Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Wait... They want them to dumb things down... (Score 1) 511

Actually, things like this are done all the time. For example, think back to when you were first taught math. Actually, a little further, to just numbers. I don't know about you, but I was originally told there were no numbers below zero, and thus you can't subtract a number from one smaller than itself. Oops, that was wrong, wasn't it? They're called negative numbers.

Move forward a bit to square roots. You can't take the square root of a negative number. Whoops, wrong again. You get an imaginary, or complex number.

This even persists through college. I'm in a class right now where, from talking to people ahead of me, I know that most of the information is dumbed down to the point that it will become utterly useless in the following classes, because the physical models are too simplified.

Actually, let's take a look at your F=ma example. F=ma isn't truly accurate. It's really F=m(dv/dt), since "a" isn't necessarily constant.

This all gets even better, when you start thinking about the fact that many things most people think of as fundamental truths and facts go flying out the window when you get into the realm of relativity or quantum theory. Time flow is constant? Not when traveling near lightspeed or near a large enough mass. An object has a defined position and momentum? Not on small enough scales.

Concepts like this are simplified all the time, often to the point that, to someone who knows better, they're wrong. Now, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I would much rather learn it right the first time than learn it incorrectly and have to fix what I know later. But, somebody decided that wasn't the best way to teach "complex" concepts, thus that's the way it's done.

Comment Re:it's magic! (Score 1) 115

I can only speak from what I know, and in my personal experience, of the people I know, most if not all who are interested in those games have no qualms about upgrading to maintain a capable computer. Of the gamers I know, most tend to take a point of pride in the capabilities of their personal computer.

Of course, I am completely willing to believe that my experience qualifies as a random outlier. If I can see evidence to support it. I just don't personally know that many (if any) "gamers" that would go for this type of setup.

Comment Re:it's magic! (Score 1) 115

I was talking in terms of majorities and generalities. Most gamers have a setup that's capable of running games well. That doesn't necessarily mean "dream setup," it means capable. For example, my computer is far from top-of-the-line, but it will still run most new games at mid-to-high settings. For me, that's good enough. For a lot of people, it's good enough.

Comment Re:it's magic! (Score 3, Interesting) 115

It's true that hardcore gamers are going to have systems capable of running these games well, locally. By which logic, their target audience shouldn't be hardcore gamers, but the more casual gamers looking for slightly prettier graphics than their box can handle.

However, look at that list of games. Those aren't games targeted at the casual audience. Those are the very games that are going to be picked up almost exclusively by the same gamers who already have capable systems. MMORPGs, maybe some find-and-click games, that's what they should be offering, not lightning-paced FPS'es, 60+ hour RPG's, and combo/timing intensive action games.

This is why I think OnLive is going to flop. Their game selection is targeting the wrong audience.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 142

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the number of people who update manually was in any way large, I was just saying that it is incorrect to assume there is absolutely no one who does. Although, I do think it is a little higher than you do. Maybe 1%, a little less.

And I'm willing to believe that graphics drivers go unupdated a lot, however, every one of my friends who games knows enough to check for updates every so often, so I guess I just surround myself with unusual people.

Comment Re:US Govt. Restrictions (Score 1) 297

Well, I know the scenario of people suggesting a possible outcome, and then others misinterpreting that to mean the outcome has actually happened, and then there being a reaction to the fictional outcome, has happened. In fact, it's part of the reason some people are so against D&D. There was a fear that kids could get so attached to a character that, if the character died, the kid would commit suicide. As far as I know, this has never actually happened, but ask someone who is against D&D (particularly for that reason) and they'll likely tell you it DID happen.

So, what I'm saying is it could (and if it starts spreading enough, probably will) happen. It's basically a grown-up version of telephone. Except with consequences.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 142

Actually, I do update Windows manually. Automatic Updates is turned off, and I check the Microsoft update site about once a week. Why? There have been times that there were pieces that I didn't want to install (such as the Firefox extension they snuck in with another update, a while back).

I've also had issues with Automatic Updates in the past, where it somehow got to a point where it would download the data, but couldn't actually install. Then I'd restart, and it would stay stuck at the same point. The issue was never resolved on that machine.

Beyond all that, I just like to know what's on my computer.

More than just my personal idiosyncrasies, I know of a piece of software that every user in the world must update manually, especially if they want to play new games. Graphics drivers. To my knowledge, no graphics manufacturer has a system to auto update their drivers. Sure, Nvidia occasionally puts new drivers out via Windows Update, but it's always listed under "Optional," which tells me that it probably doesn't get picked up by Automatic Updates.

This is all just in the interest of full disclosure.

Comment Re:Same with sugar rush in kids (Score 1) 506

For years, I've been drinking 2-3 Dr Peppers a day (size of each drink ranging from a 12 oz. can to a 44 oz. drink from a fast-food restaurant), that often being my only liquid intake. Yet, somehow, when I took a trip and had nothing but water to drink for a week, no withdrawal symptoms. No idea why; I was sure I was going to be addicted. Maybe it's because no one told me you could get addicted to caffeine until I was about 10, and even then I had trouble believing them. Now, given the choice, I still go for a soda, but that's just because I like the taste.

As for medicine, I've long detested taking it. Most people I know, if they get a headache, they reach for the aspirin. Personally, I just go lie down in a dark room for a little while, assuming I have the time. It works 100% of the time. If I don't have time, I try to just put up with it until I do. If it gets really bad, to where I can't focus well, then I'll take something.

Maybe I'm just weird.

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Working...