IMO, EA will cash in on the console distribution mostly. After all, the PC distribution may be a loss in the long run. Once an EA/Steam game is installed, Valve will be able to sell more games directly to those PC players and that's a loss of future EA sales.
Or EA can end this painful boycott by releasing a non-steam version.
Please. Take my money. Just detach the strings from your product.
Looks like you have everything except media. I like your plan, but I doubt that movie studios are going to release HD content in DivX, or even in a format that can be legally (as defined by our current, stupid, laws) converted to DivX.
I'll be happy to join the boycott, but pushing our own format may be extremely difficult. By extremely difficult, I mean it may require making the average consumer give a shit.
Moron, eh? Nice. OK, let's see who's being the most logical:
Me: Hmm, I can perceive this computer, and I understand the mathematical models that we have come up with to best describe it. Since I assume that our models (and any future, more accurate models) hold across all of time and space, I also assume that this computer would behave in the same way at any location in spacetime.
You: Hmm, I can perceive this computer, and I understand the mathematical models that we have come up with to best describe it. Therefore, a computer exactly like this one on the other side of the universe will behave in exactly the same way. I know that this is true with absolute conviction. I can't prove it, but I *know* that it is true.
Believer: Hey, mind if I butt in here? I can perceive this computer, and I know that God created the universe and everything in it. I know that this is true with absolute conviction. I can't prove it, but I *know* that it is true.
OK, now who do you agree with? If you don't agree with my position, then you either explain how to prove that the universe is consistent (which I'm pretty sure is logically impossible for a system that you're a part of) or you admit that you are taking that consistency on faith. Which is it? Who's the moron?
Hi there. I don't think you gave my post much thought. Quote:
This is not philosophy or religion class, this is reality.
Yes, exactly. That's why, as a scientist, I don't base my view of the universe on belief. I assume that the universe is logical, and that it can be represented by a mathematical model. There is no way to *prove* that this is true, but I have to make that assumption if I am to do any kind of science.
What good are my experimental results if I can't assume that they are repeatable? Should I do an infinite number of experiments to make sure that my model always holds? Of course I can't.
I guess my point is that to study the universe using science you have to assume that the universe *can* be represented by an abstract model. The only other option is to take that same "modelability" on faith. You either assume that it's true, or believe with absolute conviction that it's true. I personally don't take anything purely on faith, so I go on the assumption. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not - for my purposes I just take it for granted.
Good point. When you live where everybody agrees with you, you feel like you're pretty politically useless. My representatives generally agree with me, so there's not much to do. If I lived in Kansas, I'd feel like I could chip away at some of the idiocy in this country. I could write a letter a day to my representatives. I would be in the minority, and I would tend to lose, but at least I could make some small difference.
Bertrand Russell said that mathematics is the study whereby we don't know what we are talking about, and we don't know whether anything we've said is true.
I'm not sure what exactly the word "true" means in this statement. If you use the mathematical definition of "truth," then you certainly do know if something said in the language of math is true. How about x=x? It's "true" according to mathematics. Is this true outside of math? Does it mean anything at all?
Outside of math, can you come up with any statement that we can call "true"? In the artificial domain of mathematics, we can call something true because we define what is true. In the universe that we live in, that's not so easy. If there is absolute truth in the universe, then it's forever beyond our reach. All that we can do is theorize for practical purposes, using science.
Yes, science is based on assumptions. In fact, there is a surprising similarity between science and religion - they both logically follow from a certain set of assumptions. There are two differences, however:
1: The assumptions are different. Science assumes that the universe has a logical structure that can be described by an abstract model. Religions generally make much more involved assumptions about entities and events that exist beyond the physical limits of our universe.
2: Science recognizes its assumptions to be assumptions. Science makes no claim to truth, but merely creates a usable model that describes what we see around us. Religion, on the other hand, takes its assumptions to be absolute truth.
Everything we know about the universe is based on assumptions. Assuming that the universe follows logical rules, assuming that we can trust our senses (to at least a small degree), etc.
This isn't faith, because you don't forget that it's based on an assumption. Science isn't about absolute truth, it's about coming up with a usable model. Maybe Quarks "really exist," and maybe they don't. They're part of our model. No matter how much experimental evidence we have, and no matter how beautifully our model clicks together, there will never be any reason to believe that quarks exist. It may be useful to assume that they exist, but that's not belief.
Sure, you can believe in quarks if you want to, but I think that's a foolish way to create your worldview.
I guess that the content itself determines the ultimate value of the message, but I also think that presentation can give the reader a quick way to make assumptions about the content.
When someone is trying to make a point and they can't put together a complete sentence, I automatically become very skeptical of their point. It's as if I'd asked someone for the data that supports their conclusions and they dug around on the floor to find a grimy old napkin with some shorthand scribbles on it. Maybe the information embodied in those scribbles justifies their conclusions, but I'm not likely to give it much credence unless it's presented in a more legible fashion.
As another thought, it's pretty easy for malformed ideas to hide amongst malformed sentences. Deviating from standard grammar and spelling reduces comprehension on the part of the reader, which is going to make the reader hesitant to agree with the apparent content of the message.
I agree that not being able to use english correctly will end up being a detriment to many of today's youths. Once they enter the "real world" where most people use concise language, they're going to be either misunderstood or ignored.
I see posts on message boards occasionally that are all shorthand, or that don't use any punctuation, or that are in all caps, and I skip over them. It's not worth the effort of trying to read something so illegible. Maybe this is seen as a plus - some sort of obfuscation - but I think it just ends up alienating the author.
Well, I think gecko toes are an example of biology taking advantage of QM. Most of biology seems to pretty much ignore it, though, and depends rather on the abstraction of physics that we call chemistry.
All of the mechanics of the brain AFAIK are based on molecular hardware and electromagnetic fields. Not only that, but the brain itself seems like it is built to average out the kind of random jitters that would be introduced by QM in the same way that it averages out the random noise that is the constant background to all of the useful information in the environment. At this point I'm pretty sure that quantum effects are no more necessary for the operation of your brain than they are for the operation of electronic computers - in other words, it wouldn't work without QM, but modeling QM is not necessary for a simulation. An electronic computer won't work without quantum mechanics, but you can still create a virtual machine that doesn't include quantum effects in the model.
Sure, that virtual machine would have to run on a real, physical piece of hardware - but the simulation itself doesn't need to include quantum effects.
Exactly. It's like saying that having a dual core CPU means you don't need a 3D accelerator. Dedicated hardware that's designed for the task will always be way more powerful than a general purpose processor.
On a side note, I wonder how long it will be before physics cards and 3D accelerators merge into the same piece of hardware.
Good point. I neglected to play KOL for a month or two, and when I came back my account was gone. I hadn't finished all of the adventures yet, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go back to square 1.
I'm not complaining about my account being deleted - it's a free game and still under development to boot. However, it does serve as an example of how a lot of players would respond to permadeath - they'll probably start playing a new game.
That's just the way it goes? Bullshit. No amount of compensation is enough when you don't want to move. If you want my land, you should have to wait until I die. Make inheritance taxes so high that I can't pass it on. Fine.
Overpopulation is going to make these kinds of problems come up more and more frequently. There's only so much space and so many resources to go around, and we're going to end up choosing between A) living like caged rats or B) making laws that govern population size.
Option B) may sound invasive, but it's the only sensibe choice as far as I can see. Of course, the path of least resistance is to just keep encroaching on the freedoms and privacy of all of us. Fuck that. I'll resist until the end. I'll probably end up getting shot by a robot for not leaving my land when some corporation wants to build a megabuilding there. No amount of compensation is going to entice me to leave my nice quiet retirement. Money has very little value when you just want to sit out on your porch and stare at the trees all day.
Think it's unfair for one person to "hog" a few hundred acres? How about 2 square meters? We'd all have plenty of room and plenty of resources if we could control the birth rate, but as it is we're spiralling down the path toward transforming the entire planet into a machine that supports the lives of billions of humans with very little freedom. Maybe those future people won't mind, but that's because they won't know any better. I do know better, and goddamn it I'm all for a 1 child per couple law. Once our population gets down to a reasonable level, (I'll leave that number up for debate) we can adjust the child limit to level out the population size. Sure it would cause economic problems, but we're going to have to deal with those one of these days no matter what.
Your intuition is right about DNA being digitally encoded information. There are several complications when it comes to reverse engineering it, though.
The first is that the "computer" that reads the data is extremely complicated and self-modifying. We know a lot about how cells read DNA and enventually translate it into protiens, but there's still a lot that we don't know about the process. Until we understand exactly how the computer translates the code, it's really hard to both read existing code and to "write" new code.
Another problem is that there's more to the "code" than the sequence of bases. Read up on epigenetics if you're interested. For example, methylation of certain DNA sequences can affect gene expression.
So the problem is a bit more daunting than some might think. Theoretically, however, there's no reason why we can't reverse engineer the body and use that information to build whatever kinds of organisms we want.
Exactly. That's why the only practical way to implement DRM is to make Receiver (B) a different entity from Attacker (C). Right now they are the same person, but if we're not careful then pretty soon (B) will be DRM hardware. You will end up being the "attacker" (C) trying to get at your own data.
The only solution? Don't buy it. Of course, if everybody else buys it then you're screwed. Judging from my observations of the behavior of my fellow Americans, you're going to be screwed (probably regardless of what country you live in).:(
Same here - in fact I see many reasons not to upgrade. "Trusted" computing will be the final nail in Microsoft's coffin as far as I'm concerned, but even XP goes a bit too far with their activation scheme.
No thanks, MS. I'll use 2000 for compatibility as long as it works, and then I'll go to linux 100%. Or maybe I'll get a Mac? Never thought I'd even consider it, but who knows.
On a practical note, did anyone bother to read TFA? What do I need to make sure that I have on hand for future 2K installations - just this rollup or rollup+SP4? Bah, I guess I should investigate it myself.
Nintendo may be lacking in third party support, but the previous article says that they're ahead in market share. (Is sales volume the same thing? I'm an engineer, not an economist).
Both? Don't forget about Microsoft - they've got enough cash to bleed for another generation or two. Maybe you excluded them because they're making some sort of "home entertainment/media" machine, rather than a gaming system?
Slashdot Mirror
Please. Take my money. Just detach the strings from your product.
I'll be happy to join the boycott, but pushing our own format may be extremely difficult. By extremely difficult, I mean it may require making the average consumer give a shit.
Me: Hmm, I can perceive this computer, and I understand the mathematical models that we have come up with to best describe it. Since I assume that our models (and any future, more accurate models) hold across all of time and space, I also assume that this computer would behave in the same way at any location in spacetime.
You: Hmm, I can perceive this computer, and I understand the mathematical models that we have come up with to best describe it. Therefore, a computer exactly like this one on the other side of the universe will behave in exactly the same way. I know that this is true with absolute conviction. I can't prove it, but I *know* that it is true.
Believer: Hey, mind if I butt in here? I can perceive this computer, and I know that God created the universe and everything in it. I know that this is true with absolute conviction. I can't prove it, but I *know* that it is true.
OK, now who do you agree with? If you don't agree with my position, then you either explain how to prove that the universe is consistent (which I'm pretty sure is logically impossible for a system that you're a part of) or you admit that you are taking that consistency on faith. Which is it? Who's the moron?
What good are my experimental results if I can't assume that they are repeatable? Should I do an infinite number of experiments to make sure that my model always holds? Of course I can't.
I guess my point is that to study the universe using science you have to assume that the universe *can* be represented by an abstract model. The only other option is to take that same "modelability" on faith. You either assume that it's true, or believe with absolute conviction that it's true. I personally don't take anything purely on faith, so I go on the assumption. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not - for my purposes I just take it for granted.
Outside of math, can you come up with any statement that we can call "true"? In the artificial domain of mathematics, we can call something true because we define what is true. In the universe that we live in, that's not so easy. If there is absolute truth in the universe, then it's forever beyond our reach. All that we can do is theorize for practical purposes, using science.
Yes, science is based on assumptions. In fact, there is a surprising similarity between science and religion - they both logically follow from a certain set of assumptions. There are two differences, however:
1: The assumptions are different. Science assumes that the universe has a logical structure that can be described by an abstract model. Religions generally make much more involved assumptions about entities and events that exist beyond the physical limits of our universe.
2: Science recognizes its assumptions to be assumptions. Science makes no claim to truth, but merely creates a usable model that describes what we see around us. Religion, on the other hand, takes its assumptions to be absolute truth.
This isn't faith, because you don't forget that it's based on an assumption. Science isn't about absolute truth, it's about coming up with a usable model. Maybe Quarks "really exist," and maybe they don't. They're part of our model. No matter how much experimental evidence we have, and no matter how beautifully our model clicks together, there will never be any reason to believe that quarks exist. It may be useful to assume that they exist, but that's not belief.
Sure, you can believe in quarks if you want to, but I think that's a foolish way to create your worldview.
When someone is trying to make a point and they can't put together a complete sentence, I automatically become very skeptical of their point. It's as if I'd asked someone for the data that supports their conclusions and they dug around on the floor to find a grimy old napkin with some shorthand scribbles on it. Maybe the information embodied in those scribbles justifies their conclusions, but I'm not likely to give it much credence unless it's presented in a more legible fashion.
As another thought, it's pretty easy for malformed ideas to hide amongst malformed sentences. Deviating from standard grammar and spelling reduces comprehension on the part of the reader, which is going to make the reader hesitant to agree with the apparent content of the message.
I agree that not being able to use english correctly will end up being a detriment to many of today's youths. Once they enter the "real world" where most people use concise language, they're going to be either misunderstood or ignored.
I see posts on message boards occasionally that are all shorthand, or that don't use any punctuation, or that are in all caps, and I skip over them. It's not worth the effort of trying to read something so illegible. Maybe this is seen as a plus - some sort of obfuscation - but I think it just ends up alienating the author.
All of the mechanics of the brain AFAIK are based on molecular hardware and electromagnetic fields. Not only that, but the brain itself seems like it is built to average out the kind of random jitters that would be introduced by QM in the same way that it averages out the random noise that is the constant background to all of the useful information in the environment. At this point I'm pretty sure that quantum effects are no more necessary for the operation of your brain than they are for the operation of electronic computers - in other words, it wouldn't work without QM, but modeling QM is not necessary for a simulation. An electronic computer won't work without quantum mechanics, but you can still create a virtual machine that doesn't include quantum effects in the model.
Sure, that virtual machine would have to run on a real, physical piece of hardware - but the simulation itself doesn't need to include quantum effects.
On a side note, I wonder how long it will be before physics cards and 3D accelerators merge into the same piece of hardware.
I'm not complaining about my account being deleted - it's a free game and still under development to boot. However, it does serve as an example of how a lot of players would respond to permadeath - they'll probably start playing a new game.
Overpopulation is going to make these kinds of problems come up more and more frequently. There's only so much space and so many resources to go around, and we're going to end up choosing between A) living like caged rats or B) making laws that govern population size.
Option B) may sound invasive, but it's the only sensibe choice as far as I can see. Of course, the path of least resistance is to just keep encroaching on the freedoms and privacy of all of us. Fuck that. I'll resist until the end. I'll probably end up getting shot by a robot for not leaving my land when some corporation wants to build a megabuilding there. No amount of compensation is going to entice me to leave my nice quiet retirement. Money has very little value when you just want to sit out on your porch and stare at the trees all day.
Think it's unfair for one person to "hog" a few hundred acres? How about 2 square meters? We'd all have plenty of room and plenty of resources if we could control the birth rate, but as it is we're spiralling down the path toward transforming the entire planet into a machine that supports the lives of billions of humans with very little freedom. Maybe those future people won't mind, but that's because they won't know any better. I do know better, and goddamn it I'm all for a 1 child per couple law. Once our population gets down to a reasonable level, (I'll leave that number up for debate) we can adjust the child limit to level out the population size. Sure it would cause economic problems, but we're going to have to deal with those one of these days no matter what.
Er, end of rant.
The first is that the "computer" that reads the data is extremely complicated and self-modifying. We know a lot about how cells read DNA and enventually translate it into protiens, but there's still a lot that we don't know about the process. Until we understand exactly how the computer translates the code, it's really hard to both read existing code and to "write" new code.
Another problem is that there's more to the "code" than the sequence of bases. Read up on epigenetics if you're interested. For example, methylation of certain DNA sequences can affect gene expression.
So the problem is a bit more daunting than some might think. Theoretically, however, there's no reason why we can't reverse engineer the body and use that information to build whatever kinds of organisms we want.
Still waiting.
No spoilers please!
The only solution? Don't buy it. Of course, if everybody else buys it then you're screwed. Judging from my observations of the behavior of my fellow Americans, you're going to be screwed (probably regardless of what country you live in). :(
That said, there are good american beers. Try a Fat Tire sometime. :)
Well, not really.
I forsee a Linux-only desktop and console-only gaming in my future.
No thanks, MS. I'll use 2000 for compatibility as long as it works, and then I'll go to linux 100%. Or maybe I'll get a Mac? Never thought I'd even consider it, but who knows.
On a practical note, did anyone bother to read TFA? What do I need to make sure that I have on hand for future 2K installations - just this rollup or rollup+SP4? Bah, I guess I should investigate it myself.