It devalues the work other people have put into their characters and therefore makes playing the game at all that much more pointless, thereby gradually spoiling the game.
It is similar to saying, I don't want to study for four years for a degree, so if I can bribe someone to give me a degree without the studying, why shouldn't I do it? Similar to steroid use. If I bust my ass off for a good body, it is inevitable that someone will accuse me of steroid abuse eventually, degrading the effort, making it pointless to bother at all.
Carriers are nearly worthless against zerg, they can be plagued and ensnared, they can be scourged, and hydras can be dark swarmed making them invulnerable for a considerable amount of time. They are expensive investments and while you are producing them your ground forces stand a good chance of being overwhelmed.
Honestly you sound like I would have a year ago. I suggest you make an account on iccup, patch up your broodwar (or download a non legit copy on iccup), use their anti hack launcher and proceed to be humbled by some D- players. It is more fun than it sounds. The community is much more mature than it used to be and the meta game and map pool has advanced a ton. There is also more of an international mix of players now.
I started watching pro matches on youtube and on gomtv.net and it pulled me back in the game after 8 years. The worst broodwar players today would be better than the best players of 8 years ago. There were over 2 million games played on iccup last season (that does not count battle.net), and it is even more fun now than it was then. I suggest you give it a shot.
Zerg do not have to win early. In fact if left alone, a zerg will expand twice as fast as the other races, culminating in wave after wave of hundreds of units. They may have weaker units, but their unit production is so much faster that it greatly affects their resource production. They also have much more nimble units and the ability to cross the map meaning they can hold these expansions with relatively small forces.
It is obvious you stopped playing 8 years ago, and the game has advanced so far you simply can't even conceive of it. I'm not saying that to insult you, but it is true. Neither you or your newbie friend would be able to win a single game in 20 against even the worst players on iccup.
When I stream youtube I get a video that is a little choppy, sometimes laggy (thanks to flash). When I stream on netflix I get a "your platform is not supported" message. I'll take the lesser of two pieces of crap.
To be fair my internet is very fast, it is often easier to just torrent stuff these days. Netflix needs to get its streaming act together before I get tired of waiting.
I would. I already pay 17 a month for netflix. The only difference is that youtube streaming actually works on my computer.
Of course this requires youtube to get real content and not just a couple shows...
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
When I say it requires energy, I don't mean that evolution requires energy. I mean that development requires it.
As in, when you are a baby, instead of developing little extra growth hormone or storing away some extra calcium into your muscles, instead some of your genes start hardening your mouth's defenses instead via some extra specialized proteins in your saliva. Meanwhile the other kid develops a little more quickly in those other areas and later on deals with his mouth problems using five dollar bottles of special mouthwash in his 30's. Since human success is practically winner take all, he will have some small advantages over you in a competitive environment, particularly when he is young. You only have to be just a little bit smarter, a little bit faster, a little bit stronger to take 90% of the rewards.
That's not to say that there couldn't be one day some killer mouth virus that defies scientific prevention. If that occurred, only people with natural immunity would be successful. I'm only saying that the balance between artificial and natural ability has not been reached yet. We are quickly becoming more naturally frail but more highly specialized, and overall I think it is a good thing.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
I kind of veered off topic in my original post. But what I'm trying to say is this:
My dog for example has a digestive system made of iron. I cannot even digest raw meat (or if I try there's a good chance I'd get sick).
You might say that cooking is a waste of time. Why should we spend a half hour a day cooking when we could just have iron stomachs like our ancestors? The answer is that we spend less effort cooking than an animal spends developing a robust digestive system. Since we don't have to spend that energy on our digestive system, we can instead spend it on brainpower.
Human beings supposedly use 20% of our own energy output in brainpower. The next nearest is a chimp at something like 8 or 10%. That is a _huuuge_ investment and we have to pay for it somehow. Now that we cook our food, vaccinate our children, use weapons, we no longer need to develop biological equivalents. We don't need to have children that can walk the moment they come out of the womb like horses. We don't need to hibernate, so we remain productive. We don't need to synchronize reproduction to the season or food availability. Hell, we don't even need to fit through the birth canal anymore.
The problem here is that you think these are problems when it is actually the fact that animals routinely spend immense amounts of invaluable resources on these traits that are so easily circumventable. It is the fact that we have removed hundreds of developmental bottlenecks that every other animal in this world must simply live with that give us such a huge advantage in areas that actually matter.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
> I can't discount the possibility that most/much health treatment would be a thing of the past in 500-5000 years though if nobody was ever treated.
At what cost? For a body to be capable of surviving a host of diseases without treatment it will have to spend energy on it that could have gone to purposes such as higher brain function, longevity and endurance.
I remember reading gulliver's travels as a kid, the part where he lamented that humans were the most inferior species. We have no claws, no teeth, we're not fast or particularly strong. The fact is that due to artificial tool use, we no longer need to spend any developmental resources on those traits, and so we spend it biologically on much more worthwhile pursuits. These neuro pills are just another example of tool use. A couple hundred years from now it will be as standard to enhance one's intelligence as it is to receive vaccinations.
Some people will think it is unfair, but I'm sure the first monkey to be beaten by another smaller monkey with a stick thought the same thing.
This doesn't sound as stupid to me. Obviously this wouldn't work well for something like an fps, but for something like an rpg, a casual game, a turn based game, some rts's? It would work fine. Secondly there is hardly any upfront cost. Essentially the hardware on your end would be 40 bucks including the controller. That is an amazingly low barrier to entry, considering you might have access to dozens or hundreds of games right off the bat. There will also never be any issues of backwards compatibility, every game will be playable for as long as the company feels like supporting it. There's no cheating, no red rings of death. The only real barrier right now is bandwidth, but for how long?
I've been predicting this would happen eventually, much to the derision of others, but I didn't expect to see plans for another five years maybe.
Trying to explain why git is better than svn is like trying to explain why svn is better than cvs. To someone who has never used it, they simply can't imagine anything better. I've actually been in the position of advocating svn over cvs and been shot down with arguments much the same as you are making now (that cvs has almost everything svn has).
There are a myriad of git commands that do all sorts of useful stuff. mergetool, cherry, rebase -i (interactive), add -i (interactive hunk based add), gitk (for visualization), colored diffs, a history aware grep, bisect (for narrowing down a patch that broke a feature), and dozens of others.
To directly address your comment, changing history may sound like a convenience, but it makes things a lot easier. Some person's patch breaks the website? You may find that the entire change is self contained in one or a small series of contiguous patches, making it super simple to revert. In subversion I've had to track down and revert 15 separate disparate commits over a series of weeks to bring a piece of software back into line. Another benefit is that as you are working, you can add your current work without committing and diff that version against any new changes you make. This makes it extremely easy to develop because you can keep track of just what you've done in say the last 15 minutes, as opposed to the entire day. It is great to be able to go back and review what you've done and tidy it up a bit.
Everything on the client side that svn does, git does better. I want to list more actual use cases, but this post keeps getting too long. So Instead I'm going to encourage you to experiment with git svn at work, or on one of your personal projects. You'll mess up a couple times at first, but the productivity you gain after a few days will be well worth it. I've converted a couple people at work, and they seem happy. Personally my productivity has doubled or even tripled, although I cannot guarantee that will be the case for everyone.
The idea that software development will somehow become obsolete because there are open source programs freely available is a fallacy. It is like when 20 farm workers are replaced by a mechanized piece of farm machinery, they don't just starve and die. Those twenty farm workers end up operating, repairing, and building those pieces of farm machinery instead of breaking their backs in a field and every benefits from the productivity increase.
Software is similar. There's no less money being thrown into technology now than there ever was. The difference is that instead of throwing all their money on basics like OS and Office suite, now they spend your money on more complex things, custom internal software, employees capable of managing and aggregating FOSS, and highly complex systems that have not been tackled by the community. This is great for programmers in general as there will be less drudgery, more respect, and more rewarding work than have existed in the past.
Works fine for me on gentoo at work. If I had to guess, I'd bet ubuntu is not installing windows media codecs by default. No windows streams for you (until you find out how to install it correctly).
He's not imagining it. I'm not a particularly big simpson's or futurama fan, but when I saw both simpson and futurama movies, it was a different. They were dry, meandering, and I didn't laugh a single time. I quit watching both half way through.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find out they were not written or directed by the original creators (groening?), but rather were designed for quick profit. Unfortunately grateful fans coughed up the dough, so they'll do it again.
I just read through that entire log of the trial and you are acting emotionally. There is overwhelming evidence that he did commit the crime. His car was scrubbed, and had standing water in it.
He took a trip to the mountains right after she disappeared. He stupidly used the ATM there.
They watched him attempting to evade cops on his trail going back and forth along highways in his car.
Once his car disappeared, they trailed him (he walked) to where he stashed a few blocks away. While he was cleaning out that car he borrowed his mom's car, but never gave an explanation as to why his own car was not usable.
The cellphone battery was taken out of her cellphone so that they couldn't track the location of her minivan (which says to me that the murderer had technical knowledge).
The kid (although he keeps changing his testimony) says he saw the father drag her down the stairs that night and even drew a picture of that.
They even found her passport (suggesting that she didn't leave the country). They found his passport and some money stashed away suggesting he was preparing to flee. I assume that is why he didn't get out on bail (he's a flight risk).
They two non-fiction books on murder investigation and the receipt that shows he bought them after the murder and no sign that he held any interest in such topics before she disappeared. In other words he was thinking murder from the beginning.
The only defense he has is that she might have fled the country and left her kids. But they have all sorts of evidence to the contrary like, that she didn't show up at a new job she'd been hired for. Her friend missed her at dinner the night she disappeared. She was not dating the serial killer guy when she disappeared. The guy she was dating actually wept on the stand. They found rotten groceries in her minivan she'd bought the day of her disappearance which suggests she didn't leave the country on her own.
The evidence against him is all circumstancial, but virtually every action he's taken screams guilty. I'm as distraught as anyone, fuck I use reiserfs myself and I was really looking forward to the next version. But he's guilty. There's no getting around it.
You can push branches if you want in git. You can have as many project branches as you like. But you aren't required to push every branch to the main repository. So you can go off on a tangent, make a small demo, show some people, share it, and if it develops into something, push it to the main repo for others to look at, but only if you want to.
As for versioning branches? Why would you? If you delete a branch, you must not need it for anything. Why archive it? If you need it, don't delete it in the first place. That's what tags are in git, they are just branches with names. When you don't need it anymore, you delete it and it is gone forever. If you merged it into something else, its changes will be preserved, otherwise its history will be removed from the repository as though it had never existed. I have never had an occasion to search for or attempt to resurrect a deleted branch before.
The problem isn't that making a branch is hard. It isn't hard. The problem is that when you make a branch, everyone else in the repository sees it listed. You end up with 100 branches in the project with random names like daves_branch1, and dev2, and test12. Which ones are even seeing active development? Which branches are important department wide branches and which ones are personal developer branches? Do we have to make special naming rules and threaten people to bring order to it? If you have to implement rules to clean up this mess, does it prevent people from branching in the first place?
Well I'd say it does. I've actually never seen a single company use subversion branching the way it was intended. I've seen people jump through hoops to avoid creating a new branch. People write code and don't commit it until it is finished because branching has all sorts of rules attached to it. And so what happens when half a dozen people wait two weeks in between commits? Well exactly what you'd expect to happen. Coordination suffers.
The only way I've found to explain it is that you'll never realize how bad cvs/subversion is until you've used something better.
My first intro was when my parents would go bowling there was an arcade there with about 6 arcade games.
Since my parents wouldn't give me any money, me and the other kids would harass the girl working at the counter with schemes like, "That game that I don't like stole a whole dollar! Can I get a refund so I can play the game that I do like?" Eventually she would cave in to our pestering and we'd get a few dollars a night to play pacman, spy hunter, shinobi, some duck hunting game, and what looked like caslevania but I'm not really sure what it was, maybe a clone.
I'm not surprised to see intel go this direction. Their cubicle farm looked like an employee parking lot. You can see it all on this conan o'brien clip. http://www.clipstr.com/videos/ConanVisitsIntel/
Thief 3 was horrid. The graphics sucked. Every stage was broken into 10 different subareas with a 30 second loading screen in between each. Even on the hardest settings, there were times I would walk right up to a guard and breath on his eyeball only to elicit, "Hello? Is anyone there?" Inane puzzles with no plot to speak of as far as I could tell. That game fucking blew. I only spent $20 on it and I still felt ripped off.
In fact when I heard deus ex was using the thief 3 engine, I decided not to buy it, and based on a cursory glance at the rest of this forum, I made a wise choice.
Thief 2 was actually many times better than 3 on many levels despite being archaic. At the very least, it had competent level design.
And on topic, while I'm happy to hear they are making a new deus ex, I'm not holding out any hope of it being good. Because when it comes down to it, what can they do in an fps that hasn't already been done to death? Nothing really. The game is doomed to be mediocre out of the gate.
Well the program would have crashed. And they would have known where the problem was instantly instead of requiring a debugger.
Also, what is the point of having an explicit delete if C# just ignores it? This is asked by a person who has never used C#. If I say to delete something, delete it. The program should halt if I try to use an object that has been deleted, or at least it should halt during the next gc when it discovers something has a pointer to it.
But remember if you kill firefox, it will reopen all your tabs and login to all your sites when it is restarted. This would be the computer equivalent of leaving the videotape in the vcr.
Slashdot Mirror
It devalues the work other people have put into their characters and therefore makes playing the game at all that much more pointless, thereby gradually spoiling the game.
It is similar to saying, I don't want to study for four years for a degree, so if I can bribe someone to give me a degree without the studying, why shouldn't I do it? Similar to steroid use. If I bust my ass off for a good body, it is inevitable that someone will accuse me of steroid abuse eventually, degrading the effort, making it pointless to bother at all.
Carriers are nearly worthless against zerg, they can be plagued and ensnared, they can be scourged, and hydras can be dark swarmed making them invulnerable for a considerable amount of time. They are expensive investments and while you are producing them your ground forces stand a good chance of being overwhelmed.
Honestly you sound like I would have a year ago. I suggest you make an account on iccup, patch up your broodwar (or download a non legit copy on iccup), use their anti hack launcher and proceed to be humbled by some D- players. It is more fun than it sounds. The community is much more mature than it used to be and the meta game and map pool has advanced a ton. There is also more of an international mix of players now.
I started watching pro matches on youtube and on gomtv.net and it pulled me back in the game after 8 years. The worst broodwar players today would be better than the best players of 8 years ago. There were over 2 million games played on iccup last season (that does not count battle.net), and it is even more fun now than it was then. I suggest you give it a shot.
Your understanding of the game is poor.
Zerg do not have to win early. In fact if left alone, a zerg will expand twice as fast as the other races, culminating in wave after wave of hundreds of units. They may have weaker units, but their unit production is so much faster that it greatly affects their resource production. They also have much more nimble units and the ability to cross the map meaning they can hold these expansions with relatively small forces.
It is obvious you stopped playing 8 years ago, and the game has advanced so far you simply can't even conceive of it. I'm not saying that to insult you, but it is true. Neither you or your newbie friend would be able to win a single game in 20 against even the worst players on iccup.
When I stream youtube I get a video that is a little choppy, sometimes laggy (thanks to flash). When I stream on netflix I get a "your platform is not supported" message. I'll take the lesser of two pieces of crap.
To be fair my internet is very fast, it is often easier to just torrent stuff these days. Netflix needs to get its streaming act together before I get tired of waiting.
I would. I already pay 17 a month for netflix. The only difference is that youtube streaming actually works on my computer.
Of course this requires youtube to get real content and not just a couple shows...
When I say it requires energy, I don't mean that evolution requires energy. I mean that development requires it.
As in, when you are a baby, instead of developing little extra growth hormone or storing away some extra calcium into your muscles, instead some of your genes start hardening your mouth's defenses instead via some extra specialized proteins in your saliva. Meanwhile the other kid develops a little more quickly in those other areas and later on deals with his mouth problems using five dollar bottles of special mouthwash in his 30's. Since human success is practically winner take all, he will have some small advantages over you in a competitive environment, particularly when he is young. You only have to be just a little bit smarter, a little bit faster, a little bit stronger to take 90% of the rewards.
That's not to say that there couldn't be one day some killer mouth virus that defies scientific prevention. If that occurred, only people with natural immunity would be successful. I'm only saying that the balance between artificial and natural ability has not been reached yet. We are quickly becoming more naturally frail but more highly specialized, and overall I think it is a good thing.
I kind of veered off topic in my original post. But what I'm trying to say is this:
My dog for example has a digestive system made of iron. I cannot even digest raw meat (or if I try there's a good chance I'd get sick).
You might say that cooking is a waste of time. Why should we spend a half hour a day cooking when we could just have iron stomachs like our ancestors? The answer is that we spend less effort cooking than an animal spends developing a robust digestive system. Since we don't have to spend that energy on our digestive system, we can instead spend it on brainpower.
Human beings supposedly use 20% of our own energy output in brainpower. The next nearest is a chimp at something like 8 or 10%. That is a _huuuge_ investment and we have to pay for it somehow. Now that we cook our food, vaccinate our children, use weapons, we no longer need to develop biological equivalents. We don't need to have children that can walk the moment they come out of the womb like horses. We don't need to hibernate, so we remain productive. We don't need to synchronize reproduction to the season or food availability. Hell, we don't even need to fit through the birth canal anymore.
The problem here is that you think these are problems when it is actually the fact that animals routinely spend immense amounts of invaluable resources on these traits that are so easily circumventable. It is the fact that we have removed hundreds of developmental bottlenecks that every other animal in this world must simply live with that give us such a huge advantage in areas that actually matter.
> I can't discount the possibility that most/much health treatment would be a thing of the past in 500-5000 years though if nobody was ever treated.
At what cost? For a body to be capable of surviving a host of diseases without treatment it will have to spend energy on it that could have gone to purposes such as higher brain function, longevity and endurance.
I remember reading gulliver's travels as a kid, the part where he lamented that humans were the most inferior species. We have no claws, no teeth, we're not fast or particularly strong. The fact is that due to artificial tool use, we no longer need to spend any developmental resources on those traits, and so we spend it biologically on much more worthwhile pursuits. These neuro pills are just another example of tool use. A couple hundred years from now it will be as standard to enhance one's intelligence as it is to receive vaccinations.
Some people will think it is unfair, but I'm sure the first monkey to be beaten by another smaller monkey with a stick thought the same thing.
This doesn't sound as stupid to me. Obviously this wouldn't work well for something like an fps, but for something like an rpg, a casual game, a turn based game, some rts's? It would work fine. Secondly there is hardly any upfront cost. Essentially the hardware on your end would be 40 bucks including the controller. That is an amazingly low barrier to entry, considering you might have access to dozens or hundreds of games right off the bat. There will also never be any issues of backwards compatibility, every game will be playable for as long as the company feels like supporting it. There's no cheating, no red rings of death. The only real barrier right now is bandwidth, but for how long?
I've been predicting this would happen eventually, much to the derision of others, but I didn't expect to see plans for another five years maybe.
Trying to explain why git is better than svn is like trying to explain why svn is better than cvs. To someone who has never used it, they simply can't imagine anything better. I've actually been in the position of advocating svn over cvs and been shot down with arguments much the same as you are making now (that cvs has almost everything svn has).
There are a myriad of git commands that do all sorts of useful stuff. mergetool, cherry, rebase -i (interactive), add -i (interactive hunk based add), gitk (for visualization), colored diffs, a history aware grep, bisect (for narrowing down a patch that broke a feature), and dozens of others.
To directly address your comment, changing history may sound like a convenience, but it makes things a lot easier. Some person's patch breaks the website? You may find that the entire change is self contained in one or a small series of contiguous patches, making it super simple to revert. In subversion I've had to track down and revert 15 separate disparate commits over a series of weeks to bring a piece of software back into line. Another benefit is that as you are working, you can add your current work without committing and diff that version against any new changes you make. This makes it extremely easy to develop because you can keep track of just what you've done in say the last 15 minutes, as opposed to the entire day. It is great to be able to go back and review what you've done and tidy it up a bit.
Everything on the client side that svn does, git does better. I want to list more actual use cases, but this post keeps getting too long. So Instead I'm going to encourage you to experiment with git svn at work, or on one of your personal projects. You'll mess up a couple times at first, but the productivity you gain after a few days will be well worth it. I've converted a couple people at work, and they seem happy. Personally my productivity has doubled or even tripled, although I cannot guarantee that will be the case for everyone.
The idea that software development will somehow become obsolete because there are open source programs freely available is a fallacy. It is like when 20 farm workers are replaced by a mechanized piece of farm machinery, they don't just starve and die. Those twenty farm workers end up operating, repairing, and building those pieces of farm machinery instead of breaking their backs in a field and every benefits from the productivity increase.
Software is similar. There's no less money being thrown into technology now than there ever was. The difference is that instead of throwing all their money on basics like OS and Office suite, now they spend your money on more complex things, custom internal software, employees capable of managing and aggregating FOSS, and highly complex systems that have not been tackled by the community. This is great for programmers in general as there will be less drudgery, more respect, and more rewarding work than have existed in the past.
Works fine for me on gentoo at work. If I had to guess, I'd bet ubuntu is not installing windows media codecs by default. No windows streams for you (until you find out how to install it correctly).
So it was you!
He's not imagining it. I'm not a particularly big simpson's or futurama fan, but when I saw both simpson and futurama movies, it was a different. They were dry, meandering, and I didn't laugh a single time. I quit watching both half way through.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find out they were not written or directed by the original creators (groening?), but rather were designed for quick profit. Unfortunately grateful fans coughed up the dough, so they'll do it again.
I just read through that entire log of the trial and you are acting emotionally. There is overwhelming evidence that he did commit the crime. His car was scrubbed, and had standing water in it.
He took a trip to the mountains right after she disappeared. He stupidly used the ATM there.
They watched him attempting to evade cops on his trail going back and forth along highways in his car.
Once his car disappeared, they trailed him (he walked) to where he stashed a few blocks away. While he was cleaning out that car he borrowed his mom's car, but never gave an explanation as to why his own car was not usable.
The cellphone battery was taken out of her cellphone so that they couldn't track the location of her minivan (which says to me that the murderer had technical knowledge).
The kid (although he keeps changing his testimony) says he saw the father drag her down the stairs that night and even drew a picture of that.
They even found her passport (suggesting that she didn't leave the country). They found his passport and some money stashed away suggesting he was preparing to flee. I assume that is why he didn't get out on bail (he's a flight risk).
They two non-fiction books on murder investigation and the receipt that shows he bought them after the murder and no sign that he held any interest in such topics before she disappeared. In other words he was thinking murder from the beginning.
The only defense he has is that she might have fled the country and left her kids. But they have all sorts of evidence to the contrary like, that she didn't show up at a new job she'd been hired for. Her friend missed her at dinner the night she disappeared. She was not dating the serial killer guy when she disappeared. The guy she was dating actually wept on the stand. They found rotten groceries in her minivan she'd bought the day of her disappearance which suggests she didn't leave the country on her own.
The evidence against him is all circumstancial, but virtually every action he's taken screams guilty. I'm as distraught as anyone, fuck I use reiserfs myself and I was really looking forward to the next version. But he's guilty. There's no getting around it.
You can push branches if you want in git. You can have as many project branches as you like. But you aren't required to push every branch to the main repository. So you can go off on a tangent, make a small demo, show some people, share it, and if it develops into something, push it to the main repo for others to look at, but only if you want to.
As for versioning branches? Why would you? If you delete a branch, you must not need it for anything. Why archive it? If you need it, don't delete it in the first place. That's what tags are in git, they are just branches with names. When you don't need it anymore, you delete it and it is gone forever. If you merged it into something else, its changes will be preserved, otherwise its history will be removed from the repository as though it had never existed. I have never had an occasion to search for or attempt to resurrect a deleted branch before.
The problem isn't that making a branch is hard. It isn't hard. The problem is that when you make a branch, everyone else in the repository sees it listed. You end up with 100 branches in the project with random names like daves_branch1, and dev2, and test12. Which ones are even seeing active development? Which branches are important department wide branches and which ones are personal developer branches? Do we have to make special naming rules and threaten people to bring order to it? If you have to implement rules to clean up this mess, does it prevent people from branching in the first place?
Well I'd say it does. I've actually never seen a single company use subversion branching the way it was intended. I've seen people jump through hoops to avoid creating a new branch. People write code and don't commit it until it is finished because branching has all sorts of rules attached to it. And so what happens when half a dozen people wait two weeks in between commits? Well exactly what you'd expect to happen. Coordination suffers.
The only way I've found to explain it is that you'll never realize how bad cvs/subversion is until you've used something better.
Technically anyone anywhere giving money to a politician is pushing an agenda.
My first intro was when my parents would go bowling there was an arcade there with about 6 arcade games.
Since my parents wouldn't give me any money, me and the other kids would harass the girl working at the counter with schemes like, "That game that I don't like stole a whole dollar! Can I get a refund so I can play the game that I do like?" Eventually she would cave in to our pestering and we'd get a few dollars a night to play pacman, spy hunter, shinobi, some duck hunting game, and what looked like caslevania but I'm not really sure what it was, maybe a clone.
I'm not surprised to see intel go this direction. Their cubicle farm looked like an employee parking lot. You can see it all on this conan o'brien clip. http://www.clipstr.com/videos/ConanVisitsIntel/
What a soul crushing environment.
Thief 3 was horrid. The graphics sucked. Every stage was broken into 10 different subareas with a 30 second loading screen in between each. Even on the hardest settings, there were times I would walk right up to a guard and breath on his eyeball only to elicit, "Hello? Is anyone there?" Inane puzzles with no plot to speak of as far as I could tell. That game fucking blew. I only spent $20 on it and I still felt ripped off.
In fact when I heard deus ex was using the thief 3 engine, I decided not to buy it, and based on a cursory glance at the rest of this forum, I made a wise choice.
Thief 2 was actually many times better than 3 on many levels despite being archaic. At the very least, it had competent level design.
And on topic, while I'm happy to hear they are making a new deus ex, I'm not holding out any hope of it being good. Because when it comes down to it, what can they do in an fps that hasn't already been done to death? Nothing really. The game is doomed to be mediocre out of the gate.
Edit: Nevermind, I should have read further down the page before I commented. I guess my language biases are showing.
Well the program would have crashed. And they would have known where the problem was instantly instead of requiring a debugger.
Also, what is the point of having an explicit delete if C# just ignores it? This is asked by a person who has never used C#. If I say to delete something, delete it. The program should halt if I try to use an object that has been deleted, or at least it should halt during the next gc when it discovers something has a pointer to it.
But remember if you kill firefox, it will reopen all your tabs and login to all your sites when it is restarted. This would be the computer equivalent of leaving the videotape in the vcr.
Maybe they'll make a prequel.
http://www.dailymotion.com/search/elephant+larry/video/x1xisq_hadoken-street-fighter-2-live_fun