I was wondering this myself. I am a software engineer and am half-way through a master's degree that includes lots of graphics and artificial intelligence courses. I would like to spend at least a few years developing games but I would never work more than 40 hours a week (unless approaching a reasonable deadline when our project is already behind schedule).
I would imagine that, if so many of these companies enjoy crapping on highly-skilled graphics, AI, and physics software engineers (as well as artists, modelers and animators) that these people could just quit and start their own firms. It probably is not hard to organize enough people at EA if the environment is really that bad.
What barriers exist that prohibit developers and artists from forming their own game studios?
Spam is not equivalent to rape. Rape - like all violent crimes - should be punished much more harshly.
While I agree that these spammers should lose freedoms, I don't think prison is appropriate. There has to be a way to severely limit a person's freedom and force them to work for the community for a specified time.
I can imagine many productive things these people could do to help their communities. Restitution for these people needs to be provided by their own labor and not their bank accounts.
There is nothing odd about it. People resisted the Civil Rights movement with an appeal to their moral values. The emancipation of slaves was resisted out of an appeal to moral values. Chief Justice Taney acted out of his sense of moral value in the Dred Scott decision.
I believe there are two kinds of morals. Irrational and Rational. Irrational morals can be born from disparate sources such as religion and hate. There is nothing intrinsically wrong the concept of them other than the fact that they are not defendable. Rational morals are those that are derived from reason and discourse. We can argue about them and make informed policy decisions based upon them.
This is not to say that there is something wrong with religious values or that they are inferior. The problem is that we cannot govern our society based upon them. They cannot be defended. Not one person has made a reasonable argument for the restriction of gay marriage. They ramble about historical definitions and sanctity.
We are supposed to live in an open society where our laws are normative. We decide upon the laws and standards of our society based upon reason. They are not imposed upon us from the sky or from religion. The harm caused by this administration is that they are willfully eroding the openness of our society for political gain. It is reprehensible.
Kerry's concession does not mean anything outside of public relations. If somehow, these machines screwed up that badly and it is shown that Kerry did indeed win, then he would be sworn in as the next president. The weird scenario is if Bush is sworn in and afterwards it is discovered that Kerry won. What then? I don't think our founding Fathers could have forseen such a foolish idea as auditless, paper-voteless electronic voting machines...
How do you figure? I could imagine many scenarios where these machines incorrectly recorded votes. It could go either way. The point I was making is that if you really want to effectively investigate these machines, then you will have to accept the possibility that you could discover Bush's re-election is illegitimate.
I am sorry. I misread the quotation and must correct the number to roughly 18 million -- which is still roughly 1/3 of the people voting for Bush. How many of those hold homophobic values is anybody's guess.
The fact remains that was enough to tip the popular vote in his favor.
Apparently, you have not grasped the magnitude of this election.
More than half the country voted for a candidate who most of the other voters consider one of the worst presidents in our lifetimes. Furthermore, it seems a sizeable number of those Bush voters voted for him because of their "values". Like the value to hate gays and amend the constitution to actually REMOVE civil rights. When have we ever gone backwards on civil rights?
I don't blame people at all for wanting to leave. I wish to stay and fight but you have to admit the future is not looking very bright for open society in the U.S.
Even if it is proven that Kerry one Ohio or Florida, we still have to face the fact that a majority of the people of this country are diametrically opposed to the principles of the open society. Frankly, this scares this shit out me.
That is well and good but if at least thirty more machines in Ohio failed as this one did, then the statement: "The election was wrong" is true. And if you want to truly investigate these machines, then you cannot rule out the possibility that more of these machines failed in exactly the same way (or even worse). Therefore, in order to objectively investigate these machines, you must accept the possibility that Kerry did indeed win Ohio and Bush's re-election is illegitimate.
Here is an update.. I discovered that Nader is indeed a valid write-in candidate here in Illinois but the polling station did not receive the "list" of valid candidates before I arrived to vote.
I do not have the ability to go back to the polling station today because of work and graduate school obligations so I decided to just submit my balot in a way that the balot would be "signed" so that I could at least vote. Therefore, I can no longer spoil my balot and vote for the person I intended.
This system is so crooked.
I tried to write-in a vote for Nader in Illinois and was told by my precinct captain that my balot would not be "signed" and counted.
Apparantly, we actually do not have the right to vote for whomever we choose. It is actually up to the states to decide for whom we are allowed to vote.
It really sucks to be told for whom you are allowed to vote.
It is the glacers that are melting on Greenland and other land masses that worries people. If all of the water currently frozen on land were to melt then yes, we would certainly notice it.
Nobody claimed that because squids are farther north, then it must be because of rising CO2 levels.
The point was that one of the three hypotheses about why the CO2 levels recorded in Hawaii was rising sea temperatures. If this hypothesis were true, then there must be some testable predictions. I don't think anybody needs to argue that if sea temperatures rise, then warm-water species can migrate to areas previously too cold to sustain them.
The point is that there is could be an interesting connection. Don't discredit suggestions merely because they don't fall in line with your political agenda. That is junk science.
This was just an observation that may or may not corroborate a hypothesis explaining another anomalous observation. If you want to discredit it, then prove that there must be some other reason that the squid are now being observed where we would not have expected to observe them. Or, you could prove that rising sea temperatures could not have caused the rise in CO2 levels. That is how you discredit something in science.
The U.S. does not have a national registry of citizens like other countries making that unfeasible. It probably won't happen because of problems like illegal immigrants and the lack of consensus on what rights they actually have.
Therefore, the government would have to surmount a lot of bullshit in order to determine who can vote and who cannot. Whenever the government does make a determination about who can vote and who cannot, there is invariably a huge battle. Furthermore, it would worry me that our current administration could make such decisions.
Thus, I think it is better that people should be responsible for arranging their own voting registration (it really is not difficult).
I mean, can you imagine what would happen if the federal government (either the executive or legislative branches) began pre-emptively deciding who can vote and who cannot?
From a mathematical point of view, the prefix notation represented by a function with arguments makes much more sense than the infix notation represented by operator overloading.
Operator overloading only makes sense in a small number of cases where the class you are developing only provides binary and unary operations. There are many more cases where a function should be tertiary or more. In these cases, you have to abandon operator overloading and use the same functional notation anyway. Also, sometimes operator overloading doesn't even make sense. E.g. How do I overload the * operator for vectors?
In the end, when developing a library like that using operator overloading is going to have to use inconsistent representation for operations - which is just ugly - imo.
I am just curious about this but is it possible to incrementally change a substantial amount of code in such a way that the functionality is maintained (or perhaps modified or enhanced) but that after some number of iterative changes, Comparitor and SIM would not find a match?
It seems to me that the argument made would be invalidated if somebody could take the same files identified by SCO, and adapt them such that the two tools used in his analysis do not identify any significant similarities.
Further, if we are talking about sets of c files that are not identical - or nearly identical - at what point do we say that one set is just too disimilar to the other to indicate an adaptation? What I find interesting about this is that it seems intuitive that given two programs that perform the display similar behavior, it should be possible to reduce one program's code to the other program's code. If this is so, just where do we draw the line?
Karl Popper had an interesting take on this. I read a book once called Conjectures and Refutations
where Popper argues that a true scientists begins with a conjecture which explains some unknown process or phenomenon. For this conjecture to possess any value, it must be capable of producing falsifiable predictions. Thus, he dismissed characters such as Freud and Marx.
In this article, the conjecture made indeed makes very risky conjectures. If humans from polynesia, melonesia, or micronesia reached North America first, there should be evidence in the dna and carbon dating of human remains somewhere. I believe there are some very distinct genetic traits in these peoples that will certainly differentiate their remains from the remains of other peoples.
The researchers in question claim to have such evidence. If these claims hold true, then they not only corroborate the conjecture but also shatter the factual foundations of the older theory (that modern native americans arrived first).
If anybody is truly interested in the validity of the scientific process may gain a great deal of insight by reading that book - even if you don't necessarily agree with its thesis.
Err, I think the prisoner's delema describes the opposite effect. If the prisoner's were vulcans, then they could depend on each other to act rationally. They take rationality to the point of utilitarianism. Thus, it would be safe to assume, the vulcan prisoners will act in the best interest of their group and would therefore achieve the best possible scenario of the prisoner's delima.
If, on the other hand, the prisoner's acted on emotion, then they all could not depend on each other's decisions since unrational decisions are not as predictive as rational decisions. Therefore, there is a much higher likelyhood that each prisoner would conclude that they should look out for themselves since there is no way to determine what decision the other prisoners will make. Therefore, they would most-likely not achieve the best scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering this myself. I am a software engineer and am half-way through a master's degree that includes lots of graphics and artificial intelligence courses. I would like to spend at least a few years developing games but I would never work more than 40 hours a week (unless approaching a reasonable deadline when our project is already behind schedule).
I would imagine that, if so many of these companies enjoy crapping on highly-skilled graphics, AI, and physics software engineers (as well as artists, modelers and animators) that these people could just quit and start their own firms. It probably is not hard to organize enough people at EA if the environment is really that bad.
What barriers exist that prohibit developers and artists from forming their own game studios?
While I agree that these spammers should lose freedoms, I don't think prison is appropriate. There has to be a way to severely limit a person's freedom and force them to work for the community for a specified time.
I can imagine many productive things these people could do to help their communities. Restitution for these people needs to be provided by their own labor and not their bank accounts.
Do you actually think your state congress-people are reading your letters?
Remove your tin foil cap before you start throwing around these overused and tired cliches.
When I submitted the article, the title was: "Bush Continues to Oppose Kyoto Treaty".
For what it is worth, I agree with you...
There is nothing odd about it. People resisted the Civil Rights movement with an appeal to their moral values. The emancipation of slaves was resisted out of an appeal to moral values. Chief Justice Taney acted out of his sense of moral value in the Dred Scott decision.
I believe there are two kinds of morals. Irrational and Rational. Irrational morals can be born from disparate sources such as religion and hate. There is nothing intrinsically wrong the concept of them other than the fact that they are not defendable. Rational morals are those that are derived from reason and discourse. We can argue about them and make informed policy decisions based upon them.
This is not to say that there is something wrong with religious values or that they are inferior. The problem is that we cannot govern our society based upon them. They cannot be defended. Not one person has made a reasonable argument for the restriction of gay marriage. They ramble about historical definitions and sanctity.
We are supposed to live in an open society where our laws are normative. We decide upon the laws and standards of our society based upon reason. They are not imposed upon us from the sky or from religion. The harm caused by this administration is that they are willfully eroding the openness of our society for political gain. It is reprehensible.
Kerry's concession does not mean anything outside of public relations. If somehow, these machines screwed up that badly and it is shown that Kerry did indeed win, then he would be sworn in as the next president. The weird scenario is if Bush is sworn in and afterwards it is discovered that Kerry won. What then? I don't think our founding Fathers could have forseen such a foolish idea as auditless, paper-voteless electronic voting machines...
How do you figure? I could imagine many scenarios where these machines incorrectly recorded votes. It could go either way. The point I was making is that if you really want to effectively investigate these machines, then you will have to accept the possibility that you could discover Bush's re-election is illegitimate.
I am sorry. I misread the quotation and must correct the number to roughly 18 million -- which is still roughly 1/3 of the people voting for Bush. How many of those hold homophobic values is anybody's guess.
The fact remains that was enough to tip the popular vote in his favor.
It's hardly as if 50 million of your neighbors are bible-thumping mindless bigots
I never claimed all 50 million of them were bigots but since you brought it up:
approximately "one-fifth of voters who pointed to 'moral values' as their prime concern, 79 percent of them voted for George Bush." - bpnews
That is at least 39 million of them.
Apparently, you have not grasped the magnitude of this election.
More than half the country voted for a candidate who most of the other voters consider one of the worst presidents in our lifetimes. Furthermore, it seems a sizeable number of those Bush voters voted for him because of their "values". Like the value to hate gays and amend the constitution to actually REMOVE civil rights. When have we ever gone backwards on civil rights?
I don't blame people at all for wanting to leave. I wish to stay and fight but you have to admit the future is not looking very bright for open society in the U.S.
Even if it is proven that Kerry one Ohio or Florida, we still have to face the fact that a majority of the people of this country are diametrically opposed to the principles of the open society. Frankly, this scares this shit out me.
That is well and good but if at least thirty more machines in Ohio failed as this one did, then the statement: "The election was wrong" is true. And if you want to truly investigate these machines, then you cannot rule out the possibility that more of these machines failed in exactly the same way (or even worse). Therefore, in order to objectively investigate these machines, you must accept the possibility that Kerry did indeed win Ohio and Bush's re-election is illegitimate.
Here is an update.. I discovered that Nader is indeed a valid write-in candidate here in Illinois but the polling station did not receive the "list" of valid candidates before I arrived to vote.
I do not have the ability to go back to the polling station today because of work and graduate school obligations so I decided to just submit my balot in a way that the balot would be "signed" so that I could at least vote. Therefore, I can no longer spoil my balot and vote for the person I intended.
This system is so crooked.
I tried to write-in a vote for Nader in Illinois and was told by my precinct captain that my balot would not be "signed" and counted.
Apparantly, we actually do not have the right to vote for whomever we choose. It is actually up to the states to decide for whom we are allowed to vote.
It really sucks to be told for whom you are allowed to vote.
Politics = politics (but for some people, poltics = religion)
Unfortunately, two of those people happen to be Kerry and Bush.
You also forgot about my favorite combination: law + religion!
It is the glacers that are melting on Greenland and other land masses that worries people. If all of the water currently frozen on land were to melt then yes, we would certainly notice it.
The point was that one of the three hypotheses about why the CO2 levels recorded in Hawaii was rising sea temperatures. If this hypothesis were true, then there must be some testable predictions. I don't think anybody needs to argue that if sea temperatures rise, then warm-water species can migrate to areas previously too cold to sustain them.
The point is that there is could be an interesting connection. Don't discredit suggestions merely because they don't fall in line with your political agenda. That is junk science.
This was just an observation that may or may not corroborate a hypothesis explaining another anomalous observation. If you want to discredit it, then prove that there must be some other reason that the squid are now being observed where we would not have expected to observe them. Or, you could prove that rising sea temperatures could not have caused the rise in CO2 levels. That is how you discredit something in science.
How can Cheney be Darth Vader? There is only one Darth Nader...
Therefore, the government would have to surmount a lot of bullshit in order to determine who can vote and who cannot. Whenever the government does make a determination about who can vote and who cannot, there is invariably a huge battle. Furthermore, it would worry me that our current administration could make such decisions.
Thus, I think it is better that people should be responsible for arranging their own voting registration (it really is not difficult).
I mean, can you imagine what would happen if the federal government (either the executive or legislative branches) began pre-emptively deciding who can vote and who cannot?
Sounds like a cubs game.
From a mathematical point of view, the prefix notation represented by a function with arguments makes much more sense than the infix notation represented by operator overloading.
Operator overloading only makes sense in a small number of cases where the class you are developing only provides binary and unary operations. There are many more cases where a function should be tertiary or more. In these cases, you have to abandon operator overloading and use the same functional notation anyway. Also, sometimes operator overloading doesn't even make sense. E.g. How do I overload the * operator for vectors?
In the end, when developing a library like that using operator overloading is going to have to use inconsistent representation for operations - which is just ugly - imo.
I am just curious about this but is it possible to incrementally change a substantial amount of code in such a way that the functionality is maintained (or perhaps modified or enhanced) but that after some number of iterative changes, Comparitor and SIM would not find a match?
It seems to me that the argument made would be invalidated if somebody could take the same files identified by SCO, and adapt them such that the two tools used in his analysis do not identify any significant similarities.
Further, if we are talking about sets of c files that are not identical - or nearly identical - at what point do we say that one set is just too disimilar to the other to indicate an adaptation? What I find interesting about this is that it seems intuitive that given two programs that perform the display similar behavior, it should be possible to reduce one program's code to the other program's code. If this is so, just where do we draw the line?
Tell that to the victims of the previous attempt at a space elevator. That is what everybody is imagining.
In this article, the conjecture made indeed makes very risky conjectures. If humans from polynesia, melonesia, or micronesia reached North America first, there should be evidence in the dna and carbon dating of human remains somewhere. I believe there are some very distinct genetic traits in these peoples that will certainly differentiate their remains from the remains of other peoples.
The researchers in question claim to have such evidence. If these claims hold true, then they not only corroborate the conjecture but also shatter the factual foundations of the older theory (that modern native americans arrived first). If anybody is truly interested in the validity of the scientific process may gain a great deal of insight by reading that book - even if you don't necessarily agree with its thesis.
If, on the other hand, the prisoner's acted on emotion, then they all could not depend on each other's decisions since unrational decisions are not as predictive as rational decisions. Therefore, there is a much higher likelyhood that each prisoner would conclude that they should look out for themselves since there is no way to determine what decision the other prisoners will make. Therefore, they would most-likely not achieve the best scenario.
ChiralSoftware: How mandatory ID even prevent terrorist attacks is also not clear to me; all the 9/11 hijackers had valid government-issued ID.
Devil's Advocate: If the 9/11 terrorists did not use their valid IDs, how would we have even known who they were?