The four buttons don't respond differently to input, and don't generate any sound apart from the clicking (reminds me of the South Park episode "Guitar Queer-o" - hilarious) You need at least the games console to make it an instrument, which then actually generates the sound. I haven't played the game, but I'm guessing that each of the four buttons doesn't correspond to one musical note, so it probably associates the input to a sequenced track. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I've always found games without music pretty boring. Especially on some of the simple flash games. Check out Orisinal. Half the fun comes from the catchy tunes the guy uses.
Why not vote for the third biggest party in the UK, which has what you're looking for right in their name? At least you have a reasonable choice in political parties.
Which you have to dig for the foundations on any modern building.
and later the expense of keeping that hole drained
If you'e got a leaky basement, you hired the wrong builder. Otherwise, this isn't a problem.
I wonder how are they planning to dig those tunnels in cities that already exist.
How do you think they got all those subways into cities that already exist? Who do you think takes care of the sewage and drainage systems in a large city? As for damage to buildings, I doub't it would be more dangerous than your run-of the mill pile driver.
If you lived in the UK you would have seen it. British TV has only three serious free-to-air broadcasters, and they repeat their progammes over and over. I don't watch that much british TV but I've seen it on quite a few times.
Well, widescreen 480p is 480x864, so you're talking a factor of 2.2 for pixel count. No 2.7 and no "nearly tripled", just 2.2.
And it's no use arguing with logical math over the perceived picture quality to humans. The simple fact is that as far as screen resolutions go, 720p is the same jump from 480p as 1080p is from 720p. If you jumped the "HD-ready" bandwagon in all the hype, you've got the same reason to go for the "full HD" experience and scrap that cheapscate 720p set.
They had lots of prototypes with a zillion layers "in the lab" for both formats. But it probably will never materialize, and would have been many years away anyway. Nobody's interested in optical media anymore for anything other than Film and Games distribution.
BTW I could never understand why everyone was pumping this whole thing up to "format war", and comparing it to Betamax and VHS. It was nothing like the situation back then. Both Formats could have coexisted for a lot longer if it wasn't for the bastards in the industry with all their coercion, flip-flopping and bribery.
That's only under the false assumption that perceived quality is proportional to the total pixel count. In reality, a person perceives vertical resolution as more important than horizontal resolution, and doesn't perceive exponential growth of pixels as an exponential growth in resolution quality. Similar to the way no one would consider a cube which has sides 25% larger than a smaller one as "twice the size".
I didn't say that there isn't a big difference between 576i and 1080i. All I said is that the diference between 480 line EDTV and 720 line HDTV isn't really that much to justify spending a fortune on a new TV considering you'll get the same boost in resolution by switching to 1080. So instead of having 720p, we should have gone straight to 1080p/i.
How is 1366x768 fine for 1080i? It's just scaled rubbish.
And seeing you're from the UK, you will have been used to 576i, not 480i. If you have a CRT computer monitor you can do a quick test, and confirm that a 50% increase (25% for PAL) in vertical resolution is not huge. You have probably just misinterpreted bad scaling to a non-ative resolution. Progressive content does of course make a difference, but that doesn't explain 720 lines. 480p in it's native resolution (marketed under the term "EDTV") looks good too.
720P is enough for most people and it has enough resolution to convince people of "higher quality".
I hear this often, but I think anyone who believes this has fallen for the marketing by TV manufacturers, like the countless other lies we've heard over the years. That, or they just don't understand what it is that they're looking at.
720 lines isn't that much of an improvement over 480 or 576 (for PAL). Just do the Math. Add to this that an in-betweenish 720 lines makes no sense whatsoever. SDTV, which will probably make up the majority of your content, will look noticably worse, while full HD, which does make a big difference, will still be displayed noticably inferior.
But when most people compare, they're looking at 480i on a 720p panel (with crappy upscaling) vs. 720p on a 720p panel. Or they're comparing a large and flat LCD panel to their old round and small CRT. Anybody who bought into 720p for picture quality will have to consider another TV before long. Unless they wanted it mainly for playing PS3 or XBOX360, but that could be the subject of an entirely different rant.
We'd have been better to just have EDTV and full HD instead of this insanity.
This isn't about productivity software though, this is more about system configuration. Why should a user have to learn command line options to configure a network when it's likely going to be the only time he'll ever need to do it. It simply makes more sense to use an intuitive configuration tool to get things working.
If you're a system administrator, you might consider it more efficient to do it differently. And then there's those who just do it the hard way cause it makes them feel good about themselves. Most users however just want to get the job done and over with.
There is tons of competition for Microsoft. Linux in hundreds of variations, Apple, Open/FreeBSD, [Open],Solaris, and uncountable niche OS's.
Apple's OSX is tied to Aplle machines, of the Linux distros, only a handful come in question for the average user, and the the same goes for the rest. A true alernative would have to be compatible, interchangable and fully legal. As it is, anybody who goes to buy 99% of software pruducts, will need to have MS Windows.
True, but the point still remains that a doctor is responsible for treating a patient, not just a middleman between them and drugs. As such they have to decide when to refuse a patient's request for a drug, no matter how much fuss they make. If a doctor won't discuss your treatment, or you feel he's not giving you correct treatment, go to a better doctor.
I must admit that I have had my issues with medical doctors.
But on the other hand, the Hippocratic Oath requires them to do what they think is best. There is a reason why a doctor prescribes certain drugs. It's part of the doctors treatment, not just another form to fill out. This means that a doctor is responsible for the effects of the drugs he prescribes.
Nintendo is smart, and they almost certainly began developing the "next generation" befor the Wii was released. I bet they had something very similar to this when working on the original Wiimonte before they finalised the IR-pointing/acceleromters/tilt sensors combo.
Also, it's as much about how talented the game developers are at interpreting the infornation from the remote. Whilst earlier games often had clumsy controls, they seem to be getting better at it. But as others have pointed out, most games opt for a simple gesture based triggers, rather than more complex interpretation by the game. So even with more sophisticated equipment, developers might prefer to make their games more beginner-freindly or simply want to avoid more work.
Well, when you get to the basics, multitouch isn't revolutionary at all, just an aswer to an obvious limitation of previous designs. What makes a certain technology revolutionary is almost just as much about the implementation than about anything else. As it is, three points of contact on a 17'' desktop CRT doesn't make much sense, but on an iPhone, yes please. There isn't any spectacular technology in a Wii either, but putting different sensors in a handheld device and creating a platform on for mainstream game development sure made an impact. VOIP on the other hand, is just an underlying communication layer for the same application. The most that will change for the end-user is the pricing, so this could mean a revolution inside the idustry (Although pricing on it's own can have a huge impact and result in a revolution in the way the technology is used)
Slashdot Mirror
Brainstorm - Show pr0n while computer boots up to pass the time.
The four buttons don't respond differently to input, and don't generate any sound apart from the clicking (reminds me of the South Park episode "Guitar Queer-o" - hilarious)
You need at least the games console to make it an instrument, which then actually generates the sound. I haven't played the game, but I'm guessing that each of the four buttons doesn't correspond to one musical note, so it probably associates the input to a sequenced track.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1. iTake an iBazooka
2. iLoad with iPhone
3. iShoot
4. i???
5. iProfit
ifixed.
Get a DVD player which ignores the mandatory trailers/FBI warnings. Any PC software player I've used has allowed for this.
I've always found games without music pretty boring. Especially on some of the simple flash games. Check out Orisinal. Half the fun comes from the catchy tunes the guy uses.
1.5) Install Linux
Why not vote for the third biggest party in the UK, which has what you're looking for right in their name? At least you have a reasonable choice in political parties.
As for damage to buildings, I doub't it would be more dangerous than your run-of the mill pile driver.
Lesson #5: Lesson #4 doesn't apply.
http://www.sunrisesunset.com/custom_srss_calendar.asp
Hokkaido in June for example, reveals times all before 4am.
If you lived in the UK you would have seen it. British TV has only three serious free-to-air broadcasters, and they repeat their progammes over and over.
I don't watch that much british TV but I've seen it on quite a few times.
Well, widescreen 480p is 480x864, so you're talking a factor of 2.2 for pixel count. No 2.7 and no "nearly tripled", just 2.2.
And it's no use arguing with logical math over the perceived picture quality to humans. The simple fact is that as far as screen resolutions go, 720p is the same jump from 480p as 1080p is from 720p. If you jumped the "HD-ready" bandwagon in all the hype, you've got the same reason to go for the "full HD" experience and scrap that cheapscate 720p set.
They had lots of prototypes with a zillion layers "in the lab" for both formats. But it probably will never materialize, and would have been many years away anyway. Nobody's interested in optical media anymore for anything other than Film and Games distribution.
BTW I could never understand why everyone was pumping this whole thing up to "format war", and comparing it to Betamax and VHS. It was nothing like the situation back then. Both Formats could have coexisted for a lot longer if it wasn't for the bastards in the industry with all their coercion, flip-flopping and bribery.
That's only under the false assumption that perceived quality is proportional to the total pixel count. In reality, a person perceives vertical resolution as more important than horizontal resolution, and doesn't perceive exponential growth of pixels as an exponential growth in resolution quality. Similar to the way no one would consider a cube which has sides 25% larger than a smaller one as "twice the size".
I didn't say that there isn't a big difference between 576i and 1080i. All I said is that the diference between 480 line EDTV and 720 line HDTV isn't really that much to justify spending a fortune on a new TV considering you'll get the same boost in resolution by switching to 1080. So instead of having 720p, we should have gone straight to 1080p/i.
How is 1366x768 fine for 1080i? It's just scaled rubbish.
And seeing you're from the UK, you will have been used to 576i, not 480i. If you have a CRT computer monitor you can do a quick test, and confirm that a 50% increase (25% for PAL) in vertical resolution is not huge. You have probably just misinterpreted bad scaling to a non-ative resolution.
Progressive content does of course make a difference, but that doesn't explain 720 lines. 480p in it's native resolution (marketed under the term "EDTV") looks good too.
I hear this often, but I think anyone who believes this has fallen for the marketing by TV manufacturers, like the countless other lies we've heard over the years. That, or they just don't understand what it is that they're looking at.
720 lines isn't that much of an improvement over 480 or 576 (for PAL). Just do the Math. Add to this that an in-betweenish 720 lines makes no sense whatsoever. SDTV, which will probably make up the majority of your content, will look noticably worse, while full HD, which does make a big difference, will still be displayed noticably inferior.
But when most people compare, they're looking at 480i on a 720p panel (with crappy upscaling) vs. 720p on a 720p panel. Or they're comparing a large and flat LCD panel to their old round and small CRT.
Anybody who bought into 720p for picture quality will have to consider another TV before long. Unless they wanted it mainly for playing PS3 or XBOX360, but that could be the subject of an entirely different rant.
We'd have been better to just have EDTV and full HD instead of this insanity.
This isn't about productivity software though, this is more about system configuration. Why should a user have to learn command line options to configure a network when it's likely going to be the only time he'll ever need to do it. It simply makes more sense to use an intuitive configuration tool to get things working.
If you're a system administrator, you might consider it more efficient to do it differently. And then there's those who just do it the hard way cause it makes them feel good about themselves. Most users however just want to get the job done and over with.
He said send a probe. No mention of humans at all.
Apple's OSX is tied to Aplle machines, of the Linux distros, only a handful come in question for the average user, and the the same goes for the rest.
A true alernative would have to be compatible, interchangable and fully legal. As it is, anybody who goes to buy 99% of software pruducts, will need to have MS Windows.
True, but the point still remains that a doctor is responsible for treating a patient, not just a middleman between them and drugs. As such they have to decide when to refuse a patient's request for a drug, no matter how much fuss they make. If a doctor won't discuss your treatment, or you feel he's not giving you correct treatment, go to a better doctor.
I must admit that I have had my issues with medical doctors. But on the other hand, the Hippocratic Oath requires them to do what they think is best. There is a reason why a doctor prescribes certain drugs. It's part of the doctors treatment, not just another form to fill out. This means that a doctor is responsible for the effects of the drugs he prescribes.
Nintendo is smart, and they almost certainly began developing the "next generation" befor the Wii was released. I bet they had something very similar to this when working on the original Wiimonte before they finalised the IR-pointing/acceleromters/tilt sensors combo.
Also, it's as much about how talented the game developers are at interpreting the infornation from the remote. Whilst earlier games often had clumsy controls, they seem to be getting better at it.
But as others have pointed out, most games opt for a simple gesture based triggers, rather than more complex interpretation by the game. So even with more sophisticated equipment, developers might prefer to make their games more beginner-freindly or simply want to avoid more work.
If you're driving with someone doing stupid stunts, the yes, you're at least as stupid as the one behind the wheel.
Well, when you get to the basics, multitouch isn't revolutionary at all, just an aswer to an obvious limitation of previous designs. What makes a certain technology revolutionary is almost just as much about the implementation than about anything else. As it is, three points of contact on a 17'' desktop CRT doesn't make much sense, but on an iPhone, yes please.
There isn't any spectacular technology in a Wii either, but putting different sensors in a handheld device and creating a platform on for mainstream game development sure made an impact.
VOIP on the other hand, is just an underlying communication layer for the same application. The most that will change for the end-user is the pricing, so this could mean a revolution inside the idustry (Although pricing on it's own can have a huge impact and result in a revolution in the way the technology is used)