My understanding is that they realized they needed to make money, so they shifted their dev efforts to completing a marketable game engine to get some income before completing their game idea. I really look forward to this game, and its more realistic scale. But I'm not holding my breath.
"Infinite" means "without bound", so I take "effectively infinite" to mean you'll never encounter a boundary. You'll never run out of new space, every world will never be explored; it might as well be infinite because there's no discernible difference.
It couldn't be truly infinite, because at some point you're dealing with computers which have fixed-length integers, so your seed value space is actually finite; but 64-bit integers means that 7 billion players could each have their own unique million-star sky 2500 times over.
I followed the development of Introversion with great interest, particularly the procedural city generation. I look forward to the day when someone writes the all-encompassing MMO that incorporates multiple game types in a single universe. It'll happen eventually, and one of the versions will probably even be worthwhile.
That differs from my understanding: I got the impression that once a player explored a world, the parameters for procedural generation on that world were fixed and uploaded (this is an MMO, whether or not the game designers want it to be thought of as such). That's why in the gameplay videos, you see onscreen tags identifying which player discovered a species or world.
I've worked on my own idea of a procedurally-generated universe, and the idea I've come up with is you generate a random list of stars and assign a seed value to each star. When a player visits the star, the details of the stellar system (which are only observable up close) are procedurally generated using that star's seed: planets, asteroid fields, etc. Anything you do to modify that system is saved so that the next time you go back, it's still there. In a multiplayer environment, any modifications or even the results of pseudo-random generation can be uploaded so other players see the same thing you see.
So it's random in the sense of "not determined ahead of time." The way stuff is generated in this game is the developers create prototypes that have traits that can be modified (see dev discussion of character creators with sliders in other games) in many ways, and when a world is first visited by a player, which animal prototypes are present and how they're modified is determined at that time. What the devs are doing by reviewing the results of this generation with bots and gifs is ensuring the range of parameters for pseudo-random generation is acceptable, i.e. you get results that look good. They're not setting the parameters for each planet you'll visit when you get your copy of the game.
The game universe is the same for everyone. The devs are generating it and when they are happy with the way it turns out, that version will be the one they release for everyone to play in.
The universe is the same for everyone because randomly-generated content is preserved online. The devs are not generating the entire universe, they're fine-tuning the parameters of their generators.
As far as I can tell, anyway. This could be really cool. I've also been following the development of I-Novae Studios' game engine, which aims for realism.
Although if it is a class-action suit, then presumably there were a large number of people that also didn't get their X GH/s miners by Y date, all of whom could have generated Z bitcoins.
But wait! If they had all been mining that whole time, then the difficulty would have changed, since they would have constituted a non-zero addition to the global mining capability. So the amount that they "missed out" would be lower.
Anyone have any idea what % of global hashing power the miners in question should have been? Enough to have an effect?
A paper record is good. So is a plaintext file well organized and placed on a USB flash drive. Both can be mailed and locked in a safety deposit box, which is about as secure as you can get. Both require physical access, which means any other encryption or security is more likely to confound your subjects than actually secure your data.
In addition, you could encrypt the plaintext file with a well-known algorithm (you can even specify which one and the parameters) using a very strong password contained in your will, to prevent unwanted disclosure.
You could then apply Base64 encoding to the encrypted plaintext file, and print the result in a large font to enable scanning and OCR to recreate the digital file and decrypt it. This should be reliable enough - I don't think any of these technologies are going to go away any time soon.
this is most probably so if editors who are caught doing stuff when being paid for it and not disclosing it can have all that they have done removed without the need to do a investigation if what they wrote is truth or not
They should also black-list the payers of this type of activity. A week or two for each infraction. There's one important aspect about Wikipedia and that is it isn't about marketing and selling shit. They have the rest of the entire Internet for that, so it shouldn't be tolerated.
Perhaps a dire warning should appear in banner form at the top of any article about a company that pays shills to edit Wikipedia stating that it has been caught doing so, and that information about that company on Wikipedia portraying it in a positive light can't be trusted.
SteamOS via Linux has to provide some credible benefits to the user. Unless Valve develops something exclusive for SteamOS that you can't get on regular Windows Steam, then there is nothing that benefits the USER as opposed to Valve's benefit of not relying on Windows or buying Windows licenses for each SteamOS console.
The other potential benefit to Valve is higher game performance. Remember all those reports about framerates improving just by switching to Linux? You have to look at it from Valve's perspective. The PC game market is a small fraction of the console video game market. Here's what consoles offer: -guaranteed compatibility -low system maintenance -general ease-of-use -single-screen multiplayer for social/casual games ("couch use") -simple software distribution and installation
Valve has already taken care of that last one, and figured a customized PC OS could take care of the others while adding the advantages of a PC platform, primarily: -greater hardware capability -upgradeable components -software flexibility and user control
The key to "couch use" is a controller, and I'm sure Valve considers this essential to making non-console games work in a console-like environment, hence the delay while trying to get it right. Once enough games are ported and the controller is done, I think the machine has a valid shot at success. After all, we've been seeing consoles adopt more "PC functionality" over the last 10 years with web browsers, media players, Netflix-type video streaming, etc. Valve just figured they could succeed if they made a device that could run their games and removed the last few restrictions of consoles. The ability to stream from a Windows PC is just icing on the cake.
Oh it's not the worst ever. Consider Microsoft Bob...
Hey now, don't you go insulting Microsoft Bob that way; its interface made sense! Each room was a logical collection of programs, customizable with objects you could add that represented applications. It was customizable, the groupings were logically connected (rooms in a house are an easy-to-grasp metaphor), the theme of the room corresponded to the type of applications present (parlor, office, etc.), and once launched the applications ran as normal.
Plus there was that adorable dog!
The only problem with Bob was that it was just a glorified launcher, not really different to Program Manager with groups titled "Accessories", "Games", "Productivity", etc., so there wasn't much point to it.
- linux games (currently, steam OS works better as a light box to play your game on the living room's big screen/projector by *streaming them* out of a Windows war machine somewhere else in the appartment, rather than playing them directly there. Porting takes time).
So instead of just simply using Windows and only needing one computer you need 2 computers to stream the games? Are you for real?!?
To be more clear, what GP was saying was that although some games do run natively on Linux, Steam OS achieves maximum utility by streaming games from a Windows machine. That's why it's not already widely in use, because its usefulness is limited by needing another capable machine with Windows (which all current Steam users already have). Once the controller is done and more games are ported, the whole package will make a lot more sense. However, the OS does in fact function and it does the things it's designed to do, it just hasn't yet reached its full potential.
Anyway, to illustrate the above, image a Venn diagram with two circles, the left one being "Deliberate attempt to elicit angry response (trolling)", and the one on the right is "Likely to cause a flamewar (flamebait)". There is some overlap, which on Slashdot could be modded either way, but flamebait that's not trolling is either naivety or sincerity, and trolling that's not flamebait isn't necessarily intended to start a heated argument between other parties.
Sometimes the difference between Troll and Flamebait is impossible to determine, as it depends on the intent of the author. If someone posts on Slashdot saying "Mac sucks", it would be trolling if the primary reason they posted it was to get a rise out of people. If, however, they have used Mac computers and genuinely hate them, then it may not be disingenuous, and therefore is not trolling, but it is still flamebait since it's inciting yet another Mac vs. PC vs. Linux holy war.
So the GP is correct in that deliberate flamebait is a form of trolling, but there are instances of flamebait where someone didn't specifically intend to get a reaction, but nevertheless posted something controversial in a confrontational way that is likely to elicit hostile responses (usually out of naiveté).
I'm with you on the term "4K". I can't believe Slashdotters are complicit in this marketing nonsense. There's nothing "4,000" about it. We've been using lines as shorthand for display resolution for quite some time now, and it makes zero sense to switch to columns now, and it isn't even 4K columns.
Resolution: 3840x2160 Pixels: 8.3M
1280x720 is 720p/HD 1920x1080 is 1080p/FHD (Full HD) 2160x1440 is QHD (Quad HD)
Therefore 3840x2160 should be 2160p, QFHD, UHD, or 2K. 4K is utter nonsense. Calling it "Mega 8.3" would even be better.
It's like if Chevrolet said the new Corvette Z06 made over 1200 HP, because they started measuring torque in half-foot-pounds.
Yep, heck theoretically you should be able to fit some sperm and eggs in a small enough container and transport that. The real issue which we are pretty close to solving in an artificial womb.
Of course you would also need some type of nano-bot self constructing army to build a habitat and laboratory, ultimately that probably a bigger challenge than the cloning itself.
Yeah, I guess we currently have the tech to freeze eggs & sperm indefinitely, so that would solve that. I don't think you'd need the nanobots, regular macro-scale robots could handle it with prefab components and equipment.
*sigh* I should really start reading all the links in the comments I'm responding to.
Aside from the whole organic-3D-printing-of-entire-humans angle, this isn't a new idea. Arthur C. Clarke's The Songs of Distant Earth features an extraterrestrial colony of humans descended from machine-grown progenitors.
That story's basically about what I described in my 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Looks good, I'll have to check it out.
Heck, you could describe a fetus developing in the womb as 3D printing - you're feeding raw materials into a biological device that essentially prints itself.
The author of the article isn't about transferring consciousness, so "all you need" is a way to to encode the genome (doable), a way to transmit this encoding (also doable), a way to construct artificially a zygote using this genetic information (uh...), and then an artificial womb a la The Matrix to gestate the embryo. Also robots to raise the child and teach him why he's there and what his mission is.
You could build a robotic interstellar exploration craft containing all the information and supplies needed to jumpstart a human population on any given planet, essentially creating an initial group of standard clones. This could be a good basis for a sci-fi story if it isn't already. I may even use it as the premise for that video game I'll never get around to writing.
The studios seem happy enough to offer streaming rental options via Amazon, digital cable, Vudu, and similar services. There are also free ad-supported options (Hulu, Crackle, Popcornflix). What these have in common is constant per-view (or per-rental-period) revenue. So they're not opposed to streaming per se; my guess is that Netflix wants to keep the same low flat rate subscription system they have now, and either studios aren't willing to work with that model, or they're demanding licensing fees that would force Netflix to raise its subscriptions rates unacceptably.
Look at the pay options: digital rentals are at least $2 USD each, often $5 or more for HD content. How would a movie studio ever agree to let Netflix stream the same content, when they're getting a cut of several dollars per rental per film via other providers? Even if Netflix offered a "premium" $10/mo streaming add-on option, once you watched 2-3 films the studios would be losing money compared to the other services.
As much as we all hate the MPAA and draconian copyright legislation, the future of easy & legal digital delivery of content is in the process of arriving. There are still caveats: DRM and excessive copyright terms are still problems, IMHO the price is too high (I'd buy at $1/rental, $5 is too much, but ultimately the market will decide).
Netflix is the 800-lb gorilla in the room of streaming, and they're trying to throw their weight around, but the studios have discovered other options to deliver their content on their terms, and won't play Netflix's game.
At least, that's how I see it - I don't have any inside info so it's all speculation.
Slashdot Mirror
Like if your password is "ididitimguilty"?
My understanding is that they realized they needed to make money, so they shifted their dev efforts to completing a marketable game engine to get some income before completing their game idea. I really look forward to this game, and its more realistic scale. But I'm not holding my breath.
"Infinite" means "without bound", so I take "effectively infinite" to mean you'll never encounter a boundary. You'll never run out of new space, every world will never be explored; it might as well be infinite because there's no discernible difference.
It couldn't be truly infinite, because at some point you're dealing with computers which have fixed-length integers, so your seed value space is actually finite; but 64-bit integers means that 7 billion players could each have their own unique million-star sky 2500 times over.
I followed the development of Introversion with great interest, particularly the procedural city generation. I look forward to the day when someone writes the all-encompassing MMO that incorporates multiple game types in a single universe. It'll happen eventually, and one of the versions will probably even be worthwhile.
That differs from my understanding: I got the impression that once a player explored a world, the parameters for procedural generation on that world were fixed and uploaded (this is an MMO, whether or not the game designers want it to be thought of as such). That's why in the gameplay videos, you see onscreen tags identifying which player discovered a species or world.
I've worked on my own idea of a procedurally-generated universe, and the idea I've come up with is you generate a random list of stars and assign a seed value to each star. When a player visits the star, the details of the stellar system (which are only observable up close) are procedurally generated using that star's seed: planets, asteroid fields, etc. Anything you do to modify that system is saved so that the next time you go back, it's still there. In a multiplayer environment, any modifications or even the results of pseudo-random generation can be uploaded so other players see the same thing you see.
So it's random in the sense of "not determined ahead of time." The way stuff is generated in this game is the developers create prototypes that have traits that can be modified (see dev discussion of character creators with sliders in other games) in many ways, and when a world is first visited by a player, which animal prototypes are present and how they're modified is determined at that time. What the devs are doing by reviewing the results of this generation with bots and gifs is ensuring the range of parameters for pseudo-random generation is acceptable, i.e. you get results that look good. They're not setting the parameters for each planet you'll visit when you get your copy of the game.
The game universe is the same for everyone. The devs are generating it and when they are happy with the way it turns out, that version will be the one they release for everyone to play in.
The universe is the same for everyone because randomly-generated content is preserved online. The devs are not generating the entire universe, they're fine-tuning the parameters of their generators.
As far as I can tell, anyway. This could be really cool. I've also been following the development of I-Novae Studios' game engine, which aims for realism.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fly_list#False_positives.
Although if it is a class-action suit, then presumably there were a large number of people that also didn't get their X GH/s miners by Y date, all of whom could have generated Z bitcoins.
But wait! If they had all been mining that whole time, then the difficulty would have changed, since they would have constituted a non-zero addition to the global mining capability. So the amount that they "missed out" would be lower.
Anyone have any idea what % of global hashing power the miners in question should have been? Enough to have an effect?
Actually, it's been mentioned here once or twice.
A paper record is good. So is a plaintext file well organized and placed on a USB flash drive. Both can be mailed and locked in a safety deposit box, which is about as secure as you can get. Both require physical access, which means any other encryption or security is more likely to confound your subjects than actually secure your data.
In addition, you could encrypt the plaintext file with a well-known algorithm (you can even specify which one and the parameters) using a very strong password contained in your will, to prevent unwanted disclosure.
You could then apply Base64 encoding to the encrypted plaintext file, and print the result in a large font to enable scanning and OCR to recreate the digital file and decrypt it. This should be reliable enough - I don't think any of these technologies are going to go away any time soon.
this is most probably so if editors who are caught doing stuff when being paid for it and not disclosing it can have all that they have done removed without the need to do a investigation if what they wrote is truth or not
They should also black-list the payers of this type of activity. A week or two for each infraction. There's one important aspect about Wikipedia and that is it isn't about marketing and selling shit. They have the rest of the entire Internet for that, so it shouldn't be tolerated.
Perhaps a dire warning should appear in banner form at the top of any article about a company that pays shills to edit Wikipedia stating that it has been caught doing so, and that information about that company on Wikipedia portraying it in a positive light can't be trusted.
Google, how the fuck is this not evil?
You people who believed Google would not do bad things display
a naiveté which is usually found in a child who is of brow average intelligence.
I never assumed any such thing, which clearly shows I have brove average intelligence.
I recall that scene being widely made fun of following the film's release, in part because of that very interface.
SteamOS via Linux has to provide some credible benefits to the user. Unless Valve develops something exclusive for SteamOS that you can't get on regular Windows Steam, then there is nothing that benefits the USER as opposed to Valve's benefit of not relying on Windows or buying Windows licenses for each SteamOS console.
The other potential benefit to Valve is higher game performance. Remember all those reports about framerates improving just by switching to Linux? You have to look at it from Valve's perspective. The PC game market is a small fraction of the console video game market. Here's what consoles offer:
-guaranteed compatibility
-low system maintenance
-general ease-of-use
-single-screen multiplayer for social/casual games ("couch use")
-simple software distribution and installation
Valve has already taken care of that last one, and figured a customized PC OS could take care of the others while adding the advantages of a PC platform, primarily:
-greater hardware capability
-upgradeable components
-software flexibility and user control
The key to "couch use" is a controller, and I'm sure Valve considers this essential to making non-console games work in a console-like environment, hence the delay while trying to get it right. Once enough games are ported and the controller is done, I think the machine has a valid shot at success. After all, we've been seeing consoles adopt more "PC functionality" over the last 10 years with web browsers, media players, Netflix-type video streaming, etc. Valve just figured they could succeed if they made a device that could run their games and removed the last few restrictions of consoles. The ability to stream from a Windows PC is just icing on the cake.
Oh it's not the worst ever. Consider Microsoft Bob...
Hey now, don't you go insulting Microsoft Bob that way; its interface made sense! Each room was a logical collection of programs, customizable with objects you could add that represented applications. It was customizable, the groupings were logically connected (rooms in a house are an easy-to-grasp metaphor), the theme of the room corresponded to the type of applications present (parlor, office, etc.), and once launched the applications ran as normal.
Plus there was that adorable dog!
The only problem with Bob was that it was just a glorified launcher, not really different to Program Manager with groups titled "Accessories", "Games", "Productivity", etc., so there wasn't much point to it.
- linux games (currently, steam OS works better as a light box to play your game on the living room's big screen/projector by *streaming them* out of a Windows war machine somewhere else in the appartment, rather than playing them directly there. Porting takes time).
So instead of just simply using Windows and only needing one computer you need 2 computers to stream the games? Are you for real?!?
To be more clear, what GP was saying was that although some games do run natively on Linux, Steam OS achieves maximum utility by streaming games from a Windows machine. That's why it's not already widely in use, because its usefulness is limited by needing another capable machine with Windows (which all current Steam users already have). Once the controller is done and more games are ported, the whole package will make a lot more sense. However, the OS does in fact function and it does the things it's designed to do, it just hasn't yet reached its full potential.
The hands on the clock as I'm waiting for Monday to end...
Ugh. Slashdot fail. I am so smart. S-M-R-T.
Anyway, to illustrate the above, image a Venn diagram with two circles, the left one being "Deliberate attempt to elicit angry response (trolling)", and the one on the right is "Likely to cause a flamewar (flamebait)". There is some overlap, which on Slashdot could be modded either way, but flamebait that's not trolling is either naivety or sincerity, and trolling that's not flamebait isn't necessarily intended to start a heated argument between other parties.
Sometimes the difference between Troll and Flamebait is impossible to determine, as it depends on the intent of the author. If someone posts on Slashdot saying "Mac sucks", it would be trolling if the primary reason they posted it was to get a rise out of people. If, however, they have used Mac computers and genuinely hate them, then it may not be disingenuous, and therefore is not trolling, but it is still flamebait since it's inciting yet another Mac vs. PC vs. Linux holy war.
So the GP is correct in that deliberate flamebait is a form of trolling, but there are instances of flamebait where someone didn't specifically intend to get a reaction, but nevertheless posted something controversial in a confrontational way that is likely to elicit hostile responses (usually out of naiveté).
(AC to preserve mods)
that's a real useful invention.
Ha ha CBG, Frink gets the last laugh!
Oblig YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy5mEcmgwU
Correction, QHD is 2560x1440.
I'm with you on the term "4K". I can't believe Slashdotters are complicit in this marketing nonsense. There's nothing "4,000" about it. We've been using lines as shorthand for display resolution for quite some time now, and it makes zero sense to switch to columns now, and it isn't even 4K columns.
Resolution: 3840x2160
Pixels: 8.3M
1280x720 is 720p/HD
1920x1080 is 1080p/FHD (Full HD)
2160x1440 is QHD (Quad HD)
Therefore 3840x2160 should be 2160p, QFHD, UHD, or 2K. 4K is utter nonsense. Calling it "Mega 8.3" would even be better.
It's like if Chevrolet said the new Corvette Z06 made over 1200 HP, because they started measuring torque in half-foot-pounds.
Yep, heck theoretically you should be able to fit some sperm and eggs in a small enough container and transport that. The real issue which we are pretty close to solving in an artificial womb.
Of course you would also need some type of nano-bot self constructing army to build a habitat and laboratory, ultimately that probably a bigger challenge than the cloning itself.
Yeah, I guess we currently have the tech to freeze eggs & sperm indefinitely, so that would solve that. I don't think you'd need the nanobots, regular macro-scale robots could handle it with prefab components and equipment.
*sigh*
I should really start reading all the links in the comments I'm responding to.
Aside from the whole organic-3D-printing-of-entire-humans angle, this isn't a new idea. Arthur C. Clarke's The Songs of Distant Earth features an extraterrestrial colony of humans descended from machine-grown progenitors.
That story's basically about what I described in my 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Looks good, I'll have to check it out.
Heck, you could describe a fetus developing in the womb as 3D printing - you're feeding raw materials into a biological device that essentially prints itself.
The author of the article isn't about transferring consciousness, so "all you need" is a way to to encode the genome (doable), a way to transmit this encoding (also doable), a way to construct artificially a zygote using this genetic information (uh...), and then an artificial womb a la The Matrix to gestate the embryo. Also robots to raise the child and teach him why he's there and what his mission is.
You could build a robotic interstellar exploration craft containing all the information and supplies needed to jumpstart a human population on any given planet, essentially creating an initial group of standard clones. This could be a good basis for a sci-fi story if it isn't already. I may even use it as the premise for that video game I'll never get around to writing.
The studios seem happy enough to offer streaming rental options via Amazon, digital cable, Vudu, and similar services. There are also free ad-supported options (Hulu, Crackle, Popcornflix). What these have in common is constant per-view (or per-rental-period) revenue. So they're not opposed to streaming per se; my guess is that Netflix wants to keep the same low flat rate subscription system they have now, and either studios aren't willing to work with that model, or they're demanding licensing fees that would force Netflix to raise its subscriptions rates unacceptably.
Look at the pay options: digital rentals are at least $2 USD each, often $5 or more for HD content. How would a movie studio ever agree to let Netflix stream the same content, when they're getting a cut of several dollars per rental per film via other providers? Even if Netflix offered a "premium" $10/mo streaming add-on option, once you watched 2-3 films the studios would be losing money compared to the other services.
As much as we all hate the MPAA and draconian copyright legislation, the future of easy & legal digital delivery of content is in the process of arriving. There are still caveats: DRM and excessive copyright terms are still problems, IMHO the price is too high (I'd buy at $1/rental, $5 is too much, but ultimately the market will decide).
Netflix is the 800-lb gorilla in the room of streaming, and they're trying to throw their weight around, but the studios have discovered other options to deliver their content on their terms, and won't play Netflix's game.
At least, that's how I see it - I don't have any inside info so it's all speculation.