One thing that I truly love about World of Warcraft is that 'gearing up' is easily and affordably done just in the process of mowing through all of these quests. The gear you need to be effective at your level is inevitably either a quest reward or it drops during a quest that you're completing. I've bought exactly one piece from the auction house so far, the rest I either crafted, dropped, or I quested it.
This in stark contrast to Everquest where I once spent an entire weekend 'camping' for specific drops for one armor piece that brought me marginally closer to being useful. Feh.
No, it's giving you the same bump as sta/int from items. Like when I hit 34 the other night: you have gained 35 health and 30 mana (close, not exact, don't kill me) along with 1 stamina and 1 int. Thing is, all I actually gained from a level perspective was 25hp and 15mana, bolstered by the extra 10 from the 1 sta pt and 15 from the one int point. It just aggregates the total gain into your hp/mana values.
An intriguing point, which I was not aware of. And while it does not preclude the possibility of ID (for which there really can't be a refutation, since any evidence of how things came to be could be written off as "so that's how God did it") it does give one something to think about. Thanks for taking the time to post that, I'll look look more closely at that when time permits.
Agreed, Google needs name recognition among the masses*. The thing is, I believe it already has this. I have heard people (normal, non-geeks) say that they are going to 'google' for such and such thing. They are becoming the 'Kleenex' of search engines, in that their name is becoming synonomous with searching the web.
*And yes, I realize that your post is not saying they lack this, I'm just expanding on a thought.
Even that would not be as painful as hearing Arnold saying his Dr. Freeze battlecry: "It's time to kick some FREEZE!" *shudder* *curls up into a little ball and hides from the cruel, cruel world*
I respect the acting talents of the actors you mentioned. However, even the best can make some stinkers:
Morgan Freeman: Chain Reaction
Michael Caine: Miss Congeniality
Liam Neeson: Star Wars Episode 1
Gary Oldman: Lost in Space
Admittedly, they generally do pick good movies, but even the best actors can't salvage a bad script / bad directing.
With Moz/Firefox right click on the link and it shwos the place it's going to in the status bar. Right click, on my installation at least, just pops up a context menu. Click off anywhere in the page to ditch it once you've read the URL.
I mean the odd-numbered Star Trek movies (or the even-numbered ones, I can't remember which were crap)
The even numbered ones (Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, First Contact) were the good ones. The only odd numbered one that stood out was The Search for Spock (#3). I think this balances though since Nemesis (#10) sucked wind, in my opinion.
That said, the Lord of the Rings was probably the most visually stunning movie I have ever seen. Say what you will about the script, it's hard to argue that the cinematography was anything short of breath-taking. I also liked what Peter Jackson did with the story, script-wise and all, but then I'm enough of a fanboy to have read through and understood most of the Silmarillion;)
Intelligent design is not a theory. A scientific theory is supposed to make testable predictions, and ID doesn't.
But then evolution on the grand, macro scale that is, isn't testable either. Admittedly short term evolution has been observed, but it is just as much a leap of faith to say that the primordial evolved into man over many eons as it is to say man was created. Perhaps one would point to the fossil record and say that certain parts evolved from others, but that is at best a subjective measurement. There really is no objective evidence for EITHER side, and as such both are equally (in)valid.
That said, there are many, many thing out in space that we can't know about without going there ourselves. Cassini is a great example as you pointed out, and we amassed a wealth of data from the Galileo probe which taught us much about Jupiter that we never would or could have known otherwise, as I expect Cassini will for Saturn. For Van Allen to say that there is no longer a reason to go is presumptuous at best.
The issue for me has never been the ability to get info from my computer to my mind. The monitor and my own eyes have always been sufficiently fast to process input about as fast as my mind can handle it (and still have the information comprehensible and useful). However, I am severely limited by how fast I can type at the keyboard to transfer ideas to the computer. This kind of one way information flow (brain-->computer) will be much more useful much more quickly to the masses.
With all due respect (Score:5, Funny)
by The-Bus (138060) on Tuesday July 13, @08:21PM (#9693512)
This was posted three days ago, you can still reply to comments in the thread!
It probably will become a meme, it definitely has that potential, but it's no wonder a lot of people don't get it, it's recent even by internet standards;)
The Sarin nerve gas attack may only have killed 12 people, but it left some 6000 injured. That would seem to me to cause plenty of havoc. This is perhaps the real nature of the danger of bio-hacking. I mean it may not be fatal to have a different strain of the flu going around each week, but imagine the disruption it would cause!
I would think that in the case of something widely understood to be illegal that people would be much more careful about covering their tracks. With copyright infringing file sharing, many see no problem with it, and so take no measures to protect themselves. It would be something along the lines of jaywalking (copyright infringement) vs. murdering a few dozen people (kiddie porn).
Re:Role Playing Games: some random thoughts
on
Videogames as Art
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I concur with the does it move you test.
I would personally consider video games art in the same way that I would consider movies art. This is to say I find them both to be art in their respective ways. Video games are a kind of synthesis of movies and books - mixing audio/visual/textual input. The fact that they're interactive should only be seen as adding a third dimension to the art.
As it happens there are two reference implementations specified in part 5 of the standard - one in C called Jasper and one in java called JJ2000 Source code is freely available for download in both cases.
As to the patent encumberedness, yes there are some patents governing JPEG2000, however it would appear the ISO/IEC have done their homework in this regard. From the last page of the standard, after listing people who hold patents related to the standard:
"The holders of these patent rights have assured the ISO and IEC that they are willing to negotiate licences under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions with applicants throughout the world. In this respect, the statements of the holders of these patents right are registered with the ISO and IEC."
I am not aware that any patent holder has sued over patent rights related issues in JPEG2000, and some of them (look at the JJ2000 copyright notice) agree not to mess with you over IP issues if you use their stuff in a JPEG2000 implementation. I'd like to think that they've become a little more wise about this sort of thing in the wake of the JPEG/GIF fiascoes.
Just FYI JPEG2000 is very similar to JPEG in design except it uses the Discrete Wavelet Transform instead of the Discrete Cosine Transform to transform the 8x8 pixel blocks.
Going to have to call you on that one. Having implemented the JPEG2000 standard myself in the course of my job, and having worked next to the guy who implemented JPEG for us, I can tell you that they are completely different beasts (except for the name).
JPEG2000 uses a wavelet transform on the entire image normally, not on 8x8 blocks, and it has about a gajillion more options you can use in it. As such you could set up tiling to operate the wavelet on 8x8 blocks, but that would be amazingly innefficient. Further, they ditched the huffman encoder and got an arithmetic enocder instead. In sum, JPEG2000 was not a rehash of the old, it was in fact a complete start from scratch implementation which should not in any way be encumbered by the original JPEG patent baggage.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that I truly love about World of Warcraft is that 'gearing up' is easily and affordably done just in the process of mowing through all of these quests. The gear you need to be effective at your level is inevitably either a quest reward or it drops during a quest that you're completing. I've bought exactly one piece from the auction house so far, the rest I either crafted, dropped, or I quested it.
This in stark contrast to Everquest where I once spent an entire weekend 'camping' for specific drops for one armor piece that brought me marginally closer to being useful. Feh.
No, it's giving you the same bump as sta/int from items. Like when I hit 34 the other night: you have gained 35 health and 30 mana (close, not exact, don't kill me) along with 1 stamina and 1 int. Thing is, all I actually gained from a level perspective was 25hp and 15mana, bolstered by the extra 10 from the 1 sta pt and 15 from the one int point. It just aggregates the total gain into your hp/mana values.
Yeah...see he resigned a few days back. Give it a few, we'll soon find someone else to demonize.
Or at least, it was the entire list of primes until you observed it. Now it's resolved into Richard Simmons's grocery list - thanks a lot!
It means 6 more years of terrorist fear mongering, all without attacks on the mainland U.S.
My half-elven ranger is level 67. -- Everquest junkie
An intriguing point, which I was not aware of. And while it does not preclude the possibility of ID (for which there really can't be a refutation, since any evidence of how things came to be could be written off as "so that's how God did it") it does give one something to think about. Thanks for taking the time to post that, I'll look look more closely at that when time permits.
Agreed, Google needs name recognition among the masses*. The thing is, I believe it already has this. I have heard people (normal, non-geeks) say that they are going to 'google' for such and such thing. They are becoming the 'Kleenex' of search engines, in that their name is becoming synonomous with searching the web.
*And yes, I realize that your post is not saying they lack this, I'm just expanding on a thought.
Even that would not be as painful as hearing Arnold saying his Dr. Freeze battlecry: "It's time to kick some FREEZE!" *shudder* *curls up into a little ball and hides from the cruel, cruel world*
I respect the acting talents of the actors you mentioned. However, even the best can make some stinkers:
Morgan Freeman: Chain Reaction
Michael Caine: Miss Congeniality
Liam Neeson: Star Wars Episode 1
Gary Oldman: Lost in Space
Admittedly, they generally do pick good movies, but even the best actors can't salvage a bad script / bad directing.
With Moz/Firefox right click on the link and it shwos the place it's going to in the status bar. Right click, on my installation at least, just pops up a context menu. Click off anywhere in the page to ditch it once you've read the URL.
Or in the fires of Mount Doom =P
That said, the Lord of the Rings was probably the most visually stunning movie I have ever seen. Say what you will about the script, it's hard to argue that the cinematography was anything short of breath-taking. I also liked what Peter Jackson did with the story, script-wise and all, but then I'm enough of a fanboy to have read through and understood most of the Silmarillion
That said, there are many, many thing out in space that we can't know about without going there ourselves. Cassini is a great example as you pointed out, and we amassed a wealth of data from the Galileo probe which taught us much about Jupiter that we never would or could have known otherwise, as I expect Cassini will for Saturn. For Van Allen to say that there is no longer a reason to go is presumptuous at best.
The issue for me has never been the ability to get info from my computer to my mind. The monitor and my own eyes have always been sufficiently fast to process input about as fast as my mind can handle it (and still have the information comprehensible and useful). However, I am severely limited by how fast I can type at the keyboard to transfer ideas to the computer. This kind of one way information flow (brain-->computer) will be much more useful much more quickly to the masses.
You can hardly blame the guy for taking the easier (Quantum Physics) career path.
I do love how Wiki reamins current, but damn...
;)
With all due respect (Score:5, Funny) by The-Bus (138060) on Tuesday July 13, @08:21PM (#9693512)
This was posted three days ago, you can still reply to comments in the thread!
It probably will become a meme, it definitely has that potential, but it's no wonder a lot of people don't get it, it's recent even by internet standards
You bring to mind an all important question:
How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a black hole?
The owl says three, but I have my doubts.
The Sarin nerve gas attack may only have killed 12 people, but it left some 6000 injured. That would seem to me to cause plenty of havoc. This is perhaps the real nature of the danger of bio-hacking. I mean it may not be fatal to have a different strain of the flu going around each week, but imagine the disruption it would cause!
I would think that in the case of something widely understood to be illegal that people would be much more careful about covering their tracks. With copyright infringing file sharing, many see no problem with it, and so take no measures to protect themselves. It would be something along the lines of jaywalking (copyright infringement) vs. murdering a few dozen people (kiddie porn).
I concur with the does it move you test.
I would personally consider video games art in the same way that I would consider movies art. This is to say I find them both to be art in their respective ways. Video games are a kind of synthesis of movies and books - mixing audio/visual/textual input. The fact that they're interactive should only be seen as adding a third dimension to the art.
Made me think of Custer (of Preacher fame). But after some of the things he did to people in the comic, I'm not sure I'd wish that on someone ;)
As to the patent encumberedness, yes there are some patents governing JPEG2000, however it would appear the ISO/IEC have done their homework in this regard. From the last page of the standard, after listing people who hold patents related to the standard:
"The holders of these patent rights have assured the ISO and IEC that they are willing to negotiate licences under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions with applicants throughout the world. In this respect, the statements of the holders of these patents right are registered with the ISO and IEC."
I am not aware that any patent holder has sued over patent rights related issues in JPEG2000, and some of them (look at the JJ2000 copyright notice) agree not to mess with you over IP issues if you use their stuff in a JPEG2000 implementation. I'd like to think that they've become a little more wise about this sort of thing in the wake of the JPEG/GIF fiascoes.
LASER System: Tracking Target!
Escape Pod: Looks like we're clear of the terrorists *whew*
LASER System: Locked on Target!
Escape Pod: Hey, why are our anti-missle lasers pointed our way?
LASER System: FIRING!
Escape Pod: uhoh...BZZZTTT
Going to have to call you on that one. Having implemented the JPEG2000 standard myself in the course of my job, and having worked next to the guy who implemented JPEG for us, I can tell you that they are completely different beasts (except for the name).
JPEG2000 uses a wavelet transform on the entire image normally, not on 8x8 blocks, and it has about a gajillion more options you can use in it. As such you could set up tiling to operate the wavelet on 8x8 blocks, but that would be amazingly innefficient. Further, they ditched the huffman encoder and got an arithmetic enocder instead. In sum, JPEG2000 was not a rehash of the old, it was in fact a complete start from scratch implementation which should not in any way be encumbered by the original JPEG patent baggage.