And you can't use the saber itself to move around, because your TV isnt big enough- you'd have to stay in the same place, the tennis demo falls apart. So you'd sit in your chair, flicking the wiimote- not as if it were a dynamic lightsaber, but rather like a BUTTON.
How the hell is this the _ONLY_ post which mentions this? Ever since this stupid revmote thing was let out, people have been saying "oo! This would be perfect for a lightsaber game!" ignoring three key facts:
1) as mentioned above 2) most people dont have room-sized TVs, so all this "motion detection" would amount to a fancy 2-state on/off trigger button. A button that you need to swing around instead of pushing with your thumb. Resolution needs to match the weakest link, and while it would certainly be/capable/ of more, there just isnt more available yet. 3) There is already a motion-capture lightsaber game. It's crappy, it has obvious flaws, and you don't own one because it's crappy and has obvious flaws. This point applies to all Wii games, and has been all I've been saying since hearing about the revmote.
Re:Inheerently evil to use energy?
on
"H-Prize" Announced
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Or it would have been, if we all had 90' TV screens and a huge stage to move around in, or if after they were done demonstrating the Tennis game and had already turned around and stopped moving, MARIO HADNT KEPT PLAYING.
Yes, I realize he was no longer hitting the ball; but, he still tracked the ball and moved over to it, which basically means all that moving around by the person playing was Bullshit to look flashy, and the controller itself is nothing but a fancy pushbutton.
Does that mean it's completely without merit? I don't think so. But not quite so much merit as they'd have you believe. That is: It's got bullshit just like every other game demo at E3 has bullshit.
I still can't help but think of all those cheap crappy motion-capture video games they sell in the mall, which are just oh-so-successful and oh-so-not-the-worst-gaming-experience-ever.
Maybe I could, but I dont want to.
Meanwhile, Sony says "Motion and Tilt sensitivity? Yeah, we can/add/ that, and we don't need to throw out the controller itself to add a feature."
The real problem with that of course is that people have always been tilting their controllers when they're "into it".. I'm pretty sure that making that really mean something might be a problem when you dont really mean it, and might leave everyone struggling to stay perfectly still in an un-fun way. With no rumble pack.
I may as well note that I do realize that Web-of-trust is not intended to do anything like I described, but it would be completely naive to assume that when someone has a magic button they can push to say they no longer believe a person is who they say they are, that it will only be pushed under those circumstances, and only used to calculate that particular thing. People use "flamebait" to mean something other than "this person is trying to cause other people to post flames", for example;)
how the fuck is that flamebait? I've yet to see any evidence pointing against it being 100% true. If bluesecurity were up, maybe I could read more about how it works, but all the information I have on it either implies or specifically states that it is an attempt to DDoS spammers. If you disagree that maliciously attacking someone without care for collateral damage is either worse or the same as carelessly causing lots of collateral damage through a selfish and non-malicious act, you are welcome to express that opinion and I welcome you to do so in a non-flaming manner.
If you respond to someone with unequal force, their responding to that response with equal force seems fair. In a general sense.
I think spammers are cockwits, sure, but I also think every "this solution will work! I will end spam!" idea that I've seen has been thought up through equally cock-based means.
Examples:
- this one ("what they do has the effect of a DDoS! Let's DDoS them back!")
- huge catch-all blacklists ("Spammers are breaking the internet! Let's break the internet on our own terms!")
- purposely blacklisting non-spammers as a means of extortion ("Some of your customers are breaking the internet! Broken internets are bad. Here is an example of a broken internet. Really horrible, isnt it?")
- whitelists ("Well if we just didnt talk to anybody, we'd never have anyone say anything bad to us!")
Web-of-trust sounds like a good idea, but I generally disagree with systems which rate people instead of actions. Should I ignore steve just because I dont like something he said or did? Wouldnt that make me the worst kind of person? I'm very conflicted about this one, mostly because it seems open for abuse or bad judgements. If I/think/ I always agree with Bob and Alice and they say I should always ignore Cindy because she keeps trying to steal their individual photons, but I've never actually talked to Cindy.. can I really trust their judgement? A large web of trust might balance things out, but unfiltered Mob Rule can make very bad decisions and I dont like the idea of ignoring someone completely just because 90% of the world thinks 90% of what they say is full of crap. [replies: insert obvious joke here!] It all seems too uncertain for me to trust, personally, but the flaws it has are potential consequences of the design, it isnt built on intentionally being flawed- a flaw going by another name.
See? I can ramble at length and still say only as much as 4 short lines. Short and to the point != flamebait.
I specifically said this wasnt troll. If you disagree, you're welcome to (though as stated before, you're a fucking moron). But modding down because you're a fucking moron? Yeah, that's a sure way to show people you're smart! You fucking moron. If you want to try to defend google's actions, that's one thing. But just saying "hurr hur! I have mod points lol ur soo gay to be right all the time!"? fuck you.
okay, goodbye Google. It was nice having a company who didnt want to be evil, for a while. We all knew it couldnt last.
This is not flamebait. This is not troll. What Google has done is indefensible. If you disagree you are, as a mathematical fact, a fucking moron. Google is dead.
So, let me get this straight: 1) Spammer sends you an e-mail [okay, a/lot/ of spammers send a/lot/ of e-mail] 2) You sign up to a DDOS community to flood the spammer 3) Spammer points out the difference between a reckless assault and a malicious one, by example. 4) Post to slashdot to complain about (3)
it's not even "more secure than what windows doeslol!" By default in linux:
- Permissions tend to be inheireted
- You tend to do everything as a single "user" with a single set of permissions.
- Attempting to extend this scheme into something more realistic is, at the very least, non-trivial.
I'm really sick of people not noting the distinction. Even the recent Asimo demonstration with "running" was very obviously "playing the 'walk' loop at 2x speed". While generally a human can "freeze" at various points in his walking step, he is not able to do so without extra effort. So far, I've not seen a [practical] robot which walks by falling (as you put it).
Asimo is a good demonstration of unnatural "overly balanced" walking. You can see the way it is sortof "hunched over" as it moves with its knees always bent a little-too-much.
I always wonder why people waste their time building robots instead of working out a computer simulation of real human walking (not motion capture). It would give so much more information than spending all that time and money on something physical, only to have it run around like it has diarhea.
p.s.: Robot in article does not look like "the wrong trousers" in the slightest.
Because the federal government has absolutely no authority to create such a law, but are always keen on using the "interstate trade" loophole to do whatever the hell they want.
something being a "right" doesnt mean it isnt "wrong":) not that I have any problem with fast forwarding past (is that past or passed?) things and I certainly think everyone should complain about everything 100% of the time.. But I hate it when people try to counter "that's immoral!" with "it's legal!" or "It's a right!" Of course it's a right. Of course any government which attempted to make such a thing illegal should be replaced. But.. come on. It may be a right, but it's not right:)
The whole point of my post wasnt that you were doing wrong, though. The point was you/told them so/.
"Well.. I'll keep bringing the occassional soda to the games, but I'm not going to help clean up any messes I make anymore!" Soda was just you being nice. Helping to clean up your own mess was _always_ a condition. It should never be illegal to bypass ads, but if you/tell someone/ you're going to bypass their ads, they _should_ block you.
"Hello. I disagree with your editorial. So I'd just like you to know that while I will continue to sap your bandwidth, I'm going to bypass the manner in which you pay for that bandwidth" [prevented from using further bandwidth] "How questionable!"
Slashdot Mirror
holy crap moderators are getting stupider.
That was not "+2, insightful", that was "+0, a fucking question"
And you can't use the saber itself to move around, because your TV isnt big enough- you'd have to stay in the same place, the tennis demo falls apart. So you'd sit in your chair, flicking the wiimote- not as if it were a dynamic lightsaber, but rather like a BUTTON.
How the hell is this the _ONLY_ post which mentions this? Ever since this stupid revmote thing was let out, people have been saying "oo! This would be perfect for a lightsaber game!" ignoring three key facts:
/capable/ of more, there just isnt more available yet.
1) as mentioned above
2) most people dont have room-sized TVs, so all this "motion detection" would amount to a fancy 2-state on/off trigger button. A button that you need to swing around instead of pushing with your thumb. Resolution needs to match the weakest link, and while it would certainly be
3) There is already a motion-capture lightsaber game. It's crappy, it has obvious flaws, and you don't own one because it's crappy and has obvious flaws. This point applies to all Wii games, and has been all I've been saying since hearing about the revmote.
what?
it's a strong, distinctive smell. Of course dogs can pick it up.
You could have at least read the article summary..
Or it would have been, if we all had 90' TV screens and a huge stage to move around in, or if after they were done demonstrating the Tennis game and had already turned around and stopped moving, MARIO HADNT KEPT PLAYING.
/add/ that, and we don't need to throw out the controller itself to add a feature."
Yes, I realize he was no longer hitting the ball; but, he still tracked the ball and moved over to it, which basically means all that moving around by the person playing was Bullshit to look flashy, and the controller itself is nothing but a fancy pushbutton.
Does that mean it's completely without merit? I don't think so. But not quite so much merit as they'd have you believe. That is: It's got bullshit just like every other game demo at E3 has bullshit.
I still can't help but think of all those cheap crappy motion-capture video games they sell in the mall, which are just oh-so-successful and oh-so-not-the-worst-gaming-experience-ever.
Maybe I could, but I dont want to.
Meanwhile, Sony says "Motion and Tilt sensitivity? Yeah, we can
The real problem with that of course is that people have always been tilting their controllers when they're "into it".. I'm pretty sure that making that really mean something might be a problem when you dont really mean it, and might leave everyone struggling to stay perfectly still in an un-fun way. With no rumble pack.
When I submitted this story months ago, I had the decency to make a Bender joke!
I may as well note that I do realize that Web-of-trust is not intended to do anything like I described, but it would be completely naive to assume that when someone has a magic button they can push to say they no longer believe a person is who they say they are, that it will only be pushed under those circumstances, and only used to calculate that particular thing. People use "flamebait" to mean something other than "this person is trying to cause other people to post flames", for example ;)
how the fuck is that flamebait? I've yet to see any evidence pointing against it being 100% true. If bluesecurity were up, maybe I could read more about how it works, but all the information I have on it either implies or specifically states that it is an attempt to DDoS spammers.
/think/ I always agree with Bob and Alice and they say I should always ignore Cindy because she keeps trying to steal their individual photons, but I've never actually talked to Cindy.. can I really trust their judgement? A large web of trust might balance things out, but unfiltered Mob Rule can make very bad decisions and I dont like the idea of ignoring someone completely just because 90% of the world thinks 90% of what they say is full of crap. [replies: insert obvious joke here!]
If you disagree that maliciously attacking someone without care for collateral damage is either worse or the same as carelessly causing lots of collateral damage through a selfish and non-malicious act, you are welcome to express that opinion and I welcome you to do so in a non-flaming manner.
If you respond to someone with unequal force, their responding to that response with equal force seems fair. In a general sense.
I think spammers are cockwits, sure, but I also think every "this solution will work! I will end spam!" idea that I've seen has been thought up through equally cock-based means.
Examples:
- this one ("what they do has the effect of a DDoS! Let's DDoS them back!")
- huge catch-all blacklists ("Spammers are breaking the internet! Let's break the internet on our own terms!")
- purposely blacklisting non-spammers as a means of extortion ("Some of your customers are breaking the internet! Broken internets are bad. Here is an example of a broken internet. Really horrible, isnt it?")
- whitelists ("Well if we just didnt talk to anybody, we'd never have anyone say anything bad to us!")
Web-of-trust sounds like a good idea, but I generally disagree with systems which rate people instead of actions. Should I ignore steve just because I dont like something he said or did? Wouldnt that make me the worst kind of person? I'm very conflicted about this one, mostly because it seems open for abuse or bad judgements. If I
It all seems too uncertain for me to trust, personally, but the flaws it has are potential consequences of the design, it isnt built on intentionally being flawed- a flaw going by another name.
See? I can ramble at length and still say only as much as 4 short lines. Short and to the point != flamebait.
Just be sure to keep the remastered versions that come with them in a locked box where the kids can't reach.
I specifically said this wasnt troll. If you disagree, you're welcome to (though as stated before, you're a fucking moron). But modding down because you're a fucking moron? Yeah, that's a sure way to show people you're smart! You fucking moron.
If you want to try to defend google's actions, that's one thing. But just saying "hurr hur! I have mod points lol ur soo gay to be right all the time!"? fuck you.
okay, goodbye Google. It was nice having a company who didnt want to be evil, for a while. We all knew it couldnt last.
This is not flamebait. This is not troll. What Google has done is indefensible. If you disagree you are, as a mathematical fact, a fucking moron. Google is dead.
1) fuck you
2) The site itself is down, so I am going based on the article's description
3) fuck you
So, let me get this straight: /lot/ of spammers send a /lot/ of e-mail]
1) Spammer sends you an e-mail [okay, a
2) You sign up to a DDOS community to flood the spammer
3) Spammer points out the difference between a reckless assault and a malicious one, by example.
4) Post to slashdot to complain about (3)
*cough* *9th ammendment* *cough*
it's not even "more secure than what windows doeslol!"
By default in linux:
- Permissions tend to be inheireted
- You tend to do everything as a single "user" with a single set of permissions.
- Attempting to extend this scheme into something more realistic is, at the very least, non-trivial.
I'm really sick of people not noting the distinction. Even the recent Asimo demonstration with "running" was very obviously "playing the 'walk' loop at 2x speed".
While generally a human can "freeze" at various points in his walking step, he is not able to do so without extra effort. So far, I've not seen a [practical] robot which walks by falling (as you put it).
Asimo is a good demonstration of unnatural "overly balanced" walking. You can see the way it is sortof "hunched over" as it moves with its knees always bent a little-too-much.
I always wonder why people waste their time building robots instead of working out a computer simulation of real human walking (not motion capture). It would give so much more information than spending all that time and money on something physical, only to have it run around like it has diarhea.
p.s.: Robot in article does not look like "the wrong trousers" in the slightest.
Well, you almost got it... maybe that's worth half credit?
the motion picture was better than Nemesis any day.
Because the federal government has absolutely no authority to create such a law, but are always keen on using the "interstate trade" loophole to do whatever the hell they want.
:)
The rest of your message.. I was going to post
Are you saying you liked nemesis?
OS XXI/II, roman numerals dont have decimal points, afaik
something being a "right" doesnt mean it isnt "wrong" :) :)
/told them so/.
/tell someone/ you're going to bypass their ads, they _should_ block you.
not that I have any problem with fast forwarding past (is that past or passed?) things and I certainly think everyone should complain about everything 100% of the time..
But I hate it when people try to counter "that's immoral!" with "it's legal!" or "It's a right!"
Of course it's a right. Of course any government which attempted to make such a thing illegal should be replaced. But.. come on. It may be a right, but it's not right
The whole point of my post wasnt that you were doing wrong, though. The point was you
"Well.. I'll keep bringing the occassional soda to the games, but I'm not going to help clean up any messes I make anymore!"
Soda was just you being nice. Helping to clean up your own mess was _always_ a condition.
It should never be illegal to bypass ads, but if you
"Hello. I disagree with your editorial. So I'd just like you to know that while I will continue to sap your bandwidth, I'm going to bypass the manner in which you pay for that bandwidth"
[prevented from using further bandwidth]
"How questionable!"