Head on out to public park where people play pickup games of basketball, or, heck, chess. Once you're welcomed in, start engaging in the most foul insults you can to distract your opponent. Might I suggest racial epithets?
That's a ridiculous comparison, and doesn't relate to how he was playing in-game. It would be a better comparison if you insisted on calling all fouls, obeying all rules, etc. That's more in line with what he was doing online. He wasn't insulting anyone, he was playing strictly according to the rules. He wasn't going around shouting racial epithets and trying to anger people, he was fighting "villains" as a "hero", or, in other words, exactly what the game is supposed to be.
This isn't IRC with 3d models, it's villains vs. heroes. If you insist on comparing this with something real-world, imagine if you showed up on a basketball court to get a game and everyone was just standing around talking, but you just grabbed the ball and started doing layups. Is that really something to get all butthurt about?
While that might be taken to mean that most twitter users are gay, it's probably more likely to mean that, since twitter focuses on text, men are more likely to be interested in what men have to say vs. what women have to say. On other sites you're looking at people's pictures, on twitter you're reading what they have to say. Incidentally, women are also more likely to follow men on Twitter (even though the majority of users are women), so women probably also don't care what other women have to say.
it only takes ONE person to write a good game for the platform in a reasonable length of time
..which begs a question..why hasn't anyone? Is the mobile platform not old enough yet? Why has there not been a killer app for mobile gaming like we had with Doom for online gaming?
If you buy a new game for a PC, it won't play on last year's machine. The machine is obsolete.
Game technology is not advancing at the rate that a Geforce 8800 GTX is unable to run games being released today. Yeah, gameplay is very important, but gameplay isn't the only thing I'm interested in, I'm also interested in the look and feel. Fallout 3 is a good example. I like the story and the gameplay of Fallout and Fallout 2, but it will be a while before I play that again in favor of Fallout 3.
Games makers making new games do not require the bleeding-edge hardware. FarCry 2 asks for a 256-MB graphics card with shader model 3, those have been around for several years. I could run FarCry 2 with a 5-year old card and turn it down to 1024x768 with most effects off and get all of the gameplay, but I would rather play it at 1920x1200 with everything on. When I find my system meeting the minimum instead of recommended requirements on new games, then I upgrade. It takes several years for that to happen.
It's not the carrier's responsibility to look at all SMS messages going through their system and filter them out, it's the iPhone's responsibility to not execute untrusted code in the first place. If this was a Microsoft device that's exactly what people would be saying.
Exactly. Until I can use a server scripting language to open a (binary) PDF template and do string find-replace, and not break the document, I'll stick with the ASCII-based RTF format.
There are a lot of people who seem to be screaming "LaTex" as the solution to this non-problem. This is specifically what the PDF format was created for: to create a portable document that renders and prints the same anywhere. HTML is a fluid layout to fit various resolutions, PDF is guaranteed to print the same on any machine. That's exactly what it's for. There's no reason to bring LaTeX into the picture when you can export a regular word processing document to a PDF. Regardless of whether or not you can export to PDF from LaTeX, there's no reason to use LaTeX specifically vs. Word or Open Office or Acrobat or whatever else. The OP didn't even mention that the document should be editable by anyone other than the author.
It's been quite a while since I got interested in the idea of using html (instead of.doc. or.odf) as a standard for saving documents
PDF: you can export from your word processor, you can generate one easily from PHP, you can use Adobe's bloated software, whatever you want to use. It supports images, links, page size and margins, and it's guaranteed to print the same way on any printer. That's specifically what it's for.
I understand that, and that's exactly the point. That's why PCs are, by definition, cutting-edge. I have the money to spend on things like that, and I like firing up the latest game and cranking the settings up, so I'm willing to pay the inflated cost for the newest thing. Like the other guy who replied to you pointed out, I do use the card for several years. My current card is a Geforce 8800 GTX still which I bought for Crysis, it's still handling everything fine (and is also considerably more powerful than any console). Also, it keeps my heating bills down in the winter. I'm not looking for budget gaming or whatever, I'm looking to see whatever the game developers are working on today, with the hardware that they're targeting today. I don't have any plans to buy another card in the near future, maybe I'll take another look when Rage is about to come out though. Before the Geforce my last card was a Radeon 9800 XT I think, for Doom3/Half-Life 2. When a major title comes out that's doing something that I haven't seen before, I want to run it in full glory. I probably could have left the rest of this post out and just said that.
The PC platform has been "dying" since NES came out. Keep in mind that, by definition, the PC is always the cutting-edge platform. I can go down to the store and buy whatever $600 graphics card is on the shelf and it will blow away anything that any console has. Consoles are fine, but the technology is obsolete as soon as it hits the shelves (and the WASD control scheme is ingrained into me - if I could play Xbox with a mouse and keyboard I might actually turn the thing on every now and then). Consoles get obsolete immediately because the hardware they contain was the cutting edge stuff years ago when they started designing it. Now it's old news. Software developed for mobile platforms targets the worst of both worlds - the necessary to support a wide range of hardware that comes with PC development, and the restrictions of having your platform obsolete as soon as it hits the shelves, like with consoles. Not to mention that mobile devices are ridiculously underpowered compared to PCs and consoles if you're looking at a mobile device as a gaming platform. An iPhone is fine for a lot of things that it's meant to do, it has the power to do the vast majority of tasks. Engaging, impressive gaming is not one of those. Not to mention that I can't really be sucked into something that's coming through a 3 inch screen. I'll take my dual 28" monitors and space-heater video card, thank you very much. I'm not looking to play a Flash-based or cartoony looking game, I'm looking for 3D, tons of effects, high-polygon models all over the place, shading, etc. Call me when id releases Rage for the iPhone and I'll change my tone. Or how about X3 Terran Conflict, can I play that on an iPhone? What's the framerate on your iPhone when you're rendering several square kilometers of a high-polygon asteroid field containing ships and stations, everything moving and rotating? How about Team Fortress 2? How well does Steam work on your iPhone? How many Fallout 3 mods are available for the iPhone? I mean don't get me wrong, the iPhone 3G S's 128MB of RAM, 667MHz CPU, and Geforce 256-like GPU are all real impressive, in a 1998 sort of way. Maybe in a few years you'll be able to play Half-Life on it.
The only thing that's going to be a footnote, related to gaming, is your iPhone. Gaming enthusiasts will always prefer the PC, and mainstream gamers will always prefer consoles.
That's the good thing about science: when the authors not only describe their conclusions, but also show all of the evidence they used to come to their conclusions, you can examine the evidence yourself and determine if you come to the same conclusion. You don't need to have faith in the authors when they give their reasons for their conclusions.
There's a great many people trying to make God go away. Kinda sad, really. No one tries to make Buddah go away, or discount Ra, or dispute Karma.
Just to point out, everyone who has ever taken the moral high ground with me based on religion, or anyone who has ever tried to shove religion down my throat, or sell it to me from my doorstep, have all worshiped the Christian god. I'm counting Muslims among these people as well, Islam is basically a breakaway Christian sect. I've never seen a Buddhist running around with an AK looking to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Buddha, and I haven't heard of any Egyptian campaigns, or crusades if you will, to spread their religion around the world. People who have a negative reaction towards the Christian god have that reaction probably because it has been shoved down their throat from day 1 with people claiming that if you don't believe the same thing you're automatically wrong about whatever you're arguing.
Either you're completely missing the point or you're just trolling. I doubt that Galileo's "toy" was capable of controlled flight, let alone hovering. This isn't about building a toy that you sit on a charger for 15 minutes so that you can fly it around for 5. This is about building a robot that can travel at 10m/s and be controlled from a range of 1km.
The goals of the NAV program -- namely to develop an approximately 10 gram aircraft that can hover for extended periods, can fly at forward speeds up to 10 meters per second, can withstand 2.5 meter per second wind gusts, can operate inside buildings, and have up to a kilometer command and control range -- will stretch our understanding of flight at these small sizes and require novel technology development.
Does that sound like something that Galileo built 500 years ago? Does that sound like a manned aircraft? Note that the requirements don't say anything about the method of propulsion or control.
The NAV program was initiated by DARPA to develop a new class of air vehicles capable of indoor and outdoor operation. Employing biological mimicry at an extremely small scale this unconventional aircraft is designed to provide new military reconnaissance capabilities in urban environments.
Does that sound like any "toy" that you've seen available?
"From the first day of the Phase I effort, we knew that our biggest challenge would be to develop a viable propulsion system, followed by the extreme challenge of creating a control system for such complex operation at such a small scale," said Matt Keennon, AV's project manager and principal investigator on the NAV project. "Both systems were extremely difficult to conceive and required an intense combination of creative, scientific, and artistic problem-solving skills from several key team members."
If you think you can build a better toy than these guys, what's stopping you? They just got awarded $2.1 million by DARPA to continue R&D. If you think the goals of this program are 1) to think of an ornithopter and 2) to build a toy, go right ahead.
It should be readily apparent that there's a massive difference between a manned aircraft and a 10g robot. It's not about "thinking of it before", DARPA isn't sponsoring a competition to see who can think of an ornithopter first. It's about execution.
It seems like the consumer computing model just needs to be changed. As a software developer I realize that things that are obvious to me are not at all obvious to the people using my stuff (over 90 days, 30% of about 3,000 support calls for one application were essentially "how do I login"). I haven't used a Mac in a while, but it sounds like it would be a good policy to ship the OS with the default of the parental controls being enabled and only allowing the currently-installed applications. That way, anyone wanting to install anything else will need to at a bare minimum familiarize themself with the controls to either disable them or add the new application, and in doing so will probably gain some understanding about how the system works. I don't know if Windows has something like that either, but it wouldn't be a bad default policy. Windows has always (at least up until XP) had a default policy of allowing everything, it would be nice to see that changed to only allowing what's already there, and if you want to add anything to your computer then you need to learn how the security system works.
I don't think you understand the mentality of a young kid. It's easy to say "don't open things you don't know about". But then they're playing their game, and they're looking for that one item that no one else has, and someone says "I used this program to just give myself the item, it works, here's the link", the kid is not going to flash back to you telling them not to open untrusted things, they're going to be so caught up in the fact that they think they're so close to getting this item that the program gets executed before they even think about it.
Expecting kids to understand the intricacies of internet security is about as realistic as expecting an average parent to understand the intricacies of being a sys admin. Keep in mind that most adults don't even understand internet security, let alone their children.
Slashdot Mirror
instead [of] competing for individual ambition
What exactly is your definition of "game"? I don't think "City of Heroes" was billed as a "conformant society simulator".
Head on out to public park where people play pickup games of basketball, or, heck, chess. Once you're welcomed in, start engaging in the most foul insults you can to distract your opponent. Might I suggest racial epithets?
That's a ridiculous comparison, and doesn't relate to how he was playing in-game. It would be a better comparison if you insisted on calling all fouls, obeying all rules, etc. That's more in line with what he was doing online. He wasn't insulting anyone, he was playing strictly according to the rules. He wasn't going around shouting racial epithets and trying to anger people, he was fighting "villains" as a "hero", or, in other words, exactly what the game is supposed to be.
This isn't IRC with 3d models, it's villains vs. heroes. If you insist on comparing this with something real-world, imagine if you showed up on a basketball court to get a game and everyone was just standing around talking, but you just grabbed the ball and started doing layups. Is that really something to get all butthurt about?
There is no law against me walking up to your mother and calling her a cunt
That's what "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" is for.
Are we sure that there is more than one person tagging, or has zobier just been trying to create his own meme for the last year?
When did UK slang become all the rage on Slashdot?
And you, my friend, are a giant dork.
While that might be taken to mean that most twitter users are gay, it's probably more likely to mean that, since twitter focuses on text, men are more likely to be interested in what men have to say vs. what women have to say. On other sites you're looking at people's pictures, on twitter you're reading what they have to say. Incidentally, women are also more likely to follow men on Twitter (even though the majority of users are women), so women probably also don't care what other women have to say.
it only takes ONE person to write a good game for the platform in a reasonable length of time
..which begs a question..why hasn't anyone? Is the mobile platform not old enough yet? Why has there not been a killer app for mobile gaming like we had with Doom for online gaming?
If you buy a new game for a PC, it won't play on last year's machine. The machine is obsolete.
Game technology is not advancing at the rate that a Geforce 8800 GTX is unable to run games being released today. Yeah, gameplay is very important, but gameplay isn't the only thing I'm interested in, I'm also interested in the look and feel. Fallout 3 is a good example. I like the story and the gameplay of Fallout and Fallout 2, but it will be a while before I play that again in favor of Fallout 3.
Games makers making new games do not require the bleeding-edge hardware. FarCry 2 asks for a 256-MB graphics card with shader model 3, those have been around for several years. I could run FarCry 2 with a 5-year old card and turn it down to 1024x768 with most effects off and get all of the gameplay, but I would rather play it at 1920x1200 with everything on. When I find my system meeting the minimum instead of recommended requirements on new games, then I upgrade. It takes several years for that to happen.
It's not the carrier's responsibility to look at all SMS messages going through their system and filter them out, it's the iPhone's responsibility to not execute untrusted code in the first place. If this was a Microsoft device that's exactly what people would be saying.
The thing with books is that most folks who can read and manipulate them.
...continue..
Most folks who can read and manipulate books.. what? WHAT DO THEY DO? I must know!
Actually, the font problem is solved by using XeLaTeX
It's nice to see the naming conventions from 1996 making a CoMeBaCk.
Exactly. Until I can use a server scripting language to open a (binary) PDF template and do string find-replace, and not break the document, I'll stick with the ASCII-based RTF format.
There are a lot of people who seem to be screaming "LaTex" as the solution to this non-problem. This is specifically what the PDF format was created for: to create a portable document that renders and prints the same anywhere. HTML is a fluid layout to fit various resolutions, PDF is guaranteed to print the same on any machine. That's exactly what it's for. There's no reason to bring LaTeX into the picture when you can export a regular word processing document to a PDF. Regardless of whether or not you can export to PDF from LaTeX, there's no reason to use LaTeX specifically vs. Word or Open Office or Acrobat or whatever else. The OP didn't even mention that the document should be editable by anyone other than the author.
It's been quite a while since I got interested in the idea of using html (instead of .doc. or .odf) as a standard for saving documents
PDF: you can export from your word processor, you can generate one easily from PHP, you can use Adobe's bloated software, whatever you want to use. It supports images, links, page size and margins, and it's guaranteed to print the same way on any printer. That's specifically what it's for.
I understand that, and that's exactly the point. That's why PCs are, by definition, cutting-edge. I have the money to spend on things like that, and I like firing up the latest game and cranking the settings up, so I'm willing to pay the inflated cost for the newest thing. Like the other guy who replied to you pointed out, I do use the card for several years. My current card is a Geforce 8800 GTX still which I bought for Crysis, it's still handling everything fine (and is also considerably more powerful than any console). Also, it keeps my heating bills down in the winter. I'm not looking for budget gaming or whatever, I'm looking to see whatever the game developers are working on today, with the hardware that they're targeting today. I don't have any plans to buy another card in the near future, maybe I'll take another look when Rage is about to come out though. Before the Geforce my last card was a Radeon 9800 XT I think, for Doom3/Half-Life 2. When a major title comes out that's doing something that I haven't seen before, I want to run it in full glory. I probably could have left the rest of this post out and just said that.
The PC platform has been "dying" since NES came out. Keep in mind that, by definition, the PC is always the cutting-edge platform. I can go down to the store and buy whatever $600 graphics card is on the shelf and it will blow away anything that any console has. Consoles are fine, but the technology is obsolete as soon as it hits the shelves (and the WASD control scheme is ingrained into me - if I could play Xbox with a mouse and keyboard I might actually turn the thing on every now and then). Consoles get obsolete immediately because the hardware they contain was the cutting edge stuff years ago when they started designing it. Now it's old news. Software developed for mobile platforms targets the worst of both worlds - the necessary to support a wide range of hardware that comes with PC development, and the restrictions of having your platform obsolete as soon as it hits the shelves, like with consoles. Not to mention that mobile devices are ridiculously underpowered compared to PCs and consoles if you're looking at a mobile device as a gaming platform. An iPhone is fine for a lot of things that it's meant to do, it has the power to do the vast majority of tasks. Engaging, impressive gaming is not one of those. Not to mention that I can't really be sucked into something that's coming through a 3 inch screen. I'll take my dual 28" monitors and space-heater video card, thank you very much. I'm not looking to play a Flash-based or cartoony looking game, I'm looking for 3D, tons of effects, high-polygon models all over the place, shading, etc. Call me when id releases Rage for the iPhone and I'll change my tone. Or how about X3 Terran Conflict, can I play that on an iPhone? What's the framerate on your iPhone when you're rendering several square kilometers of a high-polygon asteroid field containing ships and stations, everything moving and rotating? How about Team Fortress 2? How well does Steam work on your iPhone? How many Fallout 3 mods are available for the iPhone? I mean don't get me wrong, the iPhone 3G S's 128MB of RAM, 667MHz CPU, and Geforce 256-like GPU are all real impressive, in a 1998 sort of way. Maybe in a few years you'll be able to play Half-Life on it.
The only thing that's going to be a footnote, related to gaming, is your iPhone. Gaming enthusiasts will always prefer the PC, and mainstream gamers will always prefer consoles.
That's the good thing about science: when the authors not only describe their conclusions, but also show all of the evidence they used to come to their conclusions, you can examine the evidence yourself and determine if you come to the same conclusion. You don't need to have faith in the authors when they give their reasons for their conclusions.
There's a great many people trying to make God go away. Kinda sad, really. No one tries to make Buddah go away, or discount Ra, or dispute Karma.
Just to point out, everyone who has ever taken the moral high ground with me based on religion, or anyone who has ever tried to shove religion down my throat, or sell it to me from my doorstep, have all worshiped the Christian god. I'm counting Muslims among these people as well, Islam is basically a breakaway Christian sect. I've never seen a Buddhist running around with an AK looking to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Buddha, and I haven't heard of any Egyptian campaigns, or crusades if you will, to spread their religion around the world. People who have a negative reaction towards the Christian god have that reaction probably because it has been shoved down their throat from day 1 with people claiming that if you don't believe the same thing you're automatically wrong about whatever you're arguing.
I'm confused about why you're replying to a statement on agnosticism with a page that describes god as a person or being in fiction.
There's one that always works for me:
boiling water, a whole pot, straight down the hole
Either you're completely missing the point or you're just trolling. I doubt that Galileo's "toy" was capable of controlled flight, let alone hovering. This isn't about building a toy that you sit on a charger for 15 minutes so that you can fly it around for 5. This is about building a robot that can travel at 10m/s and be controlled from a range of 1km.
The goals of the NAV program -- namely to develop an approximately 10 gram aircraft that can hover for extended periods, can fly at forward speeds up to 10 meters per second, can withstand 2.5 meter per second wind gusts, can operate inside buildings, and have up to a kilometer command and control range -- will stretch our understanding of flight at these small sizes and require novel technology development.
Does that sound like something that Galileo built 500 years ago? Does that sound like a manned aircraft? Note that the requirements don't say anything about the method of propulsion or control.
The NAV program was initiated by DARPA to develop a new class of air vehicles capable of indoor and outdoor operation. Employing biological mimicry at an extremely small scale this unconventional aircraft is designed to provide new military reconnaissance capabilities in urban environments.
Does that sound like any "toy" that you've seen available?
"From the first day of the Phase I effort, we knew that our biggest challenge would be to develop a viable propulsion system, followed by the extreme challenge of creating a control system for such complex operation at such a small scale," said Matt Keennon, AV's project manager and principal investigator on the NAV project. "Both systems were extremely difficult to conceive and required an intense combination of creative, scientific, and artistic problem-solving skills from several key team members."
If you think you can build a better toy than these guys, what's stopping you? They just got awarded $2.1 million by DARPA to continue R&D. If you think the goals of this program are 1) to think of an ornithopter and 2) to build a toy, go right ahead.
It should be readily apparent that there's a massive difference between a manned aircraft and a 10g robot. It's not about "thinking of it before", DARPA isn't sponsoring a competition to see who can think of an ornithopter first. It's about execution.
Firefox is the fastest fully open-source browser.
Out of how many?
It seems like the consumer computing model just needs to be changed. As a software developer I realize that things that are obvious to me are not at all obvious to the people using my stuff (over 90 days, 30% of about 3,000 support calls for one application were essentially "how do I login"). I haven't used a Mac in a while, but it sounds like it would be a good policy to ship the OS with the default of the parental controls being enabled and only allowing the currently-installed applications. That way, anyone wanting to install anything else will need to at a bare minimum familiarize themself with the controls to either disable them or add the new application, and in doing so will probably gain some understanding about how the system works. I don't know if Windows has something like that either, but it wouldn't be a bad default policy. Windows has always (at least up until XP) had a default policy of allowing everything, it would be nice to see that changed to only allowing what's already there, and if you want to add anything to your computer then you need to learn how the security system works.
I don't think you understand the mentality of a young kid. It's easy to say "don't open things you don't know about". But then they're playing their game, and they're looking for that one item that no one else has, and someone says "I used this program to just give myself the item, it works, here's the link", the kid is not going to flash back to you telling them not to open untrusted things, they're going to be so caught up in the fact that they think they're so close to getting this item that the program gets executed before they even think about it.
Expecting kids to understand the intricacies of internet security is about as realistic as expecting an average parent to understand the intricacies of being a sys admin. Keep in mind that most adults don't even understand internet security, let alone their children.
What is O'Reilly doing publishing this book?
That probably has something to do with the fact that Tim O'Reilly co-authored the book, since he's apparently an avid user himself.