A question though: I am living outside the US, so I don't know if any offers of foreign aid have come in. Not just money, but doctors, freshwater, etc. With the level of support sent by the US to disasters around the world (like the Boxing Day Tsunami), I wonder if the rest of the world is trying to help the US now?
Canada, and specifically my province of alberta is willing to send staff and write a cheque for aid, however there is no organization directing this aid yet.
If Blizzard would allow bnetd to authenticate the players' CD keys, then that would prevent illegal copies from working with bnetd. Instead, they say "no, you don't get to authenticate CD keys" and then sue with the reasoning "it doesn't authenticate CD keys, therefore it allows people to pirate the game and play".
As well as handing them a ready made key generator. From your standpoint, would you give some random open source geek the root password to your linux box so he could rewrite the source code to the file system for your linux boxen? You neither asked him to do it, nor want to him to have the root access so you say no. Thats what blizzard did. BNETD's original purpose might have been noble, but most of the features they wanted are available for warcraft III on bnet, the only thing BNETD adds is the lack of a cd-ket authentication. Making it a tool for piracy more then anything else. although I don't beleive the BNETD group deserves fines/jail time I don't think they should be so vigorously defended.
I know it's more of a defence of a questionable defendant because it has broader implications but I don't think undermining a companies ability to provide a free service really is worth supporting. BNETD had no other function, sure it's neat, but so what.
BNETD should have just shut down and gone "oh well". But they chose to keep developing and now there are legal proceedings.
You miss understand, you can load patches diabloii.exe with altered drop rates ect... and you can play them using the lan/ip game option which lets you play up to 8 players on any type of modified Diablo ii you want.
could run my own server that manages it's own maps and apply MY rules regarding PKing to the server. With Battle.NET, I have no such chance to do so.
Doesn't matter much. Diablo/DiabloII was passable as an RPG, but it's not got a lot of staying power. And, no, I didn't buy it- someone got it for me as a present for Christmas, I typically don't buy Windows applications, let alone ones from Blizzard when you factor in the reaction to people asking for Warcraft or Diablo titles for Linux- it'll be a cold day in Hell, is the basic gist of their response. Fine... I can live without your stuff, Blizzard. Now moreso than ever.
That is why there is a "lan" option as well as a check for diabloII.exe integrity. If your both using the same hacked copy then you can both play with yrou rules (up to 8 people). In this case BNETD isnt' needed.
Well, I haven't been on bnet much in the last month, but frankly about 1 in 3 or more games (warcraft III) tend to have at least one player time out because of bnet lag or server issues. It's wonderful that blizzard supplies bnet for free in most games, but given the lack of stability sometimes an alternative solution would be better.
I also play warcraft III, a lot. I rarely see this issue. People with unstabel connections do drop, when I had cable (as opposed to the DSL I use now) I dropped often. But bnetd wouldn't help this, the match making system is all blizzard servers but the games are peer to peer with little to do with bnet. I have lost connections and was still able to finish my game, although bnet recorded it as a disconenct in starcraft and as a win win war III. The lag you see isn't the blizzard server, that would be the lag in finding games, and in connecting to the otehr players, after that it's p2p or someone is designated host (custom maps).
Shit, some of us even have legit copies, we just hate dealing with assclowns on Battlenet.
Nothing on BNET prevents you and your friends from "making a chat room" and then "making a private game". So the only valid point in there is that "some of you" have a valid copy. Which means the ones that don't are using bnetd to play without paying. Which isn't a good arguement. There are few things bnetd actually is good for except to circumvent blizzards copy protection.
No evolution is the arisal of new unbefore observed "population characteristics" where as adaptation is the observance of existing characteristics in use.
Actualyl to be more specific :
In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation.
What you describe is one part of evolution. Adaptation is ambigous depending on context, evolution is changes in frequency of traits as well as the creation of new traits via mutation.
How would you be able to say that the starting bacteria didn't already have antibiotic resistant genes and instead aquired them as a result of your experiment? It may be a hypothetical possibility, but the question is, is it an experimentally confirmable possibility.
Add a mutagenic agent, if the selective factor is simple, like an antibody that only reacts to certain protiens or a cell wall disruptor then mutations to any parts of those mechnism woudl ocnfer immunity. If you want it to take it's natural time, then just wait and repeat. Bacteria have a fairly high rate of mutation.
They're already are allowances within their genetic code for such deviation. As opposed to a new feature previously not found within the genetic code. Which is what evolution dictates.
Evolution is selective breeding for traits that arise from mutations. In 3-7 generations I can induce mutations in a bacteria and make it immune to some anti-bacterial agents. There are experiments of this nature, mutations in how the cell wall protiens form can create this, while having an enviroment with that contains a cell wall disrupting chemical will be the selecting factor.
We see micro evolution in a few generations. We've seen it in birds and bugs and even humans. We have not observed a dog becoming a whale except with theories based on similar skulls, okay? Macro evolution, if it even works, has not been observed.
That distinction in entirely made up. Micro and macro evolution are red herrings, they are not scientific ideas. They are Ideas that Creationists added to the arguement when they could not deny the evidence. As for dogs becoming whales, what are the chances that you can raise your kid to be you. 0%. Becuase you are you. If you raise him in exactly the same manner and your DNA was close enough, your son would behave and resemble you but will never be you. The arguement about this becoming that is stupid in the same way an argument that child rearing can't exsist because you can't raise a child to be you.
You're entitled to believe in it as I am, but the fact is that we "believe."
No, it is the "evidence generally supports". Not belief without evidence. That means while you may beleive you are the re-incarnaton of nepolean, evidence suggest you are not. Just as creationists may beleive evolution is bullshit, evolution is generally supported by the evidence.
It might be wrong.
It may not be 100% but it is correct in so far as any scientific theory is correct, ie. Gravity.
How do we know taking those supposedly moderate steps won't harm us? Recently we jumped into Iraq because we went on a lack of sufficient datapoints.
Actually we had all the datapoints we needed. We needed oil, iraq has oil. Control the oil, control the world. I think it's a better idea that the US controls it rather then some other itnerested parties although neither china nor the EU controlling it would bother me either, but russian control would. The WMD spiel was a propaganda piece. Not as effective as it should have been.
This unproven theory is being taught in schools as fact (I know, I was there) with no debate and no talk except, "Stop air pollution or the planet is going to die." I won't even give global warming the time of day. We can solve real problems with real solutions right now. In doing so, we even solve theoretical problems like global warming.
This isn't a scientific theory that is in dispute, it's a conclusion that is in dispute. The theory is if you have more green house gases things get warmer. This is entirly true, how ever the conclusion and some of the premises regaurding our specific case is controversial. also note, theories are not "proven" they are "supported" of "falsified". No theory is every "proven" except in math.
People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years.
While I largely agree with most the rest of yrou post, I have to point out that evolution does not need thousands of years. You can observe it's action in 3-7 generations. You don't need a thousand years unless yoru species reproduces very slowly and lives 150 or more years.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Unfortunately it can't all be ignored. While it is a small sample and the information is very localized in the time spectrum... it's all we got, we have to make the best decisions we can with what is available. If it happens to be well supported but wrong, we waste a few billion dollars and some things improve when they didn't have to. If it is right, we're fucked. Given those two options I say take moderate steps in the direction that is supported instead of ignoring it because we lack sufficient datapoints. Find out what is generally supported and make a reasonable pollicy accordingly.
Are there not enough sick and homeless people that need care?
Poverty is a problem that has a diminishing return with money spent. You will never get rid of it. So whie that money might have made 1-3 families squalid life somewhat less squalid, it might atcually save lives in this instance. Plus, telecoms will donate the equipment as PR moves.
Sheesh... there is so much we can do.. but we have to do it! Not sit around here and bitch. When was the last time ya'll got involved? Called your local media? Called your senator's office? GOD FORBID WROTE A LETTER!!!!
Actually I'm a canadian. My letter to my senator would not be so effectiev since he is basically a patronage appointment and has not power.
Jho - still giving it up for HER loved ones bleeding our blood in a foreign land for her children's freedom.
Here is the problem. I agree a war should be fought, Iraq seems like a good place to set up a beach head. Control the oil and we control our futures, lose the oil and we're fucked. However this administration is running this war badly. Not having the right resources in place, not sending troops out to maintain order. Ect... As well their propaganda machine is pretty broken. This war isn't about freedom. If you wanted to stop the terrorists you would arrest most of the saudi royal families and freeze all the funds of those princes. They fund this and support this. Do that as well as develope a viable alternative power supply (or invest in the venezualan/canadian oil sands. there more oil there then int he middle east.). Once you have no use for that area, walk away and let it eat itself. It would become like Africa. Lot of violence, very little press.
The same branch of government that trains men to be the deadliest operatives on that planet?
You mean the US government trains the SAS? ohh I think your mistake I think you meant to say "The same branch of government that trains men to be the friendly fire prone operatives on that planet?"
Ya know what? When they (terrorists, islamic fundamentalists, and Chechnyans) stop beheading innocent people (particularly American Contractors pouring cement for schools, etc), and using children for human shields, then maybe the Geneva Convention can have some sway over what we do. Until then, VICTORY, NO MATTER THE MEASURE!
As much as I hate the islamic terrorists and feel "a" war on iraq is nessacary I need to point out that most of the kidnapped "contractors" are hired mercenaries. Security personel.
While I agree that the US typically tries to bend most of the agreements it signs, I think you're taking it too far. How many wars have the US started since 1929?
How about NAFTA, there was no bending, there was a unilateral breaking of that agreement in regaurds to soft wood.
Heh, I don't think you can say Shakespeare's dialogue is poor
Yup, but his stories are plagerized and his themes are common themes at that time. It doesn't diminish his work, it is still something to have such a body in iambic pentameter. I personally love shakespeare.
I think I agree with you about the game itself, I just think we can do better, therefore it almost seems like complacency a bit to exhault it so high. You know, if we can make games as good as pulp novels now, surely making them as good as good genre novels can't be an impossible task?
True, but don't forget the audience and the business. For a litarary work it's mediocre. But if you used the same script for a movie it'd be decent, on par with the original matrix. entertaining, somewhat trite presentations of complex ideas but a good introdution into those themes. For a complex book to be published there is less money on the line. For a game it's too much time and money to squander on something truly original and advanced. Besides while making a steppenwolf character might be artistically satisfying the game players wants to be beowolf. The archtypes stir and inspire us and that is what sells. A nameless hero with a mysterious past is common for games because that arch type has a lot of success. It's the nature of the audience, the medium, and culture in general. There aren't enough avante garde game players to warrant true exploration of ideas and themes.
I'm very aware of the Bard's populist approach. In that regard Planescape is very different from Shakespeare, its somewhat short on the nob jokes (lets just leave the idea that the Bard was an Elizabethan George Lucas shall we... popular yes, hack no...Beethoven isn't Britney Spears either).
Actually THE BARD was a just like Lucas. He took a lot of other peoples work, copied and added things to it and released populist works. The themes and insight into the human conditions may be him or from things he stole from. The fact that most people do not understand the words being said adds some signifigance to them. Only time will tell if Lucas fades into oblivion, his dialogue is bad, his themes ripped off from others and his plot is derivative but you can level 2 of those 3 charges on Shakespeare as well.
Planescapes story is "great" compared to other games, it is "good" when compared to other books in the fantasy genre and is "below average" when compared to real literature and I don't deny this. However as a game, it's plot is substantially better then most.
Another specific problem is if you aren't blinded by the Shakespearean prose (LOL) you'll notice that a majority of the missions are basically FedEx jobs. People who do that in real life get paid because its tedious. I don't pay money to be a glorified mail man.
---- Spoilers ------
My, My aren't we pretentious. You do know shakespeare is populist stuff for his time. He's the equivilent to George Lucas of the 1500-1600's. I like planescapes atmosphere and writing. It did have depth and fighting your own mortality to regain the ability to die is hardly a "predictable edning". Are you sure you played planescape and not BG1?
what if you have a pseudorandom sequence generator with the range of 0-20 (random number generator) attached to the AI
after making any intelligent weighted decision, the random number is chosen, if the number is 10 (or some arbitrary number in that range) the AI will then disregard the intelligent choice and choose some other descision with a higher weight (this could be random as well) and introduce a bit more unpredictability into the AI, and make them a bit more human, just as humans do random idiotic things sometimes in stressfull situations, sometimes resulting in good results (see: "pulling a Homer")
That won't actually work, people do nto do random idiotic things. They do idiotic things with some rationale. the best you would do with your slight AI addition is simulate someone who is incompetent.
Whites are nearly proportionatly represented in the media while blacks are over represented in the media. They are shown twice as often as their actual percentage of the population. Asians are severely under represented and hespanics are also.
Re:Space travel - no kidding
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In addition, your alternative to expansion is incomplete as well. It assumes only tyranny or anarchy can control populations. But there's an alternative even you touch upon: if rich people breed less than poor people, let's get rid of poverty.
There is a choice all the way up until we hit a certain equilibrium point, the choices made then will determine if we go into one of those two directions, and the grandparent is right, eventually it has to be growth into space or tight tight population controls. There is a third option, over populate and when the resources can't support the population, a rapid depopulation followed by a long resource poor dark age. I think we're nto smart enough for tight controls, thats leaves with exither expanding or crashing.
Slashdot Mirror
A question though: I am living outside the US, so I don't know if any offers of foreign aid have come in. Not just money, but doctors, freshwater, etc. With the level of support sent by the US to disasters around the world (like the Boxing Day Tsunami), I wonder if the rest of the world is trying to help the US now?
Canada, and specifically my province of alberta is willing to send staff and write a cheque for aid, however there is no organization directing this aid yet.
If Blizzard would allow bnetd to authenticate the players' CD keys, then that would prevent illegal copies from working with bnetd. Instead, they say "no, you don't get to authenticate CD keys" and then sue with the reasoning "it doesn't authenticate CD keys, therefore it allows people to pirate the game and play".
As well as handing them a ready made key generator. From your standpoint, would you give some random open source geek the root password to your linux box so he could rewrite the source code to the file system for your linux boxen? You neither asked him to do it, nor want to him to have the root access so you say no. Thats what blizzard did. BNETD's original purpose might have been noble, but most of the features they wanted are available for warcraft III on bnet, the only thing BNETD adds is the lack of a cd-ket authentication. Making it a tool for piracy more then anything else. although I don't beleive the BNETD group deserves fines/jail time I don't think they should be so vigorously defended.
I know it's more of a defence of a questionable defendant because it has broader implications but I don't think undermining a companies ability to provide a free service really is worth supporting. BNETD had no other function, sure it's neat, but so what.
BNETD should have just shut down and gone "oh well". But they chose to keep developing and now there are legal proceedings.
You miss understand, you can load patches diabloii.exe with altered drop rates ect... and you can play them using the lan/ip game option which lets you play up to 8 players on any type of modified Diablo ii you want.
could run my own server that manages it's own maps and apply MY rules regarding PKing to the server. With Battle.NET, I have no such chance to do so.
Doesn't matter much. Diablo/DiabloII was passable as an RPG, but it's not got a lot of staying power. And, no, I didn't buy it- someone got it for me as a present for Christmas, I typically don't buy Windows applications, let alone ones from Blizzard when you factor in the reaction to people asking for Warcraft or Diablo titles for Linux- it'll be a cold day in Hell, is the basic gist of their response. Fine... I can live without your stuff, Blizzard. Now moreso than ever.
That is why there is a "lan" option as well as a check for diabloII.exe integrity. If your both using the same hacked copy then you can both play with yrou rules (up to 8 people). In this case BNETD isnt' needed.
Well, I haven't been on bnet much in the last month, but frankly about 1 in 3 or more games (warcraft III) tend to have at least one player time out because of bnet lag or server issues. It's wonderful that blizzard supplies bnet for free in most games, but given the lack of stability sometimes an alternative solution would be better.
I also play warcraft III, a lot. I rarely see this issue. People with unstabel connections do drop, when I had cable (as opposed to the DSL I use now) I dropped often. But bnetd wouldn't help this, the match making system is all blizzard servers but the games are peer to peer with little to do with bnet. I have lost connections and was still able to finish my game, although bnet recorded it as a disconenct in starcraft and as a win win war III. The lag you see isn't the blizzard server, that would be the lag in finding games, and in connecting to the otehr players, after that it's p2p or someone is designated host (custom maps).
Shit, some of us even have legit copies, we just hate dealing with assclowns on Battlenet.
Nothing on BNET prevents you and your friends from "making a chat room" and then "making a private game". So the only valid point in there is that "some of you" have a valid copy. Which means the ones that don't are using bnetd to play without paying. Which isn't a good arguement. There are few things bnetd actually is good for except to circumvent blizzards copy protection.
No evolution is the arisal of new unbefore observed "population characteristics" where as adaptation is the observance of existing characteristics in use.
Actualyl to be more specific :
In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation.
Evolution
What you describe is one part of evolution. Adaptation is ambigous depending on context, evolution is changes in frequency of traits as well as the creation of new traits via mutation.
How would you be able to say that the starting bacteria didn't already have antibiotic resistant genes and instead aquired them as a result of your experiment? It may be a hypothetical possibility, but the question is, is it an experimentally confirmable possibility.
Add a mutagenic agent, if the selective factor is simple, like an antibody that only reacts to certain protiens or a cell wall disruptor then mutations to any parts of those mechnism woudl ocnfer immunity. If you want it to take it's natural time, then just wait and repeat. Bacteria have a fairly high rate of mutation.
They're already are allowances within their genetic code for such deviation. As opposed to a new feature previously not found within the genetic code. Which is what evolution dictates.
Evolution is selective breeding for traits that arise from mutations. In 3-7 generations I can induce mutations in a bacteria and make it immune to some anti-bacterial agents. There are experiments of this nature, mutations in how the cell wall protiens form can create this, while having an enviroment with that contains a cell wall disrupting chemical will be the selecting factor.
We see micro evolution in a few generations. We've seen it in birds and bugs and even humans. We have not observed a dog becoming a whale except with theories based on similar skulls, okay? Macro evolution, if it even works, has not been observed.
That distinction in entirely made up. Micro and macro evolution are red herrings, they are not scientific ideas. They are Ideas that Creationists added to the arguement when they could not deny the evidence. As for dogs becoming whales, what are the chances that you can raise your kid to be you. 0%. Becuase you are you. If you raise him in exactly the same manner and your DNA was close enough, your son would behave and resemble you but will never be you. The arguement about this becoming that is stupid in the same way an argument that child rearing can't exsist because you can't raise a child to be you.
You're entitled to believe in it as I am, but the fact is that we "believe."
No, it is the "evidence generally supports". Not belief without evidence. That means while you may beleive you are the re-incarnaton of nepolean, evidence suggest you are not. Just as creationists may beleive evolution is bullshit, evolution is generally supported by the evidence.
It might be wrong.
It may not be 100% but it is correct in so far as any scientific theory is correct, ie. Gravity.
How do we know taking those supposedly moderate steps won't harm us? Recently we jumped into Iraq because we went on a lack of sufficient datapoints.
Actually we had all the datapoints we needed. We needed oil, iraq has oil. Control the oil, control the world. I think it's a better idea that the US controls it rather then some other itnerested parties although neither china nor the EU controlling it would bother me either, but russian control would. The WMD spiel was a propaganda piece. Not as effective as it should have been.
This unproven theory is being taught in schools as fact (I know, I was there) with no debate and no talk except, "Stop air pollution or the planet is going to die." I won't even give global warming the time of day. We can solve real problems with real solutions right now. In doing so, we even solve theoretical problems like global warming.
This isn't a scientific theory that is in dispute, it's a conclusion that is in dispute. The theory is if you have more green house gases things get warmer. This is entirly true, how ever the conclusion and some of the premises regaurding our specific case is controversial. also note, theories are not "proven" they are "supported" of "falsified". No theory is every "proven" except in math.
People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years.
While I largely agree with most the rest of yrou post, I have to point out that evolution does not need thousands of years. You can observe it's action in 3-7 generations. You don't need a thousand years unless yoru species reproduces very slowly and lives 150 or more years.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Unfortunately it can't all be ignored. While it is a small sample and the information is very localized in the time spectrum... it's all we got, we have to make the best decisions we can with what is available. If it happens to be well supported but wrong, we waste a few billion dollars and some things improve when they didn't have to. If it is right, we're fucked. Given those two options I say take moderate steps in the direction that is supported instead of ignoring it because we lack sufficient datapoints. Find out what is generally supported and make a reasonable pollicy accordingly.
Are there not enough sick and homeless people that need care?
Poverty is a problem that has a diminishing return with money spent. You will never get rid of it. So whie that money might have made 1-3 families squalid life somewhat less squalid, it might atcually save lives in this instance. Plus, telecoms will donate the equipment as PR moves.
Sheesh... there is so much we can do.. but we have to do it! Not sit around here and bitch. When was the last time ya'll got involved? Called your local media? Called your senator's office? GOD FORBID WROTE A LETTER!!!!
Actually I'm a canadian. My letter to my senator would not be so effectiev since he is basically a patronage appointment and has not power.
Jho - still giving it up for HER loved ones bleeding our blood in a foreign land for her children's freedom.
Here is the problem. I agree a war should be fought, Iraq seems like a good place to set up a beach head. Control the oil and we control our futures, lose the oil and we're fucked. However this administration is running this war badly. Not having the right resources in place, not sending troops out to maintain order. Ect... As well their propaganda machine is pretty broken. This war isn't about freedom. If you wanted to stop the terrorists you would arrest most of the saudi royal families and freeze all the funds of those princes. They fund this and support this. Do that as well as develope a viable alternative power supply (or invest in the venezualan/canadian oil sands. there more oil there then int he middle east.). Once you have no use for that area, walk away and let it eat itself. It would become like Africa. Lot of violence, very little press.
The same branch of government that trains men to be the deadliest operatives on that planet?
You mean the US government trains the SAS? ohh I think your mistake I think you meant to say "The same branch of government that trains men to be the friendly fire prone operatives on that planet?"
Ya know what? When they (terrorists, islamic fundamentalists, and Chechnyans) stop beheading innocent people (particularly American Contractors pouring cement for schools, etc), and using children for human shields, then maybe the Geneva Convention can have some sway over what we do. Until then, VICTORY, NO MATTER THE MEASURE!
As much as I hate the islamic terrorists and feel "a" war on iraq is nessacary I need to point out that most of the kidnapped "contractors" are hired mercenaries. Security personel.
While I agree that the US typically tries to bend most of the agreements it signs, I think you're taking it too far. How many wars have the US started since 1929?
How about NAFTA, there was no bending, there was a unilateral breaking of that agreement in regaurds to soft wood.
Heh, I don't think you can say Shakespeare's dialogue is poor
Yup, but his stories are plagerized and his themes are common themes at that time. It doesn't diminish his work, it is still something to have such a body in iambic pentameter. I personally love shakespeare.
I think I agree with you about the game itself, I just think we can do better, therefore it almost seems like complacency a bit to exhault it so high. You know, if we can make games as good as pulp novels now, surely making them as good as good genre novels can't be an impossible task?
True, but don't forget the audience and the business. For a litarary work it's mediocre. But if you used the same script for a movie it'd be decent, on par with the original matrix. entertaining, somewhat trite presentations of complex ideas but a good introdution into those themes. For a complex book to be published there is less money on the line. For a game it's too much time and money to squander on something truly original and advanced. Besides while making a steppenwolf character might be artistically satisfying the game players wants to be beowolf. The archtypes stir and inspire us and that is what sells. A nameless hero with a mysterious past is common for games because that arch type has a lot of success. It's the nature of the audience, the medium, and culture in general. There aren't enough avante garde game players to warrant true exploration of ideas and themes.
I'm very aware of the Bard's populist approach. In that regard Planescape is very different from Shakespeare, its somewhat short on the nob jokes (lets just leave the idea that the Bard was an Elizabethan George Lucas shall we... popular yes, hack no...Beethoven isn't Britney Spears either).
Actually THE BARD was a just like Lucas. He took a lot of other peoples work, copied and added things to it and released populist works. The themes and insight into the human conditions may be him or from things he stole from. The fact that most people do not understand the words being said adds some signifigance to them. Only time will tell if Lucas fades into oblivion, his dialogue is bad, his themes ripped off from others and his plot is derivative but you can level 2 of those 3 charges on Shakespeare as well.
Planescapes story is "great" compared to other games, it is "good" when compared to other books in the fantasy genre and is "below average" when compared to real literature and I don't deny this. However as a game, it's plot is substantially better then most.
Another specific problem is if you aren't blinded by the Shakespearean prose (LOL) you'll notice that a majority of the missions are basically FedEx jobs. People who do that in real life get paid because its tedious. I don't pay money to be a glorified mail man.
---- Spoilers ------
My, My aren't we pretentious. You do know shakespeare is populist stuff for his time. He's the equivilent to George Lucas of the 1500-1600's. I like planescapes atmosphere and writing. It did have depth and fighting your own mortality to regain the ability to die is hardly a "predictable edning". Are you sure you played planescape and not BG1?
Then the germs evolve and become resistant to silver and we're in REAL trouble.
As long as the werewolves don't become resistant I think we'll be okay.
Japan is 40% of the game market while north america is 42% (numbers out my ass but generally true) so yeah success in japan matters.
what if you have a pseudorandom sequence generator with the range of 0-20 (random number generator) attached to the AI
after making any intelligent weighted decision, the random number is chosen, if the number is 10 (or some arbitrary number in that range) the AI will then disregard the intelligent choice and choose some other descision with a higher weight (this could be random as well) and introduce a bit more unpredictability into the AI, and make them a bit more human, just as humans do random idiotic things sometimes in stressfull situations, sometimes resulting in good results (see: "pulling a Homer")
That won't actually work, people do nto do random idiotic things. They do idiotic things with some rationale. the best you would do with your slight AI addition is simulate someone who is incompetent.
Whites are nearly proportionatly represented in the media while blacks are over represented in the media. They are shown twice as often as their actual percentage of the population. Asians are severely under represented and hespanics are also.
In addition, your alternative to expansion is incomplete as well. It assumes only tyranny or anarchy can control populations. But there's an alternative even you touch upon: if rich people breed less than poor people, let's get rid of poverty.
There is a choice all the way up until we hit a certain equilibrium point, the choices made then will determine if we go into one of those two directions, and the grandparent is right, eventually it has to be growth into space or tight tight population controls. There is a third option, over populate and when the resources can't support the population, a rapid depopulation followed by a long resource poor dark age. I think we're nto smart enough for tight controls, thats leaves with exither expanding or crashing.