User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >
| News Comments > Evening Consolidation |
 |
| 6. |
Re: Evening Consolidation |
Sep 24, 2010, 01:11 |
Fang |
|
|
| Oh, and if you are using it with Kinect, you'll probably need a ceiling mount. Compusa or amazon is your best bet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Consolidation |
 |
| 3. |
Re: Evening Consolidation |
Sep 23, 2010, 00:32 |
Fang |
|
|
| About $100. But if you have a painted off-white wall you can get away with it. You can also build your own for about $50 in parts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Consolidation |
 |
| 1. |
Re: Evening Consolidation |
Sep 23, 2010, 00:25 |
Fang |
|
|
Hidden Kinect Requirement:
It sounds like the guy just needs to buy a projector. A 1080p projector costs $950 on amazon, and a 720p (for most gaming) is $640. You can easily get a 100" screen out of that with the proper distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
 |
| 13. |
Re: Out of the Blue |
Sep 10, 2010, 21:09 |
Fang |
|
|
Someday, we'll have self-driving cars and we'll think back to the days when impaired drivers killed people and think it's nuts.
But I'm not holding my breath for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Evening Consolidation |
 |
| 9. |
Re: Evening Consolidation |
Aug 30, 2010, 22:57 |
Fang |
|
|
| If you want a Netflix device, you could consider getting a Roku device. They are only $99 on Amazon. I've been debating about getting one of those or another Xbox for my main TV. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
 |
| 6. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Aug 11, 2010, 15:20 |
Fang |
|
|
You are preaching to the converted ;p But that vid definitely converts the last doubters... Really? I was actually not interested in the Kinect, but that game vid brought back memories of playing Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast. I might pick it up for that game.
But for the rest of you, I can see where standing up for any length of time will make you start pouring sweat like the guy in the video. In that case, you may not want to buy it. Just keep sitting on your butt, eating Cheetos. You'll have more fun that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
 |
| 3. |
Re: Halo: Reach Will Punish Quitters, Says Bungie. |
Aug 3, 2010, 21:32 |
Fang |
|
|
| Just recycle the AI code from the single player game. It doesn't have to be that smart. Just give the remaining the satisfaction of ending the game on his terms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
 |
| 1. |
Halo: Reach Will Punish Quitters, Says Bungie. |
Aug 3, 2010, 16:43 |
Fang |
|
|
| What I don't get is why have the opponent drop out if the other player quits? Why not let AI take over the opponent? Have the dropped player automatically get a loss, and the winner can finish the game and continue his enjoyment. He may not even notice that the human dropped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
 |
| 9. |
Re: How Do I Win Rock Paper Scissors Every Time. |
Jul 15, 2010, 15:30 |
Fang |
|
|
I never understood why the RPS World Championships didn't just use the skilled based form of Rock-Paper-Scissors. If you guys don't know it, here are the rules from Wikipedia. The skill-based version is surprisingly addicting. I translated some of the words to English to make it easier to read.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muk-chi-ba
Muk-chi-ba is a variant of the two-player game rock-paper-scissors. It originated in Korea. This game starts with the usual game of rock-paper-scissors. Once both parties have presented their hands, the hands are kept presented and the person who wins the rock-paper-scissors round plays the offense for the first round. The player in the offense either changes or maintains his hand while simultaneously saying the corresponding name of the new hand. The opponent also changes or maintains his hand at the same time. The goal of the offense is to get the opponent's hand to be the same as his/her own. e.g. he/she would win if both players end up with a rock. After one round, if the offensive player didn't succeed, the offense/defense is redetermined from the hands resulting from the previous round and the next round begins.
In real play, each round proceeds very fast, often one or two rounds a second. If you are on defense, since the other guy will actually say what he is switching to, you think it's not that hard to switch to a superior hand. In actuality, it's very difficult not to switch to what he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
 |
| 43. |
Re: America's Deadliest Sweetener |
Jul 8, 2010, 12:01 |
Fang |
|
|
Apart from your lousy classical mechanics analogy you are right. But there is one thing you forgot to include NON-ZERO isnt always NEAR zero. Some forms of radiation have a significantly MORE THAN ZERO chance of fucking up your cells than others. Just like certain chemicals have a higher probability of being bad for you than others. Then there is the time factor, the longer you are exposed to for e.g. GAMMA rays the higher the health risks. Right, and my point is that with lower energy wavelengths, you have an even less chance of tissue ionization. That's why a lifetime of X-rays can give a higher chance of cancer, since they are higher energy EM radiation. However, cell phones operate at a lower wavelength than natural light or even infrared light. We don't see a light bulb as a cancer risk, and a cell phone is even less than that.
Take a look at a wavelength chart. A lifetime of UV light from sun exposure can give you skin cancer. Will a lower energy EM radiation cause deeper tissue penetration and give you brain cancer and not skin cancer? Extremely unlikely. A computer monitor with its natural light is hitting you with a higher energy EM radiation than a cell phone. That's more likely to cause brain cancer than a cell phone (both are near zero).
But some people like to wear tin foil hats... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
 |
| 36. |
Re: America's Deadliest Sweetener |
Jul 7, 2010, 17:46 |
Fang |
|
|
I'll be nice and here's a quick primer about EMF and cancer.
We understand quite well the mechanics of EM radiation and how it causes cancer. A complete understanding of it requires knowledge of quantum mechanics, but I'll try to simplify it. The thing about quantum mechanics is that everything is pretty much a probability, not a certainty.
For example, when two pool balls collide, classical mechanics will predict how they will bounce off of each other. Quantum will predict the likelihood that they will pass right through each other. And the probability is non-zero. With higher energy, there is a higher likelihood that the photon will pass through the material. If a photon happens to pass through you and damage an atom in one of your DNA cells that happens to control it's growth and reproduction rate, then you get cancer.
Low energy EM radiation is like me throwing a tennis ball against the wall with you being on the other side of it. What is the likelihood that the tennis ball will go through the wall, hit you in the exact spot on your chest that happens to stop your heart and kill you? Quantum mechanics says it's non-zero, near zero, but it theoretically can happen. High energy EM radiation is like me firing a gun at the wall with you being on the other side of it. Slightly higher chance of me killing you. (ie. causing cancer)
So can a wifi router cause cancer? Theoretically. According to quantum mechanics and calculating how the photons will react, the probability will be non-zero, near zero, but still non-zero.
But does cosmic radiation have a higher probability of causing cancer? What about even lower energy radiation such as your overhead light causing brain cancer? There are so many higher probabilities things that can give you cancer or just outright kill you. If we worry about that near zero probability, shouldn't we worry about meteors falling from the sky?
I'm not too worried about cell phones, wifi routers, and other sources of low energy EM radiation like the lights in my house. Just like I'm not worried about me falling through my chair because my atoms just happen to decide not to collide with the chair atoms. It can happen, but it's extremely unlikely.
But here's a hint. If you live long enough, you will get cancer. Probably not from your cell phone, but everything else that can damage your DNA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
 |
| 35. |
Re: America's Deadliest Sweetener |
Jul 7, 2010, 17:18 |
Fang |
|
|
Well, the FDA is political entity, protecting its turf. And the CDC is yet another. So the question everyone asks themselves, but perhaps not consciously, is "Do I trust what I'm being told by those in control?"
Well, I'm afraid I can't be pulled into an argument of whether or not we should all be wearing tin foil hats, so I'm going to pass on this one.
Do I trust what I'm being told by those who are not in control? No, not really when they are wearing those shiny hats.
When I was in grad school, I had a friend of mine who was getting a PhD in chemistry. His advice on chemicals and cancer is that pretty much all chemicals cause cancer, both natural and manufactured, except for water. Some more than others. So basically, you're screwed.
I don't have to refute anything he's said. In fact, I agree with him that artificial sweeteners aren't that good. Though I don't need to resort to the fear or the reasoning that he uses, but it does make a good headline title.
But just because he is right about one thing doesn't mean he's right about everything else.
As for the FDA, the example given about them shows how permissive they are. If they won't even let him go through with his false advertising, then you know something's wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
 |
| 28. |
Re: America's Deadliest Sweetener |
Jul 7, 2010, 15:15 |
Fang |
|
|
What are you smoking? It's an article on HuffPo by a physician reminding people of the very real dangers of aspartame because they're changing the name to AminoSweet in order to help dupe consumers. Where was there any mention of a vaccince or wonder cures? Follow the links to the rest of his site. He's a leader in the anti-vaccine movement. He also believes your cellphone and your wifi router are killing you.
http://www.skepdic.com/mercola.html
But he's on HuffPo's site, so that must mean it's accurate.
Oh, and he does sell some amazing wonder cures on his website. Be sure to buy some!
Disclaimer: The FDA has issued two warning letters for false and misleading advertising to Dr. Mercola. Use of these products may or may not cure your disease. But what the hell, the worst it could do is kill you, and you're going to die one day anyway.
Extra note: I hate and don't use Aspartame. It's pure sugar for me. But I still have a wifi router right by my desk.
This comment was edited on Jul 7, 2010, 15:31. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1073 Comments. 54 pages. Viewing page 4.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older > |
|