I'm planning on playing, and I'm planning on making a character who doesn't know thing one about adventuring, but who can manufacture certain items quite well. If you read the official boards, you'll find a whole lot of other people doing the same thing.
What you fail to realize is that SWG is going a long way toward pulling in untapped portions of the world population - the same portions which The Sims Online is going for, for example. You're also bringing in people who love Star Wars but never got into FPSes or MMORPGs (i.e., aren't "hardcore").
Will PAs remove a significant portion of the population from the demand market? Sure. But not everyone will be in a PA, and not every PA will be large enough to become self-sufficient - and the major factor contributing to this is that hardcore players of the sort that are members of the uberest PAs will, as you say, be unwilling to make a character who can't adventure.
To be honest, I'm looking toward this being the most well-balanced economy to date in an online RPG, and the single character per server feature will increase that likelihood by orders of magnitude.
If you discovered the hash mechanism, you could engineer a modified character with the same hash. The only way to prevent that is to make the hash result larger, which obviates hashing the data in the first place.
Finite state machines are indeed allowed to have counters, as long as the counters are of finite capacity. (The result is that the FSM becomes incredibly large as it expands to hold enough state/transition information for all the non-counter states times the counter capacity.)
Each soldier can view the state of its two adjacent neighbors, and then those states are used to look in the transition table to determine the soldier's state for the next time step.
Time's only effect is to cause the system to advance to the next time step; i.e., at a clock tick, each soldier examines the state of its two neighbors, looks up the proper transition in its transition table, and changes state accordingly.
Yes, "fire" is a state, and is generally regarded as required to be a unique state. Transitions have no effect on neighbors until the next clock tick (when the neighbors examine their neighbors' states), so "speaking" isn't a transition. Technically, "speaking" doesn't even occur.
The soldiers to the left and right of a particular soldier are the only ones who can examine the state of that soldier. They do so only at a clock tick.
CAs don't have to consist of finite-state automata. Still, the question posed by Feynman is definitely relevant to CAs, since each automaton is identical in function.
The solution is indeed reproduced in Wolfram's book, which I will excerpt in a separate reply if it has not already been quoted.
That's not exactly comparable, because you're obfuscating the intent of the "advertisement" inside the text of your post. But if you must know, I did at least mouse-over your link to see where it led;)
Pretty insightful, and I can relate to that in the contrapositive case:
I will never use Orbitz to buy plane tickets, because they put popup ads pretty much *everywhere* and their TV ads are *really fscking annoying*.
Now, if they had been subtle, and not actually told me what the ad was for - a la Nike - I might not know that I'm supposed to avoid them like the plague....
What interests me is that I've always thought this was quite a "western" mentality, grounded in materialism and greed. Are the Chinese just the same? Or do they have other motivations?
Nah, it's just that Americans couldn't possibly sell pirated movies without getting caught, as we live in a fascist police state....
I'd hate to think that computer power didn't increase between the time of Turing's death in 1954, and 2000....
Pretty much any prediction that Turing could make about computers nearly 50 years after his death - and before the advent of transistors - would pure speculation. The fact that Turing's prediction that AIs would be indistinguishable from people in the "Turing test" was wrong, and that other projects based on sheer informational density (such as CYC) have been dismal failures, indicate that it is the purely scripted/explicit logical constraint strategy of solving this problem that is faulty. Unfortunately, the 30 years after that prediction have focused pretty much entirely on scripting and logical constraints, and other methods of artificial/computational intelligence didn't see the light of day until the 80s and 90s.
Be sure to watch further developments in modeling of neurological processes, as there is still hope along this avenue of research:)
I'd like to put my own support behind this post. While I wasn't an ADHD child, I did feel considerably underchallenged by the education I was being given during my first couple of years of school. I was fortunate enough to have teachers throughout grade and middle schools who worked with me to varying degrees, anywhere from taking time out of their day to work with me specifically, to allowing me to join their class of students a year older.
I wasn't a discipline problem - in fact, I was more or less deathly afraid of the consequences of misbehavior - but I was very socially backward (to a degree, I still am, and I'm pretty sure I suffer from some degree of clinical social anxiety). It's important to foster your child's social development in addition to her physical and mental development.
If you're worried about the social inaccessibility of geeky women, just remember that there are zillions of geeky six-year-old boys out there who will be happy in another ten or fifteen years that you brought your daughter up to take an interest in things in the world around her.:)
Re:Interesting that it focusses so much on the Rep
on
Pay to Play the U.S. Way
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Wow... nice link. It should be noted that most of the top contributors are from labor unions to Democrats, although there appear to be far more corporations making smaller donations to Republicans.
You know though, the thing that scares me most about that list, is the companies or organizations that are listed as "on the fence". Those are the companies that don't really care who is in power - they are hedging their bets to ensure that they can get the support of whoever ends up winning.
Then again, we can make use of the legislative process to change how our nation works. That's the beauty of the United States, though it can be hard to see that beauty sometimes for all the corporations in the way.
Obviously - because it's not censorship if you willingly submit to the rules for that particular forum.... which registrants to the kids.us domain would be.
And in case you're worried about the censorship aspect on the viewing kids audience, well, people don't have a constitutional right to hear or see whatever they want, only to say it. (But don't spray it. That would be vandalism.)
To understand why there are striking similarities between any animals, it's easy enough to get lower level than number of eyes or ears or limbs. Just look at the sorts of neurotransmitters used in the nervous system, for example, or the hormones that control fetal development. Many of these chemicals are the same for humans as in pretty much any animal - you have to go as far as the split between mammals and reptiles/amphibians/etc. before any real biochemical differences start appearing, and still the basic biochemical principles are the same.
But yes - it's really not astounding at all that there would be genetic similarities between any mammals. Personally, I find it interesting that multicellular life exists at all:)
Well, as the head of the Executive Branch of government (with pardon powers and all that), one might say that the President can and should have a role in prosecutions. Generally, however, almost all of those duties (with the exception of pardons) are delegated to DoJ.
BTW - If GWB actually told Ashcroft to drop the case, and substantiated word got out about that, I'm sure you wouldn't have to look for the reference to it. Also, it's possible for GWB to take such an action even with no "money for thing" taking place. A person doesn't have to be "bought" in order to make a decision that is not in the best interest of the public.
You know, the whole concept behind Passport isn't far off from the purported usefulness of the "adult verification services": you pay them a LOW LOW monthly fee and supposedly get access to thousands of online porn sites.
It's good to know that Bill still surfs for pr0n every now and then.
I can log into my services securely too, and know only one password. It's quite easy.
Set all of your passwords to be the same.:P
The only reason that Passport is useful is because it tries to dip its finger into a lot of pies at the same time. The end result is that corporations find out a lot more about your surfing/buying/playing habits than they otherwise would. In other words, it's *not* useful to the end user - it's useful to the service providers.
Your second and third categories of ShowEQ use most definitely unbalance the game toward people who use ShowEQ. It violates the spirit of the game (read: is cheating). I don't understand how making a semantic argument about whether EQ is a game or a social venue has anything to do with whether using ShowEQ is cheating or not. Simply put, Verant/SOE defined the rules of the game, and among those rules was "no third-party programs". People who can't fit within those rules, but choose to play anyway, are cheating, to the detriment of everyone else who plays by the rules.
As an aside: you can get maps by using UI mods. Granted, they aren't interactive, but they're still maps, and by using your brain you can figure out where you are.
The main concern that non-ShowEQ users have about the program, anonymous friend, is that the program allows you to find the locations of certain (very rare) creatures without the normal in-game methods of finding them (i.e., using the Track ability or just wandering around until you find them). Among other uses for this are things like knowing exactly when the iron oxide ground spawns in Steamfont have popped.
The end result is that a non-ShowEQ player has no chance to compete against someone using the program for this purpose.
Honestly, the uses you've mentioned in your post (mapping/GPS) are not objectionable to me at all, since I can get most of the same information by referring to various sites (EQAtlas, EQMaps) and by using/loc and a little bit of personal skill. I'd even suggest that for some things (like pharming low-level tradeskill components such as spiderling silks and cat pelts), using ShowEQ (or Track for that matter) slows down your rate of return versus running around and killing stuff as you see it.
Still, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's better to draw it as conservatively as possible, so that no sticky questions arise when players are banned for the use of other forbidden third-party utilities (like macroing tools, which I simply *cannot stand*). Since ShowEQ does indeed have functionality which allows one player to make the game more difficult for those who play the game normally, it would have to go on the "bannable" side of that line. Sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the RIAA press release - in the footnote:
"The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry."
Indeed. Well, their supporting facts to indicate that they represent the entirety of the recording industry includes this:
"RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."
So, you've heard it here, folks. 90% = 100%.
The proof of the corollary theorem, 1 = 2, is left as an exercise to the reader.
I'm planning on playing, and I'm planning on making a character who doesn't know thing one about adventuring, but who can manufacture certain items quite well. If you read the official boards, you'll find a whole lot of other people doing the same thing.
What you fail to realize is that SWG is going a long way toward pulling in untapped portions of the world population - the same portions which The Sims Online is going for, for example. You're also bringing in people who love Star Wars but never got into FPSes or MMORPGs (i.e., aren't "hardcore").
Will PAs remove a significant portion of the population from the demand market? Sure. But not everyone will be in a PA, and not every PA will be large enough to become self-sufficient - and the major factor contributing to this is that hardcore players of the sort that are members of the uberest PAs will, as you say, be unwilling to make a character who can't adventure.
To be honest, I'm looking toward this being the most well-balanced economy to date in an online RPG, and the single character per server feature will increase that likelihood by orders of magnitude.
If you discovered the hash mechanism, you could engineer a modified character with the same hash. The only way to prevent that is to make the hash result larger, which obviates hashing the data in the first place.
Finite state machines are indeed allowed to have counters, as long as the counters are of finite capacity. (The result is that the FSM becomes incredibly large as it expands to hold enough state/transition information for all the non-counter states times the counter capacity.)
To answer your questions:
Each soldier can view the state of its two adjacent neighbors, and then those states are used to look in the transition table to determine the soldier's state for the next time step.
Time's only effect is to cause the system to advance to the next time step; i.e., at a clock tick, each soldier examines the state of its two neighbors, looks up the proper transition in its transition table, and changes state accordingly.
Yes, "fire" is a state, and is generally regarded as required to be a unique state. Transitions have no effect on neighbors until the next clock tick (when the neighbors examine their neighbors' states), so "speaking" isn't a transition. Technically, "speaking" doesn't even occur.
The soldiers to the left and right of a particular soldier are the only ones who can examine the state of that soldier. They do so only at a clock tick.
Hope this helps!
CAs don't have to consist of finite-state automata. Still, the question posed by Feynman is definitely relevant to CAs, since each automaton is identical in function.
The solution is indeed reproduced in Wolfram's book, which I will excerpt in a separate reply if it has not already been quoted.
According to myth, the Earth was created in six days. Now, look out! Here comes Genesis! We'll do it for you in six minutes!
That's not exactly comparable, because you're obfuscating the intent of the "advertisement" inside the text of your post. But if you must know, I did at least mouse-over your link to see where it led ;)
Pretty insightful, and I can relate to that in the contrapositive case:
I will never use Orbitz to buy plane tickets, because they put popup ads pretty much *everywhere* and their TV ads are *really fscking annoying*.
Now, if they had been subtle, and not actually told me what the ad was for - a la Nike - I might not know that I'm supposed to avoid them like the plague....
What interests me is that I've always thought this was quite a "western" mentality, grounded in materialism and greed. Are the Chinese just the same? Or do they have other motivations?
Nah, it's just that Americans couldn't possibly sell pirated movies without getting caught, as we live in a fascist police state....
I'd hate to think that computer power didn't increase between the time of Turing's death in 1954, and 2000....
:)
Pretty much any prediction that Turing could make about computers nearly 50 years after his death - and before the advent of transistors - would pure speculation. The fact that Turing's prediction that AIs would be indistinguishable from people in the "Turing test" was wrong, and that other projects based on sheer informational density (such as CYC) have been dismal failures, indicate that it is the purely scripted/explicit logical constraint strategy of solving this problem that is faulty. Unfortunately, the 30 years after that prediction have focused pretty much entirely on scripting and logical constraints, and other methods of artificial/computational intelligence didn't see the light of day until the 80s and 90s.
Be sure to watch further developments in modeling of neurological processes, as there is still hope along this avenue of research
Well, it looks like you got lucky - that server won't be switching images on *anyone* for some time now ;)
I'd like to put my own support behind this post. While I wasn't an ADHD child, I did feel considerably underchallenged by the education I was being given during my first couple of years of school. I was fortunate enough to have teachers throughout grade and middle schools who worked with me to varying degrees, anywhere from taking time out of their day to work with me specifically, to allowing me to join their class of students a year older.
:)
I wasn't a discipline problem - in fact, I was more or less deathly afraid of the consequences of misbehavior - but I was very socially backward (to a degree, I still am, and I'm pretty sure I suffer from some degree of clinical social anxiety). It's important to foster your child's social development in addition to her physical and mental development.
If you're worried about the social inaccessibility of geeky women, just remember that there are zillions of geeky six-year-old boys out there who will be happy in another ten or fifteen years that you brought your daughter up to take an interest in things in the world around her.
Wow... nice link. It should be noted that most of the top contributors are from labor unions to Democrats, although there appear to be far more corporations making smaller donations to Republicans.
You know though, the thing that scares me most about that list, is the companies or organizations that are listed as "on the fence". Those are the companies that don't really care who is in power - they are hedging their bets to ensure that they can get the support of whoever ends up winning.
Howard Berman, D-CA.
In other words, it works on both sides of the aisle. In fact, it's hard to tell when the last administration was that wasn't either corrupt or inept.
Then again, we can make use of the legislative process to change how our nation works. That's the beauty of the United States, though it can be hard to see that beauty sometimes for all the corporations in the way.
Obviously - because it's not censorship if you willingly submit to the rules for that particular forum.... which registrants to the kids.us domain would be.
And in case you're worried about the censorship aspect on the viewing kids audience, well, people don't have a constitutional right to hear or see whatever they want, only to say it. (But don't spray it. That would be vandalism.)
To understand why there are striking similarities between any animals, it's easy enough to get lower level than number of eyes or ears or limbs. Just look at the sorts of neurotransmitters used in the nervous system, for example, or the hormones that control fetal development. Many of these chemicals are the same for humans as in pretty much any animal - you have to go as far as the split between mammals and reptiles/amphibians/etc. before any real biochemical differences start appearing, and still the basic biochemical principles are the same.
:)
But yes - it's really not astounding at all that there would be genetic similarities between any mammals. Personally, I find it interesting that multicellular life exists at all
Too funny :)
But.... considering the content of one of the easter eggs on the FotR special edition discs, I don't wanna know where your ring is.... *grin*
Well, as the head of the Executive Branch of government (with pardon powers and all that), one might say that the President can and should have a role in prosecutions. Generally, however, almost all of those duties (with the exception of pardons) are delegated to DoJ.
BTW - If GWB actually told Ashcroft to drop the case, and substantiated word got out about that, I'm sure you wouldn't have to look for the reference to it. Also, it's possible for GWB to take such an action even with no "money for thing" taking place. A person doesn't have to be "bought" in order to make a decision that is not in the best interest of the public.
You know, the whole concept behind Passport isn't far off from the purported usefulness of the "adult verification services": you pay them a LOW LOW monthly fee and supposedly get access to thousands of online porn sites.
It's good to know that Bill still surfs for pr0n every now and then.
I can log into my services securely too, and know only one password. It's quite easy.
:P
Set all of your passwords to be the same.
The only reason that Passport is useful is because it tries to dip its finger into a lot of pies at the same time. The end result is that corporations find out a lot more about your surfing/buying/playing habits than they otherwise would. In other words, it's *not* useful to the end user - it's useful to the service providers.
Just because something is a quote doesn't mean that the quote is proclaiming the virtues of the thing mentioned.
If, during the transients between patch and hack, cheating tools are made broken, that's good enough for me. Just keep those transients coming.
Your second and third categories of ShowEQ use most definitely unbalance the game toward people who use ShowEQ. It violates the spirit of the game (read: is cheating). I don't understand how making a semantic argument about whether EQ is a game or a social venue has anything to do with whether using ShowEQ is cheating or not.
Simply put, Verant/SOE defined the rules of the game, and among those rules was "no third-party programs". People who can't fit within those rules, but choose to play anyway, are cheating, to the detriment of everyone else who plays by the rules.
As an aside: you can get maps by using UI mods. Granted, they aren't interactive, but they're still maps, and by using your brain you can figure out where you are.
The main concern that non-ShowEQ users have about the program, anonymous friend, is that the program allows you to find the locations of certain (very rare) creatures without the normal in-game methods of finding them (i.e., using the Track ability or just wandering around until you find them). Among other uses for this are things like knowing exactly when the iron oxide ground spawns in Steamfont have popped.
/loc and a little bit of personal skill. I'd even suggest that for some things (like pharming low-level tradeskill components such as spiderling silks and cat pelts), using ShowEQ (or Track for that matter) slows down your rate of return versus running around and killing stuff as you see it.
The end result is that a non-ShowEQ player has no chance to compete against someone using the program for this purpose.
Honestly, the uses you've mentioned in your post (mapping/GPS) are not objectionable to me at all, since I can get most of the same information by referring to various sites (EQAtlas, EQMaps) and by using
Still, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's better to draw it as conservatively as possible, so that no sticky questions arise when players are banned for the use of other forbidden third-party utilities (like macroing tools, which I simply *cannot stand*). Since ShowEQ does indeed have functionality which allows one player to make the game more difficult for those who play the game normally, it would have to go on the "bannable" side of that line. Sorry.