Try Ghost Squad. It's a lot longer than Link's Xbow, and only $30. It's not long, but the unlockables make for pretty good replay value. It's like those arcade light-gun games (and you can even caibrate the wiimote/zapper to aim like a gun in the arcade, and turn off the cursor/retucule!)
Reload? Did you mean respawn? Because there is a reload option in real-life. You can just keep putting bullets in the guns as long as you have bullets, which is probably forever, and is arguably the cause for a lot of the problems you lament. Then again, while I may agree with your "mess" comment politically, I don't think the (world) economy or environment is really a "mess" or even worse off than it was when our parents first got their hands on them.
The only confirmed platforms so far are Windows PCs, Macintoshes, the Nintendo DS and various mobile phones. Wright wants the Wii, 360, and PS3 to have the game, but they're not firm 'yes'es yet.
The article:
A Wii version has already been announced. What can you say about what that's going to play like in terms of structure, control, etc.?
I can't say much about it except the fact that the overriding kind of factor in my mind and Lucy [Bradshaw]'s, in terms of looking at what direction that team goes with it, has been to make really good use of the controller. What interests me about the Wii is that in some sense you have a much higher bandwith controller than you have with any other console or even a PC. How do we abstract the maximum Because one of the biggest advantages we have is our procedural animation system, which means that we can have an infinite of variety of animations that we can make the creature do because it's done procedurally. So that's a natural kind of strength of having a higher bandwith input device--it should really feel like I'm puppeteering this creature very directly, as opposed to I'm just indirectly controlling with a few buttons here and there. The rest of the design is totally going to evolve around that.
These are contradictory. I think I'll go with the story itself.
Also, something out on a cellphone before major consoles? That seems odd -- is it a first?
As a hardware type here on slashdot I have to say that I think you may be underestimating our numbers. I should also say that lower (smaller) geometry processes do produce better results -- otherwise we wouldn't use them. No one is willing to pay extra just to print "45nm" on the package (does anyone even do that?) -- they pay for the increased performance, lower power, smaller die/package size, etc. I don't know what "with little change to the technology underlying shrinks" means, so I can't comment on that. If you have an actual point to make, it may help to slow down, take a breath, and try to make it clearly -- so far your efforts haven't been very clear in general, except for the patently false parts. It's also amusingly telling that even you admit not knowing what you were trying to say. How can you expect us to then?
If they are viewing an image of a abuse - that's a real life child being molested.
This supports the notion that child abuse has a causative correlation to availability of child porn. It doesn't supoprt the notion that viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children in any way.
Those who are peddling this stuff on the Internet encourage more of this sort of thing to happen so they can get their rocks off.
I don't think there's many actually peddling ("selling") child porn on the internet, since the money trail would make it pretty easy to track down and prosecute them. The evidence I've heard shows that most of it is traded/exchanged for free. It is not clear how this can encourage more to be made.
If there is no market, then there will be reduced instances of the images.
Maybe, but there's no evidence to that effect. And that claim, right or wrong, still does not support the notion that viewing images of child pornography provides impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children.
Less images of abuse will definitely help reduce this sort of thing. And yes, I know it won't stop the practice entirely.
Can you support with evidence the notion that reduced availability of child pornography images will help to reduce child sexual abuse? Because that's very close to saying that "viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children" which I think you're claiming is true. Yet, despite having said a lot, including repeating this claim in its converse form, you have not provided any evidence either.
I'm opposed to child porn and child abuse, and think both should be illegal, but the logician in me is frustrated by how often these claims are parroted as absolute truth without any evidence to support them.
You seem to be working under the presumption that there's anything of merit at all in the post that spawned this subthread. Just in case you've forgotten and it's too far up to scroll:
I am guessing there network inside the county is in tack. Meaning there Military can still use there local network to pass data back and forth as for cheap intel that is what CNN and sat are for.
Where's the "insight" or "poignant argument" (that isn't totally redundant) that I "missed" by pointing out how silly "in tack" sounds? Assuming you see some value in that post, please share and then explain where the harm is in trying to (jokingly) help the guy look like less of an idiot in the future? I mean, I understood what he was saying (though it was trite and redundant as mentioned) but in some cases he might have an actual useful or original point and be utterly ignored for saying "in tack." Should we all ignore the error and pretend it's all OK? Do you want your friends to tell you about the huge chunk of spinach between your front teeth as you head out on a big date/job interview teeth or just ignore it?
As arguable as your claim is (can you provide evidence to support a a causative link between possessing or viewing children being abused and actual child abuse?) -- no one defines pedophilia that way. So it isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime.
Can you substantiate either of the implied claims in your post? Specifically (1) viewing images of train wrecks does not provide any impetus for any people to cause more train wrecks or (2) viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children?
For what? Maybe your google-fu is just weak. Rule 34 says there's porn of it so, by corollary, it's on the internet somewhere and someone likes it (a lot.) Seek help in searching.
What I find so interesting is how people on Slashdot are so willing to dismiss any data that they don't believe.
You might have a point if any actual data were presented in the article. Unfortunately none were, so until something more concrete than "says Mr. Smith from Save the Children" or "according to uncited figures claimed by Mr. Jones" arises, we'll have to "circle the wagons" to refute the unsubstantiated FUD.
I know I said to read, but I forgot to mention you need to understand too. Dopamine neurons are not required to live. My original point stands: neither pure heroin nor pure cocaine, short of an overdose, will kill you.
Keep at it though! Maybe we'll all luck out and you'll die from an aneurysm before you can click 'submit' again.
You might want to see someone about that anger issue -- it could cause organ damage if left unchecked.
The changes to the brain that are linked to upregulation are not damage in that they don't prevent functioning or lead to disease or death. They just make you addicted. Read your own links.
OK little man. You brought this pathetic reply to my attention in another, wholly unrelated thread in an effort to dodge being called out yet again on your intellectual failure. So I'll post it here too: read your own sources and understand they do not support your claim in any way.
And my (peer-reviewed) sources say exactly what I claimed. I even included direct links and provided actual quotes from them that prove my claims. If you think otherwise, please understand that an actual quote or argument would go a lot further than "NUH-UH I'M RIGHT I KNOW." I hope this is not beyond your capability, but I fear it is based on our previous exchanges. So either do that, or if you can, quote where any one of those links claims that sub-fatal doses of pure cocaine or pure heroin cause organ damage then you might have some kind of a point. But you can't, because they don't. So STFU and GTFO.
Don't tell me I'm wrong douche, it's my field of expertise and I've worked in it, done original research in it, and know it far better than you ever will.
First, no one that has any "field of expertise" writes nonsense like this and your other posts. Second, cite your own "original research" then, champ. Third, you have no idea how well I know this topic, yet you draw such conclusions -- does your "original research" completely ignore the scientific method like this? I can't wait to read it.
As off-topic and obviously point-dodging as this pathetic post is, you're really not very good at reading your own sources. "Up regulation" is not equivalent to organ damage, which is what you claimed in that thread that you're still obsessing over. Up regulation is a physiological explanation of cocaine's addictiveness, and in no way supports your claims from that thread. Please try and move on; I did, which is why I didn't reply to your (silly and ignorant) reply that came two days after my post.
Now, back to this thread -- wiki has a pic of a burning flag, it was not added 10 minutes ago (could you find the "history" link to verify?) so your (silly and ignorant) post in this thread has now been shown to be as nonsensical as the one in the other. At least you're consistent.
(Note that replies with irrelevant links to google searches 2 days from now will likely be ignored. Just FYI. Try to not be too disappointed.)
Well, NEC Electronics does, and they're even 90nm! (650nm and 350nm versions also available.) Also Freescale, and Texas Instruments, and Maxim (no, not the magazine) and... lots of people, especially those who want to have decently-performing analog circuits.
You kids these days thinking everything is CMOS. Go ahead and try to make me a 10GHz RF circuit in CMOS.
You do not remember correctly. Saying "Germanium voltage is 0.3" is like saying "Ford cars are red." Note that regular silicon devices can operate as low as 0.3V up to 40V and beyond. The material used does not dictate the voltage; the process and structure design do. I.e. Here's an SiGe chip that uses 5V power.
The core voltage and the I/O voltage (which is where SSO is a concern) need not be the same, and rarely are in advanced processes. I'm sure the I/O's are not 0.3V. The rest of your comment was similarly confusing: using gate oxides aren't a "trick" (they're pretty much a requirement,) 65nm and under are more than "slightly" better then 90nm "in some ways," and I don't know what curve you're talking about.
Welcome to the 21st century. Things have been moving quickly lately, and they're only getting quicker. Do try and keep up. Thank you, and remember to keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all times.
The IR camera on the wiimote are like eyes in your analogy. They "see" the sensor bar IR LEDs and allow correction of the errors that build up from accelerometer drift error (not fluids in tubes, of course.)
YDNRC; neither the nunchuck nor the wiimote contains any gyroscopes. Both, however, contain accelerometers, and the wiimote adds an infrared camera (which "sees" the sensor bar IR LEDs) to correct drift error. You might note that the page you linked does not contain the word gyroscope.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Doom 3 has little in common with Doom (or Doom 2.)
Try Ghost Squad. It's a lot longer than Link's Xbow, and only $30. It's not long, but the unlockables make for pretty good replay value. It's like those arcade light-gun games (and you can even caibrate the wiimote/zapper to aim like a gun in the arcade, and turn off the cursor/retucule!)
Reload? Did you mean respawn? Because there is a reload option in real-life. You can just keep putting bullets in the guns as long as you have bullets, which is probably forever, and is arguably the cause for a lot of the problems you lament. Then again, while I may agree with your "mess" comment politically, I don't think the (world) economy or environment is really a "mess" or even worse off than it was when our parents first got their hands on them.
Doom 3.
The summary:
The article:
These are contradictory. I think I'll go with the story itself.
Also, something out on a cellphone before major consoles? That seems odd -- is it a first?
As a hardware type here on slashdot I have to say that I think you may be underestimating our numbers. I should also say that lower (smaller) geometry processes do produce better results -- otherwise we wouldn't use them. No one is willing to pay extra just to print "45nm" on the package (does anyone even do that?) -- they pay for the increased performance, lower power, smaller die/package size, etc. I don't know what "with little change to the technology underlying shrinks" means, so I can't comment on that. If you have an actual point to make, it may help to slow down, take a breath, and try to make it clearly -- so far your efforts haven't been very clear in general, except for the patently false parts. It's also amusingly telling that even you admit not knowing what you were trying to say. How can you expect us to then?
If they are viewing an image of a abuse - that's a real life child being molested.
This supports the notion that child abuse has a causative correlation to availability of child porn. It doesn't supoprt the notion that viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children in any way.
Those who are peddling this stuff on the Internet encourage more of this sort of thing to happen so they can get their rocks off.
I don't think there's many actually peddling ("selling") child porn on the internet, since the money trail would make it pretty easy to track down and prosecute them. The evidence I've heard shows that most of it is traded/exchanged for free. It is not clear how this can encourage more to be made.
If there is no market, then there will be reduced instances of the images.
Maybe, but there's no evidence to that effect. And that claim, right or wrong, still does not support the notion that viewing images of child pornography provides impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children.
Less images of abuse will definitely help reduce this sort of thing. And yes, I know it won't stop the practice entirely.
Can you support with evidence the notion that reduced availability of child pornography images will help to reduce child sexual abuse? Because that's very close to saying that "viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children" which I think you're claiming is true. Yet, despite having said a lot, including repeating this claim in its converse form, you have not provided any evidence either.
I'm opposed to child porn and child abuse, and think both should be illegal, but the logician in me is frustrated by how often these claims are parroted as absolute truth without any evidence to support them.
You seem to be working under the presumption that there's anything of merit at all in the post that spawned this subthread. Just in case you've forgotten and it's too far up to scroll:
I am guessing there network inside the county is in tack. Meaning there Military can still use there local network to pass data back and forth as for cheap intel that is what CNN and sat are for.
Where's the "insight" or "poignant argument" (that isn't totally redundant) that I "missed" by pointing out how silly "in tack" sounds? Assuming you see some value in that post, please share and then explain where the harm is in trying to (jokingly) help the guy look like less of an idiot in the future? I mean, I understood what he was saying (though it was trite and redundant as mentioned) but in some cases he might have an actual useful or original point and be utterly ignored for saying "in tack." Should we all ignore the error and pretend it's all OK? Do you want your friends to tell you about the huge chunk of spinach between your front teeth as you head out on a big date/job interview teeth or just ignore it?
As arguable as your claim is (can you provide evidence to support a a causative link between possessing or viewing children being abused and actual child abuse?) -- no one defines pedophilia that way. So it isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime.
Can you substantiate either of the implied claims in your post? Specifically (1) viewing images of train wrecks does not provide any impetus for any people to cause more train wrecks or (2) viewing images of child pornography does provide impetus for people to cause more sexual abuse of children?
For what? Maybe your google-fu is just weak. Rule 34 says there's porn of it so, by corollary, it's on the internet somewhere and someone likes it (a lot.) Seek help in searching.
What I find so interesting is how people on Slashdot are so willing to dismiss any data that they don't believe.
You might have a point if any actual data were presented in the article. Unfortunately none were, so until something more concrete than "says Mr. Smith from Save the Children" or "according to uncited figures claimed by Mr. Jones" arises, we'll have to "circle the wagons" to refute the unsubstantiated FUD.
I know I said to read, but I forgot to mention you need to understand too. Dopamine neurons are not required to live. My original point stands: neither pure heroin nor pure cocaine, short of an overdose, will kill you.
Keep at it though! Maybe we'll all luck out and you'll die from an aneurysm before you can click 'submit' again.
You might want to see someone about that anger issue -- it could cause organ damage if left unchecked.
The changes to the brain that are linked to upregulation are not damage in that they don't prevent functioning or lead to disease or death. They just make you addicted. Read your own links.
OK little man. You brought this pathetic reply to my attention in another, wholly unrelated thread in an effort to dodge being called out yet again on your intellectual failure. So I'll post it here too: read your own sources and understand they do not support your claim in any way.
And my (peer-reviewed) sources say exactly what I claimed. I even included direct links and provided actual quotes from them that prove my claims. If you think otherwise, please understand that an actual quote or argument would go a lot further than "NUH-UH I'M RIGHT I KNOW." I hope this is not beyond your capability, but I fear it is based on our previous exchanges. So either do that, or if you can, quote where any one of those links claims that sub-fatal doses of pure cocaine or pure heroin cause organ damage then you might have some kind of a point. But you can't, because they don't. So STFU and GTFO.
Don't tell me I'm wrong douche, it's my field of expertise and I've worked in it, done original research in it, and know it far better than you ever will.
First, no one that has any "field of expertise" writes nonsense like this and your other posts. Second, cite your own "original research" then, champ. Third, you have no idea how well I know this topic, yet you draw such conclusions -- does your "original research" completely ignore the scientific method like this? I can't wait to read it.
As off-topic and obviously point-dodging as this pathetic post is, you're really not very good at reading your own sources. "Up regulation" is not equivalent to organ damage, which is what you claimed in that thread that you're still obsessing over. Up regulation is a physiological explanation of cocaine's addictiveness, and in no way supports your claims from that thread. Please try and move on; I did, which is why I didn't reply to your (silly and ignorant) reply that came two days after my post.
Now, back to this thread -- wiki has a pic of a burning flag, it was not added 10 minutes ago (could you find the "history" link to verify?) so your (silly and ignorant) post in this thread has now been shown to be as nonsensical as the one in the other. At least you're consistent.
(Note that replies with irrelevant links to google searches 2 days from now will likely be ignored. Just FYI. Try to not be too disappointed.)
So why not just check it then and admit you're wrong? Just click "history" and you'll see that image has been there since at least November of 2007.
What's with the moderation/meta-moderation rant? Do try to stay on topic.
Well, NEC Electronics does, and they're even 90nm! (650nm and 350nm versions also available.) Also Freescale, and Texas Instruments, and Maxim (no, not the magazine) and ... lots of people, especially those who want to have decently-performing analog circuits.
You kids these days thinking everything is CMOS. Go ahead and try to make me a 10GHz RF circuit in CMOS.
You do not remember correctly. Saying "Germanium voltage is 0.3" is like saying "Ford cars are red." Note that regular silicon devices can operate as low as 0.3V up to 40V and beyond. The material used does not dictate the voltage; the process and structure design do. I.e. Here's an SiGe chip that uses 5V power.
The core voltage and the I/O voltage (which is where SSO is a concern) need not be the same, and rarely are in advanced processes. I'm sure the I/O's are not 0.3V. The rest of your comment was similarly confusing: using gate oxides aren't a "trick" (they're pretty much a requirement,) 65nm and under are more than "slightly" better then 90nm "in some ways," and I don't know what curve you're talking about.
No. Power increases linearly with the number of transistors switching. Power increases with the square of the voltage supplied to those transistors.
Intact.
Unless you meant that the network is inside a small nail.
(Also their but I've just about given up on that one.)
Welcome to the 21st century. Things have been moving quickly lately, and they're only getting quicker. Do try and keep up. Thank you, and remember to keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all times.
The IR camera on the wiimote are like eyes in your analogy. They "see" the sensor bar IR LEDs and allow correction of the errors that build up from accelerometer drift error (not fluids in tubes, of course.)
YDNRC; neither the nunchuck nor the wiimote contains any gyroscopes. Both, however, contain accelerometers, and the wiimote adds an infrared camera (which "sees" the sensor bar IR LEDs) to correct drift error. You might note that the page you linked does not contain the word gyroscope.