Makes it hard to be a moderate who believes in both God and science.
It's already hard enough. Try explaining to a "Christian" why the universe could have started with the Big Bang and still not interfere with the creation story. Then try to tell them that the order in which the types of species are created in the creation story pretty much follows the order that evolution follows and how it's entirely possible that the different species were created through evolution, which still doesn't interfere with the creation story. Then try to explain to a die-hard science type that religion/God can account for a lot of the things that science can't currently account for. You'll soon be hated by both sides. The simple fact that "Christians" refuse to acknowledge science because "that's not what the Bible says" is enough to keep me from associating with them and going to church. I believe in God and all that, but there are a lot of things that "Christians" do that I just plain don't agree with or refuse to be associated with.
*I put Christians in quotes because most people I've encountered that claim to be Christians simply are not, or do not behave how a Christian should. Christianity is not about different denominations (and which ones are going to heaven/hell) or looking down on non-Christians, which is what I see happening in 95% of the churches I've been to.
real-life porn featuring your ex'es (or current girlfriend)!
That wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Some of those experiences I wish I could forget. Now, if I could get my hands on the recordings of other people's (say certain celebrities) sexual interactions, that would make this research worthwhile.
This is exactly my point. There are much more convenient ways of doing that sort of thing. Having a monitor that displays a different image depending on the angle of observance is stupid to use as a multi-OS head. If I want to view multiple OSes simultaniously, I'd rather have multiple monitors, VMs, or a KVM switch, not a single monitor that I have to look at from a special direction to see what I want. Especially if there's any problem with bleeding/ghosts/whatever.
Three different inputs on the same screen? I'd rather have a button (or CTRL key sequence) to switch between them rather than having to move my head or the screen. Hell, I'd rather just have three screens, then I wouldn't have to do a damn thing other than shift my eyes. I don't really see any practical use in this, other than the whole "make people beside you think you're doing something else" thing, which really isn't all that useful.
Also, someone else mentioned the "bleed" factor. If the side images bleed onto the center image, it's going to be painful to look at. Look at a monitor that has an image burned into the screen. It'd be something like that, only it'd be two images burned into it, and they could possibly be constantly changing. It's a headache/siezure waiting to happen.
I don't think this will catch on at all, other than with people who constantly feel the need to show off their latest gadget.
No. Cars only explode in Hollywood. Chances are, if there was a short, it'd be grounded pretty quick. Which isn't to say that something bad couldn't happen, it'd just be one of those "freak accidents". Just like your car exploding (hell, even catching on fire) is a "freak accident".
As far as I can tell, the auto-update is working fine on v1.5, so there should be little to no problem with the average user staying up-to-date providing they have 1.5 installed. Just out of curiosity, what version was installed on your friend's computer? 1.0? IIRC, 1.0 and earlier required some action on the user's part to install updates. 1.5 does not (unless you count having to close and re-open the browser).
is anyone else worried that he won't have enough room in his living room to fit 2-4 people with arms flailing wildly as they try to use the Wiimote?
You don't have to make wild flailing movements to use the Wiimote. The promotional videos are exaggerated. I'm sure four people could sit/stand comfortably in close proximity and not whack each other in the face with their Wiimotes while playing a game. Unless of course that is part of the strategy. Actually, now that I think about it, that's a good plus of the Wii. Now shoving your opponent while playing could actually affect something in the game! Sweet!
Yes, also true. But say you're a loony and don't actually care about forming a real relationship, and are really just looking for your next victim (whatever that may entail). It would be much easier for you to do this online without your victim being suspicious. So when you finally get them to agree to meet you, the online "you" doesn't show, they get pissed and go home, while the real you tails them and kidnaps them in a dark alley or something. Yes, I'm taking things to the extreme here, but the simple fact that meeting new people online make this sort of situation a whole lot easier is enough for me to be wary of it. Granted, this happens a whole lot less than it would actually seem, and there are more success stories than horror stories. One just needs to be extra careful/suspicious when meeting people online. You never really know what you're going to get, and that's why there's a social stigma associated with it.
True, but that sort of thing is much easier to do and much easier to get away with online, especially when you can pretend to be someone completely different. In person, it's much more difficult, since your bodly language will often give away your false "face". It's not that you can do these sorts of things online, it's how easy it is to do them when compared to meeting someone in person.
The problem I see with meeting someone online is that you're not quite sure if they are who they say they are. People make stuff up online to seem nicer/cooler/stronger/1337/whatever. Just look at how people show off their e-peens on/.. People also tend to just have different personalities or personas online. For instance, one of my friends (a male) is almost always female online. In games, on websites, everything.
I see these as potentially huge problems because what if that cute 12 year old girl you met last night is really 35 year old fat bald Russian? Or even worse, a police officer?
Arrr, I otta cut ye open by the gullet fer tryin' t' pass yersef off as sumone yer not, matey, but I drunk too much grog, and can't swing me sword straight. Still, I'll have none o' that on me ship. Walk the plank ye scurvy cur, or I'll let me first mate have 'is way wit ya, and believe me, mate, ye don't want none o' that! He's a mite queer, that one!
I guess it's a good thing the PS3 won't have a laptop battery in it. Still, I expect some sort of hardware failure to occur a few months after release.
I think you might have ducked when those came at you. Most of those things were done on something else first. I don't think Sony has really done anything original. You can count the DVD thing if you want, but I see it as a natural progression, not something Sony thought of. I didn't mind the GC not having full sized DVDs. They seem to have managed to fit just as much content onto those tiny discs. Maybe not in the way of cut-scenes/FMV, but I don't really care so much about those. Yes, the N64 had the rumble first, the SegaCD had the disc first, the N64 had the analog stick first, etc., etc.
It just looks as if Sony is the only one without any originality the past couple of cycles (I could be mistaken here, feel free to correct).
Well, let's see... there was the DualShock and now the DualShake. There was the Emotion Engine. Oh, and backwards compatability (on a console. We all know the GB/GBA has been doing it for years). There were also the discs instead of cartridges (What this SegaCD you speak of?). The list just goes on and on!
The Gamecube had a 485Mhz PowerPC processor and the Wii will supposedly have one about 800Mhz or less. How is that tripling the power?
Clock speed isn't everything. You need to turn in your nerd card. Also, where are people getting this 800MHz BS from anyway? Unless something changed very recently, Nintendo hasn't released the final specs other than that the chips are made using a 90nm process.
I think they meant to add value to the viewing experience of watching the ad, not the show (via whatever retarded product placement). I don't mind watching commercials as long as they're interesting or funny. I do mind watching commercials that are of the form "buy brand [X] because it does [Y] [W]% better than brand [Z]". Make commercials more interesting and less mind numbing, and I bet a good portion of the general viewing public would watch them. Hell, a lot of people watch the Super Bowl just to see the crazy ads that get shown.
Slashdot Mirror
*I put Christians in quotes because most people I've encountered that claim to be Christians simply are not, or do not behave how a Christian should. Christianity is not about different denominations (and which ones are going to heaven/hell) or looking down on non-Christians, which is what I see happening in 95% of the churches I've been to.
Sorry for the rant. Please continue.
This is exactly my point. There are much more convenient ways of doing that sort of thing. Having a monitor that displays a different image depending on the angle of observance is stupid to use as a multi-OS head. If I want to view multiple OSes simultaniously, I'd rather have multiple monitors, VMs, or a KVM switch, not a single monitor that I have to look at from a special direction to see what I want. Especially if there's any problem with bleeding/ghosts/whatever.
Three different inputs on the same screen? I'd rather have a button (or CTRL key sequence) to switch between them rather than having to move my head or the screen. Hell, I'd rather just have three screens, then I wouldn't have to do a damn thing other than shift my eyes. I don't really see any practical use in this, other than the whole "make people beside you think you're doing something else" thing, which really isn't all that useful.
Also, someone else mentioned the "bleed" factor. If the side images bleed onto the center image, it's going to be painful to look at. Look at a monitor that has an image burned into the screen. It'd be something like that, only it'd be two images burned into it, and they could possibly be constantly changing. It's a headache/siezure waiting to happen.
I don't think this will catch on at all, other than with people who constantly feel the need to show off their latest gadget.
No. Cars only explode in Hollywood. Chances are, if there was a short, it'd be grounded pretty quick. Which isn't to say that something bad couldn't happen, it'd just be one of those "freak accidents". Just like your car exploding (hell, even catching on fire) is a "freak accident".
As far as I can tell, the auto-update is working fine on v1.5, so there should be little to no problem with the average user staying up-to-date providing they have 1.5 installed. Just out of curiosity, what version was installed on your friend's computer? 1.0? IIRC, 1.0 and earlier required some action on the user's part to install updates. 1.5 does not (unless you count having to close and re-open the browser).
Hey, I've met plenty of cute 12 year old girls online that weren't police officers! Oh, God, I've said too much.
You mean an Orgazmorator? Geez, get it right.
Yes, also true. But say you're a loony and don't actually care about forming a real relationship, and are really just looking for your next victim (whatever that may entail). It would be much easier for you to do this online without your victim being suspicious. So when you finally get them to agree to meet you, the online "you" doesn't show, they get pissed and go home, while the real you tails them and kidnaps them in a dark alley or something. Yes, I'm taking things to the extreme here, but the simple fact that meeting new people online make this sort of situation a whole lot easier is enough for me to be wary of it. Granted, this happens a whole lot less than it would actually seem, and there are more success stories than horror stories. One just needs to be extra careful/suspicious when meeting people online. You never really know what you're going to get, and that's why there's a social stigma associated with it.
There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
-- Albert Einstein
Probably misquoted slightly, but I don't care.
True, but that sort of thing is much easier to do and much easier to get away with online, especially when you can pretend to be someone completely different. In person, it's much more difficult, since your bodly language will often give away your false "face". It's not that you can do these sorts of things online, it's how easy it is to do them when compared to meeting someone in person.
The problem I see with meeting someone online is that you're not quite sure if they are who they say they are. People make stuff up online to seem nicer/cooler/stronger/1337/whatever. Just look at how people show off their e-peens on /.. People also tend to just have different personalities or personas online. For instance, one of my friends (a male) is almost always female online. In games, on websites, everything.
I see these as potentially huge problems because what if that cute 12 year old girl you met last night is really 35 year old fat bald Russian? Or even worse, a police officer?
Jokes and sarcasm aside, my point remains.
Aye, macin'. Me fav'rite pastime. Them cheesy noodles sure is tasty. Don't ye talk back t' me! I know 'xactly what ye meant!
Arrr, I otta cut ye open by the gullet fer tryin' t' pass yersef off as sumone yer not, matey, but I drunk too much grog, and can't swing me sword straight. Still, I'll have none o' that on me ship. Walk the plank ye scurvy cur, or I'll let me first mate have 'is way wit ya, and believe me, mate, ye don't want none o' that! He's a mite queer, that one!
You're newer. And I'm newer than you. Well, if you base it entirely on the ids...
I guess it's a good thing the PS3 won't have a laptop battery in it. Still, I expect some sort of hardware failure to occur a few months after release.
I think you might have ducked when those came at you. Most of those things were done on something else first. I don't think Sony has really done anything original. You can count the DVD thing if you want, but I see it as a natural progression, not something Sony thought of. I didn't mind the GC not having full sized DVDs. They seem to have managed to fit just as much content onto those tiny discs. Maybe not in the way of cut-scenes/FMV, but I don't really care so much about those. Yes, the N64 had the rumble first, the SegaCD had the disc first, the N64 had the analog stick first, etc., etc.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic.
*WHOOOSH*
I think they meant to add value to the viewing experience of watching the ad, not the show (via whatever retarded product placement). I don't mind watching commercials as long as they're interesting or funny. I do mind watching commercials that are of the form "buy brand [X] because it does [Y] [W]% better than brand [Z]". Make commercials more interesting and less mind numbing, and I bet a good portion of the general viewing public would watch them. Hell, a lot of people watch the Super Bowl just to see the crazy ads that get shown.