It's replacing highly skilled people in specific domains. It's coming to get you specialist medical technicians. You're next taxi drivers and truckers. Whose head is on the chopping block after that?
I still suspect programmers, but it could be someone else.
Because deterrence tends to cap out inside ones head. If you asked me how I felt about spending 2 years in jail, I'd have a hard time qualifying that as different than 20 years, in that I'm losing a huge swath of my life. Either is extremely scary.
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make, thank you.
And I make one very specific exception to this rule, one that matters. When someone has something big to gain by doing something horrible, they may need harsher punishments to balance a rational risk/reward equation in their head.
If the choice is: risk a year in jail to get a couple million dollars from insider trading Then it's possible that some people will choose that risk. And in that kind of case, more deterrence could be a good thing.
No I don't. I think that's another and big problem, but not even the main one here.
And from that, I extrapolate that you don't actually know what I was saying. And rather than be a jerk about it, I'll try rephrasing.
Looking ahead and seeing consequences of actions is one of the most defining characteristics between future successful children and unsuccessful children, and one can extrapolate that(perhaps too far) to suggest that maybe people who commit crimes don't really have that mindset when they do. To claim more punishment is more deterrence only makes sense when you're trying to combat incentive.
Preposition #1: No rational chain of logic can lead someone to committing any of the crimes that currently have the death penalty in face of even relatively minor punishments(like say 10 years in jail) Preposition #2: Some people are quite irrational Preposition #3: Murder or rape in general are definitely signs of irrationality. Preposition #4: Deterrence by death penalty intends people to rationally reconsider their premeditated crimes Conclusion: The people who commit felonies that might have the death penalty aren't going to be swayed by increased measures for detterence.
That was the argument I was implicitly trying to make.
Are you still pretending that nuke isn't part of the solution I described? Am I some kinda straw-hippy here to only make the arguments that make me look stupid?
Yeah, this was far more of a sarcastic post than an honest attempt to debate the idea on merit. I wasn't really presenting a serious case, but neither was the AC.
Yeah, and I hate how that evil government makes me purchase seat belts and air bags. And brakes, not just that, but brakes that meet safety standards. Stupid government "knowing best".
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're developing a fast-and-easy game in unreal, you use unrealscript. If you're a hardcore game developer doing fancy things anyways... you're going to use C/C++.
C#'s role in unity is very much like unrealscript's role in unreal. And as a c# developer, I won't hesitate to say that unrealscript actually has features oriented towards game development.
No, arena shooters are ones where you spawn in random locations, run to grab guns and gear, move relatively quickly, and tend to have little incentive to not shoot(such as long reload times, precision weapons, stealth). With a tendency towards more explosive weaponry and "arena" styled battlefieds. It's a subgenre thing.
Actual US congressmen have said that, sitting on the energy committee have said it. Look up Joe Barton. Terrifying.
Nukes+solar+hydro+wind is absolutely viable to replace fossil fuels in 20ish years if we started systemic migration today, and there's been more than enough examination of this point by now.
I'm sorry to say, they've stopped needing UT as a selling point for their engine. They make money off of other people making games these days. They no longer need to make a market for themselves.
Their last generation in major engine improvements was demo'd with gears of war, not unreal tournament. The arena shooter is dead.
It's smaller. What's more annoying(as a local...ish) is that the state department of environmental regulation has been gutted by a governor who actually owns a lot of stock in Duke Energy. And even after the big news about this, it turns out that Duke actually still has pumps designed to pump coal ash directly from their pools into the cape fear river "for maintenance", in direct violation of the clean water act.
They excused it by saying "we didn't get any recommendation against it by the state environmental agency".
They're going in a bin labeled "pointless rhetoric that doesn't actually begin to address real-world problems." Both major parties are really good at sucking votes out of that bin, and the remaining sludge in it is made of people who think cynical non-participation makes them somehow morally superior.
Yes, but the point you guys need to come to terms with is that fossil fuels aren't the only source of energy production and transport, and it's becoming apparent that the harm outweighs the minor increases in fiscal cost of many other technologies.
We do indeed have those that think that somehow things were better before industry, but those aren't the people you should be discussing the future with. Just like I shouldn't be discussing energy plans with people who think oil is a divinely provided renewable resource.
The thing is, while these are the hardest to fix and address of attacks, they're among the least useful for attackers. You can't spam people from BIOS. You can't really keylog and transmit over TCP from BIOS.
The operating system is as useful to attackers as it is to us other programmers.
Yeah, it needs to get to the point where people are arguing about whether its good enough. Once that happens, you know you're set, because iPads aren't good enough, but people buy the hell out of them.
Well, sounds like you're going to have to go back in time, and use a phone or email to settle this. As long as you're in the stone age, could you bring us all some mammoth steaks?
Because, entertainment, like computers, aren't a linear path with "start" on one end, progress in the middle, and "ideal" at the end. Trends can shape markets. Being beaten to the punch by similar ideas that aren't the same can, and does happen.
My concern is only specifically for oculus VR, the company. I'm not worried that games are just going to stop being fun. That already happened when EA bought all the fun companies.
Slashdot Mirror
It's replacing highly skilled people in specific domains. It's coming to get you specialist medical technicians. You're next taxi drivers and truckers. Whose head is on the chopping block after that?
I still suspect programmers, but it could be someone else.
Because deterrence tends to cap out inside ones head. If you asked me how I felt about spending 2 years in jail, I'd have a hard time qualifying that as different than 20 years, in that I'm losing a huge swath of my life. Either is extremely scary.
Yes, that was the point I was trying to make, thank you.
And I make one very specific exception to this rule, one that matters. When someone has something big to gain by doing something horrible, they may need harsher punishments to balance a rational risk/reward equation in their head.
If the choice is: risk a year in jail to get a couple million dollars from insider trading
Then it's possible that some people will choose that risk.
And in that kind of case, more deterrence could be a good thing.
No I don't. I think that's another and big problem, but not even the main one here.
And from that, I extrapolate that you don't actually know what I was saying. And rather than be a jerk about it, I'll try rephrasing.
Looking ahead and seeing consequences of actions is one of the most defining characteristics between future successful children and unsuccessful children, and one can extrapolate that(perhaps too far) to suggest that maybe people who commit crimes don't really have that mindset when they do. To claim more punishment is more deterrence only makes sense when you're trying to combat incentive.
Preposition #1: No rational chain of logic can lead someone to committing any of the crimes that currently have the death penalty in face of even relatively minor punishments(like say 10 years in jail)
Preposition #2: Some people are quite irrational
Preposition #3: Murder or rape in general are definitely signs of irrationality.
Preposition #4: Deterrence by death penalty intends people to rationally reconsider their premeditated crimes
Conclusion: The people who commit felonies that might have the death penalty aren't going to be swayed by increased measures for detterence.
That was the argument I was implicitly trying to make.
Why do we "punish" criminals, anyways? Is society some sort of arbiter of karma?
Deter? Yes.
Rehabilitate? Yes.
Keep off the street? Yes.
Punish? I don't get it.
And if they were thinking about the consequences when they committed the crime in the first place... would they have?
Are you still pretending that nuke isn't part of the solution I described? Am I some kinda straw-hippy here to only make the arguments that make me look stupid?
This is the stupidest post.
"these safety measures only protect people in the car"
"brakes"
The mind boggles.
Yeah, this was far more of a sarcastic post than an honest attempt to debate the idea on merit. I wasn't really presenting a serious case, but neither was the AC.
Yeah, and I hate how that evil government makes me purchase seat belts and air bags. And brakes, not just that, but brakes that meet safety standards. Stupid government "knowing best".
Nope, that's pretty much it.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're developing a fast-and-easy game in unreal, you use unrealscript. If you're a hardcore game developer doing fancy things anyways... you're going to use C/C++.
C#'s role in unity is very much like unrealscript's role in unreal. And as a c# developer, I won't hesitate to say that unrealscript actually has features oriented towards game development.
That doesn't sound like a real thing.
No, arena shooters are ones where you spawn in random locations, run to grab guns and gear, move relatively quickly, and tend to have little incentive to not shoot(such as long reload times, precision weapons, stealth). With a tendency towards more explosive weaponry and "arena" styled battlefieds. It's a subgenre thing.
Actual US congressmen have said that, sitting on the energy committee have said it. Look up Joe Barton. Terrifying.
Nukes+solar+hydro+wind is absolutely viable to replace fossil fuels in 20ish years if we started systemic migration today, and there's been more than enough examination of this point by now.
I'm sorry to say, they've stopped needing UT as a selling point for their engine. They make money off of other people making games these days. They no longer need to make a market for themselves.
Their last generation in major engine improvements was demo'd with gears of war, not unreal tournament. The arena shooter is dead.
It's smaller. What's more annoying(as a local...ish) is that the state department of environmental regulation has been gutted by a governor who actually owns a lot of stock in Duke Energy. And even after the big news about this, it turns out that Duke actually still has pumps designed to pump coal ash directly from their pools into the cape fear river "for maintenance", in direct violation of the clean water act.
They excused it by saying "we didn't get any recommendation against it by the state environmental agency".
They're going in a bin labeled "pointless rhetoric that doesn't actually begin to address real-world problems." Both major parties are really good at sucking votes out of that bin, and the remaining sludge in it is made of people who think cynical non-participation makes them somehow morally superior.
Yes, but the point you guys need to come to terms with is that fossil fuels aren't the only source of energy production and transport, and it's becoming apparent that the harm outweighs the minor increases in fiscal cost of many other technologies.
We do indeed have those that think that somehow things were better before industry, but those aren't the people you should be discussing the future with. Just like I shouldn't be discussing energy plans with people who think oil is a divinely provided renewable resource.
Fraud is in FACT not science. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Says you.
The thing is, while these are the hardest to fix and address of attacks, they're among the least useful for attackers. You can't spam people from BIOS. You can't really keylog and transmit over TCP from BIOS.
The operating system is as useful to attackers as it is to us other programmers.
Yeah, it needs to get to the point where people are arguing about whether its good enough. Once that happens, you know you're set, because iPads aren't good enough, but people buy the hell out of them.
Well, sounds like you're going to have to go back in time, and use a phone or email to settle this. As long as you're in the stone age, could you bring us all some mammoth steaks?
Because, entertainment, like computers, aren't a linear path with "start" on one end, progress in the middle, and "ideal" at the end. Trends can shape markets. Being beaten to the punch by similar ideas that aren't the same can, and does happen.
My concern is only specifically for oculus VR, the company. I'm not worried that games are just going to stop being fun. That already happened when EA bought all the fun companies.
They're selling another devkit. That's nice, but if the wind goes out of the VR sails before a production model hits the market, Oculus loses.