how do you know that the new level isn't a simulation
As I understand it, that's the logical basis for "the universe is almost certainly a simulation". The idea being that a sufficiently advanced society will at some point want to, and have the ability to, simulate a universe (or at least simulate it to the satisfaction of the people being simulated). As technology within that society progresses they will improve the simulated universe to the degree that the simulated universe can, as societies are wont to do, simulate a universe. Also, there's no reason to believe that, if possible, those societies wouldn't want to simulate multiple universes which may, themselves, simulate multiple universes. It's turtles all the way down.
So the logic goes, if there is one physical universe and N nested simulated universes, what are the odds that this one happens to be the physical universe?
Now if had said nearly unlimited energy or almost unlimited energy then it might have some credibility. Instead he made the cold, calculated, and completely ludicrous claim that there was unlimited energy on the moon.
Oh wait, you said "unlimited energyon any planet". Any Slashdot poster who claims the moon is a planet needs to go back to Astronomy 101...
I'm not entirely sure that you should be rooting for Apple to succeed with a technologically inferior product and a superior marketing strategy.
Now if the iPod is a better product than the iRiver (it certainly seems like the button configuration of the iPod is better) and has a better price/performance ratio then sure, go Apple. But quite frankly if they hope to push overpriced and undergood products then I hope the fail dramatically.
From your own link "Finally, DVD Video players hit the market in the US in March 1997." Just because it (or a prototype of it) was demonstrated in 1993 does not mean that's the point from which you should start measuring how long it took to adopt.
As far as what defines adoption, I mean that more people are buying a new format's media and players than they are the previous format's media and players. If by adoption you mean 100% replacement of the previous technology, then the transistor radio has yet to be adopted over the vaccume tube one.
If you're definition is more broad and you merely mean ease of availability then I can only argue semantics, and that's no fun.
Finally, I'm sure there are more VCRs right now than DVD players. I've got a VCR and a DVD player, my Dad has two VCRs and a DVD player. But guess how many VCRs and VHS tapes we've bought since getting the DVD players. If you guessed zero, then you're the winner! Just because somebody hasn't thrown their VCR away doesn't mean VCRs are more popular than DVDs. Now, if you can point me to a statistic that says more VCR units are being sold that DVD units I'll be surprised and conceed the point, but I doubt that statistic exists.::any spelling or grammatical errors are the result of typing this at 4 am::
Should have been more clear I guess, I meant laserdisc was superior to VHS (except for the size/switching discs thing). They are obviously WAY crappier than DVD.
And I would consider DVD's to have been ubiquitous by 2000, 2001 at the latest. Your grandma might not have had one, but she probably has bought a new couch in 20 years either.
There were a couple, I can't tell you who made them off the top of my head, but they used slot loaded players (much like card cd players now). They showed them on one of those history channel shows that talk about strange things that nobody ever bought.
"It took forever for people to fully embrace DVDs"
Were you not born until CD's had already replaced casset tapes? The DVD format was the most quickly adopted new media format ever. CD's were around since (I think) the late 1970's, relatively easy to get a hold of by the early-mid 80's, but not really fully adopted until the early 90's. That's around 15 years from invention to full adoption. It took DVD's something like 4 years to do that.
Then of course there were the superior formats that were never adopted (read: laserdisks).
Anybody old enough to know how long it took tapes to become common over LP's or eight tracks?
That's not really Machinima, that's mostly cartoons/video editing done a computer. What she's referring to is videos made entirely within a pre-existing 3d environment like a video game engine. The acting is similar to traditional movies in that there are takes and people can mess it up, it's not being meticulously animated.
You don't suggest in your post that one abandon the PC in favor of the console, but that's the general impression it gives. There is no good reason not to get a console, but I'll give you a few good reasons not to give up on the PC:
Warcraft 3, StarCraft, Half Life 2 (may come to consoles withing a year of release), Massively Multiplayer Game X (minus SWG), BattleField 1942 and it's mods, hell mods in general (they may have had half life for the playstation 2 but you couldn't play counterstrike with it), higher than 640x480 resolution, etc...
In essence, most of us really have enough room in our wallets for both so theres little point in bickering over it. Admittedly most of the people who do argue are kids trying to defend their decision to get an X-Box for their birthday instead of a game cube (i know i did it when i chose the jaguar as a kid::shudder::)
That's what I thought too. Interesting maybe, but insightful? Theres been enough discussion about whether CG == 3D or not, and how Disney's been using CG for the last decade so this may be talking about something else yadda yadda yadda... but I still think it's interesting.
I always thought the idea of freezing yourself after death with the idea that future technology can cure whatever ails you was a touch silly. After all, you're not so much waiting for a day when they can cure a given disease, you're waiting for the day when they can re-animate the dead.
Even if you're frozen moments before death, the body they unfreeze will be so over ridden with cancer (or whatever) they're going to have a hard time keeping you alive long enough for the cure to even work.
No, your best bet is to get frozen a good 6 months prior to when you are likely to die, and have a poison capsule stuck in your teeth just in case you get woken up in a future George Bush XXVI is president (rim-shot).
Slashdot Mirror
how do you know that the new level isn't a simulation
As I understand it, that's the logical basis for "the universe is almost certainly a simulation". The idea being that a sufficiently advanced society will at some point want to, and have the ability to, simulate a universe (or at least simulate it to the satisfaction of the people being simulated). As technology within that society progresses they will improve the simulated universe to the degree that the simulated universe can, as societies are wont to do, simulate a universe. Also, there's no reason to believe that, if possible, those societies wouldn't want to simulate multiple universes which may, themselves, simulate multiple universes. It's turtles all the way down.
So the logic goes, if there is one physical universe and N nested simulated universes, what are the odds that this one happens to be the physical universe?
Oh my yes. Complete nonsense.
Now if had said nearly unlimited energy or almost unlimited energy then it might have some credibility. Instead he made the cold, calculated, and completely ludicrous claim that there was unlimited energy on the moon.
Oh wait, you said "unlimited energyon any planet". Any Slashdot poster who claims the moon is a planet needs to go back to Astronomy 101...
This post is nonsense.
and paid poorly at that.
I'm not entirely sure that you should be rooting for Apple to succeed with a technologically inferior product and a superior marketing strategy.
Now if the iPod is a better product than the iRiver (it certainly seems like the button configuration of the iPod is better) and has a better price/performance ratio then sure, go Apple. But quite frankly if they hope to push overpriced and undergood products then I hope the fail dramatically.
*ah hem* news for NERDS.
No kidding... sometimes the moderators baffle me.
From your own link "Finally, DVD Video players hit the market in the US in March 1997." Just because it (or a prototype of it) was demonstrated in 1993 does not mean that's the point from which you should start measuring how long it took to adopt.
::any spelling or grammatical errors are the result of typing this at 4 am::
As far as what defines adoption, I mean that more people are buying a new format's media and players than they are the previous format's media and players. If by adoption you mean 100% replacement of the previous technology, then the transistor radio has yet to be adopted over the vaccume tube one.
If you're definition is more broad and you merely mean ease of availability then I can only argue semantics, and that's no fun.
Finally, I'm sure there are more VCRs right now than DVD players. I've got a VCR and a DVD player, my Dad has two VCRs and a DVD player. But guess how many VCRs and VHS tapes we've bought since getting the DVD players. If you guessed zero, then you're the winner! Just because somebody hasn't thrown their VCR away doesn't mean VCRs are more popular than DVDs. Now, if you can point me to a statistic that says more VCR units are being sold that DVD units I'll be surprised and conceed the point, but I doubt that statistic exists.
just so you know
Should have been more clear I guess, I meant laserdisc was superior to VHS (except for the size/switching discs thing). They are obviously WAY crappier than DVD.
And I would consider DVD's to have been ubiquitous by 2000, 2001 at the latest. Your grandma might not have had one, but she probably has bought a new couch in 20 years either.
There were a couple, I can't tell you who made them off the top of my head, but they used slot loaded players (much like card cd players now). They showed them on one of those history channel shows that talk about strange things that nobody ever bought.
Wuh?!
"It took forever for people to fully embrace DVDs"
Were you not born until CD's had already replaced casset tapes? The DVD format was the most quickly adopted new media format ever. CD's were around since (I think) the late 1970's, relatively easy to get a hold of by the early-mid 80's, but not really fully adopted until the early 90's. That's around 15 years from invention to full adoption. It took DVD's something like 4 years to do that.
Then of course there were the superior formats that were never adopted (read: laserdisks).
Anybody old enough to know how long it took tapes to become common over LP's or eight tracks?
So... bad...
but so... funny...
NO U!
That's not really Machinima, that's mostly cartoons/video editing done a computer. What she's referring to is videos made entirely within a pre-existing 3d environment like a video game engine. The acting is similar to traditional movies in that there are takes and people can mess it up, it's not being meticulously animated.
hence: Red vs. Blue
Damn that competition. Somebody really should do something about that.
Wal-Mart to the rescue!
You don't suggest in your post that one abandon the PC in favor of the console, but that's the general impression it gives. There is no good reason not to get a console, but I'll give you a few good reasons not to give up on the PC:
::shudder::)
Warcraft 3, StarCraft, Half Life 2 (may come to consoles withing a year of release), Massively Multiplayer Game X (minus SWG), BattleField 1942 and it's mods, hell mods in general (they may have had half life for the playstation 2 but you couldn't play counterstrike with it), higher than 640x480 resolution, etc...
In essence, most of us really have enough room in our wallets for both so theres little point in bickering over it. Admittedly most of the people who do argue are kids trying to defend their decision to get an X-Box for their birthday instead of a game cube (i know i did it when i chose the jaguar as a kid
a) is your video card good enough to do the things you do.
b) the price/performance ratio, unless you have tons of money.
And how, preciselly, are we supposed to determine those price/performance ratios if our benchmarking suites are lying to us?
at least your wife has good taste in tv
zzz...
I'm confused, whose supposed to be the bad guy here? I'm too lazy to decide for myself.
That's what I thought too. Interesting maybe, but insightful? Theres been enough discussion about whether CG == 3D or not, and how Disney's been using CG for the last decade so this may be talking about something else yadda yadda yadda... but I still think it's interesting.
I always thought the idea of freezing yourself after death with the idea that future technology can cure whatever ails you was a touch silly. After all, you're not so much waiting for a day when they can cure a given disease, you're waiting for the day when they can re-animate the dead.
Even if you're frozen moments before death, the body they unfreeze will be so over ridden with cancer (or whatever) they're going to have a hard time keeping you alive long enough for the cure to even work.
No, your best bet is to get frozen a good 6 months prior to when you are likely to die, and have a poison capsule stuck in your teeth just in case you get woken up in a future George Bush XXVI is president (rim-shot).
zzz...
It's a bit ironic that as Disney switches from the cell shaded look to the 3D, many video games are switching from the 3D look to cell shaded.