking about. That a seller is obligated to give a refund for a returned product. Even running a query for "return", I could find nothing helpful. There were a couple sections that talking about the provisions for returning sold goods if the two parties _AGREED_ the buyer would have the right to return them, but nothing that seemed to simply say "All bought goods may be returned."
Am I missing something? Becuase if you're right, that would definatly be nifty.
-Trillian
tomhudson said, "6pm EST, Sept 12, 2003, after repeated nmappings and traceroutes (as curious /.ers try to find out why their site melted, what they were running, etc.), Department of Homeland Security claims that site is under cyber-attack."
As of 5 PM CST (6 PM EST) I'm unable to connect to energy.gov and am getting a IE "This page cannot be displayed" error. A quick hop over to netcraft shows that no uptime data is available on energy.gov, which may or may not mean anything.
Did we manage to slashdot a gov't website?
-Trillian
And how many XBox's are there in Europe?
I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than there are GameCubes, but it damn sure isn't 15 million. As anyone who reads games.slashdot regularly, Nintendo does continue to beat out XBox worldwide. Admitadly, not by much, and the majority of that is due to the Japanese market. But the market does exist for GameCube. I _just_ bought one, the first and only of ANY of the Next Gen systems I plan to buy. And I'm here in the U.S. of A. F-Zero GX, Zelda, Mario, and Samus, to name a few, continue to be a bigger draw for me. In addition, as someone who starts college in less than two weeks, I'm looking forward to having the system with the best party games out there.
The fact of the matter is, Nintendo sales WILL decline if companys continue to state the 'obvious': that "GameCube is a declining business." Bullshit. It's declining because you're helping it to do so. Nintendo isn't doing all they can to sell the system either (and from other posts and storys on Slashdot, Europe gets the short end of the stick again and again), but if a company leaves a system then that company will sell no games on that system...
Why does Nintendo continue to get the bad rap? I do fear that the GameCube will go the route of the N64, but I can only plan so far ahead. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the fun-as-hell games that are out there now, and coming out soon. Mario Sunshine, Super Monkey Ball, F-Zero GX, Rogue Leader, Pikmin, Eternal Darkness... And soon, stuff like Rogue Squadren 3 and a new Mario Kart.
The GC may end up 'losing' the console wars, but that doesn't mean owners won't have a damn good time playing what comes out for it for the next couple years. Or even longer. I still play my old-school Nintendo Entertainment System. And y'know what? I still find it damn entertaining.
-Trillian
BJZQ8 Said, "Hyrdrogen "clean" fuel is a misnomer...since the hydrogen you get from one of these California H2 stations is made from natural gas, and not electrolysis. You end up using fossil fuels just the same."
c ar.htm
That's an over simplification. I've seen three levels of understanding with the use of hydrogen fueling, and the two most common are wrong.
The first is the (seemingly) obvious: hydrogen doesn't emit greenhouse gasses, and is cleaner to use.
Digging slightly deeper, some people notice that, in fact, there isn't a lot of easy-to-access hydrogen sitting around. So getting that hydrogen will use the fossil fuels we were trying to avoid using. At this level, people say, "Well, hydrogen fuel is nice and all, but it just moves the problem from the car itself emitting gasses to the hydrogen plant. We shouldn't bother with hydrogen."
But saying hydrogen fuel just moves the problem of pollution one step back doesn't dig deep enough. Because at a large factory designed to extract hydrogen, you're going to be able to get much more efficiency out of the process. A quick Google search pointed to a number of webpages saying the average car internal combustion engine gets between 20% and 30% of the possible energy out of its gas. Most cars are on the lower end of that spectrum. The rest is of the energy wasted as heat and whatnot. But at a multi-million or billion dollar extracting plant, that efficiency is going to rise, so that extracting hydrogen DOES become more environmentally friendly. When you're doing something on a large scale, you can afford to get more efficient. Even counting in the extra step of converting the energy from fossil fuel to hydrogen (which, of course, means you're going to lose some of that potential energy) you should be able to pollute less than current gas cars.
That isn't to say the problem of fossil fuel pollution is entirely removed. People who hearald the coming of the hydrogen age as an immediate and simple sollution to pullotion need to think a little harder. But people who laugh at hydrogen use, saying it will be just as polluting, need to think a little harder too.
-Trillian
Other notes (all from easy google searches):
A Clinton-era paper on the possibilities of hydrogen cars: http://www.llnl.gov/str/Hybrid.html
A spec-sheet of the above concept car: http://www.clean-air.org/hybrid_hydrogen_concept_
I thought it was "Shall we play a game?"
Sure you can: Microsoft is dumb!
Was that so hard...?
-Trillian
See subject.
Viewsonic said, "Why would this be bad? Vivendi make **PC** games.Not console games! Both mediums are entirely different. Trying to mix the two together would be a horrible mistake. I know Microsoft needs games, but come on, who the heck wants to play games that were designed for PCs?"
Mircosoft has done a really good job ignoring consumers and doing what they feel will be the best for their market share. While no one wants to play computer games for PCs, if Microsoft felt they could increase XBOX sales by releasing exlusives (which they probably could) do you honestly think they wouldn't do it?
What's to stop them from releasing a "XBOX Commander" (like their failed PC RTS controller) and releasing Starcraft II as an XBOX exclusive? If they buy the company that makes the game, then nothing. They could even release a RTS game for the XBOX and just have crippled controls using the XBOX controller.
"They're treating it like all games PC games are couch potato games, which they most certainly are NOT."
That's the whole point. Personaly, I think console first person shooters are a crime against nature. Sniping with a controller? HA! Give me a mouse and a keyboard any day. (I know Microsoft is not the only one releasing FPS games on consoles.) The point is companies are ignorring the difference in the advantages of keyboard/mouse vs. controller, and the ability to 'fun-ly' play Diablo II on computer compared to Legend of Zelda on a console.
Personally, I don't want to see the two cross over. I hope to Jebus this buyout won't happen, partially because I hate to see anything that gives Microsoft an advantage, but more because I think it will result in poor games. When you try to make a PC game for a console or a console game for a PC, the gamer usually ends up with the short end of the stick.
-Trillian
I was (and still am) driving a 1984 Tercel Hatchback 2-door. Myself being 18 (born in 1984), it's probably older than I am. I inherited it from my grandmother, the traditional "once a week to the grocery store" lady. The car is 18+ years old and has a whopping 45,000 miles on it... Still running great, by the way! I love my car! -Trillian
deop wrote: "Isn't it important to get beyond icons? What good are these symbols of freedom and liberty, if the land for which they stand no longer holds firm to those ideals in the face of some threat from abroad? How can Lady Liberty mean anything in this country today, where immigrants are rounded up and shipped off for the slightest violation of the conditions of their stay?
Map the monuments, but understand that without truth and ideals behind them, they are only rusting metal and eroding stone."
I don't totaly disagree. I think some of our current foriegn and domestic policies are abysmal and tragic, and I honestly fear for what the future of the USA could look like. But I think the Statue of Liberty (just look at the _name_, I mean come on...) or the Lincoln Memorial (or etc. etc. etc.) are still important.
While their truth and ideals may not currently hold as strongly in this country as many of us would like, I don't think they _can_ be errased entirely. Regardless of the actions of whoever is in the White House, Dr. King, Jr stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and communicated to the world how there were still people would not stand for inequality. Even if we bomb another country without merit (or UN approval...) the monument is still to someone who kept the nation united, for better or for worse, and struck down slavery, one of the most disgusting human practices.
Lady Liberty might cry at the denial of civil rights to immigrants or illegal detainees, held with secret evidence and no legal council, but she has seen worse. She watched across the Atlantic while Hitler slaughtered millions, and back to America while the National Guard gunned down our own students for protesting our own war. But she has also seen America at its best.
We're going through a rough time, yes. I looks like, with the possible invasion of Iraq and trouble with North Korea, that things will get worse. But our current actions can NOT erase what has gone before.
Lincoln curtailed civil liberties of reporters in the North who felt the South should be let go, and many (all?) of the Founding Fathers kept slaves. America does not have a 'pretty' history, full of love and peace. But America's monuments are built to remind us of when we were at our best.
We DO need to learn from past mistakes, and try to prevent and undo mistakes we're making right now. But to say the Statue of Liberty or Lincoln Memorial are without meaning is bullshit, regardless of what America's actions are. We could slaughter Iraqi women and children wholesale and have a party about it, and the Lincoln Memorial will still and always stand for a time when people would have stood up and protested. As long as we remember what is true and good, the truth and ideals behind our monuments will remain.
Lady Liberty stands for Liberty, and when she cries for our poor choices she continues to stand tall in remembrence of better times, and hope that they will return.
-Trillian
I agree, to some extent, that the idea of replacing the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, the Capitol Building, or any other well-known national monument as exactly as possible is slightly silly. The comment made about replacing a car after a crash, and not wanting to replicate all of the origonal dings and scratches is somewhat reasonable.
But I think you're missing the point about the symbolism and memories contained in these monuments. If my car was totaled, I would be sad not only because I would have lost simply a means of transportation, but I would have lost a location where memories were made. Driving on the highway while friends taunted the 18 year-old engine ("Wow! It hit 55! You think it can get to sixty?"), packing 7 people into a 2-door hatchback, etc. I'd miss all that had happened in the car, as well as the car itself.
Likewise, losing the Statue of Liberty to terrorists, a giant space-crane, Godzilla, or whatever won't simply mean there's new real-estate open on Liberty Island. It'll mean a national monument that watched over hundreds of thousands of immigrants, saw the USA through two World Wars, a presidential assasination, putting people on the moon, the Cold War, Vietnam, etc, etc, etc, will be gone.
I use the Statue of Liberty as an example because I think it's America's 'best' and 'most important' monument. I don't particularly care for Mt. Rushmore (I think it's vaguely creepy), and the Capitol Building doesn't impress me much. The Statue of Liberty represents ideals that America hasn't always been great holding true to, I admit. I'll be the first to criticize the current administration and have no problem pointing out ways we've screwed up in the past. We've fucked up a lot, both internaly and with the rest of the world, and I'm sure we'll continue doing it. But I think the Statue of Liberty, or the Lincoln Memorial, or the Jefferson, or the Washington represent what is, has, and (I _really_ hope) will continue to be great about the USA.
So. I don't think mapping these monuments down to a quarter inch is 'silly' or 'stupid' or a 'waste of time.' Having recently visited New York and seen Lady Liberty up close, and still strongly remembering my 8th grade clase trip to Washington D.C., I would be heartbroken if any of a number of our national monuments fell. I can't honestly say I would support rebuilding the Statue of Liberty exactly as she stood. It would be kind of weird, I recognize that.
But I definatly think we should have the option. At the very least, it will allow for faithful 3D models to be replicated. Maybe someday my kids will be able to walk through a 3D model of New York City _exactly_ the way it stood on September 10th, 2001.
So maybe these 3D models will be completely useless, either because the monuments will not be attacked or because people won't want to rebuild them exactly the same.
But I think it would be a horrible shame not to have the option.
-Trillian
I was just looking at download.com's user opinions of Microsoft's newly released DirectX 9. Most of the reviews were positive, with the unsurprising comments that it crashed a couple systems and such. One review, however, caught my eye:
""THE BEST VIDEO-AUDIO EnhanceX YET!!!!"
DirectX 9.0 definitely delivers the future of gaming straight into your computer. I run a Pentium IV 2.2 GHz, ATI Radeon 9700 All-IN-Wonder 128 MB Video Card, and I have 2 GB of Ram. Now you may think that my computer is really great, but in fact, my XP crashes a lot due to viruses downloaded with KaZaA, so they slow it down considerably. I can proudly say that DirectX has solved this problem for my gaming abilities. My games ran slower before when I played Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, Max Payne, NHL 2003, Nascar 5, Mafia and Grand Theft Auto 3. Now, I can run all of these games at the maximum graphics resolution, with superb audio and video enhancements. With my Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound System, I can really feel the crisp and clear 3 Dimensional Sound delivered to my computer with DirectX 9.0. This is the best thing that I have downloaded on the internet. Even if you have previously never noticed the difference when uploading to DirectX 6, to 7, to 8, to 8.1, you will now!!!! The performance is incredible. Don't delay!!!! Download it to play your games like you've never felt adrenaline more in your entire life!! Microsoft RULES!!!! By the way, don't forget to buy XBox, it's a sick system. They may be releasing PS3 in a few years, but I don't know if they'll have online gaming for that or not. XBOX is so souped up with it's hard drive, and the touch-sensitive buttons on the controller, and the online play, that you just cannot get enough from playing racing games and Amped on XBOX. By the way, if you're REALLY serious about buying XBOX, then get it on E-Bay. I got a really good deal, it was a bit used, but I got XBox, with 2 controllers, Halo and Amped for only $120 (US that is), about $250 Canadian I think, I'm not sure."
No one _actually_ writes like that. I'm sorry. There's a million-to-one shot that's an actual user review, but I'd bet good money it's not. Lets go through why:
*"I run a Pentium IV 2.2 GHz, ATI Radeon 9700 All-IN-Wonder 128 MB Video Card, and I have 2 GB of Ram" is believable. I know I love talking about how wonderful _my_ gaming computer is, and expect others to act the same.
*"Now you may think that my computer is really great, but in fact, my XP crashes a lot due to viruses downloaded with KaZaA, so they slow it down considerably." Ooooh. KaZaA. Buzzword. But wait! KaZaA is EVIL!!! It carries VIRUSES! That somehow do nothing but slow down the computer. Right.
*"My games ran slower before when I played Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, Max Payne, NHL 2003, Nascar 5, Mafia and Grand Theft Auto 3. Now, I can run all of these games at the maximum graphics resolution...." Buzzwords galore. I defy you to find one person who would actually list anything like that, and not simply say 'Before DirectX 9, Games would run too slow.' The reviewer is attempting to 'connect' with gamers by proving he's 'in the know' about cool games. Bullshit.
*"With my Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound System, I can really feel the crisp and clear 3 Dimensional Sound delivered to my computer with DirectX 9.0" Again, no one uses product placement like that.
*"Even if you have previously never noticed the difference when uploading to DirectX 6, to 7, to 8, to 8.1, you will now!!!!" I'm glad the 'average user' knows all the recent version changes, and feels it helpful to list them.
*"XBOX is so souped up with it's hard drive, and the touch-sensitive buttons on the controller, and the online play, that you just cannot get enough from playing racing games and Amped on XBOX." Oh just shut up. It's enough to pretend and review DX9, now you're ADVERTISING for OTHER Microsoft products? Just go fuck yourself.
*"By the way, if you're REALLY serious about buying XBOX, then get it on E-Bay. I got a really good deal, it was a bit used, but I got XBox, with 2 controllers, Halo and Amped for only $120 (US that is), about $250 Canadian I think, I'm not sure." Man, am I REALLY serious about buying XBOX! So serious I'll list possible US and Canadian prices to help all my REALLY serious friends!
The whole review feels fake, overly thought-out, and as 'real' as whore's tits.
Moral: Examples of Microsoft using false means to convey their message can be found anywhere and everywhere. I agree with the sentiment that ANY positive Microsoft press should be taken with a large bucket of salt.
-Trillian
According to the "Official Foosball Rules" that came with my foosball table (which came with the house when we bought it...) spinning is _not_ allowed in tournament games.
As I've never played a 'tournament' I play with spinning allowed, but YMMV.
-Trillian
Can you imagine leaving your email accounts for three years?! He'll have gone over the storage limit a hundred times over, what with the revolutionary new offers for penis growth offers, mortgage payments made easy, and little RC race-cars.
How much email do you think your accounts would collect in THREE YEARS?!
-Trillian
...assuming technological progress had all the funding it desired. With the exception of intelligent robots (and nuclear war, i'd hope) all the items you listed would have been possible (although flying autos might have been a _dumb_ idea) had they gotten as much funding as some people wanted.
Your list: "When I was a kid in the '50s, the futurists predicted routine space travel by now, commuting by flying automobiles, the hyrdrogen economy, copious nuclear power production, intelligent robots, oh - and the end of the world by nuclear war."
*Space travel could have been rutine (or at least pretty commonplace) had we not 'given up' after reaching the moon. Establishing a lunar colony and going to Mars were all possible, but went unfunded.
*Flying autos aren't technologicaly impossible, they're just not too smart of an idea. I'd hate to see the type of accidents people could accomplish given all three dimensions to move through...
*The hydrogen economy, again, was (and still is) in technological reach. Economic reach? Maybe next Christmas...
*Nuclear power, along with the hydrogen economy, are possible but not as imediatly profitable as some would like...
*Intelligent robots may be the only idea that is truly the stuff of sci-fi for the forseable future.
*And nuclear war? One item from your list I'm rather glad _didn't_ happen.
I'm not saying the article's predictions will come true, but that if (when?) they don't it won't be because the technology _COULDN'T_ have been developed, but because someone didn't get the money to do it. I think most technological delays aren't from lack of knowhow or scientific ability, but from lack of grant money....
Robotic cooking helpers, barbie dolls that walk and talk, nanotechnology assisting in cooking and making make-up better... Most of the examples from the article are not amazingly far off. The robotics to make a 'cooking companion' exist today and it's not far-fetched to have an 'intelligent' kitchen, with moniters and sensors in the oven and such, hooked up to the Internet to have it search for recipie ideas and help check to see how your food is doing.
The only thing I'd say is totaly out of reach, even with infinite research money, is 'mind reading' technology, especialy cheap enough to be had around the dinner table. Other than that, the article only sounds far fetched because people don't like putting money into ideas that may not be profitable.
(Were I to bet on it, I'd say the walking/talking Barbie WILL exist by 2050, and one that can do an okay job of interacting with the kid. I'll bet you anything. Toys make money, probably faster easier than an intelligent kitchen or mind-reading makeup. What these toys will do to the imagination, when it goes un-needed and unused, is a whole other issue....)
Just my $.02
-Trillian