those who "aren't hard-core Darwinists" (a euphemism for "intelligent design", I take it?) by necessity have to reject science as a methodology in order to maintain their beliefs
Just plain wrong.
Intelligent design does not rule out evolution. It just suggests something more than mere chance affecting mutations between generations.
There's no established science that needs to be rejected to maintain this as a belief.
If you think that it qualifies to make the audience of the joke the victim, that's more or less in direct agreement with TFS: "the emotion of mirth, is the brain's reward for discovering its mistaken inferences".
As for a counter-example - the interpretation of the fish joke where they're in a fish tank.
I'm gonna guess you're american, in which case TFA explains why you think victim-type jokes is the only sort of jokes.
I believe you find the answer you're looking for in the very next line of the same post:
Jesus, is this what scientific community looks like these days?
He said: "I am not just sceptical but quite openly dismissive"
Indeed, new experiments should not be taken at face value. This is why skepticism is encouraged. Dismissal, not so much.
Noone who matters was ever in doubt that gameplay matters. But if you, as a developer, want to get paid at some point before actually having an early beta available for people to pre-order, you're gonna have to work for someone who already has the money. And if you're working for someone, expect to be asked to do as they say. And if you're the person with the money, hiring a lot of professional developers, you're either *REALLY* confident that your groundbreaking new idea is gonna sell, or you're gonna take the beaten path, and just hope you can beat the established players at their game.
You can't have a bunch of developers join forces, unless they agree which game to make. And if they don't agree, they'd might as well make "someone else's game" for a large company able to pay a decent salary.
In short - billion-dollar developer studios are not big risk-takers. Don't expect this to change, and don't try to make it sound like the government needs to save the oppresed developers from the horror that is established game studios.
The purpose of beta testing SHOULD be to find bugs. However, since EA apparently think THEY'RE the ones doing YOU a favor by ALLOWING you to FIND BUGS for them, give them the finger.
The fun part about an MMO (for those inclined to play MMO's) is developing your character, which is a complete waste of time when your virtual character has only 3 days to live.
This. Seriously, how the hell can you claim ownership of simplicity? "Our design patent is the complete lack of distinctive features, and we'll disregard any distinctive features added by any competitive implementation when comparing it against our design patent."
A lot of us educated religious nutjobs have long known that science and religion are not polar opposites. There's plenty of us who appreciates the effort of science, whos admiration of God increases as each new scientific discovery adds to the percieved complexity of his work.
Our faith is not shaken by your discoveries. We do not care that you don't share out believe.
Sometimes though, it gets annoying to listen to these ignorant fundamentalistic atheists who honestly believe the abscense of God to be a fact. We're well aware that Gods existance is not a fact. That's why it's called "religious belief".
While fundamentalistic atheists won't shake our faith, they are among the most vocal group of obvious ignorants known to mankind.
Vocal obvious ignorance is annoying.
One day, you'll be able to recognize, and accept, that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.
You do your fellow atheists a great disservice by failing to realize that no evidence is required to *believe*.
There is no evidence against God. Why do you believe in his non-existance?
Uhm... are you saying that Oblivion and Fallout 3 were created by one or two guys? Cause if you are, that's the most ill-informed quote to ever make it to slashdot. Go read the credits section in the manual of either of those games. It's several pages in a very small font.
WELL, very little WoW content absolutely requires a certain healer and a certain tank - IF the players are good. If they're not, however, you'll likely want to avoid certain classes in certain roles that they officially support.
So... even if all content is beatable by any class combination... are there combinations that have an easier time than others?
GW2 would be the title I actually trust to do away with the trinity. They can easily scale all content to be unsoloable, and still cater to the anti-social MMO-players through hired henchmen, a mechanism that has been in place since launch of GW1. On paper, the idea of having each class feature self-healing abilities with different restricting mechanics sounds like an excellent way to force each character to mind his own survival while rewarding good class diversity.
I hope not. I mean, sure, for a vast majority of games, it would make perfect sense to have a "disable 3D mode" button, and aim to make that just as functional... but if someone came up with a truly magnificent idea, where depth perception would all of a sudden be an active element in gameplay mechanics, I hope they're gonna go ahead rather than thinking "Oh no, only 80% of the world could possibly enjoy this, let's not risk offending the remaining 20. Scrapped."
All of a sudden, it makes a lot of sense that data isn't sold - it's licensed.
Noone's gonna argue that a person who tailored a t-shirt is entitled to charge for his labor, and he can charge whatever he pleases. Too expensive? Don't buy it. You don't need to worry about piracy, because whoever bought your t-shirt can't magically conjure a copy from thin air to pass to his buddies.
If what you've crafted is a song, a movie or a piece of software, copies CAN be "magically conjured from thin air". Therefore, it's perfectly fair to impose certain restrictions on allowed usage when licensing your product to a paying client. Don't like them? Don't buy it.
Also, I know that at least 80% of you readers are perfectly familiar with "correlation does not imply causation". Remember to apply this, even when you don't like the outcome.
From TFA: "The conclusion of the study is that movie pirates are generally more interested in film and therefore spend more money and invest more time in it. In other words, they make up some of the movie industries best customers."
It's not AT ALL a stretch to assume that these pirates would've been EVEN BETTER customers without piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Chance to win the lottery if you play: Extremely small.
Chance to win the lottery if you don't play: Nill.
My math tells me that purchasing lottery tickets does not affect my financial situation in any significant way, but winning the grand prize would.
It's a win/loss situation with the odds of winning being roughly as small as the consequence of losing.
those who "aren't hard-core Darwinists" (a euphemism for "intelligent design", I take it?) by necessity have to reject science as a methodology in order to maintain their beliefs
Just plain wrong.
Intelligent design does not rule out evolution. It just suggests something more than mere chance affecting mutations between generations.
There's no established science that needs to be rejected to maintain this as a belief.
Hmmm... the chinese?
Is the answer supposed to be obvious?
Now, if you add RAM, a real monitor, a keyboard and a mouse, with good enough offline tools, maybe. But that ain't a tablet anymore, it's a PC.
And then, the question becomes: if you're anyway dealing with a PC, who would prefer it running iOS?
If you think that it qualifies to make the audience of the joke the victim, that's more or less in direct agreement with TFS: "the emotion of mirth, is the brain's reward for discovering its mistaken inferences".
As for a counter-example - the interpretation of the fish joke where they're in a fish tank.
I'm gonna guess you're american, in which case TFA explains why you think victim-type jokes is the only sort of jokes.
I believe you find the answer you're looking for in the very next line of the same post:
Jesus, is this what scientific community looks like these days?
He said: "I am not just sceptical but quite openly dismissive"
Indeed, new experiments should not be taken at face value. This is why skepticism is encouraged. Dismissal, not so much.
Makes me wonder. I assume the immortal machine would think it WAS the subject. But would the subject think he was the machine?
Noone who matters was ever in doubt that gameplay matters. But if you, as a developer, want to get paid at some point before actually having an early beta available for people to pre-order, you're gonna have to work for someone who already has the money. And if you're working for someone, expect to be asked to do as they say. And if you're the person with the money, hiring a lot of professional developers, you're either *REALLY* confident that your groundbreaking new idea is gonna sell, or you're gonna take the beaten path, and just hope you can beat the established players at their game.
You can't have a bunch of developers join forces, unless they agree which game to make. And if they don't agree, they'd might as well make "someone else's game" for a large company able to pay a decent salary.
In short - billion-dollar developer studios are not big risk-takers. Don't expect this to change, and don't try to make it sound like the government needs to save the oppresed developers from the horror that is established game studios.
The purpose of beta testing SHOULD be to find bugs. However, since EA apparently think THEY'RE the ones doing YOU a favor by ALLOWING you to FIND BUGS for them, give them the finger.
The fun part about an MMO (for those inclined to play MMO's) is developing your character, which is a complete waste of time when your virtual character has only 3 days to live.
Dragon Age 2
It's really no surprise that *actual* scientists have a more open mind than the self-proclaimed intellectual elite of slashdot.
How fortunate self-sacrifing zealots like you exists to teach the world what's right. Your bandwidth shall surely benefit all of humanity.
And Bethesda lawyers are *actually* killing people in the millions.
Oh wait.
This. Seriously, how the hell can you claim ownership of simplicity? "Our design patent is the complete lack of distinctive features, and we'll disregard any distinctive features added by any competitive implementation when comparing it against our design patent."
A lot of us educated religious nutjobs have long known that science and religion are not polar opposites. There's plenty of us who appreciates the effort of science, whos admiration of God increases as each new scientific discovery adds to the percieved complexity of his work.
Our faith is not shaken by your discoveries. We do not care that you don't share out believe.
Sometimes though, it gets annoying to listen to these ignorant fundamentalistic atheists who honestly believe the abscense of God to be a fact. We're well aware that Gods existance is not a fact. That's why it's called "religious belief".
While fundamentalistic atheists won't shake our faith, they are among the most vocal group of obvious ignorants known to mankind.
Vocal obvious ignorance is annoying.
One day, you'll be able to recognize, and accept, that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.
You do your fellow atheists a great disservice by failing to realize that no evidence is required to *believe*.
There is no evidence against God. Why do you believe in his non-existance?
There's 0 evidence for it
Contrary to popular believe, there's 0 evidence against it.
There's a reason religion is "believed in" rather than "known to be true".
Uhm... are you saying that Oblivion and Fallout 3 were created by one or two guys? Cause if you are, that's the most ill-informed quote to ever make it to slashdot. Go read the credits section in the manual of either of those games. It's several pages in a very small font.
WELL, very little WoW content absolutely requires a certain healer and a certain tank - IF the players are good. If they're not, however, you'll likely want to avoid certain classes in certain roles that they officially support.
So... even if all content is beatable by any class combination... are there combinations that have an easier time than others?
[...]or spend $55 to transfer one of my existing characters there and change faction. $55 is the cost of buying the game again
It's a cost comparison. Noone mentioned actually buying the game again.
GW2 would be the title I actually trust to do away with the trinity. They can easily scale all content to be unsoloable, and still cater to the anti-social MMO-players through hired henchmen, a mechanism that has been in place since launch of GW1. On paper, the idea of having each class feature self-healing abilities with different restricting mechanics sounds like an excellent way to force each character to mind his own survival while rewarding good class diversity.
The might be "programmers", but if slashdot was their pinnacle of achievement, they're not impressively talented on any scale.
I hope not. I mean, sure, for a vast majority of games, it would make perfect sense to have a "disable 3D mode" button, and aim to make that just as functional... but if someone came up with a truly magnificent idea, where depth perception would all of a sudden be an active element in gameplay mechanics, I hope they're gonna go ahead rather than thinking "Oh no, only 80% of the world could possibly enjoy this, let's not risk offending the remaining 20. Scrapped."
All of a sudden, it makes a lot of sense that data isn't sold - it's licensed.
Noone's gonna argue that a person who tailored a t-shirt is entitled to charge for his labor, and he can charge whatever he pleases. Too expensive? Don't buy it. You don't need to worry about piracy, because whoever bought your t-shirt can't magically conjure a copy from thin air to pass to his buddies.
If what you've crafted is a song, a movie or a piece of software, copies CAN be "magically conjured from thin air". Therefore, it's perfectly fair to impose certain restrictions on allowed usage when licensing your product to a paying client. Don't like them? Don't buy it.
Also, I know that at least 80% of you readers are perfectly familiar with "correlation does not imply causation". Remember to apply this, even when you don't like the outcome.
From TFA: "The conclusion of the study is that movie pirates are generally more interested in film and therefore spend more money and invest more time in it. In other words, they make up some of the movie industries best customers."
It's not AT ALL a stretch to assume that these pirates would've been EVEN BETTER customers without piracy.