It's quite simple: We KNOW paper can last over 1000 years and still readable with some care. Otoh, there's magnetic media from the 70's that will never ever again be readable, simply because the media has degraded. And even worse, there's optical media from the 90's and early 2000 that has already simply degraded(Lost a couple of thousand photos that way: Burned on quality CD's, stored in envelopes in a climate-controlled vault. Got it out last year, to drag it all on to DVD's instead, noticed that the CD's had an odd sheen... and they were completely unreadable, tried to read them with 8 different drives)
Actually, a year ago, there were even larger battles that were functional. The problem is CCP apparently not having synched development trees. So for example, every other expansion, drone AI gets old bugs back, that were fixed in the release in-between. The Bloodlines expansion was the worst in terms of that though
The hippocratic oath is not as widespread as you think. Many countries don't have it at all. None of the doctors I've learned from during my paramedics training, or worked with during volunteer call-outs, has ever sworn the Hippocratic oath, or anything that could be considered equivalent here in Sweden.
If you were to read my post carefully, you'll see that I made a clear distinction between cloning and inspiration, and how they are both misused.
As for your assumption that innovation and evolution only happens in competition, it is a false one. Innovation and evolution happens because of necessity, no matter if there's competition or not.
The reason is that no clone brings any innovation or evolution. Another problem is developers who confuse cloning and inspiration, thinking both equate the other. There are some who view any game inspired by theirs as a clone, but far more common are developers who straight off clone/plagiarize something and then claim it's inspired by as well as innovation blah blah, and it's not just game developers who are guilty of that. In fact, just look at development in various open source areas, and you'll see that they are more busy plagiarizing functionality and then spouting off some PR about innovation rather than actually engage in innovation. GIMP is one, the Linux project has a fair amount of it too. The various BSD's have also done this, but to a lesser extent.
The FSF may claim that it somehow fosters innovation, but that's disingenious at best. Innovation is, when you get down to the root of it, to say "Who cares if others think I'm wasting my time, I'll do this completely new thing". Plagiarization fosters laziness and incompetence.
"Even $3 embedded devices will have 100s of meg ram to play with."
As a rule, no they won't. SOME embedded appliances, marketed for homes and sheltered geeks will have that, because they have the luxury of being connected to the powergrid all the time. Embedded stuff that don't have that luxury will not, for power saving reasons. That's why there are still embedded devices that use 1980's bare-bone processors and less than 100KiB RAM.
The problem with that is, it makes programs generalized blobs, and the excessive trust in the compiler leads to less deterministic code, and harder to debug, no matter if you have the source or not. The more tricks the compiler pulls, the more it deviates from what you may have intended to do.
Actually, I'm not an engineer by education. My major is in information sciences with a minor in psychology. But I've always been programming, and always had an engineers mindset, how to get things to work in real life, with the least waste of resources etc.
The keyword there was TOO abstract and high-level. Note that many comp.sci graduates nowadays believe that everything can be done in Python. The problem is, the complexity grows with the abstraction when you get past the superficial ease of use. It is, ironically, harder to write deterministic code in Python than it is in C, and C is bad enough, especially with an optimized compiler. Assembler is easier. Erlang also makes it easier, but there you have the problem of the creators being adamantly opposed to threads, failing to realize that there are problem domains where threads is the best solution.
Another difference between working with Comp.Sci and Comp/Electrical Eng programmers is, comp.sci thinks for example the Cell processor is difficult to work with. Comp.Eng/EE go "So it's a multi-core DSP, with a fat RAM pipe and decent DMA? Awesome, let's have fun". There's also the issue of experience with working with low-powered hardware. I know the Comp.Engs from KTH, LiTH etc in Sweden have to do some learning on CPU's like Dragonball, or even 68020/386 era CPU's, just so they get some orientation on what embedded programming is like.
To be honest, from working in two specialist fields(HPC system level programming and embedded applications(particularly sensor stuff), I've experienced that CompSci grads are more likely than CompEng or EE grads to make errors like this. A large part of it is simply that CompSci nowadays is too high-level and abstract, many of them don't know very much about how computers ACTUALLY work other than as a theoretical model.
A common remark is "Why should I need to know that, the compiler will take care of it better than I will anyway", completely forgetting that the compiler is only as smart as the programmer who coded it is. So you can get what I ran into with an odd appliance based around the SH-4 processor I was hired to fix some performance problems with. It ran fixed point integer and decimal math, and was ported over from ARM. But it only reached about 25% of maximum theoretical performance, while the ARM reached around 80%. Turns out GCC was at fault, using a generic method that wasn't suitable for the Super-H architecture. And the CompSci had no clue about such things.
Someone who learned programming on the Amiga checking in.
For me, it was the most awesome platform ever to learn on. Full hardware docs, very cleverly constructed hardware where a lot of stuff could be bypassed etc. Taught me about multithreading, message passing, modularity, the beauty of micro-kernels and similar architectures, and the flexibility afforded by those. Moving on to Windows and various Unix-derivatives/plagiarisms was, and still is, painful, and you run into too much stuff that's obviously created for short-term benefit, but in the long term is just pure trash.
Considering how, on a global scale, few developers come from the Amiga scene, there's a disproportionate number of us in the top end of many fields, like HPC(Developing Infiniband and similar drivers for example), embedded stuff(software for jet fighters, radar systems etc), graphics and video(Given the niche the Amiga had, this is the least surprising field, especially since the Amiga, with the Video Toaster, kicked off the Small Computer Based Editing Studio before anyone else, even though Apple-tards try to claim differently)
It goes further and deeper(and uglier) than that. Remember when Apple released the G5's? Apple actually submitted patches to GCC, but they were declined, with GCC's official stance being "It would reduce GCC's portability". However, a few weeks later, IBM submitted some patches for GCC, that were summarily accepted. IBM's patch package contained many of Apple's patches for GCC.
Smoking can hurt and even kill people with asthma, COL and other respiratory problems. I cheered when the smoking ban at restaurants, bars and pubs was put into effect here in Sweden, because it meant that a friend of mine could suddenly join in for good food and drink at pubs and such, without ending up having to go to the emergency ward(It's happened to him twice, both times it overpowered the medicine he has).
From what I hear from my WoW-playing friends, it wasn't ToC that broke it, it was the badge drop change that did it, people suddenly started chaining heroics en masse again. One of them was so happy because he managed to kit out his alt with both tier 8.5 tokens from badges in just 3 days.
"3) students that plagiarize everything - yes some students will debate that the same content the TV station has accumulated over the years - all 12 TB - is actually their original work."
And then you can also flag future FSF cultists. Win-win.;)
Just take a look in various european countries. We are standardized, due to regulation, instead of the wild west bullshit of the free market situation in the US. As such, my Sony-Ericsson P1i can use the cell phone network anywhere there is a GSM network, and 3G where that is available. And just Sweden alone has 4 major operators as well as some smaller ones who deal purely with prepaid cards. My next phone will probably be a Nokia N97 or N900 though. I'd never settle on something as gimped as the iPhone.
1024 is arbitrary, because SI defines the prefixes as base-10, ever since they were established in the late 19th century. Some retards in comp sci decided that BREAKING A SCIENTIFIC STANDARD was a good idea, instead of doing the correct thing, which would have been to create new unit prefixes for their little scientific subdomain.
It is perfectly logical. Those 30 percent won't be from one, two, three or even twenty different systems. The reduction will be from an aggregate of hundreds of systems(The systems the mining happens in, the systems the mission botting take place in, the travelling for courier missions, the transport of ore for sale, market trading, and of course the database servers). As such, it is logical when one has actual knowledge of the game, as well as how it's designed server-wise, despite it not being apparent on a conceptual basis.
Also, fights can spring up in the most unlikely systems, that seem as they would not be fighting spots at all because they offer no resources, nothing of apparent value(That does not mean that they lack any ACTUAL value however). Therefore, as a base mapping, you want even low and middle load systems spread out as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite simple: We KNOW paper can last over 1000 years and still readable with some care. Otoh, there's magnetic media from the 70's that will never ever again be readable, simply because the media has degraded. And even worse, there's optical media from the 90's and early 2000 that has already simply degraded(Lost a couple of thousand photos that way: Burned on quality CD's, stored in envelopes in a climate-controlled vault. Got it out last year, to drag it all on to DVD's instead, noticed that the CD's had an odd sheen... and they were completely unreadable, tried to read them with 8 different drives)
No, T20 did not get fired for it. CCP's official reason was that it was "against EU regulations to fire him"
"Note that "single server" does not mean 1 computer, but could be several working together on that 1 star system."
Wrong. EVE is not parallellized. One system is limited to one CPU core, though a core can run several systems.
Actually, a year ago, there were even larger battles that were functional. The problem is CCP apparently not having synched development trees. So for example, every other expansion, drone AI gets old bugs back, that were fixed in the release in-between. The Bloodlines expansion was the worst in terms of that though
The hippocratic oath is not as widespread as you think. Many countries don't have it at all. None of the doctors I've learned from during my paramedics training, or worked with during volunteer call-outs, has ever sworn the Hippocratic oath, or anything that could be considered equivalent here in Sweden.
They were inspired by, they didn't clone it.
If you were to read my post carefully, you'll see that I made a clear distinction between cloning and inspiration, and how they are both misused.
As for your assumption that innovation and evolution only happens in competition, it is a false one. Innovation and evolution happens because of necessity, no matter if there's competition or not.
If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I made a clear distinction between inspiration and cloning, and how the two were misused as synonymous.
A new map, while creative in its own right, does not change the fact that the game in itself is a clone.
The reason is that no clone brings any innovation or evolution. Another problem is developers who confuse cloning and inspiration, thinking both equate the other. There are some who view any game inspired by theirs as a clone, but far more common are developers who straight off clone/plagiarize something and then claim it's inspired by as well as innovation blah blah, and it's not just game developers who are guilty of that. In fact, just look at development in various open source areas, and you'll see that they are more busy plagiarizing functionality and then spouting off some PR about innovation rather than actually engage in innovation. GIMP is one, the Linux project has a fair amount of it too. The various BSD's have also done this, but to a lesser extent.
The FSF may claim that it somehow fosters innovation, but that's disingenious at best. Innovation is, when you get down to the root of it, to say "Who cares if others think I'm wasting my time, I'll do this completely new thing". Plagiarization fosters laziness and incompetence.
They want something that has actually been implemented in a decently playable way in a live setting?
Even Planeshift is a joke in comparison even to Everquest 1
"Even $3 embedded devices will have 100s of meg ram to play with."
As a rule, no they won't. SOME embedded appliances, marketed for homes and sheltered geeks will have that, because they have the luxury of being connected to the powergrid all the time. Embedded stuff that don't have that luxury will not, for power saving reasons. That's why there are still embedded devices that use 1980's bare-bone processors and less than 100KiB RAM.
The problem with that is, it makes programs generalized blobs, and the excessive trust in the compiler leads to less deterministic code, and harder to debug, no matter if you have the source or not. The more tricks the compiler pulls, the more it deviates from what you may have intended to do.
Actually, I'm not an engineer by education. My major is in information sciences with a minor in psychology. But I've always been programming, and always had an engineers mindset, how to get things to work in real life, with the least waste of resources etc.
The keyword there was TOO abstract and high-level. Note that many comp.sci graduates nowadays believe that everything can be done in Python. The problem is, the complexity grows with the abstraction when you get past the superficial ease of use. It is, ironically, harder to write deterministic code in Python than it is in C, and C is bad enough, especially with an optimized compiler. Assembler is easier. Erlang also makes it easier, but there you have the problem of the creators being adamantly opposed to threads, failing to realize that there are problem domains where threads is the best solution.
Another difference between working with Comp.Sci and Comp/Electrical Eng programmers is, comp.sci thinks for example the Cell processor is difficult to work with. Comp.Eng/EE go "So it's a multi-core DSP, with a fat RAM pipe and decent DMA? Awesome, let's have fun". There's also the issue of experience with working with low-powered hardware. I know the Comp.Engs from KTH, LiTH etc in Sweden have to do some learning on CPU's like Dragonball, or even 68020/386 era CPU's, just so they get some orientation on what embedded programming is like.
To be honest, from working in two specialist fields(HPC system level programming and embedded applications(particularly sensor stuff), I've experienced that CompSci grads are more likely than CompEng or EE grads to make errors like this. A large part of it is simply that CompSci nowadays is too high-level and abstract, many of them don't know very much about how computers ACTUALLY work other than as a theoretical model.
A common remark is "Why should I need to know that, the compiler will take care of it better than I will anyway", completely forgetting that the compiler is only as smart as the programmer who coded it is. So you can get what I ran into with an odd appliance based around the SH-4 processor I was hired to fix some performance problems with. It ran fixed point integer and decimal math, and was ported over from ARM. But it only reached about 25% of maximum theoretical performance, while the ARM reached around 80%. Turns out GCC was at fault, using a generic method that wasn't suitable for the Super-H architecture. And the CompSci had no clue about such things.
Someone who learned programming on the Amiga checking in.
For me, it was the most awesome platform ever to learn on. Full hardware docs, very cleverly constructed hardware where a lot of stuff could be bypassed etc. Taught me about multithreading, message passing, modularity, the beauty of micro-kernels and similar architectures, and the flexibility afforded by those. Moving on to Windows and various Unix-derivatives/plagiarisms was, and still is, painful, and you run into too much stuff that's obviously created for short-term benefit, but in the long term is just pure trash.
Considering how, on a global scale, few developers come from the Amiga scene, there's a disproportionate number of us in the top end of many fields, like HPC(Developing Infiniband and similar drivers for example), embedded stuff(software for jet fighters, radar systems etc), graphics and video(Given the niche the Amiga had, this is the least surprising field, especially since the Amiga, with the Video Toaster, kicked off the Small Computer Based Editing Studio before anyone else, even though Apple-tards try to claim differently)
It goes further and deeper(and uglier) than that. Remember when Apple released the G5's? Apple actually submitted patches to GCC, but they were declined, with GCC's official stance being "It would reduce GCC's portability". However, a few weeks later, IBM submitted some patches for GCC, that were summarily accepted. IBM's patch package contained many of Apple's patches for GCC.
Smoking can hurt and even kill people with asthma, COL and other respiratory problems. I cheered when the smoking ban at restaurants, bars and pubs was put into effect here in Sweden, because it meant that a friend of mine could suddenly join in for good food and drink at pubs and such, without ending up having to go to the emergency ward(It's happened to him twice, both times it overpowered the medicine he has).
From what I hear from my WoW-playing friends, it wasn't ToC that broke it, it was the badge drop change that did it, people suddenly started chaining heroics en masse again. One of them was so happy because he managed to kit out his alt with both tier 8.5 tokens from badges in just 3 days.
"3) students that plagiarize everything - yes some students will debate that the same content the TV station has accumulated over the years - all 12 TB - is actually their original work."
And then you can also flag future FSF cultists. Win-win. ;)
Sooooo clueless
Just take a look in various european countries. We are standardized, due to regulation, instead of the wild west bullshit of the free market situation in the US. As such, my Sony-Ericsson P1i can use the cell phone network anywhere there is a GSM network, and 3G where that is available. And just Sweden alone has 4 major operators as well as some smaller ones who deal purely with prepaid cards. My next phone will probably be a Nokia N97 or N900 though. I'd never settle on something as gimped as the iPhone.
Netfront? My P1 uses Opera which is the default browser on it.
1024 is arbitrary, because SI defines the prefixes as base-10, ever since they were established in the late 19th century. Some retards in comp sci decided that BREAKING A SCIENTIFIC STANDARD was a good idea, instead of doing the correct thing, which would have been to create new unit prefixes for their little scientific subdomain.
Check out the ARM11 cores with floating point co-processor. You'll be quite surprised.
It is perfectly logical. Those 30 percent won't be from one, two, three or even twenty different systems. The reduction will be from an aggregate of hundreds of systems(The systems the mining happens in, the systems the mission botting take place in, the travelling for courier missions, the transport of ore for sale, market trading, and of course the database servers). As such, it is logical when one has actual knowledge of the game, as well as how it's designed server-wise, despite it not being apparent on a conceptual basis.
Also, fights can spring up in the most unlikely systems, that seem as they would not be fighting spots at all because they offer no resources, nothing of apparent value(That does not mean that they lack any ACTUAL value however). Therefore, as a base mapping, you want even low and middle load systems spread out as much as possible.