Question: why would you be able to remember it if you were someplace else? It wouldn't make sense for images of heaven or whatever to be rewriting synapses in a dead brain, would it? How long should heaven go on downloading data to a dead head before it gives up?
I don't drink anything these days with HFCS in it. I mainly drink unsweetened iced tea, with some water and diet sodas for the hell of it. Actually, I don't drink any drinks with calories, even things sweetened with real sugar. It's the easiest way to cut calories out of your life.
Of course, I've also put on 10 pounds in the last four months, but I think that has to do more with moving to a town where I sit around all day, rather than going to Tae Kwon Do for one to three hours a day, four to six days a week.
I've dealt with very major bugs in Java, as a result of the JVM being implemented differently on different platforms, especially on minor platforms, like IRIX.
Since Sun thought it would be awesome to get rid of #ifdefs, because, you know, they're not necessary, we had to essentially kludge together some nasty looking code to get the program to run correctly crossplatform... which is just stupid, since that is what Java was designed to do.
At my first technical job, my boss/mentor/senpai stressed to me the importance of a good receptionist, on cultivating good relations with her, and to always make sure they are well paid and happy. It's been good advice throughout the years.
I take it a step further though, and try to be friendly and say hello to everyone when I see them for the first time each day. Life is a lot more pleasant when you get along well with all your coworkers. Plus, if something critical has come up, you'll hear it immediately.
This is true to a certain extent. If you work to improve your social skills, you'll find your nerd-foo declining slightly. But it's quite possible to both be a nerd and a social person. There's a number of areas a person can choose to improve themselves in, and it's quite possible to work on both technical and social skills at the same time.
I personally used to score nearly 100% on the introvert side of the Myers-Briggs test. Now I'm right between introvert and extrovert on the same scale. No coincidence -- I've moved from being a code monkey into someone that manages people and projects, speaks in front of groups of people, while still doing coding and development.
It basically boils down to a life choice each person has to make for themselves. A lot of nerds get deluded into thinking they have to become managers at some point. Project leads, yes, perhaps. But you can be a highly skilled and successful (and well paid) person doing nothing but development work. While managers appear to have more prestige than a lowly developer, at a lot of the companies I've worked at, they do nothing more than run interference for the development team, so the devs don't get bothered with useless meetings, red tape, funding issues, and other stuff that isn't related to writing code. We loved our manager, but nobody wanted his job. =)
I, personally, like working with people just as much as I like working with computers, and so I've migrated into the sort of hybrid position I currently hold, and am quite happy with it. But I still get called a nerd sometimes. =)
This is something I've thought a lot about. There have been any number of times that math has helped me in my software development efforts. Things like trig to predict the path of a moving target in Robowars (back when I was in high school) to various vector and angle related maths in CustomTF for Quake 1 (www.customtf.com) to partial derivatives to calculate the slope on a surface. I've also needed math for various economics related things over the years, and probability and statistics have also been exceptionally useful to me. Currently I'm having to decipher a guy's code which is all eigenmath, so my linear algebra course is saving me from having to hire someone just to explain all the math to me.
But the kicker is that you can't just tell a student that they should "study vector math" because one day they'll write a Quake Mod, because, truth be told, they probably won't. It's the trouble with all examples you give when students ask how math will be useful -- I could pull any number of examples from my life, but the problem is, they probably won't happen in a student's life. Instead, they'll have their own trials. The best you can tell someone is to study all the math they can, because some day it *might* be useful, and they'll want to have that tool in their toolkit.
And that's just not a very satisfying answer to students who want to make sure that they'll be damn well using what you're teaching in the future.
But believe me, I thought I'd never have an application for eigenvectors, and now not only do I have to clean out my brain on the topic, but I have to parse someone else's code (PhD thesis code no less) and add functionality to it. Two other friends of mine got stuck on legacy Fortran apps which are essentially mathematical solvers (one for differential equations, the other for huge linear algebra problems), and both of them are extremely happy they paid attention in their respective math classes.
So, yeah. To CSE students out there: take math. Pay attention. It could very well save your neck some day at a job, and if it doesn't, at least try to make it interesting to yourself to think of applications where you might use them. All math through the first two years in college can find applications for it quite easily.
I disagree that it's a frivolous lawsuit. It's pretty clearly a standards and measures issue.
In fact, the government regulators that currently cruise around testing to see that gas stations aren't cheating on their meters (every so often they find people with rigged meters) could just as easily see if the gas station is ripping you off for hot fuel.
Of course, it was over 110 today, so maybe it's just the heat talking...
CustomTF still has an active community. If you go to www.customtf.com or the forums at http://customtf.sourceforge.net/forum/ you should be able to get everything you need to play again.
Correct, in fact a typical PoE postulation is to say that because evil exists then God must not be either omnipotent or omnibenevolent. My response is that he can be both, and still have evil exist.
Seems like you're pulling a little from Locke; this isn't a perfect world, it's the best possible world.
Not at all. I claim that the best we can do is to make it better, not that we are in the best possible world.
a logical argument is little consolation to a person who has lost a spouse or a child
Right. Telling someone like that that "Sh*t Happens" won't get a very good response. But, IMO, it's the correct one.
I never heard any mainstream religion explain the cruelties of life on Earth. Wars, natural disasters, disease, genocides and whatnot. What kind of good and benevolent God sits around and does nothing while people suffer every second on this planet? That's why I personally find the existence of a good and benevolent God so difficult, in fact I don't believe God, as described in mainstream religions exists.
The Problem of Evil (PoE) is trivially false. If that's the reason why you're an atheist, well, you should probably rethink your position. While is has a strong emotional grip (which is why it is so popular), it's a *logically* untenable one. There are other reasons to be atheists, but if you consider yourself a rational person at all, you should discard the PoE as the reason. I'll give you a brief argument showing why (and no, I think "God has his mysterious ways" is not an answer).
The PoE argument is this, in a nutshell: 1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. (I.e., all knowing, all powerful, and all good.) 2) If there is suffering in the world, and God does not stop it, then God cannot be (one of) omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. 3) Suffering exists in the world 4) Therefore, God does not exist. QED.
While it looks on the surface like a completely reasonable and rational argument, it is not. There are, in fact, several fatal mistakes in the argument.
The first thing that we must do is dispose of the concept of intervention as being relevant to the discussion. What the argument is actually about is about a flawed creation, in which suffering happens. If God had built a perfect creation, then no intervention would be necessary. Conversely, a creation which needs constant interventions to require it to run correctly (cars having accidents without anyone being ever hurt), is likewise a flawed creation (because it needs fixing on a constant basis). So, interestingly enough, we can completely ignore the question of why God doesn't intervene, and instead simply examine the question of a flawed creation, in which suffering occurs. In other words, the PoE, restated, is "Why couldn't God have made the world a perfect place?"
This exposes the critical problem with the PoE. It is actually, logically, impossible to create a perfect material world.
Any world God could create with people in it has the following constraints: 1) Certain laws of physics 2) Matter, objects, etc. 3) Multiple agents possessing free will.
Actually, take a second here to imagine how you would create a world, you know, if you were God, using the above three constraints. It's a very interesting thought experiment. Build a world.
The logical inconsistencies can be shown from the above, that it is impossible to create a perfect world with all three of those constraints in place. 1) Laws of physics means that certain physical processes will always behave the same. A tooth biting into food to eat (to power our energy needs) can also be used to bite and wound another. Could God create an invincible human? One whose molecules could not be altered by an arbitrarily high level of energy? Only if the laws of physics were not to hold. 2) As long as there is matter, there will be scarcity. It's one of those unavoidable consequences that Star Trek always seems to gloss over. Star Trek claimed that the advent of the replicator made money obsolete (supposedly since there would no longer be scarcity). But Captain Kirk also had one of the only houses within Yosemite. How could he buy or sell that house? How come he could get a super cool house within a national park, but other people can't? While it might be possible to give a person a perfect, worry free life inside something like The Matrix, in a material world it is impossible. 3) While it would be possible to create a paradise for a single individual, it is impossible to create a perfect world for multiple free agents. Many people have risen through the years to become kings and tyrants, and thought th
"God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Faith is not the belief in something without evidence -- though it is often defined that way by people that don't have a good understanding of theology. Faith in God in Christianity is closer to a sense of trust mixed in with loyalty and hope.
If they found irrefutable archaeological evidence that Jesus lived, that would only increase Christians faith in God. It would not "kill faith" as you claim. It's trivially wrong. But it is, as you demonstrate, quite a widespread misapprehension.
It's great fun, but I'm sure some hardened TF players will absolutely loathe it at first - what I'm trying to say is keep an open mind when playing it. It's still defiantly Team Fortress, and the spirit is still intact from the early versions of TF for the original Quake.
We've modified the class balance, too. =) Pyros and scouts are both probably the most changed, though they still retain their original role. Scouts have hover boots, stealth, and the airfist, which makes them able to sneak past buildings, and airfist or hover to any part of a map. A normal TF scout just would get owned by the first engineering building he came across. The pyro got a slight tweak in damage, but he's basically a lighter, more mobile, version of the soldier who has TKD (allowing long horizontal or vertical leaps) and hover boots.
I toyed with the idea of reimplementing TF for Half-Life 1, but I've never been much of an expert on the map stuff. Re-doing the weapons and etc would have been trivial, especially with the art from TFC available.
Actually, it's trivially easy to stop bunny hopping.
QuakeC code: local float speed; speed = vlen(self.velocity); if (speed > maxspeed) self.velocity = self.velocity * (maxspeed / speed);
Put that into playerprethink() in CLIENT.QC or any of the other functions which get called every frame, and a person will never be able to travel faster than their maximum speed. Add a if (self.flags & #FL_ONGROUND) around it if you want them to be able to fly through the air faster than their maxspeed.
No, Bunnyhopping was intentionally left in, because it is seen as a sign of skilled players. You disagree, and I do too somewhat, but I've left it in my mod, CustomTF (http://www.customtf.com) (forums at http://customtf.sourceforge.net/forum/), because the playerbase overwhelming wants it. However, I did ensure that some of my new content, like the ability to leap forward quickly through the air, isn't bunnyhoppable (it breaks your speed down to your maxspeed after 2 seconds).
The weirdest thing is that Quake1 is still pretty active after all these years. TF1 was much better than TFC, for a number of reasons.
>>If it's even half as good as Oblivion, this should turn out to be something very special indeed.
^special^crappy^
Oblivion was a very pretty game, with very bad game design.
The entire world would scale to match the level of your character. So as a 1st level character, you can go into the Arena and kill the reigning champion with the same amount of difficulty as you would at 20th level. Maybe even easier... if you leveled your character in non-optimal ways (especially if you didn't go through the mind-numbing process of repeating actions for 10 minutes to maximize your stat gains) your character would be less powerful at 20th than at 1st.
Thievery was even worse. If you tried breaking into people's houses (a common activity for the thief archetype), don't try to do it at low levels. All the houses in the game (even nobles' houses) are filled with nothing valuable. Because you're not high level. It's totally backwards. The way it should be designed is this: a nobles' house should be protected by high level guards. If I can defeat them, then it should have jewels and stuff in it, not apples. Because I'm 3rd level.
There are mods out there (like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul) that fix the problem somewhat, but nothing but a total revamp of the game dyamics would make it a good RPG. A core feature that makes RPGs fun is that your character gets better over time. "Treading water", Oblivion's paradigm, is by contrast not fun.
Did I say killing Muslims was good? However, I am Christian, and so rewriting history to kill Christians in order to be more politically correct doesn't sit well with me. If I was a Muslim, I'd probably be uncomfortable with the game, too.
If you don't understand, it's kind of like a Japanese person playing Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. Or any of the various games which end with the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan.
While the game looks good, I think I'm sufficiently uncomfortable with the idea of assassinating Christians in the Holy Land to not buy this game. I know people killed in Iraq, and I just don't think it would be fun for me to play the great-great-etc-grandfather of the people running around setting IEDs in Iraq right now.
>>If you write a lot of code, you WILL make mistakes like memory leaks. A lot of them. If you don't think so, you're living in >>fantasy land and you're nowhere near as good a coder as you think you are.
Pfft.
Actually, good coding habits will indeed work.
We were three people coding a 100,000 line program, 0 memory leaks. C.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, a recent firmware update turned off the emotion engine chip anyway on the PS3s that have them... they all use software emu now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290502,00.html
Voila
Question: why would you be able to remember it if you were someplace else? It wouldn't make sense for images of heaven or whatever to be rewriting synapses in a dead brain, would it? How long should heaven go on downloading data to a dead head before it gives up?
I don't drink anything these days with HFCS in it. I mainly drink unsweetened iced tea, with some water and diet sodas for the hell of it. Actually, I don't drink any drinks with calories, even things sweetened with real sugar. It's the easiest way to cut calories out of your life.
Of course, I've also put on 10 pounds in the last four months, but I think that has to do more with moving to a town where I sit around all day, rather than going to Tae Kwon Do for one to three hours a day, four to six days a week.
I've dealt with very major bugs in Java, as a result of the JVM being implemented differently on different platforms, especially on minor platforms, like IRIX.
Since Sun thought it would be awesome to get rid of #ifdefs, because, you know, they're not necessary, we had to essentially kludge together some nasty looking code to get the program to run correctly crossplatform... which is just stupid, since that is what Java was designed to do.
Great answer, and one everyone should read.
At my first technical job, my boss/mentor/senpai stressed to me the importance of a good receptionist, on cultivating good relations with her, and to always make sure they are well paid and happy. It's been good advice throughout the years.
I take it a step further though, and try to be friendly and say hello to everyone when I see them for the first time each day. Life is a lot more pleasant when you get along well with all your coworkers. Plus, if something critical has come up, you'll hear it immediately.
This is true to a certain extent. If you work to improve your social skills, you'll find your nerd-foo declining slightly. But it's quite possible to both be a nerd and a social person. There's a number of areas a person can choose to improve themselves in, and it's quite possible to work on both technical and social skills at the same time.
I personally used to score nearly 100% on the introvert side of the Myers-Briggs test. Now I'm right between introvert and extrovert on the same scale. No coincidence -- I've moved from being a code monkey into someone that manages people and projects, speaks in front of groups of people, while still doing coding and development.
It basically boils down to a life choice each person has to make for themselves. A lot of nerds get deluded into thinking they have to become managers at some point. Project leads, yes, perhaps. But you can be a highly skilled and successful (and well paid) person doing nothing but development work. While managers appear to have more prestige than a lowly developer, at a lot of the companies I've worked at, they do nothing more than run interference for the development team, so the devs don't get bothered with useless meetings, red tape, funding issues, and other stuff that isn't related to writing code. We loved our manager, but nobody wanted his job. =)
I, personally, like working with people just as much as I like working with computers, and so I've migrated into the sort of hybrid position I currently hold, and am quite happy with it. But I still get called a nerd sometimes. =)
This is something I've thought a lot about. There have been any number of times that math has helped me in my software development efforts. Things like trig to predict the path of a moving target in Robowars (back when I was in high school) to various vector and angle related maths in CustomTF for Quake 1 (www.customtf.com) to partial derivatives to calculate the slope on a surface. I've also needed math for various economics related things over the years, and probability and statistics have also been exceptionally useful to me. Currently I'm having to decipher a guy's code which is all eigenmath, so my linear algebra course is saving me from having to hire someone just to explain all the math to me.
But the kicker is that you can't just tell a student that they should "study vector math" because one day they'll write a Quake Mod, because, truth be told, they probably won't. It's the trouble with all examples you give when students ask how math will be useful -- I could pull any number of examples from my life, but the problem is, they probably won't happen in a student's life. Instead, they'll have their own trials. The best you can tell someone is to study all the math they can, because some day it *might* be useful, and they'll want to have that tool in their toolkit.
And that's just not a very satisfying answer to students who want to make sure that they'll be damn well using what you're teaching in the future.
But believe me, I thought I'd never have an application for eigenvectors, and now not only do I have to clean out my brain on the topic, but I have to parse someone else's code (PhD thesis code no less) and add functionality to it. Two other friends of mine got stuck on legacy Fortran apps which are essentially mathematical solvers (one for differential equations, the other for huge linear algebra problems), and both of them are extremely happy they paid attention in their respective math classes.
So, yeah. To CSE students out there: take math. Pay attention. It could very well save your neck some day at a job, and if it doesn't, at least try to make it interesting to yourself to think of applications where you might use them. All math through the first two years in college can find applications for it quite easily.
I heartily, heartily agree. Caffeine content should be on the FDA labels.
It's important to people who are 1) seeking to limit their daily caffeine or 2) trying to maximize their caffeine intake.
Either way, it pisses me off that I can't quantify the numbers without finding sources like this.
I disagree that it's a frivolous lawsuit. It's pretty clearly a standards and measures issue.
In fact, the government regulators that currently cruise around testing to see that gas stations aren't cheating on their meters (every so often they find people with rigged meters) could just as easily see if the gas station is ripping you off for hot fuel.
Of course, it was over 110 today, so maybe it's just the heat talking...
If you know what you're doing and know your application, you can build a better UDP based transport layer than what you get with TCP.
Again, the concept of faith in God is closer to 'trust' or 'loyalty' rather than 'belief without proof'.
CustomTF still has an active community. If you go to www.customtf.com or the forums at http://customtf.sourceforge.net/forum/ you should be able to get everything you need to play again.
Correct, in fact a typical PoE postulation is to say that because evil exists then God must not be either omnipotent or omnibenevolent. My response is that he can be both, and still have evil exist.
Seems like you're pulling a little from Locke; this isn't a perfect world, it's the best possible world.
Not at all. I claim that the best we can do is to make it better, not that we are in the best possible world.
a logical argument is little consolation to a person who has lost a spouse or a child
Right. Telling someone like that that "Sh*t Happens" won't get a very good response. But, IMO, it's the correct one.
I never heard any mainstream religion explain the cruelties of life on Earth. Wars, natural disasters, disease, genocides and whatnot. What kind of good and benevolent God sits around and does nothing while people suffer every second on this planet? That's why I personally find the existence of a good and benevolent God so difficult, in fact I don't believe God, as described in mainstream religions exists.
The Problem of Evil (PoE) is trivially false. If that's the reason why you're an atheist, well, you should probably rethink your position. While is has a strong emotional grip (which is why it is so popular), it's a *logically* untenable one. There are other reasons to be atheists, but if you consider yourself a rational person at all, you should discard the PoE as the reason. I'll give you a brief argument showing why (and no, I think "God has his mysterious ways" is not an answer).
The PoE argument is this, in a nutshell:
1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. (I.e., all knowing, all powerful, and all good.)
2) If there is suffering in the world, and God does not stop it, then God cannot be (one of) omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent.
3) Suffering exists in the world
4) Therefore, God does not exist. QED.
While it looks on the surface like a completely reasonable and rational argument, it is not. There are, in fact, several fatal mistakes in the argument.
The first thing that we must do is dispose of the concept of intervention as being relevant to the discussion. What the argument is actually about is about a flawed creation, in which suffering happens. If God had built a perfect creation, then no intervention would be necessary. Conversely, a creation which needs constant interventions to require it to run correctly (cars having accidents without anyone being ever hurt), is likewise a flawed creation (because it needs fixing on a constant basis). So, interestingly enough, we can completely ignore the question of why God doesn't intervene, and instead simply examine the question of a flawed creation, in which suffering occurs. In other words, the PoE, restated, is "Why couldn't God have made the world a perfect place?"
This exposes the critical problem with the PoE. It is actually, logically, impossible to create a perfect material world.
Any world God could create with people in it has the following constraints:
1) Certain laws of physics
2) Matter, objects, etc.
3) Multiple agents possessing free will.
Actually, take a second here to imagine how you would create a world, you know, if you were God, using the above three constraints. It's a very interesting thought experiment. Build a world.
The logical inconsistencies can be shown from the above, that it is impossible to create a perfect world with all three of those constraints in place.
1) Laws of physics means that certain physical processes will always behave the same. A tooth biting into food to eat (to power our energy needs) can also be used to bite and wound another. Could God create an invincible human? One whose molecules could not be altered by an arbitrarily high level of energy? Only if the laws of physics were not to hold.
2) As long as there is matter, there will be scarcity. It's one of those unavoidable consequences that Star Trek always seems to gloss over. Star Trek claimed that the advent of the replicator made money obsolete (supposedly since there would no longer be scarcity). But Captain Kirk also had one of the only houses within Yosemite. How could he buy or sell that house? How come he could get a super cool house within a national park, but other people can't? While it might be possible to give a person a perfect, worry free life inside something like The Matrix, in a material world it is impossible.
3) While it would be possible to create a paradise for a single individual, it is impossible to create a perfect world for multiple free agents. Many people have risen through the years to become kings and tyrants, and thought th
"God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Faith is not the belief in something without evidence -- though it is often defined that way by people that don't have a good understanding of theology. Faith in God in Christianity is closer to a sense of trust mixed in with loyalty and hope.
If they found irrefutable archaeological evidence that Jesus lived, that would only increase Christians faith in God. It would not "kill faith" as you claim. It's trivially wrong. But it is, as you demonstrate, quite a widespread misapprehension.
It's great fun, but I'm sure some hardened TF players will absolutely loathe it at first - what I'm trying to say is keep an open mind when playing it. It's still defiantly Team Fortress, and the spirit is still intact from the early versions of TF for the original Quake.
We've modified the class balance, too. =) Pyros and scouts are both probably the most changed, though they still retain their original role. Scouts have hover boots, stealth, and the airfist, which makes them able to sneak past buildings, and airfist or hover to any part of a map. A normal TF scout just would get owned by the first engineering building he came across. The pyro got a slight tweak in damage, but he's basically a lighter, more mobile, version of the soldier who has TKD (allowing long horizontal or vertical leaps) and hover boots.
I toyed with the idea of reimplementing TF for Half-Life 1, but I've never been much of an expert on the map stuff. Re-doing the weapons and etc would have been trivial, especially with the art from TFC available.
Nice, I loved MINERVA.
Do you know if TF2 is going to be moddable or not? I'd love to bring CustomTF to it.
Actually, it's trivially easy to stop bunny hopping.
QuakeC code:
local float speed;
speed = vlen(self.velocity);
if (speed > maxspeed) self.velocity = self.velocity * (maxspeed / speed);
Put that into playerprethink() in CLIENT.QC or any of the other functions which get called every frame, and a person will never be able to travel faster than their maximum speed. Add a if (self.flags & #FL_ONGROUND) around it if you want them to be able to fly through the air faster than their maxspeed.
No, Bunnyhopping was intentionally left in, because it is seen as a sign of skilled players. You disagree, and I do too somewhat, but I've left it in my mod, CustomTF (http://www.customtf.com) (forums at http://customtf.sourceforge.net/forum/), because the playerbase overwhelming wants it. However, I did ensure that some of my new content, like the ability to leap forward quickly through the air, isn't bunnyhoppable (it breaks your speed down to your maxspeed after 2 seconds).
The weirdest thing is that Quake1 is still pretty active after all these years. TF1 was much better than TFC, for a number of reasons.
>>If it's even half as good as Oblivion, this should turn out to be something very special indeed.
^special^crappy^
Oblivion was a very pretty game, with very bad game design.
The entire world would scale to match the level of your character. So as a 1st level character, you can go into the Arena and kill the reigning champion with the same amount of difficulty as you would at 20th level. Maybe even easier... if you leveled your character in non-optimal ways (especially if you didn't go through the mind-numbing process of repeating actions for 10 minutes to maximize your stat gains) your character would be less powerful at 20th than at 1st.
Thievery was even worse. If you tried breaking into people's houses (a common activity for the thief archetype), don't try to do it at low levels. All the houses in the game (even nobles' houses) are filled with nothing valuable. Because you're not high level. It's totally backwards. The way it should be designed is this: a nobles' house should be protected by high level guards. If I can defeat them, then it should have jewels and stuff in it, not apples. Because I'm 3rd level.
There are mods out there (like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul) that fix the problem somewhat, but nothing but a total revamp of the game dyamics would make it a good RPG. A core feature that makes RPGs fun is that your character gets better over time. "Treading water", Oblivion's paradigm, is by contrast not fun.
Hmm, this explains why WOTC mailed me a brain in the mail the other day.
A lot of people in the RPGA have been puzzling over it... basically, it's a stress ball with gleemax@wizards.com written on it, backwards.
Makes a lot more sense now...
Did I say killing Muslims was good? However, I am Christian, and so rewriting history to kill Christians in order to be more politically correct doesn't sit well with me. If I was a Muslim, I'd probably be uncomfortable with the game, too.
If you don't understand, it's kind of like a Japanese person playing Medal of Honor: Rising Sun. Or any of the various games which end with the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan.
While the game looks good, I think I'm sufficiently uncomfortable with the idea of assassinating Christians in the Holy Land to not buy this game. I know people killed in Iraq, and I just don't think it would be fun for me to play the great-great-etc-grandfather of the people running around setting IEDs in Iraq right now.
>>If you write a lot of code, you WILL make mistakes like memory leaks. A lot of them. If you don't think so, you're living in
>>fantasy land and you're nowhere near as good a coder as you think you are.
Pfft.
Actually, good coding habits will indeed work.
We were three people coding a 100,000 line program, 0 memory leaks. C.