I tried guitar hero and there were notes to play that weren't even in the song, and notes in the song that you weren't required to play. That's was very strange for someone who actually plays guitar. I even chose the 2 songs I knew how to play on a guitar, and failed miserably on both of them in guitar hero.
Oh, and that new Best Buy commercial I saw tonight was pretty funny too. The chick says something about "I've always wanted to be a musician". I was thinking, "well gee maybe you should ya know..learn to play an instrument, instead of playing videogames".
That was also a great book. Probably his most underrated and least well-known. The social history of Victorian society was really interesting, and the schemes were really intricate as well. The whole book was very detailed and very engrossing.
Yep the TV remake is really horrible, it's hard to think of a worse movie actually.. The 1971 version was much better, but the book is better than either of them (as you'd expect)
I would say just the opposite. If you already have a Core 2, the performance increase isn't that substantial (except in certain applications, namely video encoding and rendering). If you have and older processor though, you might as well upgrade to something very fast so it'll last longer. More importantly, switching to nehalem architecture is probably more future-proof, with the DDR3 memory and new chipsets, etc.
Not only is it a good idea to wait until they have worked the kinks out, but it can also save you a lot of money. Even just waiting a few weeks can often save you a good chunk of change when it comes to new (and highly anticipated) hardware. However, in this case I'm not sure how much the prices will fall over the longer-term, since they really have no competition in the high-end market.
Exactly, because with true socialism both the profits and losses would be shared. What we have here is no-risk "capitalism". Sort of the worst parts of capitalism combined with the worst parts of socialism.
Oops I had it set to HTML mode, hopefully it's easier to read like this:
Well a manned trip to mars is something that is going to take months to get there and back, and once there I'm sure we would stay for quite a long time. People have never really stayed on an isolated planetary body for such a long time. When we went to moon originally our longest stay was only about 3 days. I think there is certainly some value in testing out the concept a little closer to home (where you can abort mission/head home a lot easier if serious problems arise). I know people have stayed in space for a long time on the ISS, but staying in space 200 miles away from earth is a lot different than staying on a planet that is 36 million miles at it's closest (and 250 million miles at it's furthest).
Now that said I think manned space exploration is overrated until we can have some sort of permanent bases on planets/moons. I guess you have to start somewhere though. Even then, I'm not sure people will really be able to accomplish more than machines/probes (since NASA's budget seems to be the main limiting factor). Manned space exploration does have a "cool factor" to it, but it doesn't seem like people are that amazed by it anymore so it's hard to justify, especially with the United States current problems of wars, economic meltdown, poverty, health care, the list goes on.
P.S. I think most of our solar system exploration should be unmanned missions to the various moons scattering our solar system. There are about 150 known moons, many with some very interesting characteristics (as opposed to the geologically inactive and dead rock that our moon is). It's sort of hard to explore the gas giants due to the extreme pressures and weather, and the lack of any surface to land on. Venus has some insane weather too, which would make exploring very difficult. Mercury doesn't seem like something particularly "new" compared to our moon, geologically dead, no atmosphere, etc. That really doesn't leave much other than Mars and the aforementioned moons.
Well a manned trip to mars is something that is going to take months to get there and back, and once there I'm sure we would stay for quite a long time. People have never really stayed on an isolated planetary body for such a long time. When we went to moon originally our longest stay was only about 3 days. I think there is certainly some value in testing out the concept a little closer to home (where you can abort mission/head home a lot easier if serious problems arise). I know people have stayed in space for a long time on the ISS, but staying in space 200 miles away from earth is a lot different than staying on a planet that is 36 million miles at it's closest (and 250 million miles at it's furthest).
Now that said I think manned space exploration is overrated until we can have some sort of permanent bases on planets/moons. I guess you have to start somewhere though. Even then, I'm not sure people will really be able to accomplish more than machines/probes (since NASA's budget seems to be the main limiting factor). Manned space exploration does have a "cool factor" to it, but it doesn't seem like people are that amazed by it anymore so it's hard to justify, especially with the United States current problems of wars, economic meltdown, poverty, health care, the list goes on.
P.S. I think most of our solar system exploration should be unmanned missions to the various moons scattering our solar system. There are about 150 known moons, many with some very interesting characteristics (as opposed to the geologically inactive and dead rock that our moon is). It's sort of hard to explore the gas giants due to the extreme pressures and weather, and the lack of any surface to land on. Venus has some insane weather too, which would make exploring very difficult. Mercury doesn't seem like something particularly "new" compared to our moon, geologically dead, no atmosphere, etc. That really doesn't leave much other than Mars and the aforementioned moons.
Well too quiet can be a problem too (can cause more hiss/noise), but that's only when it's VERY quiet. Too loud is much worse by far though, it greatly reduces the overall quality and it's downright annoying. It's not just modern pop music that does this though, I've noticed TV commercials seem to do the same thing. On the occasion that I actually watch TV, I hit the mute button as soon as the commercials come on (it's easier than hitting "volume down" about 5 times).
They just want to "outloud" each other so they'll stand out, but unfortunately they only stand out as annoying. Apparently most people don't mind though.
Or you could just set your threshold to +1, I rarely see a blatant troll post with that set. Maybe I'm just not looking at the stories quick enough? That Mars story only had 10 comments when I looked at it, and I didn't see any trolls.
I think the differences between Metal Gear and Metal Gear Solid are fairly massive, in both terms of quality/immersion (Metal Gear didn't even have correct english translations..) and also popularity/impact. Yes Metal Gear was "first", but Metal Gear Solid is so different that it's really an entirely different game. Only the characters/storyline have any similarities. It's sort of like comparing the old Atari Star Wars games to Star Wars Galaxies...they may have some small similarities but the games are really not similar at all. Most series (Devil May Cry, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, Unreal Tournament, the list goes on) are very similar no matter which "edition" of the game you choose.
Also I bet hardly anyone playing Metal Gear Solid had even heard of the original, let alone played it (which just supports my statement that 80s games AREN'T standing the "test of time").
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
Neither are the people currently running them, apparently.
I think it's funny how 4 of the 5 games you listed are sequels, just goes to show how few truly original games there are. For me HL2 isn't quite as good as the original, despite the improved graphics/physics/etc. It's an awesome game (one of the best in recent years) but it's really just a tweaked version of the original. I think when I look back I will remember Half-Life more than Half-Life 2, Metal Gear Solid more than Metal Gear Solid 2/3/4, etc, etc.
I question whether those 80s games have really "stood the test of time" though. It's only been like 20-30 years, and hardly anyone still plays those games. Yes everyone remembers them fondly, but there's still a lot more people playing World of Warcraft than Pacman. I should note that I play through Mario 3 a few times a year, but I still spend more time playing newer games, and Mario 3 is basically the only "old" game I still play.
It's nice that you watched the documentary "The Corporation", but do you have any original thoughts? It's a good movie and I agree with your point, but I'm getting sick of hearing this whole corporation=sociopath thing over and over tbh.
Another option of course would be to just buy faster hardware in the first place (it sounds like this is for a single PC/mobo), which should be cheaper and easier than immersion. If you already have the fastest hardware available and have a lot of money to blow, then go for it. I'm just not sure it's worth the time/cost/effort to encode videos at 200FPS instead of 180FPS, or get a few more points in 3dmark. Don't get me wrong immersion is pretty cool, but it's just not that practical most of the time.
Not to mention if you play any sort of games (which I think would benefit from a SSD with faster load times). The last game I installed (Mass Effect) took around 11-12GB by itself.
Even when you live near a big city broadband isn't available sometimes. I live in a suburb with about 70-80,000 residents, and up until 5 years ago there was NO broadband available at all. DSL still isn't available where I live (but it is available about 1/2 mile away and has been for years). At least cable (Comcast) is available now though.
I don't know how common this is, but if cities of 80,000 people are so slow getting broadband, people in the country are completely screwed.
Only if you don't count Iraqis as people. They have lost around 1 million CIVILIANS, which is actually a lot more (per day) than when Saddam was in power.
Yeah, I agree. I think a mouse is faster and more accurate anyway. It has the "cool factor" but it's not really that practical. Plus my puny geek arms would get sore holding them up all day;)
Slashdot Mirror
+1
I tried guitar hero and there were notes to play that weren't even in the song, and notes in the song that you weren't required to play. That's was very strange for someone who actually plays guitar. I even chose the 2 songs I knew how to play on a guitar, and failed miserably on both of them in guitar hero.
Oh, and that new Best Buy commercial I saw tonight was pretty funny too. The chick says something about "I've always wanted to be a musician". I was thinking, "well gee maybe you should ya know..learn to play an instrument, instead of playing videogames".
That was also a great book. Probably his most underrated and least well-known. The social history of Victorian society was really interesting, and the schemes were really intricate as well. The whole book was very detailed and very engrossing.
Yep the TV remake is really horrible, it's hard to think of a worse movie actually.. The 1971 version was much better, but the book is better than either of them (as you'd expect)
I would say just the opposite. If you already have a Core 2, the performance increase isn't that substantial (except in certain applications, namely video encoding and rendering). If you have and older processor though, you might as well upgrade to something very fast so it'll last longer. More importantly, switching to nehalem architecture is probably more future-proof, with the DDR3 memory and new chipsets, etc.
Not only is it a good idea to wait until they have worked the kinks out, but it can also save you a lot of money. Even just waiting a few weeks can often save you a good chunk of change when it comes to new (and highly anticipated) hardware. However, in this case I'm not sure how much the prices will fall over the longer-term, since they really have no competition in the high-end market.
Exactly, because with true socialism both the profits and losses would be shared. What we have here is no-risk "capitalism". Sort of the worst parts of capitalism combined with the worst parts of socialism.
Oops I had it set to HTML mode, hopefully it's easier to read like this:
Well a manned trip to mars is something that is going to take months to get there and back, and once there I'm sure we would stay for quite a long time. People have never really stayed on an isolated planetary body for such a long time. When we went to moon originally our longest stay was only about 3 days. I think there is certainly some value in testing out the concept a little closer to home (where you can abort mission/head home a lot easier if serious problems arise). I know people have stayed in space for a long time on the ISS, but staying in space 200 miles away from earth is a lot different than staying on a planet that is 36 million miles at it's closest (and 250 million miles at it's furthest).
Now that said I think manned space exploration is overrated until we can have some sort of permanent bases on planets/moons. I guess you have to start somewhere though. Even then, I'm not sure people will really be able to accomplish more than machines/probes (since NASA's budget seems to be the main limiting factor). Manned space exploration does have a "cool factor" to it, but it doesn't seem like people are that amazed by it anymore so it's hard to justify, especially with the United States current problems of wars, economic meltdown, poverty, health care, the list goes on.
P.S. I think most of our solar system exploration should be unmanned missions to the various moons scattering our solar system. There are about 150 known moons, many with some very interesting characteristics (as opposed to the geologically inactive and dead rock that our moon is). It's sort of hard to explore the gas giants due to the extreme pressures and weather, and the lack of any surface to land on. Venus has some insane weather too, which would make exploring very difficult. Mercury doesn't seem like something particularly "new" compared to our moon, geologically dead, no atmosphere, etc. That really doesn't leave much other than Mars and the aforementioned moons.
Well a manned trip to mars is something that is going to take months to get there and back, and once there I'm sure we would stay for quite a long time. People have never really stayed on an isolated planetary body for such a long time. When we went to moon originally our longest stay was only about 3 days. I think there is certainly some value in testing out the concept a little closer to home (where you can abort mission/head home a lot easier if serious problems arise). I know people have stayed in space for a long time on the ISS, but staying in space 200 miles away from earth is a lot different than staying on a planet that is 36 million miles at it's closest (and 250 million miles at it's furthest). Now that said I think manned space exploration is overrated until we can have some sort of permanent bases on planets/moons. I guess you have to start somewhere though. Even then, I'm not sure people will really be able to accomplish more than machines/probes (since NASA's budget seems to be the main limiting factor). Manned space exploration does have a "cool factor" to it, but it doesn't seem like people are that amazed by it anymore so it's hard to justify, especially with the United States current problems of wars, economic meltdown, poverty, health care, the list goes on. P.S. I think most of our solar system exploration should be unmanned missions to the various moons scattering our solar system. There are about 150 known moons, many with some very interesting characteristics (as opposed to the geologically inactive and dead rock that our moon is). It's sort of hard to explore the gas giants due to the extreme pressures and weather, and the lack of any surface to land on. Venus has some insane weather too, which would make exploring very difficult. Mercury doesn't seem like something particularly "new" compared to our moon, geologically dead, no atmosphere, etc. That really doesn't leave much other than Mars and the aforementioned moons.
Or if you've watched a DVD. .VOB files are basically just MPEG2 with some extra data for menus, chapters, etc
Can someone please come up with a car analogy to explain this?
So you're saying there's a chance.
Well too quiet can be a problem too (can cause more hiss/noise), but that's only when it's VERY quiet. Too loud is much worse by far though, it greatly reduces the overall quality and it's downright annoying. It's not just modern pop music that does this though, I've noticed TV commercials seem to do the same thing. On the occasion that I actually watch TV, I hit the mute button as soon as the commercials come on (it's easier than hitting "volume down" about 5 times).
They just want to "outloud" each other so they'll stand out, but unfortunately they only stand out as annoying. Apparently most people don't mind though.
Or you could just set your threshold to +1, I rarely see a blatant troll post with that set. Maybe I'm just not looking at the stories quick enough? That Mars story only had 10 comments when I looked at it, and I didn't see any trolls.
I think the differences between Metal Gear and Metal Gear Solid are fairly massive, in both terms of quality/immersion (Metal Gear didn't even have correct english translations..) and also popularity/impact. Yes Metal Gear was "first", but Metal Gear Solid is so different that it's really an entirely different game. Only the characters/storyline have any similarities. It's sort of like comparing the old Atari Star Wars games to Star Wars Galaxies...they may have some small similarities but the games are really not similar at all. Most series (Devil May Cry, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, Unreal Tournament, the list goes on) are very similar no matter which "edition" of the game you choose.
Also I bet hardly anyone playing Metal Gear Solid had even heard of the original, let alone played it (which just supports my statement that 80s games AREN'T standing the "test of time").
Neither are the people currently running them, apparently.
I think it's funny how 4 of the 5 games you listed are sequels, just goes to show how few truly original games there are. For me HL2 isn't quite as good as the original, despite the improved graphics/physics/etc. It's an awesome game (one of the best in recent years) but it's really just a tweaked version of the original. I think when I look back I will remember Half-Life more than Half-Life 2, Metal Gear Solid more than Metal Gear Solid 2/3/4, etc, etc. I question whether those 80s games have really "stood the test of time" though. It's only been like 20-30 years, and hardly anyone still plays those games. Yes everyone remembers them fondly, but there's still a lot more people playing World of Warcraft than Pacman. I should note that I play through Mario 3 a few times a year, but I still spend more time playing newer games, and Mario 3 is basically the only "old" game I still play.
It's nice that you watched the documentary "The Corporation", but do you have any original thoughts? It's a good movie and I agree with your point, but I'm getting sick of hearing this whole corporation=sociopath thing over and over tbh.
Logical politicians? You're right, you don't understand our politics
Choosing an ISP is sort of like voting for President. It's always between a douche and a turd sandwich
Another option of course would be to just buy faster hardware in the first place (it sounds like this is for a single PC/mobo), which should be cheaper and easier than immersion. If you already have the fastest hardware available and have a lot of money to blow, then go for it. I'm just not sure it's worth the time/cost/effort to encode videos at 200FPS instead of 180FPS, or get a few more points in 3dmark. Don't get me wrong immersion is pretty cool, but it's just not that practical most of the time.
Not to mention if you play any sort of games (which I think would benefit from a SSD with faster load times). The last game I installed (Mass Effect) took around 11-12GB by itself.
Even when you live near a big city broadband isn't available sometimes. I live in a suburb with about 70-80,000 residents, and up until 5 years ago there was NO broadband available at all. DSL still isn't available where I live (but it is available about 1/2 mile away and has been for years). At least cable (Comcast) is available now though. I don't know how common this is, but if cities of 80,000 people are so slow getting broadband, people in the country are completely screwed.
Only if you don't count Iraqis as people. They have lost around 1 million CIVILIANS, which is actually a lot more (per day) than when Saddam was in power.
Yeah, I agree. I think a mouse is faster and more accurate anyway. It has the "cool factor" but it's not really that practical. Plus my puny geek arms would get sore holding them up all day ;)
Not only is this "IQ Test" completely useless, it doesn't seem to be particularly smart itself
"ThisTest IsBullshit competes in following groups
Smartest Human in New Jersey"
I live in Minnesota..