That is a problem with current matchmaking tech, not an inherent flaw in coop gameplay.
There should be no problem creating a system where you can rank each player you try out. With time those rankings will create a social group of people who enjoy the same kind of coop play, and the assholes will remain outside. Enough friends in that group like a particular player then it's probably ok to invite him to your team.
I compared the two sites and if you think the Japanese site is good in any way I can only say you're giving the cultural thing too much credit. The header of that site is the only thing that look well designed.
The 4x6 grid of colorful banners is so all over the map in colors and fonts that you have to mentally refocus when reading each of them. And the color choice on the text on the left side is too thick to see the details and they don't even try to break the lines properly. (Only seen this done well by school kids since it's never needed normally)
While the ministry of health site is good compared to most other Japanese sites, it will likely be many years before they move towards western designs. I've only seen one example shown of a newspaper site where the designers did put simplicity and ease of use as top priorities. They thought they were rather progressive and unique.
And we also know that temperatures are moving towards a climate singularity just like the technology singularity, changing at ever faster speeds due to natural causes.
Not only would an iPhone 4 be cheaper than the current available equipment, you can also use an iPod touch which cuts the cost even further and more likely to be available.
They cut their subsidizes because of the debt crisis, it wasn't the cause of it. Germany did the same.
However all those panels that have thus far made them the number 1 solar power nation in the world aren't going to suddenly go defunct. They will provide energy for a couple decades at least.
I heard laying one brick would not a house build, so I gave up.
After a week of binge drinking to drown my sorrows, I finally went home only to find my neighbor's brick house completed. To this day I couldn't figure out how he did it; magic faeries wished the house into existence perhaps?
How about the rest of the world add tariffs for stuff like exceeding a certain baseline aggregated carbon emissions for the production of goods, or paying salaries to textile workers that are lower than some predefined (and local price level adjusted) level?
This would IMO lead to a decrease in the use of manufacturing processes (and energy generation for these) that are focused on saving pennies on the dollar in exchange for large increases in pollution. In the case of sweatshops, companies can pay livable salaries without losing their competitiveness.
He would most likely be against it (he is always "for" anything the general public is "for" it seems) so one could argue that the monarchy would strengthen by censoring.
This always seems to surprise people who haven't gotten their heads wrapped around what role a modern day monarch plays in a democracy.
And it isn't just entertainment for the junk media to feed the easily distracted masses.
We still do not have enough evidence to prove that burning fossil fuels will produce global warming.
It's well established scientifically that burning fossil fuels, and the injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, causes temperatures to increase. It's pretty basic science that can be replicated in laboratories. What you perhaps meant was that we only have estimates for how much CO2 is needed for e.g. 1 degree of warming?
The first is political: the fallout from the IPCC scandal is going to take years before the public will believe them again.
We also have people who think intelligent design is good science.
Global temperatures have been on the decline for the last decade, much as they did during the turn of the century 100 years ago.
I solved the global financial meltdown by flipping the charts upside-down.
We can probably agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; what we can't explain is why increased generation of CO2 hasn't resulted in a proportionate increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Some say it is being absorbed by the oceans (possibly correct) and will acidify them. (Also possibly true, however, a great deal of CO2 will be necessary to sufficiently alter the pH enough to matter.)
So the large global study that found half the missing CO2 released since 1800's having been absorbed by the oceans, dropping PH and conclusion that a third of the ocean's capacity to absorb CO2 has been used was... Bunk?
Even were we to accept the AGW theories at face value, they are so filled with qualifying factors that we could not conclude that we are in imminent danger. We could say that change is going to come, but we can't quantify the impact. Given the timescales on which climate changes, it would hardly be an unmitigated disaster on a global level.
The quantification you're looking for was done in the IPCC report. Since you're a super-climatologist that obviously know better than those attention-hungry idiots, why don't you make your own report?
And those qualifying factors you talk about? Let me just say that if I wanted to fly, I'd never get on board a plane designed by one of those anti-AGW proponent. Even if it cost a quarter of the price.
It's not that I'm taking some kind of moral high ground or anything, I just don't think I'll be able to roll a yatzhee trice in a row every time I fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Except those other OS'es aren't running their apps in jails...
If it's so easy to read the summary, why don't you also read the fucking article too?
I can't believe there are still so many people who haven't figured out what Apple's geriatric target group really was...
Considering the huge amount of interesting topics discussed, if a pre-announcement of Kepler's results is the price it's one I'm glad to pay.
That is a problem with current matchmaking tech, not an inherent flaw in coop gameplay.
There should be no problem creating a system where you can rank each player you try out. With time those rankings will create a social group of people who enjoy the same kind of coop play, and the assholes will remain outside. Enough friends in that group like a particular player then it's probably ok to invite him to your team.
I compared the two sites and if you think the Japanese site is good in any way I can only say you're giving the cultural thing too much credit. The header of that site is the only thing that look well designed.
The 4x6 grid of colorful banners is so all over the map in colors and fonts that you have to mentally refocus when reading each of them. And the color choice on the text on the left side is too thick to see the details and they don't even try to break the lines properly. (Only seen this done well by school kids since it's never needed normally)
While the ministry of health site is good compared to most other Japanese sites, it will likely be many years before they move towards western designs. I've only seen one example shown of a newspaper site where the designers did put simplicity and ease of use as top priorities. They thought they were rather progressive and unique.
In Japan, that is true.
Except in Europe WWI and WWII happened and we kinda grew up. Imperialism and aggression suddenly didn't seem so fun anymore.
For the US, it was the golden era. The time they were the best of the best. With the taste of blood on their teeth, look at the past 65 years.
Can you spell the words; Prototype, Low-Maintances and Zero Emissions?
And we also know that temperatures are moving towards a climate singularity just like the technology singularity, changing at ever faster speeds due to natural causes.
Holocaust and AGW denialists are equally high on the nutcase ladder, the former merely have better financial support.
I suggest you grow up.
Like the fear of talking to girls, needles are something you should have learned to handle like everyone else. The same goes for spiders.
I only need one point, an elongated one to be precise.
No you didn't....
Fail... No one puts plates on carriers. Resistance is the only thing that matters on caps.
Please don't use the UK as an example of European privacy protection, it's up there with the US in being retarded.
The northern part of continental europe is a better model of good privacy protection.
Ever been on a carrousel?
Not only would an iPhone 4 be cheaper than the current available equipment, you can also use an iPod touch which cuts the cost even further and more likely to be available.
They cut their subsidizes because of the debt crisis, it wasn't the cause of it. Germany did the same.
However all those panels that have thus far made them the number 1 solar power nation in the world aren't going to suddenly go defunct. They will provide energy for a couple decades at least.
I heard laying one brick would not a house build, so I gave up.
After a week of binge drinking to drown my sorrows, I finally went home only to find my neighbor's brick house completed. To this day I couldn't figure out how he did it; magic faeries wished the house into existence perhaps?
Why is it hard to believe they have a life expectancy over 10 years? Or even 40 years?
While we're going all Iraq Invasion Style here...
How about the rest of the world add tariffs for stuff like exceeding a certain baseline aggregated carbon emissions for the production of goods, or paying salaries to textile workers that are lower than some predefined (and local price level adjusted) level?
This would IMO lead to a decrease in the use of manufacturing processes (and energy generation for these) that are focused on saving pennies on the dollar in exchange for large increases in pollution. In the case of sweatshops, companies can pay livable salaries without losing their competitiveness.
Sounds more like the users should find another country to live in, one that has proper telecom companies running the cellular networks.
He would most likely be against it (he is always "for" anything the general public is "for" it seems) so one could argue that the monarchy would strengthen by censoring.
This always seems to surprise people who haven't gotten their heads wrapped around what role a modern day monarch plays in a democracy.
And it isn't just entertainment for the junk media to feed the easily distracted masses.
We still do not have enough evidence to prove that burning fossil fuels will produce global warming.
It's well established scientifically that burning fossil fuels, and the injection of CO2 into the atmosphere, causes temperatures to increase. It's pretty basic science that can be replicated in laboratories. What you perhaps meant was that we only have estimates for how much CO2 is needed for e.g. 1 degree of warming?
The first is political: the fallout from the IPCC scandal is going to take years before the public will believe them again.
We also have people who think intelligent design is good science.
Global temperatures have been on the decline for the last decade, much as they did during the turn of the century 100 years ago.
I solved the global financial meltdown by flipping the charts upside-down.
We can probably agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; what we can't explain is why increased generation of CO2 hasn't resulted in a proportionate increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels. Some say it is being absorbed by the oceans (possibly correct) and will acidify them. (Also possibly true, however, a great deal of CO2 will be necessary to sufficiently alter the pH enough to matter.)
So the large global study that found half the missing CO2 released since 1800's having been absorbed by the oceans, dropping PH and conclusion that a third of the ocean's capacity to absorb CO2 has been used was... Bunk?
Even were we to accept the AGW theories at face value, they are so filled with qualifying factors that we could not conclude that we are in imminent danger. We could say that change is going to come, but we can't quantify the impact. Given the timescales on which climate changes, it would hardly be an unmitigated disaster on a global level.
The quantification you're looking for was done in the IPCC report. Since you're a super-climatologist that obviously know better than those attention-hungry idiots, why don't you make your own report?
And those qualifying factors you talk about? Let me just say that if I wanted to fly, I'd never get on board a plane designed by one of those anti-AGW proponent. Even if it cost a quarter of the price.
It's not that I'm taking some kind of moral high ground or anything, I just don't think I'll be able to roll a yatzhee trice in a row every time I fly.
Those were lovechutes; the good energies radiating from Mother Mars slowed the descent.