Huh? I wasn't joking. I had no intention to badmouth the Segway, either. I just don't see how the Segway's arguably existing (if it makes you happy: revolutionary) benefits translate to a roboter: things that are beneficial to a human operator don't have to be for a bot. For instance while speech control can be nice for humans, nobody would consider it a sensible interface for a bot - granted this is an extreme example.
The two benefits mentioned by others above - you helpfully didn't mention any - are the fact that the Segway rotates in place, and that it keeps it's operator in a balanced position. Okay, I didn't think of either of those. But at the same time, you can also realise the in-place rotation with more than two wheels (allegedly), and I can think of simpler ways of keeping the operator balanced, although I'm not sure how feasible they are. I don't know how useful the balance would be for a bot - again, humans seem much more affected by being out of balance than most appliances I can think of. But I don't claim any kind of expertise on this matter - which is why I asked if and why I could be wrong.
All in all, and with no offense intended, I think your post was extremely non-productive. You bashed me for things I did not do, were rude about it and didn't provide any sort of argument at all.
If the adhered to KISS, why not just put a third wheel down there and get rid of all the then-superflous balancing? I mean, I guess I can see how the two wheel system is nice for humans, but what does a robot care? And I don't see how it's more useful for getting around and avoiding obstacles, if anything the opposite seems to be the case. It's like creating a self-balancing computer desk with two legs.
Sure, the motor to spin the disc for movies uses some juice, but not nearly as much as processing 3D games and sound.
Fair enough. I was going to disagree, but when looking for sources (you helpfully didn't provide any), I found a nice paper (Google HTML version) on laptop power usage. The Pentium M they tested used 1 to 3W in idle, and 3 to 14W underload. The optical drive used 2.8W when just spinning and 5.31W when reading. When running 3DMark, the system used about 30W, during playback of an audio CD it used about 19W, the largest single component draw coming from the optical drive. Sadly they did not test the power consumption during DVD playback. Of course, those numbers will be different on a PSP. It doesn't use a CPU nearly as powerful as a Pentium M 1300, but at the same time the optical drive will be smaller making for lighter media. I thought the optical drive would make more of a dent, but now I guess movie streaming and rendering and games will use about the same amount of power, assuming the game doesn't continuously access the CD, as well. I don't think you're correct in assuming that gaming uses considerable more power, though. Keep in mind that in addition to constantly spinning the optical medium, the PSP also has to decide the video which is a non-trivial task for a handheld mobile CPU.
Only if their responses were "in character" for their role and the time. If it was merely over-sensitive real-world customers expecting the roleplaying world to be the same as the REAL world, then it was inappropriate and NOT part of the process.
The game might be set in the scenario of ancient Egypt and as such the foreign trader's behaviour might be explained, however the player characters are not supposed to seriously roleplay residents of ancient Egypt. In fact there is no defined role they have to play, it's totally up to the player. For instance, the law-making process is an integral part of the game and the decisions players made and continue to make there really have nothing to do with ancient Egypt.
Can you think of a product that hasn't been overhyped by marketing types to in order stimulate consumer demand?
But we're not talking about the PR department, we are talking about the developers. Marketing hypes on purpose, but oftentimes developers also hype their games. It's an easy mistake to make, though, I think everybody - especially everybody who has ever done a programming project - knows that it's extremely easy to start getting overly enthusiastic about basically anything once you've started laying out your project. Conversely, it's extremely hard to stay within realistic limits. Group dynamics make it worse, developers talking to each other probably amplify each others suggestions and ideas, and once you start talking to your audience about the project it's all over. The hype starts to re-inforce itself, because it's fun for both the developers as well as the audience to see each other excited about an upcoming project - up to the point where the developers have to put in double shifts but still can't attain the vision they had themselves much less the various visions their audience has, which in turn of course is disappointed. The solution which I guess the article leads to, as well (didn't RTFA though)? Don't openly talk to your audience until you're nearly done and know what will make it in and what won't.
I don't know about the Intels, but AMD CPUs are "allowed" to go as high as 70C and higher - IIRC 90C is close to the limit.
At any event, while heating water is not really feasible - there was a Slashdot story about a guy frying eggs on his CPU, took an hour - heating a room with one or two desktop computers is quite feasible. It doesn't replace a real heater, but the difference is notable. Not that this comes as a surprise...
Incidently, heating your room is also the only reason why most people would want a 550W power supply. Okay, that's not true - a 550W PSU that's only utilized to 50% doesn't generate a lot more heat than a 300W PSU driven fairly hard, although PSUs are more efficient if they're used at close to their capacity. But in any event I seriously doubt this chipset actually needs a 550W PSU, just like the Nvidia graphics cards supposedly needed a 500W supply and run fine with any brand-name 350W PSU (not using a no-name PSU is key here).
I think when he referred to "kernel space" he was referring to the system authority that has access to the high level informations you referred to. The Windows VNC servers all don't have a clue about any or at least much of the semantics on the screen: it's just one big bitmap. Okay, they have figured out about there being various windows, and a main window, so they're starting to acquire additional "meta-information" to the bitmap. The window manager - that is, an X server on Unix and the operating system ("kernel space") itself in Windows -, on the other hand, already has access to all of this information and can fairly easily and efficiently encode this high-level knowledge and transmit it to a client. Of course the client has to do a lot more work when it only gets high level information - VNC clients can be really dumb.
This applies to polling, incidently: Windows does not need to poll because it's already getting notified of all the user input and it is involved in most of the on-screen changes. (Not all of them, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if Remote Desktop displayed a blank with some video players similar to the way a screenshot only displays a black rectangle.) Previously, the Windows VNC servers had no way of being informed of window changes, so they had to poll. These days, they can insert themselves closer to the operating system ("kernel space") using video drivers and get access to more meta-information and can avoid a lot of overhead.
You can't do everything over Remote Desktop that you can with VNC.
And the other way round. Remote Desktop apparently also transmits audio from the program, which VNC doesn't do. I haven't tried it with RD so I don't know how well it works, but I've unsuccessfully tried to come up with a similar solution using different possible OS software. I'm trying to redirect the audio from laptop applications to the desktop's sound system. I guess on *nix the various sound server tools the desktop managers supply (ie ESD and such) could do the job and, along with X or VNC, have a similar feature set as RD in that regard.
I always thought everybody used it as a standard counter variable - that's what they tought us in college......strictly for those languages that don't support Aramaic unicode characters as variable names, obviously.
Black ops helicopters come at night and you and your family are shot. Or so I've heard. That might have been rumours, though.
Actually, nothing happens in the first place. If the original copyright holders know about it, they might initiate legal action. If you violate the GPL, you're typically redistributing without complying with the GPL. The GPL grants special rights to redistribute under certain conditions; without the GPL redistribution is copyright violation or something similar. That's the beauty of it - if you think the GPL is unfair and invalid for some reason, that's cool, you don't have to work with it, but the default rules without the GPL are a lot stricter.
Several companies (e.g. Belkin) have been coerced into releasing the source and complying with the GPL under threat of legal action, but as far as I know there has not yet been a legal challenged fought to the end. It very much is a matter of financial power, I guess, at least in the U.S. There are organisations and funds who can help the GPL developer in need, e.g. notably the FSF, which fights for the GPL of those projects whose copyrights were assigned to the FSF.
In other words, if he sends out trial version as he has announced, he'll have to give whoever he sent the trial to access to the source and the right to redistribute under the GPL.
Keeping in with your bottle analogy: After an initial investment of $50M, you sell your bottled water at $50 per bottle. However, since your making bottles of solid crystal, each costs you $60 to manufacture. You're actually losing money on each, and not recouping investment costs. You're hoping will come back with the bottle for water refills you sell over price, though.
Your point is well taken, and the popular belief that Microsoft loses money on the consoles might well be wrong. But you didn't really give me a reason to think so - people don't think MS loses money on each box due to their initial investments, but simply because the hardware in that box - ie. not a "fixed cost" - comes in fairly expensive.
What applications, other than games, you are talking about? And a modern game requires a lot of performance.
You misunderstood that sentence. I wasn't referring to any application in particular. I said: "I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz." The Pentium 4 and the Pentium M excel at different things, and as such a Pentium M 1.5 might be as fast as a P4 2.5 Ghz doing some things, but slower than that doing others.
And my guess is that this computer has integrated video in the chipset (which is unusable for anything beyond Solitaire.)
That's really quite an exaggeration, integrated chipsets certainly would not be my graphics solution of choice, but you can play the odd 3D game or two with them without a hitch. The standalone graphics processor of today is the integrated processor of tomorrow (or at least next week). And not all games are 3D, even today. You are guessing wrong, though, the system is running a standalong Radeon 9700 according to the specs page, with 64 MB memory of its own. Not a cutting edge card by any standard, but enough to run most games easily including Halo. Halo will also run without any problem on a Pentium M 1.5, I ran it on a slower system, an Athlon XP "1800+".
The processor seems a bit... lacking. Guess it's not really aimed toward the tech-oriented audience.
It's not extremely fast, but a 1.5 GHz Pentium M isn't that slow, either. I don't know the exact equivalent here, but I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz. And of course, the Pentium M has a very low power usage resulting in easy and quiet cooling. Not at all a bad choice for a nice desktop computer.
Okay, this will remove the drain of the status display etc from the LiIons, but it won't do anything about self-discharge. There's really not much you can do about that, apart from freezing it which merely slows the process. Different battery chemistries have very different self-discharge characteristics, though, some take tens of years, other months.
As a matter of fact, my first thought was Maxis due to The Sims, or more accurately, Electronic Arts which Maxis is merely a subdivision of these days. EA also seems to be extremely successful in general - whether deservedly so or not. I'm not sure about The Sims' international presence, either, but it's sold the most games worldwide and that's that.
It's really a matter of what success exactly is. For what it's worth, Blizzard does have a track record of releasing critically acclaimed games, no doubt about that. But that's just one sort of success.
I'm sure they're all great, but as I see it they are using brand name of the enormously popular first game to sell the others. That's milking in my book, no matter if the products sold are good or bad. Many of the expansions to The Sims were also quite neat, and the target audience loved them.
So people who don't like the genre aren't suddenly going to like the genre. That's.. great?
I agree that it's a trivial point, but as I said, many, many people just assumed that would be the case.
They're doing an open beta soon, too. Maybe you can get in on that.
The open beta they announced a couple of days is limited to North American residents, like I said. Of course it's not out of the question that they'll start an independent beta for the rest of the world.
I don't know if you're insinuating that I'm one of those 'rabid fanboys'
Nah not strictly. Of course, it's not like someone's either a fanboy or not, it's an analogue thing.
the most succesful gaming company
See? That's what I mean. At the very least, that's an extremely subjective choice, since there is no widespread definition of the order, ie what constitutes being a more successful gaming company than others. I most certainly disagree, actually I wouldn't want to put that label on any single company - but that's also just my own very subjective opinion.
It's not that easy. Stealing does have multiple meanings but many people will use "to steal" and mean "to violate copyrights" but treat it as if they said "to deny access". It's like saying "to steal a kiss" without being aware that in that instance no kisses are actually being denied access to. And of course, stealing does have more of a negative connotation than violating copyrights, for good reasons since denial of access is arguably a more severe crime, and for the not so good reason that it's simple a more commonly used term and a more commonly prosecuted crime. To a certain degree, the same is true for "pirate", although only the latter aspect - nobody calls a P2Per a pirate without being aware that it has a very different meaning than originally. It does have the derogatory quality to it, though, at least in the real world.
Arguably, in the context of a discussion on the morality or whatever of file sharing etc, it's a good idea to use seperate terms for denial of access and copyright violations, because using the term "stealing" to refer both of them obscures the difference, which some might argue is key. Certainly there's nothing wrong with being specific. Similarily, in a hypothetical discussion of cars vs bicycles, you probably shouldn't use the word vehicle to refer to either. (I admit that's an exaggerated example to make the point.)
Then there's the novel, the computer games, and the whiskey bottle edition. No, seriously.
Yeah, it's pretty disgusting. I mean, we own the original game, and it's great. I've never tried the expansions, but obviously they add a lot to the game. But Starfarers of Catan, a card game and a novel? That's just milking a cash cow. Now, I'm all for exploiting idiots, but maybe they went a bit too far.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, thanks. Makes for an interesting read, and now I finally know what exactly the difference between /bin and /sbin is...
Huh? I wasn't joking. I had no intention to badmouth the Segway, either. I just don't see how the Segway's arguably existing (if it makes you happy: revolutionary) benefits translate to a roboter: things that are beneficial to a human operator don't have to be for a bot. For instance while speech control can be nice for humans, nobody would consider it a sensible interface for a bot - granted this is an extreme example.
The two benefits mentioned by others above - you helpfully didn't mention any - are the fact that the Segway rotates in place, and that it keeps it's operator in a balanced position. Okay, I didn't think of either of those. But at the same time, you can also realise the in-place rotation with more than two wheels (allegedly), and I can think of simpler ways of keeping the operator balanced, although I'm not sure how feasible they are. I don't know how useful the balance would be for a bot - again, humans seem much more affected by being out of balance than most appliances I can think of. But I don't claim any kind of expertise on this matter - which is why I asked if and why I could be wrong.
All in all, and with no offense intended, I think your post was extremely non-productive. You bashed me for things I did not do, were rude about it and didn't provide any sort of argument at all.
If the adhered to KISS, why not just put a third wheel down there and get rid of all the then-superflous balancing? I mean, I guess I can see how the two wheel system is nice for humans, but what does a robot care? And I don't see how it's more useful for getting around and avoiding obstacles, if anything the opposite seems to be the case. It's like creating a self-balancing computer desk with two legs.
Sure, the motor to spin the disc for movies uses some juice, but not nearly as much as processing 3D games and sound.
Fair enough. I was going to disagree, but when looking for sources (you helpfully didn't provide any), I found a nice paper (Google HTML version) on laptop power usage. The Pentium M they tested used 1 to 3W in idle, and 3 to 14W underload. The optical drive used 2.8W when just spinning and 5.31W when reading. When running 3DMark, the system used about 30W, during playback of an audio CD it used about 19W, the largest single component draw coming from the optical drive. Sadly they did not test the power consumption during DVD playback.
Of course, those numbers will be different on a PSP. It doesn't use a CPU nearly as powerful as a Pentium M 1300, but at the same time the optical drive will be smaller making for lighter media. I thought the optical drive would make more of a dent, but now I guess movie streaming and rendering and games will use about the same amount of power, assuming the game doesn't continuously access the CD, as well. I don't think you're correct in assuming that gaming uses considerable more power, though. Keep in mind that in addition to constantly spinning the optical medium, the PSP also has to decide the video which is a non-trivial task for a handheld mobile CPU.
Only if their responses were "in character" for their role and the time. If it was merely over-sensitive real-world customers expecting the roleplaying world to be the same as the REAL world, then it was inappropriate and NOT part of the process.
The game might be set in the scenario of ancient Egypt and as such the foreign trader's behaviour might be explained, however the player characters are not supposed to seriously roleplay residents of ancient Egypt. In fact there is no defined role they have to play, it's totally up to the player. For instance, the law-making process is an integral part of the game and the decisions players made and continue to make there really have nothing to do with ancient Egypt.
Can you think of a product that hasn't been overhyped by marketing types to in order stimulate consumer demand?
But we're not talking about the PR department, we are talking about the developers. Marketing hypes on purpose, but oftentimes developers also hype their games. It's an easy mistake to make, though, I think everybody - especially everybody who has ever done a programming project - knows that it's extremely easy to start getting overly enthusiastic about basically anything once you've started laying out your project. Conversely, it's extremely hard to stay within realistic limits.
Group dynamics make it worse, developers talking to each other probably amplify each others suggestions and ideas, and once you start talking to your audience about the project it's all over. The hype starts to re-inforce itself, because it's fun for both the developers as well as the audience to see each other excited about an upcoming project - up to the point where the developers have to put in double shifts but still can't attain the vision they had themselves much less the various visions their audience has, which in turn of course is disappointed. The solution which I guess the article leads to, as well (didn't RTFA though)? Don't openly talk to your audience until you're nearly done and know what will make it in and what won't.
I don't know about the Intels, but AMD CPUs are "allowed" to go as high as 70C and higher - IIRC 90C is close to the limit.
At any event, while heating water is not really feasible - there was a Slashdot story about a guy frying eggs on his CPU, took an hour - heating a room with one or two desktop computers is quite feasible. It doesn't replace a real heater, but the difference is notable. Not that this comes as a surprise...
Incidently, heating your room is also the only reason why most people would want a 550W power supply. Okay, that's not true - a 550W PSU that's only utilized to 50% doesn't generate a lot more heat than a 300W PSU driven fairly hard, although PSUs are more efficient if they're used at close to their capacity. But in any event I seriously doubt this chipset actually needs a 550W PSU, just like the Nvidia graphics cards supposedly needed a 500W supply and run fine with any brand-name 350W PSU (not using a no-name PSU is key here).
I think when he referred to "kernel space" he was referring to the system authority that has access to the high level informations you referred to.
The Windows VNC servers all don't have a clue about any or at least much of the semantics on the screen: it's just one big bitmap. Okay, they have figured out about there being various windows, and a main window, so they're starting to acquire additional "meta-information" to the bitmap.
The window manager - that is, an X server on Unix and the operating system ("kernel space") itself in Windows -, on the other hand, already has access to all of this information and can fairly easily and efficiently encode this high-level knowledge and transmit it to a client. Of course the client has to do a lot more work when it only gets high level information - VNC clients can be really dumb.
This applies to polling, incidently: Windows does not need to poll because it's already getting notified of all the user input and it is involved in most of the on-screen changes. (Not all of them, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if Remote Desktop displayed a blank with some video players similar to the way a screenshot only displays a black rectangle.) Previously, the Windows VNC servers had no way of being informed of window changes, so they had to poll. These days, they can insert themselves closer to the operating system ("kernel space") using video drivers and get access to more meta-information and can avoid a lot of overhead.
You can't do everything over Remote Desktop that you can with VNC.
And the other way round. Remote Desktop apparently also transmits audio from the program, which VNC doesn't do. I haven't tried it with RD so I don't know how well it works, but I've unsuccessfully tried to come up with a similar solution using different possible OS software.
I'm trying to redirect the audio from laptop applications to the desktop's sound system. I guess on *nix the various sound server tools the desktop managers supply (ie ESD and such) could do the job and, along with X or VNC, have a similar feature set as RD in that regard.
I always thought everybody used it as a standard counter variable - that's what they tought us in college... ...strictly for those languages that don't support Aramaic unicode characters as variable names, obviously.
Black ops helicopters come at night and you and your family are shot. Or so I've heard. That might have been rumours, though.
Actually, nothing happens in the first place. If the original copyright holders know about it, they might initiate legal action. If you violate the GPL, you're typically redistributing without complying with the GPL. The GPL grants special rights to redistribute under certain conditions; without the GPL redistribution is copyright violation or something similar. That's the beauty of it - if you think the GPL is unfair and invalid for some reason, that's cool, you don't have to work with it, but the default rules without the GPL are a lot stricter.
Several companies (e.g. Belkin) have been coerced into releasing the source and complying with the GPL under threat of legal action, but as far as I know there has not yet been a legal challenged fought to the end. It very much is a matter of financial power, I guess, at least in the U.S. There are organisations and funds who can help the GPL developer in need, e.g. notably the FSF, which fights for the GPL of those projects whose copyrights were assigned to the FSF.
In other words, if he sends out trial version as he has announced, he'll have to give whoever he sent the trial to access to the source and the right to redistribute under the GPL.
They all drop packets too, and where the hell do you put the RJ-45 jack?
Get with the times. They're wireless...
Keeping in with your bottle analogy: After an initial investment of $50M, you sell your bottled water at $50 per bottle. However, since your making bottles of solid crystal, each costs you $60 to manufacture. You're actually losing money on each, and not recouping investment costs. You're hoping will come back with the bottle for water refills you sell over price, though.
Your point is well taken, and the popular belief that Microsoft loses money on the consoles might well be wrong. But you didn't really give me a reason to think so - people don't think MS loses money on each box due to their initial investments, but simply because the hardware in that box - ie. not a "fixed cost" - comes in fairly expensive.
What applications, other than games, you are talking about? And a modern game requires a lot of performance.
You misunderstood that sentence. I wasn't referring to any application in particular. I said: "I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz." The Pentium 4 and the Pentium M excel at different things, and as such a Pentium M 1.5 might be as fast as a P4 2.5 Ghz doing some things, but slower than that doing others.
And my guess is that this computer has integrated video in the chipset (which is unusable for anything beyond Solitaire.)
That's really quite an exaggeration, integrated chipsets certainly would not be my graphics solution of choice, but you can play the odd 3D game or two with them without a hitch. The standalone graphics processor of today is the integrated processor of tomorrow (or at least next week). And not all games are 3D, even today.
You are guessing wrong, though, the system is running a standalong Radeon 9700 according to the specs page, with 64 MB memory of its own. Not a cutting edge card by any standard, but enough to run most games easily including Halo. Halo will also run without any problem on a Pentium M 1.5, I ran it on a slower system, an Athlon XP "1800+".
The processor seems a bit... lacking. Guess it's not really aimed toward the tech-oriented audience.
It's not extremely fast, but a 1.5 GHz Pentium M isn't that slow, either. I don't know the exact equivalent here, but I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz. And of course, the Pentium M has a very low power usage resulting in easy and quiet cooling. Not at all a bad choice for a nice desktop computer.
I'm sorry for nitpicking but this is a really common and equally annoying error: the game's name is Baldur's Gate.
Okay, this will remove the drain of the status display etc from the LiIons, but it won't do anything about self-discharge. There's really not much you can do about that, apart from freezing it which merely slows the process. Different battery chemistries have very different self-discharge characteristics, though, some take tens of years, other months.
You still haven't defined what kind of success you refer to, so it's fairly vain to discuss what company is more so than others...
As a matter of fact, my first thought was Maxis due to The Sims, or more accurately, Electronic Arts which Maxis is merely a subdivision of these days. EA also seems to be extremely successful in general - whether deservedly so or not. I'm not sure about The Sims' international presence, either, but it's sold the most games worldwide and that's that.
It's really a matter of what success exactly is. For what it's worth, Blizzard does have a track record of releasing critically acclaimed games, no doubt about that. But that's just one sort of success.
I'm sure they're all great, but as I see it they are using brand name of the enormously popular first game to sell the others. That's milking in my book, no matter if the products sold are good or bad. Many of the expansions to The Sims were also quite neat, and the target audience loved them.
So people who don't like the genre aren't suddenly going to like the genre. That's.. great?
I agree that it's a trivial point, but as I said, many, many people just assumed that would be the case.
They're doing an open beta soon, too. Maybe you can get in on that.
The open beta they announced a couple of days is limited to North American residents, like I said. Of course it's not out of the question that they'll start an independent beta for the rest of the world.
I don't know if you're insinuating that I'm one of those 'rabid fanboys'
Nah not strictly. Of course, it's not like someone's either a fanboy or not, it's an analogue thing.
the most succesful gaming company
See? That's what I mean. At the very least, that's an extremely subjective choice, since there is no widespread definition of the order, ie what constitutes being a more successful gaming company than others. I most certainly disagree, actually I wouldn't want to put that label on any single company - but that's also just my own very subjective opinion.
Why are people so worked up about this issue?
It's not that easy. Stealing does have multiple meanings but many people will use "to steal" and mean "to violate copyrights" but treat it as if they said "to deny access". It's like saying "to steal a kiss" without being aware that in that instance no kisses are actually being denied access to.
And of course, stealing does have more of a negative connotation than violating copyrights, for good reasons since denial of access is arguably a more severe crime, and for the not so good reason that it's simple a more commonly used term and a more commonly prosecuted crime.
To a certain degree, the same is true for "pirate", although only the latter aspect - nobody calls a P2Per a pirate without being aware that it has a very different meaning than originally. It does have the derogatory quality to it, though, at least in the real world.
Arguably, in the context of a discussion on the morality or whatever of file sharing etc, it's a good idea to use seperate terms for denial of access and copyright violations, because using the term "stealing" to refer both of them obscures the difference, which some might argue is key. Certainly there's nothing wrong with being specific. Similarily, in a hypothetical discussion of cars vs bicycles, you probably shouldn't use the word vehicle to refer to either. (I admit that's an exaggerated example to make the point.)
Then there's the novel, the computer games, and the whiskey bottle edition. No, seriously.
;)
Yeah, it's pretty disgusting. I mean, we own the original game, and it's great. I've never tried the expansions, but obviously they add a lot to the game. But Starfarers of Catan, a card game and a novel? That's just milking a cash cow. Now, I'm all for exploiting idiots, but maybe they went a bit too far.
tedious (in a bad way)
:)
As opposed to the kind of tedious you look forward to? I love this game, it's just so tedious!