The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure. BT would prefer that the BBC do the squeezing, that's all.
This is exactly right, but it's pretty evident that the BBC shouldn't be paying for general-purpose bandwidth. Just because iPlayer's the driver right now, doesn't mean all kinds of other services that rely on high bandwidth will benefit.
If it's to be subsidised (for which there is a case - having consumers with good connectivity stimulates the online economy) it should be from some other form of taxation.
Now, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance about Fortran - but I'm guessing if it were as expressive as a modern scripting language (Python, Ruby, Groovy etc.) then it would be more generally popular.
The new scripting languages are *so* condusive to exploratory programming, it seems to me a no-brainer that undergrads would benefit from learning one. When speed becomes an issue, optimise whichever 1% of the routines are taking up the time.
But what Nintendo has done with the Wii is to tap into an alternative market. Why compete with Sony and MS, in a "who can be the best platform for playing gamepad games" competition? Someone has to lose that competition, and it might be you.
Instead, make something that appeals to the millions of people who want cheap, fun gaming with a gimmicky controller. Turns out it works.
It'll be interesting to see what happens now that Sony and MS are trying to muscle in on that market. Nintendo have a couple of advantages -- they were there first, and Sony/MS are heavily invested in a 'cool' factor that could be undermined by being too cheerful, brightly coloured and family-oriented. See their more "sophisticated" alternative to Miis, for example.
But the links between Monkey Island and Pirates of the Caribbean are very specific. I'm sure there's a FAQ somewhere.
For example, there's a scene in the Pirates movie, where prisoners try to coax the keys from a dog that has them in its mouth. Players of MI, seeing this immediately saw it as a homage to (or rip-off of) a similar puzzle in Monkey Island.
But, the dog with the keys was in one of the dioramas in the ride, which debuted in 1967.
Ron Gilbert is on record as saying that the ride was a big influence, and the homages are deliberate.
the program and the hardware that runs it. One is physical, the other virtual
So if I translate a program into a circuit board (I believe there are compilers which output circuit diagrams) you can point at a wire or transistor and say 'that one's virtual'?
With the brain it's more complicated. Whereas a computer is an unchanging piece of hardware that's programmed by applying electrical charge, the brain is hardware that self-modifies (by building new neurons and new connections between them).
I am not talking about what is, not what it looks like. Just because you can't tell Diet Coke from regular, doesn't mean the they have the same composition.
Not that it's relevant, but Diet Coke tastes quite different from regular Coke.
But getting back on subject, "what it looks like" is very important. It's most of what we have to go on when it comes to consciousness. You've suggested that it's quite obvious where the "hardware" of the brain ends and the "software" begins -- but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me, for the exact reason that wherever the boundary lay, the observable effect would be the same.
the program and the hardware that runs it. One is physical, the other virtual
So if I translate a program into a circuit board (I believe there are compilers which output circuit diagrams) you can point at a wire or transistor and say 'that one's virtual'?
With the brain it's more complicated. Whereas a computer is an unchanging piece of hardware that's programmed by applying electrical charge, the brain is hardware that self-modifies (by building new neurons and new connections between them).
> Given a hardware implementation and a software implementation of the same algorithm, an end user wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I am not talking about what is, not what it looks like. Just because you can't tell Diet Coke from regular, doesn't mean the they have the same composition.
Not that it's relevant, but Diet Coke tastes quite different from regular Coke.
But getting back on subject, "what it looks like" is very important. It's most of what we have to go on when it comes to consciousness. You've suggested that it's quite obvious where the "hardware" of the brain ends and the "software" begins -- but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me, for the exact reason that wherever the boundary lay, the observable effect would be the same.
Flow of control in a program has internal state and internal logic that is not embodied in any physical entity, and that is what makes it software.
No. It's a mathematically proven fact that any computer program that runs on a Von Neumann machine can be implemented in hardware. That could be custom silicon chips, wires and valves, or cogs and axles. Doesn't matter.
State is always represented physically somehow - be it a charge in a transistor, the position of a cog, the firing of a neuron. Nothing is ever *entirely* abstract.
Just because you don't know absolutely everything about the brain, doesn't mean you can not distinguish its hardware from its software.
That sounds tremendously difficult to me.
I have a friend with an EE background, who is fond of reminding us "anything that can be done in software, can be done in hardware". Given a hardware implementation and a software implementation of the same algorithm, an end user wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The "re-imagining" special edition looks like a slam-dunk. Same locations, same script, same puzzles - you can even toggle between the original presentation and the new one on the fly. They've re-recorded the dialogue, arranged the chip music for real instruments and recorded that, painted HD scenery and animated HD sprites.
Conversely, Telltale's Sam & Max games were OK, but a pale reflection of the original LucasArts game, so I'm less excited about their new episodes of Monkey Island.
Yes, use GU-10 LED replacements instead of halogen downlighters, and discover that your kitchen has lovely bright pools of light on the floor, while most of the room is dim.
Jeez, I wish I hadn't picked Kanye West. I had a bit of a mental block for modern artists, especially with trying to reach an international readership.
How about, Colin Meloy writes his own songs. Emmy The Great writes her own songs. Radiohead write their own songs. Cold War Kids write their own songs.
Grace Jones did not write her own songs. Neither Peggy Lee nor Shirley Bassey wrote Hey Big Spender.
Ah, sod specifics. There are great performers of yesteryear who didn't write their own songs. There are plenty of artists today who do write their own songs.
Also: there was plenty of crappy music in whatever era you look back so fondly upon. History prefers to remember the good bits.
Writing your own material is a ridiculous metric of artistic quality. Burt Bacharach is a terrible performer.
Slashdot Mirror
The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure. BT would prefer that the BBC do the squeezing, that's all.
This is exactly right, but it's pretty evident that the BBC shouldn't be paying for general-purpose bandwidth. Just because iPlayer's the driver right now, doesn't mean all kinds of other services that rely on high bandwidth will benefit.
If it's to be subsidised (for which there is a case - having consumers with good connectivity stimulates the online economy) it should be from some other form of taxation.
It seems obvious to me that any ISP (including BT) should pass these bandwidth costs on to the consumer.
One of several things will happen:
God forbid, don't teach em python first. Learn assembly, c++, ML, fortran
This seems to me like saying you should learn to drive an F1 car, or a Model T, before being allowed anything with an automatic gearbox.
even fucking visual basic.
I don't see where that gets anyone.
You can't learn python first, it's like eating the pudding before the salad. Python is the *last* language you should learn.
Yes, I'm serious.
I don't see what's wrong with Python as a first language. It gets stuff done. You might never need to make the jump to anything lower level.
You're advocating premature optimisation.
Now, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance about Fortran - but I'm guessing if it were as expressive as a modern scripting language (Python, Ruby, Groovy etc.) then it would be more generally popular.
The new scripting languages are *so* condusive to exploratory programming, it seems to me a no-brainer that undergrads would benefit from learning one. When speed becomes an issue, optimise whichever 1% of the routines are taking up the time.
In other words, Nintendo is continuing to beat a dead horse, and continue to reuse it's ancient copyright's
... in a manner that has proven popular and profitable for decades.
But what Nintendo has done with the Wii is to tap into an alternative market. Why compete with Sony and MS, in a "who can be the best platform for playing gamepad games" competition? Someone has to lose that competition, and it might be you.
Instead, make something that appeals to the millions of people who want cheap, fun gaming with a gimmicky controller. Turns out it works.
It'll be interesting to see what happens now that Sony and MS are trying to muscle in on that market. Nintendo have a couple of advantages -- they were there first, and Sony/MS are heavily invested in a 'cool' factor that could be undermined by being too cheerful, brightly coloured and family-oriented. See their more "sophisticated" alternative to Miis, for example.
All very interesting.
But the links between Monkey Island and Pirates of the Caribbean are very specific. I'm sure there's a FAQ somewhere.
For example, there's a scene in the Pirates movie, where prisoners try to coax the keys from a dog that has them in its mouth. Players of MI, seeing this immediately saw it as a homage to (or rip-off of) a similar puzzle in Monkey Island.
But, the dog with the keys was in one of the dioramas in the ride, which debuted in 1967.
Ron Gilbert is on record as saying that the ride was a big influence, and the homages are deliberate.
Apologies for terrible quoting. Let me try again.
the program and the hardware that runs it. One is physical, the other virtual
So if I translate a program into a circuit board (I believe there are compilers which output circuit diagrams) you can point at a wire or transistor and say 'that one's virtual'?
With the brain it's more complicated. Whereas a computer is an unchanging piece of hardware that's programmed by applying electrical charge, the brain is hardware that self-modifies (by building new neurons and new connections between them).
I am not talking about what is, not what it looks like. Just because you can't tell Diet Coke from regular, doesn't mean the they have the same composition.
Not that it's relevant, but Diet Coke tastes quite different from regular Coke.
But getting back on subject, "what it looks like" is very important. It's most of what we have to go on when it comes to consciousness. You've suggested that it's quite obvious where the "hardware" of the brain ends and the "software" begins -- but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me, for the exact reason that wherever the boundary lay, the observable effect would be the same.
the program and the hardware that runs it. One is physical, the other virtual
So if I translate a program into a circuit board (I believe there are compilers which output circuit diagrams) you can point at a wire or transistor and say 'that one's virtual'?
With the brain it's more complicated. Whereas a computer is an unchanging piece of hardware that's programmed by applying electrical charge, the brain is hardware that self-modifies (by building new neurons and new connections between them).
> Given a hardware implementation and a software implementation of the same algorithm, an end user wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I am not talking about what is, not what it looks like. Just because you can't tell Diet Coke from regular, doesn't mean the they have the same composition.
Not that it's relevant, but Diet Coke tastes quite different from regular Coke.
But getting back on subject, "what it looks like" is very important. It's most of what we have to go on when it comes to consciousness. You've suggested that it's quite obvious where the "hardware" of the brain ends and the "software" begins -- but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me, for the exact reason that wherever the boundary lay, the observable effect would be the same.
Doesn't the slippery slope deserves more respect?
Ooh, that would set a terrible precedent. Where would it all end?
Flow of control in a program has internal state and internal logic that is not embodied in any physical entity, and that is what makes it software.
No. It's a mathematically proven fact that any computer program that runs on a Von Neumann machine can be implemented in hardware. That could be custom silicon chips, wires and valves, or cogs and axles. Doesn't matter.
State is always represented physically somehow - be it a charge in a transistor, the position of a cog, the firing of a neuron. Nothing is ever *entirely* abstract.
Just because you don't know absolutely everything about the brain, doesn't mean you can not distinguish its hardware from its software.
That sounds tremendously difficult to me.
I have a friend with an EE background, who is fond of reminding us "anything that can be done in software, can be done in hardware". Given a hardware implementation and a software implementation of the same algorithm, an end user wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Filters can work wonders, but they can't turn this into this.
(notwithstanding the user comment on Eurogamer that the new screens look like something from someone's Deviantart account)
Pirates of the Caribbean ripped major thematic elements from Monkey Island!! Hopefully some people will notice this now and cry fowl!
One of the things I enjoyed most about the Pirates of the Caribbean movie was all those nods to Monkey Island.
But later I learned that both Monkey Island and the POTC film were referring to much earlier source material: the POTC ride at Disneyland.
Correlation doesn't imply causation :)
The series was already nearly ruined with Escape from Monkey Island. Man, that game just pales in comparison to the others.
True, dat.
I hated the Grim Fandango gamepad controls. I much prefer point+click, even if the cursor is controlled by a pad.
My inner nostalgia freak wants a HD remake of Day of the Tentacle. I'd enjoy replaying it, without the distraction of the creaky old graphics.
Plus I like the idea that a new generation could experience its joys.
Many readers of TFA won't realise that 'Grumpy Gamer' is Ron Gilbert, one of the creative geniuses behind Monkey Island. His blog post is fascinating.
Please don't ruin it.
The "re-imagining" special edition looks like a slam-dunk. Same locations, same script, same puzzles - you can even toggle between the original presentation and the new one on the fly. They've re-recorded the dialogue, arranged the chip music for real instruments and recorded that, painted HD scenery and animated HD sprites.
The video at http://www.lucasarts.com/games/monkeyisland/ convinced me: this is something I want to pay money for.
Conversely, Telltale's Sam & Max games were OK, but a pale reflection of the original LucasArts game, so I'm less excited about their new episodes of Monkey Island.
You let them use your own account? Don't do that. Provide a guest account.
This is the sort of thing the OP wants to be told.
He doesn't *want* to say no.
He wants to fix the security reasons that might lead him to have to say no.
Yes, use GU-10 LED replacements instead of halogen downlighters, and discover that your kitchen has lovely bright pools of light on the floor, while most of the room is dim.
Yeah, give all your sensitive business documents to google. sounds like a good idea to me. : \ *sarcasm*
If I started my own business, I'd standardise on Google Apps in a heartbeat. Businesses outsource all sorts of things that require trust.
Jeez, I wish I hadn't picked Kanye West. I had a bit of a mental block for modern artists, especially with trying to reach an international readership.
How about, Colin Meloy writes his own songs. Emmy The Great writes her own songs. Radiohead write their own songs. Cold War Kids write their own songs.
Grace Jones did not write her own songs. Neither Peggy Lee nor Shirley Bassey wrote Hey Big Spender.
Ah, sod specifics. There are great performers of yesteryear who didn't write their own songs. There are plenty of artists today who do write their own songs.
Also: there was plenty of crappy music in whatever era you look back so fondly upon. History prefers to remember the good bits.
Writing your own material is a ridiculous metric of artistic quality. Burt Bacharach is a terrible performer.
Er, Performing Rights Society?
Yes, you pay this Society for the right to perform the material they manage.