The series would feature teen versions of the Classic Star Trek characters Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and be set at Starfleet Academy.
This doesn't make much sense. From the series,we have a very strong impression that Spock and Kirk met for the first time on the Enterprise. (Note the use of "the". That "other show" sounds stupid without it.) The episode that firmly established Pike's command before Kirk's only bolsters the feeling that Kirk inherited Spock instead of hand picking him as he probably did with Bones.
In short, this sounds like a very fanboyish concept. Let JMZ take the helm and we'll see if the old girl still has any antimatter left in the ol' warp engines.
Weren't Sun and HP supposed to help with this stuff and let Gnome catch up?
Technically speaking, they have been. However, the scuttlebutt out of the Sun team is that the GNOME developers are not entirely appreciative of the help and tend to shove back. While this may or may not be true, I'm afraid that the whole "Spatial Natilus" debacle didn't do much for the GNOME team's reputation.
The first reason is the lack of dependency management. Because you are simply moving folders around, there is no logic involved so you cannot check for your apps dependencies.
OS X handles this at runtime. i.e. You can install the software, but the folder contents contain enough information for the OS to give you an error message when you run it. Usually this amounts to nothing more than "OS X 10.3 required!", but it could be more. FWIW, I think the lack of a "standard" set of OS services in Linux complicates this issue. Under OS X (and to a certain degree Windows), developers always know which libraries they can always depend on, and which ones they should bundle.
You'll note that bundled APIs on OS X and Windows tend not to duplicate each other across a given set of installed programs.
One obvious one is that there is no uninstall logic either, so the app never gets a chance to remove any config files it placed on the system.
This would be true on Linux, but it is NOT true on OS X. In OS X, the desktop integrates with the filesytem and learns via events when an application is added or deleted. This means that OS X users see file associations as soon as the program is added to the system, and they also see the deletion of those associations when the program is removed. It's all very seamless and prevents the dangling associations that plague Windows.
The OS X FS takes things one step further by storing file system IDs instead of path names for everything. This means that if I move my program from the Desktop to Applications, the associations will move with it. Similarly, if I have a file open and I move it, my file will save to the new location instead of the old one.
Another is that the app menus are largely determined by filing system structures. This means that it's hard to have separate menus for each user/different desktop environments without huge numbers of (manually maintained) symlinks.
1. An application menu IS just a bunch of glorified symlinks.
2. OS X handles this by having a system wide Applications folder for all users. If users wish to have private programs, they can drag them to their desktop or home folder.
3. The dock is the user's customized menu. The most commonly used apps are usually already there so that users don't have to hunt for them. If a user wants another app on his dock, he can drag it on there to create a shortcut. Shortcuts are deleted by dragging the icon off the dock or into the trash can.
What your FAQ should say is, "Unfortunately, the Linux design philosophy precludes the use of an appfolders system, as the services required to make such a system work are most likely unavailable on most installations."
Now with that cleared up, good job guys. I'm glad to see that someone is finally tackling my number one Linux gripe. (Check my Journal for more info.):-)
I wonder if some of the "dialects" of English such as those found in various Regions of the United States contribute to the mastery problem?
Not really. The biggest hurdle in mastering English is laziness. Most people don't want to learn "big words" such as "pyrotechnic", "facetious", "colloquial", or "penultimate" when simpler phrases such as "explosive devices", "bad joke", "local slang", and "second to ultimate" can be used just as well. Unfortunately, the former words convey quite a bit more richness in their definitions than the later phrases do. This results in the phrase "you know what I mean?" being constantly uttered.
Even worse is when people use phrases such as "He went to the store" instead of "He walked to the store", "He drove to the store", or "He jogged to the store". The former is perfectly acceptable, but fails to communicate many of the details inherent in the described excursion.
The second biggest barrier is proper grammar. Again, it take quite a bit of practice to state, "My apologies, I was unavoidably detained." instead of "Sorry I'm late." The former conveys far more elequance of speech than the later, thus setting the stage for productive communication.
Remember, only you can prevent yourself from saying, "And I was like, ugh, and she was like duh, and he was like whatever, then I went like that, and then you know...";-)
No. Bayesian filters are merely scoring systems that rate the words in a message according to their likelyhood of appearing in an unwanted message. There's no real AI involved in the filters. (Although they are pretty good.)
The advantage to an AI approach is that the AI could actually "understand" the message and be able to tell the difference between His naked balls and the ping-pong balls in this experiment. On many of the more conservative sites, both instances have "balls" replaced with "****s". This was particularly annoying on the Discovery website after the Myth Busters raised a ship with ping-pong balls.:-)
Having a wife who's mother tongue is Russian, I can assure you that English is very easy for foreigners to pick up. With a relatively small vocabulary and EXTREMELY forgiving syntax (not to mention cross-polination of words), most foreingers have no difficulties in communicating well enough to be understood.
Unfortunately, English falls flat in the *mastery* area. Most other languages are easier to master, because they tend to use one word for one concept. The downside to this is that other languages tend to demand mastery, while English allows the speaker to present the concept in as simplistic terms as possible and still be understood.
Saying we are moving in a massively parallel nature of brain-like proportions is like saying we are five miles outside of Washington D.C. walking towards California.
You're still walking toward California.:-)
My only point is that computer design has been slowly moving toward parallelism instead of single thread performance. Granted, examples like Hyperthreading are very primitive forms of this, as they are intended to encourage parallel computations rather than be a serious parallel platform themselves.
However, the Emotion Chip, SaarCORE, and traditional Cray design are all examples of machines that have focused more heavily on parallelism. In fact, there are very few limits on how parallel we can design a system. The primary one happens to be the amount of I/O a system is capable of. The more parallel a system, the more I/O pins that are needed to keep the system running smoothly. Unfortunately, I/O pins tend to be very expensive on a per-chip basis, so most machines attempt to share as much I/O as possible.
In short, if their intent is to build an affordable system that is massively parallel in nature, then I see little standing in their way. The only reason why these machines aren't in common usage is the lack of a market.
From what I remember from my neural networks days the human brain/neocortex works so well because of its massively parallel nature (not because of the processing power of any one neuron), and that computers simply aren't able to exploit this as they aren't designed to work like this
Computers aren't *normally* designed like this. They can be however, and in recent years have been moving in that direction. When neural networks were first being researched, a Cray supercomputer was about the closest you could get to that sort of parallelism. Fast forward to today and we find that Intel (Pentium), AMD (AMD64), Sun (Sparc), and Sony (Emotion Chip) are all building machines that are highly parallel in nature.
Even more interesting is that today you can build yourself a custom, massively parallel computer on a shoestring budget. All you need is a handful of FPGAs, a PCB layout service like Pad2Pad, a few other parts, and reasonable VHDL or Verilog skills. That's more or less what OpenRT did to build their SaarCORE architecture.:-)
Can anyone point me toward some research on associative AI? i.e. Instead of AI that trained by nueral nets or genetic algos, does anyone know of research on "scoring" words based on their relation to other words? Extending words into concepts, an AI could become quite intelligent at things like Spam filtering.
Just something I was thinking about lately. Anyone?
he second was that Tesla was working on and had a theory for the wireless transmission of power through the upper atmosphere and was attempting to get it to work in his lab in Colorado.
Wasn't he trying to transmit it through the ground, not through the air? His idea, as I remember, was that grounded AC power could be picked up by an object anywhere in the world. The problem was that there was a fundamental flaw in his understanding of power transmission that prevented this concept from ever working.
Genetics is an amazingly complex science. [...] Think of genes as a computer program, perhaps like a computer virus. You can program a virus to rootkit other apps. Genetics provides more than enough complexity for genes to be able to perform a similar function.
Indeed. With the discovery a few years ago that the human genome is shorter than it was supposed to be, it strikes me that the analogy can be taken even further to say that the organism is the "hardware" that the program runs on.:-)
Mendels laws of inheritance are like Newton's laws of Gravity. They hold in most everyday situations, but there are strange and unusual exceptions. Saying that this says there's a flaw in evolution is about the same as saying because of questions raised by Einstein's relativity, gravity might be false.
There is a problem with this statement. Newton started with the facts that objects are pulled to the ground. This was easily provable to a tolerance that is almost impossible to argue. Einstein's corrections then showed the mechanism behind that fact, and thus was able to correct various errors in the theory.
Starting with Mendel's theories does not prove that a fish became a rodent to within any sort acceptable margin for error. All it shows is that genetics work in a specific fashion, and that we can extrapolate certain theories from that. These oddities that we've been finding may correct our understanding of provable genetic occurances by providing the precise mechanism behind them.:-)
So to correct your analogy:
An extrapolation of Newton's theories suggested that a spaceship should be able to visit another star system in less than a year Earth time. Einstein's corrections showed that to be impossible using Newtonian methods.
Similarly, genetic theory provides a basis for how inheritance works. We can then extrapolate our currect hypothesis of single -> multi-celled life. Corrections to our genetic theory may make the hypothesis impossible.
Honestly, I like the way the String Theorists phrase their theory: "It may be that the universe we live in is far stranger than anyone could have predicted!";-)
We're left with a conundrum, because our understanding says one thing while the facts say another. So we learn from it, find our errors, and move on.:-)
If we could isolate the gene that is used to check for equality (or genes which i would more suspect) it would be intresting in the field of cancer prevention
Doubtful. We've known about Deinococcus radiodurans (aka "Conan the Bacterium") for quite some time now. The darn thing has an accelerated repair rate that makes it extremely difficult to kill via DNA damaging methods such as radiation. Unfortunately, the knowledge hasn't led to anything all that useful for humans.
Still, it will be interesting to know what this plant will teach us. (More on DNA Repair)
If these conditions applied to us, we wouldn't have cancer.
Cancer is caused by a DNA mutation that your body failed to correct. Errors are extremely common. The only reason why we survive is our body's repair mechanism. In the case of these plants, neither parent had a correct gene. Without a backup copy, there should have been no way for the gene to revert. Yet it did, so we're left with an odd conundrum.:-)
That's not to say that the theories behind mutations are all wrong, but we could be seeing something akin to problems with Newtonian physics.
FWIW, the paper this morning was pointing out how this discovery might leave a gaping hole in evolutionary theory. The crux of the problem is that "micro-evolution" as it were, is dependant on an organism's ability to mutate from generation to generation. If a mechanism exists that prevents or corrects mutations across generations, then the theorists may *again* have to go back to the drawing board.
Isn't it amazing how the more we know, the less we know?:-)
By Games != Money, I mean (as does the author) that games are not a particularly lucrative industry. It takes a lot of money to build a good game for a relatively small return. It's still cash positive, so that helps developers pay the bills. But it is a market that should be entered for the love of creating games and not the pursuit of profit.
Unless you can prove that EA expected them to work 80 hour weeks with no overtime ( assuming they weren't salary... if so this point is moot )
Couple of problems there. For one, being salaried does NOT mean that you have to work ridiculous hours without compensation. All it means is that your work hours are unplanned and untracked. Businesses still can and do get in VERY hot water for "encouraging" their employees to work extreme hours without paying them sufficient compensation to warrant the time spent.
Now as I understand it, California does have a law on the books that requites programmers to be employed as exempt. However, this exemption requires that they make at least $85,000/yr. As I understand it, most of the EA programmers do not make quite that much, so they would have a strong case for mistreatment.
These people stayed at work of their own accord. Sure, they probably thought they were going to get fired if they didn't - maybe the atmosphere of the environment led them to believe this, or maybe it was simply the popular perception of game programmers having to work 80 hour weeks to prove their merit
Simply convincing a judge that EA was putting pressure on the employees to work long hours should be sufficient. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you don't need a "smoking gun" to prove the working environment. Unfortunately for EA, some of the accounts seem to suggest that such a smoking gun exists.
His point, however, is that EA programmers are treated *worse* than the guy at Target. Myself? I fully expect the courts to have little sympathy for EA. More likely than not, they'll rip EA a new hole in retaliation for their abuses of the labor laws.
So, if you have limited resources, and you have to choose between Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, and something independent,
Why does the independent game have to cost as much as Doom 3 or Half-Life 2? Answer: It doesn't. Most Indie games are delivered via the Internet which cuts out the packaging, shelving, distribution, and paper marketing costs associated with the big names. This allows some good games to be available for $10-$30, quite a bit less than shrink-wrapped games.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to add to my own post:
The series would feature teen versions of the Classic Star Trek characters Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and be set at Starfleet Academy.
This doesn't make much sense. From the series,we have a very strong impression that Spock and Kirk met for the first time on the Enterprise. (Note the use of "the". That "other show" sounds stupid without it.) The episode that firmly established Pike's command before Kirk's only bolsters the feeling that Kirk inherited Spock instead of hand picking him as he probably did with Bones.
In short, this sounds like a very fanboyish concept. Let JMZ take the helm and we'll see if the old girl still has any antimatter left in the ol' warp engines.
Just let Kirk die already!
Weren't Sun and HP supposed to help with this stuff and let Gnome catch up?
Technically speaking, they have been. However, the scuttlebutt out of the Sun team is that the GNOME developers are not entirely appreciative of the help and tend to shove back. While this may or may not be true, I'm afraid that the whole "Spatial Natilus" debacle didn't do much for the GNOME team's reputation.
A few quick comment on your FAQ:
:-)
The first reason is the lack of dependency management. Because you are simply moving folders around, there is no logic involved so you cannot check for your apps dependencies.
OS X handles this at runtime. i.e. You can install the software, but the folder contents contain enough information for the OS to give you an error message when you run it. Usually this amounts to nothing more than "OS X 10.3 required!", but it could be more. FWIW, I think the lack of a "standard" set of OS services in Linux complicates this issue. Under OS X (and to a certain degree Windows), developers always know which libraries they can always depend on, and which ones they should bundle.
You'll note that bundled APIs on OS X and Windows tend not to duplicate each other across a given set of installed programs.
One obvious one is that there is no uninstall logic either, so the app never gets a chance to remove any config files it placed on the system.
This would be true on Linux, but it is NOT true on OS X. In OS X, the desktop integrates with the filesytem and learns via events when an application is added or deleted. This means that OS X users see file associations as soon as the program is added to the system, and they also see the deletion of those associations when the program is removed. It's all very seamless and prevents the dangling associations that plague Windows.
The OS X FS takes things one step further by storing file system IDs instead of path names for everything. This means that if I move my program from the Desktop to Applications, the associations will move with it. Similarly, if I have a file open and I move it, my file will save to the new location instead of the old one.
Another is that the app menus are largely determined by filing system structures. This means that it's hard to have separate menus for each user/different desktop environments without huge numbers of (manually maintained) symlinks.
1. An application menu IS just a bunch of glorified symlinks.
2. OS X handles this by having a system wide Applications folder for all users. If users wish to have private programs, they can drag them to their desktop or home folder.
3. The dock is the user's customized menu. The most commonly used apps are usually already there so that users don't have to hunt for them. If a user wants another app on his dock, he can drag it on there to create a shortcut. Shortcuts are deleted by dragging the icon off the dock or into the trash can.
What your FAQ should say is, "Unfortunately, the Linux design philosophy precludes the use of an appfolders system, as the services required to make such a system work are most likely unavailable on most installations."
Now with that cleared up, good job guys. I'm glad to see that someone is finally tackling my number one Linux gripe. (Check my Journal for more info.)
I wonder if some of the "dialects" of English such as those found in various Regions of the United States contribute to the mastery problem?
;-)
Not really. The biggest hurdle in mastering English is laziness. Most people don't want to learn "big words" such as "pyrotechnic", "facetious", "colloquial", or "penultimate" when simpler phrases such as "explosive devices", "bad joke", "local slang", and "second to ultimate" can be used just as well. Unfortunately, the former words convey quite a bit more richness in their definitions than the later phrases do. This results in the phrase "you know what I mean?" being constantly uttered.
Even worse is when people use phrases such as "He went to the store" instead of "He walked to the store", "He drove to the store", or "He jogged to the store". The former is perfectly acceptable, but fails to communicate many of the details inherent in the described excursion.
The second biggest barrier is proper grammar. Again, it take quite a bit of practice to state, "My apologies, I was unavoidably detained." instead of "Sorry I'm late." The former conveys far more elequance of speech than the later, thus setting the stage for productive communication.
Remember, only you can prevent yourself from saying, "And I was like, ugh, and she was like duh, and he was like whatever, then I went like that, and then you know..."
Somebody's been reading Wikipedia...
No. Bayesian filters are merely scoring systems that rate the words in a message according to their likelyhood of appearing in an unwanted message. There's no real AI involved in the filters. (Although they are pretty good.)
:-)
Linky
The advantage to an AI approach is that the AI could actually "understand" the message and be able to tell the difference between His naked balls and the ping-pong balls in this experiment. On many of the more conservative sites, both instances have "balls" replaced with "****s". This was particularly annoying on the Discovery website after the Myth Busters raised a ship with ping-pong balls.
Having a wife who's mother tongue is Russian, I can assure you that English is very easy for foreigners to pick up. With a relatively small vocabulary and EXTREMELY forgiving syntax (not to mention cross-polination of words), most foreingers have no difficulties in communicating well enough to be understood.
Unfortunately, English falls flat in the *mastery* area. Most other languages are easier to master, because they tend to use one word for one concept. The downside to this is that other languages tend to demand mastery, while English allows the speaker to present the concept in as simplistic terms as possible and still be understood.
When are we getting machine code natural language?
:-)
It's called Lojban. (Just an interesting tidbit I picked up after having my question answered in the AI thread.)
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. Thanks!
Saying we are moving in a massively parallel nature of brain-like proportions is like saying we are five miles outside of Washington D.C. walking towards California.
:-)
You're still walking toward California.
My only point is that computer design has been slowly moving toward parallelism instead of single thread performance. Granted, examples like Hyperthreading are very primitive forms of this, as they are intended to encourage parallel computations rather than be a serious parallel platform themselves.
However, the Emotion Chip, SaarCORE, and traditional Cray design are all examples of machines that have focused more heavily on parallelism. In fact, there are very few limits on how parallel we can design a system. The primary one happens to be the amount of I/O a system is capable of. The more parallel a system, the more I/O pins that are needed to keep the system running smoothly. Unfortunately, I/O pins tend to be very expensive on a per-chip basis, so most machines attempt to share as much I/O as possible.
In short, if their intent is to build an affordable system that is massively parallel in nature, then I see little standing in their way. The only reason why these machines aren't in common usage is the lack of a market.
That was the bootstrap I needed to find info on the subject. Thanks! :-)
From what I remember from my neural networks days the human brain/neocortex works so well because of its massively parallel nature (not because of the processing power of any one neuron), and that computers simply aren't able to exploit this as they aren't designed to work like this
:-)
Computers aren't *normally* designed like this. They can be however, and in recent years have been moving in that direction. When neural networks were first being researched, a Cray supercomputer was about the closest you could get to that sort of parallelism. Fast forward to today and we find that Intel (Pentium), AMD (AMD64), Sun (Sparc), and Sony (Emotion Chip) are all building machines that are highly parallel in nature.
Even more interesting is that today you can build yourself a custom, massively parallel computer on a shoestring budget. All you need is a handful of FPGAs, a PCB layout service like Pad2Pad, a few other parts, and reasonable VHDL or Verilog skills. That's more or less what OpenRT did to build their SaarCORE architecture.
Can anyone point me toward some research on associative AI? i.e. Instead of AI that trained by nueral nets or genetic algos, does anyone know of research on "scoring" words based on their relation to other words? Extending words into concepts, an AI could become quite intelligent at things like Spam filtering.
Just something I was thinking about lately. Anyone?
he second was that Tesla was working on and had a theory for the wireless transmission of power through the upper atmosphere and was attempting to get it to work in his lab in Colorado.
Wasn't he trying to transmit it through the ground, not through the air? His idea, as I remember, was that grounded AC power could be picked up by an object anywhere in the world. The problem was that there was a fundamental flaw in his understanding of power transmission that prevented this concept from ever working.
Genetics is an amazingly complex science. [...] Think of genes as a computer program, perhaps like a computer virus. You can program a virus to rootkit other apps. Genetics provides more than enough complexity for genes to be able to perform a similar function.
:-)
:-)
;-)
Indeed. With the discovery a few years ago that the human genome is shorter than it was supposed to be, it strikes me that the analogy can be taken even further to say that the organism is the "hardware" that the program runs on.
Mendels laws of inheritance are like Newton's laws of Gravity. They hold in most everyday situations, but there are strange and unusual exceptions. Saying that this says there's a flaw in evolution is about the same as saying because of questions raised by Einstein's relativity, gravity might be false.
There is a problem with this statement. Newton started with the facts that objects are pulled to the ground. This was easily provable to a tolerance that is almost impossible to argue. Einstein's corrections then showed the mechanism behind that fact, and thus was able to correct various errors in the theory.
Starting with Mendel's theories does not prove that a fish became a rodent to within any sort acceptable margin for error. All it shows is that genetics work in a specific fashion, and that we can extrapolate certain theories from that. These oddities that we've been finding may correct our understanding of provable genetic occurances by providing the precise mechanism behind them.
So to correct your analogy:
An extrapolation of Newton's theories suggested that a spaceship should be able to visit another star system in less than a year Earth time. Einstein's corrections showed that to be impossible using Newtonian methods.
Similarly, genetic theory provides a basis for how inheritance works. We can then extrapolate our currect hypothesis of single -> multi-celled life. Corrections to our genetic theory may make the hypothesis impossible.
Honestly, I like the way the String Theorists phrase their theory: "It may be that the universe we live in is far stranger than anyone could have predicted!"
We're left with a conundrum, because our understanding says one thing while the facts say another. So we learn from it, find our errors, and move on. :-)
If we could isolate the gene that is used to check for equality (or genes which i would more suspect) it would be intresting in the field of cancer prevention
Doubtful. We've known about Deinococcus radiodurans (aka "Conan the Bacterium") for quite some time now. The darn thing has an accelerated repair rate that makes it extremely difficult to kill via DNA damaging methods such as radiation. Unfortunately, the knowledge hasn't led to anything all that useful for humans.
Still, it will be interesting to know what this plant will teach us. (More on DNA Repair)
If these conditions applied to us, we wouldn't have cancer.
:-)
Cancer is caused by a DNA mutation that your body failed to correct. Errors are extremely common. The only reason why we survive is our body's repair mechanism. In the case of these plants, neither parent had a correct gene. Without a backup copy, there should have been no way for the gene to revert. Yet it did, so we're left with an odd conundrum.
That's not to say that the theories behind mutations are all wrong, but we could be seeing something akin to problems with Newtonian physics.
FWIW, the paper this morning was pointing out how this discovery might leave a gaping hole in evolutionary theory. The crux of the problem is that "micro-evolution" as it were, is dependant on an organism's ability to mutate from generation to generation. If a mechanism exists that prevents or corrects mutations across generations, then the theorists may *again* have to go back to the drawing board.
:-)
Isn't it amazing how the more we know, the less we know?
Hmmm... missing the point? Yeah. I'd say so.
By Games != Money, I mean (as does the author) that games are not a particularly lucrative industry. It takes a lot of money to build a good game for a relatively small return. It's still cash positive, so that helps developers pay the bills. But it is a market that should be entered for the love of creating games and not the pursuit of profit.
Unless you can prove that EA expected them to work 80 hour weeks with no overtime ( assuming they weren't salary ... if so this point is moot )
e xempt_nonexempt.htm l n ews_1b22ot.html
Couple of problems there. For one, being salaried does NOT mean that you have to work ridiculous hours without compensation. All it means is that your work hours are unplanned and untracked. Businesses still can and do get in VERY hot water for "encouraging" their employees to work extreme hours without paying them sufficient compensation to warrant the time spent.
Now as I understand it, California does have a law on the books that requites programmers to be employed as exempt. However, this exemption requires that they make at least $85,000/yr. As I understand it, most of the EA programmers do not make quite that much, so they would have a strong case for mistreatment.
These people stayed at work of their own accord. Sure, they probably thought they were going to get fired if they didn't - maybe the atmosphere of the environment led them to believe this, or maybe it was simply the popular perception of game programmers having to work 80 hour weeks to prove their merit
Simply convincing a judge that EA was putting pressure on the employees to work long hours should be sufficient. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you don't need a "smoking gun" to prove the working environment. Unfortunately for EA, some of the accounts seem to suggest that such a smoking gun exists.
A few links for further research:
http://www.purdue.edu/hr/LeadingEdition/LEdi_704_
http://www.fairmeasures.com/overtime.html#hours (Note the 72 hour work-week in CA. 80 hrs would violate that.)
http://www.ahipubs.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/010030.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040822/
His point, however, is that EA programmers are treated *worse* than the guy at Target. Myself? I fully expect the courts to have little sympathy for EA. More likely than not, they'll rip EA a new hole in retaliation for their abuses of the labor laws.
Try some of these. Starscape from MoonPod is one of my favorites. :-)
:-)
Oh, and Cas would kill me if I didn't plug his awesome 2D Shooters.
So, if you have limited resources, and you have to choose between Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, and something independent,
Why does the independent game have to cost as much as Doom 3 or Half-Life 2? Answer: It doesn't. Most Indie games are delivered via the Internet which cuts out the packaging, shelving, distribution, and paper marketing costs associated with the big names. This allows some good games to be available for $10-$30, quite a bit less than shrink-wrapped games.