Wearing a maple leaf is going overboard? And who's afraid of offending Canadians? What countries are so shy and meek as to be afraid of big bad Canada?
Bullshit. Canadian music, film, and tv practically didn't exist prior to the 1970s Canadian Content rules and coinciding grants programmes. Talk to some commercially successful Canadian artists - Paul Grosse, as a standout example - to come to grips with the fact that although certain tax-shy Canadians don't like it, the Canada-centric arts incentives do in fact make a huge difference in the presence of Canada-created art. CTV is an excellent example of a network that wouldn't even exist if CanCon hadn't created a competitive market to begin with.
Sounds like you just have limited taste for and exposure to both SF and Fantasy. Star Trek as an example of "literary science fiction"? Seriously? Not Le Guin? I mean, if you want to look at work with literary pretensions, Le Guin stands above the rest (maybe Dick stands up there with her, haven't read enough to be sure). If you want something a little more recent, try Greg Egan, whose work has been described as "thinly veiled metaphysical dissertations", and by reviewers working in the short SF markets, no less. In general, try written science fiction over stuff from the boob tube and Hollywood.
Also, if you think all fantasy is Conan, perhaps you should peruse an actual fantasy catalog sometime. Try Guy Gavriel Kay, Nalo Hopkinson, or Cory Doctorow for very different versions of fantasy. Fantasy is the literature of imagination. It's also a good way to do a really pure distillation of the hero's journey, which is where D&D and Conan come into the picture, but reducing the whole lot to just those books does terrible things to a mind.
One has to point out to those criticizing the DK class, however, that they don't actually get their abilities and talent points without several hours of death knight-centric game play. It's no substitute for hundreds of hours of play time, but it's not a bad compromise for all that.
I think you've missed something there: Play is a human state of mind which, theoretically, encourages creativity. Most entertainments are classified as play. Play is not necessarily fun in a straightforward manner - observe the continuing success of horror films even among those who frighten easily as an example.
Saying games should be fun is like saying they should be cheap: within limits, the final judgement must be considered in the eye of the beholder.
It's not stupid, it just weighs security more heavily than most of us would. Think back to the fall of the USSR and the subsequent problems securing her nuclear stockpiles to get some notion of why ubiquitous nuclear is a bad plan. You have to look beyond the current threats and identify the end-state. If a large number of countries worldwide start using nuclear heavily, then there's no chance of securing all of the nuclear plants to the satisfaction of those most likely to suffer an attack.
If Iran and North Korea are cause for concern, imagine what happens in the case when Congo and Kenya (both of who have had fairly extreme violence over the last year) start using a lot of nuclear. TFA's point is not that nuclear is a bad energy source, but that it's better to move on to other technologies which have much less difficult security considerations to take into account.
His main concern with nuclear was the security angle - if everyone uses nuclear, then there is a much higher chance of a nuclear incident from a dirty powder bomb or even a fission weapon. You have to admit, the probably of threats involving molten salt or high tide is considerably lower than that of threats using nuclear weapons in a nuclear-rich world energy economy. I suppose this could be mitigated by a strong, globally-enforced policy of nuclear security (ie the US and her allies shipping troops to every nuclear installation on the planet), but it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing to such a plan, including the western powers who have the best reasons to ask for it.
You know who was in the fight in WWII long before America? Members of the British Commonwealth. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa. More far-flung allies it would be hard to find, yet they helped plug the gap for years before the US entrance into the conflict.
As far as I'm concerned, it can only go one way - either the US is the country that stands up and does something or it's just the same as everyone else. In the latter case I'd suggest that the martyr complex implicit in the post I was responding to - not to mention a good deal of other public grandstanding - is completely unjustified. Other countries were, in fact, doing something in the cases under discussion.
It just now occurs to me that you may not realize that the United States of America is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council - one of the seven with permanent veto power. The Security Council admitting negligence is an acceptance of guilt on the part of the US, not a clearing of her name.
You know that three years elapsed between the beginning of World War II and the entrance of the US forces into the conflict, right? Pretty much everyone else was plugging the gap.
Along similar lines, Rwanda had at least three different UN-member military groups in place, but couldn't get enough support from the US or several of her allies to grant the mission there Chapter 7 status in time to avoid genocide.
In other words: the rest of the world does stand up and do things, all the time. It's just that nobody else pretends they're the only ones doing anything.
There is a difference between a review and a recap of the action. This "review" contains no actual critical discussion. All that the guy has done is recap what he saw. I'm sure it's interesting if you're looking for spoilers, but it's pretty much as unhelpful as you can get in determining the quality of the pic and whether or not it's worth seeing.
That was perhaps not the most fully-considered of comments, what with System being an object, std a namespace.
Let me try again: Verbosity is a much bigger argument than single statements are ever going to capture. Java is thought pretty widely to be verbose, but that is entirely perpendicular to the reasons why it might be bad for new programmers - learning either a functional language or a bare-metal language (ie anything with pointers) is a better option in order to more completely map the student's thought process to the actual operation of his or her code.
cout doesn't have any meaning if you don't scope-qualify it any more than 'out' does. So you have 14 vs 13 non-output characters. Not exactly game-changing.
You get a job with a game company the same way you get any other job:
First, you find companies that actually do what you're trying to get into doing. Don't apply to companies that aren't using writers for their games if you want to be a writer for games.
Second, you put together your portfolio. In the case of games, you'll want to have some dynamic media - sketched storyboards (art shouldn't matter too much, so keep it simple), play or movie scripts, and/or, ideally, game mods that have your name in the writer: line.
Third, you have to work hard, get lucky, make friends, and generally be very nice to people who often deserve it but sometimes do not.
If it works, it's agile. If it doesn't, it's not. That's the problem most try-to-be-agile practitioners have with the method: It doesn't work a lot of the time, but people are happy to tell you you're doing it wrong instead of acknowledging the brittleness of the process.
Yes. It means that you have a bunch of allies that are to the left of your own politics, and a bunch of "enemies" to the right. Despite the likes of Castro and Mao, the peer pressure is naturally towards a moderately liberal political climate.
Most of the time contracting out won't get the job done in the same amount of time anyway. Most contracting businesses have large evaluation/estimation stages for anything more significant than "install a new router".
Slashdot Mirror
Those pricks can WALK. Wait a minute...
Wearing a maple leaf is going overboard? And who's afraid of offending Canadians? What countries are so shy and meek as to be afraid of big bad Canada?
Bullshit. Canadian music, film, and tv practically didn't exist prior to the 1970s Canadian Content rules and coinciding grants programmes. Talk to some commercially successful Canadian artists - Paul Grosse, as a standout example - to come to grips with the fact that although certain tax-shy Canadians don't like it, the Canada-centric arts incentives do in fact make a huge difference in the presence of Canada-created art. CTV is an excellent example of a network that wouldn't even exist if CanCon hadn't created a competitive market to begin with.
Sounds like you just have limited taste for and exposure to both SF and Fantasy. Star Trek as an example of "literary science fiction"? Seriously? Not Le Guin? I mean, if you want to look at work with literary pretensions, Le Guin stands above the rest (maybe Dick stands up there with her, haven't read enough to be sure). If you want something a little more recent, try Greg Egan, whose work has been described as "thinly veiled metaphysical dissertations", and by reviewers working in the short SF markets, no less. In general, try written science fiction over stuff from the boob tube and Hollywood.
Also, if you think all fantasy is Conan, perhaps you should peruse an actual fantasy catalog sometime. Try Guy Gavriel Kay, Nalo Hopkinson, or Cory Doctorow for very different versions of fantasy. Fantasy is the literature of imagination. It's also a good way to do a really pure distillation of the hero's journey, which is where D&D and Conan come into the picture, but reducing the whole lot to just those books does terrible things to a mind.
One has to point out to those criticizing the DK class, however, that they don't actually get their abilities and talent points without several hours of death knight-centric game play. It's no substitute for hundreds of hours of play time, but it's not a bad compromise for all that.
I think you've missed something there: Play is a human state of mind which, theoretically, encourages creativity. Most entertainments are classified as play. Play is not necessarily fun in a straightforward manner - observe the continuing success of horror films even among those who frighten easily as an example. Saying games should be fun is like saying they should be cheap: within limits, the final judgement must be considered in the eye of the beholder.
If this were an ebay auction, the $42 million would be just the shipping, m i rite?
It's not stupid, it just weighs security more heavily than most of us would. Think back to the fall of the USSR and the subsequent problems securing her nuclear stockpiles to get some notion of why ubiquitous nuclear is a bad plan. You have to look beyond the current threats and identify the end-state. If a large number of countries worldwide start using nuclear heavily, then there's no chance of securing all of the nuclear plants to the satisfaction of those most likely to suffer an attack.
If Iran and North Korea are cause for concern, imagine what happens in the case when Congo and Kenya (both of who have had fairly extreme violence over the last year) start using a lot of nuclear. TFA's point is not that nuclear is a bad energy source, but that it's better to move on to other technologies which have much less difficult security considerations to take into account.
His main concern with nuclear was the security angle - if everyone uses nuclear, then there is a much higher chance of a nuclear incident from a dirty powder bomb or even a fission weapon. You have to admit, the probably of threats involving molten salt or high tide is considerably lower than that of threats using nuclear weapons in a nuclear-rich world energy economy. I suppose this could be mitigated by a strong, globally-enforced policy of nuclear security (ie the US and her allies shipping troops to every nuclear installation on the planet), but it's hard to imagine anyone agreeing to such a plan, including the western powers who have the best reasons to ask for it.
You know who was in the fight in WWII long before America? Members of the British Commonwealth. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa. More far-flung allies it would be hard to find, yet they helped plug the gap for years before the US entrance into the conflict.
As far as I'm concerned, it can only go one way - either the US is the country that stands up and does something or it's just the same as everyone else. In the latter case I'd suggest that the martyr complex implicit in the post I was responding to - not to mention a good deal of other public grandstanding - is completely unjustified. Other countries were, in fact, doing something in the cases under discussion.
It just now occurs to me that you may not realize that the United States of America is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council - one of the seven with permanent veto power. The Security Council admitting negligence is an acceptance of guilt on the part of the US, not a clearing of her name.
You know that three years elapsed between the beginning of World War II and the entrance of the US forces into the conflict, right? Pretty much everyone else was plugging the gap.
Along similar lines, Rwanda had at least three different UN-member military groups in place, but couldn't get enough support from the US or several of her allies to grant the mission there Chapter 7 status in time to avoid genocide.
In other words: the rest of the world does stand up and do things, all the time. It's just that nobody else pretends they're the only ones doing anything.
There is a difference between a review and a recap of the action. This "review" contains no actual critical discussion. All that the guy has done is recap what he saw. I'm sure it's interesting if you're looking for spoilers, but it's pretty much as unhelpful as you can get in determining the quality of the pic and whether or not it's worth seeing.
Fair enough. It's been that kind of day for posting on the internets.
That was perhaps not the most fully-considered of comments, what with System being an object, std a namespace.
Let me try again: Verbosity is a much bigger argument than single statements are ever going to capture. Java is thought pretty widely to be verbose, but that is entirely perpendicular to the reasons why it might be bad for new programmers - learning either a functional language or a bare-metal language (ie anything with pointers) is a better option in order to more completely map the student's thought process to the actual operation of his or her code.
cout doesn't have any meaning if you don't scope-qualify it any more than 'out' does. So you have 14 vs 13 non-output characters. Not exactly game-changing.
You get a job with a game company the same way you get any other job:
First, you find companies that actually do what you're trying to get into doing. Don't apply to companies that aren't using writers for their games if you want to be a writer for games.
Second, you put together your portfolio. In the case of games, you'll want to have some dynamic media - sketched storyboards (art shouldn't matter too much, so keep it simple), play or movie scripts, and/or, ideally, game mods that have your name in the writer: line.
Third, you have to work hard, get lucky, make friends, and generally be very nice to people who often deserve it but sometimes do not.
Venture Altruist. And yeah, Accelerando is exactly what I thought of as well.
Clearly the first target should be lobsters.
If it works, it's agile. If it doesn't, it's not. That's the problem most try-to-be-agile practitioners have with the method: It doesn't work a lot of the time, but people are happy to tell you you're doing it wrong instead of acknowledging the brittleness of the process.
Yes. It means that you have a bunch of allies that are to the left of your own politics, and a bunch of "enemies" to the right. Despite the likes of Castro and Mao, the peer pressure is naturally towards a moderately liberal political climate.
Because of the goddamn Russians, pinko.
Most of the time contracting out won't get the job done in the same amount of time anyway. Most contracting businesses have large evaluation/estimation stages for anything more significant than "install a new router".
For backup fuel they can use the combined rage of thousands of nerds and e-cores living in the post-paper era!
Wouldn't that be Popogrammers? Which actually sounds like a cop's English course, but whatever.
"Gavin wastes an hour on Slashdot"