I hope it also crashes as often as MS Office for OSX, that's a feature near and dear to my heart as it keeps the adrenaline flowing whenever I paste Excel figures into a word document....
It would also be great if it continues the practice of randomly being incapable of saving files of the same name, forcing me to rename. It's basically enforced version control.
THIS time they got the numbers right. This is *the last* huge error in the statistics. You can count on the data now. Before it wasn't correct, but now it's solid gold.
And those last 500 times the data were wrong, well we're sorry about those, but NOW we've got it. 100% Guaranteed*
WoW is only hurting those companies that are making crappy games and can't compete.
WoW is only popular because Blizzard makes high quality games, good content, good graphics, good UI, good design, good everything. WoW is certainly no exception and has permanently raised the bar for all future MMOG's.
I won't be losing any sleep for the also-rans that now have to keep up to the new standard.
As gamers we should be grateful for all of the excellent features of WoW that make gaming more fun:
Instance dungeons (I know they aren't the first, but they did it right and have proved the point)
Integrated PVP
convenient but not broken transportation
quests that have commensurate XP rewards and are fun
While things are far from ideal, I don't think HCI people are nearly the poo-flinging chimpanzees this guy presumes they must be.
For example, the spatial attention thing is a great point, but there are good reasons we use symbology in the interface, because that's how the underlying computer works! It's not that these people are idiots, it is clear that space is important, it's just that they haven't yet built enough layers of abstraction on top of the underlying computer to turn everything into space.
And big surprise, layers of abstraction come with a cost in design research, as well as a CPU hit. It's only been in the last 5-10 years that computers are good enough to support a more spatially aware interface, and, surprise surprise, we're starting to see it appear (witness the OSX expose and dock features, which this guy seems to ignore).
Also, points 4 and 2 are directly contradictory. If you want an interface that works well for both beginners and experts, you'll need different modes of functionality. Witness different ways of accessing files.
PA delivers most of the time. Everything else is very hit or miss. I'll get an occasional chuckle out of PVP, for example, but I really can't remember the last time.
Even against great players, it doesn't lose over time (think Las Vegas house.)
The "house" doesn't make money from statistics. It makes money from the rake, a small percentage of each pot which go to the establishment. Just like party poker.
WinHoldEm bots which are communicating with one another can rape even the best players over time.
Collusion of this sort doesn't give you a very huge advantage. You have a bit more information about the statistics of card distribution by knowing the other players' hole cards, but it's not a terribly big deal.
There are, basically, two possibilities. Either the bot plays purely statistically. If that is the case, it may win against dumb players, but can break even at best against good players. Or, the bot tries to model its opponents and tries to take those models into account when playing. If that is the case, as soon as a good player recognises that a bot is playing, he can ensure that the bot will have the wrong model of him, and then exploit that. Of course, this is what human players do to each other too, trying to ensure that the other player's models of them are wrong. There's no reason a sophisicated bot can't pull the same kind of tricks.
It's tough to pull off, but the bots have inherent advantages in being unflappable and having infinite stamina.
And, of course, as the parent says, it is possible that the bot contains an exploitable flaw. The bot creator goes to sleep, someone on the net recognises the flaw and posts about it in a newsgroup, and by the time the bot creator awakes he is broke. I would not sleep soundly with a bot playing with my money.
You're not thinking too hard about ways in which this could work. Noone is going to leave the bot online with access to the entire stake, you cash out every day, which means that the most catastrophic night is still going to leave you in the black.
Also, the bot could have catastrophe detectors which cause it to stop playing if it seems its losses are outside of statistical norms.
"Real catching, in my opinion, can only be acheived if you can follow through with your hands to "take the speed off the ball" at least for hard objects. "
There's nothing that is fundamental about the way humans catch. We happen to use hand motion to absorb speed absent a glove, but all that's required to catch is that you absorb the energy somehow. A robot arm could do it just by being tough enough to take the hit.
"I think that a fast moving real baseball would be incredibly hard to catch robotically."
It would be hardER because it has no spongy give and would bounce off the palm of the hand if not caught precisely.
In theory the problem is no more difficult, just a bit more complicated in that now you need to do an arm. But once you've got motors that can react at this speed, the arm shouldn't be out of reach.
Space colonization is not a solution for overpopulation. The amount of people which would leave will be insignificant for quite awhile.
And even once we can ship significant numbers off world, the dynamics of population growth will replace those numbers in no time. You can't fit exponential growth.
The problem should be self correcting though, as it is with any ecological system. And in the very long run, we'll all be smart and rich enough to not breed just for the hell of it anymore.
Performance: it carries five times the payload of the shuttle
Efficiency: Many parts of the shuttles are practically re-built from the ground up for every launch. And given the relative simplicity of the conventional rocket/capsule design, it would probably cost the same to build one of these rockets and junk it than to "re-use" the shuttle.
What part of that phrase wasn't clear to you? Can you point me to another prominent DA who has done as much to force big moneyed corps to clean up their act?
Slashdot Mirror
I hope it also crashes as often as MS Office for OSX, that's a feature near and dear to my heart as it keeps the adrenaline flowing whenever I paste Excel figures into a word document....
It would also be great if it continues the practice of randomly being incapable of saving files of the same name, forcing me to rename. It's basically enforced version control.
MS Innovation is at work in OS X
Who says you need physical access to do this?
All I have to do is hack one computer in a room remotely, then fire up that machine's microphone. Now I can crack everything within audible range.
THIS time they got the numbers right. This is *the last* huge error in the statistics. You can count on the data now. Before it wasn't correct, but now it's solid gold.
And those last 500 times the data were wrong, well we're sorry about those, but NOW we've got it. 100% Guaranteed*
*no guarantee
Your post is ignorant enough to be flamebait.
NO is one of the most important deep water ports in the country. A huge percentage of our imports and exports goes through it.
That's why it was built there, and that's why it's still there.
Also you should be grateful for the cultural benefits that NO has given you in the form of music. It's earned its levees for that alone.
WoW is only hurting those companies that are making crappy games and can't compete.
WoW is only popular because Blizzard makes high quality games, good content, good graphics, good UI, good design, good everything. WoW is certainly no exception and has permanently raised the bar for all future MMOG's.
I won't be losing any sleep for the also-rans that now have to keep up to the new standard.
As gamers we should be grateful for all of the excellent features of WoW that make gaming more fun:
Instance dungeons (I know they aren't the first, but they did it right and have proved the point)
Integrated PVP
convenient but not broken transportation
quests that have commensurate XP rewards and are fun
the list goes on....
While things are far from ideal, I don't think HCI people are nearly the poo-flinging chimpanzees this guy presumes they must be.
For example, the spatial attention thing is a great point, but there are good reasons we use symbology in the interface, because that's how the underlying computer works! It's not that these people are idiots, it is clear that space is important, it's just that they haven't yet built enough layers of abstraction on top of the underlying computer to turn everything into space.
And big surprise, layers of abstraction come with a cost in design research, as well as a CPU hit. It's only been in the last 5-10 years that computers are good enough to support a more spatially aware interface, and, surprise surprise, we're starting to see it appear (witness the OSX expose and dock features, which this guy seems to ignore).
Also, points 4 and 2 are directly contradictory. If you want an interface that works well for both beginners and experts, you'll need different modes of functionality. Witness different ways of accessing files.
If you don't get it, you don't get it, there's no explaining it
PA delivers most of the time. Everything else is very hit or miss. I'll get an occasional chuckle out of PVP, for example, but I really can't remember the last time.
At a minute per hand, I get 2 years for a million table.
Half or quarter that if he was running 2 or 4 tables at once.
Even against great players, it doesn't lose over time (think Las Vegas house.)
The "house" doesn't make money from statistics. It makes money from the rake, a small percentage of each pot which go to the establishment. Just like party poker.
WinHoldEm bots which are communicating with one another can rape even the best players over time.
Collusion of this sort doesn't give you a very huge advantage. You have a bit more information about the statistics of card distribution by knowing the other players' hole cards, but it's not a terribly big deal.
There are, basically, two possibilities. Either the bot plays purely statistically. If that is the case, it may win against dumb players, but can break even at best against good players. Or, the bot tries to model its opponents and tries to take those models into account when playing. If that is the case, as soon as a good player recognises that a bot is playing, he can ensure that the bot will have the wrong model of him, and then exploit that.
Of course, this is what human players do to each other too, trying to ensure that the other player's models of them are wrong. There's no reason a sophisicated bot can't pull the same kind of tricks.
It's tough to pull off, but the bots have inherent advantages in being unflappable and having infinite stamina.
And, of course, as the parent says, it is possible that the bot contains an exploitable flaw. The bot creator goes to sleep, someone on the net recognises the flaw and posts about it in a newsgroup, and by the time the bot creator awakes he is broke. I would not sleep soundly with a bot playing with my money.
You're not thinking too hard about ways in which this could work. Noone is going to leave the bot online with access to the entire stake, you cash out every day, which means that the most catastrophic night is still going to leave you in the black.
Also, the bot could have catastrophe detectors which cause it to stop playing if it seems its losses are outside of statistical norms.
How small was the MegaTraveller table this year? This is the game that absolutely will not die.
They must sell about 3-4 books per year, and still manage to afford a table in the hall every damned year. How does that work?
The shuttle is only "reliable" because it is stripped down to the core and rebuilt after every flight.
Imagine if you rebuilt the engine in your jeep after every roadtrip, would you still be crowing about its reliability?
"Real catching, in my opinion, can only be acheived if you can follow through with your hands to "take the speed off the ball" at least for hard objects. "
There's nothing that is fundamental about the way humans catch. We happen to use hand motion to absorb speed absent a glove, but all that's required to catch is that you absorb the energy somehow. A robot arm could do it just by being tough enough to take the hit.
"I think that a fast moving real baseball would be incredibly hard to catch robotically."
It would be hardER because it has no spongy give and would bounce off the palm of the hand if not caught precisely.
But it can be caught precisely.
NASA is Kozmo reincarnated.
Although with really crappy service.
In theory the problem is no more difficult, just a bit more complicated in that now you need to do an arm. But once you've got motors that can react at this speed, the arm shouldn't be out of reach.
Space colonization is not a solution for overpopulation. The amount of people which would leave will be insignificant for quite awhile.
And even once we can ship significant numbers off world, the dynamics of population growth will replace those numbers in no time. You can't fit exponential growth.
The problem should be self correcting though, as it is with any ecological system. And in the very long run, we'll all be smart and rich enough to not breed just for the hell of it anymore.
Correction: you mean *should* have gotten them into trouble.
I've heard of lazy before but this is ridiculous. Surely a cd, even with the printed title sheet can't weigh more than 300-400 grams?
Compromising efficiency and performance?!
Performance: it carries five times the payload of the shuttle
Efficiency: Many parts of the shuttles are practically re-built from the ground up for every launch. And given the relative simplicity of the conventional rocket/capsule design, it would probably cost the same to build one of these rockets and junk it than to "re-use" the shuttle.
As long as its done with the necessary permissions, it should be fine.
Reading shitty media coverage of science like this is doing more to hurt my eyes than cell phones.
Did I not say "as close to... "?
What part of that phrase wasn't clear to you? Can you point me to another prominent DA who has done as much to force big moneyed corps to clean up their act?
Eliot Spitzer is idealistic and ruthless in his pursuit of corruption.
The idea that he would accept bribes is ludicrous, not to mention stupid. In his high profile position, he would surely be found out.
Run those corporate leeches out on a rail.
God I love that guy. He's as close to a knight in shining armor that we'll find in his position.