It an extension for IE that adds stuff like a search field, a pagerank display and a popup blocker. Probably only necessary because the current versions of IE suck.
OK, how do you think having a different president in office at the time of this mission is going to benefit Bush?
We're not talkiing about benefitting Bush.
Different people in power = different spending priorities. Perhaps the next president will spend more on Hubble. If not, well, a mission can still be cancelled.
AFAIK all EU member countries have a variant of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as a part of their constitution. Privacy is defined as one of these rights.
These laws are less about preventing govt intrusion (if the govt has a subpoena they can do what they want AFAIK) and more about corporations violating your privacy by e.g. selling your customer data to others.
You also have to depend on rich people having the desire, and being able to determine where the best place to spend that money is, in order to stimulate the economy.
That's not important. As long as the money goes out of their pockets just as fast as it goes in there the economy doesn't suffer (and on its way out there it'll surely touch a few lower income people), no matter what they throw it at. Unfortunately it has a tendency to stay there for a long time, which is why I think the govt should make sure that storing large amounts of money is discouraged.
It's _much_ more effective for a government to stimulate the economy by paying for low-level infrastructure labor. As I stated previously, not only are such people much more likely to spend every extra dollar they get, but the extra infrastructure will help _everyone_ (and make people happier about paying taxes since they'll see more evidence that the taxes are being spent on them), make lots of business opportunities (because of the lots of people with more money to spend), and will help reduce the economic-class-stratification-effect that a completely free-market has a tendency to encourage.
That depends. There's only so much need for infrastructure and not a lot of it influences the economy. There's also the problem that these spendings would be permanent as opposed to on-demand. Keynes wanted intervention to work as a reaction towards a depression, increasing employment for the govt doesn' work for that.
I have a great deal of skepticism about any government policy that caters to the rich. In my mind, the rich don't need any help - as long as the government isn't actively trying to crush them, they have plenty of resources to help themselves. Anybody who actually seriously cares about the health of the society should be concentrating on policies which help the lower & middle economic classes.
Inded but I don't see how increasing economic activity aims more at the rich than the poor. The rich take the same share as they usually do (through insanely high salaries), the poor get the same they always get (as opposed to getting nothing because the company lowers capacities and fires them, the rich don't get laid of, at least not without insanely huge severance packages). While the rich might increase their salaries during such a period of influx they would have done the same during the depression, perhaps even moreso in preparation for the imminent destruction of the company (Enron anyone?). In an ideal case the intervention would simply make sure that business continues as usual despite the depression.
There is potential for abuse. "This person donated a large sum of money to an opposition party. Shut him down." Or they could flag you for supporting "terrorist" organizations like Greenpeace. I wouldn't be surprised if some present or future law allows them to freeze your account if they think you are suspicious.
I suspect that the more likely reason is to be able to "redistribute wealth" from the taxpayers to cronies & big campaign contributors. The "it's good for the economy" reason is just a rationalisation to divert peoples' attention from who is benefiting the most from those handouts.
The people who came up with that weren't in a position where they'd profit from that. Keynes's idea was to keep govt spending low when the economy is good and increase spending in case of a depression to end it faster (which could also allow lower taxes during depressions so people have more money to spend). In the end the money ends in the hands of humans and by increasing economic activity the govt forces the companies to spend the money rather than keep it in the bank. The money flows around and at some point ends in the hands of humans who then have money to put into the economy again. Usually in a depression the demand would decrease so companies would reduce capacities which would involve firing people which means fewer people with money to put back into the economy. That would deepen the depression and has to be avoided.
It doesn't matter where the money flows, as long as it continues to flow instead of leaving the system. Lining the pockets of the rich wouldn't hurt the economy if the rich also spent all that money pretty quickly rather than tying up large amounts of money in their bank accounts. After all, as long as the money flows everyone will be able to get his share of the flow.
That's actually two different economic approaches, both with the goal of propping up the economy: In one the govt directly throws money at the economy, in the other the govt buys stuff they don't really need in order to increase demand and indirectly having money go from the govt to the economy. One difference is for example that a direct injection can remain still while creating demand also forces the affected companies to buy more from their suppliers which makes the money cycle faster.
We've had that in school, our teachers attributed those approaches to Keynes and Friedman IIRC.
That happens if you look only at FPS games. Try looking at more genres. Platformers, fighting games (duel and beat'em'up), shmups, racing games, sports games, completely weird stuff like Katamari, etc.
If God is everything, why not substitute the word God with the word everything?
Re:The Size was incredible
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
Well, as long as there are no load times after the initial startup... It's kinda annoying to wait two minutes for the title screen to load then press fire and wait another minute until the game starts and each time you go to the next level or you lose the game you have another load time (that's what the C64 was like). Unless your entire game fits into RAM you'll have to load more and if you use such heavy procedural stuff you can't load in the background.
Re:Next you'll be telling kids to get off your law
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
MD1/2/3 model support (thats quake1 through quake3 and everything between
What, no skeletal animation?
Re:Next you'll be telling kids to get off your law
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
The random generator in Diablo 2 uses a lot more human influence than normal random generators. Some areas are mostly premade and the generator will only modify e.g. which door leads to the boss. Also there are specific features that always occur in a specific level (e.g. the room with the secret door in the monastery dungeon).
Even if you create 100 distinct rooms for your dungeon that can be arranged in 100 billion unique ways, there's still only 100 basic elements, and you'll begin to recognize them pretty quickly.
That depends on the size of the elements. If they are entire rooms, yes, that gets easy to recognize but if they are just portions of walls and such (i.e. the tileset) recognizing them means nothing.
you really can't randomly generate a good, original story.
Yes but I have little doubt that, if you design the algorithm well, you could make it output the mindless clicheed drivel that passes for a storyline in Japanese RPGs. Noone would be able to tell the difference!
Re:In fact, Quake sucked
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
Descent's AI was alledgedly pretty advanced with different personalities for different enemies (Argh! Thiefbot!). I think some of them actually (try to) dodge your shots. I don't think Descent had anything that would qualify as a puzzle (you only had to find keycards or shoot switches) but I don't recall any in Doom, either.
No TV beancounter would dare say 'hey lets fund another 10 series of family fortune' instead of any of these shows no more than a games industry bencounter would say 'you know what, I think it's time we made another Sonic sequel'
Except if said beancounter is working for Sega. His next two phrases will be "How about we give Sonic a gun and let him shoot hookers?" and "We have secured an exclusivity contract for the NGage".
Slashdot Mirror
It an extension for IE that adds stuff like a search field, a pagerank display and a popup blocker. Probably only necessary because the current versions of IE suck.
Hey, it's not my country, I have no idea at what time of the year you guys hold your elections.
OK, how do you think having a different president in office at the time of this mission is going to benefit Bush?
We're not talkiing about benefitting Bush.
Different people in power = different spending priorities. Perhaps the next president will spend more on Hubble. If not, well, a mission can still be cancelled.
A schedule carefully chosen to make sure you have a new president in office by the time it happens?
AFAIK all EU member countries have a variant of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as a part of their constitution. Privacy is defined as one of these rights.
These laws are less about preventing govt intrusion (if the govt has a subpoena they can do what they want AFAIK) and more about corporations violating your privacy by e.g. selling your customer data to others.
You also have to depend on rich people having the desire, and being able to determine where the best place to spend that money is, in order to stimulate the economy.
That's not important. As long as the money goes out of their pockets just as fast as it goes in there the economy doesn't suffer (and on its way out there it'll surely touch a few lower income people), no matter what they throw it at. Unfortunately it has a tendency to stay there for a long time, which is why I think the govt should make sure that storing large amounts of money is discouraged.
It's _much_ more effective for a government to stimulate the economy by paying for low-level infrastructure labor. As I stated previously, not only are such people much more likely to spend every extra dollar they get, but the extra infrastructure will help _everyone_ (and make people happier about paying taxes since they'll see more evidence that the taxes are being spent on them), make lots of business opportunities (because of the lots of people with more money to spend), and will help reduce the economic-class-stratification-effect that a completely free-market has a tendency to encourage.
That depends. There's only so much need for infrastructure and not a lot of it influences the economy. There's also the problem that these spendings would be permanent as opposed to on-demand. Keynes wanted intervention to work as a reaction towards a depression, increasing employment for the govt doesn' work for that.
I have a great deal of skepticism about any government policy that caters to the rich. In my mind, the rich don't need any help - as long as the government isn't actively trying to crush them, they have plenty of resources to help themselves. Anybody who actually seriously cares about the health of the society should be concentrating on policies which help the lower & middle economic classes.
Inded but I don't see how increasing economic activity aims more at the rich than the poor. The rich take the same share as they usually do (through insanely high salaries), the poor get the same they always get (as opposed to getting nothing because the company lowers capacities and fires them, the rich don't get laid of, at least not without insanely huge severance packages). While the rich might increase their salaries during such a period of influx they would have done the same during the depression, perhaps even moreso in preparation for the imminent destruction of the company (Enron anyone?). In an ideal case the intervention would simply make sure that business continues as usual despite the depression.
You only pay the fee when the receipent of the call is on the landline.
There is potential for abuse. "This person donated a large sum of money to an opposition party. Shut him down." Or they could flag you for supporting "terrorist" organizations like Greenpeace. I wouldn't be surprised if some present or future law allows them to freeze your account if they think you are suspicious.
I suspect that the more likely reason is to be able to "redistribute wealth" from the taxpayers to cronies & big campaign contributors. The "it's good for the economy" reason is just a rationalisation to divert peoples' attention from who is benefiting the most from those handouts.
The people who came up with that weren't in a position where they'd profit from that. Keynes's idea was to keep govt spending low when the economy is good and increase spending in case of a depression to end it faster (which could also allow lower taxes during depressions so people have more money to spend). In the end the money ends in the hands of humans and by increasing economic activity the govt forces the companies to spend the money rather than keep it in the bank. The money flows around and at some point ends in the hands of humans who then have money to put into the economy again. Usually in a depression the demand would decrease so companies would reduce capacities which would involve firing people which means fewer people with money to put back into the economy. That would deepen the depression and has to be avoided.
It doesn't matter where the money flows, as long as it continues to flow instead of leaving the system. Lining the pockets of the rich wouldn't hurt the economy if the rich also spent all that money pretty quickly rather than tying up large amounts of money in their bank accounts. After all, as long as the money flows everyone will be able to get his share of the flow.
It does, the original definitions of both ideologies are mostly compatible.
That's actually two different economic approaches, both with the goal of propping up the economy: In one the govt directly throws money at the economy, in the other the govt buys stuff they don't really need in order to increase demand and indirectly having money go from the govt to the economy. One difference is for example that a direct injection can remain still while creating demand also forces the affected companies to buy more from their suppliers which makes the money cycle faster.
We've had that in school, our teachers attributed those approaches to Keynes and Friedman IIRC.
We have adapted our hands to the requirements set forth by tinkering with the insides of our computers. Try pulling a jumper with huge hands.
That happens if you look only at FPS games. Try looking at more genres. Platformers, fighting games (duel and beat'em'up), shmups, racing games, sports games, completely weird stuff like Katamari, etc.
If God is everything, why not substitute the word God with the word everything?
Well, as long as there are no load times after the initial startup... It's kinda annoying to wait two minutes for the title screen to load then press fire and wait another minute until the game starts and each time you go to the next level or you lose the game you have another load time (that's what the C64 was like). Unless your entire game fits into RAM you'll have to load more and if you use such heavy procedural stuff you can't load in the background.
MD1/2/3 model support (thats quake1 through quake3 and everything between
What, no skeletal animation?
The random generator in Diablo 2 uses a lot more human influence than normal random generators. Some areas are mostly premade and the generator will only modify e.g. which door leads to the boss. Also there are specific features that always occur in a specific level (e.g. the room with the secret door in the monastery dungeon).
Even if you create 100 distinct rooms for your dungeon that can be arranged in 100 billion unique ways, there's still only 100 basic elements, and you'll begin to recognize them pretty quickly.
That depends on the size of the elements. If they are entire rooms, yes, that gets easy to recognize but if they are just portions of walls and such (i.e. the tileset) recognizing them means nothing.
you really can't randomly generate a good, original story.
Yes but I have little doubt that, if you design the algorithm well, you could make it output the mindless clicheed drivel that passes for a storyline in Japanese RPGs. Noone would be able to tell the difference!
Descent's AI was alledgedly pretty advanced with different personalities for different enemies (Argh! Thiefbot!). I think some of them actually (try to) dodge your shots. I don't think Descent had anything that would qualify as a puzzle (you only had to find keycards or shoot switches) but I don't recall any in Doom, either.
Well, Descent did come before Quake. So it was the first true 3d FPS.
Procedural content generation is the next revolution in gaming.
You mean the next reason why games take as long to load in 2008 as they did on the C64.
In Doom the shotgun had firepower, in Quake it was just a fancy pistol.
Of course there's also enjoyment to factor in, I have this hunch that he enjoyed those games a bit more than working overtime.
No TV beancounter would dare say 'hey lets fund another 10 series of family fortune' instead of any of these shows no more than a games industry bencounter would say 'you know what, I think it's time we made another Sonic sequel'
Except if said beancounter is working for Sega. His next two phrases will be "How about we give Sonic a gun and let him shoot hookers?" and "We have secured an exclusivity contract for the NGage".
I grew up on Descent instead of Quake. Now I'm immune to motion sickness.
Easy. If it's squishy that's normal, if it's crunchy the lightning did it.