There are NWN servers out there with dozens to hundreds of concurrent players. Humans aren't capable of internalizing groups larger than that, so more doesn't really provide anything.
You don't get to pick and choose what people work on. You just get to accept or reject it.
If you want an upgraded version of python, roll up your sleeves and work out the issues that are keeping it at an older version. Since portage is dependant on python, it's quite reasonable for gentoo to be rather conservative about it. If you want easy binary packages, buy some hardware, build a compile farm and write scripts to automate package generation and testing.
No, I wouldn't call Asian RPGs adventure games. In my experience, they're a confluence of the weaknesses of RPGs and adventure games, stripped of the strengths of both. They have weak storylines and no personal character development. There's a reason they've never really made it outside of consoles: they're really only intended for children.
Persistent worlds can provide a story of equal merit to a single player game, it's just a *different* sort of story. It's less about a narrative and more about an expansive world, much like Tolkien's work.
They've been around for 15-20 years, which is ancient history in perspective.
I maintain that the player is superfluous because the decisions made are superfluous. You can't have player run character development without a player run storyline; the one is meaningless without the other. Further, the combat mini-games in those sort of "RPGs" are *boring*. The games would be better off without them.
It's not helped by the fact that the storylines are just plain awful.
You're thinking of adventure games (ie, Monkey Island, Day of the Tenticle, Sam & Max, The Dig, et cetera). Those exist to tell a story with a little bit of freedom to explore and interact with the characters.
RPGs on the other hand present a universe for the players to interact with, not a story. Traditionally the universe is controlled by one specific player, who can construct a story around what the players do, rather than the other way around. This isn't as possible in CRPGs, and so the story to them should be as loose as possible, and provide many different avenues.
Lose the "as an artist" bullshit. Either you are on your own merits, in which case there's no need to state it, or you're just a poser.
Non-linearity is the point of role playing games. If the storyline is too constrictive, as it is in most Asian RPGs, the presence of the player is superfluous, and it may as well be made into a movie.
Elder Scrolls games are not RPGs, they're action games in a fantasy environment.
The movie studio wouldn't be entering into any contract beyond the immediate sale. When you subscribe to an ISP, you *do* bind yourself to a contract, prohibiting certain things, like spamming, DoS shenanigans, and reselling the service.
I've never seen an ISP agreement that didn't specifically prohibit reselling the service, which is exactly what Joost is doing. Private use p2p is one thing, but it's a whole different ballgame when you start selling your upstream bandwidth to a for profit corporation.
Reference the peer reviews and replicated studies that conclusively show damage from wifi. The fact that this BBC show completely failed to do so implies that there are no such studies.
Horses have served us as a transportation medium for millenia, why do we want cars? Our ancestors were perfectly happy in caves, why go to the trouble of erecting building?
Pidgins don't detect radiation. They and other migrating birds detect the planet's magnetic field, which is wholly unrelated to wifi or any other EM radiation.
If you'd watched the video, you'd have seen that they did study her "sense". She was able to guess correctly just slightly better than she would have been expected to do so by random chance. There were others who also claimed to to be sensitive that they tested, but they refused to release the results for them, implying they did much worse.
There was further study, and it concluded that she was full of shit, yet the reporter choose to ignore it.
Occam's razor states that you should avoid multiplying entities, or take the simplest explanation. Occam's razor *does* imply that you should ignore crackpots, as by definition there is a simpler explanation than what they spew: they're full of shit. There are lots of people full of shit in the world, but very few or no aliens, psychics, doomsdays or cancer causing cell phones.
Occam's razor doesn't say anything about new assumptions. It only says that you should take the simplest explanation that covers all the data. "She's full of shit" is very simple, and given we've not actually detected any harm from wifi it covers all the data. This is compounded by the fact that we've debunked similar crackpots regarding pretty much every major technology of the last century.
Which is the simpler explanation? That she somehow acquired a sense no one else has noticed in 10,000 years of human history, or that she's a moronic crackpot in a tin foil hat?
People claim all sorts of bullshit. It's generally a good idea to maintain scepticism until it's put to a controlled test.
In TFA, the radio detecting woman was put to a a test, and scored just slightly higher than she could be expected to do by random chance. Others were also tested, but they refused to reveal their results.
'The real money is in taking existing ideas and twisting the idea just far enough to make it work in a fantastic new way. Think Google vs. AltaVista; Apple vs. all previously existing laptops and mp3 players; YouTube vs. all previously existing video sites, etc. In addition to ideas, you need creativity, resources, connections, and luck I suppose he would know, he seems to be making a living applying creativity and resources to journalistic integrity.
Your Java interpreters in? Certainly not Java. C may (or may not) become marginalized, but it's certainly not going away. You can only build stacks so high before you have to collapse them back down to lower level languages. Unless we reach the Age of Failed Dreams, we will always need C or something very much like it.
We're not talking about "security measures". Enabling open access means you are inviting anyone to connect to the network. It is exactly equivalent to a sign that says "Please come in".
Slashdot Mirror
It's perfectly legal for me to buy a CD and make copies for all of my friends, and it would be just as legal for me to do the same with these files.
There are NWN servers out there with dozens to hundreds of concurrent players. Humans aren't capable of internalizing groups larger than that, so more doesn't really provide anything.
You don't get to pick and choose what people work on. You just get to accept or reject it.
If you want an upgraded version of python, roll up your sleeves and work out the issues that are keeping it at an older version. Since portage is dependant on python, it's quite reasonable for gentoo to be rather conservative about it. If you want easy binary packages, buy some hardware, build a compile farm and write scripts to automate package generation and testing.
Put up or shut up.
No, I wouldn't call Asian RPGs adventure games. In my experience, they're a confluence of the weaknesses of RPGs and adventure games, stripped of the strengths of both. They have weak storylines and no personal character development. There's a reason they've never really made it outside of consoles: they're really only intended for children.
Persistent worlds can provide a story of equal merit to a single player game, it's just a *different* sort of story. It's less about a narrative and more about an expansive world, much like Tolkien's work.
Goons have shat over quite a few small MMOish games. I have no reason to doubt they'd pull something like this.
They've been around for 15-20 years, which is ancient history in perspective.
I maintain that the player is superfluous because the decisions made are superfluous. You can't have player run character development without a player run storyline; the one is meaningless without the other. Further, the combat mini-games in those sort of "RPGs" are *boring*. The games would be better off without them.
It's not helped by the fact that the storylines are just plain awful.
You're thinking of adventure games (ie, Monkey Island, Day of the Tenticle, Sam & Max, The Dig, et cetera). Those exist to tell a story with a little bit of freedom to explore and interact with the characters.
RPGs on the other hand present a universe for the players to interact with, not a story. Traditionally the universe is controlled by one specific player, who can construct a story around what the players do, rather than the other way around. This isn't as possible in CRPGs, and so the story to them should be as loose as possible, and provide many different avenues.
Lose the "as an artist" bullshit. Either you are on your own merits, in which case there's no need to state it, or you're just a poser.
NeverWinter Nights allowed you to have persistent multiplayer servers as well as single player campaigns and let you run your own servers.
Non-linearity is the point of role playing games. If the storyline is too constrictive, as it is in most Asian RPGs, the presence of the player is superfluous, and it may as well be made into a movie.
Elder Scrolls games are not RPGs, they're action games in a fantasy environment.
The movie studio wouldn't be entering into any contract beyond the immediate sale. When you subscribe to an ISP, you *do* bind yourself to a contract, prohibiting certain things, like spamming, DoS shenanigans, and reselling the service.
I've never seen an ISP agreement that didn't specifically prohibit reselling the service, which is exactly what Joost is doing. Private use p2p is one thing, but it's a whole different ballgame when you start selling your upstream bandwidth to a for profit corporation.
That doesn't even remotely say what you think it does. I'm done with you.
Reference the peer reviews and replicated studies that conclusively show damage from wifi. The fact that this BBC show completely failed to do so implies that there are no such studies.
Horses have served us as a transportation medium for millenia, why do we want cars? Our ancestors were perfectly happy in caves, why go to the trouble of erecting building?
Technophobia is never a reasonable position.
Pidgins don't detect radiation. They and other migrating birds detect the planet's magnetic field, which is wholly unrelated to wifi or any other EM radiation.
If you'd watched the video, you'd have seen that they did study her "sense". She was able to guess correctly just slightly better than she would have been expected to do so by random chance. There were others who also claimed to to be sensitive that they tested, but they refused to release the results for them, implying they did much worse.
There was further study, and it concluded that she was full of shit, yet the reporter choose to ignore it.
Occam's razor states that you should avoid multiplying entities, or take the simplest explanation. Occam's razor *does* imply that you should ignore crackpots, as by definition there is a simpler explanation than what they spew: they're full of shit. There are lots of people full of shit in the world, but very few or no aliens, psychics, doomsdays or cancer causing cell phones.
Occam's razor doesn't say anything about new assumptions. It only says that you should take the simplest explanation that covers all the data. "She's full of shit" is very simple, and given we've not actually detected any harm from wifi it covers all the data. This is compounded by the fact that we've debunked similar crackpots regarding pretty much every major technology of the last century.
Which is the simpler explanation? That she somehow acquired a sense no one else has noticed in 10,000 years of human history, or that she's a moronic crackpot in a tin foil hat?
It's entirely reasonable to reject out of hand crackpot rantings.
People claim all sorts of bullshit. It's generally a good idea to maintain scepticism until it's put to a controlled test.
In TFA, the radio detecting woman was put to a a test, and scored just slightly higher than she could be expected to do by random chance. Others were also tested, but they refused to reveal their results.
There's nothing wrong with being sceptical, in fact it should be the default position for any rational person.
Don't like a country's privacy laws? Don't do business there.
Your Java interpreters in? Certainly not Java. C may (or may not) become marginalized, but it's certainly not going away. You can only build stacks so high before you have to collapse them back down to lower level languages. Unless we reach the Age of Failed Dreams, we will always need C or something very much like it.
They probably just accept the first x entries until they have a base for comparison. The entries will converge on correctness.
We're not talking about "security measures". Enabling open access means you are inviting anyone to connect to the network. It is exactly equivalent to a sign that says "Please come in".