hand a dualshock to someone who hasn't played a lot of videogames and ask them to play Halo. It's incredibly awkward. You only think it's ok because you're used to it.
"Well, first of all, there was a 6 button controller for the Genesis"
Right, but it was aftermarket.
I generally agree with you, although I think the trigger buttons and shoulder buttons are totally natural. My biggest beef lies with the 2x2 matrix of buttons on the dualshock. It's easy to put your thumb in the wrong place. Look at fighter joysticks - that's good button placement.
Why break down a barrier with the controller, only to raise another one by making people move around to play a game?
Yeah, I'm guessing (and hoping) that waving a goddamn stick around for an hour doesn't really raise a significant barrier for a significant amount of people.
"Frankly, I enjoy the idea of the controller changing."
You got that right. The controller is completely central to gameplay, and it has undergone essentially zero changes since the PS1, and only evolutionary changes since the original NES. One or more Dpads, optional analog sticks, and 2 or more buttons.
The controller defines what games you can play. I think we can all agree that Street Fighter 2 was a good game. But it was impossible to implement in any reasonble way on any machine except the SNES, because the SNES was the only machine with enough buttons.
I am really looking forward to FPS games on a console that doesn't use the/incredibly/ awkward dual-stick control scheme.
Because I can't figure out how you can reasonably claim that a Nuclear vessel that gets changed out every six months is going to be less waste than what a Nuclear Fission plant produces today.
Neither can I. Why would the reactor walls of a fusion plant -ever- have to be changed except upon decommisioning? I think we have a serious miscommunication here so I'll restate my position more simply:
fusion plants will produce essentially no high-level waste, since the only think to come into contact with the high neutron flux will be stuff that is (a) part of the fusion process which will be consumed and (b) the reactor walls, which will last the lifetime of the plant.
I'm familiar with the Straight Dope link. He's talking about low-level waste which I regard as perfectly safe when even token safety procedures are followed.
So, basically, we're looking at a conservative estimate of 100 cubic feet of waste from a fission plant per year vs... zero from a fusion plant. I still haven't heard anything from you explaining how fusion plants generate any high-level waste, nor do any of the links you posted.
What in the world makes you think that Nuclear Fission requires the vessel to be replaced every six months?
what about my post made you think I did? I was talking about fusion plants. My point was that the only significantly radioactive waste would be from parts inside the core, which basically limits it to the core walls. Everything else is consumed in the process.
as for the second paragraph, I'm guessing that you're just making shit up at this point.
Yeah, the reactor walls will be very radioactive. But I do -not- think this is "the EXACT same waste issues that fission reactors have today, minus a pound or two of nuclear fuel," since I don't imagine replacing the reactor walls every 6 months is really very likely.
I'm not going to try to deny that the Northwest hydroelectric dams have hurt the salmon populations, but they have survived for about 70 years since Bonneville, Grand Coulee, and the other big dams went up on the Columbia, while facing increasing commercial fishing.
The fact that they didn't all die off immediately is nice, but the fact of the matter is that dams kill river ecosystems. Ask any aquaculturist. There's rivers that no longer get salmon runs at all. And those that do are far reduced. There's various theories why this is so, but almost all center on various problems centering around dams.
In fact I know a guy who was an engineer on one of the newer projects on a Columbia tributary (in the 80's I think...obviously there was more of an ecological focus then). While this is just offhand, he told me that fish runs actually increased after the dam and ladder were completed.
Maybe. But the fact is that they're way, way down now. California was even thinking about not having a salmon season this year, the runs are so small.
and anyone who acts like current fusion experiments will have any bearing on what commercial fusion reactors will eventually (?) be like is being disingenuous.
Electric cars just pass the buck upstream, making the evil electric corporation responsible for polluting instead of the car.
However, large powerplants are cleaner on a per-Kw basis than a car can be due to economies of scale. Also, the power can be generated cleanly via nuke plants or what have you instead of oil.
Depends. How much do you like salmon and healthy river ecosystems? The hydro plants on America and Canadas west coast have decimated the salmon populations, which are a huge source of income for fishermen and a primary source of deliciousness at sushi restaurants.
The only clean power source will be fusion. After that, you're always trading something for power. Wind power is pretty close to clean, but it's only viable in some places and wreaks havoc on the local bird population. Hydro has it's problems as noted. Etcetera.
Next time just assume 90 other people will, as in every single other thread like this, and skip it. Slashdot's already repetitive enough with the crappy jokes and the "dupe!" posts.
Yeah, but then I wouldn't have gotten to use my "jump up their own butts" line.:(
I agree that I'm certainly not expressing some kind of revolutionary unheard-of viewpoint here, nor do I think it's particularly insightful - we've all heard it before.
However, the reason that 'other point of view' isn't generally acknowledged is because it's simply wrong. There's no correlation between the two - the reaction is simply a knee-jerk puritanism that we're all guilty of. An equivalent response might be:
To be fair to parents, it's really easy to tell if your child is screwing up their life by being randomly violent-- in fact, usually the police will notice it even if you don't. But it's comparatively very difficult to figure out if your child is screwing up their life by spending all their time riding BMX bikes offroad.
A legitimate response is that "Yeah, ok, but some parents don't want their kids seeing boobs" which is fine. I don't want my little boy seeing overtly sexual images yet either. I was just trotting out the "jesus, just how many times does america have to reveal it's puritan roots" post for the Nth time.
I swear, we have more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists we're at war with than we have differences.
I can snap necks all goddamn day as Sam Fisher, but if there might be a possibility that a child might see OH CHRIST A BREAST HOLY SWEET JESUS FORFEND, everyone immediately jumps up their own butts.
There's entirely too many people on/. that simply worship at the temple of the free market without actually doing any critical thinking on the subject. The idea that the free market solves everything is seductivly simple, but as with most greedy algorithms, it's fundamentally flawed. I like the free market just fine, but I recognize that as with everything else, moderation is the key.
Slashdot Mirror
hand a dualshock to someone who hasn't played a lot of videogames and ask them to play Halo. It's incredibly awkward. You only think it's ok because you're used to it.
"Well, first of all, there was a 6 button controller for the Genesis"
Right, but it was aftermarket.
I generally agree with you, although I think the trigger buttons and shoulder buttons are totally natural. My biggest beef lies with the 2x2 matrix of buttons on the dualshock. It's easy to put your thumb in the wrong place. Look at fighter joysticks - that's good button placement.
Yeah, I'm guessing (and hoping) that waving a goddamn stick around for an hour doesn't really raise a significant barrier for a significant amount of people.
"Frankly, I enjoy the idea of the controller changing."
/incredibly/ awkward dual-stick control scheme.
You got that right. The controller is completely central to gameplay, and it has undergone essentially zero changes since the PS1, and only evolutionary changes since the original NES. One or more Dpads, optional analog sticks, and 2 or more buttons.
The controller defines what games you can play. I think we can all agree that Street Fighter 2 was a good game. But it was impossible to implement in any reasonble way on any machine except the SNES, because the SNES was the only machine with enough buttons.
I am really looking forward to FPS games on a console that doesn't use the
Neither can I. Why would the reactor walls of a fusion plant -ever- have to be changed except upon decommisioning? I think we have a serious miscommunication here so I'll restate my position more simply:
fusion plants will produce essentially no high-level waste, since the only think to come into contact with the high neutron flux will be stuff that is (a) part of the fusion process which will be consumed and (b) the reactor walls, which will last the lifetime of the plant.
I'm familiar with the Straight Dope link. He's talking about low-level waste which I regard as perfectly safe when even token safety procedures are followed.
So, basically, we're looking at a conservative estimate of 100 cubic feet of waste from a fission plant per year vs ... zero from a fusion plant. I still haven't heard anything from you explaining how fusion plants generate any high-level waste, nor do any of the links you posted.
It'll be reposted about every year, just like this 'news' item.
uh, have you been watching the news? the phrase 'global warming' sound vaguely familiar?
great, now could you show some equivalent concern over the far more significant dangers that fossil fuels pose?
what about my post made you think I did? I was talking about fusion plants. My point was that the only significantly radioactive waste would be from parts inside the core, which basically limits it to the core walls. Everything else is consumed in the process.
as for the second paragraph, I'm guessing that you're just making shit up at this point.
I don't, obviously.
I don't mean to imply it's perfect. I mean to imply it's a whole helluvalot less environmentally damaging that fossil fuels.
Yeah, the reactor walls will be very radioactive. But I do -not- think this is "the EXACT same waste issues that fission reactors have today, minus a pound or two of nuclear fuel," since I don't imagine replacing the reactor walls every 6 months is really very likely.
Pretty much, yeah. I'll take barrels of high-level radioactive waste buried 2 miles underneath granite over catastrophic climatic change any day.
The fact that they didn't all die off immediately is nice, but the fact of the matter is that dams kill river ecosystems. Ask any aquaculturist. There's rivers that no longer get salmon runs at all. And those that do are far reduced. There's various theories why this is so, but almost all center on various problems centering around dams.
Maybe. But the fact is that they're way, way down now. California was even thinking about not having a salmon season this year, the runs are so small.
and anyone who acts like current fusion experiments will have any bearing on what commercial fusion reactors will eventually (?) be like is being disingenuous.
Yeah, ours do too. Maybe other fish like them better than salmon, I don't know, but for salmon they don't work real well for a host of reasons.
However, large powerplants are cleaner on a per-Kw basis than a car can be due to economies of scale. Also, the power can be generated cleanly via nuke plants or what have you instead of oil.
Depends. How much do you like salmon and healthy river ecosystems? The hydro plants on America and Canadas west coast have decimated the salmon populations, which are a huge source of income for fishermen and a primary source of deliciousness at sushi restaurants.
The only clean power source will be fusion. After that, you're always trading something for power. Wind power is pretty close to clean, but it's only viable in some places and wreaks havoc on the local bird population. Hydro has it's problems as noted. Etcetera.
I had originally thought the tagging thing would be stupid but it looks like it may turn out to be worthwhile after all.
Yeah, but then I wouldn't have gotten to use my "jump up their own butts" line. :(
However, the reason that 'other point of view' isn't generally acknowledged is because it's simply wrong. There's no correlation between the two - the reaction is simply a knee-jerk puritanism that we're all guilty of. An equivalent response might be:
A legitimate response is that "Yeah, ok, but some parents don't want their kids seeing boobs" which is fine. I don't want my little boy seeing overtly sexual images yet either. I was just trotting out the "jesus, just how many times does america have to reveal it's puritan roots" post for the Nth time.
once he's butchered the hooker the metaphorical cows are out of the barn, chief.
I guess I'm unaware of the correlation of boob-viewing and increased incidence of unprotected sex, perhaps you would care to enlighten us.
I swear, we have more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists we're at war with than we have differences.
I can snap necks all goddamn day as Sam Fisher, but if there might be a possibility that a child might see OH CHRIST A BREAST HOLY SWEET JESUS FORFEND, everyone immediately jumps up their own butts.
There's entirely too many people on /. that simply worship at the temple of the free market without actually doing any critical thinking on the subject. The idea that the free market solves everything is seductivly simple, but as with most greedy algorithms, it's fundamentally flawed. I like the free market just fine, but I recognize that as with everything else, moderation is the key.
yes, you can buy lead-free solder. what's your point?