That's idiotic conspiracy theory. Spore has had more hype than almost any game I've ever heard of, so it only makes sense that a review of it shows up here. I've only seen a few games have reviews on slashdot, and almost all of them were because they were high profile games.
Same story for me. I was probably much younger and newer to the Internet at that time than many people here (I think my family got Internet access sometime in '97). I had heard a lot about Yahoo and AltaVista, so I tended to use them but I'd also looked around at MSN, Askjeeves, NothernLight and Lycos and all of those guys when I couldn't find what I was looking for. Then I started seeing Google coming up for things. I still remember thinking their site looked funny, but MAN did it find what I wanted so quickly. Sometime after that it became my home page (probably 2000 or 2001) and I more or less stopped using anything else.
Thank you for finally posting what I consider to be valid criticism of the Idle section. Every other criticism is just general whining, but I generally agree with what you are saying and think it is constructive.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
This is also the same in the windows world.
Also, when using center click with Tree Style Tab you can get a VERY useful little breadcrumb trail of exactly where you've been. It tends to encourage me to have WAY too many tabs open though.
Huge variations in sunlight could simply be due to the curvature of the Earth. Without further explanation of what they considered "sunlight variation," (localized or global?) you can't rule out that hypothesis.
Good point. I think you would be correct except for the fact that most aerial imagery is taken between the hours of 10am and 2pm (or so - sun time, not DST) in order to have consistency and minimize problems related to shadows and glare. These cows, therefore, might not be pointing at North, but might be a little bit off of it. However, with these researchers only using Google Earth imagery, cows pointing off North at 11am might still be within their margin of error for "north."
That may be true, but that's not the point. The point is that we're not on a path to "economic self-destruction." The mere presence of hindrances does not mean you are in an awful situation.
I don't ignore them, personally, but I'm not complaining about them. That was merely a suggestion for those who hate seeing them everywhere. In general, I make an educated guess about whether I feel a situation poses a true threat. This may be hard to do in some instances, but it's better than not having the signs at all, IMO.
Not true, even in the future - it hasn't even been introduced. This was a proposal a year and a half ago that wasn't even voted on and died.
I'm sorry, but this is the sort of stuff that makes people think that the greenies just want to send us back to the stone age.
It's a notification, not a regulation - there is no regression involved. It simply informs people. If you don't like it, ignore the signs. They aren't that bad.
Take my parents for example. They like the experience of IE. They are not, however, opposed to standards - they just don't care enough to leave behind one piece of software for another because they never notice any problems (probably because we are all so busy fixing IE bugs). I know a number of people like this - they are comfortable.
You make a good point about Iraq, but I'm not merely referring to obliterating Iraq in terms of bringing war to the country, but I'm talking about how carelessly we did it. Reading accounts from unembedded journalists, it seems that as a whole, Iraqi lives are not being treated with respect. You are correct in that Saddam was damaging (though we did help put him in power) and that it is difficult to remove someone so damaging without causing further harm. However, It is pretty clear at this point though that the level of harm we are causing is unnecessary and unacceptable.
What two wars? In eight years, the US has lost less soldiers than were killed in a single fight in Vietnam, which was piss in the ocean compared to everyone lost in the World Wars.
My mother always taught me not to feed trolls, but your idiocy and inhumanity disgust me.
Just because we have lost *only* 4500 people (with thousands more irreparably injured) doesn't make these wars somehow ok. The cruelty and devastation of a war should NOT be a subjective measure. War is cruel, even when only one person dies as a result.
Secondly, you ignored the greatest slice of death in the Iraq war. We have obliterated an entire nation - one that at one time was prosperous (mostly pre-sanctions, but even sanctions were prosperity compared with today). Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, injured, or displaced. The cultural heritage of one of the oldest civilizations on the planet is being tossed aside and bombed.
So, considering this, even disregarding all of the U.S. soldiers that have died, these two wars you seem to not believe exist are catastrophic. I hate to be rude, but next time you post, please get a soul first.
yeah, the eyes thing got me too. I think maybe her eyes just looked a little too much like actors in movies who are supposed to look possessed by something so I kept waiting for her to turn into a demon. Then when they hit the specular, I was like "I KNEW IT!"
But seriously, the eyes put her back in the uncanny valley. The rest of it was pretty damn good.
I entirely agree. What I tell people when they ask about Vista is to not upgrade old PCs to it, but to take it if it ships with a new PC. I have enjoyed the experience of using Vista, but I'm NOT going to upgrade my desktop to it because XP meets all of my needs and is much speedier on older hardware.
I totally agree. These actions should be disciplined and prevented - I just don't think this has anything to do with red states vs. blue states as OP says.
It's only a total failure if you look at each launch with the wrong expectations. Think of these launches as tests of current equipment with high stakes. If it makes it to space, that's great, but they all understand the possibility of crashing down.
If you start looking instead at how close they have come each time, the fact that they are still trying when others might have quit, that they have capital and momentum behind them, etc, you might start to think that they are quite successful.
You make a lot of good points, but I would like to add something to your considerations. While the biodegradability in the long run is definitely an extremely important factor, it is only part of the equation.
We must also think about the long-run materials usage - we will likely use less oil if we make fewer, more durable, plastic bags. Additionally, there is the energy cost of producing plastic bags. While the energy for a single durable bag is probably much higher than for a single biodegradable plastic bag, once you start using numerous plastic bags per shopping trip, the energy costs eventually level and shift.
Anyway, I haven't decided which I like best yet - I think we need more research. I am certainly happy that if we are going to have plastic bags that they will biodegrade (though recycling is wonderful too!). Mostly, I just wanted to point out that for a life-cycle analysis, I would still bet on the durable bags being better for the environment overall, but there are benefits to each.
To respond to your talk about the layout (everything else is being addressed by others), I think you should take a look at this page from the tour of their spanish language site (I can't read german):
The big deal (according to someone at the company in an NPR interview, I believe) is repeat customers. Since their product is so durable, customers tend to buy until they have enough then use them for a couple generations (I know my legos will be used by my kids someday). When a product is so durable, you need to charge a little more for it in order to ensure your company's survival.
Slashdot Mirror
this isn't Sony - it's EA, FYI. I know Sony is synonymous with "DRM fiasco" now, but different companies.
That's idiotic conspiracy theory. Spore has had more hype than almost any game I've ever heard of, so it only makes sense that a review of it shows up here. I've only seen a few games have reviews on slashdot, and almost all of them were because they were high profile games.
I think the idea is that a black hole that small is likely a black hole in name only and doesn't "suck" in much of anything at all.
Same story for me. I was probably much younger and newer to the Internet at that time than many people here (I think my family got Internet access sometime in '97). I had heard a lot about Yahoo and AltaVista, so I tended to use them but I'd also looked around at MSN, Askjeeves, NothernLight and Lycos and all of those guys when I couldn't find what I was looking for. Then I started seeing Google coming up for things. I still remember thinking their site looked funny, but MAN did it find what I wanted so quickly. Sometime after that it became my home page (probably 2000 or 2001) and I more or less stopped using anything else.
Thank you for finally posting what I consider to be valid criticism of the Idle section. Every other criticism is just general whining, but I generally agree with what you are saying and think it is constructive.
This is also the same in the windows world. Also, when using center click with Tree Style Tab you can get a VERY useful little breadcrumb trail of exactly where you've been. It tends to encourage me to have WAY too many tabs open though.
Huge variations in sunlight could simply be due to the curvature of the Earth. Without further explanation of what they considered "sunlight variation," (localized or global?) you can't rule out that hypothesis.
Good point. I think you would be correct except for the fact that most aerial imagery is taken between the hours of 10am and 2pm (or so - sun time, not DST) in order to have consistency and minimize problems related to shadows and glare. These cows, therefore, might not be pointing at North, but might be a little bit off of it. However, with these researchers only using Google Earth imagery, cows pointing off North at 11am might still be within their margin of error for "north."
That may be true, but that's not the point. The point is that we're not on a path to "economic self-destruction." The mere presence of hindrances does not mean you are in an awful situation.
I don't ignore them, personally, but I'm not complaining about them. That was merely a suggestion for those who hate seeing them everywhere. In general, I make an educated guess about whether I feel a situation poses a true threat. This may be hard to do in some instances, but it's better than not having the signs at all, IMO.
Not true, even in the future - it hasn't even been introduced. This was a proposal a year and a half ago that wasn't even voted on and died.
It's a notification, not a regulation - there is no regression involved. It simply informs people. If you don't like it, ignore the signs. They aren't that bad.
Which is why it has consistently had the strongest economy in the nation?
Take my parents for example. They like the experience of IE. They are not, however, opposed to standards - they just don't care enough to leave behind one piece of software for another because they never notice any problems (probably because we are all so busy fixing IE bugs). I know a number of people like this - they are comfortable.
Obama-LARPing?
You make a good point about Iraq, but I'm not merely referring to obliterating Iraq in terms of bringing war to the country, but I'm talking about how carelessly we did it. Reading accounts from unembedded journalists, it seems that as a whole, Iraqi lives are not being treated with respect. You are correct in that Saddam was damaging (though we did help put him in power) and that it is difficult to remove someone so damaging without causing further harm. However, It is pretty clear at this point though that the level of harm we are causing is unnecessary and unacceptable.
My mother always taught me not to feed trolls, but your idiocy and inhumanity disgust me.
Just because we have lost *only* 4500 people (with thousands more irreparably injured) doesn't make these wars somehow ok. The cruelty and devastation of a war should NOT be a subjective measure. War is cruel, even when only one person dies as a result.
Secondly, you ignored the greatest slice of death in the Iraq war. We have obliterated an entire nation - one that at one time was prosperous (mostly pre-sanctions, but even sanctions were prosperity compared with today). Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, injured, or displaced. The cultural heritage of one of the oldest civilizations on the planet is being tossed aside and bombed.
So, considering this, even disregarding all of the U.S. soldiers that have died, these two wars you seem to not believe exist are catastrophic. I hate to be rude, but next time you post, please get a soul first.
yeah, the eyes thing got me too. I think maybe her eyes just looked a little too much like actors in movies who are supposed to look possessed by something so I kept waiting for her to turn into a demon. Then when they hit the specular, I was like "I KNEW IT!"
But seriously, the eyes put her back in the uncanny valley. The rest of it was pretty damn good.
I entirely agree. What I tell people when they ask about Vista is to not upgrade old PCs to it, but to take it if it ships with a new PC. I have enjoyed the experience of using Vista, but I'm NOT going to upgrade my desktop to it because XP meets all of my needs and is much speedier on older hardware.
I totally agree. These actions should be disciplined and prevented - I just don't think this has anything to do with red states vs. blue states as OP says.
Agreed. I'm glad not everyone jumped on this as a giant rash of government problems. So far, it's an isolated, albeit idiotic, incident.
It's only a total failure if you look at each launch with the wrong expectations. Think of these launches as tests of current equipment with high stakes. If it makes it to space, that's great, but they all understand the possibility of crashing down.
If you start looking instead at how close they have come each time, the fact that they are still trying when others might have quit, that they have capital and momentum behind them, etc, you might start to think that they are quite successful.
You make a lot of good points, but I would like to add something to your considerations. While the biodegradability in the long run is definitely an extremely important factor, it is only part of the equation.
We must also think about the long-run materials usage - we will likely use less oil if we make fewer, more durable, plastic bags. Additionally, there is the energy cost of producing plastic bags. While the energy for a single durable bag is probably much higher than for a single biodegradable plastic bag, once you start using numerous plastic bags per shopping trip, the energy costs eventually level and shift.
Anyway, I haven't decided which I like best yet - I think we need more research. I am certainly happy that if we are going to have plastic bags that they will biodegrade (though recycling is wonderful too!). Mostly, I just wanted to point out that for a life-cycle analysis, I would still bet on the durable bags being better for the environment overall, but there are benefits to each.
It was the Complete Idiot's Guide, thank you very much.
To respond to your talk about the layout (everything else is being addressed by others), I think you should take a look at this page from the tour of their spanish language site (I can't read german):
http://www.estudiln.net/tour/es/profile.php?tourId=xvz&skinId=xvz
If you are a facebook user, you will know just how blatant of a ripoff this is - trademark or not
The big deal (according to someone at the company in an NPR interview, I believe) is repeat customers. Since their product is so durable, customers tend to buy until they have enough then use them for a couple generations (I know my legos will be used by my kids someday). When a product is so durable, you need to charge a little more for it in order to ensure your company's survival.