If you look at the context of my original message, you'll see I was responding to a poster who said the xbox comes with a remote and is a fifth of the price of a mac mini. Pardon me for being accurate, but neither of those statements are true RIGHT NOW. You are right, the xbox price will likely drop (though I'm not positive given the negative profit margins MS is currently experiencing on the box). But for now, it is NOT.
I really didn't want a flame war either, I'm just trying to be accurate.
Does the mini come with a remote included then? Eh, don't think so. You need to pay for a keyboard and mouse seperately. For the xbox you can buy a DVD-pack, very cheaply now, which comes with an actual remote, or get it chipped at a similar price...
So basically you are agreeing with me. Neither come with a remote control out of the box. Also, for the mac mini, you can buy an "actual" remote and use the box as a media center relatively cheaply (30 bucks US). (As an aside, who doesn't have a USB keyboard/mouse lying around?)
As I said in my first post, there are pros and cons to both machines, but let's not be disingenuous about the default capabilities of each machine. The price of the xbox is an advantage, but the extra cash spent on a mini (or a similarly priced/spec'd/dimensioned PC) does not necessarily go to waste.
Remote control - Ditto
And it costs like one fifth of a vanilla mac mini..
Bullshit.
A standard XBox console (I'm not talking about a bundled package, which have much higher price tags) comes with a tethered controller (not a TV-style remote control) and costs about 150 US. Thats a hair under a third of the price of a Mac mini (which costs about 500 US).
Also, that does not include the ability to play DVDs (that requires a seperate kit). Another factor for those who would use it as a "media machine" is the size: the XBox is considerably more bulky than the mini.
There are pros and cons to both, but lets not resort to lies, huh?
The Apple Video Adaptor enables you to connect your mac mini to a regular television. (Sorry if the link doesn't work. It's from the apple store.) It costs 19.99 US.
Elgato makes TV tuners with Tivo-like recording capabilities. These products range from standard television signals, to DTT to HD, etc. Most handle encyption/decryption outside of your computer. Some even have remote controls.
So, out of the box, you are right, the mac mini doesn't do those things. Apple doesn't make pre-packaged "media machines" as some PC manufacturers do. However, it is trivial to build a system to do all of those things and more.
Here is a link to the domestic terrorism case (WARNING: it is from thememoryhole.com, which plays up the "media ignored this because they weren't muslims" angle):
"Then with "facts" explain how everything came in to being."
Evolutionary theory attempts to do no such thing (which is one of the reasons why it is largely compatible with most mainstream religions). The scientific theory of how life began is refered to as abiogenesis. As to the origin of matter itself, I'm not sure if there is a widely researched theory to cover it. The theory of evolution covers only how new forms of life came from older forms of life, not life's origin.
"However I also have no problem telling children that some people believe that everything wasn't random in the universe, and as such they believe that a greater power has played a part in it all."
I'm not sure if you are an IDer or not, but this oversimplistic (and wrong) statement (as well as the first statement I quoted) is typical of the style of argument of those who forward ID.
What's wrong with your statement? First, you imply that evolution is a "random" process. This is not true. There is a random component to evolution (mutation), but there are also guided processes (like natural selection, whose result is often dependent on the actions of lifeforms). Second, you imply that ID simply states that a greater power had a "hand" in the development of lifeforms. If this were true, even I could agree with ID because that statement doesn't come into direct conflict with the scientific evidence at hand. The fact is that ID and its propenents are opposed to evolutionary theories.
And therein lies my biggest problem with ID: it is, by its very nature, unscientific and tries to discredit accepted scientific theory, observations and fact. Were it a scientific theory, I wouldn't have a problem with it being taught. The vetting and creation of theories through observation and experimentaion is what science is all about.
Which brings me to the most upsetting piece of the measure of the Kansas school board: their casual redefinition of science. There is a nearly universal agreement on the definition of the word science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science) , but the Kansas school board spits in the face of that definition. What makes them think that they are qualified to redefine science, I have no idea.
There is a plug-in for most major desktop music players to allow iPod access (WinAMP for example. This site claims the iPod is supported by iTunes, WinAmp, Musicmatch, WMP, and Real.). There are also groups who have ported Linux to the iPod (like iPodLinux) and their efforts open up a wide variety of features and capabilities including ogg support.
From everything I've read, it seems illegal. However, it seems extraordinarily unlikely a person would be prosecuted for using this service, despite the likely illegality.
You mean like this knee-jerk "must defend Nintendo against the infidels" post of yours? Heh.:P
More like must defend innovative design against stuck in PC gaming world asshats. [Insert cutesy sarcastic punctuation here]
You need to read more thoroughly, chump. I have no personal stake in Nintendo's success or failure. I play PS2, GC and PC games and have like many of them on each platform. What I have noticed is that Nintendo does like to shake things up a bit, and how can that be bad? And could you be any more sarcastic and patronizing? Do you speak to people in real life that way. There's a reason nobody like the comic book guy.
Because real life has _any_ relevance on what is good gameplay, or what's good controls? Because what you liked in Nintendo games, like, say, Mario 64 or Mario Kart or the Zelda games, was the complete realism?
Oh, wait, you didn't. If you wanted to simulate Real Life, Mario or Link would be out of breath after 2-3 jumps. Jumping is a very unnatural thing for humans. It doesn't matter if you're a nerd or an athlete. Try bouncing around for hours like Mario and you may discover it's not that easy.
Basically usually RL is that-a-way, good gameplay is that other way. Virtually all the games today, be it CounterStrike or Zelda, are fun precisely _because_ they avoid being too realistic. Abstractions like hit points and whatnot are there precisely because the way it works IRL, e.g., that you'd likely just bleed and die after the first hit, just isn't fun.
Man, do you miss the point. Of COURSE video games aren't completely realistic. If they were, they'd be less fun. As an example, when Pixar made their first run at rendering Finding Nemo, they made it ultra realistic. They found that some of the "magic" they had captured in their previous movies wasn't there. So they added bits of un-realism into the picture to make it more engaging and surreal.
But read that again. The key is that while the picture was based on realistic elements, they added unrealistic elements to make it more fun. This is also a key in many games you see on the market. While things like magic and "flying leaves" exist in the world of Zelda, constants like gravity, realistic textures and sounds, life-like motion, etc. remain. The key is fantasy grounded in realistic elements and achieving a good balance between the two.
Introduce a new controller with an entirely different paradigm of control and we have a new tool to use in achieving a real/fantasy balance.
You don't even know what games I play, fanboy. I've mentioned playing story-driven RPGs right in the post you're answering, for example. So try thinking instead of reaching out for the standard insults for a change, ok?
I did pull this from the "arguing against fps fanboys" website, so I guess you got me.
Well, _why_ is it more gratifying? Sorry, I don't do axioms. Explain.
Because it emulates the motions and behaviors of real tennis and table-tennis? (I play both, BTW, which is why I brought it up) Because it engages you physically in the game? Because using different motions and skills in different games rather than relying on the same button pressing paradigm offers more variety and each game becomes more novel and engaging? There are a lot of reasons why. I did not intend to present an axiom. I just (mistakenly) assumed you weren't too dim to get it.
Realism? Have you actually played either IRL? Because you're trying to tell me that it's realistic to swing your wrist somewhere else than the ball you're tracking with your eyes is. Nope, having played the real thing, I can tell you that it's not.
I think you enjoy being obtuse just for the fuck of it. Of course it isn't entirely realistic. But the motions used for controlling the velocity, english and direction of the ball would emulate real-life motions well. Again, the idea is to achieve a reasonable balance between reality and fantasy. And some of us actually
The parent post is why the internet sucks. No matter what the discussion, someone inevitably comes in with a knee jerk reaction, doesn't think about the things he's saying, and acts like an ass-hat. Way to be that guy, buddy.
Yep, that's why you get owned in FPS by people using a presentation remote control instead of a mouse. Oh, wait, except you don't.
Presentation remote controls are designed to do one thing well: move through slideshow-style presentations. They aren't tracked in 3D. Orientation isn't considered. In fact, the mouse you linked to has two distinct modes: regular mouse (IOW, on a table top), and presentation mode. To actually point to something on the screen in presentation mode, you have to use the built in laser pointer. In other words, it works NOTHING like the Revolution's controller. Until you actually try the new device, you have no basis for your assertion that it would be less responsive or accurate than a mouse. You seem to be a tad afraid of change.
Actually, I don't. I just want to point and click, and have the arrow go that-a-way. If I want it to go farther or closer, I'll vary the angle I shoot it at, thank you very much. So that's one gimmick I can live without quite easily.
Cause that's the way archers in real life do it, right? I love the arrogance you display in this post. Not everyone is like you. Also, pretty much nobody has used this controller in a Zelda type game yet. All we know is that it is a new way to control a console and that the applications of this device could be interesting, to say the least. I think it would be fun to try this device and see what its capabilities are. I'll reserve judgement until then.
A lot of the rest of your post was just Nintendo bashing drivel. I'm continually amazed that people are so against innovation by gaming companies. People like you seem to be very comfortable in your fps world where the greater the number of frags apparently increases the size of your penis. Others, myself included, like to play games that have varied styles of interaction, immersive stories and environments, and are just plain fun to play. I've been playing games with the same basic controllers since the NES came out and with a keyboard and mouse since the first DOOM. It would be nice for something to come along and shake things up a bit, give us a new and unique way of interacting with virtual worlds. I'm not sure this is it, but at least they are trying.
And here are a few more interesting potential applications for this kooky device:
Think of playing ping-pong or tennis with this thing. The controller becomes the handle of the racket/paddle. Spin, direction, and force could all be controlled with this and I would imagine the effect would be much more gratifying and *gasp* fun than pressing buttons on a controller. You could probably even outfit these things with an add-on paddle for even more realism.
Golf. Again, far more control (and more realistic control) could be had with this device than with a traditional setup.
Arcade-style shooters would be super fun with this type of device. And if the accruacy is as good as the review implies, this would be an improvement over the systems available in most arcades.
Except, as this guy said, Apple products cost a whole lot! Imagine the cost of Apple products if there weren't any Windows products. How does $4000 for a mac mini sound to you?
This is nothing but baseless speculation. Are you trying to tell me that if MS never existed or succeeded that no other computer company would have filled the gap? If so, you are forgetting a lot of history.
Think of IBM, Be, Amiga, NeXT, etc., etc. Had Microsoft not existed, these companies might have had a chance to secure more market share. Further, if there were more than two players on the PC realm, interoperability and standards might have been more important and faster in coming.
Now, all of this is just baseless speculation as well, but it makes at least as much sense as your, or the CoolTechZone troll's, ramblings.
Some "natural" foods require processing to be more easily digestable. Others need to be ripe or dried to be edible. For instance, if you eat enough green banana you are going to get a nasty stomach ache, but you wouldn't say that bananas are bad for you. Other foods have edible and inedible parts. Fish bones and scales are not edible (and can be dangerous if consumed), while their flesh is very delicious and nutritious.
In short, I don't believe the grandparent was advocating a lack of discretion, but rather a general guideline. And I would agree with him; generally speaking, highly processed food has less nutritive value and more chemicals and additives which are at best unnecessary and at worst bad in large doses. As an example, the growth hormones and additives in most milk Americans consume is thought to affect our ability to absorb calcium. "Less processed" milk doesn't have that problem.
And of course most of these additives have benefits and dangers. Like chemical preservatives, which were a major breakthrough for the food industry, but can be carcinogenic or allergenic. Again, use descretion. Salt is a powerful preservative, killing many bacteria if the concentration is high enough. Salt, in moderation is even good for you (ie. necessary). But in large doses it can be very bad for you (try drinking sea water).
1) I don't think he was really trying to be funny.
2) My personal space veloute recipe:
1/2 cup of oil of choice (would corn oil be the easiest on another planet? hard to say)
1/2 cup flour
6 cups vegatable stock made from leavings of daily used veggies (onions, carrots, leeks, tomatoes, potatoes, garlic, peppers, califleur, etc.)
1 1/2 tsp. salt
1/8 cup fresh chopped herb of some variety.
1 tsp pepper (which might be a difficult one to get/keep fresh in space over long periods of time).
Heat oil in large sauce pan over medium-low heat. Add flour and whisk in. Reduce heat to low and cook while whisking until mixture gives off a nutty aroma and begins to darken slightly. Add room tempature stock to mixture and stir until mixture begins to boil and thicken. Finish with salt and pepper (to taste) and fresh chopped herbs.
Granted, this isn't EXACTLY veloute, but it is an easy and simple approximation that I'd love to use with veggies, meats, or whatever was on the space-menu that evening.
First, most spices are not nearly as easy to cultivate as you describe. Take black pepper, for instance. There is a reason that it was once one of the more valuable spices in the world. Read up on wikipedia for the details of its cultivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pepper). A key point in the article is that getting an initial harvest of a consumable size would likely take a few years. Cumin and corriander (which would also produce cilantro) are far more viable options. But I'd just like to point out that if a spice so integral to most cuisines as pepper is difficult to grow, these astronauts better prepare to make some sacrifices. Many spices require so much cultivation time and/or post-harvest treatment as to make them impractical, especially on another planet. I would think vanilla, saffron and cardamom would fall into these categories. And then there are the spices which would be nearly impossible to cultivate without an extended stay and a large amount of land. Cinnamin comes to mind...
As for shelf life, spices generally don't fare very well. In ground form, spices generally lose their pungency well within a year. In whole form, you can eek another year or two out of them. But that isn't a long time in planet-hopping years. Storage mechanisms might be created to extend their potency, but I use air-tight containers at home for whole spices and I never keep them for over a year. You can taste the difference, trust me.
In terms of herbs, they would fare much better. A little herb plant can go a long way. And so long as there is enough light and water, cultivation is a snap.
You are modded "Funny" right now, but maybe I just don't get it...
As a chef, I think you are uninformed as to exactly what French cuisine is and how much the French have contributed to modern techniques used in all types of cuisine around the world.
For some background, I suggest these two wikipedia.org articles:
I prefer the flavors of the Southwest, Latin america and India in my own cuisine, but there are very good reasons that most modern chef schools teach primarily French techniques in their curriculums. In the majority of dishes I prepare, there is some piece of the dish whose core is a French invention, or at least has a parallel in French cuisine. For instance, read wikipedia's article on sauces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauce), where you will learn about the huge effort French chefs put into creating and codifying the various root types of sauces. These sauces are heavily used in nearly all types of cooking.
In regards to use of vegetables, I'd think a classically trained (read: French) chef could come up with many tasty dishes with just a few vegetables.
I think you have some misconceptions about French cuisine.
In Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, they clearly indicate that OS X for Intel will run on processors based on the IA-32 standard. This standard is compatible with the x86 instruction set.
Granted they never say that OS X will run on generic x86 hardware, but the grandparent didn't say that either.
First, let me state that I agree that Mac on Intel won't have a serious impact on Linux. Though I do think it could make a dent in Linux on the desktop (rather than your assesment of a "blip"). On to your points.
1-3: You got me. It isn't free and it won't run (supported) on generic x86 boxes (or even boxes from other large vendors).
4: It won't run on the rack-mounts you got from HP, but it will run on the rack-mounts you buy from Apple. I hear those guys are pretty nice, as well.
5: Loyalty has always kept these two camps intact. Agreed.
6: Define "real" Unix and then tell me why Mac OS X isn't Unix. In my experience, Mac OS X is just as much a flavor of Unix as Linux, Solaris, AIX or any of the BSDs. Sure, it does some things differently, but don't *all* flavors of Unix do some things differently. And in terms of stability, expandability, and playing nice with existing Unix software, it has been pretty good to me. I completely disagree with you.
7: Netinfo isn't great, but it's use is very limited in Panther and later (especially Tiger). In a networked environment, against authentication and directory servers (OS X Server, ActiveDirectory/MS, Kerberos/LDAP, etc.), NetInfo isn't used much at all on local machines. Again, OS X supports open standards and does it well.
8: It isn't free, and the hardware, while likely to come down a tad, IMO, will not be as cheap as commodity x86 boxes. But I do expect their prices to become more competitive with the "big boys" of the Wintel market (Dell, HP, etc.). If you are looking for rock-bottom prices, of course you don't go to a major provider like Dell or HP, do you? Then why would you go to Apple? Other than that, I see no reason they can't compete better with Dell and HP on their own turf.
9: I think you're jumping the gun on this one a bit. This transition is expected to take over two years, yet you are assuming Apple will stay with IA-32 indefinitely based off of their initial Universal Binray Programming Guidelines doc. ISn't that a tad presumptuous? I seriously doubt that by the time Apple get's their pro desktop lines migrated to Intel, they won't support 64 bit processors. We'll see though. Neither of us are mindreaders...
One more time: dashboard apps are html, css and javascript. Not "applets." Not "ActiveX-like." Html, css and javascript have about as much access to your local disks as...well, any other webpage on the internet. Which is to say: nearly none.
...and would also eliminate the "dammit, I grabbed it upside down again" issue as well.
That's the worst. It seems really easy to do, as well. The first time it happened to me I had to re-try the operation three times before realizing that I was holding the remote upside down.
At first, I thought I'd discovered some wierd Tivo glitch. "Play and pause work fine, but FF and RW seem to be reversed!"
Sure, certain tasks are easy (play/pause, FF, RW, Select, arrow keys, etc.). But other tasks suck balls. Take, for instance the buttons to invoke/clear the info pages for a given program. Info is a tiny button that is hard to get to and the Exit button opposite from the Info button (which is equally as hard to get to, IMO) doesn't even exit from the menu. For THAT, you have to go all the way to the bottom of the controller to the Clear button.
The Clear and Enter buttons have to be the hardest buttons to reach on any remote, ever. I have to re-adjust my whole hand just to reach them. Definitely bad for those super-lazy, one hand TV surfers like myself.
For my money a slightly wider controller with all the buttons in easy reach of my thumb would have been preferrable. To each his own, I guess.
I noticed from the review that this book covers OpenLDAP and SASL integration. Was there any info in the book on integration with Kerberos + SASL? I realize this is probably outside the scope of the book.
Also, given that this isn't a great book, are there any recommendations for guides on implementing SASL + OpenLDAP out there? Again, I am specifically looking for OpenLDAP + SASL + Kerberos. And pushing even further, any good guides to using Mac OS X as a Kerberos / OpenLDAP client. (Yes, I know OS X Server does a lot of the work for you, but I'm cheap and want to set it up on my own.)
However, on OS X, X is a standard toolkit, so it looks like Apple has some work to do....
What do you mean by standard? It doesn't come pre-installed on most systems.
If I were to venture a guess as to why Apple doesn't conform to the "Mac OS" standards in X Windows, it is to ensure consistency with other X Windows platforms. Given that Apple's X Windows implementation is more of a "tack on", it makes sense to me. When I'm using X Windows, I expect apps to work like X Windows apps.
Slashdot Mirror
CNET reviews will do my dirty work for me. Check out their review of the ORIGINAL xbox for a detailed list of its capabilities.
Taft
I really didn't want a flame war either, I'm just trying to be accurate.
Does the mini come with a remote included then? Eh, don't think so. You need to pay for a keyboard and mouse seperately. For the xbox you can buy a DVD-pack, very cheaply now, which comes with an actual remote, or get it chipped at a similar price...
So basically you are agreeing with me. Neither come with a remote control out of the box. Also, for the mac mini, you can buy an "actual" remote and use the box as a media center relatively cheaply (30 bucks US). (As an aside, who doesn't have a USB keyboard/mouse lying around?)
As I said in my first post, there are pros and cons to both machines, but let's not be disingenuous about the default capabilities of each machine. The price of the xbox is an advantage, but the extra cash spent on a mini (or a similarly priced/spec'd/dimensioned PC) does not necessarily go to waste.
Taft
And it costs like one fifth of a vanilla mac mini..
Bullshit.
A standard XBox console (I'm not talking about a bundled package, which have much higher price tags) comes with a tethered controller (not a TV-style remote control) and costs about 150 US. Thats a hair under a third of the price of a Mac mini (which costs about 500 US).
Also, that does not include the ability to play DVDs (that requires a seperate kit). Another factor for those who would use it as a "media machine" is the size: the XBox is considerably more bulky than the mini.
There are pros and cons to both, but lets not resort to lies, huh?
Taft
The Apple Video Adaptor enables you to connect your mac mini to a regular television. (Sorry if the link doesn't work. It's from the apple store.) It costs 19.99 US.
Elgato makes TV tuners with Tivo-like recording capabilities. These products range from standard television signals, to DTT to HD, etc. Most handle encyption/decryption outside of your computer. Some even have remote controls.
If your HD television has DVI input, you can connect your mac to your HDTV without an adaptor.
So, out of the box, you are right, the mac mini doesn't do those things. Apple doesn't make pre-packaged "media machines" as some PC manufacturers do. However, it is trivial to build a system to do all of those things and more.
Taft
http://www.thememoryhole.org/terror/tyler-terror.h tm
Taft
All of the information following that line was actually disagreeing with you.
Taft
Evolutionary theory attempts to do no such thing (which is one of the reasons why it is largely compatible with most mainstream religions). The scientific theory of how life began is refered to as abiogenesis. As to the origin of matter itself, I'm not sure if there is a widely researched theory to cover it. The theory of evolution covers only how new forms of life came from older forms of life, not life's origin.
"However I also have no problem telling children that some people believe that everything wasn't random in the universe, and as such they believe that a greater power has played a part in it all."
I'm not sure if you are an IDer or not, but this oversimplistic (and wrong) statement (as well as the first statement I quoted) is typical of the style of argument of those who forward ID.
What's wrong with your statement? First, you imply that evolution is a "random" process. This is not true. There is a random component to evolution (mutation), but there are also guided processes (like natural selection, whose result is often dependent on the actions of lifeforms). Second, you imply that ID simply states that a greater power had a "hand" in the development of lifeforms. If this were true, even I could agree with ID because that statement doesn't come into direct conflict with the scientific evidence at hand. The fact is that ID and its propenents are opposed to evolutionary theories.
And therein lies my biggest problem with ID: it is, by its very nature, unscientific and tries to discredit accepted scientific theory, observations and fact. Were it a scientific theory, I wouldn't have a problem with it being taught. The vetting and creation of theories through observation and experimentaion is what science is all about.
Which brings me to the most upsetting piece of the measure of the Kansas school board: their casual redefinition of science. There is a nearly universal agreement on the definition of the word science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science) , but the Kansas school board spits in the face of that definition. What makes them think that they are qualified to redefine science, I have no idea.
Taft
There is a plug-in for most major desktop music players to allow iPod access (WinAMP for example. This site claims the iPod is supported by iTunes, WinAmp, Musicmatch, WMP, and Real.). There are also groups who have ported Linux to the iPod (like iPodLinux) and their efforts open up a wide variety of features and capabilities including ogg support.
Taft
From everything I've read, it seems illegal. However, it seems extraordinarily unlikely a person would be prosecuted for using this service, despite the likely illegality.
Taft
More like must defend innovative design against stuck in PC gaming world asshats. [Insert cutesy sarcastic punctuation here]
You need to read more thoroughly, chump. I have no personal stake in Nintendo's success or failure. I play PS2, GC and PC games and have like many of them on each platform. What I have noticed is that Nintendo does like to shake things up a bit, and how can that be bad? And could you be any more sarcastic and patronizing? Do you speak to people in real life that way. There's a reason nobody like the comic book guy.
Because real life has _any_ relevance on what is good gameplay, or what's good controls? Because what you liked in Nintendo games, like, say, Mario 64 or Mario Kart or the Zelda games, was the complete realism? Oh, wait, you didn't. If you wanted to simulate Real Life, Mario or Link would be out of breath after 2-3 jumps. Jumping is a very unnatural thing for humans. It doesn't matter if you're a nerd or an athlete. Try bouncing around for hours like Mario and you may discover it's not that easy. Basically usually RL is that-a-way, good gameplay is that other way. Virtually all the games today, be it CounterStrike or Zelda, are fun precisely _because_ they avoid being too realistic. Abstractions like hit points and whatnot are there precisely because the way it works IRL, e.g., that you'd likely just bleed and die after the first hit, just isn't fun.
Man, do you miss the point. Of COURSE video games aren't completely realistic. If they were, they'd be less fun. As an example, when Pixar made their first run at rendering Finding Nemo, they made it ultra realistic. They found that some of the "magic" they had captured in their previous movies wasn't there. So they added bits of un-realism into the picture to make it more engaging and surreal.
But read that again. The key is that while the picture was based on realistic elements, they added unrealistic elements to make it more fun. This is also a key in many games you see on the market. While things like magic and "flying leaves" exist in the world of Zelda, constants like gravity, realistic textures and sounds, life-like motion, etc. remain. The key is fantasy grounded in realistic elements and achieving a good balance between the two.
Introduce a new controller with an entirely different paradigm of control and we have a new tool to use in achieving a real/fantasy balance.
You don't even know what games I play, fanboy. I've mentioned playing story-driven RPGs right in the post you're answering, for example. So try thinking instead of reaching out for the standard insults for a change, ok?
I did pull this from the "arguing against fps fanboys" website, so I guess you got me.
Well, _why_ is it more gratifying? Sorry, I don't do axioms. Explain.
Because it emulates the motions and behaviors of real tennis and table-tennis? (I play both, BTW, which is why I brought it up) Because it engages you physically in the game? Because using different motions and skills in different games rather than relying on the same button pressing paradigm offers more variety and each game becomes more novel and engaging? There are a lot of reasons why. I did not intend to present an axiom. I just (mistakenly) assumed you weren't too dim to get it.
Realism? Have you actually played either IRL? Because you're trying to tell me that it's realistic to swing your wrist somewhere else than the ball you're tracking with your eyes is. Nope, having played the real thing, I can tell you that it's not.
I think you enjoy being obtuse just for the fuck of it. Of course it isn't entirely realistic. But the motions used for controlling the velocity, english and direction of the ball would emulate real-life motions well. Again, the idea is to achieve a reasonable balance between reality and fantasy. And some of us actually
The parent post is why the internet sucks. No matter what the discussion, someone inevitably comes in with a knee jerk reaction, doesn't think about the things he's saying, and acts like an ass-hat. Way to be that guy, buddy.
Yep, that's why you get owned in FPS by people using a presentation remote control instead of a mouse. Oh, wait, except you don't.
Presentation remote controls are designed to do one thing well: move through slideshow-style presentations. They aren't tracked in 3D. Orientation isn't considered. In fact, the mouse you linked to has two distinct modes: regular mouse (IOW, on a table top), and presentation mode. To actually point to something on the screen in presentation mode, you have to use the built in laser pointer. In other words, it works NOTHING like the Revolution's controller. Until you actually try the new device, you have no basis for your assertion that it would be less responsive or accurate than a mouse. You seem to be a tad afraid of change.
Actually, I don't. I just want to point and click, and have the arrow go that-a-way. If I want it to go farther or closer, I'll vary the angle I shoot it at, thank you very much. So that's one gimmick I can live without quite easily.
Cause that's the way archers in real life do it, right? I love the arrogance you display in this post. Not everyone is like you. Also, pretty much nobody has used this controller in a Zelda type game yet. All we know is that it is a new way to control a console and that the applications of this device could be interesting, to say the least. I think it would be fun to try this device and see what its capabilities are. I'll reserve judgement until then.
A lot of the rest of your post was just Nintendo bashing drivel. I'm continually amazed that people are so against innovation by gaming companies. People like you seem to be very comfortable in your fps world where the greater the number of frags apparently increases the size of your penis. Others, myself included, like to play games that have varied styles of interaction, immersive stories and environments, and are just plain fun to play. I've been playing games with the same basic controllers since the NES came out and with a keyboard and mouse since the first DOOM. It would be nice for something to come along and shake things up a bit, give us a new and unique way of interacting with virtual worlds. I'm not sure this is it, but at least they are trying.
And here are a few more interesting potential applications for this kooky device:
- Think of playing ping-pong or tennis with this thing. The controller becomes the handle of the racket/paddle. Spin, direction, and force could all be controlled with this and I would imagine the effect would be much more gratifying and *gasp* fun than pressing buttons on a controller. You could probably even outfit these things with an add-on paddle for even more realism.
-
Golf. Again, far more control (and more realistic control) could be had with this device than with a traditional setup.
- Arcade-style shooters would be super fun with this type of device. And if the accruacy is as good as the review implies, this would be an improvement over the systems available in most arcades.
TaftThis is nothing but baseless speculation. Are you trying to tell me that if MS never existed or succeeded that no other computer company would have filled the gap? If so, you are forgetting a lot of history.
Think of IBM, Be, Amiga, NeXT, etc., etc. Had Microsoft not existed, these companies might have had a chance to secure more market share. Further, if there were more than two players on the PC realm, interoperability and standards might have been more important and faster in coming.
Now, all of this is just baseless speculation as well, but it makes at least as much sense as your, or the CoolTechZone troll's, ramblings.
Taft
Some "natural" foods require processing to be more easily digestable. Others need to be ripe or dried to be edible. For instance, if you eat enough green banana you are going to get a nasty stomach ache, but you wouldn't say that bananas are bad for you. Other foods have edible and inedible parts. Fish bones and scales are not edible (and can be dangerous if consumed), while their flesh is very delicious and nutritious.
In short, I don't believe the grandparent was advocating a lack of discretion, but rather a general guideline. And I would agree with him; generally speaking, highly processed food has less nutritive value and more chemicals and additives which are at best unnecessary and at worst bad in large doses. As an example, the growth hormones and additives in most milk Americans consume is thought to affect our ability to absorb calcium. "Less processed" milk doesn't have that problem.
And of course most of these additives have benefits and dangers. Like chemical preservatives, which were a major breakthrough for the food industry, but can be carcinogenic or allergenic. Again, use descretion. Salt is a powerful preservative, killing many bacteria if the concentration is high enough. Salt, in moderation is even good for you (ie. necessary). But in large doses it can be very bad for you (try drinking sea water).
Taft
Got it and missed that.
2) My personal space veloute recipe:
1/2 cup of oil of choice (would corn oil be the easiest on another planet? hard to say)
1/2 cup flour
6 cups vegatable stock made from leavings of daily used veggies (onions, carrots, leeks, tomatoes, potatoes, garlic, peppers, califleur, etc.)
1 1/2 tsp. salt
1/8 cup fresh chopped herb of some variety.
1 tsp pepper (which might be a difficult one to get/keep fresh in space over long periods of time).
Heat oil in large sauce pan over medium-low heat. Add flour and whisk in. Reduce heat to low and cook while whisking until mixture gives off a nutty aroma and begins to darken slightly. Add room tempature stock to mixture and stir until mixture begins to boil and thicken. Finish with salt and pepper (to taste) and fresh chopped herbs.
Granted, this isn't EXACTLY veloute, but it is an easy and simple approximation that I'd love to use with veggies, meats, or whatever was on the space-menu that evening.
Taft
First, most spices are not nearly as easy to cultivate as you describe. Take black pepper, for instance. There is a reason that it was once one of the more valuable spices in the world. Read up on wikipedia for the details of its cultivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pepper). A key point in the article is that getting an initial harvest of a consumable size would likely take a few years. Cumin and corriander (which would also produce cilantro) are far more viable options. But I'd just like to point out that if a spice so integral to most cuisines as pepper is difficult to grow, these astronauts better prepare to make some sacrifices. Many spices require so much cultivation time and/or post-harvest treatment as to make them impractical, especially on another planet. I would think vanilla, saffron and cardamom would fall into these categories. And then there are the spices which would be nearly impossible to cultivate without an extended stay and a large amount of land. Cinnamin comes to mind...
As for shelf life, spices generally don't fare very well. In ground form, spices generally lose their pungency well within a year. In whole form, you can eek another year or two out of them. But that isn't a long time in planet-hopping years. Storage mechanisms might be created to extend their potency, but I use air-tight containers at home for whole spices and I never keep them for over a year. You can taste the difference, trust me.
In terms of herbs, they would fare much better. A little herb plant can go a long way. And so long as there is enough light and water, cultivation is a snap.
Taft
As a chef, I think you are uninformed as to exactly what French cuisine is and how much the French have contributed to modern techniques used in all types of cuisine around the world.
For some background, I suggest these two wikipedia.org articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_cuisine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provence (note the culture section)
I prefer the flavors of the Southwest, Latin america and India in my own cuisine, but there are very good reasons that most modern chef schools teach primarily French techniques in their curriculums. In the majority of dishes I prepare, there is some piece of the dish whose core is a French invention, or at least has a parallel in French cuisine. For instance, read wikipedia's article on sauces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauce), where you will learn about the huge effort French chefs put into creating and codifying the various root types of sauces. These sauces are heavily used in nearly all types of cooking.
In regards to use of vegetables, I'd think a classically trained (read: French) chef could come up with many tasty dishes with just a few vegetables.
I think you have some misconceptions about French cuisine.
Taft
In Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, they clearly indicate that OS X for Intel will run on processors based on the IA-32 standard. This standard is compatible with the x86 instruction set.
Granted they never say that OS X will run on generic x86 hardware, but the grandparent didn't say that either.
Taft
First, let me state that I agree that Mac on Intel won't have a serious impact on Linux. Though I do think it could make a dent in Linux on the desktop (rather than your assesment of a "blip"). On to your points.
1-3: You got me. It isn't free and it won't run (supported) on generic x86 boxes (or even boxes from other large vendors).
4: It won't run on the rack-mounts you got from HP, but it will run on the rack-mounts you buy from Apple. I hear those guys are pretty nice, as well.
5: Loyalty has always kept these two camps intact. Agreed.
6: Define "real" Unix and then tell me why Mac OS X isn't Unix. In my experience, Mac OS X is just as much a flavor of Unix as Linux, Solaris, AIX or any of the BSDs. Sure, it does some things differently, but don't *all* flavors of Unix do some things differently. And in terms of stability, expandability, and playing nice with existing Unix software, it has been pretty good to me. I completely disagree with you.
7: Netinfo isn't great, but it's use is very limited in Panther and later (especially Tiger). In a networked environment, against authentication and directory servers (OS X Server, ActiveDirectory/MS, Kerberos/LDAP, etc.), NetInfo isn't used much at all on local machines. Again, OS X supports open standards and does it well.
8: It isn't free, and the hardware, while likely to come down a tad, IMO, will not be as cheap as commodity x86 boxes. But I do expect their prices to become more competitive with the "big boys" of the Wintel market (Dell, HP, etc.). If you are looking for rock-bottom prices, of course you don't go to a major provider like Dell or HP, do you? Then why would you go to Apple? Other than that, I see no reason they can't compete better with Dell and HP on their own turf.
9: I think you're jumping the gun on this one a bit. This transition is expected to take over two years, yet you are assuming Apple will stay with IA-32 indefinitely based off of their initial Universal Binray Programming Guidelines doc. ISn't that a tad presumptuous? I seriously doubt that by the time Apple get's their pro desktop lines migrated to Intel, they won't support 64 bit processors. We'll see though. Neither of us are mindreaders...
Taft
Get the specs from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube
They both lagged the XBox, but Nintendo still had some bragging rights over Sony. We'll see what the next generation brings, I guess.
Taft
Taft
That's the worst. It seems really easy to do, as well. The first time it happened to me I had to re-try the operation three times before realizing that I was holding the remote upside down.
At first, I thought I'd discovered some wierd Tivo glitch. "Play and pause work fine, but FF and RW seem to be reversed!"
Taft
Sure, certain tasks are easy (play/pause, FF, RW, Select, arrow keys, etc.). But other tasks suck balls. Take, for instance the buttons to invoke/clear the info pages for a given program. Info is a tiny button that is hard to get to and the Exit button opposite from the Info button (which is equally as hard to get to, IMO) doesn't even exit from the menu. For THAT, you have to go all the way to the bottom of the controller to the Clear button.
The Clear and Enter buttons have to be the hardest buttons to reach on any remote, ever. I have to re-adjust my whole hand just to reach them. Definitely bad for those super-lazy, one hand TV surfers like myself.
For my money a slightly wider controller with all the buttons in easy reach of my thumb would have been preferrable. To each his own, I guess.
Taft
Also, given that this isn't a great book, are there any recommendations for guides on implementing SASL + OpenLDAP out there? Again, I am specifically looking for OpenLDAP + SASL + Kerberos. And pushing even further, any good guides to using Mac OS X as a Kerberos / OpenLDAP client. (Yes, I know OS X Server does a lot of the work for you, but I'm cheap and want to set it up on my own.)
Taft
What do you mean by standard? It doesn't come pre-installed on most systems.
If I were to venture a guess as to why Apple doesn't conform to the "Mac OS" standards in X Windows, it is to ensure consistency with other X Windows platforms. Given that Apple's X Windows implementation is more of a "tack on", it makes sense to me. When I'm using X Windows, I expect apps to work like X Windows apps.
Taft