There's nothing wrong with pragmatism. But, I do not like my views represented by someone like ESR. Someone who once had the audacity to claim that All Linux users didn't want there software used by "Red" china.
I've read ESRs statements, and from what I've gathered about him, my opinion is that he's a money grubbing whore.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a money grubbing whore. but there's something amiss about making all you're cash by giving lectures about Open Source to Big Corps while writing next to no code yourself. ESR has profited off all of us. I was hoping that since he got his $30 million dollars from the IPO of VA that he'd shut up. Of course now that the stock is crashing, and he's only got something like $3 mill or so, I guess it'll be a long time yet...
Sweet, I'm going to loose so much karma on this thread... sigh
She had a great philosophy that doesn't deserve to be reduced to a stereotype.
No she didn't. I've read some of her stuff, and here theories are fundamentally unsound. Basically, she tries to use logic, but her initial assumptions are just that, assumptions. And they are unfounded.
Rand might have loved like in the UK around the time of the industrial revolution, that is, if she wasn't a sustenance worker. Conditions were terrible. Our history over the past few hundred years has been to move away from her ideas, not towards them.
The bottom line is, her ideas depend everyone being perfect, and only a very few acting on a 'subhuman level'. Yet, she provides no reason for those people to do so. She, in actuality is as utopian as Marx and other communists. And her system would be as fallible, if implemented.
When I was reading the artical I cam across this "I have been an Internet user since ARPANET [Advanced Research Projects Agency Network] days, in 1976. Today I am one of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work," What is he talking about? Does he consider his board position on VA linux to be a part of the core technical cadre of the 'net? Or is this just more hot air. Really I don't see what being on the board of VA, or trying to trademark the word "Open Source" has to do with 'running the internet'...
I guess the real issue is, that he's never really programmed anything. Sure he writes a bunch of psudo-philosophic tripe, that I guess got some people into open source, but in this 'meritocracy' what does he merit? Not much, that's for sure. Yet, ESR's managed to pimp the free source movement (much of it due to RMS and the FSF, yet ESR scorns and criticizes them) for over 30 million dollars. What has he contributed back? A bunch of blow hard nonsense, threatening Bruce Perns with defamation of character and other childish antics. Why should we put up with this?
I know that John Carmack has been skeptical about using voxels due to the sheer amount of processing power they need.
Actually, I've heard the exact opposite, (From a direct quote as well) That JC likes voxels, and would prefer them to polys eventually, as opposed to more and complex-er 3d-model based systems.
He said that the situation was a lot like back in the day with vector graphics vs. pixel graphics. Vectors were great, and didn't take up that much ram, whereas pixels needed bitdepth*screen size of ram. Quite a bit when you're talking about boxes with 64k of ram.
But, as images got more and more complex, so did there vector data. Whereas pixels require the same amount of data no matter how visual complex the image is.
Eventually voxles will take over.
I don't think that they will for quite a while though...
That they are not using the "Rage" Prefix in this chip. They've been using this for the past 4 or 5 years, and I have to say, I was never able to tell one version from another. They were all the same to me "Ati rage something" I mean sure, I'm sure there's some difference between the "Ati Rage" and the "Ati Rage Pro Fury II MAXX", but I'd be hard pressed to tell you what.
Anyway, more good Gfx Cards with good OpenGL support is always good (Something 3dfx never seemed to grasp...) Oh well, I just hope they change the name again when they get there next chip. I don't want to be talking about the "ATI Radeon 512 II Pro Turbo Championship Addition" in 2007...
I think one of the critical points that these people don't realize is that human beings are violent, to start with. We enjoy violence; we like killing things, in fact our violent tendencies are a necessary part of our evolution. We needed to go out and kill wild animals. Animals that, without technology, could have killed us. If you look at any large mammals, their children play violently with each other; it's a natural state. There is no reason to think that humans are any different. The article, witch I have not read in full, talks about knowledge structures, and societal constructs. And yet they offer no solid evidence. In fact they state " But, none of the studies distinguished between violent and nonviolent video games. Thus, none test the hypothesis that violent video games are uniquely associated" when talking about correlative research (meaning that its just possible that more violent people like video games). And of there experimental research, they state " The extant experimental studies of video games and aggression have yielded weak evidence also.... However, none of these studies can rule out the possibility that key variables such as excitement, difficulty, or enjoyment created the observed increase in aggression"
They go on to say " violent materials tend to be more exciting than nonviolent materials, so the observed effects could have been the result of higher excitement levels induced by the violent games." Meaning that the 'violent' play that was observed in laboratories could simply be an artifact of the heightened excitement caused by the games.
I play video games all the time, as do millions of people, and while I enjoy seeing my opponents in quake explode in a bloody mass (although, its more likely to happen to me:( , I have no desire to see them destroyed in real life. The question here is not whether or not video games cause a heightened desire for violence, but whether or not they cause a person to loose there own moral compass, and bring there desires into the real world. Video games, unlike television never feel real to a kid. They know it's a fantasy world, and the only lesson kids learn is that violence is acceptable in virtual environments.
The lesson that violence is not acceptable in the real world is something that parents need to give.
All of those atrocities have occurred in the 20th century. While Religious atrocities have been happening since the beginning of human existence. Actually, I'll tell you what kills people; it isn't religion per se, its ideologies. People who believe in something so much, that anything is worth it to acquire their goals. Those people killed millions of people because they believed in something, just like the religious murderers believed in god. They believed with their whole hearts. And they thought what they were doing was for the good of humanity.
A fanatic is the most dangerous kind of person.
The effects of video games, are comparatively nothing. Anyway, I'd call into question any 'scientific study' that starts out with the words "On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an assault on Columbine High..."
Actually, they talked about Dominion: storm over gift 3 in the great Dallas Observer Article as well. Apparently, Todd "preacher boy" porter convinced the rest of Ion to buy the game from his old employer for a cool $1.5 million, saying the game was 'almost done' and would only need a few touch ups before burning. Since they were guaranteed $3 million from Edios, for there first 3 releases, it seemed like a good deal.
But, as you can already guess, that wasn't what happened. Ion spend the whole $1.5 million of profit they were expecting, and then another 1.5 million. Supposedly the game was going to have to sell nearly as many copies as DOOM or something like that to turn a profit. They were going to have to sell millions of copies.
They sold Four Thousand Copies. Four Thousand, about the number of hit's I've gotten from my slashdot sig.
The game sucked.
There's a pretty big diffrence between the two
on
Daikatana Goes Gold!
·
· Score: 1
First of all, The Unreal guys wrote their own engine, including a software renderer. And there was a reason for the hype; it was a part of Intel's hype for the MMX chip. Unreal was supposed to be one of the first games to support it.
Compared to the hype for DK, Unreal was practically below the radar. And you never heard Tim Sweeny say that he was "Going to make gamers his bitch" or talk about how he was famous in Japan...
There's quite a bit more to the history of Ion Storm and the 'breakup' of Id, I believe Mike Wilson also quit to form Ion-Storm, but quit after a while.
One of the biggest problems in that company was the management. Romero didn't want to do it, and Todd Porter, a worthless weasel who was able to con himself into controlling a majority stake in the company sucked at it.
Romero can design a game, that's for sure. He had no trouble with Quake and Doom and all of that. Sure it wasn't him alone, but he does deserve a lot of the credit. The problem at Ion was that he couldn't manage a company. Edios is basically running the place now, and if they weren't We probably wouldn't have seen DK in a long time. This company has probably burned through a total of 20-40 million dollars, and produced nothing of worth.
There was a good article, god over a year ago on The Dallas observer (and this Other one from july), If you're interested in all the details. It's a pretty entertaining read, and probably worth the time you wasted playing the DK demo, if any:)
: Celeron 333MHz, 64M SDRAM, and an 8M Matrox Productiva with a 3dfx Voodoo. Since when is that a 486?
Hell dude k6-2-450, 128 megs of ram and a 32meg TNT2 card, the game runs like shit (but q3a gets like 30fps). I was getting like 5-6 FPS, and I couldn't even see those damn frogs half the time.
Try lowering your texture res, that speed my system up a bit, but not much...
well, I've only played a few minutes of it, but from that, it apears to suck. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if I was getting > 5 fps. but I'm not. (dispte the fact that I get 30fps in q3 at 800x600...)
A game should be entertaing when you start the game, you shouldn't have to work before you have fun. And if the later levels are so much better, why not just have them fist?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, in the open source Community, ESR is Nothing But a polemicist. What has he coded? Fetchmail? A mail client. woo, fuck I'v written a mail client. Its not that hard, and I'm a freshman CS major. ESR may be amateur coder, but to call him a Great Programmer is a complete disjunct with reality
There's nothing wrong with pragmatism. But, I do not like my views represented by someone like ESR. Someone who once had the audacity to claim that All Linux users didn't want there software used by "Red" china.
I've read ESRs statements, and from what I've gathered about him, my opinion is that he's a money grubbing whore.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a money grubbing whore. but there's something amiss about making all you're cash by giving lectures about Open Source to Big Corps while writing next to no code yourself. ESR has profited off all of us. I was hoping that since he got his $30 million dollars from the IPO of VA that he'd shut up. Of course now that the stock is crashing, and he's only got something like $3 mill or so, I guess it'll be a long time yet...
Sweet, I'm going to loose so much karma on this thread... sigh
She had a great philosophy that doesn't deserve to be reduced to a stereotype.
No she didn't. I've read some of her stuff, and here theories are fundamentally unsound. Basically, she tries to use logic, but her initial assumptions are just that, assumptions. And they are unfounded.
Rand might have loved like in the UK around the time of the industrial revolution, that is, if she wasn't a sustenance worker. Conditions were terrible. Our history over the past few hundred years has been to move away from her ideas, not towards them.
The bottom line is, her ideas depend everyone being perfect, and only a very few acting on a 'subhuman level'. Yet, she provides no reason for those people to do so. She, in actuality is as utopian as Marx and other communists. And her system would be as fallible, if implemented.
Maybe not, but people with webcams sure don't seem to have much trouble...
When I was reading the artical I cam across this "I have been an Internet user since ARPANET [Advanced Research Projects Agency Network] days, in 1976. Today I am one of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work, " What is he talking about? Does he consider his board position on VA linux to be a part of the core technical cadre of the 'net? Or is this just more hot air. Really I don't see what being on the board of VA, or trying to trademark the word "Open Source" has to do with 'running the internet'...
Ok, more karma loss...
I guess the real issue is, that he's never really programmed anything. Sure he writes a bunch of psudo-philosophic tripe, that I guess got some people into open source, but in this 'meritocracy' what does he merit? Not much, that's for sure. Yet, ESR's managed to pimp the free source movement (much of it due to RMS and the FSF, yet ESR scorns and criticizes them) for over 30 million dollars. What has he contributed back? A bunch of blow hard nonsense, threatening Bruce Perns with defamation of character and other childish antics. Why should we put up with this?
I know that John Carmack has been skeptical about using voxels due to the sheer amount of processing power they need.
Actually, I've heard the exact opposite, (From a direct quote as well) That JC likes voxels, and would prefer them to polys eventually, as opposed to more and complex-er 3d-model based systems.
He said that the situation was a lot like back in the day with vector graphics vs. pixel graphics. Vectors were great, and didn't take up that much ram, whereas pixels needed bitdepth*screen size of ram. Quite a bit when you're talking about boxes with 64k of ram.
But, as images got more and more complex, so did there vector data. Whereas pixels require the same amount of data no matter how visual complex the image is.
Eventually voxles will take over.
I don't think that they will for quite a while though...
That they are not using the "Rage" Prefix in this chip. They've been using this for the past 4 or 5 years, and I have to say, I was never able to tell one version from another. They were all the same to me "Ati rage something" I mean sure, I'm sure there's some difference between the "Ati Rage" and the "Ati Rage Pro Fury II MAXX", but I'd be hard pressed to tell you what.
Anyway, more good Gfx Cards with good OpenGL support is always good (Something 3dfx never seemed to grasp...) Oh well, I just hope they change the name again when they get there next chip. I don't want to be talking about the "ATI Radeon 512 II Pro Turbo Championship Addition" in 2007...
Why should emmett get a free graphics card? when clearly I am much more deserving.
:P
not that I really would want a 3dfcrap card. nVidia all the way! wooo!
Nothing wrong -> er, it's murder
murderThe unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.
I donno, probably the same way they did it in vetnam...
the father gets custody, its a simple as that.
However, this was a messy, and complicated situation. Its over, so now we can all shut up.
I think one of the critical points that these people don't realize is that human beings are violent, to start with. We enjoy violence; we like killing things, in fact our violent tendencies are a necessary part of our evolution. We needed to go out and kill wild animals. Animals that, without technology, could have killed us. If you look at any large mammals, their children play violently with each other; it's a natural state. There is no reason to think that humans are any different. The article, witch I have not read in full, talks about knowledge structures, and societal constructs. And yet they offer no solid evidence. In fact they state " But, none of the studies distinguished between violent and nonviolent video games. Thus, none test the hypothesis that violent video games are uniquely associated" when talking about correlative research (meaning that its just possible that more violent people like video games). And of there experimental research, they state " The extant experimental studies of video games and aggression have yielded weak evidence also.... However, none of these studies can rule out the possibility that key variables such as excitement, difficulty, or enjoyment created the observed increase in aggression"
:( , I have no desire to see them destroyed in real life. The question here is not whether or not video games cause a heightened desire for violence, but whether or not they cause a person to loose there own moral compass, and bring there desires into the real world. Video games, unlike television never feel real to a kid. They know it's a fantasy world, and the only lesson kids learn is that violence is acceptable in virtual environments.
They go on to say " violent materials tend to be more exciting than nonviolent materials, so the observed effects could have been the result of higher excitement levels induced by the violent games." Meaning that the 'violent' play that was observed in laboratories could simply be an artifact of the heightened excitement caused by the games.
I play video games all the time, as do millions of people, and while I enjoy seeing my opponents in quake explode in a bloody mass (although, its more likely to happen to me
The lesson that violence is not acceptable in the real world is something that parents need to give.
All of those atrocities have occurred in the 20th century. While Religious atrocities have been happening since the beginning of human existence. Actually, I'll tell you what kills people; it isn't religion per se, its ideologies. People who believe in something so much, that anything is worth it to acquire their goals. Those people killed millions of people because they believed in something, just like the religious murderers believed in god. They believed with their whole hearts. And they thought what they were doing was for the good of humanity.
A fanatic is the most dangerous kind of person.
The effects of video games, are comparatively nothing. Anyway, I'd call into question any 'scientific study' that starts out with the words "On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an assault on Columbine High..."
There is a medical condition in witch the liver converts Alchol into a nerotransmitter, like Morphine, or Heroin.
This affects a certan persentage of the population, and those people most certanly do become adicted to the stuff. It is a desise for those people.
Its not like it'll hurt my karma that much, and to be honest, I just forgot to check the 'post anon button' when I submitted.
You are free to think whatever you want, AC
Actually, they talked about Dominion: storm over gift 3 in the great Dallas Observer Article as well. Apparently, Todd "preacher boy" porter convinced the rest of Ion to buy the game from his old employer for a cool $1.5 million, saying the game was 'almost done' and would only need a few touch ups before burning. Since they were guaranteed $3 million from Edios, for there first 3 releases, it seemed like a good deal.
But, as you can already guess, that wasn't what happened. Ion spend the whole $1.5 million of profit they were expecting, and then another 1.5 million. Supposedly the game was going to have to sell nearly as many copies as DOOM or something like that to turn a profit. They were going to have to sell millions of copies.
They sold Four Thousand Copies. Four Thousand, about the number of hit's I've gotten from my slashdot sig.
The game sucked.
First of all, The Unreal guys wrote their own engine, including a software renderer. And there was a reason for the hype; it was a part of Intel's hype for the MMX chip. Unreal was supposed to be one of the first games to support it.
Compared to the hype for DK, Unreal was practically below the radar. And you never heard Tim Sweeny say that he was "Going to make gamers his bitch" or talk about how he was famous in Japan...
And the major difference? Unread didn't suck...
There's quite a bit more to the history of Ion Storm and the 'breakup' of Id, I believe Mike Wilson also quit to form Ion-Storm, but quit after a while.
:)
One of the biggest problems in that company was the management. Romero didn't want to do it, and Todd Porter, a worthless weasel who was able to con himself into controlling a majority stake in the company sucked at it.
Romero can design a game, that's for sure. He had no trouble with Quake and Doom and all of that. Sure it wasn't him alone, but he does deserve a lot of the credit. The problem at Ion was that he couldn't manage a company. Edios is basically running the place now, and if they weren't We probably wouldn't have seen DK in a long time. This company has probably burned through a total of 20-40 million dollars, and produced nothing of worth.
There was a good article, god over a year ago on The Dallas observer (and this Other one from july), If you're interested in all the details. It's a pretty entertaining read, and probably worth the time you wasted playing the DK demo, if any
from the sterilize-all-vessels-thoroughly dept.
Am I missing something?
think more clearly
: Celeron 333MHz, 64M SDRAM, and an 8M Matrox Productiva with a 3dfx Voodoo. Since when is that a 486?
Hell dude k6-2-450, 128 megs of ram and a 32meg TNT2 card, the game runs like shit (but q3a gets like 30fps). I was getting like 5-6 FPS, and I couldn't even see those damn frogs half the time.
Try lowering your texture res, that speed my system up a bit, but not much...
well, I've only played a few minutes of it, but from that, it apears to suck. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if I was getting > 5 fps. but I'm not. (dispte the fact that I get 30fps in q3 at 800x600...)
A game should be entertaing when you start the game, you shouldn't have to work before you have fun. And if the later levels are so much better, why not just have them fist?
Ironically, that quote probably had more to do with releasing the game then beating it...
Example:
你好吗 ==