There is not one person out there that uses a joystick/gamepad solely in a FPS game and can compete. Period.
Mouse users have such fine control of up and down movement, and direction controls that they win hands down every time.
Even if you had a mod to convert the PS2 controler over you would not get a person taht was as good, especially on the scale of maps made for games such as MOHAA, or Wolfenstien.
Pretending you could have the resolution to see little people out very far (something not able on TV) you wouldnt have the fine motor control, even with a great analog stick to out aim a good mouse user. I have seen people try, and it simply does not work.
about being able to use a keyboard, or fumbling around... thats simply not true, I play games such as Mechwarrior3, and Heavy Gear, they have 10 buttons/combination of buttons that need to be used at any oen time while piloting the mech. I can do this in my sleep, moving a mech around, swirving a torso, using the mouse to move the reticule, and the arrow keys to control the legs, while changing weapon groups, firing different types of weapons all smoothly in transition.
Some more info on these things, HDTV has been attempted to be pushed since 1995, the FTC wanted HDTV broadcasts by 1997. HDTV Tuners are going to be required in all televisions by 2007.
This is not stifling analog broadcasts, its increasing overall bandwidth (because its digital) and when they start getting these tuners in all televisions the prices will be driven down. Right now they make more money selling HDTV w/o tuners then making you buy a tuner.
Seems like BS, but if you go to a best Buy or other electronics stores, most of those snazzy HDTV dont even have the ability to process an HDTV signal.
7 years ago (maybe more) the HDTV was intended to be THE next generation of television, this has been an issue for years, to get crazy about it now is just silly. I saw no one here getting angry that the HDTV standard had a deadline of 1997?
The reason people are getting angry now is because they want to be able to record video off the television, and I completely understand where you are coming from, I am not going to argue that that is a bad thing in many ways, but I am sure someone will make a rather easy converter/workaround that will turn it back into digital, and then you can get your movies off the net again, or record them yourself.
I remember going to the smithsonian and seeing an HDTV broadcast back in 1996 and I thought it was one of the coolest things around. let the technology progress. the Deadline is YEARS away, by the time they stop sending out digital signals the TV that had analog only tuners will be obsolete, and it wont even be thought about.
I lived on KU campus for 4 years, and trust me it wasnt necessarrilly the design, I used to have 6 machines hooked up in one room, and it caused no real problems.
The network really started jacking up during the Napster/Scour Exchange/Morpheus times.
When I first started using the internet at KU, we would get 200-500 k download EASY, sometimes a meg or so from all the machines EASY. Since filesharing became big, its hard to get 20 k a second.
I moved off campus because cable is still faster (now though it didnt used to be sunflower really kicked the bandwidth up a notch) and now KU is also notifying students to get rid of files, as seen in a recent UDK (campus news)
I go to a university, we havent got huge pipes, this is the University of Kansas (go jayhawks) I lived on campus, and the bandwidth being sucked out by the dorms was so intense you couldnt barely do ANYTHING online, at any time, on ANY part of the network.
Last year they increased prices and then only allowed half the universities bandwidth to the dorms, now when on campus you can actually get online and download files fast again as long as you are in a computer lab. OFC when I was still living on campus I ssh into the lab machines, wget the files i needed to the machines hard drive then downloaded it across the network, but The only reason I was able to even do that was because of them making only half the bandwidth available to students in the dorms.
Maybe some of you dont know the issues at colleges, maybe some of you live at KU and dont download HUGE files (say Debian ISO). Or maybe you think 15 k a second max is "fast" but Universities are doing this to protect themselves, the networks just die under the loads, at least KU did, and I can see why other colleges might be taking measures, its to ensure that each student doesnt have to pay 70 bucks a month. Considering students got high speed internet for 12 bucks a mont, you cant complain.
Because of filesharers it went UP to 12 a month, it used to be 7 dollars a month, and it was faster.
Thats just it though, even though the address is INACTIVE, the idea is the same. my old address was technically "inactive" as well. Nothing was stored, or re-sent via that address. It had to look up the new address and get forwarded. It was... simply forwarding. This address simply because it would work on a broader scale is no different in concept. Just because it would only work with users that had registered it in fact would be harder to implement since the e-mail client would have to look up, or the user trying to e-mail the person would have to go to a web page, to find out where the new e-mail was at.
So even though this is a step in the same general direction it in many ways would require some more effort on the part of the e-mail software and or the user to even work as effeciently as what my college did. the college forwarded e-mails for 6 months, plenty of time for everyone who wanted to talk to me to get my new address.
The IDEA is not new, it probably has been looked at by many an enterprising entrepenuer and discarded as simply being unfeasible without support from microsoft or some other very large software organization that could set the standard.
They seem to be proposing this as a service, 20 dollars a month to get your e-mail re-assigned, but how will e-mail software know to re-assign?
It is not an invention. It is merely an extended idea of something that has already existed.
The thing is, this is NOT an innovation, it is merely an extension of what many people do already. My e-mail for the university of kansas has changed, but the old addresses were kept active and "forwarded" to my new address, essentially doing the same thing. the central server being my Universitys e-mail server, and the new address my new address. To move this system from the original institution is no change in technology, just a step in the same direction, it accomplishes the same goal in a slightly different way. It would be like patenting a joystick with 12 AXIS control, simply because you were the first to do it, then claiming that all controllers with 12 axis were under your patent, regardless of design.
But alas, many of this kind of patent is in force today, especially in the computer industry, simply because of the money it takes to challenge the patents.
You have done a favor when you tell them, hey i noticed your door was unlocked, upon casual inspection. But in the computer world there is no casual inspection. the only way they could get off saying it would be if they accidently broke into the site.
the analogy of doing a favor can only be in the mind of the perpetrator because i beleive very few societies could sit down and say "yes it is ok to walk around in someones house if they leave the door open, your doing a favor for them so they know that there house can be broken into and that with casual inspection i could find their kitchen and kill the entire family with a butcher knife"
the door is not quite an adaquete example, simply because you can view it being unlocked by casual inspection of walking up and down a road, or hallway. you dont casually attempt to hack into www.fbi.gov or dial up an fbi server. It simply does NOT happen.
If you can honestly say you have accidently called up the wrong ISP (back when you have had a modem) and were granted access with your current user name and password then i would be completely amazed and probably call you a liar because its damn near impossible to even concieve.
I was sitting around today in computer ethics class and I thought to myself an interesting question? Why is there a music industry? Well the Music industry was able to make copies of music, that others could listen to right? The entire business model is that they pick what they think will be popular then they release. So under this business model they "own" the rights to a song, this way another music company would not be able to sell that song as there own...
Now its the computer age, the problem that people used to have with the distribution of music is gone, it can now be very easily, instead of having to make thousands of relatively expensive peices of vinyl, the music can now simply be "uploaded" then copied as many times as anyone wants to by people with semi specialized equipment, and then listened too at leisure.
What does this all mean to me? Maybe the industry itself, in its current form is obsolete, maybe they should provide tangible gain from buying music, perhaps a trinket or some item that makes actually owning the original box "worth it" or some other interesting marketing stunt.
Currently the Music industry generally finds "the next big thing" and then says "hey everyone this is cool you should listen to it" and much of the populace usually does, and honestly i dont think most of the music is half bad, im not hardcore about what i listen to so hearing the occasional britney spears or whatnot doesnt bother me to much.
What the Music industry should do is simply cut its losses, instead of alienating and restricting, a lot of people should simply lose their jobs and go elsewhere. This is a harsh view perhaps, but consider this, when a reliable robotic arm for car manufacturing was made, a lot of people lost their jobs because the cost of the new technology outweighted the cost of keeping less effecient human staff.
The internet should be seen as that robotic arm. Another model should be sought out and used.
I think the industry has hit the point where the business model they follow is obsolete, but like a workers union or group of factory workers, they will try their hardest to make sure they keep the money coming and keep their jobs, despite the fact that they no longer serve the same purpose.
The solution? Still promote, the thing they will always have a monopoly on is first served experience. this is when they can get chip ins from advertisements etc, by showing videos on TV (im sure already do that) but they should put the focus on the experience of going to a concert, make them just as exciting, but also pump them up even more. Say before a band is coming to town, that isnt quite as well known, maybe release samples of their music prior to the show, with the complete song being played when you come to the event.
The computer is a unique ethical question, we have here a device that can do something in a medium (easily) that could only be done through slow difficult means, and thats instantaneous copying and or executing of complex instructions. To hold the technology back really is avoiding the ethical issues of whether its right or wrong.
saying its wrong to copy and listen to music is actually avoiding the question altogether. The "law" says its wrong, but the law also hung witches a hundred years ago too, but as I see it the current method of distributing music is not based on an ethical principle, its based on teh fact that it was a service, and a service only relatively skilled individuals could do, now that service can be done by many, easily, so its now obsolete right?
Oh well its 3 am, maybe ill do a coherent version of this eventually.
So, if you leave your door open, I walk in, and don't do anything, and then later sent you a letter telling you your door was unlocked and that I walked around, and that anyone else could have walked around that you wouldn't be angry at the invasion of privacy?
The problem is, is that BSP tree's cut a scene up into things that need to be rendered so only what a person can "see" is rendered.
take for example, if you were looking at a house from the outside, and all the windows were tinted dark, for all intents and purposes there is nothing in the house right?
This is because you cannot "see" anything inside of the house. Now lets take this a bit further, imagine you were looking down a hallway, and if you went to the end, turned right, then went forward, then turned right again, you would see something else, but before you went forward, and turned around the corner, you do not nececerrilly have to "see" whats around the corner, because essensially it does not exist.
this is what a BSP tree, and other pruning methods do, a bsp tree trys to break up a map or set of vertices in a way that allows the software to render only what you can see, and what you are about to see, this makes it so that the computer doesnt have to render a lot of extraneous stuff.
back to the house example, lets say you were rendering a house, and you defined every single possible item in the house as well (ie you could go into the house and look around), but you could see no objects from outside the house (imagine the house is a little box) so a BSP tree algorithm would take the scene, and if you were in some position outside of the house, it would not load all the vertices of the internal components of the house, but just load the vertices for the outside of the house and render them, so that the computer would not have to draw all the items in the house, items that you do not have to see.
The smarter algorithms used in quake games for small rooms and small inside areas, will also load and draw things you could see "soon" ie, if you were walking down the hall, it would also render the next section of hall that you are coming up on when you got close to the hall. when you turned down the hall, and moved sufficiently far, or turned another corner, it would then remove those vertices from being rendered until you came back around again.
Now to why this causes problems for large outdoor scenes. this can be many reasons, many times if an outdoor scene is complex (ie has a lot of vertices) the game engine doesnt really have a lot of options on pruning what you see, and what you might see, so it causes slowdown because it draws EVERYTHING outside, regardless of if you can see it at the moment. if you have high render intensive items such as polygonal tree's it can truly slow the game down incredibly to render it, and causes other problems.
then open ended nature of outside areas, and having to draw skys can cause problems too. Its a pretty complicated subject, I hope someone can elaborate more, since I just got done (last semester) with a class that basically went over these concepts on inside spaces, I haven't full explored all the reasons for the problems of doing it outside, but thats what I am pretty sure of.
they were the ones who worked with the guy to set up the HTML etc. and they posted the story of the tree house first. He is also a member of the mektek.net forums. It goes to show you there are copy whores on even bigger company sites like wizkidz. Give mektek.net a little bit of credit, they have gone a long way to keeping the mechwarrior community alive.
www.themfb.com
This is not an amnesty issue, lets imagine having CNN.com shut down by china because they say anti-china things. By the law used in this example post, it would be the same thing, and legal to sue CNN.com if one of its writers wrote something deemed offensive by china, and if CNN decided to stick by its guns because it felt the story was true. But lets move away from what YOU or I may consider legitemate. Lets say you wanted to make funny Porn involving a fetish revolving say... around the virgin mary.
lets say you were an atheist, and cared thought of it only as a source of revinew, the content you produced could be as offensive as you wish, saying you were in america, were freedom of speech is allowed. Then because of a law in another country, which does not value freedom of speech when it comes to religion, decides your site violates their laws which you did not grow up with, vote for, or have anscestors vote for, or congressmen vote for. Then basically your being proscecuted or having legal action taken against you from a law with which you had no representation.
The true issue here, or what should be the true issue, is not the mere injustice, but as an American (from the United States for those who are idiots and cant read in context), i feel that this falls under having laws without representation. SO what it isn't about taxation itself. The United States of America was begun because of arguments over representation, IE they didn't have any so they decided to govern themselves.
this is even a huge issue between the united states, people from one state in the UNITED STATES, get angry over being prosecuted by laws that were passed in an entirely different state while in their own home state. To think you could be subject to laws of an entirely different country of which, quite possibly, none of your anscestors have EVER lived in would be outrageous, and outrageous would be too light a word.
An extridition treaty would not necessarrily apply, because if this person did not break any laws in his own country, and never left the country to go onto foriegn soil. Then he did not commit a crime to be extradited for.
You could assume and say the internet destroys law bounderies, if that were so then the internet would also need to be goverend by those who use it, not by seperate goverenment groups, and since I have never posted on an internet wide law vote, I do not think that solution is even remotely being currently pursued.
If you are able to accuse, convict, and enact punishment of someone because of the non-illegal media in their country, then ever media would be subject to such lawsuites. Imagine a fella that posted a Pro Nazi letter that happened to be copied and sent to France, by the reasoning used in the Topic of this slashdot post by the Italian govt., that person could, by all rights, be litigated legally.
This game counts as a psuedo FPS, and it takes strategy, and thinking ahead at all times. Because of horrid net code, and buggy game play, you had to be able to anticipate where a person would be seconds into the future, fire there, and hope that your shots would hit them, combined with hundreds of configurations possible, and dozens of chassis and weapons, you had a game that if you were a normal FPS player you simply wouldnt do that well, especially considering that you had multiple degrees of movement (torso, arms, legs all moved seperate)
Games like Mech3 would have to improve thinking, at least at the competitive level, simply because if you didnt THINK you lost. you couldnt be twitchy "im a good player" when you were surrounded by people who knew what they are doing.
Frank Herberts Dune series had much to say about precognition of future, changing, events.
Paul Atreidese could see in the future, but future itself was not set, by seeing the future, and then acting within the future that he had control over, he thus bent the future to his will.
If he had not been able to see the future, things would not have gone so well for him. By being able to see the future he trapped himself into the future, if he had not had future abilities then he would have been under the control of fate, what would happen would always happen.
When you have a choice of what happens, the future itself becomes more frightening, because you can always choose a possible future where things go as you want. Nothing will ever happen by chance because you can do whatever is needed for things to go your way, every time. What a horrid existence it would be.
Now in the case of the pre-cogs, they saw the entire future too, or at least i have come to beleive. The ones able to be seen by the computers were the most vivid and powerfull, the bits of future that was too powerfull.
The pre-cogs set the future in the image they had developed, and it was going to come to pass.
They saw the ball rolling, they saw what would have happened if things were left without intervention.
when someone intervened, then the crime simply didnt happen, because this was the possible future where it didnt happen.
Imaging, there is a "possible" future that there are men outside your door waiting to kill you, if there were me telling you might be able to save your life, if i didnt tell you then you would most likely die. the fact I am going to tell you wouldnt make a lot of difference, because I hadnt told you yet, and I wouldnt tell you if i hadnt seen the images. So the instant I see the images is the instant that time alters to a future were you do not die, but simply because it was averted doesnt mean it wasnt going to happen anyway.
When you ask yourself that question, you think you know the answer, you see the movie, you glance around, and you say "its obvious buzz, its because he was really good, and had connections as the police cheif"
You are both right, yet wrong.
Let me explain. The reason the precogs always got the criminals was because the murder was going to happen, they were able to apprehend on time. The more pre-meditated the murder the further in advance the pre-cogs had to capture the soon to be criminals.
The thing to getting the story is you have to remember how the events of the movie were set in motion, agatha pulls John into a tank, and shows him a mysterious murder scene.
These events eventually lead to the death of the killer of the mother of Agatha (the chick in the soup).
Agatha committed 3 murders, she was responsible for the 3 deaths that occurred, two of which were in all honesty innocent bystandards, the last person was the one who had killed her mother.
Agatha never pulled the trigger, because she could see the future. She waited six years in a vat of water to get revenge for the horror of her life, she did so with the complete knowlege of the two twins.
Who knows how far Agatha could see in the future, all the clues for the assurtion I make are there!
Agatha uses the even where the investigating cop is going to ruin Johns life to further her own ends, she can see many possible futures, not all her activity is monitored on the dome screen.
She picks out the possible future, and possible actions that would lead to death of her mothers murderer. She gave John the tools, and the motivation to release her from the tank, she knew that by having revealed to him the info about Ms. Lively that the old fella (im horrible with names) would set plans in motion to have John killed. I am even sure that when the old man planned the set up, he did it without ever guessing HOW he would get John to the place to commit the murder.
The BOOM, the pre-crime report, a report made long before John EVER KNEW THE NAME OF THE GUY, this is incredibly important, because they showed right in the beggining that crimes of passion or rage took MUCH longer to predict, and with MUCH less time to stop the murder. AGAIN this murder was predicted a day or so BEFORE THE CRIMINAL EVEN KNEW the name, which means that it was being picked up because it was pre-meditated in either one of two ways.
Agatha can predict her own pre-meditated murder, or it was predicted because it was pre-meditated by the older man, either works, the first one is obvious, the second scenario less so. I propose Agatha knew would happen, since she could think, she knew she was there, and she knew not to give images revealing that fact.
So what happened? John Anderton, did kill the man, so what it didnt happen exactly as planned, it happened, the fellow died.
Now Anderton is still on the run, he gets to his home, Agatha could have easily warned him, just as she had in his escape, but that wouldnt have fit into her plans, she needed John captured again, and she needed Johns wife to hear the story, and be moved to sympathy.
So here we have it, she tells them a long, lovely distracting story of their childrens childhood. She then warns them far too late about being captured, this puts it in place for the inevitable death of the old evil man at the end, and her release from pre-crime.
All of her dreams come true, and as payment she gets John back together with his wife.
The plot holes all make sense if you say
"Agatha is the murderer"
and all the puzzle peices fit.
Sorry about the bad grammer, bad spelling, lack of names etc. This is a forum post not a full end review.
Jason X was one of the worst movies i have ever seen! It should have ended earlier than it did, I am all for the horror movie resserection but the movie was BS, it was a complete waste of money to go to.
not that this guy is saying v3 produces better frame rates, but well hot damn, the fact that he seems to be a voodooo zealot holdover!
TNT2 always had better color, though some liked the visual "gritty" feel of the V3, but wow, its still amazing, and i like the last line too about the nvidiots, seeing as nvidia now OWNS 3dfx, its pretty neat!
Nothing like a little 80's and early 90's soft rock to get you in the mood, and lots and lots of cheap soda. Go through a case of cheap soda and you know your program was hard, go through half a case it was moderatly difficult, if you can only finish of 6 then the program was a breaze, and you probably should have waited till the last minute;-)
Native americans would have a greater claim over the land than jewish people or arabs, since the land was populated by other people non jew or arab before the jewish were there.
Jewish people have been in israel only as long as they have been free from slavery from the pharohs of egypt. Arabs since after the roman empire fell.
Americans, like israelis, took there land from the previous residents, the israelis just had it taken by others then reclaimed at a much later date. They are just as legitimate a country as the united states, or iraq, or just about any other country in the world, they won there country, declared themselves a state, and have a government that regulates trade and polices its citizens. They did it in the general fasion that a country gets made, people just dont stand around and say "hey we would like to be a country" and someone goes "ok here you go", it actually sorta happpened that way, but they had to fight to keep it, and there are very few countries in the world that can say that they havent had to go through such hardships.
For example, british empire was no more "illegal" than israel taking palestien, they didnt ask for permission, they held what they had because they had the best soldiers at the time. The people of the areas eventually rebelled against it, and britain lost control, but they didnt have the problem on there own turf either, im sure if someone had tried to declare a large chunk of shoreline in britain there home land because of some ancient saxon ancestory they felt made them different, the people involed would have shortly ceased to exhist.
This is how things are done in the world, but to give legitimacy for one of two sides that are attempting to do the same basic thing to the other, you can't just throw your towel in with the underdog, especially when the underdog has quite clearly lost, and has resorted to suicide bombing instead of compromise.
Someone mentioned that compromise would be an important goal, the problem is i have seen, even very recently, the israeli government officially hold there hand out for compromise when given the option to become a legitimate nation, instead they got there hands blown off (figurativly) by hieghtened suicide bombing, i am sure YOU would want to continue a peace process when even if you "succeded" on paper, the main problem (terrorist groups) would not go away, the big thing about deals and compromises is that something is gained by both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
and I rarely see a first post opportunity, and to the one fellow im 22. that would have made me 8 if the simpsons are 14 years old
I have watched the simpsons for years, how long have they been on exactly? I can remember seeing episodes even when I was a kid.
;-)
Too bad I never did see him writing on a wall
"will not submit story just to commit slashdot effect"
It was done at one point, where you could broadcast radio in kind of a P2p fasion, bout 5 years ago? 4 years? anyway, it got shut down.
There is not one person out there that uses a joystick/gamepad solely in a FPS game and can compete. Period. Mouse users have such fine control of up and down movement, and direction controls that they win hands down every time. Even if you had a mod to convert the PS2 controler over you would not get a person taht was as good, especially on the scale of maps made for games such as MOHAA, or Wolfenstien. Pretending you could have the resolution to see little people out very far (something not able on TV) you wouldnt have the fine motor control, even with a great analog stick to out aim a good mouse user. I have seen people try, and it simply does not work. about being able to use a keyboard, or fumbling around... thats simply not true, I play games such as Mechwarrior3, and Heavy Gear, they have 10 buttons/combination of buttons that need to be used at any oen time while piloting the mech. I can do this in my sleep, moving a mech around, swirving a torso, using the mouse to move the reticule, and the arrow keys to control the legs, while changing weapon groups, firing different types of weapons all smoothly in transition.
Some more info on these things, HDTV has been attempted to be pushed since 1995, the FTC wanted HDTV broadcasts by 1997. HDTV Tuners are going to be required in all televisions by 2007.
This is not stifling analog broadcasts, its increasing overall bandwidth (because its digital) and when they start getting these tuners in all televisions the prices will be driven down. Right now they make more money selling HDTV w/o tuners then making you buy a tuner.
Seems like BS, but if you go to a best Buy or other electronics stores, most of those snazzy HDTV dont even have the ability to process an HDTV signal.
7 years ago (maybe more) the HDTV was intended to be THE next generation of television, this has been an issue for years, to get crazy about it now is just silly. I saw no one here getting angry that the HDTV standard had a deadline of 1997?
The reason people are getting angry now is because they want to be able to record video off the television, and I completely understand where you are coming from, I am not going to argue that that is a bad thing in many ways, but I am sure someone will make a rather easy converter/workaround that will turn it back into digital, and then you can get your movies off the net again, or record them yourself.
I remember going to the smithsonian and seeing an HDTV broadcast back in 1996 and I thought it was one of the coolest things around. let the technology progress. the Deadline is YEARS away, by the time they stop sending out digital signals the TV that had analog only tuners will be obsolete, and it wont even be thought about.
I lived on KU campus for 4 years, and trust me it wasnt necessarrilly the design, I used to have 6 machines hooked up in one room, and it caused no real problems.
The network really started jacking up during the Napster/Scour Exchange/Morpheus times.
When I first started using the internet at KU, we would get 200-500 k download EASY, sometimes a meg or so from all the machines EASY. Since filesharing became big, its hard to get 20 k a second.
I moved off campus because cable is still faster (now though it didnt used to be sunflower really kicked the bandwidth up a notch) and now KU is also notifying students to get rid of files, as seen in a recent UDK (campus news)
I go to a university, we havent got huge pipes, this is the University of Kansas (go jayhawks) I lived on campus, and the bandwidth being sucked out by the dorms was so intense you couldnt barely do ANYTHING online, at any time, on ANY part of the network. Last year they increased prices and then only allowed half the universities bandwidth to the dorms, now when on campus you can actually get online and download files fast again as long as you are in a computer lab. OFC when I was still living on campus I ssh into the lab machines, wget the files i needed to the machines hard drive then downloaded it across the network, but The only reason I was able to even do that was because of them making only half the bandwidth available to students in the dorms. Maybe some of you dont know the issues at colleges, maybe some of you live at KU and dont download HUGE files (say Debian ISO). Or maybe you think 15 k a second max is "fast" but Universities are doing this to protect themselves, the networks just die under the loads, at least KU did, and I can see why other colleges might be taking measures, its to ensure that each student doesnt have to pay 70 bucks a month. Considering students got high speed internet for 12 bucks a mont, you cant complain. Because of filesharers it went UP to 12 a month, it used to be 7 dollars a month, and it was faster.
Now we won't have to keep replacing them, just keep refuling them. But wont the sattellites lose speed in docking?
take into account children in the front passenger seat of whatever vehicle could deploy this thing. But alas I guess thats obvious.
Thats just it though, even though the address is INACTIVE, the idea is the same. my old address was technically "inactive" as well. Nothing was stored, or re-sent via that address. It had to look up the new address and get forwarded. It was... simply forwarding. This address simply because it would work on a broader scale is no different in concept. Just because it would only work with users that had registered it in fact would be harder to implement since the e-mail client would have to look up, or the user trying to e-mail the person would have to go to a web page, to find out where the new e-mail was at. So even though this is a step in the same general direction it in many ways would require some more effort on the part of the e-mail software and or the user to even work as effeciently as what my college did. the college forwarded e-mails for 6 months, plenty of time for everyone who wanted to talk to me to get my new address. The IDEA is not new, it probably has been looked at by many an enterprising entrepenuer and discarded as simply being unfeasible without support from microsoft or some other very large software organization that could set the standard. They seem to be proposing this as a service, 20 dollars a month to get your e-mail re-assigned, but how will e-mail software know to re-assign? It is not an invention. It is merely an extended idea of something that has already existed.
The thing is, this is NOT an innovation, it is merely an extension of what many people do already. My e-mail for the university of kansas has changed, but the old addresses were kept active and "forwarded" to my new address, essentially doing the same thing. the central server being my Universitys e-mail server, and the new address my new address. To move this system from the original institution is no change in technology, just a step in the same direction, it accomplishes the same goal in a slightly different way. It would be like patenting a joystick with 12 AXIS control, simply because you were the first to do it, then claiming that all controllers with 12 axis were under your patent, regardless of design.
But alas, many of this kind of patent is in force today, especially in the computer industry, simply because of the money it takes to challenge the patents.
You have done a favor when you tell them, hey i noticed your door was unlocked, upon casual inspection. But in the computer world there is no casual inspection. the only way they could get off saying it would be if they accidently broke into the site. the analogy of doing a favor can only be in the mind of the perpetrator because i beleive very few societies could sit down and say "yes it is ok to walk around in someones house if they leave the door open, your doing a favor for them so they know that there house can be broken into and that with casual inspection i could find their kitchen and kill the entire family with a butcher knife" the door is not quite an adaquete example, simply because you can view it being unlocked by casual inspection of walking up and down a road, or hallway. you dont casually attempt to hack into www.fbi.gov or dial up an fbi server. It simply does NOT happen. If you can honestly say you have accidently called up the wrong ISP (back when you have had a modem) and were granted access with your current user name and password then i would be completely amazed and probably call you a liar because its damn near impossible to even concieve.
I was sitting around today in computer ethics class and I thought to myself an interesting question? Why is there a music industry? Well the Music industry was able to make copies of music, that others could listen to right? The entire business model is that they pick what they think will be popular then they release. So under this business model they "own" the rights to a song, this way another music company would not be able to sell that song as there own...
Now its the computer age, the problem that people used to have with the distribution of music is gone, it can now be very easily, instead of having to make thousands of relatively expensive peices of vinyl, the music can now simply be "uploaded" then copied as many times as anyone wants to by people with semi specialized equipment, and then listened too at leisure.
What does this all mean to me? Maybe the industry itself, in its current form is obsolete, maybe they should provide tangible gain from buying music, perhaps a trinket or some item that makes actually owning the original box "worth it" or some other interesting marketing stunt.
Currently the Music industry generally finds "the next big thing" and then says "hey everyone this is cool you should listen to it" and much of the populace usually does, and honestly i dont think most of the music is half bad, im not hardcore about what i listen to so hearing the occasional britney spears or whatnot doesnt bother me to much.
What the Music industry should do is simply cut its losses, instead of alienating and restricting, a lot of people should simply lose their jobs and go elsewhere. This is a harsh view perhaps, but consider this, when a reliable robotic arm for car manufacturing was made, a lot of people lost their jobs because the cost of the new technology outweighted the cost of keeping less effecient human staff.
The internet should be seen as that robotic arm. Another model should be sought out and used.
I think the industry has hit the point where the business model they follow is obsolete, but like a workers union or group of factory workers, they will try their hardest to make sure they keep the money coming and keep their jobs, despite the fact that they no longer serve the same purpose.
The solution? Still promote, the thing they will always have a monopoly on is first served experience. this is when they can get chip ins from advertisements etc, by showing videos on TV (im sure already do that) but they should put the focus on the experience of going to a concert, make them just as exciting, but also pump them up even more. Say before a band is coming to town, that isnt quite as well known, maybe release samples of their music prior to the show, with the complete song being played when you come to the event.
The computer is a unique ethical question, we have here a device that can do something in a medium (easily) that could only be done through slow difficult means, and thats instantaneous copying and or executing of complex instructions. To hold the technology back really is avoiding the ethical issues of whether its right or wrong.
saying its wrong to copy and listen to music is actually avoiding the question altogether. The "law" says its wrong, but the law also hung witches a hundred years ago too, but as I see it the current method of distributing music is not based on an ethical principle, its based on teh fact that it was a service, and a service only relatively skilled individuals could do, now that service can be done by many, easily, so its now obsolete right?
Oh well its 3 am, maybe ill do a coherent version of this eventually.
So, if you leave your door open, I walk in, and don't do anything, and then later sent you a letter telling you your door was unlocked and that I walked around, and that anyone else could have walked around that you wouldn't be angry at the invasion of privacy?
The problem is, is that BSP tree's cut a scene up into things that need to be rendered so only what a person can "see" is rendered.
take for example, if you were looking at a house from the outside, and all the windows were tinted dark, for all intents and purposes there is nothing in the house right?
This is because you cannot "see" anything inside of the house. Now lets take this a bit further, imagine you were looking down a hallway, and if you went to the end, turned right, then went forward, then turned right again, you would see something else, but before you went forward, and turned around the corner, you do not nececerrilly have to "see" whats around the corner, because essensially it does not exist.
this is what a BSP tree, and other pruning methods do, a bsp tree trys to break up a map or set of vertices in a way that allows the software to render only what you can see, and what you are about to see, this makes it so that the computer doesnt have to render a lot of extraneous stuff.
back to the house example, lets say you were rendering a house, and you defined every single possible item in the house as well (ie you could go into the house and look around), but you could see no objects from outside the house (imagine the house is a little box) so a BSP tree algorithm would take the scene, and if you were in some position outside of the house, it would not load all the vertices of the internal components of the house, but just load the vertices for the outside of the house and render them, so that the computer would not have to draw all the items in the house, items that you do not have to see. The smarter algorithms used in quake games for small rooms and small inside areas, will also load and draw things you could see "soon" ie, if you were walking down the hall, it would also render the next section of hall that you are coming up on when you got close to the hall. when you turned down the hall, and moved sufficiently far, or turned another corner, it would then remove those vertices from being rendered until you came back around again.
Now to why this causes problems for large outdoor scenes. this can be many reasons, many times if an outdoor scene is complex (ie has a lot of vertices) the game engine doesnt really have a lot of options on pruning what you see, and what you might see, so it causes slowdown because it draws EVERYTHING outside, regardless of if you can see it at the moment. if you have high render intensive items such as polygonal tree's it can truly slow the game down incredibly to render it, and causes other problems.
then open ended nature of outside areas, and having to draw skys can cause problems too. Its a pretty complicated subject, I hope someone can elaborate more, since I just got done (last semester) with a class that basically went over these concepts on inside spaces, I haven't full explored all the reasons for the problems of doing it outside, but thats what I am pretty sure of.
Buzz OUT.
btw. Mektek posted the story first and made a rather big event of it. It is not a mirror its the original
they were the ones who worked with the guy to set up the HTML etc. and they posted the story of the tree house first. He is also a member of the mektek.net forums. It goes to show you there are copy whores on even bigger company sites like wizkidz. Give mektek.net a little bit of credit, they have gone a long way to keeping the mechwarrior community alive. www.themfb.com
This is not an amnesty issue, lets imagine having CNN.com shut down by china because they say anti-china things. By the law used in this example post, it would be the same thing, and legal to sue CNN.com if one of its writers wrote something deemed offensive by china, and if CNN decided to stick by its guns because it felt the story was true. But lets move away from what YOU or I may consider legitemate. Lets say you wanted to make funny Porn involving a fetish revolving say... around the virgin mary. lets say you were an atheist, and cared thought of it only as a source of revinew, the content you produced could be as offensive as you wish, saying you were in america, were freedom of speech is allowed. Then because of a law in another country, which does not value freedom of speech when it comes to religion, decides your site violates their laws which you did not grow up with, vote for, or have anscestors vote for, or congressmen vote for. Then basically your being proscecuted or having legal action taken against you from a law with which you had no representation.
The true issue here, or what should be the true issue, is not the mere injustice, but as an American (from the United States for those who are idiots and cant read in context), i feel that this falls under having laws without representation. SO what it isn't about taxation itself. The United States of America was begun because of arguments over representation, IE they didn't have any so they decided to govern themselves.
this is even a huge issue between the united states, people from one state in the UNITED STATES, get angry over being prosecuted by laws that were passed in an entirely different state while in their own home state. To think you could be subject to laws of an entirely different country of which, quite possibly, none of your anscestors have EVER lived in would be outrageous, and outrageous would be too light a word.
An extridition treaty would not necessarrily apply, because if this person did not break any laws in his own country, and never left the country to go onto foriegn soil. Then he did not commit a crime to be extradited for.
You could assume and say the internet destroys law bounderies, if that were so then the internet would also need to be goverend by those who use it, not by seperate goverenment groups, and since I have never posted on an internet wide law vote, I do not think that solution is even remotely being currently pursued.
If you are able to accuse, convict, and enact punishment of someone because of the non-illegal media in their country, then ever media would be subject to such lawsuites. Imagine a fella that posted a Pro Nazi letter that happened to be copied and sent to France, by the reasoning used in the Topic of this slashdot post by the Italian govt., that person could, by all rights, be litigated legally.
I for one cannot agree with that.
This game counts as a psuedo FPS, and it takes strategy, and thinking ahead at all times. Because of horrid net code, and buggy game play, you had to be able to anticipate where a person would be seconds into the future, fire there, and hope that your shots would hit them, combined with hundreds of configurations possible, and dozens of chassis and weapons, you had a game that if you were a normal FPS player you simply wouldnt do that well, especially considering that you had multiple degrees of movement (torso, arms, legs all moved seperate)
Games like Mech3 would have to improve thinking, at least at the competitive level, simply because if you didnt THINK you lost. you couldnt be twitchy "im a good player" when you were surrounded by people who knew what they are doing.
Frank Herberts Dune series had much to say about precognition of future, changing, events. Paul Atreidese could see in the future, but future itself was not set, by seeing the future, and then acting within the future that he had control over, he thus bent the future to his will. If he had not been able to see the future, things would not have gone so well for him. By being able to see the future he trapped himself into the future, if he had not had future abilities then he would have been under the control of fate, what would happen would always happen. When you have a choice of what happens, the future itself becomes more frightening, because you can always choose a possible future where things go as you want. Nothing will ever happen by chance because you can do whatever is needed for things to go your way, every time. What a horrid existence it would be. Now in the case of the pre-cogs, they saw the entire future too, or at least i have come to beleive. The ones able to be seen by the computers were the most vivid and powerfull, the bits of future that was too powerfull. The pre-cogs set the future in the image they had developed, and it was going to come to pass. They saw the ball rolling, they saw what would have happened if things were left without intervention. when someone intervened, then the crime simply didnt happen, because this was the possible future where it didnt happen. Imaging, there is a "possible" future that there are men outside your door waiting to kill you, if there were me telling you might be able to save your life, if i didnt tell you then you would most likely die. the fact I am going to tell you wouldnt make a lot of difference, because I hadnt told you yet, and I wouldnt tell you if i hadnt seen the images. So the instant I see the images is the instant that time alters to a future were you do not die, but simply because it was averted doesnt mean it wasnt going to happen anyway.
The following is a spoiler do not read
why was John Anderton successfull.
When you ask yourself that question, you think you know the answer, you see the movie, you glance around, and you say "its obvious buzz, its because he was really good, and had connections as the police cheif"
You are both right, yet wrong.
Let me explain. The reason the precogs always got the criminals was because the murder was going to happen, they were able to apprehend on time. The more pre-meditated the murder the further in advance the pre-cogs had to capture the soon to be criminals.
The thing to getting the story is you have to remember how the events of the movie were set in motion, agatha pulls John into a tank, and shows him a mysterious murder scene.
These events eventually lead to the death of the killer of the mother of Agatha (the chick in the soup).
Agatha committed 3 murders, she was responsible for the 3 deaths that occurred, two of which were in all honesty innocent bystandards, the last person was the one who had killed her mother.
Agatha never pulled the trigger, because she could see the future. She waited six years in a vat of water to get revenge for the horror of her life, she did so with the complete knowlege of the two twins.
Who knows how far Agatha could see in the future, all the clues for the assurtion I make are there!
Agatha uses the even where the investigating cop is going to ruin Johns life to further her own ends, she can see many possible futures, not all her activity is monitored on the dome screen.
She picks out the possible future, and possible actions that would lead to death of her mothers murderer. She gave John the tools, and the motivation to release her from the tank, she knew that by having revealed to him the info about Ms. Lively that the old fella (im horrible with names) would set plans in motion to have John killed. I am even sure that when the old man planned the set up, he did it without ever guessing HOW he would get John to the place to commit the murder.
The BOOM, the pre-crime report, a report made long before John EVER KNEW THE NAME OF THE GUY, this is incredibly important, because they showed right in the beggining that crimes of passion or rage took MUCH longer to predict, and with MUCH less time to stop the murder. AGAIN this murder was predicted a day or so BEFORE THE CRIMINAL EVEN KNEW the name, which means that it was being picked up because it was pre-meditated in either one of two ways.
Agatha can predict her own pre-meditated murder, or it was predicted because it was pre-meditated by the older man, either works, the first one is obvious, the second scenario less so. I propose Agatha knew would happen, since she could think, she knew she was there, and she knew not to give images revealing that fact.
So what happened? John Anderton, did kill the man, so what it didnt happen exactly as planned, it happened, the fellow died.
Now Anderton is still on the run, he gets to his home, Agatha could have easily warned him, just as she had in his escape, but that wouldnt have fit into her plans, she needed John captured again, and she needed Johns wife to hear the story, and be moved to sympathy.
So here we have it, she tells them a long, lovely distracting story of their childrens childhood. She then warns them far too late about being captured, this puts it in place for the inevitable death of the old evil man at the end, and her release from pre-crime.
All of her dreams come true, and as payment she gets John back together with his wife.
The plot holes all make sense if you say
"Agatha is the murderer"
and all the puzzle peices fit.
Sorry about the bad grammer, bad spelling, lack of names etc. This is a forum post not a full end review.
Jason X was one of the worst movies i have ever seen! It should have ended earlier than it did, I am all for the horror movie resserection but the movie was BS, it was a complete waste of money to go to.
not that this guy is saying v3 produces better frame rates, but well hot damn, the fact that he seems to be a voodooo zealot holdover! TNT2 always had better color, though some liked the visual "gritty" feel of the V3, but wow, its still amazing, and i like the last line too about the nvidiots, seeing as nvidia now OWNS 3dfx, its pretty neat!
Nothing like a little 80's and early 90's soft rock to get you in the mood, and lots and lots of cheap soda. Go through a case of cheap soda and you know your program was hard, go through half a case it was moderatly difficult, if you can only finish of 6 then the program was a breaze, and you probably should have waited till the last minute ;-)
Native americans would have a greater claim over the land than jewish people or arabs, since the land was populated by other people non jew or arab before the jewish were there.
Jewish people have been in israel only as long as they have been free from slavery from the pharohs of egypt. Arabs since after the roman empire fell.
Americans, like israelis, took there land from the previous residents, the israelis just had it taken by others then reclaimed at a much later date. They are just as legitimate a country as the united states, or iraq, or just about any other country in the world, they won there country, declared themselves a state, and have a government that regulates trade and polices its citizens. They did it in the general fasion that a country gets made, people just dont stand around and say "hey we would like to be a country" and someone goes "ok here you go", it actually sorta happpened that way, but they had to fight to keep it, and there are very few countries in the world that can say that they havent had to go through such hardships.
For example, british empire was no more "illegal" than israel taking palestien, they didnt ask for permission, they held what they had because they had the best soldiers at the time. The people of the areas eventually rebelled against it, and britain lost control, but they didnt have the problem on there own turf either, im sure if someone had tried to declare a large chunk of shoreline in britain there home land because of some ancient saxon ancestory they felt made them different, the people involed would have shortly ceased to exhist.
This is how things are done in the world, but to give legitimacy for one of two sides that are attempting to do the same basic thing to the other, you can't just throw your towel in with the underdog, especially when the underdog has quite clearly lost, and has resorted to suicide bombing instead of compromise.
Someone mentioned that compromise would be an important goal, the problem is i have seen, even very recently, the israeli government officially hold there hand out for compromise when given the option to become a legitimate nation, instead they got there hands blown off (figurativly) by hieghtened suicide bombing, i am sure YOU would want to continue a peace process when even if you "succeded" on paper, the main problem (terrorist groups) would not go away, the big thing about deals and compromises is that something is gained by both sides.