Cable prices at stores like best buy are absolutely ludicrous. I've ordered a couple of cables from cable wholesale, and have been pretty happy with 'em.
Their prices are actually reasonable - as in, when you think to yourself, "How much would I expect to pay for a set of 6' component video cables?" the answer that pops into your head is probably close to their price. Go into best buy and find equivalent cables, and you're in for some sticker shock.
I don't think it's that simple to establish that a nation "sponsored" the terrorist organization. What if the bomb was built/detonated by terrorists within the US, funded by some US based cult or something? Do we nuke ourselves? What if they're based in Canada? Does that automatically make Canada their "Patron Nation?"
Building a nuke doesn't necessarily require extraordinary financing - you don't need a huge plutonium refinement factory to produce 1 bomb, you just need a source of refined plutonium.
This gets a bit OT, though. The issue under discussion - controlling computing hardware as weapons - is obviously asinine. Any general purpose tool can be used as a weapon, or at least to produce weapons.
Not only that, but you tend to want to explore as many possible paths as possible.
When I'm playing a game and I notice an alternate route, the first question is: can I get back? I might break the window, then decide that _maybe_ I'll be able to climb back in, and maybe not. I'll take the corridor first, search it, wipe out whatever bad guys are down there, and then backtrack to the window to see what's out there. Otherwise, I'll be forever wondering "what was through that window?" or "what was down that corridor?"
I think the parent's point is that the chain rule works by breaking an equation up into a set of simple, nested functions: 2x-3 becomes f(g(x)), where f(x)=x-3 and g(x)=2x.
If you wanted to punch the same equation into a RPN calculator, you would need to break it up the same way. This is a pretty trivial example, but if you've used RPN (I haven't used it much at all) then I think you'll see what the parent meant.
Collision, physics, AI, and animation are all dependent on transformations, which can now be done quickly by the GPU.
However, raytracing still requires the same transformations, so GPUs as they work now are no more useful for physics, etc. than a raytracing GPU. In fact, with per-pixel shading, modern GPUs practically *are* raytracers.
Can someone point out exactly what differentiates a per-pixel polygon shader from a raytracing engine from a practical point of view? I'd be interested to know.
Gagged and controlled by Washington? You mean the other way around. Very large corporations own and control the media, and they also own and control the government, my friend.
My pitchfork is sharp, I'm just waiting for the mob to pass my house.
Mod this up! Excellent post, and very thought provoking. Stories that have evolved throughout history are certainly influenced by political and technological changes, and going from hunter-gatherers to farmers was a *huge* change - it allowed civilization (and religion) as we know it to develop.
You also bring up the important question of whether we can sustain the society that we've created, or whether we're just another "false start." With all of the planets out there, it seems like a civilization out there somewhere ought to stabilize to the point that it can be sustained indefinitely.
The difference between agnosticism and athiesm is not just a matter of degree. I would be less surprised by evidence of telepathy than I would be by evidence of a supreme being, but I'm still agnostic about both, and about everything else.
To be an athiest, I would have to believe that there is no God even in the face of evidence that there *is* a God. Athiests get off as easily as God-believers in the sense that God cannot be proven or disproven, but the only logical conclusion is to be agnostic.
Judging by what you say, you are an agnostic, not an athiest. Don't go around saying that you're an athiest - people will assume you're illogical.
There is no god and the aliens know it for sure and can prove it also
That would be as impossible as proving that God exists.
Sufficiently advanced intelligent life is sure to be agnostic. I mean, if you can't tell whether God exists or not, then does it even matter? They'll be busy enough contemplating the universe itself, and the things that happen in it.
Interesting... I wonder if each world has its own Santa Claus, too - or if the same Santa visits every planet in the universe. Maybe the Earth is somehow special, and has the only Santa in the universe.
OK, so it's *possible* that aliens faked everybody out a couple thousand years ago, but it's hardly likely. More likely than God doing it, but less likely than word-of-mouth stories getting exaggerated over time, IMO.
It's real simple...if any real god came down here today...do you really think the majority of the human population would believe anything he/she/it said?
Uh, yeah - the things that it said that are relevant to the universe. If some dude came flying down on a bolt of lightning and said, "I created the universe by pulling it out of a turtle's ass! Here is the grand unifying theory of the universe! [insert theory here]" then (assuming the theory is testable and works) we would "believe" the theory - although we would probably ignore the turtle's ass thing unless some more explanation was provided.
Sorry, but everything in the universe points to the fact that we do not have free will. Of course, that only includes what we know about the universe at this time, but what else do we have to go on? We have to make our assumptions based on the information that we have.
Gee, it's almost as if the whole concept doesn't make any sense.
I'm not going to deny anyone the right to believe whatever the hell they want, but if they're going to take something on faith, then they need to accept the fact that they're taking it ON FAITH. God is illogical. God is unscientific. If you want to be logical and/or scientific, then you have to throw God out the window. People need to pick one or the other, and not try to come up with religious "science" to try and justify their beliefs.
The funny thing is, these people don't even realize that their "theories" are laughable from a scientific perspective. Either they've never heard the counter argument, or they didn't listen, or they really don't understand what science is about.
I don't know if OOT was the *best* Zelda game, but you're right that WW was way too easy. The control was better than OOT, but it was wasted. What good are all of those sword moves with no challenging enemies? Not to knock the game too much - I really enjoyed playing it - but the lack of difficulty was a fault.
I think Nintendo wanted to focus on the story, without puzzles/getting killed distracting from the narrative. Maybe this is an angle worth considering, but they went a bit too far. Long after I'd beaten the game, I killed myself to see what would happen. It took me several minutes to bomb myself to death.
It seems like you could get the best of both worlds, with many optional paths throughout the game that up the difficulty. The main story path could keep it toned down a bit for the casual players, but there could also be some hidden dungeons with mind bending challenges and tough enemies. Of course, the payoff for completing these challenges should be well worth the effort (cool and useful items), although still optional for completing the game.
Hell yeah. I was looking forward to another cell shaded Zelda, but this game looks awesome. Of course, real gamers know that graphics are only icing - it's how the game plays that matters. I can say with full assurance that I expect this game to play brilliantly.
My one concern? PLEASE let them up the difficulty (relative to Wind Waker). Please let me be in danger of dying throughout the game. I should be down to 1 heart before beating bosses, like in the original LOZ. Please have more dungeons, and throw in some real mind-benders (make them optional if you want, just make them difficult).
I'm sitting here waiting for this game to come out.
The first person I hear yakking on a cell phone out in the wilderness is going to take a trip down a steep hillside. I've heard that this is becoming a big problem in the really busy parks (yellowstone, etc) but I haven't encountered it yet.
The whole point of forest and wilderness is to leave civilization behind. If you *have* to have a lifeline, then stay home. You might fall off a cliff and not be able to call 911. Tough.
>8P
Back to the real topic, I don't have a problem with "trail monitors" as long as they meet some simple requirements:
a) Non-intrusive. I don't want to see some ugly piece of plastic litter along the trail - and I may be tempted to "clean it up." b)Low power. They don't need to be broadcasting all the way back to the ranger station. If someone is lost, the data can be collected on the way out to find 'em. c)Anonymous. Most people do not want to be personally tracked.
d)Optional. Kind of a pointless requirement, since you couldn't enforce it anyway, but the principle is still important.
I think this could be pretty easily achieved with a seismic sensor buried under the trail (as mentioned by someone above), a small wooden sign reading "waypoint", and some kind of reader that can query the sensor from a few feet away. The real trick would be powering the thing.
Forget the room, you just need a buckyball shaped helmet. What to do about the channels that would intersect the listener's neck? I leave this as an exercise for the reader.
Theories that don't have "evidence" absolutely are *not* taken on faith. If a theory is elegant, say loop quantum gravity, for example, then you might *hope* that it works out - you may even assume that it's true for certain purposes (while remaining skeptical of the theory and any theory derived from it), or you may try to find a way to test the theory and see how well it works. If you were to simply take the theory on faith, then you would be easily misled by every wrong theory that came along!
Assuming something is true for practical purposes, or hoping that something is true because it seems like it *should* be true, are not the same as being absolutely convinced that it is true. We must always remain skeptical of even the most well tested theories, not to mention the ones that don't even have any evidence!
No, I am not sure that my brain doesn't communicate with others via some undiscovered phenomenon. However, it would be stupid of me to assume that it *does* do so, without a good explanation.
As you say, there are lots we don't know and cannot explain. The point of science is to know and explain as much as we can. We shouldn't expect to be able to explain everything, and we also shouldn't go around believing in things that don't have an explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
Their prices are actually reasonable - as in, when you think to yourself, "How much would I expect to pay for a set of 6' component video cables?" the answer that pops into your head is probably close to their price. Go into best buy and find equivalent cables, and you're in for some sticker shock.
I've got some feather pillows I can cut open, who's got the tar?
Building a nuke doesn't necessarily require extraordinary financing - you don't need a huge plutonium refinement factory to produce 1 bomb, you just need a source of refined plutonium.
This gets a bit OT, though. The issue under discussion - controlling computing hardware as weapons - is obviously asinine. Any general purpose tool can be used as a weapon, or at least to produce weapons.
When I'm playing a game and I notice an alternate route, the first question is: can I get back? I might break the window, then decide that _maybe_ I'll be able to climb back in, and maybe not. I'll take the corridor first, search it, wipe out whatever bad guys are down there, and then backtrack to the window to see what's out there. Otherwise, I'll be forever wondering "what was through that window?" or "what was down that corridor?"
If you wanted to punch the same equation into a RPN calculator, you would need to break it up the same way. This is a pretty trivial example, but if you've used RPN (I haven't used it much at all) then I think you'll see what the parent meant.
P.S. - Real sophomores know how to spell it. ;)
However, raytracing still requires the same transformations, so GPUs as they work now are no more useful for physics, etc. than a raytracing GPU. In fact, with per-pixel shading, modern GPUs practically *are* raytracers.
Can someone point out exactly what differentiates a per-pixel polygon shader from a raytracing engine from a practical point of view? I'd be interested to know.
My pitchfork is sharp, I'm just waiting for the mob to pass my house.
You also bring up the important question of whether we can sustain the society that we've created, or whether we're just another "false start." With all of the planets out there, it seems like a civilization out there somewhere ought to stabilize to the point that it can be sustained indefinitely.
Ours has a ways to go, I'm afraid.
To be an athiest, I would have to believe that there is no God even in the face of evidence that there *is* a God. Athiests get off as easily as God-believers in the sense that God cannot be proven or disproven, but the only logical conclusion is to be agnostic.
Judging by what you say, you are an agnostic, not an athiest. Don't go around saying that you're an athiest - people will assume you're illogical.
Sufficiently advanced intelligent life is sure to be agnostic. I mean, if you can't tell whether God exists or not, then does it even matter? They'll be busy enough contemplating the universe itself, and the things that happen in it.
8D
This is assuming rational humans, of course.
I'm not going to deny anyone the right to believe whatever the hell they want, but if they're going to take something on faith, then they need to accept the fact that they're taking it ON FAITH. God is illogical. God is unscientific. If you want to be logical and/or scientific, then you have to throw God out the window. People need to pick one or the other, and not try to come up with religious "science" to try and justify their beliefs.
The funny thing is, these people don't even realize that their "theories" are laughable from a scientific perspective. Either they've never heard the counter argument, or they didn't listen, or they really don't understand what science is about.
I think Nintendo wanted to focus on the story, without puzzles/getting killed distracting from the narrative. Maybe this is an angle worth considering, but they went a bit too far. Long after I'd beaten the game, I killed myself to see what would happen. It took me several minutes to bomb myself to death.
It seems like you could get the best of both worlds, with many optional paths throughout the game that up the difficulty. The main story path could keep it toned down a bit for the casual players, but there could also be some hidden dungeons with mind bending challenges and tough enemies. Of course, the payoff for completing these challenges should be well worth the effort (cool and useful items), although still optional for completing the game.
My one concern? PLEASE let them up the difficulty (relative to Wind Waker). Please let me be in danger of dying throughout the game. I should be down to 1 heart before beating bosses, like in the original LOZ. Please have more dungeons, and throw in some real mind-benders (make them optional if you want, just make them difficult).
I'm sitting here waiting for this game to come out.
Still waiting.
The whole point of forest and wilderness is to leave civilization behind. If you *have* to have a lifeline, then stay home. You might fall off a cliff and not be able to call 911. Tough.
>8P
Back to the real topic, I don't have a problem with "trail monitors" as long as they meet some simple requirements:
a) Non-intrusive. I don't want to see some ugly piece of plastic litter along the trail - and I may be tempted to "clean it up."
b)Low power. They don't need to be broadcasting all the way back to the ranger station. If someone is lost, the data can be collected on the way out to find 'em.
c)Anonymous. Most people do not want to be personally tracked.
d)Optional. Kind of a pointless requirement, since you couldn't enforce it anyway, but the principle is still important.
I think this could be pretty easily achieved with a seismic sensor buried under the trail (as mentioned by someone above), a small wooden sign reading "waypoint", and some kind of reader that can query the sensor from a few feet away. The real trick would be powering the thing.
Ikaruga is an awesome game, BTW.
Contrary to popular belief, GameFAQs just can't do everything that a printed strategy guide can do.
Assuming something is true for practical purposes, or hoping that something is true because it seems like it *should* be true, are not the same as being absolutely convinced that it is true. We must always remain skeptical of even the most well tested theories, not to mention the ones that don't even have any evidence!
No, I am not sure that my brain doesn't communicate with others via some undiscovered phenomenon. However, it would be stupid of me to assume that it *does* do so, without a good explanation.
As you say, there are lots we don't know and cannot explain. The point of science is to know and explain as much as we can. We shouldn't expect to be able to explain everything, and we also shouldn't go around believing in things that don't have an explanation.