What is your evidence for it being untrue? I'm not saying it's not, but it seems likely that the literacy levels in sweatshops are lower than average.
Even if it is untrue then I don't think it says so much about what he thinks of himself, as the stereotypes that are being fed to him.
When I think of sweatshops I think of places like China and India well known for overpopulation and cheap labour. The literacy levels for these places are ~90% and ~66% respectively, with unemployment rates of ~4% and ~7%. Seems quite likely that a lot of sweatshop workers in India at least are going to be illiterate.
So current polarisation projectors display different polarisations on alternating frames? I had previously thought that one advantage of the passive system is that you don't need to only be showing an image to one eye at a time, but I guess with framerates of 60Hz for each eye then it just isn't really noticeable anyway.
Thanks - though for the shutter glasses part I've known how it works for over a decade, I just don't really have the required physics background to understand polarisation properly.
I think the poster I was responding to must just not have realised that this article is about dual 3D rather than dual 2D. Seems dual 3D is not possible with a passive system.
Can you polarise light in more than two directions and still have the images separate? Because this system is talking about displaying 4 separate images, not just two. Though I hadn't even heard of it being done just for two images for local multiplayer. It's a very cool idea, I'd like to see it even without the 3D aspect.
Taking three out with a gun in five seconds wouldn't be too big of a deal, though perhaps getting three headshots in 5 seconds would be a challenge. Taking three out with an explosion is difficult simply because the enemies are usually quite spaced out and the explosions have a pretty small blast radius.
Hand grenades are very common, and at certain points enemies have grenade launchers that you can nab. I did happen to kill three without trying one time when I had just taken a grenade launcher, but I'm not sure I could reproduce it easily - the way the enemies move through that area is pretty random and you are in quite an exposed position behind a low wall. If you die at that point you then have to go through the process of killing something like 8 guys and making your way back up to get the grenade launcher again.
The point where I did it first time, was where a bunch of guys are gathered round a camp fire. I'd toss in a grenade and they'd usually run away before it exploded, or saw me as I tossed it etc. Took a lot of practice to get a well placed throw with a good cook off time etc without them seeing me first (otherwise they all split up immediately and try to hunt me down). Don't think there is a chance of having a grenade launcher at this point either - unless of course you have unlocked it using the unlocks system, but I think unlocking the grenade launcher was one of the very final things you unlock, so you need to have done the 3 enemies in one shot to get it.
It felt much more worthwhile than for example the things you have to do to get unlocks in Battlefield or CoD games, possibly just because it was single player, so artificially handicapping yourself by only using pistols etc isn't as frustrating as if you're playing against other people.
As a random aside, I've always found it a bit unfair that in these online games the new players are the ones that have limited equipment and such. I can understand that players like to be rewarded for progressing, but I think it would be much more interesting if there was a mode which as you gained levels (something I think doesn't really have any place in a multiplayer FPS, but whatever) reduced the amount of ammo you start with, or made you start with only a knife and pistol, etc. The players that play well would be further challenged rather than have things made easier for them by giving them all this cool extra equipment. It can feel like such a waste of time having to catch up if you have started playing the game months or years after most of the other players.
I haven't played WoW myself, but 100 enemies in one minute is pretty impressive for almost any game!
It's actually one of the most difficult trophies in the game because there are rarely enemies close to each other. I've just looked it up and it's actually for killing only 3 guys with one explosion, but it's still bloody difficult. I can't remember if it's "gold" or "silver" rated, but you'll find that the stupid little joke trophies are generally only "bronze" level.
I don't really get the problem you have with recognising skilful achievements in games. I completely agree that a lot of achievements out there are dumb, but trophies that recognise exceptional ability (generally classed Gold or Platinum Trophies on the PS3) are pretty cool, and dare I say, "meaningful". Having a simple overall scoring system as you suggested is all very well, but it doesn't recognise individual areas of skill. Achievements are a good way of assessing a gamer's various strengths and weaknesses.
Large cables of that nature are damned expensive to construct, roll up, transport etc. $45k sounds like a reasonable price for a cable that can handle the whole of a town's data needs, depending on its length of course..
I find achievements are useful for making you explore parts of the game you might otherwise have not realised even existed (but I completed the game and explored loads, how come I only have 10% of the trophies?), or push you to do things you didn't think were either possible in game. Stuff like doing a barrel roll on Moa Therma in Wipeout.
Some games also give you in-game rewards for completing certain difficult tasks, such as killing 5 enemies with one explosion on Uncharted. That was one of the few games that I actually found worth replaying, partially because of these challenges and unlocks adding another level of gameplay and difficulty on top, something to strive for even if you already have completed the story.
You could also disable every section but the Science section if that's all you want to read about. Complaining about games related articles in the Games section is a bit silly.
You have completely missed the point of all my posts, well done. My first post even said that I found walking boring at first. You have to stick with these things until your brain learns to think for itself again. Never mind. Please continue your trolling somewhere with people who are at your level of comprehension.
Walking was just an example, I started off by mentioning monotonous activities in general, and I qualified how walking outside can sometimes be no different to walking on a treadmill (and yes, I've done both).
I used walking as an example that I thought you might be able to relate to, seeing as your smugly superior attitude must preclude you from doing anything that involves what you consider "boredom and monotony", which basically is anything to do with improving physical skills such as learning to play an instrument well or become an expert in sports ranging from race driving to mountain climbing, and even less physical things like getting good at computer games. These all involve monotonous and rigorous training to become good, but you know what, they can all be entertaining. Even just the act of walking, on a treadmill, in a blank room. Even if you're not using your time to be on autopilot and think about your life, you can just focus on improving your gait, you can do "walking meditation" etc. You may consider most of the things that you can do physically to be uninteresting, but there is great pleasure to be had in simple movement.
Again as an example, I started doing Parkour a few months ago and it has really changed how I view the world. The whole way I've moved has changed, even just when sitting down or walking around I am much more aware of my body and trying to make my movement more efficient. I find it quite fascinating to consider how modern life has changed the way we think of the world, how modern contrivances affect our health and posture compared to those of aboriginal peoples etc.
If you want then keep acting like an asshole and complain and say how boring this all is to you and how dumb people must be if they actually enjoy going to the gym. I'm just trying to demonstrate how in fact some people might find life more interesting than you even when they aren't being spoonfed drivel from a tech blog or TV program.
It may as well be if you're lost in your thoughts. I've gone for hour long walks along the beach front and not even looked towards the sea. My body was on autopilot while my brain focused on other things.
If what you are doing really is monotonous then you have plenty of time to think because you can just leave your body on autopilot.
I found going for walks rather tedious the first couple of weeks because I was so used to being online, watching TV or playing games all the time, having content fed to me. Having to think for myself was "boring" to me, but then I started finding it interesting and useful, a time to reflect on past and current events, planning for future ones etc.
You mean titles similar to "Wii Fit" and "Wii Sports"? There's no guarantee that a game is not fun just because of the title, it has to be judged on its own merits..
Being lighter makes you feel good on its own as basic things like getting out of a chair and climbing stairs become easier - but getting some form of regular exercise (even just going for a 30 minute walk every couple of days) will make you feel even better.
I don't think there's anything wrong with gyms as long as you're not using them as an excuse to eat crap. I actually started going to the gym because I wanted to put on weight after losing 20lbs through trying various methods of eating and regular walking. I now eat a low GI diet, not just for weight control but because it helps keep my mood stable when I'm not going through sugar rushes and crashes all the time.
*eat less shit anyways - you can keep eating the same volume if you just eat less calorific foods. sugar+fat in the same meal is bound to pile on the pounds.
What exactly do you consider "the good life"? Sitting in your back garden, smoking crack, snorting CFCs, burning tyres, pouring battery acid on poor defenceless tree saplings and masturbating to pictures of coal mine fires?
Re:It's now clear where M$ is headed to!
on
Recomputing the Sky
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If I need to see the sky, I open my eyes, diet for 2 years so I'm light enough to stand, have a bath to clean off the years of accumulated feces, sweat, filth and dead skin that have accumulated on my body, scrape the grime off the window of my mom's basement only to realise it's been boarded up, try to open the door only to realise it's locked, email the cops to get them to unlock my mom's basement, receive no response, manage to break down the door using improvised explosives fashioned out of dried feces and cleaning products, find out that sometime in the last decade my mom's house has been abducted by aliens and the being now feeding me through the laundry chute is actually a robotic maid, open the door and realise I'm flying through space, but the view is way more awesome than this M$ shit!
FTFY
Re:It's now clear where M$ is headed to!
on
Recomputing the Sky
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I was about to click until I read the silverlight thing. I can wait. Or I could get my coworker to install it.. hmm.
Can't argue with that. Then again, pretty much anything in life is cheaper than drinking, and more entertaining if you don't count the fact that almost anything is entertaining when you're drunk.
Thankfully I get unlimited cinema for ~£14 a month - which crazily is actually less than the price of two adult tickets.. it will be a sad day when they finally stop that scheme.. then again they must be making a profit on it or they'd have stopped it a year or two back. Initially when I got the card I actually started thinking that the prices for food at the cinema were bearable when I took into account the savings on tickets and started buying food/drink there. These days I don't like to eat rubbish though so they've lost that benefit.. but I'd imagine I'm a bit of an "edge case" shall we say, so it probably works on everyone else.
I didn't say that they should stay flat, I just don't think they really make films any more "worthwhile". Even highly polished with 7.1 surround and 3D, a shitty movie is still a turd.
I welcome 3D and may even buy a 3D TV in the next couple of years, but I still resent any movie where the only real selling point is that it's "3D woo watch it, you can really perceive the depth!!!!".
Slashdot Mirror
What is your evidence for it being untrue? I'm not saying it's not, but it seems likely that the literacy levels in sweatshops are lower than average.
Even if it is untrue then I don't think it says so much about what he thinks of himself, as the stereotypes that are being fed to him.
When I think of sweatshops I think of places like China and India well known for overpopulation and cheap labour. The literacy levels for these places are ~90% and ~66% respectively, with unemployment rates of ~4% and ~7%. Seems quite likely that a lot of sweatshop workers in India at least are going to be illiterate.
So current polarisation projectors display different polarisations on alternating frames? I had previously thought that one advantage of the passive system is that you don't need to only be showing an image to one eye at a time, but I guess with framerates of 60Hz for each eye then it just isn't really noticeable anyway.
Thanks - though for the shutter glasses part I've known how it works for over a decade, I just don't really have the required physics background to understand polarisation properly.
I think the poster I was responding to must just not have realised that this article is about dual 3D rather than dual 2D. Seems dual 3D is not possible with a passive system.
Can you polarise light in more than two directions and still have the images separate? Because this system is talking about displaying 4 separate images, not just two. Though I hadn't even heard of it being done just for two images for local multiplayer. It's a very cool idea, I'd like to see it even without the 3D aspect.
Taking three out with a gun in five seconds wouldn't be too big of a deal, though perhaps getting three headshots in 5 seconds would be a challenge. Taking three out with an explosion is difficult simply because the enemies are usually quite spaced out and the explosions have a pretty small blast radius.
Hand grenades are very common, and at certain points enemies have grenade launchers that you can nab. I did happen to kill three without trying one time when I had just taken a grenade launcher, but I'm not sure I could reproduce it easily - the way the enemies move through that area is pretty random and you are in quite an exposed position behind a low wall. If you die at that point you then have to go through the process of killing something like 8 guys and making your way back up to get the grenade launcher again.
The point where I did it first time, was where a bunch of guys are gathered round a camp fire. I'd toss in a grenade and they'd usually run away before it exploded, or saw me as I tossed it etc. Took a lot of practice to get a well placed throw with a good cook off time etc without them seeing me first (otherwise they all split up immediately and try to hunt me down). Don't think there is a chance of having a grenade launcher at this point either - unless of course you have unlocked it using the unlocks system, but I think unlocking the grenade launcher was one of the very final things you unlock, so you need to have done the 3 enemies in one shot to get it.
It felt much more worthwhile than for example the things you have to do to get unlocks in Battlefield or CoD games, possibly just because it was single player, so artificially handicapping yourself by only using pistols etc isn't as frustrating as if you're playing against other people.
As a random aside, I've always found it a bit unfair that in these online games the new players are the ones that have limited equipment and such. I can understand that players like to be rewarded for progressing, but I think it would be much more interesting if there was a mode which as you gained levels (something I think doesn't really have any place in a multiplayer FPS, but whatever) reduced the amount of ammo you start with, or made you start with only a knife and pistol, etc. The players that play well would be further challenged rather than have things made easier for them by giving them all this cool extra equipment. It can feel like such a waste of time having to catch up if you have started playing the game months or years after most of the other players.
I haven't played WoW myself, but 100 enemies in one minute is pretty impressive for almost any game!
It's actually one of the most difficult trophies in the game because there are rarely enemies close to each other. I've just looked it up and it's actually for killing only 3 guys with one explosion, but it's still bloody difficult. I can't remember if it's "gold" or "silver" rated, but you'll find that the stupid little joke trophies are generally only "bronze" level.
I don't really get the problem you have with recognising skilful achievements in games. I completely agree that a lot of achievements out there are dumb, but trophies that recognise exceptional ability (generally classed Gold or Platinum Trophies on the PS3) are pretty cool, and dare I say, "meaningful". Having a simple overall scoring system as you suggested is all very well, but it doesn't recognise individual areas of skill. Achievements are a good way of assessing a gamer's various strengths and weaknesses.
Large cables of that nature are damned expensive to construct, roll up, transport etc. $45k sounds like a reasonable price for a cable that can handle the whole of a town's data needs, depending on its length of course..
I find achievements are useful for making you explore parts of the game you might otherwise have not realised even existed (but I completed the game and explored loads, how come I only have 10% of the trophies?), or push you to do things you didn't think were either possible in game. Stuff like doing a barrel roll on Moa Therma in Wipeout.
Some games also give you in-game rewards for completing certain difficult tasks, such as killing 5 enemies with one explosion on Uncharted. That was one of the few games that I actually found worth replaying, partially because of these challenges and unlocks adding another level of gameplay and difficulty on top, something to strive for even if you already have completed the story.
Of course, some achievements are just dumb.
You could also disable every section but the Science section if that's all you want to read about. Complaining about games related articles in the Games section is a bit silly.
You have completely missed the point of all my posts, well done. My first post even said that I found walking boring at first. You have to stick with these things until your brain learns to think for itself again. Never mind. Please continue your trolling somewhere with people who are at your level of comprehension.
Walking was just an example, I started off by mentioning monotonous activities in general, and I qualified how walking outside can sometimes be no different to walking on a treadmill (and yes, I've done both).
I used walking as an example that I thought you might be able to relate to, seeing as your smugly superior attitude must preclude you from doing anything that involves what you consider "boredom and monotony", which basically is anything to do with improving physical skills such as learning to play an instrument well or become an expert in sports ranging from race driving to mountain climbing, and even less physical things like getting good at computer games. These all involve monotonous and rigorous training to become good, but you know what, they can all be entertaining. Even just the act of walking, on a treadmill, in a blank room. Even if you're not using your time to be on autopilot and think about your life, you can just focus on improving your gait, you can do "walking meditation" etc. You may consider most of the things that you can do physically to be uninteresting, but there is great pleasure to be had in simple movement.
Again as an example, I started doing Parkour a few months ago and it has really changed how I view the world. The whole way I've moved has changed, even just when sitting down or walking around I am much more aware of my body and trying to make my movement more efficient. I find it quite fascinating to consider how modern life has changed the way we think of the world, how modern contrivances affect our health and posture compared to those of aboriginal peoples etc.
If you want then keep acting like an asshole and complain and say how boring this all is to you and how dumb people must be if they actually enjoy going to the gym. I'm just trying to demonstrate how in fact some people might find life more interesting than you even when they aren't being spoonfed drivel from a tech blog or TV program.
It may as well be if you're lost in your thoughts. I've gone for hour long walks along the beach front and not even looked towards the sea. My body was on autopilot while my brain focused on other things.
If what you are doing really is monotonous then you have plenty of time to think because you can just leave your body on autopilot.
I found going for walks rather tedious the first couple of weeks because I was so used to being online, watching TV or playing games all the time, having content fed to me. Having to think for myself was "boring" to me, but then I started finding it interesting and useful, a time to reflect on past and current events, planning for future ones etc.
As they say "'Bored' people are boring".
They could introduce martial arts into school PE sessions, and encourage fighting in the schoolyard? That would be awesome.
You mean titles similar to "Wii Fit" and "Wii Sports"? There's no guarantee that a game is not fun just because of the title, it has to be judged on its own merits..
Yes, eat less* to lose weight.
Being lighter makes you feel good on its own as basic things like getting out of a chair and climbing stairs become easier - but getting some form of regular exercise (even just going for a 30 minute walk every couple of days) will make you feel even better.
I don't think there's anything wrong with gyms as long as you're not using them as an excuse to eat crap. I actually started going to the gym because I wanted to put on weight after losing 20lbs through trying various methods of eating and regular walking. I now eat a low GI diet, not just for weight control but because it helps keep my mood stable when I'm not going through sugar rushes and crashes all the time.
*eat less shit anyways - you can keep eating the same volume if you just eat less calorific foods. sugar+fat in the same meal is bound to pile on the pounds.
The comma is also unnecessary.
It is proper when addressing someone/something.
I was just wondering exactly his notion of "the good life" is, and what regulations he's referring to.
And just in case you hadn't noticed, various types of pollution have an effect on climate, both local and ultimately global.
The good life
What exactly do you consider "the good life"? Sitting in your back garden, smoking crack, snorting CFCs, burning tyres, pouring battery acid on poor defenceless tree saplings and masturbating to pictures of coal mine fires?
If I need to see the sky, I open my eyes, diet for 2 years so I'm light enough to stand, have a bath to clean off the years of accumulated feces, sweat, filth and dead skin that have accumulated on my body, scrape the grime off the window of my mom's basement only to realise it's been boarded up, try to open the door only to realise it's locked, email the cops to get them to unlock my mom's basement, receive no response, manage to break down the door using improvised explosives fashioned out of dried feces and cleaning products, find out that sometime in the last decade my mom's house has been abducted by aliens and the being now feeding me through the laundry chute is actually a robotic maid, open the door and realise I'm flying through space, but the view is way more awesome than this M$ shit!
FTFY
Actually, I was about to click until I read the silverlight thing. I can wait. Or I could get my coworker to install it.. hmm.
We already eat flesh (most of us). Being a zombie is underrated!
Can't argue with that. Then again, pretty much anything in life is cheaper than drinking, and more entertaining if you don't count the fact that almost anything is entertaining when you're drunk.
Thankfully I get unlimited cinema for ~£14 a month - which crazily is actually less than the price of two adult tickets.. it will be a sad day when they finally stop that scheme.. then again they must be making a profit on it or they'd have stopped it a year or two back. Initially when I got the card I actually started thinking that the prices for food at the cinema were bearable when I took into account the savings on tickets and started buying food/drink there. These days I don't like to eat rubbish though so they've lost that benefit.. but I'd imagine I'm a bit of an "edge case" shall we say, so it probably works on everyone else.
What about the man-modified viruses that can reprogram DNA to fix defects? :)
I didn't say that they should stay flat, I just don't think they really make films any more "worthwhile". Even highly polished with 7.1 surround and 3D, a shitty movie is still a turd.
I welcome 3D and may even buy a 3D TV in the next couple of years, but I still resent any movie where the only real selling point is that it's "3D woo watch it, you can really perceive the depth!!!!".