People can live without oil. They may not want to (what would happen to the US without oil?), but they can. Water, however, is a different story.
I've seen an incredible number of stories about water, water shortages, fights over water rights and irrigation, and such in the past year. As the population of the Earth continues to rise, so does the demand for water. Many of the water supplies currently being used are already being used faster than they can replenish - and they're only going to get more use.
Eventually areas are going to start having serious water shortages.
The most wasteful country in the world in terms of water? No suprise, the US. The combination of all the endless golf courses, which is the #1 use of water in the US IIRC, and all those suburban laws, especially in areas they're not supposed to be growing such as the Southwest, and incredible amounts of water are being taken from rivers and aquifers for pretty silly purposes.
I wonder how long until serious money starts being spent on how to make cost efficient desalinization of ocean water, and better pumping to get the water from coasts to inland. Because there aren't going to be enough sources elsewhere to supply all the water needs at the rate things are going.
So much water on the planet, and still there seems to not be enough...
True, but the packaging sold it as the "Atari Video Computer System" back then. It was years - probably around the time of the 5200 - before the packaging started listing it as the "Atari 2600".
And yes, it was called just an "Atari" most of the time, just as you pointed out.
I got started in gaming early. My parents bought an Atari VCS (yes, it wasn't called the 2600 then) back just about when they came out, and I remember them playing Space Invaders on it a lot. Of course, as it was a family thing, I got into playing games also, and just never stopped. When we got our first computer, everyone would work together on the Scott Adams text adventure games. (yes, we eventually beat all of the first twelve of them) My sister is a gamer also, though not as much as I am. She did get herself a Genesis and took it with her to college, and I know she still plays games occasionally.
What do I play? Whatever I find fun. Civilization, Sim City, The Sims, Quake, Super Monkey Ball, Animal Crossing, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, RPGs, old arcade games on emulators, whatever. I agree with you that I believe my gender doesn't affect the types of games I play.
I have only played a few games online, and I haven't really worried about whether or not I 'sound' female to others. In Diablo II, I pick character names that I feel fit the character, which instantly makes me the minority around people naming their characters like "XX_KillRBarB_XX". So I never really got bugged there, as by the time anyone found out I was female, I had already been playing with them for a while and determined the person was decent enough to party with that they didn't seem to care all that much.
When I was playing Quake, on the other hand, I named myself 'Gib-Girl' to make it clear to all the guys exactly who was kicking their ass - it's funny to watch the sexist-type gamers freak out when a woman proceeds to drop him with a railgun 6 times in a row while trying to steal the flag. I rarely got crap from the people there because when I was big into Quake 2 CTF, most of the munchkins were onto Quake 3, so it was more serious players on the servers, and mostly the same people, so we got to know each other - and I got plenty of respect for being good.
Games for the reason of dating? That's pathetic, I agree. If you're a gamer, and a person you're interested in is also a gamer, sure it will help, but only if you're truly interested in games, and not doing it just to get someone else. After all, when you stop being interested, either you'll have other things in common, which would have been good enough to get along dating anyways, or you won't, at which point the relationship falls apart because it is based on pretense.
My partner is not a gamer. She grew up in small-town Indiana, on a farm. She never played a game until Solitare on the computer while in college. Since being with me, she's learned to like a few games. From Bookworm and Bejeweled on the PC, to Animal Crossing and Monkey Ball (mainly Monkey Target), to playing Dr. Mario until she was REALLY good (able to start on lvl 20 with fast speed). But it's only the occasional game. I think my gaming has rubbed off on her as much as it's going to.
I myself have never bothered putting it in this way - it seems like your average person either gets it by using the word "transsexual", is curious enough to find out more so that you can describe things in better, more accurate terms, or is the type that freaks out no matter how you put it.
Of course, then again, I often don't bother to even mention it to other people anyways, unless it's quite relevant or I feel comfortable to the people it is being mentioned to.
I do wonder if I'd consider being transsexual related to being transhuman at all, other than not accepting the body you were born with as the final word in things. After all, it's just adjusting to a slightly different type of "human", instead of becoming more than human. Would be interesting to see how many TS folk would find the transhumanist points of view to click with them though. Did with me.
Interesting - I don't recall the last transsexual that I've talked to that would actually call it this. Most seem to avoid using this term, as they feel it doesn't describe the situation properly.
I am assuming from this that you hold a non-theistic view of the universe and have thought a bit about its implications. Do you see any reason to value one particular set of circumstances in the universe over another, except for our own preferences hard-wired by evolution? This is not flamebait. I am honestly curious about what the foundation could be for a completely naturalistic set of morals.
How to explain things here has been a pain for me - I've made a few attempts at trying to explain and deleted them because I wasn't happy with what I said.
But I will say that I cannot possibly view things from a perspective that lacks the desire for self-preservation hard-wired by evolution. It is one of the basics of just about every living thing. I have to go by my own preferences, because it really is not possible to completely step out of them. If I view the universe as purposeless and meaningless by itself, then likely everything within it must be, in some manner, also purposeless and meaningless - though it's possible to bring out the strong telelogical argument here, arguing that even in a purposeless universe that there can be a purpose to life, if nothing else than to observe the universe so that it can exist. (Does something that is never observed, and has no effects that are ever observed even exist? Interesting philosophical question)
I guess I see a preference for the existence of humanity in the purpose I guess I "assign" to life. To not only continue it's existence, but to do it while continually improving the experiences of those people existing, and learning more about the universe that people live in. I guess I have a purpose in my life to make sure that the world (or beyond) is a better place for those people experiencing it as a result of me.
I'm sorry if this is unclear or confusing - let me know, I'll try and flesh out details if needed.
I would like to respond to anyone reading this who has a theistic worldview to answer the same question, but try and extend upwards the values of things existing. For example, many people believe the purpose of life is to glorify God. So extend that. WHY glorify God? What is the purpose of God existing? Or if you believe the goal is to attain Nirvana - why? Because it seems that somewhere along the line, whatever your worldview, things break down and you sort of just have to say "because".
On what basis do we act accordingly? Your statement implies that some effects are more desirable than others. Should we act so that the survival of our own genetic pool is made more likely? Why should we care?
I would say we act on the basis of what promotes the most good for humanity and life in general over the long term. Yes, it is very vague, but you really can't be more specific without clear examples, and a scale of what to consider.
For example, you mention promoting the survival of our own genetic pool as the basis. That's one perspective, but if you're looking at the good of humanity, they may conflict, for example, if spreading your genes means more occurences of serious genetic diseases. You have to choose a scale of importance - yourself, your family, your country, your species, your planet - and go from there. I would vote for the last, because I see my greatest chance at enjoying my life the most is to value the well-being of the entire planet - anything else, and the odds of conflict increase, as we see when two groups of people have big differences in resources and opportunities available.
I don't worry about eternal life - I suspect I'll achieve it due to the Many Worlds theory of Quantum Physics, which last I knew, was getting quite a bit of evidence in favor of it.
You see, the idea is that each quantum event that can occur causes the creation of a "timeline" for the possibilities of that event. Thus, countless worlds are constantly being spawned. In some of these worlds, I am alive. In others, events occur that cause me to die. Now, given that one cannot observe a world where they are dead (as far as we know), I must necessarily find myself in a world where I am alive. As long as there is at least one quantum existence that I exist alive, then that is where I will find myself. Thus, as long as my existence does not violate the basic laws of physics, I will continue to exist, no matter how unlikey it is.
Of course, that may mean that I must find myself in an existence where continued living means replacing my body parts with manufactured ones, and if so, I'm more than fine with that.
And more directly to your point - I would find it hard to believe that once we're able to easily replace body parts, that we'll restrict ourselves to things we'd consider mechanical. Odds are that a large variety of materials will be used, with some that would probably qualify as organic, and some not. While a "bone" would probably be better made out of a carbon composite, perhaps blended organic/non-organic might offer better abilities for nerves/circulation/etc. Besides, wouldn't skin on the outside be common to preseve the organic appearance for many people?
Yes, they could be working on solving those problems. So could most of the people here in/. - but I don't see you making this criticism of other stories, and I think it's just as valid there.
So what's the real reason you seem so certain they're wasting their time?
Not matter how much these people want to become machines they will have to face the face that it isn't going to happen in their lifetimes.
I'm sure in the year 1900 there were millions of people who would have agreed with the statement "No matter how much these people want to go to the moon they will have to face the fact that it isn't going to happen in their lifetimes." They would have also been wrong.
Compare the world in 1950 with the world today, all the changes that have happened. You really want to make bets about what will and won't be possible in 2050?
Evolution is a competition. It's not a cooperative effort.
It's neither. Evolution just is - anything else is just a consequence of it. And people have just as much (or as little) use as animals do in the grand scheme of things.
We should take advantage of our position in the food chain now, while we still can, because the fossil record tends to show that it won't last long.
Dinosaurs were on top for millions of years. Fossil records indicate humanity hasn't even hit a single million yet. And there's no reason to assume that past results of different types of species will have any indication of how long humans will be around - though I can say humanity has a much larger chance of destroying itself than dinosaurs ever did.
We can just use our position on the food chain to kill all the animals we want for whatever reason we have. But what happens when we've 'won' and killed them off?
There are no 'rules of the game of evolution' to follow. All we can do is consider cause and effect, and act accordingly. What happens when we kill off too many of a species? It goes extinct - and if that species had value to us, it's something we've lost that we can't reclaim. Or another example - what if we assume all species below us are things we can use and abuse as we wish. Then, should part of humanity move upward above the rest, wouldn't they continue with that rule - and thus group the lower part with the animals, to be used and abused?
Life is complex - simple views can never come close to how things really are.
PopCap is doing so well because of the types of puzzle games they're making.
Unlike classic PC puzzle games like Sokoban, which there are about 100 different versions available, and even one inside of the Nethack dungeion, the games offer a lot more playability. Sokoban, for example, has each level as a puzzle with, well, really one solution. You either get it right, or you try again. If you can't figure one out, you get stuck.
PopCap games like Bejeweled, Bookworm, and Alchemy don't follow this "one right answer" syndrome. And they don't require any level of hand-eye coordination or reflexes like Tetris. You take as long as you want between making moves, and you have a lot of options for your moves. Some moves are better than others, but you can pick even horrible ones and still play for a bit.
As you play, it gets tougher, and you have to improve to keep going. So you can measure your progress - and as your abilities improve, you can make use of them in the early stages, and progress through them faster. No matter what your skill, the early levels aren't boring, and you can get through them faster.
Bejeweled was cool - Bookworm is even better, I'm still addicted to it. They know what they're doing. These games have GAMEPLAY, which is what everyone talks about games needing.
I'm waiting to see them start offering bundles of their games for sale at the store - $40 for Bejeweled, Bookworm, and a few others would be a great deal, and would likely sell well. And they might even work for consoles, too.
I can't help wonder what other types of activities would get enhancement from these biofeedback techniques. Could I use the attention-focusing biofeedback system for a while, and find my ability to focus attention to one thing improved overall? And similarly with learning to relax better when I need to?
I would love to see such things made more widely available if there are benefits for the rest of us.
I know someone was just ranting above about all the games being sequels, but I don't think that's inherently bad. It's so many are sequels to mediocre or formulaic games. (not counting Sims add-on packs, as they weren't really sequels, but were still overdone)
NiGHTS into Dreams for the Saturn was a very creative and original game, and about the only reason I don't still play it is that I never got the analog controller for it, and the Saturn pad hurts after a bit.
A sequel to this game I'm certain would be a hit on the GameCube - it fits in to the type of stuff we see on that platform, and with the power of the Cube, it would not only likely look gorgeous, but allow them to add more to the game, perhaps allow the a-life thing going on in the background to have a bigger impact on the game.
Oh-my-fucking-god. I saw this place, as when I was in Seattle to check out the area, I went there to watch a friend (who works at MS) play basketball on the league she was a part of.
This place is enormous! I think there were more employees in that club then there are MEMBERS at the gym that I currently go to - but to be fair, I go to a small women's only gym that's tucked into a strip mall. But still! I think the women's locker room was bigger in size than the entire gym I go to - everything was an incredible size there.
Indoor tennis courts - at least four of them (maybe more). The basketball area looked like it could easily have two games going on with full-size courts at the same time. Incredibly huge (and very comfortable) locker rooms - mens, womens, and a family locker room.
I thought the Lifetime Fitness near me that looks to be in a warehouse-sized building was big. This place was much bigger yet.
It's one more reason that I'm wanting to get a job at Microsoft... (down the list, but still!)
I sure hope it isn't. But with the economy being the way it is, I'm sure people are re-evaluating where they spend their "entertainment dollar."
Yes, they probably are - and if they're paying attention, they're realizing one good $30 game is a better entertainment purchase than, say, a family outing to the movie theatre which could cost just as much with popcorn and drinks and ticket prices. Better than a DVD in just about all cases. And so on.
I'd think games would be visible as a more attractive entertainment purchase, as there's bound to be more entertainment value in a game than other equivalent purchases.
I got over 20 hours of play time from Eternal Darkness - the first time through. My partner watched the entire thing, also, and she loved it. If we watched 20 hours of movies at the theatre, we'd be looking at $100 in cost, easily. The game sure didn't cost that.
1.Inkblot 2.????? (Unknown mechanism in brain to determine password) 3.Password!
This is completely unacceptable! This is Slashdot, we support Open Source and the GPL, not such closed-source methods!
Microsoft is just being evil again, using this closed-source brain process to determine a password. I demand that a number of coders come up with their own open source brain mechanism to translate inkblots into passwords, and then distribute it over on BrainForge.net. If you don't, then you've sold out to Microsoft!!
Well, we can hope that most people are as aware as your WAN manager. But, sadly, I think the security awareness around the internet isn't always up to that level of quality, as we've seen from other attacks and viruses and the like that exploited known vunerabilities that should and could have already been fixed.
I guess CERT and Slashdot are probably some of the best places to make people aware of this, as anyone worth their paycheck keeps track of at least one, if not both, and will have taken appropriate action.
We'll see soon enough how many people actually did something about the vunerability.
Now that it's been published, and Slashdot has broadcast it nice and loudly, surely the number of script kiddies planning on making use of this is significantly increasing. Not that I'm complaining about it being known - it'll really make certain people get their behinds in gear to fix it - but I'm sure we'll be seeing how serious of an exploit this is soon.
Let's see if we get significant network outages anywhere on the interenet anytime in the next few days/weeks...
My analysis still holds if the throws are simeltaneous - whether the attacker and defender throw their dice at the same time, or the defender throws first, it won't really have an effect on what the attacker rolls. It's not like the attacker will see two fives on the defender's dice, and then be more likely or less likely to throw two sixes. (Unless he's cheating, but in that case, probability is irrelevant)
But I have never been aware of Risk rules which allow the defender or attacker to choose the number of dice to roll AFTER seeing the other person's roll. In that case, yes, things are drastically different, and it probably significantly improves the defender's odds.
While IANAMathmatician, I would believe that the defender rolling only 1 die would actually be detrimental to their defense as opposed to rolling two.
By only rolling one die, whatever the result is on that die, it is guaranteed to be matched against the highest roll on the attacker's dice - and if they're rolling three dice to your one die, then that essentially gives them three chances to beat your roll. For example, if you roll a 5, then they have to get a 6 on one die to beat you - the odds of that are 91/216, or 42%
By rolling two defense dice, you decrease their chances of beating you, since they now have to win two matchups with the same three dice - they don't get three whole dice to beat each single die of yours. If you were to roll 2 fives, for example, they still have the 42% chance of winning one die roll, but what about the second? With your second five, they only have two chances to beat it with a six. The odds of that? 11/36, or 31% - a 11% improvement in the odds for you.
(For comparison, if you had a third defense die, the chances of a third five being beaten are only 16%, much better odds than the first and the second)
If you roll only one die at a time, the attacker gets the benefits - they get to focus more resources per defender, without any worries of greater loss.
OK, so you take it so badly because you assume that any girl you're playing against doesn't play games as much as you, and is therefore not as skilled, and if you lose, you were just playing badly?
If you were aware, say, that said girl has been playing games for most of her life, still plays them quite regularly, and is easily as skilled as most gamers, then you wouldn't take it so badly?
Almost every girl I know that is a gamer, plays Warcraft 3
Chalk up one more that doesn't play it - I've never even touched the game. Still addicted to Diablo II however...
But there's a big difference between being intimate with a person you're in a relationship with, or having a drink with some friends, and assuming that if you went out to a bar, got wasted, and slept with some random person, that you'd be somehow a social success that you wouldn't have been if you hung out for the day at a lan party.
Hanging out with friends at a lan party, talking about various things, and playing games can easily be a more social activity then getting plastered and waking up in bed next to someone whose name you don't know and you want to get away from without saying a word to. And a lan party is a lot safer, also.
To be fair, though, there are plenty of geeks that are NOT people that you'd want to be social with - for every person at the MTG tournaments that I went to that I enjoyed talking to, there seemed to be a a half-dozen kids I just wanted to kick, and a few older folks that never seemed to learn social skills.
Why is it such an affront to a game geek's pride when a girl beats them at a game? Surely you don't have the same reaction when another guy beats you - so is this just due to the stereotype that girls can't be as good at games, thus if you lose to a girl, you then think you're pretty bad?
(To be fair, I did make use of that attitude to rub it in at times when playing some Q2 CTF matches, and I could tell some guys got really pissed when they realized it was a girl defending the base that kept putting railgun slugs through their head)
BTW - what the heck is this 'starfall' thing you're complaining about?
Slashdot Mirror
You think wars for oil are bad?
Wait until there are wars for water.
People can live without oil. They may not want to (what would happen to the US without oil?), but they can. Water, however, is a different story.
I've seen an incredible number of stories about water, water shortages, fights over water rights and irrigation, and such in the past year. As the population of the Earth continues to rise, so does the demand for water. Many of the water supplies currently being used are already being used faster than they can replenish - and they're only going to get more use.
Eventually areas are going to start having serious water shortages.
The most wasteful country in the world in terms of water? No suprise, the US. The combination of all the endless golf courses, which is the #1 use of water in the US IIRC, and all those suburban laws, especially in areas they're not supposed to be growing such as the Southwest, and incredible amounts of water are being taken from rivers and aquifers for pretty silly purposes.
I wonder how long until serious money starts being spent on how to make cost efficient desalinization of ocean water, and better pumping to get the water from coasts to inland. Because there aren't going to be enough sources elsewhere to supply all the water needs at the rate things are going.
So much water on the planet, and still there seems to not be enough...
True, but the packaging sold it as the "Atari Video Computer System" back then. It was years - probably around the time of the 5200 - before the packaging started listing it as the "Atari 2600".
And yes, it was called just an "Atari" most of the time, just as you pointed out.
BTW, there was a 1300?
I got started in gaming early. My parents bought an Atari VCS (yes, it wasn't called the 2600 then) back just about when they came out, and I remember them playing Space Invaders on it a lot. Of course, as it was a family thing, I got into playing games also, and just never stopped. When we got our first computer, everyone would work together on the Scott Adams text adventure games. (yes, we eventually beat all of the first twelve of them) My sister is a gamer also, though not as much as I am. She did get herself a Genesis and took it with her to college, and I know she still plays games occasionally.
What do I play? Whatever I find fun. Civilization, Sim City, The Sims, Quake, Super Monkey Ball, Animal Crossing, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, RPGs, old arcade games on emulators, whatever. I agree with you that I believe my gender doesn't affect the types of games I play.
I have only played a few games online, and I haven't really worried about whether or not I 'sound' female to others. In Diablo II, I pick character names that I feel fit the character, which instantly makes me the minority around people naming their characters like "XX_KillRBarB_XX". So I never really got bugged there, as by the time anyone found out I was female, I had already been playing with them for a while and determined the person was decent enough to party with that they didn't seem to care all that much.
When I was playing Quake, on the other hand, I named myself 'Gib-Girl' to make it clear to all the guys exactly who was kicking their ass - it's funny to watch the sexist-type gamers freak out when a woman proceeds to drop him with a railgun 6 times in a row while trying to steal the flag. I rarely got crap from the people there because when I was big into Quake 2 CTF, most of the munchkins were onto Quake 3, so it was more serious players on the servers, and mostly the same people, so we got to know each other - and I got plenty of respect for being good.
Games for the reason of dating? That's pathetic, I agree. If you're a gamer, and a person you're interested in is also a gamer, sure it will help, but only if you're truly interested in games, and not doing it just to get someone else. After all, when you stop being interested, either you'll have other things in common, which would have been good enough to get along dating anyways, or you won't, at which point the relationship falls apart because it is based on pretense.
My partner is not a gamer. She grew up in small-town Indiana, on a farm. She never played a game until Solitare on the computer while in college. Since being with me, she's learned to like a few games. From Bookworm and Bejeweled on the PC, to Animal Crossing and Monkey Ball (mainly Monkey Target), to playing Dr. Mario until she was REALLY good (able to start on lvl 20 with fast speed). But it's only the occasional game. I think my gaming has rubbed off on her as much as it's going to.
I myself have never bothered putting it in this way - it seems like your average person either gets it by using the word "transsexual", is curious enough to find out more so that you can describe things in better, more accurate terms, or is the type that freaks out no matter how you put it.
Of course, then again, I often don't bother to even mention it to other people anyways, unless it's quite relevant or I feel comfortable to the people it is being mentioned to.
I do wonder if I'd consider being transsexual related to being transhuman at all, other than not accepting the body you were born with as the final word in things. After all, it's just adjusting to a slightly different type of "human", instead of becoming more than human. Would be interesting to see how many TS folk would find the transhumanist points of view to click with them though. Did with me.
I'm going thru a sex change;
Interesting - I don't recall the last transsexual that I've talked to that would actually call it this. Most seem to avoid using this term, as they feel it doesn't describe the situation properly.
dammit, I can't believe I forgot to close that link... sorry everyone.
I am assuming from this that you hold a non-theistic view of the universe and have thought a bit about its implications. Do you see any reason to value one particular set of circumstances in the universe over another, except for our own preferences hard-wired by evolution? This is not flamebait. I am honestly curious about what the foundation could be for a completely naturalistic set of morals.
Yes, I am atheist. I have actually written a journal entry about where I get my morality, feel free to read it over for a good explanation.
How to explain things here has been a pain for me - I've made a few attempts at trying to explain and deleted them because I wasn't happy with what I said.
But I will say that I cannot possibly view things from a perspective that lacks the desire for self-preservation hard-wired by evolution. It is one of the basics of just about every living thing. I have to go by my own preferences, because it really is not possible to completely step out of them. If I view the universe as purposeless and meaningless by itself, then likely everything within it must be, in some manner, also purposeless and meaningless - though it's possible to bring out the strong telelogical argument here, arguing that even in a purposeless universe that there can be a purpose to life, if nothing else than to observe the universe so that it can exist. (Does something that is never observed, and has no effects that are ever observed even exist? Interesting philosophical question)
I guess I see a preference for the existence of humanity in the purpose I guess I "assign" to life. To not only continue it's existence, but to do it while continually improving the experiences of those people existing, and learning more about the universe that people live in. I guess I have a purpose in my life to make sure that the world (or beyond) is a better place for those people experiencing it as a result of me.
I'm sorry if this is unclear or confusing - let me know, I'll try and flesh out details if needed.
I would like to respond to anyone reading this who has a theistic worldview to answer the same question, but try and extend upwards the values of things existing. For example, many people believe the purpose of life is to glorify God. So extend that. WHY glorify God? What is the purpose of God existing? Or if you believe the goal is to attain Nirvana - why? Because it seems that somewhere along the line, whatever your worldview, things break down and you sort of just have to say "because".
On what basis do we act accordingly? Your statement implies that some effects are more desirable than others. Should we act so that the survival of our own genetic pool is made more likely? Why should we care?
I would say we act on the basis of what promotes the most good for humanity and life in general over the long term. Yes, it is very vague, but you really can't be more specific without clear examples, and a scale of what to consider.
For example, you mention promoting the survival of our own genetic pool as the basis. That's one perspective, but if you're looking at the good of humanity, they may conflict, for example, if spreading your genes means more occurences of serious genetic diseases. You have to choose a scale of importance - yourself, your family, your country, your species, your planet - and go from there. I would vote for the last, because I see my greatest chance at enjoying my life the most is to value the well-being of the entire planet - anything else, and the odds of conflict increase, as we see when two groups of people have big differences in resources and opportunities available.
I don't worry about eternal life - I suspect I'll achieve it due to the Many Worlds theory of Quantum Physics, which last I knew, was getting quite a bit of evidence in favor of it.
You see, the idea is that each quantum event that can occur causes the creation of a "timeline" for the possibilities of that event. Thus, countless worlds are constantly being spawned. In some of these worlds, I am alive. In others, events occur that cause me to die. Now, given that one cannot observe a world where they are dead (as far as we know), I must necessarily find myself in a world where I am alive. As long as there is at least one quantum existence that I exist alive, then that is where I will find myself. Thus, as long as my existence does not violate the basic laws of physics, I will continue to exist, no matter how unlikey it is.
Of course, that may mean that I must find myself in an existence where continued living means replacing my body parts with manufactured ones, and if so, I'm more than fine with that.
And more directly to your point - I would find it hard to believe that once we're able to easily replace body parts, that we'll restrict ourselves to things we'd consider mechanical. Odds are that a large variety of materials will be used, with some that would probably qualify as organic, and some not. While a "bone" would probably be better made out of a carbon composite, perhaps blended organic/non-organic might offer better abilities for nerves/circulation/etc. Besides, wouldn't skin on the outside be common to preseve the organic appearance for many people?
And, of course, you're being an example by devoting your time to solving those problems of disease and famine and poverty and war.
/. - but I don't see you making this criticism of other stories, and I think it's just as valid there.
You're not wasting your time by talking about things like ffantasy sports, the latest version of an operating system, or movies of another video game to come out, right?
Yes, they could be working on solving those problems. So could most of the people here in
So what's the real reason you seem so certain they're wasting their time?
Not matter how much these people want to become machines they will have to face the face that it isn't going to happen in their lifetimes.
I'm sure in the year 1900 there were millions of people who would have agreed with the statement "No matter how much these people want to go to the moon they will have to face the fact that it isn't going to happen in their lifetimes." They would have also been wrong.
Compare the world in 1950 with the world today, all the changes that have happened. You really want to make bets about what will and won't be possible in 2050?
Evolution is a competition. It's not a cooperative effort.
It's neither. Evolution just is - anything else is just a consequence of it. And people have just as much (or as little) use as animals do in the grand scheme of things.
We should take advantage of our position in the food chain now, while we still can, because the fossil record tends to show that it won't last long.
Dinosaurs were on top for millions of years. Fossil records indicate humanity hasn't even hit a single million yet. And there's no reason to assume that past results of different types of species will have any indication of how long humans will be around - though I can say humanity has a much larger chance of destroying itself than dinosaurs ever did.
We can just use our position on the food chain to kill all the animals we want for whatever reason we have. But what happens when we've 'won' and killed them off?
There are no 'rules of the game of evolution' to follow. All we can do is consider cause and effect, and act accordingly. What happens when we kill off too many of a species? It goes extinct - and if that species had value to us, it's something we've lost that we can't reclaim. Or another example - what if we assume all species below us are things we can use and abuse as we wish. Then, should part of humanity move upward above the rest, wouldn't they continue with that rule - and thus group the lower part with the animals, to be used and abused?
Life is complex - simple views can never come close to how things really are.
PopCap is doing so well because of the types of puzzle games they're making.
Unlike classic PC puzzle games like Sokoban, which there are about 100 different versions available, and even one inside of the Nethack dungeion, the games offer a lot more playability. Sokoban, for example, has each level as a puzzle with, well, really one solution. You either get it right, or you try again. If you can't figure one out, you get stuck.
PopCap games like Bejeweled, Bookworm, and Alchemy don't follow this "one right answer" syndrome. And they don't require any level of hand-eye coordination or reflexes like Tetris. You take as long as you want between making moves, and you have a lot of options for your moves. Some moves are better than others, but you can pick even horrible ones and still play for a bit.
As you play, it gets tougher, and you have to improve to keep going. So you can measure your progress - and as your abilities improve, you can make use of them in the early stages, and progress through them faster. No matter what your skill, the early levels aren't boring, and you can get through them faster.
Bejeweled was cool - Bookworm is even better, I'm still addicted to it. They know what they're doing. These games have GAMEPLAY, which is what everyone talks about games needing.
I'm waiting to see them start offering bundles of their games for sale at the store - $40 for Bejeweled, Bookworm, and a few others would be a great deal, and would likely sell well. And they might even work for consoles, too.
I can't help wonder what other types of activities would get enhancement from these biofeedback techniques. Could I use the attention-focusing biofeedback system for a while, and find my ability to focus attention to one thing improved overall? And similarly with learning to relax better when I need to?
I would love to see such things made more widely available if there are benefits for the rest of us.
I know someone was just ranting above about all the games being sequels, but I don't think that's inherently bad. It's so many are sequels to mediocre or formulaic games. (not counting Sims add-on packs, as they weren't really sequels, but were still overdone)
NiGHTS into Dreams for the Saturn was a very creative and original game, and about the only reason I don't still play it is that I never got the analog controller for it, and the Saturn pad hurts after a bit.
A sequel to this game I'm certain would be a hit on the GameCube - it fits in to the type of stuff we see on that platform, and with the power of the Cube, it would not only likely look gorgeous, but allow them to add more to the game, perhaps allow the a-life thing going on in the background to have a bigger impact on the game.
Please, please, please Sega...
Oh-my-fucking-god. I saw this place, as when I was in Seattle to check out the area, I went there to watch a friend (who works at MS) play basketball on the league she was a part of.
This place is enormous! I think there were more employees in that club then there are MEMBERS at the gym that I currently go to - but to be fair, I go to a small women's only gym that's tucked into a strip mall. But still! I think the women's locker room was bigger in size than the entire gym I go to - everything was an incredible size there.
Indoor tennis courts - at least four of them (maybe more). The basketball area looked like it could easily have two games going on with full-size courts at the same time. Incredibly huge (and very comfortable) locker rooms - mens, womens, and a family locker room.
I thought the Lifetime Fitness near me that looks to be in a warehouse-sized building was big. This place was much bigger yet.
It's one more reason that I'm wanting to get a job at Microsoft... (down the list, but still!)
I sure hope it isn't. But with the economy being the way it is, I'm sure people are re-evaluating where they spend their "entertainment dollar."
Yes, they probably are - and if they're paying attention, they're realizing one good $30 game is a better entertainment purchase than, say, a family outing to the movie theatre which could cost just as much with popcorn and drinks and ticket prices. Better than a DVD in just about all cases. And so on.
I'd think games would be visible as a more attractive entertainment purchase, as there's bound to be more entertainment value in a game than other equivalent purchases.
I got over 20 hours of play time from Eternal Darkness - the first time through. My partner watched the entire thing, also, and she loved it. If we watched 20 hours of movies at the theatre, we'd be looking at $100 in cost, easily. The game sure didn't cost that.
1.Inkblot
2.????? (Unknown mechanism in brain to determine password)
3.Password!
This is completely unacceptable! This is Slashdot, we support Open Source and the GPL, not such closed-source methods!
Microsoft is just being evil again, using this closed-source brain process to determine a password. I demand that a number of coders come up with their own open source brain mechanism to translate inkblots into passwords, and then distribute it over on BrainForge.net. If you don't, then you've sold out to Microsoft!!
Well, we can hope that most people are as aware as your WAN manager. But, sadly, I think the security awareness around the internet isn't always up to that level of quality, as we've seen from other attacks and viruses and the like that exploited known vunerabilities that should and could have already been fixed.
I guess CERT and Slashdot are probably some of the best places to make people aware of this, as anyone worth their paycheck keeps track of at least one, if not both, and will have taken appropriate action.
We'll see soon enough how many people actually did something about the vunerability.
Now that it's been published, and Slashdot has broadcast it nice and loudly, surely the number of script kiddies planning on making use of this is significantly increasing. Not that I'm complaining about it being known - it'll really make certain people get their behinds in gear to fix it - but I'm sure we'll be seeing how serious of an exploit this is soon.
Let's see if we get significant network outages anywhere on the interenet anytime in the next few days/weeks...
My analysis still holds if the throws are simeltaneous - whether the attacker and defender throw their dice at the same time, or the defender throws first, it won't really have an effect on what the attacker rolls. It's not like the attacker will see two fives on the defender's dice, and then be more likely or less likely to throw two sixes. (Unless he's cheating, but in that case, probability is irrelevant)
But I have never been aware of Risk rules which allow the defender or attacker to choose the number of dice to roll AFTER seeing the other person's roll. In that case, yes, things are drastically different, and it probably significantly improves the defender's odds.
While IANAMathmatician, I would believe that the defender rolling only 1 die would actually be detrimental to their defense as opposed to rolling two.
By only rolling one die, whatever the result is on that die, it is guaranteed to be matched against the highest roll on the attacker's dice - and if they're rolling three dice to your one die, then that essentially gives them three chances to beat your roll. For example, if you roll a 5, then they have to get a 6 on one die to beat you - the odds of that are 91/216, or 42%
By rolling two defense dice, you decrease their chances of beating you, since they now have to win two matchups with the same three dice - they don't get three whole dice to beat each single die of yours. If you were to roll 2 fives, for example, they still have the 42% chance of winning one die roll, but what about the second? With your second five, they only have two chances to beat it with a six. The odds of that? 11/36, or 31% - a 11% improvement in the odds for you.
(For comparison, if you had a third defense die, the chances of a third five being beaten are only 16%, much better odds than the first and the second)
If you roll only one die at a time, the attacker gets the benefits - they get to focus more resources per defender, without any worries of greater loss.
Perhaps you'd be willing to educate those of us with little poker knowledge on the rules of this variation that make it significantly different?
OK, so you take it so badly because you assume that any girl you're playing against doesn't play games as much as you, and is therefore not as skilled, and if you lose, you were just playing badly?
If you were aware, say, that said girl has been playing games for most of her life, still plays them quite regularly, and is easily as skilled as most gamers, then you wouldn't take it so badly?
Almost every girl I know that is a gamer, plays Warcraft 3
Chalk up one more that doesn't play it - I've never even touched the game. Still addicted to Diablo II however...
But there's a big difference between being intimate with a person you're in a relationship with, or having a drink with some friends, and assuming that if you went out to a bar, got wasted, and slept with some random person, that you'd be somehow a social success that you wouldn't have been if you hung out for the day at a lan party.
Hanging out with friends at a lan party, talking about various things, and playing games can easily be a more social activity then getting plastered and waking up in bed next to someone whose name you don't know and you want to get away from without saying a word to. And a lan party is a lot safer, also.
To be fair, though, there are plenty of geeks that are NOT people that you'd want to be social with - for every person at the MTG tournaments that I went to that I enjoyed talking to, there seemed to be a a half-dozen kids I just wanted to kick, and a few older folks that never seemed to learn social skills.
Why is it such an affront to a game geek's pride when a girl beats them at a game? Surely you don't have the same reaction when another guy beats you - so is this just due to the stereotype that girls can't be as good at games, thus if you lose to a girl, you then think you're pretty bad?
(To be fair, I did make use of that attitude to rub it in at times when playing some Q2 CTF matches, and I could tell some guys got really pissed when they realized it was a girl defending the base that kept putting railgun slugs through their head)
BTW - what the heck is this 'starfall' thing you're complaining about?