I find it perverse, how "elitist" became the new word that retards use, to tell those who actually are better than them, to get down to their sorry level, because if they can't have it, others can't too. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality )
There never was something wrong with working hard to actually deserve building your own ivory tower, and then thinking that you are better because of what you did.
It's also interesting, how this "critique" always comes from those, that live in a "everyone should be altruistic" (optionally: "except me") loony world, and never understood the most basic rules of nature, of natural selection, of the fight for resources, and of the structures and systems that make people help other people in the first place. And again, I have to quote someone I don't like particularly, but who is right: “It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. ” — Ayn Rand
In the end, of course it’s right, to help others. Because on this planet, we need and depend on each other. But this does not change the basic rules, and this does not have anything to do with "elites versus mob". (There is not even a "versus".)
If, then it has something to do with idiots who think they can get through life by abusing everyone (especially their sense of profiting from giving), and then moving on the the next victims, thereby hurting themselves too, and still thinking they would do better than others. When in reality, they could do much better.
I'd watch this, before making uninformed hatred-filled comments like yours: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8DC51B28C789BB2 No it's far from being as simple as you make it up to be, by just imitating the opposite of the loonies you hate, thereby becoming so better.
According to that study, IRC is the perfect game. Which obviously is wrong, because it is not a game at all. (Not even multiplayer notepad.) Those "games" miss some essential elements of what's the definition of a game. There is neither something to play with (except maybe other humans), nor are there defined goals. And there's especially no basic fun creating mechanism in it.
Also, graphics and plot are way too emphasized in TFS. In reality, graphics are part of what is called "aesthetics". Something that also includes sound, UI design, and the whole feeling of the world you are in. It is one of four main elements of a game. Those are story, aesthetics, mechanics and technology. The point is, that they all work as a team, and have to support each other, for it to be a good game.
You can make a exciting game with mechanics only. (See filler for an example.) But why leave out of the emergence-fostering aesthetics, the gripping story and the use of the latest technology, to make the game really great?
All in all, the study did not study which games are the most fun, but what actions all-in-all are most interesting to us. And it's obvious that human socialization is king here. It's also obvious that when money is scarce, that people prefer those rare games that are not way overpriced.:)
You don't know how deep/true the last sentence is, considering that one can see ideas/mindsets/realities as lifeforms, growing, reproducing, feeding, and perhaps... having thoughts themselves?
You can't effectively author 3D content in a text editor.
PovRAY and me would like to disagree with that. ^^ I found that I have this ugly feeling of everything not being at the *exact* correct position, with the *exact* correct curves, when using software like Maya or 3DStudio Max. And I can't stand working like that. It feels like dirty "spaghetti-designing". That's why I like PovRAY so much. But now that Maya has adopted Python as its scripting language, I must say that I'm pretty happy with that too. ^^
Damn. I forgot the conclusion: That Adobe might (have to) let Flash die, and create that new product based on the new faster JavaScript engines and that 3D canvas straight away.
Uuum... what are setTimout() and setInterval(), if not sleep() functions? Or are they "implemented" as tight loops? ^^ I don't think so.
But I agree on sounds and general slowness.
I think JavaScript will go trough quite a lot of change, which has already started. And it will come out as a pretty well performing JIT-compiled scripting/programming language. But what I really would wish, is for other languages being implemented in the browser. With a generic (FAST) VM around it. Then (pre-compiled?) even C++ or Haskell should be doable in the browser.
I can tell you, that WebGL is going to be slow as hell, as long as the compiler is not at least as optimized as the Java ones. But it has the advantage of being what you're used to, when you already know OpenGL.
Now the good and the bad news is, that nowadays, everything that changed in optics in the last 5-10 years is shader-based. Which means it's going to be just as fast as normal software when just loading precompiled shader progams. But it also means a big security risk, because everyone could load a shader in your graphics card on any website.
I think all in all, it's never bad to have the possibility to do 3D on the web, and have it standardized. But it should be at least opt-in by default. Also don't expect anything too fancy. It will not be able to compete with normal games. Especially without shader support.
But one good thing to close with: It has the potential of finally blowing Flash out of the water, and freeing us from it. (Putting 3D features in Flash will mean to basically create a new product. I don't think Adobe is quick enough with that.) But what we need for this is: Authoring tools for the creative people out there.
No problem. If someone hates ads, and still does not use an ad-blocker, he's a retard anyway, and deserves it for being so lazy. ^^ I guess those people then will become the Fritos and secretaries of state of tomorrow.
Who are you talking to? I am my employer. And I would not join a MS house anyway. I never learned Windows programming, and never will. Also I'd rather die than to shove money into that monster that killed Borland, Netscape, nearly killed Sun, and did so many criminal things, that it's enough to waterboard Gates and Ballmer for the rest of his life without having a bad conscience. But back to the topic:
First of all, you disqualified yourself, by using the word "pirate" in that context. And you know exactly why. Stop spreading artist extortion industry fearmongering, OK? You are hurting artist and consumers alike with that. You might as well have said "robbing murdering child raping terrorist-downloader-devil".
Next, I wonder how you do it? Do you live in artistic and software desert land, with only being able to afford maybe a dozen programs and films / music cds a year? Or are you rich and throw away massive amounts of money for things that you just check out for five minutes, and then put onto the shelf never to use again or that you thought wasn't worth half the money you payed? in short: Do you let them rip you off, or do you live in a desert? ^^
Ey, nothing against my SmartSuite! in 2003, of course it was outdated. But pre-2000, it was the best office suite ever made! And it's still my "best ever" one. It's just that IBM abandoned it and did let it die like a dog! But that's not the software's fault. The InfoBox was still way ahead of its time. FYI: MS Office 2007's ribbon is a bad imitation of the InfoBox, merged with menus and icon bars.
Symphony immediately reminded me of trying to revive its best concepts. Unfortunately the last time I looked, it was missing pretty much everything, and under the hood it looked like a weird OOo. Not that OOo is not a big piece of crap for being just like MS Office already. (Or rather the other way around.:) Hmm... when I think about it, this means that Symphony actually was more like MS Works! ^^
I hope they will make Symphony into a modern open source SmartSuite. I really do. I miss WordPro.:/
Problem is: LyX (the good LaTeX editor) lacks any layouting capabilities. You can't visually design the basic classes (document, paragraph, text, etc). That is a no-go for me, because I don't want to learn yet another layouting language, no matter how good it is. (I don't want to learn any of those, but unfortunately I already know one.)
What I really really wonder is, why everybody creates this false dichotomy of "text/console = keyboard controlled" and "graphics/GUI = mouse controlled". I meant just give me a visual layout designer that you type into like you would write code or in VI, but that renders everything graphically.
Example input: "NbLsfancy\ncvchw50%h25%IHello\nS" (where \n = <Enter>) Resulting instructions executed: New { box (and put cursor on it) }, layout mode { inherit style from class "fancy", center vertically, center horizontally, width 50%, height 25% }, input mode { insert "Hello" }, save file It's not hard to code something like this. It's extremely fast, to work with it. And with a list of possible commands in a given state always visible, the key highlighted, auto-completion, context-help and update of that on every key press (basically like in a good code editor), it's also very intuitive.
Lotus then created SmartSuite. My favorite office suite off all times, up until now! I wait until something like the InfoBox, but with full keyboard control, is available again. For now, the new Symphony is still far away from that. And it still thinks that default/pure menu bars and button bars make sense nowadays. (Face it: They are an outdated concept.)
...“You have the right to remain quiet. Anything that you say or do will be used against you.”.
It’s like with disease-insurance: The point of such a company is to make money. And if in any way physically possible, to sell your grandmother to do so.
Isn’n “saving” a naturally dying species just as wrong as killing a naturally surviving one?
Oh, and if you want to get really deep: Aren’t our actions just as much part of nature, and doesn’t this mean, that what we do or don’t do, can by definition not be against nature? (If we’re accepting this view, then how do we determine “The Right Thing”(TM), and why would there even be such a concept in nature? For what goal, if not for the benefit of the growth of the bio-mass that we call ourselves?)
I write all my websites in neural net training patterns, running on a AI server written Haskell, using only Emacs (as shell), GHC (compiler), and my trusty "C-x M-c M-butterfly" (kung-foo).
C, FORTRAN and assembler are jokes compared to full-scale Haskell, with monads only being the entry to a world of incredible elegance and ingenuity, but massive brain-hurt!;)
Real programmers... Bah. Programmers of children-free lawn, or what? ^^
As far as I know, they are the worldwide providers of cracks and rips for all our software and movie needs. Then the Chinese distribute it. I, for one, am thankful for that service. ^^
Oh, and my sig unintentionally fits your subject nicely: (copied into the comment for long-term archiving)
-- Real hackers hack brains! Real tinkerers tune their body! Computers are for n00bs.;)
Ok, we got our answer. So let's all close Slashdot and go home for today. ^^
P.S.: I hate how editors always have to create this criminally suggestive questions and false dichotomies to get a heated discussion. I think in the comment section, we call that trolling. Hmm.. we really should be able to moderate articles. I'd rate this one "-1, Troll" for those questions.:)
Well, it's not all black and white here. The idea was to eliminate worker extortion. A concept you might know from not being able to quit when the working condition / pay ration becomes unbearable. Their attempt obviously failed. But the spirit was undoubtedly a good one. (As it usually is.)
Their main faults were to think that "everyone is equal", while some still were "more equal" than others. Thereby again creating the old hierarchy, or "boss paradise". (Originally, those "more equal" were just there to manage the transition, and then dissolve. Which for reasons of basic human behavior never happened.) We must accept, that humans first think of themselves. Even when we give, we do so, because it feels good to us, and because we follow our goals. If your goal is to make someone else big, and that makes you happy, you still do it for yourself. So this does not mean it is bad. And as for being egoistic, being the opposite of altruistic sacrifice, I can just quote someone I do not like very much, but who is right: “It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” — Ayn Rand
So my solution (yes, I thought about this quite a bit) is very simple: In such a new "company", everyone can work for multiple people and let multiple people work for him. So it's not a hierarchy anymore, but a free graph. Which means that not only a boss can prefer one of his employees, but an employee can prefer one of his bosses. Or in proper non-biased terms: A service provider and a money provider, or two service providers, (two money providers would be strange, but thinkable), have equal freedoms. If one of your "bosses" offers a crappy deal, you can say no, and take a better one. Just as he can take a better one than you. You don't have to have any long-term contracts (although you can). You can simply work on a project basis. This would not have been possible, two decades ago. But with computers being ubiquitous, the whole contract-, "self-employment"- and tax management, can be automated. Even as a service. I'd try that. Even if just to see the flaws, and fix them.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it perverse, how "elitist" became the new word that retards use, to tell those who actually are better than them, to get down to their sorry level, because if they can't have it, others can't too. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality )
There never was something wrong with working hard to actually deserve building your own ivory tower, and then thinking that you are better because of what you did.
It's also interesting, how this "critique" always comes from those, that live in a "everyone should be altruistic" (optionally: "except me") loony world, and never understood the most basic rules of nature, of natural selection, of the fight for resources, and of the structures and systems that make people help other people in the first place.
And again, I have to quote someone I don't like particularly, but who is right:
“It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. ” — Ayn Rand
In the end, of course it’s right, to help others. Because on this planet, we need and depend on each other. But this does not change the basic rules, and this does not have anything to do with "elites versus mob". (There is not even a "versus".)
If, then it has something to do with idiots who think they can get through life by abusing everyone (especially their sense of profiting from giving), and then moving on the the next victims, thereby hurting themselves too, and still thinking they would do better than others. When in reality, they could do much better.
I'd watch this, before making uninformed hatred-filled comments like yours: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8DC51B28C789BB2
No it's far from being as simple as you make it up to be, by just imitating the opposite of the loonies you hate, thereby becoming so better.
According to that study, IRC is the perfect game. Which obviously is wrong, because it is not a game at all. (Not even multiplayer notepad.)
Those "games" miss some essential elements of what's the definition of a game.
There is neither something to play with (except maybe other humans), nor are there defined goals. And there's especially no basic fun creating mechanism in it.
Also, graphics and plot are way too emphasized in TFS.
In reality, graphics are part of what is called "aesthetics". Something that also includes sound, UI design, and the whole feeling of the world you are in.
It is one of four main elements of a game. Those are story, aesthetics, mechanics and technology.
The point is, that they all work as a team, and have to support each other, for it to be a good game.
You can make a exciting game with mechanics only. (See filler for an example.)
But why leave out of the emergence-fostering aesthetics, the gripping story and the use of the latest technology, to make the game really great?
All in all, the study did not study which games are the most fun, but what actions all-in-all are most interesting to us. And it's obvious that human socialization is king here. It's also obvious that when money is scarce, that people prefer those rare games that are not way overpriced. :)
You don't know how deep/true the last sentence is, considering that one can see ideas/mindsets/realities as lifeforms, growing, reproducing, feeding, and perhaps... having thoughts themselves?
You can't effectively author 3D content in a text editor.
PovRAY and me would like to disagree with that. ^^
I found that I have this ugly feeling of everything not being at the *exact* correct position, with the *exact* correct curves, when using software like Maya or 3DStudio Max. And I can't stand working like that. It feels like dirty "spaghetti-designing".
That's why I like PovRAY so much.
But now that Maya has adopted Python as its scripting language, I must say that I'm pretty happy with that too. ^^
Why do you go to MySpace then? Especially with all that stuff turned on? Maybe you are a masochist and haven't realized it? ^^
It's OK. We can... uuum... accept... you... anyway... *cough*. ;)
Damn. I forgot the conclusion: That Adobe might (have to) let Flash die, and create that new product based on the new faster JavaScript engines and that 3D canvas straight away.
Uuum... what are setTimout() and setInterval(), if not sleep() functions? Or are they "implemented" as tight loops? ^^ I don't think so.
But I agree on sounds and general slowness.
I think JavaScript will go trough quite a lot of change, which has already started. And it will come out as a pretty well performing JIT-compiled scripting/programming language.
But what I really would wish, is for other languages being implemented in the browser. With a generic (FAST) VM around it.
Then (pre-compiled?) even C++ or Haskell should be doable in the browser.
I can tell you, that WebGL is going to be slow as hell, as long as the compiler is not at least as optimized as the Java ones. But it has the advantage of being what you're used to, when you already know OpenGL.
Now the good and the bad news is, that nowadays, everything that changed in optics in the last 5-10 years is shader-based. Which means it's going to be just as fast as normal software when just loading precompiled shader progams. But it also means a big security risk, because everyone could load a shader in your graphics card on any website.
I think all in all, it's never bad to have the possibility to do 3D on the web, and have it standardized. But it should be at least opt-in by default. Also don't expect anything too fancy. It will not be able to compete with normal games. Especially without shader support.
But one good thing to close with: It has the potential of finally blowing Flash out of the water, and freeing us from it. (Putting 3D features in Flash will mean to basically create a new product. I don't think Adobe is quick enough with that.) But what we need for this is: Authoring tools for the creative people out there.
No problem. If someone hates ads, and still does not use an ad-blocker, he's a retard anyway, and deserves it for being so lazy. ^^
I guess those people then will become the Fritos and secretaries of state of tomorrow.
Who are you talking to? I am my employer. And I would not join a MS house anyway. I never learned Windows programming, and never will. Also I'd rather die than to shove money into that monster that killed Borland, Netscape, nearly killed Sun, and did so many criminal things, that it's enough to waterboard Gates and Ballmer for the rest of his life without having a bad conscience. But back to the topic:
First of all, you disqualified yourself, by using the word "pirate" in that context. And you know exactly why. Stop spreading artist extortion industry fearmongering, OK? You are hurting artist and consumers alike with that. You might as well have said "robbing murdering child raping terrorist-downloader-devil".
Next, I wonder how you do it?
Do you live in artistic and software desert land, with only being able to afford maybe a dozen programs and films / music cds a year?
Or are you rich and throw away massive amounts of money for things that you just check out for five minutes, and then put onto the shelf never to use again or that you thought wasn't worth half the money you payed?
in short: Do you let them rip you off, or do you live in a desert? ^^
Ey, nothing against my SmartSuite! in 2003, of course it was outdated. But pre-2000, it was the best office suite ever made! And it's still my "best ever" one. It's just that IBM abandoned it and did let it die like a dog! But that's not the software's fault. The InfoBox was still way ahead of its time. FYI: MS Office 2007's ribbon is a bad imitation of the InfoBox, merged with menus and icon bars.
Symphony immediately reminded me of trying to revive its best concepts. Unfortunately the last time I looked, it was missing pretty much everything, and under the hood it looked like a weird OOo. Not that OOo is not a big piece of crap for being just like MS Office already. (Or rather the other way around. :)
Hmm... when I think about it, this means that Symphony actually was more like MS Works! ^^
I hope they will make Symphony into a modern open source SmartSuite. I really do. I miss WordPro. :/
Problem is: LyX (the good LaTeX editor) lacks any layouting capabilities. You can't visually design the basic classes (document, paragraph, text, etc). That is a no-go for me, because I don't want to learn yet another layouting language, no matter how good it is. (I don't want to learn any of those, but unfortunately I already know one.)
What I really really wonder is, why everybody creates this false dichotomy of "text/console = keyboard controlled" and "graphics/GUI = mouse controlled".
I meant just give me a visual layout designer that you type into like you would write code or in VI, but that renders everything graphically.
Example input: "NbLsfancy\ncvchw50%h25%IHello\nS" (where \n = <Enter>)
Resulting instructions executed: New { box (and put cursor on it) }, layout mode { inherit style from class "fancy", center vertically, center horizontally, width 50%, height 25% }, input mode { insert "Hello" }, save file
It's not hard to code something like this. It's extremely fast, to work with it. And with a list of possible commands in a given state always visible, the key highlighted, auto-completion, context-help and update of that on every key press (basically like in a good code editor), it's also very intuitive.
Lotus then created SmartSuite. My favorite office suite off all times, up until now! I wait until something like the InfoBox, but with full keyboard control, is available again. For now, the new Symphony is still far away from that. And it still thinks that default/pure menu bars and button bars make sense nowadays. (Face it: They are an outdated concept.)
I wouldn't be too concerned with lighting the surface of the moon on fire...it seems unlikely.
That's a bit of an understatement, considering that the moon has no athmosphere, let alone one out of oxygen. ;)
Would've been easier with just entering "idspispopd". Or is this already version 2?
Just add a recent graphics card into your system. With CUDA, it’s all already prepared for you.
How very neutral of you!
I hate you filthy neutrals! With enemies you know where they stand, but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.
...“You have the right to remain quiet. Anything that you say or do will be used against you.”.
It’s like with disease-insurance: The point of such a company is to make money. And if in any way physically possible, to sell your grandmother to do so.
Isn’n “saving” a naturally dying species just as wrong as killing a naturally surviving one?
Oh, and if you want to get really deep: Aren’t our actions just as much part of nature, and doesn’t this mean, that what we do or don’t do, can by definition not be against nature?
(If we’re accepting this view, then how do we determine “The Right Thing”(TM), and why would there even be such a concept in nature? For what goal, if not for the benefit of the growth of the bio-mass that we call ourselves?)
I write all my websites in neural net training patterns, running on a AI server written Haskell, using only Emacs (as shell), GHC (compiler), and my trusty "C-x M-c M-butterfly" (kung-foo).
C, FORTRAN and assembler are jokes compared to full-scale Haskell, with monads only being the entry to a world of incredible elegance and ingenuity, but massive brain-hurt! ;)
Real programmers... Bah. Programmers of children-free lawn, or what? ^^
As far as I know, they are the worldwide providers of cracks and rips for all our software and movie needs. Then the Chinese distribute it.
I, for one, am thankful for that service. ^^
Oh, and my sig unintentionally fits your subject nicely: (copied into the comment for long-term archiving)
-- ;)
Real hackers hack brains! Real tinkerers tune their body! Computers are for n00bs.
Ok, we got our answer. So let's all close Slashdot and go home for today. ^^
P.S.: I hate how editors always have to create this criminally suggestive questions and false dichotomies to get a heated discussion. I think in the comment section, we call that trolling. Hmm.. we really should be able to moderate articles. I'd rate this one "-1, Troll" for those questions. :)
Well, it's not all black and white here. The idea was to eliminate worker extortion. A concept you might know from not being able to quit when the working condition / pay ration becomes unbearable.
Their attempt obviously failed. But the spirit was undoubtedly a good one. (As it usually is.)
Their main faults were to think that "everyone is equal", while some still were "more equal" than others. Thereby again creating the old hierarchy, or "boss paradise".
(Originally, those "more equal" were just there to manage the transition, and then dissolve. Which for reasons of basic human behavior never happened.)
We must accept, that humans first think of themselves. Even when we give, we do so, because it feels good to us, and because we follow our goals. If your goal is to make someone else big, and that makes you happy, you still do it for yourself. So this does not mean it is bad. And as for being egoistic, being the opposite of altruistic sacrifice, I can just quote someone I do not like very much, but who is right:
“It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” — Ayn Rand
So my solution (yes, I thought about this quite a bit) is very simple: In such a new "company", everyone can work for multiple people and let multiple people work for him. So it's not a hierarchy anymore, but a free graph. Which means that not only a boss can prefer one of his employees, but an employee can prefer one of his bosses. Or in proper non-biased terms: A service provider and a money provider, or two service providers, (two money providers would be strange, but thinkable), have equal freedoms. If one of your "bosses" offers a crappy deal, you can say no, and take a better one. Just as he can take a better one than you. You don't have to have any long-term contracts (although you can). You can simply work on a project basis.
This would not have been possible, two decades ago. But with computers being ubiquitous, the whole contract-, "self-employment"- and tax management, can be automated. Even as a service.
I'd try that. Even if just to see the flaws, and fix them.
because this algae are neither the food of some lifeform, nor do they take giant amounts of space for production, for no reason.
Would you please finally offer me energy from concentrating solar thermal power plants?