Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking? Just curious...
As I know it and as used in the "Inherit the Wind" play/Scopes trial: Going strictly by the bible and using terms in it as not exactly the terms we use today, there is no way to define the age of the universe. Since so much is open to interpretation that makes just about anything possible. There are certain figures who think that they can use the bible as a timeline to figure out the creation of the universe to a day. I don't know if any institutes support these claims or not.
Either way the age of the moon even by the larger creationist theory means little and certainly means nothing about the age of the universe in the accepted scientific "big bang" theory of things. In either theory the universe could be seen as billions of years old without invalidating either one. By all scientific measures our sun is at least a second or third (or more) generation star because of the existence of heavier elements in the local neighborhood. With that in mind the age of the moon means nothing as well.
This isn't even to mention that the earth is still geologically active and yet it's generally accepted to be older than the moon. And who's to say that a large impact wouldn't make the moon geologically active? I'm not qualified to make these assumption more than just mere musings so take it with a grain of salt or moon dust.
Thanks for bringing this up. I think this is something a lot of the people cheering this move are really missing: This move will probably means more troops to Iraq. Maybe if we had done this earlier we may have had better results but I think the death toll would have reflected this policy.
Just remember... sometimes the devil you know IS better.
While you're out dancing in the streets because some Rs have changed to Ds don't think something isn't going on that you'll eventually pay for.
The Iraqi conflict was a long time in coming. Trying to point the finger at a couple of people and saying "once they're gone everything will be fine" is a grave mistake.
And really, what are you going to do if those Ds you've cherished so much in the last 18 hours turn out to have no solutions either? Or worse, make the old "solutions" look like a good idea. It's happened in the past, it has a good chance of happening today.
Aside from a minor partisan victory many of us know this is definitely a "wait and see" situation.
One of my favorite Congressman is Rep. Ron Paul. We need ore poeple like him.
Yeah, and maybe we could if we would have people stop thinking "We have both kinds of politics; Republican AND Democrat"
If people can see the virtues in Ron Paul and still can not understand why we need a solid third party voice than I fear there is no hope. Ron Paul is not as original or unique as people think, he just got in on a major party ticket. This kind of thing is a fluke and will not happen often enough as long as people keep pulling the single party voting lever.
If there becomes a more involved third party the other parties may pay attention to the types of ideals that get them elected.
If I take anything away from this outcome, it is that most American's have a better sense of politics than I had previously given them credit for.
Umm... please, wait a few months after these folks get in office before you say stuff like this. In most likeliness this isn't the grand revolution you think it is. If the word "Democrat" or "Republican" puts either fear or hope in you by it's mere utterance you're fooling yourself just as much as the American voter.
There are tons of Rs and Ds that hard to tell apart even if you have a good understanding of the American political landscape. And frankly with the current problems a "change of the guard" isn't going to solve much. The current problems in the US are going to take a long long time to resolve and if you do it right (by not letting the pendulum swing too far to one side or the other) it's going to take much longer. Unfortunately Joe Sixpack has little interest in doing things right and his voting record normally shows this.
Even as bad as the world opinion is about the US and our Republican party I see a good chance that the Republicans are going to have a hold on politics for the foreseeable future including the presidential elections. Having a new Republican president or presence isn't really a bad thing but with a close cut legislation there is going to be tons of in-fighting and little progress will be made. Sure, we need to get at least some Patriot Act reform if not repeal, But if the Democrats take a large section of control we're going to have as many problems with their own little game they like to play with the Bill of Rights.
It's nearly a no win situation. We need voices outside of party lines and we need voters to look outside of their party for solutions.
Great, the coin was tossed and it came up tails instead of heads.... Great victory for us all.
It's not going to solve anything and until people get out there and realize that we need SERIOUS competition where Coke can not play off against Pepsi and Pepsi can not play off against Coke we're not going to have the "real solutions" people keep touting that their party has.
Democrat? Republican? I stand up for common sense, not a party line.
It's actually more like the Mad Max films. Auntie declared that Bartertown will not only survive but become a hub for genetic research deep in The Nothing. At last reports you could get 3 liters of fallout-free water or 12 shotgun shells for a small quantity of embryonic cells.
IANAD... But I do dabble a bit and do want to head in that direction professionally (not as a game developer but more towards general applications).
Should I start getting my teeth cut on the concept of multicore programming? Is there enough of an advantage for this doing smalled generalized apps? How does software written with multicore in mind suffer on single core systems?
I've been thinking about this more but currently do not have the proficiency to take this as seriously as the general studies I'm doing currently. Or am I wrong and this is the best time to get me in the habit for what seems to be the future of desktop PCs?
US consumers do not give away their money to oil companies, they purchase services. Very different situation from corporate welfare created by a system which frequently makes decisions against the will of the people.
Not when it's money in the oil companies pocket. You're neglecting the FACT that US oil consumption is higher than US "corporate welfare"
I'm not personally forced to buy gas from the oil companies, but I am forced to pay taxes and have those taxes given to an entity.
Ha! On average the taxes paid are much much less than what the average consumer doles out to the oil companies themselves. Don't act like this isn't a basic truth of today's market.
My suggestion was that we can keep all of this the same, but instead reallocate those funds in a way which benefits the people better
Since when is making things better considered a valid suggestion? This is one step above "do something different". People want a real solution, not new-age-feel-good foolery.
The reason why the US has to be involved with any solution is that we're currently the largest source of the problem.
Straw man, nothing more, nothing less. That still doesn't explain away why the 6 billion other people on the face of this planet that constantly bitches about the US isn't working on their own solution. your apologist remarks, infact, only prove my point.
blaming bush is the slashdot way of "doing something" without having to inconveniencing ourselves by actually getting off our fat asses and actually putting a real effort behind it.
Thief : Haunted Cathedral (I was so terrified the first time I heard an undead knight the hair on my head stood up and I kept looking over my shoulder (IRL) in fear of something coming up behind me.), Return to Haunted Cathedral (Somwhow on this level the AI seemed so much better than the AI I had ever seen in any other game including Thief itself, never mind that I'm a sucker for the undead.)
HL: We've Got Hostiles (Fantastic intro music, the best name of a game level ever... besdies, killing "the good guy" is fun)
HL2: The Bridge (I have a minor fear of heights, this put the hooks into me), Ravenholm (I nearly cried in Ravenholm. It's perhaps the most beautiful level both in play and in immersiveness that I've ever played in a FPS)
Alice: The Hatter Levels (for me the Hatter levels are as twisted as the game gets and really puts a face to Alice's despair.), Mechanica (If you have ANY chance of motion sickness do not play Mechanica.)
Medal Of Honor: Ok, Ok, I don't know the name of the mission but it's the mission where you parachute into France on D-Day. It was fantastic watching bombers being knocked out of the sky only to fall through a barn roof and scramble in the hopes of not dying. That alone made the mission worthwhile.
Nonsense, taxation hurts business and the bottom line.
Uh, that's what I just said.
Do you think companies would spend less on R&D because of taxes? NO! Its because they want to stay ahead of the competition. As for government spending, critical technologies like stem cell research wouldn't be possible without it. The government can throw a lot more money around than a single private company can or would be willing to do.
Good way to contradict yourself, your saying business doesn't have the money to throw around and you hint that companies that do have money to throw around are stingy but you claim they're "balls to the wall" about R&D no matter what their overhead is? That doesn't make any sense.
If we waited for the commercial sector to take us to the moon, we'd probably never get there.
That's really funny. Seeings as where the first private space flight didn't take place until 2003-2004 and that they're already planning for LOE and minor space tourism in the next 18 months? The private space race is going to grow in leaps and bounds. It already is compared to the clunky progress of any government space program.
Let's keep him around!... even though he's a Republican.
Unfortunately the reason we don't have more people like this is because people keep looking for the little (D)(R)(I) tags beside the candidate name instead of investing time at looking at the candidate. As long as we continue to play "party politics" we're going to be the ones losing... Sure, the (R)s may lose a few seats this election... they'll gain them back in 4,6 or 8 years... The (D)s will be up to the same antics... the cycle will continue because there is too much of the "I'm a (R)","I'm a (D)" going around.
Right now in my local district we have a candidate running who's only message is "I'm a democrat"... fantastic, that's great that that will be enough to satisfy some voters. The real shame will be if he wins on this. If aligning yourself with a political party is all it takes to get elected than we (the voters) deserve everything we get.
The article mentions Internet tax, but what does that have to do with technology? Pro-tech is more like providing government funds for new technology or making IP laws less draconian.
Hmmm... let me think... an internet tax would hamper efforts of internet marketing which would put a big damper on new tech begin sold to said marketers and it would also cause a slowdown in internet use.
Is it so hard for you to understand that the movers and shakers on the internet have largely been those who are doing it for commercial gains? Why do you think a private space program has come along so well in such a short period of time compared to NASA even when they had funds dumped into them? Commercial gains drives an economy and they also drive technological progress, comrade.
If adding government funding is what it takes to make someone pro-tech in your mind I'm afraid you have a skewed view of where most current internet technology is heading. Sure, there are still military ventures that help push things along but it's the Amazons and the Googles that are making the advancements without the hindrance of government dickering.
Nothing kills progress in the private sector like taxation does.
Re:Yerp. Figure it Out, Already.
on
Game Breakers
·
· Score: 1
Is it too much to ask you actually read what I type before you flame?
You're new around these parts, ain't ya?
I'd rather light a candle than complain about the dark.
While I agree that cutscenes have a place in a good story driven game I have to agree with the article to a point: Having cutscenes that can not be skipped is a poor design.
The first time you play the game the cut scenes are needed for the telling of the story. This adds to the games immersiveness and that adds to the games value... but if you find yourself playing a game because the gameplay is that good having to deal with the same 5-10 minute cutscene over and over again can be fairly tedious.
Take Undying for example. The game didn't do very well but I did enjoy the atmosphere of the game and the general story line. The problem with Undying, from a developers and game players aspect, was that the game did an auto save and then immediately did a cutscene. While I currently can not recall if cutscenes were inescapable in the game I'm sure there are other games with the same setup of auto-save to cutscene where the cutscene is forced on the user. I don't mind the "auto-save to cutscene" part of it too much because it allows a player to start from a save without putting their feet into the fire right away, but if it's a particularly hard section of a game you're going to be pissed too if it's 45 seconds of game play with a five minute cutscene.
The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?
Yeah, and white people owned slaves. We should be ashamed of ourselves (if we're white) for being slave owners even though no one who will read this has ever owned a slave (legally).
The argument of the US being the ones who used the bomb is old. The guys who had the power to make that decision have been worm food for longer than most posters here have been alive. Why do we have to keep hearing that "we" used nukes when, in fact, we have never used a nuke. This is akin to blaming 30-somethings in Germany for the holocaust.
Not really. They're not involved until real money switches hands. Even though the product is not a tangable object how is this any different from being taxed for music, books, films or software I can download?
I would disagree with this move if the transfer of "money" was between second life's currency directly into everquest gold but this isn't the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon? Meaning, would this indicate a "newer, younger" moon, generally speaking? Just curious...
As I know it and as used in the "Inherit the Wind" play/Scopes trial: Going strictly by the bible and using terms in it as not exactly the terms we use today, there is no way to define the age of the universe. Since so much is open to interpretation that makes just about anything possible. There are certain figures who think that they can use the bible as a timeline to figure out the creation of the universe to a day. I don't know if any institutes support these claims or not.
Either way the age of the moon even by the larger creationist theory means little and certainly means nothing about the age of the universe in the accepted scientific "big bang" theory of things. In either theory the universe could be seen as billions of years old without invalidating either one. By all scientific measures our sun is at least a second or third (or more) generation star because of the existence of heavier elements in the local neighborhood. With that in mind the age of the moon means nothing as well.
This isn't even to mention that the earth is still geologically active and yet it's generally accepted to be older than the moon. And who's to say that a large impact wouldn't make the moon geologically active? I'm not qualified to make these assumption more than just mere musings so take it with a grain of salt or moon dust.
The electronic voting machine I used just yesterday had a "I feel lucky" button on it... Google's influence is far and wide.
Thanks for bringing this up. I think this is something a lot of the people cheering this move are really missing: This move will probably means more troops to Iraq. Maybe if we had done this earlier we may have had better results but I think the death toll would have reflected this policy.
Just remember... sometimes the devil you know IS better.
While you're out dancing in the streets because some Rs have changed to Ds don't think something isn't going on that you'll eventually pay for.
The Iraqi conflict was a long time in coming. Trying to point the finger at a couple of people and saying "once they're gone everything will be fine" is a grave mistake.
And really, what are you going to do if those Ds you've cherished so much in the last 18 hours turn out to have no solutions either? Or worse, make the old "solutions" look like a good idea. It's happened in the past, it has a good chance of happening today.
Aside from a minor partisan victory many of us know this is definitely a "wait and see" situation.
One of my favorite Congressman is Rep. Ron Paul. We need ore poeple like him.
Yeah, and maybe we could if we would have people stop thinking "We have both kinds of politics; Republican AND Democrat"
If people can see the virtues in Ron Paul and still can not understand why we need a solid third party voice than I fear there is no hope. Ron Paul is not as original or unique as people think, he just got in on a major party ticket. This kind of thing is a fluke and will not happen often enough as long as people keep pulling the single party voting lever.
If there becomes a more involved third party the other parties may pay attention to the types of ideals that get them elected.
If I take anything away from this outcome, it is that most American's have a better sense of politics than I had previously given them credit for.
Umm... please, wait a few months after these folks get in office before you say stuff like this. In most likeliness this isn't the grand revolution you think it is. If the word "Democrat" or "Republican" puts either fear or hope in you by it's mere utterance you're fooling yourself just as much as the American voter.
There are tons of Rs and Ds that hard to tell apart even if you have a good understanding of the American political landscape. And frankly with the current problems a "change of the guard" isn't going to solve much. The current problems in the US are going to take a long long time to resolve and if you do it right (by not letting the pendulum swing too far to one side or the other) it's going to take much longer. Unfortunately Joe Sixpack has little interest in doing things right and his voting record normally shows this.
Even as bad as the world opinion is about the US and our Republican party I see a good chance that the Republicans are going to have a hold on politics for the foreseeable future including the presidential elections. Having a new Republican president or presence isn't really a bad thing but with a close cut legislation there is going to be tons of in-fighting and little progress will be made. Sure, we need to get at least some Patriot Act reform if not repeal, But if the Democrats take a large section of control we're going to have as many problems with their own little game they like to play with the Bill of Rights.
It's nearly a no win situation. We need voices outside of party lines and we need voters to look outside of their party for solutions.
Great, the coin was tossed and it came up tails instead of heads.... Great victory for us all.
It's not going to solve anything and until people get out there and realize that we need SERIOUS competition where Coke can not play off against Pepsi and Pepsi can not play off against Coke we're not going to have the "real solutions" people keep touting that their party has.
Democrat? Republican? I stand up for common sense, not a party line.
It's actually more like the Mad Max films. Auntie declared that Bartertown will not only survive but become a hub for genetic research deep in The Nothing. At last reports you could get 3 liters of fallout-free water or 12 shotgun shells for a small quantity of embryonic cells.
From the blurb: Can anyone out there go through this piece and tell me why it might be wrong?
I'm sure we got a couple thousand people here who will tell you why it's wrong... the question is; are they right?
I'm afraid that you're probably going to get a lot of shoddy answers to a legitimate question here.
IANAD... But I do dabble a bit and do want to head in that direction professionally (not as a game developer but more towards general applications).
Should I start getting my teeth cut on the concept of multicore programming? Is there enough of an advantage for this doing smalled generalized apps? How does software written with multicore in mind suffer on single core systems?
I've been thinking about this more but currently do not have the proficiency to take this as seriously as the general studies I'm doing currently. Or am I wrong and this is the best time to get me in the habit for what seems to be the future of desktop PCs?
US consumers do not give away their money to oil companies, they purchase services. Very different situation from corporate welfare created by a system which frequently makes decisions against the will of the people.
Not when it's money in the oil companies pocket. You're neglecting the FACT that US oil consumption is higher than US "corporate welfare"
I'm not personally forced to buy gas from the oil companies, but I am forced to pay taxes and have those taxes given to an entity.
Ha! On average the taxes paid are much much less than what the average consumer doles out to the oil companies themselves. Don't act like this isn't a basic truth of today's market.
My suggestion was that we can keep all of this the same, but instead reallocate those funds in a way which benefits the people better
Since when is making things better considered a valid suggestion? This is one step above "do something different". People want a real solution, not new-age-feel-good foolery.
The reason why the US has to be involved with any solution is that we're currently the largest source of the problem.
Straw man, nothing more, nothing less. That still doesn't explain away why the 6 billion other people on the face of this planet that constantly bitches about the US isn't working on their own solution. your apologist remarks, infact, only prove my point.
The US government currently gives away about $10 billion dollars to energy companies to do things such as oil exploration.
Yeah, and US consumers give away a lot more than that. How about we address the REAL cashcow for the oil companies first?
And why is it that if the US is so evil and GWB just wants to destroy the planet that the world's eyes turn to us for a solution?
Besides, what is Bush supposed to do?
blaming bush is the slashdot way of "doing something" without having to inconveniencing ourselves by actually getting off our fat asses and actually putting a real effort behind it.
Thief : Haunted Cathedral (I was so terrified the first time I heard an undead knight the hair on my head stood up and I kept looking over my shoulder (IRL) in fear of something coming up behind me.), Return to Haunted Cathedral (Somwhow on this level the AI seemed so much better than the AI I had ever seen in any other game including Thief itself, never mind that I'm a sucker for the undead.)
: Ok, Ok, I don't know the name of the mission but it's the mission where you parachute into France on D-Day. It was fantastic watching bombers being knocked out of the sky only to fall through a barn roof and scramble in the hopes of not dying. That alone made the mission worthwhile.
HL: We've Got Hostiles (Fantastic intro music, the best name of a game level ever... besdies, killing "the good guy" is fun)
HL2: The Bridge (I have a minor fear of heights, this put the hooks into me), Ravenholm (I nearly cried in Ravenholm. It's perhaps the most beautiful level both in play and in immersiveness that I've ever played in a FPS)
Alice: The Hatter Levels (for me the Hatter levels are as twisted as the game gets and really puts a face to Alice's despair.), Mechanica (If you have ANY chance of motion sickness do not play Mechanica.)
Medal Of Honor
This is a malformed link. It should be : http://gillen.cream.org/thecradle.pdf.
Nonsense, taxation hurts business and the bottom line.
Uh, that's what I just said.
Do you think companies would spend less on R&D because of taxes? NO! Its because they want to stay ahead of the competition. As for government spending, critical technologies like stem cell research wouldn't be possible without it. The government can throw a lot more money around than a single private company can or would be willing to do.
Good way to contradict yourself, your saying business doesn't have the money to throw around and you hint that companies that do have money to throw around are stingy but you claim they're "balls to the wall" about R&D no matter what their overhead is? That doesn't make any sense.
If we waited for the commercial sector to take us to the moon, we'd probably never get there.
That's really funny. Seeings as where the first private space flight didn't take place until 2003-2004 and that they're already planning for LOE and minor space tourism in the next 18 months? The private space race is going to grow in leaps and bounds. It already is compared to the clunky progress of any government space program.
Let's keep him around! ... even though he's a Republican.
Unfortunately the reason we don't have more people like this is because people keep looking for the little (D)(R)(I) tags beside the candidate name instead of investing time at looking at the candidate. As long as we continue to play "party politics" we're going to be the ones losing... Sure, the (R)s may lose a few seats this election... they'll gain them back in 4,6 or 8 years... The (D)s will be up to the same antics... the cycle will continue because there is too much of the "I'm a (R)","I'm a (D)" going around.
Right now in my local district we have a candidate running who's only message is "I'm a democrat"... fantastic, that's great that that will be enough to satisfy some voters. The real shame will be if he wins on this. If aligning yourself with a political party is all it takes to get elected than we (the voters) deserve everything we get.
The article mentions Internet tax, but what does that have to do with technology? Pro-tech is more like providing government funds for new technology or making IP laws less draconian.
Hmmm... let me think... an internet tax would hamper efforts of internet marketing which would put a big damper on new tech begin sold to said marketers and it would also cause a slowdown in internet use.
Is it so hard for you to understand that the movers and shakers on the internet have largely been those who are doing it for commercial gains? Why do you think a private space program has come along so well in such a short period of time compared to NASA even when they had funds dumped into them? Commercial gains drives an economy and they also drive technological progress, comrade.
If adding government funding is what it takes to make someone pro-tech in your mind I'm afraid you have a skewed view of where most current internet technology is heading. Sure, there are still military ventures that help push things along but it's the Amazons and the Googles that are making the advancements without the hindrance of government dickering.
Nothing kills progress in the private sector like taxation does.
Is it too much to ask you actually read what I type before you flame?
You're new around these parts, ain't ya?
I'd rather light a candle than complain about the dark.
Yeah, you're a gringo. Well, welcome to Slashdot.
While I agree that cutscenes have a place in a good story driven game I have to agree with the article to a point: Having cutscenes that can not be skipped is a poor design.
The first time you play the game the cut scenes are needed for the telling of the story. This adds to the games immersiveness and that adds to the games value... but if you find yourself playing a game because the gameplay is that good having to deal with the same 5-10 minute cutscene over and over again can be fairly tedious.
Take Undying for example. The game didn't do very well but I did enjoy the atmosphere of the game and the general story line. The problem with Undying, from a developers and game players aspect, was that the game did an auto save and then immediately did a cutscene. While I currently can not recall if cutscenes were inescapable in the game I'm sure there are other games with the same setup of auto-save to cutscene where the cutscene is forced on the user. I don't mind the "auto-save to cutscene" part of it too much because it allows a player to start from a save without putting their feet into the fire right away, but if it's a particularly hard section of a game you're going to be pissed too if it's 45 seconds of game play with a five minute cutscene.
Just my 0.02
Russian Roulette
The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?
Yeah, and white people owned slaves. We should be ashamed of ourselves (if we're white) for being slave owners even though no one who will read this has ever owned a slave (legally).
The argument of the US being the ones who used the bomb is old. The guys who had the power to make that decision have been worm food for longer than most posters here have been alive. Why do we have to keep hearing that "we" used nukes when, in fact, we have never used a nuke. This is akin to blaming 30-somethings in Germany for the holocaust.
That would be a first: something from the UN that actually works.
I have one of his Denariuses - but he's been dead for 1800 years, do I really have to give it back?
It's Holloween. Be careful what you wish for.
Not really. They're not involved until real money switches hands. Even though the product is not a tangable object how is this any different from being taxed for music, books, films or software I can download?
I would disagree with this move if the transfer of "money" was between second life's currency directly into everquest gold but this isn't the case.