Seriously. Why does religion, even on Slashdot, get some kind of verbal immunity? Why is it verboten to explicitly or implicitly bash a belief system bound in no way by logic or reason? -1 FLAMEBAIT, perhaps, but Troll? please.
If vicars, imams, priests, friars, clerics, and rabbis were the only things Norton was blocking, I'd say it's time to reevaluate my longstand hatred of them in favor of an uneasy alliance.
word. The game that got me hooked to videogames in 7th grade. I think part of it was finally overcoming the agony of creating bootdisks, trying to get soundblaster to work (wish i knew that i didnt ahve a soundcard)--i must have spent a week tinkering with the thing.
so I ended up playing it with a keyboard, no sound, and didn't even realize taht there were cutscenes until i saw it a year later on a friends computer.
So when 100 people walk by a brilliant Van Gogh or Michelangelo piece, and all of them are captured by it, it is no longer art?
I feel that the greatest works of art appeal to parts of our brain that are universally human. We all have different experiences and lives, but certain emotions and reactions are conserved within all humans. If a piece of art is able to exploit this, it certainly doesn't disqualify it as art, and it perhaps makes it even more valuable than something more personal and specific.
I love videogames. But the fact is that when i'm happy and fulfilled, I just don't have the time to play them, and don't exactly miss them either. Case in point, I'm at a particularly low point these past couple months, and since Dec. I've blown through Prince of Persia 3, Jade Empire, Psychonauts, Baldur;s Gate, the latest Splinter Cell, countless hours of Halo 2, and a few others. That's a lot of hours. While I enjoyed it, i know i wouldn't be doing it if i was out and about getting on with things.
indeed. And it's a damn shame that they bowed into immature fanboy demand and decided to go with a more "adult" "realistic" look for the sequel. If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a game about a boyish elf in stockings who spins around and cuts grass with his sword.
No, I think some functional measure or evidence of increased productivity/problem analysis using the system would be a better benchmark than any number of servers. Or if when a certain number of reliable servers were reached, some extended or vital functionality was attained.
Sony has a lot of weight to throw around. If it is indeed the case that developers will not like the architecture, sony will offer enough incentives to sign exclusivity contracts. Also, if big developers stay away from ps3, it will give more incentive for smaller ones to make games for it, especially given the anticipated market share it will command.
Microsoft spent a helluva lot of resources buying and courting developers, and was in many respects successful. The same principles applied, except this time instead of a huge marketshare where even a small game can have a niche audience and still be profitable, there was a small marketshare but initially low competition from other development houses.
while i agree that developers ignore artistic sensibility and go for 'realistic' graphics with a few notable exceptions, i have to disagree with your first point. (as a side note, is it just me or to games that try to look "real" just end up looking more fake because the technology just can't compete with reality by a longshot yet?)
Blockbuster games are now costing well upwards of 20 million dollars to produce (resident evil 4, metal gear solid series, square-enix titles, bioware titles), and i expect that number to rise substantially in the coming years. Furthermore, single-player game length is shortening considerably, and many high profile games are going down to 10 hours or so for the single player campaign. I am not opposed to this either, as devoting 20+ hours to a game is simply not feasible for me and i expect for many slashdotters with lives.
Furthermore, most games that are 20 hours or more tend to have repetitive gameplay and lots of optional and meaningless dialog at the expense of a tightly knit narrative or fleshed-out gameplay.
We will have to see what effect this shift has on smaller and independent developers. If it's anything like the movie biz, they will die out for a time and then experience something of a resurgence. In 2005, I thoroughly enjoyed at least 10 films; if I can enjoy that many games, I will be more than satisfied.
I would think that the main concerns i.e. water supply, food, etc. would all be monitored under these "appropriate test environments". Public drinking water supplies are tested daily, i don't see why this would not be applicable to synthetic nanoparticles if indeed they are dangerous and released into the supply.
Metastasis is merely the movement of a tumor colony to another part of the body. Bone marrow cells are no more useful as a metastasic cell than as any other cell type, because cancer reverts whatever tissue it initially attacks back to a pluripotent state.
What cancer cells DO is cause differentiated cells to become pluripotent. Every cell has the same DNA inside it, but most of the DNA is suppressed after development and only the specialized genes for that cell are expressed. Cancer arises when DNA suppression and replication machinery is hijacked and the cell becomes chaotically embryonic in nature, proliferating not only through wild replication but by abusing the cell's ability to produce hormones and other cell to cell signalling molecules.
Carcinogens, oncogenes, and onco-viruses all cause cancer by essentially turning on a cell's replication machinery and reverting the cells back to pluripotent and proliferative states, regardless of the state of differentiation that they were previously in. If anything, my guess would be that bone-marrow cells are more resistant to cancerous agents, because they spend extended periods of time in a pluripotent state without dividing out of control, and probably have expression and activation feedback systems that keep them in check that other cells don't necessarily express.
But can it find potential girlfriends for Slashdotters? Now that's what I would call isolating a useful (and rare) signal buried in a large dataset. When i see THOSE results, I will be impressed.
And if so, I've got a useful signal that could use some burying...
My comment was indeed speculative, however, I would be interested to see longitudinal data of IQ tests repeated across a varied population over time, following them from early childhood through adulthood.
As an aside, the article noted that the "scientific conference" was in Durham, NC. The researchers are from Duke, which if i'm not mistaken, is in Durham, NC. Is anyone familiar with this conference? Or are we talking about a Duke biology department poster session.... BIG difference.
I agree that looking at other populations is crucial, but from what I can tell, they haven't even determined whether this is the gene actually responsible for the observed correlation.
1. When looking at haplotypes, we see that genes travel together in chunks, and because someone has an alternate version of this gene, it could just mean that the haplotype is different. For example say the top 1/3 of chromosome #3 has 7 haplotypes. This means that when you look at populations from all over the world, you will see one of these 7 haplotypes, with 2-3 occuring in the vast majority of cases. On this haplotype there are multiple genes that travel together and recombine together so taht they stay "linked". The gene ACTUALLY affecting IQ could merely be closely linked in physical proximity to the gene they have identified. The genotypes observed in this study may just be markers for another as yet unidentified gene.
2. The fact that it affects caucasian males vs females suggest it is sex-linked and other populations with the gene would be similarly affected. HOWEVER, it is entirely possible that the observed gene is an uncommon phenotype that has not drifted throughout the species and doesn't even exist in other races/populations.
3. The gene in question codes for a growth factor receptor. Growth factor temporal expression dynamics are an interesting but complex subject, and the fact that they are looking only at 10 year olds presents another major problem. In brain development (or any development), decreased affinity for a ligand can alter the protein-binding curve such that more of the ligand (in this case the insulin-like growth factor) is needed to elicit the desired response, OR the ligand may fail to elicit the response because it "missed the train". There are different types of latencies across individuals, and increased developmental latency is a hallmark of the evolutionary nascent human brain, so it would not surprise me that there are many genetic variants of brain growth factors and receptors expressed during adolescence. Let's put it this way- there are two types of "malfunction"- A)you're supposed to meet up with your friends at 9 but you arrive at 10pm- your friends are pissed at you, but they waited for you, and the drunken revelry can continue as planned OR B) your flight was at 9pm, you missed it, too bad, do not pass go and do not collect 200 dollars. In the case of this growth factor receptor, we have no idea whether the gene variant causes malfunction, slower reaction, or complete inactivation, or even increased activation. I would not be surprised if the observed IQ differences leveled out over the next 5 years, especially considering the sex-hormone charged brain differentation that occurs during puberty.
This article is pop fluff, and I would be wary of drawing any sort of conclusion from it.
I am not saying that the system won't self-correct over an extended period of time. Clearly, at some point we will reach diminishing returns on pure graphical power and more resources will eventually be diverted back to the things that truly make a good experience. However, there is an entire generation of talent that may be turned off by the whole system right now.
I agree that technology can enhance creativity, but the technologies that facilitate creativity are not the ones being fostered. Game artists are not exploring the power of manipulating and being manipulated by imagery when they must double the polygons and specular highlights on the 3d-model of an uninspired goth-soldier.
It is slowing down the art- there's a reason demon-zombie killing gore fests are still what most people consider a "game". Sure, a few people are struggling to foster true art, but the focus problems in the industry are what will make the difference between calling our era a "reniassance" or a "relic".
The worst part is that rendering 10 lights instead of two means five programmers instead of one. Rising costs of development and demand for more glorified tech demos is demeaning the art form, and preventing widespread recognition as such.
The potential creative geniuses of our time will be turned off games as a medium, or the next Stravinsky may end up coding 5 more shaders for the reflection in a visor instead of writing the algorithm that rocks the interactive world like
the next "Rite of Spring"
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. Why does religion, even on Slashdot, get some kind of verbal immunity? Why is it verboten to explicitly or implicitly bash a belief system bound in no way by logic or reason? -1 FLAMEBAIT, perhaps, but Troll? please.
Jealous of their simple lifestyle, homemade liquor, and delicious honey.
If vicars, imams, priests, friars, clerics, and rabbis were the only things Norton was blocking, I'd say it's time to reevaluate my longstand hatred of them in favor of an uneasy alliance.
word. The game that got me hooked to videogames in 7th grade. I think part of it was finally overcoming the agony of creating bootdisks, trying to get soundblaster to work (wish i knew that i didnt ahve a soundcard)--i must have spent a week tinkering with the thing.
so I ended up playing it with a keyboard, no sound, and didn't even realize taht there were cutscenes until i saw it a year later on a friends computer.
still my favorite game of all time. by far.
how did the 'L' in "would" become an O-umlaut? that's a hell of a typo... oops accidentally hit Ctrl-Shift-Alt-Fn-o
So when 100 people walk by a brilliant Van Gogh or Michelangelo piece, and all of them are captured by it, it is no longer art? I feel that the greatest works of art appeal to parts of our brain that are universally human. We all have different experiences and lives, but certain emotions and reactions are conserved within all humans. If a piece of art is able to exploit this, it certainly doesn't disqualify it as art, and it perhaps makes it even more valuable than something more personal and specific.
I ask a legitimate question, spawn a number of well thought-out answers, and go from "interesting" to "flamebait" ? Fuck you.
Atheistic Amen to that, brother.
I love videogames. But the fact is that when i'm happy and fulfilled, I just don't have the time to play them, and don't exactly miss them either. Case in point, I'm at a particularly low point these past couple months, and since Dec. I've blown through Prince of Persia 3, Jade Empire, Psychonauts, Baldur;s Gate, the latest Splinter Cell, countless hours of Halo 2, and a few others. That's a lot of hours. While I enjoyed it, i know i wouldn't be doing it if i was out and about getting on with things.
indeed. And it's a damn shame that they bowed into immature fanboy demand and decided to go with a more "adult" "realistic" look for the sequel. If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a game about a boyish elf in stockings who spins around and cuts grass with his sword.
No, I think some functional measure or evidence of increased productivity/problem analysis using the system would be a better benchmark than any number of servers. Or if when a certain number of reliable servers were reached, some extended or vital functionality was attained.
Why is 500 servers notable?
Sony has a lot of weight to throw around. If it is indeed the case that developers will not like the architecture, sony will offer enough incentives to sign exclusivity contracts. Also, if big developers stay away from ps3, it will give more incentive for smaller ones to make games for it, especially given the anticipated market share it will command. Microsoft spent a helluva lot of resources buying and courting developers, and was in many respects successful. The same principles applied, except this time instead of a huge marketshare where even a small game can have a niche audience and still be profitable, there was a small marketshare but initially low competition from other development houses.
while i agree that developers ignore artistic sensibility and go for 'realistic' graphics with a few notable exceptions, i have to disagree with your first point. (as a side note, is it just me or to games that try to look "real" just end up looking more fake because the technology just can't compete with reality by a longshot yet?)
Blockbuster games are now costing well upwards of 20 million dollars to produce (resident evil 4, metal gear solid series, square-enix titles, bioware titles), and i expect that number to rise substantially in the coming years. Furthermore, single-player game length is shortening considerably, and many high profile games are going down to 10 hours or so for the single player campaign. I am not opposed to this either, as devoting 20+ hours to a game is simply not feasible for me and i expect for many slashdotters with lives.
Furthermore, most games that are 20 hours or more tend to have repetitive gameplay and lots of optional and meaningless dialog at the expense of a tightly knit narrative or fleshed-out gameplay.
We will have to see what effect this shift has on smaller and independent developers. If it's anything like the movie biz, they will die out for a time and then experience something of a resurgence. In 2005, I thoroughly enjoyed at least 10 films; if I can enjoy that many games, I will be more than satisfied.
I would think that the main concerns i.e. water supply, food, etc. would all be monitored under these "appropriate test environments". Public drinking water supplies are tested daily, i don't see why this would not be applicable to synthetic nanoparticles if indeed they are dangerous and released into the supply.
"since it is almost impossible to see and track,"
One of the predictions is that we'll be able to detect single molecules in solution. That seems like pretty good tracking to me.
Metastasis is merely the movement of a tumor colony to another part of the body. Bone marrow cells are no more useful as a metastasic cell than as any other cell type, because cancer reverts whatever tissue it initially attacks back to a pluripotent state. What cancer cells DO is cause differentiated cells to become pluripotent. Every cell has the same DNA inside it, but most of the DNA is suppressed after development and only the specialized genes for that cell are expressed. Cancer arises when DNA suppression and replication machinery is hijacked and the cell becomes chaotically embryonic in nature, proliferating not only through wild replication but by abusing the cell's ability to produce hormones and other cell to cell signalling molecules. Carcinogens, oncogenes, and onco-viruses all cause cancer by essentially turning on a cell's replication machinery and reverting the cells back to pluripotent and proliferative states, regardless of the state of differentiation that they were previously in. If anything, my guess would be that bone-marrow cells are more resistant to cancerous agents, because they spend extended periods of time in a pluripotent state without dividing out of control, and probably have expression and activation feedback systems that keep them in check that other cells don't necessarily express.
But can it find potential girlfriends for Slashdotters? Now that's what I would call isolating a useful (and rare) signal buried in a large dataset. When i see THOSE results, I will be impressed. And if so, I've got a useful signal that could use some burying...
2. ?? ----- New statistical techniques 3. Profit!
My comment was indeed speculative, however, I would be interested to see longitudinal data of IQ tests repeated across a varied population over time, following them from early childhood through adulthood. As an aside, the article noted that the "scientific conference" was in Durham, NC. The researchers are from Duke, which if i'm not mistaken, is in Durham, NC. Is anyone familiar with this conference? Or are we talking about a Duke biology department poster session.... BIG difference.
I agree that looking at other populations is crucial, but from what I can tell, they haven't even determined whether this is the gene actually responsible for the observed correlation.
1. When looking at haplotypes, we see that genes travel together in chunks, and because someone has an alternate version of this gene, it could just mean that the haplotype is different. For example say the top 1/3 of chromosome #3 has 7 haplotypes. This means that when you look at populations from all over the world, you will see one of these 7 haplotypes, with 2-3 occuring in the vast majority of cases. On this haplotype there are multiple genes that travel together and recombine together so taht they stay "linked". The gene ACTUALLY affecting IQ could merely be closely linked in physical proximity to the gene they have identified. The genotypes observed in this study may just be markers for another as yet unidentified gene.
2. The fact that it affects caucasian males vs females suggest it is sex-linked and other populations with the gene would be similarly affected. HOWEVER, it is entirely possible that the observed gene is an uncommon phenotype that has not drifted throughout the species and doesn't even exist in other races/populations.
3. The gene in question codes for a growth factor receptor. Growth factor temporal expression dynamics are an interesting but complex subject, and the fact that they are looking only at 10 year olds presents another major problem. In brain development (or any development), decreased affinity for a ligand can alter the protein-binding curve such that more of the ligand (in this case the insulin-like growth factor) is needed to elicit the desired response, OR the ligand may fail to elicit the response because it "missed the train". There are different types of latencies across individuals, and increased developmental latency is a hallmark of the evolutionary nascent human brain, so it would not surprise me that there are many genetic variants of brain growth factors and receptors expressed during adolescence. Let's put it this way- there are two types of "malfunction"- A)you're supposed to meet up with your friends at 9 but you arrive at 10pm- your friends are pissed at you, but they waited for you, and the drunken revelry can continue as planned OR B) your flight was at 9pm, you missed it, too bad, do not pass go and do not collect 200 dollars.
In the case of this growth factor receptor, we have no idea whether the gene variant causes malfunction, slower reaction, or complete inactivation, or even increased activation. I would not be surprised if the observed IQ differences leveled out over the next 5 years, especially considering the sex-hormone charged brain differentation that occurs during puberty.
This article is pop fluff, and I would be wary of drawing any sort of conclusion from it.
was?
...and, erm, send him on his way.
contempt is the best one could hope for. "I forgot" may be more difficult to say when you're naked in a chilled room lying in your own feces.
I am not saying that the system won't self-correct over an extended period of time. Clearly, at some point we will reach diminishing returns on pure graphical power and more resources will eventually be diverted back to the things that truly make a good experience. However, there is an entire generation of talent that may be turned off by the whole system right now. I agree that technology can enhance creativity, but the technologies that facilitate creativity are not the ones being fostered. Game artists are not exploring the power of manipulating and being manipulated by imagery when they must double the polygons and specular highlights on the 3d-model of an uninspired goth-soldier. It is slowing down the art- there's a reason demon-zombie killing gore fests are still what most people consider a "game". Sure, a few people are struggling to foster true art, but the focus problems in the industry are what will make the difference between calling our era a "reniassance" or a "relic".
The worst part is that rendering 10 lights instead of two means five programmers instead of one. Rising costs of development and demand for more glorified tech demos is demeaning the art form, and preventing widespread recognition as such. The potential creative geniuses of our time will be turned off games as a medium, or the next Stravinsky may end up coding 5 more shaders for the reflection in a visor instead of writing the algorithm that rocks the interactive world like the next "Rite of Spring"