He also warned that the number of teenage males is declining in North America, and high school students are saying their interest in games is declining.
So, instead of the obvious solution -- make games that don't suck -- they'll just try harder to market games that DO suck. Makes sense to me!
I would like to know exactly what Halo brought to the gaming market that "redefined first-person combat and multiplayer action..."
Limited turn speeds, large rings which don't affect gameplay, and duh.. Master Chief.
But really, for the first 30 minutes of the game, I thought those little aliens were on my side. I mean, they looked cute and harmless, they made cute little noises, and since they weren't shooting me, I thought they were providing cover fire for.
the latest games I like to play forced me to both build a new gaming rig from scratch (i'm lazy) and get a new copy of Windows - haven't decided between XP or possibly Vista...
Let me help: Vista hasn't been released yet, doesn't have any drivers, most software won't install on it, and it crashes a lot.
Very. The Amiga's feat was nothing short of incredible, or incroyable! if you're French. That it worked at all was amazing, but it was still (sadly) highly unstable and bug ridden. System calls all had to be intercepted and handled in software, so anything out of the ordinary would usually send you to the Guru Meditation screen (like trying to install Windows 95, for example). It was a clever but expensive solution. Ultimately you would have been better off by just buying a second computer outright, although that's more feasible nowadays with the advent of the KVM. Back then you would've needed two of everything, especially since the original Amigas used a proprietary video connector.
Hmm.. I thought it was starting to look like the telcos were trying to revert back to an 80s network business, but it turns out they actually believe they're in the 80s:
"For anybody to say that there is no competition just doesn't compute," McCloskey says.
True, but Google is just an example, and all content producers stand to lose somewhat equally. If they convinced Yahoo and MSN to do the same thing at the same time, Verizon would really be left holding their ducks in their hands.
I think the point was that when we take that for granted, we've lost sight of what's really important. Panen et circenses.. give 'em what they want and they'll forget about what they need.
Or let's talk about how EQ itself took the crown and stole most customers from UO, i.e., from those who invented the genre.
Except Legends of Kesmai was around before UO, so it's hard to back up a claim that UO invented anything. MUDs have been around for almost 30 years.. slapping a graphical interface on one was just an eventuality. UO didn't invent the graphical interface, nor were they the first to use it for a MUD. At best, they popularized the genre. EQ was the first of its kind to go 3D, and while that too may have been just another eventuality, at least they hold the distinction of being the first.
Except that's making a few assumptions that aren't necessarily true:
1. Putting the money toward more research would result in better/faster/more effective treatments. Money can limit research, but it does not, in and of itself, make good research.
2. a) Advertising costs less than research.
and/or b) Advertising serves no purpose, or a less worthy purpose than research.
While I agree that the money spent on advertising appears excessive, the figure is meaningless unless we know the costs of advertising. If it turned out half their research budget was spent on electricity, the possibilities are either that energy costs are high, or that they're being wasteful. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle; they could probably spend less on advertising, but advertising ain't cheap either.
And advertising does benefit a segment of the population. For example, if someone's been to the doctor for ailment X, but there was no current treatment available other than asprin, the patient is unlikely to seek further medical care unless they are aware of a new treatment. The idea that medical professionals are the only people who need to be aware of new treatments is shortsighted.
No, but Googling for "CSA-54" does. Ceragenin is, presumably, derived from the name of the company, Ceragenix. (Although the opposite could be true). Anyway, among the results is this article which has significantly more information:
CSAs were invented by Dr. Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and exclusively licensed to Ceragenix. Ceragenins, or CSAs, are synthetically produced small molecule chemical compounds comprised of a sterol backbone with amino acids and other chemical groups attached to them. These compounds have a net positive charge that is electrostatically attracted to the negatively charged cell membranes of certain viruses, fungi and bacteria. CSAs have a high binding affinity for such membranes (including Lipid A) and are able to rapidly disrupt the target membranes leading to rapid cell death. While CSAs have a mechanism of action that is also seen in antimicrobial peptides, which form part of the body's innate immune system, they avoid many of the difficulties associated with their use as medicines.
The pharmaceutical companies would counter that people won't visit the doctor, especially those people who have already seen one, unless they're aware of new treatments. Advertising is a service which benefits both patients and drug companies. Granted the benefits may not be equitable when competition can't or won't affect prices, but advertising in and of itself is not a "Bad Thing."
I'm pretty sure more of my stem cells stayed in me than remained behind. Why would the leftover cells have a higher longevity/survivability than my own? If a stem cells were wookies, would they live longer? Ladies and gentlemen, that does not make sense.
I think that's more an indication of the complexity and abstraction implicit in more advanced theory. While parts of newer theory can be tested and/or invalidated, much of it remains speculation and many theories cannot be tested with contemporary technology. An educated guess is still a guess.
Someone remind me why we're spending billions to go to the moon again? Is there any real reason other than a presidential mandate? Don't get me wrong -- I'm all in favor of the space program.. bigger, better, faster, and more -- but what's the point in targetting a barren rock covered in very static, highly abrasive, and possibly toxic dust? Previous expeditions have suffered mechanical failures, seal leaks, etc. And, as if that wasn't bad enough, there's the little issue of all the craters. More specifically, the lack of atmosphere that contributed to their formation. The (common?) estimate of 70-150 impacts per year would seem to ignore the 1,400 to 10,000 impacts per hour during Leonid meteor storms. While any lunar landing expedition would almost certainly avoid such periods, it doesn't bode well for any sort of permanent outpost which, again, makes me wonder what's the point of going back to the moon.
Except you gave us no reason to believe that you provided a representative sample of his work, and given a sample size of one, it's possible you're making a hasty generalization. If his hypothesis was rooted in the misconception that the earth was commonly believed to be flat in the past, then perhaps your observation would be relevant. But if you draw your conclusions from a sample size of one, what hope for your logic?
Slashdot Mirror
TH3Y TH@T W0ULD G1V3 UP @ L1TTL3 F|233D0M 4 S0M3 T3MP0|2@L S3CUR1TY D3S3|2V3 N31TH3R & W1LL L0S3 B0TH!!!!!11ONELEVEN
I also think the kid is a supreme idiot, and given exactly what he did, I'd like to beat him with a crowbar.
First, do no harm.
He also warned that the number of teenage males is declining in North America, and high school students are saying their interest in games is declining.
So, instead of the obvious solution -- make games that don't suck -- they'll just try harder to market games that DO suck. Makes sense to me!
4) Profit!!!
I would like to know exactly what Halo brought to the gaming market that "redefined first-person combat and multiplayer action..."
Limited turn speeds, large rings which don't affect gameplay, and duh.. Master Chief.
But really, for the first 30 minutes of the game, I thought those little aliens were on my side. I mean, they looked cute and harmless, they made cute little noises, and since they weren't shooting me, I thought they were providing cover fire for.
the latest games I like to play forced me to both build a new gaming rig from scratch (i'm lazy) and get a new copy of Windows - haven't decided between XP or possibly Vista...
Let me help: Vista hasn't been released yet, doesn't have any drivers, most software won't install on it, and it crashes a lot.
In other words, it's a toss up.
It wasn't ruined any of the previous times they switched CPUs.
As evidenced by their large market share.
Very. The Amiga's feat was nothing short of incredible, or incroyable! if you're French. That it worked at all was amazing, but it was still (sadly) highly unstable and bug ridden. System calls all had to be intercepted and handled in software, so anything out of the ordinary would usually send you to the Guru Meditation screen (like trying to install Windows 95, for example). It was a clever but expensive solution. Ultimately you would have been better off by just buying a second computer outright, although that's more feasible nowadays with the advent of the KVM. Back then you would've needed two of everything, especially since the original Amigas used a proprietary video connector.
Ahhhh, there's no such thing as you! You don't exist! You don't exist! Stop talking to me!
It's just Stockholm Syndrome. Don't worry, we'll cure you.
-Verizon
Hmm.. I thought it was starting to look like the telcos were trying to revert back to an 80s network business, but it turns out they actually believe they're in the 80s:
"For anybody to say that there is no competition just doesn't compute," McCloskey says.
True, but Google is just an example, and all content producers stand to lose somewhat equally. If they convinced Yahoo and MSN to do the same thing at the same time, Verizon would really be left holding their ducks in their hands.
I think the point was that when we take that for granted, we've lost sight of what's really important. Panen et circenses.. give 'em what they want and they'll forget about what they need.
Or let's talk about how EQ itself took the crown and stole most customers from UO, i.e., from those who invented the genre.
Except Legends of Kesmai was around before UO, so it's hard to back up a claim that UO invented anything. MUDs have been around for almost 30 years.. slapping a graphical interface on one was just an eventuality. UO didn't invent the graphical interface, nor were they the first to use it for a MUD. At best, they popularized the genre. EQ was the first of its kind to go 3D, and while that too may have been just another eventuality, at least they hold the distinction of being the first.
Except that's making a few assumptions that aren't necessarily true:
1. Putting the money toward more research would result in better/faster/more effective treatments. Money can limit research, but it does not, in and of itself, make good research.
2. a) Advertising costs less than research.
and/or b) Advertising serves no purpose, or a less worthy purpose than research.
While I agree that the money spent on advertising appears excessive, the figure is meaningless unless we know the costs of advertising. If it turned out half their research budget was spent on electricity, the possibilities are either that energy costs are high, or that they're being wasteful. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle; they could probably spend less on advertising, but advertising ain't cheap either.
And advertising does benefit a segment of the population. For example, if someone's been to the doctor for ailment X, but there was no current treatment available other than asprin, the patient is unlikely to seek further medical care unless they are aware of a new treatment. The idea that medical professionals are the only people who need to be aware of new treatments is shortsighted.
The pharmaceutical companies would counter that people won't visit the doctor, especially those people who have already seen one, unless they're aware of new treatments. Advertising is a service which benefits both patients and drug companies. Granted the benefits may not be equitable when competition can't or won't affect prices, but advertising in and of itself is not a "Bad Thing."
I'm pretty sure more of my stem cells stayed in me than remained behind. Why would the leftover cells have a higher longevity/survivability than my own? If a stem cells were wookies, would they live longer? Ladies and gentlemen, that does not make sense.
That was the "bad cells hypothesis," and the study indicated that they do not in fact contribute to disease.
I think that's more an indication of the complexity and abstraction implicit in more advanced theory. While parts of newer theory can be tested and/or invalidated, much of it remains speculation and many theories cannot be tested with contemporary technology. An educated guess is still a guess.
But mom, she hit me first!
And apparently you're the world's newest comer to the world's oldest profession.
No pun intended.
It's funny because it's true.
Someone remind me why we're spending billions to go to the moon again? Is there any real reason other than a presidential mandate? Don't get me wrong -- I'm all in favor of the space program.. bigger, better, faster, and more -- but what's the point in targetting a barren rock covered in very static, highly abrasive, and possibly toxic dust? Previous expeditions have suffered mechanical failures, seal leaks, etc. And, as if that wasn't bad enough, there's the little issue of all the craters. More specifically, the lack of atmosphere that contributed to their formation. The (common?) estimate of 70-150 impacts per year would seem to ignore the 1,400 to 10,000 impacts per hour during Leonid meteor storms. While any lunar landing expedition would almost certainly avoid such periods, it doesn't bode well for any sort of permanent outpost which, again, makes me wonder what's the point of going back to the moon.
That's 94.697uS at 60MPH. Good luck with that.
Except you gave us no reason to believe that you provided a representative sample of his work, and given a sample size of one, it's possible you're making a hasty generalization. If his hypothesis was rooted in the misconception that the earth was commonly believed to be flat in the past, then perhaps your observation would be relevant. But if you draw your conclusions from a sample size of one, what hope for your logic?