But I have to admit, I'm not digging some of the recent stuff. Blackest Night (DC Zombies) and the recent First Lantern bit were weak.
But Rebirth was epic. And the Sinestro Corps war was decent. Some of the Red Lantern back-story is OK, and I dug how just before New52 Hal managed to kill a Guardian... feat that was supposedly impossible due to Ring restrictions.
But after the Sinestro Corps, it's like they turned the Lanterns into Care Bears (tm). So many colors, each one an emotion, kind of like the old care bear cartoons, just replace "Power Ring" with "Care Bear Stare"
I understand there is source material for sequels.
But there are books and there are movies. The books tend to be superior to the movies and tend not to lose their quality from volume-to-volume in a series.
Movies... are kind of fragile. To make a good movie adaptation takes a lot of pieces coming together JUST right (screen play, director, actor, funding, vision, producer, setting, etc.)... AND a lot of luck. Trying to replicate that luck tends to fail. Out of all of the sequels made (including direct-to-video) how many great ones are there?
Meanwhile some movies are so iconic, that they should be left alone. I mean, did the studios go out and make a big adaptation of "Scarlett" after it became obvious that "Gone with the Wind" was a big-time classic? No.
why touch it at all, It is a beautiful piece of cinematic history that doesn't need to be tarnished by the Hollywood of today. Just leave it the fuck alone.
Agreed.
Leave it alone. I'm OK with the various re-releases or some SFX-cleanups.
But other than that, just leave the classics alone.
The movie was "alright" Really, as far as origin stories go... the basic plot wasn't too bad and it had all of the main elements an origin story needs. And let's face it, origin stories stink on camera... almost as a rule.
Though only head-scratcher is they started out-the-gate with Parallax. He's more of an end-boss type of villain instead of a tutorial-mission-boss.
I think it was more of a package-fail: a combination of directing / writing / etc.
I think the movie was "alright" but not great. And for something like Blade Runner... I'd want someone that had proven himself as awesome. This guy hasn't yet, though his work on "Kings" was quite superb.
Firstly, Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel. Or a prequel. Or a re-imagining. It was solid by itself. Let it be.
Secondly, as much of a fan as I am of the Green Lantern comics... and as someone who thought the move was "alright" I would rather they went with someone else for the screenplay.
He also wrote the series "Kings" which was fantastic, but the rest of his WRITING resume is "meh"
So if you're going to do something like this... get someone GREAT. Get someone AWESOME. Don't get someone without a lot of hits on his writing resume.
The idea of tiles is OK so long as they're done well. Letting you glance at pieces of information from the apps with an eye-scan CAN be useful. So long as the developers make it A) easy to tell which app that tile is for B) show the information-bite cleanly C) don't scroll through too many or too fast
And for some people on some monitors, having the big tiles is a little more comfortable on the eyes that a whole bunch of items grouped together on 12pt-tall-lines.
And some people like what minor UI tweaks they did on the desktop. TaskManager, ribbon on the folders, etc.
Sounds like a config problem on your end, like some 3rd party patcher software or some software running that doesn't want to quit (which I've seen in Windows 7 as well). I'm running 3 Windows 8 machines and reboot does not take long at all. A cold-boot is insanely fast, and a reboot isn't that much slower.
As for title bar colors, using the glass-y type of interface I change them just fine. Though it's all-or-nothing; I don't know if you're trying to make app A have orange while app B is blue in which case... no idea.
I think the new UI is different, which is good. We've been using the same interface since Win95.
Changing things for the sake of change is not good. I see you are still speaking English? Why don't you start using that "new" Esperanto instead? If you don't, then you are doing things the oooooooolllllld way.
The Windows 95/NT 4 user interface, was - unlike Windows 8's - well researched, very solid, and very usable. Most of its "flaws" came from application developers not using it right (such as cluttered Windows 3.1 style program groups in the Start menu)
Change for the sake of change isn't necessary, but neither is "using the same old interface for 20 years because it works well enough"
It's a interface for a computer, not a hammer or a crowbar which is fine remaining static for decades. 35/40 years ago many people felt command-line was good enough; after a couple of visual UI attempts a decent motif was embraced. By your logic, command-line was good enough and change was pointless.
If we want to innovate, we have to try new things and in that process things will fail due to either bad ideas or implementation. But in that failure we'll see what we did wrong AND pick up a few kernels of "the good stuff" that actually worked well from the failure.
Someone at Microsoft had an idea for something different. They tried it. Lots of people hate it, but they had some decent ideas buried in there as well.
Meanwhile, some people like it. They have different priorities and tastes. Their tastes shouldn't drive the minority for obvious reasons but at the same time you can't fault them for having those tastes.
People are going to hate me, but I kind of dig Windows 8.
Part of this may be due to having a touch-pad input device and a 27" monitor @1440 resolution.
Don't get me wrong... I think it's BEYOND stupid how they've hidden the "Shutdown / Restart" functionality. And I think they should make Metro and the new start menu optional because some people were obviously going to not like it (for valid reasons). Kind of like how Glass was optional in Windows. And there are a lot of down-sides in general.
But I like the new start menu. Since Windows XP/7/whatever I've like the condensed start menu with my commonly used apps with the option to expand out to the full list. Click once for the condensed list, twice for the full list, or search for what you want. Which is exactly what Win 8 does, only the lists take up the full screen and searching is one more click than before.
Obviously there are a bunch of down-sides: low info density, highly GPU intensive, etc. But I like it. I think the new UI is different, which is good. We've been using the same interface since Win95.
Meanwhile, on the desktop side, I like the various changes they made to the desk-top aspects. The ribbon on Explorer, though some of my friends hate it. The new Task Manager. etc.
Ultimately, you can't really fault someone for "liking" something. Some people like Britney Spears, some people hate her music.
But I'm sure either way, this post will get modded down to oblivion.
Pretty, but I'm dubious. Looking at the US, it looks like nearly half the brightness is in a triangle with the southern terminus in Orlando or Miami, and going to the northeast. If brightness is mapped to density of flights, then this says that half of the flights in the US go from the northeast to Florida? I just don't think that's true. Florida is a great attractor... but not that great.
Well, you can never ignore the Disney factor. Or the cruise-ship factor (many fly to Florida to hop the cruises there). Florida is really big for vacations.
BUT... then you also have the fact that lots of people fly Internationally. LOTS.
And then you have to factor in business trips. LOTS of those too. Many are International, which means Boston + New York + Newark. And many are just to the big business cities: New York / Boston Chicago. Which means TONS of people from the south east are going to one of those 4 cities every day. Either from Florida, or from Atlanta.
Then you have Atlanta, a huge / busy airport hub, It's relatively close to Florida. So all of that density is adding to that blob in the south-eastern section.
I agree with most of your post. Cellphones and security cameras already cover most of the issues that people have with Glass.
But, there is one minor difference with "Google Glass is scary because it's easier to record others!"
You have to figure, yes... there are creepy jerks out there taking pics and video with pinhole cameras and such. But most optimists assume that the percentage of that is small. And it's easy to avoid being in many (though not all) cellphone snapshots. You see someone holding the phone a certain way and avoid them / turn your back / etc.
With people wearing Google Glass... it's like they are always walking around and holding them in front of them as if they might be taking pictures. Being in that scenario is a little distracting if they're aimed towards you. Obviously they're NOT taking constant real-time video or whatever (not enough battery life) but you're wondering "are they doing it NOW, are they doing it NOW, etc."
With a guy wearing Google Glass in your eye-line... did he just take a pic? Is he taking pics? Is he taking video? etc. I'm now going to be on someone's Facebook page eating an ice cream cone and auto-tagged as Lastname, Firstname?
I'm not saying that it's right to hate them for that. But I can kind of understand the hesitation. It's a little more creepy than simply people owning cellphones if you use the "holding it as a camera 100% of the time" scenario. Just picture it.
The problem is, if you're in a place where people are openly smoking crack outside and not caring... you don't want to go on record as being a witness for anything involving that night. Even if it's anonymous and to some person claiming to not be a cop.
If some of those people are drug dealers, as some are suggesting, then multiple what I said 100x. Because you do not want to get on their bad side.
Because the cost to retrofit an old and empty store costs significantly less than trying to build a new location from the ground up, once you consider the acquisition of land, the cost of construction plus any infrastructure costs (water, sewer, roads, electricity, possibly gas lines as well - though waste heat may be used to heat the building during winter, if required).
I don't know... sure you're saving on a bunch of stuff. But you're talking about a building that was never made to handle the kind of stuff a data-center needs.
For SOME projects, sometimes starting from scratch is easier and cheaper than trying to retrofit an older / existing thing. Because by the time you tear down section A to rebuild it, that's a lot of time and money right there. I don't know if there's enough tear-down in this scenario to qualify but it's something to consider.
I've worked in a number of stores. Their power situation stunk. In the year 2000 I had to run the aisles and look up prices when the power went out for like 1/2 a day but the boss wanted to stay open. Meanwhile another store I worked at had power issues from time to time. And that was just for running lights, some registers, a photo machine, and a couple of PC's. There wasn't even a refrigerated section.
So you're talking about re-doing the power INTO the place as well as the power INSIDE the place.
Then you have to worry about cooling. No raises floors. Weak units. Not laid out for maximum air flow. You're re-doing a lot for the A/C.
Then security. Some stores have building that aren't exactly well protected if someone really wanted in. Sure there's an alarm but when one whole wall is plexi, the walls are thin, and the doorways weren't setup for protection. It's hard to really offer much protection.
You know, if the major news outlets that could afford to shell out for the video aren't touching it with a ten foot pole, maybe you should take that as a sign that it's not worth the money.
I have to agree.
If the news, hell even the TABLOIDS, aren't shelling out the money then there's probably a reason.
NJ has a high cost of living. Though it varies: if you want to leave in Western NJ near the PA border it's a little cheaper. Or if you move way down to South NJ it's a little cheaper still. Though hadn't seen a nice apt for $500.
But unfortunately there are a lot more jobs in northern NJ, and it's not worth driving 1+ hours each way let alone 2.
I've had a couple of loans (car and condo). Meanwhile my parents have had some as well, my friends, my co-workers. For the mortgages, they've all been 30yr fixed.
Here in the US (or at least in NJ) there are no penalties on paying early. There's no fee, fine, etc. you have to pay.
If you pay off the principal early, then the loan is done and you didn't have to pay all of that extra interest.
I realize that even the old-school vampire mythos was not exactly stable.
But the same way as how Zombies started changing at an accelerated rate around the 2000's... so have vampires. Sun varies from lethal, to dangerous, to a minor inconvenience, to it makes me weaker after X hours of exposure, to I look like a bedazzled-human . Rules for conversion vary, though those rules have almost almost varied since mid 1900s. Innate abilities change. Craving / behavior / personality changes.
But like zombies, there is kind of a fuzzy line between "These are old-school zombies" and "These are superhuman runner zombies" and "these are somewhere in between" You can put vampires on a similar spectrum.
The fact of the matter is though, with vampires they keep changing them around to be more and more "cool." I mean, some of the older stories... hell no I wouldn't want to be a vampire. But with the newer stuff, their abilities are amped and their weaknesses are nerfed. Why not?
I'm liking casual gaming more and more, and enjoying the computer-upgrade-cycle less and less. So I've increased the amount of console gaming a bit over the last few years.
Personally, I had more fun with my XBox than the PS3. Part of it is I mostly like the XBox 360 controller more.
So unless it's an utter failure, I'll probably get it.
*mostly = I like the shape, but I tend to slightly disconnect the battery pack when I'm using a wireless one from time to time.
What are your thoughts on Vampire rules; such as classic vampires vs sparkling? Over the decades we've seen Vampires (and Zombies) change and evolve from the classic rules and mythology to a whole plethora of variations. Powers, weaknesses, origins, turnings, etc. Such transitions have been slow, but now we have sparkling vampires made of stone. Do you feel that we should stick more with the classic mythos? Or are you in favor with your own spin.
But no. With a regular gun-fired bullet, they can sometimes limit the make and model of a gun down to a handful. And if they're lucky, they can get a close enough match on the bullet.
It's not all the time and it's not perfect, but ballistics can narrow things down well enough or at least omit certain suspects' guns from the pool of possibilities.
Sure, a lot of what they show is just Hollywood stuff. Especially the "how" in they do it. But that doesn't mean everything is bogus.
You see, that's the thing. Different ages, regions, etc. My parents are from Europe and in their 60's and they use "Next" to mean "Following"
So what I started to do when I noticed that my co-worked had a differing opinion I'd start saying "This upcoming Tuesday" and "The Tuesday after next" and if it's an email I include the date in parenthesis.
Unfortunately the other people in my department still just say "Next Tuesday" and we have people that take it to mean different things. And, said-coworker isn't consistent any more since they will sometimes mean it one way and another email mean it the other.
AND to confuse matters more, one co-worker has some weird logic. Like if the day is within 2 days then "Next" means "the following" but if it's within 3+ days then "Next" means "upcoming"
Which is all well and fine... different strokes for different folks. But when we have conversations as a group stating "we all have different meanings, maybe include dates in your communications" and they don't. And then they get angry that something wasn't done the day they wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
GL is one of my favorite characters.
But I have to admit, I'm not digging some of the recent stuff. Blackest Night (DC Zombies) and the recent First Lantern bit were weak.
But Rebirth was epic. And the Sinestro Corps war was decent. Some of the Red Lantern back-story is OK, and I dug how just before New52 Hal managed to kill a Guardian... feat that was supposedly impossible due to Ring restrictions.
But after the Sinestro Corps, it's like they turned the Lanterns into Care Bears (tm). So many colors, each one an emotion, kind of like the old care bear cartoons, just replace "Power Ring" with "Care Bear Stare"
I understand there is source material for sequels.
But there are books and there are movies. The books tend to be superior to the movies and tend not to lose their quality from volume-to-volume in a series.
Movies... are kind of fragile. To make a good movie adaptation takes a lot of pieces coming together JUST right (screen play, director, actor, funding, vision, producer, setting, etc.)... AND a lot of luck. Trying to replicate that luck tends to fail. Out of all of the sequels made (including direct-to-video) how many great ones are there?
Meanwhile some movies are so iconic, that they should be left alone. I mean, did the studios go out and make a big adaptation of "Scarlett" after it became obvious that "Gone with the Wind" was a big-time classic? No.
why touch it at all, It is a beautiful piece of cinematic history that doesn't need to be tarnished by the Hollywood of today. Just leave it the fuck alone.
Agreed.
Leave it alone. I'm OK with the various re-releases or some SFX-cleanups.
But other than that, just leave the classics alone.
The movie was "alright" Really, as far as origin stories go... the basic plot wasn't too bad and it had all of the main elements an origin story needs. And let's face it, origin stories stink on camera... almost as a rule.
Though only head-scratcher is they started out-the-gate with Parallax. He's more of an end-boss type of villain instead of a tutorial-mission-boss.
I think it was more of a package-fail: a combination of directing / writing / etc.
I think the movie was "alright" but not great. And for something like Blade Runner... I'd want someone that had proven himself as awesome. This guy hasn't yet, though his work on "Kings" was quite superb.
Firstly, Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel. Or a prequel. Or a re-imagining. It was solid by itself. Let it be.
Secondly, as much of a fan as I am of the Green Lantern comics... and as someone who thought the move was "alright" I would rather they went with someone else for the screenplay.
He also wrote the series "Kings" which was fantastic, but the rest of his WRITING resume is "meh"
So if you're going to do something like this... get someone GREAT. Get someone AWESOME. Don't get someone without a lot of hits on his writing resume.
27" @ 2560x1440
I use it like a monitor. I have my project explorer on the right, and my source code in the big panel on the left.
At time time of writing I wasn't at said computer, and couldn't remember how many pixels wide.
The idea of tiles is OK so long as they're done well. Letting you glance at pieces of information from the apps with an eye-scan CAN be useful. So long as the developers make it
A) easy to tell which app that tile is for
B) show the information-bite cleanly
C) don't scroll through too many or too fast
And for some people on some monitors, having the big tiles is a little more comfortable on the eyes that a whole bunch of items grouped together on 12pt-tall-lines.
And some people like what minor UI tweaks they did on the desktop. TaskManager, ribbon on the folders, etc.
Beyond that, mostly it's just eye-candy.
Really, 5minute reboot?
Sounds like a config problem on your end, like some 3rd party patcher software or some software running that doesn't want to quit (which I've seen in Windows 7 as well). I'm running 3 Windows 8 machines and reboot does not take long at all. A cold-boot is insanely fast, and a reboot isn't that much slower.
As for title bar colors, using the glass-y type of interface I change them just fine. Though it's all-or-nothing; I don't know if you're trying to make app A have orange while app B is blue in which case... no idea.
Changing things for the sake of change is not good. I see you are still speaking English? Why don't you start using that "new" Esperanto instead? If you don't, then you are doing things the oooooooolllllld way.
The Windows 95/NT 4 user interface, was - unlike Windows 8's - well researched, very solid, and very usable. Most of its "flaws" came from application developers not using it right (such as cluttered Windows 3.1 style program groups in the Start menu)
Change for the sake of change isn't necessary, but neither is "using the same old interface for 20 years because it works well enough"
It's a interface for a computer, not a hammer or a crowbar which is fine remaining static for decades. 35/40 years ago many people felt command-line was good enough; after a couple of visual UI attempts a decent motif was embraced. By your logic, command-line was good enough and change was pointless.
If we want to innovate, we have to try new things and in that process things will fail due to either bad ideas or implementation. But in that failure we'll see what we did wrong AND pick up a few kernels of "the good stuff" that actually worked well from the failure.
Someone at Microsoft had an idea for something different. They tried it. Lots of people hate it, but they had some decent ideas buried in there as well.
Meanwhile, some people like it. They have different priorities and tastes. Their tastes shouldn't drive the minority for obvious reasons but at the same time you can't fault them for having those tastes.
People are going to hate me, but I kind of dig Windows 8.
Part of this may be due to having a touch-pad input device and a 27" monitor @1440 resolution.
Don't get me wrong... I think it's BEYOND stupid how they've hidden the "Shutdown / Restart" functionality. And I think they should make Metro and the new start menu optional because some people were obviously going to not like it (for valid reasons). Kind of like how Glass was optional in Windows. And there are a lot of down-sides in general.
But I like the new start menu. Since Windows XP/7/whatever I've like the condensed start menu with my commonly used apps with the option to expand out to the full list. Click once for the condensed list, twice for the full list, or search for what you want. Which is exactly what Win 8 does, only the lists take up the full screen and searching is one more click than before.
Obviously there are a bunch of down-sides: low info density, highly GPU intensive, etc. But I like it. I think the new UI is different, which is good. We've been using the same interface since Win95.
Meanwhile, on the desktop side, I like the various changes they made to the desk-top aspects. The ribbon on Explorer, though some of my friends hate it. The new Task Manager. etc.
Ultimately, you can't really fault someone for "liking" something. Some people like Britney Spears, some people hate her music.
But I'm sure either way, this post will get modded down to oblivion.
Pretty, but I'm dubious. Looking at the US, it looks like nearly half the brightness is in a triangle with the southern terminus in Orlando or Miami, and going to the northeast. If brightness is mapped to density of flights, then this says that half of the flights in the US go from the northeast to Florida? I just don't think that's true. Florida is a great attractor... but not that great.
Well, you can never ignore the Disney factor. Or the cruise-ship factor (many fly to Florida to hop the cruises there). Florida is really big for vacations.
BUT... then you also have the fact that lots of people fly Internationally. LOTS.
And then you have to factor in business trips. LOTS of those too. Many are International, which means Boston + New York + Newark. And many are just to the big business cities: New York / Boston Chicago. Which means TONS of people from the south east are going to one of those 4 cities every day. Either from Florida, or from Atlanta.
Then you have Atlanta, a huge / busy airport hub, It's relatively close to Florida. So all of that density is adding to that blob in the south-eastern section.
I agree with most of your post. Cellphones and security cameras already cover most of the issues that people have with Glass.
But, there is one minor difference with "Google Glass is scary because it's easier to record others!"
You have to figure, yes... there are creepy jerks out there taking pics and video with pinhole cameras and such. But most optimists assume that the percentage of that is small. And it's easy to avoid being in many (though not all) cellphone snapshots. You see someone holding the phone a certain way and avoid them / turn your back / etc.
With people wearing Google Glass... it's like they are always walking around and holding them in front of them as if they might be taking pictures. Being in that scenario is a little distracting if they're aimed towards you. Obviously they're NOT taking constant real-time video or whatever (not enough battery life) but you're wondering "are they doing it NOW, are they doing it NOW, etc."
With a guy wearing Google Glass in your eye-line... did he just take a pic? Is he taking pics? Is he taking video? etc. I'm now going to be on someone's Facebook page eating an ice cream cone and auto-tagged as Lastname, Firstname?
I'm not saying that it's right to hate them for that. But I can kind of understand the hesitation. It's a little more creepy than simply people owning cellphones if you use the "holding it as a camera 100% of the time" scenario. Just picture it.
The problem is, if you're in a place where people are openly smoking crack outside and not caring... you don't want to go on record as being a witness for anything involving that night. Even if it's anonymous and to some person claiming to not be a cop.
If some of those people are drug dealers, as some are suggesting, then multiple what I said 100x. Because you do not want to get on their bad side.
Because the cost to retrofit an old and empty store costs significantly less than trying to build a new location from the ground up, once you consider the acquisition of land, the cost of construction plus any infrastructure costs (water, sewer, roads, electricity, possibly gas lines as well - though waste heat may be used to heat the building during winter, if required).
I don't know... sure you're saving on a bunch of stuff. But you're talking about a building that was never made to handle the kind of stuff a data-center needs.
For SOME projects, sometimes starting from scratch is easier and cheaper than trying to retrofit an older / existing thing. Because by the time you tear down section A to rebuild it, that's a lot of time and money right there. I don't know if there's enough tear-down in this scenario to qualify but it's something to consider.
I've worked in a number of stores. Their power situation stunk. In the year 2000 I had to run the aisles and look up prices when the power went out for like 1/2 a day but the boss wanted to stay open. Meanwhile another store I worked at had power issues from time to time. And that was just for running lights, some registers, a photo machine, and a couple of PC's. There wasn't even a refrigerated section.
So you're talking about re-doing the power INTO the place as well as the power INSIDE the place.
Then you have to worry about cooling. No raises floors. Weak units. Not laid out for maximum air flow. You're re-doing a lot for the A/C.
Then security. Some stores have building that aren't exactly well protected if someone really wanted in. Sure there's an alarm but when one whole wall is plexi, the walls are thin, and the doorways weren't setup for protection. It's hard to really offer much protection.
In the meantime, they'll just give each weatherman a D20 and a roll-sheet and tell them to predict that way.
I fail to see how this frame proves it rob ford, lots of fat blond men look like him.
Wrong thread. This is about the space camp thing not the video thing.
You know, if the major news outlets that could afford to shell out for the video aren't touching it with a ten foot pole, maybe you should take that as a sign that it's not worth the money.
I have to agree.
If the news, hell even the TABLOIDS, aren't shelling out the money then there's probably a reason.
Great, yet another reason I wish I was Canadian.
NJ has a high cost of living. Though it varies: if you want to leave in Western NJ near the PA border it's a little cheaper. Or if you move way down to South NJ it's a little cheaper still. Though hadn't seen a nice apt for $500.
But unfortunately there are a lot more jobs in northern NJ, and it's not worth driving 1+ hours each way let alone 2.
Sounds more like a regional thing.
Here in upper/middle NJ, $1000 gets you a pretty bare-bones apartment in most towns. Maybe a 2-bedroom in worse area.
Unless you're splitting rent with someone at $1000 doesn't carry much weight here.
I've had a couple of loans (car and condo). Meanwhile my parents have had some as well, my friends, my co-workers. For the mortgages, they've all been 30yr fixed.
Here in the US (or at least in NJ) there are no penalties on paying early. There's no fee, fine, etc. you have to pay.
If you pay off the principal early, then the loan is done and you didn't have to pay all of that extra interest.
I realize that even the old-school vampire mythos was not exactly stable.
But the same way as how Zombies started changing at an accelerated rate around the 2000's... so have vampires. Sun varies from lethal, to dangerous, to a minor inconvenience, to it makes me weaker after X hours of exposure, to I look like a bedazzled-human . Rules for conversion vary, though those rules have almost almost varied since mid 1900s. Innate abilities change. Craving / behavior / personality changes.
But like zombies, there is kind of a fuzzy line between "These are old-school zombies" and "These are superhuman runner zombies" and "these are somewhere in between" You can put vampires on a similar spectrum.
The fact of the matter is though, with vampires they keep changing them around to be more and more "cool." I mean, some of the older stories... hell no I wouldn't want to be a vampire. But with the newer stuff, their abilities are amped and their weaknesses are nerfed. Why not?
I'm liking casual gaming more and more, and enjoying the computer-upgrade-cycle less and less. So I've increased the amount of console gaming a bit over the last few years.
Personally, I had more fun with my XBox than the PS3. Part of it is I mostly like the XBox 360 controller more.
So unless it's an utter failure, I'll probably get it.
*mostly = I like the shape, but I tend to slightly disconnect the battery pack when I'm using a wireless one from time to time.
What are your thoughts on Vampire rules; such as classic vampires vs sparkling?
Over the decades we've seen Vampires (and Zombies) change and evolve from the classic rules and mythology to a whole plethora of variations. Powers, weaknesses, origins, turnings, etc. Such transitions have been slow, but now we have sparkling vampires made of stone. Do you feel that we should stick more with the classic mythos? Or are you in favor with your own spin.
Very funny.
But no. With a regular gun-fired bullet, they can sometimes limit the make and model of a gun down to a handful. And if they're lucky, they can get a close enough match on the bullet.
It's not all the time and it's not perfect, but ballistics can narrow things down well enough or at least omit certain suspects' guns from the pool of possibilities.
Sure, a lot of what they show is just Hollywood stuff. Especially the "how" in they do it. But that doesn't mean everything is bogus.
You see, that's the thing. Different ages, regions, etc. My parents are from Europe and in their 60's and they use "Next" to mean "Following"
So what I started to do when I noticed that my co-worked had a differing opinion I'd start saying "This upcoming Tuesday" and "The Tuesday after next" and if it's an email I include the date in parenthesis.
Unfortunately the other people in my department still just say "Next Tuesday" and we have people that take it to mean different things. And, said-coworker isn't consistent any more since they will sometimes mean it one way and another email mean it the other.
AND to confuse matters more, one co-worker has some weird logic. Like if the day is within 2 days then "Next" means "the following" but if it's within 3+ days then "Next" means "upcoming"
Which is all well and fine... different strokes for different folks. But when we have conversations as a group stating "we all have different meanings, maybe include dates in your communications" and they don't. And then they get angry that something wasn't done the day they wanted.