As said in other reactions, the matter - anti-matter pair which virtually exists and anihilates itself under normal conditions can no longer return. If such a pair exists on the event horizon, then both particles go separate ways, because one of the particles will be oriented towards the black hole and the other will not. The result is that the black hole's event horizon radiates particles from the pair away from the black hole, while the same amount of particles is thrown inside the event horizon sphere, where it might be anihiliating (if it is anti-matter) with other matter particles, according to theory.
Now, whether this really is going to have a big impact on the black hole is not clear, but it is still something to think about. Since the event horizon grows cubed with respect to the force of gravity, the rate at which these pairs are formed goes up very fast, and some equilibrium might be reached, but I'm just fantasizing.
An event horizon is actually just the boundary between light escaping and light being attracted by mass. It has nothing to do with the star being a singularity or not, only by the attraction force of the mass. That's obvious, right, so if all elements including photons (which have no mass) can no longer escape from the surface of the star, this means that the attraction force is higher than maximum speed of light, c. But does this have to mean that the volume of the mass is close to or equals 0? No. The star can only do 1 thing under extreme pressure: react it's core elements into heavier elements, untill they no longer react or destabilize the star enough to break the cycle, which probably can no longer occur. As the elements react, the star becomes heavier and the density of the volume rises, moving towards a singularity, but there is no reason to assume it _is_ a perfect singularity.
In fact, the black hole is known to radiate Hwaking radiation, which means that the hypothetical perfect singularity black hole model, which can only absorb matter, does not exist. If the said conditions are not perfectly valid for a black hole, then why would it be a perfect singularity, even if this Hawking radiation exists only on a quantum probabilistic level?
Well those tings look ugly, I won't contend that:)
I would probably rename 'btnOk' to 'ButtonOK' if it's an object. I prefer long readable names as opposed to short hashed ones, since nme completion does all the searching for you these days, that can not be the problem. Readable code comes from readable words n the first place, type info only helps to clarify the underlying mechanics of the semantics.
And yes, dangerous type casts allways have been warnings in c++. It's the typecasts that aren't dangerous, like implicit conversions in operators, that might give rise to unexpected behavior. Depending on your compiler, they show, or they just don't.
Did you know I allways wrote 'behaviour' instead of 'behavior'? Funny..
Oh, well... be glad you don't have to maintain my code but I sure as hell won't be using Hungarian anytime soon.
Haha. You know, I don't maintain code tout-court.;)
You know what one of the first rules of refactoring is ? (as chaning a type is in effect a refactoring operation, be it a very small one)
It's "renaming". Here's why:
If you rewrite 'int iAge' into 'float fAge', the rest of the code does no longer compile correctly. So in effect, the hungarian notation helps you keep the code correct, as you have to look up those places where the varaible name has changed. This way you might spot type casts that would otherwise give incorrect results. It might not be imoprtnat for basic types, but for objects in an inheritance tree with e.g. operator overloading, I assure you, it helps !:) (ok, operator overloading is bad practice, but that's besides the point)
It's particularly usefull to mark wheather a variable is a local varaible or parameter, a member of a class, or a static global. Usually in methods, the name of a parameter is practically the same as the member contained in the class (e.g. get/set methods). If you mark the members with a prefixed 'm_', you do not have to invent stupid names to make the difference between the parameter and the member, and it will be clear to everyone who reads you code where that varaible is declared, and what it's lifetime is. This again avoids typical but avoidable debug frustration.:)
I think it's very usefull, even today. All those fancy overview class windows and inspectors are nice but if you're looking at code, you want to be able to quickly see what's going on, and clarity is a key factor in that.
Re:Why a social robot?
on
Social Robot?
·
· Score: 2
..ah you better rethink that statement because of the following: At Siggraph this year there was a neat paper about eye-movement simulation, and allthough the results weren't particularly impressive like in the rest of the papers at the (btw very great) conference, it showed one important message: context is everything! The speaker demonstrated that indeed, she had managed to make the eyes more or less move in a natural way, but despite her efforts, I think most of the people in that room would agree that it still looked bad. She kind of appologized for it and said that you realy ought to track the eye lids, the frowns, the cheaks and all that... to get a realy convincing AI eye simulation. On top of that, the eyes have specific behaviour that diverge wildly when the person is engaged in a social pattern, or when they are saying something. For instance: Studies have shown that one tends to look more to the left while thinking about social stuff, while looking the other way when thinking about some technical details. Things can of course be reversed, but these tendencies to stare into infitity in a particular direction exist. They come natural to us, but if you think about it it's rather odd.. Even males and females don't do the same things with their eyes.
So, without wanntig to diss on your remark, because you are right in many ways: while we may seem to be doing rather average reading the face of someone, it is much more likely that it is due to the fact that we don't know the person that well, don't know how to give an appropriate response, instead of being unable to read their face, that causes all these human issues. Maybe one day we will be having stupid arguments with robots, who knows..
Hozever, imho we're still a very long way from truely intelligent behavior, because a) you need lots of context and b) you need lots of noise. Both of them are impractical for current silicon. The best quantum computer can deal with just 8 bits.. not terribly impressive..
Microsoft isn't very smart in the best sense of the word. They try to act soon on these infringes, yet it only encourages people to go underground with these things, and god knows underground stuff allways runs faster, better and more secure;)
Seriously, the reason why the console doesn't sell as good as ps2 is simple: lack of good games, and high component cost. People trying to mod the box are undercutting the one feeble pillar xbox might rely on to survive: selling games. And these games aren't just produced by Microsoft. There are other companies involved that realy have nothing to do with MS, they simply target a dev. platform that happens to be Xbox. Whether that is a smart thing is something else, but they aren't gonna be making much more games if no one brings in some cash to compensate x years of development. MS needs those 3rd party teams to live. Interestingly, those teams do not per se need MS.
But microsoft makes other mistakes as well. Today it's far easier to get a modded xbox - or even a ps2 devkit - than an xbox development kit. It seems MS is unable to supply developpers on time, jeoppardizing milestones, release dates,.. the works. Why ? Well, they're trying to lure developpers into the "next big thing", being Xbox Live. You can only get devkits (even if you allready paid for it) if you promis to support in some way the whole xbox live thing, and even then, it's months before you see touchable hardware, because they simply can't deliver on time. MS is betting on video on demand and IP services support to get their box launched, they're slowly pushing away game dev teams (well, they got their own offcourse) as their major concern because they're not used to working like that (as Sony clearly is).
MS is in for a threat. The whole thing is costing them far more than their worst predictions, and their supply lines are drying up. They do have enough cash, but while they may live, the rest of the pack will have crossed over big time, or gone bust. And they can't possibly get the xbox thing going without that crucial 3rd party support be it games or video or IP or whatever. MS is a very very slow learner in this very hot market where the competition is neckbreaking steep, and Sony is your best bet. For now. Xbox will live, no matter what.
If you say FPS then yes, kb/mouse is prolly the best combination to control your game. But on console platforms, the true PC-style fps is only a small segment of the market, because generally the audience of consoles is younger and more attracted to fantasy instead of hardcore realism. I'm not saying there are no FPS games on console platforms, I'm just saying there are not a lot of them out there. I think for the overall kind of arcade console gameplay, a decent playstation2 controller is as good as they get.
Hello, from my own experience as a graphics engine & tools developper, I can tell you that we wrote our own core-framework for rapid application development, much like Java comes with a batch of toolkits. Up to the point where we wanted to include serialisation, our concept worked brilliantly and we had come a long way. When we then wrote container wrapper classes on top of existing stl classes to act in a COM-like fashion (in order to be able to support serialisation and interface resolving), we used the widely used stlPort version.
STLPort is a very decent stl implementation. Using Microsoft's Dev Studio, we could have used the microsoft implementation but it's not as compliant as STLPort, so it was the best possible option (but I still have to check out Boost as well, which offers very nice features). That said, the biggest problem with compiling subclassed STLPort classes was the compiler. In no time, template instances of the templated class definitions would fill up the compiler heap and compilation would either halt or take forever to finnish.. even if we used the/m2000 option, which pumps the heap to 2000% of heap memory, things would freeze up. Since we had quite a lot of containers in combination with quite a lot of basic types, we were litteraly stuck. After STLPort gave such bad results, I tried the same with the MS version of STL but this gave us very much the same results + tons of other problems. So we fell back on our initial solution, which was to use 1 template instance of our Object* interface and define wrapper class objects for each basic type. which sucked, but it compiled. We should have tried the Metrowerks compiler which is (so I've heard) supposedly better at compiling stl than MS'es DevStudio. We'll see.
You bring on your point well, however instead of telling what the orignal poster didn't say, let me focus us on what he did say. His point is (among other things) that war leads to a thriving tech society, which means wealthy techies. He's argueing that, therefore, techies do not have a right to (or look like hypocrits when they) utter critique on a government that spends money (taxes) on warfare. I personally think that such reasoning is defunct in every possible way, and strongly oppose to that, because it's simply bad influence, and not constructive at all. I'm sorry but, to me, selling war to techie minds like this, is like telling a kid to go rob a candystore. It stinks.
That was not the cause of the whole culture problem, that was merely the incentive to respond. Like I said, the problem has it's origin way back when the US tried to push Russia out of Afganistan in the cold-war period, when the US payed/trained/armed Ben Laden with their 'values'. I think both Reagan and Bush Senior can tell you nice adventurous stories about that one.
Q. What has the US Dept. of Defense been focusing on since the end of the Cold War? A. Technology - computerized planes, satellites, drones, tanks, etc. Read any Afghanistan story in the Washington Post [washingtpost.com] or New York Times [nytimes.com], or any other major newspaper, and you will hear nothing but raves about our high-tech military.
Ok, So bombing obviously solves your financial problems, but I think you should shut the fuck up because you don't seem to have the slightest respect for people's lives and misery outside the perimeter of your god-damn backyard. Technology is usefull to ENHANCE human welfare, but it should not be created to destroy it. And if you cow-boys really think your rocket missiles are giving Iraki or Afgani people hope and prosperity, think again. Your values, or should I say, your bombs don't interest these people. They have their own culture. It's the US'es overall lack of respect for these cultures that planted the seeds for conflict some 20 years ago. But I guess you don't want to see or hear that do you. I hope I live to see the day that you guy's finally get it. Realy
It's funny that you should compare using computers with cars. Just this morning, an auto mechanic with 30+ years experience said to me that nowadays, young mechanics learning the profession have trouble diagnosing the car, because they use computers for that. When the diagnose is wrong or fails fto deliver an effictive remedy-plan, they don't know what to do with the car. And if the diagnose comes up with something, it's usually in the lines of " please send this part back to the constructor for technical updates (which is VERY comparable to a firmware, appart from a bit of screwing)..
Last month, the ABS led of my VW came to life, and talking to my mechanic he said the brake-box had to be sent back to update the software.. there you go..
It's a kind of analfabetism that will slowly become a problem in nearly any brand and profession. the learning curves allways get longer and steeper. but it's life..
Re:Good to see misinformation is alive and well.
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 2
It's not that we're hated because we still, to this day, Israel with billions of dollars of aid, despite its harsh treatment of Palestinians and massacres in Lebanon
Well you can say it out loud just as well I suppose. Everybody in Europe knows that Washington gave green light to re-occupy the WestBank, to exile the internationally recognised representative (Arafat) of the people bein occupied, and that in fact the Israeli are translocating (but not deporting, ofcourse) families from their "homes", effectively nullifying any peace-agreement left standing between the 2. Thank you Ariel Sharon, for being one fucked up fruitcake. Bush is probably laughing his ass off.
But now that I'm at it, that's not nearly why I personally do not like The American Dream way of doing things. You know why ? Because it's political and economic leaders are ignorant of global problems in ecological, economic and political terms, and only one value remains. Cash. Selling war, selling laws and selling crap. But I don't HATE americans, I just whished more intelligent people with a decent common sense came to power. But I think those ones are a rare treat (and they don't live long either). And like Osama W. Bush allways says, Godd Bless America. They seem to be needing it more than others.
.. search engine for a very long time. I told and advised averybody to use it as the first page to pop up. I loved the search and I was fairly handy in finding stuff with it fast. And I considered altavista as the most complete search engines of it's generation. Then along came google, and presto, as the indexed number of pages grew steadily, I came to love it's way of detecting good websites on a particular topic.
Ofcourse, finding good stuff easy is easy to fall in love with, but it seems I have forgotten about the secret new treasures hidden away in the dark digitlands, that are roamed primarily by the old giant. Thanks for all this insight, really.. I might reconsider my search-engine of choice, and it is good to know I was right all along;)
"Cerberus was the watchdog of hell. There he lay, chained to the gates of Acheron, harassing the spirits entering Hades and devouring those who tried to escape."
Acheron.. ah so that's the explanation behind the name of our corporate R&D server. Kewl!
Actually there's another book called SnowCrash by Neal Stephenson, which also has some sort of immersive virtual reality concept. Agents working for various agencies gather intel info in order to be able to compete with each-other.
The website also suggests that once databases are going to be linked, new contact with strangers about your (or their) matters will no longer amount to 'surprise' or offensive. In fact what you see no longer will be believable in the sense that people might have tampered with the metaintel you are seeing. You are also more vulnerable to sneak attacks or surprises. You depend on technology to stay alive. You depend on agencies to protect and double-check and verify your data. I Automatically get the reflex to say that hacking would mean freedom of mind in such a datadriven world.
Re:The real reason the Euro is BAD NEWS
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Curious enough, the big problem for the UK is not the fact that it doesn't need a single currency, as it has allways controlled such a currency (Pound) and is now in the (slow) process of letting go of it's own 'Common Wealth' idea.
I think the big issue here is the slight identity crisis which has silently crept in since last decade, and which makes it difficult to belong to something bigger, without risking to lose complete control over it's own identity. Losing the pound would mean another hit in that direction. Germany has had a bit of the same problem since it's reunion.. in any case it's too early to judge about good and bad of joining for the UK, but the mainland needs this.
But we'll see.
Re:The real reason the Euro is BAD NEWS
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Yep, sorry, you're right, I somehow keep switching them, though I know it's TOTALLY NOT the same;) Guess I should pay them a visit or something:)..
Re:The real reason the Euro is BAD NEWS
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
Oh come on, not the WW thing *again*. That was half a decade ago. We have NOT forgotten those who died in Ieper, and we play The Last Post every night for those brave men who gave up their lives to free europe from Hitler. Yes yes yes we've seen it, we hear ya, but I'm sorry to say, we moved along. It's another world out there today. Geez..
The issue at hand here is the Euro, the currency used in the *west* european market. Whether Britain (sorry about the typo, too much Ultima) controlles/controlled lots of colonies is pretty much irrelevant, imho (leaving aside the fact that colonisation is an outdated principle, but ok). Do however tell me, what excatly does a patriotary superiority feeling, being the 4th power in the world and all, bring about besides extremism, fascism and fundamentalism? Let me sum it up maybe.. Congo, India, pakistan, Israel.. Yes , I said Congo, yes. Exactly.
To put it another way, cuz I don't want to be patronising and all, we *do* want Britain in the Euro, but the UK is afraid to simply join forces and give up it's historical rooted Empire-feeling. We understand but we think it's a missed opportunity. Lately there's only one law: "compete or become". And that's all, folks.
"Wait and see", says Captain Blake.
Re:The real reason the Euro is BAD NEWS
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The control of this currency rests with the German Government. Unlike the presidency of the EEC, which rotates so that each country can have a turn at running Europe, the control of the Euro is fixed with the Germans.
This is not fair or right.
The UK is the most powerful economy in Europe, and its government is clearly the best at managing an economy. If anyone should be running the Euro, fixing the interest rates and running the inevitable European tax system, its the Bank of England, and NOT the Bundesbank.
Either way, whoever is running the Euro, giving control of your currency to another nation is suicide.
Can you imagine the US Treasury accepting the control of the Dollar and the US economy from Canada or Mexico?
That is precisely what is happening in Europe. This is totally wrong, and everyone here is being brainwashed into accepting the Euro because it is superficially convenient.
First of all, stating that the UK is the most powerfull economy of europe is bullshit. Expressed in growth, Ireland wins. If you consider the value of the pound to be the measuring tool, then might I remind you that a strong currency makes export (selling, profits) harder. Most of the european countries are exporting much more than they are importing. The reunion of germany has been payed with the germans giving up their strong DM. This was negotiated by Jacques Delors, Mitterand and Kohl. So give the germans credit where due, they are pulling something off that Europe in itself has yet to make true, political and total unification. It takes time, it hurts, and it is certainly not easy. But in the end it makes us all stronger and brings more stability in our fortress than ever before. I think it's simply the right way to tackle the bigger battle at stake here: The economic wars with the US and Asia.
By the way, the euro is not 'fixed with the germans' as you said. I consider that a typical narrow visioned patriotic view on the matter, but not a clear thinking one. The euro is controlled by the european central bank, which is headed by dutchman Wim Dhuisenberg. Germany is economically still the driving force behind it, because they are simply plain good efficient commonsense hardworking people. That is not to say other states don't work as hard, they simply are not as efficient (and by culture, they usually didn't need to be)
I'm sure this sounds horrendous, but London shopping malls say they ARE accepting and returning euro currency. That's right. We will not need to change currencies and pay taxes whilst doing so in your country, whch is of course a shopping benefit and a way to make sure tourists don't go to Paris instead because of the money thing. People can travel and shop with on single currency. It will make trading goods fairer, and will in the long run slowly integrate a respect for foreign cultures and standards through the pricing of the same goods in different parts of europe. Like Prodi said, we carry Europe in our pockets now, it's not just a far from our beds thing. I'm proud of it, and as far as I am concerned there cannot be enough Europe!
Stating that Brittain needs control of the currency is a laugh, you don't even want to be part of it, but oh look, now that we've got it you want to control it ? That sounds like a envious kid in pre-school. We need Brittain in the system, because yes we want your strong country to support the currency, talking on the same level that every other nation does, and we're sure that in the long term the UK will come to acknowledge the benefit of the Euro. It's not about control, it's about Unification. The UK is no longer an island, but it takes some time for people to see that, along with Denmark and Noorwegen.
"The creation of genuinly new software has far more in common with developing a new theory of physics than it does with producing cars or watches on an assembly line" - Bollinger
http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Work/Softestim/kcses t. pdf
Sid is one of my heroes. I dont think we should boycott him personally, but Infogrames which is doing some bad management, like postponing games for others that then don't work at all etc.. Eidos not being much better.
Slashdot Mirror
As said in other reactions, the matter - anti-matter pair which virtually exists and anihilates itself under normal conditions can no longer return. If such a pair exists on the event horizon, then both particles go separate ways, because one of the particles will be oriented towards the black hole and the other will not. The result is that the black hole's event horizon radiates particles from the pair away from the black hole, while the same amount of particles is thrown inside the event horizon sphere, where it might be anihiliating (if it is anti-matter) with other matter particles, according to theory.
Now, whether this really is going to have a big impact on the black hole is not clear, but it is still something to think about. Since the event horizon grows cubed with respect to the force of gravity, the rate at which these pairs are formed goes up very fast, and some equilibrium might be reached, but I'm just fantasizing.
I agree.
An event horizon is actually just the boundary between light escaping and light being attracted by mass. It has nothing to do with the star being a singularity or not, only by the attraction force of the mass. That's obvious, right, so if all elements including photons (which have no mass) can no longer escape from the surface of the star, this means that the attraction force is higher than maximum speed of light, c. But does this have to mean that the volume of the mass is close to or equals 0? No. The star can only do 1 thing under extreme pressure: react it's core elements into heavier elements, untill they no longer react or destabilize the star enough to break the cycle, which probably can no longer occur. As the elements react, the star becomes heavier and the density of the volume rises, moving towards a singularity, but there is no reason to assume it _is_ a perfect singularity.
In fact, the black hole is known to radiate Hwaking radiation, which means that the hypothetical perfect singularity black hole model, which can only absorb matter, does not exist. If the said conditions are not perfectly valid for a black hole, then why would it be a perfect singularity, even if this Hawking radiation exists only on a quantum probabilistic level?
Well those tings look ugly, I won't contend that :)
;)
I would probably rename 'btnOk' to 'ButtonOK' if it's an object. I prefer long readable names as opposed to short hashed ones, since nme completion does all the searching for you these days, that can not be the problem. Readable code comes from readable words n the first place, type info only helps to clarify the underlying mechanics of the semantics.
And yes, dangerous type casts allways have been warnings in c++. It's the typecasts that aren't dangerous, like implicit conversions in operators, that might give rise to unexpected behavior. Depending on your compiler, they show, or they just don't.
Did you know I allways wrote 'behaviour' instead of 'behavior'? Funny..
Oh, well... be glad you don't have to maintain my code but I sure as hell won't be using Hungarian anytime soon.
Haha. You know, I don't maintain code tout-court.
I'll shut up now..
It's quite the opposite realy.
:) (ok, operator overloading is bad practice, but that's besides the point)
:)
You know what one of the first rules of refactoring is ? (as chaning a type is in effect a refactoring operation, be it a very small one)
It's "renaming". Here's why:
If you rewrite 'int iAge' into 'float fAge', the rest of the code does no longer compile correctly. So in effect, the hungarian notation helps you keep the code correct, as you have to look up those places where the varaible name has changed. This way you might spot type casts that would otherwise give incorrect results. It might not be imoprtnat for basic types, but for objects in an inheritance tree with e.g. operator overloading, I assure you, it helps !
It's particularly usefull to mark wheather a variable is a local varaible or parameter, a member of a class, or a static global. Usually in methods, the name of a parameter is practically the same as the member contained in the class (e.g. get/set methods). If you mark the members with a prefixed 'm_', you do not have to invent stupid names to make the difference between the parameter and the member, and it will be clear to everyone who reads you code where that varaible is declared, and what it's lifetime is. This again avoids typical but avoidable debug frustration.
I think it's very usefull, even today. All those fancy overview class windows and inspectors are nice but if you're looking at code, you want to be able to quickly see what's going on, and clarity is a key factor in that.
..ah you better rethink that statement because of the following: At Siggraph this year there was a neat paper about eye-movement simulation, and allthough the results weren't particularly impressive like in the rest of the papers at the (btw very great) conference, it showed one important message: context is everything! The speaker demonstrated that indeed, she had managed to make the eyes more or less move in a natural way, but despite her efforts, I think most of the people in that room would agree that it still looked bad. She kind of appologized for it and said that you realy ought to track the eye lids, the frowns, the cheaks and all that... to get a realy convincing AI eye simulation. On top of that, the eyes have specific behaviour that diverge wildly when the person is engaged in a social pattern, or when they are saying something. For instance: Studies have shown that one tends to look more to the left while thinking about social stuff, while looking the other way when thinking about some technical details. Things can of course be reversed, but these tendencies to stare into infitity in a particular direction exist. They come natural to us, but if you think about it it's rather odd.. Even males and females don't do the same things with their eyes.
So, without wanntig to diss on your remark, because you are right in many ways: while we may seem to be doing rather average reading the face of someone, it is much more likely that it is due to the fact that we don't know the person that well, don't know how to give an appropriate response, instead of being unable to read their face, that causes all these human issues. Maybe one day we will be having stupid arguments with robots, who knows..
Hozever, imho we're still a very long way from truely intelligent behavior, because a) you need lots of context and b) you need lots of noise. Both of them are impractical for current silicon. The best quantum computer can deal with just 8 bits.. not terribly impressive..
cheers,
Microsoft isn't very smart in the best sense of the word. They try to act soon on these infringes, yet it only encourages people to go underground with these things, and god knows underground stuff allways runs faster, better and more secure
Seriously, the reason why the console doesn't sell as good as ps2 is simple: lack of good games, and high component cost. People trying to mod the box are undercutting the one feeble pillar xbox might rely on to survive: selling games. And these games aren't just produced by Microsoft. There are other companies involved that realy have nothing to do with MS, they simply target a dev. platform that happens to be Xbox. Whether that is a smart thing is something else, but they aren't gonna be making much more games if no one brings in some cash to compensate x years of development. MS needs those 3rd party teams to live. Interestingly, those teams do not per se need MS.
But microsoft makes other mistakes as well. Today it's far easier to get a modded xbox - or even a ps2 devkit - than an xbox development kit. It seems MS is unable to supply developpers on time, jeoppardizing milestones, release dates,
MS is in for a threat. The whole thing is costing them far more than their worst predictions, and their supply lines are drying up. They do have enough cash, but while they may live, the rest of the pack will have crossed over big time, or gone bust. And they can't possibly get the xbox thing going without that crucial 3rd party support be it games or video or IP or whatever. MS is a very very slow learner in this very hot market where the competition is neckbreaking steep, and Sony is your best bet. For now. Xbox will live, no matter what.
If you say FPS then yes, kb/mouse is prolly the best combination to control your game. But on console platforms, the true PC-style fps is only a small segment of the market, because generally the audience of consoles is younger and more attracted to fantasy instead of hardcore realism. I'm not saying there are no FPS games on console platforms, I'm just saying there are not a lot of them out there. I think for the overall kind of arcade console gameplay, a decent playstation2 controller is as good as they get.
Hello, from my own experience as a graphics engine & tools developper, I can tell you that we wrote our own core-framework for rapid application development, much like Java comes with a batch of toolkits. Up to the point where we wanted to include serialisation, our concept worked brilliantly and we had come a long way. When we then wrote container wrapper classes on top of existing stl classes to act in a COM-like fashion (in order to be able to support serialisation and interface resolving), we used the widely used stlPort version.
/m2000 option, which pumps the heap to 2000% of heap memory, things would freeze up. Since we had quite a lot of containers in combination with quite a lot of basic types, we were litteraly stuck. After STLPort gave such bad results, I tried the same with the MS version of STL but this gave us very much the same results + tons of other problems. So we fell back on our initial solution, which was to use 1 template instance of our Object* interface and define wrapper class objects for each basic type. which sucked, but it compiled. We should have tried the Metrowerks compiler which is (so I've heard) supposedly better at compiling stl than MS'es DevStudio. We'll see.
STLPort is a very decent stl implementation. Using Microsoft's Dev Studio, we could have used the microsoft implementation but it's not as compliant as STLPort, so it was the best possible option (but I still have to check out Boost as well, which offers very nice features). That said, the biggest problem with compiling subclassed STLPort classes was the compiler. In no time, template instances of the templated class definitions would fill up the compiler heap and compilation would either halt or take forever to finnish.. even if we used the
You bring on your point well, however instead of telling what the orignal poster didn't say, let me focus us on what he did say. His point is (among other things) that war leads to a thriving tech society, which means wealthy techies. He's argueing that, therefore, techies do not have a right to (or look like hypocrits when they) utter critique on a government that spends money (taxes) on warfare. I personally think that such reasoning is defunct in every possible way, and strongly oppose to that, because it's simply bad influence, and not constructive at all. I'm sorry but, to me, selling war to techie minds like this, is like telling a kid to go rob a candystore. It stinks.
That was not the cause of the whole culture problem, that was merely the incentive to respond. Like I said, the problem has it's origin way back when the US tried to push Russia out of Afganistan in the cold-war period, when the US payed/trained/armed Ben Laden with their 'values'. I think both Reagan and Bush Senior can tell you nice adventurous stories about that one.
Q. What has the US Dept. of Defense been focusing on since the end of the Cold War? A. Technology - computerized planes, satellites, drones, tanks, etc. Read any Afghanistan story in the Washington Post [washingtpost.com] or New York Times [nytimes.com], or any other major newspaper, and you will hear nothing but raves about our high-tech military.
Ok, So bombing obviously solves your financial problems, but I think you should shut the fuck up because you don't seem to have the slightest respect for people's lives and misery outside the perimeter of your god-damn backyard. Technology is usefull to ENHANCE human welfare, but it should not be created to destroy it. And if you cow-boys really think your rocket missiles are giving Iraki or Afgani people hope and prosperity, think again. Your values, or should I say, your bombs don't interest these people. They have their own culture. It's the US'es overall lack of respect for these cultures that planted the seeds for conflict some 20 years ago. But I guess you don't want to see or hear that do you. I hope I live to see the day that you guy's finally get it. Realy
It's funny that you should compare using computers with cars. Just this morning, an auto mechanic with 30+ years experience said to me that nowadays, young mechanics learning the profession have trouble diagnosing the car, because they use computers for that. When the diagnose is wrong or fails fto deliver an effictive remedy-plan, they don't know what to do with the car. And if the diagnose comes up with something, it's usually in the lines of " please send this part back to the constructor for technical updates (which is VERY comparable to a firmware, appart from a bit of screwing)..
Last month, the ABS led of my VW came to life, and talking to my mechanic he said the brake-box had to be sent back to update the software.. there you go..
It's a kind of analfabetism that will slowly become a problem in nearly any brand and profession. the learning curves allways get longer and steeper. but it's life..
It's not that we're hated because we still, to this day, Israel with billions of dollars of aid, despite its harsh treatment of Palestinians and massacres in Lebanon
Well you can say it out loud just as well I suppose. Everybody in Europe knows that Washington gave green light to re-occupy the WestBank, to exile the internationally recognised representative (Arafat) of the people bein occupied, and that in fact the Israeli are translocating (but not deporting, ofcourse) families from their "homes", effectively nullifying any peace-agreement left standing between the 2. Thank you Ariel Sharon, for being one fucked up fruitcake. Bush is probably laughing his ass off.
But now that I'm at it, that's not nearly why I personally do not like The American Dream way of doing things. You know why ? Because it's political and economic leaders are ignorant of global problems in ecological, economic and political terms, and only one value remains. Cash. Selling war, selling laws and selling crap.
But I don't HATE americans, I just whished more intelligent people with a decent common sense came to power. But I think those ones are a rare treat (and they don't live long either). And like Osama W. Bush allways says, Godd Bless America. They seem to be needing it more than others.
hey I've seen people eating bread with Heinz ketchup and Lays paprika chips and a piece of salad to top it off, telling me it's digestable heaven..
.. search engine for a very long time. I told and advised averybody to use it as the first page to pop up. I loved the search and I was fairly handy in finding stuff with it fast. And I considered altavista as the most complete search engines of it's generation. Then along came google, and presto, as the indexed number of pages grew steadily, I came to love it's way of detecting good websites on a particular topic.
Ofcourse, finding good stuff easy is easy to fall in love with, but it seems I have forgotten about the secret new treasures hidden away in the dark digitlands, that are roamed primarily by the old giant. Thanks for all this insight, really.. I might reconsider my search-engine of choice, and it is good to know I was right all along
"Cerberus was the watchdog of hell. There he lay, chained to the gates of Acheron, harassing the spirits entering Hades and devouring those who tried to escape."
Acheron.. ah so that's the explanation behind the name of our corporate R&D server. Kewl!
Actually there's another book called SnowCrash by Neal Stephenson, which also has some sort of immersive virtual reality concept. Agents working for various agencies gather intel info in order to be able to compete with each-other.
The website also suggests that once databases are going to be linked, new contact with strangers about your (or their) matters will no longer amount to 'surprise' or offensive. In fact what you see no longer will be believable in the sense that people might have tampered with the metaintel you are seeing. You are also more vulnerable to sneak attacks or surprises. You depend on technology to stay alive. You depend on agencies to protect and double-check and verify your data. I Automatically get the reflex to say that hacking would mean freedom of mind in such a datadriven world.
Curious enough, the big problem for the UK is not the fact that it doesn't need a single currency, as it has allways controlled such a currency (Pound) and is now in the (slow) process of letting go of it's own 'Common Wealth' idea.
I think the big issue here is the slight identity crisis which has silently crept in since last decade, and which makes it difficult to belong to something bigger, without risking to lose complete control over it's own identity. Losing the pound would mean another hit in that direction. Germany has had a bit of the same problem since it's reunion.. in any case it's too early to judge about good and bad of joining for the UK, but the mainland needs this.
But we'll see.
Yep, sorry, you're right, I somehow keep switching them, though I know it's TOTALLY NOT the same ;) Guess I should pay them a visit or something :)..
Oh come on, not the WW thing *again*. That was half a decade ago. We have NOT forgotten those who died in Ieper, and we play The Last Post every night for those brave men who gave up their lives to free europe from Hitler. Yes yes yes we've seen it, we hear ya, but I'm sorry to say, we moved along. It's another world out there today. Geez..
The issue at hand here is the Euro, the currency used in the *west* european market. Whether Britain (sorry about the typo, too much Ultima) controlles/controlled lots of colonies is pretty much irrelevant, imho (leaving aside the fact that colonisation is an outdated principle, but ok). Do however tell me, what excatly does a patriotary superiority feeling, being the 4th power in the world and all, bring about besides extremism, fascism and fundamentalism? Let me sum it up maybe.. Congo, India, pakistan, Israel.. Yes , I said Congo, yes. Exactly.
To put it another way, cuz I don't want to be patronising and all, we *do* want Britain in the Euro, but the UK is afraid to simply join forces and give up it's historical rooted Empire-feeling. We understand but we think it's a missed opportunity. Lately there's only one law: "compete or become". And that's all, folks.
"Wait and see", says Captain Blake.
The control of this currency rests with the German Government. Unlike the presidency of the EEC, which rotates so that each country can have a turn at running Europe, the control of the Euro is fixed with the Germans.
This is not fair or right.
The UK is the most powerful economy in Europe, and its government is clearly the best at managing an economy. If anyone should be running the Euro, fixing the interest rates and running the inevitable European tax system, its the Bank of England, and NOT the Bundesbank.
Either way, whoever is running the Euro, giving control of your currency to another nation is suicide.
Can you imagine the US Treasury accepting the control of the Dollar and the US economy from Canada or Mexico?
That is precisely what is happening in Europe. This is totally wrong, and everyone here is being brainwashed into accepting the Euro because it is superficially convenient.
First of all, stating that the UK is the most powerfull economy of europe is bullshit. Expressed in growth, Ireland wins. If you consider the value of the pound to be the measuring tool, then might I remind you that a strong currency makes export (selling, profits) harder. Most of the european countries are exporting much more than they are importing. The reunion of germany has been payed with the germans giving up their strong DM. This was negotiated by Jacques Delors, Mitterand and Kohl. So give the germans credit where due, they are pulling something off that Europe in itself has yet to make true, political and total unification. It takes time, it hurts, and it is certainly not easy. But in the end it makes us all stronger and brings more stability in our fortress than ever before. I think it's simply the right way to tackle the bigger battle at stake here: The economic wars with the US and Asia.
By the way, the euro is not 'fixed with the germans' as you said. I consider that a typical narrow visioned patriotic view on the matter, but not a clear thinking one. The euro is controlled by the european central bank, which is headed by dutchman Wim Dhuisenberg. Germany is economically still the driving force behind it, because they are simply plain good efficient commonsense hardworking people. That is not to say other states don't work as hard, they simply are not as efficient (and by culture, they usually didn't need to be)
I'm sure this sounds horrendous, but London shopping malls say they ARE accepting and returning euro currency. That's right. We will not need to change currencies and pay taxes whilst doing so in your country, whch is of course a shopping benefit and a way to make sure tourists don't go to Paris instead because of the money thing. People can travel and shop with on single currency. It will make trading goods fairer, and will in the long run slowly integrate a respect for foreign cultures and standards through the pricing of the same goods in different parts of europe. Like Prodi said, we carry Europe in our pockets now, it's not just a far from our beds thing. I'm proud of it, and as far as I am concerned there cannot be enough Europe!
Stating that Brittain needs control of the currency is a laugh, you don't even want to be part of it, but oh look, now that we've got it you want to control it ? That sounds like a envious kid in pre-school. We need Brittain in the system, because yes we want your strong country to support the currency, talking on the same level that every other nation does, and we're sure that in the long term the UK will come to acknowledge the benefit of the Euro. It's not about control, it's about Unification. The UK is no longer an island, but it takes some time for people to see that, along with Denmark and Noorwegen.
- Positive thinking Belgian.
Read the topic.
End of story.
"The creation of genuinly new software has far more in common with developing a new theory of physics than it does with producing cars or watches on an assembly line" - Bollinger
s t. pdf
http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Work/Softestim/kcse
Boycott Sid Meier ?
Sign treaty, reject treaty, pay 500$ bill, yes, but boycott ?
Sid is one of my heroes. I dont think we should boycott him personally, but Infogrames which is doing some bad management, like postponing games for others that then don't work at all etc.. Eidos not being much better.
and what's even worse it's got my nickname on it.
But. maybe I'm a little biassed since I just saw bladerunner and I am still recovering from the pure plot, music and light creativity in that one.