Hmm... ok, here are a couple of examples. I'll bet much of the hardware in the computer you are using right now was made in Taiwan. Furthmore, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of your consumer electronics items (TV, VCR,CD/DVD player) were made by Japanese companies.
Read the recommendation first, post later. The internet company would get IIS (nothing to sniff at), as well as MSN (direct competitor of AOL). These two cash cows, alone would allow the company to be very profitable.
I too once thought that getting formalized schooling was the only ticket to making money. But then I realized that a mere education would do nearly as well. I'm 21, have no degree own a house, and make >$30/hour plus benefits. I like school, but it would be nothing short of insanity, economically speaking, to go now. Why not just wait until my stock portfolio is large enough that I can go, living off of my dividends? I'm sure I'll come out ahead of those who delay their earnings by a few years, while racking up loans!
I think that people who go to college, especially for CS, should do so out of a love for the subject, not for economic reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with all of the last post... just a minor correction. The parts of Einstein's brain that deal with spatial and mathematical thinking were nearly 20% larger than average.
It's true that the overall size of his brain was smaller than average. However I'm not so impressed by some of his other brain functions. Not being able to tie his own shoes, or not noticing where he is until he's already taken 4 steps into a lake don't speak well for the rest of his brain(which was much smaller than normal).
Could you give a code example about how you did the fission bit? I've tried calling the grendade fire function from the think function, and I can get the first explosion to spawn a 'nade, but that 'nade's explosion sends me back to the menu.
Well I haven't seen anything for which Java can run within that factor of C++'s speed. Actually the C++ implementations (for that specific benchmark) have improved more than the Java ones! Java made great strides between version 1.1 and 1.2, and I'm sure it's compilers will continue to improve for much longer than C++. But I doubt it will ever catch up. If you do know of anything for which Java gets even 1/3 of C's performance, I'd be interested to see. Everything I've ever seen has been painfully slower, even simple networking things like ICQ! Have you seen how sluggish the java version is? It's unusable on my PII-300!
Here are my guesses as to what makes Java so much slower:
First off, there's quite a bit more overhead- we all knew that.
Second, the compilers have a bit tougher task, and they aren't as mature.
Third, Java is interpreted. You compile it, but just as with say... Perl, you need an interpreter.
Now the fourth reason I've thought of took a bit more digging. I've found that the performance of Java gets much closer to that of a lower level language when its apps are run on a system with a huge cache. Why? I'd bet that with everything done in OO, the inheritance is thrashing the ever living hell out of the cache. For every "generation" of inheritance, that's one more jump to an arbitrarily far spot in memory. That's actually the same problem that has kept game developers from using C++ for playstation games. C++ doesn't have nearly the problem that Java has with this, but the PSX only has a 4k cache! Perhaps as our computers become an order of magnitude more capable, this problem will abate somewhat.
As for lines of code being a poor measure of development speed, I agree. However, in my own personal experience (working on a BIG web based system for an ISP's billing software) most things can be developed more quickly with Perl. It seemed pretty cryptic for a while, but I don't think that it's that much less readable once you're familiar with the common idioms for whatever task is being done (it seems they're always similar). I guess the main difficulty with Perl might be that you can choose to make unmaintainable code, ie don't #use strict, etc... Right now Apache/Mod Perl/CGI/Oracle seems to be working pretty well, but who knows? Java servlets are certainly much more appealing than Perl would be were it not for Mod Perl. But I think it'll be a long time before C/C++ is no longer rules the realms of gaming, and operating systems.
Actually Java support has extended past just solaris and Windows. Sun has released the JDK1.2.2 for Linux, get it here! And when you're done, snag the new JBuilder Foundation! They're both really stable, and really good. I've benchmarked a chess program on them, and it's comperable with the Windows version. The compiled code is identical, Jbuilder has all the same features, and the JRE is actually executing about 5% faster than it does when I boot to Windows. Not that it's particularly fast compared to native binaries... but still it's good to see.
I've done a bit of Java programming myself, and I sure can't say that it strikes me as particularly fast in terms of development time. Perhaps for something relatively large it's faster than C. But I have never found an app which can be more quickly developed in Java than it could with say... Perl. Java is so strongly typed that it takes forever to parse data (which is a big deal for making web content draw from databases). Also, I've found that not only C, but even purely interpreted languages such as Sed or Perl yield better execution speeds as well.
Don't take my word for it, though. In Kernigan and Pike's classic, The Practice of Programming (C 1999), there's a pretty decent comparison. In the design and implimentation chapter they implement a Markov Chain algorithm as a decent test of perfomance/speed of development comparison between several languages. Here are the results:
PentiumII400MHz ----- Lines of source code C ----- 0.30sec --------------- 150 Java --- 9.2 ------------------ 105 C++ --- 1.5 ------------------- 70 Awk ---2.1 ------------------- 20 Perl --- 1.0 ------------------- 18
Looking at the results above, Java doesn't look like much of a winner at anything. It comes in dead last in execution speed, and edges out only C (the performance winner) in development speed (based upon lines of code). Perl on the other hand, is a contender. As I see it, Java's only true strength is its propaganda machine.
Id has made all the difference for me.
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
Actually, if it weren't for Id, I probably wouldn't be a game programmer at all. I've always had several programming geek buddies, and thought that games were cool. However all I ever worked on before Id released Doom's source, was lame space invaders clones. I've gotta say that Doom was a great thing to cut my teeth on. If you haven't already, you might want to look at that before you dive into Quake.
Currently I'm toying with the idea of rewriting the graphics code for Decent II, which was also recently released (albeit, not GPL). Unfortunately, only having experience with Id stuff, I don't know much Direct3D. Do any of you know of a good online reference?
We geeks have a lot to offer, compared to our knuckle-dragging, Maxim-reading mouth-breathing brethren. Don't waste it by trying to be someone else's image of a kEWl d00d.
Ahem! I'll have you know that Maxim is a damned fine mag... in fact, my three nerd roommates, and I have a subscription. Sure it always lists beer, sports, and women accross the top of it... but it also lists gadgets! There's always an article about something cool to build or brew. In fact I think that the, "This week you are... a cyber millionaire." article is very relevant to this discussion- how to pick up women by being an ubber-geek...
Like fencing, Go, and even battle.net, chess ratings use the ELO system. Every time you play a match, your probability of winning is calculated based upon the difference in your rating and your opponent's rating. When you win, you gain a number of points equal to your chance of losing times a development coefficient. When you lose, you lose a number of points equal to your probability of losing winning times your development coefficient. Thus winning against a much better opponent gains you more points than winning against a weaker one. Conversely, losing against a weaker opponent costs your rating much more than losing against a superior opponent.
I don't remember exactly how large the development coefficient is. It's based on how many games you have played. It's much easier to change your rating if you are a beginner than it is after you've played a while.
I must say, I'm not terribly impressed. I've seen better... much better. Fractal graphics have been around for years... and I've seen much more realistic looking ones on my old Amiga. It's true that this demo is pretty small, but it's not that small considering the poor quality. Many demo competitions had a 4k division. The top placing demos were usually abou 2-3 minutes long, and very visually impressive.
As for saying that the polygon based stuff is always ugly... what about Final Fantasy 8? That runs on a mere Play Station, and it's one long celebration of eye candy!
I don't dipute that fractles can make some very pretty graphics (especially of various plants), but they just aren't as simple to proccess as polygons. I really don't see how you can come out ahead in terms of CPU use. Drawing a line requires only a compare and either one or two increments per pixel (using Bresenham's algorithm). There just isn't a way to mathematically generate fractals that cheaply. Maybe that's why after all of the fractal hype in the early 90's, game designers went to texture mapped polygons anyways.
I have to say I can't quite agree with you in thinking that everything is (and should) move to 3D. While games are probably the sector to most benifit from a 3D view, some have been hindered by it. Take Daggerfall for example. It was a brilliant concept of a truly non-linear RPG, but it was ruined by a cumbersome 3D interface that made the dungeons hellishly tedious. It would have been much better served by an isometric view.
Oh, speaking of isometric views... you say, "There is practically _no_ 2D game available today"? I would point out that the best selling game (both recently, and ever) is Starcraft... very 2D. The same can be said for Diablo, CIV(all of them), and many others. They are good games because they focus more on ease of user interface, and playability than eye-candy. Because of this, they all out sold Wolfenstein, and they all out sold Quake.
Now, for those of you who may have suffered at the hands of unnecessarily 3D games (i.e Daggerfall), how would you feel about being unable to see the relevant portions of your web page or spreadsheet, without having to rotate it just so? I personally hate that sort of thing. So while VRML may be pretty cool, I sure doubt it will be replacing 2D web browsing anytime soon.
Actually Sid wrote Civ and Civ2 at Microprose, not Activision. Civ:Call to power was neither written by the same designer, nor published by the same producer as Civ.
Ok, now I've been informative... gimmie the kibble, moderators!
I feel that there are merits to more than one style of commenting, but the appropriate style is based on the language being used and to some degree, the type of project being coded. However, I feel that the code itself should always be as readable as possible. Why? Well, suppose you are working on a piece that has been revised many times by many different programmers. The comments may or may not give an accurate picture of what's going on with the program. However if it compiles, the code will always tell what's happening. That should be made as painless a process as possible for those reading it.
That aside, I would offer my opinions for the following languages:
Stack Assemblies: Comment anything tricky, and include a stack status comment on every line! This is necessary to make sure the stack never underflows or overflows due to not knowing what to expect in it after unconditional branching.
Other Assemlies: Commenting most line is still likely a good idea. That way it's possible to see what's being moved and so forth.
Higher Level Languages: Inline comments are usually a waste. In fact they can reduce the clarity of the code. Assume that the reader of your code knows the language. Save inline comments for tricky algorithms, highly mathematical content, or maybe obscure functions in a large language like Perl or Ada. Block comments have a great deal of use though. I'd probably recommend a block comment to describe each function.
...just my 2 cents; it's saved me a heck of a lot of time.
I seem to have been a little hasty with my last post. I meant to say:
I can't believe it! I think Loki just found the most cost effective mode of software development imaginable! They get hundreds of improvements on their port for the cost of a (nice) computer! Why didn't anyone think of this before!? What a way to harness a bunch of huge egos into doing their bidding...
But anyways, I still think it's a heck of a way to get your software fixed. Has anyone heard of this sort of thing happening before?
I can't believe it. I think Loki just found the most cost effective mode of software development imaginable! They get hundreds of improvements on their port for the cost of a (nice) computer! Why didn't anyone think of this before. What a way to harness a bunch of good egos into doing their bidding...
When he first got into office, Clinton was amazingly ineffectual. Sure he had political agendas, and ideas, but he had little real power. He isssued an order to the military to allows homosexuals. It was rejected, and then congress passed legislation on the topic, completely removing it from his power. He tried to implement a health care reform, and once again was met with disasterous results. Why? Because a president has little real power.
But there was something to be learned from a popular actor like Reagan. If a president is popular he can find some power. His power is in his image! Then he isn't just a president with very limited constitutional powers. Then he's the speaker of the people, the head of the state, the leader of the free world, and all that other B.S. To a large degree for a politician, perception is reality. Later after learning how better to go about his political job, Clinton was able to be a much, much more influential president.
I think that this is what Katz was getting at with Reagan. He didn't necessarily have much political savvy, but he did know quite a bit about image.
His preface to "Speaker of the Dead" gives insight
on
Ender's Shadow
·
· Score: 2
Have any of you read the preface to "Speaker for the Dead". He explains very clearly how his faith influenced the Ender series. I found the preface quite moving actually. He explains how 95% of escapist fiction is about the wandering hero. He's usually young, always adolecent in nature. He breaks away from his community, travels, and adventures. But he never stays anywhere long enough to have to face the ramifications of his actions.
That's what OSC decided to change in Speaker for the dead. He wanted to tell a story of of an adolecent hero finally turned adult. After years of his restless travel, Ender finally became too lonely to continue. He decides to root himself somewhere... and build a community. OSC talked to some length of this full circle from leaving one's childhood community as an adolecent, to joining or forming one later as an adult (albeit, sometimes a very different one).
I personally don't find OSC's writings too preachy. While he is definately influenced by his faith, many of these influences manifest themselves in universal ideas like in SFtD. In fact I'm not even remotely Mormon, but they can still reach me. Cheers to Orson Scott Card!
This is interesting. Not only is this proportional representation in the traditional sense, but the level of interest gets factored in too. I like that. It's sort of like campaign contributions would be if we all had the same amount of money! So, maybe this would be a good day to day motivator for politicians.
What was completely revolutionary and on the fringe of computing 5 years ago is commonplace today. It may have been a reasonable sounding idea to patent windows 10 years ago, or to patent 3D shooters 7 years ago. Heck even the idea of transmiting graphics over a phone line had patent attempts. But now all of these technologies have permeated through the industry down to the level where hobbyists can develop clunky versions of any of them.
What are the ramifications? Well, I think it is pretty widely accepted that patents can, and should be only for a limited time. That way the inventor gets a benifit from pioneering a field, but then the rest of the world can still reap the benifits too(eventually). So, then maybe patents aren't the problem for computing, but their speed is! In fact this double click patent may have been obsolete before it was even granted! What we need for IT patents is very fast processing, and a very short lifetime. I'm thinking maybe two years would be reasonable.
Fortunately for us real gamers Steve Jackson is still around. The same man that made the EFF, also gifted the world with GURPS. It's more flexible, more realistic, and has a level of detail (historic, scientific, and cinematic), that D&D and White Wolf just can't match. Of course you could get the best of both worlds... play White Wolf story-teller capaigns under the GURPS system.
Slashdot Mirror
And you're German. Of course it was the easiest for you!
Hmm... ok, here are a couple of examples. I'll bet much of the hardware in the computer you are using right now was made in Taiwan. Furthmore, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of your consumer electronics items (TV, VCR,CD/DVD player) were made by Japanese companies.
Read the recommendation first, post later. The internet company would get IIS (nothing to sniff at), as well as MSN (direct competitor of AOL). These two cash cows, alone would allow the company to be very profitable.
I too once thought that getting formalized schooling was the only ticket to making money. But then I realized that a mere education would do nearly as well. I'm 21, have no degree own a house, and make >$30/hour plus benefits. I like school, but it would be nothing short of insanity, economically speaking, to go now. Why not just wait until my stock portfolio is large enough that I can go, living off of my dividends? I'm sure I'll come out ahead of those who delay their earnings by a few years, while racking up loans!
I think that people who go to college, especially for CS, should do so out of a love for the subject, not for economic reasons.
I'm not disagreeing with all of the last post... just a minor correction. The parts of Einstein's brain that deal with spatial and mathematical thinking were nearly 20% larger than average.
It's true that the overall size of his brain was smaller than average. However I'm not so impressed by some of his other brain functions. Not being able to tie his own shoes, or not noticing where he is until he's already taken 4 steps into a lake don't speak well for the rest of his brain(which was much smaller than normal).
Could you give a code example about how you did the fission bit? I've tried calling the grendade fire function from the think function, and I can get the first explosion to spawn a 'nade, but that 'nade's explosion sends me back to the menu.
Well I haven't seen anything for which Java can run within that factor of C++'s speed. Actually the C++ implementations (for that specific benchmark) have improved more than the Java ones! Java made great strides between version 1.1 and 1.2, and I'm sure it's compilers will continue to improve for much longer than C++. But I doubt it will ever catch up. If you do know of anything for which Java gets even 1/3 of C's performance, I'd be interested to see. Everything I've ever seen has been painfully slower, even simple networking things like ICQ! Have you seen how sluggish the java version is? It's unusable on my PII-300!
Here are my guesses as to what makes Java so much slower:
First off, there's quite a bit more overhead- we all knew that.
Second, the compilers have a bit tougher task, and they aren't as mature.
Third, Java is interpreted. You compile it, but just as with say... Perl, you need an interpreter.
Now the fourth reason I've thought of took a bit more digging. I've found that the performance of Java gets much closer to that of a lower level language when its apps are run on a system with a huge cache. Why? I'd bet that with everything done in OO, the inheritance is thrashing the ever living hell out of the cache. For every "generation" of inheritance, that's one more jump to an arbitrarily far spot in memory. That's actually the same problem that has kept game developers from using C++ for playstation games. C++ doesn't have nearly the problem that Java has with this, but the PSX only has a 4k cache! Perhaps as our computers become an order of magnitude more capable, this problem will abate somewhat.
As for lines of code being a poor measure of development speed, I agree. However, in my own personal experience (working on a BIG web based system for an ISP's billing software) most things can be developed more quickly with Perl. It seemed pretty cryptic for a while, but I don't think that it's that much less readable once you're familiar with the common idioms for whatever task is being done (it seems they're always similar). I guess the main difficulty with Perl might be that you can choose to make unmaintainable code, ie don't #use strict, etc... Right now Apache/Mod Perl/CGI/Oracle seems to be working pretty well, but who knows? Java servlets are certainly much more appealing than Perl would be were it not for Mod Perl. But I think it'll be a long time before C/C++ is no longer rules the realms of gaming, and operating systems.
Actually Java support has extended past just solaris and Windows. Sun has released the JDK1.2.2 for Linux, get it here! And when you're done, snag the new JBuilder Foundation! They're both really stable, and really good. I've benchmarked a chess program on them, and it's comperable with the Windows version. The compiled code is identical, Jbuilder has all the same features, and the JRE is actually executing about 5% faster than it does when I boot to Windows. Not that it's particularly fast compared to native binaries... but still it's good to see.
-enjoy!
I've done a bit of Java programming myself, and I sure can't say that it strikes me as particularly fast in terms of development time. Perhaps for something relatively large it's faster than C. But I have never found an app which can be more quickly developed in Java than it could with say... Perl. Java is so strongly typed that it takes forever to parse data (which is a big deal for making web content draw from databases). Also, I've found that not only C, but even purely interpreted languages such as Sed or Perl yield better execution speeds as well.
Don't take my word for it, though. In Kernigan and Pike's classic, The Practice of Programming (C 1999), there's a pretty decent comparison. In the design and implimentation chapter they implement a Markov Chain algorithm as a decent test of perfomance/speed of development comparison between several languages. Here are the results:
PentiumII400MHz ----- Lines of source code
C ----- 0.30sec --------------- 150
Java --- 9.2 ------------------ 105
C++ --- 1.5 ------------------- 70
Awk ---2.1 ------------------- 20
Perl --- 1.0 ------------------- 18
Looking at the results above, Java doesn't look like much of a winner at anything. It comes in dead last in execution speed, and edges out only C (the performance winner) in development speed (based upon lines of code). Perl on the other hand, is a contender. As I see it, Java's only true strength is its propaganda machine.
Actually, if it weren't for Id, I probably wouldn't be a game programmer at all. I've always had several programming geek buddies, and thought that games were cool. However all I ever worked on before Id released Doom's source, was lame space invaders clones. I've gotta say that Doom was a great thing to cut my teeth on. If you haven't already, you might want to look at that before you dive into Quake.
Currently I'm toying with the idea of rewriting the graphics code for Decent II, which was also recently released (albeit, not GPL). Unfortunately, only having experience with Id stuff, I don't know much Direct3D. Do any of you know of a good online reference?
Heh, heh... yep put that email (or a slight variant) on your sig file!!! Everyone! That'll show all of those evil NSA fiends! Muh-ha-ha!
Do any of you speak jive? or 37737 or whatever this is?
Ahem! I'll have you know that Maxim is a damned fine mag... in fact, my three nerd roommates, and I have a subscription. Sure it always lists beer, sports, and women accross the top of it... but it also lists gadgets! There's always an article about something cool to build or brew. In fact I think that the, "This week you are... a cyber millionaire." article is very relevant to this discussion- how to pick up women by being an ubber-geek...
Like fencing, Go, and even battle.net, chess ratings use the ELO system. Every time you play a match, your probability of winning is calculated based upon the difference in your rating and your opponent's rating. When you win, you gain a number of points equal to your chance of losing times a development coefficient. When you lose, you lose a number of points equal to your probability of losing winning times your development coefficient. Thus winning against a much better opponent gains you more points than winning against a weaker one. Conversely, losing against a weaker opponent costs your rating much more than losing against a superior opponent.
I don't remember exactly how large the development coefficient is. It's based on how many games you have played. It's much easier to change your rating if you are a beginner than it is after you've played a while.
Here are some "ranks" of chess players
Rating > 1800 = Expert
Rating > 2200 = Master
Rating > 2600 = Grand Master
I must say, I'm not terribly impressed. I've seen better... much better. Fractal graphics have been around for years... and I've seen much more realistic looking ones on my old Amiga. It's true that this demo is pretty small, but it's not that small considering the poor quality. Many demo competitions had a 4k division. The top placing demos were usually abou 2-3 minutes long, and very visually impressive.
As for saying that the polygon based stuff is always ugly... what about Final Fantasy 8? That runs on a mere Play Station, and it's one long celebration of eye candy!
I don't dipute that fractles can make some very pretty graphics (especially of various plants), but they just aren't as simple to proccess as polygons. I really don't see how you can come out ahead in terms of CPU use. Drawing a line requires only a compare and either one or two increments per pixel (using Bresenham's algorithm). There just isn't a way to mathematically generate fractals that cheaply. Maybe that's why after all of the fractal hype in the early 90's, game designers went to texture mapped polygons anyways.
I have to say I can't quite agree with you in thinking that everything is (and should) move to 3D. While games are probably the sector to most benifit from a 3D view, some have been hindered by it. Take Daggerfall for example. It was a brilliant concept of a truly non-linear RPG, but it was ruined by a cumbersome 3D interface that made the dungeons hellishly tedious. It would have been much better served by an isometric view.
Oh, speaking of isometric views... you say, "There is practically _no_ 2D game available today"? I would point out that the best selling game (both recently, and ever) is Starcraft... very 2D. The same can be said for Diablo, CIV(all of them), and many others. They are good games because they focus more on ease of user interface, and playability than eye-candy. Because of this, they all out sold Wolfenstein, and they all out sold Quake.
Now, for those of you who may have suffered at the hands of unnecessarily 3D games (i.e Daggerfall), how would you feel about being unable to see the relevant portions of your web page or spreadsheet, without having to rotate it just so? I personally hate that sort of thing. So while VRML may be pretty cool, I sure doubt it will be replacing 2D web browsing anytime soon.
Actually Sid wrote Civ and Civ2 at Microprose, not Activision. Civ:Call to power was neither written by the same designer, nor published by the same producer as Civ.
Ok, now I've been informative... gimmie the kibble, moderators!
I feel that there are merits to more than one style of commenting, but the appropriate style is based on the language being used and to some degree, the type of project being coded. However, I feel that the code itself should always be as readable as possible. Why? Well, suppose you are working on a piece that has been revised many times by many different programmers. The comments may or may not give an accurate picture of what's going on with the program. However if it compiles, the code will always tell what's happening. That should be made as painless a process as possible for those reading it.
That aside, I would offer my opinions for the following languages:
Stack Assemblies: Comment anything tricky, and include a stack status comment on every line! This is necessary to make sure the stack never underflows or overflows due to not knowing what to expect in it after unconditional branching.
Other Assemlies: Commenting most line is still likely a good idea. That way it's possible to see what's being moved and so forth.
Higher Level Languages: Inline comments are usually a waste. In fact they can reduce the clarity of the code. Assume that the reader of your code knows the language. Save inline comments for tricky algorithms, highly mathematical content, or maybe obscure functions in a large language like Perl or Ada. Block comments have a great deal of use though. I'd probably recommend a block comment to describe each function.
...just my 2 cents; it's saved me a heck of a lot of time.
I seem to have been a little hasty with my last post. I meant to say:
I can't believe it! I think Loki just found the most cost effective mode of software development
imaginable! They get hundreds of improvements on their port for the cost of a (nice) computer! Why
didn't anyone think of this before!? What a way to harness a bunch of huge egos into doing their bidding...
But anyways, I still think it's a heck of a way to get your software fixed. Has anyone heard of this sort of thing happening before?
I can't believe it. I think Loki just found the most cost effective mode of software development imaginable! They get hundreds of improvements on their port for the cost of a (nice) computer! Why didn't anyone think of this before. What a way to harness a bunch of good egos into doing their bidding...
When he first got into office, Clinton was amazingly ineffectual. Sure he had political agendas, and ideas, but he had little real power. He isssued an order to the military to allows homosexuals. It was rejected, and then congress passed legislation on the topic, completely removing it from his power. He tried to implement a health care reform, and once again was met with disasterous results. Why? Because a president has little real power.
But there was something to be learned from a popular actor like Reagan. If a president is popular he can find some power. His power is in his image! Then he isn't just a president with very limited constitutional powers. Then he's the speaker of the people, the head of the state, the leader of the free world, and all that other B.S. To a large degree for a politician, perception is reality. Later after learning how better to go about his political job, Clinton was able to be a much, much more influential president.
I think that this is what Katz was getting at with Reagan. He didn't necessarily have much political savvy, but he did know quite a bit about image.
Have any of you read the preface to "Speaker for the Dead". He explains very clearly how his faith influenced the Ender series. I found the preface quite moving actually. He explains how 95% of escapist fiction is about the wandering hero. He's usually young, always adolecent in nature. He breaks away from his community, travels, and adventures. But he never stays anywhere long enough to have to face the ramifications of his actions.
That's what OSC decided to change in Speaker for the dead. He wanted to tell a story of of an adolecent hero finally turned adult. After years of his restless travel, Ender finally became too lonely to continue. He decides to root himself somewhere... and build a community. OSC talked to some length of this full circle from leaving one's childhood community as an adolecent, to joining or forming one later as an adult (albeit, sometimes a very different one).
I personally don't find OSC's writings too preachy. While he is definately influenced by his faith, many of these influences manifest themselves in universal ideas like in SFtD. In fact I'm not even remotely Mormon, but they can still reach me. Cheers to Orson Scott Card!
This is interesting. Not only is this proportional representation in the traditional sense, but the level of interest gets factored in too. I like that. It's sort of like campaign contributions would be if we all had the same amount of money! So, maybe this would be a good day to day motivator for politicians.
What was completely revolutionary and on the fringe of computing 5 years ago is commonplace today. It may have been a reasonable sounding idea to patent windows 10 years ago, or to patent 3D shooters 7 years ago. Heck even the idea of transmiting graphics over a phone line had patent attempts. But now all of these technologies have permeated through the industry down to the level where hobbyists can develop clunky versions of any of them.
/.ers think?
What are the ramifications? Well, I think it is pretty widely accepted that patents can, and should be only for a limited time. That way the inventor gets a benifit from pioneering a field, but then the rest of the world can still reap the benifits too(eventually). So, then maybe patents aren't the problem for computing, but their speed is! In fact this double click patent may have been obsolete before it was even granted! What we need for IT patents is very fast processing, and a very short lifetime. I'm thinking maybe two years would be reasonable.
So, what do all or you
Fortunately for us real gamers Steve Jackson is still around. The same man that made the EFF, also gifted the world with GURPS. It's more flexible, more realistic, and has a level of detail (historic, scientific, and cinematic), that D&D and White Wolf just can't match. Of course you could get the best of both worlds... play White Wolf story-teller capaigns under the GURPS system.
Hmm... what else can we turn to? Amber anyone?