Unlike stuff we see and hear, you can't describe what we smell on a single dimension, and that's why we literally have hundreds or perhaps thousands of different olfactory receptors, while we have only three major types of light receptors on our retinas - and, correspondingly, three different color signals in most color display adapters.
While this machine promises 20 basic scents, I suspect, even if they were delivered well and integrated into a game seamlessly, you'd grow bored of them quickly.
I could see some limited uses - warning a player of a nearby danger, for example, which would work well with the limitations of olfaction - unless sounds or sights, our olfactory system adapts rather quickly to smells. A brief exposure to a certain aroma might be effective at the right point in the right game, but for such little reward this seems like a rather awkward solution. That said, aromas can be quite evocative, activating our limbic system in unique ways that could provide for an in-depth experience far richer that we've seen before - for example, the smell of incense in an abbey, for me, might be the difference between "yet another generic abbey" and "this feels real to me."
I've tried researching this for some time on-line, and haven't found a clear answer.
I want:
1. Surround sound in game. 2. Surround sound over headphones. 3. Environmental effects. 4. Decent sound.
This should be what most gamers want, right? I can't be the only person out there wearing headphones, and when I got environmental effects to work on my old-gen M-Audio in Half-Life 2, they sounded awesome (unfortunately, the Sensaura drivers for that feature were bad and it didn't work most of the time).
I've heard new games can provide environmental noise effects without dedicated EAX - is that true?
Is surround over regular headphones effective? I don't see it advertised as a feature any more. Have companies just given up on it?
Also, people give out free samples all the time to create a "buzz" about a product that will likely fly under the radar. I don't see anything new here.
Most pirated material is stuff people already know about and want. Do you think if Adobe started giving away Photoshop people would suddenly desire it more than they already do?
While it's not likely that a smart phone user is going to draw a lot of lines, the test does give some indication of which phones are most likely to properly respond to clicking on a link in a Web browser."
A "gaming-grade" mouse and surface might have better sensitivity but I won't likely see a difference in browsing.
If advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride, then it should be a simple matter for you to avoid their sites - far simpler than developing software that detects and blocks advertisements.
I run Debian on my server and Ubuntu on my laptop. I have no need for NVidia drivers or a web browser for my server. I also use more manually installed software on my server as there is no default server software configuration that will meet anyone's needs, while the default Ubuntu installation serves most of my productivity needs.
What's the point of addressing that? Computer programmers aren't people programmers. We're not going to change habits. We're not going to have Advanced Passwords as a required course in schools. If this is what people do, it's what they do, and no amount of Public Service Announcements is going to change that.
The article begins by acknowledging that passwords are ultimately a failure and goes on from there.
The reason why security as a thing will work is because it's already working: House keys, car keys, credit cards. People are pretty good with these things, and it's a model that makes sense for people.
I would assume that, since the blurb says it's "the latest Long Term Support version," it includes some form of long term support.
No, Long Term Support (LTS) refers to Canonical's commitment to supporting a major release (which are only released biannually) for 5 years, mostly, AFAIK, through patches. It does not refer to Canonical or Best Buy's commitment to offering other kinds of tech support.
That sounds like perfectly rational behavior to me. If planes can accidentally drop valuable goods on your village, it is in your best interest to make that happen more often: and by confusing pilots into thinking you are base, you are increasing those odds. They might not have understood the mechanics of battlefield logistics, but they made their best guess as to what the pilots were looking for.
People taunt tigers in zoos every single day in this country; in fact, the very idea of enclosing a tiger and encircling it with gawking, slow-moving humans seems like a taunt to me. Yet how many people are attacked by tigers at zoos in the United States? It's extraordinarily rare.
I don't condone tiger taunting, but as far as sins go, it's venial. Somewhat OT, but I think the "darwinawards" tag is tasteless, and, for me, is yet another piece of evidence against this stupid tagging system.
Having funding for research is a Constitutional right? Which article? The First Amendment? I admit that I haven't thought much about this, but I believe when the federal government takes an anti-populist (the majority of Americans support stem cell reserach), anti-science (the vast majority of scientists support stem cell research) position in favor of a small minority religious position (that life starts at conception), that goes against the spirit of the First Amendment's charge. However, this is my weakest argument - I needed four links.
Ditto for abortion. I am pro-choice, but I don't think that's a constitutional issue. The Constitution just doesn't talk about anything related to it. Roe vs. Wade was most certainly a Constitutional issue. It is the current US legal opinion on abortion that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees personal privacy. If Ron Paul disagrees with this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (as many pro-life politicians do), then he believes that there is no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy in the United States. If he doesn't, then he will likely favor amending the Constitution.
As for the 1st Ammendment, read it. Specifically think about what the 2nd part of the 1st sentence means. This is from Dr. Paul himself: Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis.
If Dr. Paul really believes this, then he is fairly ignorant of 250 years of American legal history. The United States has an extremely strong legal tradition of protecting the rights of individuals from state religious coercion. Remember that the "Pledge" issue is not about allowing prayer in public school (which I am for, and which will always be perfectly legal), but is about mandating prayer in public school. Dr. Paul supports the mandating of prayer in public school. For me, this is a violation of my rights, and my children's rights.
You are right, of course, about his opposition to birthright citizenships. But at least, he respects the Constitution enough to say that it needs to be changed before the Federal Government can act as if it had been changed (as it does in the case of Drug War). Sure, just like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sounds like politics as usual, to me.
He is the only one who believes in this &#&@* piece of paper called the Constitution.
Except for the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like, and wants to amend, as he admits on his own website.
I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.
He's also rabidly pro-life. While I won't argue the merits of Roe vs. Wade, the majority of American courts have considered a woman's right to choose a fundamental Constitutional right for 30 years. Perhaps he's only pro-Constitution on issues you care about?
I don't think he's got a shot at really getting elected, but of all the candidates he seems to be the most likely to stand up for Constitutional rights.
It has? Where is this increased productivity of which you speak? I'm pretty sure this can be more-or-less objectively quantified. I'm not an economist, but a quick Google search gives me quotes like:
One of the most impressive aspects of the current U.S. economy is the acceleration of productivity growth (that is, the increased output of goods and services per hour worked) that has prevailed since the mid-1990s.[1]
Money spent on computing technology delivers gains in worker productivity that are three to five times those of other investments, according to a study being published today.[2]
Of course, I'm at work right now, and I'm on/., so YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike stuff we see and hear, you can't describe what we smell on a single dimension, and that's why we literally have hundreds or perhaps thousands of different olfactory receptors, while we have only three major types of light receptors on our retinas - and, correspondingly, three different color signals in most color display adapters.
While this machine promises 20 basic scents, I suspect, even if they were delivered well and integrated into a game seamlessly, you'd grow bored of them quickly.
I could see some limited uses - warning a player of a nearby danger, for example, which would work well with the limitations of olfaction - unless sounds or sights, our olfactory system adapts rather quickly to smells. A brief exposure to a certain aroma might be effective at the right point in the right game, but for such little reward this seems like a rather awkward solution. That said, aromas can be quite evocative, activating our limbic system in unique ways that could provide for an in-depth experience far richer that we've seen before - for example, the smell of incense in an abbey, for me, might be the difference between "yet another generic abbey" and "this feels real to me."
Is this why few things in video games have ever been more satisfying than using the grenade launcher in GoldenEye?
I guess I'm not sure why it's needed to build a case against him; the evidence and eye witness accounts are overwhelmingly damning as-is.
State of mind, for example.
I've tried researching this for some time on-line, and haven't found a clear answer.
I want:
1. Surround sound in game.
2. Surround sound over headphones.
3. Environmental effects.
4. Decent sound.
This should be what most gamers want, right? I can't be the only person out there wearing headphones, and when I got environmental effects to work on my old-gen M-Audio in Half-Life 2, they sounded awesome (unfortunately, the Sensaura drivers for that feature were bad and it didn't work most of the time).
I've heard new games can provide environmental noise effects without dedicated EAX - is that true?
Is surround over regular headphones effective? I don't see it advertised as a feature any more. Have companies just given up on it?
Well certainly no one would argue that doctors and courts shouldn't be the ultimate arbiter of which lives are "valuable."
It's kinda cute and I learned something. At least I think I did. Is that robot for real or what? Now I'm confused.
The problem with parodies (and this isn't really a parody - it's not mocking anything) is that it's hard to know what to take seriously.
Also, people give out free samples all the time to create a "buzz" about a product that will likely fly under the radar. I don't see anything new here.
Most pirated material is stuff people already know about and want. Do you think if Adobe started giving away Photoshop people would suddenly desire it more than they already do?
Wait, you guys are siding with a RECORD COMPANY over an ASTRONAUT?
And the record company is SONY?
Is this opposite day?
You kinda did this in Dragon Quest IV as Torneko, although the experience there was pretty dull.
While it's not likely that a smart phone user is going to draw a lot of lines, the test does give some indication of which phones are most likely to properly respond to clicking on a link in a Web browser."
A "gaming-grade" mouse and surface might have better sensitivity but I won't likely see a difference in browsing.
If advertisers and people selling content are just along for the ride, then it should be a simple matter for you to avoid their sites - far simpler than developing software that detects and blocks advertisements.
You're not being ethical, you're being lazy.
Like this?
Age. Older runners can afford better shoes and are more prone to injury.
I run Debian on my server and Ubuntu on my laptop. I have no need for NVidia drivers or a web browser for my server. I also use more manually installed software on my server as there is no default server software configuration that will meet anyone's needs, while the default Ubuntu installation serves most of my productivity needs.
Parent is not a troll. If I had mod points I'd fix that for you.
What's the point of addressing that? Computer programmers aren't people programmers. We're not going to change habits. We're not going to have Advanced Passwords as a required course in schools. If this is what people do, it's what they do, and no amount of Public Service Announcements is going to change that.
The article begins by acknowledging that passwords are ultimately a failure and goes on from there.
The reason why security as a thing will work is because it's already working: House keys, car keys, credit cards. People are pretty good with these things, and it's a model that makes sense for people.
I would assume that, since the blurb says it's "the latest Long Term Support version," it includes some form of long term support.
No, Long Term Support (LTS) refers to Canonical's commitment to supporting a major release (which are only released biannually) for 5 years, mostly, AFAIK, through patches. It does not refer to Canonical or Best Buy's commitment to offering other kinds of tech support.
That sounds like perfectly rational behavior to me. If planes can accidentally drop valuable goods on your village, it is in your best interest to make that happen more often: and by confusing pilots into thinking you are base, you are increasing those odds. They might not have understood the mechanics of battlefield logistics, but they made their best guess as to what the pilots were looking for.
It's also available on Steam.
People taunt tigers in zoos every single day in this country; in fact, the very idea of enclosing a tiger and encircling it with gawking, slow-moving humans seems like a taunt to me. Yet how many people are attacked by tigers at zoos in the United States? It's extraordinarily rare. I don't condone tiger taunting, but as far as sins go, it's venial. Somewhat OT, but I think the "darwinawards" tag is tasteless, and, for me, is yet another piece of evidence against this stupid tagging system.
If Dr. Paul really believes this, then he is fairly ignorant of 250 years of American legal history. The United States has an extremely strong legal tradition of protecting the rights of individuals from state religious coercion. Remember that the "Pledge" issue is not about allowing prayer in public school (which I am for, and which will always be perfectly legal), but is about mandating prayer in public school. Dr. Paul supports the mandating of prayer in public school. For me, this is a violation of my rights, and my children's rights.
You are right, of course, about his opposition to birthright citizenships. But at least, he respects the Constitution enough to say that it needs to be changed before the Federal Government can act as if it had been changed (as it does in the case of Drug War). Sure, just like the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sounds like politics as usual, to me.Except for the parts of the Constitution he doesn't like, and wants to amend, as he admits on his own website.
I've introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.He's also rabidly pro-life. While I won't argue the merits of Roe vs. Wade, the majority of American courts have considered a woman's right to choose a fundamental Constitutional right for 30 years. Perhaps he's only pro-Constitution on issues you care about?
Except these Constitutional rights.
Of course, I'm at work right now, and I'm on /., so YMMV.
[1] [2]
maybe new jersey (teh state that gives us the sopranos, irony) has the wrong idea.
You do understand that it was television and not New Jersey that gave us the Sopranos, right?