I think people are missing the basic concept of "fraud" and how it invalidates a contractual relationship. Probably a lesson worth learning before you keep getting unlubed penetration from companies for the rest of your life.
You're right and now I'm am totally going to sue Nintendo and Capcom for misleading me with their cover art on Megaman 1. The game didn't look anything like the advertising! https://goo.gl/images/t6Se07
My point being that advertising trying making games [or any product really] look better than they actually are has been going on since Pong and shouldn't surprise anyone. IMO, the complaint against No Man's Sky fits better in the "consumer beware" column than fraud.
Should force Steam to issue refunds for anybody that wants one who bought before that point though.
Steam already has a consumer-friendly refund policy... They give full no-questions-asked refunds on all purchases within 14 days and 2 hours or less play time; and refunds within 48 hours of purchase as long as tradeable in-game items have not been used or sold. Read it here: http://store.steampowered.com/...
I think that's plenty flexible for someone to figure out if a game is living up to its advertising.
Agreed. Nothing is black and white when global business, security, and international politics collide. My comment above was only to provide an alternative view and hopefully provoke more thought than OP's one-sided statement.
can unintentionally do the right things: kick Microsoft's, SAP's et al.'s ass.
...and after defeating the nefarious Microsoft, SAP's, et al's. the tyrant and dictator would never replace them with software riddled with security loopholes and backdoors they could exploit, right?
I know it's cool to hate big software companies, but at the very least they have better history of trying to maintain security and privacy than Russia of all places. Be careful who you you side with in this crusade.
Concerning Europa (remember that this was before the recent news):
...for Juno to do Europa... This science goal just may not be possible with the large distances from Juno to Europa...the image spatial scale would need to be better than 70 kilometers, at a relatively high phase angle...To achieve resolutions better than 70 kilometers per pixel...JunoCam [needs to be within], 100,000 kilometers...There are just four orbits that have Europa flybys that are closer than 300,000 km...
The information you posted confirms how difficult it would be for Juno to make any meaningful observations of Europa's plumes. Why jeopardize the science Juno was designed for in mid-mission to look for water water on Europa, which was confirmed years ago, on the remote chance it might provide a piece of data that could allow a far-off future mission to confirm extraterrestrial life? Sorry, but only people with heads in a fictional sci-fi fantasy world willing to gamble everything for a childish dream of meeting E.T. would think that's a good idea.
Tomhath's "fake science" comment is flippant, but in fairness, discovering water outside of the Earth is not big news to anyone following the planetary missions for the last decade. NASA announcing yet another "discovery" of water somewhere and connecting it to potential extraterrestrial life is a public relations move as much as it is science. Juno's main mission to study Jupiter could very well be more scientifically valuable than diverting the Juno's limited fuel into a Europa fly-by to confirm water, which we have found evidence of in many other places (e.g. Mars, Enceladus, Saturn's rings, numerous comets, Pluto/Charon, exo-planets).
...car manufacturers should just make their info-tainment/navigation systems 100% compatible with iPhone and Android. There are no proprietary in-car mapping systems or digital user interfaces better than what people have on their phones, which already connects to new cars via bluetooth or cable/dock. Car companies need to hand the the navigation and digital interface to the tech-world, so they can concentrate on what's under the hood.
We're talking about a service that will be orders of magnitude larger than Waze. In order for Waze to get data the driver has to actively open the app.
I'm finding it hard to believe that 3 German car manufacturers with a relatively small share of the total car market will have "orders of magnitude" more traffic data that what Google is currently processing. Waze/Google Maps (same company) pull data from all Android and iPhones with open Google Maps/Waze and all Android phones with location services on, which send location data to Google, regardless of whether a mapping app is being used. Google also has has years worth of historical traffic data they can use to predict traffic patterns. (Source: http://www.techinsider.io/how-... ).
Prediction: They will cobble together a mediocre system that won't perform any better than Google Maps/Waze, but will be flashy enough convince their older, wealthy, non-tech-savvy buyers (mostly BMW owners) that their over-priced, luxury, info-tainment package was worth the upgrade and monthly subscription.
Yeah, which is why it's easier to get people to "go green" by emphasizing smart sustainability that makes your home or business more efficient and cheaper to run in the long-term, reduce dependence on the fluctuating cost of fossil fuels, lower impact from the geo-politics related to fossil fuels, reduce air and water pollution, reduce waste and in turn costs associated with removing/treating waste, support advancement of modern technologies and new job opportunities, etc. You don't have to argue against someone's entrenched beliefs about climate change to come to a common ground on the many real benefits of reducing waste and being more efficient. There's a comic that has been out for years that highlights this: https://goo.gl/images/jo99Cr Also, it may be a surprise to some, but one of the biggest supporters of sustainable or "green" practices in the world is Wal-Mart, and it's not because they give shit about the planet, it's because smart sustainable practices reduces their bottom line costs.
There was a decade when arguing all these technical minutia was something the Unix vendors did, while Microsoft just kept making things easier. Now it's caught up in a really arcane argument over the #pixels - reminds me of when people would be proud of the number of MHz/MB that their computers had
Agreed. This also reminds me of the 3G network Verizon had against AT&T had a few years ago. Technically, Verizon was right that AT&T was exaggerating their 3G network by playing games with their definition of 2G/2.5G, but only the hardcore nerds took any notice or cared.
The vast majority of game console consumers (i.e. not the hardcore nerds on internet forums) do not care about technical details. Most consumers want to know about exclusive titles, services, compatibility/integration, console longevity, community/social features, price, etc. Technical aspects of the machine could effect those selling points, but the marketing emphasis should not be on the technical bits, bops, and terraflops.
Possibly, but the probability increases from something minute to something marginally less minute. We've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural existing that's held up to scrutiny, so the chance of supernatural things existing is very small at this point.
I personally don't follow any particular religion, but I don't think the tiny little corner of the universe and short time span humans have observed is enough to rule out the supernatural. The more we learn about the universe, the more we discover we don't know, such that denying at least the possibility of the supernatural is as much of a leap of faith in science keeping faith in a conventional religion.
59% of people don't read the articles they share (which is bad enough by itself), and then a percentage of people like news in their Facebook feeds and/or want more. So, I wonder portion of people consider a reading a catchy headline as the equivalent to reading a full news story? Furthermore, what does it say about the news reading habits of 18-29 year olds [millennials] who are most likely to prefer or want more news in the Facebook feed?
- The endless times I get to hear "resale value sucks for EVs" because an entire industry is unable to factor the $7,500 tax credit new purchases get. . .
- Range. . . though Austin, TX has put in a network of supercharges, so not really the case for me anymore. Range never comes up during my usual driving routine, though.
Resale value... Last year I bought a certified pre-owned 2013 Leaf for ~15K, so I'm not complaining about the resale value. Anyone who complaining about resale value is looking at the "problem" from the wrong viewpoint.
Range... Charging station networks doesn't even matter to me. People are stuck in the mindset of going to a fueling station. My Leaf is a commuter and local errand vehicle only. I have never charged it anywhere other than over night in my garage with 120V trickle. My wife has a ICE (Honda Accord). When one of us has to go further than 70 miles in a day we swap cars to make sure that person has the ICE. In over a year there has never been a time that both us needed to travel more than 70 miles in a single day.
All I do is point out that for the vast majority of people, there are several things that can make it work. Then you point out that, for the minority, it might be hard. Yay...
What's your definition of "vast majority"? According to the US Census Bureau homeownership is approximately 67% the US population, so that's 1/3 of the US population who will probably have a significant limitation for charging an EV where they live. Furthermore, according to the US Census Bureau ~80% of homes have a garage or carport, so the 67% of US homeowners drops to around 53% of the US population who can install systems like you say you have. It's technically still a majority, but I don't think anyone can call it vast. And we haven't even got into people's financial abilities or who legitimately need the range of an ICE. http://www2.census.gov/program...
Look, as I said before I support EVs and I own one. What you've been able to do with your EVs is great. But we're not helping EV adoptions by not being realistic about limitations for significant portions of the population.
...A lower movement speed ads tactical dimensions of its own....The lower pace made the games less reflex-based, you had to play more strategically to win.
Tactics are mostly irrelevant when your opponent can just glance a couple inches over at your side of the split screen to figure out exactly where you are, what you have (health, weapons, etc.), and what you are doing.
The level design was better than any other game from the period, both as ‘levels’ and as ‘believable places’. Artistically, considering the hardware it ran on, the games looked much better than other games from the period. (In comparison Quake II looked very ugly...
For ugly and unrealistic looking games Doom, Quake, and Quake II are easy targets, but when GoldenEye was released it was Duke Nukem 3D that had set the bar for level design and realism. Personally I don't think GoldenEye surpassed anything that Duke Nukem had done. Duke Nukem had colorful, realistic, interactive, and destructible environments, and unique [for the time] game mechanics like swimming, jet-packs, hologram decoy, trip mines, etc.
It was easy to play GoldenEye in a party setting, handing over controllers as you died, and the gameplay worked in that environment. And it was fun to play two-player on the couch. Most games had netplay at the time, but nothing quite beats playing together with your buddies in the same room like that... I can recognise a good console title when I see it and I'm not afraid to give it the praise it deserves.
And that's the only reason anyone remembers GoldenEye. Being first console shooter you could play sitting on the couch with your friends is enough for it to get some recognition, but I wouldn't give GoldenEye any further praise.
Agreed. When GoldenEye came out I had already been playing PC games like Doom, Duke Nukem, and Quake and in comparison GoldenEye felt like a big step back in gameplay, graphics, level design, and sound. The only thing GoldenEye had going for it was it was the first FPS you play sitting in the same couch with your friends. Ironically, even that degraded the game experience some because your opponent could just look at your side of the split screen to figure out where you were and what you were doing.
People don't have gas stations at home either. Building up infrastructure at home, work, and shopping centers can solve that issue. Every powered kiosk for street parking in urban areas can become a paid charging station. I know plenty of workplaces that offer charging during the day. As for people in dense urban areas like NYC, they largely don't have cars.
We have two 240v charging stations in the garage, for our two super-cheap EVs (Chevy Spark EV and Fiat 500e). Our rooftop solar power production offsets approximately 100% of the power we use, including the cars and electric water heating. We have two other cars that rarely get used.
The OP brought up a very valid concern about the millions of drivers who have park on streets, do not have a garage, or any convenient access to home charging; and you respond that they should a) make their city create the infrastructure, b) find a job with a charging station, c) or live in a city where most people don't have cars. Wow. Then you proceed to babble about your garage, your rooftop solar, your two 240v charging stations, your two EVs and two ICE cars. The bubble you live in is clearly very dense if that's your honest response to a straight-forward concern.
Ironically, I fully support EVs and I own a (Nissan Leaf). We should be on the same side here.
The maps are misleading and alarmist. According to the original journal study the map makers colored entire aquifers based on some level of PFOA/PFOS contamination somewhere within it. However, aquifers extend for hundreds of miles below ground with many variations within, like any natural system, and local geologic variations in the aquifer system will greatly effect the distribution of contamination in groundwater. If one area of an aquifer is contaminated that doesn't mean all groundwater within the aquifer is contaminated. Furthermore, I happen to live in one of those dark shaded areas, and the community drinking well in my town was recently tested for PFOA and the results are much lower and not consistent with the map. Suffice to say the maps in the article do not reflect actual conditions, but they are really catchy visuals for a journalist trying to sell a story!
I also happen to be an environmental consultant and licensed geologist for what ever that's worth to people. For those worried about PFOA/PFOS I'll give you a tip... If you have a private drinking well and live within ~1 mile of a current or former military base, airport, refinery, or major chemical manufacturer, then you might want to test your well for peace of mind. Those are the main culprits who used and discharged those chemicals (for fire-fighting foams) and they are all scrambling now to figure if they have a problem with it and if so, to what extent.
I have a Panasonic sub-compact camera with a mixed-light setting that that takes multiple exposures of the same scene and processes them together into one properly exposed image. This NASA camera sounds like it's doing the same thing on a different lighting scale [and built to withstand rocket blasts]. I'm sure it's a useful tool for anyone working with rockets, but how news worthy is it?
I can spot and avoid a click-bait article without Facebook's help. What I really want from Facebook is a way to block direct marketing posts from my friends without blocking the friend completely (e.g. Herbal Life, Mary Kay, Shake-ology, Stella & Dot, etc.).
I hated Avatar 3D for that reason. They still hadn't figured out focus (human brain, not lens)...
I did some more reading after I posted and you are right... the blurriness of backgrounds is the human brain's inability to adapt to the projected 3D. But still, if the blurry effect is there for most people [including yourself] then I think my point stands that it's limitation of 3D.
For a more recent example than Avatar, I saw Star Wars TFA in I-max 3D and regular theater 2D. TFA has some cool 3D scenes, but scenes that had stuff in the background, like Maz's Cantina and large battle scenes, were way better in 2D, because I could see everything on the screen clearly. Overall I preferred the regular 2D version, because I like seeing all scenes clearly over the few good 3D effects. Also when I can't bring a background image into focus it breaks my suspension of disbelief in a movie.
I am also concerned that if theater and home 3D becomes more common directors may not bother applying much creativity to backgrounds because 3D viewers probably won't notice it anyway. Technology should enhance the artistic abilities a movie director, not place artificial limitations on it.
A movie shouldn't be that blurry. Did you tell anyone? There could have been a technical error. There is no home viewing that approaches the resolution of a movie experience. Or maybe you have a vision problem you didn't know about that interacts with 3D.
For 3D movies, and particularly I-Max 3D images the poster above went to, images in the background or surrounding the 3D subjects are often out of focus. To create the 3D effect of the subject they sacrifice focus on the surroundings. It's my primary complaint about 3D and it's got nothing to do with theater technical errors or vision problems.
I guess New York's stadiums are all just sitting idle hoping for the Olympics to come to town, right? The multi-billion dollar sports teams won't mind vacating their homes for a few weeks, right? Also it would be so nice and neighborly of New York to offer the Olympic games their largest "New York" stadium, Meadowlands, located in East Rutherford, NJ; and Prudential Stadium in Newark, NJ; and Red Bull Arena in Harrison, NJ. I'm glad some crowded subways wouldn't bother you.
I have yet to see a movie where I thought the 3D enhancements made the movie superior over a conventional screen.
I agree with you that I prefer non-3D formats, but I'll be more specific. I don't like that in 3D movies peripheral and background images are typically out of focus. I want to view the whole scene, not just the camera's main subject(s). This may also harm movie-making in general because when directors know that 3D viewers may not clearly see a background image, then it can limit the creativity they apply to a scene. If you don't know what I mean, consider the Star Wars The Force Awakens, which I saw at the theater in 3D and regular formats [because I'm a nerd]. In the Maz's bar/cantina scene there were interesting looking aliens and activities going on all around the main characters. In the 3D version most of the background images were terribly out of focus for the sake of the main 3D image, not so with the regular non-3d version, which made it much better, in my opinion. If this new 3D screen technology in the article can fix that problem, then I'm all in, until then I prefer the standard flat screen.
Gimmicky 3D effects suck too, like when objects fly at the camera for no reason, but I fault the movie director for that, not the technology.
Gold is not an appropriate material to make clothes or shelter.
You could if it weren't so rare.
Gold is rare. The argument is null.
Gold can easily be extruded into fine thread and woven...not because the material properties of gold make it unsuitable.
You need to define "easily." Because most people don't have spare metal extruders lying around or the parts and skill to assemble one. You need a functioning society with relatively sophisticated infrastracture to be extruding metals. Which proves the earlier point that gold has little to no value for basic human needs and only develops value within the context of a society.
Or another way to think of it... if you were stranded alone on an island with no hope of rescue and trying to survive, which would you prefer to have: a handful of gold or a handful of viable seeds for crops?
If this is a one-time either/or proposition, obviously the seeds. Gold has no nutritional value and little else matters when faced with the prospect of starvation.
Exactly.
Given a more flexible situation, however, I might be willing to trade some of those seeds for an equivalent volume of gold for the sake of making tools. As a raw material it's highly ductile, malleable, conductive, and corrosion-resistant; I'm sure I could find some practical use for it even without any prospect of trade.
You're only proving my point that gold only develops value in the context of a society/economy (i.e. your trade) that can provide the basics of survival and has the sophistication to turn the gold into a useful tool.
And consider this... if the world spiraled into post-apocalyptic anarchy tomorrow, people would be trading a handfuls of gold for a handfuls of bullets in a heartbeat. So, how much inherent value does gold have? When discussing inherent value of objects if you're not thinking like a doomsday prepper, then you are missing the point!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I think people are missing the basic concept of "fraud" and how it invalidates a contractual relationship. Probably a lesson worth learning before you keep getting unlubed penetration from companies for the rest of your life.
You're right and now I'm am totally going to sue Nintendo and Capcom for misleading me with their cover art on Megaman 1. The game didn't look anything like the advertising! https://goo.gl/images/t6Se07
My point being that advertising trying making games [or any product really] look better than they actually are has been going on since Pong and shouldn't surprise anyone. IMO, the complaint against No Man's Sky fits better in the "consumer beware" column than fraud.
Should force Steam to issue refunds for anybody that wants one who bought before that point though.
Steam already has a consumer-friendly refund policy... They give full no-questions-asked refunds on all purchases within 14 days and 2 hours or less play time; and refunds within 48 hours of purchase as long as tradeable in-game items have not been used or sold. Read it here: http://store.steampowered.com/...
I think that's plenty flexible for someone to figure out if a game is living up to its advertising.
I don't believe the issue is black or white.
Agreed. Nothing is black and white when global business, security, and international politics collide. My comment above was only to provide an alternative view and hopefully provoke more thought than OP's one-sided statement.
can unintentionally do the right things: kick Microsoft's, SAP's et al.'s ass.
...and after defeating the nefarious Microsoft, SAP's, et al's. the tyrant and dictator would never replace them with software riddled with security loopholes and backdoors they could exploit, right?
I know it's cool to hate big software companies, but at the very least they have better history of trying to maintain security and privacy than Russia of all places. Be careful who you you side with in this crusade.
This is not correct. Juno is planned to do some limited observation/a> of the Galilean moons. It's a side mission, not central to it's focus (and Juno is anything but optimized for it), but it's one of those cases where, if you're there and you have the hardware...
Concerning Europa (remember that this was before the recent news):
The information you posted confirms how difficult it would be for Juno to make any meaningful observations of Europa's plumes. Why jeopardize the science Juno was designed for in mid-mission to look for water water on Europa, which was confirmed years ago, on the remote chance it might provide a piece of data that could allow a far-off future mission to confirm extraterrestrial life? Sorry, but only people with heads in a fictional sci-fi fantasy world willing to gamble everything for a childish dream of meeting E.T. would think that's a good idea.
Tomhath's "fake science" comment is flippant, but in fairness, discovering water outside of the Earth is not big news to anyone following the planetary missions for the last decade. NASA announcing yet another "discovery" of water somewhere and connecting it to potential extraterrestrial life is a public relations move as much as it is science. Juno's main mission to study Jupiter could very well be more scientifically valuable than diverting the Juno's limited fuel into a Europa fly-by to confirm water, which we have found evidence of in many other places (e.g. Mars, Enceladus, Saturn's rings, numerous comets, Pluto/Charon, exo-planets).
...car manufacturers should just make their info-tainment/navigation systems 100% compatible with iPhone and Android. There are no proprietary in-car mapping systems or digital user interfaces better than what people have on their phones, which already connects to new cars via bluetooth or cable/dock. Car companies need to hand the the navigation and digital interface to the tech-world, so they can concentrate on what's under the hood.
We're talking about a service that will be orders of magnitude larger than Waze. In order for Waze to get data the driver has to actively open the app.
I'm finding it hard to believe that 3 German car manufacturers with a relatively small share of the total car market will have "orders of magnitude" more traffic data that what Google is currently processing. Waze/Google Maps (same company) pull data from all Android and iPhones with open Google Maps/Waze and all Android phones with location services on, which send location data to Google, regardless of whether a mapping app is being used. Google also has has years worth of historical traffic data they can use to predict traffic patterns. (Source: http://www.techinsider.io/how-... ).
Prediction: They will cobble together a mediocre system that won't perform any better than Google Maps/Waze, but will be flashy enough convince their older, wealthy, non-tech-savvy buyers (mostly BMW owners) that their over-priced, luxury, info-tainment package was worth the upgrade and monthly subscription.
Yeah, which is why it's easier to get people to "go green" by emphasizing smart sustainability that makes your home or business more efficient and cheaper to run in the long-term, reduce dependence on the fluctuating cost of fossil fuels, lower impact from the geo-politics related to fossil fuels, reduce air and water pollution, reduce waste and in turn costs associated with removing/treating waste, support advancement of modern technologies and new job opportunities, etc. You don't have to argue against someone's entrenched beliefs about climate change to come to a common ground on the many real benefits of reducing waste and being more efficient. There's a comic that has been out for years that highlights this: https://goo.gl/images/jo99Cr Also, it may be a surprise to some, but one of the biggest supporters of sustainable or "green" practices in the world is Wal-Mart, and it's not because they give shit about the planet, it's because smart sustainable practices reduces their bottom line costs.
There was a decade when arguing all these technical minutia was something the Unix vendors did, while Microsoft just kept making things easier. Now it's caught up in a really arcane argument over the #pixels - reminds me of when people would be proud of the number of MHz/MB that their computers had
Agreed. This also reminds me of the 3G network Verizon had against AT&T had a few years ago. Technically, Verizon was right that AT&T was exaggerating their 3G network by playing games with their definition of 2G/2.5G, but only the hardcore nerds took any notice or cared.
The vast majority of game console consumers (i.e. not the hardcore nerds on internet forums) do not care about technical details. Most consumers want to know about exclusive titles, services, compatibility/integration, console longevity, community/social features, price, etc. Technical aspects of the machine could effect those selling points, but the marketing emphasis should not be on the technical bits, bops, and terraflops.
i.e. a supernatural event.
Possibly, but the probability increases from something minute to something marginally less minute. We've never seen any evidence of anything supernatural existing that's held up to scrutiny, so the chance of supernatural things existing is very small at this point.
I personally don't follow any particular religion, but I don't think the tiny little corner of the universe and short time span humans have observed is enough to rule out the supernatural. The more we learn about the universe, the more we discover we don't know, such that denying at least the possibility of the supernatural is as much of a leap of faith in science keeping faith in a conventional religion.
59% of people don't read the articles they share (which is bad enough by itself), and then a percentage of people like news in their Facebook feeds and/or want more. So, I wonder portion of people consider a reading a catchy headline as the equivalent to reading a full news story? Furthermore, what does it say about the news reading habits of 18-29 year olds [millennials] who are most likely to prefer or want more news in the Facebook feed?
...Some cons:
- The endless times I get to hear "resale value sucks for EVs" because an entire industry is unable to factor the $7,500 tax credit new purchases get. . .
- Range. . . though Austin, TX has put in a network of supercharges, so not really the case for me anymore. Range never comes up during my usual driving routine, though.
Resale value... Last year I bought a certified pre-owned 2013 Leaf for ~15K, so I'm not complaining about the resale value. Anyone who complaining about resale value is looking at the "problem" from the wrong viewpoint.
Range... Charging station networks doesn't even matter to me. People are stuck in the mindset of going to a fueling station. My Leaf is a commuter and local errand vehicle only. I have never charged it anywhere other than over night in my garage with 120V trickle. My wife has a ICE (Honda Accord). When one of us has to go further than 70 miles in a day we swap cars to make sure that person has the ICE. In over a year there has never been a time that both us needed to travel more than 70 miles in a single day.
All I do is point out that for the vast majority of people, there are several things that can make it work. Then you point out that, for the minority, it might be hard. Yay...
What's your definition of "vast majority"? According to the US Census Bureau homeownership is approximately 67% the US population, so that's 1/3 of the US population who will probably have a significant limitation for charging an EV where they live. Furthermore, according to the US Census Bureau ~80% of homes have a garage or carport, so the 67% of US homeowners drops to around 53% of the US population who can install systems like you say you have. It's technically still a majority, but I don't think anyone can call it vast. And we haven't even got into people's financial abilities or who legitimately need the range of an ICE.
http://www2.census.gov/program...
Look, as I said before I support EVs and I own one. What you've been able to do with your EVs is great. But we're not helping EV adoptions by not being realistic about limitations for significant portions of the population.
...A lower movement speed ads tactical dimensions of its own....The lower pace made the games less reflex-based, you had to play more strategically to win.
Tactics are mostly irrelevant when your opponent can just glance a couple inches over at your side of the split screen to figure out exactly where you are, what you have (health, weapons, etc.), and what you are doing.
The level design was better than any other game from the period, both as ‘levels’ and as ‘believable places’. Artistically, considering the hardware it ran on, the games looked much better than other games from the period. (In comparison Quake II looked very ugly...
For ugly and unrealistic looking games Doom, Quake, and Quake II are easy targets, but when GoldenEye was released it was Duke Nukem 3D that had set the bar for level design and realism. Personally I don't think GoldenEye surpassed anything that Duke Nukem had done. Duke Nukem had colorful, realistic, interactive, and destructible environments, and unique [for the time] game mechanics like swimming, jet-packs, hologram decoy, trip mines, etc.
It was easy to play GoldenEye in a party setting, handing over controllers as you died, and the gameplay worked in that environment. And it was fun to play two-player on the couch. Most games had netplay at the time, but nothing quite beats playing together with your buddies in the same room like that... I can recognise a good console title when I see it and I'm not afraid to give it the praise it deserves.
And that's the only reason anyone remembers GoldenEye. Being first console shooter you could play sitting on the couch with your friends is enough for it to get some recognition, but I wouldn't give GoldenEye any further praise.
Agreed. When GoldenEye came out I had already been playing PC games like Doom, Duke Nukem, and Quake and in comparison GoldenEye felt like a big step back in gameplay, graphics, level design, and sound. The only thing GoldenEye had going for it was it was the first FPS you play sitting in the same couch with your friends. Ironically, even that degraded the game experience some because your opponent could just look at your side of the split screen to figure out where you were and what you were doing.
People don't have gas stations at home either. Building up infrastructure at home, work, and shopping centers can solve that issue. Every powered kiosk for street parking in urban areas can become a paid charging station. I know plenty of workplaces that offer charging during the day. As for people in dense urban areas like NYC, they largely don't have cars.
We have two 240v charging stations in the garage, for our two super-cheap EVs (Chevy Spark EV and Fiat 500e). Our rooftop solar power production offsets approximately 100% of the power we use, including the cars and electric water heating. We have two other cars that rarely get used.
The OP brought up a very valid concern about the millions of drivers who have park on streets, do not have a garage, or any convenient access to home charging; and you respond that they should a) make their city create the infrastructure, b) find a job with a charging station, c) or live in a city where most people don't have cars. Wow. Then you proceed to babble about your garage, your rooftop solar, your two 240v charging stations, your two EVs and two ICE cars. The bubble you live in is clearly very dense if that's your honest response to a straight-forward concern.
Ironically, I fully support EVs and I own a (Nissan Leaf). We should be on the same side here.
The maps are misleading and alarmist. According to the original journal study the map makers colored entire aquifers based on some level of PFOA/PFOS contamination somewhere within it. However, aquifers extend for hundreds of miles below ground with many variations within, like any natural system, and local geologic variations in the aquifer system will greatly effect the distribution of contamination in groundwater. If one area of an aquifer is contaminated that doesn't mean all groundwater within the aquifer is contaminated. Furthermore, I happen to live in one of those dark shaded areas, and the community drinking well in my town was recently tested for PFOA and the results are much lower and not consistent with the map. Suffice to say the maps in the article do not reflect actual conditions, but they are really catchy visuals for a journalist trying to sell a story!
I also happen to be an environmental consultant and licensed geologist for what ever that's worth to people. For those worried about PFOA/PFOS I'll give you a tip... If you have a private drinking well and live within ~1 mile of a current or former military base, airport, refinery, or major chemical manufacturer, then you might want to test your well for peace of mind. Those are the main culprits who used and discharged those chemicals (for fire-fighting foams) and they are all scrambling now to figure if they have a problem with it and if so, to what extent.
Can't you just use several cameras?
My thoughts exactly.
I have a Panasonic sub-compact camera with a mixed-light setting that that takes multiple exposures of the same scene and processes them together into one properly exposed image. This NASA camera sounds like it's doing the same thing on a different lighting scale [and built to withstand rocket blasts]. I'm sure it's a useful tool for anyone working with rockets, but how news worthy is it?
I can spot and avoid a click-bait article without Facebook's help. What I really want from Facebook is a way to block direct marketing posts from my friends without blocking the friend completely (e.g. Herbal Life, Mary Kay, Shake-ology, Stella & Dot, etc.).
I hated Avatar 3D for that reason. They still hadn't figured out focus (human brain, not lens)...
I did some more reading after I posted and you are right... the blurriness of backgrounds is the human brain's inability to adapt to the projected 3D. But still, if the blurry effect is there for most people [including yourself] then I think my point stands that it's limitation of 3D.
For a more recent example than Avatar, I saw Star Wars TFA in I-max 3D and regular theater 2D. TFA has some cool 3D scenes, but scenes that had stuff in the background, like Maz's Cantina and large battle scenes, were way better in 2D, because I could see everything on the screen clearly. Overall I preferred the regular 2D version, because I like seeing all scenes clearly over the few good 3D effects. Also when I can't bring a background image into focus it breaks my suspension of disbelief in a movie.
I am also concerned that if theater and home 3D becomes more common directors may not bother applying much creativity to backgrounds because 3D viewers probably won't notice it anyway. Technology should enhance the artistic abilities a movie director, not place artificial limitations on it.
A movie shouldn't be that blurry. Did you tell anyone? There could have been a technical error. There is no home viewing that approaches the resolution of a movie experience. Or maybe you have a vision problem you didn't know about that interacts with 3D.
For 3D movies, and particularly I-Max 3D images the poster above went to, images in the background or surrounding the 3D subjects are often out of focus. To create the 3D effect of the subject they sacrifice focus on the surroundings. It's my primary complaint about 3D and it's got nothing to do with theater technical errors or vision problems.
I guess New York's stadiums are all just sitting idle hoping for the Olympics to come to town, right? The multi-billion dollar sports teams won't mind vacating their homes for a few weeks, right? Also it would be so nice and neighborly of New York to offer the Olympic games their largest "New York" stadium, Meadowlands, located in East Rutherford, NJ; and Prudential Stadium in Newark, NJ; and Red Bull Arena in Harrison, NJ. I'm glad some crowded subways wouldn't bother you.
I have yet to see a movie where I thought the 3D enhancements made the movie superior over a conventional screen.
I agree with you that I prefer non-3D formats, but I'll be more specific. I don't like that in 3D movies peripheral and background images are typically out of focus. I want to view the whole scene, not just the camera's main subject(s). This may also harm movie-making in general because when directors know that 3D viewers may not clearly see a background image, then it can limit the creativity they apply to a scene. If you don't know what I mean, consider the Star Wars The Force Awakens, which I saw at the theater in 3D and regular formats [because I'm a nerd]. In the Maz's bar/cantina scene there were interesting looking aliens and activities going on all around the main characters. In the 3D version most of the background images were terribly out of focus for the sake of the main 3D image, not so with the regular non-3d version, which made it much better, in my opinion. If this new 3D screen technology in the article can fix that problem, then I'm all in, until then I prefer the standard flat screen.
Gimmicky 3D effects suck too, like when objects fly at the camera for no reason, but I fault the movie director for that, not the technology.
Because I'm in a mood to argue..
Gold is not an appropriate material to make clothes or shelter.
You could if it weren't so rare.
Gold is rare. The argument is null.
Gold can easily be extruded into fine thread and woven...not because the material properties of gold make it unsuitable.
You need to define "easily." Because most people don't have spare metal extruders lying around or the parts and skill to assemble one. You need a functioning society with relatively sophisticated infrastracture to be extruding metals. Which proves the earlier point that gold has little to no value for basic human needs and only develops value within the context of a society.
Or another way to think of it... if you were stranded alone on an island with no hope of rescue and trying to survive, which would you prefer to have: a handful of gold or a handful of viable seeds for crops?
If this is a one-time either/or proposition, obviously the seeds. Gold has no nutritional value and little else matters when faced with the prospect of starvation.
Exactly.
Given a more flexible situation, however, I might be willing to trade some of those seeds for an equivalent volume of gold for the sake of making tools. As a raw material it's highly ductile, malleable, conductive, and corrosion-resistant; I'm sure I could find some practical use for it even without any prospect of trade.
You're only proving my point that gold only develops value in the context of a society/economy (i.e. your trade) that can provide the basics of survival and has the sophistication to turn the gold into a useful tool.
And consider this... if the world spiraled into post-apocalyptic anarchy tomorrow, people would be trading a handfuls of gold for a handfuls of bullets in a heartbeat. So, how much inherent value does gold have? When discussing inherent value of objects if you're not thinking like a doomsday prepper, then you are missing the point! ;-)