Um, worldwide, most RPG game players pay a fraction of what we do (China, India, S Korea).
News flash: the US has very few people compared to them.
It depends on what your definition of Is Is. Most definitions are based on market capitalization, so 500 million people paying $60 a game will always "beat" 5 billion people paying $2 a game.
See, that's what a friend of mine did, he used one of the online free game systems and put up a Steampunk game (it's on FB) - and then people like me have been creating episodes and items for it.
My faves are my rocket skateboards and old style WW I bikes repurposed, but my son did this cool laser attack goggle device that kicks my ass every time.
Price: free.
Developers/artists/creators: free (I did it for fun and so did Ian).
And many games for the iPhone are pretty darned cheap.
At some point, game producers will start cranking out cheap English mods of Bollywood dance games and Chinese puzzle and combat games and take over the US market with games that sell for $10 a pop total.
Uranium won't get us back off the planet. Solar works well enough for short-term power, even all the way out at Mars. But it's a death sentence to explore Mars without enough fuel to get us back off the ground, so if we can find something we can use/refine as return fuel, it'll make an initial trip that much more likely.
We could always grow hemp - we've got dirt, sun, and water.
Seriously, as the GM of Care Bear on Mok'Nathal, I love the idea of guild talent trees and guild heirloom items and guild achievements, so long as they realize that Care Bears are not into Honor, just hugging our enemies to death.
I'm hoping there's a Big Love talent so we can spread the love and Make Love, Not Warcraft more often.
Not sure what my counterpart in Squirrelly Wrath would have to say about that though, they're nuts.
One of the more interesting talks this week at the UW is the one on nano-ethics.
At first I thought this was going to be about the ethics of using nanotech to observe or interact, but now I'm starting to wonder if it has to do with the ethics of giving nanobots some frickin nano-lasers to rebel against us with.
Today at the Washington Post chat on Season 2 of Lost, they noted that you can't get either Season 1 or Season 2 of Lost to work any more on the full episode player.
A lot of scientific research labs use interesting things to get valid scientific results.
We use ink jet print heads to dispense accurate amounts of reagants for biochemical screens, for example.
Wait until you find out that we can put a device in your wrist to measure your glucose level via a wristwatch so you don't have to prick yourself to control diabetes. That one is a real trip. It actually charges itself from the wristwatch, so it can literally run for decades.
um, try reading - just last week we just did the UW Tech Transfer on about 80 methods for biofuel, solar, nanosolar, wind techs - then the papers get pubbed and firms license the tech from the patent - you have to scale up production and all that, hire qualified people - there's no magical wand involved
No, I said they're not as optimal. You imagine a perfect world where our choices are other than they actually are and have been for the last 30 years or so.
I live in this place called the real world - one in which my university actually has been developing real solar and wind techonologies that exist in the real world. One in which we know a lot about nuclear fission and even had (until last year) our own breeder reactor - where we use medical radioactive isotopes and are very well aware of the disposal and extraction issues that you gloss over.
Have a nice day, but arguing with me won't gain you any converts to your religious crusade.
As we transition to wind, the existing power plants don't magically disappear - we still have oil refineries that were built in the 50s in operation.
Imagine a curve, where we gradually replace such energy - even if every new power plant we built was 100 percent wind, it would still take about 50 years to replace all the energy sources with that.
This also ignores the other energy supplies - perhaps we'll get fusion online by 2050, allowing us to gradually phase out the remaining coal, oil, and other sources - and we still have hydro, solar, and tidal in the mix as we have no reason to remove them from the total supply.
Plus, if you used stored gravity supply (e.g. pumping water up an incline) you can use that to moderate the power delivery - we've been doing that for... wait for it.. THOUSANDS OF FRICKIN YEARS.
Now, please rejoin the rest of us in reality where there is not one single source of energy in the global total grid - and many countries use primarily stored energy (batteries, generators, and now fuel cell power plants).
I am basing this on the university-provided scientific publications from my ScienceDirect feed of peer-reviewed papers on Energy.
These come from numerous scientific journals - published over the last two years, including ones which are not yet in print, but still in draft and review stages.
The primary advantage the French have is that they have a basic standardized fission reactor design - this is also true of the safer methods used in the Canadian fission power plants - but is not true of the US power plants, which have no truly standardized designs, and are frequently designed to have specific design byproducts of weapons and medical grade plutonium and other materials that are lacking in the Canadian designs, for example.
Current scientific papers - not those from decades ago.
(caveat - until recently we had a reactor here on the campus at the UW)
My point is that we in the USA alone could supply the entire global energy demands just from wind power - and even do that without shading any areas that don't need shade - e.g. our vast desert areas, the tops and sides of buildings with direct sunlight, and the use of passive solar alone.
As to nuclear fission, the literal mining process itself is as risky as coal mining, let alone the disposal problem over the lifetime of the material and the actual shell itself becomes radioactive, as do the plant materials.
Every energy source has its pros and cons. There is no "perfect" energy source.
Slashdot Mirror
Failed to kill?
Um, worldwide, most RPG game players pay a fraction of what we do (China, India, S Korea).
News flash: the US has very few people compared to them.
It depends on what your definition of Is Is. Most definitions are based on market capitalization, so 500 million people paying $60 a game will always "beat" 5 billion people paying $2 a game.
You mean Steampunk Wars ... like I said it's on FB and it's free.
Most of the Wii games I buy cost like $50. Not $60. Or I get used ones for $15.
See, that's what a friend of mine did, he used one of the online free game systems and put up a Steampunk game (it's on FB) - and then people like me have been creating episodes and items for it.
My faves are my rocket skateboards and old style WW I bikes repurposed, but my son did this cool laser attack goggle device that kicks my ass every time.
Price: free.
Developers/artists/creators: free (I did it for fun and so did Ian).
Distro cost: free.
And many games for the iPhone are pretty darned cheap.
At some point, game producers will start cranking out cheap English mods of Bollywood dance games and Chinese puzzle and combat games and take over the US market with games that sell for $10 a pop total.
Barriers exist to crumble.
Uranium won't get us back off the planet. Solar works well enough for short-term power, even all the way out at Mars. But it's a death sentence to explore Mars without enough fuel to get us back off the ground, so if we can find something we can use/refine as return fuel, it'll make an initial trip that much more likely.
We could always grow hemp - we've got dirt, sun, and water.
Walmart freeloads off our our basic health care plan and Medicare/Medicaid too.
Microsoft is just avoiding taxes another way.
Hope they get sued.
Don't worry, my Alliance players will still hunt you down when you try that.
Just like when I kill Alliance trying to fish in Ogrimmar.
Nothing like a death knight yank to pull you into the path of the guards and turn off your flight ability.
Personally, I'd rather turn OFF all water/wave events, they just waste processing time on my Mac Mini.
Seriously, as the GM of Care Bear on Mok'Nathal, I love the idea of guild talent trees and guild heirloom items and guild achievements, so long as they realize that Care Bears are not into Honor, just hugging our enemies to death.
I'm hoping there's a Big Love talent so we can spread the love and Make Love, Not Warcraft more often.
Not sure what my counterpart in Squirrelly Wrath would have to say about that though, they're nuts.
One of the more interesting talks this week at the UW is the one on nano-ethics.
At first I thought this was going to be about the ethics of using nanotech to observe or interact, but now I'm starting to wonder if it has to do with the ethics of giving nanobots some frickin nano-lasers to rebel against us with.
Remind me to get some ablative undershorts.
Seriously, I hate spam too, but no way jose!
I knew MSFT would manage to infect Yahoo with their plutocrat ideas ...
Today at the Washington Post chat on Season 2 of Lost, they noted that you can't get either Season 1 or Season 2 of Lost to work any more on the full episode player.
Sounds like they did this intentionally.
Hack them - hack them all and show no mercy.
A lot of scientific research labs use interesting things to get valid scientific results.
We use ink jet print heads to dispense accurate amounts of reagants for biochemical screens, for example.
Wait until you find out that we can put a device in your wrist to measure your glucose level via a wristwatch so you don't have to prick yourself to control diabetes. That one is a real trip. It actually charges itself from the wristwatch, so it can literally run for decades.
Which eats red beetles and uses the red from the crushed shells to color itself carmine red, whilst engorging itself on mosquitoes.
So I'm thinking shelling out an additional $200 for stuff I don't use that makes it slower is ...
EPIC FAIL!
But, then, I live in the real world where Chinese customers can get the Windows 7 OS for less than $30 total.
um, try reading - just last week we just did the UW Tech Transfer on about 80 methods for biofuel, solar, nanosolar, wind techs - then the papers get pubbed and firms license the tech from the patent - you have to scale up production and all that, hire qualified people - there's no magical wand involved
But then, we got those when we rode dinosaurs with Jesus.
Mind you, it was hard lugging around a large mammoth flute.
No, I said they're not as optimal. You imagine a perfect world where our choices are other than they actually are and have been for the last 30 years or so.
I live in this place called the real world - one in which my university actually has been developing real solar and wind techonologies that exist in the real world. One in which we know a lot about nuclear fission and even had (until last year) our own breeder reactor - where we use medical radioactive isotopes and are very well aware of the disposal and extraction issues that you gloss over.
Have a nice day, but arguing with me won't gain you any converts to your religious crusade.
Our cost factors are too high - nuclear fission in this country is a political decision, which drives up the cost factors.
That plus a nice train of nuclear waste from a US reactor makes for a great source for terrorism.
Let me do some simple math for you.
Let's say we use 8000 kilojoules.
As we transition to wind, the existing power plants don't magically disappear - we still have oil refineries that were built in the 50s in operation.
Imagine a curve, where we gradually replace such energy - even if every new power plant we built was 100 percent wind, it would still take about 50 years to replace all the energy sources with that.
This also ignores the other energy supplies - perhaps we'll get fusion online by 2050, allowing us to gradually phase out the remaining coal, oil, and other sources - and we still have hydro, solar, and tidal in the mix as we have no reason to remove them from the total supply.
Plus, if you used stored gravity supply (e.g. pumping water up an incline) you can use that to moderate the power delivery - we've been doing that for ... wait for it .. THOUSANDS OF FRICKIN YEARS.
Now, please rejoin the rest of us in reality where there is not one single source of energy in the global total grid - and many countries use primarily stored energy (batteries, generators, and now fuel cell power plants).
You're doing it wrong.
You need to dilute the alcohol with the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide.
And then sell it as vodka.
again, I base this on actual peer-reviewed scientific papers as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
ScienceDirect is a university network of such papers, which you might have heard of if you had done real science in the last decade.
I am basing this on the university-provided scientific publications from my ScienceDirect feed of peer-reviewed papers on Energy.
These come from numerous scientific journals - published over the last two years, including ones which are not yet in print, but still in draft and review stages.
The primary advantage the French have is that they have a basic standardized fission reactor design - this is also true of the safer methods used in the Canadian fission power plants - but is not true of the US power plants, which have no truly standardized designs, and are frequently designed to have specific design byproducts of weapons and medical grade plutonium and other materials that are lacking in the Canadian designs, for example.
Current scientific papers - not those from decades ago.
(caveat - until recently we had a reactor here on the campus at the UW)
My point is that we in the USA alone could supply the entire global energy demands just from wind power - and even do that without shading any areas that don't need shade - e.g. our vast desert areas, the tops and sides of buildings with direct sunlight, and the use of passive solar alone.
As to nuclear fission, the literal mining process itself is as risky as coal mining, let alone the disposal problem over the lifetime of the material and the actual shell itself becomes radioactive, as do the plant materials.
Every energy source has its pros and cons. There is no "perfect" energy source.