Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: slaapliedjeOn that note, I was trying to figure out how you'd even have 100 mile per hour winds... if there was too thin of an atmosphere to properly have winds? I'm pretty sure there are large dust storms on Mars, but are they more in the upper atmosphere? I recall the first pictures before we'd landed anything on there was always showing that it had nasty weather patterns, and giant dust filled hurricanes. But it seems all the rovers aren't seeing that, except for maybe some sand dunes on the edge of craters.

You might find this interesting. [External Link]

Spoiler: It's the first Google hit for "Mars storms".

Dunno if slaapliedje did, but I did.
So, the winds only get to 60 mph and the atmosphere is 1% as thick. I think that's not quite as wimpy as it seems at first glance; if I foggily recall my grade 11 physics, the energy would vary with the square of the velocity. So like, to have as much impact as a full-atmosphere wind of speed X, a 1% atmosphere would have to be at velocity 10X cuz 10 squared = 100. Soooo, if I'm not getting this all totally mangled, a 60 mph wind on mars would have the pushing power of a 6 mph breeze on earth.
Still not exactly capable of threatening to push over a rocket and stranding a certain astronaut, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Kels

Quoting: Patola

Unlike Tropico, which Haemimont Games previously worked on, they're going for a more sandbox approach instead of following some sort of campaign.

Oh, come on!!! I hate open-ended games like that, a Campaign is the way to go. I like to play games like if I was reading a book, follow along an interesting, captivating story, not arranging random pieces of loosely coupled fragments of tales here and there. I guess I'll have to buy [url=undefined]Maia[/url] instead.

Oh, I missed that part. Personally, I'd rather have the choice between campaign and sandbox, given the choice.

So, given the choice, you'd like to be given the choice?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It feels weird to me that as near as I can figure, the latest stable release is 3.0 but the latest development release is still 2.x. Wha?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlThat's great, especially Wayland plans.

This is a thing that I haven't seen talked about a whole lot, but I am so glad Ubuntu dropped Mir. Everyone talks about them dropping Unity for Gnome, but frankly that doesn't matter much. There's lots of those things and one more or less is no biggie.
But Wayland is the kind of infrastructure it's so much better if there's only one of it, and going forward it could matter quite a lot to Linux gaming that we didn't end up with both Wayland and Mir making things complicated.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Looks like this could be my kind of game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Colombo

Patches cannot objectively be both free and not-free at the same time.

Here, there is the logical error you are making.

How can it be a logical error to essentially quote one of the foundational axioms of symbolic logic? I can imagine it being an error, but not a logical one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It is a problem, but on the other hand it certainly seems to be true that while with many games, people buy it when it's new, play it for 15-20 hours or something, and then done . . . with Paradox games people tend to buy the base game, play it for 30-40 hours, buy a DLC, play for another 12-15, buy another DLC, rinse and repeat, with a few extra stints of just going back to it and losing a weekend without having bought anything new, adding up very often to hundreds of hours. So if you talk $$$/hour of entertainment, Paradox tends to actually stack up fine against most of the competition near as I can figure.
And it would be frankly financially impossible to just put out a game with the depth and complexity of something like CK II with a dozen DLCs already rolled in at launch. They'd have to ask for megabucks for the game (and so it wouldn't sell), except they'd probably fold before release just developing the damn thing for as long as it would take. So while the situation isn't perfect, I'm not sure what I'd advocate as a solution.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I like Spaz one. I've heard this is very different, so I'll have to consider it separately on its own merits. Sounds like it might be good though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's a blip. But the trend even without that number looks positive. And we've seen a number of sources lately suggesting a positive overall trend for Linux use. Basically everyone except the Steam survey.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: heidi.wenger

Quoting: zimplex1Absolute degeneracy.

Or just the common mindset of liberals? Yet they won't tolerate you if you're conservative enough to disagree with them :whistle:

Tolerating intolerance is a different category from tolerating groups such as (other races, other genders, other sexual orientations). Cases for or against the two of them need to be made separately. This should be obvious to conservatives, since they typically don't tolerate (various groups of people) but do tolerate intolerance. In fact, it's actually quite difficult to hold the same stance on the two cases--how, for instance, would one both be intolerant of other races and intolerant of intolerance?

So the "liberals are so inconsistent/hypocritical because they tolerate eg gays but don't tolerate us" argument is basically facetious, a cute "zinger" meant to annoy the unwary but with nothing behind it. It's like saying that because you tolerate sushi, to be consistent you have to also tolerate swearing.

Note that this comment says nothing about the relative merits of "liberalism" or "conservatism" in themselves, I'm just pointing out the illogic of a particular argument I see too often.

View this comment - View article - View full comments