I don't think it would actually be easier. I think taking control of a plane by physical force would be easier than acquiring all the equipment actually necessary to fly a R/C plane and then defeating any encryption and safety measures built in. Also, keep in mind that you would only have the length of the flight (at most) to defeat the safety measures because I would assume, if the designed properly, any encryption used would be changed with each flight and possibly changed multiple times while in flight.
Fair enough... but keep in mind that that little mathmatical excercise was based on the stars in ONE galaxy (our own). Now take into account that there are an estimated 200+ BILLION galaxies in the universe. Suddenly those percentages starting going back up.
Oh, yeah? Let's say we decide to start colonizing other galaxies. Oh wait... we can't! Traveling hundreds or thousands of light years is not an easy task. We can't even get to the next closest star in our own galaxy. Whose to say there aren't other civilizations in the same boat as us? Also, say there are indeed civilizations that can travel between galaxies. Given that there may be as many as 200 billion galaxies they may have simply not arriveed here yet.
Just one comment... people always seem to pick on the linearity of FPS games. Which is a valid point. But for some reason people seem to think that primarily applies to console FPS games. Since when? Being both a PC and console gamer I honestly can't say that I find PC FPS any less linear. I don't think I've ever been 'lost' in any FPS. Some require back tracking to gets keys and crap (ala Doom), but they are all quite linear. Some games, like maybe a Ghost Recon or something, might give you multiple streets/approaches so a single objective, but that's about the extent of non-linearity. But the most highly praised games, like HL2, always seem to be as linear as any other FPS.
But I still don't see the issue. If it is in orbit around a star and has enough mass to meet to definition of a planet then it is a planet. I would also propose that orbiting multiple stars is acceptable as well. Why bother with throwing the stability of the orbit into the equation? If it loses its orbit and is kicked out of the system then it gets recategorized. Perhaps I'm simply too naive about all the issues/scenarios involed, but I have a feeling this is being made into a more complicated issue than necessary.
Ummm... except there is nothing complicated about. The game will play on any 360 console. No, the real answer is the op is utterly confused for no reason. Likely a confused PC gamer who is used to looking for specs.
I don't get the problem? First, start off with the idea that a planet must be orbiting a star... similar to how moons are defined as orbiting a planet. Even if they are orbiting a pulsar (dead star) they are still planets, but not if they are orbiting a failed star (brown dwarf). If you find a brown dwarf with satellites call that something else. Then the article mentions the possibility of having planet sized objects orbiting each other the same way binary stars orbit one another. OK, make that a seperate category. After that just define the mass need to be called a planet and be done with it. I'm sure there are plenty of other scenarios out there that need to be defined, but the basic rules don't seem difficult to set up.
Not to mention it's likely that in the not too distant future will be be engineering our own improved genes without the need for evolution to do it for us.
Bad, bad, bad idea. Sure, they would still sell to the hardcore gamers, but that would piss off so much of their fan base that it would hurt them more in the long run. People can accept the fact that some hardcore geeks snatched them all up and flipped them on Ebay... they get to be the a-holes, not Sony. At least the average consumer still has hope they might catch a break and grab one at a store for a reasonable price. But if Sony did that themselves then they become the a-holes and that is NOT the image you want as a company. You also might also make a fair number of your software developers a bit uneasy with a stunt like that.
Well, some of us have friends in real life (i.e. not just online) and very few people have multiple networked PCs capable of modern gaming. And consoles provide a great way to play games with friends in your living room/den. Also, for myself, I really enjoy sitting next the fireplace in my recliner in the evening after work and playing some games. MY PC is upstairs in my office.
Also, I think the PC gaming market just confuses the average gamer. Most people don't like installs to begin with and then these days you have crap like SLI and PhysX that just confuse the situation further. Do you need that stuff? No, you can just put all your in-game detail sliders to "Low" and somewhat be able to enjoy a modern game. Now before someone points out that you can buy decent videos cards that are a generation or two old for pretty cheap, how many average people have even attempted to change a video card before? You have to stop thinking like a techno-nerd and realize that most people never do stuff like that. They go out and buy a Dell or HP with integrated graphics and never upgrade the thing until they buy a new PC 5 years later.
Also think about the avergage person's PC setup. Most people have their PCs tucked into a corner and/or on a fairly small computer desk with a cheap computer chair... hell, it might just be a cheap wooden kitchen table type chair.
The only real advantage that PCs have is graphics... and that only applies to a VERY small percentage of people with the latest video cards. Again, most people are going to have PCs that are 2-5 years old with integrated graphics chips. Modern games will run like total crap on those. PCs also have a control advantage for a few genres (like FPS), but that's just an artificial limitation by the console manufacturers. They could easily support KB&Mouse if they wanted... and I personally wish they would so I could quit hearing the vocal minority crying about it.
In the end, consoles just provide a different gaming experience than the PC platform. If you don't like it, cool, but it's not hard at all to see the appeal of consoles.
Since when have they had trouble sending shuttles up? Sure, there have been disasters, but who said space travel was easy? They have landed on the moon, rammed a probe into a comet, and have 4 (IIRC) vehicles on or orbiting Mars.
Well, first, I'd say its a safe bet there are no sentient being on Venus. And what right do we have? We live here (here being this solar system) You talk about "clout", but if there is no one there to refute our claim then we have all the clout we need. Sure, if some aliend race flies into our solar system tomorrow and colonizes Venus then I'd agree that they have the right to claim it since we aren't there. These treaties are amonst the people of earth. You can't claim Mars because you will be held subject to internatioal treaty since you DO live here.
'Never' is a long time. Given that time frame, why are you limiting potential settlements to the Moon and Mars? There are potentially billions of planets out there and they may not all be 'dead rocks'.
Heh... at 3.3 shows per day maybe you just watch too much TV.
Anyway, the comparison with TV isn't entirely valid. Sometimes people miss shows and don't want to wait for a re-run to watch it. Reruns may take months to appear and if a new episode of the same show airs next week you may need to watch the epiaode you missed before that. Sure, you can download the show off the internet, but that's not legal in many places and thus can't really be used as a valid argument. Then there's the option to watch the legal episodes from the netowrks website. But that has it's own issues. Not everyone really wants to sit at their PC to watch a TV show nor is it ideal for families. So that avenue only really benefits a small percentage of viewers.
Then, as others have mentioned, the HD movies can't be overlooked. This allows people to rent HD movies without going to the video store and without investing in an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie player... both of which are still very expensive. This is what I'm most excited about. This will allow me to rent HD movies while I wait for a cheap dual format (HD-DVD + Blu-Ray) standalone movie player to hit the market. Plus, if they start offering "still in theater" movies (like you see at hotels sometimes), that adds even more appeal.
Again, I find this highly suspect...game companies don't normally ship retail units to retailers until just a few days before the street date. Because of this, your post seems fishy. I live near the Wal_mart HQ, and none of the sroes around here have any units for sale.
Thrax
Re:Not released? Where are YOU?
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 1
Buy a GBA at Best Buy? That's BS. Maybe you saw a demo GBA set-up to play, but you can't buy them in the USA yet (unless you get an imported GBA). The official street date is not until June 11. I'm sure some stores will break the street date by a few days, it always happens....but I SERIOUSLY doubt that Nintendo has shipped any retail units to stores yet (for that very reason).
Thrax
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it would actually be easier. I think taking control of a plane by physical force would be easier than acquiring all the equipment actually necessary to fly a R/C plane and then defeating any encryption and safety measures built in. Also, keep in mind that you would only have the length of the flight (at most) to defeat the safety measures because I would assume, if the designed properly, any encryption used would be changed with each flight and possibly changed multiple times while in flight.
I don't really like the idea of dropping paper dollars in favor of dollar coins. I don't know anyone that wishes they had more coins to carry around.
Fair enough... but keep in mind that that little mathmatical excercise was based on the stars in ONE galaxy (our own). Now take into account that there are an estimated 200+ BILLION galaxies in the universe. Suddenly those percentages starting going back up.
Oh, yeah? Let's say we decide to start colonizing other galaxies. Oh wait... we can't! Traveling hundreds or thousands of light years is not an easy task. We can't even get to the next closest star in our own galaxy. Whose to say there aren't other civilizations in the same boat as us? Also, say there are indeed civilizations that can travel between galaxies. Given that there may be as many as 200 billion galaxies they may have simply not arriveed here yet.
Unreal Tournament is a pretty big name title and that, as the Wikipedia page states, is where he was made famous.
Co-op rocks.
Just one comment... people always seem to pick on the linearity of FPS games. Which is a valid point. But for some reason people seem to think that primarily applies to console FPS games. Since when? Being both a PC and console gamer I honestly can't say that I find PC FPS any less linear. I don't think I've ever been 'lost' in any FPS. Some require back tracking to gets keys and crap (ala Doom), but they are all quite linear. Some games, like maybe a Ghost Recon or something, might give you multiple streets/approaches so a single objective, but that's about the extent of non-linearity. But the most highly praised games, like HL2, always seem to be as linear as any other FPS.
But I still don't see the issue. If it is in orbit around a star and has enough mass to meet to definition of a planet then it is a planet. I would also propose that orbiting multiple stars is acceptable as well. Why bother with throwing the stability of the orbit into the equation? If it loses its orbit and is kicked out of the system then it gets recategorized. Perhaps I'm simply too naive about all the issues/scenarios involed, but I have a feeling this is being made into a more complicated issue than necessary.
Ummm... except there is nothing complicated about. The game will play on any 360 console. No, the real answer is the op is utterly confused for no reason. Likely a confused PC gamer who is used to looking for specs.
Easy. That falls into place after you define planet. A moon orbits a planet, just set a size threshhold. Done.
I don't get the problem? First, start off with the idea that a planet must be orbiting a star... similar to how moons are defined as orbiting a planet. Even if they are orbiting a pulsar (dead star) they are still planets, but not if they are orbiting a failed star (brown dwarf). If you find a brown dwarf with satellites call that something else. Then the article mentions the possibility of having planet sized objects orbiting each other the same way binary stars orbit one another. OK, make that a seperate category. After that just define the mass need to be called a planet and be done with it. I'm sure there are plenty of other scenarios out there that need to be defined, but the basic rules don't seem difficult to set up.
Not to mention it's likely that in the not too distant future will be be engineering our own improved genes without the need for evolution to do it for us.
How would 'never lifting the ban' be doing 'something right'?
Bad, bad, bad idea. Sure, they would still sell to the hardcore gamers, but that would piss off so much of their fan base that it would hurt them more in the long run. People can accept the fact that some hardcore geeks snatched them all up and flipped them on Ebay... they get to be the a-holes, not Sony. At least the average consumer still has hope they might catch a break and grab one at a store for a reasonable price. But if Sony did that themselves then they become the a-holes and that is NOT the image you want as a company. You also might also make a fair number of your software developers a bit uneasy with a stunt like that.
Well, some of us have friends in real life (i.e. not just online) and very few people have multiple networked PCs capable of modern gaming. And consoles provide a great way to play games with friends in your living room/den. Also, for myself, I really enjoy sitting next the fireplace in my recliner in the evening after work and playing some games. MY PC is upstairs in my office.
Also, I think the PC gaming market just confuses the average gamer. Most people don't like installs to begin with and then these days you have crap like SLI and PhysX that just confuse the situation further. Do you need that stuff? No, you can just put all your in-game detail sliders to "Low" and somewhat be able to enjoy a modern game. Now before someone points out that you can buy decent videos cards that are a generation or two old for pretty cheap, how many average people have even attempted to change a video card before? You have to stop thinking like a techno-nerd and realize that most people never do stuff like that. They go out and buy a Dell or HP with integrated graphics and never upgrade the thing until they buy a new PC 5 years later.
Also think about the avergage person's PC setup. Most people have their PCs tucked into a corner and/or on a fairly small computer desk with a cheap computer chair... hell, it might just be a cheap wooden kitchen table type chair.
The only real advantage that PCs have is graphics... and that only applies to a VERY small percentage of people with the latest video cards. Again, most people are going to have PCs that are 2-5 years old with integrated graphics chips. Modern games will run like total crap on those. PCs also have a control advantage for a few genres (like FPS), but that's just an artificial limitation by the console manufacturers. They could easily support KB&Mouse if they wanted... and I personally wish they would so I could quit hearing the vocal minority crying about it.
In the end, consoles just provide a different gaming experience than the PC platform. If you don't like it, cool, but it's not hard at all to see the appeal of consoles.
Ummm... that's not even what he said. He said he will eventually get one after more good games are available. Why would that be childish?
Like what? MUDs and the old text adventure games?
Since when have they had trouble sending shuttles up? Sure, there have been disasters, but who said space travel was easy? They have landed on the moon, rammed a probe into a comet, and have 4 (IIRC) vehicles on or orbiting Mars.
STFU. Take your political rant elsewhere.
Well, first, I'd say its a safe bet there are no sentient being on Venus. And what right do we have? We live here (here being this solar system) You talk about "clout", but if there is no one there to refute our claim then we have all the clout we need. Sure, if some aliend race flies into our solar system tomorrow and colonizes Venus then I'd agree that they have the right to claim it since we aren't there. These treaties are amonst the people of earth. You can't claim Mars because you will be held subject to internatioal treaty since you DO live here.
I know there are treaties that prevent any nation from claiming ownership of the moon, but I'm not sure if we have the same for the planets as well.
Anyone know?
'Never' is a long time. Given that time frame, why are you limiting potential settlements to the Moon and Mars? There are potentially billions of planets out there and they may not all be 'dead rocks'.
Heh... at 3.3 shows per day maybe you just watch too much TV.
Anyway, the comparison with TV isn't entirely valid. Sometimes people miss shows and don't want to wait for a re-run to watch it. Reruns may take months to appear and if a new episode of the same show airs next week you may need to watch the epiaode you missed before that. Sure, you can download the show off the internet, but that's not legal in many places and thus can't really be used as a valid argument. Then there's the option to watch the legal episodes from the netowrks website. But that has it's own issues. Not everyone really wants to sit at their PC to watch a TV show nor is it ideal for families. So that avenue only really benefits a small percentage of viewers.
Then, as others have mentioned, the HD movies can't be overlooked. This allows people to rent HD movies without going to the video store and without investing in an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie player... both of which are still very expensive. This is what I'm most excited about. This will allow me to rent HD movies while I wait for a cheap dual format (HD-DVD + Blu-Ray) standalone movie player to hit the market. Plus, if they start offering "still in theater" movies (like you see at hotels sometimes), that adds even more appeal.
Again, I find this highly suspect...game companies don't normally ship retail units to retailers until just a few days before the street date. Because of this, your post seems fishy. I live near the Wal_mart HQ, and none of the sroes around here have any units for sale. Thrax
Buy a GBA at Best Buy? That's BS. Maybe you saw a demo GBA set-up to play, but you can't buy them in the USA yet (unless you get an imported GBA). The official street date is not until June 11. I'm sure some stores will break the street date by a few days, it always happens....but I SERIOUSLY doubt that Nintendo has shipped any retail units to stores yet (for that very reason). Thrax