I think the point about a gothic feel is essential. It's likely that will be accomplished through sound as much as artwork, which is something people tend to ignore. The pictures on the box might not express that feeling completely, but I bet once you put the disk in your drive it'll all "feel right".
I am so sick of running through unlit halls and getting killed by monsters I cannot even see.
My first action when I start a new game is to go into the settings, and up the brightness (usually about 4/5ths of the way). It means that sunlit areas are washed out, which is disappointing, but at least it makes building/dungeon interiors playable.
This is slashdot. It leans far left and toward science and aways away from Microsoft, MPAA/RIAA, and SCO.
First,/. leans right (it's obvious if you know what "right" means. A left-leaning slashdot would look more like this \.
Further, do you imply that science leans to the left? Does that mean M$FT/MPAA/RIAA/SCO all lean far to the right in direct opposition to science?
Or are there more directions that one can lean toward than just left and right? Perhaps this is a hyperspace where there are 5-11 different kinds of "left" so everyone can lean left at the same time and still be in direct opposition.
Uh, I would say the GP was just pointing out you can run a modern OS on even old hardware. That Vista requires a PC capable of running Crysis is absurd.
My understanding is that this is generally true for only very specific or atypical use cases. For example, reading through an entire disk from start to finish without any skipping around. Another example is probably watching a movie or sequentially using some other large file.
The point? We would have killed to have our own point to hang at back when we were sitting around all day just off center and eating cold nondimensional matter for breakfast.
And when was the last development team you've seen actually try? We geeks prefer to hide in cubicles instead of working with people, and management prefers 12 year plans.
I wouldn't worry about this so much because... people will (and do) buy computer systems even when they do not intend to play games.
Imagine a world were only console games existed, but people still overwhelming owned PCs to write documents, watch YouTube, etc.
Someone would come along and release a game for the PC even then to tap the untouched market. In short, PC gaming will never die. It is however, the also ran to consoles now.
The coding standard specified that programs could not use heap memory. A small exception was made for initialization code like this:
int size = readConfigFileForSize(); globalCharArray = new char[size];
Everything else was required to be coded on the stack. And STL was discouraged as well. This was moderately real-time software, but the no-heap rule was still rather draconian.
There's such a thing as "The Commons", which would be the parts of society we are all forced to share. The Commons can not be cared for via capitalism, because there's no profit in helping everybody else. Energy is a funny thing, because while energy production is not a part of the commons, its environmental impact is. So is it's impact on national security.
So, if there's a energy solution that is not quite economically viable, but solves a number of the problems in the commons, it is the governments responsibility to encourage transition to that energy source. FWIW, the right way to do this is by taxing harmful energy and subsidizing clean energy.
I don't know if you guys noticed, but most games have demo versions which you can freely download on the internet and play through a level or small sequence of the game.
I find this to be a perfect compromise, because I don't even have to actually hoof it to the store to buy/return a bad game. I can figure out it's bad from the comfort of home.
Nothing you provided is a valid argument why the Tao of the Car shouldn't go away. It's just engineering problems to be solved.
While it's unlikely that we'll ever be rid of personal transportation systems, it would sure be a great thing if every family only needed one car again. Imagine that, you could still take trips and have your freedom, but you'd save thousands of dollars a year in insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs.
You never really answered the GP as to why we can't transition the 60% of the population in cities to us mostly mass transit. My recommendation is add another $10/gal tax on gasoline, and use it to subsidize mass transit. Problem solved.
I don't quite get the joke, but shouldn't this be modded funny and not insightful?
Re:Please explain exactly what is wrong with C#
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
Ok, so there's no multiple inheritance.
First off, that's a feature and not a bug. C# has two opposing sets of problems, and one MS related problem.
The MS problem is that it's made to run on Windows, and despite the availability of Mono, you always have to fear for portability (if that's desirable to you).
The other problems are that v1 is not much more than Java without most of the copious quantities of 3rd party libraries. So at that point, there were few good reasons to pick C# over Java.
With v2, that changed. A number of new language features were added, and some of them are pretty nice. However, there are now a lot of keywords to keep track of and it makes for a more complex language. It still lacks the library support of Java though.
That said, I use C# sometimes, and there is nothing inherently evil about it. Neither is it the last great language we'll ever see. It's just an incremental upgrade to Java.
Re:How come nobody uses anonymous delegates?
on
Head First C#
·
· Score: 1
Really? I feel exactly the opposite. Pick up the latest version of NetBeans. It provides better code refactoring, better wizards, and a much larger selection of plugins than anything.NET. If anything, the.NET IDE is generally trailing NetBeans or Eclipse by over 2 years for each given feature.
The one thing about.NET though, is it is generally more stable than the free IDEs.
It should be a rule to keep one's politics separate from such projects.
Quite the opposite. It should be a rule that authors raise awareness in reasonable and meaningful ways. A small bulletin on the home page claiming support for one group, or declaring opposition for another is not just their right, but their responsibility.
When a celebrity or athlete takes a meaningful position, people act like they are the return of . But when a geek does, we want to shoot them down?
The developer should know if he'll need the size of an array or not. Which is why there is a convenient std::vector and std::tr1::array for when you do want the size. Not forcing you to carry around a size is a feature, not a bug - if you don't need the size, it's just a waste of space. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You always need the size of an array, even if you aren't going to use it explicitly. Why do you think there are two kinds of delete operations: delete and delete[]? It's because when delete is called on an array, it needs to know that there is a multiple of objects to delete. Under the covers, every C++ implementation stores the size of the array.
So, you haven't saved any space! In fact, by not making that size accessible to developers, you are using up more memory! They now have to manually pass around size parameters.
Machine consciousness is not something that will likely happen in our lifetime. Please, please, please don't drag me into your ridiculous "Machine Consciousness Death Pact"! I'm planning on sticking around for another 50+ years regardless of whether or not the machines are blissful and ignorant or cognizant and irritable.
May I highlight the recently discovered role of astrocytes in the brain? Not sure that what you posted is very meaningful. I'm not a brain surgeon either, but the wiki link sure makes it look like astrocyte are only there to provide food to the brain. Kind of like the power cable in a computer. Again, I might be (probably am) wrong, but if they do what it looks like they do (power cable), I can safely say we've already solved that one.
I disagree. The early chapters of Genesis are not plausible. Likely, the only reason you believe that is because you grew up in a society that took them for fact, and you had a number of people during your life argue emphatically that they were.
Consider the flood story. You argued that it was local in scope, but that conflicts with direct interpretation of the Bible. A flood that covers the mountain tops must by definition be a global flood. Even if it doesn't cover the tallest mountains, raising the sea level by just 1000 feet would be catastrophic.
The problem for you, is that a global flood is indefensible from the proof, but a local flood does not agree with the text. Why build an ark to save all the animals if just Noah's block is flooding?
Either you're interested in God or you're not. If you're not, you'll always find ways to dismiss all this.
I actually take offense to this. I started with the position that it must be true and should be believed dogmatically. As I became wiser, I realized the folly in taking any belief dogmatically if the proof is against it. So I actively searched for justification that what I believed was true, much like you are doing. I just reached the point where the elegant and accurate solutions provided by nature trumped the mental gymnastics of trying to defend ancient myths.
Final question, where's the demonstrated hole in the chronology? Everything is X begat Y. It is abundantly clear what the genealogies intend to mean, so if they are perfectly inspired words from god you must either accept them, or question how perfect that first book actually is.
Your explanations utterly fail Occam's Razor. You made a complex argument about why plant life, which feeds on sunlight, surely could have survived for an epoch prior to the formation of the sun. All of this to justify the order of two sentences. The much simpler (and more correct) answer is that whoever wrote the bible didn't know which order to write those two sentences in, and just guessed wrong.
Babel is another example that we don't really need. It's well documented how languages can form in the wild. We don't need Babel to explain this anymore. Further, Babel doesn't make much sense. Why was God who couldn't be reached by any tower so concerned about primitive peoples building a brick tower? It might have been what, 6 stories tall? At around the same time in history as this was supposed to happen, the Egyptians were somehow building much taller pyramids without God screwing with their language and as you suggest their genetic makeup.
Further, you've got a very major issue with manpower. According to the bible, Noah only came around about 9 generations before Abraham. The tower of Babel would have been closer to 4 generations I think. So assuming everyone had 5 male children who survived to procreate, which is generous I think, you've got about 650 males (only the men really count in most religious texts) doing the building. Consider the Empire State Building, which took 7,000,000 manhours to build. Building something as large as the Empire State Building would take 5 years of full time employment for this entire population. But we're talking about agrarian societies here. They don't have that much time. They also don't have machines or lightbulbs.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point about a gothic feel is essential. It's likely that will be accomplished through sound as much as artwork, which is something people tend to ignore. The pictures on the box might not express that feeling completely, but I bet once you put the disk in your drive it'll all "feel right".
Thank you!
I am so sick of running through unlit halls and getting killed by monsters I cannot even see.
My first action when I start a new game is to go into the settings, and up the brightness (usually about 4/5ths of the way). It means that sunlit areas are washed out, which is disappointing, but at least it makes building/dungeon interiors playable.
This is slashdot. It leans far left and toward science and aways away from Microsoft, MPAA/RIAA, and SCO.
First, /. leans right (it's obvious if you know what "right" means. A left-leaning slashdot would look more like this \.
Further, do you imply that science leans to the left? Does that mean M$FT/MPAA/RIAA/SCO all lean far to the right in direct opposition to science?
Or are there more directions that one can lean toward than just left and right? Perhaps this is a hyperspace where there are 5-11 different kinds of "left" so everyone can lean left at the same time and still be in direct opposition.
Uh, I would say the GP was just pointing out you can run a modern OS on even old hardware. That Vista requires a PC capable of running Crysis is absurd.
My understanding is that this is generally true for only very specific or atypical use cases. For example, reading through an entire disk from start to finish without any skipping around. Another example is probably watching a movie or sequentially using some other large file.
None of these are my typical usage.
All we did was hang out at the point.
The point? We would have killed to have our own point to hang at back when we were sitting around all day just off center and eating cold nondimensional matter for breakfast.
And when was the last development team you've seen actually try? We geeks prefer to hide in cubicles instead of working with people, and management prefers 12 year plans.
I wouldn't worry about this so much because ... people will (and do) buy computer systems even when they do not intend to play games.
Imagine a world were only console games existed, but people still overwhelming owned PCs to write documents, watch YouTube, etc.
Someone would come along and release a game for the PC even then to tap the untouched market. In short, PC gaming will never die. It is however, the also ran to consoles now.
The coding standard specified that programs could not use heap memory. A small exception was made for initialization code like this:
int size = readConfigFileForSize();
globalCharArray = new char[size];
Everything else was required to be coded on the stack. And STL was discouraged as well. This was moderately real-time software, but the no-heap rule was still rather draconian.
HA! Try this on for size (actually witnessed in code)
if( condition )
{
statement1;
}
else
{
statement2;
}
Of course, that is under ideal generating circumstances.
But what if we don't want to deploy our panels in outerspace between Mercury and the sun? What happens to your ideal circumstances then?
There's such a thing as "The Commons", which would be the parts of society we are all forced to share. The Commons can not be cared for via capitalism, because there's no profit in helping everybody else. Energy is a funny thing, because while energy production is not a part of the commons, its environmental impact is. So is it's impact on national security.
So, if there's a energy solution that is not quite economically viable, but solves a number of the problems in the commons, it is the governments responsibility to encourage transition to that energy source. FWIW, the right way to do this is by taxing harmful energy and subsidizing clean energy.
I don't know if you guys noticed, but most games have demo versions which you can freely download on the internet and play through a level or small sequence of the game.
I find this to be a perfect compromise, because I don't even have to actually hoof it to the store to buy/return a bad game. I can figure out it's bad from the comfort of home.
Yeish! Rant much?
Nothing you provided is a valid argument why the Tao of the Car shouldn't go away. It's just engineering problems to be solved.
While it's unlikely that we'll ever be rid of personal transportation systems, it would sure be a great thing if every family only needed one car again. Imagine that, you could still take trips and have your freedom, but you'd save thousands of dollars a year in insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs.
You never really answered the GP as to why we can't transition the 60% of the population in cities to us mostly mass transit. My recommendation is add another $10/gal tax on gasoline, and use it to subsidize mass transit. Problem solved.
OH? Like how I can always park within 1 block of my destination, regardless of how popular it is?
Get real. In any dense city, you're parking and walking anyways.
I don't quite get the joke, but shouldn't this be modded funny and not insightful?
Ok, so there's no multiple inheritance.
First off, that's a feature and not a bug. C# has two opposing sets of problems, and one MS related problem.
The MS problem is that it's made to run on Windows, and despite the availability of Mono, you always have to fear for portability (if that's desirable to you).
The other problems are that v1 is not much more than Java without most of the copious quantities of 3rd party libraries. So at that point, there were few good reasons to pick C# over Java.
With v2, that changed. A number of new language features were added, and some of them are pretty nice. However, there are now a lot of keywords to keep track of and it makes for a more complex language. It still lacks the library support of Java though.
That said, I use C# sometimes, and there is nothing inherently evil about it. Neither is it the last great language we'll ever see. It's just an incremental upgrade to Java.
Really? I feel exactly the opposite. Pick up the latest version of NetBeans. It provides better code refactoring, better wizards, and a much larger selection of plugins than anything .NET. If anything, the .NET IDE is generally trailing NetBeans or Eclipse by over 2 years for each given feature.
.NET though, is it is generally more stable than the free IDEs.
The one thing about
It should be a rule to keep one's politics separate from such projects.
Quite the opposite. It should be a rule that authors raise awareness in reasonable and meaningful ways. A small bulletin on the home page claiming support for one group, or declaring opposition for another is not just their right, but their responsibility.
When a celebrity or athlete takes a meaningful position, people act like they are the return of . But when a geek does, we want to shoot them down?
So, you haven't saved any space! In fact, by not making that size accessible to developers, you are using up more memory! They now have to manually pass around size parameters.
- Best eyes? (whatever)
- Most Bipedal???
- Deadliest animal?????
How will you defend those positions when a polar bear you didn't notice hiding in the snow comes lumber at you and eats you?Consider the flood story. You argued that it was local in scope, but that conflicts with direct interpretation of the Bible. A flood that covers the mountain tops must by definition be a global flood. Even if it doesn't cover the tallest mountains, raising the sea level by just 1000 feet would be catastrophic.
The problem for you, is that a global flood is indefensible from the proof, but a local flood does not agree with the text. Why build an ark to save all the animals if just Noah's block is flooding?
I actually take offense to this. I started with the position that it must be true and should be believed dogmatically. As I became wiser, I realized the folly in taking any belief dogmatically if the proof is against it. So I actively searched for justification that what I believed was true, much like you are doing. I just reached the point where the elegant and accurate solutions provided by nature trumped the mental gymnastics of trying to defend ancient myths.
Final question, where's the demonstrated hole in the chronology? Everything is X begat Y. It is abundantly clear what the genealogies intend to mean, so if they are perfectly inspired words from god you must either accept them, or question how perfect that first book actually is.
Your explanations utterly fail Occam's Razor. You made a complex argument about why plant life, which feeds on sunlight, surely could have survived for an epoch prior to the formation of the sun. All of this to justify the order of two sentences. The much simpler (and more correct) answer is that whoever wrote the bible didn't know which order to write those two sentences in, and just guessed wrong.
Babel is another example that we don't really need. It's well documented how languages can form in the wild. We don't need Babel to explain this anymore. Further, Babel doesn't make much sense. Why was God who couldn't be reached by any tower so concerned about primitive peoples building a brick tower? It might have been what, 6 stories tall? At around the same time in history as this was supposed to happen, the Egyptians were somehow building much taller pyramids without God screwing with their language and as you suggest their genetic makeup.
Further, you've got a very major issue with manpower. According to the bible, Noah only came around about 9 generations before Abraham. The tower of Babel would have been closer to 4 generations I think. So assuming everyone had 5 male children who survived to procreate, which is generous I think, you've got about 650 males (only the men really count in most religious texts) doing the building. Consider the Empire State Building, which took 7,000,000 manhours to build. Building something as large as the Empire State Building would take 5 years of full time employment for this entire population. But we're talking about agrarian societies here. They don't have that much time. They also don't have machines or lightbulbs.