The problem is that everyone is using the SDK provided libraries, and few people program to the metal like they used to. The last generation of consoles really set the bar high for making a programmer's job easier.
As far as pushing the envelope, the PS2 is a very interesting machine with a CPU, FPU, VPU1, VPU2, and a big bus. There is alot of potential there for creative programmers. The PS2 is technically inferior to its rivals, but I bet it will blossom over time as the original NES and Sega Saturn did.
And as far as cutting teeth, the video game industry has evolved like the electronics industry. Nobody tries to fix their radio anymore because it is too complicated with all of the integrated circuits and solid state, specialized, components. I don't think there is any place for cutting teeth on the latest technology in this age.
However, Robbie Anderman's claim of an industrial conspiracy to outlaw cannabis, while making for interesting reading, is nothing but an urban myth that was popularized several years ago by the California writer Jack Herer.
The prohibition of cannabis started much earlier, at the state level, in the southwestern United States, beginning with Utah in 1914.
The first laws criminalizing cannabis were passed out of race hatred and hostility towards migrant Mexican farm labourers who smoked cannabis, much as the first laws criminalizing opium were passed in order to harass newly arrived migrant workers from China.
Kelly T. Conlon Ottawa Citizen
I think pot should be legal. I don't feel the government should have any right to tell you that you can't smoke some pot. But all this BS about government conspiracy and hemp being a super plant that can save the environment does not help the smoker's cause.
Try to not take this as an insult, but I personally don't consider those religions very seriously.
I don't take Wicca seriously. It is a joke. Though many religions are.
But Bahai is the second most widespread religion in the world. If you are going to write Bahai off as a minor, unimportant religion, then this discussion has reached its ending point.
Because you never can trust a Christian woman, can you? Lock that up or you'll never know what white European was banging your lady while you were at Holy War for God Almighty, you religious zealot fanatic you.
I'm a non-Christian agnostic.
Why do I have to defend the Christian to maintain that Islam has a bad history with women. That is completely irrelivant to the former discussion.
My point: Any region/culture/nation can oppress women, every religion has oppressed their women.
Then you would be wrong. Take a newer religion like the Bahai, they seem to exhibit common sense. Or to a better extreme, take Wicca, I highly doubt that Wiccans oppress women. There are countless examples.
I would agree that humankind has a history of oppressing women, but most of us no longer partake in those cultures. So I fail to see how that true statement does anything but set up a straw man.
Show me a country that still practices the Christianity that sets women below men. One that promises heaven to those that die in battle. Do that and I would say the same thing about them as I have said about Saudi Arabia.
My instruction mix is integer-heavy, I'm sure if it was more FP then it wouldn't be so slanted but from what I've seen even the FP edge has slipped away.
I highly doubt that. I remember when the Pentium 3 sling shot past the DEC ALpha in floating point/$. Honestly I haven't seen serious purchasing/usage of Sun equipment in physics for years and years. Most purchasing is replacement and diehards with excess cash. I see more new clusters made with Apples (I.E. not too many)!
Islam has a sorid history of being oppressive towards women. For example women were once thought to not possess a soul.
Saudi Arabia is 100% Moslim by law.
Religion is a product of culture.
In the case of Saudi Arabia you cannot possibly divide culture and religion as if they are two different things. They live in a culture of religion. Their world is nothing like America.
This allows for the escape of many so called 'rules' of quantum physics, most importantly, the principle that prevents more than one electron from sharing the same energy state.
The electrons, which are fermions, join up to make cooper pairs, which are bosons and thus not constrained to the pauli exclusion principle. But this happens in superconductors?? In a superfluid it would be the fermionic atom, like Helium-3 that would form the cooper pairs.
But Heluim-4 is a boson, so why does this even matter for a superfluid??
the principle that prevents more than one electron from sharing the same energy state
The energy states are nondegenerate???? I highly doubt that.
Since 4He allows for superfluid behaviour, the only possible explanation for 0-viscosity (or so we believe) is that every particle within the condensate is actually sharing the same wave equation.
Given that particles are sharing the exact same wave equation, they are, in fact, the same particle. Since particle positioning cannot be determined without sacrificing determination of movement, then such particles could (and do) tunnel through solid matter.
I can't parse the logic here. Suffice to say, The condensate has a single, macroscopic wave function.
I find it difficult to understand your last words... "through a low-temperature mash of helium atoms with zero electrical resistance". Resistivity is a property of electron collisions... although I do believe it makes sense if you mean that the helium mesh is -already- a superconductive state. This might theoretically be possible, for it to be both superconductive and superfluid, but I do not think such criteria are actually proven as facts... yet.
A superfluid superconductor sounds like a strange animal indeed. I could imagine having a superconductor with the electrons paired up, but then the entire thing can't be a superfluid? You would have to make the cooper pairs of electrons a superfluid and the positrons a superfluid. But it seems that the 2 superfluids would have to interact and not be one big superfluid?? IDK, this ain't my field.
Anyhow, I don't think that the poster implied any of this.
additionally Osheroff got a Nobel for superfluid Helium too.
And when they put him on the committee, I believe that he said he kept nominating other budding superfluid scientists because it was the field he was familiar with and excited about.
Honestly if a nother Nobel goes to this subject...
Einstien could not have mathamatically argued relativity if he was required to us simple math for the average joe.
If you win a Nobel in physics you are required to give a presentation to a laymen audience and explain your discovery to them. Not that Einstein got a Nobel for GR, but he did for some QM.
because continental philosophy doesn't follow the same Scientific Method they've been spoon-fed since middle school
I am in physics, and the "Scientific Method" is not a commonly used method of discovering knowledge and in some cases it is entirely impractical. This is true in Biology too, or so I have been told. You could probably find a bunch of papers on this if you looked around. Science isn't as rigid is it may seem.
It's a bit like someone saying Einsteinian physics is nonsense because it can't be reduced to Newton's laws.
But Einstein's gravity does reduce to Newtonian gravity in the low speed, low energy density limit? And if Enstein's gravity didn't do that it would have been rejected outright.
But that isn't your point.
My personal view is that deconstruction isn't incredibly interesting, but not because I am in a technical field, but because of my training in philosophy. From the little decontruction stuff that I have read, I can only say that the Jain and Nagarjuna and countless others way back in India are actually further along on this path. Perhaps there is more to it, but of the little that I have read, none of it sparked any real interest to find out more of what I already know.
I think the real difference between the deconstructionists, from the little I know, and say Nagarjuna is that Nagarjuna would say that "all things are devoid of inherent existence", but he would then follow that with, "but that won't stop you from baking a cake", which you could translate to scientific endeavors. I don't think the deconstructionists have gotten to that point, but I wouldn't really know, so feal free to enlighten my great ignorance.
Nagarjuna was an incredible genius though. And he was capable of utterly destroying anyone who refuted him by using their own logic against them. Perhaps the modernists were weak then, but they are strong now; or perhaps some of the supposed modernists now have learned these lessons already.
The difference being that the Bogdanov brothers might have actually believed in the nonsense they were spouting, and the journal their paper was published in wasn't exactly a premire physics journal.
But what is worse about the Bogdanov case, is that in this situation you have two people getting their degree's while sliding down a train of this shit. One wonders how much math and physics they actually know. They use so many different concepts from different fields, that it takes slow people like me a good 10-30 minutes with references to determine that an entire paragraph is totally incoherent garbage. I remembered one part where they were talking about the singularity of the big bang universe having a +,+,+,+ metric and not a +,-,-,- mertric and they for some reason they... oh nevermind.:P
I don't disagree with you, but you are still placing some kind of semi-arbitrary dividing line when you say adult. Would you allow a IQ: 50 middle aged person who lives with his parents vote and not an IQ: 150 teenager who lives independently? How is age absolutely better than IQ?
I tried to RTFify a medium-sized Word document that was less that 5 MB. The resultant rtf was over 200 MB.
Lesson? A compressed, teplated, styled document format sometimes makes more sense than an inline marked up format.
Dude, I'm pretty sure the lesson was supposed to be that Microsoft Word is a big pile of shit.
Chances are good that Word put tons of unseen garbage in the RTF file so that it could be reconverted to a DOC file and retain all of its original formating. I know Word does this with other formats because I've seen it.
It's probably the combination of that and , well , if you have ever seen the HTML it produces it will have tons of lines that look like this "foo <B></B> bar" for no apparent reason.
I am going to have to disagree. This is one case where the American remake is actually significantly better than the original Japanese version. I don't want to take away from the original though, it was an extremely good movie made on a very small budget. However with that said, I could make many points in favor of "The Ring".
First of all "Ringu", the Japanese version, doesn't have the double meaning that "The Ring" has. In "The Ring" , the 'ring' is both the the telephone ring and also the halo of light that the girl saw as the lid was covered over the well. This is not the case in "Ringu".
As another poster has already pointed out, "Ringu" was a bit more fantasy oriented with the girl, as well as others, being psychic. However, in "The Ring", the girl had demonic origins - her parents weren't supposed to be able to have children, but they went overseas and came back with one.
Secondly, "Ringu" was indeed a lower budget film. When the people died from the psychic girl, they were left with a grimace on their face. Where as when the demonic girl from "Ringu" killed someone, their body was left as if they had died and rotted in the well. This is a big step in not only special effects but the motivation of the killers. "The Ring" just tries to be more horrific than "Ringu" in every way that it can. But it doesn't give you an overdose of special effects - I don't think there has been such clever editing in a horror movie since the first big Dracula movie.
There are many other small details, but the difference that stuck out the most in my mind was this: At the end of the movie when the boy says "You FREED her? You weren't supposed to free her." It is such an incredible twist and it leaves you with a terrible feeling in your belly. Nothing like that happens in "Ringu".
In conclusion, it is very apparent that the American filmakers took great effort in making "The Ring" as much of an improvement as they could. But I still say that "Ringu" is worth watching, there are many details in the story that you can only get from the Japanese version - though the story lines aren't exactly the same.
Are you kidding, that movie was pure Shakespeare. The entire father son conflict was like right out of an unwritten play. The sceen near the end where bruce and his father were having dialog under the spotlight - it was such an homage to the theatre.
This was one of the best movies of its kind that I have seen since Akira Kurasawa's "Ran".
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that everyone is using the SDK provided libraries, and few people program to the metal like they used to. The last generation of consoles really set the bar high for making a programmer's job easier.
As far as pushing the envelope, the PS2 is a very interesting machine with a CPU, FPU, VPU1, VPU2, and a big bus. There is alot of potential there for creative programmers. The PS2 is technically inferior to its rivals, but I bet it will blossom over time as the original NES and Sega Saturn did.
And as far as cutting teeth, the video game industry has evolved like the electronics industry. Nobody tries to fix their radio anymore because it is too complicated with all of the integrated circuits and solid state, specialized, components. I don't think there is any place for cutting teeth on the latest technology in this age.
That's just ripe with pothead propaganda.
Here's a good quote for the readers.
However, Robbie Anderman's claim of an industrial conspiracy to outlaw cannabis, while making for interesting reading, is nothing but an urban myth that was popularized several years ago by the California writer Jack Herer.
The prohibition of cannabis started much earlier, at the state level, in the southwestern United States, beginning with Utah in 1914.
The first laws criminalizing cannabis were passed out of race hatred and hostility towards migrant Mexican farm labourers who smoked cannabis, much as the first laws criminalizing opium were passed in order to harass newly arrived migrant workers from China.
Kelly T. Conlon
Ottawa Citizen
I think pot should be legal. I don't feel the government should have any right to tell you that you can't smoke some pot. But all this BS about government conspiracy and hemp being a super plant that can save the environment does not help the smoker's cause.
Try to not take this as an insult, but I personally don't consider those religions very seriously.
I don't take Wicca seriously. It is a joke. Though many religions are.
But Bahai is the second most widespread religion in the world. If you are going to write Bahai off as a minor, unimportant religion, then this discussion has reached its ending point.
what do you gain if you scale up the fonts?
It's easier on my eyes. I can read the monitor alot longer without eye strain and head ache if I am at a high resolution.
I don't run at anything under 1600x1200 and I have no problems with naughty applications or websites.
Because you never can trust a Christian woman, can you? Lock that up or you'll never know what white European was banging your lady while you were at Holy War for God Almighty, you religious zealot fanatic you.
I'm a non-Christian agnostic.
Why do I have to defend the Christian to maintain that Islam has a bad history with women. That is completely irrelivant to the former discussion.
My point: Any region/culture/nation can oppress women, every religion has oppressed their women.
Then you would be wrong. Take a newer religion like the Bahai, they seem to exhibit common sense. Or to a better extreme, take Wicca, I highly doubt that Wiccans oppress women. There are countless examples.
I would agree that humankind has a history of oppressing women, but most of us no longer partake in those cultures. So I fail to see how that true statement does anything but set up a straw man.
Show me a country that still practices the Christianity that sets women below men. One that promises heaven to those that die in battle. Do that and I would say the same thing about them as I have said about Saudi Arabia.
My instruction mix is integer-heavy, I'm sure if it was more FP then it wouldn't be so slanted but from what I've seen even the FP edge has slipped away.
I highly doubt that. I remember when the Pentium 3 sling shot past the DEC ALpha in floating point/$. Honestly I haven't seen serious purchasing/usage of Sun equipment in physics for years and years. Most purchasing is replacement and diehards with excess cash. I see more new clusters made with Apples (I.E. not too many)!
Saudi Arabia is a theocracy.
Islam has a sorid history of being oppressive towards women. For example women were once thought to not possess a soul.
Saudi Arabia is 100% Moslim by law.
Religion is a product of culture.
In the case of Saudi Arabia you cannot possibly divide culture and religion as if they are two different things. They live in a culture of religion. Their world is nothing like America.
You can't scale the fonts and stuff up on your OS of choice?
I honestly don't know.
I didn't mean to imply that Osheroff was pulling strings.
NOT is a unary operator.
Wow
I though it was a humor site.
I visit occasionally for a good laugh.
It's even more funny now, thanks.
This allows for the escape of many so called 'rules' of quantum physics, most importantly, the principle that prevents more than one electron from sharing the same energy state.
The electrons, which are fermions, join up to make cooper pairs, which are bosons and thus not constrained to the pauli exclusion principle. But this happens in superconductors?? In a superfluid it would be the fermionic atom, like Helium-3 that would form the cooper pairs.
But Heluim-4 is a boson, so why does this even matter for a superfluid??
the principle that prevents more than one electron from sharing the same energy state
The energy states are nondegenerate???? I highly doubt that.
Since 4He allows for superfluid behaviour, the only possible explanation for 0-viscosity (or so we believe) is that every particle within the condensate is actually sharing the same wave equation.
Given that particles are sharing the exact same wave equation, they are, in fact, the same particle. Since particle positioning cannot be determined without sacrificing determination of movement, then such particles could (and do) tunnel through solid matter.
I can't parse the logic here. Suffice to say, The condensate has a single, macroscopic wave function.
I find it difficult to understand your last words... "through a low-temperature mash of helium atoms with zero electrical resistance". Resistivity is a property of electron collisions... although I do believe it makes sense if you mean that the helium mesh is -already- a superconductive state. This might theoretically be possible, for it to be both superconductive and superfluid, but I do not think such criteria are actually proven as facts... yet.
A superfluid superconductor sounds like a strange animal indeed. I could imagine having a superconductor with the electrons paired up, but then the entire thing can't be a superfluid? You would have to make the cooper pairs of electrons a superfluid and the positrons a superfluid. But it seems that the 2 superfluids would have to interact and not be one big superfluid?? IDK, this ain't my field.
Anyhow, I don't think that the poster implied any of this.
additionally Osheroff got a Nobel for superfluid Helium too.
...
And when they put him on the committee, I believe that he said he kept nominating other budding superfluid scientists because it was the field he was familiar with and excited about.
Honestly if a nother Nobel goes to this subject
You can stir it with a laser.
umm... NAS?
Einstien could not have mathamatically argued relativity if he was required to us simple math for the average joe.
If you win a Nobel in physics you are required to give a presentation to a laymen audience and explain your discovery to them. Not that Einstein got a Nobel for GR, but he did for some QM.
because continental philosophy doesn't follow the same Scientific Method they've been spoon-fed since middle school
I am in physics, and the "Scientific Method" is not a commonly used method of discovering knowledge and in some cases it is entirely impractical. This is true in Biology too, or so I have been told. You could probably find a bunch of papers on this if you looked around. Science isn't as rigid is it may seem.
It's a bit like someone saying Einsteinian physics is nonsense because it can't be reduced to Newton's laws.
But Einstein's gravity does reduce to Newtonian gravity in the low speed, low energy density limit? And if Enstein's gravity didn't do that it would have been rejected outright.
But that isn't your point.
My personal view is that deconstruction isn't incredibly interesting, but not because I am in a technical field, but because of my training in philosophy. From the little decontruction stuff that I have read, I can only say that the Jain and Nagarjuna and countless others way back in India are actually further along on this path. Perhaps there is more to it, but of the little that I have read, none of it sparked any real interest to find out more of what I already know.
I think the real difference between the deconstructionists, from the little I know, and say Nagarjuna is that Nagarjuna would say that "all things are devoid of inherent existence", but he would then follow that with, "but that won't stop you from baking a cake", which you could translate to scientific endeavors. I don't think the deconstructionists have gotten to that point, but I wouldn't really know, so feal free to enlighten my great ignorance.
Nagarjuna was an incredible genius though. And he was capable of utterly destroying anyone who refuted him by using their own logic against them. Perhaps the modernists were weak then, but they are strong now; or perhaps some of the supposed modernists now have learned these lessons already.
The difference being that the Bogdanov brothers might have actually believed in the nonsense they were spouting, and the journal their paper was published in wasn't exactly a premire physics journal.
... oh nevermind. :P
But what is worse about the Bogdanov case, is that in this situation you have two people getting their degree's while sliding down a train of this shit. One wonders how much math and physics they actually know. They use so many different concepts from different fields, that it takes slow people like me a good 10-30 minutes with references to determine that an entire paragraph is totally incoherent garbage. I remembered one part where they were talking about the singularity of the big bang universe having a +,+,+,+ metric and not a +,-,-,- mertric and they for some reason they
I don't disagree with you, but you are still placing some kind of semi-arbitrary dividing line when you say adult. Would you allow a IQ: 50 middle aged person who lives with his parents vote and not an IQ: 150 teenager who lives independently? How is age absolutely better than IQ?
Lesson? A compressed, teplated, styled document format sometimes makes more sense than an inline marked up format.
Dude, I'm pretty sure the lesson was supposed to be that Microsoft Word is a big pile of shit.
Chances are good that Word put tons of unseen garbage in the RTF file so that it could be reconverted to a DOC file and retain all of its original formating. I know Word does this with other formats because I've seen it.
It's probably the combination of that and , well , if you have ever seen the HTML it produces it will have tons of lines that look like this "foo <B></B> bar" for no apparent reason.
It's a month!
It was the fat black prostitute that said she couldn't shit right for a week.
I can't remember what the three B's were though. One was either beer or booze, and another was butt-fucking, but what was the third?
I am going to have to disagree. This is one case where the American remake is actually significantly better than the original Japanese version. I don't want to take away from the original though, it was an extremely good movie made on a very small budget. However with that said, I could make many points in favor of "The Ring".
First of all "Ringu", the Japanese version, doesn't have the double meaning that "The Ring" has. In "The Ring" , the 'ring' is both the the telephone ring and also the halo of light that the girl saw as the lid was covered over the well. This is not the case in "Ringu".
As another poster has already pointed out, "Ringu" was a bit more fantasy oriented with the girl, as well as others, being psychic. However, in "The Ring", the girl had demonic origins - her parents weren't supposed to be able to have children, but they went overseas and came back with one.
Secondly, "Ringu" was indeed a lower budget film. When the people died from the psychic girl, they were left with a grimace on their face. Where as when the demonic girl from "Ringu" killed someone, their body was left as if they had died and rotted in the well. This is a big step in not only special effects but the motivation of the killers. "The Ring" just tries to be more horrific than "Ringu" in every way that it can. But it doesn't give you an overdose of special effects - I don't think there has been such clever editing in a horror movie since the first big Dracula movie.
There are many other small details, but the difference that stuck out the most in my mind was this: At the end of the movie when the boy says "You FREED her? You weren't supposed to free her." It is such an incredible twist and it leaves you with a terrible feeling in your belly. Nothing like that happens in "Ringu".
In conclusion, it is very apparent that the American filmakers took great effort in making "The Ring" as much of an improvement as they could. But I still say that "Ringu" is worth watching, there are many details in the story that you can only get from the Japanese version - though the story lines aren't exactly the same.
Hey, hold on
Him getting shot the fuck up wasn't entertaining enough?
So you are saying that you wanted him to die?
I thought it had a kind of "Clockwork Orange" ending to it.
I loved A Mighty Wind
Then I hope you have seen the other fake documentaries made by the same people.
"This is Spinal Tap"
"Best in Show"
Are you kidding, that movie was pure Shakespeare. The entire father son conflict was like right out of an unwritten play. The sceen near the end where bruce and his father were having dialog under the spotlight - it was such an homage to the theatre.
This was one of the best movies of its kind that I have seen since Akira Kurasawa's "Ran".