I applaud Nintendo's effort to explore new genres and ideas...but I question their method of doing so. They come out with these new games that have nothing in common with their previous efforts....but they're all still under the same franchises. Pikmin was a noble exception. However, think about all of their great games, and then think about how many different characters/mascots were involved with those. The ratio of games to characters is astonishingly high.
Imagine how many new popular franchises Nintendo could have if they had come up with new characters to go along with their new game ideas. They did that with Pokemon, and look where it got them with that. Beyond the cute name, what's the point of this drum game being based on Donkey Kong?
Part of the appeal of franchises like this, is that people play the first game, and then they like the atmosphere, the gameplay, the general feel of the game, and they want more similar stuff. So you have a progression of games in the same vein, that are still different...for instance, the progression of mario from the first game up to Super Mario 64. Those games all maintained that atmosphere. Yet, other games that are completely unrelated based on the same franchise? Nintendo is losing track of the purpose, here. All those games could just as easily be about someone else. A new character, that people could identify with. We're dealing with a new generation of kids. They should start all new character ideas.
Stir things up in more ways than just one. Impress me Nintendo.
If the OS crashes then the notices won't be sent to Microsoft.
Actually, in my experience using XP, I think the only time that the OS has actually been completely taken down by a crash, the OS logged the error, and gave the notification upon the next bootup, indicating that there was an error, and offering the standard "Send Error Report."
So, actually, when the OS crashes, then the notices will be sent to MS, if the user decides to send the reports.
I admit that I don't fully understand the intricacies of predicting life expectancy, but what I do know is that realistically, it changes. For someone who was born in 1980, at that time in 1980 it is impossible for those predicting life expectancy then to be able to take into account future world factors influencing life expectancy; medical research developments, sociological changes, war, etc.
My main point is that obviously the life expectancy will not suddenly jump to 5000 years on the year 2100...it will gradually progress to that, and in the meantime, life expectancy, and the positive environmental factors reflected by it, will be increasing. Potentially, it will increase quickly enough that some or many of us alive today will indeed live long enough to see if this prediction is correct or not.
My specific figures might not be correct, but at some point, its possible that developments to extend life will be progressing at a faster rate than people are dying, thus making for practical immortality; at least as long as developments progess at such a fast clip.
"Our life expectancy will be in the region of 5,000 years" in rich countries in the year 2100, predicts Aubrey de Grey, a scholar at Cambridge University.
(This is, of course, a great prediction to make because none of us will be around in 2100 to mock him if he's wrong.)
Not necessarily...if one assumes that life expectancy will continually increase, for those of us living *now*, our *actual* life span will be longer than our current projected life span. Say you were born in 1970, and the current life expectancy is 80 years old...theoretically you'll live until 2050. But then in 2040, say the life expectancy has changed to, say, 120 years...it might not mean that you would then necessarily live until 2090, but since it changed, you would at least live longer.
So maybe, just maybe, we WILL be around in 2100 to see if he's right. And then, all of this begs the question, what happens when life expenctancy starts to increase at a faster rate than time passes? That is, life expectancy increases consistently each year by more than 1 year. Wouldn't it be then, in fact, that immortality is achieved? When the rate of change of life expectancy is >1, not when the actual life expectancy is infinite?
Then there's the problem of overpopulation....where do we put all of these people that refuse to die? Hopefully we will have established colonies off-earth by then.
Hopefully at least some of this has been partially understandable.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine how many new popular franchises Nintendo could have if they had come up with new characters to go along with their new game ideas. They did that with Pokemon, and look where it got them with that. Beyond the cute name, what's the point of this drum game being based on Donkey Kong?
Part of the appeal of franchises like this, is that people play the first game, and then they like the atmosphere, the gameplay, the general feel of the game, and they want more similar stuff. So you have a progression of games in the same vein, that are still different...for instance, the progression of mario from the first game up to Super Mario 64. Those games all maintained that atmosphere. Yet, other games that are completely unrelated based on the same franchise? Nintendo is losing track of the purpose, here. All those games could just as easily be about someone else. A new character, that people could identify with. We're dealing with a new generation of kids. They should start all new character ideas.
Stir things up in more ways than just one. Impress me Nintendo.
So, actually, when the OS crashes, then the notices will be sent to MS, if the user decides to send the reports.
My main point is that obviously the life expectancy will not suddenly jump to 5000 years on the year 2100...it will gradually progress to that, and in the meantime, life expectancy, and the positive environmental factors reflected by it, will be increasing. Potentially, it will increase quickly enough that some or many of us alive today will indeed live long enough to see if this prediction is correct or not.
My specific figures might not be correct, but at some point, its possible that developments to extend life will be progressing at a faster rate than people are dying, thus making for practical immortality; at least as long as developments progess at such a fast clip.
So maybe, just maybe, we WILL be around in 2100 to see if he's right. And then, all of this begs the question, what happens when life expenctancy starts to increase at a faster rate than time passes? That is, life expectancy increases consistently each year by more than 1 year. Wouldn't it be then, in fact, that immortality is achieved? When the rate of change of life expectancy is >1, not when the actual life expectancy is infinite?
Then there's the problem of overpopulation....where do we put all of these people that refuse to die? Hopefully we will have established colonies off-earth by then.
Hopefully at least some of this has been partially understandable.