Reality is scarier than any book, TV, or movie.

And no one stands up or does anything about it!
All due respect, but the US has become the biggest cesspool of abuse and slavery in the world. The Government uses the people and controls them. The leaders treat everyone as tools to suck wealth out of and then dispose of them when they see fit.

I'm saddened by this incredible system of control, human right's abuses, and degradation of an entire society, for the profits of the 1% -- and no one in the US will stand up for themselves - in fact, people are so brain washed, that they stand up and defend the systems of abuse that keep them confines and abused.

Because violence is a part of life and games reflect that, the same as movies, books, tv, etc.

It would be nice if the “non-gamer” part of society would grow up and finally realise that games aren’t just for kids. If you want to ban violent games, you have to ban the Godfather, the Lord of the Flies, Breaking Bad and Guernica.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Though I guess by the way you've framed your questions you think I'm insane. The success rate of the balloon method is not bad. And getting two rovers down from a single launch is also something that's been successful. I don't think it's that unreasonable to consider that two rovers like Spirit and Opportunity could carry complementary gear, meet up and connect.

You're right that we don't send landers to Mars very often - that's why it's important to build on successful technologies with a proven track record of success to maximise our chances.

Thanks for the link - I've reviewed a lot of this stuff too though I appreciate more information even if it is delivered with a heavy dose of condescension.

Egos and personalities involved in science? Why would I ever think that - everything we do or say or write comes from a completely rational base right?

>> ^Fletch:

@dag

Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

Assuming you are serious...
The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.

@dag

Why wouldn't you try and improve on that method instead of going with a completely, untested extremely complicated new method? I suspect personalities and nerd egos are involved.

Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.

I understand that the sheer size of this rover (small car) makes it too big for a single bouncing-ball drop, but why not then, do two and let them come together and connect on landing?

Assuming you are serious...

The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.

Isn't that kinda how everyone felt at that point in the book/tv series?

Maybe that haven't realized that a vast majority of tendencies we have are garnered from previous information: instinct, friends, parents, teachers, grandparents, books, tv, etc... All of these things use information that was previously there. I would suggest that many "moral" rules we live by are altruistic via instinct or domineered by somebody's else opinion and power.

Sadly I think willed leaders and war are the biggest force at play; at least during the very beginnings of our species. Religion is just more of the same. It gets just as much "right" as it does "wrong" (relativity and all that).

<sup>[citation needed, same with the other stuff; if you go back too far you find that it's based off of instinct]

edit-- Also, if you truly understand evolution and look at what we can teach to other animals you're forced to conclude that the same is true for humans.
-- expressio unius est exclusio alterius</sup>

>> ^spoco2:
And that my friends, is why I don't play online games.
Because there is nothing fun about playing with a bunch of dicks who find humour in relentlessly killing the weak.
Bah and humbug.
Give me single player, or give me death




You must play the really challenging single player games that are never predictable.

Id rather be called a fag and tee bagged than watch my AI companions walk into walls , get in the way and generally act like one of them BBC micro robots that kids learn programming with.

And really the stories and Design in single player is god awful 90% of the time. Probably only 30 or so single player games worth playing. the only one I can see being of any good coming out in the near future is the new ICO/shadow of the colossus game.

every single player game i have played recently has been embarrassingly pore. aside from that penumbra game but that's years old now.

Maby in 10-15 years time when AI is better and Developers can consistently produce quality interactive story telling that is not some quasi cinematic exsperance with game play sellotaped on then ill realy enjoy single player games. at the moment for the most part multilayer games provide far better game play , and cinema , books , TV shows provide far better story.

the only ganra that works constantly well as single player is the casual/arcade ganra but in many cases those games end up evan better with multiplayer.

"but if the price of downloads came down to a "fair" level, most people were pretty moral"

That's the big one in my book. TV series $30-$40 a season, movies $15-$25, I have to really really like something to spend that much money on a DVD. Its not even a matter of affording, its a matter of do I want to spend my money on something that's likely to sit on my self all but 2 days a year.

Bloody Hell - he did a song to go with the book & TV show? Oh, I don't know: Danny Wallace & his Join Me / Join My Country malarky... I bet the banjo sealed its submission to the Sift for you!