At least you can always tell when the parents have played Sauron ('The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing' - this is never a good look, and little Pharazon will be mercilessly bullied at school).
I wouldn't worry about that. Personally I was able to avoid a lot of bullying by seeming just crazy enough that I might snap. Give me eyes with pupils that open on a pit to nothing, and I could have parlayed that into never getting hassled.
No, I think little Saury's (get it, "sorry"? like "sorry i'm evil and crushed your people"?) biggest problem will be with the ladies. As in creeping them the hell out. But on the other hand, some women like the dark and dangerous type.
Screening for diseases makes them designer babies, so the distinction is lost on me
Do you see no difference between cosmetic surgery and medically necessary surgery?
The word "cosmetic" makes a pretty clear distinction to me. And it's exactly that distinction that the word "designer" is meant to invoke.
This is no more "designer babies" than people looking for attractive people to mate with.
Except that in the general sense you cannot guarantee or know that the baby will end up with the expressed traits of any particular parent. You're still rolling the genetic dice and letting the best sperm win. So yeah, it's a hell of a lot more "designer".
Nonsense. By acting as a god, you play god, even if you don't think any gods exist. You can play Satan too if you wished to. Or Sauron for that matter. The absence of a real god just means there's nobody to strike you down in the afterlife for your hubris.
There is still a valuable ethical lesson to take away from the concept. Even atheist scientists can recognize this. The point is, we are not omniscient, and messing with things we don't fully understand can have disastrous consequences. The humility "don't play god" suggests you should have should also inspire caution and careful consideration of what you are doing, and this is a good thing.
Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.
Is religion blocking science all around the world, or is the minor but present advances made by other countries while the U.S. turned away from science in the last decade supposed to be so impressive that it is clear religion is leading us back to the dark ages?
Of course, if you choose to make the second argument, then one would also be playing god when embryos are screened for diseases, and thus should be disallowed as well.
It's the same distinction as between most medical doctors, and cosmetic plastic surgeons (as distinct from reconstructive plastic surgery).
"Playing god" to save a life or to bring health is playing god in the best way; I personally think God approves.
"Playing god" by manipulating surface features for the sake of temporal human aesthetics is to be a trite and shallow god.
I don't think "designer" in this context is supposed to imply how you get the custom-made baby; I don't think it's that technical. I think it's more intended in a fashion sense, like "designer jeans". The implication is that it is something well-off families will do in order to get the "right" kind of baby, rather than grabbing something off the rack at the thrift store and settling for what you get.
Whether you modify the genes of a single embryo to get red hair and blue eyes, or select from thousands of embryos to get red hair and blue eyes, I don't see much difference, either way it's babies-made-to-order. Yes there are hypothetically more issues involved with direct genetic modification in the future, but the distinction doesn't mean much for the issues of today.
The license means you may operate the vehicle on public streets. It does not suggest you can do the same in all or most circumstances.
It's supposed to, that's why you take a test! That's what tests are for! To see if you can handle most common situations.
A learner's permit allows you on any road with the only limitation of an adult licensed driver in the front passenger seat (IIRC). Point is, you don't get qualified before having the opportunity to do something stupid. When I was in my 8 hours of road instruction, the instructor had a brake on her side to 'override' and stop the car. Nicer schools would actually have a wheel and gas control on the passenger side too. Nice!
Um, yeah! Exactly! You have to go do things where it's possible you can fuck up, with someone else there who is either a Driver's Ed instructor with a brake, or after you've taken Driver's Ed your parent/guardian, who can decide that you don't deserve your license. In your 8 hours of road instruction, are you seriously telling me you never merged onto a highway? That you never did more than putz about the neighborhood? Huh?
This was me, applying for a driver's license in a state i hadn't lived in before with no valid license or proof of having taken a driver's ed course, and they didn't even check to see if I could go more than a quarter mile down a multi-lane road. Okay?
For whatever reason, a license test (in IL) requires a vehicle brought in by the testee not the tester. As such, I would not want to be a tester risking my life at high speed.
Hah, yeah. That almost makes sense. Much better than this "oh yeah it's a good thing they don't test anything above 25mph!" But in my case, I had to hop into one of their cars. Despite driving my own car to DPS -- and not having a valid license. Anyway, in that case, once you've tested the super-basic stuff putzing around the neighborhood, why not step it up a notch and see if they can merge. If they're so dangerously hopeless that the instructor can't talk them through any mistakes they make, then it would probably be apparent by then.
You are not "fully legal" to do anything you are incapable of doing. I.e., if you cause an accident after the on ramp, the license is not a defense for anything (other than the charge of 'unlicensed driver').
Yes you're fully legal to do anything that your license says your are deemed legally capable of doing. I.e. driving on any public road or highway, merging onto said highways, performing any other legal operation on the road, while in a non-commercial vehicle. A commercial license means you are fully legal and capable of driving other classes of vehicle. Regardless of legal capability, you are always liable for fucking up. Of course it's "not a defense". A medical license isn't a defense against malpractice. But nevertheless you were supposed to be capable. That's why they call it fucking up!
WTF? Where do you live where there's a separate license for "putzing around the block" and using the highway? Illinois.
Well, shit. I've driven through IL with my regular-ol-MI license without ever considering that I needed a higher level of license to use their highways!
But to what end do you raise the bar? Excessive speeding, clowning, teen intoxication (or adult intoxication), not wearing seatbelts... these are the low-hanging fruit hazards on the roads today.
To what end? To the end that you know people understand the basic rules of the road for the majority of common situations by seeing them do them! I don't care if you can tool around and empty residential neighborhood, thus proving you can show up to a test without being fucking intoxicated. If the fucker can't merge onto a highway on the day they know their driving ability is being tested, then they have no business being on the road. Failing to test that is retarded, because that's some damn low-hanging fruit that is as yet unharvested.
I'm not sure I believe you. In TX you don't have to take a driver's test unless the license from the state you moved from has expired.
Which is exactly what happened, as I said in another post.
So please don't make up stories.
LOL. Yeah I know, how could anyone have an expired license? Believe me, I'm too lazy to make up a story that involved. Which is exactly why I let my license lapse.:P
Funny, since PSX games tended to look a lot better than N64 games did. The N64 could only handle miniscule texture sizes, so everything was either solid colour or stretched and blurred beyond all recognition. The PSX had the blocky textures, but they were detailed.
Yeah, I don't really think so. The textures only seemed detailed because they were so blocky and the . It was really a way of taking advantage of the old artistic skills at low-res 2d graphics that it worked. The N64 was underpowered on texture memory, it's true, largely because its higher resolution and unaliased texture sampling made it more apparent. It made up for it on 3d environment detail and effects. Plus it had enough texture resolution for when it mattered.
And don't get me wrong, I think PSX graphics were fine and the console was awesome. I didn't own either, my friend and roommate for several years had them (and many more consoles) and lots of games for each. I'd put Goldeneye and Turok up against Medal of Honor (which still used sprites for enemies!) or any other fps on psx, zelda against any adventure game, or damn Wave Race vs Jet Moto in terms of graphics any day of the week. Doesn't mean the games were better, which is also part of my point. There's a reason the having the best graphics doesn't win the market.
Let's also not forget the superior music and FMV that the Playstation offered due to using CD-ROM media.
Yeah, absolutely. For the games that could afford lengthy FMV, that was a big advantage. But that's pre-rendered non-interactive stuff. Cool, but not "in-game" footage and not a matter of processing power. It was in the PSX generation where ads presenting FMV as though it might be actual game-play became infamous. On the other hand, it enabled games like FFVII. Nintendo might have been stupid enough to suggest it was a good thing their cartridges couldn't handle FFVII, but nobody else is. But the main reason they went with cartridges was because they were worried about losing control over who could make games for the n64 which is why I was saying I think it's mostly shitting on 3rd parties that cost N64 the battle. And on the other hand, it was aspects of the hardware other than sheer processing power.
I was an early adopter of the Playstation and I don't ever recall anyone complaining about frat boys polluting the game market. Most of the PSX library weren't even sports games, they were things like Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken, Air Combat, Ridge Racer, Resident Evil, Gran Turismo, Wild Arms and Final Fantasy.
People complained, but it was as stupid then as it was now. Obviously most of them weren't sports games, the PSX library was huge and varied. But there were more games appearing catering to "certain crowds", and for some reason people thought this was a sign of the apocalypse because they saw more money overall entering the gaming market as a bad thing for gamers. *shrug* Don't ask me to explain it.
Ah, okay, a good engineering math curriculum. Cool. So you have done work more complicated than "here's f(x), integrate it from a to b". I'm confused then why you can't see how using the help of software to do the grunt work hinders you anymore than an arithmetic calculator hinders algebra class, but okay...
To briefly recount my curriculum vitae regarding math classes at University of Michigan in a less obnoxious fashion: Calculus Advanced Calculus/Calc II with Maple -- the class I'm talking about Multi-variable calculus Differential Equations Boolean Algebra Algorithms Discreet Math Discreet Math II Probability Statistics Advanced Algorithms and that's not counting ancillary boolean logic and other domain-specific math in other engineering courses.
Several of these classes, like Calc I, multivariate calc and discreet math I took in a special math-and-science high school (i.e. age 14-17) before taking at college, and the high school versions were harder by far.
It is in comparison to all these other classes that I say that Calc II with Maple, the only one to emphasize using software to help you solve math problems, was evil. So I know what your idea of a "rigorous" calc class is, I took plenty of those. I'm wasn't trying to brag our sound super-smart, but you had the temerity to suggest this was the only class I'd ever had and it couldn't have been rigorous. Please. Frankly, I took it hoping it would be easy (and wondering why only those who had done very well in previous calc courses could take it). And I'm in CompE, so if "talking to Maple" was the extent of the course, it would have been terribly simple and I would have done like I did with some courses and only shown up for exams and my first post would have been "Maple makes calculus class stupid-easy". But it wasn't. It was beyond "rigorous", where a lot of students complained the advisers should have mentioned this so people who didn't care as much having advanced math could take the regular version.
"My computer is doing it" pretty much means you've dropped off the rigour bandwagon.
But... who said "the computer is doing it"? I said the computer was doing the grunt work calculations and integrals. It was no more "doing it" than your calculator is "doing it" when you punch in numbers into an equation. The question is: How did you get the equation? That's where applying the math and theorems comes in. You can't just ask Maple what transformation to apply, what theorem to refer to, in order to get whatever arbitrary result you're interested in. Once you get to the point where you can say "Okay, the required force is the integral of f(x) from a to b" is applying the partial differentiation theorem that you learned the previous semester really that important?
Maybe my problem is that it seems everyone says "calculus" and knows instantly what is being talked about. It's not so clear for me. Really though, calculus, even rigourously, is not difficult at all.
Well, I said in the first post that this was Calc II, and I didn't think it was appropriate for Calc I. I repeatedly stated that simply taking integrals and other basic mechanics (i.e. Calc I) were not what this was about and I didn't think Maple was appropriate for those classes. Benefit of the doubt would have benefited your understanding.
But hey, yeah, calc isn't hard. Most of the other classes certainly weren't. This one was harder. Maybe think about it for a while before assuming that's impossible.
Do you mean you were solving PDEs on prescribed contours or something?
No, that was a chapter in diff-e-q. In this class I remember early on we were doing volumes of rotations, then maximizing surface areas, then essentially solving fluid physics problems. Like I said, this was 13 years ago and I haven't used it, if I'd bothered to reply at work I had my book on the shelf and could have recalled a specific problem.
Viewtiful Joe and Alien Hominid are last generation, but that's still well after the decline of 2D platform gaming and you can still play em on your wii. Okay, Hominid was originally a Flash game, but hey like another poster said that's where the 2D action is these days. It also uses a pretty simple style that probably could have been done on an old console. But it's really good anyway. Especially if you are sick of easy mario games and want something brutal.:)
Viewtiful is also quite good, though it's about 50+% beat-em-up. On the plus side a lot of the platforming bits are really good (the level where you run down a giant submarine torpedo tube stands out). Also has great art and animation.
Now that I'm thinking about cool last-gen 2d games, if you're into 2D shoot-em-ups, Ikaruga was beautiful and brilliant and sure as hell would have caused slowdown on a SNES (since Gradius III did). Also, extremely hard. Fortunately the early levels have good replay value since you can always try to go for more points and kill the boss quicker using more dangerous techniques. The concept of two colors you could switch between to choose whether to absorb enemy shots of the same color or do more damage against enemies of the opposite color was so simple and powerful I wonder why I hadn't seen it before. Geeze, I wish that asshole hadn't stolen my copy. Mental note: Need to buy that game again online.
Yeah, try it. For one, it's simply a great game. For two, if you compare it to a very similar SNES game, Super Metroid (rules), you'll see that the PSX had way more 2D horsepower. The giant screen-filling bosses of Metroid were a little clunky and not overly animated. The giant screen-filling bosses of SotN look fluid and alive in comparison. For three, it's one of the last AAA 2D titles, so as a 2D fan you should definitely check out this piece of history.:)
On a side note, the use of the CELL should be considered one of the dumbest design choices. I've worked with people who wrote code for it; it's a nightmare just to get things working. One day game system designers will learn that a simple-to-program system is the way to go.
Wait, wait... You're saying that developers never fully realizing the potential of your console isn't a feature?;)
Maybe Sony will learn after this generation, but the PS2 was allegedly a bitch to program too and well based on that example it's hard to blame them for assuming it didn't matter.
.... how hard is it to imagine Counter Strike? you're thinking OnLive is going to be some magical thing we haven't seen before...
Um... is Counter Strike not entirely rendered and much of the game logic/physics too done on the client side in the version in your imagination? Because that's what OnLive is claiming to do, and yes it's magical.
With more and more bandwidth being constantly available it's just a matter of time until you have a seamless experience without worrying about hard drive space, of course the image rendering is going to be done locally.
As the cpu guys discovered a long time ago, bandwidth is not a replacement for low latency.
It explains very little but does so extremely well.
Uh okay. I was going to say it explains the quality of drivers around here, but hey.
It is far better that you
a) learn when ready (hopefully, not in rush hour and on less traveled ramps) b) kill yourself because you weren't ready on your own time
Do you comprehend that this was the test to receive my license? As in after that moment, I was fully legal to drive everywhere any other normal person is allowed to drive? How many people get their license and then avoid the highway because they "aren't ready"? Hint: Nobody in my town who wants to get anywhere. Guess what? To get home from DPS, I hopped on the highway that was two blocks away. Good thing I knew how to do it, even though the inspector had no idea if I did or not when he gave me the passing grade!
At least with an inspector there, they might be able to warn the driver before they do something tragically stupid.
The idea that you should hand someone a driver's license without testing their ability to handle day-to-day driving situations is asinine. If they just test the "basic" skill, but don't test if you can merge because they're afraid that you can't, then hand you a license which says that you can, that's just irresponsible! And also asinine.
You don't want to create some chicken/egg situation where you need a license to practice what you need to get the license.
Yeah and the solution to this situation is called "driving school". *gasp*
But of course your solution is much better: You need a license to practice what you should need to get the license, but we just give your retarded ass the license anyway without seeing if you know it!
Yeah, that leads to safe drivers on the road! Don't worry, you'll figure out merging later!
A test that finds the limit of your skill would need - ought to be - on a closed course in a suitably designed vehicle.
Merging onto a highway should not be anywhere close to the "limit of your skill". We're not talking about weaving through cones at high speed. We're talking about performing a basic operation.
Instead, you took a test that, were you to fail, you seriously don't have the skill to putz around the block the way a basic license would allow.
WTF? Where do you live where there's a separate license for "putzing around the block" and using the highway? Hello, the "basic license" lets you do anything anyone else with a non-commercial license can do, which is a lot more -- and a lot more demanding -- than putzing around the block.
And yeah no fucking shit if you fail this test you don't have the skillz, because you are drunk, high, and mentally retarded. I'd like for a driving test to set the bar slightly higher than what you can train a chimp to do in a couple days.
The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.
I'd say it's indisputably more powerful than the Xbox at roughly 2x a GC, but not nearly the leap in performance we're used to which combined with time means it "seems" to be barely more powerful than last gen.
And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics. Good 2D > primitive 3D.
The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles. Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be. See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.
But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.
The only thing excessive about the graphics on those consoles is the price attached. Both of the system (and no crippled "base" 360 systems don't count) and more importantly the costs of the developers. As long as they don't try to push the envelope of console graphics as much as they did this generation, the system price should be manageable. On the development side, that'll either require better tools/methodologies to lower cost (easy for me to say) or simply not utilizing the full capabilities. Which of course would kinda defeat the purpose of having them.
Which has, historically, almost always been the case. In reverse chronological order: PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC, PSX over stonger N64, SNES over weaker Genesis as a notable exception though it was actually pretty close instead of the usual landslide, NES over Master System, and finally the Atari 2600 vs everything else. In the mobile dept: DS over PSP, GBA over um whoever tried to compete with it, and the Gameboy over the GameGear and anyone else who tried to make a portable over the course of a decade.
Now you can argue that optical disks were an obvious advantage for the PSX (or more accurately cartridges were a weakness of the N64), but in terms of the processing horsepower and "zomg pretty pictures" that most people refer to when talking about 'strength', no contest. In a way, though this is part of my point -- the winner isn't decided by who has the most FLOPS to throw up the most awesome pictures. It's decided by other factors. I don't even think cartridges were the primary reason N64 lost, there's also how Nintendo alienated (read: shit upon) 3rd party developers, and oh yeah the PSX having a year and a half head start to build up a library of games and gain name recognition and expand the market. In a way, the PSX was the original "casual gamer" machine in the sense that it reached out to millions of people who hadn't been gamers before. Today's complaints about how "mom & pop" with their Wii are polluting the market mirror 1995's complaints that frat boys playing sports games on the PSX were polluting the market for us "hard-core" gamers.
So anyway, yeah. In a generation where, as usual, the consoles' success is ranked in reverse order of shininess, saying "teh market demands teh shinies!" seems quite misguided.
Unless they are bundling genuine magic in every box
They are putting real magic into the machine, but the magic is very insincere.
Like the other day I was beta testing Command & Conquer for Onlive, and the magic was saying how it just loved to instantly transfer packets for an exciting game like that for me, but just last week it was saying how RTS games were board games for Ritalin-addled "tweentards" who couldn't hack a thinking game like Civ. Oh but now that an RTS was going to be a flagship game it was all for em, and I think it honestly didn't expect me to notice.
Yeah it's pretty funny how all these people are taking the one line summary of "EMI erases disks" and interpreting it as "disks susceptible to EMI erasure" and thinking "Well that's no big deal". Instead of reading it how it really is, a misfeature -- an EMI that erases your disks! Like every time you hit the power switch!
I guess it would have been clearer if they hadn't mention the negative effects, but just the source: "power supply generates EMP".
Slashdot Mirror
At least you can always tell when the parents have played Sauron ('The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing' - this is never a good look, and little Pharazon will be mercilessly bullied at school).
I wouldn't worry about that. Personally I was able to avoid a lot of bullying by seeming just crazy enough that I might snap. Give me eyes with pupils that open on a pit to nothing, and I could have parlayed that into never getting hassled.
No, I think little Saury's (get it, "sorry"? like "sorry i'm evil and crushed your people"?) biggest problem will be with the ladies. As in creeping them the hell out. But on the other hand, some women like the dark and dangerous type.
Screening for diseases makes them designer babies, so the distinction is lost on me
Do you see no difference between cosmetic surgery and medically necessary surgery?
The word "cosmetic" makes a pretty clear distinction to me. And it's exactly that distinction that the word "designer" is meant to invoke.
This is no more "designer babies" than people looking for attractive people to mate with.
Except that in the general sense you cannot guarantee or know that the baby will end up with the expressed traits of any particular parent. You're still rolling the genetic dice and letting the best sperm win. So yeah, it's a hell of a lot more "designer".
Just as paper covers rock, Burns covers sun!
It's an expression, and I think anybody with common sense can understand the point.
Yes, but they've bludgeoned their common sense to death with a club called "pedantry".
Except there is no god, so you can't play him.
Nonsense. By acting as a god, you play god, even if you don't think any gods exist. You can play Satan too if you wished to. Or Sauron for that matter. The absence of a real god just means there's nobody to strike you down in the afterlife for your hubris.
There is still a valuable ethical lesson to take away from the concept. Even atheist scientists can recognize this. The point is, we are not omniscient, and messing with things we don't fully understand can have disastrous consequences. The humility "don't play god" suggests you should have should also inspire caution and careful consideration of what you are doing, and this is a good thing.
Imagine all the advances in science and medicine if we could get religion out of the way.
Is religion blocking science all around the world, or is the minor but present advances made by other countries while the U.S. turned away from science in the last decade supposed to be so impressive that it is clear religion is leading us back to the dark ages?
Everything but the Whitesnake tattoo. It goes against the Hippocratic Oath.
Of course, if you choose to make the second argument, then one would also be playing god when embryos are screened for diseases, and thus should be disallowed as well.
It's the same distinction as between most medical doctors, and cosmetic plastic surgeons (as distinct from reconstructive plastic surgery).
"Playing god" to save a life or to bring health is playing god in the best way; I personally think God approves.
"Playing god" by manipulating surface features for the sake of temporal human aesthetics is to be a trite and shallow god.
I don't think "designer" in this context is supposed to imply how you get the custom-made baby; I don't think it's that technical. I think it's more intended in a fashion sense, like "designer jeans". The implication is that it is something well-off families will do in order to get the "right" kind of baby, rather than grabbing something off the rack at the thrift store and settling for what you get.
Whether you modify the genes of a single embryo to get red hair and blue eyes, or select from thousands of embryos to get red hair and blue eyes, I don't see much difference, either way it's babies-made-to-order. Yes there are hypothetically more issues involved with direct genetic modification in the future, but the distinction doesn't mean much for the issues of today.
The license means you may operate the vehicle on public streets. It does not suggest you can do the same in all or most circumstances.
It's supposed to, that's why you take a test! That's what tests are for! To see if you can handle most common situations.
A learner's permit allows you on any road with the only limitation of an adult licensed driver in the front passenger seat (IIRC). Point is, you don't get qualified before having the opportunity to do something stupid. When I was in my 8 hours of road instruction, the instructor had a brake on her side to 'override' and stop the car. Nicer schools would actually have a wheel and gas control on the passenger side too. Nice!
Um, yeah! Exactly! You have to go do things where it's possible you can fuck up, with someone else there who is either a Driver's Ed instructor with a brake, or after you've taken Driver's Ed your parent/guardian, who can decide that you don't deserve your license. In your 8 hours of road instruction, are you seriously telling me you never merged onto a highway? That you never did more than putz about the neighborhood? Huh?
This was me, applying for a driver's license in a state i hadn't lived in before with no valid license or proof of having taken a driver's ed course, and they didn't even check to see if I could go more than a quarter mile down a multi-lane road. Okay?
For whatever reason, a license test (in IL) requires a vehicle brought in by the testee not the tester. As such, I would not want to be a tester risking my life at high speed.
Hah, yeah. That almost makes sense. Much better than this "oh yeah it's a good thing they don't test anything above 25mph!" But in my case, I had to hop into one of their cars. Despite driving my own car to DPS -- and not having a valid license. Anyway, in that case, once you've tested the super-basic stuff putzing around the neighborhood, why not step it up a notch and see if they can merge. If they're so dangerously hopeless that the instructor can't talk them through any mistakes they make, then it would probably be apparent by then.
You are not "fully legal" to do anything you are incapable of doing. I.e., if you cause an accident after the on ramp, the license is not a defense for anything (other than the charge of 'unlicensed driver').
Yes you're fully legal to do anything that your license says your are deemed legally capable of doing. I.e. driving on any public road or highway, merging onto said highways, performing any other legal operation on the road, while in a non-commercial vehicle. A commercial license means you are fully legal and capable of driving other classes of vehicle. Regardless of legal capability, you are always liable for fucking up. Of course it's "not a defense". A medical license isn't a defense against malpractice. But nevertheless you were supposed to be capable. That's why they call it fucking up!
Well, shit. I've driven through IL with my regular-ol-MI license without ever considering that I needed a higher level of license to use their highways!
But to what end do you raise the bar? Excessive speeding, clowning, teen intoxication (or adult intoxication), not wearing seatbelts... these are the low-hanging fruit hazards on the roads today.
To what end? To the end that you know people understand the basic rules of the road for the majority of common situations by seeing them do them! I don't care if you can tool around and empty residential neighborhood, thus proving you can show up to a test without being fucking intoxicated. If the fucker can't merge onto a highway on the day they know their driving ability is being tested, then they have no business being on the road. Failing to test that is retarded, because that's some damn low-hanging fruit that is as yet unharvested.
I'm not sure I believe you. In TX you don't have to take a driver's test unless the license from the state you moved from has expired.
Which is exactly what happened, as I said in another post.
So please don't make up stories.
LOL. Yeah I know, how could anyone have an expired license? Believe me, I'm too lazy to make up a story that involved. Which is exactly why I let my license lapse. :P
Funny, since PSX games tended to look a lot better than N64 games did. The N64 could only handle miniscule texture sizes, so everything was either solid colour or stretched and blurred beyond all recognition. The PSX had the blocky textures, but they were detailed.
Yeah, I don't really think so. The textures only seemed detailed because they were so blocky and the . It was really a way of taking advantage of the old artistic skills at low-res 2d graphics that it worked. The N64 was underpowered on texture memory, it's true, largely because its higher resolution and unaliased texture sampling made it more apparent. It made up for it on 3d environment detail and effects. Plus it had enough texture resolution for when it mattered.
And don't get me wrong, I think PSX graphics were fine and the console was awesome. I didn't own either, my friend and roommate for several years had them (and many more consoles) and lots of games for each. I'd put Goldeneye and Turok up against Medal of Honor (which still used sprites for enemies!) or any other fps on psx, zelda against any adventure game, or damn Wave Race vs Jet Moto in terms of graphics any day of the week. Doesn't mean the games were better, which is also part of my point. There's a reason the having the best graphics doesn't win the market.
Let's also not forget the superior music and FMV that the Playstation offered due to using CD-ROM media.
Yeah, absolutely. For the games that could afford lengthy FMV, that was a big advantage. But that's pre-rendered non-interactive stuff. Cool, but not "in-game" footage and not a matter of processing power. It was in the PSX generation where ads presenting FMV as though it might be actual game-play became infamous. On the other hand, it enabled games like FFVII. Nintendo might have been stupid enough to suggest it was a good thing their cartridges couldn't handle FFVII, but nobody else is. But the main reason they went with cartridges was because they were worried about losing control over who could make games for the n64 which is why I was saying I think it's mostly shitting on 3rd parties that cost N64 the battle. And on the other hand, it was aspects of the hardware other than sheer processing power.
I was an early adopter of the Playstation and I don't ever recall anyone complaining about frat boys polluting the game market. Most of the PSX library weren't even sports games, they were things like Battle Arena Toshinden, Tekken, Air Combat, Ridge Racer, Resident Evil, Gran Turismo, Wild Arms and Final Fantasy.
People complained, but it was as stupid then as it was now. Obviously most of them weren't sports games, the PSX library was huge and varied. But there were more games appearing catering to "certain crowds", and for some reason people thought this was a sign of the apocalypse because they saw more money overall entering the gaming market as a bad thing for gamers. *shrug* Don't ask me to explain it.
For information on what I've studied
Ah, okay, a good engineering math curriculum. Cool. So you have done work more complicated than "here's f(x), integrate it from a to b". I'm confused then why you can't see how using the help of software to do the grunt work hinders you anymore than an arithmetic calculator hinders algebra class, but okay...
To briefly recount my curriculum vitae regarding math classes at University of Michigan in a less obnoxious fashion:
Calculus
Advanced Calculus/Calc II with Maple -- the class I'm talking about
Multi-variable calculus
Differential Equations
Boolean Algebra
Algorithms
Discreet Math
Discreet Math II
Probability
Statistics
Advanced Algorithms
and that's not counting ancillary boolean logic and other domain-specific math in other engineering courses.
Several of these classes, like Calc I, multivariate calc and discreet math I took in a special math-and-science high school (i.e. age 14-17) before taking at college, and the high school versions were harder by far.
It is in comparison to all these other classes that I say that Calc II with Maple, the only one to emphasize using software to help you solve math problems, was evil. So I know what your idea of a "rigorous" calc class is, I took plenty of those. I'm wasn't trying to brag our sound super-smart, but you had the temerity to suggest this was the only class I'd ever had and it couldn't have been rigorous. Please. Frankly, I took it hoping it would be easy (and wondering why only those who had done very well in previous calc courses could take it). And I'm in CompE, so if "talking to Maple" was the extent of the course, it would have been terribly simple and I would have done like I did with some courses and only shown up for exams and my first post would have been "Maple makes calculus class stupid-easy". But it wasn't. It was beyond "rigorous", where a lot of students complained the advisers should have mentioned this so people who didn't care as much having advanced math could take the regular version.
"My computer is doing it" pretty much means you've dropped off the rigour bandwagon.
But... who said "the computer is doing it"? I said the computer was doing the grunt work calculations and integrals. It was no more "doing it" than your calculator is "doing it" when you punch in numbers into an equation. The question is: How did you get the equation? That's where applying the math and theorems comes in. You can't just ask Maple what transformation to apply, what theorem to refer to, in order to get whatever arbitrary result you're interested in. Once you get to the point where you can say "Okay, the required force is the integral of f(x) from a to b" is applying the partial differentiation theorem that you learned the previous semester really that important?
Maybe my problem is that it seems everyone says "calculus" and knows instantly what is being talked about. It's not so clear for me. Really though, calculus, even rigourously, is not difficult at all.
Well, I said in the first post that this was Calc II, and I didn't think it was appropriate for Calc I. I repeatedly stated that simply taking integrals and other basic mechanics (i.e. Calc I) were not what this was about and I didn't think Maple was appropriate for those classes. Benefit of the doubt would have benefited your understanding.
But hey, yeah, calc isn't hard. Most of the other classes certainly weren't. This one was harder. Maybe think about it for a while before assuming that's impossible.
Do you mean you were solving PDEs on prescribed contours or something?
No, that was a chapter in diff-e-q. In this class I remember early on we were doing volumes of rotations, then maximizing surface areas, then essentially solving fluid physics problems. Like I said, this was 13 years ago and I haven't used it, if I'd bothered to reply at work I had my book on the shelf and could have recalled a specific problem.
Viewtiful Joe and Alien Hominid are last generation, but that's still well after the decline of 2D platform gaming and you can still play em on your wii. Okay, Hominid was originally a Flash game, but hey like another poster said that's where the 2D action is these days. It also uses a pretty simple style that probably could have been done on an old console. But it's really good anyway. Especially if you are sick of easy mario games and want something brutal. :)
Viewtiful is also quite good, though it's about 50+% beat-em-up. On the plus side a lot of the platforming bits are really good (the level where you run down a giant submarine torpedo tube stands out). Also has great art and animation.
Now that I'm thinking about cool last-gen 2d games, if you're into 2D shoot-em-ups, Ikaruga was beautiful and brilliant and sure as hell would have caused slowdown on a SNES (since Gradius III did). Also, extremely hard. Fortunately the early levels have good replay value since you can always try to go for more points and kill the boss quicker using more dangerous techniques. The concept of two colors you could switch between to choose whether to absorb enemy shots of the same color or do more damage against enemies of the opposite color was so simple and powerful I wonder why I hadn't seen it before. Geeze, I wish that asshole hadn't stolen my copy. Mental note: Need to buy that game again online.
Been meaning to try SotN for a while though.
Yeah, try it. For one, it's simply a great game. For two, if you compare it to a very similar SNES game, Super Metroid (rules), you'll see that the PSX had way more 2D horsepower. The giant screen-filling bosses of Metroid were a little clunky and not overly animated. The giant screen-filling bosses of SotN look fluid and alive in comparison. For three, it's one of the last AAA 2D titles, so as a 2D fan you should definitely check out this piece of history. :)
On a side note, the use of the CELL should be considered one of the dumbest design choices. I've worked with people who wrote code for it; it's a nightmare just to get things working. One day game system designers will learn that a simple-to-program system is the way to go.
Wait, wait... You're saying that developers never fully realizing the potential of your console isn't a feature? ;)
Maybe Sony will learn after this generation, but the PS2 was allegedly a bitch to program too and well based on that example it's hard to blame them for assuming it didn't matter.
.... how hard is it to imagine Counter Strike?
you're thinking OnLive is going to be some magical thing we haven't seen before...
Um... is Counter Strike not entirely rendered and much of the game logic/physics too done on the client side in the version in your imagination? Because that's what OnLive is claiming to do, and yes it's magical.
With more and more bandwidth being constantly available it's just a matter of time until you have a seamless experience without worrying about hard drive space, of course the image rendering is going to be done locally.
As the cpu guys discovered a long time ago, bandwidth is not a replacement for low latency.
Guilty as charged.
Yeah the only reason I had to take the test is because my license from my previous state had expired.
Of course, the examiner didn't know that. I just told them I was applying for a new license.
It explains very little but does so extremely well.
Uh okay. I was going to say it explains the quality of drivers around here, but hey.
It is far better that you
a) learn when ready (hopefully, not in rush hour and on less traveled ramps)
b) kill yourself because you weren't ready on your own time
Do you comprehend that this was the test to receive my license? As in after that moment, I was fully legal to drive everywhere any other normal person is allowed to drive? How many people get their license and then avoid the highway because they "aren't ready"? Hint: Nobody in my town who wants to get anywhere. Guess what? To get home from DPS, I hopped on the highway that was two blocks away. Good thing I knew how to do it, even though the inspector had no idea if I did or not when he gave me the passing grade!
At least with an inspector there, they might be able to warn the driver before they do something tragically stupid.
The idea that you should hand someone a driver's license without testing their ability to handle day-to-day driving situations is asinine. If they just test the "basic" skill, but don't test if you can merge because they're afraid that you can't, then hand you a license which says that you can, that's just irresponsible! And also asinine.
You don't want to create some chicken/egg situation where you need a license to practice what you need to get the license.
Yeah and the solution to this situation is called "driving school". *gasp*
But of course your solution is much better: You need a license to practice what you should need to get the license, but we just give your retarded ass the license anyway without seeing if you know it!
Yeah, that leads to safe drivers on the road! Don't worry, you'll figure out merging later!
A test that finds the limit of your skill would need - ought to be - on a closed course in a suitably designed vehicle.
Merging onto a highway should not be anywhere close to the "limit of your skill". We're not talking about weaving through cones at high speed. We're talking about performing a basic operation.
Instead, you took a test that, were you to fail, you seriously don't have the skill to putz around the block the way a basic license would allow.
WTF? Where do you live where there's a separate license for "putzing around the block" and using the highway? Hello, the "basic license" lets you do anything anyone else with a non-commercial license can do, which is a lot more -- and a lot more demanding -- than putzing around the block.
And yeah no fucking shit if you fail this test you don't have the skillz, because you are drunk, high, and mentally retarded. I'd like for a driving test to set the bar slightly higher than what you can train a chimp to do in a couple days.
Very good post.
The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.
I'd say it's indisputably more powerful than the Xbox at roughly 2x a GC, but not nearly the leap in performance we're used to which combined with time means it "seems" to be barely more powerful than last gen.
And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics. Good 2D > primitive 3D.
The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles. Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be. See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.
But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.
The only thing excessive about the graphics on those consoles is the price attached. Both of the system (and no crippled "base" 360 systems don't count) and more importantly the costs of the developers. As long as they don't try to push the envelope of console graphics as much as they did this generation, the system price should be manageable. On the development side, that'll either require better tools/methodologies to lower cost (easy for me to say) or simply not utilizing the full capabilities. Which of course would kinda defeat the purpose of having them.
the most popular console is the weakest machine
Which has, historically, almost always been the case. In reverse chronological order: PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC, PSX over stonger N64, SNES over weaker Genesis as a notable exception though it was actually pretty close instead of the usual landslide, NES over Master System, and finally the Atari 2600 vs everything else. In the mobile dept: DS over PSP, GBA over um whoever tried to compete with it, and the Gameboy over the GameGear and anyone else who tried to make a portable over the course of a decade.
Now you can argue that optical disks were an obvious advantage for the PSX (or more accurately cartridges were a weakness of the N64), but in terms of the processing horsepower and "zomg pretty pictures" that most people refer to when talking about 'strength', no contest. In a way, though this is part of my point -- the winner isn't decided by who has the most FLOPS to throw up the most awesome pictures. It's decided by other factors. I don't even think cartridges were the primary reason N64 lost, there's also how Nintendo alienated (read: shit upon) 3rd party developers, and oh yeah the PSX having a year and a half head start to build up a library of games and gain name recognition and expand the market. In a way, the PSX was the original "casual gamer" machine in the sense that it reached out to millions of people who hadn't been gamers before. Today's complaints about how "mom & pop" with their Wii are polluting the market mirror 1995's complaints that frat boys playing sports games on the PSX were polluting the market for us "hard-core" gamers.
So anyway, yeah. In a generation where, as usual, the consoles' success is ranked in reverse order of shininess, saying "teh market demands teh shinies!" seems quite misguided.
Unless they are bundling genuine magic in every box
They are putting real magic into the machine, but the magic is very insincere.
Like the other day I was beta testing Command & Conquer for Onlive, and the magic was saying how it just loved to instantly transfer packets for an exciting game like that for me, but just last week it was saying how RTS games were board games for Ritalin-addled "tweentards" who couldn't hack a thinking game like Civ. Oh but now that an RTS was going to be a flagship game it was all for em, and I think it honestly didn't expect me to notice.
Yeah it's pretty funny how all these people are taking the one line summary of "EMI erases disks" and interpreting it as "disks susceptible to EMI erasure" and thinking "Well that's no big deal". Instead of reading it how it really is, a misfeature -- an EMI that erases your disks! Like every time you hit the power switch!
I guess it would have been clearer if they hadn't mention the negative effects, but just the source: "power supply generates EMP".
They use proprietary connectors, proprietary drive cages, and are generally a giant royal PITA.
Given the context, I take it that stands for Proprietary Intruder Targeting Anuses. Non-compatible with other PITAs.
one usually forms a hypothesis to fit data, not the other way around
But either way, the second step is always apply for a grant!