But numbers already exist independently of our ability to write them. Any axiomatic description of the natural numbers is a "recipe" to generate them all.
The general population never even got enough of a whiff of vista to stop buying PCs with it on it. I disagree. I'm hearing a lot of bad vibe for Vista from people who are generally clueless about computers. It's gathering a very bad reputation in the general populace already. I'm advising for all businesses to report any consideration for the OS for at least one year, and most people I speak to are not interested in touching it till at least there's a Service Pack out (those who know enough to know about that, at least). One of my cousins I spoke to last weekend who is extremely clueless about computers and has had one for only 6 months or so, had heard about Vista, what he had heard was very negative, and was happy to stay with XP. I was (happily) surprised.
Having played through both sides, the matter is extremely complex. Both sides are an association of mismatched characters and groups that may have different agendas, some which are know, some which are hidden. The Tauren, for example, can be said to be the least corrupted/evil of all the races, yet one of the chief advisors of the Tauren chieftain is the clan leader of the Grimtotem clan who are in fact allied with the Twilight Hammer: an organisation attempting to bring back to Old Gods (Cthulhu-like, extremely evil primeval beings). He doesn't know that, but he's still being influenced.
The orcs were indeed evil from the time of the Severing (when Gul'dan severed their shamanistic ties to their old homeworld of Draenor) and drinking the blood of Mannoroth (a pit lord/demon) to the events of Lord of the Clans when Thrall managed to unite part of the horde which had not been corrupted and bring back shamanism to most of them. In WC3:ROC Thrall and Grom Hellscream killed Mannoroth and broke the blood curse. From that point on, the orcs have no inherent evil as the other humanoid races in Azeroth. Some have chosen to continue following the path of Evil but most of those are not members of the Horde. Some who are Thrall is monitoring closely and aware of them (he's the most open-eyed of the faction chieftains in my opinion).
A number of troll clans are indeed evil, but those that are members of the horde are not as such. You might not like their ethics, but they are mostly on the side of good. The matter of the Forsaken and Blood Elves is certainly more complex, but once again they are not evil per se.
On the alliance side, which people are used to think as "good", thinks aren't that rosy. Matters in the human kingdom of Stormwind especially are dire. Bandits rule the countryside while the army is away fighting the horde and the Burning Legion, following the nobles' refusal to pay the masons for the rebuilding of the Capital. A black dragon, of the brood of Neltharion (Deathwing) is one of the leaders of the faction, and is brainwashing the other main leader while the king has disappeared while on a diplomatic mission and hasn't been seen in years. His 4yr old son is sitting on the throne, manipulated by everyone. The Dwarves seem to be doing better, but their heir to the throne is a half-breed: part Mountain dwarf part Dark Iron dwarf, who serve the servant of the Old Gods, Ragnaros. The Night Elves' new home of Teldrassil having been planted without the blessing of the good dragons is slowly corrupting away, while their new Arch-Druid is a half-crazy maniac trying to take control of the faction from its current leader. The Alliance is not as overtly aggressive, but their blind hatred of different peoples and of the horde is locking them into a war with no meaning or purpose. The Forsaken want to be left alone, and the orcs ask nothing better. They're only fighting back for their own survival as the humans would exterminate them in a horrible genocide if they didn't. The Blood Elves were part of the alliance until some of its generals tried to use them in suicide missions - which they refused to do.
WoW is faction vs faction, but there is no permanent or even semi-permanent victory. Overworld objectives are extremely temporary and give little to max-level characters. No one cares about much more than their personal winnings, and faction results are pretty much irrelevant. I never enjoyed PvP much anyway in WoW, too short and unbalanced, no strategy involved, just big numbers: first-shot wins pretty much.
I actually enjoyed WoW's end-game before the expansion. The expansion scuttled it to supposedly cater to more casual players, but ended up pissing off the hardcore players and at the same time prevent the casuals from entering it. Really sad.
Despite the trolls on Blizzard's boards, WoW had an very well-done end-game by the time of the expansion release in the raid content. It was a bit rough at opening, but after a couple years and refinements, it had evolved into very enjoyable content with different levels of difficulty for a lot of people to enjoy. Not everyone saw the end of it, but by the time Naxxramas was released, everyone and his dog could do Molten Core running "pick-up groups" for it and various other instances. The harder content was for serious players, but even the beginning of Naxxramas could be done by non-hardcore players. Innovative fights, fun dynamics... had it all.
And then they listened to the whiners and destroyed it completely with the expansion. Forcing people to do a 10-man instance before giving them access to 25-mans (down from 40, forcing guilds to scuttle their membership), giving little rewards for raiding, making it a farming game instead of a pattern-learning one. Not to mention the difficulty level of the new raids, which starts not at similar levels that were accessible to casual or semi-casual players, but at a level that approaches the hardest boss of the last raid from the original release!
I like the fractal universes idea. As for simulating the spatio-temporal Universe, the proposition is that it's not possible to simulate it with any device less complex than itself. It doesn't preclude a meta-Universe that can do so, but such a construct most likely wouldn't be observable from our point of view.
The meta-Universe you think of I have thought of, which I define as "The sum of Everything that was, is, will be, can be, and could be". A kind of meta-set, which as you mention would necessarily have to contain itself and its opposite along with everything else. Some call that by a three-letter word. From that point of view, there is no free will. But that the whole has no free will doesn't remove the possibility that its parts as differentiated within single spatio-temporal expressions of possibility could have free will.
Discussion on political issues is indeed important. My point though was that many european countries are socialist, and that his flame against the ideology was totally non-constructive. If he has a problem with socialism in Europe, and he's european, he should vote against socialists. It's possible to discuss the issue at hand without resorting to such though.
Your implication that socialism is "wrong" is funny and sad.
The EU's bounds are its citizen's to decide. End of the discussion. If you're a EU citizen, then bringing your concerns to your duly elected local or federal representative through a petition, a letter, or a manifestation; as well as by voting against people you don't agree with is the proper way to act. Not by posting flamebait on Slashdot.
Heh, here's the craziest thory: what if "space", "time" and "energy" don't actually exist (or worse, what if they're ALL discrete, not continuous) ? They do exist, in our mind. That existence is what we usually call reality. That existence is almost certainly based on external existence of "something" but some people's constant attempts to make this external existence correspond to the internal representation we make out of it is annoying.
Would we even be able to notice ? Or have we noticed that already (Planck's h) but can't grasp the concept ? We have most of the answers right in front of us, we're just afraid to ask the right questions. Reality exists because we're aware of it. We are creating the Universe by perceiving it and by choosing which Universe we want to be in. But as someone else in this discussion has said, how are we so different that our status as observers makes us so special? Our consciousness ultimately derives from the same particles that make up what we observe, we simply have a higher order of organization and "synchronicity" so that our consciousness, for a while, is greater than simply the sum of what we are made of. The only conclusion that can be obtained from that realization is that elementary particles are conscious and have some measure of free will. That is what quantum probabilities measure: the possibility the particle will "choose" the different possible paths it can take within the laws of the spatio-temporal Universe. It is a very basic kind of consciousness, as the perception it has of the rest of the Universe is extremely limited: its own physical characteristics, and what other particles it can interact with in exchanges of energy. As particles start bonding together and organizing, we get to higher and higher degrees of order, organization, and what I call "synchronicity of purpose" where eventually as in higher primates it can actually work together to achieve a higher level of consciousness and awareness of its environment, but thus creating a different level of reality which is certainly more powerful but not necessarily more complete or "true" than the simple interactions the single particle can achieve.
For all intents and purposes, the entire universe actually existing (on one hand) or being a completely fictional construct/simulation (on the other hand) makes no difference whatsoever. I concur. In the end, it doesn't matter. Our choices and existence doesn't have different meanings if the Universe is an elaborate simulation, because meaning is not something that is external or a priori, it comes from us. WE give meaning to our existence, whatever reality we are giving it to. I still think the Universe isn't a simulation, because some (unproven) corrolaries following from Godel and Heisenberg show us that the Universe as we are observing it cannot be simulated by anything smaller than the entire Universe itself. Ergo they are the same.
No, it was released in Europe only in 2005 and in parts of Asia over 2005 and even 2006. There were AFAIK no problems getting hold of the original game at release or of the expansion at least in my area (Quebec). Collector's Editions were an issue, but not very relevant. I DO remember a surge in sales and lack of game boxes at the beginning of 2005, but not at release in Nov 2004.
I'd consider an OS that crashes (panics, BSODs, etc) more secure than one which is afflicted by a buffer overflow in the same situation, for example. It's even better if neither occurs, obviously. Not that I think it's what's happening here anyway.
Yes, I understand that behavior includes actions. But it also includes "speech, style, tact, talk, taste" as your definition listed. Should we enact laws to restrict those?
if life has no intrinsic meaning, I am the only person who can give it meaning. Through my thoughts and actions. I couldn't have given a better answer. If there's no one else to give meaning to my life, it means I can give it meaning. Through my thoughts, my choices, my actions. It's much better than letting someone who died more than 2000 years ago decide for me.
I'm a very serious Tolkien fan, but I have very little interest in video games based on LotR. It's not a medium where I get the feeling of the original is well-captured. Like your call on SWG, I also know/fear they will bend the lore in too many ways.
But as time goes on it becomes just another algorithm. AI, pretty much by definition, is simply "The smartest stuff we can do as of yet." Maybe in marketdroid speak. In the world where I live, we use a definition of intelligence which is slightly above the congitive ability of a meat pie.
If your modem uses a light BULB for its power light, I'm gonna suspect it's a 300 baud one. Everything uses LEDs nowaday, which almost never fail. What's more, even if only the power light would be failing, it still should be replaced due to a faulty power light, no?
What helps US is when you simply shut the fuck up and do what we tell you to. We don't give a rat's ass who you are, what you know, or any of that shit. Answer our questions truthfully and do what we ask EXACTLY. Do not deviate from any intructions given. If we told you to do something, it's for a god damn reason. Indeed, it really annoys me when I've figured out the issue and exact steps to solve it from the second sentence and the customer is trying to continue explaining his problem and trying to explain what he thinks the problem is. And then proceeds to not listen carefully to my instructions.
Too often, flowchart junkies don't know shit in my experience. They follow the flow-chart because that's all their training actually covered and they really don't know shit about what you're talking about. I mean, if your stupid ADSL modem has no power light, don't tell me to reboot my computer...
Intelligent, informed tech-support specialists (which I like to think I am) will listen to your basic exposition of information, then ask specific, targeted questions to help them better understand the issue, and then attempt to fix the problem. Good tech support personnel doesn't use flowcharts.
You are as deluded as they are. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING can be 100% secure. As long as a single person can have access, knows where the data is, someone else can gain access. By luck, hacks, reasoning, cracking, torture, etc. It's always a question of TIME required to get access, but it's always possible. Modern forms of encryption almost exclusively repose on such a principle: publick-key cryptography stands on the difficulty of factoring very large numbers with the current computers and algorithms, which doesn't make cracking it impossible, just take incredibly long.
Slashdot Mirror
Jobs' annual salary: 1$
You must be new here. But really it's only half the US. The other half only lost part of their sanity.
But numbers already exist independently of our ability to write them. Any axiomatic description of the natural numbers is a "recipe" to generate them all.
Having played through both sides, the matter is extremely complex. Both sides are an association of mismatched characters and groups that may have different agendas, some which are know, some which are hidden. The Tauren, for example, can be said to be the least corrupted/evil of all the races, yet one of the chief advisors of the Tauren chieftain is the clan leader of the Grimtotem clan who are in fact allied with the Twilight Hammer: an organisation attempting to bring back to Old Gods (Cthulhu-like, extremely evil primeval beings). He doesn't know that, but he's still being influenced.
The orcs were indeed evil from the time of the Severing (when Gul'dan severed their shamanistic ties to their old homeworld of Draenor) and drinking the blood of Mannoroth (a pit lord/demon) to the events of Lord of the Clans when Thrall managed to unite part of the horde which had not been corrupted and bring back shamanism to most of them. In WC3:ROC Thrall and Grom Hellscream killed Mannoroth and broke the blood curse. From that point on, the orcs have no inherent evil as the other humanoid races in Azeroth. Some have chosen to continue following the path of Evil but most of those are not members of the Horde. Some who are Thrall is monitoring closely and aware of them (he's the most open-eyed of the faction chieftains in my opinion).
A number of troll clans are indeed evil, but those that are members of the horde are not as such. You might not like their ethics, but they are mostly on the side of good. The matter of the Forsaken and Blood Elves is certainly more complex, but once again they are not evil per se.
On the alliance side, which people are used to think as "good", thinks aren't that rosy. Matters in the human kingdom of Stormwind especially are dire. Bandits rule the countryside while the army is away fighting the horde and the Burning Legion, following the nobles' refusal to pay the masons for the rebuilding of the Capital. A black dragon, of the brood of Neltharion (Deathwing) is one of the leaders of the faction, and is brainwashing the other main leader while the king has disappeared while on a diplomatic mission and hasn't been seen in years. His 4yr old son is sitting on the throne, manipulated by everyone. The Dwarves seem to be doing better, but their heir to the throne is a half-breed: part Mountain dwarf part Dark Iron dwarf, who serve the servant of the Old Gods, Ragnaros. The Night Elves' new home of Teldrassil having been planted without the blessing of the good dragons is slowly corrupting away, while their new Arch-Druid is a half-crazy maniac trying to take control of the faction from its current leader. The Alliance is not as overtly aggressive, but their blind hatred of different peoples and of the horde is locking them into a war with no meaning or purpose. The Forsaken want to be left alone, and the orcs ask nothing better. They're only fighting back for their own survival as the humans would exterminate them in a horrible genocide if they didn't. The Blood Elves were part of the alliance until some of its generals tried to use them in suicide missions - which they refused to do.
WoW is faction vs faction, but there is no permanent or even semi-permanent victory. Overworld objectives are extremely temporary and give little to max-level characters. No one cares about much more than their personal winnings, and faction results are pretty much irrelevant. I never enjoyed PvP much anyway in WoW, too short and unbalanced, no strategy involved, just big numbers: first-shot wins pretty much.
I actually enjoyed WoW's end-game before the expansion. The expansion scuttled it to supposedly cater to more casual players, but ended up pissing off the hardcore players and at the same time prevent the casuals from entering it. Really sad.
Despite the trolls on Blizzard's boards, WoW had an very well-done end-game by the time of the expansion release in the raid content. It was a bit rough at opening, but after a couple years and refinements, it had evolved into very enjoyable content with different levels of difficulty for a lot of people to enjoy. Not everyone saw the end of it, but by the time Naxxramas was released, everyone and his dog could do Molten Core running "pick-up groups" for it and various other instances. The harder content was for serious players, but even the beginning of Naxxramas could be done by non-hardcore players. Innovative fights, fun dynamics... had it all.
And then they listened to the whiners and destroyed it completely with the expansion. Forcing people to do a 10-man instance before giving them access to 25-mans (down from 40, forcing guilds to scuttle their membership), giving little rewards for raiding, making it a farming game instead of a pattern-learning one. Not to mention the difficulty level of the new raids, which starts not at similar levels that were accessible to casual or semi-casual players, but at a level that approaches the hardest boss of the last raid from the original release!
You can use SMS with Linux now?
I like the fractal universes idea. As for simulating the spatio-temporal Universe, the proposition is that it's not possible to simulate it with any device less complex than itself. It doesn't preclude a meta-Universe that can do so, but such a construct most likely wouldn't be observable from our point of view.
The meta-Universe you think of I have thought of, which I define as "The sum of Everything that was, is, will be, can be, and could be". A kind of meta-set, which as you mention would necessarily have to contain itself and its opposite along with everything else. Some call that by a three-letter word. From that point of view, there is no free will. But that the whole has no free will doesn't remove the possibility that its parts as differentiated within single spatio-temporal expressions of possibility could have free will.
Discussion on political issues is indeed important. My point though was that many european countries are socialist, and that his flame against the ideology was totally non-constructive. If he has a problem with socialism in Europe, and he's european, he should vote against socialists. It's possible to discuss the issue at hand without resorting to such though.
Your implication that socialism is "wrong" is funny and sad.
The EU's bounds are its citizen's to decide. End of the discussion. If you're a EU citizen, then bringing your concerns to your duly elected local or federal representative through a petition, a letter, or a manifestation; as well as by voting against people you don't agree with is the proper way to act. Not by posting flamebait on Slashdot.
No, it was released in Europe only in 2005 and in parts of Asia over 2005 and even 2006. There were AFAIK no problems getting hold of the original game at release or of the expansion at least in my area (Quebec). Collector's Editions were an issue, but not very relevant. I DO remember a surge in sales and lack of game boxes at the beginning of 2005, but not at release in Nov 2004.
I'd consider an OS that crashes (panics, BSODs, etc) more secure than one which is afflicted by a buffer overflow in the same situation, for example. It's even better if neither occurs, obviously. Not that I think it's what's happening here anyway.
Yes, I understand that behavior includes actions. But it also includes "speech, style, tact, talk, taste" as your definition listed. Should we enact laws to restrict those?
I'm a very serious Tolkien fan, but I have very little interest in video games based on LotR. It's not a medium where I get the feeling of the original is well-captured. Like your call on SWG, I also know/fear they will bend the lore in too many ways.
laws designed to control your behaviour
Laws to control your ACTIONS?What other kind of laws are there?
The difference with religion, is that unsatisfied customers can't call them on their lies, since they're dead!
:-)
No one ever came back from the dead to tell us "There is NO life after death" for very obvious reasons
Super Mario Bros was a more revolutionary game than anything released in 2005, although Guitar Hero is not a bad contender.
If your modem uses a light BULB for its power light, I'm gonna suspect it's a 300 baud one. Everything uses LEDs nowaday, which almost never fail. What's more, even if only the power light would be failing, it still should be replaced due to a faulty power light, no?
Too often, flowchart junkies don't know shit in my experience. They follow the flow-chart because that's all their training actually covered and they really don't know shit about what you're talking about. I mean, if your stupid ADSL modem has no power light, don't tell me to reboot my computer...
Intelligent, informed tech-support specialists (which I like to think I am) will listen to your basic exposition of information, then ask specific, targeted questions to help them better understand the issue, and then attempt to fix the problem. Good tech support personnel doesn't use flowcharts.
You are as deluded as they are. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING can be 100% secure. As long as a single person can have access, knows where the data is, someone else can gain access. By luck, hacks, reasoning, cracking, torture, etc. It's always a question of TIME required to get access, but it's always possible. Modern forms of encryption almost exclusively repose on such a principle: publick-key cryptography stands on the difficulty of factoring very large numbers with the current computers and algorithms, which doesn't make cracking it impossible, just take incredibly long.