Also, frankly: it does not fit your reputation to take a well known "computer scientist" as an argument when it it is from context completely obvious you never have read him:D
WTF are you talking about? This doesn't make any sense!
Point is, you jumped subject very far away from the original discussion.
Umm... No, I didn't. If you knew the first thing about the subject, you'd know that.
Again, go do some reading. You've got a lot to learn.
why do discussions with you always end in such points? Who or what is Whitehat? What has my history to do with chineese or arabic history?
Lol! Again, do some reading. You've got a very long way to go!
Why you jumped from there to epistemology is a miracle for me, and why you claim research in that topic *only* was done in europe is beyond me as well.
That's because you don't understand what is being discussed. I know that Germans are a bit shy about history, but you're not doing yourself any favors by sticking to ignorance here.
I mentioned Whitehead (Which to every educated person on the planet clearly means Alfred North Whitehead) who has a nice history of the development of science that even a layperson can understand.
How many/. arguments have we seen in which people casually dismiss rigorous, well-founded scientific results because the process by which those results were produced doesn't fall into their high school science class idea of how "the scientific method" works?
I've never seen one. Usually, the arguments are over some problem with the methodology, sure, but none because of some perceived mismatch with the nebulous HS "scientific method".
As far as epistemology is concerned, no, the Chinese did not.
Science was an anti-rationalist movement (Before I'm flooded with nonsense: Not irrational, a reaction to rationalism. History, people!) that was indeed unique to Europe. No where else in the world at the time do we find anything like the process of science. (See Whitehead for a nice history.)
The problem is that we lie about what science is for fear that some fringe religious group will make some rhetorical argument against science.
I think it does more harm than good. Let the evangelicals shout and scream; distorting science to defend against their mad ravings is far more dangerous to science than anything they could accomplish.
Need an example? Take a look at the US NAS definition of "theory" -- clearly designed to combat the creationist cry "evolution is just a theory" at the expense of both accuracy and utility. If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I don't know what will.
Hell, even your comment implies that science discovers truth (i.e "proof that science is wrong"); an idea that is antithetical to science! That kind of thinking leads only to dogma. I sure as hell expect to see large portions modern science overturned in a generation or two -- that's what science is designed to do, after all.
Damn it, man, the Cola Wars are over. It's time to put the past behind us, pound our swords in to plow-shares, and rebuild.
The battles still seem just like yesterday, and we've still got a long road ahead. But you've got to leave the fight on the battle field. It has no place in this new world.
Let's not play pretend that Apple has somehow mastered the mythical "user experience". Even the iPod didn't have a UI that was in any way superior to alternatives on the market.
The iPod was running on Apples reputation for design, oddly enough, from the gum-drop-like iMac. Their well-executed "silhouette" ad campaign did the rest. All Apple did for digital music was make it "okay" -- bringing it out of the shadows in the wake of Napster. At the time, digital music was synonymous with Apple because consumers honestly didn't know that there were alternatives; let alone alternatives that were both less expensive and easier to use!
Had Creative, for example, had a similar marketing push, I doubt we'd even remember the iPod.
Even today, Apple's products are a nightmare of bad UI design. Well, to be fair, they've been a design nightmare for a while now, they're just worse than before. I can elaborate if it's not immediately obvious to you.
This nebulous "user experience" myth needs to die.
To add to L1mewater, the PF register is 20 bits wide (made up of PF0, PF1 and PF2) PF0 (4-bits wide) marks the left 4 columns, and PF2 ends in the middle of the display. For the other half of the display, a flag determines if this will be duplicated or mirrored.
To make matters worse, the bits in PF0 and PF2 are in reverse order.
So, yes, horizontal scrolling on the 2600 is always impressive.
Pitfall wasn't a side-scroller in the sense we're talking about. The screen didn't scroll, it "flipped" between scenes when you exited the screen on one side or the other. When exiting on the left, the screen would change and your player would appear on the right and vice-versa.
On the 2600, that kind of thing is much easier to do than horizontal scrolling. Vertical scrolling, in contrast, is trivially simple, which is why there are virtually no horizontal scrolling games, and zillions of vertical scrolling games. The 2600 is the most challenging system to develop for, so projects like this are fun and interesting to those familiar with the hardware.
That would be one old machine. At least 15 years old. I think I'd notice that I was working on an ancient computer designed for Windows 95. So, yeah, I'm just going to press the damn power button on anything that hasn't turned yellow from age.
Just pressing the damn power button has been just fine for years. That "never just press the power button" advice today is like warning people not to put cassette tapes on top of their monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
I still do the same thing on particularly steep hills. Over time, of course, you'll find that you need the extra "help" less often.
Also, frankly: it does not fit your reputation to take a well known "computer scientist" as an argument when it it is from context completely obvious you never have read him :D
WTF are you talking about? This doesn't make any sense!
Point is, you jumped subject very far away from the original discussion.
Umm... No, I didn't. If you knew the first thing about the subject, you'd know that.
Again, go do some reading. You've got a lot to learn.
why do discussions with you always end in such points?
Who or what is Whitehat?
What has my history to do with chineese or arabic history?
Lol! Again, do some reading. You've got a very long way to go!
Why you jumped from there to epistemology is a miracle for me, and why you claim research in that topic *only* was done in europe is beyond me as well.
That's because you don't understand what is being discussed. I know that Germans are a bit shy about history, but you're not doing yourself any favors by sticking to ignorance here.
I mentioned Whitehead (Which to every educated person on the planet clearly means Alfred North Whitehead) who has a nice history of the development of science that even a layperson can understand.
Thanks for doing the legwork on that for us
Really? All you had to do was click the word; it's linked to the definition.
It's less work that scanning the comments hoping someone would copy/paste the definition from the page to which that word is linked.
If only they included a link to something kind of online encyclopedia to define that unfamiliar term...
Damn, this computer shit is fucking complicated. Links: How do they work?
Again, learn your history. This isn't a controversial point.
As I mentioned earlier, Whitehead has a nice history. Start there and claw your way out of that particular pit of ignorance.
Lol! Imagine a crybaby German giving someone a lecture like this!
It's an insult on the internet -- get over it -- no one cares.
I would have been a lot less confused if someone had explained the philosophy of science
Shhhh... The retarded science cheer-leaders will hang you for blasphemy!
How many /. arguments have we seen in which people casually dismiss rigorous, well-founded scientific results because the process by which those results were produced doesn't fall into their high school science class idea of how "the scientific method" works?
I've never seen one. Usually, the arguments are over some problem with the methodology, sure, but none because of some perceived mismatch with the nebulous HS "scientific method".
As far as epistemology is concerned, no, the Chinese did not.
Science was an anti-rationalist movement (Before I'm flooded with nonsense: Not irrational, a reaction to rationalism. History, people!) that was indeed unique to Europe. No where else in the world at the time do we find anything like the process of science. (See Whitehead for a nice history.)
You believe that matter is made from atoms? Tiny things made from a core with electrons circling around?
You're about 100 years out of date. I'd expect a German to know better.
The problem is that we lie about what science is for fear that some fringe religious group will make some rhetorical argument against science.
I think it does more harm than good. Let the evangelicals shout and scream; distorting science to defend against their mad ravings is far more dangerous to science than anything they could accomplish.
Need an example? Take a look at the US NAS definition of "theory" -- clearly designed to combat the creationist cry "evolution is just a theory" at the expense of both accuracy and utility. If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I don't know what will.
Hell, even your comment implies that science discovers truth (i.e "proof that science is wrong"); an idea that is antithetical to science! That kind of thinking leads only to dogma. I sure as hell expect to see large portions modern science overturned in a generation or two -- that's what science is designed to do, after all.
You'll find it crusted around the mouths of the average hipster.
It would appear that you've completely missed the parents point. As did a few mods.
Ummm... No.
It was not a limitation of the technology of the time. They could have had the same resolution with a smaller display.
Damn it, man, the Cola Wars are over. It's time to put the past behind us, pound our swords in to plow-shares, and rebuild.
The battles still seem just like yesterday, and we've still got a long road ahead. But you've got to leave the fight on the battle field. It has no place in this new world.
Let's not play pretend that Apple has somehow mastered the mythical "user experience". Even the iPod didn't have a UI that was in any way superior to alternatives on the market.
The iPod was running on Apples reputation for design, oddly enough, from the gum-drop-like iMac. Their well-executed "silhouette" ad campaign did the rest. All Apple did for digital music was make it "okay" -- bringing it out of the shadows in the wake of Napster. At the time, digital music was synonymous with Apple because consumers honestly didn't know that there were alternatives; let alone alternatives that were both less expensive and easier to use!
Had Creative, for example, had a similar marketing push, I doubt we'd even remember the iPod.
Even today, Apple's products are a nightmare of bad UI design. Well, to be fair, they've been a design nightmare for a while now, they're just worse than before. I can elaborate if it's not immediately obvious to you.
This nebulous "user experience" myth needs to die.
To add to L1mewater, the PF register is 20 bits wide (made up of PF0, PF1 and PF2) PF0 (4-bits wide) marks the left 4 columns, and PF2 ends in the middle of the display. For the other half of the display, a flag determines if this will be duplicated or mirrored.
To make matters worse, the bits in PF0 and PF2 are in reverse order.
So, yes, horizontal scrolling on the 2600 is always impressive.
FF1 and 2 have been available on BlackBerry for ages.
Pitfall wasn't a side-scroller in the sense we're talking about. The screen didn't scroll, it "flipped" between scenes when you exited the screen on one side or the other. When exiting on the left, the screen would change and your player would appear on the right and vice-versa.
On the 2600, that kind of thing is much easier to do than horizontal scrolling. Vertical scrolling, in contrast, is trivially simple, which is why there are virtually no horizontal scrolling games, and zillions of vertical scrolling games. The 2600 is the most challenging system to develop for, so projects like this are fun and interesting to those familiar with the hardware.
To my knowledge, there's only one 32k cart: Atari's Fatal Run (1989) not to be confused with the same title on the 7800.
Indeed. Side-scrolling on the 2600 is not easy.
What is so astonishing here is that the developer used batari Basic and not straight 6502 assembly.
That would be one old machine. At least 15 years old. I think I'd notice that I was working on an ancient computer designed for Windows 95. So, yeah, I'm just going to press the damn power button on anything that hasn't turned yellow from age.
Just pressing the damn power button has been just fine for years. That "never just press the power button" advice today is like warning people not to put cassette tapes on top of their monitor.
It's cute that you think OSX is relevant.
Good luck with that. That idiotic meme just won't die.