I'm surprised no one else brought this up. If the driver reached 380mph, why is the record not 380mph (or, as mocked above, how is the driver not very very dead)?
I had an old school Game Boy get submerged when my basement flooded once. When I finally found it, it was completely covered in mud and I assumed it was shot. Just to be sure, I threw new batteries in it and gave it a try and, sure enough, it worked fine. I was a little shocked.
My GBA, however... not so much.
(Trivia: That photo was taken five minutes after the GBA had been shut off and the game removed. The image remained on the screen for another ten minutes or so. Props if you can identify the game.)
How about retail stores? You could apply it basically anywhere to give customers a good way to look up products based on some criteria and/or point them in the direction of the product(s) they want. Also, think about any kind of store where the products have a high degree of customization. Clothing stores would be an amazing demonstration of this technology almost exactly as it is in the demo. Drag some clothes around to make outfits on the screen rather than spending nine years waiting for your goddamn girlfriend to try every f-ing combination.
Also, auto dealerships could probably make good use of this as well.
I wonder which is worse: The report we're seeing now or the one we would be seeing in the (unlikely) event that the call was handled as you suggest, and the person actually did go shoot up the place...
I was always under the impression that one of our jobs as parents is to simply put things into perspective for our children so they can see various things without having a meltdown and raping someone. Sure, you could play the "protector" card and claim that you're trying to shield them from this kinda thing; but I'm pretty sure it's been demonstrated that no amount of censorship (save for select extremist bubble environments) is going to prevent them from seeing sex, violence or a combination thereof.
Side note: I've always found girls raised in families/religions where sex is completely off-limits to be some of the dirtiest girls, ever. Kinda says something about that whole repression thing, eh?:D
Not really. The average user doesn't want to restart to use a different application. Hell, I don't even like restarting. Ever.
I've tried to get several people on Ubuntu just so I didn't have to deal with their dumbasses downloading a new "antivirus" every couple weeks and requiring that I spend the better part of a day fixing it (yes, I was compensated, but it's still annoying). The single biggest argument is "Will it still run ___?" They don't want to run an alternative and have to relearn things, nor do they want to learn where to get new software; and imagine the hell they go through when they're told they need to "go buy ___ so you can do ___."
The year of the Linux desktop is about three to five years ago if you only consider the operating system itself. User education, on the other hand, is going to keep it far away from widespread use for another 20.
It's a very mildly useful feature, but it's unnecessary bloat.
First and foremost: It's extra strain on (my) servers. Let's say this becomes an accepted standard and we start having every blogging/forum/comment system doing these lookups to find a smaller url. This means that any time a document on one of my servers is linked to, there's going to be at least one request sent for it so your system can check if a shorter url has been specified. So, now I'm serving up extra data for a feature I won't likely use, and your server has to parse the page to find the data it's looking for. Better hope my server is sending the proper headers and data...
Then we have the issue of bad urls in the link tag. We'll have the same problem that the current solution has, except I've still got the document telling you that the bad short url is good. Should your system assume my document is wrong and permanently ignore the short url? Should it check again later? Or should it even check the referenced url at all? What if I specify a completely different site/document? Malware sites could hide in plain sight when victims try to link to the offending page on some support forum, only to have the url turned into "http://www.google.com/search?q=rainbows" for everyone else.
In any event, I really don't see what the real need for this new "feature" is. The only argument I've seen for this is it allows content owners to provide a short url because their excessively descriptive long urls are exactly that: too goddamn long. Look, if you think your urls are too hard or too long for people to remember, then shorten them up. If you'd rather setup some goofy aliasing system, then do it. Why do you need some "standard" to do so? What's wrong with putting "LINK TO THIS ARTICLE: http://www.mydomain.com/article" on the page itself? Users don't get any advantages out of automating the url shortening process, and sites like twitter which require small urls are very very special cases. So... why bother?
Oh, and for what it's worth: It's pretty much common sense that the services like tinyurl aren't meant to permanently link to a site. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably illiterate.
I challenge you to play Rock Band or Guitar Hero on your HDTV. It's especially noticeable on expert difficulty (where the lag makes it damn near unplayable).
I love my HDTV and all, but even with the 0ms lag and 120hz refresh, the previously mentioned games are not playable above medium and as a result, have not been played since I got my new TV. Wipeout HD, on the other hand, looks amazing and gets played quite literally every day.
Also, there's the whole theory that most of these diseases and illnesses won't ever be 'cured' because the repeated treatment brings in more money than the cure would.
It may be superior, but considering it was originally written in French and the translator is interpreting whatever "power supply" is in French as "food" is making it incredibly hard to follow.
Also: everything else that is wrong with the English version.
I've personally never liked the idea of replacing a 7-year-old machine only to get the exact same (or worse) performance.
Is there really any reason to upgrade to Vista (aside from the "we're forcing you to upgrade through lack of support" nonsense)? Upgrading to XP got most (home) users onto the NT codebase, but what does upgrading to Vista really give to end users? That pretty GUI which requires 2GB ram and 3d hardware to run smoothly? Tch. I'll pass, thanks.
I think to keep people from being pissed off and quitting the game, everyone eventually gets a rare drop. Like their odds keep increasing until it happens.
Heh. That's not a feature of the game so much as it's how probability works. Regardless of the odds, if you run the trial enough eventually you'll get the outcome you're looking for. Some are simply lucky where others are better at manipulating PRNGs.
That's not to say some games don't increase the chance of occurrence for event x every time it doesn't occur -- but in many cases it's unnecessary as that's already happening naturally.
Oh no! We'll have to resort to using local multiplayer and actually socializing with REAL people! Clearly such a platform would never succeed.
Seriously though, the hell are you even ranting about? Where is DRM even presenting a problem here? I'm fairly certain my PS3 doesn't have net access from time to time, yet everything I've downloaded from the PSN still works great. The only thing even remotely related to DRM in this change is the ability for them to push and kill content without the end-users direct approval (Which, I see there being some minor problems arising out of this, but honestly -- aside from force-killing homebrew hacks, what's the worst that could happen [heh]?).
I think what you're trying to be upset about is the whole net-nanny crap they're introducing. I don't agree with it either, but I also understand how many idiots have PS3s and how many of them are likely to do something stupid which somehow results in someone trying to sue Sony for a ridiculous amount of money. Care to take a wild guess what happens after that?
I get it, everyone hates Sony because they're ZOMG SPYING ON THE INTERNETS THROUGH THE PS3. Whatever. If they want to take extra measures to make sure two trash-talking jackasses don't end up killing each other, fine by me -- so long as I can still smoke you fools in some Wipeout HD.
8 was one of my favorites as well. But really, the graphics weren't all that bad. They don't stand up to today's standards by any means, but the differences in 7 and 8 is like night and day. Even the prerendered sequences in 8 were significantly better than those in 7.
Sure, I'd throw some cash at Square if they made a remake of 8, but I'd much rather see 7 done first.
With RPGs, you're right -- the disc switching is more an annoyance than anything else, especially if done correctly (immediately following the death of a much loved female character, for instance).
The problem I see with it, however, is it becoming a standard and/or accepted "issue" with games. With the linear nature of RPGs, it tends not to pose much of an problem as the disc change is only once and you rarely (if ever) have to use a previous disc in the same play-through. If we start introducing this into other genres though, it may also impose this same progression limitations on them; and that's something I have a problem with.
Which is ridiculous at this point of next-gen games.
Sure, I've owned my share of multi-cd games back in the psx days and I've gone through the installation of just as many multi-disc PC games, but it's still irritating. If we're already seeing 4-5, what's that going to mean near the end of the systems cycle? 6-9 disc game packages? Ugh, no thanks.
It may be annoying, but as soon as you start trusting the client to tell you where it is, that's when you start running into wallhacks and what have you.
I'm giving up mod points to post this but whatever...
To have different optical drives means developers have to design for the lowest common denominator. For people who don't use their PS3 for watching bluray movies, having the "next gen" drive would be worthless if all it's media was released on a "last gen" format. For example, watch the format 360 games are released on in a few years. Everything will be on DVD.
It's probably just the label. My DVD-RW does something similar in XP. Periodically it's a DVD-Ram drive, then it's a CD-Drive and every now and then it's a DVD-Drive. It functions normally though, so I tend to ignore the label (except for when I feel like attempting to guess what Windows feels like considering it after some events).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised no one else brought this up.
If the driver reached 380mph, why is the record not 380mph (or, as mocked above, how is the driver not very very dead)?
I had an old school Game Boy get submerged when my basement flooded once. When I finally found it, it was completely covered in mud and I assumed it was shot. Just to be sure, I threw new batteries in it and gave it a try and, sure enough, it worked fine. I was a little shocked.
My GBA, however... not so much.
(Trivia: That photo was taken five minutes after the GBA had been shut off and the game removed. The image remained on the screen for another ten minutes or so. Props if you can identify the game.)
How about retail stores? You could apply it basically anywhere to give customers a good way to look up products based on some criteria and/or point them in the direction of the product(s) they want. Also, think about any kind of store where the products have a high degree of customization. Clothing stores would be an amazing demonstration of this technology almost exactly as it is in the demo. Drag some clothes around to make outfits on the screen rather than spending nine years waiting for your goddamn girlfriend to try every f-ing combination.
Also, auto dealerships could probably make good use of this as well.
So... you want to play The Sims?
I wonder which is worse: The report we're seeing now or the one we would be seeing in the (unlikely) event that the call was handled as you suggest, and the person actually did go shoot up the place...
I was always under the impression that one of our jobs as parents is to simply put things into perspective for our children so they can see various things without having a meltdown and raping someone. Sure, you could play the "protector" card and claim that you're trying to shield them from this kinda thing; but I'm pretty sure it's been demonstrated that no amount of censorship (save for select extremist bubble environments) is going to prevent them from seeing sex, violence or a combination thereof.
Side note: I've always found girls raised in families/religions where sex is completely off-limits to be some of the dirtiest girls, ever. Kinda says something about that whole repression thing, eh? :D
Not really. The average user doesn't want to restart to use a different application. Hell, I don't even like restarting. Ever.
I've tried to get several people on Ubuntu just so I didn't have to deal with their dumbasses downloading a new "antivirus" every couple weeks and requiring that I spend the better part of a day fixing it (yes, I was compensated, but it's still annoying). The single biggest argument is "Will it still run ___?" They don't want to run an alternative and have to relearn things, nor do they want to learn where to get new software; and imagine the hell they go through when they're told they need to "go buy ___ so you can do ___."
The year of the Linux desktop is about three to five years ago if you only consider the operating system itself. User education, on the other hand, is going to keep it far away from widespread use for another 20.
It's a very mildly useful feature, but it's unnecessary bloat.
First and foremost: It's extra strain on (my) servers. Let's say this becomes an accepted standard and we start having every blogging/forum/comment system doing these lookups to find a smaller url. This means that any time a document on one of my servers is linked to, there's going to be at least one request sent for it so your system can check if a shorter url has been specified. So, now I'm serving up extra data for a feature I won't likely use, and your server has to parse the page to find the data it's looking for. Better hope my server is sending the proper headers and data...
Then we have the issue of bad urls in the link tag. We'll have the same problem that the current solution has, except I've still got the document telling you that the bad short url is good. Should your system assume my document is wrong and permanently ignore the short url? Should it check again later? Or should it even check the referenced url at all? What if I specify a completely different site/document? Malware sites could hide in plain sight when victims try to link to the offending page on some support forum, only to have the url turned into "http://www.google.com/search?q=rainbows" for everyone else.
In any event, I really don't see what the real need for this new "feature" is. The only argument I've seen for this is it allows content owners to provide a short url because their excessively descriptive long urls are exactly that: too goddamn long. Look, if you think your urls are too hard or too long for people to remember, then shorten them up. If you'd rather setup some goofy aliasing system, then do it. Why do you need some "standard" to do so? What's wrong with putting "LINK TO THIS ARTICLE: http://www.mydomain.com/article" on the page itself? Users don't get any advantages out of automating the url shortening process, and sites like twitter which require small urls are very very special cases. So... why bother?
Oh, and for what it's worth: It's pretty much common sense that the services like tinyurl aren't meant to permanently link to a site. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably illiterate.
I challenge you to play Rock Band or Guitar Hero on your HDTV. It's especially noticeable on expert difficulty (where the lag makes it damn near unplayable).
I love my HDTV and all, but even with the 0ms lag and 120hz refresh, the previously mentioned games are not playable above medium and as a result, have not been played since I got my new TV. Wipeout HD, on the other hand, looks amazing and gets played quite literally every day.
Also, there's the whole theory that most of these diseases and illnesses won't ever be 'cured' because the repeated treatment brings in more money than the cure would.
It may be superior, but considering it was originally written in French and the translator is interpreting whatever "power supply" is in French as "food" is making it incredibly hard to follow.
Also: everything else that is wrong with the English version.
Which is all well and good... but how about those web standards and compatibility things? Those mean anything to you?
I've personally never liked the idea of replacing a 7-year-old machine only to get the exact same (or worse) performance.
Is there really any reason to upgrade to Vista (aside from the "we're forcing you to upgrade through lack of support" nonsense)? Upgrading to XP got most (home) users onto the NT codebase, but what does upgrading to Vista really give to end users? That pretty GUI which requires 2GB ram and 3d hardware to run smoothly? Tch. I'll pass, thanks.
I think to keep people from being pissed off and quitting the game, everyone eventually gets a rare drop. Like their odds keep increasing until it happens.
Heh. That's not a feature of the game so much as it's how probability works. Regardless of the odds, if you run the trial enough eventually you'll get the outcome you're looking for. Some are simply lucky where others are better at manipulating PRNGs. That's not to say some games don't increase the chance of occurrence for event x every time it doesn't occur -- but in many cases it's unnecessary as that's already happening naturally.
I can't tell which is worse: The fact that you're probably right or that you actually took the time to make sure you typed out "M$" and "Windoze."
Is it really so hard to have a discussion involving Microsoft that doesn't consist of excessive uses of the dollar sign and the letter z? Really?
Oh no! We'll have to resort to using local multiplayer and actually socializing with REAL people! Clearly such a platform would never succeed.
Seriously though, the hell are you even ranting about? Where is DRM even presenting a problem here? I'm fairly certain my PS3 doesn't have net access from time to time, yet everything I've downloaded from the PSN still works great. The only thing even remotely related to DRM in this change is the ability for them to push and kill content without the end-users direct approval (Which, I see there being some minor problems arising out of this, but honestly -- aside from force-killing homebrew hacks, what's the worst that could happen [heh]?).
I think what you're trying to be upset about is the whole net-nanny crap they're introducing. I don't agree with it either, but I also understand how many idiots have PS3s and how many of them are likely to do something stupid which somehow results in someone trying to sue Sony for a ridiculous amount of money. Care to take a wild guess what happens after that?
I get it, everyone hates Sony because they're ZOMG SPYING ON THE INTERNETS THROUGH THE PS3. Whatever. If they want to take extra measures to make sure two trash-talking jackasses don't end up killing each other, fine by me -- so long as I can still smoke you fools in some Wipeout HD.
8 was one of my favorites as well. But really, the graphics weren't all that bad. They don't stand up to today's standards by any means, but the differences in 7 and 8 is like night and day. Even the prerendered sequences in 8 were significantly better than those in 7.
Sure, I'd throw some cash at Square if they made a remake of 8, but I'd much rather see 7 done first.
With RPGs, you're right -- the disc switching is more an annoyance than anything else, especially if done correctly (immediately following the death of a much loved female character, for instance).
The problem I see with it, however, is it becoming a standard and/or accepted "issue" with games. With the linear nature of RPGs, it tends not to pose much of an problem as the disc change is only once and you rarely (if ever) have to use a previous disc in the same play-through. If we start introducing this into other genres though, it may also impose this same progression limitations on them; and that's something I have a problem with.
Which is ridiculous at this point of next-gen games.
Sure, I've owned my share of multi-cd games back in the psx days and I've gone through the installation of just as many multi-disc PC games, but it's still irritating. If we're already seeing 4-5, what's that going to mean near the end of the systems cycle? 6-9 disc game packages? Ugh, no thanks.
Hard to believe a Futurama reference went unnoticed here...
How about the hundreds of free anonymous proxy services?
It may be annoying, but as soon as you start trusting the client to tell you where it is, that's when you start running into wallhacks and what have you.
I'm giving up mod points to post this but whatever...
To have different optical drives means developers have to design for the lowest common denominator. For people who don't use their PS3 for watching bluray movies, having the "next gen" drive would be worthless if all it's media was released on a "last gen" format. For example, watch the format 360 games are released on in a few years. Everything will be on DVD.
It's probably just the label. My DVD-RW does something similar in XP. Periodically it's a DVD-Ram drive, then it's a CD-Drive and every now and then it's a DVD-Drive. It functions normally though, so I tend to ignore the label (except for when I feel like attempting to guess what Windows feels like considering it after some events).
I don't think many will get the reference here. Shame too... Parapa was a fun game.