I doubt an atoll would be a good place for a Space elevator. One of the main points of creating something like this is ease of transport of materials into space: just hitch them on and let them be pulled up by the elevator. If you make it difficult to get materials to the elevator in the first place (having to ship them out into the middle of the Pacific), you've just made it much more expensive and much less desirable to use it.
Plus, storms and Typhoons and such things are common in the middle of the ocean. Not exactly ideal for loading materials onto the elevator.
I remember my parents bringing me to watch a launch close up once when I was a child. I seem to remember there being two field-like areas that one could view from, one much closer than the other, though the close one was some sort of "invite only" affair. Perhaps tickets were required. Paid parking passes were definitley required, though we did get pretty close up, close enough to see the shuttle and its different parts and what not.
I'm not sure if it's changed since then, but you can still see it from pretty much anywhere in Brevard County. We could see it from my back yard, and I lived in Melborne, quite a ways away. A small orangish blob, sending off a large trail of smoke. The few I saw at night were amazing.
Oh no no no. Sony plans on chopping the BluRay drives into chunks: they'll downgrade the drive speeds by 10%, and then use all the left over 10%s to make enough extra drives for the rest of the PS3s!
Brilliant, isn't it? Those wacky laws of mathematics mean nothing to the great people at Sony!
This was my first though, actually: what ethical problems are we dealing with, here? It's not like we're killing anyone or anything... are there passages in holy texts that prohibit this sort of thing? It seems like an advanced sort of exceptionally effective anestesia, which hasn't, for the most part, inccured the wrath of those protesting lack of ethics in science.
There's testing on medicinal practices like this going on all the time; if the people aren't being tricked into it, and if it's being thoroughly tested, as I'm sure it is, and if it will save lives, as I'd guess it would, what's the problem?
There's the inexcapable problem, however, that the very appliance you're worrying about has to be ON for it to notify you, and therefore the chance of your washing machine spontaniously combusting is still very much present.
Unfortunatley, I don't see this "did I turn the oven off" problem being solved any time soon. There's always going to be SOMETHING plugged in for you to worry about, be it air condition, alarm clock or automatic can opener.
I propose, instead, that we learn to develop our social networks rather than our electronic ones, and get to know our neighbors; if the house is on fire, THEY'RE the ones that will be calling the fire department, and they're the ones that I want calling out the neighborhood to battle the blaze with their hoses and pails.
On a side note, does anyone have a sinking suspicion that the amount of spam from various companies is going to increase as soon as my Washer/Dryer can send me emails? Soon they'll be encouraging me to pick up all their "friends," so my toaster can warn me when my waffles are thoroughly crisp. No thank you.
Also, perhaps this is only because my college is outragiously expensive, but they have these things in the dormitories at the University of Miami. You can put your clothes in, and an online system will let you view how much time they have left on them via your wireless internet connection. Nothing new here.
Only problem is, it still doesn't tell you if someone's taken your clothes out and thrown them on the floor.
You, sir, are an ass, and I'll tell you why: women are people too. With the mentality you have just described in this post, you're out to severely offend many a woman. Believe it or not, there ARE guys out there who are half decent, and who do not think like you do.
If you're not putting out then we won't keep going out with you long enough to decide if we enjoy your company.
Mark up one more slashdotter who's exposure to the opposite sex will be limited to reruns of Golden Girls.
Aaah, so since guns are weapons, it means the computer (and thus the PS3) is a weapon! And because knives are weapons, it means the computer is a knife! And since knives can slice and dice and chop onions and leeks and carrots, and food processors can chop onions and leeks and carrots, it means my computer is a food processor! And since food processors can make smoothies, and blenders can make smoothies, it means my computer is a blender! And since blenders are powered by electricity, and so are toasters, and so are irons and washer-dryer combos and airconditions and cell phones and refrigerators, it means that I now no longer need anything in my home, just a PS3, and a cardboard box!
Thank you, Sony, for simplifying my life!
If you excuse me, I must be off to make a phone call and chop some celery at the same time with my PS3. We'll see how that goes.
I'd like to point out that this is brilliantly advanced... in theory. It's completely possible and will likely be buildable... in theory.
I RTFA, and frankly, it sounds like confirmation of the idea that mathamatics in general is WAY ahead of the other sciences. Things that are perfectly possible in theory are out of our grasp in the real world... right now, at least.
Even as a mathmatician, the fact that there's so much theory and so little actual DOING has me worried. There's a tiny flaw in the use of 'metamaterials' to make objects invisible... we don't HAVE metamaterials.
Though, it beats sticking my head in the sand by a long shot.
I think what this tells me is most Slashdotters don't think Olive Garden is fancy. I think we should do a poll consisting entirely of Soccer Moms living in the suburbs and see how often they get out to a Bistro or a restaurant in which the waiter pulls their chair for them.
Either way, you still seem to be missing the point of my analogy. It's not that Nintendo's not classy. It's that it offers more food for less money. If I'm hungry, really REALLY hungry, I don't go to a fancy-pants restaurant to eat a tiny expensive cracker with some tiny expensive fish eggs on it. I go to a fast food joint and order a ton of food, or at least go to an inexpensive restaurant and buy a big plate of food on it. It's going to be good food, it'll fill me up, and it won't make my wallet implode.
And hey: even Olive Garden uses garnish and nice looking plates. You tell me it's not fancy, but they still present their food pretty well. Same goes for Nintendo. It's Good Eats, plain and simple.
Nintendo don't need no Flamengo dancers to keep your eyes off your tiny hors d'oeuvres that taste like astroturf.
No, but seriously. Satalites don't really rely on the earth's magnetic field. We don't really use it all that much. The laws of physics aren't reversing here, people, what we previously deemed north will now be south, and vice versa. The magnetic field's not going AWAY.
The only thing I wonder is of the time during the switch. How long will it take? How will compasses react? Will the field be weaker, and if so, what of increased exposure to the solar wind?
My GOD! If you're going to COMMENT, at least read all of the replies! If you check about six posts up, you'll notice that I already TALKED about this. In suburbia, and in Florida ESPECIALLY, fancy restaurants are near NON EXISTANT.
I DON'T THINK OLIVE GARDEN IS FANCY. I said MOST PEOPLE think it is, ie, those people have not been exposed to culture or class or WHATEVER you want to call culinary taste.
But everyone is MISSING THE FARKING POINT. My post wasn't about food, or culinary snobishness. It was about the fact that most people are not looking for whistles and bells when they are looking for a game system. If they're looking for a media center in a box, sure, but when it comes to games that are fun and numerous and varried, Nintendo = FTW.
Fancy names or "atmosphere" or live music and dancing are NOT what food is about, and neither are they what games are about in the basic, most dumbed down sense. Games are about fun, food is about substance and nutrients.
Now will you people STOP NAGGING ME ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ONLY RESTAURANT IN MY TOWN IS OLIVE GARDEN?! Gosh, string me up in a tree why don't you?
I choose to reply to your comment simply because it was the last. This is addressed to EVERYONE who is mentioning the fact that I said Olive Garden was fancy.
For the record, I do NOT think Olive Garden is fancy. Fancy is the restaurant in the cruise ship I went on, where we were all expected to wear tuxes or evening gowns and the THIRD waiter we had nearly tripped over himself rushing to the kitchen when I requested Pineapple juice. THAT'S fancy.
Yes, I live in America. In peticular, SUBURBAN America. We have no 'Bistros' here, no 'Upscale' restaurants with reasonable prices. We have ONE fancy pants restaurant (which isn't even that fancy) and the prices are indeed outragious.
I also live in Florida, the place people go to DIE. There are no fancy restaurants here because no one WANTS fancy restaurants here. They go to Olive Garden. They think that's cuisine. Simple as that.
Oh, and I've tried escargote. Don't believe Mr. Coward up there, it tastes like vulcanized rubber soaked in butter. Not worth the money at ALL.
I think it depends on the situation, and the person. If you're hungry, and you just want food, it would be nonsensicle to go to the fancy restaurant when you could get a filling burrito from a value menu.
On the other hand, if you're trying to impress a guest or a boss, you don't bring them to Taco Bell, you bring them to a fancy restaurant.
But just how fancy are we talking here? I don't think this analogy is valid, ESPECIALLY in today's world. 'Fancy' usually amounts to an Olive Garden or some other such chain restaurant, whose prices are reasonable. If we were talking about the 1600's, this would be a different story, of course. Fancy restaurants were all the rage, because it wasn't about being full, it was about impressing people. Then again, everyone had head lice in the 1600's. Go figure.
In the modern world, people want what is cheap and gives them the most for their money. Sony's not doing well on this point: if we extend the analogy, our 'hunger' is for games, not for music or movies or dancing and singing. It's wonderful that the fancy restaurant has live music or dancers or a movie or whatnot, but I'm not about to pay extra for it when all I want is food (games).
I'll take the cafeteria, thank you very much. Oooh, look! Pudding cups!
You're giving the choice to people who may not exactly have the best idea of the worldwide scope of their actions. That's the problem with most people and the environment. Somebody throws an SEP field around it or figures that the one teensey thing they do in their backyard won't affect the whole big wide world, and then you've got a quarter billion people dumping lead paint down their storm drains. "We'll deal with it in the future," they say.
by the time DDT loses effectiveness we might have better treatment for malaria or better cheap insecticides.
You're putting stock in something that may or may not happen. What if they had said that 40 years ago? "Well, by the year 2000, they're BOUND to have fixed this problem! We can just keep using DDT for now..."
And suddenly, in the year 1995, children learn to burp chlorine gas.
You're right in that the situation is now looking to be that in which we have no real choice. People are dying, we need to do something, our current options are limited. But I don't want scientists to give up the fight for something better and sit on their bums, just because "well, we have something that works now." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply here.
"It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity.""
-Rachel Carson, Silent Spring
Note the last sentence. It seems she KNEW that in some cases, not using DDT would amount in a LARGE amount of damage, and in these cases, using DDT would be unavoidable. Spray as little as you possible can seems to be common sense, but may not be to the uneducated.
It IS known that DDT builds up in the tissues of organisms high up in food chains. Perhaps studies don't indicate that DDT directly causes any sort of harm, but I don't think having an organochlorine in ANY fleshy parts is a good thing.
Alright, so say they DO start using DDT in a more widespread fashion to kill off these mosquitos. Ignoring the possible environmental aspects (which, from what I'm now reading, are iffy in themselves), when does it stop? When will Africa be safe from these mosquitos, allowing them to stop using the DDT?
The answer is never. Unless ALL malaria is wiped out in ALL organisms around the world, DDT will have to be continously used FOREVER to prevent malaria from breaking out.
This will eventually stop working. Some mosquito will happen to have a mutation that makes it resistant, and suddenly the DDT no longer works. Now we have a group of people who have been exposed to a pestiside for long periods of time, as well as a group of bugs who are RESISTANT to a pesticide.
Where do we go from here? We need something better, something a little more advanced than Super Raid.
Easy: it will be sold as the most realistic gun shoot-'em-up game hack and slash people with a sword game ever. What's more realistic than actually aiming at the screen and pulling a button-esque trigger?
I highly doubt the honor and ability to force others to surrender is what's going to sell this game to non-gamers. Instead, the flagrant physically realistic violence will....are anyone else's Jack Thompson senses tingling? I sense... disgusting, slimeball joy. Eew.
I'm encouraged by the fact that Nintendo seems to be going about this the right way: getting people genuinley interested in video games by introducing them to the titles that have broad appeal and are easy to play. Gradually, these people become aware that, "hey, there are more games out there that look fun that AREN'T about puppies or Sudoku. I'll give them a whirl!"
So Nintendo's not trying to force gaming upon the world, but is instead showing people that, surprise surprise, games are fun, opening the door for them to buy more games. (If they're Nintendo games, and the company happens to make massive profits, so be it.)
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but perhaps one day, saying that you're a gamer will be a taboo no more. Perhaps one day it will be as blasé as telling someone you enjoy movies or television. No more shall the scorn of the world fall upon the shoulders of the gaming culture! Throw off thy shackles, Hallelujah!
Just the fact that they're USING a name to selectivley call another of their species seems to indicate that there's something of a name there. Perhaps the reason we don't have information about their personal, in the wild names is that we have not been able to research whether they have language in the wild.
Anyway, anyone who has ever watched a National Geographic special on parrots knows that they DO communicate to each other. I've never seen a study done on exactly HOW they do it, though, which leads me to believe that people just aren't interested yet.
If this is indeed true, that the tilt and roll and gyroscopic capabilities of the PS3 controler are indeed well implemented and fun to use and yatta yatta yatta, does this not also mean that, because the Nintendo Wii focuses specifically upon these aspects of play, that their controller and console will not only be fun to use, but will perhaps be BETTER?
If Sony's done stole a little bit off Wii for itself, that doesn't suddenly mean Sony > Wii. It just means that Sony will have to work hard to encourage USE of that feature, whereas for Nintendo, it's kind of implied from the start that anyone designing games for the system is free to make use of the motion capabilities.
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well, but I'm just seeing this as another challenge for Sony. They have to prove that this isn't just an E3 gimmick, and that it somehow makes their games more fun to play than Nintendos.
1. Because when you drop your controler during a NORMAL game, your player doesn't do something totally unintentional. This thing's not going to be coated in butter, you know. 2. You'll learn to adapt, learn what will register the motion sensors, and how you can move around while keeping the thing steady. I'm sure that if you're in a tense situation where you need precision and accuracy, making a sudden decision to sit up might not be a good idea. 3. I'm guessing Nintendo's already worked on this, especially if they're marketing towards older people and girls. People won't play it if it's hard to set up, and Nintendo knows this, for sure. Give them some credit. 4. Like a damaged controler on any other machine is good for anything? I know that I've accidentally pulled the cord on one of my Playstation controllers a bit too far, and now the thing doesn't work. What am I going to use it for, making pasta? Same goes for the Wii. 5. You're going to play a console in a car? I'm not sure that's entirely safe. Keep your eyes on the road, Sir, not on your in-car television screen.
I don't think the point is that we can adapt to it: nay, it is that we don't need to. Who here doesn't instinctivly lean when going through a sharp turn in a racing game, or make motions with their controler when playing any game? I know I'm guilty of it, and I think the fact that the Wii will actually respond to these sort of instinctive physical movements is just awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt an atoll would be a good place for a Space elevator. One of the main points of creating something like this is ease of transport of materials into space: just hitch them on and let them be pulled up by the elevator. If you make it difficult to get materials to the elevator in the first place (having to ship them out into the middle of the Pacific), you've just made it much more expensive and much less desirable to use it.
Plus, storms and Typhoons and such things are common in the middle of the ocean. Not exactly ideal for loading materials onto the elevator.
I remember my parents bringing me to watch a launch close up once when I was a child. I seem to remember there being two field-like areas that one could view from, one much closer than the other, though the close one was some sort of "invite only" affair. Perhaps tickets were required. Paid parking passes were definitley required, though we did get pretty close up, close enough to see the shuttle and its different parts and what not.
I'm not sure if it's changed since then, but you can still see it from pretty much anywhere in Brevard County. We could see it from my back yard, and I lived in Melborne, quite a ways away. A small orangish blob, sending off a large trail of smoke. The few I saw at night were amazing.
Oh no no no. Sony plans on chopping the BluRay drives into chunks: they'll downgrade the drive speeds by 10%, and then use all the left over 10%s to make enough extra drives for the rest of the PS3s!
Brilliant, isn't it? Those wacky laws of mathematics mean nothing to the great people at Sony!
I for one welcome our new single-celled overlords!
...In country of Russia, Books buy You?
This was my first though, actually: what ethical problems are we dealing with, here? It's not like we're killing anyone or anything... are there passages in holy texts that prohibit this sort of thing? It seems like an advanced sort of exceptionally effective anestesia, which hasn't, for the most part, inccured the wrath of those protesting lack of ethics in science.
There's testing on medicinal practices like this going on all the time; if the people aren't being tricked into it, and if it's being thoroughly tested, as I'm sure it is, and if it will save lives, as I'd guess it would, what's the problem?
There's the inexcapable problem, however, that the very appliance you're worrying about has to be ON for it to notify you, and therefore the chance of your washing machine spontaniously combusting is still very much present.
Unfortunatley, I don't see this "did I turn the oven off" problem being solved any time soon. There's always going to be SOMETHING plugged in for you to worry about, be it air condition, alarm clock or automatic can opener.
I propose, instead, that we learn to develop our social networks rather than our electronic ones, and get to know our neighbors; if the house is on fire, THEY'RE the ones that will be calling the fire department, and they're the ones that I want calling out the neighborhood to battle the blaze with their hoses and pails.
On a side note, does anyone have a sinking suspicion that the amount of spam from various companies is going to increase as soon as my Washer/Dryer can send me emails? Soon they'll be encouraging me to pick up all their "friends," so my toaster can warn me when my waffles are thoroughly crisp. No thank you.
Also, perhaps this is only because my college is outragiously expensive, but they have these things in the dormitories at the University of Miami. You can put your clothes in, and an online system will let you view how much time they have left on them via your wireless internet connection. Nothing new here.
Only problem is, it still doesn't tell you if someone's taken your clothes out and thrown them on the floor.
Mark up one more slashdotter who's exposure to the opposite sex will be limited to reruns of Golden Girls.
Aaah, so since guns are weapons, it means the computer (and thus the PS3) is a weapon! And because knives are weapons, it means the computer is a knife! And since knives can slice and dice and chop onions and leeks and carrots, and food processors can chop onions and leeks and carrots, it means my computer is a food processor! And since food processors can make smoothies, and blenders can make smoothies, it means my computer is a blender! And since blenders are powered by electricity, and so are toasters, and so are irons and washer-dryer combos and airconditions and cell phones and refrigerators, it means that I now no longer need anything in my home, just a PS3, and a cardboard box!
Thank you, Sony, for simplifying my life!
If you excuse me, I must be off to make a phone call and chop some celery at the same time with my PS3. We'll see how that goes.
I'd like to point out that this is brilliantly advanced... in theory. It's completely possible and will likely be buildable... in theory.
I RTFA, and frankly, it sounds like confirmation of the idea that mathamatics in general is WAY ahead of the other sciences. Things that are perfectly possible in theory are out of our grasp in the real world... right now, at least.
Even as a mathmatician, the fact that there's so much theory and so little actual DOING has me worried. There's a tiny flaw in the use of 'metamaterials' to make objects invisible... we don't HAVE metamaterials.
Though, it beats sticking my head in the sand by a long shot.
The split ends are horrible.
I think what this tells me is most Slashdotters don't think Olive Garden is fancy. I think we should do a poll consisting entirely of Soccer Moms living in the suburbs and see how often they get out to a Bistro or a restaurant in which the waiter pulls their chair for them.
Either way, you still seem to be missing the point of my analogy. It's not that Nintendo's not classy. It's that it offers more food for less money. If I'm hungry, really REALLY hungry, I don't go to a fancy-pants restaurant to eat a tiny expensive cracker with some tiny expensive fish eggs on it. I go to a fast food joint and order a ton of food, or at least go to an inexpensive restaurant and buy a big plate of food on it. It's going to be good food, it'll fill me up, and it won't make my wallet implode.
And hey: even Olive Garden uses garnish and nice looking plates. You tell me it's not fancy, but they still present their food pretty well. Same goes for Nintendo. It's Good Eats, plain and simple.
Nintendo don't need no Flamengo dancers to keep your eyes off your tiny hors d'oeuvres that taste like astroturf.
blender will attack
AAAAARGH! I've being frappe-ed!
No, but seriously. Satalites don't really rely on the earth's magnetic field. We don't really use it all that much. The laws of physics aren't reversing here, people, what we previously deemed north will now be south, and vice versa. The magnetic field's not going AWAY.
The only thing I wonder is of the time during the switch. How long will it take? How will compasses react? Will the field be weaker, and if so, what of increased exposure to the solar wind?
Wear your sunscreen, children!
My GOD! If you're going to COMMENT, at least read all of the replies! If you check about six posts up, you'll notice that I already TALKED about this. In suburbia, and in Florida ESPECIALLY, fancy restaurants are near NON EXISTANT.
I DON'T THINK OLIVE GARDEN IS FANCY. I said MOST PEOPLE think it is, ie, those people have not been exposed to culture or class or WHATEVER you want to call culinary taste.
But everyone is MISSING THE FARKING POINT. My post wasn't about food, or culinary snobishness. It was about the fact that most people are not looking for whistles and bells when they are looking for a game system. If they're looking for a media center in a box, sure, but when it comes to games that are fun and numerous and varried, Nintendo = FTW.
Fancy names or "atmosphere" or live music and dancing are NOT what food is about, and neither are they what games are about in the basic, most dumbed down sense. Games are about fun, food is about substance and nutrients.
Now will you people STOP NAGGING ME ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ONLY RESTAURANT IN MY TOWN IS OLIVE GARDEN?! Gosh, string me up in a tree why don't you?
I choose to reply to your comment simply because it was the last. This is addressed to EVERYONE who is mentioning the fact that I said Olive Garden was fancy.
For the record, I do NOT think Olive Garden is fancy. Fancy is the restaurant in the cruise ship I went on, where we were all expected to wear tuxes or evening gowns and the THIRD waiter we had nearly tripped over himself rushing to the kitchen when I requested Pineapple juice. THAT'S fancy.
Yes, I live in America. In peticular, SUBURBAN America. We have no 'Bistros' here, no 'Upscale' restaurants with reasonable prices. We have ONE fancy pants restaurant (which isn't even that fancy) and the prices are indeed outragious.
I also live in Florida, the place people go to DIE. There are no fancy restaurants here because no one WANTS fancy restaurants here. They go to Olive Garden. They think that's cuisine. Simple as that.
Oh, and I've tried escargote. Don't believe Mr. Coward up there, it tastes like vulcanized rubber soaked in butter. Not worth the money at ALL.
I think it depends on the situation, and the person. If you're hungry, and you just want food, it would be nonsensicle to go to the fancy restaurant when you could get a filling burrito from a value menu.
On the other hand, if you're trying to impress a guest or a boss, you don't bring them to Taco Bell, you bring them to a fancy restaurant.
But just how fancy are we talking here? I don't think this analogy is valid, ESPECIALLY in today's world. 'Fancy' usually amounts to an Olive Garden or some other such chain restaurant, whose prices are reasonable. If we were talking about the 1600's, this would be a different story, of course. Fancy restaurants were all the rage, because it wasn't about being full, it was about impressing people. Then again, everyone had head lice in the 1600's. Go figure.
In the modern world, people want what is cheap and gives them the most for their money. Sony's not doing well on this point: if we extend the analogy, our 'hunger' is for games, not for music or movies or dancing and singing. It's wonderful that the fancy restaurant has live music or dancers or a movie or whatnot, but I'm not about to pay extra for it when all I want is food (games).
I'll take the cafeteria, thank you very much. Oooh, look! Pudding cups!
You're giving the choice to people who may not exactly have the best idea of the worldwide scope of their actions. That's the problem with most people and the environment. Somebody throws an SEP field around it or figures that the one teensey thing they do in their backyard won't affect the whole big wide world, and then you've got a quarter billion people dumping lead paint down their storm drains. "We'll deal with it in the future," they say.
by the time DDT loses effectiveness we might have better treatment for malaria or better cheap insecticides.
You're putting stock in something that may or may not happen. What if they had said that 40 years ago? "Well, by the year 2000, they're BOUND to have fixed this problem! We can just keep using DDT for now..."
And suddenly, in the year 1995, children learn to burp chlorine gas.
You're right in that the situation is now looking to be that in which we have no real choice. People are dying, we need to do something, our current options are limited. But I don't want scientists to give up the fight for something better and sit on their bums, just because "well, we have something that works now." "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply here.
"It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity.""
-Rachel Carson, Silent Spring
Note the last sentence. It seems she KNEW that in some cases, not using DDT would amount in a LARGE amount of damage, and in these cases, using DDT would be unavoidable. Spray as little as you possible can seems to be common sense, but may not be to the uneducated.
It IS known that DDT builds up in the tissues of organisms high up in food chains. Perhaps studies don't indicate that DDT directly causes any sort of harm, but I don't think having an organochlorine in ANY fleshy parts is a good thing.
Alright, so say they DO start using DDT in a more widespread fashion to kill off these mosquitos. Ignoring the possible environmental aspects (which, from what I'm now reading, are iffy in themselves), when does it stop? When will Africa be safe from these mosquitos, allowing them to stop using the DDT?
The answer is never. Unless ALL malaria is wiped out in ALL organisms around the world, DDT will have to be continously used FOREVER to prevent malaria from breaking out.
This will eventually stop working. Some mosquito will happen to have a mutation that makes it resistant, and suddenly the DDT no longer works. Now we have a group of people who have been exposed to a pestiside for long periods of time, as well as a group of bugs who are RESISTANT to a pesticide.
Where do we go from here? We need something better, something a little more advanced than Super Raid.
Easy: it will be sold as the most realistic gun shoot-'em-up game hack and slash people with a sword game ever. What's more realistic than actually aiming at the screen and pulling a button-esque trigger?
...are anyone else's Jack Thompson senses tingling? I sense... disgusting, slimeball joy. Eew.
I highly doubt the honor and ability to force others to surrender is what's going to sell this game to non-gamers. Instead, the flagrant physically realistic violence will.
I'm encouraged by the fact that Nintendo seems to be going about this the right way: getting people genuinley interested in video games by introducing them to the titles that have broad appeal and are easy to play. Gradually, these people become aware that, "hey, there are more games out there that look fun that AREN'T about puppies or Sudoku. I'll give them a whirl!"
So Nintendo's not trying to force gaming upon the world, but is instead showing people that, surprise surprise, games are fun, opening the door for them to buy more games. (If they're Nintendo games, and the company happens to make massive profits, so be it.)
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but perhaps one day, saying that you're a gamer will be a taboo no more. Perhaps one day it will be as blasé as telling someone you enjoy movies or television. No more shall the scorn of the world fall upon the shoulders of the gaming culture! Throw off thy shackles, Hallelujah!
Nintendo gets a +5, Brilliant for this one.
Just the fact that they're USING a name to selectivley call another of their species seems to indicate that there's something of a name there. Perhaps the reason we don't have information about their personal, in the wild names is that we have not been able to research whether they have language in the wild.
Anyway, anyone who has ever watched a National Geographic special on parrots knows that they DO communicate to each other. I've never seen a study done on exactly HOW they do it, though, which leads me to believe that people just aren't interested yet.
If this is indeed true, that the tilt and roll and gyroscopic capabilities of the PS3 controler are indeed well implemented and fun to use and yatta yatta yatta, does this not also mean that, because the Nintendo Wii focuses specifically upon these aspects of play, that their controller and console will not only be fun to use, but will perhaps be BETTER?
If Sony's done stole a little bit off Wii for itself, that doesn't suddenly mean Sony > Wii. It just means that Sony will have to work hard to encourage USE of that feature, whereas for Nintendo, it's kind of implied from the start that anyone designing games for the system is free to make use of the motion capabilities.
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well, but I'm just seeing this as another challenge for Sony. They have to prove that this isn't just an E3 gimmick, and that it somehow makes their games more fun to play than Nintendos.
Try jiggling it back and forth, sometimes that helps.
Alternatively, run it under some hot water for a few seconds.
If all else fails, give it a good swift kick.
1. Because when you drop your controler during a NORMAL game, your player doesn't do something totally unintentional. This thing's not going to be coated in butter, you know.
2. You'll learn to adapt, learn what will register the motion sensors, and how you can move around while keeping the thing steady. I'm sure that if you're in a tense situation where you need precision and accuracy, making a sudden decision to sit up might not be a good idea.
3. I'm guessing Nintendo's already worked on this, especially if they're marketing towards older people and girls. People won't play it if it's hard to set up, and Nintendo knows this, for sure. Give them some credit.
4. Like a damaged controler on any other machine is good for anything? I know that I've accidentally pulled the cord on one of my Playstation controllers a bit too far, and now the thing doesn't work. What am I going to use it for, making pasta? Same goes for the Wii.
5. You're going to play a console in a car? I'm not sure that's entirely safe. Keep your eyes on the road, Sir, not on your in-car television screen.
I don't think the point is that we can adapt to it: nay, it is that we don't need to. Who here doesn't instinctivly lean when going through a sharp turn in a racing game, or make motions with their controler when playing any game? I know I'm guilty of it, and I think the fact that the Wii will actually respond to these sort of instinctive physical movements is just awesome.