But back the the FA... these linkages to games / TV / etc. are just stupid. If anyone would bother to do the study on it, I bet they would find bad parenting is the number one factor in a persons tendancy to become violent / anti-social / exhibit criminal behavior.
Bad parenting is hard to quantify, but a missing parental unit seems to have rather large effects on behaviour.
How so? I've never played Final Fantasy 7, for example, but I have no clue how it ends. That goes for most games I've never played. If you read spoilers about a game, that's your own problem. If it's that hard to avoid, maybe you should ask the webmasters of forums you participate in to add a spoiler tag.
You just can't share with your friends how awesome the graphics look in your latest purchase cause they'll tell you your game is crap compared to the current games.
Make friends with homeless people. You'll never run out of things to brag about.
...and they could cut that in half if they were patient. Wait a few months for a price drop. Hell, wait a year for something to hit the bargain bin. The games aren't gonna disappear if you don't buy them right away.
I never use assert, and all the apps I've written work perfectly. I'm even posting this using one of my assert-free apps, and guess wha#@#$^@!#%#$%@#$NO CARRIER
Despite the naysayers, it *is* possible to synergize television and the internet (and the subsequent distributions of tv programs) *without* using BT.
Yeah, but consider the bandwidth required as the number of viewers increases. Consider a situtation with ten thousand simultaneous downloads. That's a situation that could easily occur if you were distributing a new episode of a popular television program. Without BT, your poor server(s) must distribute 10,000 copies of a single file. Let's say it's an hour-long show that's been compressed to 250MB. That means that you'll have to pay for 2.5 terrabytes of transfer. And to finish all those downloads in a reasonable amount of time (let's say four hours is reasonable), you'd need just short of 1,400 megabits per second of bandwidth. (Yes, that's 1.4 gigabits per second.) This could get expensive.
Now let's look at Bittorrent. Assume most of your viewers have broadband with uploads limited to 384 kilobits per second. (This is what my crappy DSL is limited to.) Doing the math (384 kb/s * 10,000 / 1,000 kb/mb), we see that using BT gives us a potential maximum throughput of 3,840 megabits per second. That's more than twice what we'd need to get everyone's download done in four hours. Of course, it will take a while to reach that kind of throughput, but consider your choices: upload 10,000 copies of the file (2.5 terrabytes) or upload 500 copies of the file (125 gigabytes) and let the viewers' spare bandwidth take care of the rest.
Lastly, remember that this is a TV show. You're gonna be releasing a new episode once a week for at least eight weeks!
Disclaimer: It's three in the morning. I'm tired. I'm only a student. Some of these numbers are made up. Mod me down if I've made some gross mistakes, but please take the time to point them out afterwards.
# PC Gamer describes the game as Diablo played from a first person perspective and set in a post-apocalyptic London. # Roper consders the game to be an RPG. His arguments: combat is entirely stat based, not twitch based. Hits, misses, and damage will depend on the stats of your character and their weapons; and ranged weapons cast spells (they're actually being referred to as "spell delivery systems").
Yeah, those two are what really worry me. Diablo was fun because it was a twitch game, and Diablo 2 even more so. Roper's remark is also confusing, since melee combat in the Diablo series depends greatly on stats. Whatever the game turns out to be, I hope it won't suffer from the rampant cheating that plagues Diablo 1 and 2.
Shit. I forgot that the Shuffles were 512/1024MBs. But what good is that much storage space when you can't choose which song plays next? The only way to get around this is to join all the tracks in a cd or playlist together and make a single MP3. You'd get your own playlists, but that's a pretty poor solution.
Also, rechargable batteries are cheap. At Costco, $25 will buy a Panasonic set with a charger and six (if I remember correctly) each of AA and AAA batteries.
Make sure your MP3 player has a radio, phone, alarm clock, slide rule, enviroment guage, laser pointer, pepper spray, self-inflating raft, nail gun, and the ability to play WMA and only WMA.
MP3 player? You're talking about a Tricorder, my friend.
I can fathom why they'd want to make a page like this, but it wouldn't stop anyone from purchasing that ever-so hip iPod/mini/shuffle/gumstick.
Really? Not even point three, "You'll want a display"? How many people would choose an iPod Shuffle over one of these? Note the price difference and the presence of an FM tuner/recorder.
There are a couple of things they missed, like the fact that flash-based players are often smaller than hard-disk based players.
I don't like their song stats (using 64kbps WMA only), but the truth is that most people have crappy headphones and won't notice a difference anyway.
What I do think is misleading is the bit about "not getting locked into an online store". They're suggesting that if you buy the wrong player, you'll be stuck with a single source of music, which is simply not true. It's the other way around. Stores that use DRM will lock you into buying players that support the same type of DRM. (You can always make a DRM-free copy the hard way, but this is beyond most people.) It's also worth noting that Microsoft's website doesn't say whether or not any of the players they recommend support MP3.;)
As an aside, has anyone seen an MP3 player (flash or not) that can be programmed to record radio programs at a specified time? I think that a time-shifting function would be a great feature for people who listen to NPR, talk radio, or the late-night lunatic fringe. Of course, it would also need an AM tuner. (And yes, I've seen the Radio Shark, but it's not portable!)
If you're stoned and bored, surely you can come up with something funny! Barring that, there's nothing wrong with reposting a relevant comment. What you should have done was
A) posted it in reply to BW Jone's original post, B) titled it "For the lazy" (or something similar), and C) stated explicitly that you were reposting BW's comment.
Then you'd be more likely to get modded "Informative" than "Redundant".
You might want to credit the original source of your post. This is nothing short of plagiarism.
It's sloppy, too. You didn't properly reproduce the link in the third sentence, and you forgot to change the last instance of "Cephus" to "Josie". I wonder if the rest of your posts are the same?
If you count, you'll notice that the URL is broken after the fiftieth character (the first 'd'). This will happen for any "word" more than fifty characters in length. Try it yourself and see!
Slashdot Mirror
But back the the FA... these linkages to games / TV / etc. are just stupid. If anyone would bother to do the study on it, I bet they would find bad parenting is the number one factor in a persons tendancy to become violent / anti-social / exhibit criminal behavior.
Bad parenting is hard to quantify, but a missing parental unit seems to have rather large effects on behaviour.
How so? I've never played Final Fantasy 7, for example, but I have no clue how it ends. That goes for most games I've never played. If you read spoilers about a game, that's your own problem. If it's that hard to avoid, maybe you should ask the webmasters of forums you participate in to add a spoiler tag.
Yeah, you can get a hell of a lot more bang for that buck, but can you fit that bang up your bung?
Don't you mean "more #! for your buck"?
You just can't share with your friends how awesome the graphics look in your latest purchase cause they'll tell you your game is crap compared to the current games.
Make friends with homeless people. You'll never run out of things to brag about.
Now how do we get a court to say they can't include the default Luna theme?
what do you think Joe "EU" Sixpac will pick?
Joe? Je suis français, vous motte peu sensible!
...and they could cut that in half if they were patient. Wait a few months for a price drop. Hell, wait a year for something to hit the bargain bin. The games aren't gonna disappear if you don't buy them right away.
I never use assert, and all the apps I've written work perfectly. I'm even posting this using one of my assert-free apps, and guess wha#@#$^@!#%#$%@#$NO CARRIER
How clever. Save the good screens for Japan and let customers in the US buy all the crappy ones!
(Yes, I know this is probably not the truth, but it's still an amusing idea.)
So if we give Flagship Studios enough Roper they'll hang themselves?
Despite the naysayers, it *is* possible to synergize television and the internet (and the subsequent distributions of tv programs) *without* using BT.
Yeah, but consider the bandwidth required as the number of viewers increases. Consider a situtation with ten thousand simultaneous downloads. That's a situation that could easily occur if you were distributing a new episode of a popular television program. Without BT, your poor server(s) must distribute 10,000 copies of a single file. Let's say it's an hour-long show that's been compressed to 250MB. That means that you'll have to pay for 2.5 terrabytes of transfer. And to finish all those downloads in a reasonable amount of time (let's say four hours is reasonable), you'd need just short of 1,400 megabits per second of bandwidth. (Yes, that's 1.4 gigabits per second.) This could get expensive.
Now let's look at Bittorrent. Assume most of your viewers have broadband with uploads limited to 384 kilobits per second. (This is what my crappy DSL is limited to.) Doing the math (384 kb/s * 10,000 / 1,000 kb/mb), we see that using BT gives us a potential maximum throughput of 3,840 megabits per second. That's more than twice what we'd need to get everyone's download done in four hours. Of course, it will take a while to reach that kind of throughput, but consider your choices: upload 10,000 copies of the file (2.5 terrabytes) or upload 500 copies of the file (125 gigabytes) and let the viewers' spare bandwidth take care of the rest.
Lastly, remember that this is a TV show. You're gonna be releasing a new episode once a week for at least eight weeks!
Disclaimer: It's three in the morning. I'm tired. I'm only a student. Some of these numbers are made up. Mod me down if I've made some gross mistakes, but please take the time to point them out afterwards.
I'd suggest you move to sunny California, but we have the exact same problems.
# PC Gamer describes the game as Diablo played from a first person perspective and set in a post-apocalyptic London.
# Roper consders the game to be an RPG. His arguments: combat is entirely stat based, not twitch based. Hits, misses, and damage will depend on the stats of your character and their weapons; and ranged weapons cast spells (they're actually being referred to as "spell delivery systems").
Yeah, those two are what really worry me. Diablo was fun because it was a twitch game, and Diablo 2 even more so. Roper's remark is also confusing, since melee combat in the Diablo series depends greatly on stats. Whatever the game turns out to be, I hope it won't suffer from the rampant cheating that plagues Diablo 1 and 2.
Worst. Word. Ever.
Indeed. Speakers would disturb my family, but I really love my headphones. Just don't try to drive those puppies straight from your soundcard.
Shit. I forgot that the Shuffles were 512/1024MBs. But what good is that much storage space when you can't choose which song plays next? The only way to get around this is to join all the tracks in a cd or playlist together and make a single MP3. You'd get your own playlists, but that's a pretty poor solution.
Also, rechargable batteries are cheap. At Costco, $25 will buy a Panasonic set with a charger and six (if I remember correctly) each of AA and AAA batteries.
And do MS really believe WMA is CD quality at 64kbps?
It is the to average person, who either doesn't care about quality sound or is ignorant of its very existance.
Make sure your MP3 player has a radio, phone, alarm clock, slide rule, enviroment guage, laser pointer, pepper spray, self-inflating raft, nail gun, and the ability to play WMA and only WMA.
MP3 player? You're talking about a Tricorder, my friend.
I can fathom why they'd want to make a page like this, but it wouldn't stop anyone from purchasing that ever-so hip iPod/mini/shuffle/gumstick.
Really? Not even point three, "You'll want a display"? How many people would choose an iPod Shuffle over one of these? Note the price difference and the presence of an FM tuner/recorder.
There are a couple of things they missed, like the fact that flash-based players are often smaller than hard-disk based players.
;)
I don't like their song stats (using 64kbps WMA only), but the truth is that most people have crappy headphones and won't notice a difference anyway.
What I do think is misleading is the bit about "not getting locked into an online store". They're suggesting that if you buy the wrong player, you'll be stuck with a single source of music, which is simply not true. It's the other way around. Stores that use DRM will lock you into buying players that support the same type of DRM. (You can always make a DRM-free copy the hard way, but this is beyond most people.) It's also worth noting that Microsoft's website doesn't say whether or not any of the players they recommend support MP3.
As an aside, has anyone seen an MP3 player (flash or not) that can be programmed to record radio programs at a specified time? I think that a time-shifting function would be a great feature for people who listen to NPR, talk radio, or the late-night lunatic fringe. Of course, it would also need an AM tuner. (And yes, I've seen the Radio Shark, but it's not portable!)
If you're stoned and bored, surely you can come up with something funny! Barring that, there's nothing wrong with reposting a relevant comment. What you should have done was
A) posted it in reply to BW Jone's original post,
B) titled it "For the lazy" (or something similar), and
C) stated explicitly that you were reposting BW's comment.
Then you'd be more likely to get modded "Informative" than "Redundant".
You might want to credit the original source of your post. This is nothing short of plagiarism.
It's sloppy, too. You didn't properly reproduce the link in the third sentence, and you forgot to change the last instance of "Cephus" to "Josie". I wonder if the rest of your posts are the same?
In Soviet Russia, octopus studies you!
Watch in awe as I type in an unbroken URL:
c /d dddd/eeeee/fffff/ggggg/index.html
http://www.somefakewebsite.com/aaaaa/bbbbb/cccc
If you count, you'll notice that the URL is broken after the fiftieth character (the first 'd'). This will happen for any "word" more than fifty characters in length. Try it yourself and see!
Obligatory Far Side cartoon