But the question remains to be asked: will it _really_ make a difference for emissions? Biofuels have no marked benefit over oil in terms of energy density. Because most liquid biofuels are of significantly lower energy density, you'd need quite a bit more to burn, thus almost completely nullifying whatever ecological benefit they might have had with regards to carbon emissions.
I hate to be so cynical, but I meant that in the context of how EA execs tend to view their products.
I completely agree regarding game quality; I, and a number of my friends, thoroughly enjoyed Renegade. Heck, it was the game that introduced me to the whole FPS genre. But there'll always be that little bit of fanboy in me that wants to see C&C branch out into FPS as successfully as it had established itself in RTS, hence why I and plenty of other fans were as disappointed as we were when we discovered Renegade was a dead-end. That's what frustrates me about EA [cynicism warning]: they have this "get it done on time, or else" mentality that's doomed so many new frontiers, particularly for old titles. Even Spore could be classified as the typical 'Sim' game with aspects of many of its predecessors and dressed up to look pretty; it was a surefire money-maker for EA. So, there's nothing new under the sun here.
Really now? I found the 'boink' was one of the most amusing parts about making kills. In fact, it was so amusing, I'd venture to say that it kept me playing long after it should've started to collect dust.
But as for the unfinished feel, I agree wholeheartedly. The game was far too rushed, especially considering it was Westwood's first venture into the genre. As frustrated as I am at the news, I'd hate to see another disappointment at the hands of EA's cutthroat deadlines (Renegade was, afterall, Westwood's second lowest grossing title, after Sole Survivor).
I suspect that most of these had been obscured at some point in the past, such as these natural gas tanks in Boston. IIRC, they were quite pixelated a mere 6 months ago, but are no longer due to change in policy or whatnot. I remember noticing just a few of these (around Boston, of course), so I can't speak much against the others. But with that in mind, I think it's pretty unfair to discredit the 'Blurred Out' article; it may be outdated, but it's not necessarily a myth.
Agreed, but only when the corporation who owns the source is incompetent. So to blanket all proprietary software, IMHO, is rather unfair. Either way, unless you're spending your own time developing the software, you're trusting somebody; if not a single corporation, then the Open Source Community. The point is, it's really just up to you, the user, to decide who you trust more.
Again, that's exactly my point. We take on faith that the Scientific Method works, which is based on the faith that our ability to perceive reality is accurate.
That's exactly my point. Nobody wants to recognize the depth of language, because that makes us accountable for what we say vs. what we mean, and nobody wants to be accountable for something they can just as easily get away with. To say "I love you" and mean that you feel a certain way provides no social accountability beyond what the amorphous "accepted social protocol" dictates. The fact is, feelings are not explicitly perceived in communication, so any touchy-feely based language system is, inevitably, bound to fail as it provides no universal definition. Without definition communication is garbled and useless. With garbled communication...well, the story of Babel has something to say about that.
The importance of a language's integrity should NEVER be underestimated.
Check the dictionary. Love isn't just a noun, it's a verb. Too many people seem to lose touch with how deep the meaning of love can be. But that follows suit with how shallow and narrow-minded our culture has become, much to the chagrin of people in the past who tried to eradicate such things through education. Dare I say today's belief system based upon the all-insightful Science has something to do with that? After all, science wasn't meant to be a replacement for God, just a way to define His creation. In fact, it's been suggested that relying upon Science requires no less faith than relying upon the Bible--I'm inclined to agree.
Why is this a flaimbait? There's no denying the bias that a large mass of Slashdotters have against Microsoft.
But, personally, I'd have to say that I'm at least hoping Vista will go somewhere. In fact, I'm quite optimistic about many aspects of Microsoft; I have faith that at least some of the company has learned its lesson from past mistakes.
Yes, it would definitely be very nice for there to be such a choice. But think about it: to whom does HP market their products? Are these people going to trouble themselves with installing an OS? or are they just going to move onto the next vendor? Excuse my ignorance of specific market statistics, but I'm willing to guess that the population of users finicky enough to want a pre-built from HP that has something other than Windows installed, and are gifted with enough time and experience to install it themselves, yet not enough to build one themselves, just isn't a very wide market. If the market isn't there, or just isn't significant enough to matter, then the resources required to add such a choice would be wasted, hence why the choice simply does not exist. If you really want that choice, then go find a vendor that builds OS-free boxes, because HP, or any large company for that matter, isn't going to turn a profit on only a few people. So I'll have to side with the big, nasty corporation on this one.
call me a Microsoft Apologist, but in my experiences, M$ usually does things according to technical reasons, not marketing. in fact, they really don't have nearly as much marketing influence as we'd like to think, hence why they are, and always will be, a developer's company.
Marketing may be a corollary, but IIRC, DX10 takes advantage of the new driver model in Vista. so, it's probably technical reasons more than marketing that's driving this decision.
Yes, of course there a plenty of stories that predate Christ, and thus Christianity, they come from the Jewish Torah. The rest of the Bible is strictly consistent of historical documents.
Concerning holidays, the church used symbols and dates from many pagan religions in order to confront and compete directly with them, making it harder for people to choose both.
Out of curiosity, do you know which of those stories had been recorded before the original biblical scrolls?
of course, but I don't think you're getting the point, so let me also restate myself...
it would be much easier to tell a true interpretation than fabricate a background as extensive as the Christian Bible's; these recollections correlate too efficiently with the facts of history to be mere "imaginary" stories. maybe reading and studying what they "made up" could help you to see what I mean.
yes, I admit, I am a bit hasty about cosmology.
but my reasoing is that if our universe follows a chain of action-reaction, and we are in no capability to rise above ourselves, who is to judge whether the "seeding-event", or whatever you might call it, must follow the rules of what it originated? as far as we know, talking about eternity future/past is referring to a dimensional frame beyond our own. we could could even be talking about the lack of dimensional restrictions alltogether. (and yes, I know that I'm using fuzzy-science/philosophy, but it's all my punitive level of education will allow for now)
and by the way, let's not make judgements about the concequences of there being such a deity; that deity could very well want itself to be known by it's creation. the existence of God is not necessarily just the result of human imagination. and yes, I would be a hypocryte if I blew off the Big Bang, as absolute judgements require absolute knowledge.
and you're right, given that the energy to make such an enormous explosion spontaneous is already present...and we all know that there couldn't possibly be any kind of eternal force, or dare I say _deity_, at work before said explosion *sarcasm*, so it just had to have happened!
but really, all seriousness aside, where did all that come from? who's immagination is vibrant enough to give an answer?
I think the point here is that the Universe is the whole closed system...where'd it get it's energy from?!?
another idea: do we even know how a lack of any kind of order, i.e. total entropy, manifests itself? I fear that theorizing about anything to do with total entropy would be already defeating the purpose.
just something to chew on...and for those wonderful/. mods: no, I am NOT trolling
Well, without evolutionary biology we would all be blissfully unaware of the possiblity of avian flu mutating from a bird-to-human virus to a human-to-human virus. We'd just be scratching our heads wondering why an especially virulent flu started speading around the world. Evolutionary biology allows scientists to think about how the "here-and-now" might look in the future and to be able to prepare for it.
I think I see what your point is, however I can't help but look upon Evolutionary Biology as a sort of dead end: the only reason, from what I've seen, Evolutionary Biology has advanced was because of either a biological discovery in another branch or because of some archealogical dig (which is more often than not to be associated with the field of History). Evolutionary Biology seems to be an end, rather than a means, on the path of discovery.
Wow, I honestly can say that my opinion of the slashdot mods and, most unfortunately, slashdot crowd has dropped significantly. This was in NO way meant as a trolling post. It is an earnest question to know the ideas of others, and would kindly ask the meta-mods that are assigned with this to consider this reconcilatory post as a part of the context behind my reasoning. Thank You.
Slashdot Mirror
But the question remains to be asked: will it _really_ make a difference for emissions? Biofuels have no marked benefit over oil in terms of energy density. Because most liquid biofuels are of significantly lower energy density, you'd need quite a bit more to burn, thus almost completely nullifying whatever ecological benefit they might have had with regards to carbon emissions.
I hate to be so cynical, but I meant that in the context of how EA execs tend to view their products.
I completely agree regarding game quality; I, and a number of my friends, thoroughly enjoyed Renegade. Heck, it was the game that introduced me to the whole FPS genre. But there'll always be that little bit of fanboy in me that wants to see C&C branch out into FPS as successfully as it had established itself in RTS, hence why I and plenty of other fans were as disappointed as we were when we discovered Renegade was a dead-end. That's what frustrates me about EA [cynicism warning]: they have this "get it done on time, or else" mentality that's doomed so many new frontiers, particularly for old titles. Even Spore could be classified as the typical 'Sim' game with aspects of many of its predecessors and dressed up to look pretty; it was a surefire money-maker for EA. So, there's nothing new under the sun here.
Really now? I found the 'boink' was one of the most amusing parts about making kills. In fact, it was so amusing, I'd venture to say that it kept me playing long after it should've started to collect dust.
But as for the unfinished feel, I agree wholeheartedly. The game was far too rushed, especially considering it was Westwood's first venture into the genre. As frustrated as I am at the news, I'd hate to see another disappointment at the hands of EA's cutthroat deadlines (Renegade was, afterall, Westwood's second lowest grossing title, after Sole Survivor).
I suspect that most of these had been obscured at some point in the past, such as these natural gas tanks in Boston. IIRC, they were quite pixelated a mere 6 months ago, but are no longer due to change in policy or whatnot. I remember noticing just a few of these (around Boston, of course), so I can't speak much against the others. But with that in mind, I think it's pretty unfair to discredit the 'Blurred Out' article; it may be outdated, but it's not necessarily a myth.
Agreed, but only when the corporation who owns the source is incompetent. So to blanket all proprietary software, IMHO, is rather unfair. Either way, unless you're spending your own time developing the software, you're trusting somebody; if not a single corporation, then the Open Source Community. The point is, it's really just up to you, the user, to decide who you trust more.
Agreed, ethanol is easier to produce, however, the production of ethanol impacts more than just the fuel market. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/ 22/2045228 Not to mention the fact that it has a significantly lower energy yield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_conte nt than gasoline, making the adoption of ethanol entirely political and not economical at all.
Again, that's exactly my point. We take on faith that the Scientific Method works, which is based on the faith that our ability to perceive reality is accurate.
That's exactly my point. Nobody wants to recognize the depth of language, because that makes us accountable for what we say vs. what we mean, and nobody wants to be accountable for something they can just as easily get away with. To say "I love you" and mean that you feel a certain way provides no social accountability beyond what the amorphous "accepted social protocol" dictates. The fact is, feelings are not explicitly perceived in communication, so any touchy-feely based language system is, inevitably, bound to fail as it provides no universal definition. Without definition communication is garbled and useless. With garbled communication...well, the story of Babel has something to say about that.
The importance of a language's integrity should NEVER be underestimated.
Science is testable and verifiable
By what axiom?
Check the dictionary. Love isn't just a noun, it's a verb. Too many people seem to lose touch with how deep the meaning of love can be. But that follows suit with how shallow and narrow-minded our culture has become, much to the chagrin of people in the past who tried to eradicate such things through education. Dare I say today's belief system based upon the all-insightful Science has something to do with that? After all, science wasn't meant to be a replacement for God, just a way to define His creation. In fact, it's been suggested that relying upon Science requires no less faith than relying upon the Bible--I'm inclined to agree.
But, personally, I'd have to say that I'm at least hoping Vista will go somewhere. In fact, I'm quite optimistic about many aspects of Microsoft; I have faith that at least some of the company has learned its lesson from past mistakes.
Yes, it would definitely be very nice for there to be such a choice. But think about it: to whom does HP market their products? Are these people going to trouble themselves with installing an OS? or are they just going to move onto the next vendor? Excuse my ignorance of specific market statistics, but I'm willing to guess that the population of users finicky enough to want a pre-built from HP that has something other than Windows installed, and are gifted with enough time and experience to install it themselves, yet not enough to build one themselves, just isn't a very wide market. If the market isn't there, or just isn't significant enough to matter, then the resources required to add such a choice would be wasted, hence why the choice simply does not exist. If you really want that choice, then go find a vendor that builds OS-free boxes, because HP, or any large company for that matter, isn't going to turn a profit on only a few people. So I'll have to side with the big, nasty corporation on this one.
http://www.maj.com/ seems to slip under the wire of popularity all too often.
IIRC, it was originally just Brickshelf, but spun off into general image hosting.
May I refer to a more well informed post than mine?c id=15439761
/. to be a forum of information, not that of flames.
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187096&
And please, I think we all endeavor for
call me a Microsoft Apologist, but in my experiences, M$ usually does things according to technical reasons, not marketing. in fact, they really don't have nearly as much marketing influence as we'd like to think, hence why they are, and always will be, a developer's company.
Marketing may be a corollary, but IIRC, DX10 takes advantage of the new driver model in Vista. so, it's probably technical reasons more than marketing that's driving this decision.
Yes, of course there a plenty of stories that predate Christ, and thus Christianity, they come from the Jewish Torah. The rest of the Bible is strictly consistent of historical documents.
Concerning holidays, the church used symbols and dates from many pagan religions in order to confront and compete directly with them, making it harder for people to choose both.
Out of curiosity, do you know which of those stories had been recorded before the original biblical scrolls?
of course, but I don't think you're getting the point, so let me also restate myself...
it would be much easier to tell a true interpretation than fabricate a background as extensive as the Christian Bible's; these recollections correlate too efficiently with the facts of history to be mere "imaginary" stories. maybe reading and studying what they "made up" could help you to see what I mean.
yes, I admit, I am a bit hasty about cosmology.
but my reasoing is that if our universe follows a chain of action-reaction, and we are in no capability to rise above ourselves, who is to judge whether the "seeding-event", or whatever you might call it, must follow the rules of what it originated? as far as we know, talking about eternity future/past is referring to a dimensional frame beyond our own. we could could even be talking about the lack of dimensional restrictions alltogether. (and yes, I know that I'm using fuzzy-science/philosophy, but it's all my punitive level of education will allow for now)
and by the way, let's not make judgements about the concequences of there being such a deity; that deity could very well want itself to be known by it's creation. the existence of God is not necessarily just the result of human imagination. and yes, I would be a hypocryte if I blew off the Big Bang, as absolute judgements require absolute knowledge.
and you're right, given that the energy to make such an enormous explosion spontaneous is already present...and we all know that there couldn't possibly be any kind of eternal force, or dare I say _deity_, at work before said explosion *sarcasm*, so it just had to have happened!
but really, all seriousness aside, where did all that come from? who's immagination is vibrant enough to give an answer?
umm...maybe because that still doesn't answer the question?
I think the point here is that the Universe is the whole closed system...where'd it get it's energy from?!?
/. mods: no, I am NOT trolling
another idea: do we even know how a lack of any kind of order, i.e. total entropy, manifests itself? I fear that theorizing about anything to do with total entropy would be already defeating the purpose.
just something to chew on...and for those wonderful
thanks
I think I see what your point is, however I can't help but look upon Evolutionary Biology as a sort of dead end: the only reason, from what I've seen, Evolutionary Biology has advanced was because of either a biological discovery in another branch or because of some archealogical dig (which is more often than not to be associated with the field of History). Evolutionary Biology seems to be an end, rather than a means, on the path of discovery.
Wow, I honestly can say that my opinion of the slashdot mods and, most unfortunately, slashdot crowd has dropped significantly. This was in NO way meant as a trolling post. It is an earnest question to know the ideas of others, and would kindly ask the meta-mods that are assigned with this to consider this reconcilatory post as a part of the context behind my reasoning. Thank You.