That raping is an unprovoked attack on civilians (and potentially jeopardizing attempts at making the populace accept the soldiers as friendly). That warrants severe disciplinary action (and for non-US soldiers a trial in an international court). Same as randomly shooting people because you're angry. You only attack people as part of the mission, not under any other circumstances.
You do realize the binary is ~2MB (most of which is anti-copy measures and additional DLLs don't add more than a few megabytes)? All the space intensive stuff (textures, levels, sounds, models, animations) is platform independent, there's even a push for platform independent game logic (e.g. UnrealScript). Ten different build take up maybe 100MB at most, that's nothing. The DVDs games ship on these days hold 47 times that and you can even add compression.
Start talking with those developers? If they don't know what you're planning they're not going to help you with it obviously.
Or make games for PDAs and smartphones (i.e. PocketPC or Palm OS, the platforms aren't as strange as cellphone Java)? That's open and profitable enough to keep quite a few devs alive.
You don't have to release it Europe-wide and many arcade-like games are released untranslated here, "Press Start" and "Game Over" aren't hard to understand even for people who don't speak English.
And hell, if you don't think a market would be significant (e.g. the US GSM phone market) then don't bother serving it.
Back when Infinium Labs was founded I was hoping for Infineon to slap them with a trademark infringement lawsuit because that Infinium name REALLY confused quite a few people, including me.
Of course that scheme wouldn't work well if almost all stores missed the sales targets (while not doing "unwanted" promotions) so the cost for HR and retraining would be significant.
Technically a bundle is a good different from any of its components. Doesn't matter whether the additional price nets you things built into the good or things that come separately, as long as you cannot buy exactly what they advertise for the price advertised it's bait and switch (unless, of course, it's an unintentional error but those don't happen often). Even advertising the XBox 360 Core and only having the Premium in stock could constitute bait and switch but I doubt anyopne would really complain about that.
What "origin of the designer"? Evolution is a theory on what happens once you got life in its simplest form. Where life comes from is the biogenesis, not evolution.
how is it more complex to say that a Being created everything
A whole lot. Because you introduce a new form of existence you complicate matters (unless the designer functions like we do we'd have to outline a new theory for how the designer works and if he works like us then you'd have a recursive problem). Adding a distinction between micro and macro evolution is complicating things (because such a distinction has not been found yet).
Versus, a theory that goes to great lengths to say that a Being did not create anything nor does that Being exist
You're confusing the initial state and a theory you added. The initial state includes only what the eye can see, after that you add layers of theories. The being is a theory formed to explain how the things the eye sees work. So a priori it's assumed that the being does not exist (indeed not even the idea of such a being exists).
Evolution is vastly complex and is required to be so in order to maintain its atheistic POV.
Doesn't look all that complex to me, a simple ruleset that can be applied to a wide variety of datasets and produce good results. How many assumptions does it make? Very few (organisms change over generations and inadequate mutations die off while beneficial ones reproduce).
My take: God is a wildcard, an admission that "we don't know how that works". Everything can be attributed to God without saying anything about the how or why of the phenomenon. Believing that lightning is what happens when God is angry is not what netted us electricity, it's the research that went into the how and why of lightnings and the insight gained into the process that creates lightning that gave us elecricity to work with. Demanding that anything remains explained with "God's work" means wanting to remain ignorant of the mechanisms behind that phenomenon. Evolution can be used for our gains (e.g. predicting mutations in harmful microorganisms), saying "God created all life" can not.
When you formulate a theory it's important to have three things: Testability, the least additional rules (reducing rules is even better) and predictive value. You can say Thor throws the lightning bolts but that's complicated, hardly testable and has absolutely no value for predicting things.
Creationism is a vastly more complicated theory than Evolution and has no evidence that this additional complexity is necessary. While Heisenberg could have claimed that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is creating those quantum effects he didn't have a reason to so he chose the simplest yet adequate theory he could muster. Same with creationism, there is no reason to assume the existence of a creator of which we can neither say how it works nor where it came from.
When you can show us a working model for describing the functioning and origin of the designer AND evidence that cannot be explained by any simpler means then come back. Before that, it's nothing but a pointless mental exercise.
God could have created everything the way it is five minutes ago (being omnipotent and all). But because of that it doesn't make sense to add in God because unless you see effects that cannot be explained without God you are better off not having to define an omnipotent, intelligent being (and finding theories on how that being functions). Occam's Razor. God is possibly the most complicated theory you could find.
Slashdot Mirror
FPSes don't train you for firing a real weapon, are you sure those kids didn't have range training?
That raping is an unprovoked attack on civilians (and potentially jeopardizing attempts at making the populace accept the soldiers as friendly). That warrants severe disciplinary action (and for non-US soldiers a trial in an international court). Same as randomly shooting people because you're angry. You only attack people as part of the mission, not under any other circumstances.
I know that FPS games and such can teach you situational awareness
I doubt that. I've played a LOT of FPS games and my situational awareness is terrible. Just failed a driving license test because of that.
You do realize the binary is ~2MB (most of which is anti-copy measures and additional DLLs don't add more than a few megabytes)? All the space intensive stuff (textures, levels, sounds, models, animations) is platform independent, there's even a push for platform independent game logic (e.g. UnrealScript). Ten different build take up maybe 100MB at most, that's nothing. The DVDs games ship on these days hold 47 times that and you can even add compression.
Wouldn't that be copyright infringement?
Nintendo says 100 feet maximum range and more than 30 not recommended if you don't want random disconnects.
The DS Tetris supports up to ten players, that particular mode may be limited to two.
Start talking with those developers? If they don't know what you're planning they're not going to help you with it obviously.
Or make games for PDAs and smartphones (i.e. PocketPC or Palm OS, the platforms aren't as strange as cellphone Java)? That's open and profitable enough to keep quite a few devs alive.
You don't have to release it Europe-wide and many arcade-like games are released untranslated here, "Press Start" and "Game Over" aren't hard to understand even for people who don't speak English.
And hell, if you don't think a market would be significant (e.g. the US GSM phone market) then don't bother serving it.
Back when Infinium Labs was founded I was hoping for Infineon to slap them with a trademark infringement lawsuit because that Infinium name REALLY confused quite a few people, including me.
I did first year astronomy before realising that my maths weren't up to it and switching to comp sci
I can't imagine math being much easier in comp sci, comp sci is pretty much applied math.
Indeed. Here in Germany you can currently pick the PC version up for one Euro at any Media Markt, definitely worth the money.
Of course that scheme wouldn't work well if almost all stores missed the sales targets (while not doing "unwanted" promotions) so the cost for HR and retraining would be significant.
Technically a bundle is a good different from any of its components. Doesn't matter whether the additional price nets you things built into the good or things that come separately, as long as you cannot buy exactly what they advertise for the price advertised it's bait and switch (unless, of course, it's an unintentional error but those don't happen often). Even advertising the XBox 360 Core and only having the Premium in stock could constitute bait and switch but I doubt anyopne would really complain about that.
You forgot the "sold in retail stores nationwide" qualifier you usually add so again the answer is Game Park (GP32, GP2X).
Except that phone is useful for more than just that one game and you can sell the game in Europe where everybody has at least GSM.
Now turn those puppies into wide varieties of monsters, some of which are cute and you got Pokemon which Nintendo is already making big money with...
Yes. That happens when you let Hudson make games.
Profit, yes, but how much? Most likely not enough to keep a company afloat.
#00000000 would be rather worrying if alpha transparency is enabled...
(Note: This is my attempt at humor, if you don't like it you can KMA!)
Cool! New Acronym! That's "Kill My Aunt", right? Said, done.
What "origin of the designer"? Evolution is a theory on what happens once you got life in its simplest form. Where life comes from is the biogenesis, not evolution.
how is it more complex to say that a Being created everything
A whole lot. Because you introduce a new form of existence you complicate matters (unless the designer functions like we do we'd have to outline a new theory for how the designer works and if he works like us then you'd have a recursive problem). Adding a distinction between micro and macro evolution is complicating things (because such a distinction has not been found yet).
Versus, a theory that goes to great lengths to say that a Being did not create anything nor does that Being exist
You're confusing the initial state and a theory you added. The initial state includes only what the eye can see, after that you add layers of theories. The being is a theory formed to explain how the things the eye sees work. So a priori it's assumed that the being does not exist (indeed not even the idea of such a being exists).
Evolution is vastly complex and is required to be so in order to maintain its atheistic POV.
Doesn't look all that complex to me, a simple ruleset that can be applied to a wide variety of datasets and produce good results. How many assumptions does it make? Very few (organisms change over generations and inadequate mutations die off while beneficial ones reproduce).
My take: God is a wildcard, an admission that "we don't know how that works". Everything can be attributed to God without saying anything about the how or why of the phenomenon. Believing that lightning is what happens when God is angry is not what netted us electricity, it's the research that went into the how and why of lightnings and the insight gained into the process that creates lightning that gave us elecricity to work with. Demanding that anything remains explained with "God's work" means wanting to remain ignorant of the mechanisms behind that phenomenon. Evolution can be used for our gains (e.g. predicting mutations in harmful microorganisms), saying "God created all life" can not.
When you formulate a theory it's important to have three things: Testability, the least additional rules (reducing rules is even better) and predictive value. You can say Thor throws the lightning bolts but that's complicated, hardly testable and has absolutely no value for predicting things.
Creationism is a vastly more complicated theory than Evolution and has no evidence that this additional complexity is necessary. While Heisenberg could have claimed that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is creating those quantum effects he didn't have a reason to so he chose the simplest yet adequate theory he could muster. Same with creationism, there is no reason to assume the existence of a creator of which we can neither say how it works nor where it came from.
When you can show us a working model for describing the functioning and origin of the designer AND evidence that cannot be explained by any simpler means then come back. Before that, it's nothing but a pointless mental exercise.
Which would introduce the difference between adaption and speciation. Where is that difference?
God could have created everything the way it is five minutes ago (being omnipotent and all). But because of that it doesn't make sense to add in God because unless you see effects that cannot be explained without God you are better off not having to define an omnipotent, intelligent being (and finding theories on how that being functions). Occam's Razor. God is possibly the most complicated theory you could find.