That one always bothered me, I don't know why. I guess some of it is that people spelling it that way (present company excepted for the deliberate misspelling, of course) remind me of Engrish...
Makes you wonder if people understand how dumb they look on paper. Guess not. (where is that story on people not knowing if they're incompetent?)
That there is the problem: apathetic Americans are the rule, not the exception, and anything other than a concerted, national effort is (perhaps unfortunately) pretty much bound to fail.
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
Absolutely. I think this is the main issue; more choices is always better for the consumer. Regal can't really think that taking away the choice to watch the DVD (instead of, or in addition to seeing it in the theatres) is good for the consumer; they're just protecting themselves from the (perceived) loss of customers.
I'm in the beta, and it's pretty nice (although it died when I tried using postmaster as the administrator login, which didn't make too much sense to me).
On the Gmail Custom From, I wrote an article on it a while back examining the headers sent out.
If the middle-manager isn't supporting the project because he/she doesn't know why the company needs it, a demo might be a good idea.
If said manager isn't supporting it because he/she thinks they're taking too long, a demo might make him/her think they're already done with the project, and in a couple of days it should be up.
I forsee myself playing with the editor more than with the game.
Looks like we'll be sharing that timesink with Tycho (of Penny Arcade):
I could tell things were going to go off the rails almost immediately, when [Gabe] suggested that I stop screwing around with the character generator. That's not something I do. If anything, I've been known to keep on screwing with them - I mentioned a few months ago that the character creator in City of Villains had practically become the game. But elaborate character creation in the absence of multiplayer is, for him, a sort of masturbation. If you create a character, and no-one is there to see it, what's the point? I suppose it's the John Gabriel version of a Zen koan.
Ideas straight out of Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near. I completely agree with the argument that not seeing the evidence might just be that we don't know what to look for, but then you have to deal with the idea that if other civilizations exist at a completely higher level of tech than we are, why haven't we noticed them? Why haven't the effects of such a society been seen?
If it comes out with that evolutionary sandbox mode (where you get to modify your creature), I'm sold. Honestly, just screwing around with procedural animation will be worth it, especially when most new games are just old ones with better graphics.
Astrobiology (the study of the potential of life on other planets) is more statistics than testable science; the idea being that if you can figure out exactly what is required for intelligent life, you should be able to figure out the probability of each requirement occurring in a large system (like the universe). From that probability, you should be able to estimate the number of intelligent alien societies (using Drake's equation). Interesting stuff.
Guesses for this galaxy range from 1.25 (including our own) to over a million. Of course, we haven't found any yet (that I know of, anyway), and that's the [Fermi] paradox: if it's so likely, why haven't we seen any? The Rare Earth hypothesis (capitalized because it's the name of a book) is that this isn't really a paradox at all, because it isn't that likely. The general take is that we'd only be here to think it was unlikely if we were actually here to begin with (if Earth didn't have life, nobody would ask the question "why not?").
Panspermia could either be in reference to alien seeding of life on Earth (pretty unlikely, IMHO), or some other way of life getting to Earth besides it just emerging from natural elements. Neither of these is very provable at this point from the available evidence (you'd need to see absolutely no evolutionary evidence before a certain level of life), but interesting ideas, nonetheless.
That's what Will Wright might have been getting to: when developing games, you turn to the interesting ideas you have at hand, and bring out the coolest parts of them for people to play with. Spore uses the ideas of panspermia (whether or not it's true) and lets you take life to other planets, a really cool idea. Wright took Drake's equation and ramped up the probabilities, making it really likely that there are other civilizations nearby, and actually produced these civilizations from data grabbed from other players (what if the Fermi paradox didn't exist, because intelligent aliens were all over the place?).
So, whether or not you think these ideas have any explanational merit, they're interesting enough to make a really great game (if Spore turns out to be what it seems).
On the GP: if you can create gravity pulling towards a specific location, you can place that location above the Earth (for example), and there will be a spot in between the two where the forces will cancel each other out, thus, "anti-gravity" of a sort.
On the P: For light and sound (both waves), you can feasably cancel them out by emitting a wave that's shifted half a phase over - noise-cancellation headphones already do this (as one of the other replies to you noted). Just knowing how to produce these waves doesn't immediately help us there, though, you're right. For heat, it's the motion of molecules that causes it, and we have heat pumps (refrigerators) to produce the opposite, but again, you're right in saying that knowing how to cause it didn't give us this ability.
One problem with the examples you listed, though, is that we figured out how we could cancel these things by understanding exactly how they worked. Anything that helps us figure out how gravity works could lead us to the same end. Another problem is that since gravity is a pulling force, we can create an opposing pulling force to cancel it out without dealing with understanding how it works (even if the cancellation only is effective for a point location).
If the GP was talking about this discovery leading directly to a machine that you could turn on and immediately cancel all gravitational effects within an area, I doubt it. However, it is another step towards such.
Aside from distro-specific tools (apt-get/emerge/etc) for package management, the above ten are the first things you should learn to use in a Linux environment.
Zonk's time-restrained, and he's fixing the problems when he can. I'm glad to have relatively timely GDC coverage, personally - if the spelling/grammar problems bother the GP so much, perhaps he should find another site?
First off, we both believe that artists should be compensated for their work, right? As in, the more people enjoy what they produce, the more they should get paid (this should really get worked out in the marketplace, like the burger example; it costs such-and-such to make the burger, consumers pay extra for quality).
The problem that comes up when you move to things with marginal material components (an album, or a song) to those with substantial material components (a burger) is that the cost (material and spent time) of reproduction approaches zero for no difference in quality. With burgers, a consumer is almost never going to get one from a producer (McDonalds) to save money, but to save time, or to save effort while retaining quality. With an album or a song, there is no real time saved by getting it from the producer (might actually be faster to look online these days, perhaps that's why iTMS is doing alright), and there is no loss in quality. Outside of morality, there is no market reason to bother with the original producer.
I'm a believer in the simple and elegant. I also like to support the artists that provide me with music I enjoy. However, I know that with a majority of artists that I like, money I use to purchase albums will almost entirely go someplace else (like the RIAA, which I don't support), and not to the artist that I want to help out.
Perhaps what we need is a way to be a patron to certain artists. Instead of the old patronage system (one patron to many artists), we could use a new subscription-based system (many to many). This way, I could support my favorite artists directly, and perhaps recieve new albums early, or have better contact with them. Artists would also have income direct from people who enjoyed their music.
The problem then (on the artists' side, anyway) becomes one that has plagued artists forever; how does one get a fan base? That's really why artists put up with people like the RIAA anyway, right? That's the problem I think we should be trying to solve; the solution to that will put a lot of the meddling middle-men out of business.
In summary: The consumer should only support artists they enjoy, and should get benefits from that support. The artist should get support based on the number of consumers that enjoy them. The problem is the initial PR work and the middle-men, and only indirectly the compensation model.
So, you mean: of the three major possessive freedoms (life, liberty, property), property is the least important to the Swedes because there is less that they need?
Slashdot Mirror
This got dugg ten minutes before this story was posted.
Crazy.
Ze goggles, zhey do NOTHING!
That one always bothered me, I don't know why. I guess some of it is that people spelling it that way (present company excepted for the deliberate misspelling, of course) remind me of Engrish...
Makes you wonder if people understand how dumb they look on paper. Guess not. (where is that story on people not knowing if they're incompetent?)
It'd take massive popular support,...
That there is the problem: apathetic Americans are the rule, not the exception, and anything other than a concerted, national effort is (perhaps unfortunately) pretty much bound to fail.
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-- Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
That is all.
Absolutely. I think this is the main issue; more choices is always better for the consumer. Regal can't really think that taking away the choice to watch the DVD (instead of, or in addition to seeing it in the theatres) is good for the consumer; they're just protecting themselves from the (perceived) loss of customers.
Actually, the first email they get back from that domain will let them know if they're talking to a hosted domain or not.
:)
Of course, they'll have to check the trace headers from each email they recieve from a domain, but it's possible
I'm in the beta, and it's pretty nice (although it died when I tried using postmaster as the administrator login, which didn't make too much sense to me).
On the Gmail Custom From, I wrote an article on it a while back examining the headers sent out.
The mountain called monkey had spoken.
There was only fire.
And then,
nothing...
If the middle-manager isn't supporting the project because he/she doesn't know why the company needs it, a demo might be a good idea.
If said manager isn't supporting it because he/she thinks they're taking too long, a demo might make him/her think they're already done with the project, and in a couple of days it should be up.
Looks like we'll be sharing that timesink with Tycho (of Penny Arcade):
Ideas straight out of Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near. I completely agree with the argument that not seeing the evidence might just be that we don't know what to look for, but then you have to deal with the idea that if other civilizations exist at a completely higher level of tech than we are, why haven't we noticed them? Why haven't the effects of such a society been seen?
If it comes out with that evolutionary sandbox mode (where you get to modify your creature), I'm sold. Honestly, just screwing around with procedural animation will be worth it, especially when most new games are just old ones with better graphics.
Astrobiology (the study of the potential of life on other planets) is more statistics than testable science; the idea being that if you can figure out exactly what is required for intelligent life, you should be able to figure out the probability of each requirement occurring in a large system (like the universe). From that probability, you should be able to estimate the number of intelligent alien societies (using Drake's equation). Interesting stuff.
Guesses for this galaxy range from 1.25 (including our own) to over a million. Of course, we haven't found any yet (that I know of, anyway), and that's the [Fermi] paradox: if it's so likely, why haven't we seen any? The Rare Earth hypothesis (capitalized because it's the name of a book) is that this isn't really a paradox at all, because it isn't that likely. The general take is that we'd only be here to think it was unlikely if we were actually here to begin with (if Earth didn't have life, nobody would ask the question "why not?").
Panspermia could either be in reference to alien seeding of life on Earth (pretty unlikely, IMHO), or some other way of life getting to Earth besides it just emerging from natural elements. Neither of these is very provable at this point from the available evidence (you'd need to see absolutely no evolutionary evidence before a certain level of life), but interesting ideas, nonetheless.
That's what Will Wright might have been getting to: when developing games, you turn to the interesting ideas you have at hand, and bring out the coolest parts of them for people to play with. Spore uses the ideas of panspermia (whether or not it's true) and lets you take life to other planets, a really cool idea. Wright took Drake's equation and ramped up the probabilities, making it really likely that there are other civilizations nearby, and actually produced these civilizations from data grabbed from other players (what if the Fermi paradox didn't exist, because intelligent aliens were all over the place?).
So, whether or not you think these ideas have any explanational merit, they're interesting enough to make a really great game (if Spore turns out to be what it seems).
On the GP: if you can create gravity pulling towards a specific location, you can place that location above the Earth (for example), and there will be a spot in between the two where the forces will cancel each other out, thus, "anti-gravity" of a sort.
On the P: For light and sound (both waves), you can feasably cancel them out by emitting a wave that's shifted half a phase over - noise-cancellation headphones already do this (as one of the other replies to you noted). Just knowing how to produce these waves doesn't immediately help us there, though, you're right. For heat, it's the motion of molecules that causes it, and we have heat pumps (refrigerators) to produce the opposite, but again, you're right in saying that knowing how to cause it didn't give us this ability.
One problem with the examples you listed, though, is that we figured out how we could cancel these things by understanding exactly how they worked. Anything that helps us figure out how gravity works could lead us to the same end. Another problem is that since gravity is a pulling force, we can create an opposing pulling force to cancel it out without dealing with understanding how it works (even if the cancellation only is effective for a point location).
If the GP was talking about this discovery leading directly to a machine that you could turn on and immediately cancel all gravitational effects within an area, I doubt it. However, it is another step towards such.
Aside from distro-specific tools (apt-get/emerge/etc) for package management, the above ten are the first things you should learn to use in a Linux environment.
Not necessarily in that order, though.
My father-in-law's an independant wetlands biologist. Don't think I'm going to be getting him to work for me like that anytime soon :)
(on the plus side, my mother-in-law does our taxes, free of charge.)
I'm an internal coder for an (unnamed) apparel company in the US, so yes, computers are very helpful.
Note: Thankfully, soon we'll be on Linux. (we're on Solaris, now, developing on WinXP. the conversion's coming soon)
Hey, the best programming language was written in the 60s: Lisp!
(only partially joking)
Zonk's time-restrained, and he's fixing the problems when he can. I'm glad to have relatively timely GDC coverage, personally - if the spelling/grammar problems bother the GP so much, perhaps he should find another site?
I know - it's comments like those that make me wish there was a "-1, idiot" moderation...
First off, we both believe that artists should be compensated for their work, right? As in, the more people enjoy what they produce, the more they should get paid (this should really get worked out in the marketplace, like the burger example; it costs such-and-such to make the burger, consumers pay extra for quality).
The problem that comes up when you move to things with marginal material components (an album, or a song) to those with substantial material components (a burger) is that the cost (material and spent time) of reproduction approaches zero for no difference in quality. With burgers, a consumer is almost never going to get one from a producer (McDonalds) to save money, but to save time, or to save effort while retaining quality. With an album or a song, there is no real time saved by getting it from the producer (might actually be faster to look online these days, perhaps that's why iTMS is doing alright), and there is no loss in quality. Outside of morality, there is no market reason to bother with the original producer.
I'm a believer in the simple and elegant. I also like to support the artists that provide me with music I enjoy. However, I know that with a majority of artists that I like, money I use to purchase albums will almost entirely go someplace else (like the RIAA, which I don't support), and not to the artist that I want to help out.
Perhaps what we need is a way to be a patron to certain artists. Instead of the old patronage system (one patron to many artists), we could use a new subscription-based system (many to many). This way, I could support my favorite artists directly, and perhaps recieve new albums early, or have better contact with them. Artists would also have income direct from people who enjoyed their music.
The problem then (on the artists' side, anyway) becomes one that has plagued artists forever; how does one get a fan base? That's really why artists put up with people like the RIAA anyway, right? That's the problem I think we should be trying to solve; the solution to that will put a lot of the meddling middle-men out of business.
In summary:
The consumer should only support artists they enjoy, and should get benefits from that support.
The artist should get support based on the number of consumers that enjoy them.
The problem is the initial PR work and the middle-men, and only indirectly the compensation model.
So, you mean: of the three major possessive freedoms (life, liberty, property), property is the least important to the Swedes because there is less that they need?
Apparently, they wrote the latter.