Yeah, WoW really did a good job when it was released with all of its end-game content complete and in place... and now back to reality-land where WoW didn't have most of its end-game content at release either.
Re:Boost epitomizes everything that is wrong with
on
Boost 1.36 Released
·
· Score: 1
#1, it's perfectly possible to debug programs made with boost. Heck, unless the error you're encountering deals specifically with the mechanics of a specific template instantiation, it shouldn't really be any different than any other kind of debugging, aside from having to see ridiculously long type names.
#2, not all of boost is obscure template magic. You seem to be under the impression that even touching Boost will contaminate your code with heavy preprocessor recursion and metaprogramming trickery and are basing your complaints off of that. Why, then, would you be averse to using its portable networking library? Or its threading library? Or its filesystem access library? Or any of the other countless Boost libraries that provide very useful functionality without even touching template metaprogramming?
Well, yes and no. Although Boost was begun by members of the C++ Standards Committee Library Working Group, participation has expanded to include thousands of programmers from the C++ community at large.
Absolutely. It's good to have more people contributing.
Your prejudice is showing. Visual C++ has pretty consistently been among the most standard-compliant compilers since forever. It fell behind a little in the early 2000s, since VC++6 was actually released before the C++ standard was finalised, but remember that we're talking about the GCC 2.95 days there, and the average UNIX platform compiler wasn't even on the chart at that point.
This has not been my experience, having owned Visual C++ from version... 1.5 I think (one of the earlier ones)... until the.NET 2003 edition. Also GCC, Borland, Intel and Watcom (alas Watcom, you were good while you lasted). If you have some sort of regression testing available for various editions of the major compilers throughout time, I'd be interested.
Irony #3: Visual C++ is the only compiler on which I have actually seen real world code that makes extensive use of Boost compile properly out of the box.
Hello Mr. Hyperbole. You'll notice I never said anything about Visual C++'s current standards compliance; the later versions are absolutely quite good. There was a long stretch though where it needed a LOT of workarounds to get more esoteric things to work. Then again, I for one have personally used most of the more esoteric features of Boost in VC++, GCC, and Intel compilers, and can't recall any of them having trouble out of the box in any reasonably current state. Maybe if you're using old compilers?
Irony #1: My C++ code probably gets compiled on more platforms than code written by most, maybe even all, of the other participants in this discussion.
Awful big assumption. Not to mention the point under discussion was the development process, not platform targets.
Irony #2: While Windows may be the "odd one out" relative to the Linux world, the Visual C++ command line compiler and makefiles pretty much work like every other platform.
No argument here. It does. The problem is that Boost wasn't really built with the Windows command line in mind, which is why installing and configuring it on Windows is so much more difficult than about any other platform.
It doesn't matter what it says. There is a licence, which imposes a restriction. That in itself it enough to trigger a need for approval by the legal people in many companies.
Ah, okay then. So your problem is simply with using any kind of third party library at all? It doesn't get much simpler than the Boost license.
Do you think adding substandard lambda expressions and a funky parser library using template wizardry are more important than providing, say, standard facilities for working with networking, database interaction, heck, even console I/O?
You know, contrary to apparently popular belief, Boost is not all esoteric template metatrickery. It provides a large number of more basic features, just like you seem to want. It recently gained a very nice cross-platform networking library for example. Also there's a good basic filesystem access library. Threading too. Actually there's a bunch of this kind of stuff. So yeah, I'm not sure I get your complaint. And don't downplay the usefulness of a declarative EBNF style parser. I've found it immensely useful as a general purpose solution for parsing just about anything using almost an order of magnitude fewer lines of code than any other solution I've come across.
As for databases and console I/O, those are really very platform/solution dependent things. I'm not sure to what degree a general purpose library would even make sense.
I mostly agree with you (well, entirely agree except for what I define as qualifying as a "better" language; I believe English is "better" than Esperanto just like I believe C++ is "better" in the general case than most other options). That said...
But an overwhelming gripe is that the online documentation is atrocious. In the sense of incomplete, unclear, impenetrable, useless examples, broken links, broken HTML, outdated. To the point where it becomes a good reason not to use Boost.
Really? I can think of many one or two times out of my entire history with the library where the answer to my question wasn't easily found. Actually, almost all of my gripes with the documentation are with the Fusion library; its documentation is pretty spotty when it comes to laying out how to actually DO the things I want to DO with the library (most other libraries demonstrate use cases that I find pretty germane).
- regexps
- signals and slots
- smart pointers (Seriously? You can't check pointers yourself?)
- graphs
Man, you're missing out. BIG time. I write games myself for fun and I would probably cry if somebody told me I couldn't use signals or smart pointers anymore.
Re:Boost epitomizes everything that is wrong with
on
Boost 1.36 Released
·
· Score: 1
Since meta-programming is clearly useful, and something that a lot of programmers want to do... why not add true compile-time metaprogramming support to C++ (or better yet, develop a 10x simpler and cleaner language and put proper compile-time metaprogramming support into it)?
This confuses me greatly. Templates ARE true compile-time metaprogramming support. Perhaps just not exactly the design that you want? Contrary to what you seem to believe, things like partial template instantiation are NOT corner-case features and are very integral to the nature of templates. Admittedly, template syntax needs to be cleaned up a lot, but C++0x seems to be fairly on track for accomplishing a bit of that (meaningful compiler errors, yes please).
Well, template metaprograms are crap. They're nigh undebuggable, they produce unreadable error messages, they take forever to compile, and most C++ programmers don't know how to write (or even read) their implementations. They're an abomination.
The debugging problem, as I understand, will be largely fixed in the next iteration of C++, that's just an implementation detail. As for taking forever to compile, well can you point to a language that supports the kind of metaprogramming C++ can do (as in, metaprogramming that produces code equivalent in speed and function to manually coded versions; things like C# generics just wouldn't cut it in C++) and compiles quickly? I honestly don't know.
A well designed template library can be a beautiful thing. I love using Spirit for non-trivial text parsing, for example; it's VERY straightforward and allows me to declaratively specify a text parser in just a few dozen lines of code in as close to direct EBNF grammar as you're likely to find possible in a general purpose programming language. The trick is just to isolate your parsing code in its own compilation unit and compilation speed isn't so much of a problem.
Re:Boost epitomizes everything that is wrong with
on
Boost 1.36 Released
·
· Score: 1
That comment was at least seven different kinds of awesome.
Boost is created and maintained by, among other people, the people who created and maintained the C++ STL.
If by "on more than the bleeding edge platforms" you mean "on something other than MSVC," then yes. Microsoft's compiler was tremendously shitty when it came to standards conformance until.NET 2003 edition (I believe). Not to mention that only applies to the more esoteric libraries (like lambda functions and spirit), and boost is quite modular so you could still use the parts that did work.
never mind trying to fight through the mess that is getting Boost installed and running these days and spending time getting lawyers to review the licensing terms
You're definitely a Windows developer, aren't you? You're just suffering from the fact that Boost isn't really built with or for MSVC, and the Windows development process is very non-standard with respect to every other OS out there. On my system installing boost is a process that consists of all the "mess" of executing ONE terminal command ('pacman -S boost' and when it gets done Boost is installed and ready to use).
As for the licensing terms, this is the boost software license. It is three (short) paragraphs long. Stick to the libraries that are covered by that license (most of them) and you won't have any trouble. If you need more libraries than that, I'm not aware of any that have meaningfully complex licenses.
Should I mention the fact that boost is the code base for much of the additions to the next generation of the C++ STL? I know templates can be big and scary, but really...
They're using it just fine. From the medical standpoint, there is a very common distinction drawn between physical and psychological dependency. Sometimes they go together, sometimes they don't. There's a big difference in the way the two work though, and you're totally wrong that you don't get "addicted" to skydiving or base jumping. Any behavior that can be psychologically rewarding (basically anything that makes your brain give you a hit of dopamine) can be addictive. Those things are examples of things that can develop into psychological dependencies, but not physical/biological ones.
Look it up if you don't believe me, but that's how addiction is addressed from a scientific standpoint.
I think the machine has become too important, but not in that directors don't call or care about phrasing anymore (at tournaments they'll still call the entire final phrase before they announce the point). I think it's too important because abusing the cutoff seems too important to me as compared to things like good blade and footwork. That's just opinion though I suppose.
Point-in-line is still very important and used extensively at all levels. It still has priority in right of way until your opponent removes it as a threat. Thankfully sabre still clings to its tradition more than other swords seem to. On the other hand, most directors are very easy on the sort of action that can remove the threat of line; pretty much any blade contact at all is usually considered sufficient. That said, it's really almost the default action these days in defense against someone with a very strong agressive attack.
Sure, that's fine for little boys and sissies! Real men will first locate a bag of holding, most often after completing a rousing game of sokoban. They will then attempt to find an altar, and convert it through sacrifice if of the incorrect alignment. Having accomplished that, they will dilute several potions using fountains, and with the water produced will pray over the previously located altar. Now, having holy water, they will dip their bag of holding to bless it. Having completed these simple steps, they may now carry 14 different massive hammers and the complete inventories of several dozen armored soldiers with little difficulty.
P.S. There really needs to be a Nethackers Anonymous...
I would imagine that the quicker timing and the issue of remises means more Prise de Fer attacks instead of parry-riposte?
Prise de fer to a degree, but from what I've been seeing direct counterattacks even moreso. With the new 120 ms timing, it's very easy to simply counterattack into preparation and get away with only one light. Specific invitations are also a bit more popular since it's easier to give a very strong parry to an attack you expect (invitation to 3 by raising the hand towards 5 and then flicking the wrist around hard for a high parry 2 seems to be especially in vogue these days).
Prise de Fer attacks anyway since I could easily direct the opponent's blade away from my body while being inside their guard. I'm sure it wouldn't have worked as well at the next higher level...
It's less common at higher levels mainly because higher level fencers are much better at hiding their blades. Lower level fencres tend to have trouble hiding their blade effectively but still being able to finish an attack instantly if the opponent decides to counterattack.
Anyway, I've taken a few numbers from the link you provided, and will be making some calls... interestingly, two of the clubs listed for NJ are run by people I competed with.
Excllent. Always good to see more people enjoying the sport.
Capteurs no longer exist, as you weren't the only one who took issue with them. You are correct that the fleche has been completely eliminated from sabre, much to my (and a great many other sabreurs') dismay. Hopefully it's just a temporary insanity of the regulating body; a decision by committee that will be overriled... eventually... by popular opinion. We can always hope. The fleche has been effectively replaced by the much less elegant "flunge." While the fleche allowed you to use your front leg to provide the force of an attack by allowing the crossover, the flunge has you using your front leg for the force with a sort of imbalanced leap. Also, the electric timing on sabre was significantly shortened in '99 (I believe then), making parries MUCH more difficult to take successfully in face of a simple remise; your riposte has to be lightning fast to make it in time if your opponent decides to remise after being parried. As for "bittersweet" changes, the elimination of the capteur was accompanied by a corresponding increase in the regulated stiffness of the blade. It seems to make for better point control and prevents the really bad whipover (good), but makes the blades feel really really brittle, to me at least (bad). I've broken several of my opponents' blades in the last few weeks in ways I had never even seen happen in my earlier years.
Now that I've gotten all the bad news out of the way though, it's still (in my opinion) the most elegant, energetic, and enjoyable of the swords. I'm just hoping they decide to revert some of the more recent rule changes...
That would make sense but for the fact that republican guests apparently DON'T see the same influx of contributions after their appearances. Which leads me to believe that the relationship is indeed more causal than correlative as you seem to be suggesting. To quote directly from TFA:
Republicans do not appear to benefit at all from appearing on the program; notably, they raise more funds in the month before coming on the program while actually raising less money in the month following their appearance--hinting at a possible "Colbert bust" for the GOP instead.
The contrast here between Democrats and Republicans, assuming the data are sound, strongly suggests that there is definitely something more than "meaningless pompous statistics" at work here. As for my own explanation, I think it's simply that the Democratic demographic is, in general, much less likely to donate politically, and what we're seeing is Colbert's cult of celebrity allowing Democrats to feel "cool" about themselves for donating after seeing someone appear on his show.
I was under the impression that was due to all their writers being on strike, forcing the hosts to band together to be able to come up with enough content to fill their slots. It was quite amusing nonetheless.
I fenced sabre myself. Still do, really, although I need to get back into competition. If you fenced sabre before it went electric, you're going to have to prepare yourself for a HUGE change from the way it used to be. I'm from the California Bay Area myself, but this site has a pretty large listing of clubs. It looks like there are 39 listed in New Jersey. It really is a great sport to play for general fitness, and especially good if you believe in genuine sportsmanship, which I find is enforced and willingly practiced even at the competitive level more than any other sport I've seen.
I'll put it another way: play to win, but not because of the win.
I speak as someone who has fenced competitively, and intends to get back into the tournament game, and I can tell you with absolute, COMPLETE certainty that most fencers I've ever known ALWAYS fence because it's what they love to do. Fencing at tournaments (I, for example, have participated in the Pacific Coast Championships, Nationals, and Junior Olympics in my youth) was definitely a thrill, but I did not go there "just to win." I went there because I enjoy the sport and relish the opportunity to compete against skilled sportsmen, each of whom presents a unique challenge. If I were to ever practice my sport at the Olympics (hey, we can always wish, right?:), I would do it for the love of playing my sport. A gold medal would be icing. Believe me or not as you choose, but it's the truth. That said, I have the advantage of fencing not being very prominent in modern sports culture, and I honestly hope to god it stays that way.
Also, I ask you forgive my tendency towards exaggeration, but I didn't necessarily mean that sportsmanship is NEVER seen in modern sports. And even as you seem to recognize sportsmanship differs among the various sports cultures, with soccer/football being a more civilized example. I really blame the fans more than the professionals for perverting the culture of a lot of sports.
I think this is all a confusion of symptoms with causes. Sure, the current standoff between doping and dopers has created a somewhat unpleasant situation, but I think it goes deeper than just the doping. The real problem, as far as I'm concerned at least, is that high level competitive sports on nearly every front exist in a culture concerned only with winning--at any cost. Doping, the lack of sportsmanlike conduct, and all the other problems in high level competition--the way I see it these things all stem from such a strong emphasis on winning over simply playing the game for its own sake. I don't think legalizing doping, or finally preventing it completely, either way, will solve the problems we see. We'll just see a new symptom of the deeper ill manifest. What really needs to change is the whole culture of sports.
More than the writing, more than the dialog, I would have to say it was the directing that was abysmal. He had some very good (normally at least) actors, and managed to direct them in having all the personal affect of a moist cardboard box. And to get that out of Samuel Jackson is an absolutely astounding feat of directorial incompetence.
It seems like every other day there's a new article/paper/prognostication conclusively demonstrating the rarity/abundance of Earth-like planets/systems. Honestly, at this point I'm just going to hold my judgment until I can get out there and see for myself.
If ever in the history of humanity there has been a clear cut case of fair use, this would be it. Expect the video back up shortly if anybody decides to file a fair use counterclaim (or whatever the process is on YouTube). In any case, I would expect absolutely nothing less out of the cesspool of corruption that is the IOC.
This gets me to thinking though. Wouldn't it make sense for YouTube to provide the opportunity to attach a fair use argument to any uploaded clip IN ADVANCE? That way when sillyness like this goes on, all YouTube has to do is look at the attached claim, and judge it then. Saves a lot of people some trouble in cases of genuinely non-infringing use.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, WoW really did a good job when it was released with all of its end-game content complete and in place... and now back to reality-land where WoW didn't have most of its end-game content at release either.
#1, it's perfectly possible to debug programs made with boost. Heck, unless the error you're encountering deals specifically with the mechanics of a specific template instantiation, it shouldn't really be any different than any other kind of debugging, aside from having to see ridiculously long type names.
#2, not all of boost is obscure template magic. You seem to be under the impression that even touching Boost will contaminate your code with heavy preprocessor recursion and metaprogramming trickery and are basing your complaints off of that. Why, then, would you be averse to using its portable networking library? Or its threading library? Or its filesystem access library? Or any of the other countless Boost libraries that provide very useful functionality without even touching template metaprogramming?
Absolutely. It's good to have more people contributing.
This has not been my experience, having owned Visual C++ from version... 1.5 I think (one of the earlier ones)... until the .NET 2003 edition. Also GCC, Borland, Intel and Watcom (alas Watcom, you were good while you lasted). If you have some sort of regression testing available for various editions of the major compilers throughout time, I'd be interested.
Hello Mr. Hyperbole. You'll notice I never said anything about Visual C++'s current standards compliance; the later versions are absolutely quite good. There was a long stretch though where it needed a LOT of workarounds to get more esoteric things to work. Then again, I for one have personally used most of the more esoteric features of Boost in VC++, GCC, and Intel compilers, and can't recall any of them having trouble out of the box in any reasonably current state. Maybe if you're using old compilers?
Awful big assumption. Not to mention the point under discussion was the development process, not platform targets.
No argument here. It does. The problem is that Boost wasn't really built with the Windows command line in mind, which is why installing and configuring it on Windows is so much more difficult than about any other platform.
Ah, okay then. So your problem is simply with using any kind of third party library at all? It doesn't get much simpler than the Boost license.
You know, contrary to apparently popular belief, Boost is not all esoteric template metatrickery. It provides a large number of more basic features, just like you seem to want. It recently gained a very nice cross-platform networking library for example. Also there's a good basic filesystem access library. Threading too. Actually there's a bunch of this kind of stuff. So yeah, I'm not sure I get your complaint. And don't downplay the usefulness of a declarative EBNF style parser. I've found it immensely useful as a general purpose solution for parsing just about anything using almost an order of magnitude fewer lines of code than any other solution I've come across.
As for databases and console I/O, those are really very platform/solution dependent things. I'm not sure to what degree a general purpose library would even make sense.
I mostly agree with you (well, entirely agree except for what I define as qualifying as a "better" language; I believe English is "better" than Esperanto just like I believe C++ is "better" in the general case than most other options). That said...
Really? I can think of many one or two times out of my entire history with the library where the answer to my question wasn't easily found. Actually, almost all of my gripes with the documentation are with the Fusion library; its documentation is pretty spotty when it comes to laying out how to actually DO the things I want to DO with the library (most other libraries demonstrate use cases that I find pretty germane).
Man, you're missing out. BIG time. I write games myself for fun and I would probably cry if somebody told me I couldn't use signals or smart pointers anymore.
This confuses me greatly. Templates ARE true compile-time metaprogramming support. Perhaps just not exactly the design that you want? Contrary to what you seem to believe, things like partial template instantiation are NOT corner-case features and are very integral to the nature of templates. Admittedly, template syntax needs to be cleaned up a lot, but C++0x seems to be fairly on track for accomplishing a bit of that (meaningful compiler errors, yes please).
The debugging problem, as I understand, will be largely fixed in the next iteration of C++, that's just an implementation detail. As for taking forever to compile, well can you point to a language that supports the kind of metaprogramming C++ can do (as in, metaprogramming that produces code equivalent in speed and function to manually coded versions; things like C# generics just wouldn't cut it in C++) and compiles quickly? I honestly don't know.
A well designed template library can be a beautiful thing. I love using Spirit for non-trivial text parsing, for example; it's VERY straightforward and allows me to declaratively specify a text parser in just a few dozen lines of code in as close to direct EBNF grammar as you're likely to find possible in a general purpose programming language. The trick is just to isolate your parsing code in its own compilation unit and compilation speed isn't so much of a problem.
That comment was at least seven different kinds of awesome.
Boost is created and maintained by, among other people, the people who created and maintained the C++ STL.
If by "on more than the bleeding edge platforms" you mean "on something other than MSVC," then yes. Microsoft's compiler was tremendously shitty when it came to standards conformance until .NET 2003 edition (I believe). Not to mention that only applies to the more esoteric libraries (like lambda functions and spirit), and boost is quite modular so you could still use the parts that did work.
You're definitely a Windows developer, aren't you? You're just suffering from the fact that Boost isn't really built with or for MSVC, and the Windows development process is very non-standard with respect to every other OS out there. On my system installing boost is a process that consists of all the "mess" of executing ONE terminal command ('pacman -S boost' and when it gets done Boost is installed and ready to use).
As for the licensing terms, this is the boost software license. It is three (short) paragraphs long. Stick to the libraries that are covered by that license (most of them) and you won't have any trouble. If you need more libraries than that, I'm not aware of any that have meaningfully complex licenses.
Should I mention the fact that boost is the code base for much of the additions to the next generation of the C++ STL? I know templates can be big and scary, but really...
Programmer with new hammer sees lots of nails.
- News at 11
They're using it just fine. From the medical standpoint, there is a very common distinction drawn between physical and psychological dependency. Sometimes they go together, sometimes they don't. There's a big difference in the way the two work though, and you're totally wrong that you don't get "addicted" to skydiving or base jumping. Any behavior that can be psychologically rewarding (basically anything that makes your brain give you a hit of dopamine) can be addictive. Those things are examples of things that can develop into psychological dependencies, but not physical/biological ones.
Look it up if you don't believe me, but that's how addiction is addressed from a scientific standpoint.
I think the machine has become too important, but not in that directors don't call or care about phrasing anymore (at tournaments they'll still call the entire final phrase before they announce the point). I think it's too important because abusing the cutoff seems too important to me as compared to things like good blade and footwork. That's just opinion though I suppose.
Point-in-line is still very important and used extensively at all levels. It still has priority in right of way until your opponent removes it as a threat. Thankfully sabre still clings to its tradition more than other swords seem to. On the other hand, most directors are very easy on the sort of action that can remove the threat of line; pretty much any blade contact at all is usually considered sufficient. That said, it's really almost the default action these days in defense against someone with a very strong agressive attack.
Sure, that's fine for little boys and sissies! Real men will first locate a bag of holding, most often after completing a rousing game of sokoban. They will then attempt to find an altar, and convert it through sacrifice if of the incorrect alignment. Having accomplished that, they will dilute several potions using fountains, and with the water produced will pray over the previously located altar. Now, having holy water, they will dip their bag of holding to bless it. Having completed these simple steps, they may now carry 14 different massive hammers and the complete inventories of several dozen armored soldiers with little difficulty.
P.S. There really needs to be a Nethackers Anonymous...
Prise de fer to a degree, but from what I've been seeing direct counterattacks even moreso. With the new 120 ms timing, it's very easy to simply counterattack into preparation and get away with only one light. Specific invitations are also a bit more popular since it's easier to give a very strong parry to an attack you expect (invitation to 3 by raising the hand towards 5 and then flicking the wrist around hard for a high parry 2 seems to be especially in vogue these days).
It's less common at higher levels mainly because higher level fencers are much better at hiding their blades. Lower level fencres tend to have trouble hiding their blade effectively but still being able to finish an attack instantly if the opponent decides to counterattack.
Excllent. Always good to see more people enjoying the sport.
Sixth term from the top ;)
Capteurs no longer exist, as you weren't the only one who took issue with them. You are correct that the fleche has been completely eliminated from sabre, much to my (and a great many other sabreurs') dismay. Hopefully it's just a temporary insanity of the regulating body; a decision by committee that will be overriled... eventually... by popular opinion. We can always hope. The fleche has been effectively replaced by the much less elegant "flunge." While the fleche allowed you to use your front leg to provide the force of an attack by allowing the crossover, the flunge has you using your front leg for the force with a sort of imbalanced leap. Also, the electric timing on sabre was significantly shortened in '99 (I believe then), making parries MUCH more difficult to take successfully in face of a simple remise; your riposte has to be lightning fast to make it in time if your opponent decides to remise after being parried. As for "bittersweet" changes, the elimination of the capteur was accompanied by a corresponding increase in the regulated stiffness of the blade. It seems to make for better point control and prevents the really bad whipover (good), but makes the blades feel really really brittle, to me at least (bad). I've broken several of my opponents' blades in the last few weeks in ways I had never even seen happen in my earlier years.
Now that I've gotten all the bad news out of the way though, it's still (in my opinion) the most elegant, energetic, and enjoyable of the swords. I'm just hoping they decide to revert some of the more recent rule changes...
The contrast here between Democrats and Republicans, assuming the data are sound, strongly suggests that there is definitely something more than "meaningless pompous statistics" at work here. As for my own explanation, I think it's simply that the Democratic demographic is, in general, much less likely to donate politically, and what we're seeing is Colbert's cult of celebrity allowing Democrats to feel "cool" about themselves for donating after seeing someone appear on his show.
I was under the impression that was due to all their writers being on strike, forcing the hosts to band together to be able to come up with enough content to fill their slots. It was quite amusing nonetheless.
I fenced sabre myself. Still do, really, although I need to get back into competition. If you fenced sabre before it went electric, you're going to have to prepare yourself for a HUGE change from the way it used to be. I'm from the California Bay Area myself, but this site has a pretty large listing of clubs. It looks like there are 39 listed in New Jersey. It really is a great sport to play for general fitness, and especially good if you believe in genuine sportsmanship, which I find is enforced and willingly practiced even at the competitive level more than any other sport I've seen.
I'll put it another way: play to win, but not because of the win.
I speak as someone who has fenced competitively, and intends to get back into the tournament game, and I can tell you with absolute, COMPLETE certainty that most fencers I've ever known ALWAYS fence because it's what they love to do. Fencing at tournaments (I, for example, have participated in the Pacific Coast Championships, Nationals, and Junior Olympics in my youth) was definitely a thrill, but I did not go there "just to win." I went there because I enjoy the sport and relish the opportunity to compete against skilled sportsmen, each of whom presents a unique challenge. If I were to ever practice my sport at the Olympics (hey, we can always wish, right? :), I would do it for the love of playing my sport. A gold medal would be icing. Believe me or not as you choose, but it's the truth. That said, I have the advantage of fencing not being very prominent in modern sports culture, and I honestly hope to god it stays that way.
Also, I ask you forgive my tendency towards exaggeration, but I didn't necessarily mean that sportsmanship is NEVER seen in modern sports. And even as you seem to recognize sportsmanship differs among the various sports cultures, with soccer/football being a more civilized example. I really blame the fans more than the professionals for perverting the culture of a lot of sports.
You just be quiet. I plan on living forever thank you very much.
I think this is all a confusion of symptoms with causes. Sure, the current standoff between doping and dopers has created a somewhat unpleasant situation, but I think it goes deeper than just the doping. The real problem, as far as I'm concerned at least, is that high level competitive sports on nearly every front exist in a culture concerned only with winning--at any cost. Doping, the lack of sportsmanlike conduct, and all the other problems in high level competition--the way I see it these things all stem from such a strong emphasis on winning over simply playing the game for its own sake. I don't think legalizing doping, or finally preventing it completely, either way, will solve the problems we see. We'll just see a new symptom of the deeper ill manifest. What really needs to change is the whole culture of sports.
My two cents anyway.
More than the writing, more than the dialog, I would have to say it was the directing that was abysmal. He had some very good (normally at least) actors, and managed to direct them in having all the personal affect of a moist cardboard box. And to get that out of Samuel Jackson is an absolutely astounding feat of directorial incompetence.
It seems like every other day there's a new article/paper/prognostication conclusively demonstrating the rarity/abundance of Earth-like planets/systems. Honestly, at this point I'm just going to hold my judgment until I can get out there and see for myself.
It's called XNA.
If ever in the history of humanity there has been a clear cut case of fair use, this would be it. Expect the video back up shortly if anybody decides to file a fair use counterclaim (or whatever the process is on YouTube). In any case, I would expect absolutely nothing less out of the cesspool of corruption that is the IOC.
This gets me to thinking though. Wouldn't it make sense for YouTube to provide the opportunity to attach a fair use argument to any uploaded clip IN ADVANCE? That way when sillyness like this goes on, all YouTube has to do is look at the attached claim, and judge it then. Saves a lot of people some trouble in cases of genuinely non-infringing use.