You think that Mario Kart DD hasn't tinkered with the original formula? It is a complete hack job of the original Super Mario Kart for the SNES. A game that I still play regularly with my friends for over 10 years now!
Hell, I even entered into a competition in Super Mario Kart at one of this year's gaming conventions. Any person that has been with Mario Kart since the original will tell you which one continues to be the best... especially in battle mode: Super Mario Kart for the SNES.
It turns out that Nintendo didn't originally make Super Mario Kart. Some 3rd party had developed the game, Nintendo saw it and liked it... then they decided to take it under their wing. The series has sucked ever since.
We all know that newer games are better, right? Ha! Give me a 2 year old 10 out of 10 game any day over something that is just released. You can only truely judge a game's worth after its been around for a while.
My wife got me an XBOX and DX:IW. I think that the game is great! Yes, I played the PC demo on a friend's computer (my computer didn't have a good enough vid card), and the PC demo had issues from not being able to save your config to a laggy mouse to poor framerates.
However, the XBOX version is great! It performs good framerate wise, I have seen no bugs so far, and the story is extremely interesting and the game is a lot of fun! I was a big fan of the original, and still have it installed on my Linux computer (winex runs it perfectly).
Let me just put it this way: If you liked the original, then you are missing out if you don't get DX:IW. I suggest getting the XBOX version, but if you can't do that, then wait for the PC verison to get patched and get the PC version. This game has many improvements over the original. YOU ARE MISSING OUT!
There is nothing dumbed down about DX:IW. The game is different in some aspets, but not dumbed down. Of course, you are probably just one of those idiot gamers that, for some reason, hates other gaming platforms than whatever your platform of choice is (I guess it is Windows PC, right?).
Re:What the article poster forgot...
on
NYT on Game Mods
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but Doom mods lack many things that modern mods, while Quake mods such as TeamFortress were the begining of mods as we know them today. Doom mods were often just new textures, sprites, and levels. Quake mods were new original games in and of themselves.
What I am saying is similar to how to refer to the first "modern man", who shared all of the major traits with current day humans.
Doom mods are like chimps that walk upright and can use tools, while Quake mods are like cavemen.
You are talking about TFC, not TF. TF is a mod for the original Quake, and it is to this day the most popular Quake mod. Valve bought the TF mod team and had them make TFC for HalfLife.
Suse is a bad choice because it is not completely open source, and if you don't care about OSS... then just use a non-free *nix such as OSX or Solaris.
I have always wondered why Knoppix doesn't get more coverage on Slashdot. It is probably one of the best ways to start playing around with Linux your first time.
Mostly due to ethnicity, this guy was locked up indefinitely - without due process - in solitary confimement, without notifying his friends or family. He was told that if he did not admit to being a terrorist that they would keep him locked up forever. They kept him in a concrete shoebox, fully light 24 hours a day, and gaurds would bang on his cell door to keep him awake. Oh, and the USA kept him locked up for over 2 years! Not only that, but they also eventually ended up making up totally BS charges against him, as a means to justify his imprisonment.
Makes you wonder how many other Muslims we have locked up, in order to feed our neo-Nazi appetites.
Pretty lame solution. You break the law, so make up a different definition for things so that you are NOT breaking the law by definition alone. I remember Bill Cliton doing the same thing with regards to having sex with an intern.
Once you start doing crap like that, lets just say it should be a warning sign. When you actually start to believe in your semantics shell game... all hope is lost.
Debian isn't great just because of apt. Tools like apt are nothing without comprehensive high quality package repositories that are tested to ensure that all dependencies can be met, every package works with every other package, etc...
Debian has this. Sure you can use apt with RPM based distros like Redhat, but the available repositories are not nearly as comprehensive or as well tested as Debian stable repositories.
Of course, I am writing this from a Fedora install using apt with FreshRPMs repositories, but I plan on converting to Debian once Sarge is released next year.
Exactly. As I said, "discrete math" is typically a collection of subfields that deal with countable sets, which is one definition. However, "discrete math" also deals with uncountable sets (set of functions from naturals to naturals). Hence Wolfram's definition is too restrictive.
What is and is not discrete math depends on the discrete math textbook you read. So its just a buzzword used to describe a collection of things.
A non-buzz name would be to just list the things you think are in discrete math or that your discrete math textbook covers: counting, graph theory, set theory, logic, automata theory, category theory, etc...
http://www.m-w.com/ Main Entry: buzzword Pronunciation: 'b&z-"w&rd Function: noun Date: 1946 1 : an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen 2 : a voguish word or phrase -- called also buzz phrase
So it is trendy to call some collection of math "discrete", which implies countability, but as already stated not everything in discrete math is countable, so the word is misleading and only really used because it is vogue. So the second definition of "buzzword" applies.
It can also be argued that a proper name for such collections of math would be too technical for laymen, and hence the first definition of "buzzword" applies. The phrase "discrete math" has little meaning because it is ambiguous.
There is no "discrete math". When people say "discrete math", they are refering to a collection of various mathematical systems from graph theory to formal logic. Hence I refer to it as a buzzword because it is a phrase coined after the fact. My point is, what is "discrete math" and what isn't?
I have no problems with the various mathematical systems that people often lump together and call discrete math (I love math). I just think the term is a buzzword. So chill out.
The problem is that you have a finite amount of resources (semesters) and you have to teach undergrads "computer science". Teaching Integral Calculus at the detriment of teaching automata theory or formal logic is a real problem.
Sure, given infinite resources I would agree that we should teach Integral Calculus along with every other concept in mathematics, engineering, economics, art, politics, etc...
So you are telling me that you don't learn how to solve problems in metamathematics? Come on, any non-trivial collection of math involves solving sophisticated problems.
CS was born out of metamathematics, and therefore that branch of math is more core to CS than the Integral Calculus. Sure there are many applications of Integral Calculus to CS and many applications of CS to outside things that involve Integral Calculus, but in no way could it be considered a core concept of computer science that should be taught to incoming Freshmen.
If someone wants to study one of the subfields that you mentioned, then they could take Integral Calculus as an elective. Meanwhile, metamathematics could be taught as the first year math course for CS students.
Don't violate your own pet peeve. Stochastic modeling is very much a "specific little corner" of CS... that is, if you consider programming languages to be a "specific little corner".
Like I said, CS typically deals with what is called "discrete math", which is a buzz-word used to describe many branches of mathematics that deal with... well basically countable sets.
So, while I agree, Integral Calculus has many uses and is interesting (as most subfields of math are) in its own right - undergrad CS students' time would be better spent on other subfields of math than Integral Calculus because these other subfields are more foundational for computer science than Integral Calculus.
There are plenty of applications of Integral Calculus to computer science, but it is definitely not as core as metamathematics (especially structural proof theory, automata theory, lambda-calculi). If you don't believe me, then study the beginings of modern computer science.
Who the hell is the anonymous coward that is replying to my grandparent post? This person actually knows what they are talking about. Log-in so we can see who you are.
First we should make the distinction between Integral Calculus and other calculi such as the pi-calculi and the lambda-calculi. The Integral Calculus can be categorized as continous math, while the pi and lambda calculi can be put under the label of "discrete math" as both pi and lambda calculi are term rewrite systems.
I am still trying to figure out why Integral Calculus is forced down everyone's throat. Computer Scientists are better off studying proof theory, axiomatic set theory, lambda-calculi, etc...
There are subfields within CS that make use of Integral Calculus... but most subfields of CS do not use it and instead use things like proof theory, set theory, etc.
One thing that you have to understand is that there are still people out there that think that "math" means numbers, and therefore sophisticated numerical math such as the Integral Calculus is crammed down everyone's throats. I think that for most people, a more conceptual math based on category theory or set theory or somesuch would be far more useful in the long run.
There are plenty of graphically intensive games for Linux: the Quakes, the Unreals, Savage, etc... There are also many games that run under WineX. I bet most ATI users don't know that NVIDIA cards work better under WineX than ATI cards.
I use Linux as my only desktop, and I would like to know what hardware I should buy. There are closed driver issues, support issues, and many other things that I need to evaluate before I buy.
Heck, I would be willing to go with a slightly slower card if that meant I got open drivers and Linux support!
Why do hardware reviews only test the hardware out under Windows? Are there any hardware review sites that review hardware under Linux? Just because a piece of hardware performs nicely or efficiently under Windows doesn't mean the same applies under Linux.
Things are Linux oriented hardware review should cover: 1. Linux based synthetic benchmarks 2. Benchmarks under popular Linux games 3. OSS drivers (yes/no) 4. Linux support (yes/no)
The land that you call Israel was the homeland of The the Canaanites and Phoenicians. The Torah, Bible, and archealogical evidence support this. The Torah and Bible state that the Hebrews ethnically cleansed the land of the Canaanites. You know, like Hitler tried to do to the Jews.
So maybe you should drop the Nazi crap and stop the hate.
First study complexity theory and computability theory. Then study the current field of AI, if there is such a thing. Finally, realize that what you have just said is silly.
I believe that there is value in reading the originals. The best way to do this is to checkout or buy various collected works such as Alan Turing's collected works. One great collected works is a book called From Frege to Godel.
In truth, it is a math book, but this is the part of math that gave birth to modern computer science. It was a branch of mathematics known as "metamathematics" or "proof theory", and it dealt with things such as completeness, consistency, and effective procedures. This programme of math failed to achieve its originals goals as people like Turing and Godel proved the goals were impossible.
However, metamathematics succeeded in that it gave rise to modern computer science. "From Frege to Godel" is such a great book because it is a collection of the original papers of the great mathematicians who lived the field of metamathematics. You will learn the problems and solutions as the great mathematicians figure them out through scholarly discourse.
You will gain real insight into what math is, how it is practiced, and the true genesis of computer science.
Not only that, but you will also read a few things that will send your mind into a state of mathematician's nirvana. Something everyone should experience at least once in their life:)
Follow up "Frege to Godel" with a book called The Undecidable, which contains the selected original works of Church, Turing, and others.
After that, I would look into algorithms papers by people like Dijkstra, whose works are available on the net.
The utility of this is to see how new problems are dealt with and how new ideas are made.
Math is its own purpose. So why is it wrong for me to criticize Platonism in math, as well as forcing math to have applications? Math, of course, has many applications, but that is because by its very nature, it deals with pure concepts, pure ideas. So when we want to structure how we think about something, one of the things we can turn to is math.
Also considering that math typically comes packaged with formal systems, this also means that along with structured thought, you have a language to describe that thought. Hence math by its nature is very useful for applications, but we are sophisticated enough these days to appreciate ideas for their own sake.
One of these aspects is called "mathematician's nirvana", which is used to describe the intense satisfaction one gets from understanding a mathematical construction.
Platonism in math blinds us from seeing the distinction between constructive and non-constructive math, amongst causing other more philosophical problems that I referred to earlier. For example, the clash between L.E.J. Brouwer and other mathemamticians of his time. Even David Hilbert agreed that math was a exercise of pure thought (but he still wanted to formalise it). This recognition allows one to see the need for a constructive logic as opposed to a Platonic logic.
I agree with you that future space aliens will most likely also create the same pure concepts (i.e. math) has I have or you have or some other human has... but I cannot know this for sure. Hence I cannot found math on such a foundation.
In some senses it is a trivial semantics difference, but I think the difference is important for motivating mathematicians. I would see a mathematician's work as being closely related to a writer of fiction novels. The writer works with ideas and a symbolic language. Writers don't write for applications, well of course many do, but you wouldn't claim that is the goal of writers. Writers write to create novels, not to discover them.
The writer's creation, the novel, might have applications such as entertainment (just like math), education, political statement, etc... But writing's purpose isn't necessarily anyone of these applications, nor is it the union of them all. We aren't hunter-gatherers anymore - a writer can write for the love of writing.
Slashdot Mirror
You think that Mario Kart DD hasn't tinkered with the original formula? It is a complete hack job of the original Super Mario Kart for the SNES. A game that I still play regularly with my friends for over 10 years now!
Hell, I even entered into a competition in Super Mario Kart at one of this year's gaming conventions. Any person that has been with Mario Kart since the original will tell you which one continues to be the best... especially in battle mode: Super Mario Kart for the SNES.
It turns out that Nintendo didn't originally make Super Mario Kart. Some 3rd party had developed the game, Nintendo saw it and liked it... then they decided to take it under their wing. The series has sucked ever since.
We all know that newer games are better, right? Ha! Give me a 2 year old 10 out of 10 game any day over something that is just released. You can only truely judge a game's worth after its been around for a while.
My wife got me an XBOX and DX:IW. I think that the game is great! Yes, I played the PC demo on a friend's computer (my computer didn't have a good enough vid card), and the PC demo had issues from not being able to save your config to a laggy mouse to poor framerates.
However, the XBOX version is great! It performs good framerate wise, I have seen no bugs so far, and the story is extremely interesting and the game is a lot of fun! I was a big fan of the original, and still have it installed on my Linux computer (winex runs it perfectly).
Let me just put it this way: If you liked the original, then you are missing out if you don't get DX:IW. I suggest getting the XBOX version, but if you can't do that, then wait for the PC verison to get patched and get the PC version. This game has many improvements over the original. YOU ARE MISSING OUT!
There is nothing dumbed down about DX:IW. The game is different in some aspets, but not dumbed down. Of course, you are probably just one of those idiot gamers that, for some reason, hates other gaming platforms than whatever your platform of choice is (I guess it is Windows PC, right?).
Yeah, but Doom mods lack many things that modern mods, while Quake mods such as TeamFortress were the begining of mods as we know them today. Doom mods were often just new textures, sprites, and levels. Quake mods were new original games in and of themselves.
What I am saying is similar to how to refer to the first "modern man", who shared all of the major traits with current day humans.
Doom mods are like chimps that walk upright and can use tools, while Quake mods are like cavemen.
You are talking about TFC, not TF. TF is a mod for the original Quake, and it is to this day the most popular Quake mod. Valve bought the TF mod team and had them make TFC for HalfLife.
Suse is a bad choice because it is not completely open source, and if you don't care about OSS... then just use a non-free *nix such as OSX or Solaris.
I have always wondered why Knoppix doesn't get more coverage on Slashdot. It is probably one of the best ways to start playing around with Linux your first time.
Many people have brought up the point about Gitmo Bay and the USA's unlawful detention of the prisoners there, but there are even worse, even more glaring abuses of human rights post 911...
Mostly due to ethnicity, this guy was locked up indefinitely - without due process - in solitary confimement, without notifying his friends or family. He was told that if he did not admit to being a terrorist that they would keep him locked up forever. They kept him in a concrete shoebox, fully light 24 hours a day, and gaurds would bang on his cell door to keep him awake. Oh, and the USA kept him locked up for over 2 years! Not only that, but they also eventually ended up making up totally BS charges against him, as a means to justify his imprisonment.
Makes you wonder how many other Muslims we have locked up, in order to feed our neo-Nazi appetites.
Pretty lame solution. You break the law, so make up a different definition for things so that you are NOT breaking the law by definition alone. I remember Bill Cliton doing the same thing with regards to having sex with an intern.
Once you start doing crap like that, lets just say it should be a warning sign. When you actually start to believe in your semantics shell game... all hope is lost.
Debian isn't great just because of apt. Tools like apt are nothing without comprehensive high quality package repositories that are tested to ensure that all dependencies can be met, every package works with every other package, etc...
Debian has this. Sure you can use apt with RPM based distros like Redhat, but the available repositories are not nearly as comprehensive or as well tested as Debian stable repositories.
Of course, I am writing this from a Fedora install using apt with FreshRPMs repositories, but I plan on converting to Debian once Sarge is released next year.
What is and is not discrete math depends on the discrete math textbook you read. So its just a buzzword used to describe a collection of things.
A non-buzz name would be to just list the things you think are in discrete math or that your discrete math textbook covers: counting, graph theory, set theory, logic, automata theory, category theory, etc...
So it is trendy to call some collection of math "discrete", which implies countability, but as already stated not everything in discrete math is countable, so the word is misleading and only really used because it is vogue. So the second definition of "buzzword" applies.
It can also be argued that a proper name for such collections of math would be too technical for laymen, and hence the first definition of "buzzword" applies. The phrase "discrete math" has little meaning because it is ambiguous.
There is no "discrete math". When people say "discrete math", they are refering to a collection of various mathematical systems from graph theory to formal logic. Hence I refer to it as a buzzword because it is a phrase coined after the fact. My point is, what is "discrete math" and what isn't?
I have no problems with the various mathematical systems that people often lump together and call discrete math (I love math). I just think the term is a buzzword. So chill out.
The problem is that you have a finite amount of resources (semesters) and you have to teach undergrads "computer science". Teaching Integral Calculus at the detriment of teaching automata theory or formal logic is a real problem.
Sure, given infinite resources I would agree that we should teach Integral Calculus along with every other concept in mathematics, engineering, economics, art, politics, etc...
So you are telling me that you don't learn how to solve problems in metamathematics? Come on, any non-trivial collection of math involves solving sophisticated problems.
CS was born out of metamathematics, and therefore that branch of math is more core to CS than the Integral Calculus. Sure there are many applications of Integral Calculus to CS and many applications of CS to outside things that involve Integral Calculus, but in no way could it be considered a core concept of computer science that should be taught to incoming Freshmen.
If someone wants to study one of the subfields that you mentioned, then they could take Integral Calculus as an elective. Meanwhile, metamathematics could be taught as the first year math course for CS students.
Don't violate your own pet peeve. Stochastic modeling is very much a "specific little corner" of CS... that is, if you consider programming languages to be a "specific little corner".
Like I said, CS typically deals with what is called "discrete math", which is a buzz-word used to describe many branches of mathematics that deal with... well basically countable sets.
So, while I agree, Integral Calculus has many uses and is interesting (as most subfields of math are) in its own right - undergrad CS students' time would be better spent on other subfields of math than Integral Calculus because these other subfields are more foundational for computer science than Integral Calculus.
There are plenty of applications of Integral Calculus to computer science, but it is definitely not as core as metamathematics (especially structural proof theory, automata theory, lambda-calculi). If you don't believe me, then study the beginings of modern computer science.
Who the hell is the anonymous coward that is replying to my grandparent post? This person actually knows what they are talking about. Log-in so we can see who you are.
First we should make the distinction between Integral Calculus and other calculi such as the pi-calculi and the lambda-calculi. The Integral Calculus can be categorized as continous math, while the pi and lambda calculi can be put under the label of "discrete math" as both pi and lambda calculi are term rewrite systems.
I am still trying to figure out why Integral Calculus is forced down everyone's throat. Computer Scientists are better off studying proof theory, axiomatic set theory, lambda-calculi, etc...
There are subfields within CS that make use of Integral Calculus... but most subfields of CS do not use it and instead use things like proof theory, set theory, etc.
One thing that you have to understand is that there are still people out there that think that "math" means numbers, and therefore sophisticated numerical math such as the Integral Calculus is crammed down everyone's throats. I think that for most people, a more conceptual math based on category theory or set theory or somesuch would be far more useful in the long run.
There are plenty of graphically intensive games for Linux: the Quakes, the Unreals, Savage, etc... There are also many games that run under WineX. I bet most ATI users don't know that NVIDIA cards work better under WineX than ATI cards.
I use Linux as my only desktop, and I would like to know what hardware I should buy. There are closed driver issues, support issues, and many other things that I need to evaluate before I buy.
Heck, I would be willing to go with a slightly slower card if that meant I got open drivers and Linux support!
Why do hardware reviews only test the hardware out under Windows? Are there any hardware review sites that review hardware under Linux? Just because a piece of hardware performs nicely or efficiently under Windows doesn't mean the same applies under Linux.
Things are Linux oriented hardware review should cover:
1. Linux based synthetic benchmarks
2. Benchmarks under popular Linux games
3. OSS drivers (yes/no)
4. Linux support (yes/no)
The land that you call Israel was the homeland of The the Canaanites and Phoenicians. The Torah, Bible, and archealogical evidence support this. The Torah and Bible state that the Hebrews ethnically cleansed the land of the Canaanites. You know, like Hitler tried to do to the Jews.
So maybe you should drop the Nazi crap and stop the hate.
First study complexity theory and computability theory. Then study the current field of AI, if there is such a thing. Finally, realize that what you have just said is silly.
Debian is an inexpensive and reliable Linux. My point is that you should consider other distros than commercial ones.
I believe that there is value in reading the originals. The best way to do this is to checkout or buy various collected works such as Alan Turing's collected works. One great collected works is a book called From Frege to Godel.
:)
In truth, it is a math book, but this is the part of math that gave birth to modern computer science. It was a branch of mathematics known as "metamathematics" or "proof theory", and it dealt with things such as completeness, consistency, and effective procedures. This programme of math failed to achieve its originals goals as people like Turing and Godel proved the goals were impossible.
However, metamathematics succeeded in that it gave rise to modern computer science. "From Frege to Godel" is such a great book because it is a collection of the original papers of the great mathematicians who lived the field of metamathematics. You will learn the problems and solutions as the great mathematicians figure them out through scholarly discourse.
You will gain real insight into what math is, how it is practiced, and the true genesis of computer science.
Not only that, but you will also read a few things that will send your mind into a state of mathematician's nirvana. Something everyone should experience at least once in their life
Follow up "Frege to Godel" with a book called The Undecidable, which contains the selected original works of Church, Turing, and others.
After that, I would look into algorithms papers by people like Dijkstra,
whose works are available on the net.
The utility of this is to see how new problems are dealt with and how new ideas are made.
Math is its own purpose. So why is it wrong for me to criticize Platonism in math, as well as forcing math to have applications? Math, of course, has many applications, but that is because by its very nature, it deals with pure concepts, pure ideas. So when we want to structure how we think about something, one of the things we can turn to is math.
Also considering that math typically comes packaged with formal systems, this also means that along with structured thought, you have a language to describe that thought. Hence math by its nature is very useful for applications, but we are sophisticated enough these days to appreciate ideas for their own sake.
One of these aspects is called "mathematician's nirvana", which is used to describe the intense satisfaction one gets from understanding a mathematical construction.
Platonism in math blinds us from seeing the distinction between constructive and non-constructive math, amongst causing other more philosophical problems that I referred to earlier. For example, the clash between L.E.J. Brouwer and other mathemamticians of his time. Even David Hilbert agreed that math was a exercise of pure thought (but he still wanted to formalise it). This recognition allows one to see the need for a constructive logic as opposed to a Platonic logic.
I agree with you that future space aliens will most likely also create the same pure concepts (i.e. math) has I have or you have or some other human has... but I cannot know this for sure. Hence I cannot found math on such a foundation.
In some senses it is a trivial semantics difference, but I think the difference is important for motivating mathematicians. I would see a mathematician's work as being closely related to a writer of fiction novels. The writer works with ideas and a symbolic language. Writers don't write for applications, well of course many do, but you wouldn't claim that is the goal of writers. Writers write to create novels, not to discover them.
The writer's creation, the novel, might have applications such as entertainment (just like math), education, political statement, etc... But writing's purpose isn't necessarily anyone of these applications, nor is it the union of them all. We aren't hunter-gatherers anymore - a writer can write for the love of writing.