undheim
Nov 5, 10:43 AM
I don't think that the cost of buying a mac is the problem, it's the availability of the initial experience with the SDK. 125,000 developers already signed up - I think that there would be at least twice that if the SDK could be used from Windows.
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
I agree, I did not run out buying a mac when I found out I wanted to try to make a mobile game. I did it on the Android sdk, halfway through Google had still not sorted out publishing paid apps from my country so I bought a macbook, an iPhone 3G (which I love) ported the game and published on the app store. Today I am thankful that google delayed. Android and Java is a dog compared to the iphone. Help people see the light! :D
cmaier
Apr 21, 08:50 PM
Isn't that the same thing google said with the nexus one?
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes:
No, but how is that relevant anyway? An Apple fan was dissing microsoft.
I may be forgetting something. :rolleyes:
No, but how is that relevant anyway? An Apple fan was dissing microsoft.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 12:09 PM
Great, let's have a race to the bottom to see which faith is the more bigoted.
If you're being burnt at the stake, it doesn't make much difference whether that's because of a story someone made up 2000 years ago, or a story a priest made up today. Faith is still the excuse, and the result is the same.
I'm not trying to further some Christian agenda or proselytise. I'm saying these things because I would rather support Christianity/Judaism/Atheism/whatever than Islam.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
If you're being burnt at the stake, it doesn't make much difference whether that's because of a story someone made up 2000 years ago, or a story a priest made up today. Faith is still the excuse, and the result is the same.
I'm not trying to further some Christian agenda or proselytise. I'm saying these things because I would rather support Christianity/Judaism/Atheism/whatever than Islam.
These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone being charged in a Western democracy for blasphemy but it's an almost every day occurrence in the Muslim world. The only time it happens in the West is when someone insults Islam, then it's classed as hate speech.
Huntn
Apr 25, 12:30 PM
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.
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
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.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
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.
It's easy "don't believe" as contrast to "don't know". I think it's a very important distinction for some Atheists who go beyond the "unknown" position into a more definitive negative view regarding deities. The problem as I see it is it is not so much that a deity may exist, it's all the purported rules and regs associated with said deity that makes it easy to cast doubt.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
The problem is that the concept of God is subjective. And if any God exists, then 1)It is a horrible communicator or 2) It does not really care because if it did, it would rely on more than ancient scripts, and it would take more care to ensure those scripts were accurate. (They don't appear accurate to me).
We exist, there may be an afterlife. I really do hope there is a spiritual plane where consciousness may continue. And there maybe judgement but these are huge IFs mostly based on our desire that there is more to life than our meager existence on this planet.
For fun please judge this statement: God can't prove its existence. If anyone disagrees, what real proof would be required? I'm not talking about those very subjective "feelings". ;)
AidenShaw
Oct 8, 07:54 AM
By Quad you mean each slower Clovertown or a pair of faster Woodies?
I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.
I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:50 AM
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
there is a very fine limit to it. Problem is a VERY VERY small percentage of people are going to take on 99% of the bulling.
Class of 30 students you will have 1 kid who is targeted. As that moves up to Jr high and high school the ratio gets even worse were you may find a 100 to 1 or higher ratio. That 1% has to take on 99% of the bulling and what makes it worse is that same 1% is not going to be helped or defended by others for fear of them being dragged into it and being the target as well. It is ugly. I was on the receiving side.
It is one thing for minor picking on things from friends but another for bulling.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:34 AM
Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
840quadra
Apr 28, 07:30 AM
Actually iPad sales were most likely down due to people waiting in expectation of the new model, and that new model not having enough units to satisfy demand.
Regardless, it still was strong sales for Apple, and other manufacturers. Good sign in this economy right now to be honest.
Regardless, it still was strong sales for Apple, and other manufacturers. Good sign in this economy right now to be honest.
bpaluzzi
Apr 29, 08:34 AM
There are thousands maybe millions of people out there that had there first computer experience on a Windows computer that now are sitting in the business world using Macs.
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Windows.
I am a teacher. I've personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Mac machines. I'd been using Windows machines for 15 years. I got sick of using Windows bloated OS, waiting for Windows to get rid of the registry. I switched to Mac.
See, anecdotes are fun. But, uh, what's your point?
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Windows.
I am a teacher. I've personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Mac machines. I'd been using Windows machines for 15 years. I got sick of using Windows bloated OS, waiting for Windows to get rid of the registry. I switched to Mac.
See, anecdotes are fun. But, uh, what's your point?
rxse7en
Oct 20, 01:30 PM
My 24" came in earlier this week. Using it as my main monitor and the MBP screen is my tools monitor now. Very happy overall and the SD and CF ports are a bonus.
B
B
hayesk
Apr 9, 09:33 PM
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Gee, and you'll also need to buy a house to play it in. Are you going to include that too? What a ridiculous statement. If the these devices only played Scrabble then you'd have a point. But these devices do so much more. So why would you say such a ridiculous thing?
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Gee, and you'll also need to buy a house to play it in. Are you going to include that too? What a ridiculous statement. If the these devices only played Scrabble then you'd have a point. But these devices do so much more. So why would you say such a ridiculous thing?
bousozoku
Aug 30, 07:19 AM
It does concern me but I've yet to dispose of any equipment. Everything about our daily lives abounds with waste, doesn't it?
I recycle whenever I can, but just because something has a recycling symbol doesn't mean that the company overseeing local recycling will accept it because they might not have the facilities to process it.
My car obviously pollutes more than I like even though the catalytic converter has been replaced and using air conditioning (car or home) uses chemicals that also pollute.
I don't trust Greenpeace any more than I trust our government. They're on opposite ends and neither cares about the truth. Either can be bought.
Having seen videos of Greenpeace in operation, I wonder if their "operations" are environmentally-friendly, whether it be a simple protest or an attack on a whaling ship.
After all this, Apple indeed need to get the lead out and clean up their act. Seeing as how the AirPort Extreme Basestation and iSight were recently removed from the EU shows that they have work to do.
I recycle whenever I can, but just because something has a recycling symbol doesn't mean that the company overseeing local recycling will accept it because they might not have the facilities to process it.
My car obviously pollutes more than I like even though the catalytic converter has been replaced and using air conditioning (car or home) uses chemicals that also pollute.
I don't trust Greenpeace any more than I trust our government. They're on opposite ends and neither cares about the truth. Either can be bought.
Having seen videos of Greenpeace in operation, I wonder if their "operations" are environmentally-friendly, whether it be a simple protest or an attack on a whaling ship.
After all this, Apple indeed need to get the lead out and clean up their act. Seeing as how the AirPort Extreme Basestation and iSight were recently removed from the EU shows that they have work to do.
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:04 AM
The transsexual kinda kills the whole message though. "Learn to accept yourself for who you are, except if you can't, then deform your body to look like someone else."
Homosexuality may not be a disease, but Gender Identity Disorder certainly is.
Homosexuality may not be a disease, but Gender Identity Disorder certainly is.
lilcosco08
Apr 8, 11:33 PM
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
Touch is generally terrible for gaming
Touch is generally terrible for gaming
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
They expect them to do better--at least as well as other companies do, and ultimately better than that.
And we should thank Greenpeace et al for putting this kind of pressure on companies: it helps all of us. These are serious issues, and they are issues that CAN be solved without companies ceasing to do business ;)
I'm glad for what Apple has done so far, and I'm glad people are pushing them to do more.
The "never criticize a business, their profit matters more than anything in the world" attitude is a little extreme if you stop to think about it. By that logic, we should accept products without warranties, toys that shatter into sharp pieces, batteries that catch fire, poisons in foods, slave labor, pollution... ANYTHING so long as it is in some corporations interest.
But corporations aren't the only thing that matters (despite their hold on certain governing bodies ;) ).
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 12:04 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 12:01 PM
When Apple Buys Nintendo eventually, it will be a good merge.
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).
spicyapple
Sep 26, 12:55 AM
8 cores ought to be enough for anybody. true, what would you do with extra cores? simply overkill.
Surely
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
No, they're wrong. Sorry to ruin it for you.:rolleyes:
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
spicyapple
Sep 20, 12:46 AM
The hard drive (if not used as DVR) will likely be used as temporary storage buffer. So if you buy a movie off iTS, it automatically streams to iTV and saved to the hard drive until you consume it.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
I agree. People should focus exclusively on the New Testament, where hateful behaviour is unequivocally denounced.
Take slavery, for instance. If ever there was a hateful action that we call all be united against, it's slavery. Good thing the NT takes a firm stance against slavery...
ohh.... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1pet/2.html#18)
damn... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/6.html#1)
it doesn't... (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/col/3.html#22)
We should also commend Jesus himself, for taking such a firm stance against the horrors of the Old Testament...
wait... (http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm)
that's not correct... (http://bible.cc/luke/16-17.htm)
No comments:
Post a Comment