Before I populate Mars with genetically engineered miners, I want to make sure they're easy to control, and I'm going to do that by genetically engineering them to be stupider than my class.
640k of memory was easily used up, and the majority of people(bill gates be damned) saw it coming. Modern office apps and incredibly reliable OCR and speech recognition software tax a modern CPU less than 10% of it's potential. Unlike "640k", there is no hardware limit being imposed on the application developers to create a relaible grammar and context system for poinging out "to-two-too" type errors. "For an office suite, a processor capable of a gigaflop ought to be enough for anybody." You can quote me on that. More CPU power is needed, but office apps are definitely not the reason why.
Opengl only does graphics and is non portable to the Xbox if you want to port your game there.
doom 3? quake 4? chronicles of riddick... i'm sure there's more. all use OpenGL graphics, all are available on xbox. but you're half right, it's probably easier to port if you have D3D as your graphics API. However, the second part of your post about opengl "becoming stagnant" is just completely wrong.
it's flamebait because you grouped all "slashdotters" to one opinion. if all 'slashdotters' felt the same way about anything, there would be no discussion. personally, i wouldn't have modded it flamebait... but that's why it was.
I agree with you 100%.
But if both the proponents and opponents of the various **AA's stopped using the terms harmful "theft" and harmless "copying" respectively, and started using a more accurate term, such as "devaluation", their arguments would not have as much strength. The views of "information to be free" and "intellectual property" are incompatible. Therefor the extremist views are needed, because there is a fundamental difference in ideology, and because the argument isn't nearly as interesting without the extremist POV.
Myself and friends have been putting on LAN parties since about 1997. Q3 was a favourite ever since the first q3test came out. For a while both UT and Q3 were played equal amounts of time, but mostly we still play UT99 because it's more fun. We go back to Q3 if there are girls or n00bs playing, because it's the simpler "steppingstone" game. UT99 is by far the superior to it in every way I can think of: the weapons were more fun and interesting, each one had a "trick", there were multiple firing modes, the character models were better, there was area specific damage(HEADSHOT!), level design was more imaginative, varying levels of gravity within the same level, and countless other things. Despite what you contend, any pro gamer will tell you that UT99 was the game requiring more skill to play, that's a fact.
Remakes aren't always bad, infact they are most often good should they stay true enough to the original while attempting to bring something new to the table... see the 1970's version of Body Snatchers, or the 80's versions of The Fly, The Thing, or The Blob.
As for Duke Nukem Forever, I see the fact that it's been in production for so long as an incredible asset lending towards the game's eventual overall entertainment value... should it ever be completed. They've had 10 years to come up with gameplay mechanics, storylines, characters, ideas, and many other timeless elements of great entertainment that carry on to whatever development engine they deicide to switch to next. They've had 10 years to rip off good ideas from other games and tweak & refine & improve upon them. In effect, they've taken their time to properly complete what is essentially the hardest part of making a game. When it's completed, I predict it will be one of the best video games ever. I really hope I'm not wrong, because 10 years of anticipation is tantamount to torture if it doesn't pay off.
Another idea is to rate it out of 10... but don't allow for selecting the average score or intermediates. For example, rate on a scale of 1 to 10, but don't allow the selection of 7 or decimals. That way, when a truely average(7/10) game comes along, the reviewer must rate it and decide if it deserves that lowly 6 or that lofty 8. It's often a difficult decision.
Your "Smart People" theory is seriously flawed. Smart people don't affect change nearly as much as hungry/angy people.
Prole is the short form of proletariat. The proletariat by definition can never be the ruling class. I was using "plebes" as the short form for plebeians, the largest portion of the populace and the common people of ancient rome, the working class. The two terms are interchangable only when the lowest class is also the largest class.
The phrase "give the plebes their bread and circuses so that they remain happy and ignorant" is key here, because as soon as the middle class shrinks to the point where the lower class out numbers it, or the disparity between the upperclass and the lower class grows so great that the lower class can't bear it anymore, you'll get more and more "smart people" being born into the lower class, people with very limited or no "purchasing power", people who are disadvantaged/disaffected to the point where they aren't concerned with getting to a higher class status because they're too busy starving and the already bloated military has no need to enlist them.
This is historically the point where the proles riot, royal families are beheaded, parliament is burned and anarchy reigns. Or it could go the other way, a government is toppled by it's military and a new more brutal regime rules until that system impoldes for the same reasons.
No doubt that once the chaos ends, a smart person will fill the power void, become powerful and in turn write themselves into the history books. But make no mistake, that is the effect of the change not the cause of it.
It's the bread and circuses that keep the proles/plebes complacent. If you decrease their purchasing power then you decrease the amount of bread and the frequency of their circuses, and you'll soon find that they no longer wish to be a part of the society that enslaves them. That's when the rebellion/revolution happens and the ruling class changes.
The fact that 'you don't see it that way' is part of the problem.
Your brain is clearly flawed if you think of empathy as a consequence.
Empathy is a fundamental tool used to avoid negative consequences.
You and he believe the same things; that atheists have relative morals. You're just too dumb to understand him.
You're trying to say they agree, when they obviously don't. Morals do not have to be defined by "supernatural phenomena". They can be defined by mutual guidelines for individuals set about to facilitate and perpetuate the function of a group of individuals. Your problem, like roman_mir, is that you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of a social contract; the foundation upon which all forms of society are based. For a society or a group to be successful, there must be an agreed upon set of rules for acceptable human interaction. These rules can be anything. For example: Nobody wants to worry about being murdered; people being murdered constantly would really impeded the progess of our group, so that's a clause in our social contract. We, as a group(humans) will all feel (have the opinion) that murder is wrong.
Why shouldn't I murder except for fear of being commited to a maximum security prison? Everything else is just about the same.-roman_mir
Morals don't create the "feeling" or "opinons" of right and wrong, it's the other way around. Religions didn't invent the morals, the religions(like our legal system) evolved commandments(laws) around the morals as a reinforcement. Morals when considered from within a group are abosolute. Morals when considered from outside the group are relative. For example: If you exist within the group "christian" and feel premarital sex is wrong, but you engage in premarital sex regularly without remorse, then there is something wrong with your membership to that group, aka your "christianity".
I understood what roman_mir meant when he said he has "...no absolute morals or ethics except those that are required to be able to earn money within this society", and I'm sure the GP to this post understood it too. He meant he was a psychopath without a functioning conscience who'd probably do anything to get ahead of his fellow man, if he could get away with it.
If you exists within the group "human" and feel it would be wrong for you to be randomly murdered, and you can't agree that you randomly murdering others is intrinsically wrong, then there is something intrinsically wrong with your group membership, aka your "humanity". If don't want to be murdered and you agree that random murders are wrong, then surprize! You've got morals!
Every human lives under the primary influence of 1 of 2 golden rules:
The golden rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
-or-
The golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Most religious commandments are either pointless or redundant with the exception of a single unifying slogan/moral. 'the 10 commandments' basically boil down to rules designed to (1)perpetuate the religion which (when taken outside the context of the religion) are pointless, and (2) a single unifying rule for righteous human conduct: "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
You don't want to be murdered, so don't murder other people. You don't want your bike stolen, so don't steal another person's bike. You don't want your spouse to cheat on you, so don't cheat on your spouse. Those are very basic, logical, and intuitive tenets whose underlying sentiment is ubiquitously referred to as the golden rule.
Plainly put: The Golden Rule Just Makes Sense. It employs rudimentary empathy common to most humans to determine the best course of action on a situational basis. The Golden rule requires no preconceived notions or support system of beliefs to be effective. It is not necessarily always a way to determine what is right or what is wrong, but it can be used as such. It is not a steadfast moral or ethic like all commandments built upon it. The golden rule is a pure and simple method that employs first thoughts, then analyzation, deliberation, and then action to achieve the best outcome in any given situation. Put yourself in another's 'shoes' before acting to determine if the effects of the action are universally desirable. This singular sentiment is shared by all of earth's successful religions. Buddhism's equivalent can be derived most easily from the law of karma. The Taoists say that Chi follows Yi. The Hindus place profound importance in the Crown chakra. And the 6 of the 10 judeo-christian commandments not dealing with god directly perfectly embody this sentiment.
I, like the GP, am an athiest, that does not mean that I think "anything goes". People like the GP give athiests bad names. Like so many people these days, I bet he's either stupid or has been corrputed by the pursuit of that other golden rule. "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
Slashdot Mirror
They can now...
admit it... you're actually a dude who's role playing.
Fuck That Shit.
Before I populate Mars with genetically engineered miners, I want to make sure they're easy to control, and I'm going to do that by genetically engineering them to be stupider than my class.
This worm is quite interesting, in that it has evolved to use OTHER animals nervous systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nematomorpha
640k of memory was easily used up, and the majority of people(bill gates be damned) saw it coming. Modern office apps and incredibly reliable OCR and speech recognition software tax a modern CPU less than 10% of it's potential. Unlike "640k", there is no hardware limit being imposed on the application developers to create a relaible grammar and context system for poinging out "to-two-too" type errors. "For an office suite, a processor capable of a gigaflop ought to be enough for anybody." You can quote me on that. More CPU power is needed, but office apps are definitely not the reason why.
By 'content providers', do you mean The Pirate Bay, or the people who seed the torrents tracked by The Pirate Bay?
Opengl only does graphics and is non portable to the Xbox if you want to port your game there.
doom 3? quake 4? chronicles of riddick... i'm sure there's more. all use OpenGL graphics, all are available on xbox. but you're half right, it's probably easier to port if you have D3D as your graphics API. However, the second part of your post about opengl "becoming stagnant" is just completely wrong.
it's flamebait because you grouped all "slashdotters" to one opinion. if all 'slashdotters' felt the same way about anything, there would be no discussion. personally, i wouldn't have modded it flamebait... but that's why it was.
I agree with you 100%. But if both the proponents and opponents of the various **AA's stopped using the terms harmful "theft" and harmless "copying" respectively, and started using a more accurate term, such as "devaluation", their arguments would not have as much strength. The views of "information to be free" and "intellectual property" are incompatible. Therefor the extremist views are needed, because there is a fundamental difference in ideology, and because the argument isn't nearly as interesting without the extremist POV.
Myself and friends have been putting on LAN parties since about 1997. Q3 was a favourite ever since the first q3test came out. For a while both UT and Q3 were played equal amounts of time, but mostly we still play UT99 because it's more fun. We go back to Q3 if there are girls or n00bs playing, because it's the simpler "steppingstone" game. UT99 is by far the superior to it in every way I can think of: the weapons were more fun and interesting, each one had a "trick", there were multiple firing modes, the character models were better, there was area specific damage(HEADSHOT!), level design was more imaginative, varying levels of gravity within the same level, and countless other things. Despite what you contend, any pro gamer will tell you that UT99 was the game requiring more skill to play, that's a fact.
You've obviously never driven a cart full of dachsunds through a marshmallow factory.
lol!
Remakes aren't always bad, infact they are most often good should they stay true enough to the original while attempting to bring something new to the table... see the 1970's version of Body Snatchers, or the 80's versions of The Fly, The Thing, or The Blob. As for Duke Nukem Forever, I see the fact that it's been in production for so long as an incredible asset lending towards the game's eventual overall entertainment value... should it ever be completed. They've had 10 years to come up with gameplay mechanics, storylines, characters, ideas, and many other timeless elements of great entertainment that carry on to whatever development engine they deicide to switch to next. They've had 10 years to rip off good ideas from other games and tweak & refine & improve upon them. In effect, they've taken their time to properly complete what is essentially the hardest part of making a game. When it's completed, I predict it will be one of the best video games ever. I really hope I'm not wrong, because 10 years of anticipation is tantamount to torture if it doesn't pay off.
Who needs a toilet when you've got a window and a good throwing arm!
Another idea is to rate it out of 10... but don't allow for selecting the average score or intermediates. For example, rate on a scale of 1 to 10, but don't allow the selection of 7 or decimals. That way, when a truely average(7/10) game comes along, the reviewer must rate it and decide if it deserves that lowly 6 or that lofty 8. It's often a difficult decision.
The movie "Primer" comes to mind.
Relieving a symptom(or all symptoms) of an illness is not equivalent to curing the illness.
Your "Smart People" theory is seriously flawed. Smart people don't affect change nearly as much as hungry/angy people. Prole is the short form of proletariat. The proletariat by definition can never be the ruling class. I was using "plebes" as the short form for plebeians, the largest portion of the populace and the common people of ancient rome, the working class. The two terms are interchangable only when the lowest class is also the largest class. The phrase "give the plebes their bread and circuses so that they remain happy and ignorant" is key here, because as soon as the middle class shrinks to the point where the lower class out numbers it, or the disparity between the upperclass and the lower class grows so great that the lower class can't bear it anymore, you'll get more and more "smart people" being born into the lower class, people with very limited or no "purchasing power", people who are disadvantaged/disaffected to the point where they aren't concerned with getting to a higher class status because they're too busy starving and the already bloated military has no need to enlist them. This is historically the point where the proles riot, royal families are beheaded, parliament is burned and anarchy reigns. Or it could go the other way, a government is toppled by it's military and a new more brutal regime rules until that system impoldes for the same reasons. No doubt that once the chaos ends, a smart person will fill the power void, become powerful and in turn write themselves into the history books. But make no mistake, that is the effect of the change not the cause of it.
It's the bread and circuses that keep the proles/plebes complacent. If you decrease their purchasing power then you decrease the amount of bread and the frequency of their circuses, and you'll soon find that they no longer wish to be a part of the society that enslaves them. That's when the rebellion/revolution happens and the ruling class changes.
The fact that 'you don't see it that way' is part of the problem. Your brain is clearly flawed if you think of empathy as a consequence. Empathy is a fundamental tool used to avoid negative consequences.
Morals don't create the "feeling" or "opinons" of right and wrong, it's the other way around. Religions didn't invent the morals, the religions(like our legal system) evolved commandments(laws) around the morals as a reinforcement. Morals when considered from within a group are abosolute. Morals when considered from outside the group are relative. For example: If you exist within the group "christian" and feel premarital sex is wrong, but you engage in premarital sex regularly without remorse, then there is something wrong with your membership to that group, aka your "christianity".
I understood what roman_mir meant when he said he has "...no absolute morals or ethics except those that are required to be able to earn money within this society ", and I'm sure the GP to this post understood it too. He meant he was a psychopath without a functioning conscience who'd probably do anything to get ahead of his fellow man, if he could get away with it.
If you exists within the group "human" and feel it would be wrong for you to be randomly murdered, and you can't agree that you randomly murdering others is intrinsically wrong, then there is something intrinsically wrong with your group membership, aka your "humanity". If don't want to be murdered and you agree that random murders are wrong, then surprize! You've got morals!
Every human lives under the primary influence of 1 of 2 golden rules:
The golden rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
-or-
The golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Most religious commandments are either pointless or redundant with the exception of a single unifying slogan/moral. 'the 10 commandments' basically boil down to rules designed to (1)perpetuate the religion which (when taken outside the context of the religion) are pointless, and (2) a single unifying rule for righteous human conduct: "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." You don't want to be murdered, so don't murder other people. You don't want your bike stolen, so don't steal another person's bike. You don't want your spouse to cheat on you, so don't cheat on your spouse. Those are very basic, logical, and intuitive tenets whose underlying sentiment is ubiquitously referred to as the golden rule. Plainly put: The Golden Rule Just Makes Sense. It employs rudimentary empathy common to most humans to determine the best course of action on a situational basis. The Golden rule requires no preconceived notions or support system of beliefs to be effective. It is not necessarily always a way to determine what is right or what is wrong, but it can be used as such. It is not a steadfast moral or ethic like all commandments built upon it. The golden rule is a pure and simple method that employs first thoughts, then analyzation, deliberation, and then action to achieve the best outcome in any given situation. Put yourself in another's 'shoes' before acting to determine if the effects of the action are universally desirable. This singular sentiment is shared by all of earth's successful religions. Buddhism's equivalent can be derived most easily from the law of karma. The Taoists say that Chi follows Yi. The Hindus place profound importance in the Crown chakra. And the 6 of the 10 judeo-christian commandments not dealing with god directly perfectly embody this sentiment. I, like the GP, am an athiest, that does not mean that I think "anything goes". People like the GP give athiests bad names. Like so many people these days, I bet he's either stupid or has been corrputed by the pursuit of that other golden rule. "He who has the gold, makes the rules."