It was his job while he worked there. Are getting angry over grammar?
An employer gives Bob a job, and therefore it's Bob's job while he works there. Who works that job? Why, it's Bob's job.
Bob got fired. Who has his job now? Why, Mr. Patel has Bob's old job. Who works that job? Why, it's Mr. Patel's job now-- his employer gave him that job.
Studying hardware (electrical engineering) isn't that important if you're more focused on the mathematical side of CS rather than the engineering. It used to be mathematicians doing a lot of the theoretical work. Corellating to that, it used to be mainly electrical engineers doing all the computer hardware.
Many CS schools now offer several CS majors, since the field is so huge -- plus there's related fields like Computer Engineering, CSCE, computational mathematics, etc. I agree that CS should teach a small part of all of the peripherals, but it should never focus on them (otherwise you might as well just be a double major of electrical engineering and mathematics).
However I am more concernd (a reason that I am an ex-CS major too) that the university doesnt offer a single course in PERL, Python, Ruby, PHP, or any of the currently popular languages except Java, and some C as a side benefit from some classes.
Community colleges offer Perl (not capitalized, Perl is a retroactive acronymn), PHP and whatever popular language is out. Or you can learn it at ITT and DeVry.
Don't give me BS about the basic concepts being all the preperation you need from any language. What you really need is practice programmming in new languages, followed by more practice.
Saying that theory isn't all you need is bullshit. I can learn programming languages just fine on my own -- I learned PHP and Perl before I learned Java at my old college, but I still perfer Java for general learning. Most schools do teach other languages, which are mashed into one course (it's all you need to learn stuff like LISP and Python). Learning mathematics and algorithms is a lot harder than learning programming languages; introducing courses at a university just to learn programming languages is ridiculous.
My school currently has computer architecture/engineering as required learning for the CS program (like every other University of California and California State school). Even my California community college had x86 architecture (assembly), along with pretty much all the other community college.
The whole idea that CS students aren't learning fundamentals seems like a great big lie to me. Where exactly are these students learning?
Some particulates may cause a climate forcing in the direction of cooling by reflecting or absorbing and then radiating away the sun's radiation before it reaches the surface. However, the affects aren't well understood, and are probably much less than greenhouse warming. See here.
Actually, it turns out that Venus' sulfur cools it down -- so, I was completely wrong in thinking it affected it warmly (see my other post). However, sulfur pollution might not be a benign side effect in the long run.
It's also known for being closer to the sun. Sorry, but this isn't a very useful comparison.
Venus is actually a very good comparison for global warming. Venus' high temp has less to do with its closeness to the sun than its high CO2 atmosphere. It's basically a prime example of a "polluted" atmosphere. Wikipedia's article on Venus basically explains everything, which we both shoulda read before posting. Oops =/
After a 1 month Summer in Calif* and several years of declining temperatures, we feel the climate is cooling down from particulates more than it's heating up from CO2.
Who's this "we" you speak of?
Why would particulates lower global temperature? If the particles absorb heat in the atmosphere, the earth's mean temp would still rise. Unless you have proof that those particles are reflecting heat away from the earth (bypassing effects of co2 around it) then what makes you think it has a cooling effect?
Venus is known for it's thick atmosphere. It's also known for its immense heat -- it's running at 700K. Venus has high concentrations of sulfuric acid and co2 in its atmosphere contributing to it's climate.
Everyone knows sulfur from China's factories is reducing the amount of energy reaching Calif*.
I've recently quit WoW. I had two level 60s (warlock and shaman). I've heard comments by Blizzard (on the forums) that they track class wins/losses and discrepancies, similar to Gank Central. Why doesn't Blizzard publish those official statistics when making controversial (against the common sense of the average player) changes to class balance?
Even with both systems being closed source, hacks still occur. GPLing either one makes it a lot easier, though.
Exactly like you said, hacks will just shift to hacking PB first instead of the client. Currently halflife has VAC, but that anti-cheat system was hacked awhile ago, and you sometimes still encounter wallhack/aimbot combos in CS (the system is a good deterrent, just not enough).
There's lots of ways to create an anti-hack application, and even more ways to go around it.
They can with some effort. Just because a mod uses a proprietary game engine doesn't mean you can't release the mod code under GPL. You can't release the engine code itself, obviously, but you don't have to. Plenty of GPL'ed windows (a proprietary system) apps do this all the time. Same for Java apps -- the library isn't GPL'ed, but GPL'ed java apps utilize library code, they just don't distribute it with the program (they assume you have the library installed on your system).
Severs don't have the bandwidth or cpu power to handle all events server side.
If EVERYTHING was handled server side, then the game would essentially be a remote shell for 32 players -- desktops already have a hard time calculating environments just for 1 player (many games are cpu bottlenecked before videocard limits).
If you knew how aimbots worked, you'd understand that server handled aiming wouldn't be possible, especially with 40-200 ms mouse lag. With client side aiming, it's possible to hook onto the apps and have a dll aim for you when LOS appears. It becomes a trivial task once you GPL the code.
Wall hacks also rely on the principle that calculating line of sight for EVERY player is too cpu intensive for a server. Your computer has the cpu power to handle it's own line of sight detection calculations.
Currently, the server will give you the position of a player if it thinks you might be able to see the other player (with lag, most current netcode will give you the player position before you actually see the player, so players don't suddenly teleport out of nowhere). Current anti-hacks try to remove this problem by hooking to the application first, and hiding player positions to any cheating hooks (usually by making every player appear behind your field of vision).
Currently every FPS, action-RPG, RTS, etc. game requires quick reflexes, and handling controls server side is absolutely not an option.
Slower is actually better when running 1 million digits. Clock measurements aren't exact. In order to get a relatively more precise reading, the longer the program should run.
If it takes 1 second to compute 1 million digits on a 1ghz machine, and 1.1 seconds on a 2ghz machine, then it's time to either increase the amount of digits, or choose a slower benchmark.
You can't release commercial multiplayer games (what the q3a engine was built for) on GPL'ed engines, unless you want dozens of hacks ready for cheaters when the game hits the shelves. With the release of code, instead of just hooking dll's, they can code straight onto the engine to make every basic hack. This is why modders don't GPL their code, even though they give away their product for free.
Legacy cheating isn't as much of a problem, which is why the Quake1 GPL wasn't much of an impact; but legacy cheating still happens.
Giving away an engine, then selling maps isn't feasible for several reasons. One is due to conflicts and interoperability: most game servers currently allow you to download scenarios and models (for free, obviously) to overcome that. Are you gonna block downloads?
If you want restricted distribution and less cheating, you're gonna have to either GPL the client and keep the server secret or GPL the server and keep the client secret.
Relying on soley single player scenarios to sell a game also isn't the best strategy. Currently, every heavily played FPS and RTS relies on multiplayer for popularity. Even RPGs are relying on multiplayer.
This only applies to PC games. You can GPL a console game and not worry as much. However, GPLing console code is stupid, because you can't play your own games on your console without unlicensed modding.
So I guess you know more than WWII generals and post-atomic researchers at the time -- I'm sure your battle history 60 years after the fact far exceeds their's.
It doesn't matter how much Japanese wanted to fight, they had no power to do so.
For the fourth time, because this shit keeps popping up:
It's amazing how many people don't even know that Japan surrendered before the bombs were droped. It's really making me sick how many people justify the bomb saying it saved lives, when the war could've been ended even sooner.
There are people who are qualified to make the distinction whether the bombs ended the war -- American war generals, and the official congressional study (Strategic Bombing Survey):
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe)
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)
"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'
Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so.... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.
Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment." - F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.
It's amazing how many people don't even know that Japan surrendered before the bombs were droped. It's really making me sick how many people justify the bomb saying it saved lives, when the war could've been ended even sooner.
It's even more sick that articles, assumed to be researched and trusted, always gloss over the fact Japan already surrendered, and was about to surrender AGAIN unconditionally.
There are people who are qualified to make the distinction whether the bombs ended the war -- American war generals, and the official congressional study (Strategic Bombing Survey). They disagree with Paul Fussell.
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe)
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)
"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'
Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so.... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.
Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment." - F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.
It's amazing how many people don't even know that Japan surrendered before the bombs were droped. It's really making me sick how many people justify the bomb saying it saved lives, when the war could've been ended even sooner.
There are people who are qualified to make the distinction whether the bombs ended the war -- American war generals, and the official congressional study (Strategic Bombing Survey). They disagree with Paul Fussell.
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe)
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)
"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'
Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so.... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.
Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment." - F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe)
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)
"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'
Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so.... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.
Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment." - F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not military targets. It's like calling 9/11 a valid military attack. How many people killed were military personel?
Japan did offer a conditional surrender before the bombs were dropped. It was denied, and the war continued.
Were the bombs needed to stop the war? Ask American generals at the time (the ones who knew the most about the battle situation).
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe)
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)
"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'
Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so.... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.
Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment."
- F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.
There's a difference between learning the theory and the broad field of ICS than just programming a specific application.
You might have a love for programming and computers, but learning about algorithms and math might not be your style.
Most people in ICS 131 were pissed, because it was a class about the sociology of computing. They thought it was detracting from their focus of just churning out code.
ICS isn't a technical degree. If you just want to learn how to program, then DeVry, calstates, and local community colleges are more useful.
If you thought the subject was too easy, then you probably shoulda been accepted to Caltech or Cal rather than UCI.
Slashdot Mirror
It was his job while he worked there. Are getting angry over grammar?
An employer gives Bob a job, and therefore it's Bob's job while he works there. Who works that job? Why, it's Bob's job.
Bob got fired. Who has his job now? Why, Mr. Patel has Bob's old job. Who works that job? Why, it's Mr. Patel's job now-- his employer gave him that job.
Studying hardware (electrical engineering) isn't that important if you're more focused on the mathematical side of CS rather than the engineering. It used to be mathematicians doing a lot of the theoretical work. Corellating to that, it used to be mainly electrical engineers doing all the computer hardware.
Many CS schools now offer several CS majors, since the field is so huge -- plus there's related fields like Computer Engineering, CSCE, computational mathematics, etc. I agree that CS should teach a small part of all of the peripherals, but it should never focus on them (otherwise you might as well just be a double major of electrical engineering and mathematics).
My school currently has computer architecture/engineering as required learning for the CS program (like every other University of California and California State school). Even my California community college had x86 architecture (assembly), along with pretty much all the other community college.
The whole idea that CS students aren't learning fundamentals seems like a great big lie to me. Where exactly are these students learning?
Well, I was able to find something about it. It seems sulfuric acid is higher than CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore reflects a lot of heat.
However, are our emmissions of sulfur great enough to overcome our even larger CO2 emissions? I'll check it out again.
Why would particulates lower global temperature? If the particles absorb heat in the atmosphere, the earth's mean temp would still rise. Unless you have proof that those particles are reflecting heat away from the earth (bypassing effects of co2 around it) then what makes you think it has a cooling effect?
Venus is known for it's thick atmosphere. It's also known for its immense heat -- it's running at 700K. Venus has high concentrations of sulfuric acid and co2 in its atmosphere contributing to it's climate. Everyone but me. Do you have a source?
Bullshit. Rogues had many improvements. In fact, rogues were celebrating for quite awhile, while warlocks were left sulking.
I've recently quit WoW. I had two level 60s (warlock and shaman). I've heard comments by Blizzard (on the forums) that they track class wins/losses and discrepancies, similar to Gank Central. Why doesn't Blizzard publish those official statistics when making controversial (against the common sense of the average player) changes to class balance?
Even with both systems being closed source, hacks still occur. GPLing either one makes it a lot easier, though.
Exactly like you said, hacks will just shift to hacking PB first instead of the client. Currently halflife has VAC, but that anti-cheat system was hacked awhile ago, and you sometimes still encounter wallhack/aimbot combos in CS (the system is a good deterrent, just not enough).
There's lots of ways to create an anti-hack application, and even more ways to go around it.
They can with some effort. Just because a mod uses a proprietary game engine doesn't mean you can't release the mod code under GPL. You can't release the engine code itself, obviously, but you don't have to. Plenty of GPL'ed windows (a proprietary system) apps do this all the time. Same for Java apps -- the library isn't GPL'ed, but GPL'ed java apps utilize library code, they just don't distribute it with the program (they assume you have the library installed on your system).
Severs don't have the bandwidth or cpu power to handle all events server side.
If EVERYTHING was handled server side, then the game would essentially be a remote shell for 32 players -- desktops already have a hard time calculating environments just for 1 player (many games are cpu bottlenecked before videocard limits).
If you knew how aimbots worked, you'd understand that server handled aiming wouldn't be possible, especially with 40-200 ms mouse lag. With client side aiming, it's possible to hook onto the apps and have a dll aim for you when LOS appears. It becomes a trivial task once you GPL the code.
Wall hacks also rely on the principle that calculating line of sight for EVERY player is too cpu intensive for a server. Your computer has the cpu power to handle it's own line of sight detection calculations.
Currently, the server will give you the position of a player if it thinks you might be able to see the other player (with lag, most current netcode will give you the player position before you actually see the player, so players don't suddenly teleport out of nowhere). Current anti-hacks try to remove this problem by hooking to the application first, and hiding player positions to any cheating hooks (usually by making every player appear behind your field of vision).
Currently every FPS, action-RPG, RTS, etc. game requires quick reflexes, and handling controls server side is absolutely not an option.
Slower is actually better when running 1 million digits. Clock measurements aren't exact. In order to get a relatively more precise reading, the longer the program should run.
If it takes 1 second to compute 1 million digits on a 1ghz machine, and 1.1 seconds on a 2ghz machine, then it's time to either increase the amount of digits, or choose a slower benchmark.
You can't release commercial multiplayer games (what the q3a engine was built for) on GPL'ed engines, unless you want dozens of hacks ready for cheaters when the game hits the shelves. With the release of code, instead of just hooking dll's, they can code straight onto the engine to make every basic hack. This is why modders don't GPL their code, even though they give away their product for free.
Legacy cheating isn't as much of a problem, which is why the Quake1 GPL wasn't much of an impact; but legacy cheating still happens.
Giving away an engine, then selling maps isn't feasible for several reasons. One is due to conflicts and interoperability: most game servers currently allow you to download scenarios and models (for free, obviously) to overcome that. Are you gonna block downloads?
If you want restricted distribution and less cheating, you're gonna have to either GPL the client and keep the server secret or GPL the server and keep the client secret.
Relying on soley single player scenarios to sell a game also isn't the best strategy. Currently, every heavily played FPS and RTS relies on multiplayer for popularity. Even RPGs are relying on multiplayer.
This only applies to PC games. You can GPL a console game and not worry as much. However, GPLing console code is stupid, because you can't play your own games on your console without unlicensed modding.
Subtle to mild sarcasm sounds almost exactly like being "nice".
Somehow I doubt the JerkoMeter will be able to do an accurate differentiation.
So I guess you know more than WWII generals and post-atomic researchers at the time -- I'm sure your battle history 60 years after the fact far exceeds their's.
It doesn't matter how much Japanese wanted to fight, they had no power to do so.
Japan DID offer a conditional surrender. The codition was that Japan would be able to keep the emperor.
It's amazing how many people don't even know that Japan surrendered before the bombs were droped. It's really making me sick how many people justify the bomb saying it saved lives, when the war could've been ended even sooner.
There are people who are qualified to make the distinction whether the bombs ended the war -- American war generals, and the official congressional study (Strategic Bombing Survey):
It's amazing how many people don't even know that Japan surrendered before the bombs were droped. It's really making me sick how many people justify the bomb saying it saved lives, when the war could've been ended even sooner.
It's even more sick that articles, assumed to be researched and trusted, always gloss over the fact Japan already surrendered, and was about to surrender AGAIN unconditionally.
There are people who are qualified to make the distinction whether the bombs ended the war -- American war generals, and the official congressional study (Strategic Bombing Survey). They disagree with Paul Fussell.
There are people who are qualified to make the distinction whether the bombs ended the war -- American war generals, and the official congressional study (Strategic Bombing Survey). They disagree with Paul Fussell.
Japan did offer a conditional surrender before the bombs were dropped. It was denied, and the war continued.
Were the bombs needed to stop the war? Ask American generals at the time (the ones who knew the most about the battle situation).
Your analogy blows. His door isn't on public property.
Someone's wifi signal goes everywhere, including other people's houses. Using an open wifi signal isn't breaking into anything.
are racist...
There's a difference between learning the theory and the broad field of ICS than just programming a specific application.
You might have a love for programming and computers, but learning about algorithms and math might not be your style.
Most people in ICS 131 were pissed, because it was a class about the sociology of computing. They thought it was detracting from their focus of just churning out code.
ICS isn't a technical degree. If you just want to learn how to program, then DeVry, calstates, and local community colleges are more useful.
If you thought the subject was too easy, then you probably shoulda been accepted to Caltech or Cal rather than UCI.