For example, a nice design may include a list of major site options like "Help | Privacy | Contact" along the top right corner with a nice font, low sized, no bullets, with vertical spacers.
That can be done easily for large screens AND tiny ones using something like: <UL>
<LI>Help</LI>
<LI>Privacy</LI>
<LI>Contact</LI> </UL>
Just add an appropriate stylesheet and the above list will go from simple HTML bullets to a nicely rendered horizontal series of options with spacers for those big screen users and a simple "1,2,3" list for small screen users.
This isn't rocket science, but it isn't always obvious either.
There are lots of ways to design good looking sites without controlling them at a pixel-level, several of them involve scalable graphics formats though.
You want to design around pixels, you don't need to.
Never did figure out what they were smoking when they made GTA4 -- the textures look better on the PS3 despite being at a lower native resolution. Weird huh?
At any rate this isn't true of any other games to my knowledge -- Burnout Paradise for example (which recently had its PS3 graphics output updated to include true native 1080i and 480p support).
Native rendered games on the PS3 run at much higher visual quality than anything I've seen on the 360 so far, and I'd rather compare native to native if you don't mind -- one platform's jewels to another's. Ports are just ports.
UE3 is already looking aged on that other platform, compared to native games.
Compare Drake's Fortune or Ratchet & Clank or the new Resistance 2 or Motorstorm against what the UE3 engine looks like on either platform and you'll understand.
Its not 'bad' per se, but its certainly not remarkable compared to the native engines made for the PS3.
xbox + ps2 is redundant -- they both carried very similar games.
xbox + wii is not redundant, nor is ps3 + wii
The Wii is a very unique beast, and I seriously doubt it will compete at any level with the other players in the market for their traditional markets and based on sales this year, it doesn't seem to have happened anyway.
Go ahead, compare this year's sales of PS3 and/or 360 units with the second year of sales for the PS2 or third year of sales for the original Xbox and see if the Wii is cutting into those historical sales figures.
Ironically the so-called science proponents have used equally dubious tactics. Claiming that the word "theory" degrades evolution's status for example or that teaching religious beliefs alongside science would somehow destroy our poor children's brains.
I believe in math being taught in schools but the fiasco that was the 'new math' makes you wonder if we shouldn't be a little more critical of how everything is taught in schools.
Actually, the people who are critical of being lead like sheep into believing current estimates on the age of the earth (whether intelligent design proponents or simply intelligent critical thinkers) have been citing flaws in carbon dating for years.
There are many other interesting situations in which carbon dating may be giving us false data upon which we build other theories. Presently there are too many circular arguments in so-called scientific theories on the age of the earth which cannot be independently or repeatably tested for me to throw any weight behind the random numbers I saw in my text books.
Note, when I read your response, it struck me as being ideological rather than intelligent -- much like those who don't want science taught because they're afraid of it, you don't want to be confronted with others' beliefs.
I'm sure you meant PS3 not PS2. The PS2 has outsold both consoles by a wide margin of course, being several years earlier in its release and very successful;-)
Of course, for random metrics, Sony has outsold Microsoft in the handheld gaming market by a wide margin. Also in the handheld music player market. Also in the blu-ray player market.
What I don't understand is how gamers ever believed the 360 was a cheaper system if they intended to pay for Gold year after year. The PS3 always had and still has free online gaming, making its 'cost to play' substantially cheaper than the 360, but I still hear people calling it 'expensive' in line for their Live cards at the checkout.
I like Zelda and Mario Kart and Mario. Those three games won't sell me a Wii, but maybe when its the price of a game itself I'll pick one up to play them.
I understand your frustration at the 'kiddie games' moniker though -- I hear the same thing when I tell people to play Ratchet & Clank on the PS3 (probably one of the best most beautiful games ever made).
The Wii will never be a FPS powerhouse, its just not possible, nor would Microsoft have probably ever made point-and-click games like the Wii's that appeal to this "new gamer" market.
The Wii certainly did not cut substantially into Microsoft or Sony's sales, I'd dare say most of the Wii sales were to people who already had or would purchase one of the other two major consoles, or to people who would never have otherwise bought a console.
I remember a comment by a Microsoft senior executive about the 360 vs. the PS3 before either console was released. The Microsoft executive pointed out very willingly that the one area Microsoft would struggle against Sony in would be hardware -- Sony has an excellent hardware design infrastructure, they're very good at on-going engineering revisions and quality control, and Microsoft would be hard pressed to improve on their own console over time the way Sony did with the PS2, PSP and has now done with the PS3.
He was confident however that better software would make Microsoft the leader at the end of the day.
In "loss leader" situations, a product is always sold at a loss to encourage another sale (or sales). You sell milk at a loss to sell other groceries, or a console at a loss to sell more games for profit.
In "dumping" situations, a company sells a product for a profit, and then has so many left over from either cheap or bulk production that it can simply "dump" leftover product on another market at such a low price that it puts competitors out of business. For example, there's a state in the US (can't cite it right now) that throws out more eggs a year than Canada consumes, and could simply ship excess product to Canada at a penny a carton and still make money, but put the entire Canadian egg farming industry out of business in the process.
If the next xbox is sold for $100 a piece to put Nintendo out of business, you can expect the lawsuits.
If you haven't looked at how this game plays out yet, you should. The violence looks to be well-done, the horror very well executed and gameplay somewhat unique with a good back-story.
Black was a game that I played many moons after it came out and you know what? It did it for me. It was fun, and gritty and loud and great fun to play. Not to mention hard at points.
That was a great game I'd play over GoW any day. Here's hoping Criterion make another Black game.
And therefore a good skeptic could easily believe in God, as I do, since at the very least I have no senses that deny his existence, and no good reason not to believe.
Anyone who has studied science and does not understand human fallibility despite peer review and testing is expressing simple faith in science, and I have nothing against that world-view so long as those who subscribe to it recognize the need for faith in their own system of beliefs.
"understanding of scientific principles" is not enough.
You can understand biblical theology and not be a Christian or believe in any god.
No, what you described is putting faith in scientific principles, in what can be observed and tested. Exactly as I stated originally. Please think hard about what it is you believe about science.
Just to add to that list of games for the PS2 that I'd be surprised if a Wii could pull off: Black, Grandia III, Jak II and III, and the first two God of War titles.
The inability to create a state of mind at will does not deny the existence of the ability to make arbitrary decisions about your behaviour at any level.
To smile or not, to walk or run, to drive to work or stay home, to sneeze or hold it, to curse or hold your tongue.
None of these are your own free will if you have none. If there is no free will at all, there is none, not even the slightest.
Non-believers or 'skeptics' as they call themselves (a term I despise since there are many skeptical believers too) also spend their lives living in faith of what they perceive. Faith in their senses not to lie to them. Faith in the consistency and research of others, faith that the universe around them exhibits behaviours that are testable.
This faith may not be unfounded, but to call it anything else is silliness since no one person could ever claim to have lived their lives thoroughly testing every belief they live by.
The same Gore who owns the very Eco-credit company he 'buys credits' from? The Gore who uses over 10x more electricity to run his mansion than any of us use in a year?
The Gore who can't seem to figure out that the vast majority of carbon released in the world is from natural causes we have no control over?
Yeah, Gore's a genius. Geez. He figured out how to cash in on the eco-craze.
Slashdot Mirror
"Equally well" not "identically"
For example, a nice design may include a list of major site options like "Help | Privacy | Contact" along the top right corner with a nice font, low sized, no bullets, with vertical spacers.
That can be done easily for large screens AND tiny ones using something like:
<UL>
<LI>Help</LI>
<LI>Privacy</LI>
<LI>Contact</LI>
</UL>
Just add an appropriate stylesheet and the above list will go from simple HTML bullets to a nicely rendered horizontal series of options with spacers for those big screen users and a simple "1,2,3" list for small screen users.
This isn't rocket science, but it isn't always obvious either.
There are lots of ways to design good looking sites without controlling them at a pixel-level, several of them involve scalable graphics formats though.
You want to design around pixels, you don't need to.
Stop doing it.
Never did figure out what they were smoking when they made GTA4 -- the textures look better on the PS3 despite being at a lower native resolution. Weird huh?
At any rate this isn't true of any other games to my knowledge -- Burnout Paradise for example (which recently had its PS3 graphics output updated to include true native 1080i and 480p support).
Native rendered games on the PS3 run at much higher visual quality than anything I've seen on the 360 so far, and I'd rather compare native to native if you don't mind -- one platform's jewels to another's. Ports are just ports.
UE3 is already looking aged on that other platform, compared to native games.
Compare Drake's Fortune or Ratchet & Clank or the new Resistance 2 or Motorstorm against what the UE3 engine looks like on either platform and you'll understand.
Its not 'bad' per se, but its certainly not remarkable compared to the native engines made for the PS3.
xbox + ps2 is redundant -- they both carried very similar games.
xbox + wii is not redundant, nor is ps3 + wii
The Wii is a very unique beast, and I seriously doubt it will compete at any level with the other players in the market for their traditional markets and based on sales this year, it doesn't seem to have happened anyway.
Go ahead, compare this year's sales of PS3 and/or 360 units with the second year of sales for the PS2 or third year of sales for the original Xbox and see if the Wii is cutting into those historical sales figures.
Ironically the so-called science proponents have used equally dubious tactics. Claiming that the word "theory" degrades evolution's status for example or that teaching religious beliefs alongside science would somehow destroy our poor children's brains.
I believe in math being taught in schools but the fiasco that was the 'new math' makes you wonder if we shouldn't be a little more critical of how everything is taught in schools.
Actually, the people who are critical of being lead like sheep into believing current estimates on the age of the earth (whether intelligent design proponents or simply intelligent critical thinkers) have been citing flaws in carbon dating for years.
There are many other interesting situations in which carbon dating may be giving us false data upon which we build other theories. Presently there are too many circular arguments in so-called scientific theories on the age of the earth which cannot be independently or repeatably tested for me to throw any weight behind the random numbers I saw in my text books.
Note, when I read your response, it struck me as being ideological rather than intelligent -- much like those who don't want science taught because they're afraid of it, you don't want to be confronted with others' beliefs.
... and I own a lot of old Maxis titles I still love, as do many other Slashdotters.
I won't be buying Spore.
I'm sure you meant PS3 not PS2. The PS2 has outsold both consoles by a wide margin of course, being several years earlier in its release and very successful ;-)
Of course, for random metrics, Sony has outsold Microsoft in the handheld gaming market by a wide margin. Also in the handheld music player market. Also in the blu-ray player market.
What I don't understand is how gamers ever believed the 360 was a cheaper system if they intended to pay for Gold year after year. The PS3 always had and still has free online gaming, making its 'cost to play' substantially cheaper than the 360, but I still hear people calling it 'expensive' in line for their Live cards at the checkout.
I like Zelda and Mario Kart and Mario. Those three games won't sell me a Wii, but maybe when its the price of a game itself I'll pick one up to play them.
I understand your frustration at the 'kiddie games' moniker though -- I hear the same thing when I tell people to play Ratchet & Clank on the PS3 (probably one of the best most beautiful games ever made).
Ah well, no accounting for some tastes.
Doubtful. Many people own both.
The Wii will never be a FPS powerhouse, its just not possible, nor would Microsoft have probably ever made point-and-click games like the Wii's that appeal to this "new gamer" market.
The Wii certainly did not cut substantially into Microsoft or Sony's sales, I'd dare say most of the Wii sales were to people who already had or would purchase one of the other two major consoles, or to people who would never have otherwise bought a console.
I remember a comment by a Microsoft senior executive about the 360 vs. the PS3 before either console was released. The Microsoft executive pointed out very willingly that the one area Microsoft would struggle against Sony in would be hardware -- Sony has an excellent hardware design infrastructure, they're very good at on-going engineering revisions and quality control, and Microsoft would be hard pressed to improve on their own console over time the way Sony did with the PS2, PSP and has now done with the PS3.
He was confident however that better software would make Microsoft the leader at the end of the day.
The PS3 is now out-selling the 360.
The PS3 may have a higher attach rate as well, last I heard.
The PS3 plays a modern high definition movie format you can actually buy new releases in.
The PS3 doesn't charge me to play online, so its substantially cheaper than a 360 over a year, or worse, five years.
The PS3 rarely crashes (I know some people report that it happens, even though its pretty stable).
The PS3 has some great exclusives.
Failure? hardly. Its still being sold successfully and selling more by the month while the 360 goes downhill.
I'd like to point out that the parent is quite funny but moderated as a troll, so don't spend mod points on me, read the parent post :-)
In "loss leader" situations, a product is always sold at a loss to encourage another sale (or sales). You sell milk at a loss to sell other groceries, or a console at a loss to sell more games for profit.
In "dumping" situations, a company sells a product for a profit, and then has so many left over from either cheap or bulk production that it can simply "dump" leftover product on another market at such a low price that it puts competitors out of business. For example, there's a state in the US (can't cite it right now) that throws out more eggs a year than Canada consumes, and could simply ship excess product to Canada at a penny a carton and still make money, but put the entire Canadian egg farming industry out of business in the process.
If the next xbox is sold for $100 a piece to put Nintendo out of business, you can expect the lawsuits.
If you haven't looked at how this game plays out yet, you should. The violence looks to be well-done, the horror very well executed and gameplay somewhat unique with a good back-story.
Black was a game that I played many moons after it came out and you know what? It did it for me. It was fun, and gritty and loud and great fun to play. Not to mention hard at points.
That was a great game I'd play over GoW any day. Here's hoping Criterion make another Black game.
And therefore a good skeptic could easily believe in God, as I do, since at the very least I have no senses that deny his existence, and no good reason not to believe.
Anyone who has studied science and does not understand human fallibility despite peer review and testing is expressing simple faith in science, and I have nothing against that world-view so long as those who subscribe to it recognize the need for faith in their own system of beliefs.
"understanding of scientific principles" is not enough.
You can understand biblical theology and not be a Christian or believe in any god.
No, what you described is putting faith in scientific principles, in what can be observed and tested. Exactly as I stated originally. Please think hard about what it is you believe about science.
Thank-you (says the original poster).
Just to add to that list of games for the PS2 that I'd be surprised if a Wii could pull off: Black, Grandia III, Jak II and III, and the first two God of War titles.
The inability to create a state of mind at will does not deny the existence of the ability to make arbitrary decisions about your behaviour at any level.
To smile or not, to walk or run, to drive to work or stay home, to sneeze or hold it, to curse or hold your tongue.
None of these are your own free will if you have none. If there is no free will at all, there is none, not even the slightest.
Non-believers or 'skeptics' as they call themselves (a term I despise since there are many skeptical believers too) also spend their lives living in faith of what they perceive. Faith in their senses not to lie to them. Faith in the consistency and research of others, faith that the universe around them exhibits behaviours that are testable.
This faith may not be unfounded, but to call it anything else is silliness since no one person could ever claim to have lived their lives thoroughly testing every belief they live by.
The same Gore who owns the very Eco-credit company he 'buys credits' from? The Gore who uses over 10x more electricity to run his mansion than any of us use in a year?
The Gore who can't seem to figure out that the vast majority of carbon released in the world is from natural causes we have no control over?
Yeah, Gore's a genius. Geez. He figured out how to cash in on the eco-craze.
Last I checked we had decimals (you even used them in your degree values). My thermostat has .5 degree increments which gives me plenty of accuracy.