It really did surprise me that they removed the "yield" option that Oblivion had, where if you held block and hit the interact button it would attempt to issue a yield to your attacker, and if you were friendly to them, or they were good and you were neutral to them, they would stop attacking and just have a lowered opinion of you, or take back whatever you stole, or whatever.
Just because some people treat certain recent scientific discoveries/trends as their new religion doesn't mean that you can equate science to religion in the general sense.
So what is your point, exactly? I'd argue that people have 2.28 cars because they have 2 adults and one child over 16, all of whom must use their cars in parallel (thus diminishing or destroying the theoretical benefit of having one electric and one gas powered car), but then I'd be playing into your completely tangential argument that doesn't have shit to do with this case specifically pertaining to Top Gear and the usefulness of the Tesla as a "super car".
Except that he says it would take "3 days" to drive to the northern end of Scotland from their studios. Given the charge time Clarkson mentioned, that's only possible using the 200 mile range figure from Tesla.
>Add to this the fact that the review was 100% track based, it wasn't accurate as to point that many of these cars will become daily drivers which never see the track.
During the review, Clarkson mentions that a trip from the south of England to the north of Scotland (a realistic trip for an Englishman) would take over 72 hours if you had to charge from a wall socket. The trip itself is ~12 hrs at most if you don't have to stop, but because it's over 700 miles, you have to charge it at least 4 times, taking ~16 hrs from a wall socket (as there are no fancy charging stations along the route, and even then you're still talking about many hours per charge). This is using Tesla's value of 200 miles per charge. Even if a gas powered car could only go 60 miles per tank, it'd still finish in ~16 hrs, including time taken to find a gas station off the main road and fill up eleven times.
And that is the main thrust of their problem with the car. One which Tesla simply has no defense for.
And you could get struck and killed by a semi-truck driving to work tomorrow. Sometimes it's worth it to just live with the risk, or to take the path of lower risk or a better risk:reward ratio. Look at the number of motor vehicle accident deaths in the US in the last year. Do you think we should ban all cars completely?
Without a subscription model, it's actually in ArenaNet's interest for people to hit level cap and quit playing until the next expansion, then quit playing again when they complete that expansion's content.
When people talk about "beating" WoW they're talking in terms of subscriber numbers. What you personally like or don't like isn't really relevant. I don't really like Call of Duty but that doesn't stop it from being the most popular, fastest selling FPS game around.
You missed his point completely. The fact that you're friends with 15 gladiator players shows that you are a hardcore player and hang out with hardcore players. But hardcore players aren't what makes Blizzard the big bucks. And just because you're married (or "a couple" or whatever) doesn't necessarily make you a casual player.
Every person I know could quit WoW right now and Blizzard would not notice. It'd be invisible behind their regular churn. It might cause a ruckus on my server but 2 months later even they would pretty much forget.
The biggest problem is that most developers don't have the financial resources and backing to release their game when it's actually done, nor do they have the discipline to actually have a realistic target for what "done" means. With WoW you had a company that was an expert at releasing single player games when they were "done", and knew where and when to cut to make that happen. They already had release date discipline, even though their previous success had put them in a position where they didn't actually need release date discipline.
Almost every other company in the industry that's been making MMO's for the past 10 years other than Blizzard (and maybe other than SquareEnix, but they make enough other mistakes with their MMOs that it doesn't matter) has had this antagonistic relationship with their publisher where they are letting feature creep push their release date into infinity and the publisher is trying to reign that in. Instead of working together they're working against each other, and what you end up with is Warhammer Online and Age of Conan where they're about half done with the content and then have to rush to polish what they have and push it out the door early and hope to patch in the rest of it at some indeterminate point in the future, but only if they have enough initial sales to justify it.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, I don't think I ever tried that. Either way, it seems most fights in the game are scripted to be "to the death".
Zombies aren't really "evil", they're just like an elemental force. It's like shooting (and killing) a tsunami. The water has no ill will, it just is.
To keep their T rating. I'm serious.
Our birth rate is higher than their kill rate! We win!
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
It really did surprise me that they removed the "yield" option that Oblivion had, where if you held block and hit the interact button it would attempt to issue a yield to your attacker, and if you were friendly to them, or they were good and you were neutral to them, they would stop attacking and just have a lowered opinion of you, or take back whatever you stole, or whatever.
I like how you don't actually know what the word "alien" means.
Why must you be so cruel to the newbies.
Just because some people treat certain recent scientific discoveries/trends as their new religion doesn't mean that you can equate science to religion in the general sense.
The joke is Windows "3.1", Windows "95", Windows "98", Windows "2000", and Windows "7". I thought it was pretty obvious.
My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that if a site treats the google bot differently than a regular user, then google will blacklist them.
So what is your point, exactly? I'd argue that people have 2.28 cars because they have 2 adults and one child over 16, all of whom must use their cars in parallel (thus diminishing or destroying the theoretical benefit of having one electric and one gas powered car), but then I'd be playing into your completely tangential argument that doesn't have shit to do with this case specifically pertaining to Top Gear and the usefulness of the Tesla as a "super car".
Except that he says it would take "3 days" to drive to the northern end of Scotland from their studios. Given the charge time Clarkson mentioned, that's only possible using the 200 mile range figure from Tesla.
The "S" in Model S is for "sedan".
>Add to this the fact that the review was 100% track based, it wasn't accurate as to point that many of these cars will become daily drivers which never see the track.
During the review, Clarkson mentions that a trip from the south of England to the north of Scotland (a realistic trip for an Englishman) would take over 72 hours if you had to charge from a wall socket. The trip itself is ~12 hrs at most if you don't have to stop, but because it's over 700 miles, you have to charge it at least 4 times, taking ~16 hrs from a wall socket (as there are no fancy charging stations along the route, and even then you're still talking about many hours per charge). This is using Tesla's value of 200 miles per charge. Even if a gas powered car could only go 60 miles per tank, it'd still finish in ~16 hrs, including time taken to find a gas station off the main road and fill up eleven times.
And that is the main thrust of their problem with the car. One which Tesla simply has no defense for.
You mean the 80 million iPhone and 16 million iPad users that also have a Windows PC, laptop, and/or netbook?
They learned how to get away with it.
You don't own anything that you buy on credit.
It's not the lack of education, it's the daily re-education by an either ignorant or malicious (or both) news media.
And you could get struck and killed by a semi-truck driving to work tomorrow. Sometimes it's worth it to just live with the risk, or to take the path of lower risk or a better risk:reward ratio. Look at the number of motor vehicle accident deaths in the US in the last year. Do you think we should ban all cars completely?
Uh, what? When is the last time any nuclear reactor on earth caused a nuclear explosion? I'm PRETTY SURE that's something I would have heard about.
Without a subscription model, it's actually in ArenaNet's interest for people to hit level cap and quit playing until the next expansion, then quit playing again when they complete that expansion's content.
When people talk about "beating" WoW they're talking in terms of subscriber numbers. What you personally like or don't like isn't really relevant. I don't really like Call of Duty but that doesn't stop it from being the most popular, fastest selling FPS game around.
You missed his point completely. The fact that you're friends with 15 gladiator players shows that you are a hardcore player and hang out with hardcore players. But hardcore players aren't what makes Blizzard the big bucks. And just because you're married (or "a couple" or whatever) doesn't necessarily make you a casual player.
Every person I know could quit WoW right now and Blizzard would not notice. It'd be invisible behind their regular churn. It might cause a ruckus on my server but 2 months later even they would pretty much forget.
The biggest problem is that most developers don't have the financial resources and backing to release their game when it's actually done, nor do they have the discipline to actually have a realistic target for what "done" means. With WoW you had a company that was an expert at releasing single player games when they were "done", and knew where and when to cut to make that happen. They already had release date discipline, even though their previous success had put them in a position where they didn't actually need release date discipline.
Almost every other company in the industry that's been making MMO's for the past 10 years other than Blizzard (and maybe other than SquareEnix, but they make enough other mistakes with their MMOs that it doesn't matter) has had this antagonistic relationship with their publisher where they are letting feature creep push their release date into infinity and the publisher is trying to reign that in. Instead of working together they're working against each other, and what you end up with is Warhammer Online and Age of Conan where they're about half done with the content and then have to rush to polish what they have and push it out the door early and hope to patch in the rest of it at some indeterminate point in the future, but only if they have enough initial sales to justify it.