It was a long time ago, and I can barely remember it, but I believe the first game I truly enjoyed that required my active participation was that one where you drop things from your highchair, and suddenly you have another one just like it. Drop it again, and another one shows up. I was hooked on that game for what must have been at least a month or two.
Not only that, but it was a multiplayer game (2nd player, generally an adult, was required to complete the first level).
I picked Doom because virtually everyone here could identify with that - and because intense experiences make it easier to recall your train of thought years later. I originally was going to mention books and how you interpreted them differently over time, but that would be inherently unfair, since a healthily aged mind would see few defects in that area over time.
Otherwise, dismissing a post for mentioning a popular shared experience would be much like me dismissing your comment for, say, not using commas to separate phrases, or mine for consisting entirely of long and winding run-on sentences (which are extremely difficult to try to punctuate with anything approaching grammatical correctness).
For all the medical problems society obsesses over treatments for (cancer, aids, and other popular areas), Alzheimer's (and senility in general) is the one that scares me the most. I would rather die in pain, with my mind intact, than slowly forget who I am.
My paternal grandmother died before Alzheimer's was well recognized, but in retrospect it's pretty likely to be the cause of her condition. My grandfather, having seen his wife forget who he was, was always far more afraid of going down that same path than he was of his own approaching end - and I can easily see his point.
The worst part about growing old isn't physical frailty... it's the slow breakdown of cognitive power. Of course, as a 33-year-old I can say this with absolute authority. The worst part of *that* is that it doesn't wait to start until you're old, either. I'm sure most of you have noticed changes over the years, and not all of them good.
Here's a question that's been on my mind lately. How would most of you rate changes to how your mind has worked over the years? Have you noticed your reflexes aren't what they were when you were a teenager? Looking at any older writings of yours, have you ever had the feeling that your imagination may have grown more refined, but also lost some of it's raw power at some point? Regardless of the cognitive rewards of time and experience, are there any earlier capabilities that you feel you may have lost some grip on, or even noticed more clearly in younger coworkers or relatives than you used to?
In my case, for example, I've noticed that in a video game, I just don't react to unexpected situations quite as fast or well as I used to. I remember charging into a room in Doom, blasting everything I saw and dodging almost every shot - whereas lately I tend to get hit more often - I don't do the duck-and-dodge like I did in my teens and early 20's. On the other hand, I'm much more calculating in every move I make, and find it easier to manipulate computer opponents than it used to be - even with all the advances in AI. I don't have the raw speed and reaction time that I used to, but the intellectual component comes more readily and with virtually no effort compared to before.
What do you younger guys think of the minds of older coworkers? What about any of you in your 30's and 40's, in dealing with people younger or older than you on an intellectual level? And of the most interest to me, how do you geezers (I know there's some who come here - maybe even a handful) relate to us 30-somethings? Do we seem like slightly inexperienced versions of your peers? Or do we seem like idiot children with fast reflexes but weak comprehension?
I'll wholeheartedly second everything Tritonman says here. You don't have to become a low-level master to be a good programmer, but a basic working knowledge of C and C++ is the key to understanding the majority of languages you'll face later (including ones that do not yet exist). Assembly teaches you why software is laid out the way it is, as that's what all compilers must eventually boil down to in one way or another. You don't need to be able to compose a serious tool in Assembly - you don't even have to know how to write anything useful in it. However, knowing the basics will give you a more solid framework for all later programming skills you tackle.
However, here is another piece of advice. You'll hear many advising you to maintain a wide array of general skills, and they're absolutely right. On the other hand, I've been a programmer for about a decade, as well as an administrator (win and unix), graphic artist, management, and a wide array of other job descriptions - each of which I am well above average in, but none of which I specialize in (though my resume paints me as primarily a programmer). I'm well versed in more languages than anyone I know (including assembly language for four different chipsets), and I'm at least somewhat experienced in an even greater number. I'm able to easily install, configure, troubleshoot, and often hack many different operating systems. I'm also known at my job for being able to pick up almost any skill quickly, as-needed (such as studying for a CCNA, my most recent hobby) - I'm the resident fix-it-all here, especially when the task requires knowledge that none of us have at the time, or would normally require experts from a number of different areas. I have a range of experience that, in my line of work, is more comparable to the 50-something old-school techies that are inevitably found in this industry, than it is to my peers (who are in their late 20's and early 30's, have some range, but are usually unfamiliar with subjects outside their specific skill set).
I'm not bragging though, and here's why.
For all my wide range of skills, I've found I have been valued less in the corporate world than those more limited specialists. True, I can complete projects that normally take a whole team to do - and often faster. True, I've shown time and time again that I can find solutions and create software that even our better-paid experts haven't been able to seriously attempt. That doesn't matter, though, because as an accomplished generalist at a (large and growing company) I've found myself sidelined over and over, forced into a job of very limited scope that is filled with specialists (in ASP.Net in this case) who I now have to compete with (in the one area I was always weakest at - web design). I've had the empty pleasure of seeing my old tasks pulled away, one by one, so they can be moved into specialist departments (with the end result apparently being the same quality of work, but requiring a much larger work force). This wasn't due to overload (I can automate almost anyone out of a job) or poor work on my part, but simply a matter of corporate architecture. All of these skills I have, all of these years of experience, are now going utterly to waste, not because I have an inflated ego and believe myself to good for my present task, but because all I can do now is advise others on how to do the jobs I used to do, while I perform a now-monotonous role where quantity of output is the only way you're judged. That sort of thing, though, doesn't attract much attention or pay. If only I'd spent more time on one of those many subjects, mastering it more completely, because total mastery over one subject is eventually more useful than significant proficiency in many subjects.
The long and short of it is... expand your horizons. Learn new skills, and maintain the habit of studying, even long after you're out of school. Grow and adapt, and become at least marginally familiar with as many areas of technology as possible, because th
Imagine what would happen if they registered something per se libelous ("______-has-aids.com" would work if I remember anything about US law)? Given that the person in whose name that was registered might have nothing to do with the whole affair and just got libeled, well... can you say "fireworks"?
I'm not sure what the legalities are (IANAL), but libel suits usually result from the content of a website rather than from the domain name. It's the exposure that matters in libel. When it comes to domain names, trademark protection is usually the hot topic, as the mere existence of an infringing domain (and the threat that it may be used to confuse viewers) is more of a legal concern.
In general, though, most companies won't care about a specific domain. What they'll care about is a single company allowing itself to acquire many infringing domains. Chances are they won't even care about that - but we can still hope.:)
I was thinking more along the lines of trademark infringement. Something that would never go to court, but would result in a pretty quick C&D letter from a number of companies who are uncomfortable with their name being auto-registered on a whim.
I did verify that you have to initiate a purchase before they auto-register. If you simply do a search, they don't do anything (that I can see), but if you click on "Add Domains to Order", it shows up on a general whois a few seconds later, allocated for a year.
My question is... how long do they keep it? If they were to drop it after say, a few hours... even a few days... I'd consider it a dangerously abuseable practice but little worse. If they keep it any longer than that, it's a few steps shy of a domain hijack.
Seriously, I think it's just meant to be a service, but I don't see how it offers any kind of service if they allow others to waltz in and register these names themselves (which it sounds like they do, judging from posts on DomainState).
Huckabee is a former Baptist minister. Another delusional kook trying to turn the US into a theocracy. He really believes in that shit.
He may be a former Baptist minister, but his record strongly suggests that he can hold his beliefs without forcing them on everyone else. His time as a minister, as well as his up-front style of religion, made me dismiss him initially, but I've started to like him a good bit more. The only real problem I can take issue with now is that he's not as up-to-date on current events as I'd like, and as an avid target shooter I think his stunt with the shotgun was reckless.
Considering that he's having trouble getting Baptist support due to not being arch-conservative enough is a positive sign. He repeatedly spoke out against the politicization of that group while it was happening (as opposed to complaining after the fact), and he took an active role in flushing out as much racism and bigotry in that group as you could hope for (making him far more attractive to minority groups than someone who just panders to them).
I believe biblical inerrancy is incompatible with evidence, but I've known many intelligent people (including one of the best programmers I know) who stick to the idea - so I don't equate it with intelligence. As for it being "delusional", maybe it is... but so are most human models of morality, as the only truly logical behavior is utterly self-serving (including the need to produce a working civilization to protect you and your genetic heritage). The fact that I accept moral ideals myself only proves that I'm just as deluded as most of us.
Overall I'd describe him as a conservative progressive, meaning he's a progressive, but not as fast and loose about it as someone more liberal would be.
These days people are just letting things pass by though.. I'm not American and I didn't study history so maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think there have been any major protests in America in the last few decades? Not even over fuel prices (which is one of the major things that the French did recently, blockaded the port at Calais until the government dropped their new fuel tax). These days I'd bet the government would take a pretty heavy handed approach to any angry mob getting anywhere near the White House..
There are protests all the time in DC. At times, they are almost non-stop outside the Whitehouse (which is slightly dumb, considering that they make more impact at Capitol Hill). Also, many other areas of DC (such as the Lincoln Memorial) are considered valid locations for larger organized protests (less security risk, but high visibility).
One reason you don't see as many protests in the US as in other places is that... well... active protesting nearly always makes you look like a loonie, and most people know it. You do see quite a bit of it here, though it's not about the issues foreigners would seem to expect. Gulf War II was heavily protested (Afghanistan to an extent, but much heavier protesting over Iraq). Abortion is a major rallying cause. Gay Pride parades are a friendlier format, but have a definite protest component.
The dominant forms of protest in the US are actually part of our good side. Rather than screaming rioting extremists waving signs with quasi-sane slogans (we have those, but they're always upset over being relatively ignored), you have protest in the form of a plethora of bumper stickers, private signage, graffiti, t-shirt slogans, etc. This makes protest both quieter (and less scary to the rest of the populace), and also makes it far more visible and widespread than possible with masses of marching protesters. Blatant protesting primarily just appeals to people who already share the ideals expressed. Quieter forms have the advantage of targeting the silent majority. This low-key protest covers almost every point of view, and is widespread throughout the country. It's also a form of protest that the bulk of the population sees as rightfully protected. Any attempts to control this form of expression usually result in significant unrest, including from segments of the populace that reject the suppressed ideals. You can even support the legalization of definitively illegal activity, as long as you don't call for active violation of the law (marijuana legalization being a good example).
I'm sure it's this way elsewhere, but we never see it on the news. The impression most Americans are left with is of other countries that are either very quiet, or inclined to rise up and burn cities to the ground every time someone gets elected (no matter who it is). Then again, active protest has been a legal right here for a very long time, and we've learned how to control it (most of the time) without serious issues. We also seem a little more openly haunted by our failures (footage of blacks getting fire-hosed for demanding equality, for instance) than it seems many countries are - which makes both police and protesters cautious.
The real problem is when the issue being protested is a high-profile act of discrimination (real or perceived) - because such protests are usually spontaneous, uncontrolled, and tap into an emotional tension that I don't believe people in most industrialized nations can easily understand. One act of police brutality, one unpopular court decision, one unfortunate item of footage, can (and sometimes does) result in riots more brutal than the ones I've seen elsewhere in the western world.
The Daily Show (as well as The Colbert Report) are built on the assumption that the audience is at least vaguely familiar with the news. I've found that any time I've gotten too slack in keeping myself updated, the show is funny but just not as funny as usual. When I'm fully aware of the subject matter, the full humor comes out.
As for the show's memory regarding public statements, that used to be called Journalism. I think the only thing funnier than the show itself is the media reaction to it. The "real" journalists you see participating in the show do so because they like what he is doing, and can see the irony of a show that presents heavy editorial comment framed by humor in order to reach an audience that the major news networks have effectively lost.
It works. South Park and The Daily Show (after Stuart took it over) were the two main things that made Comedy Central grow and evolve, while it's siblings (the other comedy-based networks that few notice anymore) utterly failed. The History Channel became the Aliens and Biblical Prophecy Channel, The Discovery Channel became the Sharks, Blood, and Disasters Channel, and the Learning Channel, so promising at first, has effectively become the authoritative source of Medical Freaks and Wedding Planning. Meanwhile the Comedy Channel has gone from a dirt-broke cable backwater that mostly featured stand-up comedians in comedy clubs, old sitcoms, and a few forgettable homebrew series... to an utterly foul-mouthed travesty of toilet humor, sex humor, and tragedy humor dominated by high production values, social commentary disguised as comedy, a whole mess of puerile garbage with too many saving graces to be ignored, and some of the most controversial, hilarious, foul, and intelligent programming currently on television.
Saturday Night Live, at it's height, was usually just very very funny. In Living Color had some serious intelligence that slowly collapsed under it's own ghetto-targeted humor. Mad TV dabbled in commentary, but was mostly just shock humor. Meanwhile, the first decade of the 21st century has seen a network that rallies under the banner of the First Amendment in a way rarely seen. They really are the court jesters of this country (and beyond).
Incidentally, I have a running bet going with a few people that, very shortly after leaving office, if the show still stands, Bush will finally make an appearance on The Daily Show. He's had every other living president (sometimes more than once), and even the sitting VP's wife, so it's a fair chance.
I disagree. While I couldn't care less about the day-to-day mistakes of a sheltered flamed-out (and immensely successful) pop singer, I think it would be real news if she died, especially if by self-inflicted means. If someone important to culture (high or low) dies, it's always of general interest. Cobain was derided by most as just being one more rock star, and the constant MTV coverage of every hangnail and stubbed toe of his was little better than tabloid material... but his death was actually of some importance. It seems you have to die, preferably in a tragic manner, to achieve lasting fame. That doesn't mean it's a critical news story to be hashed over endlessly, but something on that level would warrant more than a "passing" mention.
The difference is that, now, network news is little different from MTV. Stephen King put it very well in one of his recent articles (http://cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/12/28/yir.2007/index.html?iref=newssearch/). Instead of a sober statement regarding someone's death, followed by controlled commentary, editorial, and discussion of their impact, it now degenerates into a media circus like something that belongs in a pop magazine - it goes on endlessly, long after any intelligent person ceases to care. Even Anna Nichole Smith, someone who was about as important as Tiny Tim (blessings be upon his Holy Yukelale) and Charro, is STILL a major factor in the news. My only consolation is that the "golden age" of culture is an illusion brought on by the fact that we tend to forget that Murrow, Cronkite, and others were usually sidelined by pure garbage - we just don't remember the garbage for long. And the Golden Age of radio, for all of it's moments, was primarily filled with works of fiction that make modern sitcoms look like Masterpiece Theater. The first half of the 20th century seems to be filled with literary masterpieces, but most of the actual books printed at that time were even worse than what we have today. Conversely, there are many works being printed today that will certainly get more respect from future generations than they can hope for today.
I have a theory. Most people, meaning the vast majority who have no significant neural defects, only believe they can't handle culture. People are conditioned, not by government but by their peers, to believe that science, history, technology, and literature are beyond them. In school, I constantly saw ghetto kids slowly gain an understanding of computers (under my tutelage), then desperately hid it from their peers (to whom any form of academic achievement by one of their own had racial overtones). Later I saw that most people seem to feel that anything beyond them was simply beyond them, not understanding that no one learns "geek" subjects without effort. Some people have a stronger sense of wonder, a more powerful curiosity, that drives them to learn and grow more than others, but I really don't believe there is much that is beyond the average person, if they only paid enough attention to develop an interest in higher culture. People like to be comfortable. They like to have limits, no matter what they say. Regrettably, most people will accept imaginary limits of their own making rather than risk the crushing reality of the real thing, a choice that cripples them worse than any failed undertaking ever could.
That's why the media is the way it is. That's why the lowest common denominator is so low. That's why the masses prefer prolefeed to actual information. They have conditioned themselves to do so, and continue to do so until it (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) becomes sufficiently widespread as to be socially acceptable to their self-imposed caste.
On a final note, I don't care what anyone says about Spears in her post-career phase, I would still tap that ass, no question.
The biggest problem with independent artists using services like Limewire for distribution is that they get mixed in with hordes of pirated music.
Also, internet radio is not currently affected in cases where it plays an unsigned artist's material, as royalties only apply to copyrighted tracks. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only way royalties hurt IR is that it's harder to get many people to listen to a purely indie station.
I'm sure there are services out there that make it easy to find, sample, and download independent music for free. If they exist, they aren't well known enough (at least not well enough for me to have heard of them and know what they are). The only one I can think of is Myspace, and there are piracy problems there as well.
I fully agree that the RIAA is rightfully threatened by increasingly easy recording, production, and distribution of quality independent music. However, as long as this walks hand in hand with rampant piracy, they will always find it a wise move to suppress it. It's a given that P2P systems that allow sharing of entire libraries, with no restrictions, will inevitably result in heavy piracy (that's human behavior - no matter how much the recording industry complains).
Here's what I think would make for a wildly successful way for artists to distribute their work, easily, cheaply, and without fuss:
An easy to access system, requiring no login, that allows you to freely sample it's entire library of music. Let the artists themselves select their sample clips.
Focus on a combination of samples (since many artists might not want to give it all away) and full tracks (for those who want to gamble on popularity, or are trying to get their name out).
Controlled uploads - ie I can't just start sharing my collection of Pink Floyd (all legal except for my beloved bootlegs). You want it to be easy for an artist to put up their work (and keep the requirements for "artist" as loose as possible), but make it harder for someone to put up material that is not theirs.
Absolute separation from the sale of these tracks - this isn't a requirement, but will help keep the system from eventually degenerating into a profit-driven system.
Checksum system, or other similar method, of identifying a track (and allowing the uploader to retain their rights later, except for the free distribution of what they have already released).
Adoption of any current DRM models, but without utilizing it's restrictive nature - just enough to be supported by DRM-driven software.
A means to keep the servers and bandwidth flowing without requiring a standard business model (ie go for advertising revenue - everyone hates it, but it works better than subscription and praying for donations).
Tie this with a venue system (ie see where the listed artists are playing, and make it easy for them to get a gig, tied heavily to their tracks)
And of course, a good user rating system, to make it easier for truly good work to rise to the forefront, but limited enough to where it's hard for heavy marketing to do anything more than draw attention to something (ie you cannot offer prioritized placement of a track in a rating system - the best you could do is pay for banner ads highlighting the artist)
The key is to make the system as trustworthy as possible (ie any complaints the RIAA has should be spurious, and DRM is used against them in that it marks the tracks as being from a trusted source), and focus on it's main goal (distribution of unsupported artists in a way that is difficult to , and steering clear of the politics of IP). Also, there has to be a means of selling the music, though it might be a good idea for the actual sales to be done from elsewhere (so there is little conflict of interest).
End result, independent artists have an easy way to get their names out, and the RIAA has a target that they can't blame for piracy. This forces the RIAA to either put on a white hat and not interfere with some
This is the type of logic that reduces the utility of a user rating system. Troll != discord.
Since when did a "troll" mod apply to any cynical (but commonplace) opinion directed at a popular company? I don't believe he is entirely correct in the case of Nintendo, but he had a very valid point in that it is common for corporations to skim over details they aren't as proud of. He never said they were guilty, he merely presented the same cynical view common on Slashdot - only he directed it at a company that has managed to maintain excellent PR and a loyal following (myself included) for decades.
Replace the company name and the subject being discussed, and his argument would be accepted much more readily. Using "Microsoft" would be far too easy, so try it with a company you have a neutral opinion of - perhaps a waste management company. If they go into detail on all the areas of ecology that they are doing well at, and another organization points out major (to them) factors not covered by the company's statement, you're going to naturally assume that it's for the usual reasons - specifically, that PR departments tend to ignore or downplay shortcomings. That's not always the case, and probably is not in the case of Nintendo, but the logic is defensible, at least as a reasonable opinion to express.
Also, he implied it as one reasonable possibility, not as a proclamation of guilt. Even if he did, would that make him a Troll, or just someone you disagree with?
On a side note, is there some natural law that dictates that every well-intentioned non-profit group must eventually degenerate into a caricature of their former selves? ie Greenpeace, PETA, MAD, etc. I fearfully await the day when the Red Cross begins to refuse assistance in non-allied countries, or when the Audubon Society is found guilty of sponsoring EcoTerrorism. Then again, I'm not certain PETA ever had credibility...
Out of curiosity, how many people still play Oblivion for the user mods?
I downloaded the various editors and got fairly good with them. I was just constructing test quests (focusing on technical matters rather than entertainment value), and got to the point where I could insert new structures into the cities without interfering with anything (as long as no one else used the same spot for another mod). I even wrote up my own index of different model types so I could build intricate buildings more easily. NPC control was more difficult, but I got it down well enough to do a good bit with it.
Problem is, once I quit playing Oblivion I lost a lot of interest in modifying it. If I did fire it back up and made something fun, is there much of an audience?
Death was never the end when you had an elementary school that let out early, a nearby arcade, and 8 quarters (that was given to you as "lunch money" that morning)...
The hardest thing about getting older is that your reflexes are never as good as they were when you were younger. I love to torment teenagers with that one, because it's one of the problems with age that they can clearly understand. hehe.
"Even Oblivion never 'ends' because you can continue doing minor quests after you beat the game."
I enjoyed Oblivion. I didn't think I would, but I derived a few weeks of significant enjoyment from that game. It was the first and only full RPG I have actually considered worthy since the Ultima series. The dialogue scripting came out far better than the usual anime soap opera styles that have taken over RPG's (Lucien in particularly had some memorable lines). It was a fairly flexible system, and a truly open game world that managed to wrangle you into the story.
But... the continued gameplay after the "end" ended up backfiring, at least on me. I love side-quests, and I love having enough warning before committing to the end-game to be able to finish my exploring. However... there is something to be said for a definitive end to a game. It's more satisfying - you feel you have now "completed" the game, rather than having simply seen the main plot through to the end. In the case of Oblivion, I tell people I finished it, but I never really felt that the game was completed - I just got tired of it after a while - which simply isn't fair for a game of that caliber.
Imagine how you would perceive the end of 1984 if the book had continued after Winston's story was done? If it had gone on for another 50 pages, rambling on with what's happening to others in the story, or the continued strengthening of the Party? It went into quite a bit more, over the course of the story, than Winston's own situation, but it started with him, and it had a clear and definitive end with the moment of his total defeat - which gave a satisfying ending.
To underscore my point - I can remember the end of most of the games I have played - especially my favorites. Oblivion was definitely a favorite of mine, but I honestly cannot remember how it ended. I remember how the Brotherhood missions ended, as well as the Thieves missions, but the actual end of the main game eludes me completely. I can remember the final events of Thief, Generals, Warcraft 1/2/3, Starcraft, etc... but I don't remember how the main story of Oblivion ended - and I think that is in part due to the fact that the game did not end with the story.
The only game that's worse is Pac Man. I have played that game, in total, for hundreds of hours, but I never managed to reach the end. I've talked to others, and no one has reached the end of Pac Man. What's the point in making a game so difficult that no one can beat it? It drives me nuts, keeps me up at night, and has kept me in a state of frustration for the past 27 years. *sob*
Heh. I specifically kept my old car after it finally broke down and was replaced (due to negligible trade-in value). Since then, I used it as a training platform for basic repair - and it works again.
That means I have a fully functional older car (and a 99 Saturn SL2 isn't that bad for an extra car), and I've been thinking along the same lines (though I intended to use a laptop - cheap older laptops seem much easier to maintain in a car due to low power, batteries, inbuilt (but removable) display, and increased durability).
Have you had any kind of luck finding anything like a HUD system? Even if it requires silvering part of the winshield...
Any opinions on if the cpu has enough juice to be worthwhile as an inexpensive test platform for some distributed computing experiments?
I've been hunting for cheap systems to put together for some experimental work I want to do (as well as learning how to properly run a Beowulf), and so far this looks like the best deal I've seen. With onboard lan and video, all I'd need to do is toss in some memory, hack together some sort of combined power supply, and build a rack to store the boards in, and I've got a test platform that might just fall into my (underpaid developer) price range.
Any comparisons to get an idea of what kind of processing power you actually get out of it? I wouldn't be going for a badass grid system, but there's little point if I might as well round up a bunch of old 486's.
I have seen job postings for SAP over and over, and barely know what it is beyond what I can read online.
Just how hard is it to get into SAP in the first place, especially if you're already a multi-platform multi-language programmer (including.Net, w/ certs) with experience administrating a few thousand servers?
We're discussing basic boolean logic here, so leave your third operative out of this discussion.
And I would never bring out the whole argument-with-infinity matter, because it's a logical fallacy as infinity combined in any other operation is still infinity. No, I have a much better one. Because, you see, God is on MY side, therefore any counter-debate is inherently sinful in nature.
There is no superior counter-argument to that one, short of forcing an invokation of Godwin's Law.
The concept of "objective truth" is in itself a matter of opinion. Reality is largely what our sensory apparatus reports to our brains, which are hardwired to perceive time, space, and sequential events in a specific way - one probably about as old as dorsal spinal cords.
All science is at it's core is a systematized method of exploring reality. It is very prone to error, and will remain so until our replacement by omniscient robot overlords. However, the size of those errors continually shrink, due to the continued re-evaluation of earlier scientific thought in light of new discoveries and information.
Suggesting that a retraction contributes to any rational view that scientific "truth" is impossible isn't much different from saying that Newton's failure to account for relativity was a colossal failure, or that Galileo's observations were worthless because he stated that there were only four moons orbiting Jupiter.
It's a continual process - the tendency for people to insist that our current level of knowledge is somehow perfect or that our interpretations will stand the test of time is purely a human failure, not a scientific one.
...
Except for my newly completed research paper, "On The Malignant Intelligence of Common Squirrels: A Case Study of Proven Instances of Spying, Planning, and Aggressive Behavior in the Genus Tamiasciurus". My work is pure scientific perfection, without question.
I take great offense to this post, and will elaborate on exactly why.
You propose that the poster you quoted is never wrong. We'll take this statement as Truth B.
Truth A similarly states that it is I who am never wrong.
Truth A and Truth B, under normal conditions, can coexist. However, if you run this pair through enough permutations, you will eventually include an instance that pits myself against him. In such a case, the two statements are mutually exclusive.
Since A is a constant, and B is hypothetical in nature, then the result is obvious to anyone with a clear head. Truth A logically overules Truth B, rendering B less than factual.
The GameCube was never on top, but the company seriously banked on it (in part because they lost less money making them, and they sold many many many games and systems, and had stronger licensing than either ps2 or xbox). If the technically-superior PS3 manages to top the market, it still won't matter if Sony doesn't turn the same profit as Nintendo and Microsoft. For most console makers, the only value in console sales is the likelihood of following game sales - which is where the money is now. Considering how many people own multiple same-gen consoles these days, it matters even less. If Nintendo's profits are higher than the "winner", and their stocks rise more, then they're the real winners.
Of course, while being technically inferior may likely hobble Nintendo's chances of taking the market, the high price and late-coming of the PS3 may cripple it. I won't claim that as any kind of insight, it's common knowledge. Also, unlike previously (where the early next-gen entries hadn't really taken off before the others showed up), both the Wii and the PS3 didn't come out until AFTER the 360 was already in the process of beating out the previous best seller (PS2 - old gen, but still the best seller until recently), which means the 360 is already the most profitable platform to write software for. The Wii is doing well because of it's originality, but technical badassness is the only thing the PS3 has going for it (if the ps2 market is already saturated, who cares if the ps3 can also play most ps2 games?). Meanwhile the 360 has already established dominance - which the Wii may only beat due to it's price, if nothing else.
One reason the Wii may do very very well in the long run is the fact that it can compliment another game system, rather than compete with it. For instance, I have an XBox 360. Because of that, I have very little interest in a PS3 - even if it were much cheaper - because I'd be getting the same games that might look slightly better (if they actually upped it for the ps3) but otherwise a very similar system (with no XBox Live). However - I'm considering buying a Wii to go along with it, especially after playing with my niece and nephew's a bit, mostly because Wii-centered games like Rayman are fun as all hell, in a way that you can't get on another console, and anything else that's not Wii-centered I can get for the XBox w/ better graphics and speed. All the PS3 can offer me is potential for slightly better graphics that I likely won't notice.
Ultimately, the PS3's primary advantage (better graphics) would mostly appeal to people who are already graphics fiends, and thus own a computer where they can get REAL graphics. Consoles are pretty, but a well-configured pc w/ a good game can make them look like a toy (though if you have a 1080p tv, a lot of the resolution advantage is lost).
Slashdot Mirror
I spell profits on the wind...
*sniffs himself*
Yeah, it's the wind.
It was a long time ago, and I can barely remember it, but I believe the first game I truly enjoyed that required my active participation was that one where you drop things from your highchair, and suddenly you have another one just like it. Drop it again, and another one shows up. I was hooked on that game for what must have been at least a month or two.
Not only that, but it was a multiplayer game (2nd player, generally an adult, was required to complete the first level).
I picked Doom because virtually everyone here could identify with that - and because intense experiences make it easier to recall your train of thought years later. I originally was going to mention books and how you interpreted them differently over time, but that would be inherently unfair, since a healthily aged mind would see few defects in that area over time.
Otherwise, dismissing a post for mentioning a popular shared experience would be much like me dismissing your comment for, say, not using commas to separate phrases, or mine for consisting entirely of long and winding run-on sentences (which are extremely difficult to try to punctuate with anything approaching grammatical correctness).
For all the medical problems society obsesses over treatments for (cancer, aids, and other popular areas), Alzheimer's (and senility in general) is the one that scares me the most. I would rather die in pain, with my mind intact, than slowly forget who I am.
My paternal grandmother died before Alzheimer's was well recognized, but in retrospect it's pretty likely to be the cause of her condition. My grandfather, having seen his wife forget who he was, was always far more afraid of going down that same path than he was of his own approaching end - and I can easily see his point.
The worst part about growing old isn't physical frailty... it's the slow breakdown of cognitive power. Of course, as a 33-year-old I can say this with absolute authority. The worst part of *that* is that it doesn't wait to start until you're old, either. I'm sure most of you have noticed changes over the years, and not all of them good.
Here's a question that's been on my mind lately. How would most of you rate changes to how your mind has worked over the years? Have you noticed your reflexes aren't what they were when you were a teenager? Looking at any older writings of yours, have you ever had the feeling that your imagination may have grown more refined, but also lost some of it's raw power at some point? Regardless of the cognitive rewards of time and experience, are there any earlier capabilities that you feel you may have lost some grip on, or even noticed more clearly in younger coworkers or relatives than you used to?
In my case, for example, I've noticed that in a video game, I just don't react to unexpected situations quite as fast or well as I used to. I remember charging into a room in Doom, blasting everything I saw and dodging almost every shot - whereas lately I tend to get hit more often - I don't do the duck-and-dodge like I did in my teens and early 20's. On the other hand, I'm much more calculating in every move I make, and find it easier to manipulate computer opponents than it used to be - even with all the advances in AI. I don't have the raw speed and reaction time that I used to, but the intellectual component comes more readily and with virtually no effort compared to before.
What do you younger guys think of the minds of older coworkers? What about any of you in your 30's and 40's, in dealing with people younger or older than you on an intellectual level? And of the most interest to me, how do you geezers (I know there's some who come here - maybe even a handful) relate to us 30-somethings? Do we seem like slightly inexperienced versions of your peers? Or do we seem like idiot children with fast reflexes but weak comprehension?
I'll wholeheartedly second everything Tritonman says here. You don't have to become a low-level master to be a good programmer, but a basic working knowledge of C and C++ is the key to understanding the majority of languages you'll face later (including ones that do not yet exist). Assembly teaches you why software is laid out the way it is, as that's what all compilers must eventually boil down to in one way or another. You don't need to be able to compose a serious tool in Assembly - you don't even have to know how to write anything useful in it. However, knowing the basics will give you a more solid framework for all later programming skills you tackle.
However, here is another piece of advice. You'll hear many advising you to maintain a wide array of general skills, and they're absolutely right. On the other hand, I've been a programmer for about a decade, as well as an administrator (win and unix), graphic artist, management, and a wide array of other job descriptions - each of which I am well above average in, but none of which I specialize in (though my resume paints me as primarily a programmer). I'm well versed in more languages than anyone I know (including assembly language for four different chipsets), and I'm at least somewhat experienced in an even greater number. I'm able to easily install, configure, troubleshoot, and often hack many different operating systems. I'm also known at my job for being able to pick up almost any skill quickly, as-needed (such as studying for a CCNA, my most recent hobby) - I'm the resident fix-it-all here, especially when the task requires knowledge that none of us have at the time, or would normally require experts from a number of different areas. I have a range of experience that, in my line of work, is more comparable to the 50-something old-school techies that are inevitably found in this industry, than it is to my peers (who are in their late 20's and early 30's, have some range, but are usually unfamiliar with subjects outside their specific skill set).
I'm not bragging though, and here's why.
For all my wide range of skills, I've found I have been valued less in the corporate world than those more limited specialists. True, I can complete projects that normally take a whole team to do - and often faster. True, I've shown time and time again that I can find solutions and create software that even our better-paid experts haven't been able to seriously attempt. That doesn't matter, though, because as an accomplished generalist at a (large and growing company) I've found myself sidelined over and over, forced into a job of very limited scope that is filled with specialists (in ASP.Net in this case) who I now have to compete with (in the one area I was always weakest at - web design). I've had the empty pleasure of seeing my old tasks pulled away, one by one, so they can be moved into specialist departments (with the end result apparently being the same quality of work, but requiring a much larger work force). This wasn't due to overload (I can automate almost anyone out of a job) or poor work on my part, but simply a matter of corporate architecture. All of these skills I have, all of these years of experience, are now going utterly to waste, not because I have an inflated ego and believe myself to good for my present task, but because all I can do now is advise others on how to do the jobs I used to do, while I perform a now-monotonous role where quantity of output is the only way you're judged. That sort of thing, though, doesn't attract much attention or pay. If only I'd spent more time on one of those many subjects, mastering it more completely, because total mastery over one subject is eventually more useful than significant proficiency in many subjects.
The long and short of it is... expand your horizons. Learn new skills, and maintain the habit of studying, even long after you're out of school. Grow and adapt, and become at least marginally familiar with as many areas of technology as possible, because th
I'm not sure what the legalities are (IANAL), but libel suits usually result from the content of a website rather than from the domain name. It's the exposure that matters in libel. When it comes to domain names, trademark protection is usually the hot topic, as the mere existence of an infringing domain (and the threat that it may be used to confuse viewers) is more of a legal concern.
In general, though, most companies won't care about a specific domain. What they'll care about is a single company allowing itself to acquire many infringing domains. Chances are they won't even care about that - but we can still hope.
I was thinking more along the lines of trademark infringement. Something that would never go to court, but would result in a pretty quick C&D letter from a number of companies who are uncomfortable with their name being auto-registered on a whim.
I did verify that you have to initiate a purchase before they auto-register. If you simply do a search, they don't do anything (that I can see), but if you click on "Add Domains to Order", it shows up on a general whois a few seconds later, allocated for a year.
My question is... how long do they keep it? If they were to drop it after say, a few hours... even a few days... I'd consider it a dangerously abuseable practice but little worse. If they keep it any longer than that, it's a few steps shy of a domain hijack.
Seriously, I think it's just meant to be a service, but I don't see how it offers any kind of service if they allow others to waltz in and register these names themselves (which it sounds like they do, judging from posts on DomainState).
He may be a former Baptist minister, but his record strongly suggests that he can hold his beliefs without forcing them on everyone else. His time as a minister, as well as his up-front style of religion, made me dismiss him initially, but I've started to like him a good bit more. The only real problem I can take issue with now is that he's not as up-to-date on current events as I'd like, and as an avid target shooter I think his stunt with the shotgun was reckless.
Considering that he's having trouble getting Baptist support due to not being arch-conservative enough is a positive sign. He repeatedly spoke out against the politicization of that group while it was happening (as opposed to complaining after the fact), and he took an active role in flushing out as much racism and bigotry in that group as you could hope for (making him far more attractive to minority groups than someone who just panders to them).
I believe biblical inerrancy is incompatible with evidence, but I've known many intelligent people (including one of the best programmers I know) who stick to the idea - so I don't equate it with intelligence. As for it being "delusional", maybe it is... but so are most human models of morality, as the only truly logical behavior is utterly self-serving (including the need to produce a working civilization to protect you and your genetic heritage). The fact that I accept moral ideals myself only proves that I'm just as deluded as most of us.
Overall I'd describe him as a conservative progressive, meaning he's a progressive, but not as fast and loose about it as someone more liberal would be.
There are protests all the time in DC. At times, they are almost non-stop outside the Whitehouse (which is slightly dumb, considering that they make more impact at Capitol Hill). Also, many other areas of DC (such as the Lincoln Memorial) are considered valid locations for larger organized protests (less security risk, but high visibility).
One reason you don't see as many protests in the US as in other places is that... well... active protesting nearly always makes you look like a loonie, and most people know it. You do see quite a bit of it here, though it's not about the issues foreigners would seem to expect. Gulf War II was heavily protested (Afghanistan to an extent, but much heavier protesting over Iraq). Abortion is a major rallying cause. Gay Pride parades are a friendlier format, but have a definite protest component.
The dominant forms of protest in the US are actually part of our good side. Rather than screaming rioting extremists waving signs with quasi-sane slogans (we have those, but they're always upset over being relatively ignored), you have protest in the form of a plethora of bumper stickers, private signage, graffiti, t-shirt slogans, etc. This makes protest both quieter (and less scary to the rest of the populace), and also makes it far more visible and widespread than possible with masses of marching protesters. Blatant protesting primarily just appeals to people who already share the ideals expressed. Quieter forms have the advantage of targeting the silent majority. This low-key protest covers almost every point of view, and is widespread throughout the country. It's also a form of protest that the bulk of the population sees as rightfully protected. Any attempts to control this form of expression usually result in significant unrest, including from segments of the populace that reject the suppressed ideals. You can even support the legalization of definitively illegal activity, as long as you don't call for active violation of the law (marijuana legalization being a good example).
I'm sure it's this way elsewhere, but we never see it on the news. The impression most Americans are left with is of other countries that are either very quiet, or inclined to rise up and burn cities to the ground every time someone gets elected (no matter who it is). Then again, active protest has been a legal right here for a very long time, and we've learned how to control it (most of the time) without serious issues. We also seem a little more openly haunted by our failures (footage of blacks getting fire-hosed for demanding equality, for instance) than it seems many countries are - which makes both police and protesters cautious.
The real problem is when the issue being protested is a high-profile act of discrimination (real or perceived) - because such protests are usually spontaneous, uncontrolled, and tap into an emotional tension that I don't believe people in most industrialized nations can easily understand. One act of police brutality, one unpopular court decision, one unfortunate item of footage, can (and sometimes does) result in riots more brutal than the ones I've seen elsewhere in the western world.
Both. And/Or. It's my favorite network, but I still shudder at it. I think that's what they want.
The Daily Show (as well as The Colbert Report) are built on the assumption that the audience is at least vaguely familiar with the news. I've found that any time I've gotten too slack in keeping myself updated, the show is funny but just not as funny as usual. When I'm fully aware of the subject matter, the full humor comes out.
As for the show's memory regarding public statements, that used to be called Journalism. I think the only thing funnier than the show itself is the media reaction to it. The "real" journalists you see participating in the show do so because they like what he is doing, and can see the irony of a show that presents heavy editorial comment framed by humor in order to reach an audience that the major news networks have effectively lost.
It works. South Park and The Daily Show (after Stuart took it over) were the two main things that made Comedy Central grow and evolve, while it's siblings (the other comedy-based networks that few notice anymore) utterly failed. The History Channel became the Aliens and Biblical Prophecy Channel, The Discovery Channel became the Sharks, Blood, and Disasters Channel, and the Learning Channel, so promising at first, has effectively become the authoritative source of Medical Freaks and Wedding Planning. Meanwhile the Comedy Channel has gone from a dirt-broke cable backwater that mostly featured stand-up comedians in comedy clubs, old sitcoms, and a few forgettable homebrew series... to an utterly foul-mouthed travesty of toilet humor, sex humor, and tragedy humor dominated by high production values, social commentary disguised as comedy, a whole mess of puerile garbage with too many saving graces to be ignored, and some of the most controversial, hilarious, foul, and intelligent programming currently on television.
Saturday Night Live, at it's height, was usually just very very funny. In Living Color had some serious intelligence that slowly collapsed under it's own ghetto-targeted humor. Mad TV dabbled in commentary, but was mostly just shock humor. Meanwhile, the first decade of the 21st century has seen a network that rallies under the banner of the First Amendment in a way rarely seen. They really are the court jesters of this country (and beyond).
Incidentally, I have a running bet going with a few people that, very shortly after leaving office, if the show still stands, Bush will finally make an appearance on The Daily Show. He's had every other living president (sometimes more than once), and even the sitting VP's wife, so it's a fair chance.
I disagree. While I couldn't care less about the day-to-day mistakes of a sheltered flamed-out (and immensely successful) pop singer, I think it would be real news if she died, especially if by self-inflicted means. If someone important to culture (high or low) dies, it's always of general interest. Cobain was derided by most as just being one more rock star, and the constant MTV coverage of every hangnail and stubbed toe of his was little better than tabloid material... but his death was actually of some importance. It seems you have to die, preferably in a tragic manner, to achieve lasting fame. That doesn't mean it's a critical news story to be hashed over endlessly, but something on that level would warrant more than a "passing" mention.
The difference is that, now, network news is little different from MTV. Stephen King put it very well in one of his recent articles (http://cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/12/28/yir.2007/index.html?iref=newssearch/). Instead of a sober statement regarding someone's death, followed by controlled commentary, editorial, and discussion of their impact, it now degenerates into a media circus like something that belongs in a pop magazine - it goes on endlessly, long after any intelligent person ceases to care. Even Anna Nichole Smith, someone who was about as important as Tiny Tim (blessings be upon his Holy Yukelale) and Charro, is STILL a major factor in the news. My only consolation is that the "golden age" of culture is an illusion brought on by the fact that we tend to forget that Murrow, Cronkite, and others were usually sidelined by pure garbage - we just don't remember the garbage for long. And the Golden Age of radio, for all of it's moments, was primarily filled with works of fiction that make modern sitcoms look like Masterpiece Theater. The first half of the 20th century seems to be filled with literary masterpieces, but most of the actual books printed at that time were even worse than what we have today. Conversely, there are many works being printed today that will certainly get more respect from future generations than they can hope for today.
I have a theory. Most people, meaning the vast majority who have no significant neural defects, only believe they can't handle culture. People are conditioned, not by government but by their peers, to believe that science, history, technology, and literature are beyond them. In school, I constantly saw ghetto kids slowly gain an understanding of computers (under my tutelage), then desperately hid it from their peers (to whom any form of academic achievement by one of their own had racial overtones). Later I saw that most people seem to feel that anything beyond them was simply beyond them, not understanding that no one learns "geek" subjects without effort. Some people have a stronger sense of wonder, a more powerful curiosity, that drives them to learn and grow more than others, but I really don't believe there is much that is beyond the average person, if they only paid enough attention to develop an interest in higher culture. People like to be comfortable. They like to have limits, no matter what they say. Regrettably, most people will accept imaginary limits of their own making rather than risk the crushing reality of the real thing, a choice that cripples them worse than any failed undertaking ever could.
That's why the media is the way it is. That's why the lowest common denominator is so low. That's why the masses prefer prolefeed to actual information. They have conditioned themselves to do so, and continue to do so until it (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) becomes sufficiently widespread as to be socially acceptable to their self-imposed caste.
On a final note, I don't care what anyone says about Spears in her post-career phase, I would still tap that ass, no question.
Also, internet radio is not currently affected in cases where it plays an unsigned artist's material, as royalties only apply to copyrighted tracks. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only way royalties hurt IR is that it's harder to get many people to listen to a purely indie station.
I'm sure there are services out there that make it easy to find, sample, and download independent music for free. If they exist, they aren't well known enough (at least not well enough for me to have heard of them and know what they are). The only one I can think of is Myspace, and there are piracy problems there as well.
I fully agree that the RIAA is rightfully threatened by increasingly easy recording, production, and distribution of quality independent music. However, as long as this walks hand in hand with rampant piracy, they will always find it a wise move to suppress it. It's a given that P2P systems that allow sharing of entire libraries, with no restrictions, will inevitably result in heavy piracy (that's human behavior - no matter how much the recording industry complains).
Here's what I think would make for a wildly successful way for artists to distribute their work, easily, cheaply, and without fuss:
An easy to access system, requiring no login, that allows you to freely sample it's entire library of music. Let the artists themselves select their sample clips.
Focus on a combination of samples (since many artists might not want to give it all away) and full tracks (for those who want to gamble on popularity, or are trying to get their name out).
Controlled uploads - ie I can't just start sharing my collection of Pink Floyd (all legal except for my beloved bootlegs). You want it to be easy for an artist to put up their work (and keep the requirements for "artist" as loose as possible), but make it harder for someone to put up material that is not theirs.
Absolute separation from the sale of these tracks - this isn't a requirement, but will help keep the system from eventually degenerating into a profit-driven system.
Checksum system, or other similar method, of identifying a track (and allowing the uploader to retain their rights later, except for the free distribution of what they have already released).
Adoption of any current DRM models, but without utilizing it's restrictive nature - just enough to be supported by DRM-driven software.
A means to keep the servers and bandwidth flowing without requiring a standard business model (ie go for advertising revenue - everyone hates it, but it works better than subscription and praying for donations).
Tie this with a venue system (ie see where the listed artists are playing, and make it easy for them to get a gig, tied heavily to their tracks)
And of course, a good user rating system, to make it easier for truly good work to rise to the forefront, but limited enough to where it's hard for heavy marketing to do anything more than draw attention to something (ie you cannot offer prioritized placement of a track in a rating system - the best you could do is pay for banner ads highlighting the artist)
The key is to make the system as trustworthy as possible (ie any complaints the RIAA has should be spurious, and DRM is used against them in that it marks the tracks as being from a trusted source), and focus on it's main goal (distribution of unsupported artists in a way that is difficult to , and steering clear of the politics of IP). Also, there has to be a means of selling the music, though it might be a good idea for the actual sales to be done from elsewhere (so there is little conflict of interest).
End result, independent artists have an easy way to get their names out, and the RIAA has a target that they can't blame for piracy. This forces the RIAA to either put on a white hat and not interfere with some
I think that is exactly what the man was saying. No hit = no notoriety = weak resumes.
This is the type of logic that reduces the utility of a user rating system. Troll != discord.
Since when did a "troll" mod apply to any cynical (but commonplace) opinion directed at a popular company? I don't believe he is entirely correct in the case of Nintendo, but he had a very valid point in that it is common for corporations to skim over details they aren't as proud of. He never said they were guilty, he merely presented the same cynical view common on Slashdot - only he directed it at a company that has managed to maintain excellent PR and a loyal following (myself included) for decades.
Replace the company name and the subject being discussed, and his argument would be accepted much more readily. Using "Microsoft" would be far too easy, so try it with a company you have a neutral opinion of - perhaps a waste management company. If they go into detail on all the areas of ecology that they are doing well at, and another organization points out major (to them) factors not covered by the company's statement, you're going to naturally assume that it's for the usual reasons - specifically, that PR departments tend to ignore or downplay shortcomings. That's not always the case, and probably is not in the case of Nintendo, but the logic is defensible, at least as a reasonable opinion to express.
Also, he implied it as one reasonable possibility, not as a proclamation of guilt. Even if he did, would that make him a Troll, or just someone you disagree with?
On a side note, is there some natural law that dictates that every well-intentioned non-profit group must eventually degenerate into a caricature of their former selves? ie Greenpeace, PETA, MAD, etc. I fearfully await the day when the Red Cross begins to refuse assistance in non-allied countries, or when the Audubon Society is found guilty of sponsoring EcoTerrorism. Then again, I'm not certain PETA ever had credibility...
Out of curiosity, how many people still play Oblivion for the user mods?
I downloaded the various editors and got fairly good with them. I was just constructing test quests (focusing on technical matters rather than entertainment value), and got to the point where I could insert new structures into the cities without interfering with anything (as long as no one else used the same spot for another mod). I even wrote up my own index of different model types so I could build intricate buildings more easily. NPC control was more difficult, but I got it down well enough to do a good bit with it.
Problem is, once I quit playing Oblivion I lost a lot of interest in modifying it. If I did fire it back up and made something fun, is there much of an audience?
Death was never the end when you had an elementary school that let out early, a nearby arcade, and 8 quarters (that was given to you as "lunch money" that morning)...
The hardest thing about getting older is that your reflexes are never as good as they were when you were younger. I love to torment teenagers with that one, because it's one of the problems with age that they can clearly understand. hehe.
"Even Oblivion never 'ends' because you can continue doing minor quests after you beat the game."
I enjoyed Oblivion. I didn't think I would, but I derived a few weeks of significant enjoyment from that game. It was the first and only full RPG I have actually considered worthy since the Ultima series. The dialogue scripting came out far better than the usual anime soap opera styles that have taken over RPG's (Lucien in particularly had some memorable lines). It was a fairly flexible system, and a truly open game world that managed to wrangle you into the story.
But... the continued gameplay after the "end" ended up backfiring, at least on me. I love side-quests, and I love having enough warning before committing to the end-game to be able to finish my exploring. However... there is something to be said for a definitive end to a game. It's more satisfying - you feel you have now "completed" the game, rather than having simply seen the main plot through to the end. In the case of Oblivion, I tell people I finished it, but I never really felt that the game was completed - I just got tired of it after a while - which simply isn't fair for a game of that caliber.
Imagine how you would perceive the end of 1984 if the book had continued after Winston's story was done? If it had gone on for another 50 pages, rambling on with what's happening to others in the story, or the continued strengthening of the Party? It went into quite a bit more, over the course of the story, than Winston's own situation, but it started with him, and it had a clear and definitive end with the moment of his total defeat - which gave a satisfying ending.
To underscore my point - I can remember the end of most of the games I have played - especially my favorites. Oblivion was definitely a favorite of mine, but I honestly cannot remember how it ended. I remember how the Brotherhood missions ended, as well as the Thieves missions, but the actual end of the main game eludes me completely. I can remember the final events of Thief, Generals, Warcraft 1/2/3, Starcraft, etc... but I don't remember how the main story of Oblivion ended - and I think that is in part due to the fact that the game did not end with the story.
The only game that's worse is Pac Man. I have played that game, in total, for hundreds of hours, but I never managed to reach the end. I've talked to others, and no one has reached the end of Pac Man. What's the point in making a game so difficult that no one can beat it? It drives me nuts, keeps me up at night, and has kept me in a state of frustration for the past 27 years. *sob*
Heh. I specifically kept my old car after it finally broke down and was replaced (due to negligible trade-in value). Since then, I used it as a training platform for basic repair - and it works again.
That means I have a fully functional older car (and a 99 Saturn SL2 isn't that bad for an extra car), and I've been thinking along the same lines (though I intended to use a laptop - cheap older laptops seem much easier to maintain in a car due to low power, batteries, inbuilt (but removable) display, and increased durability).
Have you had any kind of luck finding anything like a HUD system? Even if it requires silvering part of the winshield...
Any opinions on if the cpu has enough juice to be worthwhile as an inexpensive test platform for some distributed computing experiments?
I've been hunting for cheap systems to put together for some experimental work I want to do (as well as learning how to properly run a Beowulf), and so far this looks like the best deal I've seen. With onboard lan and video, all I'd need to do is toss in some memory, hack together some sort of combined power supply, and build a rack to store the boards in, and I've got a test platform that might just fall into my (underpaid developer) price range.
Any comparisons to get an idea of what kind of processing power you actually get out of it? I wouldn't be going for a badass grid system, but there's little point if I might as well round up a bunch of old 486's.
I have seen job postings for SAP over and over, and barely know what it is beyond what I can read online.
.Net, w/ certs) with experience administrating a few thousand servers?
Just how hard is it to get into SAP in the first place, especially if you're already a multi-platform multi-language programmer (including
We're discussing basic boolean logic here, so leave your third operative out of this discussion.
And I would never bring out the whole argument-with-infinity matter, because it's a logical fallacy as infinity combined in any other operation is still infinity. No, I have a much better one. Because, you see, God is on MY side, therefore any counter-debate is inherently sinful in nature.
There is no superior counter-argument to that one, short of forcing an invokation of Godwin's Law.
The concept of "objective truth" is in itself a matter of opinion. Reality is largely what our sensory apparatus reports to our brains, which are hardwired to perceive time, space, and sequential events in a specific way - one probably about as old as dorsal spinal cords.
All science is at it's core is a systematized method of exploring reality. It is very prone to error, and will remain so until our replacement by omniscient robot overlords. However, the size of those errors continually shrink, due to the continued re-evaluation of earlier scientific thought in light of new discoveries and information.
Suggesting that a retraction contributes to any rational view that scientific "truth" is impossible isn't much different from saying that Newton's failure to account for relativity was a colossal failure, or that Galileo's observations were worthless because he stated that there were only four moons orbiting Jupiter.
It's a continual process - the tendency for people to insist that our current level of knowledge is somehow perfect or that our interpretations will stand the test of time is purely a human failure, not a scientific one.
...
Except for my newly completed research paper, "On The Malignant Intelligence of Common Squirrels: A Case Study of Proven Instances of Spying, Planning, and Aggressive Behavior in the Genus Tamiasciurus". My work is pure scientific perfection, without question.
I take great offense to this post, and will elaborate on exactly why.
You propose that the poster you quoted is never wrong. We'll take this statement as Truth B. Truth A similarly states that it is I who am never wrong.
Truth A and Truth B, under normal conditions, can coexist. However, if you run this pair through enough permutations, you will eventually include an instance that pits myself against him. In such a case, the two statements are mutually exclusive.
Since A is a constant, and B is hypothetical in nature, then the result is obvious to anyone with a clear head. Truth A logically overules Truth B, rendering B less than factual.
Thank you for your time.
The GameCube was never on top, but the company seriously banked on it (in part because they lost less money making them, and they sold many many many games and systems, and had stronger licensing than either ps2 or xbox). If the technically-superior PS3 manages to top the market, it still won't matter if Sony doesn't turn the same profit as Nintendo and Microsoft. For most console makers, the only value in console sales is the likelihood of following game sales - which is where the money is now. Considering how many people own multiple same-gen consoles these days, it matters even less. If Nintendo's profits are higher than the "winner", and their stocks rise more, then they're the real winners.
Of course, while being technically inferior may likely hobble Nintendo's chances of taking the market, the high price and late-coming of the PS3 may cripple it. I won't claim that as any kind of insight, it's common knowledge. Also, unlike previously (where the early next-gen entries hadn't really taken off before the others showed up), both the Wii and the PS3 didn't come out until AFTER the 360 was already in the process of beating out the previous best seller (PS2 - old gen, but still the best seller until recently), which means the 360 is already the most profitable platform to write software for. The Wii is doing well because of it's originality, but technical badassness is the only thing the PS3 has going for it (if the ps2 market is already saturated, who cares if the ps3 can also play most ps2 games?). Meanwhile the 360 has already established dominance - which the Wii may only beat due to it's price, if nothing else.
One reason the Wii may do very very well in the long run is the fact that it can compliment another game system, rather than compete with it. For instance, I have an XBox 360. Because of that, I have very little interest in a PS3 - even if it were much cheaper - because I'd be getting the same games that might look slightly better (if they actually upped it for the ps3) but otherwise a very similar system (with no XBox Live). However - I'm considering buying a Wii to go along with it, especially after playing with my niece and nephew's a bit, mostly because Wii-centered games like Rayman are fun as all hell, in a way that you can't get on another console, and anything else that's not Wii-centered I can get for the XBox w/ better graphics and speed. All the PS3 can offer me is potential for slightly better graphics that I likely won't notice.
Ultimately, the PS3's primary advantage (better graphics) would mostly appeal to people who are already graphics fiends, and thus own a computer where they can get REAL graphics. Consoles are pretty, but a well-configured pc w/ a good game can make them look like a toy (though if you have a 1080p tv, a lot of the resolution advantage is lost).