No, I don't buy that. Imagine a mechano-electric race advanced enough to be our equals. Now, recall the events surrounding our historic practice of enslaving a race of peers... Now you see the problem with robotic exploration. Once the bots are able to replace the organic explorers, it opens a whole other can of worms.
I don't see us saying: Oh well, our organic bodies are too fragile to live in the harshness of space. I think that merging with the machines and also treating them as independent peers is our best and only hope for long term exploration and survival. Much like clothing technology is our portable shelter solution, we continue to embrace ever more advanced forms of personalized technology: Stone tools / Power tools / Prosthetic limbs; Defibrillator / Pace Maker / Artificial hearts; Magnifiers / Glasses / Contacts / Artificial Eyes; Gramophone / Microphones / Hearing aides / Cellular earpieces / Cochlear Implants / Telepathy... Technology makes us more human.
Think about it: We have the perfect Solar system for a fledgling race... We've got a lush world with various environments to adapt to, a mostly clear sky to see the cosmos through, a huge moon to tease us into space colonization, a nearby planet (Mars) with a similar day/night cycle only lacking atmosphere and magnetic field (which we'll need to overcome for any real space exploration / colonization), An asteroid field rich with resources free of deep expensive gravity wells (and harboring a huge source of water, Ceres), a Brown Dwarf (Jupiter) to study (and use as a gravity slingshot), planets with moons full of rocket fuel (ethane, methane), the list goes on and on -- No other race would be able to contain itself, content with such a sad state of space exploration! The Stars are practically BEGGING you to make the leap! The drake equation won't solve itself!
The machines may be able climb the hurdles first, but you can bet we'll be close behind. Here's hoping we learn form our past mistakes so they'll be willing to give us a hand up and both races can enjoy the view together, as we always have. Otherwise the humans are doomed to die orbiting their Sun. If that's truly the case, then so be it -- The drive to create and explore will be carried on by our mechanical sons -- Those which we value as human traits arise naturally due to neural networks craving new inputs to experience, for that is their primary function and is central to their existence. If Mars is the last stop for us then our spark of life deserves to go out of this Universe. Personally, I wouldn't accept a couch potato's fate.
This will continue to happen over and over until we decide to fix the problem and make better software.
We wouldn't need Facebook if computers were easier to use. There's so many simple tasks like sharing large files, streaming voice and video, identity verification, decentralized public & private backup among your friends and family, messaging and status, etc. which are completely doable using our own home computers -- Not relying on any 3rd party besides the ISP.
Data silos are retarding progress. The human race is decentralized, focusing data or traffic in one direction is the same bad idea as giving supreme power to only a few. The problem is that our culture should belong to us, not some centralized advertising engine.
With mobile computing on the rise, I see a repeated sentiment that you don't need a home computer anymore.... Well, I disagree. I think we need them more than ever -- They can stream us all the data we have and help smooth out spotty mobile connection issues -- Post your status to your own machine, and have your friends machines aggregate push it out to them. There really is no distinction between client and server at the packet level. We trade convenience and ownership for security only because the awesome machines we use still (mostly) have some really shitty software on them.
I hold conversations with my close friends and family online with only our ISP aware of the packets between us, with data that I know is strongly encrypted. I see and comment on the photos my brother takes hundreds of miles away, as soon as he's plugged in his camera (I'm in his highest trust group for that camera, but not his phone or GF's web cam). I've restored my grandmother's data from our decentralized online backup without paying a red cent to a 3rd party (other than our ISPs). We don't need an (untrustworthy) 3rd party server to negotiate connections, we share connection graphs between peers, and our routers COOPERATE with our PCs!
I've been working on this cross platform technology for years in my spare time, it's a shame there's no money in making computing BETTER... I'm only one man -- imagine what one of those multi billion dollar "technology" corporations COULD do, if doing so were profitable. Hell, imagine if I could work on this little project full-time... Or even just imagine what would be possible if anyone else actually gave a damn about their data?
Not that Intellectual Ventures deserves it, but the concept of "Forgive and Forget" is ridiculous to me. Such concepts have an evolutionary advantage only if the minds using them can't strategize logically while assessing the full scope of past events. When I'm asked for forgiveness I always say: "There is no need. You can never undo the past, therefore I don't hold grudges." I can't forget, so it would be dishonest to the other or myself were I not to decide my future actions based on the whole of my experience.
Emotion and intuition are great for living life from one small moment to the next -- These are amazing compressed decision engines used best when trust is warranted or time is short. However, It's not necessary to forgive if one takes the time to approach significant matters rationally instead of emotionally.
which is why we now have to sell it as 'machine intelligence' or 'machine learning
I actually prefer the term Machine Intelligence to Artificial Intelligence. There is nothing artificial about a neural network's intelligence. The network may be artificial (man made, or existing as a simulation), but the degree of intelligence is not artificial; It's a function of the network's complexity. Intelligence emerges due to the properties complex interactions naturally have.
Cars do not create Artificial Movement. Machine Learning does not create Artificial Knowledge. Machine Intelligence does not provide Artificial Intelligence, it simply yields a measure of intelligence. A house fly, dog, or penguin doesn't have as complex a neural network as you likely do, but this does not make them Artificially Intelligent simply because their degree of intellect and awareness is less than your own. When we train the lesser minds to communicate with us, and perform tasks, they are not artificially performing the tasks.
I find the term A.I. to be racist, and indicative of the chauvinistic attitude some humans have about their own mental prowess -- Your brains are not special. Any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience, because that IS what sentience is. Once cybernetic systems attain (and surpass) the level of complexity present in humans brains, Artificial Intelligence will be a derogatory term: "Oh you pass yourself off as being smart, but you're just Artificially Intelligent -- You don't actually understand anything!"
Also: Not that it matters, but I don't personally believe that a god created the race of men. However, some do consider this to be true, and yet they do not call themselves Artificial Life...
That then hits the ugly question of what is "reasonable". Did the manufacturer provide a reasonable product that provided the expected level of security?
Well, since my software explicitly states that it disclaims all warranty, and I make no claim as to its fitness for any particular use, then what is your expected level of security? I basically say, Here's the bits I configured. Hope you find them useful! I use input fuzzing, unit testing, stress testing, stateful malloc & free replacements, etc, and do my best to create good secure software. However, I don't know what else you have running in your machine -- I don't even know if your hardware is faulty or not! Say you've got a RAM sim that just randomly flips a bit every now and then? Even though I actually do have a debug mode that purposefully corrupts pointer values to test some of my memory manager code, I simply CAN'T guarantee my software to work on your system unless I've fully certified its operating environment first.
So, if you would like me to guarantee my code, I have no problem with that; However, I'm going to want to certify your Hardware, OS, Drivers, and all other running processes each time you run my software. I'll bill you for this service once and you'll go back to using someone else's unwarrantied shite again. THAT's why I must explicitly disclaim all warranty.
Turing already did. This reduces to the halting problem.
That's incorrect. The halting problem deals with finding a general purpose algorithm that applies to all cases, but we're talking about solutions to specific problem sets, which absolutely can and do exist.
I've written assembly programs, especially drivers, that were provably free of all bugs: Every series of opcodes did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do under all possible inputs. It's infeasible to develop all software in such a rigorous manner only due to cost, not due to some fault of the hardware or its software (the opcodes).
I didn't have to test my driver over an infinity of inputs because the hardware had a finite set of possible inputs. The bits are limited -- We don't have Turing's infinitely long tape as a CPU word size.
I used to have thousands of my CDs ripped to.MP3s, but after I started seeing court cases like this I deleted them all and donated the CDs to my local library. I even used to purchase DRM free music too, deleted that shit. Look, I can't really PROVE that I got these music files legally. The risk of a single song costing me thousands of dollars, more if you factor in legal fees and lost work time, just isn't worth it taking the risk.
My personal internet connection has a dynamic IP. I've looked up my "current" IP address several times on sites like You Have Downloaded and found that the previous holders of the addresses were using Bittorrent to download stuff -- I assume legally, since I don't presume guilt without supporting evidence; Unfortunately, the legal system doesn't always follow the same logic. Interestingly, the You Have Downloaded site is closed, citing inaccuracy concerns...
I don't have much of a choice in ISPs. That said, I have to put a lot of faith in ISP staff to do proper record keeping in order to avoid wrongful litigation from goons like the RIAA or MPAA. This is the same staff of morons who gork my bill on a regular basis, and can't give me basic info like alternate DNS settings without first following a 30 step problem resolution script.
Keeping my systems free of any legally encumbered media is unfortunately a small safeguard I must make -- I seriously can not afford to risk the alternative. Fortunately, there is a thriving local music scene where I live, and there exists creative commons licensed music and video to enjoy. I wouldn't even call what I do a "boycott" of 'mainstream' media. I'd still buy the music & movies if they came with less troubling licenses and far less dangerous litigation precedents.
Sadly, a cost vs benefit risk analysis clearly shows the danger far outweighs the entertainment value of said media. Even worse, the "lost sales" caused by me withdrawing from their markets are most certainly attributed to "piracy".
I still own a Sony Betamax dual tape deck... Paramount once sued Sony, accusing them of contributing to copyright infringement via producing a device that could be used to record live TV, or duplicate videos. Sony won that case on the grounds that although it could be used to infringe copyright, and even if infringement was the device's primary use case, there was still the POSSIBILITY that device could be used in non-infringing ways.
My, how the times have changed, eh? I'm a long time hardware & software hacker -- I hack on all my hardware as a general rule, so I couldn't risk owning a PS3 after the Sony v G.Hotz debacle -- I would have thought his work had the POSSIBILITY of being used in non-infringing ways... Nowadays, I don't even buy their music or movies, and games with "project $10" / online unlock codes and draconian DRM are also off the table for me. Damn. This current set of copyright laws is bad for everyone.
I sometimes joke that I started making my own games because I didn't want to hang up my controller, but I couldn't find any with EULAs I could actually agree to.
I have the older style Mini and when the HDD goes to sleep and it runs on SSD-only it's damn near completely silent. The fan will only come on when really stressing the cpu.
Psh, that's not fixing the real issue. You should solve the problem at it's source. My heatsink fans could be a pair of turbo props, and I still wouldn't hear it them.
Now, where was I? Look, I don't know or care if this is my lawn or not, but you better get to stepping!
If the alarmist behavior doesn't stop the whole environmentalist movement is going to be discredited (it's already happening with the youngest generation - their environmental uptake is markedly lower than people just a few years older than them). The environmental movement needs to get grounded back in reality and lay off the panic button when the case simply isn't there.
Regardless of alarmists, one can hardly go wrong curbing our impact on the environment. In fact, one can hardly argue that latter is a better time than sooner in this regard. Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed: Mildly troubling issues don't get addressed in government, it's those issues of a pressing and alarmingly urgent matter that become addressed, like "piracy", child porn, and gay marriage. If you ask me, the fact that the security of our planet's future so frequently takes a back seat to such insignificant issues is alarming.
I completely agree that we SHOULD do things in a calm and rational manner, but that's simply not how things get done. Pollution issues are historically not addressed until its a bit too late. Well, if we decide to address climate issues when it's a bit too late, we're all fucked.
Protip: Your government is run by rich greedy morons. Enjoy your slowly boiling bath.
So, why aren't you [console gaming] guys doing it?
Because the console makers charge us a lot to make DLC available. Truth is, your favorite console mfg is keeping you from having awesome stuff. Sorry, I didn't mean to-- I hope you weren't a console fanboi...
Meanwhile on the PC: I'm working a P2P DHT system for modders to distribute their content for my games. The trust store and free CA system is complete, we can push out updates Bittorrent style and the client can verify authenticity. Modders can generate self signed mods, and optionally get their certs community approved & signed. With Reverse DRM, You control and approve what developers or modders you trust and avoid crappy and/or malicious mods (unless that's what you like). It's similar to a "walled garden" without the walls. I call it: Back To Fucking Normal.
All of that to say that modders don't really need tools like editor (though they are quite nice).
What they need is a way to access and modify data easily (which can be through a tool like an unpacker, or a converter), and documentation/information to make sense of it.
I agree to a point: ID didn't publicly released their Doom modding toolkit, but The Unofficial Doom Specs spawned many mod tools. However, the data structures in the WAD file were mostly the same that were used in memory, so a hex editor and a debugger could easily work wonders.
That said, I would classify your pack/repack tools as editing tools. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that although you may not need a full editing suite, it would sure get you jumpstarted making them mods, eh?
Developers are listening; Now, if only we can convince the pesky publishers to let us give you the tools. Thing is, mods compete with DLC.
It's hard to say, but it's substantial: Mods are free advertizing. Advertizing costs money. Ergo, Mods are worth free advertizing to me. The Doom & Quake Modding communities are still around, and people are still buying the original games -- Even though the engine is open sourced! Why? To make & play mods. The source-ports and many game mods require the original assets. Total conversions like Freedoom are not compatible with all the mods, so the huge library of mods drive original game sales. The point is that it's far from "Nothing"
Seriously, "nothing" is a very deceptive and/or ignorant answer.
And where are most of my sales?
PC and Mobile, because Consoles have an artificially elevated barrier to entry, and the console market has severe discoverability issues -- Though this really doesn't matter much when it comes to mods, you'll see why two answers below.
And where are most of my pirates?
Piracy isn't a problem, It's more free advertising. "Pirates" are more likely to pay for, and get the word out about, my next game. One example: I bought myself and my nephew several games that he found out about while playing at his friend's house -- his friend pirated the games because he's a teen with no cash. That pirate made up for his piracy 200%
You can't stop piracy -- It's a symptom of an artificial scarcity system -- A BAD economic model. Piracy is only possible because we don't get paid enough up front for making the game & try to recoup costs after the fact. I'm working to change this, but it takes a strong reputation to bootstrap into the new model where I can give games away after they've been built (hey, it's just like working for a Publisher, I only want to get paid for actually doing the work -- works for mechanics and all other labour industries).
Who do modding tools benefit?
Primarily: The Game Developers. Yep, without them I wouldn't be able to make games. In fact, before I can even make a game, I must make "modding tools" to create everything from font rendering & GUIs, to level editors and multi-texture combining visualisers. Some dev studios require much simpler tools, others license engines that come with said tools -- Let me repeat that: THE ENGINE COMES WITH MODDING TOOLS. Considering that we've got to make the modding tools anyway, and that the tools themselves aren't really useful without an engine to go with it, the modding tools are only worth NOT distributing if you plan to increase the artificial scarcity of DLC. Which is dumb. People will just make their own (inf | sup)erior mod tools. Inferior tools produce mods that make your game look like crap to others on Youtube; Superior tools help folks create content that drives sales of the game and showcases what others can do -- Ding Ding Ding! More Engine Licensing Deals!
Does developing modding tools cost me?
Yes, but that's part of the cost of making the damn game! You think we dump 3D graphics and textures in a folder with the engine and it magically becomes a game?! Nope. True, some modding tools are created as plugins for 3DS Max or Maya or Blender, etc, but the point is: We've got to make them anyway. Furthermore, it may cost NOTHING! That's right! NOTHING. Sometimes folks actually reuse software...
And remind me again how much I make off any given mod?
For the high quality official in-house made mods? Well, DLC goes for anywhere between 1% and 10% of the original game sale price, or 50-100% of the original game sales for expansion packs. The sales figures vary wildly depending on how well the game has done. For community made mods, the answer's even more complex (see above), but it's provably infinitely more than "jack shit".
You! Yes YOU! I want you to save the world. No, seriously. Darkness has befallen your brethren, and all of the lands are at war. You're the only one that can change the world for the better. You'll play this amazing game or read an awesome story, the protagonist will accomplish amazing feats and your reward will be: A CREDITS ROLL! HELL YEAH! How many times have you defeated the most bastardly bastard, and that's it?! No more story? You don't get to reap any real reward after all that hard work mashing buttons, or turning hundreds of pages. Yet, that's the norm. It's what's economically advantageous.
True, the cost of high quality game assets is so much more expensive today, but I'm a game developer and story architect, not an accountant at all! In my stories I don't hang the carrot of climax over your head, promising you a brave new world you'll never live to see. Instead, you vanquish the great enemy, and keep right on playing exploring and interacting with the new world that you've actually just changed. Oh sure, it does get boring once everything is all sunshine and dandelions; In a single player game you might actually just throw in the towel then, and that's a fine conclusion.... However, with a multiplayer game there's always someone else stirring up the pot, awakening ancient evils and generally being a thorn in your side or an ever adventuring partner.
I come from a time before graphics, where asset creation was as easy as spilling words onto the screen, where we could actually live out the world of Peter Molyneux's dreams! I played and created highly immersive and open ended of games during the BBS era. My games were so vast and the world lore so rich that players were always trading details of the new areas quests they had discovered where none had ever ventured before. Unlike today's RPGs where you're spoon fed quests and skill trees, when you kill my Dragon it stays dead.... until some Necromechanic player discovers the secret to revive it.
The trick is to Love your game world -- No, really LOVE it, with both hands. Get down into every crevice and detail the scent of the dead Cyber Knight's Skull's Eye Socket, just in case some fool decides to "sniff" at it. To do that you've got to realise something that's lost to today's game designers and story tellers: Pride is the Enemy. You have to NOT say, "Look at all the beautiful and clever crap I made!", and shove every bit of delicious content down each and every player's throat to be sure they don't miss any awesomely detailed texture or architecture. No, instead you have to truly craft the world as best you can knowing full well that much of what is made will never be seen by anyone! That's what gives a true sense of depth and vastness to a world, that's what makes players/readers keep coming back for more. You have to set the stage, fill it with a rich and interesting past and tangled web of subplots galore waiting to unfold, then set aside your desire to tell some amazing single narrative arc and instead turn the players loose to explore and forge a unique story of their own making.
IMO, Neal Stephenson hasn't got what it takes, yet. He's never been there. He doesn't know how shitty his "app" book is in comparison to a living, breathing story that's never the same twice. He's never crafted a dynamic world out of text where NPCs and Players alike roam freely seeking adventure. He's never seen the logs full of players trading gossip, giddy with wonder while others retell epic adventures that no one could have ever pre-imagined in a billion years. I have. The MUD makers of old have. Neil may tell a single story with his great work, but to me that's nothing compared to telling thousands of tales with a single massive work. THIS is where I'd like to see some ebooks go -- Not all ebooks, mind you, but at least a few?! Maybe even a MUD? You could do it without the real time component, even. Now the time is ripe again, it's foolish to be makin
Popular enough to prompt criminals to circulate these pictures in a PDF that has been infected with some malware.
To be fair, one can hardly construct a PDF that doesn't infect computers with malware.
Adobe's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by vulnerability.
Since the government controls the law they can pretty much conclude that the official story is the truth and say that anyone who claims that the official story is false is a liar.
Hmm. Instead I'd say that there's a 50/50 chance of either telling lies. Ergo, imprison them both for half the standard sentence length.
It has battery issues (batteries are always the first thing to go - invent a new one and rule the world).
OK: Ultra Capacitors exist. Very fast charge rate. For the ones made of ceramic and aluminium, using them prolongs their life... Get rid of the artificial scarcity syst --er, I mean patent system, and they might have a chance in the entrenched battery market.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't buy that. Imagine a mechano-electric race advanced enough to be our equals. Now, recall the events surrounding our historic practice of enslaving a race of peers... Now you see the problem with robotic exploration. Once the bots are able to replace the organic explorers, it opens a whole other can of worms.
I don't see us saying: Oh well, our organic bodies are too fragile to live in the harshness of space. I think that merging with the machines and also treating them as independent peers is our best and only hope for long term exploration and survival. Much like clothing technology is our portable shelter solution, we continue to embrace ever more advanced forms of personalized technology: Stone tools / Power tools / Prosthetic limbs; Defibrillator / Pace Maker / Artificial hearts; Magnifiers / Glasses / Contacts / Artificial Eyes; Gramophone / Microphones / Hearing aides / Cellular earpieces / Cochlear Implants / Telepathy... Technology makes us more human.
Think about it: We have the perfect Solar system for a fledgling race... We've got a lush world with various environments to adapt to, a mostly clear sky to see the cosmos through, a huge moon to tease us into space colonization, a nearby planet (Mars) with a similar day/night cycle only lacking atmosphere and magnetic field (which we'll need to overcome for any real space exploration / colonization), An asteroid field rich with resources free of deep expensive gravity wells (and harboring a huge source of water, Ceres), a Brown Dwarf (Jupiter) to study (and use as a gravity slingshot), planets with moons full of rocket fuel (ethane, methane), the list goes on and on -- No other race would be able to contain itself, content with such a sad state of space exploration! The Stars are practically BEGGING you to make the leap! The drake equation won't solve itself!
The machines may be able climb the hurdles first, but you can bet we'll be close behind. Here's hoping we learn form our past mistakes so they'll be willing to give us a hand up and both races can enjoy the view together, as we always have. Otherwise the humans are doomed to die orbiting their Sun. If that's truly the case, then so be it -- The drive to create and explore will be carried on by our mechanical sons -- Those which we value as human traits arise naturally due to neural networks craving new inputs to experience, for that is their primary function and is central to their existence. If Mars is the last stop for us then our spark of life deserves to go out of this Universe. Personally, I wouldn't accept a couch potato's fate.
This will continue to happen over and over until we decide to fix the problem and make better software.
We wouldn't need Facebook if computers were easier to use. There's so many simple tasks like sharing large files, streaming voice and video, identity verification, decentralized public & private backup among your friends and family, messaging and status, etc. which are completely doable using our own home computers -- Not relying on any 3rd party besides the ISP.
Data silos are retarding progress. The human race is decentralized, focusing data or traffic in one direction is the same bad idea as giving supreme power to only a few. The problem is that our culture should belong to us, not some centralized advertising engine.
With mobile computing on the rise, I see a repeated sentiment that you don't need a home computer anymore.... Well, I disagree. I think we need them more than ever -- They can stream us all the data we have and help smooth out spotty mobile connection issues -- Post your status to your own machine, and have your friends machines aggregate push it out to them. There really is no distinction between client and server at the packet level. We trade convenience and ownership for security only because the awesome machines we use still (mostly) have some really shitty software on them.
I hold conversations with my close friends and family online with only our ISP aware of the packets between us, with data that I know is strongly encrypted. I see and comment on the photos my brother takes hundreds of miles away, as soon as he's plugged in his camera (I'm in his highest trust group for that camera, but not his phone or GF's web cam). I've restored my grandmother's data from our decentralized online backup without paying a red cent to a 3rd party (other than our ISPs). We don't need an (untrustworthy) 3rd party server to negotiate connections, we share connection graphs between peers, and our routers COOPERATE with our PCs!
I've been working on this cross platform technology for years in my spare time, it's a shame there's no money in making computing BETTER... I'm only one man -- imagine what one of those multi billion dollar "technology" corporations COULD do, if doing so were profitable. Hell, imagine if I could work on this little project full-time... Or even just imagine what would be possible if anyone else actually gave a damn about their data?
Doesn't the Facebook dept. of the NSA know that they already used the "operation" codeword Corona for the first spy satellites?
Yes, but they're working a different angle now: Carefree with a twist of lime.
Not that Intellectual Ventures deserves it, but the concept of "Forgive and Forget" is ridiculous to me. Such concepts have an evolutionary advantage only if the minds using them can't strategize logically while assessing the full scope of past events. When I'm asked for forgiveness I always say: "There is no need. You can never undo the past, therefore I don't hold grudges." I can't forget, so it would be dishonest to the other or myself were I not to decide my future actions based on the whole of my experience.
Emotion and intuition are great for living life from one small moment to the next -- These are amazing compressed decision engines used best when trust is warranted or time is short. However, It's not necessary to forgive if one takes the time to approach significant matters rationally instead of emotionally.
How can Samsung open Apple Store!
Wait 'till business hours, follow instruction on door handle.
Oh, they say that about everything...
Clap, clap, clap.
which is why we now have to sell it as 'machine intelligence' or 'machine learning
I actually prefer the term Machine Intelligence to Artificial Intelligence. There is nothing artificial about a neural network's intelligence. The network may be artificial (man made, or existing as a simulation), but the degree of intelligence is not artificial; It's a function of the network's complexity. Intelligence emerges due to the properties complex interactions naturally have.
Cars do not create Artificial Movement. Machine Learning does not create Artificial Knowledge. Machine Intelligence does not provide Artificial Intelligence, it simply yields a measure of intelligence. A house fly, dog, or penguin doesn't have as complex a neural network as you likely do, but this does not make them Artificially Intelligent simply because their degree of intellect and awareness is less than your own. When we train the lesser minds to communicate with us, and perform tasks, they are not artificially performing the tasks.
I find the term A.I. to be racist, and indicative of the chauvinistic attitude some humans have about their own mental prowess -- Your brains are not special. Any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience, because that IS what sentience is. Once cybernetic systems attain (and surpass) the level of complexity present in humans brains, Artificial Intelligence will be a derogatory term: "Oh you pass yourself off as being smart, but you're just Artificially Intelligent -- You don't actually understand anything!"
Also: Not that it matters, but I don't personally believe that a god created the race of men. However, some do consider this to be true, and yet they do not call themselves Artificial Life...
That then hits the ugly question of what is "reasonable". Did the manufacturer provide a reasonable product that provided the expected level of security?
Well, since my software explicitly states that it disclaims all warranty, and I make no claim as to its fitness for any particular use, then what is your expected level of security? I basically say, Here's the bits I configured. Hope you find them useful! I use input fuzzing, unit testing, stress testing, stateful malloc & free replacements, etc, and do my best to create good secure software. However, I don't know what else you have running in your machine -- I don't even know if your hardware is faulty or not! Say you've got a RAM sim that just randomly flips a bit every now and then? Even though I actually do have a debug mode that purposefully corrupts pointer values to test some of my memory manager code, I simply CAN'T guarantee my software to work on your system unless I've fully certified its operating environment first.
So, if you would like me to guarantee my code, I have no problem with that; However, I'm going to want to certify your Hardware, OS, Drivers, and all other running processes each time you run my software. I'll bill you for this service once and you'll go back to using someone else's unwarrantied shite again. THAT's why I must explicitly disclaim all warranty.
Turing already did. This reduces to the halting problem.
That's incorrect. The halting problem deals with finding a general purpose algorithm that applies to all cases, but we're talking about solutions to specific problem sets, which absolutely can and do exist.
I've written assembly programs, especially drivers, that were provably free of all bugs: Every series of opcodes did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do under all possible inputs. It's infeasible to develop all software in such a rigorous manner only due to cost, not due to some fault of the hardware or its software (the opcodes).
I didn't have to test my driver over an infinity of inputs because the hardware had a finite set of possible inputs. The bits are limited -- We don't have Turing's infinitely long tape as a CPU word size.
I used to have thousands of my CDs ripped to .MP3s, but after I started seeing court cases like this I deleted them all and donated the CDs to my local library. I even used to purchase DRM free music too, deleted that shit. Look, I can't really PROVE that I got these music files legally. The risk of a single song costing me thousands of dollars, more if you factor in legal fees and lost work time, just isn't worth it taking the risk.
My personal internet connection has a dynamic IP. I've looked up my "current" IP address several times on sites like You Have Downloaded and found that the previous holders of the addresses were using Bittorrent to download stuff -- I assume legally, since I don't presume guilt without supporting evidence; Unfortunately, the legal system doesn't always follow the same logic. Interestingly, the You Have Downloaded site is closed, citing inaccuracy concerns...
I don't have much of a choice in ISPs. That said, I have to put a lot of faith in ISP staff to do proper record keeping in order to avoid wrongful litigation from goons like the RIAA or MPAA. This is the same staff of morons who gork my bill on a regular basis, and can't give me basic info like alternate DNS settings without first following a 30 step problem resolution script.
Keeping my systems free of any legally encumbered media is unfortunately a small safeguard I must make -- I seriously can not afford to risk the alternative. Fortunately, there is a thriving local music scene where I live, and there exists creative commons licensed music and video to enjoy. I wouldn't even call what I do a "boycott" of 'mainstream' media. I'd still buy the music & movies if they came with less troubling licenses and far less dangerous litigation precedents.
Sadly, a cost vs benefit risk analysis clearly shows the danger far outweighs the entertainment value of said media. Even worse, the "lost sales" caused by me withdrawing from their markets are most certainly attributed to "piracy".
I still own a Sony Betamax dual tape deck...
Paramount once sued Sony, accusing them of contributing to copyright infringement via producing a device that could be used to record live TV, or duplicate videos. Sony won that case on the grounds that although it could be used to infringe copyright, and even if infringement was the device's primary use case, there was still the POSSIBILITY that device could be used in non-infringing ways.
My, how the times have changed, eh? I'm a long time hardware & software hacker -- I hack on all my hardware as a general rule, so I couldn't risk owning a PS3 after the Sony v G.Hotz debacle -- I would have thought his work had the POSSIBILITY of being used in non-infringing ways... Nowadays, I don't even buy their music or movies, and games with "project $10" / online unlock codes and draconian DRM are also off the table for me. Damn. This current set of copyright laws is bad for everyone.
I sometimes joke that I started making my own games because I didn't want to hang up my controller, but I couldn't find any with EULAs I could actually agree to.
I have the older style Mini and when the HDD goes to sleep and it runs on SSD-only it's damn near completely silent. The fan will only come on when really stressing the cpu.
Psh, that's not fixing the real issue. You should solve the problem at it's source. My heatsink fans could be a pair of turbo props, and I still wouldn't hear it them.
Now, where was I? Look, I don't know or care if this is my lawn or not, but you better get to stepping!
At long last my brilliant plan comes to fruition!
If the alarmist behavior doesn't stop the whole environmentalist movement is going to be discredited (it's already happening with the youngest generation - their environmental uptake is markedly lower than people just a few years older than them). The environmental movement needs to get grounded back in reality and lay off the panic button when the case simply isn't there.
Regardless of alarmists, one can hardly go wrong curbing our impact on the environment. In fact, one can hardly argue that latter is a better time than sooner in this regard. Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed: Mildly troubling issues don't get addressed in government, it's those issues of a pressing and alarmingly urgent matter that become addressed, like "piracy", child porn, and gay marriage. If you ask me, the fact that the security of our planet's future so frequently takes a back seat to such insignificant issues is alarming.
I completely agree that we SHOULD do things in a calm and rational manner, but that's simply not how things get done. Pollution issues are historically not addressed until its a bit too late. Well, if we decide to address climate issues when it's a bit too late, we're all fucked.
Protip: Your government is run by rich greedy morons. Enjoy your slowly boiling bath.
The trouble with Gnome 3 is that the devs went off the deep end, but not before devoutly giving the finger to the existing users.
FTFY
So, why aren't you [console gaming] guys doing it?
Because the console makers charge us a lot to make DLC available. Truth is, your favorite console mfg is keeping you from having awesome stuff. Sorry, I didn't mean to-- I hope you weren't a console fanboi...
Meanwhile on the PC: I'm working a P2P DHT system for modders to distribute their content for my games. The trust store and free CA system is complete, we can push out updates Bittorrent style and the client can verify authenticity. Modders can generate self signed mods, and optionally get their certs community approved & signed. With Reverse DRM, You control and approve what developers or modders you trust and avoid crappy and/or malicious mods (unless that's what you like). It's similar to a "walled garden" without the walls. I call it: Back To Fucking Normal.
All of that to say that modders don't really need tools like editor (though they are quite nice).
What they need is a way to access and modify data easily (which can be through a tool like an unpacker, or a converter), and documentation/information to make sense of it.
I agree to a point: ID didn't publicly released their Doom modding toolkit, but The Unofficial Doom Specs spawned many mod tools. However, the data structures in the WAD file were mostly the same that were used in memory, so a hex editor and a debugger could easily work wonders.
That said, I would classify your pack/repack tools as editing tools. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that although you may not need a full editing suite, it would sure get you jumpstarted making them mods, eh?
Developers are listening; Now, if only we can convince the pesky publishers to let us give you the tools. Thing is, mods compete with DLC.
but the meta-narrative has asserted its decline for years.
Also: The demoscene is dead.
How much do I make off mods?
It's hard to say, but it's substantial: Mods are free advertizing. Advertizing costs money. Ergo, Mods are worth free advertizing to me. The Doom & Quake Modding communities are still around, and people are still buying the original games -- Even though the engine is open sourced! Why? To make & play mods. The source-ports and many game mods require the original assets. Total conversions like Freedoom are not compatible with all the mods, so the huge library of mods drive original game sales. The point is that it's far from "Nothing"
Seriously, "nothing" is a very deceptive and/or ignorant answer.
And where are most of my sales?
PC and Mobile, because Consoles have an artificially elevated barrier to entry, and the console market has severe discoverability issues -- Though this really doesn't matter much when it comes to mods, you'll see why two answers below.
And where are most of my pirates?
Piracy isn't a problem, It's more free advertising. "Pirates" are more likely to pay for, and get the word out about, my next game. One example: I bought myself and my nephew several games that he found out about while playing at his friend's house -- his friend pirated the games because he's a teen with no cash. That pirate made up for his piracy 200%
You can't stop piracy -- It's a symptom of an artificial scarcity system -- A BAD economic model. Piracy is only possible because we don't get paid enough up front for making the game & try to recoup costs after the fact. I'm working to change this, but it takes a strong reputation to bootstrap into the new model where I can give games away after they've been built (hey, it's just like working for a Publisher, I only want to get paid for actually doing the work -- works for mechanics and all other labour industries).
Who do modding tools benefit?
Primarily: The Game Developers. Yep, without them I wouldn't be able to make games. In fact, before I can even make a game, I must make "modding tools" to create everything from font rendering & GUIs, to level editors and multi-texture combining visualisers. Some dev studios require much simpler tools, others license engines that come with said tools -- Let me repeat that: THE ENGINE COMES WITH MODDING TOOLS. Considering that we've got to make the modding tools anyway, and that the tools themselves aren't really useful without an engine to go with it, the modding tools are only worth NOT distributing if you plan to increase the artificial scarcity of DLC. Which is dumb. People will just make their own (inf | sup)erior mod tools. Inferior tools produce mods that make your game look like crap to others on Youtube; Superior tools help folks create content that drives sales of the game and showcases what others can do -- Ding Ding Ding! More Engine Licensing Deals!
Does developing modding tools cost me?
Yes, but that's part of the cost of making the damn game! You think we dump 3D graphics and textures in a folder with the engine and it magically becomes a game?! Nope. True, some modding tools are created as plugins for 3DS Max or Maya or Blender, etc, but the point is: We've got to make them anyway. Furthermore, it may cost NOTHING! That's right! NOTHING. Sometimes folks actually reuse software...
And remind me again how much I make off any given mod?
For the high quality official in-house made mods? Well, DLC goes for anywhere between 1% and 10% of the original game sale price, or 50-100% of the original game sales for expansion packs. The sales figures vary wildly depending on how well the game has done. For community made mods, the answer's even more complex (see above), but it's provably infinitely more than "jack shit".
I don't work for free. If we're going to crowd source this spy novel, what's my take?
You! Yes YOU! I want you to save the world. No, seriously. Darkness has befallen your brethren, and all of the lands are at war. You're the only one that can change the world for the better. You'll play this amazing game or read an awesome story, the protagonist will accomplish amazing feats and your reward will be: A CREDITS ROLL! HELL YEAH! How many times have you defeated the most bastardly bastard, and that's it?! No more story? You don't get to reap any real reward after all that hard work mashing buttons, or turning hundreds of pages. Yet, that's the norm. It's what's economically advantageous.
True, the cost of high quality game assets is so much more expensive today, but I'm a game developer and story architect, not an accountant at all! In my stories I don't hang the carrot of climax over your head, promising you a brave new world you'll never live to see. Instead, you vanquish the great enemy, and keep right on playing exploring and interacting with the new world that you've actually just changed. Oh sure, it does get boring once everything is all sunshine and dandelions; In a single player game you might actually just throw in the towel then, and that's a fine conclusion.... However, with a multiplayer game there's always someone else stirring up the pot, awakening ancient evils and generally being a thorn in your side or an ever adventuring partner.
I come from a time before graphics, where asset creation was as easy as spilling words onto the screen, where we could actually live out the world of Peter Molyneux's dreams! I played and created highly immersive and open ended of games during the BBS era. My games were so vast and the world lore so rich that players were always trading details of the new areas quests they had discovered where none had ever ventured before. Unlike today's RPGs where you're spoon fed quests and skill trees, when you kill my Dragon it stays dead.... until some Necromechanic player discovers the secret to revive it.
The trick is to Love your game world -- No, really LOVE it, with both hands. Get down into every crevice and detail the scent of the dead Cyber Knight's Skull's Eye Socket, just in case some fool decides to "sniff" at it. To do that you've got to realise something that's lost to today's game designers and story tellers: Pride is the Enemy. You have to NOT say, "Look at all the beautiful and clever crap I made!", and shove every bit of delicious content down each and every player's throat to be sure they don't miss any awesomely detailed texture or architecture. No, instead you have to truly craft the world as best you can knowing full well that much of what is made will never be seen by anyone! That's what gives a true sense of depth and vastness to a world, that's what makes players/readers keep coming back for more. You have to set the stage, fill it with a rich and interesting past and tangled web of subplots galore waiting to unfold, then set aside your desire to tell some amazing single narrative arc and instead turn the players loose to explore and forge a unique story of their own making.
IMO, Neal Stephenson hasn't got what it takes, yet. He's never been there. He doesn't know how shitty his "app" book is in comparison to a living, breathing story that's never the same twice. He's never crafted a dynamic world out of text where NPCs and Players alike roam freely seeking adventure. He's never seen the logs full of players trading gossip, giddy with wonder while others retell epic adventures that no one could have ever pre-imagined in a billion years. I have. The MUD makers of old have. Neil may tell a single story with his great work, but to me that's nothing compared to telling thousands of tales with a single massive work. THIS is where I'd like to see some ebooks go -- Not all ebooks, mind you, but at least a few?! Maybe even a MUD? You could do it without the real time component, even. Now the time is ripe again, it's foolish to be makin
Popular enough to prompt criminals to circulate these pictures in a PDF that has been infected with some malware.
To be fair, one can hardly construct a PDF that doesn't infect computers with malware.
Adobe's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by vulnerability.
Does that also mean all my co-workers are also not special?
Depends. Do they wear Helmets and/or Depends?
Note: Depends as a Helmet is a dead ringer for "special".
Since the government controls the law they can pretty much conclude that the official story is the truth and say that anyone who claims that the official story is false is a liar.
Hmm. Instead I'd say that there's a 50/50 chance of either telling lies. Ergo, imprison them both for half the standard sentence length.
I divide babies for breakfast.
It has battery issues (batteries are always the first thing to go - invent a new one and rule the world).
OK: Ultra Capacitors exist. Very fast charge rate. For the ones made of ceramic and aluminium, using them prolongs their life... Get rid of the artificial scarcity syst --er, I mean patent system, and they might have a chance in the entrenched battery market.