oakejs
Apr 13, 11:09 AM
Pretty good quality video of the event:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXL7L9fToQ
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXL7L9fToQ
Photics
Apr 9, 09:47 AM
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:34 PM
Hey, if they correct this problem and be more environmentally friendly (which I hope they do) it will be just one more reason to be a proud mac user :)
rxse7en
Oct 11, 02:30 PM
Got my coupon and tested it. It doesn't stack...total price is $1349.00
B
B
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
BRLawyer
May 2, 02:08 PM
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 05:57 AM
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:22 AM
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Sorry, I was too vague. I meant that there is a lot of talk about how this thing can't be a DVR because there are only output jacks. I don't see why those component and audio jacks can't be both input and output.
P-Worm
~loserman~
Mar 20, 05:17 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
iJaz
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
Bah, who cares, I used to dig Greenpeace but they are just rubbish nowadys.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:44 PM
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
skunk
Apr 23, 04:19 PM
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans.There are plenty of gods, and goddesses too, but none of them is real. Every ancient civilisation believed in gods, part ancestor, part mythology, part protector, part threat. We "sad" humans imagined and invented the lot of them. This ancient chief god of yours has not done much, by your own admission, in the past two thousand years at least, so why would his supposed involvement be any more beneficial in the future? The future is up to us humans, whether "god" exists or not. Get used to it.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 12:50 PM
I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
DaftRyan
Apr 9, 12:28 AM
I would love to have a conversation with the headhunters who managed to pull this one off. Talk about talent.
milbournosphere
Apr 15, 09:08 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
twoodcc
Oct 10, 10:32 AM
it's too early to tell yet. this is all just speculation at this point. wait until more android phones and android 1.5 is out first
Multimedia
Oct 11, 04:19 PM
Got my coupon and tested it. It doesn't stack...total price is $1349.00Thanks for the update. Still as cheap as the refurbs. I think that's cheap enough for me.
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
Thanks for the coupon tip rxse7en. I got one that lasts thru Monday. Going to buy it. I know it may still get cheaper, but it's cheap enough now to go for it - esp cause I have credit with Dell.
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
Thanks for the coupon tip rxse7en. I got one that lasts thru Monday. Going to buy it. I know it may still get cheaper, but it's cheap enough now to go for it - esp cause I have credit with Dell.
CalBoy
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
His only publications are those he's published himself. Nothing peer-reviewed, nothing backed up by psychologists at large. If that weren't proof enough, he also proposes to "cure" something which every other psychologist, psychiatrist, and neurosurgeon says is beyond our capability of understanding fully at this time.
He is nothing more than a closeted [insert profanity of choice] trying to validate his shame. There's a word for people like that, and it isn't "credible."
His only publications are those he's published himself. Nothing peer-reviewed, nothing backed up by psychologists at large. If that weren't proof enough, he also proposes to "cure" something which every other psychologist, psychiatrist, and neurosurgeon says is beyond our capability of understanding fully at this time.
He is nothing more than a closeted [insert profanity of choice] trying to validate his shame. There's a word for people like that, and it isn't "credible."
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
Macinthetosh
Apr 28, 12:55 PM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
tigress666
Apr 9, 01:38 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers. That's fine. As long as Apple does not come in to the gaming market and starts trying to strong arm third party big names all is good.
Wait, why is FFII and FFIII more a mind numbing time killer over any other game (I am getting FFIII either when it goes on a good sale or I finally finish up my other games, whichever comes first)? Or Myst or Riven for that matter (both on my phone, I've beaten Myst but haven't started Riven).
Or Prince of Persia for that matter? Not saying I am a real hard core gamer but not completely casual either (granted not into it as much as I used to be, my last console was my PS2 but honestly, my favorite console was the Playstation). And I will admit I prefer the old style RPGs to new style (I usually don't like reflex games, prefer the more tactics focus of old style RPGs vs how quick can you react of the new style. If I wanted a more live action game I'd buy one. Honestly, the iphone is hte first time I've gotten into the more "live action" games like Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed. Don't ask me why as I will admit those are the type of games that suffer the most from the lack of physical buttons. But it's still fun regardless).
What I am saying is I'm confused on what you consider not just some petty mind numbing game if you consider everything I listed as one.
Yeah, some of those are good for short burst of time killing (the little puzzle games like Boxed In and Sudoku). And I'll agree a lot of those games more unique to the iphone are ones you usually download, play a bit, and then never touch again (though some are still pretty good that you do keep going back to them too). And after a while they get so old you won't even download them for free (on a bunch of free app lists which end up having a lot of those games and these days I look, go, Oh one of those, and pass them up. Though you do find some true gems amongst those games that do last more than just a short bit).
Honestly, I haven't gotten back into gaming until recently when I've been finding a lot of actual good games and not just good for time killing for the iphone (mostly discovering Gameloft games and when Squaresoft started porting some games over on the iphone. I really want FFVII on my phone and I'd love to see some more jrpgs, if you can't tell, those are my favorites. I like a good story with them though).
(What I'm really hoping is that Square finds the iphone lucrative and we get a lot of stuff from them *grin*. Though I'm finding I really like Gameloft's offerings a lot too and GL really seems to understand how to get things to work best on the iphone despite the lack of buttons and the fact that many of their games they port over would do better with buttons).
Wait, why is FFII and FFIII more a mind numbing time killer over any other game (I am getting FFIII either when it goes on a good sale or I finally finish up my other games, whichever comes first)? Or Myst or Riven for that matter (both on my phone, I've beaten Myst but haven't started Riven).
Or Prince of Persia for that matter? Not saying I am a real hard core gamer but not completely casual either (granted not into it as much as I used to be, my last console was my PS2 but honestly, my favorite console was the Playstation). And I will admit I prefer the old style RPGs to new style (I usually don't like reflex games, prefer the more tactics focus of old style RPGs vs how quick can you react of the new style. If I wanted a more live action game I'd buy one. Honestly, the iphone is hte first time I've gotten into the more "live action" games like Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed. Don't ask me why as I will admit those are the type of games that suffer the most from the lack of physical buttons. But it's still fun regardless).
What I am saying is I'm confused on what you consider not just some petty mind numbing game if you consider everything I listed as one.
Yeah, some of those are good for short burst of time killing (the little puzzle games like Boxed In and Sudoku). And I'll agree a lot of those games more unique to the iphone are ones you usually download, play a bit, and then never touch again (though some are still pretty good that you do keep going back to them too). And after a while they get so old you won't even download them for free (on a bunch of free app lists which end up having a lot of those games and these days I look, go, Oh one of those, and pass them up. Though you do find some true gems amongst those games that do last more than just a short bit).
Honestly, I haven't gotten back into gaming until recently when I've been finding a lot of actual good games and not just good for time killing for the iphone (mostly discovering Gameloft games and when Squaresoft started porting some games over on the iphone. I really want FFVII on my phone and I'd love to see some more jrpgs, if you can't tell, those are my favorites. I like a good story with them though).
(What I'm really hoping is that Square finds the iphone lucrative and we get a lot of stuff from them *grin*. Though I'm finding I really like Gameloft's offerings a lot too and GL really seems to understand how to get things to work best on the iphone despite the lack of buttons and the fact that many of their games they port over would do better with buttons).
Chappers
Mar 13, 12:13 PM
When pumps failed to pump in water and the back up diesel powered generators failed they ran into problems.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:10 PM
Backtothemac:
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar