We just use DAMAGE_TURTLE for most bite wounds because they're all about the same. This isn't ideal but seemed like a good compromise at the time. And the lycanthropy disease transmission is handled separately.
Yeah, it's turned into kind of a kludge, which is why I'm rewriting everything again. No more damage type constants defined in the code. It'll be a database key.
When I rewrote everything, I was delighted that my ICD1 code list (since it was a totally new instance, I got to restart all internal version number sequences) contained only one entry:
1. living->hit() got called
and hit() just took a hit_points argument. I felt pretty clever.
I was surprised that everyone hated it. It turned out they wanted different damage types, so that magic missiles could bypass armor, some kinds of monsters could be resistant to fireballs, and so on. So I added a second optional parameter (which, if not passed, defaulted to blunt force trauma) for damage type. Then there was a list of defined constants for the damage type. It started out a short list
(Around the time we added werewolves, I realized I should have used an enum.) But people kept adding new things. Now that list of constant is up to 140000 entries. You can't ever really fix the problem, so please give our federal agencies some slack.
I think your fluid may have dissolved iron in it. And let's not forget Van de Waals forces.
If your experiment's results don't match my feelings, the problem will be with your experiment and it'll finally put the nail in the coffin for your ridiculous global warming model.
Wait, did I say global warming model? I mean evolution theory. Whatever. You sciencies are all the same, with your hubris of wanting to understand how things work instead of just accepting that they do, and your tedious "repeatable results" as though people have the time to do experiments over and over instead of just taking my word for it, and your unnatural elevation of evidence when any common fool can deduct what the real truth is just by using their imagination. BLEH! Faithless wretch!
Hmm. I wonder where I've heard these ideas before.
You heard of the app store first probably with some Linux distribution in the 1990s. You heard of full screen mode before you ever heard of any alternative, with nearly every post-dumbterm but pre-windowed platform (e.g. MS-DOS, C64, etc) since fullscreen was all they had.
I challenge you to present me one published paper where a climate scientist tells me what I can and can't do
I wonder if you have actually stumbled on to the "solution" to the problem. Maybe every scientific paper ought to be concluded with a paragraph, with a photo of a very serious-looking scientist in a white lab coat, which says:
We have also scientifically determined, using our sciency powers, that public policy makers should ignore our observations. We do not advocate a world view based on experience; we merely work and think within such an intellectual framework, based on "what if things are as they seem?". This paper is for amusement purposes only. Please, no wagering.
Wait a minute, did you say a button? Please tell me that button isn't connected to a wire. And please make sure the button and the casing it's moving against, don't contain any ferrous metals. Because if you don't do this right, it will only prove that creationism is a scientific theory.
This just in: people blindly grope in a fog of religion and superstition. Nobody knew it was happening, and it's all the more surprising because it's happening in, no, not a remote corner of the third world, but right here in America. See the shocking film at 11!
I mean, it's kind of like your wife saying I'm not giving you any extra money to pay the bills until you hand over the credit cards and let me cut them up.
You explain "We can make the minimum payment"
And your wife says, yes, for now...but you just added another $2,000 grand to our credit debt
I'm surprised anyone really sees the situation like that. I know, I shouldn't be, but how could anyone really believe that? Are memories really that short?
Congress passed a deficit budget. The analogy is that the wife had the credit cards and scissors all along, but got all teary-eyed every time she held the scissors up to the cards, and was happy to whip them out whenever she wanted to buy something. Now the bill has arrived and she's regretting it, so she's saying that not paying the bill is a reasonable option.
She can still cut up the cards at any time, but that has jack shit to do with the bill that is already due.
She's pretty much admitting that she and her husband don't have the discipline to not whip out the credit card the next time they spend. Perhaps that's the one rational and truthful and honest statement from her. But then she says, "hubby, let's make a pact that we won't do that again. We can change our mind later (like we always do) and still overspend, but for the very immediate moment, let's agree to lie to ourselves that we're going to stop spending so much. And hubby, if you won't join me in this self-deception, then I'm going to stop you from paying the credit card company."
I'm not sure that's really any worse than hubby's position, but it's still pretty fucked up.
Although I'm well aware of the "Republicans are all old white men" stereotype, do you seriously believe Boener and his allies were politically active in the 1930s? (80 years ago, making all these people at least centurians.)
Do you realize that if you were to actually prove your allegations (shit, just provide even vaguely credible evidence, fuck proof) , it would upstage the "birther" conspiracy?
Give me a third party with the size and principles..
Maybe someone should give you a pony too.
It's particularly disappointing that you want the size given to you. It sounds like you're saying you refuse to vote for real candidates (assuming someone else does the job of giving them to you), unless a bunch of other people vote for them first (of course, by then, it's too late and the candidate has lost, because you refused to vote along side them, since that candidate's victory had not already been assured).
Your attitude is why we can't escape the Democrats and Republicans. You are the problem that you're complaining about.
Imagine the world where Thomas Jefferson wrote:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, we can only hope that someone gives those people what they want. King George is bad, and we humbly request him to appoint a new king. (We don't care who; that's not our problem.) If he refuses to do so, we will continue to recognize his authority but we'll be slightly irked.
Really, just let it go. Kerry just lost - sometimes that's all there is to it.
Letting Bush-vs-Kerry go is easy. That's all done.
Saying "that's all there is to it" is total bullshit, though. How many other races were decided by the same machines in the 2004 elections? How many other elections were these machines used for? Did you check the exit polls for all of those too?
How do you feel about the next election, which is likely to be run based on identical policies, known to be vulnerable?
If you find a security hole in your server, and then determine that your companies' losses were probably not caused by one particular attacker at one particular time, exploiting that one particular bug, you don't say "that's all there is to it," and decide to not fix the bug.
Now that compelled testimony (prohibited by 5th amendment) and compelled speech which may be used to obtain evidence, have suddenly become two different things, Miranda warnings will have to be reworded.
"You have the right to remain silent," will have to change to "You have the right to withhold information which may be used against you, but do not have the right to withhold information which leads to other information which may be used against you." And that's just a first draft off the top of my head but probably still doesn't work quite right.
It's going to take a lot of lawyers working a lot of years to rewrite Miranda, I think. And somehow I doubt it'll be comprehensible when they're done.
It's data compression. They're doing it, so that this month's crime report can be transmitted in fewer bits to someone who already has last month's crime report.
You may not be a pirate, but you're a copyright infringer, so there is financial incentive for people to measure your type of behavior and to find you. No, not to stop you, but to get you to pay for a large settlement. If they can get you to buy the DVDs and also pay a few extra thousand for your "crime" that is a win/win for everyone.
Just the fact that they are licensing it (specifically: what patent) would be a great improvement. Other terms of the agreement are less important. Knowing those other terms would be nice too (for purposes of measuring the cost of the patent system) but even knowing that Red Hat or Novell or HTC licensed Patent X from Microsoft for use in some particular product, would help people to know that Patent X is the threat.
That would be enough for the rest of the world to come together and either fight Patent X or work around infringing it. Look at the situation right now: we are being divided and conquered by the secret settlements. There is currently no defense against this attack (except lots of money). Opening up the settlements could help with that.
Back when Microsoft started making waves about their patents, one of the things often shouted here on/. was "put up or shut up, tell us exactly which patents are being infringed." Nobody ever says what they are (though I think a FAT32 patent on legacy-formatted SD cards might have been mentioned).
What's funny is that the silence didn't mean Microsoft was doomed to lose. AFAIK all the settlements are under NDAs (is this incorrect?). That means that nobody can even prevent the threats by making sure they don't infringe.
I think licensing NDAs should be illegal. Not only do they passively encourage other acts of infringement, but they obscure the cost of patents that society is bearing. Of course, to patent trolls, these two reasons against license NDAs, are reasons for them...
BTW, I don't think making such NDAs illegal would be an infringement of anyone's privacy rights or overreaching government involvement. We're talking about patents, so the premise is that the government is already involved in the transaction, by means of threatening the use of force (courts) against one of the participants. If you want privacy, use a trade secret instead. (It's not that laissez faire is necessarily wrong, but under laissez faire you can't have patents anyway, so the very discussion starts with the idea that laissez faire is off the table.)
Slashdot Mirror
We just use DAMAGE_TURTLE for most bite wounds because they're all about the same. This isn't ideal but seemed like a good compromise at the time. And the lycanthropy disease transmission is handled separately.
Yeah, it's turned into kind of a kludge, which is why I'm rewriting everything again. No more damage type constants defined in the code. It'll be a database key.
Nothing can possibly go wrong this time.
Yep. That's what killed Android and iOS.
and hit() just took a hit_points argument. I felt pretty clever.
I was surprised that everyone hated it. It turned out they wanted different damage types, so that magic missiles could bypass armor, some kinds of monsters could be resistant to fireballs, and so on. So I added a second optional parameter (which, if not passed, defaulted to blunt force trauma) for damage type. Then there was a list of defined constants for the damage type. It started out a short list
(Around the time we added werewolves, I realized I should have used an enum.) But people kept adding new things. Now that list of constant is up to 140000 entries. You can't ever really fix the problem, so please give our federal agencies some slack.
I think your fluid may have dissolved iron in it. And let's not forget Van de Waals forces.
If your experiment's results don't match my feelings, the problem will be with your experiment and it'll finally put the nail in the coffin for your ridiculous global warming model.
Wait, did I say global warming model? I mean evolution theory. Whatever. You sciencies are all the same, with your hubris of wanting to understand how things work instead of just accepting that they do, and your tedious "repeatable results" as though people have the time to do experiments over and over instead of just taking my word for it, and your unnatural elevation of evidence when any common fool can deduct what the real truth is just by using their imagination. BLEH! Faithless wretch!
You are using the words "getting the benefit" as extremely specialized jargon.
(That's the nicest way I can phrase that.)
You heard of the app store first probably with some Linux distribution in the 1990s. You heard of full screen mode before you ever heard of any alternative, with nearly every post-dumbterm but pre-windowed platform (e.g. MS-DOS, C64, etc) since fullscreen was all they had.
I wonder if you have actually stumbled on to the "solution" to the problem. Maybe every scientific paper ought to be concluded with a paragraph, with a photo of a very serious-looking scientist in a white lab coat, which says:
Would this make science more palatable?
Wait a minute, did you say a button? Please tell me that button isn't connected to a wire. And please make sure the button and the casing it's moving against, don't contain any ferrous metals. Because if you don't do this right, it will only prove that creationism is a scientific theory.
This just in: people blindly grope in a fog of religion and superstition. Nobody knew it was happening, and it's all the more surprising because it's happening in, no, not a remote corner of the third world, but right here in America. See the shocking film at 11!
No.
Or at least nobody who can talk.
Next question?
A fair cop on me being a total asshole. Sorry.
I'm surprised anyone really sees the situation like that. I know, I shouldn't be, but how could anyone really believe that? Are memories really that short?
Congress passed a deficit budget. The analogy is that the wife had the credit cards and scissors all along, but got all teary-eyed every time she held the scissors up to the cards, and was happy to whip them out whenever she wanted to buy something. Now the bill has arrived and she's regretting it, so she's saying that not paying the bill is a reasonable option.
She can still cut up the cards at any time, but that has jack shit to do with the bill that is already due.
She's pretty much admitting that she and her husband don't have the discipline to not whip out the credit card the next time they spend. Perhaps that's the one rational and truthful and honest statement from her. But then she says, "hubby, let's make a pact that we won't do that again. We can change our mind later (like we always do) and still overspend, but for the very immediate moment, let's agree to lie to ourselves that we're going to stop spending so much. And hubby, if you won't join me in this self-deception, then I'm going to stop you from paying the credit card company."
I'm not sure that's really any worse than hubby's position, but it's still pretty fucked up.
Although I'm well aware of the "Republicans are all old white men" stereotype, do you seriously believe Boener and his allies were politically active in the 1930s? (80 years ago, making all these people at least centurians.)
Do you realize that if you were to actually prove your allegations (shit, just provide even vaguely credible evidence, fuck proof) , it would upstage the "birther" conspiracy?
One way or another, somebody is going to have them.
Maybe someone should give you a pony too.
It's particularly disappointing that you want the size given to you. It sounds like you're saying you refuse to vote for real candidates (assuming someone else does the job of giving them to you), unless a bunch of other people vote for them first (of course, by then, it's too late and the candidate has lost, because you refused to vote along side them, since that candidate's victory had not already been assured).
Your attitude is why we can't escape the Democrats and Republicans. You are the problem that you're complaining about.
Imagine the world where Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Letting Bush-vs-Kerry go is easy. That's all done.
Saying "that's all there is to it" is total bullshit, though. How many other races were decided by the same machines in the 2004 elections? How many other elections were these machines used for? Did you check the exit polls for all of those too?
How do you feel about the next election, which is likely to be run based on identical policies, known to be vulnerable?
If you find a security hole in your server, and then determine that your companies' losses were probably not caused by one particular attacker at one particular time, exploiting that one particular bug, you don't say "that's all there is to it," and decide to not fix the bug.
Only read the summary, not TFA, but it sounds like they're finally switching to Linux.
Does terrorism require a high kill count?
Now that compelled testimony (prohibited by 5th amendment) and compelled speech which may be used to obtain evidence, have suddenly become two different things, Miranda warnings will have to be reworded.
"You have the right to remain silent," will have to change to "You have the right to withhold information which may be used against you, but do not have the right to withhold information which leads to other information which may be used against you." And that's just a first draft off the top of my head but probably still doesn't work quite right.
It's going to take a lot of lawyers working a lot of years to rewrite Miranda, I think. And somehow I doubt it'll be comprehensible when they're done.
Law is too complex for humans.
It's data compression. They're doing it, so that this month's crime report can be transmitted in fewer bits to someone who already has last month's crime report.
These guys agree: communication should be immediate and realtime interactive.
You may not be a pirate, but you're a copyright infringer, so there is financial incentive for people to measure your type of behavior and to find you. No, not to stop you, but to get you to pay for a large settlement. If they can get you to buy the DVDs and also pay a few extra thousand for your "crime" that is a win/win for everyone.
(Well, almost everyone.)
Just the fact that they are licensing it (specifically: what patent) would be a great improvement. Other terms of the agreement are less important. Knowing those other terms would be nice too (for purposes of measuring the cost of the patent system) but even knowing that Red Hat or Novell or HTC licensed Patent X from Microsoft for use in some particular product, would help people to know that Patent X is the threat.
That would be enough for the rest of the world to come together and either fight Patent X or work around infringing it. Look at the situation right now: we are being divided and conquered by the secret settlements. There is currently no defense against this attack (except lots of money). Opening up the settlements could help with that.
Back when Microsoft started making waves about their patents, one of the things often shouted here on /. was "put up or shut up, tell us exactly which patents are being infringed." Nobody ever says what they are (though I think a FAT32 patent on legacy-formatted SD cards might have been mentioned).
What's funny is that the silence didn't mean Microsoft was doomed to lose. AFAIK all the settlements are under NDAs (is this incorrect?). That means that nobody can even prevent the threats by making sure they don't infringe.
I think licensing NDAs should be illegal. Not only do they passively encourage other acts of infringement, but they obscure the cost of patents that society is bearing. Of course, to patent trolls, these two reasons against license NDAs, are reasons for them...
BTW, I don't think making such NDAs illegal would be an infringement of anyone's privacy rights or overreaching government involvement. We're talking about patents, so the premise is that the government is already involved in the transaction, by means of threatening the use of force (courts) against one of the participants. If you want privacy, use a trade secret instead. (It's not that laissez faire is necessarily wrong, but under laissez faire you can't have patents anyway, so the very discussion starts with the idea that laissez faire is off the table.)
Parent post is why I stopped playing madlibs.