Oh, I agree absolutely. I wasn't advocating federal "game-control" (nor saying it's a bad thing) in my post - just pointing out, very superficially, why some people think M-rated games are bad for kids. Which the original poster apparently was proudly ignorant of.
Great, so they're already rated. Every game these groups are worried about has a big Mature rating on it. Tell stores to stop selling to minors or tell parents to stop buying them for their kids.
Not according to this Harvard Study (link taken from the article). Nevertheless, you are of course right that even very well made (or overly strict) ratings aren't effective at all if the stores disregard them.
What makes it any worse for a kid to play a violent video game than an adult, other than the fact that a kid is supposed to be able to have fun and an adult should be working for a living?
Children are not able to fully understand and cope, on their own, with the violence evidences in such games. Children growing up in an environment where such media violence is taken for granted often take real violence for granted in their life. And so on and so on - I don't say these arguments are correct, but they are (similar to) what is presented as reason to keep M-rated games away from kids.
So, did you actually not know that, or do you say that the reasons commonly given are faulty?
And you should have your posting permit taken away, and probably be placed into a humor-instillment facility. You have problems if you can't seperate humorous hyperboly from reality. SCNR.;)
If it was as simple as to point out the "one reason" for violence, the problem would already have been gotten rid of. Alas, it isn't, and it hasn't. Bowling for Columbine is a great movie (incidently, I just watched it half an hour ago), but it doesn't point out any one reason either - quite to the contrary actually. Oh, and likely this thread is doomed to go the way of the re-iterated gun-debate. Shame.
I used to think so, too, but some people disagree and say the can see and feel the difference between 20, 40 and 60 fps. I'm not sure anymore. Oh and I won't comment on how Zelda 64 supposedly is "infinitely more interesting" than yet another FPS. De gustibus non est disputandum!
Yes, they have the same layout. And in fact there already is a dedicated eBook reading device (ie. without the general capabilities of a laptop) with the same layout. However, I fail to see how this book-style layout is actually appropriate for reading an ebook - it doesn't seem to give any advantage over a single "page". (This might be different for other purposes, though.)
Windows XP BSOD'ed on me, oh, just about 2 minutes ago. It's probably one out of the following: buggy chipset driver (woohoo for Via), buggy graphics driver (woohoo vor NVIDIA) or over-heating hardware (woohoo for me, but it's unlikely anyhow). So, not really Microsoft's fault, I guess.
Just as a sidenote, he did not test the engine himself, in his workshop, but rather had a large engineering company (Motoren und Turbinen Union) check it out. They've got the means to do these checks automatically and quite fast, I'd assume.
(In case anyone doesn't get it: That price is wildly exaggerated. PCs certainly are more expensive than consoles, but not that much more expensive. $1000 would be more fair an estimate.)
Hm. I always burn at 16x (maximum my burner does), and I can always multitask reliably. I don't think I ever played a game while burning in the background, but I think that'd work too. If worst comes to worst, burn-proof will just kick in, anyway. Haven't had a coastie in ages.
It does feature the small form factor hardware of a laptop. But it's smaller, it's got no battery, no display, no nothing. So no, not really kinda like a laptop.
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 1
"Socialist States of Europe"? Reality check, indeed.
No, that is, in fact, not following my reasoning. If Clarke figured out a working satellite (in reality, on paper, or at least in his mind), he invented one. The Wright brothers constructed a working plane, so they invented it. Da Vinci tried the same, but his ideas of planes didn't work, so he didn't invent the plane.
Now, I never said Clarke did or did not discover or invent anything, I merely gave preconditions on when the use of those words is warranted. If you are right, and you may well be, those preconditions are met. Simple as that.
Unless he had the science to explain why geosynchronous orbits work and the engineering knowledge on how to build the satellites, he neither discovered nor invented anything, really. Me imagining faster-than-light travel doesn't mean I discovered a flaw in the current physics model. It's just playing with words, though, I think we all mean the same.
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Diesel is more fuel-efficient, but it's also burned less clean than gasoline. Diesel motors release particles into the air which are higly carcinogenic. Only very recently have there been trends to install filters in the cars which accumulate these particles and destroy them every so often. Some car manufacturers refuse to install them since the filters, in turn, decrease fuel efficience - but just by about 0.1l/100km, so that shouldn't be that big a deal. Anyway, without these filters, Diesel engines are not that great, environmentally.
Depends on how you define beatable. You can reach your level cap, and the hardcore players have done so within a week or two of release of the expansion, but after that there of course remains loads to do, quests to finish and items to acquire. Development is really, really slow in the high levels, you often need dozens of people in your guild to play for days along with you to advance one guild member a little bit. It's really quite mad.
Re:Invisible Car?!
on
Review: Solaris
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That would only work for a single viewer, and actually, not even for that case: humans have two eyes, you'd need to show a slightly different picture to each one. And that's just one of many issues why this is not by any means possible to do with todays technology, and likely not in 5 years either (though, of course, I might very well end up being wrong about that).
The difference is that Q3, UT and CS are (team-based) deathmatch, or PvP (ie player versus player) games. EverQuest, on the other hand, is mostly a PvM, ie co-operative player versus monster, game. That's not to say there isn't any player competition - obviously there's a whole lot of it, both directly in the form of duels and PvP servers and more importantly indirectly in the form of who's got the better char or which guild is more uber than another.
If another player cheats in EQ, he gets a better battle axe than you faster, if an enemy cheats in CS, you're in a world of pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I agree absolutely. I wasn't advocating federal "game-control" (nor saying it's a bad thing) in my post - just pointing out, very superficially, why some people think M-rated games are bad for kids. Which the original poster apparently was proudly ignorant of.
So, did you actually not know that, or do you say that the reasons commonly given are faulty?
And you should have your posting permit taken away, and probably be placed into a humor-instillment facility. You have problems if you can't seperate humorous hyperboly from reality. SCNR. ;)
If it was as simple as to point out the "one reason" for violence, the problem would already have been gotten rid of. Alas, it isn't, and it hasn't.
Bowling for Columbine is a great movie (incidently, I just watched it half an hour ago), but it doesn't point out any one reason either - quite to the contrary actually. Oh, and likely this thread is doomed to go the way of the re-iterated gun-debate. Shame.
Arr! Damn you! I wanted to post this! :)
That's great, but, you see, we normal people can't afford to do that. ;)
I used to think so, too, but some people disagree and say the can see and feel the difference between 20, 40 and 60 fps. I'm not sure anymore. Oh and I won't comment on how Zelda 64 supposedly is "infinitely more interesting" than yet another FPS. De gustibus non est disputandum!
Yes, they have the same layout. And in fact there already is a dedicated eBook reading device (ie. without the general capabilities of a laptop) with the same layout. However, I fail to see how this book-style layout is actually appropriate for reading an ebook - it doesn't seem to give any advantage over a single "page". (This might be different for other purposes, though.)
Windows XP BSOD'ed on me, oh, just about 2 minutes ago. It's probably one out of the following: buggy chipset driver (woohoo for Via), buggy graphics driver (woohoo vor NVIDIA) or over-heating hardware (woohoo for me, but it's unlikely anyhow). So, not really Microsoft's fault, I guess.
Just as a sidenote, he did not test the engine himself, in his workshop, but rather had a large engineering company (Motoren und Turbinen Union) check it out. They've got the means to do these checks automatically and quite fast, I'd assume.
$2000 PC? Riiight.
(In case anyone doesn't get it: That price is wildly exaggerated. PCs certainly are more expensive than consoles, but not that much more expensive. $1000 would be more fair an estimate.)
Hm. I always burn at 16x (maximum my burner does), and I can always multitask reliably. I don't think I ever played a game while burning in the background, but I think that'd work too. If worst comes to worst, burn-proof will just kick in, anyway. Haven't had a coastie in ages.
It does feature the small form factor hardware of a laptop. But it's smaller, it's got no battery, no display, no nothing. So no, not really kinda like a laptop.
"Socialist States of Europe"? Reality check, indeed.
No, that is, in fact, not following my reasoning. If Clarke figured out a working satellite (in reality, on paper, or at least in his mind), he invented one. The Wright brothers constructed a working plane, so they invented it. Da Vinci tried the same, but his ideas of planes didn't work, so he didn't invent the plane.
Now, I never said Clarke did or did not discover or invent anything, I merely gave preconditions on when the use of those words is warranted. If you are right, and you may well be, those preconditions are met. Simple as that.
Unless he had the science to explain why geosynchronous orbits work and the engineering knowledge on how to build the satellites, he neither discovered nor invented anything, really. Me imagining faster-than-light travel doesn't mean I discovered a flaw in the current physics model. It's just playing with words, though, I think we all mean the same.
Diesel is more fuel-efficient, but it's also burned less clean than gasoline. Diesel motors release particles into the air which are higly carcinogenic. Only very recently have there been trends to install filters in the cars which accumulate these particles and destroy them every so often. Some car manufacturers refuse to install them since the filters, in turn, decrease fuel efficience - but just by about 0.1l/100km, so that shouldn't be that big a deal. Anyway, without these filters, Diesel engines are not that great, environmentally.
Depends on how you define beatable. You can reach your level cap, and the hardcore players have done so within a week or two of release of the expansion, but after that there of course remains loads to do, quests to finish and items to acquire. Development is really, really slow in the high levels, you often need dozens of people in your guild to play for days along with you to advance one guild member a little bit. It's really quite mad.
That would only work for a single viewer, and actually, not even for that case: humans have two eyes, you'd need to show a slightly different picture to each one. And that's just one of many issues why this is not by any means possible to do with todays technology, and likely not in 5 years either (though, of course, I might very well end up being wrong about that).
The difference is that Q3, UT and CS are (team-based) deathmatch, or PvP (ie player versus player) games. EverQuest, on the other hand, is mostly a PvM, ie co-operative player versus monster, game.
That's not to say there isn't any player competition - obviously there's a whole lot of it, both directly in the form of duels and PvP servers and more importantly indirectly in the form of who's got the better char or which guild is more uber than another.
If another player cheats in EQ, he gets a better battle axe than you faster, if an enemy cheats in CS, you're in a world of pain.
Exactly, I don't need no stinking sta - - - Connection to host lost.