Think of Flash as the tool, not the plug-in
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Flash may very well be on the way out as a browser plug-in (a distribution platform, if you like).
It will likely live on a long time as an artists' tool.
Flash as a platform, a plug-in, was a way to solve the problem of "I've made this cool animation in Flash, now how do I show it to people?"
Adobe has gotten with the times, and turned Flash into a vector animation tool with the level of features for professionals you'd expect (think Photoshop or Illustrator). Sure you can make a "Flash movie", but you can also import your artwork from better creation tools, easily animate it with tweens (etc) in Flash, then export to any number of video or animation formats, or more importantly to frames or sprite sheets. Those exported formats find their way into your game, program, etc. The old "Flash movie" has nothing to do with this workflow.
The plug-in is decreasingly useful every day. The tool is quite useful for the designer/artist and will live on. You just won't watch Flash-created content in a Flash platform plugin. You'll be watching Flash-animated content (likely created outside Flash) in some other platform and never know Flash was part of the picture.
You don't look at graphics in a Photoshop or GIMP plugin, or play iOS games inside XCode, but the tools still exist and are useful, separate from the obsolescence of the delivery platform.
This sounds like an area ripe for the Creative Commons treatment.
Produce a small suite of precise privacy practices, as detailed as you like, each with an approved "plain English" summary, just as the CC licenses do.
After a short adjustment period, one would no longer have to even skim the summary of the license, just as many surfers know by now what the "Share Alike" CC license is.
Call them CPPs: Common Privacy Practices. You could have CPP: Share Internal, CPP: Share With Partners, CPP: Sell To Anyone, CPP: Eat Your Baby and Kick Your Dog, etc.
I have exactly that problem, to the extent of needing to avoid foods that contain natural MSG (soy, algae) or produce small amounts of MSG as a processing byproduct (high-fructose corn syrup, autolyzed/hydrolyzed yeast extract, any hydrogenated oil, etc).
It's funny, in light of the anti-organics rant nearby, but the only ramen I have ever found that I can eat was at Whole Foods. They sell a brand of organic instant ramen (yes, really) that has no explicit MSG in any of it, and even has a few flavors with no soy as well. (The garlic & pepper flavor is very good, as is the ginger lemongrass.)
I can't recall the brand name, as I'm out right now, but will get more soon and try to follow up with it here.
fermion: What I really wish existed was a screen that popped up every time you went to a new site that informed the user of the site, and asked for a cookie preference for that site. That way, all cookies could be accepted at the corporate site, and no cookies might be accepted at google.
This is easily configurable behavior in IE6 (possibly earlier - I can't recall). Tools->Internet Options->Privacy->Advanced.
I keep mine set to third-party reject, first-party prompt, always accept session cookies. When I hit a site with a first party cookie, I get a little popup that says: "<sitename> wants to store a cookie on your computer" with choices "Accept Cookie", "Reject Cookie", "Cancel", and a checkbox to say "Always apply the same decision for this site".
Voila. Corporate stuff gets one click of the "always apply..." checkbox and then one click on Accept. Nearly every other site gets one click on "always apply..." and then one click on Reject.
Works like a champ. I wish everyone configured this way.
If I have a store where I charge people money to enter, I'm going to sell a lot less merchandise than if I opened up the store to all who want to browse.
Sam's Club and Costco beg to differ.
You have the right idea, but this isn't really a valid comparison. Sam's Club and Costco will let you in the door without a membership, just to browse.
How do you think they get new customers? No one is going to walk up to a black curtain, be told "There's some really great stuff back there, but no you can't see it", and fork over $100 just to find out what's in there.
The door person who checks your card does not stop you from entering if you don't have one. That's not what they're there for. They are there to ensure you don't walk around, pick up a bunch of stuff you want to buy, then get to the checkout and throw a fit because you don't have a membership card and didn't know you needed one. Their job is to make sure you know you need to either have a card or stop by Membership and get one before you check out.
You can browse all you want.
If XBox Live also let you browse all you want without paying anything and only whip out the plastic once you've decided you definitely want to buy something, then it would be the same.
(Note: XBox Live might, in fact, do this. I have never seen it. The other posts in this thread lead me to believe it does not -- hence my comment.)
I don't know if you'll follow up to see this comment, since you posted as AC, but in case it helps you:
DDO does notice flanking and take it into account.
I've been experimenting with it and now try to do it frequently, as it is a real help to the melee types.
If you and another party member are both attacking the same mob (in melee) and standing roughly on opposite sides of it, watch your d20 attack rolls. You will notice your attack bonus mysteriously rises by +2, as it should, for flanking.
Anytime my wizard isn't actively casting, I try to wander over and flank a monster for my tanks/rogues who are in melee combat. It really helps them land the hits, even if I never do any damage.
(I don't know if flanking applies to sneak attacks in DDO yet.)
It feels like most of the negative reviews of DDO I have seen thus far on the net are from people in two groups:
1. Those who dislike MMOs, but love PnP D&D, and are upset that DDO does not have a human gamemaster who can generate infinite variety and choice of path.
2. Those who are in love with a current MMO, and are upset that DDO is not "EQ with D&D terms" or "WoW with D&D setting".
What has the g/f and I (and several of our friends) sucked into DDO is that it addresses so many of the things we did _not_ like about other MMOs. Boring combat? Gone. Lack of strategy? Gone. Easy mode? Gone. Time sinks? Gone. Downtime? Gone. Rogues as uber-warriors instead of thieves? Gone. Static play environment where nothing changes? Gone. Dungeon as "scenery" that is 99.9% noninteractive? Gone. Dungeon as "place to stick 1000 monsters to slog through"? Gone.
This review, in particular, seems to come from someone who not only has not played the game much, but also has not read the manual or explored the interface. Truthfully, it sounds like someone who has read all of the complaints on various discussion forums, and is summarizing them, without ever having played the game itself.
The review complains of the "inhumanity" of the Warforged. I think that was the point. They are very inhuman and little distinction is drawn between male and female. This was enough to turn my g/f off of playing one, in fact -- but that's okay! The Warforged are different! Here we have a character who can come built-in with his own armor and other benefits from day one, but suffers the inability to actually wear "real" armor that others wear. It is interesting and different. That's a good thing.
The review complains (repeatedly) about the click-fest that is combat. (Tell that to the millions of people happily and madly clicking on Diablo for the past 10 years.) The click-fest is _optional_. The very first icon on your default toolbar is auto-attack. Don't want to click? Click once.
Single-click combat is actually useful in DDO, because the game allows (forces?) you, the player, to take an active role in combat. Your character does not block. You do. Your character does not tumble or evade. You do. If you don't, neither does he. Single-click combat allows you to more precisely time your swings between your opponent's swings and spend more time blocking or evading his attacks.
If you're playing the game by running straight up to an enemy and right-clicking on him til he dies, you're going about it all wrong and will enjoy less combat success than someone who advances carefully, choses a defensible position, blocks, tumbles, tries to set ambushes, etc.
The article states incorrectly that a natural 20 is a critical hit. It is not. A natural 20 is an automatic hit and nothing more. Each weapon has a critical hit range, which can be 20 only, 19-20, 18-20, etc. If you roll in that range on the die, the computer makes a *second* die roll. If the second roll hits, you score a critical. If the second roll misses, you score a normal hit.
"It is all too dang chaotic to be truly fun." The chaos is the *reason* it is fun. DDO captures the feel of real combat in a way no other MMO has. Monsters can not walk through each other. They can't stand on each other to attack you. They can't walk through you, either. Want to have the fighter block a doorway with his body while the mage stands behind him (in safety) and fires spells over his shoulder? It actually _works_.
The monsters are intelligent. Rogue-ish monsters will hide, sneak around the back of the battle, and try to sneak attack vulnerable characters... but you CAN see or hear them coming, if you're paying attention, and intercept them (or light them on fire, my favorite).
The game rewards planning and coordination.
The environment is truly dynamic! Because everything is instanced, the game can really respond to events. Traps are common, varied, and devilish. Monsters
Spaceman 40 wrote: There is/no way/ to prove that/anything/ happened before the current moment. All history is just belief.
I'm pretty certain that was his point.
History is not Science. It is the art of looking at a vast (or small) number of surviving documents and trying to infer (okay, guess) what really happened and what did not.
History, as you say, can never be absolutely proven. It is not testable; it is not repeatable.
This is also why Religion has no basis in, or place with, Science.
Religion is History. It is a record of things that supposedly happened in the past and can never be proven. It is not testable; it is not repeatable.
Religion is not Science. It should not be treated as such.
(Apologies for using X as my separator character. Stupid lameness filter!)
I did look at his legislative record. He's not a Libertarian. If he were, he would be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. He would not support government intrusion into individual liberties in an unconstitutional manner.
Ron Paul is fiscally conservative AND socially conservative (including supporting federal gov't intrusion into your life). That makes him a Republican -- or at least, it makes him what the Republicans USED to be. (They're now fiscally liberal and socially conservative.)
Here are some gems from his record. These are bills he AUTHORED, not just voted "yes" on. I'm not going to build all the links, but this comes from a simple "bill sponsor" search on http://thomas.loc.gov/ -- see for yourself!
xxxxxxxxxxxx
20. H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
A bill to define abortion as murder. No fiscal component at all. Does nothing to encourage small government. It's just social conservatism at the expense of individual rights. Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
21. H.R.777 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Fiscally conservative, yes. Also very socially conservative -- not a hallmark of Libertarianism. It outlaws federal funding of ANY family planning activity. What if we want to educate poor people not to have children they can't afford to support? Not permitted under this bill.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
23. H.R.1017 : To prohibit United States voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/1/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Abridges individual liberties by PROHIBITING private citizens of the Unites States from giving their OWN money to the U.N. to fund its efforts.
NOT Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
24. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/8/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Socially conservative. Unrelated to smaller government. Directly opposes the Libertarian ideal of a Constitutional government. Conducting international diplomacy (say, via the U.N.) is EXACTLY what the federal government is supposed to do.
Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
27. H.R.1657 : To ensure financial regulations do not harm economic competitiveness, nor deprive Americans of due process of law, by repealing provisions of Federal law that hold corporate chief executive officers criminally liable for the content and quality of their companies' financial report... [ed. note: Repeals Sarbanes-Oxley]
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Again, runs against Libertarian ideals. Regulating interstate trade (including national equity markets) IS what the federal gov't is supposed to be doing.
Removing the requirement that CEOs be responsible for the reports they issue to the public is bad for the free market. A Libertarian would support accuracy and accountability of information supplied to the market.
Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
28. H.R.1658 : To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Translation: To ensure the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that *I* want the Framers to have intended.
Of course, they'd already dropped some of the best shows, even before that:
Big Thinkers - serious TV for nerds - long, focused interviews with people nerds would actually be interested in
Silicon Spin - okay, it had a little bit of a sideshow feel, but still really interesting roundtable discussion of tech (and related legal, political, business) issues with the big names of the day
Internet Tonight - stupid, sure, but that funny sort of stupid that you actually like. You know what I mean. Admit it.
And of course, all the little special programs they'd whip up on the history of computing, famous historical figures, cryptology, etc.
Mmm... a reason to actually watch a little TV. Can't find a reason, these days.
If it is really the integrated pop-up blocker making the difference, then advertisers are in for a world of hurt, as the much-maligned WinXP SP2 finally gets hammered into production environments.
I hadn't noticed any mention of it in between the angry rants, but one of the *good* things XP SP2 does is give IE an integrated, on-by-default pop-up blocker. (It also finally blocks ActiveX controls by default, has the software firewall on by default, and several other things that should have been done ages ago!)
Of course, advertisers being what they are, once the main market is immune to them, they'll move one step ahead.
Many casinos run games like poker, where you play against the other *players*, not the house. The house still wins, because they take a rake off the top. The players (in aggregate) still lose, because the house ends up with more money than it started with...
However, any individual player can consistently win, and Vegas doesn't care - he's taking money from other players, not the house.
(That said, there are some slots that give >100% return. Just not many.)
Based on the way you phrased that, and no insult intended, I doubt you will believe anyone who tells you that any game meets that mark, however I'll risk the "fanboi" label to dive in and say (quoting you first)...
EQ popularized the level grind and was quite successful, so that is what will be emulated. UO, with the quick "level up" but no "endgame" is the opposite - it became a graphical chatroom. Some game that can remove the tedious nature of the EQ-like games, while providing substantial character variation in a meaningful and beneficial manner, that has fun and rewarding content for a player at any stage of advancement is probably the holy grail of MMO designs.
This is actually one of my favorite bits -- the standard control scheme for World of Warcraft is the FPS scheme. My old Quake/UT skills transferred perfectly.
(I use ASDX to move straight left, forward, right, backward. WASD works fine, too, of course. Hold right mouse button to mouselook, aim up or down, turn, etc, with mouse. Number keys to use special abilities, spells, weapons, etc. Space to jump, etc.)
I was actually thinking of Leibniz when I wrote that. He developed his (independent) version of the calculus, along with the notations and symbols we use today, while in Paris, as a fellow of the (crown-supported) Royal Society and working with the (crown-supported) Academy of Sciences in Paris. He was also not being directly paid to create it, but that wasn't my assertion - only that the government gave him a kind of stipend, thus freeing more of his time to think up things *like* the calculus.
However, you're correct that Newton was at home when he developed his version of the calculus.
Having said that, though, Newton was supported (financially and otherwise) by the crown throughout his research career. All of the institutional positions he held were at crown-supported universities and foundations, and even the calculus was written during a forced leave (due to plague) from the crown-supported University at Cambridge, which by the way, he attended thanks to -- financial aid.
So, while I accept the statement that the calculus was not directly developed using royal funds, I think it is still fair to call Newton a government-funded researcher, which is all I actually said on the subject. (And I was, as I mentioned, thinking of Leibniz in any case.)
In any case, I think we at least both agree that Industry had nothing to do with it, which was my primary point. For the occasional man who can perform this act of creation alone and without financial support, that's great! But if outside funding is needed, then for basic research it should come from a public source, not a private with-strings-attached source.
Your question is misleading. The government should be in charge of funding basic scientific research that drives forward our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc, and creates the platform on which industry can develop specific products.
Why should the government do this? Because the results of fundamental research must be completely open and available to all scientists and entrepeneurs who would do something useful with it. Industry will *never* do that.
Government-funded researchers invented the calculus, the mechanical (and electronic) computer, and the internal combustion engine, and gave that research to the public, so that commercial and charitable use could be made of them. Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!
"Stem cell research", as you can tell from the name, is not medicine, nor is it a commercial product. It is a fundamental piece of scientific research that advances our entire base of technology.
If my experience is any indication, you should be fine if your preorder was through EB (in the US, anyway).
I pre-ordered one CE and three SEs just 10 days ago through the EB website, for pickup at my local store on launch day. (Discover Mills EB in Lawrenceville, GA - suburb of ATL.)
They called this morning to let me know all my stuff was awaiting pickup and I snagged it during lunch. Got the CE with no problem. It did sound like you were SOL if you didn't pre-order, though. Demand was extremely high.
It's still unlikely that Ohio will tip from red to blue, but the number of votes in question is higher than either 175 or 250 (K). Those numbers were both estimates of Provisional + Absentee.
Neither number takes into account the ~3% of ballots considered Spoiled. If there's a manual recount, those Spoiled ballots will also be examined, to try to determine voter intent.
Yeah, you remember that phrase from 2000. Get ready for lawyers trying to be The Great Kreskin and flamewars galore.
Bush is also the first president since 1988 (yup, that was his dad) to get a majority of the popular vote.
I've been waiting for someone to repeat that soundbite. It's meaningless!
1992: Strong third-party candidate, so of course no one got a majority. 1996: Strong third-party candidate, so of course no one got a majority. 2000: Bush lost the popular vote, so of course he didn't get a majority. 2004: No strong third-party candidate. ANY winner would get a majority.
Here. I'll give you the other soundbite for free: More people voted for Bush than any other president in history.
The other half of that fact? More people also voted AGAINST Bush than any other president in history. There were more voters in general.
Both of these statistics are just designed to make 51% of the vote somehow seem like a Mandate, when of course it is not.
Condorcet does use pairings for determining the winner(s). However, grandparent is correct that pairings do not appear on the BALLOT. Hence, to the voter, Condorcet is no more complex or confusing than IRV.
As generally implemented, Condorcet is indistinguishable from IRV at the point of casting a ballot. (You rank the candidates in order and higher-ranked candidates beat lower-ranked candidates in their pairings.)
Condorcet isn't an "approval" system in the usual sense of assigning points to various candidates and summing up all the points.
You can read the whole book on Amazon
on
Breaking Google's DRM
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You can read the entire book on Amazon -- it is just a little annoying.
Amazon will let you read +/- 2 pages from the first page or any page that contains your search results from "search this book".
So:
Start at the beginning of the book
Read 3 pages
Pick a phrase on the third page
Search for that phrase within the book
Click the search result for the third page
Read the next two pages
Pick a phrase on the fifth page
Search for that phrase within the book
Click the search result for the fifth page
Read the next two pages
Repeat until end of book
It's irritating, but when you're trying to find a passage in the book and the three-page limit smacks you, you can use this method to get more of the book (or all of it, if you have the patience).
Slashdot Mirror
Flash may very well be on the way out as a browser plug-in (a distribution platform, if you like).
It will likely live on a long time as an artists' tool.
Flash as a platform, a plug-in, was a way to solve the problem of "I've made this cool animation in Flash, now how do I show it to people?"
Adobe has gotten with the times, and turned Flash into a vector animation tool with the level of features for professionals you'd expect (think Photoshop or Illustrator). Sure you can make a "Flash movie", but you can also import your artwork from better creation tools, easily animate it with tweens (etc) in Flash, then export to any number of video or animation formats, or more importantly to frames or sprite sheets. Those exported formats find their way into your game, program, etc. The old "Flash movie" has nothing to do with this workflow.
The plug-in is decreasingly useful every day. The tool is quite useful for the designer/artist and will live on. You just won't watch Flash-created content in a Flash platform plugin. You'll be watching Flash-animated content (likely created outside Flash) in some other platform and never know Flash was part of the picture.
You don't look at graphics in a Photoshop or GIMP plugin, or play iOS games inside XCode, but the tools still exist and are useful, separate from the obsolescence of the delivery platform.
God I loved UHF. I wish Weird Al would make another movie.
If only you could "bump" the side of your computer to make that "impossible" shot.
If memory serves at all, you could in fact do this with the original Bill Budge construction set.
In addition to flipper keys, it had a "bump left", "bump right", and "bump up" key, that simulated bumping the machine in those directions.
If you overused the bump feature, the machine would tilt.
Obviously, you couldn't control the force of the bump or the precise angle, but he did actually think to include that key feature of "real" pinball.
Really?
Ebony and ivory?
Ghandi and Stalin?
Darth Vader and a rodeo clown?
Matter and antimatter?
This sounds like an area ripe for the Creative Commons treatment.
Produce a small suite of precise privacy practices, as detailed as you like, each with an approved "plain English" summary, just as the CC licenses do.
After a short adjustment period, one would no longer have to even skim the summary of the license, just as many surfers know by now what the "Share Alike" CC license is.
Call them CPPs: Common Privacy Practices. You could have CPP: Share Internal, CPP: Share With Partners, CPP: Sell To Anyone, CPP: Eat Your Baby and Kick Your Dog, etc.
I have exactly that problem, to the extent of needing to avoid foods that contain natural MSG (soy, algae) or produce small amounts of MSG as a processing byproduct (high-fructose corn syrup, autolyzed/hydrolyzed yeast extract, any hydrogenated oil, etc).
It's funny, in light of the anti-organics rant nearby, but the only ramen I have ever found that I can eat was at Whole Foods. They sell a brand of organic instant ramen (yes, really) that has no explicit MSG in any of it, and even has a few flavors with no soy as well. (The garlic & pepper flavor is very good, as is the ginger lemongrass.)
I can't recall the brand name, as I'm out right now, but will get more soon and try to follow up with it here.
This is easily configurable behavior in IE6 (possibly earlier - I can't recall). Tools->Internet Options->Privacy->Advanced.
I keep mine set to third-party reject, first-party prompt, always accept session cookies. When I hit a site with a first party cookie, I get a little popup that says: "<sitename> wants to store a cookie on your computer" with choices "Accept Cookie", "Reject Cookie", "Cancel", and a checkbox to say "Always apply the same decision for this site".
Voila. Corporate stuff gets one click of the "always apply..." checkbox and then one click on Accept. Nearly every other site gets one click on "always apply..." and then one click on Reject.
Works like a champ. I wish everyone configured this way.
Sam's Club and Costco beg to differ.
You have the right idea, but this isn't really a valid comparison. Sam's Club and Costco will let you in the door without a membership, just to browse.
How do you think they get new customers? No one is going to walk up to a black curtain, be told "There's some really great stuff back there, but no you can't see it", and fork over $100 just to find out what's in there.
The door person who checks your card does not stop you from entering if you don't have one. That's not what they're there for. They are there to ensure you don't walk around, pick up a bunch of stuff you want to buy, then get to the checkout and throw a fit because you don't have a membership card and didn't know you needed one. Their job is to make sure you know you need to either have a card or stop by Membership and get one before you check out.
You can browse all you want.
If XBox Live also let you browse all you want without paying anything and only whip out the plastic once you've decided you definitely want to buy something, then it would be the same.
(Note: XBox Live might, in fact, do this. I have never seen it. The other posts in this thread lead me to believe it does not -- hence my comment.)
I don't know if you'll follow up to see this comment, since you posted as AC, but in case it helps you:
DDO does notice flanking and take it into account.
I've been experimenting with it and now try to do it frequently, as it is a real help to the melee types.
If you and another party member are both attacking the same mob (in melee) and standing roughly on opposite sides of it, watch your d20 attack rolls. You will notice your attack bonus mysteriously rises by +2, as it should, for flanking.
Anytime my wizard isn't actively casting, I try to wander over and flank a monster for my tanks/rogues who are in melee combat. It really helps them land the hits, even if I never do any damage.
(I don't know if flanking applies to sneak attacks in DDO yet.)
It feels like most of the negative reviews of DDO I have seen thus far on the net are from people in two groups:
1. Those who dislike MMOs, but love PnP D&D, and are upset that DDO does not have a human gamemaster who can generate infinite variety and choice of path.
2. Those who are in love with a current MMO, and are upset that DDO is not "EQ with D&D terms" or "WoW with D&D setting".
What has the g/f and I (and several of our friends) sucked into DDO is that it addresses so many of the things we did _not_ like about other MMOs. Boring combat? Gone. Lack of strategy? Gone. Easy mode? Gone. Time sinks? Gone. Downtime? Gone. Rogues as uber-warriors instead of thieves? Gone. Static play environment where nothing changes? Gone. Dungeon as "scenery" that is 99.9% noninteractive? Gone. Dungeon as "place to stick 1000 monsters to slog through"? Gone.
This review, in particular, seems to come from someone who not only has not played the game much, but also has not read the manual or explored the interface. Truthfully, it sounds like someone who has read all of the complaints on various discussion forums, and is summarizing them, without ever having played the game itself.
The review complains of the "inhumanity" of the Warforged. I think that was the point. They are very inhuman and little distinction is drawn between male and female. This was enough to turn my g/f off of playing one, in fact -- but that's okay! The Warforged are different! Here we have a character who can come built-in with his own armor and other benefits from day one, but suffers the inability to actually wear "real" armor that others wear. It is interesting and different. That's a good thing.
The review complains (repeatedly) about the click-fest that is combat. (Tell that to the millions of people happily and madly clicking on Diablo for the past 10 years.) The click-fest is _optional_. The very first icon on your default toolbar is auto-attack. Don't want to click? Click once.
Single-click combat is actually useful in DDO, because the game allows (forces?) you, the player, to take an active role in combat. Your character does not block. You do. Your character does not tumble or evade. You do. If you don't, neither does he. Single-click combat allows you to more precisely time your swings between your opponent's swings and spend more time blocking or evading his attacks.
If you're playing the game by running straight up to an enemy and right-clicking on him til he dies, you're going about it all wrong and will enjoy less combat success than someone who advances carefully, choses a defensible position, blocks, tumbles, tries to set ambushes, etc.
The article states incorrectly that a natural 20 is a critical hit. It is not. A natural 20 is an automatic hit and nothing more. Each weapon has a critical hit range, which can be 20 only, 19-20, 18-20, etc. If you roll in that range on the die, the computer makes a *second* die roll. If the second roll hits, you score a critical. If the second roll misses, you score a normal hit.
"It is all too dang chaotic to be truly fun." The chaos is the *reason* it is fun. DDO captures the feel of real combat in a way no other MMO has. Monsters can not walk through each other. They can't stand on each other to attack you. They can't walk through you, either. Want to have the fighter block a doorway with his body while the mage stands behind him (in safety) and fires spells over his shoulder? It actually _works_.
The monsters are intelligent. Rogue-ish monsters will hide, sneak around the back of the battle, and try to sneak attack vulnerable characters... but you CAN see or hear them coming, if you're paying attention, and intercept them (or light them on fire, my favorite).
The game rewards planning and coordination.
The environment is truly dynamic! Because everything is instanced, the game can really respond to events. Traps are common, varied, and devilish. Monsters
I'm pretty certain that was his point.
History is not Science. It is the art of looking at a vast (or small) number of surviving documents and trying to infer (okay, guess) what really happened and what did not.
History, as you say, can never be absolutely proven. It is not testable; it is not repeatable.
This is also why Religion has no basis in, or place with, Science.
Religion is History. It is a record of things that supposedly happened in the past and can never be proven. It is not testable; it is not repeatable.
Religion is not Science. It should not be treated as such.
(Apologies for using X as my separator character. Stupid lameness filter!)
I did look at his legislative record. He's not a Libertarian. If he were, he would be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. He would not support government intrusion into individual liberties in an unconstitutional manner.
Ron Paul is fiscally conservative AND socially conservative (including supporting federal gov't intrusion into your life). That makes him a Republican -- or at least, it makes him what the Republicans USED to be. (They're now fiscally liberal and socially conservative.)
Here are some gems from his record. These are bills he AUTHORED, not just voted "yes" on. I'm not going to build all the links, but this comes from a simple "bill sponsor" search on http://thomas.loc.gov/ -- see for yourself!
xxxxxxxxxxxx
20. H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
A bill to define abortion as murder. No fiscal component at all. Does nothing to encourage small government. It's just social conservatism at the expense of individual rights. Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
21. H.R.777 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Fiscally conservative, yes. Also very socially conservative -- not a hallmark of Libertarianism. It outlaws federal funding of ANY family planning activity. What if we want to educate poor people not to have children they can't afford to support? Not permitted under this bill.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
23. H.R.1017 : To prohibit United States voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/1/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Abridges individual liberties by PROHIBITING private citizens of the Unites States from giving their OWN money to the U.N. to fund its efforts.
NOT Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
24. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/8/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Socially conservative. Unrelated to smaller government. Directly opposes the Libertarian ideal of a Constitutional government. Conducting international diplomacy (say, via the U.N.) is EXACTLY what the federal government is supposed to do.
Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
27. H.R.1657 : To ensure financial regulations do not harm economic competitiveness, nor deprive Americans of due process of law, by repealing provisions of Federal law that hold corporate chief executive officers criminally liable for the content and quality of their companies' financial report... [ed. note: Repeals Sarbanes-Oxley]
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Again, runs against Libertarian ideals. Regulating interstate trade (including national equity markets) IS what the federal gov't is supposed to be doing.
Removing the requirement that CEOs be responsible for the reports they issue to the public is bad for the free market. A Libertarian would support accuracy and accountability of information supplied to the market.
Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
28. H.R.1658 : To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Translation: To ensure the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that *I* want the Framers to have intended.
Sorry, sir. You're a Congressman, not a Jus
Of course, they'd already dropped some of the best shows, even before that:
Big Thinkers - serious TV for nerds - long, focused interviews with people nerds would actually be interested in
Silicon Spin - okay, it had a little bit of a sideshow feel, but still really interesting roundtable discussion of tech (and related legal, political, business) issues with the big names of the day
Internet Tonight - stupid, sure, but that funny sort of stupid that you actually like. You know what I mean. Admit it.
And of course, all the little special programs they'd whip up on the history of computing, famous historical figures, cryptology, etc.
Mmm... a reason to actually watch a little TV. Can't find a reason, these days.
If it is really the integrated pop-up blocker making the difference, then advertisers are in for a world of hurt, as the much-maligned WinXP SP2 finally gets hammered into production environments.
I hadn't noticed any mention of it in between the angry rants, but one of the *good* things XP SP2 does is give IE an integrated, on-by-default pop-up blocker. (It also finally blocks ActiveX controls by default, has the software firewall on by default, and several other things that should have been done ages ago!)
Of course, advertisers being what they are, once the main market is immune to them, they'll move one step ahead.
I think you may have misunderstood his comment.
Many casinos run games like poker, where you play against the other *players*, not the house. The house still wins, because they take a rake off the top. The players (in aggregate) still lose, because the house ends up with more money than it started with...
However, any individual player can consistently win, and Vegas doesn't care - he's taking money from other players, not the house.
(That said, there are some slots that give >100% return. Just not many.)
Based on the way you phrased that, and no insult intended, I doubt you will believe anyone who tells you that any game meets that mark, however I'll risk the "fanboi" label to dive in and say (quoting you first)...
EQ popularized the level grind and was quite successful, so that is what will be emulated. UO, with the quick "level up" but no "endgame" is the opposite - it became a graphical chatroom. Some game that can remove the tedious nature of the EQ-like games, while providing substantial character variation in a meaningful and beneficial manner, that has fun and rewarding content for a player at any stage of advancement is probably the holy grail of MMO designs.
This appears to be that game.
This is actually one of my favorite bits -- the standard control scheme for World of Warcraft is the FPS scheme. My old Quake/UT skills transferred perfectly.
(I use ASDX to move straight left, forward, right, backward. WASD works fine, too, of course. Hold right mouse button to mouselook, aim up or down, turn, etc, with mouse. Number keys to use special abilities, spells, weapons, etc. Space to jump, etc.)
The control scheme is, in short, nice.
I was actually thinking of Leibniz when I wrote that. He developed his (independent) version of the calculus, along with the notations and symbols we use today, while in Paris, as a fellow of the (crown-supported) Royal Society and working with the (crown-supported) Academy of Sciences in Paris. He was also not being directly paid to create it, but that wasn't my assertion - only that the government gave him a kind of stipend, thus freeing more of his time to think up things *like* the calculus.
However, you're correct that Newton was at home when he developed his version of the calculus.
Having said that, though, Newton was supported (financially and otherwise) by the crown throughout his research career. All of the institutional positions he held were at crown-supported universities and foundations, and even the calculus was written during a forced leave (due to plague) from the crown-supported University at Cambridge, which by the way, he attended thanks to -- financial aid.
So, while I accept the statement that the calculus was not directly developed using royal funds, I think it is still fair to call Newton a government-funded researcher, which is all I actually said on the subject. (And I was, as I mentioned, thinking of Leibniz in any case.)
In any case, I think we at least both agree that Industry had nothing to do with it, which was my primary point. For the occasional man who can perform this act of creation alone and without financial support, that's great! But if outside funding is needed, then for basic research it should come from a public source, not a private with-strings-attached source.
Okay, I'll bite on the last part, at least.
Your question is misleading. The government should be in charge of funding basic scientific research that drives forward our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc, and creates the platform on which industry can develop specific products.
Why should the government do this? Because the results of fundamental research must be completely open and available to all scientists and entrepeneurs who would do something useful with it. Industry will *never* do that.
Government-funded researchers invented the calculus, the mechanical (and electronic) computer, and the internal combustion engine, and gave that research to the public, so that commercial and charitable use could be made of them. Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!
"Stem cell research", as you can tell from the name, is not medicine, nor is it a commercial product. It is a fundamental piece of scientific research that advances our entire base of technology.
So yes, the government should fund it.
If my experience is any indication, you should be fine if your preorder was through EB (in the US, anyway).
I pre-ordered one CE and three SEs just 10 days ago through the EB website, for pickup at my local store on launch day. (Discover Mills EB in Lawrenceville, GA - suburb of ATL.)
They called this morning to let me know all my stuff was awaiting pickup and I snagged it during lunch. Got the CE with no problem. It did sound like you were SOL if you didn't pre-order, though. Demand was extremely high.
YMMV, of course.
It's still unlikely that Ohio will tip from red to blue, but the number of votes in question is higher than either 175 or 250 (K). Those numbers were both estimates of Provisional + Absentee.
Neither number takes into account the ~3% of ballots considered Spoiled. If there's a manual recount, those Spoiled ballots will also be examined, to try to determine voter intent.
Yeah, you remember that phrase from 2000. Get ready for lawyers trying to be The Great Kreskin and flamewars galore.
Bush is also the first president since 1988 (yup, that was his dad) to get a majority of the popular vote.
I've been waiting for someone to repeat that soundbite. It's meaningless!
1992: Strong third-party candidate, so of course no one got a majority.
1996: Strong third-party candidate, so of course no one got a majority.
2000: Bush lost the popular vote, so of course he didn't get a majority.
2004: No strong third-party candidate. ANY winner would get a majority.
Here. I'll give you the other soundbite for free: More people voted for Bush than any other president in history.
The other half of that fact? More people also voted AGAINST Bush than any other president in history. There were more voters in general.
Both of these statistics are just designed to make 51% of the vote somehow seem like a Mandate, when of course it is not.
Condorcet does use pairings for determining the winner(s). However, grandparent is correct that pairings do not appear on the BALLOT. Hence, to the voter, Condorcet is no more complex or confusing than IRV.
As generally implemented, Condorcet is indistinguishable from IRV at the point of casting a ballot. (You rank the candidates in order and higher-ranked candidates beat lower-ranked candidates in their pairings.)
Condorcet isn't an "approval" system in the usual sense of assigning points to various candidates and summing up all the points.
So:
- Start at the beginning of the book
- Read 3 pages
- Pick a phrase on the third page
- Search for that phrase within the book
- Click the search result for the third page
- Read the next two pages
- Pick a phrase on the fifth page
- Search for that phrase within the book
- Click the search result for the fifth page
- Read the next two pages
- Repeat until end of book
It's irritating, but when you're trying to find a passage in the book and the three-page limit smacks you, you can use this method to get more of the book (or all of it, if you have the patience).> (btw... Has anyone tried to market audioporn for girls?)
Two words:
Barry White.