Second person shooter
on
Second Person
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Come on. No discussion of the emerging second person shooter genre mod community? You still move yourself but see all the action from the eyes of your enemy. Sorta hard to maneuver, though: Look left. Left! Probably rough in the arena deathmatch format.
Actually, games like Portal and Prey do scratch the surface of that...
The lens they are talking about for this telescope uses a fancy diffraction grating-like focus technology, which is fundamentally different than the squinting effect. The former hardly needs any light whereas the latter is more like a pinhole camera or camera obscura, which needs a lot of light to get a reasonable image.
As an AC posted on this thread, the squinting effect is basically just pinhole ray optics, not wave diffraction. The pinhole would have to be on the order of tens of micrometers to even begin seeing wave effects like diffraction for visible light.
I'm pretty nearsighted (can't see far away without glasses) but I can make a quick pinhole lens with my thumb and index finger if I need to see an image across the room (like a well-lit clock or exit sign) without my glasses.
Making the web free to use had a vital role in spreading its use worldwide...If we had put a price on it like the University of Minnesota had done with Gopher then it would not have expanded into what it is now The web itself isn't free to use nor is the internet. However, I will agree that CERN's decision to make their web code free to the public did play a role in bringing about an idea whose time had come.
Still, whether something is free or not doesn't really have an obvious relationship to it spreading (meaningfully) worldwide. For example, I don't think you can say just because something is a proprietary product means it won't spread worldwide. The market is fickle and you never really know what people latch onto. I suspect Gopher failed largely because it just wasn't that great to begin with. But rolling the Gopher:web::UM:CERN analogy to the next level, I have a hunch that if CERN didn't make their web code free, someone else would have created something to compete with it which was free and basically equivalent to it.
I think the characterization of "discovered" in this context has been somewhat mischaracterized. Mathematics, the study of generalized rule sets using logic, the language of algorithm, is "discovered" in the same way creative works of literature or music are "discovered." With some generalized state space of rules, every possible output, idea, or concept constrained by those rules can be indexed in this space. This can be in "in principle" thing -- i.e. you don't have to know all the rules to acknowledge a state space exists containing all outputs of the rules; indeed also containing all the possible rules themselves. If that state space is big enough, the process of discovery becomes indistinguishable from creativity, since finding non-trivial points at random in that space becomes very improbable.
Practically speaking, trickle-down technology of the sort mentioned in the article is one of the main reasons basic research on this massive scale even has a chance of getting funded with taxpayer dollars. Looking for the Higgs, supersymmetry, and a color glass condensate is cool (important!) scientifically, but it is hard to justify spending 10 billion dollars without some pragmatic output. I'm a high energy physicist by training and would like to think these projects could get funded on their own scientific merit, but I suspect funding agencies would disagree; regardless, technology offshoots of this sort are definitely a good thing.
Ironically, in the context of the submission, the submitter really is teetering on the brink of begging the question. At least he or she is kind enough to point it out for us. The reasoning goes:
1. Stephen Hawking thinks that alien life is likely, albeit primitive;
2. Therefore, we might need a Prime Directive to help guide us with contact with advanced alien cultures before exploring or sending signals too far into the depths of space.
Oh, wait, that's technically a Non Sequitur. But, hey, we knew what they meant because all of us have written code in C++.
I was talking to someone recently who bragged about regularly trolling wikipedia to intentionally and actively create dead end and circular references. He was practically giddy with the notion that wikipedia "only requires some kind of external citation, but you can really mess with this because people rarely check them." I'm a wikipedia fan, so was quite annoyed with him, so beat him about the head and chest; this is clearly a 2nd order loophole that should be actively combated. I realized I would be naive to think otherwise, but I still found it illuminating to be reminded people are actively out there creating dead and circular links . It is a more subtle way to create noise in wikipedia rather than the more obvious act of injecting copious uncited nonsense into an article.
Point well taken. As a professor, even in the context of practical-minded hoop-jumping for a degree, I try to encourage students to still make the most of every situation and enjoy every course lecture-by-lecture as best they can. Perhaps I'm a bit of an idealist in the sector, but I really believe one's education is what one makes of it. If one thinks and acts like it is hoop-jumping, that's exactly what it becomes.
Since when is school about "doing what you love"? School is a means to an end, a stepping stone to teach you how to research what you really need to know, nothing more. It's to teach you how to think, and that's especially true for law school. Not true. It sounds trite, but you'd better be doing what you love -- or at least appreciate each moment to the best of your ability -- or you are wasting your life. School is part of the whole life path. Life doesn't somehow start after school. This absurdly pseudo-practical "means to an end" myth some students have is _absolute nonsense_. If that is how you are treating school, my advice is you need to recalibrate. The only endpoint in life is death.
Brothels can also be used as a positive education experience, but does that mean we should install one in every classroom? Wait. Don't answer that. Regardless, you must know this is about eliminating distractions in the classroom to enhance independent thinking and focus, not remove it. If students were actually using the wireless connection in the classroom to augment and amplify their lecture, that would be fine. But if you are a student attending a one hour lecture, and systematically can't focus on it so much so you must shop or aimlessly browse to get through it, don't bother going at all. If this is happening in all your classes, you are probably not doing the thing you love. You are wasting everyone's time (most importantly your own) by going through the motions of an education.
Unless I'm not finding a link in the article, it seems like they only managed to simulate the letter "e". Not exactly full speech emulation (yet) and sounds a bit like Stephen Hawking. Still, kinda cool. One can only assume the next effort will include the full poetic expression: Eegah
Hey! Whatever happened to searching for good ol' ordinary information? The Faceboogle concept is a desperate attempt to create a new viral word, but seems too "people-specific" and, moreover, sounds like something that happens suddenly in a p0rn clip. Frankly, searching for people-oriented things is fairly small fraction of what I use search engines for (I know this is a fallacy to project this onto others, but I can't be alone in this). In fairness, Facebook has been pretty good at people-finding for me; but when Google decides to buy Facebook, the point will be moot anyway. It will all quasi-statically merge into one big happy Google Search.
I think he's right, there is something about this, that's...that's so black, it's like; "How much more black could this be?" and the answer is: "None, none... more black."
Seriously, though, the term "black hole" is descriptive in some ways, but is not to be taken literally. There are a lot of interactions which radiate near the event horizon. In short Black holes aren't so black
Psychologists Don't Know Math Egads. Its is much worse than that. They don't know SCIENCE. Two words: control groups. No one would expect them to pick up, a priori, a subtle state-space constraint in their experiment (although the Monte Hall variation is actually pretty simple -- but that's doesn't matter). Most real science experiments have equivalent and bizarre conditional probability twisters like the Monte Hall problem lurking in their data streams created by sample bias. But that's the frickin' point of *control groups*. For example, to make this monkey experiment work, they needed to have an independent series of tests determining, for all permutations of M&M properties, what the monkey's biases were (that includes color, location, number available, etc.). Only then could then even begin to interpret what "selecting the green one over the blue one on the second round after selecting the red one" meant.
Better offers pulling away more talented engineers is only one term in a complex rate equation. There are probably a dozen or more competing effects which might cause good talent to stay and lesser talents to leave. I'm sure one could find specific anecdotal examples that supported any funky configuration of these various evaporative rates. Also, based on the evaporative cooling analogy, you get a weird kind of paradox in the steady state that says no talented IT person is employed and if you are employed, you are untalented. This is obvious nonsense, but it does start sounding like a form of apologetics for being trained in IT, but not working. In some sense, it also may be too specific to Webster himself, who is obviously a very talented IT expert, but who has had a rather unconventional career in IT.
Point well taken and I agree. But even if it could be shown that religion produces an evolutionary advantage in some contexts (a claim definitely worth investigating), it doesn't mean the specific claims a religion makes about the world are true. An example I've used in another thread: I can believe the world is flat and perhaps for some strange reason during some epochs it helps me propagate my genes to believe that (to the degree that our ancestors thought about such things, this was the successful model for 100k+ years). But it does not mean the world is flat. The actual flatness or roundness of the world is a separate objective claim that must be tested by some other means than the evolutionary success or failure of the adherents.
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it is reasonable to do it. A word of advice: be suspicious of someone loitering in front of one's house all day gawking at it. Double the suspicion if they are taking pictures. Quadruple the suspicion if they represent a company making money off of it. Someone can follow you around in your car all day long on public roads then blog about it. It's not illegal, but it doesn't mean you should tolerate it nor does it make their actions reasonable or acceptable.
Atheism is a specific term, not just another word for "doesn't believe in". Point well taken. A better phrasing of my intended message was something like "everyone knows what it *feels* like to be an atheist with respect to specific theologies and gods they don't believe in."
Insofar as comparing belief *sets* (worldview, theoretical model), yes, the virgin birth belief *does* have a bearing on gene spreading rate, as counterintuitive as that might be. I definitely understand what you mean. But I think my objections are being misunderstood. In this thread, there is a mixup between the results of a belief and the truth of the actual claims of a belief. I don't dispute that all sorts of wacky effects can affect the success of a subgroup evolutionarily. I can believe the world is flat and perhaps for some strange reason during some epochs it helps me propagate my genes to believe that (to the degree that our ancestors thought about such things, this was the successful model for 100k+ years). But it does not mean the world is flat. The actual flatness or roundness of the world is a separate objective claim that must be tested by some other means than the evolutionary success or failure of the adherents.
But even in your hypothetical example, the fact that group B's bizarre belief helps them survive is just pragmatic and convenient. Their ability to survive in your example has no bearing on the truth of group B's specific claims. For example, for the sake of argument let's assume Christian fundamentalists are breeding and surviving more effectively than evolutionary biologists. That still has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the claims of a virgin birth, resurrection, turning water into wine, or the existence of an afterlife.
You are making the same mistake the original poster made mixing social and biological Darwinism. I'm definitely not saying I agree with China's social policies. I don't. Nor do I see their social policy stemming from their atheism. It stems from other elements of the philosophy (and it just so happens they are atheistic). But _biologically_ they are obviously doing fine from an evolutionary point of view. My point is that atheists all around the world continue to breed and survive. China is just one very large, easy example to cite. I'm personally another one, but I don't think citing myself as an example of a surviving breeding atheist would have quite the same scale of impact.
Theists do better in society, so that's what he should remind people of, "survival of the fittest". Dawkins should promote theism, as those who embrace God are the fittest to survive in our society, due to social stigmatism on atheists. You are using the classic "religion is useful" argument. But just because it may be useful, doesn't mean it is true. What Dawkins is interested (as he has stated repeatedly) in is truth, not potentially locally convenient psychology. Also, categorizing atheists as you are is nonsense. We are all atheists with respect to specific theologies and gods we don't believe in. You know that feeling you get when people start talking to you in all earnestness about how great Poseidon is? That's how Dawkins feels about your god. Finally, using evolution and "survival of the fittest" in the way you are is an antiquated tautology. "Fittest" in an evolutionary sense is defined as those who survive and reproduce. Atheists seem to be doing fine in that regard and always have (much of China, for example, is atheistic by some Abrahamic standard and is, in fact, also mostly nontheistic too). Finally, I'm sure the fact that he's married to one of the most famous and popular Dr. Who characters of all time might have something to do with why he's appearing on the show (see the first post).
But he's only famous/infamous for his atheism, and he knows it. I"m guessing his multiple bestsellers (many of which have nothing to do with religion) and being the inventor of the term "meme" AND his position as Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford might have something more to do with his fame. By the way, he also happens to be a non-astrologer too.
Indeed, now we can get finally down to the business of figuring out "who they were" and "what they were doing." Not to mention important followup questions like: "where are they now, the little people of Stonehenge? And what would they say if we were here tonight?"
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, games like Portal and Prey do scratch the surface of that...
The lens they are talking about for this telescope uses a fancy diffraction grating-like focus technology, which is fundamentally different than the squinting effect. The former hardly needs any light whereas the latter is more like a pinhole camera or camera obscura, which needs a lot of light to get a reasonable image. As an AC posted on this thread, the squinting effect is basically just pinhole ray optics, not wave diffraction. The pinhole would have to be on the order of tens of micrometers to even begin seeing wave effects like diffraction for visible light. I'm pretty nearsighted (can't see far away without glasses) but I can make a quick pinhole lens with my thumb and index finger if I need to see an image across the room (like a well-lit clock or exit sign) without my glasses.
Still, whether something is free or not doesn't really have an obvious relationship to it spreading (meaningfully) worldwide. For example, I don't think you can say just because something is a proprietary product means it won't spread worldwide. The market is fickle and you never really know what people latch onto. I suspect Gopher failed largely because it just wasn't that great to begin with. But rolling the Gopher:web::UM:CERN analogy to the next level, I have a hunch that if CERN didn't make their web code free, someone else would have created something to compete with it which was free and basically equivalent to it.
I think the characterization of "discovered" in this context has been somewhat mischaracterized. Mathematics, the study of generalized rule sets using logic, the language of algorithm, is "discovered" in the same way creative works of literature or music are "discovered." With some generalized state space of rules, every possible output, idea, or concept constrained by those rules can be indexed in this space. This can be in "in principle" thing -- i.e. you don't have to know all the rules to acknowledge a state space exists containing all outputs of the rules; indeed also containing all the possible rules themselves. If that state space is big enough, the process of discovery becomes indistinguishable from creativity, since finding non-trivial points at random in that space becomes very improbable.
Practically speaking, trickle-down technology of the sort mentioned in the article is one of the main reasons basic research on this massive scale even has a chance of getting funded with taxpayer dollars. Looking for the Higgs, supersymmetry, and a color glass condensate is cool (important!) scientifically, but it is hard to justify spending 10 billion dollars without some pragmatic output. I'm a high energy physicist by training and would like to think these projects could get funded on their own scientific merit, but I suspect funding agencies would disagree; regardless, technology offshoots of this sort are definitely a good thing.
I usually use 'nanomate.' For example, "They nanomated that army, dude, reducing their million-man force to one-thousandth of a person!"
1. Stephen Hawking thinks that alien life is likely, albeit primitive;
2. Therefore, we might need a Prime Directive to help guide us with contact with advanced alien cultures before exploring or sending signals too far into the depths of space.
Oh, wait, that's technically a Non Sequitur. But, hey, we knew what they meant because all of us have written code in C++.
I was talking to someone recently who bragged about regularly trolling wikipedia to intentionally and actively create dead end and circular references. He was practically giddy with the notion that wikipedia "only requires some kind of external citation, but you can really mess with this because people rarely check them." I'm a wikipedia fan, so was quite annoyed with him, so beat him about the head and chest; this is clearly a 2nd order loophole that should be actively combated. I realized I would be naive to think otherwise, but I still found it illuminating to be reminded people are actively out there creating dead and circular links . It is a more subtle way to create noise in wikipedia rather than the more obvious act of injecting copious uncited nonsense into an article.
Point well taken. As a professor, even in the context of practical-minded hoop-jumping for a degree, I try to encourage students to still make the most of every situation and enjoy every course lecture-by-lecture as best they can. Perhaps I'm a bit of an idealist in the sector, but I really believe one's education is what one makes of it. If one thinks and acts like it is hoop-jumping, that's exactly what it becomes.
Brothels can also be used as a positive education experience, but does that mean we should install one in every classroom? Wait. Don't answer that. Regardless, you must know this is about eliminating distractions in the classroom to enhance independent thinking and focus, not remove it. If students were actually using the wireless connection in the classroom to augment and amplify their lecture, that would be fine. But if you are a student attending a one hour lecture, and systematically can't focus on it so much so you must shop or aimlessly browse to get through it, don't bother going at all. If this is happening in all your classes, you are probably not doing the thing you love. You are wasting everyone's time (most importantly your own) by going through the motions of an education.
Unless I'm not finding a link in the article, it seems like they only managed to simulate the letter "e". Not exactly full speech emulation (yet) and sounds a bit like Stephen Hawking. Still, kinda cool. One can only assume the next effort will include the full poetic expression: Eegah
Hey! Whatever happened to searching for good ol' ordinary information? The Faceboogle concept is a desperate attempt to create a new viral word, but seems too "people-specific" and, moreover, sounds like something that happens suddenly in a p0rn clip. Frankly, searching for people-oriented things is fairly small fraction of what I use search engines for (I know this is a fallacy to project this onto others, but I can't be alone in this). In fairness, Facebook has been pretty good at people-finding for me; but when Google decides to buy Facebook, the point will be moot anyway. It will all quasi-statically merge into one big happy Google Search.
I think he's right, there is something about this, that's...that's so black, it's like; "How much more black could this be?" and the answer is: "None, none... more black." Seriously, though, the term "black hole" is descriptive in some ways, but is not to be taken literally. There are a lot of interactions which radiate near the event horizon. In short Black holes aren't so black
Better offers pulling away more talented engineers is only one term in a complex rate equation. There are probably a dozen or more competing effects which might cause good talent to stay and lesser talents to leave. I'm sure one could find specific anecdotal examples that supported any funky configuration of these various evaporative rates. Also, based on the evaporative cooling analogy, you get a weird kind of paradox in the steady state that says no talented IT person is employed and if you are employed, you are untalented. This is obvious nonsense, but it does start sounding like a form of apologetics for being trained in IT, but not working. In some sense, it also may be too specific to Webster himself, who is obviously a very talented IT expert, but who has had a rather unconventional career in IT.
Point well taken and I agree. But even if it could be shown that religion produces an evolutionary advantage in some contexts (a claim definitely worth investigating), it doesn't mean the specific claims a religion makes about the world are true. An example I've used in another thread: I can believe the world is flat and perhaps for some strange reason during some epochs it helps me propagate my genes to believe that (to the degree that our ancestors thought about such things, this was the successful model for 100k+ years). But it does not mean the world is flat. The actual flatness or roundness of the world is a separate objective claim that must be tested by some other means than the evolutionary success or failure of the adherents.
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it is reasonable to do it. A word of advice: be suspicious of someone loitering in front of one's house all day gawking at it. Double the suspicion if they are taking pictures. Quadruple the suspicion if they represent a company making money off of it. Someone can follow you around in your car all day long on public roads then blog about it. It's not illegal, but it doesn't mean you should tolerate it nor does it make their actions reasonable or acceptable.
But even in your hypothetical example, the fact that group B's bizarre belief helps them survive is just pragmatic and convenient. Their ability to survive in your example has no bearing on the truth of group B's specific claims. For example, for the sake of argument let's assume Christian fundamentalists are breeding and surviving more effectively than evolutionary biologists. That still has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the claims of a virgin birth, resurrection, turning water into wine, or the existence of an afterlife.
You are making the same mistake the original poster made mixing social and biological Darwinism. I'm definitely not saying I agree with China's social policies. I don't. Nor do I see their social policy stemming from their atheism. It stems from other elements of the philosophy (and it just so happens they are atheistic). But _biologically_ they are obviously doing fine from an evolutionary point of view. My point is that atheists all around the world continue to breed and survive. China is just one very large, easy example to cite. I'm personally another one, but I don't think citing myself as an example of a surviving breeding atheist would have quite the same scale of impact.
Indeed, now we can get finally down to the business of figuring out "who they were" and "what they were doing." Not to mention important followup questions like: "where are they now, the little people of Stonehenge? And what would they say if we were here tonight?"
Symmetry actually makes sense. The more messed up someone's face is from ideal, the worse their genetics could be.
Hey, some of us call that asymmetry "character"!