My own immediate family is actually pretty reasonable when it comes to computers. I've fixed my sister's computer once or twice, and when I told her "don't download and install this crap anymore or your computer will get messed up again," she took it to heart, and now she's doing a lot better. Also, she never blamed me for her computer failing.
Also (and please excuse my cliched comment here), if you're setting up a computer for your grandma who just reads email and plays bridge, Linux may be a good option. It's not vulnerable to most of the malware/spyware/adware feces that slows so many computers down. Just do her a favor and don't spend three hours preaching to her about the virtues of open source. She just wants a computer she can use.
I'm guessing that, as an Ohio resident, if I happen to get spam from a spammer operating here in the state of Ohio, then I can zap him with this statute. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and believe me, I'd love to be wrong about this), but these laws aren't enforceable across state borders, correct? So if some [insert long string of expletives here] spammer from some other state spams me, there's nothing I can do, even if I know who did it. Right?
PCGen is a nifty app, but all this stuff annoys me. I bought all the 3rd ed books already after all... it seems stingy to charge users twice.
The PCGen folks work out a deal with Wizards to so that they can license material that's not covered by the Open Gaming License, and you're complaining about it.
If you feel that strongly about not paying twice, no one is making you buy it. Additionally, you're totally free to create and distribute Open Gaming Content yourself. God forbid someone try and make a little money for their work.
One problem I don't see addressed, though, is social stagnation in addition to economic. When a movie can be rereleased to the public 20 years after it debuted and pull in millions of dollars (E.T. anyone?), it's not because people are dying to see what happens, it's because it's become part of our culture. In this day and age, twenty years is a long time for something like that, and if the courts considered that a little more, they might realize that we as a people have a constitutional right not to pay $8.50 to relive our childhood memories. The writing has been done, the money has been made, it's time to stop milking it and put it in the public domain, where it belongs. I'm guessing that when ET was written, they were considering the immediate incentive of a theatrical release, as opposed to the incentive of re-releasing it twenty years later.
I'm especially amused at the bit about $3.50 apiece (or $10 for the whole set) being expensive. And here I paid sixty bucks for the three core D&D3 books and felt like I was getting a deal. I won't even start on how much all the other accessory books I've bought have set me back.
That said, D&D has come a long way from its roots. I've never played 1st edition, but I played a lot of second, and it in comparison to 3rd, it feels at the same time far too limiting and overly complicated. I was surprised how much they managed to simultaneously simplify the game and allow for so many more options.
Out of curiosity, those of you who have played all three and a half revisions of D&D, which one did you like the most?
I think free will and the omniscience of God are always going to be concepts that conflict in my mind. Whether or not this is the best of all possible worlds, it remains that if God knows in advance what choices we make, then we are destined to make those choices.
Also, I suppose I haven't really chimed in on the creation/evolution topic specifically... I myself lean toward intelligent design, but, by the nature of God (who could set things up from the Big Bang and know exactly how it would turn out in the end) there's no way to really know if God made it happen, or if it was all one big coincidence. In that sense, I don't really believe that evolution and intelligent design conflict at all, and I see no reason to exclude one or the other.
Best analogy I can come up with: watch a movie. Now, watch it a second time. Do you know what's going to happen now? Yes. Did you actually cause it to happen? No - the actors, the directors, the editors did. They exercised their free will, and you are viewing the results. Because you are (essentially) looking at it from outside the moving-making space and time, you have a viewpoint similar to the one that God has from his "position" outside our space and time.
Ahh, but God is the director (and the writer, for that matter), is He not? When God created the world, didn't He already know exactly how it would all turn out? Couldn't He have chosen to do things a tiny, tiny bit differently and cause the future to play out in a different way?
P.S. This post's original parent "I have no free will" seeded an interesting discussion, and deserves better than to be modded down as a troll.
Although I do experience some kind of consciousness, I declare that it is a mere illusion produced by my brain. The logical consequence from this position is also that I do not have a free will, and that as far as I do think that I have a free will, this is a mere illusion. My actions are completely defined by the past. It is purely by change that I signed this statement. It is the result of some random physical process whoes nature is beyond my comprehension. (Actually, the concept of "comprehension" is an illusion as well.)
Wow, very interesting claim there. And delightfully irrelevant to the topic, I might add.
Tell me: If God is all-seeing and all-knowing, then doesn't He know what's going to happen in the future? And if God already knows what's going to happen, doesn't that mean that our destinies are set in stone, and we have no free will?
(Bear in mind that answering "no" to the first question is an admission that God is not in fact omnipotent.)
This certainly isn't intended to discouage this person from working on a free project if he so chooses, but the thing about your own project is that it's just that -- yours. You can't really personalize a game that's already been designed.
That said, the artist problem is one that has plagued me as well... most artists are fickle and unreliable at best. However, if you manage to find one that doesn't fit the stereotype, more power to you.:)
First and foremost, if we're confident about our own position, we shouldn't be afraid to let the opposition speak. If we're scared that the opposition may sway opinions, then perhaps our viewpoint isn't quite as good as we think it is.
Secondly, Microsoft has made an ass of itself on numerous occasions when speaking about Open Source. They probably won't be stupid enough to attempt their typical FUD in the middle of an OSS convention--and if they do, then they'll net themselves far more negative publicity than positive.
Third, they may actually have something insighful to say.
We'll you're right about the AI only getting so far... The problem is, even in your ideal MMORPG, things wouldn't be perfect.
The greatest thing about single-player RPGs is that you, the player, are the hero. While it's certainly possible in an MMORPG for some characters to rise up above others and become more powerful, they don't (and really can't) give each and every player the opportunity to stand out.
While this is an inherent limitation to playing in large groups, the limits of an AI really depend on how complex it is. While we can't yet reach the level of complexity necessary, the limitation isn't inherent: if you built a large enough computer and wrote enough code, it would be possible.
If you think of a story in terms of an N-tree, Final Fantasy could be represented by a very deep tree where each node has one single child--hence, a totally linear plot. Morrowind would be better represented as an extremely wide, shallow tree, where the first node has hundreds of children, but said children all have very few children of their own. No single quest in Morrowind comes close to matching the depth of any of the Final Fantasy games, but on the other hand, Final Fantasy's one-track story gives you very little ability to influence the world in ways that haven't already been scripted for you. In one case, you get many, many choices, and in the other, you interact with a group of characters who develop over time while pursuing a common goal.
The ultimate constraint here is development time. The Morrowind engine is theoretically capable of representing an FF-type plot, and vice-versa. However, the designers only have time to write so much story, and where they decide to focus their efforts decides which type of game you'll end up with.
That said, if this Liquid Narrative thing isn't vapor (I'll believe that when I see it), this problem could be solved completely. Conceivably, you could end up with a game that's the best of both worlds--a Final Fantasy where your actions aren't set beforehand, or a Morrowind where the characters and plots have more depth and development.
Of course, it's probably wishful thinking, but I'd love to see it happen.
Pretty much every plot has been done before. That's the nature of storytelling. What makes a good story is combining compelling characters with an interesting setting and solid writing. Final Fantasy may not have always met these criteria, but it arguably has since the sixth installment or so. So what you end up with is a set of games that, while they share some of the same general plot elements, are made distinct from each other by their characters and settings.
However, one question I ask is: do games need narrative at all? Games are about play - we are all home ludens. Do basketball games need narrative? The most interesting, successful and universally appealing games are those such as Tetris, where there is no end, but no story to get there either.
I feel like I should probably chime in on this... as a fan of Square's RPGs (especially FF8 and FFX), I've given a lot of thought to story in games. What these games give you is the illusion of being able to influence the story's outcome (although the stories themselves are generally quite linear). If that illusion is convincing enough, you end up with a really good game.
Of course, where it all breaks down is when you play it through the second time. By that time, you already know how everything will play out, and so the element of suspense is gone.
Giving these games an interactive story might not make them infinitely replayable (the setting and characters would likely remain the same each time through), but it would certainly make them a lot more fun to play a few times, so you could try new things.
What if, on some wild chance, another star of similar size came whizzing in from above the solar system at near light speed and collided with the sun, splattering it downward and away from the solar system. In that case, the sun would be moving at some speed that is close enough to the speed of light for this to be noticeable.
It doesn't take into account how the citizens feel. Having grown up in a town of 40,000, I can tell you that one murder was pretty big news. I can only recall hearing about murders two times during my ten or so years living there. Even assuming that I missed a few, that still wouldn't account for 18 vampires feeding once every three days (that's 2190 deaths per year--13 percent of the total murder rate for the ENTIRE UNITED STATES (~16000/yr)).
Anybody with half a brain would have moved out of that town long ago... and people ceratinly wouldn't be moving in.
Slashdot Mirror
My own immediate family is actually pretty reasonable when it comes to computers. I've fixed my sister's computer once or twice, and when I told her "don't download and install this crap anymore or your computer will get messed up again," she took it to heart, and now she's doing a lot better. Also, she never blamed me for her computer failing.
Also (and please excuse my cliched comment here), if you're setting up a computer for your grandma who just reads email and plays bridge, Linux may be a good option. It's not vulnerable to most of the malware/spyware/adware feces that slows so many computers down. Just do her a favor and don't spend three hours preaching to her about the virtues of open source. She just wants a computer she can use.
I'm guessing that, as an Ohio resident, if I happen to get spam from a spammer operating here in the state of Ohio, then I can zap him with this statute. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and believe me, I'd love to be wrong about this), but these laws aren't enforceable across state borders, correct? So if some [insert long string of expletives here] spammer from some other state spams me, there's nothing I can do, even if I know who did it. Right?
PCGen is a nifty app, but all this stuff annoys me. I bought all the 3rd ed books already after all... it seems stingy to charge users twice.
The PCGen folks work out a deal with Wizards to so that they can license material that's not covered by the Open Gaming License, and you're complaining about it.
If you feel that strongly about not paying twice, no one is making you buy it. Additionally, you're totally free to create and distribute Open Gaming Content yourself. God forbid someone try and make a little money for their work.
One problem I don't see addressed, though, is social stagnation in addition to economic. When a movie can be rereleased to the public 20 years after it debuted and pull in millions of dollars (E.T. anyone?), it's not because people are dying to see what happens, it's because it's become part of our culture. In this day and age, twenty years is a long time for something like that, and if the courts considered that a little more, they might realize that we as a people have a constitutional right not to pay $8.50 to relive our childhood memories. The writing has been done, the money has been made, it's time to stop milking it and put it in the public domain, where it belongs. I'm guessing that when ET was written, they were considering the immediate incentive of a theatrical release, as opposed to the incentive of re-releasing it twenty years later.
My house encumbrance rule is, "Wow, sounds like you're trying to carry a lot of crap. We better add the weights up just to make sure you can do it."
:)
Fortunately, most of the players I have aren't packrats at all, but then I don't give out much treasure.
I'm especially amused at the bit about $3.50 apiece (or $10 for the whole set) being expensive. And here I paid sixty bucks for the three core D&D3 books and felt like I was getting a deal. I won't even start on how much all the other accessory books I've bought have set me back.
That said, D&D has come a long way from its roots. I've never played 1st edition, but I played a lot of second, and it in comparison to 3rd, it feels at the same time far too limiting and overly complicated. I was surprised how much they managed to simultaneously simplify the game and allow for so many more options.
Out of curiosity, those of you who have played all three and a half revisions of D&D, which one did you like the most?
I think free will and the omniscience of God are always going to be concepts that conflict in my mind. Whether or not this is the best of all possible worlds, it remains that if God knows in advance what choices we make, then we are destined to make those choices.
I suppose one possible resolution to this would be the idea that God sees time not only from start to finish, but also all possible alternate times as well, in which people made different choices.
Also, I suppose I haven't really chimed in on the creation/evolution topic specifically... I myself lean toward intelligent design, but, by the nature of God (who could set things up from the Big Bang and know exactly how it would turn out in the end) there's no way to really know if God made it happen, or if it was all one big coincidence. In that sense, I don't really believe that evolution and intelligent design conflict at all, and I see no reason to exclude one or the other.
Best analogy I can come up with: watch a movie. Now, watch it a second time. Do you know what's going to happen now? Yes. Did you actually cause it to happen? No - the actors, the directors, the editors did. They exercised their free will, and you are viewing the results. Because you are (essentially) looking at it from outside the moving-making space and time, you have a viewpoint similar to the one that God has from his "position" outside our space and time.
Ahh, but God is the director (and the writer, for that matter), is He not? When God created the world, didn't He already know exactly how it would all turn out? Couldn't He have chosen to do things a tiny, tiny bit differently and cause the future to play out in a different way?
P.S. This post's original parent "I have no free will" seeded an interesting discussion, and deserves better than to be modded down as a troll.
Although I do experience some kind of consciousness, I declare that it is a mere illusion produced by my brain. The logical consequence from this position is also that I do not have a free will, and that as far as I do think that I have a free will, this is a mere illusion. My actions are completely defined by the past. It is purely by change that I signed this statement. It is the result of some random physical process whoes nature is beyond my comprehension. (Actually, the concept of "comprehension" is an illusion as well.)
Wow, very interesting claim there. And delightfully irrelevant to the topic, I might add.
Tell me: If God is all-seeing and all-knowing, then doesn't He know what's going to happen in the future? And if God already knows what's going to happen, doesn't that mean that our destinies are set in stone, and we have no free will?
(Bear in mind that answering "no" to the first question is an admission that God is not in fact omnipotent.)
I was hoping from the headline that someone was actually building a giant bipedal robot. Ah well.
This certainly isn't intended to discouage this person from working on a free project if he so chooses, but the thing about your own project is that it's just that -- yours. You can't really personalize a game that's already been designed.
:)
That said, the artist problem is one that has plagued me as well... most artists are fickle and unreliable at best. However, if you manage to find one that doesn't fit the stereotype, more power to you.
First and foremost, if we're confident about our own position, we shouldn't be afraid to let the opposition speak. If we're scared that the opposition may sway opinions, then perhaps our viewpoint isn't quite as good as we think it is.
Secondly, Microsoft has made an ass of itself on numerous occasions when speaking about Open Source. They probably won't be stupid enough to attempt their typical FUD in the middle of an OSS convention--and if they do, then they'll net themselves far more negative publicity than positive.
Third, they may actually have something insighful to say.
I dunno if +5 Informative is really an appropriate moderation for this post. Perhaps 6 Funnies and a Troll would be a bit more appropriate.
Am I the only one seeing sarcasm here?
We'll you're right about the AI only getting so far... The problem is, even in your ideal MMORPG, things wouldn't be perfect.
The greatest thing about single-player RPGs is that you, the player, are the hero. While it's certainly possible in an MMORPG for some characters to rise up above others and become more powerful, they don't (and really can't) give each and every player the opportunity to stand out.
While this is an inherent limitation to playing in large groups, the limits of an AI really depend on how complex it is. While we can't yet reach the level of complexity necessary, the limitation isn't inherent: if you built a large enough computer and wrote enough code, it would be possible.
To bo honest, there are merits to each.
If you think of a story in terms of an N-tree, Final Fantasy could be represented by a very deep tree where each node has one single child--hence, a totally linear plot. Morrowind would be better represented as an extremely wide, shallow tree, where the first node has hundreds of children, but said children all have very few children of their own. No single quest in Morrowind comes close to matching the depth of any of the Final Fantasy games, but on the other hand, Final Fantasy's one-track story gives you very little ability to influence the world in ways that haven't already been scripted for you. In one case, you get many, many choices, and in the other, you interact with a group of characters who develop over time while pursuing a common goal.
The ultimate constraint here is development time. The Morrowind engine is theoretically capable of representing an FF-type plot, and vice-versa. However, the designers only have time to write so much story, and where they decide to focus their efforts decides which type of game you'll end up with.
That said, if this Liquid Narrative thing isn't vapor (I'll believe that when I see it), this problem could be solved completely. Conceivably, you could end up with a game that's the best of both worlds--a Final Fantasy where your actions aren't set beforehand, or a Morrowind where the characters and plots have more depth and development.
Of course, it's probably wishful thinking, but I'd love to see it happen.
Pretty much every plot has been done before. That's the nature of storytelling. What makes a good story is combining compelling characters with an interesting setting and solid writing. Final Fantasy may not have always met these criteria, but it arguably has since the sixth installment or so. So what you end up with is a set of games that, while they share some of the same general plot elements, are made distinct from each other by their characters and settings.
However, one question I ask is: do games need narrative at all? Games are about play - we are all home ludens. Do basketball games need narrative? The most interesting, successful and universally appealing games are those such as Tetris, where there is no end, but no story to get there either.
I feel like I should probably chime in on this... as a fan of Square's RPGs (especially FF8 and FFX), I've given a lot of thought to story in games. What these games give you is the illusion of being able to influence the story's outcome (although the stories themselves are generally quite linear). If that illusion is convincing enough, you end up with a really good game.
Of course, where it all breaks down is when you play it through the second time. By that time, you already know how everything will play out, and so the element of suspense is gone.
Giving these games an interactive story might not make them infinitely replayable (the setting and characters would likely remain the same each time through), but it would certainly make them a lot more fun to play a few times, so you could try new things.
What if, on some wild chance, another star of similar size came whizzing in from above the solar system at near light speed and collided with the sun, splattering it downward and away from the solar system. In that case, the sun would be moving at some speed that is close enough to the speed of light for this to be noticeable.
...you can purcase Windows XP Media Center Second Edition starting Febrary 1st, for the low low price of $149.95 plus tax.
...seeing this immediately after a story about Terminator 3. :)
It doesn't take into account how the citizens feel. Having grown up in a town of 40,000, I can tell you that one murder was pretty big news. I can only recall hearing about murders two times during my ten or so years living there. Even assuming that I missed a few, that still wouldn't account for 18 vampires feeding once every three days (that's 2190 deaths per year--13 percent of the total murder rate for the ENTIRE UNITED STATES (~16000/yr)).
Anybody with half a brain would have moved out of that town long ago... and people ceratinly wouldn't be moving in.
+1 insightful
:)
+1 insightful
+1 insightful
comment disagreeing with post
-1 overrated
-1 overrated
Go ahead and -1 offtopic this post. Making this observation is worth burning the karma.
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that was probably on purpose.
Everybody knows that bored geeks are far more dangerous.
and smell the digital millenium copyright act
Oh, is that what that stench is?