> You, me, everyone has a right to profit from their labors.
It's *not* "profit"... it's an exchange or barter, whether it is good or services of perceived value.
Who owns your time? Your experience or skills?
You give UP those two in order to RECEIVE money. That's all money. An extremely convient way of trading those two.
To me, that's not profit, thats a TRADE, specificaly, a contract.
Now whether anyone has the right to be a third party to that contract is an entirely different matter.
-- The fallacy of government is that it assumes everyone needs to be told how to live, but the fact remains it is unconstituational to homogenize community by its own standards. When it passes more laws until it makes everyone a criminal it has made the mistake of placing the intent on the "Letter of the Law" over the "Spirit of the Law." "The more corrupt the republic, the more numerious the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55 ALL civilizations eventualy collapse. Are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?
In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.
"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
All LAW is CONTRACT. (Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. They will very grudgingly admit it, because "Might does not make Right.")
Furthermore, I *know* it is a right, because I drive without a driver's license and have never gotten a ticket for "driving without a license" the few times I have been pulled over.
Lastly, where do you think the government gets it privileges from?? Does the government create people, or do people create the government?
> you have no right to make it even more risky by driving too fast.
Correct, freedom doesn't mean you have the right to be irresponsible!
-- I'm not the first to say "The fallacy of Science is that it rejects the Truth of the Subjective, but yet it relies on the Subjective to reach the Objective!" Others have said it too... "I'm criticizing the notion that there is any single special method that all scientists use, which would warrant the label "the scientific method."
TV's do as well. Fortunately I don't have to mod my Plasma to find the hidden menu - just hold down a button.:)
avsforum is the place to find out about the goodies menus on audio/video equipment.
-- I'm not the first to say "The fallacy of Science is that it rejects the Truth of the Subjective, but yet it relies on the Subjective to reach the Objective!" Others have said it too... "I'm criticizing the notion that there is any single special method that all scientists use, which would warrant the label "the scientific method." Dispelling Some Common Myths about Science
> A right can only be granted to you by a sovern governmental entity, or God.
Where do you think the government got the rights in the *FIRST* place?
Let me ask you this, to help illustrate my point...
Does government create people, or do people create the government?
-- So when 2 buildings in America blow up, that's called Terrorism. But when America genocides a nation, its your patriotic duty to kill others and Win the War.
You have summarized quite nicely the whole point of Limited Liability - a natural person wants to reap the benefits of business, but wants to limit the liability that can be placed on him, so they divert it to an artificial entity.
Corporations are a modern invention, but Trusts have been around for thousands of years, but yet they haven't been abused to the same degree as corporations. Go Figure.
> Also - does anyone know anybody who completed all the licensing tests?
I just have all the S licence left to get, so I am getting there.
When I first got the game I worked at getting gold in all the B license tests (free Mazda Miata!) which helped emmensly, since the extra cash can be put into upgrading it.
The GT3 "Official Perfect Guide" Book is VERY good - it has maps of all the tracks, plus tips for each license test
Check GameFaqs, or point us to where we can reach you, if you need specific help.
Peace -- Only the fool condemns what he doesn't understand. I know, because I was once the fool who did exactly that. Even if I don't agree, I'll listen, because to do any less would mean I'm the ignorant fool again.
Good to see Garriot learning about game design, and admitting it.
"Dramatic Compression" is otherwise known as "dead-time." If the player is bored, then your game is missing the elements of fun.
i.e. Why is the player bored ?
Paraphrasing Sid Meir "You want to present the player with interesting choices - problems and offer solutions - none which are the only correct answer, as they work towards the over-riding goals."
It's interesting to note that card & board games typically don't have dead-time.
Movies have learnt this ages ago -- keep the story moving. Of course that doesn't mean you can't have slow buildups, or build the tension, but if the tension it is never resolved, you just don't feel right. People want completion. That's why games have goals. The devil is in the details as they say -- How you get there is just as important as the goal itself.
-- So when America has 2 buildings bombed, that's called Terrorism. But when America genocides another nation, that's called ending the War?! Are morals Relative? Absolute? Both? Neither?!
I am of mixed opinions on this... Sci-Fi tradionally doesn't do as well (gameplay-wise, financially, etc) as historical / social settings (i.e.Age of Empires, Sims, etc), because of the lack of familiarity and ability to relate to the material. i.e. techno-babble.
Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, and the game will be a lot of fun.
Can anyone comment on the strengths and weaknesses of KOTOR ?
> opengl, is the standard that runs gamecube, ps2,
NO, OpenGL it is NOT the standard on ps2. Yes, there was a ps2gl, but that was unofficial, and no one would ever use it in a game, since fundamental features will *never* be natively supported in hardware on the PS2 - i.e. *SLOW* as molasses. (Lack of Stencil is one, allthough there are some pretty cool tricks/hacks to fake it, but then you break the OpenGL paradigm.) The only way to get maximum performance out of the VU's is to optimize for the hardware, not for some abstract layout.
> Direct3D has more features, because they don't follow an industry standard
D3D *is* the industry standard. Each new version shows what the new standard is.
Microsoft used to let the hardware vendors drive the versioning more, even when things are half-baked so you have all sort of crap like D3D ver 3. Forunately Microsoft has standardized on keeping the good ideas, so the process is less ad-hoc like it was in the early days.
OpenGL on the other hand, was built on a foundation that already *worked* (IrisGL), and was well thought (future revision was built-in), so it had less need to change. Unfortunately the ARB has failed to raise the priority and pursue development of new features.
DX won a long time ago (around ver 6) for game development.
And we (the devlopers) let it.
Fortunately nVidia, Mac, Linux, and id are keeping it on life support.
> In the practical, you are correct. Thinking philosophically though, the poster previous to you has a point.
So how does one resolve this paradox?
> From a philosophical perspective, even if you drop a stone a million times, and it falls, with acceleration close to that of gravity, every single time, this is not absolute proof that the stone will always do so.
Correct. Science is about probability. i.e. What is the most probable outcome? Now science has learnt that the observer *does* change the outcome. So what does this tell us about the universe, and about ourselves?
> The problem with the parent posters position is that with this definition of "know" there is, and can be no knowledge, with possible exception for mathemathics.
Let me use an example to illustrate my point, that this position is incomplete, and that Belief is not the same as Knowing; it is a subset.
When you were young, someone probably told you "Don't touch that, it's hot." But what happened? You didn't know what "hot" was, and didn't beleive them, so you touched it, and got burnt. Now you *KNOW* what hot is. The same goes for any emotion. You can try to describe it all you want and belief whatever you want, but you will never *know* what it is, until you have experienced it.
> Science does not seek truth. You misunderstand science.
What are facts then? What are natural Laws?
If I objectively demonstrate that gravity exists, and can show it's effects, have I not established the truth of gravity? Sure, I may not be able to explain how it functions, but I am on the road to being able to explain it.
> Science can ONLY tell you what is wrong.
I would say that it can show you where your knowledge is incomplete.
> It is a process, the Scientific Method, for refining your belief about the world.
Not only your belief, but what you *know*.
The difference between Science and Religion is that in the first, the process is external, with the latter being internal.
> Science is a religion only in that it is the opposite of religion > in a religion, your belief is supposed to stay the same regardless ("faith").
As I said, I think that's a pretty narrow view of religion.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that ALL religion is blinded by unchangeable doctrine, but not all religions behave that way. In fact, some show that you *can't* cling to dogma. Does that mean you chuck out all Absolute Truth? I didn't say you did. One starts to see that Truth is not only Absolute, but also Relative.
My beliefs change over time -- because I now understand something that I wasn't able to before. This mental development is analogous to school. A 1-year old can't do calculas, they first need to learn the basics of math: Addition, Subtraction, etc. As they progress, they are able to work at a higher abstract level.
Belief and Faith are *not* the same thing. First is Belief, then Faith, which leads to Action, and finally produces Knowledge. e.g. We can't see physically anything smaller then an electron, by un-aided means. Yet someone had a belief that we could. He then had Faith that someday he would be able to by developing the microscope, which lead to inventing the electron microscope; men acted on their faith. And finaly by observing, he was able to gain further knowledge of how the physical universe behaves/functions and is constructed.
If you never act on your belief, that is all it is - just belief. If you prove something, but never do anything with it, what was the point?
> Scientists have to modify their belief systems constantly.
Why? Because they learn new knowledge - Truth.
The same is true in a pure religious perspective. Religion is NOT about dogma, or doctrine; those are just a by-product. It's about a process of seeking the deeper meanings.
> It's also no accident that as more and more of the things we observe can be explained rationally, the importance of religion fades. >Essentially, religion is that which some people clutch to to explain what we cannot (yet anyway) explain rationally.
You have a very narrow view of what religion is.
Science is *just* as dogmatic as religion, and in fact, *is* a religion. Anything that seeks the Truth of how the universe works, and why, is "pure" religion. Just because Science does it objectively, does not negate the fact that one can also do it subjectively. There is knowledge outside the realm of Science that it will *never* know, but just because it can't know, doesn't imply that we can't know, and in fact I would argue, that we *can* know.
> i wonder how much coding issue there was for the mac version
Yeah, that's something I've wondered too... since Halo orginally started on a Mac. Then they ported it to PC, then finally to X-Box. Halo *was* in development for 7 years if I'm not mistaken, so it's hard to know (without having seen it.) how much of the codebase has (had) remained portable
Part of the problem of porting Halo over to the PC, is that the game was written to make use of X-Box specific features, such as loading to specific memory addresses, unified memory, etc., that just aren't available on a PC - so the codebase had to be reworked. The fact that the engine was written in C probably doesn't help either, since the game ended up emulating some basic C++ behaviour. Chris Butcher (lead on Halo 2, and was the rendering/simulation guy on Halo 1) has posted a few snippets about the codebase on one of the game alogrithms mailing list, so anyone interested in the Halo engine, should check those archives.
People complain about low frame rates usually forget that the rending code was written for a 640x480 screen doing multiple passes on a GeForce 3. Even on the X-Box, the game dips below 30 fps in some places, so it is no surpise that trying to run it at 1600x1200 on a PC is just begging to cry uncle.
I agree that CO-OP was a major selling point of the X-Box version, and is rather unfortunate that it is simply igored on PC -- but there is a reason for that: keep in mind that the co-op code wasn't designed to run over a network -- but running on 1 CPU where it is easy to keep everything in sync. Anyone who has worked on a multiplayer game knows what I'm talking about. Sure the game already supports multipler, but co-op wasn't designed to run over a network. To convert it over to a server/client modal is non-trivial. Gearbox does have a point that it would introduce a lot of bugs. Hopefully the user community will prove them wrong.
As a developer I know all to well that co-op is simply "excused" as not being worth it (development cost vs profit), compared to the single player game, or the multiplayer game. How many more sales are you going to get because your game supports co-op? Marketing keeps saying the numbers are still too low, so co-op is not made a priority:(
It's a problem with the industry in general - players WANT (co-op) multiplayer games, but there just aren't that many, because the industry priced themselves right ouf of the market, with dev costs. Doesn't mean it can't be done. Heck, even "bad" games, such as Guantlet Legends are a ton of fun with 4 players.
If you want more multiplayer games, buy those, and support the others less.
> but sorting algorithms can be O(n log n), like quicksort.
You forgot to say "comparision" based. Sorting can be done in O(n), ala Radix Sort, which can be adapted to sort floating-point numbers in O(n). i.e. Radix Sort Revisited by Pierre Terdiman
-- "I'd rather be idealistic, so people are inspired at what might be, Then be realisic and not have any hope of what could be."
Whether it is true or not remains to be seen (pardon the pun.) It would be great to get a confirmation on this photo:
Satellite Photo According to press materials supplied by Shamrock -- The Trinity Corporation, this satellite view shows Noah's Ark jutting out from the snow on Mt. Ararat. Image Courtesy of Digital Globe
It's no longer a matter of IF, but WHEN Martial Law will happen:
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/nightline_marti al law.htm
Koppel immediately launches into the key part of their script: "... aren't [we] left for at least the foreseeable future with some sort of martial law anyway? "
Duberstein agrees with Koppel, adding "You have to suspend rights."
And thus I disagree with your conclusion. How long will people put up with their rights being trampled? (Martial Law or not.)
But then why do so many people not recognize CN Tower as the 'worlds tallest building'? Because, so they say, CN Tower is not a building. Constructors and architects argue that a building is a frame structure made of walls and floors. Now CN Tower houses some occupied floors indeed, but most of the structure is no more than a concrete shaft housing elevators, and therefore it is not a building, one could argue. This is the reason why Jeff Herzer, and the Council on tall Buildings and Urban Habitat do not recognize CN Tower as the tallest 'building' in the world.
Peace -- "Necessity is the Mother of Invention, but Curiosity would be its Father."
> My take is that this "hierarchical mode" extension is the part covered by the patent.
Oh come on, the idea of using Rip-Maps have been around for *ages*... Check out Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice in C (2nd Edition) by James D. Foley, Andries van Dam, Steven K. Feiner, John F. Hughes
Slashdot Mirror
> You, me, everyone has a right to profit from their labors.
... it's an exchange or barter, whether it is good or services of perceived value.
It's *not* "profit"
Who owns your time?
Your experience or skills?
You give UP those two in order to RECEIVE money. That's all money. An extremely convient way of trading those two.
To me, that's not profit, thats a TRADE, specificaly, a contract.
Now whether anyone has the right to be a third party to that contract is an entirely different matter.
--
The fallacy of government is that it assumes everyone needs to be told how to live, but the fact remains it is unconstituational to homogenize community by its own standards. When it passes more laws until it makes everyone a criminal it has made the mistake of placing the intent on the "Letter of the Law" over the "Spirit of the Law."
"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerious the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55
ALL civilizations eventualy collapse. Are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?
Are you really that ignorant of the law?!
Right To Travel
Right to Travel: The Constitutional Case
Specifically
All LAW is CONTRACT. (Ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. They will very grudgingly admit it, because "Might does not make Right.")
Furthermore, I *know* it is a right, because I drive without a driver's license and have never gotten a ticket for "driving without a license" the few times I have been pulled over.
Lastly, where do you think the government gets it privileges from??
Does the government create people, or do people create the government?
> you have no right to make it even more risky by driving too fast.
Correct, freedom doesn't mean you have the right to be irresponsible!
--
I'm not the first to say "The fallacy of Science is that it rejects the Truth of the Subjective, but yet it relies on the Subjective to reach the Objective!"
Others have said it too... "I'm criticizing the notion that there is any single special method that all scientists use, which would warrant the label "the scientific method."
Dispelling Some Common Myths about Science
TV's do as well. Fortunately I don't have to mod my Plasma to find the hidden menu - just hold down a button. :)
avsforum is the place to find out about the goodies menus on audio/video equipment.
--
I'm not the first to say "The fallacy of Science is that it rejects the Truth of the Subjective, but yet it relies on the Subjective to reach the Objective!"
Others have said it too... "I'm criticizing the notion that there is any single special method that all scientists use, which would warrant the label "the scientific method."
Dispelling Some Common Myths about Science
LOL - only on /. can a person get moderated down for blocking certain domains.
:)
Mods, put down the crack pipe
> A right can only be granted to you by a sovern governmental entity, or God.
Where do you think the government got the rights in the *FIRST* place?
Let me ask you this, to help illustrate my point...
Does government create people, or do people create the government?
--
So when 2 buildings in America blow up, that's called Terrorism.
But when America genocides a nation, its your patriotic duty to kill others and Win the War.
Surprised that no one has mentioned 'smake'
Does anyone have a summary of the differences of all the various *makes?
Nice Post.
If I may add...
You have summarized quite nicely the whole point of Limited Liability - a natural person wants to reap the benefits of business, but wants to limit the liability that can be placed on him, so they divert it to an artificial entity.
Corporations are a modern invention, but Trusts have been around for thousands of years, but yet they haven't been abused to the same degree as corporations. Go Figure.
--
Mass Genecide in Canada - 19 *million* birds are to be killed
New avian flu strain hits Fraser Valley poultry farm
Funny how the virus respects the US-Canada border...
> If I FAIL one more freaking first post because it says "Waiting for ads.doubleclick.net..."
/ets/hosts
Dude, solve the problem permantently, by adding it to your hosts file
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
Located in
*nix:
Windows: %windir%\system32\drivers\tetc\
> Also - does anyone know anybody who completed all the licensing tests?
I just have all the S licence left to get, so I am getting there.
When I first got the game I worked at getting gold in all the B license tests (free Mazda Miata!) which helped emmensly, since the extra cash can be put into upgrading it.
The GT3 "Official Perfect Guide" Book is VERY good - it has maps of all the tracks, plus tips for each license test
Check GameFaqs, or point us to where we can reach you, if you need specific help.
Peace
--
Only the fool condemns what he doesn't understand.
I know, because I was once the fool who did exactly that.
Even if I don't agree, I'll listen, because to do any less would mean I'm the ignorant fool again.
> But dont hastle private joe bloggs about that man. Hes just doing his job, ...
Right! And so were the people operating the gas chambers...
Who needs personal responsbility when you can blame it on your superior!
--
So when someone else blows up Americian buildings, its called Terrorism
But when America genocides a nation, its called winning the war!?!?
Good to see Garriot learning about game design, and admitting it.
"Dramatic Compression" is otherwise known as "dead-time." If the player is bored, then your game is missing the elements of fun.
i.e. Why is the player bored ?
Paraphrasing Sid Meir "You want to present the player with interesting choices - problems and offer solutions - none which are the only correct answer, as they work towards the over-riding goals."
It's interesting to note that card & board games typically don't have dead-time.
Movies have learnt this ages ago -- keep the story moving. Of course that doesn't mean you can't have slow buildups, or build the tension, but if the tension it is never resolved, you just don't feel right. People want completion. That's why games have goals. The devil is in the details as they say -- How you get there is just as important as the goal itself.
--
So when America has 2 buildings bombed, that's called Terrorism.
But when America genocides another nation, that's called ending the War?!
Are morals Relative? Absolute? Both? Neither?!
I am of mixed opinions on this ... Sci-Fi tradionally doesn't do as well (gameplay-wise, financially, etc) as historical / social settings (i.e.Age of Empires, Sims, etc), because of the lack of familiarity and ability to relate to the material. i.e. techno-babble.
Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, and the game will be a lot of fun.
Can anyone comment on the strengths and weaknesses of KOTOR ?
> opengl, is the standard that runs gamecube, ps2,
NO, OpenGL it is NOT the standard on ps2. Yes, there was a ps2gl, but that was unofficial, and no one would ever use it in a game, since fundamental features will *never* be natively supported in hardware on the PS2 - i.e. *SLOW* as molasses. (Lack of Stencil is one, allthough there are some pretty cool tricks/hacks to fake it, but then you break the OpenGL paradigm.) The only way to get maximum performance out of the VU's is to optimize for the hardware, not for some abstract layout.
> Direct3D has more features, because they don't follow an industry standard
D3D *is* the industry standard. Each new version shows what the new standard is.
Microsoft used to let the hardware vendors drive the versioning more, even when things are half-baked so you have all sort of crap like D3D ver 3. Forunately Microsoft has standardized on keeping the good ideas, so the process is less ad-hoc like it was in the early days.
OpenGL on the other hand, was built on a foundation that already *worked* (IrisGL), and was well thought (future revision was built-in), so it had less need to change. Unfortunately the ARB has failed to raise the priority and pursue development of new features.
DX won a long time ago (around ver 6) for game development.
And we (the devlopers) let it.
Fortunately nVidia, Mac, Linux, and id are keeping it on life support.
> In the practical, you are correct. Thinking philosophically though, the poster previous to you has a point.
So how does one resolve this paradox?
> From a philosophical perspective, even if you drop a stone a million times, and it falls, with acceleration close to that of gravity, every single time, this is not absolute proof that the stone will always do so.
Correct. Science is about probability. i.e. What is the most probable outcome? Now science has learnt that the observer *does* change the outcome. So what does this tell us about the universe, and about ourselves?
> The problem with the parent posters position is that with this definition of "know" there is, and can be no knowledge, with possible exception for mathemathics.
Let me use an example to illustrate my point, that this position is incomplete, and that Belief is not the same as Knowing; it is a subset.
When you were young, someone probably told you "Don't touch that, it's hot." But what happened? You didn't know what "hot" was, and didn't beleive them, so you touched it, and got burnt. Now you *KNOW* what hot is. The same goes for any emotion. You can try to describe it all you want and belief whatever you want, but you will never *know* what it is, until you have experienced it.
Peace
> Science does not seek truth. You misunderstand science.
What are facts then? What are natural Laws?
If I objectively demonstrate that gravity exists, and can show it's effects, have I not established the truth of gravity? Sure, I may not be able to explain how it functions, but I am on the road to being able to explain it.
> Science can ONLY tell you what is wrong.
I would say that it can show you where your knowledge is incomplete.
> It is a process, the Scientific Method, for refining your belief about the world.
Not only your belief, but what you *know*.
The difference between Science and Religion is that in the first, the process is external, with the latter being internal.
> Science is a religion only in that it is the opposite of religion
> in a religion, your belief is supposed to stay the same regardless ("faith").
As I said, I think that's a pretty narrow view of religion.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that ALL religion is blinded by unchangeable doctrine, but not all religions behave that way. In fact, some show that you *can't* cling to dogma. Does that mean you chuck out all Absolute Truth? I didn't say you did. One starts to see that Truth is not only Absolute, but also Relative.
My beliefs change over time -- because I now understand something that I wasn't able to before. This mental development is analogous to school. A 1-year old can't do calculas, they first need to learn the basics of math: Addition, Subtraction, etc. As they progress, they are able to work at a higher abstract level.
Belief and Faith are *not* the same thing. First is Belief, then Faith, which leads to Action, and finally produces Knowledge.
e.g.
We can't see physically anything smaller then an electron, by un-aided means. Yet someone had a belief that we could. He then had Faith that someday he would be able to by developing the microscope, which lead to inventing the electron microscope; men acted on their faith. And finaly by observing, he was able to gain further knowledge of how the physical universe behaves/functions and is constructed.
If you never act on your belief, that is all it is - just belief. If you prove something, but never do anything with it, what was the point?
> Scientists have to modify their belief systems constantly.
Why? Because they learn new knowledge - Truth.
The same is true in a pure religious perspective. Religion is NOT about dogma, or doctrine; those are just a by-product. It's about a process of seeking the deeper meanings.
> A scientific sin, faith, is a religious virtue.
I have this is false by the example above.
Peace
> It's also no accident that as more and more of the things we observe can be explained rationally, the importance of religion fades.
>Essentially, religion is that which some people clutch to to explain what we cannot (yet anyway) explain rationally.
You have a very narrow view of what religion is.
Science is *just* as dogmatic as religion, and in fact, *is* a religion. Anything that seeks the Truth of how the universe works, and why, is "pure" religion. Just because Science does it objectively, does not negate the fact that one can also do it subjectively. There is knowledge outside the realm of Science that it will *never* know, but just because it can't know, doesn't imply that we can't know, and in fact I would argue, that we *can* know.
Peace
> i wonder how much coding issue there was for the mac version
Yeah, that's something I've wondered too... since Halo orginally started on a Mac. Then they ported it to PC, then finally to X-Box. Halo *was* in development for 7 years if I'm not mistaken, so it's hard to know (without having seen it.) how much of the codebase has (had) remained portable
Cheers
Part of the problem of porting Halo over to the PC, is that the game was written to make use of X-Box specific features, such as loading to specific memory addresses, unified memory, etc., that just aren't available on a PC - so the codebase had to be reworked. The fact that the engine was written in C probably doesn't help either, since the game ended up emulating some basic C++ behaviour. Chris Butcher (lead on Halo 2, and was the rendering/simulation guy on Halo 1) has posted a few snippets about the codebase on one of the game alogrithms mailing list, so anyone interested in the Halo engine, should check those archives.
:(
People complain about low frame rates usually forget that the rending code was written for a 640x480 screen doing multiple passes on a GeForce 3. Even on the X-Box, the game dips below 30 fps in some places, so it is no surpise that trying to run it at 1600x1200 on a PC is just begging to cry uncle.
I agree that CO-OP was a major selling point of the X-Box version, and is rather unfortunate that it is simply igored on PC -- but there is a reason for that: keep in mind that the co-op code wasn't designed to run over a network -- but running on 1 CPU where it is easy to keep everything in sync. Anyone who has worked on a multiplayer game knows what I'm talking about. Sure the game already supports multipler, but co-op wasn't designed to run over a network. To convert it over to a server/client modal is non-trivial. Gearbox does have a point that it would introduce a lot of bugs. Hopefully the user community will prove them wrong.
As a developer I know all to well that co-op is simply "excused" as not being worth it (development cost vs profit), compared to the single player game, or the multiplayer game. How many more sales are you going to get because your game supports co-op? Marketing keeps saying the numbers are still too low, so co-op is not made a priority
It's a problem with the industry in general - players WANT (co-op) multiplayer games, but there just aren't that many, because the industry priced themselves right ouf of the market, with dev costs. Doesn't mean it can't be done. Heck, even "bad" games, such as Guantlet Legends are a ton of fun with 4 players.
If you want more multiplayer games, buy those, and support the others less.
Cheers
> but sorting algorithms can be O(n log n), like quicksort.
You forgot to say "comparision" based. Sorting can be done in O(n), ala Radix Sort, which can be adapted to sort floating-point numbers in O(n).
i.e.
Radix Sort Revisited by Pierre Terdiman
--
"I'd rather be idealistic, so people are inspired at what might be,
Then be realisic and not have any hope of what could be."
> "Aerial photographs"?
Whether it is true or not remains to be seen (pardon the pun.) It would be great to get a confirmation on this photo:
Satellite Photo
According to press materials supplied by Shamrock -- The Trinity Corporation, this satellite view shows Noah's Ark jutting out from the snow on Mt. Ararat. Image Courtesy of Digital Globe
> For once and for all, the Bible has NOT been modified over time.
Oh really!?
Which *version* is the *correct* one then?!
Very well said.
i al law.htm
It's no longer a matter of IF, but WHEN Martial Law will happen:
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/nightline_mart
Koppel immediately launches into the key part of their script: "... aren't [we] left for at least the foreseeable future with some sort of martial law anyway? "
Duberstein agrees with Koppel, adding "You have to suspend rights."
And thus I disagree with your conclusion. How long will people put up with their rights being trampled? (Martial Law or not.)
> the CN Tower is .. the World's Tallest Building
The experts disagree: (I don't agree with them, but that is besides the point.)
What is the 'tallest building in the world'?
But then why do so many people not recognize CN Tower as the 'worlds tallest building'? Because, so they say, CN Tower is not a building. Constructors and architects argue that a building is a frame structure made of walls and floors. Now CN Tower houses some occupied floors indeed, but most of the structure is no more than a concrete shaft housing elevators, and therefore it is not a building, one could argue. This is the reason why Jeff Herzer, and the Council on tall Buildings and Urban Habitat do not recognize CN Tower as the tallest 'building' in the world.
Peace
--
"Necessity is the Mother of Invention,
but Curiosity would be its Father."
> Your Rights haven't changed.
I beg to differ.
Read "Rape of the American Consitution" if you want specific examples of how every right has been suspended.
> My take is that this "hierarchical mode" extension is the part covered by the patent.
... Check out Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice in C (2nd Edition)
Oh come on, the idea of using Rip-Maps have been around for *ages*
by James D. Foley, Andries van Dam, Steven K. Feiner, John F. Hughes