How much you want to bet that a good number of people did leave the channel on. If there's something on that I really want to see, maybe I would leave in on, in hopes that I would still be watching when it came back on. So, I leave it on the channel, pick up a book and start reading, or I leave the room and do something else. When the channel comes back on, I hear it, and can watch what I wanted to watch when the channel went off the air.
If chess players would disagree, then why was there complaints when Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, because they had programmed every game that Kasparov had ever played into the machine. If chess really is about memorizing your opponents moves, and which moves to make on different board configurations,then Deep Blue really was the best chess player ever. However, I think it's a little bit of a fallacy to say that memorization of a map means that you are good at a game. Just like saying that memorization of facts makes you intelligent.
However, it could be good if the robot is trying to pick up an item that it doesn't have the strength to pick up. Most robots i've seen just try to pick up an item, no matter if they break their limbs doing it or not. The robot should be able to sense that it can't lift an item, and just continue on before it damages itself or puts its parts out of alignment.
Final Fantasy is terrible. I remember FF 7 and 8, where you had to sit through a 2 minute cutscene every time you attacked your opponent. Fun to watch the first 2 or 3 times, but after that it got pretty frustrating.
These strategies involving item respawning aren't really testing pure skill in the game, they're actually testing your ability to memorize things. The fact that a bunch of players all converge on a single spot right when some item is about to appear shows this. It's like rock climbing contests where you know the exact position of the holds before you have to climb.
I don't think that Hotmail was ever number 1 in online email. I think the only reason that anybody signed up was because they wanted to use MSN messenger, and it's extremely hard for most people to figure out that you can use a non-hotmail address, let alone figuring out the process for actually doing so. I've always found their spam filtering, amount of space (2 MB up until google's huge storage made them upgrade it) , and entire interface to be lacking. The biggest missing feature is an option to "Mark as read" as another poster pointed out. The only reason so many people have signed up, is because they think it's the only way to get on MSN Messenger.
I hate how they do this for NFS. It lets them say stuff like, "we have 40 maps" when really they only have 8 maps, each with 5 different routes with 75% of the route being the same for any 2 routes on the same map.
Also, I don't understand why health packs and weapons show up the same place every time. There should be a certain number of each item, with their location being random. It would make the game a lot more fair to those who haven't memorized the maps.
I never understood why they had specific places where the player respawned. While you'd want to ensure that you didn't respawn someone right above a hole, it makes more sense to just respawn the player in a random location. Except in CTF where the player should always be spawned at their base.
Garaunteed Failure. That's all I have to say. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see too much money being pumped into cinematics, it actually makes the game less fun. I'd rather they just render the cutscenes with the game engine, make sure there's a good story, and let me play the game, without having to sit through hours of movies.
Personally, I liked Mortal Kombat. At least the first one wasn't too bad. But yes, most video game movies are really terrible. I think that most of them would only work as an animated movie. Things like the Mario Bros movie are terrible though. Makes me want to burn my eyes out. However, I do remember a saturday morning cartoon based off mario brothers. It wasn't that bad. Get some writers together to put a long more involved story around the characters, and you could have something.
Canadian beer/alcohol commercials aren't allowed to actually show people drinking. They are allowed to show people having a good time with the product in their hand, but they aren't actually allowed to drink the stuff.
I used to spend very little on music. Usually 3 or 4 CDs a year. Now I spend quite a bit more on music (12 months * $15 = $180 a year). However, its not because I have any more money than I did before, it's because I found a way to make the $15 a month easier to justify. I found it hard to justify the cost of most albums, being that they were around $15. Sometimes for as little as 10 songs. However, with eMusic, I don't mind spending the $15 because I'm getting a lot more out of it. The reason I wasn't spending so much before was because it just seemed like I was spending so much for so little.
There's no monthly fee per say with eMusic. You pay a flat rate like $10, and you get to download 30 songs in the month. Given the option of using iTunes and spending $10 on 10 songs, or eMusic, and spending $10 on 30 songs, I'd pick eMusic. Even if you only download 10 songs, you're still getting the music DRM free. However, it's kind of a bad argument, because eMusic doesn't carry all the popular bands, and has mostly indie stuff. However, there's enough stuff that I can find to download that my $15 a month for 50 songs account will always be completely used up at the end of every month for about the next 8 years. This is assuming they never add any new music (which they always do). So I could either spend $15 on iTunes for 12 songs (assuming $1.30 for DRM Free songs) or I can spend $15 on eMusic and get 50 songs. For me, it's a pretty easy choice.
Why would anybody pay more than 99 cents for a song? You can get a DRM free CD for about $10-$15. Sure if you only want 1 or 2 songs, then you're still saving money, but I don't think that paying more than 99 cents is going to do it for most people. I'm on eMusic, and I pay about 30 cents for a song. I still think it's a little pricey, considering what you end up getting in the end.
Maybe they could ask Canada for help in this matter. We got a $2 coin. And I'm not quite sure if it's a joke or not, but people keep talking about the possibility of a $5 coin coming in the future.
I wasn't talking about harry potter books here. I'm talking about university textbooks. I understand why Harry potter books are cheap. But I don't understand why full-colour, hard cover, very course specific textbooks can be cheaper than soft-cover, black and white, broad topic books. Based on what you've just pointed out, I've seen quite a few publishers really gouging on book costs.
While this can be true, our student union opened it's own bookstore off-campus to try to bring down the cost of books. During the down season they ran it as an internet cafe. They only carried about half of the books, and the prices were usually only $1-$2 cheaper on a $100 book. Once in a while they were as much as $5 cheaper. I bought books there whenever they were available. I'm not sure if the publishers were giving them a worse deal than the big conglomerate campus book store. Also, sometimes books were available from Amazon, or other online book stores, and the prices were within $1-$2 of the campus book store. Anyway, I don't think it's the book stores at all that are fleecing the students but rather the publishers overcharging.
Colour printing probably doesn't have much to do with the cost of the book. I've had black and white almost newspaper textbooks that cost between $100-$150. I've also had textbooks with colour printing that only cost $70. In the end it doesn't make a difference. It's not the ink and paper that cost a lot of money, it's just that they charge whatever they think people are willing to pay.
By providing cheaper software to the schools, they can use their money for things that seem to be lacking in many education systems, like quality teachers, new textbooks, art supplies, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
How much you want to bet that a good number of people did leave the channel on. If there's something on that I really want to see, maybe I would leave in on, in hopes that I would still be watching when it came back on. So, I leave it on the channel, pick up a book and start reading, or I leave the room and do something else. When the channel comes back on, I hear it, and can watch what I wanted to watch when the channel went off the air.
If chess players would disagree, then why was there complaints when Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, because they had programmed every game that Kasparov had ever played into the machine. If chess really is about memorizing your opponents moves, and which moves to make on different board configurations ,then Deep Blue really was the best chess player ever. However, I think it's a little bit of a fallacy to say that memorization of a map means that you are good at a game. Just like saying that memorization of facts makes you intelligent.
However, it could be good if the robot is trying to pick up an item that it doesn't have the strength to pick up. Most robots i've seen just try to pick up an item, no matter if they break their limbs doing it or not. The robot should be able to sense that it can't lift an item, and just continue on before it damages itself or puts its parts out of alignment.
Final Fantasy is terrible. I remember FF 7 and 8, where you had to sit through a 2 minute cutscene every time you attacked your opponent. Fun to watch the first 2 or 3 times, but after that it got pretty frustrating.
These strategies involving item respawning aren't really testing pure skill in the game, they're actually testing your ability to memorize things. The fact that a bunch of players all converge on a single spot right when some item is about to appear shows this. It's like rock climbing contests where you know the exact position of the holds before you have to climb.
I don't think that Hotmail was ever number 1 in online email. I think the only reason that anybody signed up was because they wanted to use MSN messenger, and it's extremely hard for most people to figure out that you can use a non-hotmail address, let alone figuring out the process for actually doing so. I've always found their spam filtering, amount of space (2 MB up until google's huge storage made them upgrade it) , and entire interface to be lacking. The biggest missing feature is an option to "Mark as read" as another poster pointed out. The only reason so many people have signed up, is because they think it's the only way to get on MSN Messenger.
I hate how they do this for NFS. It lets them say stuff like, "we have 40 maps" when really they only have 8 maps, each with 5 different routes with 75% of the route being the same for any 2 routes on the same map.
Also, I don't understand why health packs and weapons show up the same place every time. There should be a certain number of each item, with their location being random. It would make the game a lot more fair to those who haven't memorized the maps.
I never understood why they had specific places where the player respawned. While you'd want to ensure that you didn't respawn someone right above a hole, it makes more sense to just respawn the player in a random location. Except in CTF where the player should always be spawned at their base.
Maybe not the entire game, but I'm pretty sure that the money spent on making the cinematics will be a complete waste.
Garaunteed Failure. That's all I have to say. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see too much money being pumped into cinematics, it actually makes the game less fun. I'd rather they just render the cutscenes with the game engine, make sure there's a good story, and let me play the game, without having to sit through hours of movies.
Personally, I liked Mortal Kombat. At least the first one wasn't too bad. But yes, most video game movies are really terrible. I think that most of them would only work as an animated movie. Things like the Mario Bros movie are terrible though. Makes me want to burn my eyes out. However, I do remember a saturday morning cartoon based off mario brothers. It wasn't that bad. Get some writers together to put a long more involved story around the characters, and you could have something.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
Canadian beer/alcohol commercials aren't allowed to actually show people drinking. They are allowed to show people having a good time with the product in their hand, but they aren't actually allowed to drink the stuff.
I used to spend very little on music. Usually 3 or 4 CDs a year. Now I spend quite a bit more on music (12 months * $15 = $180 a year). However, its not because I have any more money than I did before, it's because I found a way to make the $15 a month easier to justify. I found it hard to justify the cost of most albums, being that they were around $15. Sometimes for as little as 10 songs. However, with eMusic, I don't mind spending the $15 because I'm getting a lot more out of it. The reason I wasn't spending so much before was because it just seemed like I was spending so much for so little.
There's no monthly fee per say with eMusic. You pay a flat rate like $10, and you get to download 30 songs in the month. Given the option of using iTunes and spending $10 on 10 songs, or eMusic, and spending $10 on 30 songs, I'd pick eMusic. Even if you only download 10 songs, you're still getting the music DRM free. However, it's kind of a bad argument, because eMusic doesn't carry all the popular bands, and has mostly indie stuff. However, there's enough stuff that I can find to download that my $15 a month for 50 songs account will always be completely used up at the end of every month for about the next 8 years. This is assuming they never add any new music (which they always do). So I could either spend $15 on iTunes for 12 songs (assuming $1.30 for DRM Free songs) or I can spend $15 on eMusic and get 50 songs. For me, it's a pretty easy choice.
As long as you make sure to check for the CD-Audio Logo when you buy the CD.
Why would anybody pay more than 99 cents for a song? You can get a DRM free CD for about $10-$15. Sure if you only want 1 or 2 songs, then you're still saving money, but I don't think that paying more than 99 cents is going to do it for most people. I'm on eMusic, and I pay about 30 cents for a song. I still think it's a little pricey, considering what you end up getting in the end.
Here's a picture for anybody who's interested.
Maybe they could ask Canada for help in this matter. We got a $2 coin. And I'm not quite sure if it's a joke or not, but people keep talking about the possibility of a $5 coin coming in the future.
Any similar reports about the pink ribbon breast cancer quarters?
I wasn't talking about harry potter books here. I'm talking about university textbooks. I understand why Harry potter books are cheap. But I don't understand why full-colour, hard cover, very course specific textbooks can be cheaper than soft-cover, black and white, broad topic books. Based on what you've just pointed out, I've seen quite a few publishers really gouging on book costs.
While this can be true, our student union opened it's own bookstore off-campus to try to bring down the cost of books. During the down season they ran it as an internet cafe. They only carried about half of the books, and the prices were usually only $1-$2 cheaper on a $100 book. Once in a while they were as much as $5 cheaper. I bought books there whenever they were available. I'm not sure if the publishers were giving them a worse deal than the big conglomerate campus book store. Also, sometimes books were available from Amazon, or other online book stores, and the prices were within $1-$2 of the campus book store. Anyway, I don't think it's the book stores at all that are fleecing the students but rather the publishers overcharging.
Colour printing probably doesn't have much to do with the cost of the book. I've had black and white almost newspaper textbooks that cost between $100-$150. I've also had textbooks with colour printing that only cost $70. In the end it doesn't make a difference. It's not the ink and paper that cost a lot of money, it's just that they charge whatever they think people are willing to pay.
By providing cheaper software to the schools, they can use their money for things that seem to be lacking in many education systems, like quality teachers, new textbooks, art supplies, etc.