The 30 year old figure is a statistic thrown around a lot without any explantion. How many of these gamers are playing bejweled on their phones? From Costco to Gamestop, what I see are little boys.
She shouldn't have to be working at all! She's probably ringing up hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills. Why make her put in what amounts to a drop in the bucket?
I'm doing the old/. "Joe Sixpack" view. The average person considers video games as the boy equivalent of a barbie doll. It's something you get the little boy for Christmas--and that's it! I'm not saying this is good, but it's the fact. We all have to realize this--especially the ramifications when it comes to parents worried about adult video games.
Sorry, but the number one reason that games are not considered art is that they are thought to be for young people only--in particularly, only boys. It has nothing to do with "commercialism". I'm not saying it is good or bad. Go to your local game store--see how many little boys you see. Chances are, it's a lot more than 50%. Yes, you have some (still male) people in their 20's and 30's who grew up with them.
I remember, just on the radio, how a professional personal ad writer said that an example of an unworthy person is "living in his mom's basement, playing Nintendo". Sorry, but that's the public's view.
Think I came across that in Kevin Kelly's book "out of control". I just remember snickering to myself, thinking that it really should have been an anonymous essay. Broges seemed to want to take a lot of credit for a piece that argued that nobody should really take credit for coming up foo stuff.
Well, your somewhat coherent parts are interesting. You could start with randomness, then you get:
1. There is random. 2. Random makes a random amount of sentients (which may not be even!) 3. Random start a universe. 4. Repeat 3.
But the problem is that a universe made by Random would not have the kind of order we see. You could introduce the anthropic principle here, but still you could have the situation of an Earth with stars that swirl around in the sky all night for no reason.
1. There was love. 2. Love made 2. 3. The 2 made a machine that makes universes. This machine is not sentient, however it can generate randomness. 4. The 2 become the unknown number (maximum sentients possible). This number is even. 5. A universe starts, and then repeats, according to the machine. The laws of physics in the next universe are not necessarily the same.
Now these 2 are NOT man and woman. They are identical, perfect beings. Furthermore, they did not split up into man and woman sentients. It is only our body that has gender. Cats and dogs are sentient too.
You have the anthropomorphic principle built in here. The machine won't make a universe without possibility of life--the 2 would not have programmed it that way. I think there's others out there, but the speed of light hasn't been broken (any may be unbreakable).
Yeesh that's as bad as pop culture. Apparently people over 36 don't matter. Try using Julian Date (it's something like 4000ish BCE). No reference to religion either (yeah, geeks are atheist).
I have a fake birthdate (I'm over 21 anyway, but the real one can be used for identity theft). I also have a fake name and zip code (way away from where I am) handy. I want to correlate a good fake address and phone number for that too. Helps to always use the same thing. I don't see why kids can't do all the same thing.
For one, they gloss over whether they mean floating point operations or "calculations" per second. The article seems to equate a flop with "calculations per second". The flop, of course, came from floating point operation. Even then it's vague--is it single, double or double-extended?
Yes, it's certainly better than the old "megahurts" races. But I think they could come up with something better.
Your reference to Folding@home is just the same hash-cash issue that has been looked at plenty before. Compute time puzzles may work until we have quantum computing.
I'm sure a lot of/.'ers will be doing the same come the next tech downturn. It probably beats cleaning toilets--even if that pays more! It's sad, but true. In the end, it beats panhandling or searching for cans--which may be the only option for an out-of-work programmer.
What's more interesting is that people are falling over themselves to work for a few cents an hour. People with internet access. People who can learn to program. See where this goes?
I'm no longer in a place to implement such a thing (changed jobs), but I still think it has its place (for non-important sites like bulletin boards). Supposedly bright people sometimes get so caught up in what's just "always been done". See decimal, archaic measurements, or QWERTY.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it will do either of those. I'm more worried about lifetime and corrupt bits.
The /. ideals must be upheld!
Come on. For one, it's computer gaming (which obviously trends upwards in age). And, 45? I highly doubt there are a lot of 45 year old gamers.
As for costco and gamestop--I go there all the time after researching on the internet what I want. I don't want to deal with shipping.
Let's see, Hydrogen monoxide and nitrous sulphur? I don't think any of those are even stable. Oh, and you must have expected this reply on /. .
The 30 year old figure is a statistic thrown around a lot without any explantion. How many of these gamers are playing bejweled on their phones? From Costco to Gamestop, what I see are little boys.
She shouldn't have to be working at all! She's probably ringing up hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills. Why make her put in what amounts to a drop in the bucket?
Look, it's just a fact. I'm kind of annoyed I ended up with 2 nieces--I'll have to really push video games onto them. Boys soak it up automatically.
I'm afraid, to Joe Sixpack, comic books are what you buy your growing boy when you get "Seventeen" for your growing girl.
I'm doing the old /. "Joe Sixpack" view. The average person considers video games as the boy equivalent of a barbie doll. It's something you get the little boy for Christmas--and that's it! I'm not saying this is good, but it's the fact. We all have to realize this--especially the ramifications when it comes to parents worried about adult video games.
Nope, not to most. To most, Shakespeare is art. Kids don't like Shakespeare!
Sorry, but the number one reason that games are not considered art is that they are thought to be for young people only--in particularly, only boys. It has nothing to do with "commercialism". I'm not saying it is good or bad. Go to your local game store--see how many little boys you see. Chances are, it's a lot more than 50%. Yes, you have some (still male) people in their 20's and 30's who grew up with them.
I remember, just on the radio, how a professional personal ad writer said that an example of an unworthy person is "living in his mom's basement, playing Nintendo". Sorry, but that's the public's view.
Without fail, the "I'm gonna lose karma" gain karma. Oh, and I want FLAC. Does that make your head spin?
Karma's hard to earn, y'know!
Think I came across that in Kevin Kelly's book "out of control". I just remember snickering to myself, thinking that it really should have been an anonymous essay. Broges seemed to want to take a lot of credit for a piece that argued that nobody should really take credit for coming up foo stuff.
Infinite sentients? I do have infinite, in that I have 4--Goto 3.
Well, your somewhat coherent parts are interesting. You could start with randomness, then you get:
1. There is random.
2. Random makes a random amount of sentients (which may not be even!)
3. Random start a universe.
4. Repeat 3.
But the problem is that a universe made by Random would not have the kind of order we see. You could introduce the anthropic principle here, but still you could have the situation of an Earth with stars that swirl around in the sky all night for no reason.
Ah yeah, was in a bit of a rush to get eyeballs. "Fits" my hyopthesis is a bit better.
Here's what I've been kicking around:
1. There was love.
2. Love made 2.
3. The 2 made a machine that makes universes. This machine is not sentient, however it can generate randomness.
4. The 2 become the unknown number (maximum sentients possible). This number is even.
5. A universe starts, and then repeats, according to the machine. The laws of physics in the next universe are not necessarily the same.
Now these 2 are NOT man and woman. They are identical, perfect beings. Furthermore, they did not split up into man and woman sentients. It is only our body that has gender. Cats and dogs are sentient too.
You have the anthropomorphic principle built in here. The machine won't make a universe without possibility of life--the 2 would not have programmed it that way. I think there's others out there, but the speed of light hasn't been broken (any may be unbreakable).
Yeesh that's as bad as pop culture. Apparently people over 36 don't matter. Try using Julian Date (it's something like 4000ish BCE). No reference to religion either (yeah, geeks are atheist).
I have a fake birthdate (I'm over 21 anyway, but the real one can be used for identity theft). I also have a fake name and zip code (way away from where I am) handy. I want to correlate a good fake address and phone number for that too. Helps to always use the same thing. I don't see why kids can't do all the same thing.
For one, they gloss over whether they mean floating point operations or "calculations" per second. The article seems to equate a flop with "calculations per second". The flop, of course, came from floating point operation. Even then it's vague--is it single, double or double-extended?
Yes, it's certainly better than the old "megahurts" races. But I think they could come up with something better.
Your reference to Folding@home is just the same hash-cash issue that has been looked at plenty before. Compute time puzzles may work until we have quantum computing.
I'm sure a lot of /.'ers will be doing the same come the next tech downturn. It probably beats cleaning toilets--even if that pays more! It's sad, but true. In the end, it beats panhandling or searching for cans--which may be the only option for an out-of-work programmer.
What's more interesting is that people are falling over themselves to work for a few cents an hour. People with internet access. People who can learn to program. See where this goes?
I'm no longer in a place to implement such a thing (changed jobs), but I still think it has its place (for non-important sites like bulletin boards). Supposedly bright people sometimes get so caught up in what's just "always been done". See decimal, archaic measurements, or QWERTY.