The producers of The Simpsons stated after Hartman's death that they were permanently retiring Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz. Even if Billy wanted to do it, I doubt they would let him; and I don't think Billy would think it was appropriate to ask.
Re:Next you'll be telling kids to get off your law
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The slashdot crowd is absolutely bloody right to expect that 10 years later something with the visuals of Quake and the level of game AI complexity of Nethack should have been written released and shipped.
Nope. Top-notch visuals, in practice, do not come about without a paid development team of professional artists and designers; the complexity of Nethack was evolved over two decades by geeks in their spare time. Companies will not take two decades to create a game (DNF notwithstanding), and geeks in their spare time do not have the resources to create top-notch game artwork.
It is, in fact, entirely unsurprising that this hasn't happened.
There is no random or even pseudorandom level generation.
There's a very good reason why you rarely see random level generation: It's extremely limited. (As a game designer, I've had a good deal of experience with the problem of randomly generating game content.) "Preposterous!" you say. "Random level generation means exponentially increased variety for only slightly more effort!"
While this is technically true, the problem with randomly generated content is that it's very easy for humans to recognize the patterns and elements of the random set. Anyone who's played Diablo or Diablo II enough is familiar with this. At first, the random levels are pretty neat, each time you go into the cathedral it's a different layout... but after a few times, you begin to recognize certain elements (a room shaped a certain way, a certain set of prison cells arranged just so), and after a while, you see enough permutations that even if the level isn't one you've exactly seen before, it's similar enough to all the others you've seen that it's basically the same.
Even if you create 100 distinct rooms for your dungeon that can be arranged in 100 billion unique ways, there's still only 100 basic elements, and you'll begin to recognize them pretty quickly. Randomly generated content also violates the precept that games are a form of storytelling; and randomly generated stories are not interesting. Notice that even in a game like Diablo II, with randomly generated levels, the quests are always exactly the same and the dialogue is always exactly the same -- because you really can't randomly generate a good, original story.
but in 10 years I would have expected the industry to come up with something moderately more engaging.
I've played plenty of engaging games since Quake came out; if you haven't been "engaged" at all since then, that's your problem.
Science works to explain the things in methodical, rational terms that religion previously threw big, sweeping, imprecise claims at. Science doesn't disprove religion; it simply obviates it.
Employer: I'm sorry but your just not the person we're looking for.
You: I'm not the person you're looking for. Employer: You can go about your business. You: I can go about my business. Employer: Move along. You: Move along, move along. (gets up and leaves)
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally on the side of net neutrality and keeping the fucking telecoms from getting paid twice for selling the same bandwidth -- I just thing that, rhetorically, thumping the "keep net neutrality" meme over and over is going to confuse the issue. Because it's not really about keeping the net neutral -- it's much simpler than that.
The problem is that companies like AT&T are claiming that Google is getting a "free ride" because Google's data goes over AT&T's pipes, but Google isn't explicitly paying AT&T. The problem with this argument is that AT&T's bandwidth IS getting paid for, just not by Google. And Google IS paying for bandwidth, it's just not paying AT&T for it. Google pays its ISP, that ISP pays another ISP, and so on along the chain, somewhere in which sits AT&T.
AT&T gets paid; the problem is they want Google to not only pay its own ISP to send data into the Internet, AT&T also wants Google to pay AT&T to "insure that your data gets high-priority treatment." This is unnecessary and statements like McCurry's that claim it's important to ensure the future of the "creaky Internet" are horseshit.
The mantra is this: The telecoms want to get paid twice for selling the same bandwidth. When someone wants to get paid twice for selling the same thing, that's usually called fraud in the real world. Ever seen "The Producers"?
Define maximum aphelion and maximum elliptic and minimum volume. What else is there?
The criteria categories may not be arbitrary, but the values are. Why should the maximum aphelion be X km and not (X + 1) km? The same goes for elliptic and volume values.
"morph" on the other hand, is going to fucking stick around for ever. it's just passable enough, and just generic enough to enter into common usage, and it just rots away at the beautiful and giant beast that is english.
"Morph" is from the Greek meaning "form, shape" and is used in a metric crapload of words that you probably don't object to -- ectomorph, morphology, polymorphic, metamorphosis. "Morph" is merely a short form of "metamorphose," has different connotations, and doesn't "rot away" at English in any way.
I love how the picture in the article is at 250x147, but you can enlarge it to a whopping... 290x171. Yes, you can increase the dimensions of the picture by an astounding SIXTEEN PERCENT! Why do they even bother unless they're going to at least double the image size?
I think we both recognize the truth: compared to Python, Ruby, or Lisp, PHP is not very flexible at all.
Could you perhaps elaborate on how PHP is inflexible? As far as I know, all four languages are Turing-complete and you can accomplish the exact same things in all of them. Are you including their standard libraries, or what?
When games become indistinguishable from reality, why would someone waste time killing somebody in reality when you could do the same in a virtual setting without fear of getting thrown in jail?
Murder is not primarily committed so that people can have the experience of having murdered someone. Murder is usually a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Presumably one would not need to commit crime for financial reasons, as it would be hard to afford a computer otherwise.
I hope you're not saying that anyone who could afford a computer would have no financial incentive to commit a crime, because that would be retarded. But I'm sure that's not what you're saying.
Do you have any idea how fucking annoying it is to read a post where the only way to understand what the fuck the poster is saying is to visit the links?
I know! Having to visit links on the Web just makes no sense at all.
I'd expect more out of slashdotters.
Yes, because Slashdot posters never do anything stupid!
first off.. this so called "study" being offered by organizations which are supposed to be factual news sources uses only 502 people to infer the opinion over over 350 million us citizens.
Just FYI, the population of the U.S. is slightly less than 300 million.
DRM ultimately benefits no one. It does not benefit consumers, directly or indirectly, in any way. It does not significantly hinder pirates from getting copyrighted content for free. It only hinders legitimate purchasers of copyrighted content. And it does not ultimately benefit copyright holders, either, because DRM will never, ever increase sales -- only diminish them, by irritating legitimate users into not buying the content.
What is the cost per pound for GEO lift? (this will need at least that much), and how much does this highly scientific bullet weigh?
Certainly a fleet of mars style rovers (which have proven their mettle) would cost no more to lift and produce tons more science?
They might produce a great deal more science about Mars, but they would provide a great deal less about the Moon, which is what this project is trying to do.
If you want to be cynical, consider that if dentistry advances to the point where you go in for a one-time futuristic tooth-sealing procedure once you have all your permanent adult teeth, and then never need dental treatment for the rest of your life (barring accidents like getting a tooth knocked out), there won't be very much business left for dentists -- and I doubt dentists would want that to happen.
Sure, dentists might end up like buggy-whip manufacturers, outrun by technology -- except that dentists are professionals (in the sense of having to carry malpractice insurance), and like most professionals, have a powerful guild behind them (in this case, the ADA, which pretty much dictates American dental practices). If the ADA decides it wants to squash some new procedure in this country, it probably will. And affluent Americans will end up going to Europe in order to get their teeth sealed anyway.
(Warning: Future predictions are not guaranteed. Actual mileage may vary.)
No, I think he's saying that if you had the power to hurl creatures at a planet at any speed you chose, you'd probably mis-aim some of them on purpose just for kicks too.
Slashdot Mirror
The producers of The Simpsons stated after Hartman's death that they were permanently retiring Troy McClure and Lionel Hutz. Even if Billy wanted to do it, I doubt they would let him; and I don't think Billy would think it was appropriate to ask.
It is, in fact, entirely unsurprising that this hasn't happened.
There's a very good reason why you rarely see random level generation: It's extremely limited. (As a game designer, I've had a good deal of experience with the problem of randomly generating game content.) "Preposterous!" you say. "Random level generation means exponentially increased variety for only slightly more effort!"
While this is technically true, the problem with randomly generated content is that it's very easy for humans to recognize the patterns and elements of the random set. Anyone who's played Diablo or Diablo II enough is familiar with this. At first, the random levels are pretty neat, each time you go into the cathedral it's a different layout... but after a few times, you begin to recognize certain elements (a room shaped a certain way, a certain set of prison cells arranged just so), and after a while, you see enough permutations that even if the level isn't one you've exactly seen before, it's similar enough to all the others you've seen that it's basically the same.
Even if you create 100 distinct rooms for your dungeon that can be arranged in 100 billion unique ways, there's still only 100 basic elements, and you'll begin to recognize them pretty quickly. Randomly generated content also violates the precept that games are a form of storytelling; and randomly generated stories are not interesting. Notice that even in a game like Diablo II, with randomly generated levels, the quests are always exactly the same and the dialogue is always exactly the same -- because you really can't randomly generate a good, original story.
I've played plenty of engaging games since Quake came out; if you haven't been "engaged" at all since then, that's your problem.
It's called REGIONAL DIALECTS, you jackass.
Employer: You can go about your business.
You: I can go about my business.
Employer: Move along.
You: Move along, move along. (gets up and leaves)
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally on the side of net neutrality and keeping the fucking telecoms from getting paid twice for selling the same bandwidth -- I just thing that, rhetorically, thumping the "keep net neutrality" meme over and over is going to confuse the issue. Because it's not really about keeping the net neutral -- it's much simpler than that.
The problem is that companies like AT&T are claiming that Google is getting a "free ride" because Google's data goes over AT&T's pipes, but Google isn't explicitly paying AT&T. The problem with this argument is that AT&T's bandwidth IS getting paid for, just not by Google. And Google IS paying for bandwidth, it's just not paying AT&T for it. Google pays its ISP, that ISP pays another ISP, and so on along the chain, somewhere in which sits AT&T.
AT&T gets paid; the problem is they want Google to not only pay its own ISP to send data into the Internet, AT&T also wants Google to pay AT&T to "insure that your data gets high-priority treatment." This is unnecessary and statements like McCurry's that claim it's important to ensure the future of the "creaky Internet" are horseshit.
The mantra is this: The telecoms want to get paid twice for selling the same bandwidth. When someone wants to get paid twice for selling the same thing, that's usually called fraud in the real world. Ever seen "The Producers"?
Lucky for us, language is defined by majority usage, and you're vastly outnumbered :)
It's 2007...
Oh sure, Mr. Time Traveller from the future insults our scientific progress. Jerk!
Nonsense! Real men shout binary at each other across hard vacuum.
I love how the picture in the article is at 250x147, but you can enlarge it to a whopping... 290x171. Yes, you can increase the dimensions of the picture by an astounding SIXTEEN PERCENT! Why do they even bother unless they're going to at least double the image size?
Yes, I'm serious. Please answer the question.
Probably at the Death Star's day care center.
(I couldn't find the original link at The Onion, alas.)
Repeat after me:
DRM ultimately benefits no one. It does not benefit consumers, directly or indirectly, in any way. It does not significantly hinder pirates from getting copyrighted content for free. It only hinders legitimate purchasers of copyrighted content. And it does not ultimately benefit copyright holders, either, because DRM will never, ever increase sales -- only diminish them, by irritating legitimate users into not buying the content.
If you want to be cynical, consider that if dentistry advances to the point where you go in for a one-time futuristic tooth-sealing procedure once you have all your permanent adult teeth, and then never need dental treatment for the rest of your life (barring accidents like getting a tooth knocked out), there won't be very much business left for dentists -- and I doubt dentists would want that to happen.
Sure, dentists might end up like buggy-whip manufacturers, outrun by technology -- except that dentists are professionals (in the sense of having to carry malpractice insurance), and like most professionals, have a powerful guild behind them (in this case, the ADA, which pretty much dictates American dental practices). If the ADA decides it wants to squash some new procedure in this country, it probably will. And affluent Americans will end up going to Europe in order to get their teeth sealed anyway.
(Warning: Future predictions are not guaranteed. Actual mileage may vary.)
No, I think he's saying that if you had the power to hurl creatures at a planet at any speed you chose, you'd probably mis-aim some of them on purpose just for kicks too.
(If you believe in God, which I don't)