It's not enough to win and hold ground anymore. The lesson that every war since Vietnam should have taught all governments is that if they lose the battle of diplomacy (ie, international-relations PR), even if you win the military-aspect of the war, you're better off not having fought the war at all.
This is only true if you care. With a sufficiently powerfull propaganda machine (FOX news/ CNN). You can negate much of this effect. And if your country is sufficiently powerful (China/ USA/ Russia) no one will mind too much if you murder some innocents. China and Russia have commited to wars which they did soem horrible things. and got little to no actual grief over it. Sure the US says "Your bad" thats the exstent of it. I'm sure China and Russia haven't been terribly hurt by the reprimand.
Sony has done veyr well for itself despite or because of the reasons you mentioned. Unlike a lot of other companies you know they will support their own hardware. even if it never becomes standard. in fact they sold beta tapes of sony pitures movies up until recently. Thus they ensure a healthy margine on their niche products instead of razor thin margins on commodity hardware. IF they can make money going propriatary why stop? Wouldn't you rather be Apple compters rather then compaq? Nice thick margins in a niche market who pay out the ass. or razor thin margins sold to customers who will switch on you in 1/2 a second? Sony's got loyalty, due mostly to the fact that they don't give up on their own projects. Even it breaks even, well god damn We'll support it until it doesnt.
Unlike computer technology, most other technologies don't move as fast. The old rockets are pretty much the same as the new ones technology wise, the old televisions are pretty similair to todays TV's with some additions. 20 years is nothing. Plus you have to start somewhere.
Because it's better to refine a design for 20 years and create mock up once every 5, then have to rush to make one in the year before the mission goes.
Honestly, if you look at the newer FPS, like WC3, you'll notice they are getting more and more graphics intensive. Sure, not to Doom3 specs, but, as I said before, pro gamers will be more profitable with FPS than RTS. You simply get more variety in FPS's.
s/FPS/RTS/;
Also, It's pretty evident that RTS's are more profitabel for these players then FPS's. At leats according the articles. The top Starcraft guy made hundreds of thoughsands of dollars. Fatal1ty made a bit over one hundred thousand.
Variety doesn't equate to anything. A stable game to play will benifit a player more then competing in a whoel genre. Solid Starcraft skills don't equal solid warcraft 3 skills. Like solid quake 3 skills don't match up to solid CS skills.
They all have individual indiosyncratic features that you must get use to. Switching games often means you have to change skill sets.
Annicdote: I have a friend, he kicks my ass in Starcraft. I rarly win, and often it's a massive slaughter. He always playes the same strat but has honed it down to such a degree that I can only win sometimes if I commit to a rush. Now in warcraft 3 it's the opposet. His amazing micro skills are useless against the diversity of my strategies and the simple treacheries I do to his units that he hasn't learned yet. Oyr records against each other:
Starcraft:(me: him) 13 : 98
Warcraft 3: (me:him) 27 : 0
also, my expeince playing CS and quake are similiar. I'm an above average quake player, but the first few months of playing CS I was down int he single digit kills every round on almost every server.
Also, the rapid change in game sfor pro-gaming means you'd lose yrou audience as it becomes splintered by the permutations of the genre. u firts get CS then a whoel bunch of clones each graphically supurior to each other and variatiosn on a themes. Then you have Quake and all it's clones.... Your audience splinters. Starcraft is the game because it came at the right time, has th right balance and depth needed, and thus it's remianed popular.
Boycott Monsanto? They're one of a few companies that grows and/or processes all the food you eat. It's be like boycotting General Electric. It's hard becasue you dont know who the subsidiaries are.
I've noticed my friends play custom maps specifically to avoid getting crushed by 15 years olds with a mouth. They also avoid playing me. After the first dozen games they ussually stop. they say I'm kind of a dick and I'm perfectly happy to play all out on a newbie. Even some of the starcraft vetrans won't play me any more. I've seena good player be exstremely hard to beat the first 5 games then slowly they get more paranoid and more defensive. They play like I might pop out of any undefended space and annihalate their bases. Which makes them easier to beat because they over commit to defence.
All this, and I'm a very average warcraft 3/starcraft player online. I'm part of the big hump statistically. I problaby get my ass whooped bye ach and every 15 years old korean player.
1- Rush pro: Catch enemies off gaurd con: over commits early, if rush fails your screwed.
2- Tech pro: Mid game or late game you will have a huge advantage of one kind or another. con: if they rush you in trouble, if they knwo what your doing you may lose the advantage.
3- mass units pr0: works against newbies con: won't work well against anyone else
4- Balanced force pro: hard to catch you off gaurd, you ready for almost anything, strong through out. con: Not as strong early as rush, not as strong late as teching, vulnerabel to devious tricks.
5-oddball strategies pro: the funniest games when it works con: you look stupid if it doesn't
6-Tower pro: done effectivly, it can cripple your opponent con: a vast commitment of resources early and it's statics so you can't re-use this resource later.
I hate to be the wet blanket, but think about it. If you make any kind of money at poker, you do so becasue you're consistantly winning against the other players well above average. And the law of averages says that you're probably winning somebody elses rent money.
Is gambling evil. No! But I think I'd prefer to play Blackjack against the house.
the house makes it money off of the previously mentioned gambling addicts. Thus you are again victimizing the poor wretches who can't controll themselves. And the air you breath, was once breathed in by hitler. I think you shoudl stop. and the water you drink? Problably at one time was part of a mass murder, stop drinking it. And the computer you use? it problably can kill a kitten, so I think you shoudl stop using it.
It's largley a different market. A computer is good for some games but not for others. RTS is very hard to play on anythign except a PC while fighters rend to be less fun because of the size of the monitors (fighters tend to be social). Also PC's require some techinical skill to even install some games. War 3 is moderatly difficult for a new PC user to install while some games (ie. anythign on steam and including steam itself.) takes a bit of effort. This will preclude PC's over taking consoles.
Also Mario party just isn't the same without other people in the same room. a network game of the same idea isn't as appealing.
Girls and Boys are build very differently mentally and physiologically. Girls will learn gramar and structure on their own through iteration and enjoy idea and subjected oriented lessons more. Boys require constant re-iteration of basic principles to pick up the gramar. A few years ago (20) my school district saw girls were doign poorly ina number of areas and revised the ciriculum, the girls startign doing much better. However the boys had a general slide in their grade in english. In the first year after the revision and for every year after the boys did worse then the girls and worse then the averages from the years before the change. Basically it's atrributed to the system teaching to the strengths of girls while the boys have to tag along. Some boys will do well because they are talented. And they would do well in almost any system. But the averages have dipped for boys.
Ah, but to extend it, you have to work hard at it. It's like exercise. If you don't push yourself, you don't really improve.
That may be. But you don't have to extend it for it to be useful. The objective to life is to live, and to be happy if you can manage it. Not to die the most talented or have the most money or to measure up to someone else criteria. If you can be happy cruising then who are you to critisize, if you can be happy workign your ass off to be average then that too is something I cannot assail.
An ability is worthless if the person who has it doesn't use it
Using it and working hard aren't the same. If I have an ability that makes me able to spew good essays at will, then I may spend 20 min to write one but I used it. I didn't work hard but I used my abilities. Work and effort are much less important then ability and talent. If I finish a web page in 30 min, it looks good I get rewarded. If I work hard and make one in 30 hours thats just as good I also get rewarded. However if the two compete the talented one will win. If I work hard and have talent then I will be rewarded more. Thus the papers shoudl be marked and thus will we be treated in the real world.
This issue cuts deep into the heart of what grading is for -- it's possible for smart people to reasonably disagree, depending on what they think the intent of the grade is. Since grades are put to many uses, there are many answers to the question.
Thats true. But being part of one group I resent the other. Working hard is important but contrary to what we're taught, working hard is never enough by itself. Working hard will get you into the middle class, no matter what your startign point is and what abilities you have. But going aboev middle class requires talent in something. Working hard alone never gets you any farther.
If they found out they'd find statistical markers of your program (unless yoru friggin brilliant it won't have the same word mix/ structure as a normal essay) and regrade all the essays (it's automated so it's nto that time consuming), and flunk all who tested positive.
30s in a program or 20 min from a human grader. the difference is slight wouldn't you say? It's all a fairly aribitrary way of judging ones worth. Structure is important in both and ideas ussually don't get analyzed too much. The human grader just doesn't have the time while the Program problbly isn't diverse enough to accomadate all themes.
In general high school isn't exactly a fair enviroment. It's aimed at those who learn by seeing or hearing. It's ciriculum has been hijacked numerous times by numerous groups. Most ciriculum aroudn the western world now favors girls abilities over boys. Western thought and ideals are stressed over others. Science have become political issues instead of a academic one. And soem individuals will always game the system. I know I did. Each english teacher I had failed me on my first essay. From grade 6-12. Each succesive essay I would find out more about the teacher and write essays with the same structure(horrible) but with ideas more in line with the teacher. At the ened of every year I'd have 80+ on my last essay, in my final year I had a 90. I gamed the syetem and won. This is a reflection of a important ability that will help me succeed so I don't figure it as a bad thing.
In my area of the world (Alberta, Canada), our standardized tests are administered and taken in one sitting. No chance to revise the essay or polish it. If I have learn proper gramar and writing skills to cheat the system, then I've learned all the system shoudl have imparted any way. My gramar and spelling is sub par simply because I'm an individual who cheated the other way. I never learned proper gramar or spellign because our system switched to a more subject and idea oriented english. This english is geared towards girls. The stats show ever since they switched the ciriculum girls have done much better and boys have slid down. I cheated the system because I'm a good speech writer. Even though my gramar sucks and my spelling is horrible I can portray my side very well and convince a grader that I knwo the subject, even though I'm suppose to be graded on the structure of my essay not just my arguments. Thus I got amazing marks in english without trying hard but I always feel my gramar and spelling is horrible and I don't knwo how to write a well structured essay.
Why is that? If you had two students, one that you knew was brilliant and one that you knew wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, would you give them the same grade for the same paper? If the smarter person put 20 minutes of effort into the paper while the dumber person worked their ass off for a week on it, why shouldn't the grades be different?
Why punish those with ability, why reward those who are not talented. Surely they won't be punished or rewarded in the same manner in real life. If the talented one was cruising and not expending any effort, thats his perogative. If he can be a productive member of society without effort thats fine, even if he has the potential to eb the next great mind, it's still his choice. The rewarding of those who work hard is important but if they work hard to only measure up to the minimium standard then they belong to that minimium standard regaurdless of how much effort they put in.
The main issue with the PS2 is it's multi chip architecture and the weird ways you have to utilize the processors. Most sources say the cell chip is going to eb the same. 4 chips and you divide the work between them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not enough to win and hold ground anymore. The lesson that every war since Vietnam should have taught all governments is that if they lose the battle of diplomacy (ie, international-relations PR), even if you win the military-aspect of the war, you're better off not having fought the war at all.
This is only true if you care. With a sufficiently powerfull propaganda machine (FOX news/ CNN). You can negate much of this effect. And if your country is sufficiently powerful (China/ USA/ Russia) no one will mind too much if you murder some innocents. China and Russia have commited to wars which they did soem horrible things. and got little to no actual grief over it. Sure the US says "Your bad" thats the exstent of it. I'm sure China and Russia haven't been terribly hurt by the reprimand.
By the same token, the prospector isn't dead. And neither is sony. As long as it works for them. I don't see them changing.
Sony has done veyr well for itself despite or because of the reasons you mentioned. Unlike a lot of other companies you know they will support their own hardware. even if it never becomes standard. in fact they sold beta tapes of sony pitures movies up until recently. Thus they ensure a healthy margine on their niche products instead of razor thin margins on commodity hardware. IF they can make money going propriatary why stop? Wouldn't you rather be Apple compters rather then compaq? Nice thick margins in a niche market who pay out the ass. or razor thin margins sold to customers who will switch on you in 1/2 a second? Sony's got loyalty, due mostly to the fact that they don't give up on their own projects. Even it breaks even, well god damn We'll support it until it doesnt.
Unlike computer technology, most other technologies don't move as fast. The old rockets are pretty much the same as the new ones technology wise, the old televisions are pretty similair to todays TV's with some additions. 20 years is nothing. Plus you have to start somewhere.
Ahh U of A my old Alma meter.
Because it's better to refine a design for 20 years and create mock up once every 5, then have to rush to make one in the year before the mission goes.
Honestly, if you look at the newer FPS, like WC3, you'll notice they are getting more and more graphics intensive. Sure, not to Doom3 specs, but, as I said before, pro gamers will be more profitable with FPS than RTS. You simply get more variety in FPS's.
s/FPS/RTS/;
Also, It's pretty evident that RTS's are more profitabel for these players then FPS's. At leats according the articles. The top Starcraft guy made hundreds of thoughsands of dollars. Fatal1ty made a bit over one hundred thousand.
Variety doesn't equate to anything. A stable game to play will benifit a player more then competing in a whoel genre. Solid Starcraft skills don't equal solid warcraft 3 skills. Like solid quake 3 skills don't match up to solid CS skills.
They all have individual indiosyncratic features that you must get use to. Switching games often means you have to change skill sets.
Annicdote: I have a friend, he kicks my ass in Starcraft. I rarly win, and often it's a massive slaughter. He always playes the same strat but has honed it down to such a degree that I can only win sometimes if I commit to a rush. Now in warcraft 3 it's the opposet. His amazing micro skills are useless against the diversity of my strategies and the simple treacheries I do to his units that he hasn't learned yet. Oyr records against each other:
Starcraft:(me: him)
13 : 98
Warcraft 3: (me:him)
27 : 0
also, my expeince playing CS and quake are similiar. I'm an above average quake player, but the first few months of playing CS I was down int he single digit kills every round on almost every server.
Also, the rapid change in game sfor pro-gaming means you'd lose yrou audience as it becomes splintered by the permutations of the genre. u firts get CS then a whoel bunch of clones each graphically supurior to each other and variatiosn on a themes. Then you have Quake and all it's clones.... Your audience splinters. Starcraft is the game because it came at the right time, has th right balance and depth needed, and thus it's remianed popular.
Boycott Monsanto? They're one of a few companies that grows and/or processes all the food you eat. It's be like boycotting General Electric. It's hard becasue you dont know who the subsidiaries are.
I've noticed my friends play custom maps specifically to avoid getting crushed by 15 years olds with a mouth. They also avoid playing me. After the first dozen games they ussually stop. they say I'm kind of a dick and I'm perfectly happy to play all out on a newbie. Even some of the starcraft vetrans won't play me any more. I've seena good player be exstremely hard to beat the first 5 games then slowly they get more paranoid and more defensive. They play like I might pop out of any undefended space and annihalate their bases. Which makes them easier to beat because they over commit to defence.
All this, and I'm a very average warcraft 3/starcraft player online. I'm part of the big hump statistically. I problaby get my ass whooped bye ach and every 15 years old korean player.
1- Rush
pro: Catch enemies off gaurd
con: over commits early, if rush fails your screwed.
2- Tech
pro: Mid game or late game you will have a huge advantage of one kind or another.
con: if they rush you in trouble, if they knwo what your doing you may lose the advantage.
3- mass units
pr0: works against newbies
con: won't work well against anyone else
4- Balanced force
pro: hard to catch you off gaurd, you ready for almost anything, strong through out.
con: Not as strong early as rush, not as strong late as teching, vulnerabel to devious tricks.
5-oddball strategies
pro: the funniest games when it works
con: you look stupid if it doesn't
6-Tower
pro: done effectivly, it can cripple your opponent
con: a vast commitment of resources early and it's statics so you can't re-use this resource later.
These are some general ways to win at starcraft.
I hate to be the wet blanket, but think about it. If you make any kind of money at poker, you do so becasue you're consistantly winning against the other players well above average. And the law of averages says that you're probably winning somebody elses rent money.
Is gambling evil. No! But I think I'd prefer to play Blackjack against the house.
the house makes it money off of the previously mentioned gambling addicts. Thus you are again victimizing the poor wretches who can't controll themselves. And the air you breath, was once breathed in by hitler. I think you shoudl stop. and the water you drink? Problably at one time was part of a mass murder, stop drinking it. And the computer you use? it problably can kill a kitten, so I think you shoudl stop using it.
OK, I wouldn't really do this, but someone else will which is why this law may not work.
I'm sure if you send it from "toms hardware emporium" there won't be a conviction.
But if "Toms HARD cocks empornium" was your victim, then maybe. But how many people do you know who hold a vendetta against a porn company?
It's largley a different market. A computer is good for some games but not for others. RTS is very hard to play on anythign except a PC while fighters rend to be less fun because of the size of the monitors (fighters tend to be social). Also PC's require some techinical skill to even install some games. War 3 is moderatly difficult for a new PC user to install while some games (ie. anythign on steam and including steam itself.) takes a bit of effort. This will preclude PC's over taking consoles.
Also Mario party just isn't the same without other people in the same room. a network game of the same idea isn't as appealing.
Thank you for your tips.
Girls and Boys are build very differently mentally and physiologically. Girls will learn gramar and structure on their own through iteration and enjoy idea and subjected oriented lessons more. Boys require constant re-iteration of basic principles to pick up the gramar. A few years ago (20) my school district saw girls were doign poorly ina number of areas and revised the ciriculum, the girls startign doing much better. However the boys had a general slide in their grade in english. In the first year after the revision and for every year after the boys did worse then the girls and worse then the averages from the years before the change. Basically it's atrributed to the system teaching to the strengths of girls while the boys have to tag along. Some boys will do well because they are talented. And they would do well in almost any system. But the averages have dipped for boys.
Ah, but to extend it, you have to work hard at it. It's like exercise. If you don't push yourself, you don't really improve.
That may be. But you don't have to extend it for it to be useful. The objective to life is to live, and to be happy if you can manage it. Not to die the most talented or have the most money or to measure up to someone else criteria. If you can be happy cruising then who are you to critisize, if you can be happy workign your ass off to be average then that too is something I cannot assail.
An ability is worthless if the person who has it doesn't use it
Using it and working hard aren't the same. If I have an ability that makes me able to spew good essays at will, then I may spend 20 min to write one but I used it. I didn't work hard but I used my abilities. Work and effort are much less important then ability and talent. If I finish a web page in 30 min, it looks good I get rewarded. If I work hard and make one in 30 hours thats just as good I also get rewarded. However if the two compete the talented one will win. If I work hard and have talent then I will be rewarded more. Thus the papers shoudl be marked and thus will we be treated in the real world.
This issue cuts deep into the heart of what grading is for -- it's possible for smart people to reasonably disagree, depending on what they think the intent of the grade is. Since grades are put to many uses, there are many answers to the question.
Thats true. But being part of one group I resent the other. Working hard is important but contrary to what we're taught, working hard is never enough by itself. Working hard will get you into the middle class, no matter what your startign point is and what abilities you have. But going aboev middle class requires talent in something. Working hard alone never gets you any farther.
Proverbs from the Bible
Considering it was written in hebrew I think it should fail a computer scoring program for english.
If they found out they'd find statistical markers of your program (unless yoru friggin brilliant it won't have the same word mix/ structure as a normal essay) and regrade all the essays (it's automated so it's nto that time consuming), and flunk all who tested positive.
5 points positive, but also 0 and -1. So we have a 7 point system here.
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
30s in a program or 20 min from a human grader. the difference is slight wouldn't you say? It's all a fairly aribitrary way of judging ones worth. Structure is important in both and ideas ussually don't get analyzed too much. The human grader just doesn't have the time while the Program problbly isn't diverse enough to accomadate all themes.
Indeed, india hasn't done it all. It's indiana.
In general high school isn't exactly a fair enviroment. It's aimed at those who learn by seeing or hearing. It's ciriculum has been hijacked numerous times by numerous groups. Most ciriculum aroudn the western world now favors girls abilities over boys. Western thought and ideals are stressed over others. Science have become political issues instead of a academic one. And soem individuals will always game the system. I know I did. Each english teacher I had failed me on my first essay. From grade 6-12. Each succesive essay I would find out more about the teacher and write essays with the same structure(horrible) but with ideas more in line with the teacher. At the ened of every year I'd have 80+ on my last essay, in my final year I had a 90. I gamed the syetem and won. This is a reflection of a important ability that will help me succeed so I don't figure it as a bad thing.
In my area of the world (Alberta, Canada), our standardized tests are administered and taken in one sitting. No chance to revise the essay or polish it. If I have learn proper gramar and writing skills to cheat the system, then I've learned all the system shoudl have imparted any way. My gramar and spelling is sub par simply because I'm an individual who cheated the other way. I never learned proper gramar or spellign because our system switched to a more subject and idea oriented english. This english is geared towards girls. The stats show ever since they switched the ciriculum girls have done much better and boys have slid down. I cheated the system because I'm a good speech writer. Even though my gramar sucks and my spelling is horrible I can portray my side very well and convince a grader that I knwo the subject, even though I'm suppose to be graded on the structure of my essay not just my arguments. Thus I got amazing marks in english without trying hard but I always feel my gramar and spelling is horrible and I don't knwo how to write a well structured essay.
Why is that? If you had two students, one that you knew was brilliant and one that you knew wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, would you give them the same grade for the same paper? If the smarter person put 20 minutes of effort into the paper while the dumber person worked their ass off for a week on it, why shouldn't the grades be different?
Why punish those with ability, why reward those who are not talented. Surely they won't be punished or rewarded in the same manner in real life. If the talented one was cruising and not expending any effort, thats his perogative. If he can be a productive member of society without effort thats fine, even if he has the potential to eb the next great mind, it's still his choice. The rewarding of those who work hard is important but if they work hard to only measure up to the minimium standard then they belong to that minimium standard regaurdless of how much effort they put in.
The main issue with the PS2 is it's multi chip architecture and the weird ways you have to utilize the processors. Most sources say the cell chip is going to eb the same. 4 chips and you divide the work between them.