that's very interesting. it's a shame that it was never implemented.
but if domain name registration were actually done by a regulatory agency (preferably an international organization like the UN, WHO, ISO, etc.) rather than through the commercially-controlled/unregulated ICANN, then the TLDs themselves could be used to separate commercial/non-commercial sites. it wouldn't require any kind of complex machine-learning algorithm.
perhaps this is a problem of economics rather than technology. most computers, whether desktop workstations or business servers, aren't designed to be used for more than 5 to 10 years. it's part of the product cycle of most tech businesses because technology evolves so quickly. and there aren't any applications that specifically require long-lasting systems.
so while you won't be able to build a solution with off the shelf parts, if you were to design a system specifically for storage in a time capsule, i'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to build a system with a 3 or 4 decade shelf-life. it would just be much more expensive than the systems on the market right now.
that reminds me of a british tv expose i watched on car thefts in the UK.
first off, let me just say that they seemed to focus on how high-end cars are being targeted by car thieves. so the people who had their cars stolen were driving bmw, mercedes-benz, audi, aston martin, ferrari, etc. i don't know what the actual statistics in the UK are, but the program gave the impression that the biggest victims were people who owned cars in the $100K+ range.
so yea, rich people are getting their cars stolen. boo-hoo, and all that... but the program kept trying to elicit empathy from viewers by saying that these thefts aren't just victimizing the super-rich, but all britons, somehow (probably because so many tax dollars go towards these high end car theft task forces), and what's more, that if you happen to buy a nice car for really cheap, that you're actually a victim for owning a stolen vehicle that you thought you'd purchased legitimately.
i can understand if the police track a car theft to you, and they seize the car you just paid good money for--that certainly does make you a victim. but the program also insinuated that the tens of thousands of british citizens who are unknowingly driving around in stolen vehicles (which, aside from falsified VIN numbers, work just fine) are also victims. that just seems idiotic to me.
as to drive the point home, they interview a guy who "suspected" that his newly purchased car may be a stolen vehicle. so a police officer comes to his house and looks at the VIN number on his car and discovers that it's been tampered with. so indeed it was a stolen vehicle, but the previous owner was probably reimbursed by his insurance company and everything was settled already. but now, because the new owner acted like an idiot, he just got his car seized by the police and was screwed out of the money you paid for the car. all i kept think was what an idiot that guy was.
that's why i say there needs to be two distinct indexes: commercial and informational/research. most of the time you do searches it falls into either of these two categories, and you don't need both sets of results mixed together.
i was trying to think of a solution to a similar problem, actually. however, the solution i arrived at wasn't as elegant, or perhaps just not as easy to implement as it would require a complete overhaul of the indexing system.
basically, i imagined a system where you would be able to cross-reference search phrases to make contextual searches. for instance, if you go onto youtube, and you want to search for videos of animal "cubs," what you'll end up with is a bunch of videos of the Chicago Cubs baseball team--similar to the problem with searching for "wine," the software.
right now you can sorta get by with boolean searches and tags, but it doesn't always work. however, if the actual search index could be organized topologically, whereby similar or related items were grouped closer together, then the search could return much more relevant results.
within a closed system, something like youtube, you could probably create a system that tracks each user's activity and thus determine their area(s) of interest. if you've just been looking at animal or wildlife-related info, and then you do a search for "cubs," then the search engine should automatically infer that you're probably not looking for baseball-related results. this wouldn't require any kind of advanced AI or anything, as it could just rank search results based on their "proximity" to the items you've recently looked at.
actually, it's quite easy if you have a removable disk drive/storage media. even in the early 90's when home networking wasn't all that popular (and the internet wasn't even commercially available to most) viruses were fairly common. they were just transmitted by the main means of data transmission those days: 5.25" floppies.
these days people don't use floppies as much as data is transferred via the network most of the time, so that's also how most viruses get through. but this incident shows that viruses will be transmitted by whatever means through which you transfer data between systems.
um, it still stands? when will you realize that you are not representative of the entire portable entertainment market?
most portable entertainment/homebrew enthusiasts are interested in more than just a portable gaming system, hence hardware makers include additional features such as wi-fi access, web browsing, RSS subscriptions, GPS add-ons, and _keyboard attachments_. just do a simple google search for the phrase "PSP keyboard" and you can immediately see how much interest there is in this capability.
people who use, or want to use, their portable devices for web browsing, e-mail, etc. know how necessary a qwerty keyboard is for these applications. not to mention the realm of possibilities this simple addition would open to homebrew development. if you _were_ familiar with homebrew software development on portable systems, then you should already know all the homebrew apps out there that require text/keyboard input.
true, microwave signals generally can't penetrate water for more than a couple of inches or so, but that's solid water.
AFAIK, commercial GPS receivers can operate just fine during heavy rain, or snow storms. they're even used in avalanche rescue applications without problem. ground-penetrating radar also uses UHF frequencies and can operate through a variety of media, including ice and fresh water. with a decent sized antenna it shouldn't be a problem for the GPS signal to be picked up through a couple of inches of animal flesh.
and there are plenty of consumer devices out there these days that can last several years without changing batteries. this humidity/temperature monitoring device, for instance, has a 10-year battery life. there's also inductive charging, which is used for a lot of medical implants.
i agree that today's games offer a lot more possibility in terms of what kind of environments you can create. but i still miss playing in co-op mode with a friend over the phone line in Duke3D's epic outdoor missions--like walking across a narrow catwalk bridging a massive canyon. you really felt like you were inside the game's narrative, almost role-playing-like.
i don't know what it is, but today's games just don't have that kind of gameplay quality. it's all about deathmatch or team deathmatch these days. i guess it's hard to immerse yourself into the virtual world of the game when other players are shouting "PWNed!!!!11 U nUBZ!!!!11"
well, i used to spend a lot of time creating custom maps in DN3D's build program, so i know how much of a pain in the ass it is, and the wide variety of hacks that are often employed--but isn't this true with every game engine? unless you can actually model the natural laws of physics, you're going to have to use hacks to fake most of it.
i know that Quake was a huge improvement over DN3D--for one it didn't use 2d sprites--but i still think it's a much bigger jump from Doom to Duke Nukem 3D than it is from Duke Nukem 3D to Quake. i just remember the first time i played Duke Nukem 3D, dropping down from that vent shaft in Hollywood Holocaust at the beginning of Episode 1: L.A. Meltdown, it totally blew my mind how "realistic" this game was. having only played games like Wolfenstein and Doom before this, it was completely amazing to me that i could actually look around in any direction i wanted to using the mouse (including up and down). and when i discovered that you could actually climb onto the buildings, walls, tables, etc. and interact with the environment so freely (especially with the jet pack) rather than being restricted to set paths or hallways, it was like a door to a whole new world of virtual reality was opened to me.
there are a lot of games that would be better classified as 2.5D than Duke Nukem 3D--for instance Crash Bandicoot, which although fully 3D graphically, still limited player movement to a fixed 2D "track." i mean, in Duke 3D you could actually have aerial deathmatch battles with the jet pack and literally fly over or under the other player. so the vertical layering issue is strictly limited to the map engine, and inside every "room" you had a fully 3d environment.
1.) unless the cow's stomach is lined with metal, it shouldn't be a problem for the GPS signals to penetrate it. and earth cows are much smaller than...whatever the hell kind of cow has several feet of insulation. 2.) batteries.
that's because Pandora is a niche product. it's not competing with the PSP/DS. it's for people who want an open portable gaming platform to develop on. most of its users are going to be geeks & programmers.
as shocking as it may sound, not _everyone_ is singly focused on making tons of money. some people do things because they are passionate about it, and because it interests them. just because Pandora won't appeal to mainstream consumers doesn't mean that it's not a good product. in fact, it's a great product for homebrew enthusiasts. and even if you _are_ concerned with making money, it doesn't make sense to put out another product to compete with the Sony PSP or Nintendo DS. even from a business standpoint, a niche market can be a sensible target--particularly a much neglected niche market.
i still don't get why some people have such a hard time understanding that, just because a particular product isn't aimed at them, doesn't mean that it's a bad idea. i personally have no use for a 10 disk external RAID enclosure with a fibre channel backplane, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad product.
you keep making unsupported value-judgments as if you're afraid of engaging in a real discussion.
if the only reason you can give for the Pandora being a "mediocre product" or "not making sense" is the fact that it has a 43 button qwerty keyboard, then the problem doesn't lie with Pandora or its designers.
clearly it makes sense to everyone else. so just stop trolling already.
right, let's just make a device that _you_ and your "committee" want, but that there's no actual demand for. great idea!
i think that business philosophy has already been played to death with the N-Gage, Sega Game Gear, DivX (the video rental system, not the codec), and the Gizmondo.
just because it has a qwerty keyboard? i think a lot of PSP owners would love to have a qwerty keyboard attachment for the system.
in case you haven't noticed, most portable entertainment systems these days also have features like: web browsing, instant messaging, e-mail, etc. a qwerty keyboard would make those applications much easier to use, not to mention the wide variety of other non-web/internet-related applications that take text input--like, searching through your mp3 collection or an ebook, or text editors , command consoles, etc.
i don't see a single feature on that list that wouldn't be appropriate for a portable entertainment device. clearly this device isn't aimed at someone like you. if you're a fan of portable gaming/entertainment devices, then you'd be able to appreciate the robust package Pandora offers--particularly if you're into homebrew development. if you just want a GBA, then go buy a GBA. there are plenty of people who are interested in something with a little more functionality and more practical uses.
on a side note, i'm somewhat disturbed that livestock are still commonly fire branded these days, which the cow magnet article alludes to. i mean, there are so many more ethical alternatives to a hot brand--tattoos, ear tags, RFID chips, freeze branding, etc. which would all be far less painful to the animal.
why not just have the calf swallow an RFID tag that also contains a GPS device (like a livestock LoJack) just like they're fed cow magnets? it seems so barbaric and senseless to me that in this day and age we still haven't grown out of the tradition of branding animals with hot irons.
actually, if you mate an australian cow with a north american cow, you end up with a calf that points "up." this biological defect inevitably causes the calf the starve to death.
i'd say Doom was 2.5D, and Duke Nukem 3D was more-or-less 2.99...D
having a screwed up map editor doesn't detract from the fact that you could move along all 3 axes. this is especially clear when you strap on a jet pack and can fly freely over buildings, or climb over obstacles and move between different elevations (without the help of "elevator" platforms) throughout the game's wide variety of terrain, or walk across bridges and other assort overhanging paths.
i mean, it wasn't like Doom, where the ground was always completely flat (and you were glued to it) and there weren't any diagonal slopes. you also had full vertical aiming in Duke Nukem 3D, whereas you didn't in Doom. all the 2d sprites could be placed/move in a fully 3D coordinate system (which is how bridges were created). that's why you can see projectiles moving non-parallel to the horizontal plane at any odd angles.
i was thinking closer to Roujin-Z when i first read the title.
(in case you can't figure out what screencap shows, it's a renegade robotic hospital bed going on an Akira-styled rampage through the streets of Tokyo)
so should we put warning-labels on caffeinated drinks? people have died from drinking too much water as well, but the dangers are so remote and require such extraneous circumstances that any risks it might pose are so far and removed as to not be worth worrying about. christ, you sound like a goddamn agoraphobe.
there are potential risks to everything in life. without weighing the risks against each other you can't get an overall picture of what's safe and what's dangerous. both drunk driving and smoking a joint can have associated risks, but that doesn't mean they're equally dangerous.
and just because a chemical is psychoactive doesn't mean it's "fucking with your brain." your statement shows how completely ignorant you are about how the brain functions. at any given time your brain is being subjected to a sea of neurochemicals that constantly alter your mental state; dopamine, which is structurally similar to amphetamines; adrenaline is likewise similar to meth. heroin/morphine/vicodin/oxy-contin/etc. are all structurally similar to endogenous opioids in your brain. your brain also produces endocannabinoids similar to the active chemicals in marijuana.
you're deluding yourself if you think that there's ever a time when nothing can possibly go wrong. even when you're sober your body can spontaneously malfunction or you could be hit by lightning. your alarmist attitude is unwarranted and completely misguided. if anyone here is clueless, it is you.
salvia, while a potent psychedelic (and an unpleasant one IMO) isn't any more dangerous than weed for most people. that isn't to say that it should be treated lightly. weed in itself is a powerful, and often underestimated, psychedelic. but you're not going to jump off a cliff or something just because you smoked weed or salvia.
the rest of your post is new-age spiritualist BS with no relation to reality.
so why not just call chemistry physics? after all, chemistry is just the result of particle physics (electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, etc.). heck, why bother making any distinction between different empirical sciences at all? it's all just part of the study of the same natural universe.
the nature of the human intellect, and inherent to its capacity to comprehend very complex or difficult concepts and ideas, is to break things down into their component parts. we also label and categorize new concepts & ideas according to its perceived relationship to other concepts/ideas. and in this way we organize, make sense of, and integrate new knowledge into our present understanding of the world we live in. this architectonic approach to knowledge acquisition has proved immensely effective at building a useful understanding of the world around us in a systematized fashion.
it's not a psychological fault, it's simply a practical & efficient learning technique and part of our natural heuristic algorithm.
terms like living/non-living, animate/inanimate, sentient/non-sentient, sapient/non-sapient, etc. are very useful for describing and categorizing/organizing the diverse range of organic structures which exist in the world. at times these labels may need to be changed, modified, redefined, removed, replaced, merged, or split apart, but they will always be needed. they define meaningful qualities and make scientifically useful & necessary distinctions between different classes of objects.
and no one said that life evolved in discrete steps. most scientists agree that viruses "live" between the world of the living and the world of the dead. we also know that we know very little about the consciousness mind. but we apply labels and to mark meaningful differences between various states of awareness/living. as we continue to study these topics, we will be able to better understand these phenomena and gradually refine our labels & definitions.
also, reducing all biological phenomena to just the phrase "complex systems" is a gross oversimplification lacking any scientifically meaningful definition. "complex" is a very vague word. a piece of pocket lint is very complex at the quantum level, or even at the molecular level. i fail to see how replacing "life" or "living" with "complex systems" is conducive of better scientific understanding of biology.
Slashdot Mirror
that's very interesting. it's a shame that it was never implemented.
but if domain name registration were actually done by a regulatory agency (preferably an international organization like the UN, WHO, ISO, etc.) rather than through the commercially-controlled/unregulated ICANN, then the TLDs themselves could be used to separate commercial/non-commercial sites. it wouldn't require any kind of complex machine-learning algorithm.
perhaps this is a problem of economics rather than technology. most computers, whether desktop workstations or business servers, aren't designed to be used for more than 5 to 10 years. it's part of the product cycle of most tech businesses because technology evolves so quickly. and there aren't any applications that specifically require long-lasting systems.
so while you won't be able to build a solution with off the shelf parts, if you were to design a system specifically for storage in a time capsule, i'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to build a system with a 3 or 4 decade shelf-life. it would just be much more expensive than the systems on the market right now.
that reminds me of a british tv expose i watched on car thefts in the UK.
first off, let me just say that they seemed to focus on how high-end cars are being targeted by car thieves. so the people who had their cars stolen were driving bmw, mercedes-benz, audi, aston martin, ferrari, etc. i don't know what the actual statistics in the UK are, but the program gave the impression that the biggest victims were people who owned cars in the $100K+ range.
so yea, rich people are getting their cars stolen. boo-hoo, and all that... but the program kept trying to elicit empathy from viewers by saying that these thefts aren't just victimizing the super-rich, but all britons, somehow (probably because so many tax dollars go towards these high end car theft task forces), and what's more, that if you happen to buy a nice car for really cheap, that you're actually a victim for owning a stolen vehicle that you thought you'd purchased legitimately.
i can understand if the police track a car theft to you, and they seize the car you just paid good money for--that certainly does make you a victim. but the program also insinuated that the tens of thousands of british citizens who are unknowingly driving around in stolen vehicles (which, aside from falsified VIN numbers, work just fine) are also victims. that just seems idiotic to me.
as to drive the point home, they interview a guy who "suspected" that his newly purchased car may be a stolen vehicle. so a police officer comes to his house and looks at the VIN number on his car and discovers that it's been tampered with. so indeed it was a stolen vehicle, but the previous owner was probably reimbursed by his insurance company and everything was settled already. but now, because the new owner acted like an idiot, he just got his car seized by the police and was screwed out of the money you paid for the car. all i kept think was what an idiot that guy was.
that's why i say there needs to be two distinct indexes: commercial and informational/research. most of the time you do searches it falls into either of these two categories, and you don't need both sets of results mixed together.
i was trying to think of a solution to a similar problem, actually. however, the solution i arrived at wasn't as elegant, or perhaps just not as easy to implement as it would require a complete overhaul of the indexing system.
basically, i imagined a system where you would be able to cross-reference search phrases to make contextual searches. for instance, if you go onto youtube, and you want to search for videos of animal "cubs," what you'll end up with is a bunch of videos of the Chicago Cubs baseball team--similar to the problem with searching for "wine," the software.
right now you can sorta get by with boolean searches and tags, but it doesn't always work. however, if the actual search index could be organized topologically, whereby similar or related items were grouped closer together, then the search could return much more relevant results.
within a closed system, something like youtube, you could probably create a system that tracks each user's activity and thus determine their area(s) of interest. if you've just been looking at animal or wildlife-related info, and then you do a search for "cubs," then the search engine should automatically infer that you're probably not looking for baseball-related results. this wouldn't require any kind of advanced AI or anything, as it could just rank search results based on their "proximity" to the items you've recently looked at.
actually, it's quite easy if you have a removable disk drive/storage media. even in the early 90's when home networking wasn't all that popular (and the internet wasn't even commercially available to most) viruses were fairly common. they were just transmitted by the main means of data transmission those days: 5.25" floppies.
these days people don't use floppies as much as data is transferred via the network most of the time, so that's also how most viruses get through. but this incident shows that viruses will be transmitted by whatever means through which you transfer data between systems.
um, it still stands? when will you realize that you are not representative of the entire portable entertainment market?
most portable entertainment/homebrew enthusiasts are interested in more than just a portable gaming system, hence hardware makers include additional features such as wi-fi access, web browsing, RSS subscriptions, GPS add-ons, and _keyboard attachments_. just do a simple google search for the phrase "PSP keyboard" and you can immediately see how much interest there is in this capability.
people who use, or want to use, their portable devices for web browsing, e-mail, etc. know how necessary a qwerty keyboard is for these applications. not to mention the realm of possibilities this simple addition would open to homebrew development. if you _were_ familiar with homebrew software development on portable systems, then you should already know all the homebrew apps out there that require text/keyboard input.
well, gee, if you're not interested in it, then i guess it has no chance of success at all. i've been defeated by your iron-clad logic.
pop quiz: what's an inverse argument?
just because a successful product can be designed without forum input doesn't mean that a successful product can't be designed _with_ forum input.
use unsound arguments much?
true, microwave signals generally can't penetrate water for more than a couple of inches or so, but that's solid water.
AFAIK, commercial GPS receivers can operate just fine during heavy rain, or snow storms. they're even used in avalanche rescue applications without problem. ground-penetrating radar also uses UHF frequencies and can operate through a variety of media, including ice and fresh water. with a decent sized antenna it shouldn't be a problem for the GPS signal to be picked up through a couple of inches of animal flesh.
and there are plenty of consumer devices out there these days that can last several years without changing batteries. this humidity/temperature monitoring device, for instance, has a 10-year battery life. there's also inductive charging, which is used for a lot of medical implants.
i agree that today's games offer a lot more possibility in terms of what kind of environments you can create. but i still miss playing in co-op mode with a friend over the phone line in Duke3D's epic outdoor missions--like walking across a narrow catwalk bridging a massive canyon. you really felt like you were inside the game's narrative, almost role-playing-like.
i don't know what it is, but today's games just don't have that kind of gameplay quality. it's all about deathmatch or team deathmatch these days. i guess it's hard to immerse yourself into the virtual world of the game when other players are shouting "PWNed!!!!11 U nUBZ!!!!11"
well, i used to spend a lot of time creating custom maps in DN3D's build program, so i know how much of a pain in the ass it is, and the wide variety of hacks that are often employed--but isn't this true with every game engine? unless you can actually model the natural laws of physics, you're going to have to use hacks to fake most of it.
i know that Quake was a huge improvement over DN3D--for one it didn't use 2d sprites--but i still think it's a much bigger jump from Doom to Duke Nukem 3D than it is from Duke Nukem 3D to Quake. i just remember the first time i played Duke Nukem 3D, dropping down from that vent shaft in Hollywood Holocaust at the beginning of Episode 1: L.A. Meltdown, it totally blew my mind how "realistic" this game was. having only played games like Wolfenstein and Doom before this, it was completely amazing to me that i could actually look around in any direction i wanted to using the mouse (including up and down). and when i discovered that you could actually climb onto the buildings, walls, tables, etc. and interact with the environment so freely (especially with the jet pack) rather than being restricted to set paths or hallways, it was like a door to a whole new world of virtual reality was opened to me.
there are a lot of games that would be better classified as 2.5D than Duke Nukem 3D--for instance Crash Bandicoot, which although fully 3D graphically, still limited player movement to a fixed 2D "track." i mean, in Duke 3D you could actually have aerial deathmatch battles with the jet pack and literally fly over or under the other player. so the vertical layering issue is strictly limited to the map engine, and inside every "room" you had a fully 3d environment.
1.) unless the cow's stomach is lined with metal, it shouldn't be a problem for the GPS signals to penetrate it. and earth cows are much smaller than ...whatever the hell kind of cow has several feet of insulation.
2.) batteries.
that's because Pandora is a niche product. it's not competing with the PSP/DS. it's for people who want an open portable gaming platform to develop on. most of its users are going to be geeks & programmers.
as shocking as it may sound, not _everyone_ is singly focused on making tons of money. some people do things because they are passionate about it, and because it interests them. just because Pandora won't appeal to mainstream consumers doesn't mean that it's not a good product. in fact, it's a great product for homebrew enthusiasts. and even if you _are_ concerned with making money, it doesn't make sense to put out another product to compete with the Sony PSP or Nintendo DS. even from a business standpoint, a niche market can be a sensible target--particularly a much neglected niche market.
i still don't get why some people have such a hard time understanding that, just because a particular product isn't aimed at them, doesn't mean that it's a bad idea. i personally have no use for a 10 disk external RAID enclosure with a fibre channel backplane, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad product.
you keep making unsupported value-judgments as if you're afraid of engaging in a real discussion.
if the only reason you can give for the Pandora being a "mediocre product" or "not making sense" is the fact that it has a 43 button qwerty keyboard, then the problem doesn't lie with Pandora or its designers.
clearly it makes sense to everyone else. so just stop trolling already.
right, let's just make a device that _you_ and your "committee" want, but that there's no actual demand for. great idea!
i think that business philosophy has already been played to death with the N-Gage, Sega Game Gear, DivX (the video rental system, not the codec), and the Gizmondo.
just because it has a qwerty keyboard? i think a lot of PSP owners would love to have a qwerty keyboard attachment for the system.
in case you haven't noticed, most portable entertainment systems these days also have features like: web browsing, instant messaging, e-mail, etc. a qwerty keyboard would make those applications much easier to use, not to mention the wide variety of other non-web/internet-related applications that take text input--like, searching through your mp3 collection or an ebook, or text editors , command consoles, etc.
i don't see a single feature on that list that wouldn't be appropriate for a portable entertainment device. clearly this device isn't aimed at someone like you. if you're a fan of portable gaming/entertainment devices, then you'd be able to appreciate the robust package Pandora offers--particularly if you're into homebrew development. if you just want a GBA, then go buy a GBA. there are plenty of people who are interested in something with a little more functionality and more practical uses.
very interesting tidbit.
on a side note, i'm somewhat disturbed that livestock are still commonly fire branded these days, which the cow magnet article alludes to. i mean, there are so many more ethical alternatives to a hot brand--tattoos, ear tags, RFID chips, freeze branding, etc. which would all be far less painful to the animal.
why not just have the calf swallow an RFID tag that also contains a GPS device (like a livestock LoJack) just like they're fed cow magnets? it seems so barbaric and senseless to me that in this day and age we still haven't grown out of the tradition of branding animals with hot irons.
actually, if you mate an australian cow with a north american cow, you end up with a calf that points "up." this biological defect inevitably causes the calf the starve to death.
i'd say Doom was 2.5D, and Duke Nukem 3D was more-or-less 2.99...D
having a screwed up map editor doesn't detract from the fact that you could move along all 3 axes. this is especially clear when you strap on a jet pack and can fly freely over buildings, or climb over obstacles and move between different elevations (without the help of "elevator" platforms) throughout the game's wide variety of terrain, or walk across bridges and other assort overhanging paths.
i mean, it wasn't like Doom, where the ground was always completely flat (and you were glued to it) and there weren't any diagonal slopes. you also had full vertical aiming in Duke Nukem 3D, whereas you didn't in Doom. all the 2d sprites could be placed/move in a fully 3D coordinate system (which is how bridges were created). that's why you can see projectiles moving non-parallel to the horizontal plane at any odd angles.
i was thinking closer to Roujin-Z when i first read the title.
(in case you can't figure out what screencap shows, it's a renegade robotic hospital bed going on an Akira-styled rampage through the streets of Tokyo)
so should we put warning-labels on caffeinated drinks? people have died from drinking too much water as well, but the dangers are so remote and require such extraneous circumstances that any risks it might pose are so far and removed as to not be worth worrying about. christ, you sound like a goddamn agoraphobe.
there are potential risks to everything in life. without weighing the risks against each other you can't get an overall picture of what's safe and what's dangerous. both drunk driving and smoking a joint can have associated risks, but that doesn't mean they're equally dangerous.
and just because a chemical is psychoactive doesn't mean it's "fucking with your brain." your statement shows how completely ignorant you are about how the brain functions. at any given time your brain is being subjected to a sea of neurochemicals that constantly alter your mental state; dopamine, which is structurally similar to amphetamines; adrenaline is likewise similar to meth. heroin/morphine/vicodin/oxy-contin/etc. are all structurally similar to endogenous opioids in your brain. your brain also produces endocannabinoids similar to the active chemicals in marijuana.
you're deluding yourself if you think that there's ever a time when nothing can possibly go wrong. even when you're sober your body can spontaneously malfunction or you could be hit by lightning. your alarmist attitude is unwarranted and completely misguided. if anyone here is clueless, it is you.
i think you're confusing Salvia with PCP.
salvia, while a potent psychedelic (and an unpleasant one IMO) isn't any more dangerous than weed for most people. that isn't to say that it should be treated lightly. weed in itself is a powerful, and often underestimated, psychedelic. but you're not going to jump off a cliff or something just because you smoked weed or salvia.
the rest of your post is new-age spiritualist BS with no relation to reality.
so why not just call chemistry physics? after all, chemistry is just the result of particle physics (electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, etc.). heck, why bother making any distinction between different empirical sciences at all? it's all just part of the study of the same natural universe.
the nature of the human intellect, and inherent to its capacity to comprehend very complex or difficult concepts and ideas, is to break things down into their component parts. we also label and categorize new concepts & ideas according to its perceived relationship to other concepts/ideas. and in this way we organize, make sense of, and integrate new knowledge into our present understanding of the world we live in. this architectonic approach to knowledge acquisition has proved immensely effective at building a useful understanding of the world around us in a systematized fashion.
it's not a psychological fault, it's simply a practical & efficient learning technique and part of our natural heuristic algorithm.
terms like living/non-living, animate/inanimate, sentient/non-sentient, sapient/non-sapient, etc. are very useful for describing and categorizing/organizing the diverse range of organic structures which exist in the world. at times these labels may need to be changed, modified, redefined, removed, replaced, merged, or split apart, but they will always be needed. they define meaningful qualities and make scientifically useful & necessary distinctions between different classes of objects.
and no one said that life evolved in discrete steps. most scientists agree that viruses "live" between the world of the living and the world of the dead. we also know that we know very little about the consciousness mind. but we apply labels and to mark meaningful differences between various states of awareness/living. as we continue to study these topics, we will be able to better understand these phenomena and gradually refine our labels & definitions.
also, reducing all biological phenomena to just the phrase "complex systems" is a gross oversimplification lacking any scientifically meaningful definition. "complex" is a very vague word. a piece of pocket lint is very complex at the quantum level, or even at the molecular level. i fail to see how replacing "life" or "living" with "complex systems" is conducive of better scientific understanding of biology.
yea, just like everything i've seen so far in ferrari sports cars is nothing more than is demonstrated by my honda civic--just with better efficiency.