Every living thing is evolving. No creatures alive are genetically identical to ones living 60,000 years ago. At that time there were wooly mammoths, and saber-tooth tigers running around.
small correction, every living population. individuals don't evolve. They adapt. Populatiosn evolve.
Takes intelligence to do either. Blign needs some intelligence, and sarcasm is based entirly on intelligence. I know you kidding, I'm just the annoying straight man to you act.
And it never will be. Despite the ignorant rantings of creationists, theories do not ever become laws. Theories and laws are two different types of statements. Laws are general statements about collections of previous observations by which future observations are predicted. Theories are an attempt to explain the underlying causes of the observation. Example: the "Law of gravity" is a model of the resultant force caused by gravitational attraction between two masses. The theory of gravity -- more commonly known as "relativity theory" -- is an attempt to explain why that force occurs.
Actually it's a little more loose then that, a law is a theory someone decided to call a law. A theory is what they have told us we need to call it because a law sounds pretentious and when you falsify it, it makes science looks bad in the press. If I wanted to call my discovery on how one sock out of every pair disappears in the dryer "the law of kingmanics penis" I could do that. If the rest of the community accepts it then I have just coined a law.
So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit.
You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you. And you will live a better life.
You should read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Edwards.
How do you explain miricles? How do you explain the works of Mother Theresa? How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?
Thus spack the uninformed. If I was to walk into a bible study and say "well, thats nice but what the hell is a crucifix and who do we worship someone for dying on one?" It is tantamount to what your doing. In fact most Christians dont' exactly know why Jesus was important, they dont' realize that "lamb of the new covienent" has any other meanign then a neat religious catch phrase. Most people areguing about evolution don't know jack shit about it on either side. With one side having a slight edge on ignorance. You fail to grasp what evolution is, so your are against it. It is the mechanism where by god creates.
The scope of this article is over 60,000 years, the headline suggests the brain is "still" evolving. When you consider modern medicine and modern living the most basic mechanics of evolution (natural selection) aren't nearly as powerful as they were in hunter/gatherer societies.
Evolution has no value for "powerful". Selection is either fatal or non. It might not be as common for people to die but differences in rates of change are common. We're at a fairly stabel platuae for change but there are still a lot of selective factors. Our world is complicated. Social mores, technology, traffic, disease prevention, ect.. all select against those who can't cope.
Yeah, if we talk about the past 60,000 years period this doesn't amaze me much. But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution. Our society doesn't favor it.
The IQ in general has been rising. Certain populations like ashkenazi jews and east asians show a generally high intelligence that can be attributed to selective factors that favor intelligence.
Cute little joke, but eugenics is a debunked pseudo-science. It did not produce supermen or a master race in 19th century America, or The Third Reich. Two idiots can produce a genius child. Two geniuses can produce an idiot child. Two parents born blind can produce sighted children. An athlete and a model, seemingly superior breeding stock, frequently have children with horrible birth defects.
While I agree eugenics is bullshit, I have to disagree with your idea. It does happen that geniuses have a retarded baby, and athletic couples can have a couch patato but the apple often fall pretty damn close to the tree.
Eugenics doesn't work because having a super fit species is simply one startegy, it's called specialization. The problem with this is when the selective factors shift those who speacilize go exstinct. See the way the pandas are going, there is few species better at eating bamboo then pandas but they are dying out because they over specialize.
What you need is a lot of phenotypes/genotype available and when the selectiev factors chance, you stay competative.
You think it's funny, but there ought to be some standard for parenthood. While regulating people's right to reproduce may not sit very well with some (myself included), I can't help thinking that a lot of social ills might be benefited.
That just another selecting factor, but who is to say any ones criteria is better for our long term fitness? Being a genius isn't exactly good for your health, a lot of them die young, a lot of them turn out to be gay, insanity is common as well. Because being a Genius is a mutant allele and occurs often in lines with a bad corrective mechanism (high mutation rate). 1/2 of all geniuses are left handed while only 1/3 of the rest of us our, supporting the idea that it occurs in lines more prone to mutations. While havign a genius around once in a while is good (einstien) having us all be genius would be bad (if we were all alan turings, the human race woudl end because we would all be gay).
The best thing for human fitness is to have a diverse rance of genotypes/phenotypes and let the future do the selecting, that way we aren't backing the wrong horse.
Lets say the germans won WWII and there was a massive selective factor for blonde hair blue eyes caucasians, now fast forward 3000 years and we're all blonde and blue eyed and suddenly by some absurd twist of fate a alien species arive that only eats thigns with blonde hair and blue eyes. now we're fucked. Absurd yes, but variations on this is what causes exstinction. Over specialize, lack diversity, and you invite disaster. Generalize or diversify and while you aren't using your resources 100% efficiently (supporting those with lower fitness) you have a better ability to flow aroudn changes in selective factors.
Well, what trait is being selected for? In the US, the most determining factor in reproduction rates seem to be social status, not anything genetic (ugly people have children too.. that's where more ugly people come from). The lower you are on the social ladder, the more children you are likely to have.
The flaw in yur thinking is that while some reproduce a lot, how many of those children also have children. Child mortality, teen violence, urban violence, disease and malnutrition affect the low income bracket mroe so then the high income bracket. IQ tend to correlate along these lines as well. There is a strong selecting factor on the bottom end of things. The low income people who reproduce must survive to reproductive age which means they have at least the minimial intelligence not to walk across a freeway at rush hour.
What is being selected for? the Average IQ has been steadily rising world wide for some time now. IQ doesn't completely correlate to intelligence but it's close, and it correlates to average income. Income tends to help fecundity. Income also helps your children survive to reproductive age too. So in general income is the selecting factor and indirectly intelligence.
Also evolution isn't just about the rate of reproduction it's also about how many of your progeny survive to have kids. Higher income/intelligence people tend to have children who also have children. This tends to favor smarter people and thus the gene pool in general is gettign smarter.
If you look at that information, that digest. You'll notice that the ones in the top tend to be a lot better off then the rest, suffer far less infant mortality/accidental death/violent crime. Those are the selecting factors in our society at the moment.
This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.
There is a small mistake in your logic, you assume that when they refer to intelligent they mean alan turing, and when they refer to lower intelligence they mean some red neck white trash trailer park family. The average IQ is slowly rising because our world is so complicated now it selects against those who can't cope. This knocks the truly inept out of the gene pool. And and while geniuses lke Turing didn't reproduce (he was gay), many above average individuals are reproducing and their kids survive to reproduce as well.
People of lower inteligence and high intelligence also tend to correlate to low income and high income. While the high incomes reproduce sparsly, they tend to have children that also have children. In the lower income bracket, many children are had but those who can't cope die. Statistically this is culling the lower end of the IQ scale very quickly.
I'm just sick and tired of everybody heaping everything on Bush. To hear some of the fuckwits on TV tell it, Bush conjured up the hurricane, aimed it at SE LA, and withheld help on purpose, all in pursuit of some evil scheme to rid the area of poor urban minorities.
Bush is not responsible for every bad thing that happens to the US. Bush is also not responsible for the vast majority of the good things. Bush will eventually be responsible for running up a huge deficit and debt that will have to be paid off eventually. Bush will not be well liked once he steps out of office and the effects of his foriegn policy/economic policies are felt.
Whether this photograph truly represents a lost opportunity to have evacuated a substantial number of New Orleans residents ahead of Hurricane Katrina is difficult to assess. Such a claim presumes an availability of resources (e.g., experienced drivers, fuel) and workable logistics (e.g., sufficient means of notifying and getting residents to departure points, sufficiently clear roads for multiple trips out of town and back) that may or may not have been present. (There's no guarantee that all the buses shown in this picture were even in working condition.) And, given the particular geography of New Orleans, any such evacuation would have had to have begun well in advance of Hurricane Katrina to avoid exposing residents to the potential danger of being stuck in buses on traffic-clogged roads in the path of an approaching hurricane. Moreover, any type of evacuation effort would have incurred a substantial outlay of funds from local and/or state governments -- while everyone agrees with the advantage of hindsight that would have been money well spent, many taxpayers might not have been left feeling so enthusiastic about footing the bill for an unnecessary evacuation had Hurricane Katrina not proved so damaging.
I agree, the flood damage didn't happen untils the dams and levies burst. Although they problbly knew it might burst, it's a big cost to explain away if they didn't. If I was in charge I wouldn't order a evacuation before hand.
1- if nothign happened I'd be fired 2- if something does happen they'll be too occupied to blame me 3- if something does happen and they get around to blaming me, I have plausible deniability because I figure the dams and levies wou;dn't break. Then deflect bame to the dam and levie makers.
Obsession with heroes is if anything a tacit admission of our own surrender. Only someone else can be that good, noble, and selfless. And how wrong that idea is. Heroes aren't fictional people. They're the people who don't abdicate the power and responsibility both that are free will, make the choice to be better, and follow through even if it means giving up everything they've most desired and cherished in their whole lives.
You sound like you have some snake oil to sell. A hero is someone who happens to be in the right place (next to a burning building) who does somethign right but foolish (runs in to save kids he hears screaming) and is fortunate to survive. It's not the lack of people willing to do this (at least not in canada) it's a lack of situations where this is needed is the reason we lack heroes. Plus, about half the time they die making a tragic hero.
and just as you allude to, individualization, individualism and the diversity of ideas that comes with that also comes with a wide range of bad ideas as well, just as you allude to: things like selfishness, arrogance, shallowness, lack of responsibility, etc.
so which is worse for society?
the monoculture and stagnation that monotheism promotes
or individualism with it's range of good ideas... and accompanying ankle weight of bad ideas
Hilarious false dichotomy. I sure hope that was all sarcastic.
It still puzzles me why Nintendo refuses to grow up. Since the Sega Genesis, they've been stuck in 'baby game' mode where you play as fruity little stuffed animal characters and use whistles instead of swords. Nintendo didn't even use 'blood' in their games at the time the Genesis did, and for them it was almost a selling point at the time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again..Nintendo, it's time to grow up.
Nintendo found a profitable niche. It will stay there. Blood and sex aren't what defines a "mature" game. Blood and sex are what defines a adolecent game. What a mature game would have is a mature story line. Dealing with war, death, loss. So something like Xenogears would be more mature then Thrill Kill or mortal combat. There is a stupid fixation of violence in American culture, I played GTA (own GTA and vice city) and got bored silly of it. While I'm heavily addiicted to Katamari Damacy. Gameplay is what matters, its a distraction from my real life.
Nintendo is doing well with their formula, they are not #1 but a comfortable #2 world wide. They make money, they make fun games. They needn't change. Shaking up the formula doesn't garentee they will make more money, there is already 2 other major companies chasing the 13-20 demographic (the 'mature' gaming audience). Those over 20 already know that graphics and "mature" themes are just hype and that the only thing that matters is having fun.
Most companies in the US have 8 or 10 "govenment holidays" paid. "Standard" vacation time is 10 days, but you usually get another week after 5 years working with the same company. In addition, most companies give 5 sick days per year. This gives a standard benefit of 23 days.
For my company, they combine sick and vacation days and just count it PTO. This works out pretty well if you don't get sick or have kids.
Compared to Sweden, which I think has a standard benefit closer to 45-50 days... I would say that Americans have a very limited vacation benefit.
I work a medium paying, but low-prestige job (Customer Service Representative). I get 3 weeks paid vacation and 2 personal days along with 3 sick days. Not counting statutory holidays I have more then the average american.
This is a pretty average job in Canada. Despite this Canada has a similiar productivity to Americans.
The funny thing about textures is that they can be compressed. The faster the machine, the more compression they can afford to do. Add to that that most XBOX games were around 3 gigs.
The ratio of compression directly affects the quality of the texture (look at n64 textures, colored smudged pasted onto models). So yes and no, you can compress them, but the less compression the better. Although texture ram becoem a problem at some poitn and the read speed of the drives is a limiting factor. But generally for the first generation of games, it's more of a anti priacy tool then a feature. wait till 3 generations down when the games will fill the disk.
Bump maps aren't used much any more, normal maps replace them. They store 2 values for each pixel of the texture, so its more like double the size. Also, normal maps can't be compressed easily, unlike regular texture data. So, taking compression into account, normal maps can quite easily triple the size of the game textures.
Quoted form the AC with a bit of editing. Texture + normal/bump map = bigger then just texture. Tripple may have been hyperbole, but also if you offer more space, they will find ways to fill it.
It's the same with Blu-ray. 90% of people don't own a TV that is going to show a difference
We're visual creatures, most of us cannot distinguish between 44khz sound and 56khz sound, MP3 and OGG sound the same to most of us too. But we do notice 30 fps over 28. We also notice a difference between 1200x1024 versus 1024x768. We will all the way up until about 4000 x 4000. So people will notice an improvement in visual quality.
HD-TV isn't as uncommon as many people think, in the small sample size of my exstended family, everyone has a HD-TV of some sort, half of us have a sony WEGA big screen. Of my friends, 60% have one. My sample is a bit skewed because I'm Canadian middle class which tends to buy stuff like big screens and we have nothing to do in our long long winters except watch movies and have sex.
Can you explain why a bump map, which is monochromatic, would ever be larger than than the corresponding color map? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Because you need it in addition to the normal texture. So it increases the size.
Can they seriously not fit all their games' data in a Dual-layered DVD?
Textures can be very big, bump maps can doubel ro tripple that size, and then there is audio/fmv's. The actual game binaries woudl fit on a CD but it's the Art assets that are huge.
Where did that figure come from? Sony owns the patent so it's not from licencing, unless they need gold wires/contacts through out the reader I doubt that $100 figure is accurate. It will have both an economy of scale as well a verticle intergration for this hardware, I'm more inclined to beleive 40$ of raw materials and a fudged math estimated R&D of 60$ per unit.
Isn't that what they do about everything? Very little news is actually "eyewitness" any more. If you put it in a court of law it'd be labeled as hearsay. But then again, we get what we deserve. When was the last time most people contacted their local news organizations when they know that something is false? I'll send an email, but I suspect that I'm in the minority.
IF I did so, I'd not be able to do anything else. I see articles about aquantances who I know are drug dealers and they describes as "innocent university student". I see articles about a random bar fight that my friends were involved, these being plain old university students. It's described as "Gang related violence". Most news outlets such, dont' check facts and are basically incompotent pretty boys from TV and bitter hacks for print media.
It never ceases to amaze me how people underestimate the basic needs of a people in crisis - they don't need to know why the levees failed, or who cut the funding, and they certainly don't need someone telling them about all the warnings and orders to evacuate given in the days before the storm hit. They need food, shelter, a shower, clean clothing, etc. I hate to say it, but it sounds way too familiar - the only saving grace is that we haven't started blaming the lack of aid getting into the area on Louisiana insurgents.
There's a bunch of bullshit on both sides. Many of the looters just want food and water that is true. Some of the looters are also murdering and rapign people, the army has been sent in to control these people. The police and military are working with imprefect information and sometimes other factors such as racism ect.. create situation where innocent people are also victimized as being one of the murderers and rapists. So you have a bloody mess with both sides looking like shitheads, one saying "hey, they just need basic nessecities." while the other says "look some of them are murdering people and rapign people we need marshall law". While both are partially true, both are also partially wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The selective pressures that were around previously, causing the stupid to die, are no longer present.
that should read
"The selective pressures that were around previously, causing the stupid to die, are different and less fatal. "
There are still selective pressures, this explains why the global IQ is creeping upwards.
Every living thing is evolving. No creatures alive are genetically identical to ones living 60,000 years ago. At that time there were wooly mammoths, and saber-tooth tigers running around.
small correction, every living population. individuals don't evolve. They adapt. Populatiosn evolve.
Sarcasm and "bling" on the other hand....
Takes intelligence to do either. Blign needs some intelligence, and sarcasm is based entirly on intelligence. I know you kidding, I'm just the annoying straight man to you act.
And it never will be. Despite the ignorant rantings of creationists, theories do not ever become laws. Theories and laws are two different types of statements. Laws are general statements about collections of previous observations by which future observations are predicted. Theories are an attempt to explain the underlying causes of the observation. Example: the "Law of gravity" is a model of the resultant force caused by gravitational attraction between two masses. The theory of gravity -- more commonly known as "relativity theory" -- is an attempt to explain why that force occurs.
Actually it's a little more loose then that, a law is a theory someone decided to call a law. A theory is what they have told us we need to call it because a law sounds pretentious and when you falsify it, it makes science looks bad in the press. If I wanted to call my discovery on how one sock out of every pair disappears in the dryer "the law of kingmanics penis" I could do that. If the rest of the community accepts it then I have just coined a law.
So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit.
You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you. And you will live a better life.
You should read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Edwards.
How do you explain miricles? How do you explain the works of Mother Theresa? How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?
Thus spack the uninformed. If I was to walk into a bible study and say "well, thats nice but what the hell is a crucifix and who do we worship someone for dying on one?" It is tantamount to what your doing. In fact most Christians dont' exactly know why Jesus was important, they dont' realize that "lamb of the new covienent" has any other meanign then a neat religious catch phrase. Most people areguing about evolution don't know jack shit about it on either side. With one side having a slight edge on ignorance. You fail to grasp what evolution is, so your are against it. It is the mechanism where by god creates.
The scope of this article is over 60,000 years, the headline suggests the brain is "still" evolving. When you consider modern medicine and modern living the most basic mechanics of evolution (natural selection) aren't nearly as powerful as they were in hunter/gatherer societies.
Evolution has no value for "powerful". Selection is either fatal or non. It might not be as common for people to die but differences in rates of change are common. We're at a fairly stabel platuae for change but there are still a lot of selective factors. Our world is complicated. Social mores, technology, traffic, disease prevention, ect.. all select against those who can't cope.
Yeah, if we talk about the past 60,000 years period this doesn't amaze me much. But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution. Our society doesn't favor it.
The IQ in general has been rising. Certain populations like ashkenazi jews and east asians show a generally high intelligence that can be attributed to selective factors that favor intelligence.
Cute little joke, but eugenics is a debunked pseudo-science. It did not produce supermen or a master race in 19th century America, or The Third Reich. Two idiots can produce a genius child. Two geniuses can produce an idiot child. Two parents born blind can produce sighted children. An athlete and a model, seemingly superior breeding stock, frequently have children with horrible birth defects.
While I agree eugenics is bullshit, I have to disagree with your idea. It does happen that geniuses have a retarded baby, and athletic couples can have a couch patato but the apple often fall pretty damn close to the tree.
Eugenics doesn't work because having a super fit species is simply one startegy, it's called specialization. The problem with this is when the selective factors shift those who speacilize go exstinct. See the way the pandas are going, there is few species better at eating bamboo then pandas but they are dying out because they over specialize.
What you need is a lot of phenotypes/genotype available and when the selectiev factors chance, you stay competative.
You think it's funny, but there ought to be some standard for parenthood. While regulating people's right to reproduce may not sit very well with some (myself included), I can't help thinking that a lot of social ills might be benefited.
That just another selecting factor, but who is to say any ones criteria is better for our long term fitness? Being a genius isn't exactly good for your health, a lot of them die young, a lot of them turn out to be gay, insanity is common as well. Because being a Genius is a mutant allele and occurs often in lines with a bad corrective mechanism (high mutation rate). 1/2 of all geniuses are left handed while only 1/3 of the rest of us our, supporting the idea that it occurs in lines more prone to mutations. While havign a genius around once in a while is good (einstien) having us all be genius would be bad (if we were all alan turings, the human race woudl end because we would all be gay).
The best thing for human fitness is to have a diverse rance of genotypes/phenotypes and let the future do the selecting, that way we aren't backing the wrong horse.
Lets say the germans won WWII and there was a massive selective factor for blonde hair blue eyes caucasians, now fast forward 3000 years and we're all blonde and blue eyed and suddenly by some absurd twist of fate a alien species arive that only eats thigns with blonde hair and blue eyes. now we're fucked. Absurd yes, but variations on this is what causes exstinction. Over specialize, lack diversity, and you invite disaster. Generalize or diversify and while you aren't using your resources 100% efficiently (supporting those with lower fitness) you have a better ability to flow aroudn changes in selective factors.
Well, what trait is being selected for? In the US, the most determining factor in reproduction rates seem to be social status, not anything genetic (ugly people have children too.. that's where more ugly people come from). The lower you are on the social ladder, the more children you are likely to have.
The flaw in yur thinking is that while some reproduce a lot, how many of those children also have children. Child mortality, teen violence, urban violence, disease and malnutrition affect the low income bracket mroe so then the high income bracket. IQ tend to correlate along these lines as well. There is a strong selecting factor on the bottom end of things. The low income people who reproduce must survive to reproductive age which means they have at least the minimial intelligence not to walk across a freeway at rush hour.
What is being selected for? the Average IQ has been steadily rising world wide for some time now. IQ doesn't completely correlate to intelligence but it's close, and it correlates to average income. Income tends to help fecundity. Income also helps your children survive to reproductive age too. So in general income is the selecting factor and indirectly intelligence.
Also evolution isn't just about the rate of reproduction it's also about how many of your progeny survive to have kids. Higher income/intelligence people tend to have children who also have children. This tends to favor smarter people and thus the gene pool in general is gettign smarter.
We are not all equally fit.
Races and Intelligence
If you look at that information, that digest. You'll notice that the ones in the top tend to be a lot better off then the rest, suffer far less infant mortality/accidental death/violent crime. Those are the selecting factors in our society at the moment.
This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.
There is a small mistake in your logic, you assume that when they refer to intelligent they mean alan turing, and when they refer to lower intelligence they mean some red neck white trash trailer park family. The average IQ is slowly rising because our world is so complicated now it selects against those who can't cope. This knocks the truly inept out of the gene pool. And and while geniuses lke Turing didn't reproduce (he was gay), many above average individuals are reproducing and their kids survive to reproduce as well.
People of lower inteligence and high intelligence also tend to correlate to low income and high income. While the high incomes reproduce sparsly, they tend to have children that also have children. In the lower income bracket, many children are had but those who can't cope die. Statistically this is culling the lower end of the IQ scale very quickly.
I'm just sick and tired of everybody heaping everything on Bush. To hear some of the fuckwits on TV tell it, Bush conjured up the hurricane, aimed it at SE LA, and withheld help on purpose, all in pursuit of some evil scheme to rid the area of poor urban minorities.
Bush is not responsible for every bad thing that happens to the US. Bush is also not responsible for the vast majority of the good things. Bush will eventually be responsible for running up a huge deficit and debt that will have to be paid off eventually. Bush will not be well liked once he steps out of office and the effects of his foriegn policy/economic policies are felt.
In particular:
Whether this photograph truly represents a lost opportunity to have evacuated a substantial number of New Orleans residents ahead of Hurricane Katrina is difficult to assess. Such a claim presumes an availability of resources (e.g., experienced drivers, fuel) and workable logistics (e.g., sufficient means of notifying and getting residents to departure points, sufficiently clear roads for multiple trips out of town and back) that may or may not have been present. (There's no guarantee that all the buses shown in this picture were even in working condition.) And, given the particular geography of New Orleans, any such evacuation would have had to have begun well in advance of Hurricane Katrina to avoid exposing residents to the potential danger of being stuck in buses on traffic-clogged roads in the path of an approaching hurricane. Moreover, any type of evacuation effort would have incurred a substantial outlay of funds from local and/or state governments -- while everyone agrees with the advantage of hindsight that would have been money well spent, many taxpayers might not have been left feeling so enthusiastic about footing the bill for an unnecessary evacuation had Hurricane Katrina not proved so damaging.
I agree, the flood damage didn't happen untils the dams and levies burst. Although they problbly knew it might burst, it's a big cost to explain away if they didn't. If I was in charge I wouldn't order a evacuation before hand.
1- if nothign happened I'd be fired
2- if something does happen they'll be too occupied to blame me
3- if something does happen and they get around to blaming me, I have plausible deniability because I figure the dams and levies wou;dn't break. Then deflect bame to the dam and levie makers.
Obsession with heroes is if anything a tacit admission of our own surrender. Only someone else can be that good, noble, and selfless. And how wrong that idea is. Heroes aren't fictional people. They're the people who don't abdicate the power and responsibility both that are free will, make the choice to be better, and follow through even if it means giving up everything they've most desired and cherished in their whole lives.
You sound like you have some snake oil to sell. A hero is someone who happens to be in the right place (next to a burning building) who does somethign right but foolish (runs in to save kids he hears screaming) and is fortunate to survive. It's not the lack of people willing to do this (at least not in canada) it's a lack of situations where this is needed is the reason we lack heroes. Plus, about half the time they die making a tragic hero.
monotheism is monoculture
it's enemy is individualization
and just as you allude to, individualization, individualism and the diversity of ideas that comes with that also comes with a wide range of bad ideas as well, just as you allude to: things like selfishness, arrogance, shallowness, lack of responsibility, etc.
so which is worse for society?
the monoculture and stagnation that monotheism promotes
or individualism with it's range of good ideas... and accompanying ankle weight of bad ideas
Hilarious false dichotomy. I sure hope that was all sarcastic.
It still puzzles me why Nintendo refuses to grow up. Since the Sega Genesis, they've been stuck in 'baby game' mode where you play as fruity little stuffed animal characters and use whistles instead of swords. Nintendo didn't even use 'blood' in their games at the time the Genesis did, and for them it was almost a selling point at the time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again..Nintendo, it's time to grow up.
Nintendo found a profitable niche. It will stay there. Blood and sex aren't what defines a "mature" game. Blood and sex are what defines a adolecent game. What a mature game would have is a mature story line. Dealing with war, death, loss. So something like Xenogears would be more mature then Thrill Kill or mortal combat. There is a stupid fixation of violence in American culture, I played GTA (own GTA and vice city) and got bored silly of it. While I'm heavily addiicted to Katamari Damacy. Gameplay is what matters, its a distraction from my real life.
Nintendo is doing well with their formula, they are not #1 but a comfortable #2 world wide. They make money, they make fun games. They needn't change. Shaking up the formula doesn't garentee they will make more money, there is already 2 other major companies chasing the 13-20 demographic (the 'mature' gaming audience). Those over 20 already know that graphics and "mature" themes are just hype and that the only thing that matters is having fun.
Most companies in the US have 8 or 10 "govenment holidays" paid. "Standard" vacation time is 10 days, but you usually get another week after 5 years working with the same company. In addition, most companies give 5 sick days per year. This gives a standard benefit of 23 days.
For my company, they combine sick and vacation days and just count it PTO. This works out pretty well if you don't get sick or have kids.
Compared to Sweden, which I think has a standard benefit closer to 45-50 days... I would say that Americans have a very limited vacation benefit.
I work a medium paying, but low-prestige job (Customer Service Representative). I get 3 weeks paid vacation and 2 personal days along with 3 sick days. Not counting statutory holidays I have more then the average american.
This is a pretty average job in Canada. Despite this Canada has a similiar productivity to Americans.
The funny thing about textures is that they can be compressed. The faster the machine, the more compression they can afford to do. Add to that that most XBOX games were around 3 gigs.
The ratio of compression directly affects the quality of the texture (look at n64 textures, colored smudged pasted onto models). So yes and no, you can compress them, but the less compression the better. Although texture ram becoem a problem at some poitn and the read speed of the drives is a limiting factor. But generally for the first generation of games, it's more of a anti priacy tool then a feature. wait till 3 generations down when the games will fill the disk.
Bump maps aren't used much any more, normal maps replace them. They store 2 values for each pixel of the texture, so its more like double the size. Also, normal maps can't be compressed easily, unlike regular texture data. So, taking compression into account, normal maps can quite easily triple the size of the game textures.
Quoted form the AC with a bit of editing. Texture + normal/bump map = bigger then just texture. Tripple may have been hyperbole, but also if you offer more space, they will find ways to fill it.
It's the same with Blu-ray. 90% of people don't own a TV that is going to show a difference
We're visual creatures, most of us cannot distinguish between 44khz sound and 56khz sound, MP3 and OGG sound the same to most of us too. But we do notice 30 fps over 28. We also notice a difference between 1200x1024 versus 1024x768. We will all the way up until about 4000 x 4000. So people will notice an improvement in visual quality.
HD-TV isn't as uncommon as many people think, in the small sample size of my exstended family, everyone has a HD-TV of some sort, half of us have a sony WEGA big screen. Of my friends, 60% have one. My sample is a bit skewed because I'm Canadian middle class which tends to buy stuff like big screens and we have nothing to do in our long long winters except watch movies and have sex.
Can you explain why a bump map, which is monochromatic, would ever be larger than than the corresponding color map? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Because you need it in addition to the normal texture. So it increases the size.
Can they seriously not fit all their games' data in a Dual-layered DVD?
Textures can be very big, bump maps can doubel ro tripple that size, and then there is audio/fmv's. The actual game binaries woudl fit on a CD but it's the Art assets that are huge.
Where did that figure come from? Sony owns the patent so it's not from licencing, unless they need gold wires/contacts through out the reader I doubt that $100 figure is accurate. It will have both an economy of scale as well a verticle intergration for this hardware, I'm more inclined to beleive 40$ of raw materials and a fudged math estimated R&D of 60$ per unit.
Isn't that what they do about everything? Very little news is actually "eyewitness" any more. If you put it in a court of law it'd be labeled as hearsay. But then again, we get what we deserve. When was the last time most people contacted their local news organizations when they know that something is false? I'll send an email, but I suspect that I'm in the minority.
IF I did so, I'd not be able to do anything else. I see articles about aquantances who I know are drug dealers and they describes as "innocent university student". I see articles about a random bar fight that my friends were involved, these being plain old university students. It's described as "Gang related violence". Most news outlets such, dont' check facts and are basically incompotent pretty boys from TV and bitter hacks for print media.
It never ceases to amaze me how people underestimate the basic needs of a people in crisis - they don't need to know why the levees failed, or who cut the funding, and they certainly don't need someone telling them about all the warnings and orders to evacuate given in the days before the storm hit. They need food, shelter, a shower, clean clothing, etc. I hate to say it, but it sounds way too familiar - the only saving grace is that we haven't started blaming the lack of aid getting into the area on Louisiana insurgents.
There's a bunch of bullshit on both sides. Many of the looters just want food and water that is true. Some of the looters are also murdering and rapign people, the army has been sent in to control these people. The police and military are working with imprefect information and sometimes other factors such as racism ect.. create situation where innocent people are also victimized as being one of the murderers and rapists. So you have a bloody mess with both sides looking like shitheads, one saying "hey, they just need basic nessecities." while the other says "look some of them are murdering people and rapign people we need marshall law". While both are partially true, both are also partially wrong.