OMG PC GAMIN IStEH SUXXOR!!! BOARD GAMIN 4 LIFE!! I CANt WAiT To SpEnd $30 oN G4MES tO plAY iN tEH BA$EmEnT!! StAY oUT MOM!! YuO aRE s0 LaME LOL!!
Re:All new 3D Shooters are missing one thing...
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Man, it seems like there should be a fairly easy fix for that. Every time you respawn, you respawn next to your team-mate (pretty standard) and the game should have a mechanic where you can press a key and warp to the position of your team-mate at any time. It seems like this would be decently easy to introduce -- especially in a sci-fi universe -- without losing much credibility.
i am not sure I see madden bringing people to the wii. I mean, madden will be out for all three systems, right? So then you must ask yourself what the average madden player would rather use...the typical interface or one that requires you to swing your arms around? Seriously. I think that most madden players are young children or jocks or frat boys. Perhaps young children would like nintendo and its unique "active" style, but i doubt you will find many frat boys looking to play on a "childrens*" system where they have to jump around in a un-cool manner.
Just saying that i doubt the madden target audience is the same as those loyal to nintendo or looking for a new interface, that's all.
*Starred because only the typical dumb jock-fratboy person would consider nintendo a childrens system. And that is a fact.
my answer is "i don't know what he likes." I dont presume to know either way -- at least based on his supposed actions.
Just because a person does something does not mean that it is his first choice.
It seems rediculous to try to tie up a god-type-thing by saying that he will only do what he likes. Isn't it possible that he would choose to let things exist that he doesn't like?
just thought i would chime in that just because an all powerfull being doesn't want something to happen doesn't nessasarily mean that it won't happen.
What i am trying to say is that an all powerfull being could choose to allow something to happen that he would not like to happen.
Think about it. It is certainly in your power to never eat spinach (if you dont like it) but if someone served you spinach in their house, you might choose to eat it anyway -- even though you don't lik it.
Free will is central to many religions and is in no way at odds with omnipotence. (perhaps with omnicience, but that is another story)
of course we can all hope that once one company does this, many more will follow suit. Especially if microsoft makes a killing with this "feature."
Not that i have much hope for this, but it could strike down a fair amount of the DRM annoyance -- if you are allowed to switch services, it seems like it would become easier to switch beetween devices too. But then again, i am not a programmer, so i really don't know i guess. Just makes sense to me.:)
the major problem with this kind of thinking appears to be the effects of entropy. At that scale intropy has a MAJOR effect and it becomes extremely difficult to organize things into complex assemblies. It will probably be very difficult to impliment hte architechture for a processor on this kind of scale -- at least not without a multitude of construction errors.
what science would that be?? Pray tell, what science do you propose? Seriously, tell me some things that need to be done on mars that a rover and some from-orbit-reconossance could not do?
I REALL am curious. For real. This is something that I have not thought too much about and would love to hear from someone like you who has obviously (judging from your statements) spent some time considering.
i just looked at ebay and I saw 13 pages of ps one memory card listings that have been completed since may 22 -- not a single one went for more than $8, most were around $3.
am I missing something (i am a total ebay newb, as it turns out)
I do not own a PS2. Let us assume that I buy a PS3 sometime down the road. Now, I might just wish to play some PS2 games that I enjoyed playing at me friends house, but that I never owned. Backwards compatability allows me to do that.
I think that is a good reason.
I know LOTS of people that never had a PSone, but now own lots of PSone games, becuase they bought a PS2 and could play them on it. I mean seriously, if you never owned a PSone, but have a PS2, there is absolutlely NO reason why you should not have at least Castlevania: symphony of the night and Super puzzle fighter. Granted, there are other games, but those two in particular are must-haves.
I can see 5 games on there that were quite good Halo Halo 2 (granted not revolutionary -- but well implemented and fun) Crimson Skies Ninja Gaiden (one of the best games ever made -- pure and simple) Tony Hawk 4 Tony Hawk underground 2
OK, so six
Also, winning eleven soccer super monkey ball
So, if you can't find anything that you would like, then that is your fault. There are 8 games that span quite a range of genres that were well implemented and fun to play. Some single player, some multiplayer. The only thing really missing is a good RPG and if that is what you are after, then why are you even looking at the XBOX list??
dude, one of the best 2-d games ever came out for playstation -- Castlevania, Symphony of the night. I swear, this is one of the best games ever made.
And it gets better. There are currently 3 games for the gameboy advance (cirlce of the moon, harmony of dissonance, and aria of sorrow) that follow the same gaming formulae and 1 game for the DS (Dawn of sorrow). ALso there is another game comming out for the DS.
So, there are now 5 total games out that have excellent 2-d gameplay with a sixth on the way. If you have not played them then you owe it to yourself to play them -- NOW GO GET THEM!
"EVERYTHING is nanoparticulate in nature, including you. "
This is an oversimplization, one that does not really hold well...
For one thing, not everything is nanoparticulate in nature -- bulk metals, such as gold are not.
Secondly, while a person IS indeed made up of nano-sized objects, most of these objects loose their unique nano-characteristics when found in a large group. For instance, we do not have to worry about our enzymes polluting the air the same way would would have to if our enzymes were a powder -- being in solution captures them and takes away this danger.
The point is this -- most of the danger that comes from nanotech is a direct result of the objects SIZE. If somehow you increase the objects size or reduce or eleminate the properties that are do to this size, then you don't really have those dangers anymore.
I guess that what I am trying to say is nanotech can have some danges associated with it and we must face up to that. However, they are not as bad as many naysayers would have us belive. Indeed, anyone that actually belives in the the grey goo senario is either a moron or is uneducated -- plain and simple. However, this does not mean that nanotech does not provide some real dangers. Most of these deal with poisonous materials contaminating the air in a small area. This is something that is very dangerous, but easy to deal with and regulate -- something that a government agency could dictate laws about.
In short. We should not be concerned about our new nano-overloards, however, we SHOULD be concered about breathing in small particulates that contain things like selenium. IN such a senario, it is entirely reasonable that the governement should take steps to limit the publics exposure. At least in my opinion.
I know you are just trying to be cute, but I don't think this ironic argument works the way you think it does...
For instance, we DO regulate molecules that damage DNA (the EPA keeps a close eye on things like benzene and tolulene). We DO regulate molecules that can poisen the air and land and water (we monitor air pollutants via smog checks, we don't let people just dump oil back into the ground and we outlaw pesticides that might seep back into the ground water -- just to name a few).
There is no reason why we should not regulate nanotech that is poisonous. The trick is to not regulate those things that are not. We don't need to go overboard, just have a agency that can test allegations of dangerous nanotech and decide if the tech needs to be regulated.
PS. I know that my simple description is not complete and could be easily manipulated, but you get the point, i hope.
"70% retention of current PS2 customers (over a reasonable time period, given how long the PS2 has been out) will not by itself make the PS2 a success. You think Sony would regard their sales numbers and market share going down an awesome success?"
yes. Given that they are basically using the PS3 as an inroad for the HD-DVD/bluray battle that they belive will insue. THen yes.
The hard core gaming segment of culture most likely makes up a fairly large percentage of the technology early adapters. If they can sell PS3 to 50% of this market, then that means that there is a large segment of the HD market that has NO REASON to buy HD-DVD format. That means that there is only 50% of the market left over to convince -- not bad numbers to start a fight with. IMO.
the whole company -- except for the part of the company that deals with the handheld market.
Still. this DOES take balls. Balls and genius. Seriously, i predict that Wii will be the most loved of the consols this generation.
Speaking of balls, Sony can lick mine. Geeze, i mean they really are not shaping up that well this time around, and this comes from a guy that has NEVER owned a nintendo system. Just the genesis and playstation (greatest consol to date) and xbox. This time around I will be getting some nintendo hardware, i guess.
most major grocery stores have plain carbonated water for quite cheap -- at least in the states. The secret is to know where to look. You will almost never find cheap carbonated water in the soda isle. Instead try looking around the isle with hard liquor. Usually there is a section with "mixers" wich include things like collins mix, seltzer water, tonic water, and club soda (the last three being basically carbonated water, the first thing is really sour grapefruit soda -- delisious).
Anyway, try looking there, usually you can find store brand carbonated water for about $1 per 2L bottle or $1 for a six pack of twelve oz cans.
i find it amusing that the reason you give for not playing Halo 2 is that it was a rehash of the first Halo...yet the reason you give for liking the first Halo was that it was the second comming of golden eye (a rehash, if you will).
A fair set of questions... some of our windows boxes do dual boot, the linux box that does not functions as a server.
I suppose that a KVM switch is an acceptable option, and we do have two for some of our workstations. However, we have 16 seperate LAB computers in our lab and 5 personal computers. I just feel that the flexibility in our lab would be greater if the majority of these computers could run both mac and windows. It seems better to have 16 macs that 32 computers all hooked up to KVM switches. I don't know. This is just my opinion of course. I guess best would be to use a fast mac with virtual PC so that you do not have to reboot to switch.
The problem in our lab is this... The vast majority of our data aquisition is done on PC's. However, almost all of our simulation software is either written for mac or linux. SO what ends up happening is that there is enevitably a crunch for mac time, when everyone is trying to recreate their experemental data via theory. It just seems that if you have a mac on your instrument, then you could aquire the data, and without moving reboot into windows in order to process it. Seems nifty to me.
Now of course, buying 16 new macs is somewhat cost prohibitive, but for a well-funded group (which usually has an equipment budget in which some money is to go to computers) it would now be unreasonable to replace a few of the old PC with new macs.
I know that in our lab we could easily afford to buy four new G5s. Functionally, this is the same as having two seperate computers. Cost wise it is cheaper than buying a g5 AND building a PC. Plus then we have 1/2 as many computers overhead (the floor is not really an option in a synthetic chemistry lab).
Like I said, you have some good points. But really, i see no reason why a lab would by PC's anymore, if they ever needed to use a mac. From a cost perspective, it is cheaper to just by the mac and and dual boot. Space wise, it is smaller, and time crunch wise it makes sense -- work up the data right after you aquire it -- without moving.
I doubt all researchers will go mac, but i really would not be suprised if most do...
Speaking from the scientific research community perspective, i gotta say this is amazing. In the lab that I work in we have both macs and windows machines -- and a linux box. We really have more computers than we need, simply because we need programs that are availible soley on mac or windows for linux. Well, that is all about to change. Seriously, if a researcher can buy a single machine that will run linux, mac and windows programs, he will be all over it. Desktop space is somewhat a premium and having all you programs and data on a single machine is excellent.
I personally see no reason why macs will not completely dominate the research world now. I know I cannot wait for my own. SWEET!
while in general i agree with you sentiments. IN this case the nomecure "nano" is aptly used. For in this case the scale of the particle is indeed on the nano scale. THis distiguishes it from particles that exist on the micro scale and above and those that exist below the nanoscale (which are generally single atoms). The reason for this deistinction is that metal clusters on the nano scale have vastly different properties than metals on either the atomic scale or the bulk (tens of microns and above) scale. Most of these properties have to do with something called the surface plasmon -- the collective vibrational modes of the electrons at the surface of the particle. Plasmons do not exist in the atomic scale while at the bulk scale they exist at only one frequency. However, at the nanoscale, the frequency of the surface plasmon can be tuned and this is what leads to the bright and varying colors of nanoparticles. Pretty much any visible color can be generated by varying the size of these particles. In fact, unbeknownst to the builders of Notre Dame, the purple stained glass gets it colour from gold nanoparticles. SWEET!
nope. The article that you linked to was detecting binding events by means of electronics while in this article detection was through means of spectroscopy (shinning light on it). Also, the article you linked to used a gold electrode while this one uses a gold nanoparticle. COOL
"So, I would guess that when you put the gold nanoparticles in the presence of another chemical that the new chemical starts to interact with the gold and changes the either the actual size of the particle or the "effective" size of the particle (meaning the size of the particle-capping agent complex). Either way, it would lead to a change such as the one described in the article."
Actually, it is more likely that the binding of the toxin perturbs the surface plasmon of the nanoparticle (as it is the surface plasmon that gives rise to color). Upon binding the plasmon is changed slightly, so that it resonates at a different frequency and hence, the color of the solution changes.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG PC GAMIN IStEH SUXXOR!!! BOARD GAMIN 4 LIFE!! I CANt WAiT To SpEnd $30 oN G4MES tO plAY iN tEH BA$EmEnT!! StAY oUT MOM!! YuO aRE s0 LaME LOL!!
Man, it seems like there should be a fairly easy fix for that. Every time you respawn, you respawn next to your team-mate (pretty standard) and the game should have a mechanic where you can press a key and warp to the position of your team-mate at any time. It seems like this would be decently easy to introduce -- especially in a sci-fi universe -- without losing much credibility.
i am not sure I see madden bringing people to the wii. I mean, madden will be out for all three systems, right? So then you must ask yourself what the average madden player would rather use...the typical interface or one that requires you to swing your arms around? Seriously. I think that most madden players are young children or jocks or frat boys. Perhaps young children would like nintendo and its unique "active" style, but i doubt you will find many frat boys looking to play on a "childrens*" system where they have to jump around in a un-cool manner.
Just saying that i doubt the madden target audience is the same as those loyal to nintendo or looking for a new interface, that's all.
*Starred because only the typical dumb jock-fratboy person would consider nintendo a childrens system. And that is a fact.
my answer is "i don't know what he likes." I dont presume to know either way -- at least based on his supposed actions.
Just because a person does something does not mean that it is his first choice.
It seems rediculous to try to tie up a god-type-thing by saying that he will only do what he likes. Isn't it possible that he would choose to let things exist that he doesn't like?
Don't you agree?
just thought i would chime in that just because an all powerfull being doesn't want something to happen doesn't nessasarily mean that it won't happen.
What i am trying to say is that an all powerfull being could choose to allow something to happen that he would not like to happen.
Think about it. It is certainly in your power to never eat spinach (if you dont like it) but if someone served you spinach in their house, you might choose to eat it anyway -- even though you don't lik it.
Free will is central to many religions and is in no way at odds with omnipotence. (perhaps with omnicience, but that is another story)
of course we can all hope that once one company does this, many more will follow suit. Especially if microsoft makes a killing with this "feature."
:)
Not that i have much hope for this, but it could strike down a fair amount of the DRM annoyance -- if you are allowed to switch services, it seems like it would become easier to switch beetween devices too. But then again, i am not a programmer, so i really don't know i guess. Just makes sense to me.
the major problem with this kind of thinking appears to be the effects of entropy. At that scale intropy has a MAJOR effect and it becomes extremely difficult to organize things into complex assemblies. It will probably be very difficult to impliment hte architechture for a processor on this kind of scale -- at least not without a multitude of construction errors.
what science would that be?? Pray tell, what science do you propose? Seriously, tell me some things that need to be done on mars that a rover and some from-orbit-reconossance could not do?
I REALL am curious. For real. This is something that I have not thought too much about and would love to hear from someone like you who has obviously (judging from your statements) spent some time considering.
Thanks.
i just looked at ebay and I saw 13 pages of ps one memory card listings that have been completed since may 22 -- not a single one went for more than $8, most were around $3.
am I missing something (i am a total ebay newb, as it turns out)
consider this...
:)
I do not own a PS2. Let us assume that I buy a PS3 sometime down the road. Now, I might just wish to play some PS2 games that I enjoyed playing at me friends house, but that I never owned. Backwards compatability allows me to do that.
I think that is a good reason.
I know LOTS of people that never had a PSone, but now own lots of PSone games, becuase they bought a PS2 and could play them on it. I mean seriously, if you never owned a PSone, but have a PS2, there is absolutlely NO reason why you should not have at least Castlevania: symphony of the night and Super puzzle fighter. Granted, there are other games, but those two in particular are must-haves.
Hopefully that answers your question
I can see 5 games on there that were quite good
Halo
Halo 2 (granted not revolutionary -- but well implemented and fun)
Crimson Skies
Ninja Gaiden (one of the best games ever made -- pure and simple)
Tony Hawk 4
Tony Hawk underground 2
OK, so six
Also,
winning eleven soccer
super monkey ball
So, if you can't find anything that you would like, then that is your fault. There are 8 games that span quite a range of genres that were well implemented and fun to play. Some single player, some multiplayer. The only thing really missing is a good RPG and if that is what you are after, then why are you even looking at the XBOX list??
dude,
one of the best 2-d games ever came out for playstation -- Castlevania, Symphony of the night. I swear, this is one of the best games ever made.
And it gets better. There are currently 3 games for the gameboy advance (cirlce of the moon, harmony of dissonance, and aria of sorrow) that follow the same gaming formulae and 1 game for the DS (Dawn of sorrow). ALso there is another game comming out for the DS.
So, there are now 5 total games out that have excellent 2-d gameplay with a sixth on the way. If you have not played them then you owe it to yourself to play them -- NOW GO GET THEM!
"EVERYTHING is nanoparticulate in nature, including you. "
This is an oversimplization, one that does not really hold well...
For one thing, not everything is nanoparticulate in nature -- bulk metals, such as gold are not.
Secondly, while a person IS indeed made up of nano-sized objects, most of these objects loose their unique nano-characteristics when found in a large group. For instance, we do not have to worry about our enzymes polluting the air the same way would would have to if our enzymes were a powder -- being in solution captures them and takes away this danger.
The point is this -- most of the danger that comes from nanotech is a direct result of the objects SIZE. If somehow you increase the objects size or reduce or eleminate the properties that are do to this size, then you don't really have those dangers anymore.
I guess that what I am trying to say is nanotech can have some danges associated with it and we must face up to that. However, they are not as bad as many naysayers would have us belive. Indeed, anyone that actually belives in the the grey goo senario is either a moron or is uneducated -- plain and simple. However, this does not mean that nanotech does not provide some real dangers. Most of these deal with poisonous materials contaminating the air in a small area. This is something that is very dangerous, but easy to deal with and regulate -- something that a government agency could dictate laws about.
In short. We should not be concerned about our new nano-overloards, however, we SHOULD be concered about breathing in small particulates that contain things like selenium. IN such a senario, it is entirely reasonable that the governement should take steps to limit the publics exposure. At least in my opinion.
I know you are just trying to be cute, but I don't think this ironic argument works the way you think it does...
For instance, we DO regulate molecules that damage DNA (the EPA keeps a close eye on things like benzene and tolulene). We DO regulate molecules that can poisen the air and land and water (we monitor air pollutants via smog checks, we don't let people just dump oil back into the ground and we outlaw pesticides that might seep back into the ground water -- just to name a few).
There is no reason why we should not regulate nanotech that is poisonous. The trick is to not regulate those things that are not. We don't need to go overboard, just have a agency that can test allegations of dangerous nanotech and decide if the tech needs to be regulated.
PS. I know that my simple description is not complete and could be easily manipulated, but you get the point, i hope.
"70% retention of current PS2 customers (over a reasonable time period, given how long the PS2 has been out) will not by itself make the PS2 a success. You think Sony would regard their sales numbers and market share going down an awesome success?"
yes. Given that they are basically using the PS3 as an inroad for the HD-DVD/bluray battle that they belive will insue. THen yes.
The hard core gaming segment of culture most likely makes up a fairly large percentage of the technology early adapters. If they can sell PS3 to 50% of this market, then that means that there is a large segment of the HD market that has NO REASON to buy HD-DVD format. That means that there is only 50% of the market left over to convince -- not bad numbers to start a fight with. IMO.
while perhaps not at poetic, "the sun is coming into view" would be a perfectly viable, legitamet, and non-akward phrase.
the whole company -- except for the part of the company that deals with the handheld market.
Still. this DOES take balls. Balls and genius. Seriously, i predict that Wii will be the most loved of the consols this generation.
Speaking of balls, Sony can lick mine. Geeze, i mean they really are not shaping up that well this time around, and this comes from a guy that has NEVER owned a nintendo system. Just the genesis and playstation (greatest consol to date) and xbox. This time around I will be getting some nintendo hardware, i guess.
most major grocery stores have plain carbonated water for quite cheap -- at least in the states. The secret is to know where to look. You will almost never find cheap carbonated water in the soda isle. Instead try looking around the isle with hard liquor. Usually there is a section with "mixers" wich include things like collins mix, seltzer water, tonic water, and club soda (the last three being basically carbonated water, the first thing is really sour grapefruit soda -- delisious).
Anyway, try looking there, usually you can find store brand carbonated water for about $1 per 2L bottle or $1 for a six pack of twelve oz cans.
Hope that helps!
i find it amusing that the reason you give for not playing Halo 2 is that it was a rehash of the first Halo...yet the reason you give for liking the first Halo was that it was the second comming of golden eye (a rehash, if you will).
"If the game would allow me to do to the Christians what they are having done to people at Guantanomo..."
You sir, are an idiot.
A fair set of questions...
some of our windows boxes do dual boot, the linux box that does not functions as a server.
I suppose that a KVM switch is an acceptable option, and we do have two for some of our workstations. However, we have 16 seperate LAB computers in our lab and 5 personal computers. I just feel that the flexibility in our lab would be greater if the majority of these computers could run both mac and windows. It seems better to have 16 macs that 32 computers all hooked up to KVM switches. I don't know. This is just my opinion of course. I guess best would be to use a fast mac with virtual PC so that you do not have to reboot to switch.
The problem in our lab is this...
The vast majority of our data aquisition is done on PC's. However, almost all of our simulation software is either written for mac or linux. SO what ends up happening is that there is enevitably a crunch for mac time, when everyone is trying to recreate their experemental data via theory. It just seems that if you have a mac on your instrument, then you could aquire the data, and without moving reboot into windows in order to process it. Seems nifty to me.
Now of course, buying 16 new macs is somewhat cost prohibitive, but for a well-funded group (which usually has an equipment budget in which some money is to go to computers) it would now be unreasonable to replace a few of the old PC with new macs.
I know that in our lab we could easily afford to buy four new G5s. Functionally, this is the same as having two seperate computers. Cost wise it is cheaper than buying a g5 AND building a PC. Plus then we have 1/2 as many computers overhead (the floor is not really an option in a synthetic chemistry lab).
Like I said, you have some good points. But really, i see no reason why a lab would by PC's anymore, if they ever needed to use a mac. From a cost perspective, it is cheaper to just by the mac and and dual boot. Space wise, it is smaller, and time crunch wise it makes sense -- work up the data right after you aquire it -- without moving.
I doubt all researchers will go mac, but i really would not be suprised if most do...
Speaking from the scientific research community perspective, i gotta say this is amazing. In the lab that I work in we have both macs and windows machines -- and a linux box. We really have more computers than we need, simply because we need programs that are availible soley on mac or windows for linux. Well, that is all about to change. Seriously, if a researcher can buy a single machine that will run linux, mac and windows programs, he will be all over it. Desktop space is somewhat a premium and having all you programs and data on a single machine is excellent.
I personally see no reason why macs will not completely dominate the research world now. I know I cannot wait for my own. SWEET!
while in general i agree with you sentiments. IN this case the nomecure "nano" is aptly used. For in this case the scale of the particle is indeed on the nano scale. THis distiguishes it from particles that exist on the micro scale and above and those that exist below the nanoscale (which are generally single atoms). The reason for this deistinction is that metal clusters on the nano scale have vastly different properties than metals on either the atomic scale or the bulk (tens of microns and above) scale. Most of these properties have to do with something called the surface plasmon -- the collective vibrational modes of the electrons at the surface of the particle. Plasmons do not exist in the atomic scale while at the bulk scale they exist at only one frequency. However, at the nanoscale, the frequency of the surface plasmon can be tuned and this is what leads to the bright and varying colors of nanoparticles. Pretty much any visible color can be generated by varying the size of these particles. In fact, unbeknownst to the builders of Notre Dame, the purple stained glass gets it colour from gold nanoparticles. SWEET!
nope. The article that you linked to was detecting binding events by means of electronics while in this article detection was through means of spectroscopy (shinning light on it). Also, the article you linked to used a gold electrode while this one uses a gold nanoparticle. COOL
"So, I would guess that when you put the gold nanoparticles in the presence of another chemical that the new chemical starts to interact with the gold and changes the either the actual size of the particle or the "effective" size of the particle (meaning the size of the particle-capping agent complex). Either way, it would lead to a change such as the one described in the article."
Actually, it is more likely that the binding of the toxin perturbs the surface plasmon of the nanoparticle (as it is the surface plasmon that gives rise to color). Upon binding the plasmon is changed slightly, so that it resonates at a different frequency and hence, the color of the solution changes.
Just by intuition speaking here.