I suppose I could buy Ep1 online but for that I'd need a credit card.
But if you play shooters for the experience of a virtual world then DEFINITELY play through HL2 because its world just keeps getting more beautiful and believable with every step.
Dunno, I didn't like the atmosphere and the scripted sequences. The former made me want to stop playing, the latter made the whole thing look like an animatronic display since noone ever reacted to what your character did outside of pushing the button he was prompted to push.
I didn't play HL2 past Ravenholm so I don't think that "you must buy Ep1" bit applies to me...
And 20€ for 4.5 hours is a bit much considering how many games (granted, slightly older ones) you can get at that price point that will last you much longer. Knowing Valve I can get Prey for 20 € before Ep1 even drops to 15.
A jackhammer is designed for punching a hole into the ground and that's what you're supposed to use it for. That doesn't excuse using it on your neighbor's porch. Just because you're supposed to use a certain tool for something doesn't mean you should apply it indiscriminately.
Also, to be convicted of murder (which by law has to be without reasonable doubt) generally requires evidence that cannot be destroyed by suspects anyway.
If they can't prove you've destroyed evidence it won't be held against you, obviously. If and only if they can prove that you willfully destroyed evidence, then it will be assumed that the evidence would not have been in your favour. Obviously noone will ever know what that evidence really showed but we have to go with the most reasonable assumption there if we don't want destroying evidence to act like a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Which is why the court assumes the evidence showed the worst case reasonably possible for the destroyer. In this case the court assumed that the data deleted indeed proved her guilty. If the destroyed evidence didn't prove that, too bad, shouldn't have destroyed it.
If you steal something and give it back later you are still liable for theft. Same for copyright infringement, if you make illegal copies, even if you destroy them later, you are still liable.
Science only knows evolution, no macro or micro variant thereof. Mostly because there is no reason to differentiate between such things as all evolutionary steps are small and only through accumulation can create a difference large enough to be considered "macroevolution". Since that means you'd have to draw the line at an arbitrary number of steps the concept of separating macro and micro evolution is nonsense.
Even if the evidence made a designer just as likely as evolution, the idea of a designer is vastly more complex than the idea of random mutations and selection. Some people think that saying "God did it" is simple but that's because they know what God is supposed to be. Try defining God to e.g. a computer and see how long it takes until you've reached a complete definition. In science, God is undefined and as such needs to be defined before use. Never mind that noone can even answer the questions of where God comes from, where he is, what he is (scientifically accurate! What is God made of, Godium?), why he is all-powerful or why he created the world.
I think that's why Intelligent Design hypothesises never define that designer properly. Saying that life was created through design necessitates the question what created that designer since he's obviously alive lest you want to attribute intelligence to inanimate objects.
I'd consider any machine alive for this purpose. We haven't observed machines in nature outside of lifeforms and if we assumed some intelligent machine as the designer we'd need a theory how that machine came into existence. Random, spontaneous combination of elements that turned out to form a machine? Evolution of machines? Or another designer?
I think they limited it in later versions. AFAIK Red Alert already had a limit of one or two after which more factories brought no further advantage. That's not a big problem in symmetric teams but if you've got e.g. one player vs. two and the map is split 50-50 the one player loses because he can't produce units and buildings as quickly as his opponents.
C&C still has its shortcomings like the monolithic build system (want to have two factories? too bad) and the harvesters needing attention to prevent them from running into enemy defenses. Of course it's easier to control than any Blizzard RTS but Blizzard seems to intentionally cripple their games for some insane reason. The bigger issue is that I'm seeing B's bad ideas pop up in other games (Act of War has a 30 unit selection limit, for example). If I wanted to do everything myself I'd play Quake 3 Arena, not an RTS.
For the more immediate TA fix there's Spring which adds many new features like better GUI, full mod support, full 3d, opensourciness and Linux-support. SupCom may be better but it's still so far away...
Definitely, automatic ability use (where appropriate) should be standard for all games with abilities. When I'm moving units in a group I don't want to constantly single out a unit or two to use their special abilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, I thought Big Oil was claiming outrageous times until the peak oil could happen to prevent investments into non-oil alternatives?
I suppose I could buy Ep1 online but for that I'd need a credit card.
But if you play shooters for the experience of a virtual world then DEFINITELY play through HL2 because its world just keeps getting more beautiful and believable with every step.
Dunno, I didn't like the atmosphere and the scripted sequences. The former made me want to stop playing, the latter made the whole thing look like an animatronic display since noone ever reacted to what your character did outside of pushing the button he was prompted to push.
I hope that includes the idiot who decided a 12 unit selection limit is a good idea.
Wait, what? Okay, that explains why it started smoking when I plugged this in.
I didn't play HL2 past Ravenholm so I don't think that "you must buy Ep1" bit applies to me...
And 20€ for 4.5 hours is a bit much considering how many games (granted, slightly older ones) you can get at that price point that will last you much longer. Knowing Valve I can get Prey for 20 € before Ep1 even drops to 15.
Sounds like a bug. Wouldn't surprise me, Steam had LOTS of bugs back then.
Also it would solve all problems of the "what happens if your sword hits something it cannot penetrate?" variety.
I say democratic justice: Tie him to a pole, hang a sign detailling his offenses around his neck and let the public have its way.
A jackhammer is designed for punching a hole into the ground and that's what you're supposed to use it for. That doesn't excuse using it on your neighbor's porch. Just because you're supposed to use a certain tool for something doesn't mean you should apply it indiscriminately.
Oh, oh, oh! I know that secret step. It's merchandising, right?
Also, to be convicted of murder (which by law has to be without reasonable doubt) generally requires evidence that cannot be destroyed by suspects anyway.
How about surveillance tapes?
If they can't prove you've destroyed evidence it won't be held against you, obviously. If and only if they can prove that you willfully destroyed evidence, then it will be assumed that the evidence would not have been in your favour. Obviously noone will ever know what that evidence really showed but we have to go with the most reasonable assumption there if we don't want destroying evidence to act like a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Which is why the court assumes the evidence showed the worst case reasonably possible for the destroyer. In this case the court assumed that the data deleted indeed proved her guilty. If the destroyed evidence didn't prove that, too bad, shouldn't have destroyed it.
She was proven guilty of destroying evidence. It seems that the punishment for that is to assume the evidence was beneficial for the other party.
If you steal something and give it back later you are still liable for theft. Same for copyright infringement, if you make illegal copies, even if you destroy them later, you are still liable.
I think he means before the serving.
Yes but I don't think NDA'd data can be accessed that easily, you need a subpoena for that.
What's macro evolution? Can you eat that?
Science only knows evolution, no macro or micro variant thereof. Mostly because there is no reason to differentiate between such things as all evolutionary steps are small and only through accumulation can create a difference large enough to be considered "macroevolution". Since that means you'd have to draw the line at an arbitrary number of steps the concept of separating macro and micro evolution is nonsense.
Even if the evidence made a designer just as likely as evolution, the idea of a designer is vastly more complex than the idea of random mutations and selection. Some people think that saying "God did it" is simple but that's because they know what God is supposed to be. Try defining God to e.g. a computer and see how long it takes until you've reached a complete definition. In science, God is undefined and as such needs to be defined before use. Never mind that noone can even answer the questions of where God comes from, where he is, what he is (scientifically accurate! What is God made of, Godium?), why he is all-powerful or why he created the world.
I think that's why Intelligent Design hypothesises never define that designer properly. Saying that life was created through design necessitates the question what created that designer since he's obviously alive lest you want to attribute intelligence to inanimate objects.
I'd consider any machine alive for this purpose. We haven't observed machines in nature outside of lifeforms and if we assumed some intelligent machine as the designer we'd need a theory how that machine came into existence. Random, spontaneous combination of elements that turned out to form a machine? Evolution of machines? Or another designer?
I'm pretty sure that embryo didn't have two beers yet.
And Engineering will be renamed to Adeptus Mechanicus?
I think they limited it in later versions. AFAIK Red Alert already had a limit of one or two after which more factories brought no further advantage. That's not a big problem in symmetric teams but if you've got e.g. one player vs. two and the map is split 50-50 the one player loses because he can't produce units and buildings as quickly as his opponents.
C&C still has its shortcomings like the monolithic build system (want to have two factories? too bad) and the harvesters needing attention to prevent them from running into enemy defenses. Of course it's easier to control than any Blizzard RTS but Blizzard seems to intentionally cripple their games for some insane reason. The bigger issue is that I'm seeing B's bad ideas pop up in other games (Act of War has a 30 unit selection limit, for example). If I wanted to do everything myself I'd play Quake 3 Arena, not an RTS.
For the more immediate TA fix there's Spring which adds many new features like better GUI, full mod support, full 3d, opensourciness and Linux-support. SupCom may be better but it's still so far away...
Definitely, automatic ability use (where appropriate) should be standard for all games with abilities. When I'm moving units in a group I don't want to constantly single out a unit or two to use their special abilities.