If we learn to violate the laws of the universe, all bets are off. In the mean time, we have to build stuff using nothing smaller than atoms (and my estimate assumed we could build stuff from quarks!).
My estimate assumed we'd be able to reasonably quickly manufacture computers of 10^6 layers. That's being generous on a really hard problem, practically manufacturing such a thing at a layer per second takes 12 days. That said, reflecting on my estimate, we might be able to squeeze out 10^18th, but that's really stretching the imagination about what you can squeeze into a box the size of a computer. That has basically every atom doing effective work at quite ridiculous frequencies.
It's not an infinite regression. Eventually you reach a universe/simulation consisting of one particle, which can only simulate a universe of 0 particles at best.
Actually, the problem is that storing every bit of information for the simulation requires every bit of matter. If all of the information representing our universe is stored, there is none left over to run the simulation. Therefore, the simulation must be smaller than the universe, or less accurate.
It is not possible to build such a simulation given our current knowledge of the laws of the universe. So whoever built this simulation ensured that it would not just devolve into turtles.
Nahhh... they'll be duping so fast the dupes will eventually achieve sentience and reproductive ability of their own, and live forever. Eventually, the entire universe will be filled with nothing but dupes.
Not going to happen. We're approaching atomic level composition already. Even with quark composition, the computing capacity of the fastest thing that can be built won't go up that much. Computers will never be more than a 10^15 times faster than they are today. Even quantum computing doesn't solve the NP problem.
The thing is that they are not, at all, in a position to do this yet. Actors are not the core of what makes video games good, at least not yet. Not even remotely. You can hire Joe Blow of the street to do the work, and it will be nearly as good. The players don't care. They may laugh a little if the voice acting is not great, but if the gameplay is still good, they'll still be happy. The games industry knows this for sure, because plenty of AAA titles have gone out without paying a union actor. This may change some day as motion capture / human capture improve, and the demarcation between acted cutscenes and game content fades away, but we are at least a decade, probably two, from seeing that happen.
The problem is that he's wrong about people caring about the quality of the voice acting. Diablo II made similar sales, and I was one of the voice actors. Actually, I was a programmer, and they pulled me in to do some voice acting. Because nobody cares. If the 'real' voice actors demand profit sharing, they'll just find cheaper people to do the work. Because, again, no one cares.
It is likely the programmers were paid at least 150,000 (50k * 3 years) over the course of the project and may have a small profit sharing agreement in place giving them an additional boost. I would not be surprised to hear they made more, but it depends on where Rockstars offices are, I made 90/year at blizzard, but our office was in the CA bay area, and you have to pay programmers a lot there just to let them share the rent on a studio apartment.
That is grossly untrue. I've worked for 3, including Blizzard, and that was not remotely true. I would guess that no single programmer has contributed more than 20% of the codebase for a AAA title in the last 10 years.
If your MMO has serious performance problems in the CLIENT you have so seriously screwed up there is little hope for you. You should be able to get the client right without a beta. Getting the SERVER right is what the beta is for (so you can get real loads and findout what breaks down in your server code under that stress, and also gauge how much launch hardware you need).
At least, that's how we did it for Diablo II / WOW.
What you really have to consider is what the rising quality of life for a small fraction of their population is going to do for the envy and resentment of the rest. When the rest begin to riot against the status quo, that is what will cause change.
The problem with that argument is that a social contract is invalid since neither party signed. Violating a social contract is not in any way wrong just because it is a social contract. The act itself actually has to be wrong. Now it may subject you to fines or imprisonment, but that's not the same thing as wrong either, that's just risky.
If I choose not to play by your rules, live with it, or call the gestapo.
Am I the only one who thought the trailers looked like complete crap? I mean... the visuals were just packed with problems, it looked terrible. It doesn't look real, it doesn't look like the cartoon, it doesn't look good. I was actually considering seeing it until I saw the first previews.
That kind of answers the opposite side of my argument. You can't 'let someone else deal with the theft' if you are killed during the theft because you accidentally surprised the thief who thought you weren't home. Getting a video surveillance system / alarm system / dog is all about reducing the likelihood the thief will choose your property and thereby reduce the chance of loss of life. Dealing with the financial cost of a theft is trivial by comparison. Get insurance if you want to reduce the risk of financial loss. Get protection if you want to reduce the risk of life loss.
Do you find that effective at deterring thefts, which in an unfortunate situation could escalate to including your (or a family member's) death? Or does that just restock your supply for a return visit? What's the cost effectiveness of not dying by not providing an all you can eat buffet of electronics?
The obvious solution to this problem is to bring along that gun you were talking about and kill the dog when it charges you. Be sure to pseudo-apologize after, explaining that really, you had no choice, the dog was off leash and attacked you. Lesson to guard dog owners: guard dogs must be confined at all times, either indoors, caged, or leashed.
I assume the parent was alluding to the stripfarming that will naturally occur when we can get gasoline for $1/gal just by ripping out foliage and dumping it into some machine.
I don't imagine most vegans would have a problem with that. The idea is to make a choice not to inflict pain or act cruelly. The only argument against might be the interference with the other animals that might want/need to eat that.
You joke, but having a p**** over 15 inches in length is not fun:
1) You can't get close in most sexual positions 2) You can't even use a large number of sexual positions 3) You have to remember to lay it over your leg if sitting down at a toilet 4) Better hope there's a children's urinal, otherwise, manage with both hands 5) Pants never fit right
And a variety of other problems. Seriously, it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Vegans object to the use of animals, as it cannot be done except as exploitation (the animals, incapable of negotiation or resistance, cannot extract a fair and reasonable price for being eaten, yet get to suffer extensive pain the process).
This alterna-meat process would involve no animals and no pain. It would be a gross violation of their stated ethical beliefs to oppose it.
Slashdot Mirror
If we learn to violate the laws of the universe, all bets are off. In the mean time, we have to build stuff using nothing smaller than atoms (and my estimate assumed we could build stuff from quarks!).
My estimate assumed we'd be able to reasonably quickly manufacture computers of 10^6 layers. That's being generous on a really hard problem, practically manufacturing such a thing at a layer per second takes 12 days.
That said, reflecting on my estimate, we might be able to squeeze out 10^18th, but that's really stretching the imagination about what you can squeeze into a box the size of a computer. That has basically every atom doing effective work at quite ridiculous frequencies.
It's not an infinite regression. Eventually you reach a universe/simulation consisting of one particle, which can only simulate a universe of 0 particles at best.
Actually, the problem is that storing every bit of information for the simulation requires every bit of matter. If all of the information representing our universe is stored, there is none left over to run the simulation. Therefore, the simulation must be smaller than the universe, or less accurate.
It is not possible to build such a simulation given our current knowledge of the laws of the universe. So whoever built this simulation ensured that it would not just devolve into turtles.
Nahhh ... they'll be duping so fast the dupes will eventually achieve sentience and reproductive ability of their own, and live forever. Eventually, the entire universe will be filled with nothing but dupes.
Not going to happen. We're approaching atomic level composition already. Even with quark composition, the computing capacity of the fastest thing that can be built won't go up that much. Computers will never be more than a 10^15 times faster than they are today. Even quantum computing doesn't solve the NP problem.
I'm most famous for being the Cow King. I did a few other one liner characters, some of the other monsters.
The thing is that they are not, at all, in a position to do this yet. Actors are not the core of what makes video games good, at least not yet. Not even remotely. You can hire Joe Blow of the street to do the work, and it will be nearly as good. The players don't care. They may laugh a little if the voice acting is not great, but if the gameplay is still good, they'll still be happy. The games industry knows this for sure, because plenty of AAA titles have gone out without paying a union actor. This may change some day as motion capture / human capture improve, and the demarcation between acted cutscenes and game content fades away, but we are at least a decade, probably two, from seeing that happen.
The problem is that he's wrong about people caring about the quality of the voice acting. Diablo II made similar sales, and I was one of the voice actors. Actually, I was a programmer, and they pulled me in to do some voice acting. Because nobody cares. If the 'real' voice actors demand profit sharing, they'll just find cheaper people to do the work. Because, again, no one cares.
It is likely the programmers were paid at least 150,000 (50k * 3 years) over the course of the project and may have a small profit sharing agreement in place giving them an additional boost. I would not be surprised to hear they made more, but it depends on where Rockstars offices are, I made 90/year at blizzard, but our office was in the CA bay area, and you have to pay programmers a lot there just to let them share the rent on a studio apartment.
That is grossly untrue. I've worked for 3, including Blizzard, and that was not remotely true. I would guess that no single programmer has contributed more than 20% of the codebase for a AAA title in the last 10 years.
If your MMO has serious performance problems in the CLIENT you have so seriously screwed up there is little hope for you. You should be able to get the client right without a beta. Getting the SERVER right is what the beta is for (so you can get real loads and findout what breaks down in your server code under that stress, and also gauge how much launch hardware you need).
At least, that's how we did it for Diablo II / WOW.
What you really have to consider is what the rising quality of life for a small fraction of their population is going to do for the envy and resentment of the rest. When the rest begin to riot against the status quo, that is what will cause change.
More likely Homer, whom Dilbert is ripping off.
Homer: "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F09.html
The problem with that argument is that a social contract is invalid since neither party signed. Violating a social contract is not in any way wrong just because it is a social contract. The act itself actually has to be wrong. Now it may subject you to fines or imprisonment, but that's not the same thing as wrong either, that's just risky.
If I choose not to play by your rules, live with it, or call the gestapo.
Am I the only one who thought the trailers looked like complete crap? I mean ... the visuals were just packed with problems, it looked terrible. It doesn't look real, it doesn't look like the cartoon, it doesn't look good. I was actually considering seeing it until I saw the first previews.
That kind of answers the opposite side of my argument. You can't 'let someone else deal with the theft' if you are killed during the theft because you accidentally surprised the thief who thought you weren't home. Getting a video surveillance system / alarm system / dog is all about reducing the likelihood the thief will choose your property and thereby reduce the chance of loss of life. Dealing with the financial cost of a theft is trivial by comparison. Get insurance if you want to reduce the risk of financial loss. Get protection if you want to reduce the risk of life loss.
Do you find that effective at deterring thefts, which in an unfortunate situation could escalate to including your (or a family member's) death? Or does that just restock your supply for a return visit? What's the cost effectiveness of not dying by not providing an all you can eat buffet of electronics?
The obvious solution to this problem is to bring along that gun you were talking about and kill the dog when it charges you. Be sure to pseudo-apologize after, explaining that really, you had no choice, the dog was off leash and attacked you. Lesson to guard dog owners: guard dogs must be confined at all times, either indoors, caged, or leashed.
I assume the parent was alluding to the stripfarming that will naturally occur when we can get gasoline for $1/gal just by ripping out foliage and dumping it into some machine.
I don't imagine most vegans would have a problem with that. The idea is to make a choice not to inflict pain or act cruelly. The only argument against might be the interference with the other animals that might want/need to eat that.
There's very little bloat in most software, that's an urban myth outside of Redmond.
You joke, but having a p**** over 15 inches in length is not fun:
1) You can't get close in most sexual positions
2) You can't even use a large number of sexual positions
3) You have to remember to lay it over your leg if sitting down at a toilet
4) Better hope there's a children's urinal, otherwise, manage with both hands
5) Pants never fit right
And a variety of other problems. Seriously, it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Vegans object to the use of animals, as it cannot be done except as exploitation (the animals, incapable of negotiation or resistance, cannot extract a fair and reasonable price for being eaten, yet get to suffer extensive pain the process).
This alterna-meat process would involve no animals and no pain. It would be a gross violation of their stated ethical beliefs to oppose it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan