Perhaps only when deciding whether or not to continue to live. Or should we go ahead and tell teenagers that become suicidal that that's a good plan, their future selves possibly regretting the decision not withstanding?
Indeed, the earth has fire every day. You're wrong about the huge ball of fire though. And in neither case is there a mechanism by which either could result in the earth being consumed by fire tomorrow, or within our lifetimes.
Whereas by contrast, there is indeed brain restoration research being conducted, and the breakthroughs that will fix this or that brain issue will arrive mostly in our lifetimes.
I know the earth won't be consumed by fire tomorrow because there's no physical mechanism by which that could happen. On the other hand, medical advancements are happening all the time. In fact, it's fairly possible to predict areas in which advancements are even likely if you study the journals.
Re:I have an organ donor card...
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Yeah, but you're making decisions now for half of yourself. How can you even guess what he might want? After all, even half of yourself might have a higher IQ than many retarded people. Shall we just start harvesting their organs?
There are people out there trying to apply agile to education, but traditional methods are often legally ingrained to the point where the experiment is so limited that you can't find out whether or not it could actually be effective.
If teachers can teach kids to pass a sufficiently rigorous test, I think we could all be pretty satisfied. The problem is the test, not that performance is linked to testing.
Make the test much, much longer. It should be 4 or 5 days long at the end of each year. Make the tests much more broad as well. Then let the teachers teach to it.
It comes down to the laws of advertising, in which 'faster' is legally constrained to 'as fast as'. So both X can be faster than Y, and Y can be faster than X, if they are the same speed.
I'm doubtful that the $100 is worthwhile for anyone who intends primarily to use the ipad as a reader. The screen on the ipad 2 is 'good enough' for that.
Sure, wooden graphics cards don't use as much electricity, but they have to cut down trees to make them. All in all, the wooden graphic cards are actually worse for the environment.
It's easy to tell the difference because the scaling artifacts suck. It's not about the pixel density, it's about matching the native resolution so you don't scale.
As more and more people have focused on 'winning' the search results on google, I've gotten more and more 'wrong' results there. Bing has caught up with the google of today, and sadly neither can compete with the google of 4 years ago.
Well, TFA says 1280x800. And 1.2 ghz processor is pretty much a given, there's almost nothing they could equip it with these days slower than that. 1.5 or 1.8 is more likely. 1 gig ram seems pretty likely too. So it seems this device has pretty good odds of delivering what you want.
Apple got one thing right on ipad3... high res. High enough for movie playback to have acceptable quality at last. Manufacturers figure it out: there is a large segment of the population waiting for tablets that do at least 1080p natively so they can be used to watch movies.
I wouldn't say most of us are all that secretive. It's more of a case that stuff is so customized and specific to the game that generalizing to anyone else's problem represents a substantial challenge.
Find a book on 2d graphics and start learning. It's really, really trivial. Almost nothing required beyond the ability to add and subtract.
3d is a quantum leap more difficult, requiring matrix algebra and calculus, so I'd stay away from it unless you really want to do some studying.
So learn what a sprite is, get one appearing on screen, start manipulating it according to the physics equations you look up, and see how it behaves.
I'll also warn you that you aren't likely to find someone to build your game, the way you want. At best, you might find someone to collaborate with, but you won't get exactly what you want unless you are leading the process, and able to change the direction by implementing it yourself when your partner starts to depart. The world is full of people with game ideas, including pretty much 100% of those who would be candidates to build your game, and they'd typically rather work on their own idea.
Also, i've seen the game you describe on armor games. It had squads on planets shooting at each other with a variety of weapons and the planets had varying gravity impacting the path of projectiles. It was pretty well done, so you might want to check it out. I'd find it for you but the search on that site is pretty useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I misunderstood you to be suggesting I try reading without the retina display.
Perhaps only when deciding whether or not to continue to live. Or should we go ahead and tell teenagers that become suicidal that that's a good plan, their future selves possibly regretting the decision not withstanding?
Do I need to to know that the lower res display was good enough? I'm not claiming the retina display isn't better.
Indeed, the earth has fire every day. You're wrong about the huge ball of fire though. And in neither case is there a mechanism by which either could result in the earth being consumed by fire tomorrow, or within our lifetimes.
Whereas by contrast, there is indeed brain restoration research being conducted, and the breakthroughs that will fix this or that brain issue will arrive mostly in our lifetimes.
What's your timeframe? I'd be shocked if artificial brainstem were not available in the next 20 years.
I know the earth won't be consumed by fire tomorrow because there's no physical mechanism by which that could happen. On the other hand, medical advancements are happening all the time. In fact, it's fairly possible to predict areas in which advancements are even likely if you study the journals.
Yeah, but you're making decisions now for half of yourself. How can you even guess what he might want? After all, even half of yourself might have a higher IQ than many retarded people. Shall we just start harvesting their organs?
There are people out there trying to apply agile to education, but traditional methods are often legally ingrained to the point where the experiment is so limited that you can't find out whether or not it could actually be effective.
If teachers can teach kids to pass a sufficiently rigorous test, I think we could all be pretty satisfied. The problem is the test, not that performance is linked to testing.
Make the test much, much longer. It should be 4 or 5 days long at the end of each year. Make the tests much more broad as well. Then let the teachers teach to it.
I have ... I don't know what you think is wrong with it, so I'm not sure how to address it any better.
I've read a couple of books with it. It's fine.
That just releases the carbon faster!
The stuff they don't agree on is all anyone would care to learn about in a civics class.
Seems good enough to me.
It comes down to the laws of advertising, in which 'faster' is legally constrained to 'as fast as'. So both X can be faster than Y, and Y can be faster than X, if they are the same speed.
I'm doubtful that the $100 is worthwhile for anyone who intends primarily to use the ipad as a reader. The screen on the ipad 2 is 'good enough' for that.
Sure, wooden graphics cards don't use as much electricity, but they have to cut down trees to make them. All in all, the wooden graphic cards are actually worse for the environment.
It's easy to tell the difference because the scaling artifacts suck. It's not about the pixel density, it's about matching the native resolution so you don't scale.
Only if you get caught. It's a lot like Marijuana. Everyone is doing it, and there's token enforcement targeted only at oppressing the poor.
As more and more people have focused on 'winning' the search results on google, I've gotten more and more 'wrong' results there. Bing has caught up with the google of today, and sadly neither can compete with the google of 4 years ago.
Well, TFA says 1280x800. And 1.2 ghz processor is pretty much a given, there's almost nothing they could equip it with these days slower than that. 1.5 or 1.8 is more likely. 1 gig ram seems pretty likely too. So it seems this device has pretty good odds of delivering what you want.
Apple got one thing right on ipad3 ... high res. High enough for movie playback to have acceptable quality at last. Manufacturers figure it out: there is a large segment of the population waiting for tablets that do at least 1080p natively so they can be used to watch movies.
Gravitee wars, mentioned elsewhere in this thread was the game I was thinking of.
I wouldn't say most of us are all that secretive. It's more of a case that stuff is so customized and specific to the game that generalizing to anyone else's problem represents a substantial challenge.
Find a book on 2d graphics and start learning. It's really, really trivial. Almost nothing required beyond the ability to add and subtract.
3d is a quantum leap more difficult, requiring matrix algebra and calculus, so I'd stay away from it unless you really want to do some studying.
So learn what a sprite is, get one appearing on screen, start manipulating it according to the physics equations you look up, and see how it behaves.
I'll also warn you that you aren't likely to find someone to build your game, the way you want. At best, you might find someone to collaborate with, but you won't get exactly what you want unless you are leading the process, and able to change the direction by implementing it yourself when your partner starts to depart. The world is full of people with game ideas, including pretty much 100% of those who would be candidates to build your game, and they'd typically rather work on their own idea.
Also, i've seen the game you describe on armor games. It had squads on planets shooting at each other with a variety of weapons and the planets had varying gravity impacting the path of projectiles.
It was pretty well done, so you might want to check it out. I'd find it for you but the search on that site is pretty useless.
20 minutes.
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/02/16/world-record-127-the-record-for-holding-your-breath-is-shattered-and-now-stands-at-19-minutes/