If anything, these games have made me MORE intelligent by finding different solutions to different problems.
Yes, but that's your subjective interpretation of what you think is happening inside your head, and not what it's actually doing.
I've played a variety of sims and RTS games, and I have just the opposite criticism of them.
RTS and sims become rote exercises, not challenging puzzles.
I would say, doesn't Starcraft simply turn into a race of who can execute the same plan faster? In fact, that is why Blizzard made WC3 so much faster and with more variables, so that people couldn't just do the same thing every time.
I would also say that good interactive fiction doesn't fall into this category because there are no images at all, required the creative capacity of one half of the brain and the abstract puzzle solving ability of the other. But you can only play an interactive fiction game once and get the same rush.
More physics than math, but a great place to start. If you buy the series (or tape it off PBS), you can watch it again and again until you finally learn the concepts. It opens a whole new world in math and physics. It was recorded and animated (by Pr. Blinn, no less!) in the mid-80s, and is still relevant.
I really hope the recycle centers do what they say. I was watching Dateline, or 60 minutes or 20/20 (one of those news shows), and apparently Southeastern Asia is receiving boatloads of American used computers.
It was sickening: There were piles of computer chassis as far as the eye could see on the streets, and little pools of bubbling chemicals everywhere. The locals extract the gold from the contacts using things like nitric acid. Of course, they have no respirators, or barely any clothes for that matter. Little kids were hunched over pools of fuming chemicals trying to extract precious metals for pennies.
I really hope the recycling centers do what they claim.
I rented "Nothing but Shorts" (50 minutes of R&S short spots) the other night and had a laugh, and it was so blindingly obvious which footage was "new" and what was "original". Not just the voices (which were obvious), but the content and affectations were all wrong in the "new" footage. Stimpy had so much more odd facial expression, really out of place kinda stuff. And Ren's actions were far more strange.
Eh, hopefully the "NEW new" series will be more like the old stuff.
The Matrix was probably the closest we'll ever get to a thinking man's movie
Dude, you need to watch more movies. Lots more. My advice: stay out of the "New Releases" section -- it's all crap. I'm not going to rave about how brilliant Ingmar Bergman or Otto Preminger are (yawn), but The Matrix wasn't a real brain-bender by any means.
Anyone remember the episode of Cosmos (ca. 1981) when Carl Sagan examines a table exactly like this, except with a small, corked bottles containing each element? It was about 3x3 feet, but it was missing samples of the radioactive stuff. That inspired me to study the periodic table at age 10.
Just for the record, has anyone here seen any 'sexually explicit' computer games??? I've yet to see one, 'cept for that Sega game where the anime bimbos in crotch-high boots do mega-split-roundhouse-kicks.
Please elaborate on why California "got what it deserved".
I doubt you'll get a response, the original post was obviously a troll, a political troll by someone with strong anti-Davis and anti-California sentiment.
Unfortunately the troll was modded up to insightful. Go figure.
it is an amorphous solid, refer to this urban legend...
An Urban Legend
The legend usually appears in any of the following forms:
Antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time.
Glass has no crystalline structure, hence it is NOT a solid.
Glass is a supercooled liquid.
Glass is a liquid that flows very slowly.
Glass is a liquid. The prolonged survival of this legend, chiefly among English speakers (and particularly among North Americans) is puzzling -- especially when one considers that glass and glassy materials are readily available, and one can easily verify if one can pour a gallon of glass, or drain a pint of obsidian.
Way back when the Hulk was on prime-time TV (Bill Bixby), Captain America was a failing live action saturday afternoon sitcom, and we all wondered who the hell The Greatest American Hero was supposed to be.
Of course, none of these featured Kirstun Dunst's pert nipples.
They don't actually think about it, but if you look at someone intently, they will frequently snap their head around and look back.
This is nonsense.
First, I have done experiments on this many times. It is very rare for people to notice you noticing them. Try it at a bus station, or in public the next time you are waiting for somethign. Do an EXPERIMENT and you will see that it is mostly just coincidence.
Second, people are overwhelmed by the "mystical nature of coincidence". There are gazillions of things happening non-stop that could be considered coincidental, but people only notice a few and make a huge deal out of it. That's why karma (non-/.) is such a big deal, people get hung up on coincidences when they don't realize just how common they really are.
You're thinking of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (read "Godel Escher Bach" and "Godel's Proof" for brilliant explanations.)
However, you didn't read this poster's comment. Which clearly explains the difference between mystical mandate (religion) and progressive refinement through research and curioisity (science).
do we constantly have to make it 'us' and 'them', the other side always claiming moral highground?
this is just one more thing for people to get angry at each other for. like dads beating each other up at hockey games, or fans beating each other up at sports arenas...
does it fucking matter? are we so superficial as to group each other by the types of computers we use? this is sad, sad, sad.
, who really have to have a much bigger grasp of logic than those of us working on the higher levels
I have to disagree with you there: I've been on both sides, and the logic is even more complex at higher levels. Sure, it's easy for a low-level guy/gal to focus on a specific part of a project, grasp it completely and make it work, but the higher up you go, the more uncertainty you have to deal with. I would say the uncertainty increases 2x every level you go. Managing that ambiguity at the project level is ferociously complicated. Why do you think project managers never smile and carry rolls of Tums (TM) with their laptops and planners?
I wouldn't say the 'low-level' workers have a monopoly on logic or a much 'bigger grasp'. if anything, they have a very big grasp on a smaller part of the picture. which is NOT an insult to their competence.
heres a wierd question...Why dont they put some sort of optical controller and coupler between chips?
Cost. The bill of materials on a motherboard is insanely tight -- they count resistors, remember! All of the fancy interconnect to go optical is way to expensive, and has very little benefite: aka, ROI.
Beside, what good does it bring? I agree that copper limits on a motherboard are approaching rapidly: anyone who has ever tried to debug a RAMBUS implementation knows how painful it is to build interface hardware to debug a 1ghz strobed differential bus. However, I would think that until the b/w at the CPU and DRAM _PINS_ vastly exceeds what is possible with a copper trace, the ROI on optical would be nonexsitant.
I need to re-read AMDs point-to-point proposal, I'm not sure I buy their claim that adding additional CPUs doesn't decrease bandwidth.
As for symmetric-MP, et al: there are lots of weird topologies for MP out there in server-land. The first teraflop machine was PentiumPro bus architecture, which is only 4P scalable on Intel arch, but custom chipsets can do anything!...but we know most about Intel and AMD's because they need the marketing gee-whiz factor to sell their crap.
And when I say "crap", I mean, "crap". I firmly believe that if both giants were not chained to their product roadmap and stock-holders, aka profits, then we would see some truly efficient high-performing architectures. A giant can't take a 90-degree turn... that's why all x86 architectures are basically suped up jalopies -- making too sudden a change can be devastating if you don't have the capital. Look at Itanium -- if AMD spent the resources Intel did, it would have broken their bank like the Cold War broke Russia's. Look at AMD bolting on *-64, it's basically a blower on a Chevette!!!
1. bus widths at 256-bits are a friggin nightmare to design to run at multi-GHz...
2. To support 256-bits, every path needs to be this wide, which would blot the die so much that you couldn't meet gigahertz timing, not to mention how poor the yeilds would be
most game architectures pump graphics data around at 256,512,even 1k-bit wide busses... not the CPU core. But that kind of precision for the geometry processed in the CPU core is not necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Two questions:
What about connecting to MS outlook exchange servers?
What about domain authentication to MS file servers?
If anything, these games have made me MORE intelligent by finding different solutions to different problems.
Yes, but that's your subjective interpretation of what you think is happening inside your head, and not what it's actually doing.
I've played a variety of sims and RTS games, and I have just the opposite criticism of them.
RTS and sims become rote exercises, not challenging puzzles.
I would say, doesn't Starcraft simply turn into a race of who can execute the same plan faster? In fact, that is why Blizzard made WC3 so much faster and with more variables, so that people couldn't just do the same thing every time.
I would also say that good interactive fiction doesn't fall into this category because there are no images at all, required the creative capacity of one half of the brain and the abstract puzzle solving ability of the other. But you can only play an interactive fiction game once and get the same rush.
More physics than math, but a great place to start. If you buy the series (or tape it off PBS), you can watch it again and again until you finally learn the concepts. It opens a whole new world in math and physics. It was recorded and animated (by Pr. Blinn, no less!) in the mid-80s, and is still relevant.
-S
I really hope the recycle centers do what they say. I was watching Dateline, or 60 minutes or 20/20 (one of those news shows), and apparently Southeastern Asia is receiving boatloads of American used computers.
It was sickening: There were piles of computer chassis as far as the eye could see on the streets, and little pools of bubbling chemicals everywhere. The locals extract the gold from the contacts using things like nitric acid. Of course, they have no respirators, or barely any clothes for that matter. Little kids were hunched over pools of fuming chemicals trying to extract precious metals for pennies.
I really hope the recycling centers do what they claim.
I rented "Nothing but Shorts" (50 minutes of R&S short spots) the other night and had a laugh, and it was so blindingly obvious which footage was "new" and what was "original". Not just the voices (which were obvious), but the content and affectations were all wrong in the "new" footage. Stimpy had so much more odd facial expression, really out of place kinda stuff. And Ren's actions were far more strange.
Eh, hopefully the "NEW new" series will be more like the old stuff.
Is this at the auction house place (on telegraph ave.) or some place on the Berkely Campus?
Thx.
S
>> Stops viruses and worms. Palladium won't run
>> unauthorized programs
>
>Like those of competitors.
>
Not entirely true: It will run in a secure mode and a non-secure mode. The non-secure kernel can still run non-secure (insecure?) software.
Of course, once they eventually port all MS apps to secure mode, then why even support the non-secure kernel?
I don't really like the idea of this...
The Matrix was probably the closest we'll ever get to a thinking man's movie
Dude, you need to watch more movies. Lots more. My advice: stay out of the "New Releases" section -- it's all crap. I'm not going to rave about how brilliant Ingmar Bergman or Otto Preminger are (yawn), but The Matrix wasn't a real brain-bender by any means.
Anyone remember the episode of Cosmos (ca. 1981) when Carl Sagan examines a table exactly like this, except with a small, corked bottles containing each element? It was about 3x3 feet, but it was missing samples of the radioactive stuff. That inspired me to study the periodic table at age 10.
Just for the record, has anyone here seen any 'sexually explicit' computer games??? I've yet to see one, 'cept for that Sega game where the anime bimbos in crotch-high boots do mega-split-roundhouse-kicks.
Please elaborate on why California "got what it deserved".
I doubt you'll get a response, the original post was obviously a troll, a political troll by someone with strong anti-Davis and anti-California sentiment.
Unfortunately the troll was modded up to insightful. Go figure.
1" in gaps? So it should be 1/4" in 25 years, by your claim.
Hmm, seems like there are millions of 25 year old houses that aren't rushing out to plug the gaps in their sagging windows. Read my original link.
it is an amorphous solid, refer to this urban legend...
An Urban Legend
The legend usually appears in any of the following forms:
Antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time.
Glass has no crystalline structure, hence it is NOT a solid.
Glass is a supercooled liquid.
Glass is a liquid that flows very slowly.
Glass is a liquid.
The prolonged survival of this legend, chiefly among English speakers (and particularly among North Americans) is puzzling -- especially when one considers that glass and glassy materials are readily available, and one can easily verify if one can pour a gallon of glass, or drain a pint of obsidian.
Way back when the Hulk was on prime-time TV (Bill Bixby), Captain America was a failing live action saturday afternoon sitcom, and we all wondered who the hell The Greatest American Hero was supposed to be.
Of course, none of these featured Kirstun Dunst's pert nipples.
They don't actually think about it, but if you look at someone intently, they will frequently snap their head around and look back.
This is nonsense.
First, I have done experiments on this many times. It is very rare for people to notice you noticing them. Try it at a bus station, or in public the next time you are waiting for somethign. Do an EXPERIMENT and you will see that it is mostly just coincidence.
Second, people are overwhelmed by the "mystical nature of coincidence". There are gazillions of things happening non-stop that could be considered coincidental, but people only notice a few and make a huge deal out of it. That's why karma (non-/.) is such a big deal, people get hung up on coincidences when they don't realize just how common they really are.
You're thinking of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (read "Godel Escher Bach" and "Godel's Proof" for brilliant explanations.)
However, you didn't read this poster's comment. Which clearly explains the difference between mystical mandate (religion) and progressive refinement through research and curioisity (science).
Sound crazy? I thought so.
Not at all compared to the concept of a grey haired old man on a cloudy throne keeping a list of how many times i spank the monkey. Now that's crazy.
...this smacks of the scene when the two engineers are calibrating the body-control parameters of Robert Duvall... freaky scene.
...more ways to divide people and make enemies.
;-)
do we constantly have to make it 'us' and 'them', the other side always claiming moral highground?
this is just one more thing for people to get angry at each other for. like dads beating each other up at hockey games, or fans beating each other up at sports arenas...
does it fucking matter? are we so superficial as to group each other by the types of computers we use? this is sad, sad, sad.
:
and by the way C64 rocks, you all suck.
Thanks to STL I know have a nervous pavlovian twitch response whenever i see the letters "_Rb_tree" anywhere.
, who really have to have a much bigger grasp of logic than those of us working on the higher levels
I have to disagree with you there: I've been on both sides, and the logic is even more complex at higher levels. Sure, it's easy for a low-level guy/gal to focus on a specific part of a project, grasp it completely and make it work, but the higher up you go, the more uncertainty you have to deal with. I would say the uncertainty increases 2x every level you go. Managing that ambiguity at the project level is ferociously complicated. Why do you think project managers never smile and carry rolls of Tums (TM) with their laptops and planners?
I wouldn't say the 'low-level' workers have a monopoly on logic or a much 'bigger grasp'. if anything, they have a very big grasp on a smaller part of the picture. which is NOT an insult to their competence.
heres a wierd question...Why dont they put some sort of optical controller and coupler between chips?
...but we know most about Intel and AMD's because they need the marketing gee-whiz factor to sell their crap.
Cost. The bill of materials on a motherboard is insanely tight -- they count resistors, remember! All of the fancy interconnect to go optical is way to expensive, and has very little benefite: aka, ROI.
Beside, what good does it bring? I agree that copper limits on a motherboard are approaching rapidly: anyone who has ever tried to debug a RAMBUS implementation knows how painful it is to build interface hardware to debug a 1ghz strobed differential bus. However, I would think that until the b/w at the CPU and DRAM _PINS_ vastly exceeds what is possible with a copper trace, the ROI on optical would be nonexsitant.
I need to re-read AMDs point-to-point proposal, I'm not sure I buy their claim that adding additional CPUs doesn't decrease bandwidth.
As for symmetric-MP, et al: there are lots of weird topologies for MP out there in server-land. The first teraflop machine was PentiumPro bus architecture, which is only 4P scalable on Intel arch, but custom chipsets can do anything!
And when I say "crap", I mean, "crap". I firmly believe that if both giants were not chained to their product roadmap and stock-holders, aka profits, then we would see some truly efficient high-performing architectures. A giant can't take a 90-degree turn... that's why all x86 architectures are basically suped up jalopies -- making too sudden a change can be devastating if you don't have the capital. Look at Itanium -- if AMD spent the resources Intel did, it would have broken their bank like the Cold War broke Russia's. Look at AMD bolting on *-64, it's basically a blower on a Chevette!!!
I'm _really_ rambling, I'll stop now.
Anyone here to give a good reason not to...
Intel MMX/SSE are 128-bits already.
But here are a few arguments against it--
1. bus widths at 256-bits are a friggin nightmare to design to run at multi-GHz...
2. To support 256-bits, every path needs to be this wide, which would blot the die so much that you couldn't meet gigahertz timing, not to mention how poor the yeilds would be
most game architectures pump graphics data around at 256,512,even 1k-bit wide busses... not the CPU core. But that kind of precision for the geometry processed in the CPU core is not necessary.
Also, I was to look forward to a fluffer romance.
Um... about "fluffer romance"... er... nevermind, i'll resist the childish impulse.
sure is lots of "+5 funny" goin' to people for saying "huh huh... banana.. huh huh... huh huh ... odius ... huh huh... "
is everybody on this thread six years old or what?