DOOM3 is a retelling of DOOM(1), and that's what happened in DOOM(1) - someone screwed up and opened a gateway between Hell and our reality. So that's what DOOM3 will be about.
And in case you are wondering, yes, DOOM3 does look like it was inspired by the movie "Aliens". DOOM(1) started life as an "Aliens" game, but id decided they didn't want to get stuck in the limits of someone else's license, so they remade it. (Which is a bit ironic as the most famous mod for DOOM(1) was the Aliens Total Conversion). Looks like they stuck in a little from "The Thing" in there as well.
And if I might make an observation - there is no law that says you can't like *GASP* both games. I'm planning on getting DOOM3, Half-Life2, the Deus Ex games AND Halo 2. Yeah, I'll be broke, my wife won't see me for weeks on end and the lawn will die from neglect, but at least I won't be making an ass of myself by artificially limiting my game playing options.
Not to be too anal about it, but DOOM(1) was released in December of 1993. And it spawned a huge slew of upgrades. I went from a 386SX/20 to a 386DX/33, added a Turtle Beach Maui MIDI card, a larger monitor and a faster ATI video card.
Funny that I might end up getting a new ATI card for DOOM3 after being an NVidia fanboy for the last three years...
Not quite. There are limits to chance. There is a number which represents the number of electrons in the universe. If something has odds of 1 in that number, it is considered impossible.
But life is not as random as that. What we know about the formation of organic molecules seems to show that they will form almost every time they are given the chance. Given the right ingredients (some of which we know, some we don't), the right conditions (which we are learning to be varied beyond what we ever imagined), enough energy and time, and organic molecules will form. There is organic matter (not life, certainly, but still organic matter) iin the heads of comets. If organic matter can form there, it must be able to form almost anywhere that doesn't actively destroy it.
The 'monkeys on typewriters ending up with war and peace' flies in the face of reason
According to a recent article that idea doesn't work anyway. Monkies aren't random. They have goals and agendas and they would rather beat the computer to bits and urinate on the keyboard than type anything.
However, chemistry isn't random, either. It follows rules and these rules stack the dice in our favor.
For those who think I'm rationalizing equally with my limited 100 year lifespan perspective, consider this: they have never discovered fossilized remains of an inter-species mutation; e.g., a creature evolutionarily between A and B.
Really? We've never found an animal that looks like a mix of a lizard and a bird? Never found anything that looks like a mix of a man and an ape? Never found a fish with fins capapble of acting like legs?
We've found a tremendous number of creatures that look like a mix of different forms. What we haven't found is an animal that looks like an ape with a human head, or a human with an ape's head. But evolution doesn't work like that, anyway.
And furthermore we have to consider the completeness of the fossile record. How many T-Rex skeletions have we found? 30? T-Rexes lived on this earth for three to five million years and we've only found thirty or so skeletons. How many T-Rexes lived and died and didn't become fossils? Then consider the lowly trilobite. We've found tens of thousands of their fossils. But trilobites lived for over 250,000,000 years and lived in shallow seas, the perfect place for fossils to form. How many indevidual animals must live before there is a chance that one of them will die in a place that will allow their bones to be fossilized? How many of these fossils survive the churning of the earth's crust? How many of those are actually found?
The fossil record is the best catalog we have of what once wandered the earth, but it is by no means complete.
Recent work shows the earth as 5 billion years old, not counting for the time it required to cool. Fossil evidence shows life emerging 400 million years ago. While the earth is 4.5 - 5 billion years old, life is far older than 400 million years. Estimates place life at at 3.5 billion years old. Life has had a LONG time to go from primitive forms to more complex forms.
I recently read an article (lost the link, sorry) about the current goings on in the world of SPAM. Outside of the huge bulk-mailers like the Spam King, most spammers are not trying to actually sell you anything. They are creating huge databases of active email addresses to sell to new spammers.
It's all these dinks who paid $39.95 to Don LePri and are determined to get rich quick that are the real SPAM problem.
He's not defunct. His point was that the building blocks of life - complex organic molecules - can be formed from inorganic molecules. And he was right, and still is right.
The actual mechanism might not be what we thought it was then, but that is irrelevant.
Does the fact that gravity may function by means of gravatons invalidate the work of Isaac Newton?
It is a far leap from amino acids to life.
This is true. and no one is saying that amino acids jumped up and formed life the second there were enough to matter. Life took time to form, a LOT of time.
I am still baffled by those who think that life just happens.
Life doesn't "just happen". It takes the right ingredients, energy and time. Possibly millions of years of time.
The Earth's atmosphere today is much more hospitable to life
No, it's not. Oxygen is a poison. Life has adapted to the presense of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen activley destroys the basic building blocks of life when not protected.
but we still do not see amino acids coming together and organizing into complex proteins or anything resembling life. And we never will on Earth. The atmosphere is all wrong for it. And we will have to wait a long time to see it. It's not like waiting for your cheese to get moldy.
This can't even be done in the laboratory. For the reasons listed above. And creating life is a hell of a lot more complex than just creating amino acids. In the steps to creating life, this is on the same level as buying one adjustable wrench in the construction of the Empire State Building.
It is contrary to the 2nd law of thrmodynamics. Really? How? Life is not a closed system. It requires energy from an outside source. The Sun provides the power that lets life go on.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation. The odds of it happening are beyond astronomical.
All you need is a positive non-zero probablity for something to eventually happen. We have no idea how amny times life almost formed and then died before it finally succeeded. Even with one chance in one-hundred million, if you have millions, and maybe billions of years for something to happen, it just might. And it only has to succede once.
True, but that wasn't his point. He was trying to show that the building blocks of life could be created by natural and understandable processes. And his experiment did just that.
I'll assume you're asking an honest question (here? at slashdot? HAHAHAHA!) and give you an honest answer.
Backwards compatibility is implemented in order to not destroy the installed base of products. What good is a new DVD player that can't play existing DVDs? How many people are going to buy ANOTHER DVD player just to leave the old one in place because the new one won't play the 400 movies they already have? People already grous about having to keep a DVD player and a VCR!
As for file formats, who cares if no one else is going to use your files? If you ever want to share them with someone else then you will need to either support an existing format or distribute the needed code to use your files with them.
And that is exactly my point. Who am I to say that just because I didn't put a spark of wisdom in my work that people can not find wisdom there? Yeah, it bugged the crap out of me when a class full of other writing students found religious wisdom in a grand farce I wrote, but who am I to tell them they can't enrich themselves?
The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected and least biased news sources in America. I say this as an Athiest who does not particularly care for the religious practices of the Christians Science faith. Don't let your personal agenda cloud your world too much, okay?
Most movies cover basic themes: "who are we?", "where are we going?", "how do we overcome that problem?", "do these pants make my ass look too fat?". Themes that are common to most religions. Themes that are so engrained into us via our cuilture that they are universal. Because of this anyone of any faith can read into these movies what they want.
Added to this is that most of us are so steeped in our own belief systems/faiths that we have a very hard time NOT seeing the world around us through the filters of our beliefs. Every tree and flower is proof of God's power to a Chrsitian and proof of the complexity and subtlety of nature to an Athiest. Same flower and tree, different filter.
Combine these to factors with a movie that does not make a "this film is about religion X" statement and anyone can use said film project their own faith and glean meaning from it. If you REALLY want to see examples of this, look up some writings about "The Shawshank Redemption".
Is this wrong? I don't know. I find it silly, bit I can't really say that finding wisdom, no matter how unintended, in a film is wrong. I mean, a very good friend of mine found the wisdom to give up wishing for success and actively started to persue his dream after watching "Harold and Maude". Was this silly? Not for him.
As a strugling (and frsutrated writer) I have had people glean meanings from my work that I know damned well I didn't put in.
The basic problem with this is that the brute-force robot is trying to decide the best path through the obsticle course, like an old man trying not to get himself hurt and the small robot is just failing around like a cockroach, blindly trying to get to s cerain point with no consideration for itself or the terrain. It's a lot easier to get from point A to point B with six flailing legs and a complete lack of environemtnal perception.
The issue here is not that the cockroach is smarter. Not at all.
What aspect of their business interests would this serve?
None.
How does letting people modify their console to play their competitor's products help them?
It doesn't.
Do they get any money from those $10.00 PSX titles?
Nope. Sony does. (And since you have to use.ISO's, that's not really true, either.)
I don't see any business case for Microsoft not stomping this into the ground. Hell, they might even get Sony to help them out with this one as the need for.ISO's could be seen as an invitation to pirate PSX games.
Not to be a dick or anythingm but who cares? You can get a PSOne for $50.00 (US) almost anywhere. That's less than getting your XBox modded. And you won't have to worry about whether or not the emulator works with any particular game.
Jumping Judas on a pogo stick! How was that flaimbait? A joke? Yes. Not your kind of humor? Quite possibly. But a flame? No.
Stop being so damned twitchy and THINK before you moderate.
I wouldn't classify the post I was replying to as flaimbait, either. But that's me.
Re:Shut up Wesley!!
on
Dancing Barefoot
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I am a sad sad man.
No, not really. You are someone who has manged to seperate Wil Wheaton, the actor and human being, from Wesley Crusher, the scourge of mankind, and Satan's sex slave.
I've seen railroad cars converted to diners and small offices. The diners looked pretty cool, but the offices looked like crap. Like "Container Town" from that gawdawful "Highwayman" TV show.
Yes, but the "offending words" were not written by a Slashdot editor, but the submitter. The submitter is under no obligation to be "prefessional" in any way. This is only marginally different than the comments posted by Slashdot readers. And only so if you think the editors should be proofing the submissions.
There are quite a few cost-effective designs for heavy lifters. Once you take the humans out of the picture you can save a LOT of money. The shuttle iis a VERY expensive way to get anything into orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
DOOM3 is a retelling of DOOM(1), and that's what happened in DOOM(1) - someone screwed up and opened a gateway between Hell and our reality. So that's what DOOM3 will be about.
And in case you are wondering, yes, DOOM3 does look like it was inspired by the movie "Aliens". DOOM(1) started life as an "Aliens" game, but id decided they didn't want to get stuck in the limits of someone else's license, so they remade it. (Which is a bit ironic as the most famous mod for DOOM(1) was the Aliens Total Conversion). Looks like they stuck in a little from "The Thing" in there as well.
And if I might make an observation - there is no law that says you can't like *GASP* both games. I'm planning on getting DOOM3, Half-Life2, the Deus Ex games AND Halo 2. Yeah, I'll be broke, my wife won't see me for weeks on end and the lawn will die from neglect, but at least I won't be making an ass of myself by artificially limiting my game playing options.
Not to be too anal about it, but DOOM(1) was released in December of 1993. And it spawned a huge slew of upgrades. I went from a 386SX/20 to a 386DX/33, added a Turtle Beach Maui MIDI card, a larger monitor and a faster ATI video card.
Funny that I might end up getting a new ATI card for DOOM3 after being an NVidia fanboy for the last three years...
Okay, smartypants, which one do you have?
Oh, Yeah! My wife is going to let me bring one of those into the house! And monkeys will fly out of my butt!
But life is not as random as that. What we know about the formation of organic molecules seems to show that they will form almost every time they are given the chance. Given the right ingredients (some of which we know, some we don't), the right conditions (which we are learning to be varied beyond what we ever imagined), enough energy and time, and organic molecules will form. There is organic matter (not life, certainly, but still organic matter) iin the heads of comets. If organic matter can form there, it must be able to form almost anywhere that doesn't actively destroy it.
The 'monkeys on typewriters ending up with war and peace' flies in the face of reason
According to a recent article that idea doesn't work anyway. Monkies aren't random. They have goals and agendas and they would rather beat the computer to bits and urinate on the keyboard than type anything.
However, chemistry isn't random, either. It follows rules and these rules stack the dice in our favor.
For those who think I'm rationalizing equally with my limited 100 year lifespan perspective, consider this: they have never discovered fossilized remains of an inter-species mutation; e.g., a creature evolutionarily between A and B.
Really? We've never found an animal that looks like a mix of a lizard and a bird? Never found anything that looks like a mix of a man and an ape? Never found a fish with fins capapble of acting like legs?
We've found a tremendous number of creatures that look like a mix of different forms. What we haven't found is an animal that looks like an ape with a human head, or a human with an ape's head. But evolution doesn't work like that, anyway.
And furthermore we have to consider the completeness of the fossile record. How many T-Rex skeletions have we found? 30? T-Rexes lived on this earth for three to five million years and we've only found thirty or so skeletons. How many T-Rexes lived and died and didn't become fossils? Then consider the lowly trilobite. We've found tens of thousands of their fossils. But trilobites lived for over 250,000,000 years and lived in shallow seas, the perfect place for fossils to form. How many indevidual animals must live before there is a chance that one of them will die in a place that will allow their bones to be fossilized? How many of these fossils survive the churning of the earth's crust? How many of those are actually found?
The fossil record is the best catalog we have of what once wandered the earth, but it is by no means complete.
Recent work shows the earth as 5 billion years old, not counting for the time it required to cool. Fossil evidence shows life emerging 400 million years ago.
While the earth is 4.5 - 5 billion years old, life is far older than 400 million years. Estimates place life at at 3.5 billion years old. Life has had a LONG time to go from primitive forms to more complex forms.
It's all these dinks who paid $39.95 to Don LePri and are determined to get rich quick that are the real SPAM problem.
He's not defunct. His point was that the building blocks of life - complex organic molecules - can be formed from inorganic molecules. And he was right, and still is right.
The actual mechanism might not be what we thought it was then, but that is irrelevant.
Does the fact that gravity may function by means of gravatons invalidate the work of Isaac Newton?
This is true. and no one is saying that amino acids jumped up and formed life the second there were enough to matter. Life took time to form, a LOT of time.
I am still baffled by those who think that life just happens.
Life doesn't "just happen". It takes the right ingredients, energy and time. Possibly millions of years of time.
The Earth's atmosphere today is much more hospitable to life
No, it's not. Oxygen is a poison. Life has adapted to the presense of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen activley destroys the basic building blocks of life when not protected.
but we still do not see amino acids coming together and organizing into complex proteins or anything resembling life.
And we never will on Earth. The atmosphere is all wrong for it. And we will have to wait a long time to see it. It's not like waiting for your cheese to get moldy.
This can't even be done in the laboratory.
For the reasons listed above. And creating life is a hell of a lot more complex than just creating amino acids. In the steps to creating life, this is on the same level as buying one adjustable wrench in the construction of the Empire State Building.
It is contrary to the 2nd law of thrmodynamics.
Really? How? Life is not a closed system. It requires energy from an outside source. The Sun provides the power that lets life go on.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation. The odds of it happening are beyond astronomical.
All you need is a positive non-zero probablity for something to eventually happen. We have no idea how amny times life almost formed and then died before it finally succeeded. Even with one chance in one-hundred million, if you have millions, and maybe billions of years for something to happen, it just might. And it only has to succede once.
True, but that wasn't his point. He was trying to show that the building blocks of life could be created by natural and understandable processes. And his experiment did just that.
Will you all with mod points get a freaking clue? Or do you all just want to run around with your heads up your asses and your feet in your mouths?
There is nothing funny about the parent post. The poster was not making a joke. The poster was providing factual information.
Do us all a favor: If you have no idea of what the poster is talking about, don't make yourself look like an idiot by modding them incorrectly.
I'll assume you're asking an honest question (here? at slashdot? HAHAHAHA!) and give you an honest answer.
Backwards compatibility is implemented in order to not destroy the installed base of products. What good is a new DVD player that can't play existing DVDs? How many people are going to buy ANOTHER DVD player just to leave the old one in place because the new one won't play the 400 movies they already have? People already grous about having to keep a DVD player and a VCR!
As for file formats, who cares if no one else is going to use your files? If you ever want to share them with someone else then you will need to either support an existing format or distribute the needed code to use your files with them.
And that is exactly my point. Who am I to say that just because I didn't put a spark of wisdom in my work that people can not find wisdom there? Yeah, it bugged the crap out of me when a class full of other writing students found religious wisdom in a grand farce I wrote, but who am I to tell them they can't enrich themselves?
The Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected and least biased news sources in America. I say this as an Athiest who does not particularly care for the religious practices of the Christians Science faith. Don't let your personal agenda cloud your world too much, okay?
Most movies cover basic themes: "who are we?", "where are we going?", "how do we overcome that problem?", "do these pants make my ass look too fat?". Themes that are common to most religions. Themes that are so engrained into us via our cuilture that they are universal. Because of this anyone of any faith can read into these movies what they want.
Added to this is that most of us are so steeped in our own belief systems/faiths that we have a very hard time NOT seeing the world around us through the filters of our beliefs. Every tree and flower is proof of God's power to a Chrsitian and proof of the complexity and subtlety of nature to an Athiest. Same flower and tree, different filter.
Combine these to factors with a movie that does not make a "this film is about religion X" statement and anyone can use said film project their own faith and glean meaning from it. If you REALLY want to see examples of this, look up some writings about "The Shawshank Redemption".
Is this wrong? I don't know. I find it silly, bit I can't really say that finding wisdom, no matter how unintended, in a film is wrong. I mean, a very good friend of mine found the wisdom to give up wishing for success and actively started to persue his dream after watching "Harold and Maude". Was this silly? Not for him.
As a strugling (and frsutrated writer) I have had people glean meanings from my work that I know damned well I didn't put in.
I did have a point when I started this post...
The basic problem with this is that the brute-force robot is trying to decide the best path through the obsticle course, like an old man trying not to get himself hurt and the small robot is just failing around like a cockroach, blindly trying to get to s cerain point with no consideration for itself or the terrain. It's a lot easier to get from point A to point B with six flailing legs and a complete lack of environemtnal perception.
The issue here is not that the cockroach is smarter. Not at all.
- How would they benefit from this?
- What aspect of their business interests would this serve?
- How does letting people modify their console to play their competitor's products help them?
- Do they get any money from those $10.00 PSX titles?
.ISO's, that's not really true, either.)
I don't see any business case for Microsoft not stomping this into the ground. Hell, they might even get Sony to help them out with this one as the need forThey wouldn't.
None.
It doesn't.
Nope. Sony does. (And since you have to use
Really, I would. You hit teh nail right on the head. Good post.
Not to be a dick or anythingm but who cares? You can get a PSOne for $50.00 (US) almost anywhere. That's less than getting your XBox modded. And you won't have to worry about whether or not the emulator works with any particular game.
Jumping Judas on a pogo stick! How was that flaimbait? A joke? Yes. Not your kind of humor? Quite possibly. But a flame? No.
Stop being so damned twitchy and THINK before you moderate.
I wouldn't classify the post I was replying to as flaimbait, either. But that's me.
No, not really. You are someone who has manged to seperate Wil Wheaton, the actor and human being, from Wesley Crusher, the scourge of mankind, and Satan's sex slave.
I've seen railroad cars converted to diners and small offices. The diners looked pretty cool, but the offices looked like crap. Like "Container Town" from that gawdawful "Highwayman" TV show.
The cruel truth is that younger people will work for less money than older people are willing to accept.
Yes, but the "offending words" were not written by a Slashdot editor, but the submitter. The submitter is under no obligation to be "prefessional" in any way. This is only marginally different than the comments posted by Slashdot readers. And only so if you think the editors should be proofing the submissions.
There are quite a few cost-effective designs for heavy lifters. Once you take the humans out of the picture you can save a LOT of money. The shuttle iis a VERY expensive way to get anything into orbit.
Actually the fear the RIAA had with DATs was making digital copies of CDs on tape, not copies of cassette tapes.