considering that the WHOLE game costs $50. Charging 10% of that for 4 maps or 1 mission (which is basically a bunch of scrips and design) is a great freaking way for companies to make money hand over fist.
I wonder if this will become a trend. Instead of releasing large expansion packs, will companies start just releasing smaller cheaper "mini packs" at more frequent intervals? I wonder if that would be more effective. It seems like you might be able to sell more $$$ amount of stuff that way. I mean, that way, you could gradually see the gaming geography of your game change -- requiring EVERYONE to buy the expansions.
Right now, it seems like for many games that have expansions, there are still servers that play the non-expansion game. But if you release a few maps at a time, those maps might just be incorparated into the map rotaion of more existing servers and then people would have to buy the expansion to keep up. OH man.
Anyways, i am really impressed (an irritated) that companies have found yet another way to more efficeintly milk the consumer. Too bad that enough people will pay this rediculous price/content ratio -- and it will probably stick around.:(
it is becuase of people like #6 that i am really glad that there are internet communities (including gamers). I have met several people online who had debilitating diseases and would otherwise have very little interaction with other people (verging on a dearth). It is so cool that they have a way to meet hundreds of people and make new friends -- people that sadly might have been scared away by their disease and would have avoided them in normal society.
It is always good to see something like that to remind me that while the internet may have its downsides (game addiction, ect.) there are some REALLY positive aspects to gaming and the internet.
For some trees there are longer lasting effects that will linger even after the trees have been cut down. Eucalyptus for example drops sap into the soil surrounding it that acts as a herbicide to other plants. Thus, even after a Eucalyptus grove have been cut down, it will be many years before other species can flourish.
Also, i would imagine that the point is not "most invasive species that we cannot handle." Rather, which species (left to their own) are the most effective at invading a new area and dominating it? In that case, areas that are chainsaw-less must also be considered.:)
You might have some good points with the reast of your post, but as far as solar goes, i don't think it it is very feasonable (at least not as a world wide solution).
The problem lies is the fact that the most effective dies for sensitizing solar cells are Ruthenium baised. And, unfortunately, there is only enough ruthenium in the world to cover an area the size of North Dakota with solar cells.
While this would be an impressively large array of solar cells, it does not even begin to scratch the surface of the worlds energy demands.
Another thing to think about that you did not mention is the possible use of biodeasil. It has the interesting property that the CO2 that it liberates can just go back into more plants that will be used for more biodeasil. SO its CO2 cycle is much more short than for fossil fuels.
And of course that is the real worry. We easily have enough fossil fuels for quite a long time yet, but we cannot afford to keep pumping CO2 into our atmosphere at the exponientially increasing rate that we are now.
Yeah, the first 200 some odd pages of quicksilver were fairly hard to read, but before page 300 it really picked up. At least i thought so.
But really, in a series that is going to be over 2,500 pages long, having the first 200 pages be slow is not that bad. 10% of a book devoted to a introduction is not all that bad. And historically, it has been hard for me to get into Stephenson's books. But once i am, oh man, it is worth the payoff. In my opinion, the baroque cycle has been no exception. Once i was past the first 10% the reast has been a joy to read -- not nearly as funny as Cryptonomicon -- but a great read nonetheless.
Unfortunately everything else that I have read by him has sucked. The guy just went off in directions that I have no interest in.
Of course what you mean, is that he started writting about stuff that you dont care about. That is to say that his books do not nessesarily suck, just that you are not interested in them. This is a very different kind of statement.
I don't particularely like mystery novels (lets say). that doesn't mean that the whole genre of mystery sucks -- just that it doesn't appeal to me, personally. In fact, becuase i don't like the genre of mystery, i am even less qualified to make statements concerning the quality of any particulare mystery novel. I just don't have the knowlege of the subject, the exprience, nor love of the genre to make statements about them that would matter to those who would be interested in the book.
He also really really needs an editor. His latest books could be, no should be, trimmed down to at least half their current size.
Again, this is a personall prefference. You are saying that you do not like reading books that are that long-winded. Stephenson has just changed his writting style (really apparent starting with cryptonomicon). He is much more wordy now than he was earlier in his life. Is this inherintly a bad thing? Of course not. He is changing and maturing as a writter. As such, his style and genre is changing with him.
I don't really mean to pick on you here, it is just that all to often, i see people making absolute statements (ei. that movie sucks) when what they really mean to express is an opinion (ie. I didn't like that movie). It is just somewhat annoying. Espcially, when poeple don't seem to realize that they are just expressing an opinion.
How do i konw that what you stated was just an opinion? Well, for one I liked the book. And i know many people that like his barouque cycle so far. I also like the fact that Stephenson is changing. Personally, I don't really like reading the same type of thing all the time. that is one reason why i can't read anymore asimov, heinlien, anthony, ect. After a while all the books start to be the same old same old. Dispite the fact that i really enjoy the way the author expresses himeself.
I am simple delighted that I have found an author (stephenson) who changes. That way i can enjoy the expression that that author has, but not be bored to death by the same type of story all the time.
I am curious to hear why you think that a fair game must be reduced to a pure strategy game. I would think that as long as everyone is exposed to the same probabilities, then the game is fair. (ie. everyone has the same chance to roll a certain number)
Am i wrong in thinking this? I would be quite interested to hear.
I am serious here. I really want to know if my thinking is wrong.
This is a good point, and i had thougth of that. But then to desribe chess as a fair game, a game of chess would actually have to consist of 2 games of chess. Thus, the base unit of play that one would have to partake in (in order to claim that one had played chess) would have to be 2 games.
I am not sure that many people would agree with this boundry. That is, if you played a single game of chess, you would feel safe claiming that you had played a game of chess. If soemone came up to you and said, "No way!, you have only played 1/2 a game of chess!", you would look at that guy like he was an idiot.
Thus we see that the basic unit of chess is a single game. Thus, the game of chess is unfair (or could be, depending on what you think the advantage may be for going first). You can FIX the game of chess, by trying to average out the flaw (again, if it exists). But the idea, i think, is that in the end, the basic game remains unfair.
I hope that makes some sense. I am not sure that it does, but that is what i was thinking at the time:D
Actually, i would still claim that RISK is a fair game.
There is no need for a game to contain purely skill for it to be fair. In RISK, the odds of rolling a certain number are the same for all involved (1/6 per die). ALl players are exposed to the exact same odds. Of course, someone still gets to go first, and so that may skew it in one direction or another. I don't know. But i think as far as fairness goes, there is no random event that inherintly favors one player over another.
How is this different that in sports that have luck? WEll, in such cases there are human judges and they are not intirely impartial. that is why such games are not quite fair. ONce you remove any partiality, the game becomes fair. that is to say -- if all players are equally at an advantage, the game is fair.
I suppose it does depend on whether or not going first is an advantage (or disadvantage) in chess. Perhaps it is not. However, the game is differnt depending on whether you go first or not, and, as there is no handicapping system to make up for this, it seems hard to imigine taht both players have an exactly equal advantage.
It may be that the advatage that one player has over the other is so small as to be negligible -- and then i would agree that chess is indeed a fair game. In fact, i would go as far as to say that for MOST people, chess is essentially a fair game.
What i was taking issue with mostly is the post that chess is the fairest of ALL games. A claim that must certainly be false. In reality, there are many games that are just as fair a chess is, and perhaps a very few that are even more fair.
Either way, for myself, and 99.9% of the earth's polulation, it is still a fun game to play:)
wouldn't this be the case for more than just chess? Such as checkers, chinese checkers, chineese chess, strategeo, risk, ect.
(Dare i mention the infamous GO in a chess story?)
While i am attempting to drop my karma like a rock, i would also add that chess is NOT the fairest of all games, becuase there is a definate difference/advantage depending on what color you are, and thus who goes first. A game in wich this is not the case (or it is compensated for would be even more fair. (here is where my karma takes nose dive:) ) GO is just such a game. The komi (points awarded to the player that goes second) helps eliminate this advantage. As such, i belive that GO is a fairer game.
I should say that i am not trying to trash talk chess. I enjoy chess just as much as the next guy, and it is terrific game to play -- both for enjoyment and as mental excersise. Above, i was just trying to point out what i thought was wrong with the parent.
If they wanted to combat piracy of GBA roms, then woundn't it make more sense to make the GAMES cheaper?
I mean, people can just take the roms and then put write them onto a cartridge and play them for free. Especially if you already have the ROMS becuase you were emulating them.
It just seems to me that making the system cheaper does not really do anything to curb the theft of roms. Those that have the enclination to steal them still will. In fact, i would imagine that making the system cheaper (at least in the hand-held department) makes piracy MORE appealing. Basically because once you get the roms and write them to your own catridge, you get the benifit of free game AND the advantage of the portable system.
Of course, i could be WAY off base here. That is entirely possible. These are just my thoughts:D
of course it is the very fact that your original post was, to you, so trivial. If you had thought that it was not, you most likely would have thought more about what you were writing. Since you did not, your natural way of thinkin/speaking/writting came to the fore. The way you write when you think it doesn't matter.
I think the posters point was that it is intersting that this word was used in such a setting -- almost unconsciencly. It *might* go to show how pervasive entertainment being "Made" is in our society.
This in no way is a reflection of YOU. And i can't imagine it was ment as an attack (in fact the author said it wasn't -- though he thought it would be taken as one. Perhaps he is prophetic? But that is a whole 'nother post.)
The point being that SOCIETY at large uses the word "made" to refer to the production of entertainment and that it is so commonly used that people tend to use it without thinking -- even should they not own a TV.
This is becuase you do not have to own a TV to be exposed to people that do. And in your day to day interactions you will pick up on their habits -- good and bad. This is just human nature.
So, really, it is just INTERESTING that you used the work "made". I don't think there was any value judgement passed on the usage. The poster was just making a point at how prevalent it is.:)
BTW...Do you not have a TV becuase you feel that there is nothing good to be gained from it? Or that you feel the temptation to spend too much time watching it is too great? I am just curious. I sometimes think about throwing out mine.
either you are being funny (which i know you are) or you have a poor grasp of how statistics are intended to be used (which you might -- i don't know about this one). But of course the problem lies in the fact that 100% of able to commit violent crimes *must* be breathing. So breathing is a nessesary condition for violent crimes.
This means that there is no CONTROL group to compare to. That is, there is no non-breathing group that is capable of commiting violent crimes.
HOwever, in the case of video games, there are poeple that play games and people that do not. So a valid study could be conducted.
Of course, your point may be that statistics can be used to prove any point you want. And that is true. I am saying nothing about the ethics of how statistics should be used once they are gathered. I am merely stating that one person offering that HE plays violent games and is not violent as proof that violent games do not breed violence is not valid. THis one statement has no impact whatsoever on the truth of whether violent games can cuase people to be more violent.
But of course, a sample size of 1 does not make an arugment. Even counting the two replies and myself that brings us to 4 people that can vouch that violent videogames do not make them more violent. However, even 4 is not a good sample size.
The point being is this, to borrow a poster's argument (kinda). There are people that smoke and do not ever get cancer. It is not because of these people that we regulate smoking. It is becuase there is some percentage of the poeple out there that smoke and seem to have a higher incedence of cancer.
If we see that the use of violent video games increases the incedence of violent crimes then it behooves us to regulate violent games. Just as we regulate smoking, alcohol, drugs, guns, ect...
The point being this...you can sit around all day and talk about how violent media does not affect YOU personally and it doesn't matter at all. What people are concerned about is how it affects the population at large. You must have a sample size that is significant before what you have to say can be considered significant itself.:)
but the concern is that exposure to violence may make someone more likely to commit violent crimes. Correct? At least that is the argument as i understand it.
I think we can safely assume that most people do not wish to be exposed to violent crimes (at least on the reciving end). That is to say that most people do not wish to be shot, mugged, raped, ect.
So, if violent video games can be shown to be associated with elevated violent crimes, this means that there are people out there that are exposed to violent crimes that do not wish to be (the victims) and we need to regulate it.
Again, perhaps i am just misunderstanding the gist of the entire debate, but i always thought that people wished to regulate violent video games becuase they thought they would increase the occurance of violent crimes.
Actually, i hate to be overly argumentative, but your analogy here is not correct.
A) First off, smoking tobacco does not actually cause cancer. The damage to your DNA can cause mutations. These mutations can cause cancer.
You are correct in saying that everyone that smokes revieces an amount of damage to their lungs.
In the same vein, people opposed to violent video games would say that everyone that playes them is exposed to violent video games and is exposed to enactive violence (even if just in video games).
B)You are saying that not everyone that plays violent video games hurts others. I will ignore the fact that "hurt" is a rather loose term and assume that you mean not everyone re-inacts what they see in games.
Now of course this is true, but it is also true that not everyone that smokes gets cancer.
Now, the REAL reason why your reasoning is not good, is becuase it actually proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to have it prove!
That is to say (rewording the arguemnt so that it is factually true.
A) Some percentage of those who smoke get cancer and this cancer can be strongly linked to their smoking (since it is impossible to say exactly what caused a particulare cancer).
Right? Now the reason why we think smoking is bad and should be regulated is because it has adverse affects to society and individuals.
Moving on to point B....
B) Not everyone who plays violent videos games hurts others (aka. some percentage of people that play violent video games will commit violence).
I think we can all agree on that. Now we see that we regulate smoking and claim that it is bad because we correlate smoking with cancer. If ther is any correlation with video games and violence, then it behoves us to regulate it to, by the same argument.
You seem to be willing to admit that violent vidoe games can induce more violent behavior? (by your wording) though i could be misreading what you wrote.
If so, then we see that video games must be regulated.
If however, you think that there is no correlation, then perhaps video games do not need to be regulated. This was not the point of your post though. I am merely trying to show how your arugment is not acutally logical. It merely (when read correctly) re-enforces the idea that we should regulate video games should there be any correlation found between the playing of violent video games and violent behavior.
I am not trying to be mean or anything, i just think that your reasoning is a bit off. that is all.
LMFAO! "batshit insane"!!!! Wow, that is good, i will have to use that sometime in the future. Thanks for sharing that one:D
But now onto the actual reason for this post...
Why does a person have to be insane to belive in a god? I am truly curious. Until such a time as it can be proven that there is no god, then why should people that belive in a god be classified as insane?
I guess, what i am trying to say is, what is it about a personal god that makes him impossible?
Just curious to here your reasoning, that is all.:)
now, without tipping my hand either way (agnostic or deist) and without trying to troll or flamebait. I want to poing out a few things about your last line...
First, You say you reject god on the baisis of logic, however... 1) Our logic system is either;
a) incomplete -- and thus flawed
b) Self-referential thus self-contradicting and thus flawed (i think this is the upshot of Godel, yes?)
2) You proposition (for the sake of argument) that an all-knowing, all powerfull, all benevolent god might exists *except* that evil exist. Yet, you freely admit that our knowledge is flawed and our understanding limited. And yet you stand from your shaky position and question that which you admit knows infinately more than you, has your best interest in mind, AND has the power to best effect outcomes.
In effect, you are claiming that a being with the tri-omni's cannot exist, becuase you (a non-tri-omni) cannot make sense of the situation. This just seems sort of silly (no offense intended). Of course, we can only judge from what we uderstand, so perhaps this is a tight spot.
Secondly, you say "the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than one any religion could ever dream of describing."
Now, humor me, and pretend that i am a religious person. I now make this claim; God created the universe. Everything that we observe and cannot observe. Thus, what we see through the lense of science is the created universe, seen thought a tool that god has given us the ability to use.
THere. Now i have just dreamed up a universe that is at least as interesting and amazing as the one that science observes (since it is the same universe) and perhaps even more so. Since, there *may* be things that we cannot observe. And interesting abstraction at the very least.
Anyways, i just wanted to post that (my thoughts). I want to emphasize again that i am not trying to be mean at all. I am just pointing out where i think your argument may fail. However, you may be able to correct my flawed reasoning. WHich would be cool for sure. I am always up for learning.:D
Evolution acts on a SPECIES, but it is affected by the mutation and survival of INDIVIDUALS.
that is to say this; the definition of evolution is: achange in distribution of phenotypes (or gennotypes -- depending on when we are talking about) within a species. that is to say, if today we look at the species of feild mice and observe that 1% of them are albino and the reast are normal brown and then we look at the species 15 years from now and find that 10% are now albino and the reast are plain brown, we would say that the SPECIES of feild mice has evolved. However, the species has evolved because of traits that INDIVIDUALS carried. Traits that made them more or less fit, evolutionarily speaking.
So, evolution works on species (or populations, to be more exact).
Now, MUTATIONS are an individual effect. That is to say that indivuals expereince mutations and these mutations may be passed on to future generations to such an extent that the species expreiences evolution.
I hope that all makes sense.
One other point needs to be added. While it sounds correct to say that you are only responsible for yourself. After all, it is evolution by natural selection, is it not -- and only the most fit pass on there genes, right?
Well, yes and no. Mostly no, i guess. The idea is that the fitness that is aforded by genes is directly linked to the ability of the organism that carries those genes to pass on the genes to future generations. That is to say that it is an individuals "desire" to insure that the most number of future organisms carry his/her genes.
So far so good. However, this does not nessesarily mean that the individual itself MUST reproduce. By insuring the survival of closely genetically related organisms, an organism can pass on its genes more effectively.
For instance, lets say that you have 9 full siblings (its alot, i know, but bear with me). ON average each of these siblings will share 25% of your genetic makeup, correct? Then each of their children will share, on average, 12.5% of your genes. Now if you were ever put in a position such that by sacrificing yourself, you could save all your siblings, then it would be in your favor to do so. Because every time all 9 siblings have a child, it would be as if you had 112.5% of a child --statistically speaking. So it is actually in your genetic best interest to insure the survivial of your siblings -- even over your own.
Now, this may seems a bit academic becuase even the most absured royal families never had more than 9 full siblings (that is a TON). However, it illustrates a truth that is found in nature. Namely, the hive. the above situation is not totally dissimilare to what is found to be the case in bee hives. that is why drones are willing to sacrifice themselves to save the hive. It is in there genetic self-interest.
Ok, so the point here is this: you cannot just arbitrily state that you are only responsible for your needs. Evolutinarily speaking, it behoves you to look out for the species as a whole. That is not to say that you must help out your direct competitors, but rather that, you would be in a tight spot if you have no more females (or males, as the case may be) to breed with. You do not live in a vacume -- and your genes "know" it. Thus, at times you will feel promted to act in a benevolent looking mannor. BUT fear not -- it is most likely in your best interest in the long run.:D
Anywyas, i hope that helps, and shows you why acting to benifit your species in general can actually help you out too (and even be to your advantage).
Because alot of times we think that we can become the more populare by dropping down someone (or thing) above us a notch or two. Sadly, that seems to be human nature -- to some extent. So when people see that chess is more populare than GO, they think by bashing chess, they can make GO more populare.
It is sad that this is the case, but please do not judge the message by the messanger (i know it is hard). No matter how poorly GO is presented, it remains a fun game to play. AND a go board and a chess board can even live in harmony next to eachother on the same shelf (ain't it amazing?).
The do, in fact, play more Xiangqi than GO (or any other board game) in China. In China, Xiangqi is kinda like our checkers -- in that it is often the first strategic (i guess it is really tactical, but whatever) board game that children learn.
In fact, i think i have read somewhere that Xiangqi is the most played board game in the world. But that is bound to happen to whatever is the most populare thing in China.:)
The entire game takes at least several hours to complete. So, by playing for 2 min, you played the game for less than 0.5% of the time it would take to beat it. Do you honestly think that this is enough time to make up your mind about a game?
As an example of how rediculous this is, this is equivalent to picking up a 300 page novel, reading the first page, and then deciding that the whole novel sucks. Clearly, no sound decision can be made this quickly.
Perhaps if you gave the game just a bit more time, then you would have learned how to work the camera. And then you would have had a great time playing it instead of whining to everyone on/. about how you have a short attention span.:)
Ok, so i agree that Physics needs math...that i have no contention with.
However, the claim that Physics is hard...well...i don't really know about that.
Doing physics is really no harder than most anything else. It is certainly no harder than learning a second laguage. The problem of course lies in the fact that it requires more up front WORK. That is to say, people are quite used to learning language. We do it everyday and it is natural part of our lives. Thus, even though it is an extremely complicated tast to accumulate new words and to put them in there correct context, we are used to doing it, and it comes naturally.
Sadly, however, math is not taught as a language. And so it is viewed as strange and frightening by many people. Thus, math is viewed as difficult -- more so than many other things. This is simply not the case. Once you understand the syntax of mathmatics, it becomes easy to learn more of it. Even easier than most languages, since mathmatics is more self-consistant.
So we see that the math part is no more difficult that tasks preformed by people everyday. The problem seems to be in the way that math is presented -- as if it is some crazy magic that only the select few can obtain:(
Now as for the PHYSICAL aspect of physics. I also maitain that is is no harder than most disiplines out there. We are presented with examples of the physical world constantly, thus, physical laws (at least the classical ones) are quite intuitive.
Of course non-classical physics is a whole nother ballgame. But here, again, it relies heavily on mathmatics. And by understanding the laugage of math, you can grasp the concepts of non-classical physics quite well (or at least as well as can be expected by most).
Now of course, there are people that understand physics extremely well, and to get to there level, it would be quite difficult -- or impossible. But this has nothing to do with the subject material, but rather EVERY disiplin will have savants -- poeple that rise well above those who share their feild. This is just a result of hard work with a natural proffeciency in that field.
The point being of course that math is not taught well in school. And so, it takes much WORK, to get used to the laguage. Just as it takes much WORK, to learn a foreign language. The amount of work required says nothing about its difficulty, but rather how unfamiliar the subject is.
Perhaps this whole post seems like i am just splitting hairs. After all, who cares if it is work vs. difficulty. After all, arent' they the same? Perhaps. It is just that sometimes, i feel people mean that physics is hard = if you are a physicist then you are smarter than an english major. Which is rediculous. So i suppose i am just ranting trying to say that there is no reason why one particular feild should be automatically put above another, baised on perseived superiourity in subject matter/difficulty.
And not only does more abstract character become more accesable, but we even tend to IDENTIFY more with a character that is drawn more abstract. Which is really cool.
It is fun to read comics and see this sort of thing in practice. In a some comics (BONE is a good example) there are a few characters that are drawn very abstract as compared to the rest of the cast. This makes it so that you identify soley with a few of the caracters, and the author can really dictate your experience, as he is controlling through whose eyes you are expereienceing the story.
Just another way for graphics to enhance a storytelling experience. It would eb really cool to see a similare sort of thing in video games. Perhaps someday...
But yeah, for anyone that is intersted in comics -- or just use of graphics in general "understanding comics" is a easy, yet very infomative and accesible, read. Cool
Slashdot Mirror
considering that the WHOLE game costs $50. Charging 10% of that for 4 maps or 1 mission (which is basically a bunch of scrips and design) is a great freaking way for companies to make money hand over fist.
:(
:D
I wonder if this will become a trend. Instead of releasing large expansion packs, will companies start just releasing smaller cheaper "mini packs" at more frequent intervals? I wonder if that would be more effective. It seems like you might be able to sell more $$$ amount of stuff that way. I mean, that way, you could gradually see the gaming geography of your game change -- requiring EVERYONE to buy the expansions.
Right now, it seems like for many games that have expansions, there are still servers that play the non-expansion game. But if you release a few maps at a time, those maps might just be incorparated into the map rotaion of more existing servers and then people would have to buy the expansion to keep up. OH man.
Anyways, i am really impressed (an irritated) that companies have found yet another way to more efficeintly milk the consumer. Too bad that enough people will pay this rediculous price/content ratio -- and it will probably stick around.
Yeah, just my random ramblings
it is becuase of people like #6 that i am really glad that there are internet communities (including gamers). I have met several people online who had debilitating diseases and would otherwise have very little interaction with other people (verging on a dearth). It is so cool that they have a way to meet hundreds of people and make new friends -- people that sadly might have been scared away by their disease and would have avoided them in normal society.
It is always good to see something like that to remind me that while the internet may have its downsides (game addiction, ect.) there are some REALLY positive aspects to gaming and the internet.
AWSOME!
For some trees there are longer lasting effects that will linger even after the trees have been cut down. Eucalyptus for example drops sap into the soil surrounding it that acts as a herbicide to other plants. Thus, even after a Eucalyptus grove have been cut down, it will be many years before other species can flourish.
:)
Also, i would imagine that the point is not "most invasive species that we cannot handle." Rather, which species (left to their own) are the most effective at invading a new area and dominating it? In that case, areas that are chainsaw-less must also be considered.
You might have some good points with the reast of your post, but as far as solar goes, i don't think it it is very feasonable (at least not as a world wide solution).
:)
The problem lies is the fact that the most effective dies for sensitizing solar cells are Ruthenium baised. And, unfortunately, there is only enough ruthenium in the world to cover an area the size of North Dakota with solar cells.
While this would be an impressively large array of solar cells, it does not even begin to scratch the surface of the worlds energy demands.
Another thing to think about that you did not mention is the possible use of biodeasil. It has the interesting property that the CO2 that it liberates can just go back into more plants that will be used for more biodeasil. SO its CO2 cycle is much more short than for fossil fuels.
And of course that is the real worry. We easily have enough fossil fuels for quite a long time yet, but we cannot afford to keep pumping CO2 into our atmosphere at the exponientially increasing rate that we are now.
AT least that is my thoughts on the matter
i don't know either, but provided that you can get to a supermarket, i think that it would be reletivily cheap and easy to find out :)
Yeah, the first 200 some odd pages of quicksilver were fairly hard to read, but before page 300 it really picked up. At least i thought so.
:)
But really, in a series that is going to be over 2,500 pages long, having the first 200 pages be slow is not that bad. 10% of a book devoted to a introduction is not all that bad. And historically, it has been hard for me to get into Stephenson's books. But once i am, oh man, it is worth the payoff. In my opinion, the baroque cycle has been no exception. Once i was past the first 10% the reast has been a joy to read -- not nearly as funny as Cryptonomicon -- but a great read nonetheless.
At least that is my take on it
Of course what you mean, is that he started writting about stuff that you dont care about. That is to say that his books do not nessesarily suck, just that you are not interested in them. This is a very different kind of statement.
I don't particularely like mystery novels (lets say). that doesn't mean that the whole genre of mystery sucks -- just that it doesn't appeal to me, personally. In fact, becuase i don't like the genre of mystery, i am even less qualified to make statements concerning the quality of any particulare mystery novel. I just don't have the knowlege of the subject, the exprience, nor love of the genre to make statements about them that would matter to those who would be interested in the book.
He also really really needs an editor. His latest books could be, no should be, trimmed down to at least half their current size.
Again, this is a personall prefference. You are saying that you do not like reading books that are that long-winded. Stephenson has just changed his writting style (really apparent starting with cryptonomicon). He is much more wordy now than he was earlier in his life. Is this inherintly a bad thing? Of course not. He is changing and maturing as a writter. As such, his style and genre is changing with him.
I don't really mean to pick on you here, it is just that all to often, i see people making absolute statements (ei. that movie sucks) when what they really mean to express is an opinion (ie. I didn't like that movie). It is just somewhat annoying. Espcially, when poeple don't seem to realize that they are just expressing an opinion.
How do i konw that what you stated was just an opinion? Well, for one I liked the book. And i know many people that like his barouque cycle so far. I also like the fact that Stephenson is changing. Personally, I don't really like reading the same type of thing all the time. that is one reason why i can't read anymore asimov, heinlien, anthony, ect. After a while all the books start to be the same old same old. Dispite the fact that i really enjoy the way the author expresses himeself.
I am simple delighted that I have found an author (stephenson) who changes. That way i can enjoy the expression that that author has, but not be bored to death by the same type of story all the time.
but then again, that is just my opinion :)
I am curious to hear why you think that a fair game must be reduced to a pure strategy game. I would think that as long as everyone is exposed to the same probabilities, then the game is fair. (ie. everyone has the same chance to roll a certain number)
Am i wrong in thinking this? I would be quite interested to hear.
I am serious here. I really want to know if my thinking is wrong.
This is a good point, and i had thougth of that. But then to desribe chess as a fair game, a game of chess would actually have to consist of 2 games of chess. Thus, the base unit of play that one would have to partake in (in order to claim that one had played chess) would have to be 2 games.
:D
I am not sure that many people would agree with this boundry. That is, if you played a single game of chess, you would feel safe claiming that you had played a game of chess. If soemone came up to you and said, "No way!, you have only played 1/2 a game of chess!", you would look at that guy like he was an idiot.
Thus we see that the basic unit of chess is a single game. Thus, the game of chess is unfair (or could be, depending on what you think the advantage may be for going first). You can FIX the game of chess, by trying to average out the flaw (again, if it exists). But the idea, i think, is that in the end, the basic game remains unfair.
I hope that makes some sense. I am not sure that it does, but that is what i was thinking at the time
Actually, i would still claim that RISK is a fair game.
:)
There is no need for a game to contain purely skill for it to be fair. In RISK, the odds of rolling a certain number are the same for all involved (1/6 per die). ALl players are exposed to the exact same odds. Of course, someone still gets to go first, and so that may skew it in one direction or another. I don't know. But i think as far as fairness goes, there is no random event that inherintly favors one player over another.
How is this different that in sports that have luck? WEll, in such cases there are human judges and they are not intirely impartial. that is why such games are not quite fair. ONce you remove any partiality, the game becomes fair. that is to say -- if all players are equally at an advantage, the game is fair.
I suppose it does depend on whether or not going first is an advantage (or disadvantage) in chess. Perhaps it is not. However, the game is differnt depending on whether you go first or not, and, as there is no handicapping system to make up for this, it seems hard to imigine taht both players have an exactly equal advantage.
It may be that the advatage that one player has over the other is so small as to be negligible -- and then i would agree that chess is indeed a fair game. In fact, i would go as far as to say that for MOST people, chess is essentially a fair game.
What i was taking issue with mostly is the post that chess is the fairest of ALL games. A claim that must certainly be false. In reality, there are many games that are just as fair a chess is, and perhaps a very few that are even more fair.
Either way, for myself, and 99.9% of the earth's polulation, it is still a fun game to play
wouldn't this be the case for more than just chess? Such as checkers, chinese checkers, chineese chess, strategeo, risk, ect.
:) ) GO is just such a game. The komi (points awarded to the player that goes second) helps eliminate this advantage. As such, i belive that GO is a fairer game.
(Dare i mention the infamous GO in a chess story?)
While i am attempting to drop my karma like a rock, i would also add that chess is NOT the fairest of all games, becuase there is a definate difference/advantage depending on what color you are, and thus who goes first. A game in wich this is not the case (or it is compensated for would be even more fair. (here is where my karma takes nose dive
I should say that i am not trying to trash talk chess. I enjoy chess just as much as the next guy, and it is terrific game to play -- both for enjoyment and as mental excersise. Above, i was just trying to point out what i thought was wrong with the parent.
If they wanted to combat piracy of GBA roms, then woundn't it make more sense to make the GAMES cheaper?
:D
I mean, people can just take the roms and then put write them onto a cartridge and play them for free. Especially if you already have the ROMS becuase you were emulating them.
It just seems to me that making the system cheaper does not really do anything to curb the theft of roms. Those that have the enclination to steal them still will. In fact, i would imagine that making the system cheaper (at least in the hand-held department) makes piracy MORE appealing. Basically because once you get the roms and write them to your own catridge, you get the benifit of free game AND the advantage of the portable system.
Of course, i could be WAY off base here. That is entirely possible. These are just my thoughts
of course it is the very fact that your original post was, to you, so trivial. If you had thought that it was not, you most likely would have thought more about what you were writing. Since you did not, your natural way of thinkin/speaking/writting came to the fore. The way you write when you think it doesn't matter.
:)
I think the posters point was that it is intersting that this word was used in such a setting -- almost unconsciencly. It *might* go to show how pervasive entertainment being "Made" is in our society.
This in no way is a reflection of YOU. And i can't imagine it was ment as an attack (in fact the author said it wasn't -- though he thought it would be taken as one. Perhaps he is prophetic? But that is a whole 'nother post.)
The point being that SOCIETY at large uses the word "made" to refer to the production of entertainment and that it is so commonly used that people tend to use it without thinking -- even should they not own a TV.
This is becuase you do not have to own a TV to be exposed to people that do. And in your day to day interactions you will pick up on their habits -- good and bad. This is just human nature.
So, really, it is just INTERESTING that you used the work "made". I don't think there was any value judgement passed on the usage. The poster was just making a point at how prevalent it is.
BTW...Do you not have a TV becuase you feel that there is nothing good to be gained from it? Or that you feel the temptation to spend too much time watching it is too great? I am just curious. I sometimes think about throwing out mine.
either you are being funny (which i know you are) or you have a poor grasp of how statistics are intended to be used (which you might -- i don't know about this one). But of course the problem lies in the fact that 100% of able to commit violent crimes *must* be breathing. So breathing is a nessesary condition for violent crimes.
:D
This means that there is no CONTROL group to compare to. That is, there is no non-breathing group that is capable of commiting violent crimes.
HOwever, in the case of video games, there are poeple that play games and people that do not. So a valid study could be conducted.
Of course, your point may be that statistics can be used to prove any point you want. And that is true. I am saying nothing about the ethics of how statistics should be used once they are gathered. I am merely stating that one person offering that HE plays violent games and is not violent as proof that violent games do not breed violence is not valid. THis one statement has no impact whatsoever on the truth of whether violent games can cuase people to be more violent.
That was my point
But of course, a sample size of 1 does not make an arugment. Even counting the two replies and myself that brings us to 4 people that can vouch that violent videogames do not make them more violent. However, even 4 is not a good sample size.
:)
The point being is this, to borrow a poster's argument (kinda). There are people that smoke and do not ever get cancer. It is not because of these people that we regulate smoking. It is becuase there is some percentage of the poeple out there that smoke and seem to have a higher incedence of cancer.
If we see that the use of violent video games increases the incedence of violent crimes then it behooves us to regulate violent games. Just as we regulate smoking, alcohol, drugs, guns, ect...
The point being this...you can sit around all day and talk about how violent media does not affect YOU personally and it doesn't matter at all. What people are concerned about is how it affects the population at large. You must have a sample size that is significant before what you have to say can be considered significant itself.
but the concern is that exposure to violence may make someone more likely to commit violent crimes. Correct? At least that is the argument as i understand it.
I think we can safely assume that most people do not wish to be exposed to violent crimes (at least on the reciving end). That is to say that most people do not wish to be shot, mugged, raped, ect.
So, if violent video games can be shown to be associated with elevated violent crimes, this means that there are people out there that are exposed to violent crimes that do not wish to be (the victims) and we need to regulate it.
Again, perhaps i am just misunderstanding the gist of the entire debate, but i always thought that people wished to regulate violent video games becuase they thought they would increase the occurance of violent crimes.
Actually, i hate to be overly argumentative, but your analogy here is not correct.
A) First off, smoking tobacco does not actually cause cancer. The damage to your DNA can cause mutations. These mutations can cause cancer.
You are correct in saying that everyone that smokes revieces an amount of damage to their lungs.
In the same vein, people opposed to violent video games would say that everyone that playes them is exposed to violent video games and is exposed to enactive violence (even if just in video games).
B)You are saying that not everyone that plays violent video games hurts others. I will ignore the fact that "hurt" is a rather loose term and assume that you mean not everyone re-inacts what they see in games.
Now of course this is true, but it is also true that not everyone that smokes gets cancer.
Now, the REAL reason why your reasoning is not good, is becuase it actually proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to have it prove!
That is to say (rewording the arguemnt so that it is factually true.
A) Some percentage of those who smoke get cancer and this cancer can be strongly linked to their smoking (since it is impossible to say exactly what caused a particulare cancer).
Right? Now the reason why we think smoking is bad and should be regulated is because it has adverse affects to society and individuals.
Moving on to point B....
B) Not everyone who plays violent videos games hurts others (aka. some percentage of people that play violent video games will commit violence).
I think we can all agree on that. Now we see that we regulate smoking and claim that it is bad because we correlate smoking with cancer. If ther is any correlation with video games and violence, then it behoves us to regulate it to, by the same argument.
You seem to be willing to admit that violent vidoe games can induce more violent behavior? (by your wording) though i could be misreading what you wrote.
If so, then we see that video games must be regulated.
If however, you think that there is no correlation, then perhaps video games do not need to be regulated. This was not the point of your post though. I am merely trying to show how your arugment is not acutally logical. It merely (when read correctly) re-enforces the idea that we should regulate video games should there be any correlation found between the playing of violent video games and violent behavior.
I am not trying to be mean or anything, i just think that your reasoning is a bit off. that is all.
LMFAO! "batshit insane"!!!! Wow, that is good, i will have to use that sometime in the future. Thanks for sharing that one :D
:)
But now onto the actual reason for this post...
Why does a person have to be insane to belive in a god? I am truly curious. Until such a time as it can be proven that there is no god, then why should people that belive in a god be classified as insane?
I guess, what i am trying to say is, what is it about a personal god that makes him impossible?
Just curious to here your reasoning, that is all.
now, without tipping my hand either way (agnostic or deist) and without trying to troll or flamebait. I want to poing out a few things about your last line...
:D
First, You say you reject god on the baisis of logic, however...
1) Our logic system is either;
a) incomplete -- and thus flawed
b) Self-referential thus self-contradicting and thus flawed (i think this is the upshot of Godel, yes?)
2) You proposition (for the sake of argument) that an all-knowing, all powerfull, all benevolent god might exists *except* that evil exist. Yet, you freely admit that our knowledge is flawed and our understanding limited. And yet you stand from your shaky position and question that which you admit knows infinately more than you, has your best interest in mind, AND has the power to best effect outcomes.
In effect, you are claiming that a being with the tri-omni's cannot exist, becuase you (a non-tri-omni) cannot make sense of the situation. This just seems sort of silly (no offense intended). Of course, we can only judge from what we uderstand, so perhaps this is a tight spot.
Secondly, you say "the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than one any religion could ever dream of describing."
Now, humor me, and pretend that i am a religious person. I now make this claim; God created the universe. Everything that we observe and cannot observe. Thus, what we see through the lense of science is the created universe, seen thought a tool that god has given us the ability to use.
THere. Now i have just dreamed up a universe that is at least as interesting and amazing as the one that science observes (since it is the same universe) and perhaps even more so. Since, there *may* be things that we cannot observe. And interesting abstraction at the very least.
Anyways, i just wanted to post that (my thoughts). I want to emphasize again that i am not trying to be mean at all. I am just pointing out where i think your argument may fail. However, you may be able to correct my flawed reasoning. WHich would be cool for sure. I am always up for learning.
ah, now you are into tricky grounds...
:D
Evolution acts on a SPECIES, but it is affected by the mutation and survival of INDIVIDUALS.
that is to say this; the definition of evolution is: achange in distribution of phenotypes (or gennotypes -- depending on when we are talking about) within a species. that is to say, if today we look at the species of feild mice and observe that 1% of them are albino and the reast are normal brown and then we look at the species 15 years from now and find that 10% are now albino and the reast are plain brown, we would say that the SPECIES of feild mice has evolved. However, the species has evolved because of traits that INDIVIDUALS carried. Traits that made them more or less fit, evolutionarily speaking.
So, evolution works on species (or populations, to be more exact).
Now, MUTATIONS are an individual effect. That is to say that indivuals expereince mutations and these mutations may be passed on to future generations to such an extent that the species expreiences evolution.
I hope that all makes sense.
One other point needs to be added. While it sounds correct to say that you are only responsible for yourself. After all, it is evolution by natural selection, is it not -- and only the most fit pass on there genes, right?
Well, yes and no. Mostly no, i guess. The idea is that the fitness that is aforded by genes is directly linked to the ability of the organism that carries those genes to pass on the genes to future generations. That is to say that it is an individuals "desire" to insure that the most number of future organisms carry his/her genes.
So far so good. However, this does not nessesarily mean that the individual itself MUST reproduce. By insuring the survival of closely genetically related organisms, an organism can pass on its genes more effectively.
For instance, lets say that you have 9 full siblings (its alot, i know, but bear with me). ON average each of these siblings will share 25% of your genetic makeup, correct? Then each of their children will share, on average, 12.5% of your genes. Now if you were ever put in a position such that by sacrificing yourself, you could save all your siblings, then it would be in your favor to do so. Because every time all 9 siblings have a child, it would be as if you had 112.5% of a child --statistically speaking. So it is actually in your genetic best interest to insure the survivial of your siblings -- even over your own.
Now, this may seems a bit academic becuase even the most absured royal families never had more than 9 full siblings (that is a TON). However, it illustrates a truth that is found in nature. Namely, the hive. the above situation is not totally dissimilare to what is found to be the case in bee hives. that is why drones are willing to sacrifice themselves to save the hive. It is in there genetic self-interest.
Ok, so the point here is this: you cannot just arbitrily state that you are only responsible for your needs. Evolutinarily speaking, it behoves you to look out for the species as a whole. That is not to say that you must help out your direct competitors, but rather that, you would be in a tight spot if you have no more females (or males, as the case may be) to breed with. You do not live in a vacume -- and your genes "know" it. Thus, at times you will feel promted to act in a benevolent looking mannor. BUT fear not -- it is most likely in your best interest in the long run.
Anywyas, i hope that helps, and shows you why acting to benifit your species in general can actually help you out too (and even be to your advantage).
I think that is all i have to say right now.
Why does Bush attack Kerry, and visa versa?
Because alot of times we think that we can become the more populare by dropping down someone (or thing) above us a notch or two. Sadly, that seems to be human nature -- to some extent. So when people see that chess is more populare than GO, they think by bashing chess, they can make GO more populare.
It is sad that this is the case, but please do not judge the message by the messanger (i know it is hard). No matter how poorly GO is presented, it remains a fun game to play. AND a go board and a chess board can even live in harmony next to eachother on the same shelf (ain't it amazing?).
The do, in fact, play more Xiangqi than GO (or any other board game) in China. In China, Xiangqi is kinda like our checkers -- in that it is often the first strategic (i guess it is really tactical, but whatever) board game that children learn.
:)
In fact, i think i have read somewhere that Xiangqi is the most played board game in the world. But that is bound to happen to whatever is the most populare thing in China.
The entire game takes at least several hours to complete. So, by playing for 2 min, you played the game for less than 0.5% of the time it would take to beat it. Do you honestly think that this is enough time to make up your mind about a game?
/. about how you have a short attention span. :)
As an example of how rediculous this is, this is equivalent to picking up a 300 page novel, reading the first page, and then deciding that the whole novel sucks. Clearly, no sound decision can be made this quickly.
Perhaps if you gave the game just a bit more time, then you would have learned how to work the camera. And then you would have had a great time playing it instead of whining to everyone on
Ok, so i agree that Physics needs math...that i have no contention with.
:(
However, the claim that Physics is hard...well...i don't really know about that.
Doing physics is really no harder than most anything else. It is certainly no harder than learning a second laguage. The problem of course lies in the fact that it requires more up front WORK. That is to say, people are quite used to learning language. We do it everyday and it is natural part of our lives. Thus, even though it is an extremely complicated tast to accumulate new words and to put them in there correct context, we are used to doing it, and it comes naturally.
Sadly, however, math is not taught as a language. And so it is viewed as strange and frightening by many people. Thus, math is viewed as difficult -- more so than many other things. This is simply not the case. Once you understand the syntax of mathmatics, it becomes easy to learn more of it. Even easier than most languages, since mathmatics is more self-consistant.
So we see that the math part is no more difficult that tasks preformed by people everyday. The problem seems to be in the way that math is presented -- as if it is some crazy magic that only the select few can obtain
Now as for the PHYSICAL aspect of physics. I also maitain that is is no harder than most disiplines out there. We are presented with examples of the physical world constantly, thus, physical laws (at least the classical ones) are quite intuitive.
Of course non-classical physics is a whole nother ballgame. But here, again, it relies heavily on mathmatics. And by understanding the laugage of math, you can grasp the concepts of non-classical physics quite well (or at least as well as can be expected by most).
Now of course, there are people that understand physics extremely well, and to get to there level, it would be quite difficult -- or impossible. But this has nothing to do with the subject material, but rather EVERY disiplin will have savants -- poeple that rise well above those who share their feild. This is just a result of hard work with a natural proffeciency in that field.
The point being of course that math is not taught well in school. And so, it takes much WORK, to get used to the laguage. Just as it takes much WORK, to learn a foreign language. The amount of work required says nothing about its difficulty, but rather how unfamiliar the subject is.
Perhaps this whole post seems like i am just splitting hairs. After all, who cares if it is work vs. difficulty. After all, arent' they the same? Perhaps. It is just that sometimes, i feel people mean that physics is hard = if you are a physicist then you are smarter than an english major. Which is rediculous. So i suppose i am just ranting trying to say that there is no reason why one particular feild should be automatically put above another, baised on perseived superiourity in subject matter/difficulty.
Yeah. Sorry for the ramblings. Jut my thougths
OH man, i am SO glad you mentioned this...
And not only does more abstract character become more accesable, but we even tend to IDENTIFY more with a character that is drawn more abstract. Which is really cool.
It is fun to read comics and see this sort of thing in practice. In a some comics (BONE is a good example) there are a few characters that are drawn very abstract as compared to the rest of the cast. This makes it so that you identify soley with a few of the caracters, and the author can really dictate your experience, as he is controlling through whose eyes you are expereienceing the story.
Just another way for graphics to enhance a storytelling experience. It would eb really cool to see a similare sort of thing in video games. Perhaps someday...
But yeah, for anyone that is intersted in comics -- or just use of graphics in general "understanding comics" is a easy, yet very infomative and accesible, read. Cool