One problem that "artists" usually have is that the graphics look excellent while the gameplay sucks donkey balls because they have no technical ability whatsoever. But I don't know what happened in this case.
Yeah I had similar issues back then. I think part of the problem is that it wasn't developed for any game in particular so it ends up being a way for the devs to vent their "artistic" streak so to say.
Faraday had an intuitive grasp on how things worked. He came up with things like the field line visual representation for magnetic fields. What he did not have was the theoretical mathematics background to analyze the problem.
Having a theory does not make it more real. Faraday was busily inventing dynamos and electric engines before Maxwell ever came up with EM Theory.
What the theory does is make it easier to reproduce and provides you with the tools to design something and know what will happen without actually building something.
The theories are fine. It's their feelings of infallibility and, much worse, of trying to push inane policies on us based on this trite that I cannot accept.
Yes 'eventually' you get it published allright. Just not in the publishing forums controlled by the incumbents. Which may be the ones that have the highest probability of being read and quoted.
If have the following comments to make regarding this. The climate has changed all along regardless of human activity on this planet. There are colder periods and warmer periods. There are ice ages and there are warm ages. Even if the human population had an irrelevant presence in the planet. Presently CO2 levels are increasing somewhat. Some people think this will have some kind of catastrophic effect on global temperature which I think is patent bullshit. Just do the math on the back of a napkin. The effect of CO2 on global temperature is marginal compared to solar radiation. Heck even H2O i.e. water has more of an effect especially concerning cloud albedo and things like that. CO2 is plant food and gets naturally absorbed back into the food chain as time passes.
There is plenty of evidence that increased CO2 levels increase both crop yields and decrease the desert area. So any talk about interfering with what is quite likely a good thing is patent nonsense even assuming we could do it. You would have to ask everyone to not just stop burning fossil fuels but also to stop breathing at the same time. 'Climate change' legislation and the Kyoto accords are patent bullshit. Even if, for whatever reason, you managed to eradicate a substantial amount of the human population to reduce the 'human' CO2 footprint nature would just replace humans with animals or other life which would exhale CO2 just the same. Lifeforms in this planet are carbon based for whatever reason and have been for millions of years before human climate 'science' came along with these bullshit ideas.
Actually I have a Computer Science degree and I have had AI and Computational Mathematics including theorem proving. I know a fair bit more about logic than the average person. Which is more than I can say for your pitiful rhetorical exercise which is completely devoid of any information whatsoever.
Your argument assumes that the current climate 'change' is harmful for humans. Those claims are patent bullshit. There is plenty of evidence that if the CO2 levels increased the world's deserts would recede and the habitable area would actually increase not shrink. Some people would need to move. So what. It would happen over hundreds and thousands of years.
Ask the people who got kicked out or got sick of the establishment because of this how they feel. More than one has left already. I'm sick and tired of these pseudo-arguments.
You people cannot convince us because your arguments are not convincing. Period.
I'm a scientist in a different field and I publish articles. If you don't think people's opinions on what's important can't sometimes border on the religious level and articles get rejected, even if well grounded and relevant, just because they don't promote the prevailing party line and quote them to increase their h-index you got another thing coming.
As someone once said science advances one funeral at a time.
The thing is CO2 is not a pollutant. It's not a pollutant any more than O2 or H2O. Money spent to curb 'emissions' of CO2 is money not spent elsewhere to curb actually problematic emissions like NOx or CO.
Slashdot Mirror
One problem that "artists" usually have is that the graphics look excellent while the gameplay sucks donkey balls because they have no technical ability whatsoever. But I don't know what happened in this case.
It's just easier to use 2D vector art to do the same job. Vector art also supports gradients if you want. At least some engines do.
What I suspect however is that he is going to miss the bandwagon *again* and will be jumping to 2D vector while everyone else will be jumping to 3D.
This kind of 'American Exceptionalism' just keeps sounding to me like a permanent excuse for being lazy and doing a whole bunch of nothing.
It is the Repubtard version of Niggaz shouldn't 'act white' and work and study hard.
I see. Beaten Wife Syndrome. Or Stockholm Syndrome.
He meant the US Red Cross not the British one.
Yeah I had similar issues back then. I think part of the problem is that it wasn't developed for any game in particular so it ends up being a way for the devs to vent their "artistic" streak so to say.
Yeah. I was kind of surprised when I saw it wasn't mdsolar as usual.
Faraday had an intuitive grasp on how things worked. He came up with things like the field line visual representation for magnetic fields. What he did not have was the theoretical mathematics background to analyze the problem.
Having a theory does not make it more real. Faraday was busily inventing dynamos and electric engines before Maxwell ever came up with EM Theory.
What the theory does is make it easier to reproduce and provides you with the tools to design something and know what will happen without actually building something.
How about Minecraft? It was a shitty game which used its own engine as well.
AAA is overrated.
Dude. White did the best he could with the money he had. Not everyone has the facilities to conduct those kinds of tests.
It's not just the Sahara. The Gobi also was more green back when CO2 was higher.
If the atmosphere did not have any CO2 humans couldn't live on this ball of dirt. That's how important it is.
Do you know when that much CO2 was in the atmsosphere? Thought not. Big clue: shortly afterwards, the first plants colonised the land.
Bullshit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
More megafauna than you shake a stick at.
The theories are fine. It's their feelings of infallibility and, much worse, of trying to push inane policies on us based on this trite that I cannot accept.
Pollution has nothing to do with CO2 mitigation or climate change.
I'm in favor of decreasing pollution but *not* CO2.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
*snore*
And this is not a 'conspiracy' like some retards claim. Its just human nature.
Yes 'eventually' you get it published allright. Just not in the publishing forums controlled by the incumbents. Which may be the ones that have the highest probability of being read and quoted.
If have the following comments to make regarding this. The climate has changed all along regardless of human activity on this planet. There are colder periods and warmer periods. There are ice ages and there are warm ages. Even if the human population had an irrelevant presence in the planet. Presently CO2 levels are increasing somewhat. Some people think this will have some kind of catastrophic effect on global temperature which I think is patent bullshit. Just do the math on the back of a napkin. The effect of CO2 on global temperature is marginal compared to solar radiation. Heck even H2O i.e. water has more of an effect especially concerning cloud albedo and things like that. CO2 is plant food and gets naturally absorbed back into the food chain as time passes.
There is plenty of evidence that increased CO2 levels increase both crop yields and decrease the desert area. So any talk about interfering with what is quite likely a good thing is patent nonsense even assuming we could do it. You would have to ask everyone to not just stop burning fossil fuels but also to stop breathing at the same time. 'Climate change' legislation and the Kyoto accords are patent bullshit. Even if, for whatever reason, you managed to eradicate a substantial amount of the human population to reduce the 'human' CO2 footprint nature would just replace humans with animals or other life which would exhale CO2 just the same. Lifeforms in this planet are carbon based for whatever reason and have been for millions of years before human climate 'science' came along with these bullshit ideas.
Actually I have a Computer Science degree and I have had AI and Computational Mathematics including theorem proving. I know a fair bit more about logic than the average person. Which is more than I can say for your pitiful rhetorical exercise which is completely devoid of any information whatsoever.
Your argument assumes that the current climate 'change' is harmful for humans. Those claims are patent bullshit. There is plenty of evidence that if the CO2 levels increased the world's deserts would recede and the habitable area would actually increase not shrink. Some people would need to move. So what. It would happen over hundreds and thousands of years.
Ask the people who got kicked out or got sick of the establishment because of this how they feel. More than one has left already. I'm sick and tired of these pseudo-arguments.
You people cannot convince us because your arguments are not convincing. Period.
I'm a scientist in a different field and I publish articles. If you don't think people's opinions on what's important can't sometimes border on the religious level and articles get rejected, even if well grounded and relevant, just because they don't promote the prevailing party line and quote them to increase their h-index you got another thing coming.
As someone once said science advances one funeral at a time.
The thing is CO2 is not a pollutant. It's not a pollutant any more than O2 or H2O. Money spent to curb 'emissions' of CO2 is money not spent elsewhere to curb actually problematic emissions like NOx or CO.
If you are a skeptic you won't get published easily and if you don't get published you don't get state funding. Simple as that.