Everything you've said is mostly true if you only play single-player games, maybe has a kernel of truth for multiplayer RTS games, but is almost totally false for FPS games. I notice you didn't answer the question of why John Carmack lost his Ferarri to Thresh.
That doesn't really explain why John Carmack lost his Ferarri. I mean, unless JC was confused about what he was thinking at the time. Lord knows it happens to the best of us.
I mean, I guess it's not actually any different than going for tennis lessons, but something about that just leaves me with an overwhelming feeling of wtfness.
> And my rebuttals have covered most everything but that last bit of my initial post, save saying it was exaggeration, hyperbole, etc. Once I've seemed to adequately defend myself, you let it go, except for this last bit. Why is that?
Because I seem to have missed that - my apologies. I don't buy your arguments because they fly in the face of all my experience and all my friends experience. I still contend that trackballs suck for games and that you can't just wedge an optical mouse most places and expect it to work well. But it's a stupid enough thing to argue about. I regret that it became so argumentative - I certainly didn't intend it that way.
> Does it make you feel better to try and correct others for not seeing things the same way as you? I'm sorry, mein fuhrer.
No, it makes me feel better to point out assertions that are clearly incorrect, such as your claim that this device (or rather, a device which fills the requirement that this device purports to) has no use in the mind of consumers.
I know a lot of gamers, and there's one who uses a trackball. And frankly, he kind of sucks. You just don't have the level of responsiveness you need - he just can't turn around as fast as everyone else.
> I think my setup works fantastic for me, reclining on my couch. It won't work for everyone.
I don't think it'll work well for -most- people. I base this assertion on the fact that trackballs users are almost nonexistant and that there's many surfaces on which optical mice won't work well, either because they won't track or because they generate too much friction. That's your first two points - that trackballs work fine and if they don't, then optical mice are fine.
> Look, a product that has a use in the mind of the developers, but little or none in the mind of consumers!
It's got plenty of use in the mind of consumers. Just not you.
I dislike phantom as much as the next guy (actually, I love them. You can't make up that kind of internet idiocy), and seriously doubt that these things will ever see the light of day, but your arguments against it are just way off.
If you're gonna make an argument against it, I'd be casting a dubious eye on the strength of that hinge, the lack of useable space under it and the fact that there doesn't seem to be any place to tether the mouse to when you're done with it.
Trackballs are... uh... nonoptimal for games. I mean, far be it from me to actually defend Phantom Labs, but come on. You can't use your mouse decently on the surface of the sofa (well, not mine anyway) and I don't really feel like hunching over my table to play games - I wanna lay back in the big comfy chair.
I don't know if this 'lapboard' thingamajig would actually work ok, but all three of your comments are way off the mark.
PC or MAC with USB ports, CD-ROM and up to 50 MB available hard disk space.
A keyboard and mouse with 50MB of installed software I don't need.
That said, it actually looks nice. If I played a lot of games on my TV (I don't), it might be nice. $130 seems a little steep, but not that bad compared to other wireless mouse/keyboard combos. I hope there's somewhere you can anchor the mouse to, for when you want to put it away.
Sure, after government funding has paved the way in space exploration.
> And venture capitalists are supposed to be the people filling the niche between the two [...]
They fill -a- niche, but it's not necessarily between the gov't and corporate funding. I'd venture (ha!) a guess that large corporate interests pay for lots more basic research than VCs.
Venture capitalists have never and will never fund a very large-scale research operation such as a supercollider or hot fusion research. That's what I'm talking about.
This of course is a major problem as the US has historically relied upon federal funding to help develop the real cutting edge stuff, yet federal funding for basic science research is being cut dramatically in favor of applied research. So, we now run the risk of losing out on our technological advantage from both traditional government funding and now private funding.
You are 100% correct. Just a nit to pick: it's not just the US - it's everyone. Profit-driven business are - generally - too constrained by the need to increase shareholder value RIGHT NOW to take on large, speculative research projects, so it falls to governments to spur advances in this sector.
This insane allergy people have to simply memorizing some things gets in the way all the time. Just get over it. Despite what new-age bullshit you might be used to about how rote learning is 'just' memorizing lists of facts, it remains important to memorize those facts. Some things you just have to memorize, and math is full of them. What edges of the triangle a cosine relates to is an example. Once you start committing this stuff to memory things will start to fall into place. Worked for me. Got a degree in math and everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything you've said is mostly true if you only play single-player games, maybe has a kernel of truth for multiplayer RTS games, but is almost totally false for FPS games. I notice you didn't answer the question of why John Carmack lost his Ferarri to Thresh.
No, I think one more red planet is good for Bush. I don't think he'd be happy with more blue planets.
That doesn't really explain why John Carmack lost his Ferarri. I mean, unless JC was confused about what he was thinking at the time. Lord knows it happens to the best of us.
I mean, I guess it's not actually any different than going for tennis lessons, but something about that just leaves me with an overwhelming feeling of wtfness.
'Our?' Who are 'we?' 'Among our own kind?' Oh jeez.
And if you think the slashdot community has a corner on the tasteless market, think again.
> And my rebuttals have covered most everything but that last bit of my initial post, save saying it was exaggeration, hyperbole, etc. Once I've seemed to adequately defend myself, you let it go, except for this last bit. Why is that?
Because I seem to have missed that - my apologies. I don't buy your arguments because they fly in the face of all my experience and all my friends experience. I still contend that trackballs suck for games and that you can't just wedge an optical mouse most places and expect it to work well. But it's a stupid enough thing to argue about. I regret that it became so argumentative - I certainly didn't intend it that way.
Your rebuttal is "it's not useful to me," which is fine. That doesn't mean there's no market for this.
> Does it make you feel better to try and correct others for not seeing things the same way as you? I'm sorry, mein fuhrer.
No, it makes me feel better to point out assertions that are clearly incorrect, such as your claim that this device (or rather, a device which fills the requirement that this device purports to) has no use in the mind of consumers.
I know a lot of gamers, and there's one who uses a trackball. And frankly, he kind of sucks. You just don't have the level of responsiveness you need - he just can't turn around as fast as everyone else.
> I think my setup works fantastic for me, reclining on my couch. It won't work for everyone.
I don't think it'll work well for -most- people. I base this assertion on the fact that trackballs users are almost nonexistant and that there's many surfaces on which optical mice won't work well, either because they won't track or because they generate too much friction. That's your first two points - that trackballs work fine and if they don't, then optical mice are fine.
> Look, a product that has a use in the mind of the developers, but little or none in the mind of consumers!
It's got plenty of use in the mind of consumers. Just not you.
I dislike phantom as much as the next guy (actually, I love them. You can't make up that kind of internet idiocy), and seriously doubt that these things will ever see the light of day, but your arguments against it are just way off.
If you're gonna make an argument against it, I'd be casting a dubious eye on the strength of that hinge, the lack of useable space under it and the fact that there doesn't seem to be any place to tether the mouse to when you're done with it.
Trackballs are ... uh ... nonoptimal for games. I mean, far be it from me to actually defend Phantom Labs, but come on. You can't use your mouse decently on the surface of the sofa (well, not mine anyway) and I don't really feel like hunching over my table to play games - I wanna lay back in the big comfy chair.
I don't know if this 'lapboard' thingamajig would actually work ok, but all three of your comments are way off the mark.
A keyboard and mouse with 50MB of installed software I don't need.
That said, it actually looks nice. If I played a lot of games on my TV (I don't), it might be nice. $130 seems a little steep, but not that bad compared to other wireless mouse/keyboard combos. I hope there's somewhere you can anchor the mouse to, for when you want to put it away.
> The future is NEVER boring.
If the future is just watching our toys have all the fun romping around on faraway planets, I am not in favor of it.
> Until you're dead, anyway. And, er, this IS the future. Check your calandar, it's the 21st century.
Right. 2006. That means it's the present.
> They can even fix eyeballs now (click my sig for details), even though Doctor McCoy can't in the 23rd century.
Ok, yeah, but Dr. McCoy ran Spock by remote control. Can we do that, mister smartypants?
> In fact, the future according to the original 60s Star Trek is almost primitive compared to today's reality.
You're right. These modern transporters and space stations are way better than the ones they had on that show.
> Seeing as they're most often the small end of the funnel for government money.
... there's kind of a big leap between Goddards work and placing humans in orbit.
That's a good point.
As for Goddard, well
that's just how shitty it was.
[pause for laughter]
ok, I can't remember if they did or not. But I -do- remember not being able to see a damn thing on it unless I was in a brightly-lit room.
> Low mass, unmanned nano sattelites are the future.
yeah, the boring future.
first generation gameboys were nigh-unplayable due to shitty backlighting.
Sure, after government funding has paved the way in space exploration.
> And venture capitalists are supposed to be the people filling the niche between the two [...]
They fill -a- niche, but it's not necessarily between the gov't and corporate funding. I'd venture (ha!) a guess that large corporate interests pay for lots more basic research than VCs.
Venture capitalists have never and will never fund a very large-scale research operation such as a supercollider or hot fusion research. That's what I'm talking about.
You are 100% correct. Just a nit to pick: it's not just the US - it's everyone. Profit-driven business are - generally - too constrained by the need to increase shareholder value RIGHT NOW to take on large, speculative research projects, so it falls to governments to spur advances in this sector.
yeah. could someone explain what a "being a Major Nelson" means? Because all I can think of is a guy who always does spit takes.
> I hate rote
This insane allergy people have to simply memorizing some things gets in the way all the time. Just get over it. Despite what new-age bullshit you might be used to about how rote learning is 'just' memorizing lists of facts, it remains important to memorize those facts. Some things you just have to memorize, and math is full of them. What edges of the triangle a cosine relates to is an example. Once you start committing this stuff to memory things will start to fall into place. Worked for me. Got a degree in math and everything.
honestly, those HP execs wouldn't have had all these troubles if they'd paid more attention to somethingawful and penny-arcade some years back.
[foxnews]You make a very adulterous point, Senator.[/foxnews]
> Variety is reporting that George Lucas is getting out of the movie business.
Hooray!
> Instead of making major films, Lucasfilm will instead focus on television.
Crap!
I know. It MakesSense in ProgrammingLanguages where SpacesAreForbidden, but why UseItEverywhere you PossiblyCan? It DrivesMeNuts.