The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Let's compare them.
Imacs: Need electric to run.
Paper: Needs nothing to run. Ink optional.
Imacs: Runs a limited amount of games, Quake 3, Alpha Centuri... multiplayer games are limited.
Paper: Runs many games, battleships, squares, noughts and crosses. Multiplayer games are plentiful.
Imacs: If it breaks down, you'll have to journey across the ends of the earth to find someone who will fix it.
Paper: If the paper tears, you can just get another piece.
Imacs: Are incredibly difficult to make planes out of.
Paper: Can be used to make all sorts of little planes, and also other oragami stuff. Like swans. Or boats.
Imacs: Can be used for word processing, databasing, calculating...
Paper: As can paper.
I'm sure there are more... please, come up with some.
Imacs: Need electric to run.
Paper: Needs nothing to run. Ink optional.
Imacs: Runs a limited amount of games, Quake 3, Alpha Centuri... multiplayer games are limited.
Paper: Runs many games, battleships, squares, noughts and crosses. Multiplayer games are plentiful.
Imacs: If it breaks down, you'll have to journey across the ends of the earth to find someone who will fix it.
Paper: If the paper tears, you can just get another piece.
Imacs: Are incredibly difficult to make planes out of.
Paper: Can be used to make all sorts of little planes, and also other oragami stuff. Like swans. Or boats.
Imacs: Can be used for word processing, databasing, calculating...
Paper: As can paper.
I'm sure there are more... please, come up with some.
Page:
nothing wrong with origami...
Great in tech when you're bored with nothing better to do.
Great in tech when you're bored with nothing better to do.
Spider II wrote:
> Why the hell are we chatting about oragami on a Futre of Gaming
> forum???
alternativly... you could read the topic?
> Why the hell are we chatting about oragami on a Futre of Gaming
> forum???
alternativly... you could read the topic?
Why the hell are we chatting about oragami on a Futre of Gaming forum???
Shocktrooper wrote:
> Origami's a waste of time. It'll take you hours to complete it, and
> when you do you realise the whole thing was bloody pointless!
I like origami, you can make lots of attractive figures with the paper. And it a complicated mind task as well. I could make this really cool flapping bird. Then I forgot.
> Origami's a waste of time. It'll take you hours to complete it, and
> when you do you realise the whole thing was bloody pointless!
I like origami, you can make lots of attractive figures with the paper. And it a complicated mind task as well. I could make this really cool flapping bird. Then I forgot.
Shocktrooper wrote:
> Origami's a waste of time. It'll take you hours to complete it, and
> when you do you realise the whole thing was bloody pointless!
lol@shocktrooper... and after spending hours completing a console title, you are provided with the secret of love, life and happyness huh? :)
:P
> Origami's a waste of time. It'll take you hours to complete it, and
> when you do you realise the whole thing was bloody pointless!
lol@shocktrooper... and after spending hours completing a console title, you are provided with the secret of love, life and happyness huh? :)
:P
Origami's a waste of time. It'll take you hours to complete it, and when you do you realise the whole thing was bloody pointless!
Spider II wrote:
Oh, and by the
> way you can make oragami out of a PC, the PC makes it for you and
> gives you instructions!
I do find the plastic tens to break though?
(however... iMacs not PC's man :) )
Oh, and by the
> way you can make oragami out of a PC, the PC makes it for you and
> gives you instructions!
I do find the plastic tens to break though?
(however... iMacs not PC's man :) )
turbonutter wrote:
Not true. They do actually give out oxygen, as
> photosynthesis produces far much more oxygen than respiration uses.
> Albeit for only a third of the time.
look... I dont know man... I'm not a biologist... I was just reading this thing by Jack Cohen and Ian Stuart (both profs. at Warwickshire Uni)...
I can give you a list of thier other publications if you really want...
???
look... okay... I dont know enough to get into a big argument... so here is a section of what they wrote... and what I was on about...
(Its been a couple of years since I was at Uni, so you'll have to excuse my editing quality)...
'... there is a fallacy behind this kind of reasoning that has far wider importance than the fate of Biosphere II. An important example within the general frame of the
carbon/oxygen budget is the role of rainforests. In Brazil, the rainforests of the Amazon are being destroyed at an alarming rate by bulldozing and burning. There are many excellent reasons to prevent this continuing - loss of habitat for the organisms, production of carbon dioxide from burning trees, destruction of the culture of native indian tribes, and so on. What is NOT a good reason though, is the phrase that is almost inevitably trotted out, to the effect that rainforests are the 'lungs of the planet'. The image here is that the 'civilised' regions - that is, the industrialised ones - are net producers of carbon dioxide. The pristine rainforest, in contrast, produces a gentle but enourmous oxygen breeze, whilst absorbing the excess carbon dioxide produced by those nasty people with cars. It MUST do surely? A forest is full of plants, and plants produce oxygen.
No, they dont. The net oxygen production of a rainforest is, on average, zero. Trees produce carbon dioxide at night when they are not photosynthesizing. They lock up oxygen and carbon dioxide into sugers, yes - but when they die, they rot, and release carbon dioxide. Forests can indirectly remove carbon dioxide by removing carbon and locking it up as coal or peat, and by releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Ironically, thats where a lot of the human production of carbon dioxide comes from - we dig it up and burn it again, using the same amount of oxygen.
If the theory that oil is the remains from the carboniferious period is true, then out cars are buring up carbon that was once laid down by plants. Even if an alternative theory, growing in popularity, is true, and oil was produced by bacteria, then the problem remains the same. Either way, if you burn a rainforest you add a one off surplusof carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but you do NOT also reduce the earths capacity to generate new oxygen. If you want to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide perminantly, and not just cut out short term emmisions, the best bet is to build up a big library at home, locking carbon into paper, or put plently of asphalt onto roads. These dont sound like 'green' activities, but they are. You can cycle on the roads if it makes you feel any better.
Another important atmospheric component is nitrogen...'
Not true. They do actually give out oxygen, as
> photosynthesis produces far much more oxygen than respiration uses.
> Albeit for only a third of the time.
look... I dont know man... I'm not a biologist... I was just reading this thing by Jack Cohen and Ian Stuart (both profs. at Warwickshire Uni)...
I can give you a list of thier other publications if you really want...
???
look... okay... I dont know enough to get into a big argument... so here is a section of what they wrote... and what I was on about...
(Its been a couple of years since I was at Uni, so you'll have to excuse my editing quality)...
'... there is a fallacy behind this kind of reasoning that has far wider importance than the fate of Biosphere II. An important example within the general frame of the
carbon/oxygen budget is the role of rainforests. In Brazil, the rainforests of the Amazon are being destroyed at an alarming rate by bulldozing and burning. There are many excellent reasons to prevent this continuing - loss of habitat for the organisms, production of carbon dioxide from burning trees, destruction of the culture of native indian tribes, and so on. What is NOT a good reason though, is the phrase that is almost inevitably trotted out, to the effect that rainforests are the 'lungs of the planet'. The image here is that the 'civilised' regions - that is, the industrialised ones - are net producers of carbon dioxide. The pristine rainforest, in contrast, produces a gentle but enourmous oxygen breeze, whilst absorbing the excess carbon dioxide produced by those nasty people with cars. It MUST do surely? A forest is full of plants, and plants produce oxygen.
No, they dont. The net oxygen production of a rainforest is, on average, zero. Trees produce carbon dioxide at night when they are not photosynthesizing. They lock up oxygen and carbon dioxide into sugers, yes - but when they die, they rot, and release carbon dioxide. Forests can indirectly remove carbon dioxide by removing carbon and locking it up as coal or peat, and by releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Ironically, thats where a lot of the human production of carbon dioxide comes from - we dig it up and burn it again, using the same amount of oxygen.
If the theory that oil is the remains from the carboniferious period is true, then out cars are buring up carbon that was once laid down by plants. Even if an alternative theory, growing in popularity, is true, and oil was produced by bacteria, then the problem remains the same. Either way, if you burn a rainforest you add a one off surplusof carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but you do NOT also reduce the earths capacity to generate new oxygen. If you want to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide perminantly, and not just cut out short term emmisions, the best bet is to build up a big library at home, locking carbon into paper, or put plently of asphalt onto roads. These dont sound like 'green' activities, but they are. You can cycle on the roads if it makes you feel any better.
Another important atmospheric component is nitrogen...'
Yees... but how do you fold a computer screen to make oragami? I believe paper is needed at some stage.
Page: