Slashdot Mirror

Site seems to be down - perhaps due to slashdotting?

Nah, more that I'm moving web hosts, and it would finally appear to be taking effect. The real site should be back up again sooner or later - but in the meantime, here's the MINERVA page on the Valve Developer Community.

Some download links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Yes, I'm using friends in UK academia for download bandwidth. But if old-fashioned HTTP isn't your thing, there's always BitTorrent...

Still, huge thanks for all the comments, and I guess I really should get back to the third and final part of Metastasis. (There will definitely be future chapters, so don't worry.)

(N.B.: Difficulty levels have been tweaked a bit, with an altered skill.cfg which monkeys around with the damage taken and inflicted by the enemies. Try loading standard HL2 maps through the console from MINERVA - it's like a whole different game.)

With an intro like that, it's got to be a joke. I suppose that if you search here, you'll find that missing punchline. Maybe this is it?

Q: What's the difference between mathematics and economics
A: Mathematics is incomprehensible; economics just doesn't make any sense.

I had the same problem, when I installed linux I did it at work using an SGI monitor (can't remember which model). However, I found a VGA adapter in HMV music and video/videogames store for 25 pounds (sterling) called "Blaze VGA Adaptor for Playstation(R)2" (google it, as I can't get the web page [www.xploder.net] to work!). It works well and you only need the hardware that it comes with (the software is for attempting to get normal games working on VGA. I haven't tried it with games as my PS2 is on the Net pretty much all the time (http://frik.mvc.mcc.ac.uk/).

Furthermore, SCO is barred by the terms of the GNU General Public License from making copyright or patent-infringement claims...

I've got to disagree with your post.

While it is true that it was published by Cambridge Press, you missed out that it was published by their Social Sciences division. This is a big problem if one wants to treat it as a scientific work. If you wanted to find out about physics, which would be a more authoritive work, a physics book out of the CP science division, or a book of feminist intrepetations of physics out of the CP social sciences division? If your going with the first option, why not apply the same rules to Lomborgs work?

As for stating "he's a statistician, not an earth scientist, so he takes for granted the numbers already being used in the field, and applies statistical analysis to them", the problem that I'm trying to point out is that by biased selection of "the numbers already being used in the field", he can get whatever result that he likes. For example, on his section of global warming he uses the modelling of William Nordhaus, while ignoring many of the well documented theoretical shortcomings of his models. (Source). This isn't science.

An interesting review of Lomborg's work on enviromental economics, can be found here. The author's make my above point a little bit more aggressively; "Statistician Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy is unnecessary, while denying catastrophic risks such as prolonged drought in major food growing areas (though such events cannot be ruled out by climate models). "

I wouldn't necessarily call those questioning him the height of the field either -- as the Economist was quick to point out, those objecting to his work are mostly the same crowd of doubtful prognosticians who brought us global cooling theory right up through the mid-eighties, before jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

That's a very broad brush your using. Can you find any link between global cooling and any of the three author's I've cited in this post (Felix FitzRoy, Ian Smith and John Quiggin)?

Anyway, all of the reviewers who you have tarred (Schnider (sp?) and co) have far more peer reviewed papers than Lomborg (who I just checked on the Current Contents database, and has the grand total of 1 (published almost 7 years ago - and in a non related field).

It runs/compiles under 7 languages: ANSI COBOL, ISO Pascal, ANSI Fortran, ANSI C, PostScript, Shell Script, and 8086 machine language!!! Check it out, it rocks.

It is important to note that often the money was borrowed by long-since removed corrupt regimes. As an individual you are not responsible for your father's debt but as a country you must pay for the gambling losses of every psycho that has ever run the country. Therefore there is a case to be made for the cancelling of third-world debt in some cases. Countries like the US and Britain have similar problems historically theselves. [1], [2],

and when one man says "stop fighting among yourselves and focus on the real enemy" they all didn't remember their real enemy, the Romans.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

Romani Ite Domum..

Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)

IUPAC is to be disregarded and possesses no special powers to name elements. Stuff like this is the epitome of how science has become a bureaucracy of rules, regulations, red tape, and political wrangling, than about actually expanding human knowledge. IUPAC decides on conventions. If you want to adopt your own names for chemicals, you can. Just don't expect to be understood. Personally, I find their system to be preferable to learning millions of proprietary names. In addition, it's nice to know whether to call whether Dubnium refers to element 104 or 105. By the way, IUPAC admits that its recommendations carry no legal force. And their system is certainly preferalble to that of Ludwig Plutonium