Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Girls Wired To Fear Dangerous Animals 224

Foot-in-Mouth writes "New Scientist reports that girls are more "primed" to fear spiders and snakes, compared to boys. Infant boys and girls were shown pairs of images, a fearful and a happy object (such as a spider and a flower), measuring the boys' and girls' dwell times on the images. And in another similar test, normally happy objects (such as a flower) were given a fearful face and fearful objects were given a happy face. The results of these two tests suggested to the researcher that girls are not wired to fear spiders, for example, but rather girls are wired to more quickly learn to fear dangerous animals. The researcher, David Rakison at CMU, 'attributes the difference to behavioural differences between men and women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. An aversion to spiders may help women avoid dangerous animals, but in men evolution seems to have favoured more risk-taking behaviour for successful hunting.' This reminds one of men's obsession with video games. Will game designers use this information to tweak video games for gender, either to make the games more or less frightening?"

Comment Re:Gameplay beyond level 20: Unfair ganking. (Score 2, Insightful) 147

Back in the early days of WoW, you could get a dishonorable kill for killing non-combatant NPCs. I'd also like to see the same happen for ganking much lower level characters. It's one thing for an 80 to kill a 70 (which really doesn't have much of a chance either), but for an 80 to kill a 20 and camp the body is really ridiculous. That should be considered dishonorable and the 80 should get some sort of reputation penalty for it.

Blizzard apparently thought otherwise though because they removed the entire concept of a dishonorable kill from the game.

Comment Re:They are badly losing people... (Score 1) 209

Well, people still play. I think they still have several hundred thousand subscribers, though many may not be active. They just released a new expansion in the last few months or so.

You have to solo the first 10 levels, then get ready for some hot sitting-in-town-for-hours-afraid-to-go-to-the-bathroom-because-you-may-miss-an-invite action with your "Looking for group" flag up. Eventually I made a White Mage just to get in groups when I realized my thief, no matter how good I was, just wasn't going to get me anywhere. It worked for awhile, but they raised the level cap and Red Mages became the healer of choice. When my static group broke up because they wanted to play wow, I stopped playing.

Comment Re:They are badly losing people... (Score 1) 209

That's why I was pretty excited to hear Square is making a new MMO. If it's somewhere between FFXI and WoW in difficulty and required skill, I'm sold. FFXI was great except you could do NOTHING without a party, and even when you got one odds were they had no idea what a skillchain/magic burst was. Most of the time was spent sitting in Jeuno waiting for a group.

WoW got something very right when it was possible to play solo and accomplish something. They started getting it wrong when I can kill 3 elites at once who are 2-3 levels higher than I am without needing to even pop a health potion just by pressing one button over and over.
Media (Apple)

Submission + - Apple sued over iPhone nonreplaceable batteries

UnknowingFool writes: "A customer name Jose Trujillo has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple over the iPhone batteries. According to the suit, Apple did not disclose that the batteries of the iPhone were not user-replaceable. Also the plaintiff alleges that the battery will need to replaced every year. When a battery needs to be replaced, the customer will be without a phone for several days unless the customer pays $29.95 for a loaner phone service. Lastly, the plaintiff alleges that the battery information was difficult to find on Apple's website.

  1. Technically Apple did not disclose that battery situation but it was widely reported before the iPhone was launched. Perhaps the customer did not read any reviews or has been living in a cave the last six months.
  2. The iPhone battery implementation is no different than the iPod battery implementation. Perhaps the customer has never used an iPod.
  3. The iPhone has been out less than a month. The return period on the iPhone is 14 days for a full refund unless the box has been opened which will cost 10%. So rather than return his iPhone in the first 2 weeks and take a $60 maximum charge, the customer sued instead.
  4. Since the iPhone is new, how can the plaintiff (or Apple) know how long the battery will actually last? Apple estimates that the iPhone battery life will retain 80% charge after 400 charges. Where is the plaintiff getting his information?

Slashdot Top Deals

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith