why should I believe any of the links you are posting?
You shouldn't. But neither should you believe in that documentary. No matter who it is that supports him. And results do lie sometimes, f.e. if it's cherry picking or fraud.
It's ok to question whether the FDA is corrupt though. That could actually have lead to some interesting discussion if Burzynski wasn't your prime argument.
People who stopped watching the video did so because they could already tell it's a fraud. The logic of "you have to watch the entire thing (twice) first" makes as little sense as "you have to test it first, maybe it works after all". It's simply not reasonable to waste so much time on every alleged HIV/cancer cure. There's hundreds and thousands of them. After about 10 minutes I could tell that it looks just like every other fraud I've come across so far (except a lot more money than average seemed to have went into the production of your video).
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNoZSduLMuo]Another[/URL] [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp8u3FWxh8Q]example[/URL]
It's true that chemo therapy is more profitable than an easy cure would be.
Frauds based on mystical cures for HIV and cancer are pretty profitable too though.
Most frauds are centered around a supposedly genious doctor whose work is for some reason hardly acknowledged.
For an alternative alleged cure for cancer watch [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zYWtzq4XBk]this[/URL].
(may not be the best video, i just picked a random one)
There are many others though, just search the web.
Edit: Also check out [URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkCHrV6cCfw]this guy[/URL], who had already found a cure for cancer and HIV in 1996!
My advice: Don't be gullible. Don't believe in videos like that, but don't completely trust the mainstream media either. To be able to do that you have to have the power to admit to yourself how little you really know about this world in absolute terms.
Thank you for the switch. I agree that shorter text just makes OoT so much more enjoyable. The cut scenes were never intended to be that long. Also, it will save abeshi a lot of work if you do the run on the J version yourself. ;p
Obviously, the time comes from not buying a new game instead and from not having games on the line to be played? (easily achieved by not buying new games before you've beaten or ditched the old ones and not forcing yourself to play absolutely every decent game in existence. take it slow and relax. oh, and don't play games like lost odyssey)
I'm sorry if this reply seems out of place.
Day[9], the famous full-time Starcraft commentator, is completely losing it duing the same daily (#311) twice.
It was on Funday Monday and this time people had to submit replays of them playing with their mouse only. (startig at 0:15): As Day[9] spots a critical error and rewinds one of the submitted replays to check how that scene looked from the player's point of view, he finds his view zoomed in on his workers mining minerals for no apparent reason. In the second scene, he makes a joke of how micro (handling your units more effectively than just attack move them in one giant group) is essentially just luck, f.e. to attack on that front where your opponent doesn't expect you to at that point in time.
Link to video
Time for some Siam Shade!
The band with the single most awesome live backup vocals ever.
In fact this may (just slightly) be too good for this thread, which is why I hesitated so long to post this. ^^
Link to videoLink to videoLink to videoLink to video
As far as the golden age of video games goes, I certainly feel like I'm living in the golden age of indie games at least. Almost all of the truly memorable games I've played during the last few years were either classics I hadn't touched yet (Ultima VIII, Deus Ex, Castlevania series on GBA) or indie games (Touhou series, Spelunky, Rom Check Fail, Karoshi, Syobon Action, maybe Braid, Bunny Must Die, Super Meat Boy, Minecraft and Joe ;)). Console gaming has been pretty boring recently. (PC had SC2 and Portal 2 at least ^^)
I am somewhat interested in SF4, but I'm too lazy to buy 2 arcade pads and talking some friends into seriously playing it, besides the fact that I'd rather waste my time with something else.
Anyhow, I'm not much looking forward to any new console and have pretty low expectations atm is the point I'm trying to make, I guess.
So do none of you care about the fact that you'll probably only be able to use one of those controllers at a time? That was a very big shock to me. I was expecting at least two and maybe four with dumbed down graphics.
I think Nintendo should definitely fix that and maybe consider selling the controllers or the system at a slight loss.
What does a screen on the controller use, I mean everyone has more than one TV at home.
Have you never noticed how split screen multiplayer doesn't always work too well because everybody else can see exactly what you're doing? This controller solves that problem. Also, it'll be way healthier to your bladder to use the Wii U than any other console.
Edit: Actually no, it seems the console was designed to only support one controller (+4 Wiimotes) at a time. Now that actually surprises me, given that the code name for the project was "Cafe", which to me seemed to imply more than one person using the new controller.
Shigeru Miyamoto wrote:
Q: Will players use two touchscreen controllers or will they use just one new controller and the original Wii controls with the new console?
Our basic premise is that you can use one with a system. If we got to an idea of having multiple (controllers) it might be just more convenient for people to use their Nintendo 3DS and have a way to connect that.
That being said, we are doing research about if someone brings their controller to their friends house and they want to play together on Wii U to whether or not something like that would be possible.
It didn't surprise me at all. The approximate specs were already known as well as that it was capable of streaming games to its controller.
The reason for why this will work as oppossed to the PS Vita as a controller is that the controller will be sold with the system, so developers can expect everybody who owns the console to also own that conroller. It's also a smart move because DS titles can easily be ported to the WiiU.
On the downside, I don't think it'll be much fun to use this thing. I find it optimal if I'm able to totally forget I'm even holding a controller while playing games. That doesn't happen for me with touch pads and motion control.
Nintendo might also have a hard time convincing their consumers to buy their next console once the PS4 and Xbox720 get released, unless they make the WiiU really cheap.
I'd argue that some people possess the ability to watch only certain portions of an 8 hour movie and can already be pretty sure they couldn't find it any more entertaining to watch the whole thing. Why should they be forced to torture themselves, just so their opinion gets respected?
With RPGs, there might be people who have formed the general opinion that they should only be published if they contain major game-breaking glitches. Why should those people need to watch the whole movie to vote no? They'd only have to skim through the movie and the submission text to find out it's just another ordinary run of an RPG.
And how come people who generally like a certain genre are perfectly allowed to vote yes on decent runs, but if people dislike TASes of a certain genre their opinion is suddenly less valid? There are perfectly valid reasons for disliking TASes of RPGs in general.
I can see how people who vote yes should really first watch the whole thing (excluding cut scenes) though. There might be flaws in it that can be easily corrected before publication.
The fun lies in the advanced techniques and mind games, which both take loads and loads of practice to master. If it seems repetitive, then that's because you and your sparring partner aren't good enough yet. The game is extremely deep and fighting is enjoyable for hundreds of hours. I'd recommend playing with items off and only on stages that are considered to be fair. Also, the NTSC version seems to be slightly more fun and imo more well balanced, but you wouldn't notice except on higher levels of play. Against the AI, it's relatively boring.
Here's the first part of a pretty great 3 part advanced how to play to see what you've missed out on. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's still more, and then there's tons of character specific techniques too.
Link to video
Edit: Oh, I now realize you said on the Wii, so it was probably Brawl. I'd agree with you on that, it's way too slow for my tastes, some (imo) core advanced techniques aren't in the game and random tripping is just so annoying. Out of the 5 SSB players in my area, only 1 prefers Brawl over Melee.
I think with this sample there's hardly any difference at all. Who's to say that mp3 quality loss couldn't make this particular sample sound better? Personally, I generally find VBR to sound better than strict 320 and I'm not a big fan of flac, as the quality improves only marginally with today's music (where most of the dynamic range is already lost in the studio just to make the music sound louder), but at a much larger file size. For mp3s, there's also a giant difference as to whether you use Joint Stereo, or not.
In any case, I'd rank them in 1<3<2, 1 seems to have lost some stereo information and the hi-hat sounds strange, in 2 the bass sounds most dynamic and the panning-heavy part sounds most crispy.
Nuclear power is certainly not the greatest danger that humanity has. It's probably not even in the top-10 list.
I totally agree.
Warp wrote:
One of the top dangers is pollution (and the subsequent global warming).
I kind of disagree with the global warming part. It is a big danger right now. But at least theoretically it's probably easily reversible by stopping the pollution and just planting more plants.
Warp wrote:
That should be much higher in our list of priorities than nuclear power.
It is in mine. I'm only talking about the issue of nuclear power because the question arose. I don't go around protesting against it. But the fact that it's so low on my list doesn't mean I can't be against it (and again, I'm not totally against it as a whole, but against the way we currently make use of it).
Warp wrote:
In fact, rather ironically, nuclear power actually helps reducing pollution because it's a clear source of energy.
I disagree. It only reduces pollution per time span. As it looks right now, we are going to burn absolutely all of the oil we have at our disposal, no matter what. Mildly reducing our output of carbon dioxide makes us feel like heroes, but the level of proposed reduction is nowhere near where it should be - because as it looks, we're going to burn all of it anyway eventually. There's little difference.
Warp wrote:
And approximately nothing else in this world is handled with more care than nuclear waste.
Well, officially. Fukushima would have been less of an issue if they hadn't decided to store their used fuel rods so close to the reactor, for reasons of economical efficiency. Safety doesn't come first with that either.
Temporarily lower our standard of living.
Warp wrote:
Modern economy, industry, technological progress (including quite important things like medical technology) and the welfare system depend on power production. Significantly reducing power production is going to hurt the well-being of many people.
Give up on some of those things. Well yea, actually I'm not really against nuclear power as a whole, but I feel like we've completely unnecessarily rushed to get it (We should have gone with the HTGR model at the very least). Our current plants are too risky in the long term. If we manage to replace them with something else soon, before a low chance disaster beyond all expectations occurs, then mankind would have managed to dodge the bullet. That's most definitely what's going to happen. I don't think taking such risks, no matter how unthinkably low, is a smart move anyhow though.
Let's say mankind will potentially live for millions of years, but every 100 years it does something that poses a very low risk of total extinction to it for short term benefits. Will it eventually become extinct? The only solution is to not take any of these risks at all, or we will take many of them. I don't think it's a smart move, but in the case of nuclear power, I guess it's still somewhat up to debate. At least we should have hesitated to make use of it at such a relatively large scale. We'll be able to generate energy much more safely pretty soon. So why are we taking the risk, no matter how small? I simply see no need to.
Warp wrote:
Probably many would die who otherwise wouldn't need to.
Don't shut them off just like that, slowly reduce our dependancy on them first. I realize that's practically impossible without a one world government though.
Warp wrote:
You would probably not be reading this if nuclear power was banned decades ago.
I think we should have only temporarily banned it. Nobody was there who could have realistically done that though.
You can't use public transportation and bikes to transport stuff from one place to another. Many of the important activities of individual people would be seriously hindered by the inability of independent vehicular driving. The usage of cars could certainly be significantly reduced (especially in the cities of certain countries), but banning it completely would be counter-productive.
Of course it would be counter-productive. Of course it would hurt us tremendous amounts in the short term. We'd simply have to abandon all those benefits. Who knows what smart kinds of uses for oil future generations would be able to come up with? Is it really that necessary to get a 200% increase in productivity (still speaking primarily about cars*, exaggerating their benefits) to waste pretty much all the oil we will ever have on this planet?
*) reducing our reliance on cars would need to be the first step if we don't want to use up all the oil we have. then reduce consumption of the industry. or maybe both should go hand in hand. i'm not implying that banning cars alone would completely solve the problem. again, none of this is currently realistically possible, but that's our own fault
Warp wrote:
(Well, we are going to run out of gas in a few decades anyways, so there's really no need to ban it. It will come naturally. I'm not really looking forward to it, though.)
Well, if we ban it now (I'm not for totally banning it btw) the little difference would be that we still have it at our disposal in case we find out we can make better use of it for something else, f.e. to colonise new planets more efficiently. (bad example, but that's the general idea)
The blame for our current style of living can only be on us.
Cars should have been forbidden out of principle. Obviously without cars, we'd have to give up lots of the benefits we are now used to, but we shouldn't have had those benefits in the first place. Later generations could have made many times more efficient use of the resources we are wasting today and many times more happiness could have been generated out of them. It seems we are a pretty dumb species when it comes to long-term planning.