I haven't played GW2, but regarding GW1, other than the silly unlock skills and gear for PvP bullshit, very little grinding is _required_ even in PvE.
You want the fancy armor - yes you grind. But the fancy armor has the SAME STATS as the armor you don't really need to grind for. It just looks nicer (or not depending on your tastes).
You can play and experience all the story content including the elite areas just as well without the fancy armor. Having the fancy armor doesn't help you do better at all.
If you want to play the grinding game and grind for consumables, fancier armor, weapons, titles, yes GW1 allows you to grind, but it's silly to then complain about the grind right? I haven't needed to grind for consumables so far.
The only exception I can see is if you want stuff like a 7 requirement 16 armor shield... Then yes you may need to grind to get that. That said I got one and kept it through sheer luck - I was a noob when I got it - and kept it without knowing the value of it:). You don't actually need it though. Player skill, teamwork and tactics matter far more in PvP than having rare gear like this.
For GW1 they don't need the grinding because they've already got the money upfront from the players! They don't need gameplay that "compels" them to come back every day. They do need enough people around so that players have other players to play with, but that's about it.
GW1 can be boring if you do the same thing over and over again. But the game doesn't actually force you to do that. You can use some rather weird builds for fun. I currently use a hero ele rit as a healer and a necro as a illusion mesmer:).
I personally agree that reproduction should be regulated.
The reason is as a trade off between fairness and mercy. Basically as technology improves, jobs are going to vanish. If we are going to have a decent social safety net we can't have unregulated population growth. If you can't support yourself, we shouldn't let you starve to death but instead provide for you reasonably. However we shouldn't allow you to do stuff like have eight kids unless sponsors can be found for them. As for the right to vote, perhaps tie that in to a minimum amount of community service if you are "state-supported".
Of course such stuff sounds evil, and in many ways it is evil. But what lesser evil alternatives are there? Having families or even entire populations starve is evil too. Plenty of evil in wars too.
We already have robotic warehouses, burger making robots, even foxconn plans to replace more and more workers with robots. So jobs will vanish because the whole idea is to reduce jobs, cut costs and make the owners rich. Unless of course you can convince the rich people to keep spending most of their wealth. But the rich seem to prefer "_trickle_ down economics". Not _gush_ down.;)
The platform was declared a failure by many years ago. The reason it survived so long was HP had VMS and Tandem customers. And HP made it such that the Itanic was their only ship sailing on their routes. Those who could leave got off along the way, the rest keep on paying.
If you look at the old SPEC figures you can see that it was a few times faster in a few tasks (and slower in others). However I believe many of those tasks were "embarrassingly parallel". So instead of buying one Itanic box you could buy two or more x86 boxes for the same price and get about the same performance for that workload and have more flexibility (better performance for other tasks). And possibly not use that much more power either - the Itanic was quite power hungry too!
Tandem on the other hand had fancier hardware stuff like pairs of CPUs that ran in lock-step with each other...
Both of these were bought by HP but they never really did much with them. The problem also was most people don't care so much about the high availability of the entire OS, they only care about high availability of certain applications/services. And they could achieve "good enough" HA of those apps/services without buying HPs stuff.
The Titanic was considered a failure not because it didn't "top" stuff (and it did in many things). It was because it sank.
The Itanic on the other hand was a failure out of the gate because its inevitable sinking was obvious to anyone who knew how things worked. It was destined for failure not greatness. Just because inertia from "vendor lock-in" and HP's desperate pushing kept it moving upwards for a while doesn't mean it wasn't a failure.
Of course most didn't throw away their VMS, Tandem and HP/UX stuff when the Itanic was announced as their upgrade path. But the sane ones started plans to get off that platform. These sort of plans don't happen overnight - they take years. Getting off HP/UX might not be so hard but there were and are no cheap and easy substitutes for the other stuff. So you keep paying them till you finally get free.
The larger monitors tend to have higher latencies, so they're not so good for games where higher lag would make a difference. Should be fine for flight sims I guess.
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/ There aren't as many big monitors with 16ms lag (16ms = 1 frame at 60Hz), except maybe some Sonys? For some reason the lag tends to get crappier the bigger the screen gets Despite what the database says I don't consider 30ms lag to be great when it comes to playing games.
Actually if wearable computer tech becomes good enough you wouldn't need that many physically large screens, foldable or not.
You'd have physically small screens that look large to the user.
And to me, that's the way to go. Decent user interfaces (e.g, brain computer interfaces or gestures or similar[1]) might be useful so you don't have to always sound like you belong in a mental asylum.
[1] the wearable computer can use its cameras to see your gestures. If it's not clever enough yet you could wear special rings to make things easier for the computer.
Yeah use short passwords for most sites when the account doesn't really matter. Why waste time with long passwords if the sites are going to get hacked anyway and in many cases the plaintext password retrieved?;)
The scenario where someone says, "Gimme your stuff or I'll take it by force", and you reply "You and whose army?" plays out rather differently when there's a trillion dollar army...
As I mentioned in another post, in math (and many other fields) it's those who find new surprising and useful paths in the "jungle" that are real geniuses.
Once those paths are found, following them is easier. Even I might be able to follow them once they have been found, but I may never have found them on my own.
You can probably teach people to find new paths (and prove that they work). The focus seems to be mainly learning/memorizing the old paths - which can be useful - since you do need to use them in some fields, and also you do need to know the old ones so that you don't waste time re-finding them;).
As I said those who find the new great paths first tend to count more than the 10th person who manages to find them independently. And those who can merely follow long established paths are useful but if that's all they can do they'd be more easily replaced by computers. Just being able to follow is overrated.
So given current scientific evidence regarding heritability and intelligence, I suggest that my claim that "most of it is born" with respect to mathematically geniuses is highly plausible.
Teaching is still very important just like coaches, training and practice are still very important for sprinters.
But the evidence is that geniuses are mostly born not made just like top sprinters are mostly born not made.
You can teach almost anyone to fight or do math or to run, but not all will be top fighters, math geniuses or world record sprinters.
And like it or not in many fields the top count more than the rest. Few care about the sprinter who finished 10th. Few care if you are the 10th to independently discover the Theory of Relativity (unless you do it when you are four or something;) ).
But in other areas it's not so important, so people who aren't going to be the best in the "Star fields" may be better off in those other areas.
So for your claims that I'm wrong that most of it is born, I'd say show me some scientific evidence first. If most of intelligence is linked to genetics (based on research as mentioned) then arguably most of "math genius" is likely to be linked to genetics too.
Most humans may have the hardware to do higher math.
But the fine line among humans for this particular Slashdot story is where "Maths Genius" begins. They're looking for mathematical geniuses not those who can do higher math.
In fact, if I were doing the study I'd only look for those who have come up with stuff that's actually insightful and groundbreaking. To me in math (and many other fields) it's those who find new "shortcuts" in the "jungle" that are the geniuses, not those who can follow those "shortcuts" once found by others.
Following is much easier. Even I might (possibly with great effort) follow the "shortcuts" once they have been found, but I may never have found them on my own.
You may be right that most humans might be able to find such new shortcuts with training and practice. But from what I see very many humans already have difficulty thinking logically, scientifically or even reading accurately. What are the odds they'd be able to be trained to see new interesting mathematical conjectures in "thin air" and then prove them elegantly?
That said, it would be good if we could start training most humans to think better. But I doubt most politicians would want that;).
Most of it is born. If you don't believe it's genetic try training a dog or elephant or chimp to do higher math. You can try for years or decades if you want. They like to say there's very little genetic difference between a chimp and a human, but that small difference makes a big difference in certain things[1].
But even if the raw talent is there you still need training. Just like an untrained person with the raw physical talent of a top fighter will lose in a fight with a highly trained and experienced fighter with less "raw talent".
Training and practice is important but if you lack the talent you're not going to be among the best even when fully trained for years or even decades. And it's often the best that push the boundaries.
With my physique I'm never ever going to run faster than Usain Bolt no matter how hard I train. All the feel good nonsense of "nothing is impossible if you keep trying" etc is nonsense and not based in science.
[1] But perhaps no significant difference from the point of view of a super advanced alien from the "dark matter" zones;)
In theory they don't have to choose. They could show different things depending on which country the user sets the OS to.
Given that Taiwan's standard script is "Traditional Chinese" script and most of China uses "Simplified", there is additional motivation for Taiwanese to select "Taiwan" for their OS. And the Taiwanese who set their OS to China[1].
Hong Kong and Macau might use "Traditional" too but they can select the correct location if they want.
[1] Note there's a diff between Peoples Republic of China vs Republic of China (Taiwan) etc.;)
There is a point where a real-time OS is a requirement. You don't need an RTOS. You can have an ASIC do the low level control, and it may be even more precise than a program running on an RTOS could be.
Then the app running on a conventional OS tells the ASIC what to do on a higher level (based on driver etc inputs) - which doesn't have to be done every 1 microsecond. Every millisecond could be good enough. The human driver won't be alternating the throttle from full to off and back every millisecond. Do it right and it doesn't have to be dangerous or a mess, might even work better.
"Computer Tech Analogy": A CRT's electron beam puts dots on the screen at very precise sub microsecond moments, but the display can be controlled just fine by a program in a conventional OS, no need for an RTOS. All you need to do is split the work properly.
Having a program on an RTOS in a CRT control the electron beam might be doable but is probably a bad idea.
But he IS talking about those extremely wealthy bunch. Most of them have someone drive/fly them around.
However he forgets that the sons/grandsons of these very rich often do drive their own cars (but they're certainly not regular cars;) ) and prefer not to be driven. These sons/grandsons are as similarly unconstrained.
If you lane change rapidly so that you can go fast it may cause other drivers to brake suddenly. That can create a "traffic wave jam" that persists till the rush hour is over or till the "traffic wave" moves to a light/empty traffic are before then.
I think a more painless is to use high explosives around the target's head.
You can prove scientifically that the target will not feel pain after the explosive is detonated because it is impossible for the pain impulses to travel faster than the explosion shockwave. Thus the brain would be completely gone before any pain signals arrive.
There will still be mental pain while waiting for the "trigger", but it should be about the same with other execution methods, and given that my proposed method can be scientifically proven to be painless, their mental pain could even be less. In contrast the other common methods or proposed methods are not provably painless and/or may still cause some discomfort for more than a few seconds (suffocation while not that painful is still not that pleasant).
The USA certainly has lots of explosives. There's plenty of technology to contain explosions safely. You could even use it as an opportunity to test some experimental "explosion containment" tech within proven containment devices/structures.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't played GW2, but regarding GW1, other than the silly unlock skills and gear for PvP bullshit, very little grinding is _required_ even in PvE.
You want the fancy armor - yes you grind. But the fancy armor has the SAME STATS as the armor you don't really need to grind for. It just looks nicer (or not depending on your tastes).
You can play and experience all the story content including the elite areas just as well without the fancy armor. Having the fancy armor doesn't help you do better at all.
If you want to play the grinding game and grind for consumables, fancier armor, weapons, titles, yes GW1 allows you to grind, but it's silly to then complain about the grind right? I haven't needed to grind for consumables so far.
The only exception I can see is if you want stuff like a 7 requirement 16 armor shield... Then yes you may need to grind to get that. That said I got one and kept it through sheer luck - I was a noob when I got it - and kept it without knowing the value of it :). You don't actually need it though. Player skill, teamwork and tactics matter far more in PvP than having rare gear like this.
For GW1 they don't need the grinding because they've already got the money upfront from the players! They don't need gameplay that "compels" them to come back every day. They do need enough people around so that players have other players to play with, but that's about it.
GW1 can be boring if you do the same thing over and over again. But the game doesn't actually force you to do that. You can use some rather weird builds for fun. I currently use a hero ele rit as a healer and a necro as a illusion mesmer :).
I personally agree that reproduction should be regulated.
;)
The reason is as a trade off between fairness and mercy.
Basically as technology improves, jobs are going to vanish. If we are going to have a decent social safety net we can't have unregulated population growth. If you can't support yourself, we shouldn't let you starve to death but instead provide for you reasonably. However we shouldn't allow you to do stuff like have eight kids unless sponsors can be found for them. As for the right to vote, perhaps tie that in to a minimum amount of community service if you are "state-supported".
Of course such stuff sounds evil, and in many ways it is evil. But what lesser evil alternatives are there? Having families or even entire populations starve is evil too. Plenty of evil in wars too.
We already have robotic warehouses, burger making robots, even foxconn plans to replace more and more workers with robots. So jobs will vanish because the whole idea is to reduce jobs, cut costs and make the owners rich. Unless of course you can convince the rich people to keep spending most of their wealth. But the rich seem to prefer "_trickle_ down economics". Not _gush_ down.
The platform was declared a failure by many years ago. The reason it survived so long was HP had VMS and Tandem customers. And HP made it such that the Itanic was their only ship sailing on their routes. Those who could leave got off along the way, the rest keep on paying.
If you look at the old SPEC figures you can see that it was a few times faster in a few tasks (and slower in others). However I believe many of those tasks were "embarrassingly parallel". So instead of buying one Itanic box you could buy two or more x86 boxes for the same price and get about the same performance for that workload and have more flexibility (better performance for other tasks). And possibly not use that much more power either - the Itanic was quite power hungry too!
VMS uptime has much to do with its clustering. They are measuring cluster uptime not node uptime. The difference between VMS clustering and normal webserver/appserver clusters is VMS supported single system image clustering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_system_image#Some_example_SSI_clustering_systems
Tandem on the other hand had fancier hardware stuff like pairs of CPUs that ran in lock-step with each other...
Both of these were bought by HP but they never really did much with them. The problem also was most people don't care so much about the high availability of the entire OS, they only care about high availability of certain applications/services. And they could achieve "good enough" HA of those apps/services without buying HPs stuff.
The Titanic was considered a failure not because it didn't "top" stuff (and it did in many things). It was because it sank.
The Itanic on the other hand was a failure out of the gate because its inevitable sinking was obvious to anyone who knew how things worked. It was destined for failure not greatness. Just because inertia from "vendor lock-in" and HP's desperate pushing kept it moving upwards for a while doesn't mean it wasn't a failure.
Of course most didn't throw away their VMS, Tandem and HP/UX stuff when the Itanic was announced as their upgrade path. But the sane ones started plans to get off that platform. These sort of plans don't happen overnight - they take years. Getting off HP/UX might not be so hard but there were and are no cheap and easy substitutes for the other stuff. So you keep paying them till you finally get free.
I'll still prefer the chicken though.
What sort of games do you play? Flight sim?
The larger monitors tend to have higher latencies, so they're not so good for games where higher lag would make a difference. Should be fine for flight sims I guess.
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/
There aren't as many big monitors with 16ms lag (16ms = 1 frame at 60Hz), except maybe some Sonys? For some reason the lag tends to get crappier the bigger the screen gets Despite what the database says I don't consider 30ms lag to be great when it comes to playing games.
Actually if wearable computer tech becomes good enough you wouldn't need that many physically large screens, foldable or not.
You'd have physically small screens that look large to the user.
And to me, that's the way to go. Decent user interfaces (e.g, brain computer interfaces or gestures or similar[1]) might be useful so you don't have to always sound like you belong in a mental asylum.
[1] the wearable computer can use its cameras to see your gestures. If it's not clever enough yet you could wear special rings to make things easier for the computer.
Yeah use short passwords for most sites when the account doesn't really matter. Why waste time with long passwords if the sites are going to get hacked anyway and in many cases the plaintext password retrieved? ;)
And that's a pretty big difference.
The scenario where someone says, "Gimme your stuff or I'll take it by force", and you reply "You and whose army?" plays out rather differently when there's a trillion dollar army...
As I mentioned in another post, in math (and many other fields) it's those who find new surprising and useful paths in the "jungle" that are real geniuses.
Once those paths are found, following them is easier. Even I might be able to follow them once they have been found, but I may never have found them on my own.
You can probably teach people to find new paths (and prove that they work). The focus seems to be mainly learning/memorizing the old paths - which can be useful - since you do need to use them in some fields, and also you do need to know the old ones so that you don't waste time re-finding them ;).
As I said those who find the new great paths first tend to count more than the 10th person who manages to find them independently. And those who can merely follow long established paths are useful but if that's all they can do they'd be more easily replaced by computers. Just being able to follow is overrated.
Except you bring zero evidence that cogitation has anything to do with your genetic inheritance in humans
Sure but there's existing evidence around: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text
So given current scientific evidence regarding heritability and intelligence, I suggest that my claim that "most of it is born" with respect to mathematically geniuses is highly plausible.
Teaching is still very important just like coaches, training and practice are still very important for sprinters.
But the evidence is that geniuses are mostly born not made just like top sprinters are mostly born not made.
You can teach almost anyone to fight or do math or to run, but not all will be top fighters, math geniuses or world record sprinters.
And like it or not in many fields the top count more than the rest. Few care about the sprinter who finished 10th. Few care if you are the 10th to independently discover the Theory of Relativity (unless you do it when you are four or something ;) ).
But in other areas it's not so important, so people who aren't going to be the best in the "Star fields" may be better off in those other areas.
It's not average or even above intelligence they care about here. They are looking for the best.
Analogy: they are not looking for those who can merely run fast. They are looking for what makes the top sprinters the top sprinters.
Like it or not, there's at least some research that indicates I'm more likely to be right than wrong:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/twins/miller-text
So for your claims that I'm wrong that most of it is born, I'd say show me some scientific evidence first. If most of intelligence is linked to genetics (based on research as mentioned) then arguably most of "math genius" is likely to be linked to genetics too.
oops should be "And the Taiwanese who set their OS to China[1] probably want it that way"
Most humans may have the hardware to do higher math.
;).
But the fine line among humans for this particular Slashdot story is where "Maths Genius" begins. They're looking for mathematical geniuses not those who can do higher math.
In fact, if I were doing the study I'd only look for those who have come up with stuff that's actually insightful and groundbreaking. To me in math (and many other fields) it's those who find new "shortcuts" in the "jungle" that are the geniuses, not those who can follow those "shortcuts" once found by others.
Following is much easier. Even I might (possibly with great effort) follow the "shortcuts" once they have been found, but I may never have found them on my own.
You may be right that most humans might be able to find such new shortcuts with training and practice. But from what I see very many humans already have difficulty thinking logically, scientifically or even reading accurately. What are the odds they'd be able to be trained to see new interesting mathematical conjectures in "thin air" and then prove them elegantly?
That said, it would be good if we could start training most humans to think better. But I doubt most politicians would want that
Most of it is born. If you don't believe it's genetic try training a dog or elephant or chimp to do higher math. You can try for years or decades if you want. They like to say there's very little genetic difference between a chimp and a human, but that small difference makes a big difference in certain things[1].
;)
But even if the raw talent is there you still need training. Just like an untrained person with the raw physical talent of a top fighter will lose in a fight with a highly trained and experienced fighter with less "raw talent".
Training and practice is important but if you lack the talent you're not going to be among the best even when fully trained for years or even decades. And it's often the best that push the boundaries.
With my physique I'm never ever going to run faster than Usain Bolt no matter how hard I train. All the feel good nonsense of "nothing is impossible if you keep trying" etc is nonsense and not based in science.
[1] But perhaps no significant difference from the point of view of a super advanced alien from the "dark matter" zones
In theory they don't have to choose. They could show different things depending on which country the user sets the OS to.
Given that Taiwan's standard script is "Traditional Chinese" script and most of China uses "Simplified", there is additional motivation for Taiwanese to select "Taiwan" for their OS. And the Taiwanese who set their OS to China[1].
Hong Kong and Macau might use "Traditional" too but they can select the correct location if they want.
[1] Note there's a diff between Peoples Republic of China vs Republic of China (Taiwan) etc. ;)
There is a point where a real-time OS is a requirement.
You don't need an RTOS. You can have an ASIC do the low level control, and it may be even more precise than a program running on an RTOS could be.
Then the app running on a conventional OS tells the ASIC what to do on a higher level (based on driver etc inputs) - which doesn't have to be done every 1 microsecond. Every millisecond could be good enough. The human driver won't be alternating the throttle from full to off and back every millisecond. Do it right and it doesn't have to be dangerous or a mess, might even work better.
"Computer Tech Analogy": A CRT's electron beam puts dots on the screen at very precise sub microsecond moments, but the display can be controlled just fine by a program in a conventional OS, no need for an RTOS. All you need to do is split the work properly.
Having a program on an RTOS in a CRT control the electron beam might be doable but is probably a bad idea.
But he IS talking about those extremely wealthy bunch. Most of them have someone drive/fly them around.
;) ) and prefer not to be driven. These sons/grandsons are as similarly unconstrained.
However he forgets that the sons/grandsons of these very rich often do drive their own cars (but they're certainly not regular cars
If an autonomous car was driving for 13 hours you could sleep and do other things. Assuming it's safer that'll be even more worth it,
Unless you enjoy driving that much and so prefer to drive for 11.5 hours.
If you lane change rapidly so that you can go fast it may cause other drivers to brake suddenly. That can create a "traffic wave jam" that persists till the rush hour is over or till the "traffic wave" moves to a light/empty traffic are before then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_wave
That said you don't have to speed to cause other drivers to brake suddenly.
Some would lose heads but I was hoping they could just put on a brave face.
They just need to be more open minded.
I think a more painless is to use high explosives around the target's head.
You can prove scientifically that the target will not feel pain after the explosive is detonated because it is impossible for the pain impulses to travel faster than the explosion shockwave. Thus the brain would be completely gone before any pain signals arrive.
There will still be mental pain while waiting for the "trigger", but it should be about the same with other execution methods, and given that my proposed method can be scientifically proven to be painless, their mental pain could even be less. In contrast the other common methods or proposed methods are not provably painless and/or may still cause some discomfort for more than a few seconds (suffocation while not that painful is still not that pleasant).
The USA certainly has lots of explosives. There's plenty of technology to contain explosions safely. You could even use it as an opportunity to test some experimental "explosion containment" tech within proven containment devices/structures.
Yep think more about keyboard, monitor, drive, speakers, etc and they start seeming a bit weird ;).