Google is pushing a free and open standard that they released at an initial loss!? What bastards! We can't let them get away with this travesty and have their name associated with everything good about to come from the internet!
It's not that we're becoming less imaginative. It's that our imagination is moving past the basic technology now. We're engulfed in a world with more possibilities now. Our imaginations are being pointed elsewhere.
If schools start replacing textbooks with tablets, there's a high probability that they will install a graphing calculator app too. Complete with access restrictions restrictions during tests I'm sure.
I still play and enjoy much older games than Goldeneye, so you have no point. Nice red herring though.
Let me burn your strawman real quick. You're arguing resolution while contrasting two player games with four player games. Your point keeps shifting. You complain about the resolution, but then you say it doesn't matter. And then you switch up to arguing that Goldeneye is a mediocre game. Which is it farmer Todd?
The human element is the talk and hanging out. It has nothing to do with staring at each other. We played video games specifically because that is what we wanted to do at those moments.
And that's fine. Just like playing Fifa is a substitute for real soccer. One isn't necessarily more fun than the other. But you can't argue that reality isn't more involving. You can simulate human interaction via microphone, but it's still an attempt at replicating reality.
You are fabricating things. I never once said a word about Goldeneye in regards to those games. It was actually a comparison of the poor FPS experience offered by console gaming and the rich experience offered by PC gaming. In fact all of my criticism is leveled squarely at the platform and genre pairing. Goldeneye is guilty of nothing but being a mediocre game that is letdown by the system it runs on. Anything else you want to make up?
You need to reread your previous comments then. You start by pointing out the weaknesses in the platform. And then you state the real difference is the quality of games. Your argument keeps forming and morphing the longer you talk. Which first person shooter before Goldeneye had the same variety and quality of objectives btw?
I never once did that. I offered my opinion and a concise explanation of why I feel that way.
What's this then?
LAN games were much better
A statement of fact. You didn't say, "I preferred LAN games", or "I think LAN games are more fun", you made a statement of fact.
You, on the other hand, offered personal insults from the very beginning and some silly rationalization that not looking at your friends' faces while playing a video game together means that nobody can have fun.
You're the one trying to tell people that their opinion is somehow wrong and shamelessly putting words into others' mouths, so take a look in the mirror.
You appear to have a very polar personality my friend. Saying I enjoyed console gaming with friends, doesn't mean I'm saying LAN parties are in some way boring. That's you putting words in my mouth.
Meanwhile you're calling my rationalizations silly, all the while being condescending. I never said staring at my friends was what made it fun for me, that's just more words in my mouth. It was the real human contact.
That's OK though. Believe what you will. Hypocrisy or not.
I might not have played Goldeneye as a kid (although looking at it now, 20 years of age really is still a kid), but I did play other multiplayer games as a child and teenager. Games like Combat on the Atari 2600, Ice Hockey on the NES, Street Fighter II in the arcade or Doom on PC. I've been around a lot of games for a long time. I'm not sure what your point is here.
The point is that as a kid, you can have fun even without the high def 1080p display. When Goldeneye came out, it didn't matter what medium it was on. It was dramatically better than the other games we had available. It was about the competition. Being on a low resolution quarter of a 640x480 display didn't matter. We were all at the same disadvantage, so it disappeared. The content mattered much more than the platform of consumption.
I disagree. LAN games were much better because you could do more things in the game without giving away your position and it allowed us to play with more than just four friends. Try doing sixteen or thirty two player split screen. I also don't know about you, but if I'm playing a video game with people, I am focused on the screen, not staring at their faces. Just hearing their cry of defeat from across the room or from their office, if we were playing at work, was immensely satisfying. Maybe you should have taken up poker, it would have given you a lot more time to stare at your friends.
No one is arguing the fact that LAN parties are fun and flexible. But playing on the same medium makes it feel like more of a community. Sure a switch is shared, and a game may be hosted on a single server, but that's not as tangible as seeing a single box with physical connections in closer proximity to you and your friends.
It was entertainment, you didn't have to be focused 100% on the game. The human element is what makes or breaks a game. Whether that manifests via single player design, or online community. It's just more raw when you can see a real person there. See emotions, and not just hear them from across a table, or across the room.
That is a mighty tenuous connection. By listing FPS games, I was giving an example of the wide range we had to choose from as opposed to the single FPS game you seemingly had to choose from.
Let me show you the connection so you can see it plainly:
We used to do that anyways, except it was on four of my PCs and my LAN or over the internet if one or more people wanted/needed to stay home. The difference is we were playing from a selection of good FPS games like...
Your first sentence states you used to play together anyways, but in the LAN party setting. But the difference was the games, not the situation. Hence you're stating that Goldeneye was a worse game. You didn't say that the platform was the problem. Just the games. Do I need to elaborate further?
You obviously don't have a clue what the word "opinion" means.
From your perspective it means making personal comments masquerading as facts while claiming them as universal truths. These are usually based on emotions conjured from personal experiences and preferences. From the accepted definition, however, an opinion is a statement of conjecture which may or may not lead to a fundamental truth when placed under scrutiny. Maybe this will help with your understanding of the concept:
Fact: Salt is composed of sodium and chlorine. Opinion: Salt makes all food taste better.
One is a tested scientific fact. The other might as well be the foundation for a salt cult.
If this remains unclear, I highly doubt this conversation will have any real substance.
You've obviously never played Goldeneye as a kid. It didn't matter that the screen wasn't huge, it was enough to play and develop strategy. Lan parties feel more disconnected. The screen is your primary focus, and it's hard to see the expressions on other people's faces. And by listing off the fps games as a difference, you're pretty much just bashing Goldeneye. Follow that with an insult and your opinion just evaporates.
"How can you find all these answers without being connected to the Internet? Watson will not have enough data to answer every possible Jeopardy! question in its self-contained memory, nor can it possibly predict the questions it will get. In this sense it has the same limitations as do the best human contestants. The entire Watson computer system will be self-contained and on stage as are the human contestants – no external connections, no life-lines – what you see is what you get. The purpose of this technology showcase is to demonstrate the system's ability to deeply analyze the data it does have and to compute accurate confidences based on supporting or refuting natural language evidence. Think of it as if Watson has read a lot of books and in real time relates what it read to the question to find and support the right answers."
Slashdot Mirror
Followed in order by "A Variation on an Opening by Lasker in G file".
It's a farcry from the Half-Life 2 leak.
It will change once it goes beta.
Citadel is ancient, and it looks that way. I wouldn't feel comfortable showing the web interface to my boss. Look at Roundcube for comparison.
"hey, what the funk"
fixed if for you
Close.. but they will ride in a time traveling phone booth.
Google is pushing a free and open standard that they released at an initial loss!? What bastards! We can't let them get away with this travesty and have their name associated with everything good about to come from the internet!
It will probably be more a feat of statistical analysis of answers and finding the best ratio of certainty to uncertainty.
Go ahead and send spam. But what reason do you have to fight against a filter designed to stop you? That's right.. no good reason. It's just bad.
Exactly.
It's not that we're becoming less imaginative. It's that our imagination is moving past the basic technology now. We're engulfed in a world with more possibilities now. Our imaginations are being pointed elsewhere.
Don't underestimate them.
How about making it a condition that they can't purposely slow down the guide menu just so you see the ads for longer? K thx
It may be low now, but the sun is expect to reach peak intensity in 2012...
But the meetings must be approved by the Federal Appropriations Panel For Associate Policy. Or FAPFAP.
I call amplified tires on pavement.
Yeah, that one dude was crying in just about every scene. I wanted to smack him.
Don't forget fun and profit!
If schools start replacing textbooks with tablets, there's a high probability that they will install a graphing calculator app too. Complete with access restrictions restrictions during tests I'm sure.
I still play and enjoy much older games than Goldeneye, so you have no point. Nice red herring though.
Let me burn your strawman real quick. You're arguing resolution while contrasting two player games with four player games. Your point keeps shifting. You complain about the resolution, but then you say it doesn't matter. And then you switch up to arguing that Goldeneye is a mediocre game. Which is it farmer Todd?
The human element is the talk and hanging out. It has nothing to do with staring at each other. We played video games specifically because that is what we wanted to do at those moments.
And that's fine. Just like playing Fifa is a substitute for real soccer. One isn't necessarily more fun than the other. But you can't argue that reality isn't more involving. You can simulate human interaction via microphone, but it's still an attempt at replicating reality.
You are fabricating things. I never once said a word about Goldeneye in regards to those games. It was actually a comparison of the poor FPS experience offered by console gaming and the rich experience offered by PC gaming. In fact all of my criticism is leveled squarely at the platform and genre pairing. Goldeneye is guilty of nothing but being a mediocre game that is letdown by the system it runs on. Anything else you want to make up?
You need to reread your previous comments then. You start by pointing out the weaknesses in the platform. And then you state the real difference is the quality of games. Your argument keeps forming and morphing the longer you talk. Which first person shooter before Goldeneye had the same variety and quality of objectives btw?
I never once did that. I offered my opinion and a concise explanation of why I feel that way.
What's this then?
LAN games were much better
A statement of fact. You didn't say, "I preferred LAN games", or "I think LAN games are more fun", you made a statement of fact.
You, on the other hand, offered personal insults from the very beginning and some silly rationalization that not looking at your friends' faces while playing a video game together means that nobody can have fun.
You're the one trying to tell people that their opinion is somehow wrong and shamelessly putting words into others' mouths, so take a look in the mirror.
You appear to have a very polar personality my friend. Saying I enjoyed console gaming with friends, doesn't mean I'm saying LAN parties are in some way boring. That's you putting words in my mouth.
Meanwhile you're calling my rationalizations silly, all the while being condescending. I never said staring at my friends was what made it fun for me, that's just more words in my mouth. It was the real human contact.
That's OK though. Believe what you will. Hypocrisy or not.
I might not have played Goldeneye as a kid (although looking at it now, 20 years of age really is still a kid), but I did play other multiplayer games as a child and teenager. Games like Combat on the Atari 2600, Ice Hockey on the NES, Street Fighter II in the arcade or Doom on PC. I've been around a lot of games for a long time. I'm not sure what your point is here.
The point is that as a kid, you can have fun even without the high def 1080p display. When Goldeneye came out, it didn't matter what medium it was on. It was dramatically better than the other games we had available. It was about the competition. Being on a low resolution quarter of a 640x480 display didn't matter. We were all at the same disadvantage, so it disappeared. The content mattered much more than the platform of consumption.
I disagree. LAN games were much better because you could do more things in the game without giving away your position and it allowed us to play with more than just four friends. Try doing sixteen or thirty two player split screen. I also don't know about you, but if I'm playing a video game with people, I am focused on the screen, not staring at their faces. Just hearing their cry of defeat from across the room or from their office, if we were playing at work, was immensely satisfying. Maybe you should have taken up poker, it would have given you a lot more time to stare at your friends.
No one is arguing the fact that LAN parties are fun and flexible. But playing on the same medium makes it feel like more of a community. Sure a switch is shared, and a game may be hosted on a single server, but that's not as tangible as seeing a single box with physical connections in closer proximity to you and your friends.
It was entertainment, you didn't have to be focused 100% on the game. The human element is what makes or breaks a game. Whether that manifests via single player design, or online community. It's just more raw when you can see a real person there. See emotions, and not just hear them from across a table, or across the room.
That is a mighty tenuous connection. By listing FPS games, I was giving an example of the wide range we had to choose from as opposed to the single FPS game you seemingly had to choose from.
Let me show you the connection so you can see it plainly:
We used to do that anyways, except it was on four of my PCs and my LAN or over the internet if one or more people wanted/needed to stay home. The difference is we were playing from a selection of good FPS games like...
Your first sentence states you used to play together anyways, but in the LAN party setting. But the difference was the games, not the situation. Hence you're stating that Goldeneye was a worse game. You didn't say that the platform was the problem. Just the games. Do I need to elaborate further?
You obviously don't have a clue what the word "opinion" means.
From your perspective it means making personal comments masquerading as facts while claiming them as universal truths. These are usually based on emotions conjured from personal experiences and preferences. From the accepted definition, however, an opinion is a statement of conjecture which may or may not lead to a fundamental truth when placed under scrutiny. Maybe this will help with your understanding of the concept:
Fact: Salt is composed of sodium and chlorine.
Opinion: Salt makes all food taste better.
One is a tested scientific fact. The other might as well be the foundation for a salt cult.
If this remains unclear, I highly doubt this conversation will have any real substance.
You've obviously never played Goldeneye as a kid. It didn't matter that the screen wasn't huge, it was enough to play and develop strategy. Lan parties feel more disconnected. The screen is your primary focus, and it's hard to see the expressions on other people's faces.
And by listing off the fps games as a difference, you're pretty much just bashing Goldeneye. Follow that with an insult and your opinion just evaporates.
Really? You don't see the draw of sitting with three of your best friends playing a video game in the same room?
Oh, that's right.. this is Slashdot.
It makes more sense to hardcode a vulnerability into network hardware.
"How can you find all these answers without being connected to the Internet?
Watson will not have enough data to answer every possible Jeopardy! question in its self-contained memory, nor can it possibly predict the questions it will get. In this sense it has the same limitations as do the best human contestants. The entire Watson computer system will be self-contained and on stage as are the human contestants – no external connections, no life-lines – what you see is what you get. The purpose of this technology showcase is to demonstrate the system's ability to deeply analyze the data it does have and to compute accurate confidences based on supporting or refuting natural language evidence. Think of it as if Watson has read a lot of books and in real time relates what it read to the question to find and support the right answers."
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/faq.shtml
It's going to fall off the edge of the universe. I just know it.