Hmm, I do recognise the name. I think they'd do a lot better releasing for consoles. There are not many console MMOs out there yet, so a half-decent one would make a boatload of cash. I think the only one I know of so far is Final Fantasy?
These aren't pictures of your last holiday in Greece...
But I'm a suspected terrorist who just had a holiday in Greece! And I was sure those guys with cameras were government operatives! Well, at least the malware authors didn't get a good look at me in my speedos.
Cloning a formula that seems to work, in a very expensive way, for a public that is progressively more bored of the formula.
I've never been a big fan of RPG mechanics. Sure they're addictive, but I think it just creates a very elitist atmosphere where the "best" players are actually just the ones with the most free time to waste rather than the most skillful.
I think MMOs are a great idea though. We need more MMOs in other genres than simply RPGs. Imagine GTA with hundreds of players per map, divided into gangs. I would have started playing Eve if I hadn't found out about it having a levelling up system. Having to collect money, that's fine. Having to level up AI team-mates or whatever? Fine. But having to waste time pretending to improve the skill level of a character that you directly control? What's the point in that?
The question was not "which game do you think it would be hard to make a bot that plays humanly", just this guy was surprised that people can make bots that farm stuff in WoW.
I don't get why people keep saying games that are difficult to perfect but easy to do the basics. I think if people want an example of a game that it would genuinely be hard for a computer to play well, then something like Poker is probably what they're looking for. You've already said that computers can play Tetris better than the best human player.
Computers can play Go. A normal desktop computer of course would suck against a decent human player because of lack of resources, but it would still be able to actually play the game. Then again, a normal desktop computer back in the 80s probably sucked at Chess against decent players too.
By the way, supercomputers are starting to do pretty well at Go. It's not that the game is difficult for computers to understand, it's just that it has a massive search space, so it's difficult for the computer to know which moves are most advantageous in the long run.
Or any game like it with enough complexity than humans can do it, but computers can't
Okay, so what are they? I was thinking more of video games than board games btw.
the underlying question should be: how has this game become so repetitive that people can automate it in the first place?
I'm not trying to defend Blizzard, I've never found any of their games attractive, but tell me this.. what games can you think of that it wouldn't be easy to make a bot for? I can't really think of any.
Getting a computer to play a game is easy. It's trying to get it to play a game while appearing human that is a challenge.
Like I said, the still shots are pretty much perfect. Even the moving shots, as long as he's not talking. The first few times I watched the trailers I didn't know that it was CG at all. When I found out it was Jeff Bridges in the original I assumed that the younger version was just him wearing makeup.
From the effort that they put into the plot, I don't think they really cared much about this movie and are just doing it as a cheap cash-in. So I doubt they'll clean anything up before the release. The movie itself was a real disappointment to my inner geek.
I didn't try to compare the soundtrack with anything but the first movie. IMO it works well with it. It may be classical music, but I don't see the point in comparing it to Star Wars. The theme is overall a lot softer than the blaring Star Wars brass.
Anyone who expects it to be a typical Daft Punk album is an idiot. It is a good soundtrack. The Grid gave me shivers even before I saw the movie, and when it showed in the actual movie, it was like I was having a full body orgasm or something. Shame about the plot.
I thought from the look of the originals that it was just something like UV light and some colour filters.. but as Disney I suppose they'd be used to doing everything by hand.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Having jets on the flying machines and what sounded like real turbocharged or supercharged engines in the lightcycles was a disappointment for me. I love the sounds of the original lightcycles.
As for the story, that's what I thought too. The original has a fairly simple story, with your typical epic journey through a weird world plot. The new one tried to get too political, religious, mystical, whatever. When the action was there it was good, but half the film was just pointless plot exposition. Tron was never about the plot, it was about answering the question: what would it be like if the programs inside your computer were alive? Not inside of a simulation like in the Matrix, or in the new film.
There was a line in the film that said that Flynn could do something to absorb CLU and that it would destroy both of them. So I'm assuming they're gone.
Though that data disk that Son o'Flynn had at the end was presumably Flynn's data disk, so I was wondering if he could at least run a simulation of Flynn.
The ISO existing in the real world is a bit strange yes. If she's just a robot then I can understand that, but if she's a biological creature then that is stretching things a bit. We can make anything we want happen inside a computer, but in the real world there are rules that we just can't get around. I got the impression that they were probably going to even have kids together or something.
Whereas the original Tron had tons of computer references and lingo, and even felt like it was inside a computer, Legacy really lacked in all of those areas.
That was the biggest disappointment for me too. No geek cred. The original was clearly written by geeks, because while the programs having emotions was a bit silly, there weren't any other parts of it that I rolled my eyes at as I usually would when people try to put computing terminology into movies. Legacy lost all the charm of the original because of that.
And WTF was with the ISOs? Are they in the books or something? Or were they just desperate to try to make the movie seem all deep and meaningful rather than just enjoying the fact that there's some crazy war unknown war raging inside of a computer?
With self checkouts you can fit 4 self-checkouts in the space of a typical manned checkout. At the supermarket around the corner from me they have 8 self checkouts now. When there were only 4 the queue sometimes got a little large, but now there is either no queue, or just a very small one.
*sigh* his whole sig is a joke. It is of course meant to annoy grammar nazis.
On the other hand, it does make some sense (though not much) even with the current wording. If you assert that "whom" is no longer a real word, at least in "intense" usage of language, it does beg the question "who cares", because it can no longer be "whom cares?". I don't know for sure that he intended that, but I think he probably did.
You'd think an English major would understand line wrapping.. YOU DON'T NEED TO PRESS CARRIAGE RETURN AT THE END OF EACH LINE
"Let the cat out of the bag" makes perfect sense. Once the cat is out, it's crazy and agile, and hard to get it back in the bag.
"I could care less" does not make sense when used to mean "I couldn't care any less", ie what is meant to be an emphatic "I don't care". Would it mean the same thing if people said "I don't" at a wedding instead of "I do"? Somehow I think. No wait, let me try that again. Somehow I think not.
I am of course a programmer so I like stuff to be logical as you say, but I can't see how any person with even average IQ could find introducing or removing random "not"s throughout the language to be a good thing to do for aiding comprehension. Sure, we probably will have to live with it because people are fucking morons, but we should be allowed to complain when people are being fucking morons.
I remember an article (probably here) ages ago about Tesco club cards etc. Tesco stopped doing the impulse crap after their research showed it wasn't actually any use. It does give a slightly classier feel if there aren't stupid sweets at the checkouts.
Those guys are there to help out when things go wrong with the self checkouts. Probably also to make sure people aren't just putting things into their pockets instead of scanning them.
That being said, I prefer the psychological comfort of many lines. When driving, I would rather to take more total time on a longer detour than wait in standstill traffic because the illusion of motion is less hectic.
That doesn't seem like a good analogy. The single queue is the longer one, and also the one that will keep moving.
I have caused myself occasional psychological distress from gambling on short queues over just taking the longer queue at the self chekouts. It's annoying seeing people join the longer queue after you've joined the shorter one, then also seeing them leave before you have even started checking out.
The impulse items are silly yes, but the system itself is good. Assigning tasks to free processors is much better than predeciding a big list of tasks to go to each processor without knowing how long each will actually take.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends. I think he means that if nobody knows that they are fraudulent, then they call the proper studies into question.
Hmm, I do recognise the name. I think they'd do a lot better releasing for consoles. There are not many console MMOs out there yet, so a half-decent one would make a boatload of cash. I think the only one I know of so far is Final Fantasy?
These aren't pictures of your last holiday in Greece...
But I'm a suspected terrorist who just had a holiday in Greece! And I was sure those guys with cameras were government operatives! Well, at least the malware authors didn't get a good look at me in my speedos.
Ah thanks. I always read that as "Solid State Disk Drive". I wondered why it was a mission name in MW2.
Cloning a formula that seems to work, in a very expensive way, for a public that is progressively more bored of the formula.
I've never been a big fan of RPG mechanics. Sure they're addictive, but I think it just creates a very elitist atmosphere where the "best" players are actually just the ones with the most free time to waste rather than the most skillful.
I think MMOs are a great idea though. We need more MMOs in other genres than simply RPGs. Imagine GTA with hundreds of players per map, divided into gangs. I would have started playing Eve if I hadn't found out about it having a levelling up system. Having to collect money, that's fine. Having to level up AI team-mates or whatever? Fine. But having to waste time pretending to improve the skill level of a character that you directly control? What's the point in that?
Except that wouldn't be an MMO.
There are Star Wars mods for GTA:SA, don't know about GTA IV (which uses the same engine as RDD).
So, after reading the summary, we can conclude that the actual headline should be:
Mobile users more up to date with email than desktop users!
*facepalm*
The question was not "which game do you think it would be hard to make a bot that plays humanly", just this guy was surprised that people can make bots that farm stuff in WoW.
I don't get why people keep saying games that are difficult to perfect but easy to do the basics. I think if people want an example of a game that it would genuinely be hard for a computer to play well, then something like Poker is probably what they're looking for. You've already said that computers can play Tetris better than the best human player.
Computer competition. Unless computers can fly and work for the Daily Planet.
Computers can play Go. A normal desktop computer of course would suck against a decent human player because of lack of resources, but it would still be able to actually play the game. Then again, a normal desktop computer back in the 80s probably sucked at Chess against decent players too.
By the way, supercomputers are starting to do pretty well at Go. It's not that the game is difficult for computers to understand, it's just that it has a massive search space, so it's difficult for the computer to know which moves are most advantageous in the long run.
Or any game like it with enough complexity than humans can do it, but computers can't
Okay, so what are they? I was thinking more of video games than board games btw.
How the hell do bots have anything to do with IP or "undermining the world's economy"? Seriously.
Yes, bots suck, but it's Blizzard's problem to deal with. Just making it illegal is not going to stop cheaters. For one thing, the DMCA is US only.
the underlying question should be: how has this game become so repetitive that people can automate it in the first place?
I'm not trying to defend Blizzard, I've never found any of their games attractive, but tell me this.. what games can you think of that it wouldn't be easy to make a bot for? I can't really think of any.
Getting a computer to play a game is easy. It's trying to get it to play a game while appearing human that is a challenge.
Compared to real life.
Like I said, the still shots are pretty much perfect. Even the moving shots, as long as he's not talking. The first few times I watched the trailers I didn't know that it was CG at all. When I found out it was Jeff Bridges in the original I assumed that the younger version was just him wearing makeup.
From the effort that they put into the plot, I don't think they really cared much about this movie and are just doing it as a cheap cash-in. So I doubt they'll clean anything up before the release. The movie itself was a real disappointment to my inner geek.
No, it's just people being idiots. It doesn't work as sarcasm. "I couldn't care more" would work as sarcasm.
I didn't try to compare the soundtrack with anything but the first movie. IMO it works well with it. It may be classical music, but I don't see the point in comparing it to Star Wars. The theme is overall a lot softer than the blaring Star Wars brass.
Anyone who expects it to be a typical Daft Punk album is an idiot. It is a good soundtrack. The Grid gave me shivers even before I saw the movie, and when it showed in the actual movie, it was like I was having a full body orgasm or something. Shame about the plot.
I thought from the look of the originals that it was just something like UV light and some colour filters.. but as Disney I suppose they'd be used to doing everything by hand.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Having jets on the flying machines and what sounded like real turbocharged or supercharged engines in the lightcycles was a disappointment for me. I love the sounds of the original lightcycles.
As for the story, that's what I thought too. The original has a fairly simple story, with your typical epic journey through a weird world plot. The new one tried to get too political, religious, mystical, whatever. When the action was there it was good, but half the film was just pointless plot exposition. Tron was never about the plot, it was about answering the question: what would it be like if the programs inside your computer were alive? Not inside of a simulation like in the Matrix, or in the new film.
There was a line in the film that said that Flynn could do something to absorb CLU and that it would destroy both of them. So I'm assuming they're gone.
Though that data disk that Son o'Flynn had at the end was presumably Flynn's data disk, so I was wondering if he could at least run a simulation of Flynn.
The ISO existing in the real world is a bit strange yes. If she's just a robot then I can understand that, but if she's a biological creature then that is stretching things a bit. We can make anything we want happen inside a computer, but in the real world there are rules that we just can't get around. I got the impression that they were probably going to even have kids together or something.
Whereas the original Tron had tons of computer references and lingo, and even felt like it was inside a computer, Legacy really lacked in all of those areas.
That was the biggest disappointment for me too. No geek cred. The original was clearly written by geeks, because while the programs having emotions was a bit silly, there weren't any other parts of it that I rolled my eyes at as I usually would when people try to put computing terminology into movies. Legacy lost all the charm of the original because of that.
And WTF was with the ISOs? Are they in the books or something? Or were they just desperate to try to make the movie seem all deep and meaningful rather than just enjoying the fact that there's some crazy war unknown war raging inside of a computer?
The soundtrack was good though.
With self checkouts you can fit 4 self-checkouts in the space of a typical manned checkout. At the supermarket around the corner from me they have 8 self checkouts now. When there were only 4 the queue sometimes got a little large, but now there is either no queue, or just a very small one.
*sigh* his whole sig is a joke. It is of course meant to annoy grammar nazis.
On the other hand, it does make some sense (though not much) even with the current wording. If you assert that "whom" is no longer a real word, at least in "intense" usage of language, it does beg the question "who cares", because it can no longer be "whom cares?". I don't know for sure that he intended that, but I think he probably did.
You'd think an English major would understand line wrapping.. YOU DON'T NEED TO PRESS
CARRIAGE RETURN AT THE
END OF EACH LINE
"Let the cat out of the bag" makes perfect sense. Once the cat is out, it's crazy and agile, and hard to get it back in the bag.
"I could care less" does not make sense when used to mean "I couldn't care any less", ie what is meant to be an emphatic "I don't care". Would it mean the same thing if people said "I don't" at a wedding instead of "I do"? Somehow I think. No wait, let me try that again. Somehow I think not.
I am of course a programmer so I like stuff to be logical as you say, but I can't see how any person with even average IQ could find introducing or removing random "not"s throughout the language to be a good thing to do for aiding comprehension. Sure, we probably will have to live with it because people are fucking morons, but we should be allowed to complain when people are being fucking morons.
I remember an article (probably here) ages ago about Tesco club cards etc. Tesco stopped doing the impulse crap after their research showed it wasn't actually any use. It does give a slightly classier feel if there aren't stupid sweets at the checkouts.
Those guys are there to help out when things go wrong with the self checkouts. Probably also to make sure people aren't just putting things into their pockets instead of scanning them.
That being said, I prefer the psychological comfort of many lines. When driving, I would rather to take more total time on a longer detour than wait in standstill traffic because the illusion of motion is less hectic.
That doesn't seem like a good analogy. The single queue is the longer one, and also the one that will keep moving.
I have caused myself occasional psychological distress from gambling on short queues over just taking the longer queue at the self chekouts. It's annoying seeing people join the longer queue after you've joined the shorter one, then also seeing them leave before you have even started checking out.
The impulse items are silly yes, but the system itself is good. Assigning tasks to free processors is much better than predeciding a big list of tasks to go to each processor without knowing how long each will actually take.