The 9-9-9-24 timings are standard DDR timings, whereas the others are DDR2 timings.
The original DDR got to around 2-2-2, DDR2 got to as low as 4-4-4, and DDR3 is getting down to the 7-7-7 range.
It's pretty obvious though, you raise the clockspeed, more cycles will pass during the time you are waiting on *insert latency measurement of choice here*. Still may be quicker in terms of ns, but I'll leave the math up to you.:P
Yeah, I'm aware that some people absorb calories from food easier, and some people burn calories faster, but the fact remains, you get fat from eating more calories than you burn.
I also wasn't placing all the blame on the overweight person, I was just saying there is not some magical food that will make you fat if you eat it.
Ultimately, it is the overweight person's responsibility though. Blaming fast food or HFCS or whatever doesn't help the situation.
I know what HFCS means. You should also learn to read, I was comparing HFCS to sucrose, I did not say that HFCS had sucrose in it. Sucrose is 50% fructose, while HFCS is only 55% fructose. I was saying that the increased fructose in HFCS is not enough to make any noticeable differences compared to sucrose, and any difference may be more than made up for by the added sweetness of the HFCS.
Of course, I'm the daft one, when you can't read. Also, that sentence isn't a triple negative. There are two negatives in that sentence, but the sentence can still only be read one way, so I don't see it as a true double negative either. Maybe a bit awkward, but I don't see how to better phrase it. I couldn't say that HFCS did trigger insulin, because thats only true to 45%. What I should have done was explained that sucrose is also 50% fructose and it is the fructose that does not trigger insulin, so sucrose and HFCS have this problem to almost the same degree. I just assumed people would realize I was comparing HFCS to sucrose (as that was in use prior to HFCS), and that sucrose was half fructose (figured most people around here would know that).
It's not HFCS that doesn't trigger the pancreas to release insulin, it is fructose.
The amount of extra fructose in HFCS as opposed to sucrose is almost inconsequential, especially if the extra sweetness in HFCS leads to less being used.
As for your anecdotal evidence, is it not possible that by avoiding HFCS causes people to consume less calories because when you would've grabbed a coke or a snack before, now you can't because it has HFCS in it?
BTW I'm all for getting rid of corn subsidies as well as the sugar import quotas, which were originally put in place to protect the sugar industry (Isn't that ironic.:P). I don't care about the corn industry or HFCS at all, just hate all the alarmism over HFCS just because people can't admit it's their fault and take responsibility for their actions.
HFCS is not the reason people are fat, it's not even one of the major contributing reasons, I doubt it's even a minor contributing reason.
HFCS is not the problem. The problem is simple, too many calories in, too few calories out.
HFCS is no worse for you than sucrose, and because it is sweeter than cane sugar per calorie, it may even be better.
The real answer is that calorie consumption has increase over 20 percent since 1980, and physical activity has probably decreased during the same period.
People always like to place blame on external target rather than looking at the real problem, that people eat too much. It's easy to blame HFCS (though its no worse than sugar) or fatty foods (though many countries eat much more fat than we do yet don't get fat). Much harder to look at the situation honestly and say that we are a bunch of lazy gluttons.
'It's all the fault of Nixon and that damned HFCS!' Is a great feelgood answer that doesn't hurt anyones feelings, but it simply isn't the truth.
RE 4 was the game that fixed the glaring control problems with the RE series though. About 8-9 years late, I'll give you, but RE 4 on its own merits deserves to be on a list of the best games ever. Or at least it deserves to be in the discussion. Can't penalize a game just because it comes from a crappy series. Not that RE is exactly a crappy series, but the earlier games did border on unplayable control wise at times. I definitely wouldn't put those on my top games list, but RE 4 is a great game.
Well we don't officially know if MP3 will even have online multiplayer. Seems like thats the only reason it could have been delayed a full year or more from launch, when it was originally slated to come out.
Even if it does have online multiplayer, I'm not sure I trust Nintendo to make the online experience anywhere near as good as xbox live, what with friend codes.
Now I think MP is a better game than Halo (which I find kind of boring, having been spoiled by years of UT and Quake on the PC), but I don't know it will ever manage the popularity Halo has simply because the gameplay is so different.
I mean on the outside, MP3 looks like your average FPS, but then you play it and realize its more of an adventure/mystery game than a shooter. So maybe shooter fans might buy it and not like it, and the people who might like it ignore it because they think it's just a shooter.
With the success the Wii is having though, if they manage to get the controls just right, and the game lives up to the previous two, and they manage to market it just right, it could be really successful.
What about how Chimps hunt and kill Colobus monkeys, and even engage in warfare with other groups of Chimps?
That's the thing about nature, a species will do anything it must to survive. We already treat animals better than animals treat other animals for the most part, and even better than we treat other humans occasionally.
Which is not to say I think we should treat animals like crap for fun or entertainment, that is just not logical, there is no evolutionary justification for that. But if we have to experiment on some chimps to cure cancer, tough shit for the chimps, humans come first.
No, what is 'dumbed down' about WoW is the lack of any true skill system, to where the only way to advance in the game is to get better gear. The talent system is far to limited for the statwhore in me, I much prefer to be able to superspecialize in one specific aspect of my character if I so choose. I hate arbitrary limitations that say 'you can't get that skill without this skill'. I know I know, its for balancing reasons, I just think MMO devs need to come up with better ways to balance while allowing more open ended playstyles. There is certainly enough money in the market to make it worth their while. I want to be able to put all my points in 1hb and be a hammer wielding maniac, or all my points in defense skills and be nearly invincible. MMO devs, figure it out, balance it, and you got my money.
It could also be considered dumbed down because it is easy to level, but I consider that a good thing.
God of War is a great franchise (just beat GoW II, much better than the first), but it doesn't have anywhere close to the power of a FF or a GT. Both of those games have sold several times as many copies as GoW.
Well DQ IX is on the DS, so they aren't different markets anymore.
NSMB is the 3rd best selling game ever in japan in the time period you mention, only behind 2 pokemon titles, and almost 1 million more than DQ VIII, the highest selling DQ title. That being the most recent Mario title shows that Mario still has amazing popularity.
As far as not being a system seller anymore, that may be accurate, but judging whether a game is a 'system seller' or not is very hard to judge objectively. Just going by the numbers, NSMB sold to a larger percentage of DS users than any DQ or FF title did to PS2 users. Hell even SMS sold to a larger percentage of gamecube owners than the DQ or FF games did to PS2 users.
I think the gamecube, and to a lesser extent the N64, were such dismal failures that it's silly to judge the popularity of franchises based on their sales on those systems. Of course you could say that those systems were a failure because those franchises are no longer popular, but I don't think that can be proven with objective facts.
I don't think any single franchise can singlehandedly make a console a success these days, and I think even square enix realizes this, which is why DQ IX is going to DS.
Anarchy Online was released unfinished in beta state, and got a reputation for being a crap game. Despite all the bugs being fixed and a few excellent expansion packs being released, it never got over the stigma of being a crappy game, and never won back those people who quit in the beginning.
I beta tested it, so I knew it wasn't finished at release, so waited a couple months when all the most terrible bugs were fixed, and got several years of enjoyment out of it. People who didn't beta test it and bought it on release probably said 'wtf is this' and cancelled immediately. It was a really good game that never reached the potential audience it could have because of a bad first impression.
I understand some companies (especially smaller ones like funcom) have the desire at the end of a long expensive development to get a product out to start getting a return on their investment, but it can be really detrimental to their long term success if the game sucks.
The Gates foundation has an endowment of over $30 Billion dollars(granted Bill only donated a small amount of that, most of it was from Warren Buffet).
Bill Gates also doesn't make anywhere near $40 billion a year. His net worth is $53 billion, but his salary is less than a million. Of course he still probably makes a few billion per year just off interest and investments, but that's a whole other topic.
According to Forbes Bill gave away about $30 billion just in the period from 2000-2004, the Gates foundation is just a small part of that. So he gave away $30 billion, and has a net worth of $53 billion, that means he's given away more than 1/3rd of his total net worth. Sure that doesn't put him in the poor house, but there is absolutely no reason to minimize what he has done.
So please don't make up crap saying 'but it's only 1/20,000th of his money' when that is clearly BS, and 5 seconds of looking up the numbers, which are fairly publicly available, would show that's not the case.
The US Mint is kind of traditionalist, and value stability and trust very highly. That and people are just comfortable with the good old fashioned greenback. It's probably mostly aesthetic and irrational, but there is something about american currency that feels reassuring compared to foriegn currency, regardless of how many security features and hideous color schemes they have. You heard all the controversy about the new $10 and $20 bills when they were introduced right? The color scheme on those is mild compared to much of the world's currency.
Put simply, people like their money to look like money, and when americans think of money they think green ink intaglio printed on cloth paper 6.14 inches by 2.61 inches.
..to removing grinding is ultimately more unique content, and the removal of randomized rewards.
The second is farily simple, if the boss always drops the item, you've no need to come back and kill him again next week, and the week after, and the week after that. No reason at all to grind now.
The first part of that is the hard part. How do you keep up with player's demand for content without arbitrarily slowing them down. You could make the content very very difficult so that players progress very slowly, but that is not likely to be very popular, or very fun.
You could introduce dynamic content that is generated on the fly, which has been done to a limited extent in various games, but it doesn't work well enough to make up a large portion of the content.
I think a large part of the solution needs to be real GMs with the ability to truly interact with the players, not just glorified customer service people. Fresh content created in real time by GMs and dynamic computer generated content combined would drastically reduce the grinding.
The current model of huge chunks of content delivered every couple of months simply doesn't work.
What happened is that Hakkar(the boss of Zul'Gurub), has a disease that players can spread to other nearby players, or npcs. The disease was supposed to be removed upon leaving the instance, but hunter pets carried back to town and everyone was getting the disease because NPCs in the towns got infected, so you couldnt go near a town without getting the disease. They have since changed it so the disease only works inside the zul'gurub instance and doesn't affect pets..
Slashdot Mirror
err, I meant to say that the 9-9-9-24 were DDR3 timings and the others were DDR.
my brain doesn't work this late.
The 9-9-9-24 timings are standard DDR timings, whereas the others are DDR2 timings.
The original DDR got to around 2-2-2, DDR2 got to as low as 4-4-4, and DDR3 is getting down to the 7-7-7 range.
It's pretty obvious though, you raise the clockspeed, more cycles will pass during the time you are waiting on *insert latency measurement of choice here*. Still may be quicker in terms of ns, but I'll leave the math up to you. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency
Yeah, I'm aware that some people absorb calories from food easier, and some people burn calories faster, but the fact remains, you get fat from eating more calories than you burn.
I also wasn't placing all the blame on the overweight person, I was just saying there is not some magical food that will make you fat if you eat it.
Ultimately, it is the overweight person's responsibility though. Blaming fast food or HFCS or whatever doesn't help the situation.
I know what HFCS means. You should also learn to read, I was comparing HFCS to sucrose, I did not say that HFCS had sucrose in it. Sucrose is 50% fructose, while HFCS is only 55% fructose. I was saying that the increased fructose in HFCS is not enough to make any noticeable differences compared to sucrose, and any difference may be more than made up for by the added sweetness of the HFCS.
Of course, I'm the daft one, when you can't read. Also, that sentence isn't a triple negative. There are two negatives in that sentence, but the sentence can still only be read one way, so I don't see it as a true double negative either. Maybe a bit awkward, but I don't see how to better phrase it. I couldn't say that HFCS did trigger insulin, because thats only true to 45%. What I should have done was explained that sucrose is also 50% fructose and it is the fructose that does not trigger insulin, so sucrose and HFCS have this problem to almost the same degree. I just assumed people would realize I was comparing HFCS to sucrose (as that was in use prior to HFCS), and that sucrose was half fructose (figured most people around here would know that).
Yeah, I'm aware of the numbers.
For a comparison Sucrose(table sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Compared to the HFCS 55, there is barely a difference.
It's not HFCS that doesn't trigger the pancreas to release insulin, it is fructose.
:P). I don't care about the corn industry or HFCS at all, just hate all the alarmism over HFCS just because people can't admit it's their fault and take responsibility for their actions.
The amount of extra fructose in HFCS as opposed to sucrose is almost inconsequential, especially if the extra sweetness in HFCS leads to less being used.
As for your anecdotal evidence, is it not possible that by avoiding HFCS causes people to consume less calories because when you would've grabbed a coke or a snack before, now you can't because it has HFCS in it?
BTW I'm all for getting rid of corn subsidies as well as the sugar import quotas, which were originally put in place to protect the sugar industry (Isn't that ironic.
HFCS is not the reason people are fat, it's not even one of the major contributing reasons, I doubt it's even a minor contributing reason.
HFCS is not the problem. The problem is simple, too many calories in, too few calories out.
E C2002/frvol25i3a.pdf
HFCS is no worse for you than sucrose, and because it is sweeter than cane sugar per calorie, it may even be better.
The real answer is that calorie consumption has increase over 20 percent since 1980, and physical activity has probably decreased during the same period.
Check the graph on page 3:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/D
People always like to place blame on external target rather than looking at the real problem, that people eat too much. It's easy to blame HFCS (though its no worse than sugar) or fatty foods (though many countries eat much more fat than we do yet don't get fat). Much harder to look at the situation honestly and say that we are a bunch of lazy gluttons.
'It's all the fault of Nixon and that damned HFCS!' Is a great feelgood answer that doesn't hurt anyones feelings, but it simply isn't the truth.
Ever heard of F-Zero?
F-Zero is quite possibly one of the most difficult racing games there are.
Granted it's not the same type of game as the two you mention, but if you want hardcore, F-Zero has more of it than either of those games.
RE 4 was the game that fixed the glaring control problems with the RE series though. About 8-9 years late, I'll give you, but RE 4 on its own merits deserves to be on a list of the best games ever. Or at least it deserves to be in the discussion. Can't penalize a game just because it comes from a crappy series. Not that RE is exactly a crappy series, but the earlier games did border on unplayable control wise at times. I definitely wouldn't put those on my top games list, but RE 4 is a great game.
Actually your example disproves your point, FF VII is by far the most popular FF, so if the list is based on popularity, that should be highest.
IMO FF VI is the best FF, but even it wouldn't be in my top 5, might just edge into the bottom of the top 10, but even that is iffy.
No, the blurring is characteristic of the early texture filtering on the N64.
When you filter low res textures, you get blurriness. It is preferable to the giant pixels of PS1 games IMO though.
Well we don't officially know if MP3 will even have online multiplayer. Seems like thats the only reason it could have been delayed a full year or more from launch, when it was originally slated to come out.
Even if it does have online multiplayer, I'm not sure I trust Nintendo to make the online experience anywhere near as good as xbox live, what with friend codes.
Now I think MP is a better game than Halo (which I find kind of boring, having been spoiled by years of UT and Quake on the PC), but I don't know it will ever manage the popularity Halo has simply because the gameplay is so different.
I mean on the outside, MP3 looks like your average FPS, but then you play it and realize its more of an adventure/mystery game than a shooter. So maybe shooter fans might buy it and not like it, and the people who might like it ignore it because they think it's just a shooter.
With the success the Wii is having though, if they manage to get the controls just right, and the game lives up to the previous two, and they manage to market it just right, it could be really successful.
What about how Chimps hunt and kill Colobus monkeys, and even engage in warfare with other groups of Chimps?
That's the thing about nature, a species will do anything it must to survive. We already treat animals better than animals treat other animals for the most part, and even better than we treat other humans occasionally.
Which is not to say I think we should treat animals like crap for fun or entertainment, that is just not logical, there is no evolutionary justification for that. But if we have to experiment on some chimps to cure cancer, tough shit for the chimps, humans come first.
No, what is 'dumbed down' about WoW is the lack of any true skill system, to where the only way to advance in the game is to get better gear. The talent system is far to limited for the statwhore in me, I much prefer to be able to superspecialize in one specific aspect of my character if I so choose. I hate arbitrary limitations that say 'you can't get that skill without this skill'. I know I know, its for balancing reasons, I just think MMO devs need to come up with better ways to balance while allowing more open ended playstyles. There is certainly enough money in the market to make it worth their while. I want to be able to put all my points in 1hb and be a hammer wielding maniac, or all my points in defense skills and be nearly invincible. MMO devs, figure it out, balance it, and you got my money.
It could also be considered dumbed down because it is easy to level, but I consider that a good thing.
God of War is a great franchise (just beat GoW II, much better than the first), but it doesn't have anywhere close to the power of a FF or a GT. Both of those games have sold several times as many copies as GoW.
Well DQ IX is on the DS, so they aren't different markets anymore.
NSMB is the 3rd best selling game ever in japan in the time period you mention, only behind 2 pokemon titles, and almost 1 million more than DQ VIII, the highest selling DQ title. That being the most recent Mario title shows that Mario still has amazing popularity.
As far as not being a system seller anymore, that may be accurate, but judging whether a game is a 'system seller' or not is very hard to judge objectively. Just going by the numbers, NSMB sold to a larger percentage of DS users than any DQ or FF title did to PS2 users. Hell even SMS sold to a larger percentage of gamecube owners than the DQ or FF games did to PS2 users.
I think the gamecube, and to a lesser extent the N64, were such dismal failures that it's silly to judge the popularity of franchises based on their sales on those systems. Of course you could say that those systems were a failure because those franchises are no longer popular, but I don't think that can be proven with objective facts.
I don't think any single franchise can singlehandedly make a console a success these days, and I think even square enix realizes this, which is why DQ IX is going to DS.
This post is true.
For example, Anarchy Online.
Anarchy Online was released unfinished in beta state, and got a reputation for being a crap game. Despite all the bugs being fixed and a few excellent expansion packs being released, it never got over the stigma of being a crappy game, and never won back those people who quit in the beginning.
I beta tested it, so I knew it wasn't finished at release, so waited a couple months when all the most terrible bugs were fixed, and got several years of enjoyment out of it. People who didn't beta test it and bought it on release probably said 'wtf is this' and cancelled immediately. It was a really good game that never reached the potential audience it could have because of a bad first impression.
I understand some companies (especially smaller ones like funcom) have the desire at the end of a long expensive development to get a product out to start getting a return on their investment, but it can be really detrimental to their long term success if the game sucks.
Maybe, but if it is, it is indication of stronger studio/publisher adoption, not user adoption.
Ahh, I was misinformed, thanks for the correction.
BS.
The Gates foundation has an endowment of over $30 Billion dollars(granted Bill only donated a small amount of that, most of it was from Warren Buffet).
Bill Gates also doesn't make anywhere near $40 billion a year. His net worth is $53 billion, but his salary is less than a million. Of course he still probably makes a few billion per year just off interest and investments, but that's a whole other topic.
According to Forbes Bill gave away about $30 billion just in the period from 2000-2004, the Gates foundation is just a small part of that. So he gave away $30 billion, and has a net worth of $53 billion, that means he's given away more than 1/3rd of his total net worth. Sure that doesn't put him in the poor house, but there is absolutely no reason to minimize what he has done.
So please don't make up crap saying 'but it's only 1/20,000th of his money' when that is clearly BS, and 5 seconds of looking up the numbers, which are fairly publicly available, would show that's not the case.
Ha ha ha ha. You dumb bastard. It's not a schooner... it's a Sailboat.
Are you joking?
I prefer my money not to look like it was designed by Jackson Pollack on LSD.
But what do I know?
The US Mint is kind of traditionalist, and value stability and trust very highly. That and people are just comfortable with the good old fashioned greenback. It's probably mostly aesthetic and irrational, but there is something about american currency that feels reassuring compared to foriegn currency, regardless of how many security features and hideous color schemes they have. You heard all the controversy about the new $10 and $20 bills when they were introduced right? The color scheme on those is mild compared to much of the world's currency.
Put simply, people like their money to look like money, and when americans think of money they think green ink intaglio printed on cloth paper 6.14 inches by 2.61 inches.
..to removing grinding is ultimately more unique content, and the removal of randomized rewards.
The second is farily simple, if the boss always drops the item, you've no need to come back and kill him again next week, and the week after, and the week after that. No reason at all to grind now.
The first part of that is the hard part. How do you keep up with player's demand for content without arbitrarily slowing them down. You could make the content very very difficult so that players progress very slowly, but that is not likely to be very popular, or very fun.
You could introduce dynamic content that is generated on the fly, which has been done to a limited extent in various games, but it doesn't work well enough to make up a large portion of the content.
I think a large part of the solution needs to be real GMs with the ability to truly interact with the players, not just glorified customer service people. Fresh content created in real time by GMs and dynamic computer generated content combined would drastically reduce the grinding.
The current model of huge chunks of content delivered every couple of months simply doesn't work.
http://wowaids.ytmnd.com/
What happened is that Hakkar(the boss of Zul'Gurub), has a disease that players can spread to other nearby players, or npcs. The disease was supposed to be removed upon leaving the instance, but hunter pets carried back to town and everyone was getting the disease because NPCs in the towns got infected, so you couldnt go near a town without getting the disease. They have since changed it so the disease only works inside the zul'gurub instance and doesn't affect pets..