I'm not speaking of trivial things like vehicles. There is nothing inherantly special in having vehicles, as both UT and Q3 did in fact support them through mods. I am speaking of the fundamental characteristics of the core game engine. Doom 3's revolutionary new light/shadow rendering system (yes, I believe it is revolutionary), in addition to D3's utilization of DX9 features and its complex scripting languge all contribute to making D3 a next generation engine. Similarly, HL2 also takes advantage of DX9, as well as having a very robust physics engine, making the HL2 engine next generation as well.
"Do you think Unreal will continue to nurture the best/most modding talent, now that Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 mods are looming on the horizon?"
Absolutely not. We have moved on to a new generation of engines, opening up vast new opportunities, and the UT2K4 engine is, for all intents and purposes, still back with the Q3 and original UT engines, IMO.
So does anybody know what we people with RC's are supposed to do? I've got RC2 of SP2, and I just checked the Windows Update site, but didn't see anything that hinted at installing the final of SP2.
Of course, disease can not fully explain the switch from 4 legs to 2. I'm sure many other potential diseases are possible, a brain dehabilitation rendering the left side of the body useless might be one example. The key point to stress however, is that the "accidental" effects of this particular disease may have somehow been advantagious to the particular primates carrying the disease, therefore allowing natural selection to do its work.
Of course, from the other side of the pond, one could argue that the absence of any substantial population of bipedal primates today dillutes (but doesn't necessarily refute) Darwin's arguments for change over time. Of course, there are modern day evolutionists who propose that evolution is a more discrete, step-wise process, rather than the gradual process that Darwin proposed, therefore nullifying the other side's argument.
As an individual who has always had a fascination with epistemology, I find that I learn better when I see the big picture and the connections/relationships between sets of knowledge. This is the main reason why I so embrace the Wikipedia project in that the user is not limited to the "2-dimensional plane" that a single article might offer, but instead can move vertically between areas of knowledge by using the links within articles.
On that note, are there plans to make use of any innovative user interfaces for organizing knowledge? Specifically, I have in mind something akin to The Brain, a sort of visual neural network for knowledge that I first saw used at Ray Kurzweil's site. Could you forsee a tool similar to this as enhancing Wikipedia's functionality?
And what happens when computers master Go? Then there will be those that say "To truly push the limits of computing and AI the computer should master the art of interpretive dance," or whatever you want to place in there. The truth is, people will ALWAYS try to come up with areas in which they are better than the computer (emotion, art, feelings, abstract thought, etc).
I believe Turing predicted something similar to this around 60 years ago.
Well, you *possibly* have a point. I can think of several solutions to your problem that it is impossible however.
1) There are somehow cameras mounted behind the individual.
2) Since it is an unmoving background, it could easily be a "screenshot" cached in the system, and not a real-time feed from the camera.
Of course we all know what happened to the last supposed proof that appear on Slashdot (regarding twin primes).
In case you *don't* know, the paper was withdrawn as a result of a "serious error in lemma 8." I can only hope that this proof fairs better, though I'm not betting on it.
Caps lock is still useful for a variety of things. It can be used to differentiate text from other text (much like bold and italicize do). I use caps to in domain names as well (just as tradition I guess). And FORTRAN still uses caps (or at least, it is better w/ caps).
Now Scroll Lock on the other hand...
But the grandparent post does have a point. I mean, nothing that happens after your dead ultimately matters to YOU, because you're dead. What happens post-mortem is really just in your mind. The only thing making a will (or doing something w/ your data) will bring you is peace of mind. And wanting peace of mind is just as selfish as not caring, isn't it?
Surprisingly enough, I just happened to visit this building this past Monday. I was taking a visit to UIUC (thinking about transferring there) for the first time, and was referred to this building, since I'm a CS major.
When I was in there Monday, all kinds of work was being done on the building--I would have never thought it'd be done so soon. I absolutely loved the architecture though, very very cool. And I can't count how many "50 inch plasma screens on wheels" I saw in the various rooms.
And just think, all that above deeply impressed me, and I didn't even have a clue that the building was going to be a giant computer/the first of its kind.
If you use the Google toolbar (which you should, then its as easy as typing in the word you want, and then going to the drop down menu list and selecting "dictionary.com".
I'd say there is a BIG difference between having a baby with the possibility of genetic defects, and injecting said child. In choosing to have the baby, your aim is not for that baby to turn out flawed. Your hope is that everything will be alright. Purposely injecting that child consists of a willfull intent to harm the child. You're not *intending* to harm the child in the former situation.
Also, if we start controlling who gets born and who doesn't, based on their genetics, how is that any different than Hitler's intentions to create a master race? I'm pretty sure, he ultimately intended to breed only white Aryan babies with blond hair (or whatever). Where does it stop? How do we determine if somebody should be allowed to reproduce--do their genes have to be 90% good, 95% good, 99.99% good? Does a baby who's predicted to be missing an arm deserve to live? How about one that might have a future speech impediment? Or what about a baby who's genetic makeup is likely to make them a serial killer? Who decides who reproduces, who doesn't reproduce, who lives, who doesn't deserve to live? The government? The parents?
Reminds me of the article, Mind Over Machine, which was previously posted on/.
I personally am incredibly excited about these kinds of developments and can only wait in anticipation for the real-world actualization of this research.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not speaking of trivial things like vehicles. There is nothing inherantly special in having vehicles, as both UT and Q3 did in fact support them through mods. I am speaking of the fundamental characteristics of the core game engine. Doom 3's revolutionary new light/shadow rendering system (yes, I believe it is revolutionary), in addition to D3's utilization of DX9 features and its complex scripting languge all contribute to making D3 a next generation engine. Similarly, HL2 also takes advantage of DX9, as well as having a very robust physics engine, making the HL2 engine next generation as well.
"Do you think Unreal will continue to nurture the best/most modding talent, now that Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 mods are looming on the horizon?"
Absolutely not. We have moved on to a new generation of engines, opening up vast new opportunities, and the UT2K4 engine is, for all intents and purposes, still back with the Q3 and original UT engines, IMO.
So does anybody know what we people with RC's are supposed to do? I've got RC2 of SP2, and I just checked the Windows Update site, but didn't see anything that hinted at installing the final of SP2.
What kind of weirdo reads /. from an oil platform in the middle of the sea?
/me reaches for toilet paper
"Where can I find out how to inject signals into my head?"
1) Unplug coaxial cable from cable tv/cable modem (depending on personal preference).
2) Jam into back of head.
3) ???
4) Profit!
Of course, disease can not fully explain the switch from 4 legs to 2. I'm sure many other potential diseases are possible, a brain dehabilitation rendering the left side of the body useless might be one example. The key point to stress however, is that the "accidental" effects of this particular disease may have somehow been advantagious to the particular primates carrying the disease, therefore allowing natural selection to do its work.
Of course, from the other side of the pond, one could argue that the absence of any substantial population of bipedal primates today dillutes (but doesn't necessarily refute) Darwin's arguments for change over time. Of course, there are modern day evolutionists who propose that evolution is a more discrete, step-wise process, rather than the gradual process that Darwin proposed, therefore nullifying the other side's argument.
Just realized my above question is a bit long.
In short, do you think a user interface for organizing knowledge (such as The Brain) is applicible to the Wikipedia project?
As an individual who has always had a fascination with epistemology, I find that I learn better when I see the big picture and the connections/relationships between sets of knowledge. This is the main reason why I so embrace the Wikipedia project in that the user is not limited to the "2-dimensional plane" that a single article might offer, but instead can move vertically between areas of knowledge by using the links within articles.
On that note, are there plans to make use of any innovative user interfaces for organizing knowledge? Specifically, I have in mind something akin to The Brain, a sort of visual neural network for knowledge that I first saw used at Ray Kurzweil's site. Could you forsee a tool similar to this as enhancing Wikipedia's functionality?
Uh oh, here come the "Go" zealots.
And what happens when computers master Go? Then there will be those that say "To truly push the limits of computing and AI the computer should master the art of interpretive dance," or whatever you want to place in there. The truth is, people will ALWAYS try to come up with areas in which they are better than the computer (emotion, art, feelings, abstract thought, etc).
I believe Turing predicted something similar to this around 60 years ago.
Well, you *possibly* have a point. I can think of several solutions to your problem that it is impossible however.
1) There are somehow cameras mounted behind the individual.
2) Since it is an unmoving background, it could easily be a "screenshot" cached in the system, and not a real-time feed from the camera.
I'm venturing to guess it is the latter.
Of course we all know what happened to the last supposed proof that appear on Slashdot (regarding twin primes).
In case you *don't* know, the paper was withdrawn as a result of a "serious error in lemma 8." I can only hope that this proof fairs better, though I'm not betting on it.
Caps lock is still useful for a variety of things. It can be used to differentiate text from other text (much like bold and italicize do). I use caps to in domain names as well (just as tradition I guess). And FORTRAN still uses caps (or at least, it is better w/ caps). Now Scroll Lock on the other hand...
Yeah, and Gates is not the father of the BSOD.
But the grandparent post does have a point. I mean, nothing that happens after your dead ultimately matters to YOU, because you're dead. What happens post-mortem is really just in your mind. The only thing making a will (or doing something w/ your data) will bring you is peace of mind. And wanting peace of mind is just as selfish as not caring, isn't it?
Surprisingly enough, I just happened to visit this building this past Monday. I was taking a visit to UIUC (thinking about transferring there) for the first time, and was referred to this building, since I'm a CS major.
When I was in there Monday, all kinds of work was being done on the building--I would have never thought it'd be done so soon. I absolutely loved the architecture though, very very cool. And I can't count how many "50 inch plasma screens on wheels" I saw in the various rooms.
And just think, all that above deeply impressed me, and I didn't even have a clue that the building was going to be a giant computer/the first of its kind.
I'd say anybody who uses the following can technically be considered "artificial":
-eye glasses
-contacts
-clothes
-modes of transportation other than walking
-modes of communication other than talking
-etc.
...accurate and public measurement of an extraterrestrial distance.
Maybe it's just me, but somehow those two words don't seem to quite go together.
Only $2500? Some of the contests I've seen (namely having to do with the RSA encryption scheme) have been offering prizes upwards of 100 grand IIRC.
I bet the computing time just to break the code probably costed a wee bit more than $2500.
Doh! I thought about putting rhombi, but didn't think it was an actual word. Alas..
The successor to the overly hyped Segway?
Wheels? Who needs wheels when rhombuses work perfectly fine!
If you use the Google toolbar (which you should, then its as easy as typing in the word you want, and then going to the drop down menu list and selecting "dictionary.com".
...a trillion dollars was just a myth. In reality, it will cost us One Million Dollars
/me puts pinky up to lip
I'd say there is a BIG difference between having a baby with the possibility of genetic defects, and injecting said child. In choosing to have the baby, your aim is not for that baby to turn out flawed. Your hope is that everything will be alright. Purposely injecting that child consists of a willfull intent to harm the child. You're not *intending* to harm the child in the former situation.
Also, if we start controlling who gets born and who doesn't, based on their genetics, how is that any different than Hitler's intentions to create a master race? I'm pretty sure, he ultimately intended to breed only white Aryan babies with blond hair (or whatever). Where does it stop? How do we determine if somebody should be allowed to reproduce--do their genes have to be 90% good, 95% good, 99.99% good? Does a baby who's predicted to be missing an arm deserve to live? How about one that might have a future speech impediment? Or what about a baby who's genetic makeup is likely to make them a serial killer? Who decides who reproduces, who doesn't reproduce, who lives, who doesn't deserve to live? The government? The parents?
Reminds me of the article, Mind Over Machine, which was previously posted on /.
I personally am incredibly excited about these kinds of developments and can only wait in anticipation for the real-world actualization of this research.
In the not too far future... [man looks down at watch] "What time is it Pamela?"