They already made the perfect girl game, the sims. It's already like 75% girls who play it, and every girl I know has had an addiction to it at some time.
The sad part, is that any time someones says innovation is dead, the ONLY counterexample people can point to, is Katamary.
At almost any point in history you can make the same statement about anything. When was the last time you heard about a new genre of novels? How about a new television genre? How about innovating a new genre of movies? Those innovations come fast and furious at the beggining of the medium then petter off after, there are only so many possible ideas out there. Doing a well define genre well is better then just innovating for the sake of it. Castlevania:SOTN was a simple 2d game in the same vein as super metroid. It was fun, well done, and one of my favorite games of all time. It's net innovation was 0 but it still is a great game. DDR is an innovative game, but I feel like a monkey when I play it, and despite beign asian I'm nto good at it so I don't like it. Innovation has nothign to do with what is fun.
Frankly, I was quite suprised when I didn't see any negative reactions to this statement from other programmers. For what it's worth, I'm most excited about the raw cpu power of these new systems, and I can't wait until I get the chance to develop for them.
That is one of the points that really annoyed me. The author is just a little kid whining about things that annoyed him, AI is hard and improving it takes something like the cell chip, out of order proccessing had nothing to do with it and including it made the author look like a cluesless 12 year old. I thought slashdot would be all over that point like flies on shit but apparently gaming posts are read almost exclusivly by non-programmers.
instead we got another generation of guards who forget they're looking for Solid Snake as soon as he leaves the room.
If they actually gave you good AI, it's make the game less fun. Play MGS3 on hard, the AI remembers more and fights harder.... but it's less fun for most people because failure sucks and not everybody is as good at moving sprites across the screen as you or I are. A quater the stuff he proposes would kill the fun of a game. I agree that having things behave more realistically would be nice, having some soldiers surrendering when you head shotted all their friends, or having take cover more consitantly would all be nice and in fact those things are available. But their will always be ways to cheat those AI's because their AI's. Someone had to prescript their actions.
How many soldiers do you think charge through alleys shooting people and picking up ammo and flak jackets
I dont' think this is a problem of game design, this is aproblem of logging into a public server where no one knows each other and most of you don't have mics. Games like CS do reward team play, moving as a group with actual strategy will always own random groups of people moving in different directions in a fair game (no cheaters).
I'm not saying kids shouldn't eat right, but the article brings up some significant problems with the whole "epidemic of obesity is killing us all" thing.
I think your buying into a new fad idea. Being obese isn't a good thing. There are more then a few studies that show it isn't good. You are making your "insightful" argument on the basis of one research paper. It says midly obese people may suffer more from gain-lose cycle then just staying the same wieght. Unfortunately mild obesity isn't what most americans have.
You also accuse a lot of research papers of having fabricated results and you don't support this idea with any kind of fact. I truly think you might want to read a few more studies and perhaps draw your own conclusions instead of beleiveing the abstract.
Frankly I think weight has less to do with it then over all fitness levels. A over weight person who excersices and keeps fit will generally out live a correct weight slob who spends all day in front of a computer.
Hunger is a problem of distribution and politics. Remeber the famine in ethiopia in the 80's? How about the irish potatoe famine? How about the famine in the unkraine a few decades back? During all those crisis those countries continued to export food. The problem isn't just moving food there, it's making sure those people recieve the food. Other agencies like local war lords, corrupt governments, and bandits will always try to control the flow of essential goods because that is how they maintain power. If you want to stop hunger, simply buying enough food isn't enough. You need to transport it like the above posts says, as well as defend it, then find a means to avoid stampedes/riots when it's delivered. None of this is cheap. 100 billion wouldn't do it. Ask the US government how much it costs to wage that kind of war in one countr, your basically asking MS to do it in 100 more countries.
Sure, it's useful once in a while. I never said it wasn't.
But I'd bet you a beer that 95% of Text Messages are sent simply because it's trendy.
Most messages aren't sent from a noisy place, or from a place where phone calls are not allowed such as the movie theatre or library.
It's a fad, pushed by the phone companies to make some extra cash.
texts ar useful due to cost. texting a message is cheaper then a minute of airtime in most places. Also you have no pressure to answer immediatly. You have a record of what was said so it's harder to forget. My friends use it most because we may not hear out cells goign in the bars we hang out at but we will eventually notice out messages.
Meat doens't have to be cooked, it's simply a cutural thing that we do. For incidences of uncooked foods see:Sushi, whale blubber, steak tar tar, blue steak, ect...
We can somewhat tolerate meat, that's why most(not all!) of it is cooked. Try eating raw beef for a week, bloody and all. If you live go to the emergency room. =)
As long as the bacteria on the outside is gone it wouldn't hurt me. There is nothing especially dangerous about uncooked meat except for bacteria and parasites. We no longer have a defence against those things because we generally cook the outside of our meat and our meat tends not to have parasites. I eat blue steak all the time, thats just flamed to kill the bacteria ont he exerior, the inside is still raw.
Humans, incidentally, have been natural herbivores for hundreds of thousands of years -- one can live longer and healthier as a vegetarian than as a carnivore strictly speaking. But we are considered omnivores because our bodies can tolerate meat as well as plant matter. It is not surprising to see a similar evolution taking place in other species as well; what is surprising is our relative level of resistance to this fact.
There is a fair amount of evidence that we were once herbivores that were oppertunistic meat eaters. They got energy from plants but needed vitimins from meat. This seems to be true all the way back to great apes, who are also oppertunistic meat eaters. We were porblbly not strict herbivores at any time in the last few million years.
I would, however, like to point out where I got the idea from. An old girlfriend of mine claimed that oral sex was always better if you were going down on a vegetarian. Her theory was that anything coming out of the body of a carnivore is going to taste terrible. The sperm/meat of a herbivore is much more delicious.
Carnivores taste different. And sperm's taste is effected by what you eat but it isn't the absence of meat that does it, it's the addition of some types of greens.
Really? That's news to me. See, I always thought Christianity was about love and peace. I always figured you wouldn't have to try to show your superiority to your enemy to fell good about yourself, or make him feel bad. I kind of always figured you would try to show him the light, not let him rot in Hell, if you believed in such a place. I sort of feel that Christianity was Jesus's way of trying to help people get along. I never really thought it was about Heaven and Hell, if good people go to Hell, and bad people who 'repent' get to live forever. This whole "I'm holier than thou. I'm going to Heaven. You're going to hell. Hah!" thing really bothers me, I must say.
The early church and the modern church dont' resemble each other much.
Just a note: Flash memory has a limited write lifespan. One stick can manage maybe 100,000 writes. Change games a dozen times and it's time for a new stick.
"Now that's silly! That reminds me of a Garfield I saw where he ate an entire cake! No cat could eat that much! He'd get sick! Oh, I wish they'd hire some consultants for that horrible Jim Davis."
Sarcasm aside, jim davis has made a astonishingly long career out of a single premise that has essentially 4 jokes. Repeated at naseum.
This is why Christians are given a bad name! Jesus wasn't about defying people, he was about helping people! This blond, blue eyed, white, vengeful Jesus is not who the guy was! Jesus -and this may shock you!- doesn't hate gays. Nope. Commonly held misconception. A camel fitting through the eye of a needle wasn't said about a gate. Giving a man another days work wasn't an act of defiance! Hitting the guy back would be an act of defiance. Telling people to turn their other cheek was his way of saying that we shouldn't fight if it's not necessary. If you can walk away, do so. That's what he was about. It wasn't about some Braveheart act of defiance. Jesus was a pretty cool guy, but he wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger cool. He was Mr. Rogers cool.
You mistake the word defiance for vengence. Ghandi was defiant, tell me anything about what he did that was violent?
That's the problem, we have lost the spirit of christianity and replaced it. Christianity is standing up stoically to the lions and defying the emporor, we will not beg for our lives because you are not our lord. That is the spirit of christianity, your ideas of christianity are much more modern. Early christians we're just hippies.
The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.
Just a little historical note, both sides were going to renege on that alliance/truce. Except the germans though they could gain the upper hand by a decisive pre-emptive attack. Their intelligence reported russia was marshalling it's forces to attack germany.
They got bod down in russia in winter and they got crushed byt the combined might of the cold and the ruskies.
urning the other cheek is NOT a vicious and offensive act. It's an anti-violence philosophy. If someone hits me and I turn the other cheek, I am showing that I am above violence, and that it is not the way to settle things, not laughing in their face because 'they're going to hell'.
Thats the common belief and thats wrong. Turning the other cheek is a act of passive defiance. Why turnt he cheek is you can just let him hit the same one? Check out the history of the phrase and the meaning behind it. You are inviting them to hit you again. You defy them. You force them to either back down or strike you again.
Just a notE: Cheek turnign isn't rolling over and playind dead. It's defiance. If someone beats you, make them kill you. Show you don't care what they do here because your reward is else where.
Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design? I'm guessing the insanely biased headline is a sign for all the slashdotters out there that this is simply a topic for attacking Christians? If I wanted to read threads about rabid antichristian seniment, I'd visit Fark.
They are mostly attacking creationists not christians. The title is proper. There is no science in ID, there is no logic in creationism, there is no christianity in either.
The line is thick. Christian => creationist. Creationist => idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
They already made the perfect girl game, the sims. It's already like 75% girls who play it, and every girl I know has had an addiction to it at some time.
The sad part, is that any time someones says innovation is dead, the ONLY counterexample people can point to, is Katamary.
At almost any point in history you can make the same statement about anything. When was the last time you heard about a new genre of novels? How about a new television genre? How about innovating a new genre of movies? Those innovations come fast and furious at the beggining of the medium then petter off after, there are only so many possible ideas out there. Doing a well define genre well is better then just innovating for the sake of it. Castlevania:SOTN was a simple 2d game in the same vein as super metroid. It was fun, well done, and one of my favorite games of all time. It's net innovation was 0 but it still is a great game. DDR is an innovative game, but I feel like a monkey when I play it, and despite beign asian I'm nto good at it so I don't like it. Innovation has nothign to do with what is fun.
Frankly, I was quite suprised when I didn't see any negative reactions to this statement from other programmers. For what it's worth, I'm most excited about the raw cpu power of these new systems, and I can't wait until I get the chance to develop for them.
That is one of the points that really annoyed me. The author is just a little kid whining about things that annoyed him, AI is hard and improving it takes something like the cell chip, out of order proccessing had nothing to do with it and including it made the author look like a cluesless 12 year old. I thought slashdot would be all over that point like flies on shit but apparently gaming posts are read almost exclusivly by non-programmers.
instead we got another generation of guards who forget they're looking for Solid Snake as soon as he leaves the room.
If they actually gave you good AI, it's make the game less fun. Play MGS3 on hard, the AI remembers more and fights harder.... but it's less fun for most people because failure sucks and not everybody is as good at moving sprites across the screen as you or I are. A quater the stuff he proposes would kill the fun of a game. I agree that having things behave more realistically would be nice, having some soldiers surrendering when you head shotted all their friends, or having take cover more consitantly would all be nice and in fact those things are available. But their will always be ways to cheat those AI's because their AI's. Someone had to prescript their actions.
How many soldiers do you think charge through alleys shooting people and picking up ammo and flak jackets
I dont' think this is a problem of game design, this is aproblem of logging into a public server where no one knows each other and most of you don't have mics. Games like CS do reward team play, moving as a group with actual strategy will always own random groups of people moving in different directions in a fair game (no cheaters).
I'm not saying kids shouldn't eat right, but the article brings up some significant problems with the whole "epidemic of obesity is killing us all" thing.
I think your buying into a new fad idea. Being obese isn't a good thing. There are more then a few studies that show it isn't good. You are making your "insightful" argument on the basis of one research paper. It says midly obese people may suffer more from gain-lose cycle then just staying the same wieght. Unfortunately mild obesity isn't what most americans have.
You also accuse a lot of research papers of having fabricated results and you don't support this idea with any kind of fact. I truly think you might want to read a few more studies and perhaps draw your own conclusions instead of beleiveing the abstract.
Frankly I think weight has less to do with it then over all fitness levels. A over weight person who excersices and keeps fit will generally out live a correct weight slob who spends all day in front of a computer.
Hunger is a problem of distribution and politics. Remeber the famine in ethiopia in the 80's? How about the irish potatoe famine? How about the famine in the unkraine a few decades back? During all those crisis those countries continued to export food. The problem isn't just moving food there, it's making sure those people recieve the food. Other agencies like local war lords, corrupt governments, and bandits will always try to control the flow of essential goods because that is how they maintain power. If you want to stop hunger, simply buying enough food isn't enough. You need to transport it like the above posts says, as well as defend it, then find a means to avoid stampedes/riots when it's delivered. None of this is cheap. 100 billion wouldn't do it. Ask the US government how much it costs to wage that kind of war in one countr, your basically asking MS to do it in 100 more countries.
Sure, it's useful once in a while. I never said it wasn't.
But I'd bet you a beer that 95% of Text Messages are sent simply because it's trendy.
Most messages aren't sent from a noisy place, or from a place where phone calls are not allowed such as the movie theatre or library.
It's a fad, pushed by the phone companies to make some extra cash.
texts ar useful due to cost. texting a message is cheaper then a minute of airtime in most places. Also you have no pressure to answer immediatly. You have a record of what was said so it's harder to forget. My friends use it most because we may not hear out cells goign in the bars we hang out at but we will eventually notice out messages.
"Only meat has to be cooked"
:Sushi, whale blubber, steak tar tar, blue steak, ect...
Meat doens't have to be cooked, it's simply a cutural thing that we do. For incidences of uncooked foods see
We can somewhat tolerate meat, that's why most(not all!) of it is cooked. Try eating raw beef for a week, bloody and all. If you live go to the emergency room. =)
As long as the bacteria on the outside is gone it wouldn't hurt me. There is nothing especially dangerous about uncooked meat except for bacteria and parasites. We no longer have a defence against those things because we generally cook the outside of our meat and our meat tends not to have parasites. I eat blue steak all the time, thats just flamed to kill the bacteria ont he exerior, the inside is still raw.
Humans, incidentally, have been natural herbivores for hundreds of thousands of years -- one can live longer and healthier as a vegetarian than as a carnivore strictly speaking. But we are considered omnivores because our bodies can tolerate meat as well as plant matter. It is not surprising to see a similar evolution taking place in other species as well; what is surprising is our relative level of resistance to this fact.
There is a fair amount of evidence that we were once herbivores that were oppertunistic meat eaters. They got energy from plants but needed vitimins from meat. This seems to be true all the way back to great apes, who are also oppertunistic meat eaters. We were porblbly not strict herbivores at any time in the last few million years.
Vegetarians/Vegans don't have to worry about choking on an accidentally swallowed fish bone.
Fishbones rarely kill anyone.
Yeast are animals too you heartless monster!!!
I would, however, like to point out where I got the idea from. An old girlfriend of mine claimed that oral sex was always better if you were going down on a vegetarian. Her theory was that anything coming out of the body of a carnivore is going to taste terrible. The sperm/meat of a herbivore is much more delicious.
Carnivores taste different. And sperm's taste is effected by what you eat but it isn't the absence of meat that does it, it's the addition of some types of greens.
Really? That's news to me. See, I always thought Christianity was about love and peace. I always figured you wouldn't have to try to show your superiority to your enemy to fell good about yourself, or make him feel bad. I kind of always figured you would try to show him the light, not let him rot in Hell, if you believed in such a place. I sort of feel that Christianity was Jesus's way of trying to help people get along. I never really thought it was about Heaven and Hell, if good people go to Hell, and bad people who 'repent' get to live forever. This whole "I'm holier than thou. I'm going to Heaven. You're going to hell. Hah!" thing really bothers me, I must say.
The early church and the modern church dont' resemble each other much.
Even Freud admitted that sometimes a lightsaber is just a lightsaber.
Freud was intelligent, interesting, and very wrong. The majority of his ideas have been found to be incorrect.
Actually better yet,
Obi-Wan kills Jar-Jar.
Actually better yet,
c3p0 kills Jar-Jar.
Turns out the main memory core Anakin used was salvaged from a ancient AK-47.
Just a note: Flash memory has a limited write lifespan. One stick can manage maybe 100,000 writes. Change games a dozen times and it's time for a new stick.
"Now that's silly! That reminds me of a Garfield I saw where he ate an entire cake! No cat could eat that much! He'd get sick! Oh, I wish they'd hire some consultants for that horrible Jim Davis."
Sarcasm aside, jim davis has made a astonishingly long career out of a single premise that has essentially 4 jokes. Repeated at naseum.
This is why Christians are given a bad name! Jesus wasn't about defying people, he was about helping people! This blond, blue eyed, white, vengeful Jesus is not who the guy was! Jesus -and this may shock you!- doesn't hate gays. Nope. Commonly held misconception. A camel fitting through the eye of a needle wasn't said about a gate. Giving a man another days work wasn't an act of defiance! Hitting the guy back would be an act of defiance. Telling people to turn their other cheek was his way of saying that we shouldn't fight if it's not necessary. If you can walk away, do so. That's what he was about. It wasn't about some Braveheart act of defiance. Jesus was a pretty cool guy, but he wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger cool. He was Mr. Rogers cool.
You mistake the word defiance for vengence. Ghandi was defiant, tell me anything about what he did that was violent?
That's the problem, we have lost the spirit of christianity and replaced it. Christianity is standing up stoically to the lions and defying the emporor, we will not beg for our lives because you are not our lord. That is the spirit of christianity, your ideas of christianity are much more modern. Early christians we're just hippies.
We'd be hailing hitler, and I'd problaby be labeled a terrorist in china, as I plan and execute sabatage/terror missions on the evil japanese.
The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.
Just a little historical note, both sides were going to renege on that alliance/truce. Except the germans though they could gain the upper hand by a decisive pre-emptive attack. Their intelligence reported russia was marshalling it's forces to attack germany.
They got bod down in russia in winter and they got crushed byt the combined might of the cold and the ruskies.
urning the other cheek is NOT a vicious and offensive act. It's an anti-violence philosophy. If someone hits me and I turn the other cheek, I am showing that I am above violence, and that it is not the way to settle things, not laughing in their face because 'they're going to hell'.
Thats the common belief and thats wrong. Turning the other cheek is a act of passive defiance. Why turnt he cheek is you can just let him hit the same one? Check out the history of the phrase and the meaning behind it. You are inviting them to hit you again. You defy them. You force them to either back down or strike you again.
Just a notE: Cheek turnign isn't rolling over and playind dead. It's defiance. If someone beats you, make them kill you. Show you don't care what they do here because your reward is else where.
Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design? I'm guessing the insanely biased headline is a sign for all the slashdotters out there that this is simply a topic for attacking Christians? If I wanted to read threads about rabid antichristian seniment, I'd visit Fark.
They are mostly attacking creationists not christians. The title is proper. There is no science in ID, there is no logic in creationism, there is no christianity in either.
The line is thick. Christian => creationist. Creationist => idiot.