Yes, the whole "I'd kill them and dump the body for stealing from me" thing is kind of ridiculous- certainly if you were really going to do that, you wouldn't set a precedent by talking about it online!
I agree that this sentiment is foolishness. Most likely the person who expresses it is merely frustrated and if granted the power of life or death over the criminal would not exercise it.
But I worry - if we all went around saying such things then we would generate a society that moves closer to those values. Before long, someone would actually do it and we would have to reconcile the rule of law to our expressed value of vigilante justice - as well as the concept of the punishment fitting the crime.
So while some may roll their eyes when others express "no you shouldn't go and kill them" as an overreaction to a statement not made in seriousness, I feel that it needs to be done. A vigilante reaction like this would be wholely inappropriate. It should not be condoned. Even as a victim, your passion must be restrained. "I was angry over the injustice that I had suffered" does not excuse you from responsibility, judgement, or the law. That is the rule of law.
I sometimes feel that this needs to be expressed to overly vengeful people.
Is this true? I'm a dude and I neither write nor read fanfic, so I guess it's possible. Given that there are a fair number of males writing original fiction I would sorta expect there to be a population of male fanfic amateurs. The Phantom Edit (the closest thing to fanfic present in my version of the popular consciousness) was done by a dude, right? That's basically a version of fanfic, isn't it?
The tone of the article seems to be 'by-women-for-women'. I'm not saying that fanfic isn't female dominated, but is there some actual source for this apart from Mary McNamera's assertion?
I'm afraid this discussion is splitting into two subsections. Thankfully, text allows us to keep them separate.
- Political, religious, cultural and economic systems are the way they are because they are made up of (seemingly) random elements- that whole free will thing you were talking about- that fit themselves into a given climate, not at all unlike random mutation affecting DNA in a survival of the fittest situaiton. It's still a soft science, because as we all know, random events don't really exist- they only seem to because we don't have all the information needed to predict them.
I will agree that human social organizations evolve. I'll even grant you that our understandings of them evolve as we refine our conceptual models. That is how all human understanding works - we address a situation where we have incomplete understanding and slowly pick out errors and correct them. How is this a reaction to an infinite universe, and why did you bring up the infinite universe thing? How does the infinite universe relate to these being soft sciences? You suggest they are soft sciences because they employ the concept of randomness as a crutch?
- Math and high energy physics aren't exactly hard science yet
Ah, as so many disagreements show themselves to be, I think we have a mismatch of definitions here. I'm always happy to find this, as it is typically the root of the misunderstanding. If math and high energy physics aren't hard sciences, then what do you consider hard science to be?
This definition specifically includes physics, which I take as a superset of cosmology. We could debate on math, I suppose, but the point I'm getting at here is about cosmology.
There's more to it than that- both sociology and political science are also evolutionary- which means they are mankind's reaction to an infinite universe.
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. Sociology and PolySci are both the study of (Soilent Green! It's) people. I don't understand what you mean when you say they are evolutionary. I don't understand how one may translate calling them evolutionary into saying they are the reaction to an infinite universe. Finally (skipping the evolutionary term) I don't understand how studying people is a reaction to an infinite universe. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just not understanding you. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
And I'd suggest that if you're studying *ANYTHING* only in the classroom and the lab, you've missed the entire point of the philosophy of science.
I don't mean to suggest that the philosophy of science is useless. I mean to suggest that cosmology is a hard science. Perhaps if your knowledge of cosmology is based on coffee shop talk and a good NOVA special you might conclude that cosmology is a 'soft science'. Goodness knows, I've heard a number of wide-eyed youths discuss the matter in breathless what-ifs. As fluffy (and cool and entertaining) as that sort of talk is it may sound like 'soft science' talk. But if you trace that stuff backwards, it's not made up by more people in coffee shops. It's made up by people doing work in relativity and astronomy and high energy physics. Math, telescopes, math, particle accelerators, math and math. These people are doing hard science.
A highly entertaining DVD is this one. But though it is about science, it is not itself science.
And the reason it's a soft science is similar to the reason why sociology or philosophy is a soft science- we're finite beings searching for infinite answers. There's a serious mismatch between our ability to comprehend and the size of what we're trying to comprehend.
Sociology, Political Science, and such are 'soft sciences' because they study mankind, which is inherently illogical. This isn't to say that there isn't cause and effect to be investigated, but 'free will' sorta screws up a purely mechanical theory of sociology.
Cosmology, on the other hand actually is a hard science. If you think of it as the intersection of philosophy, math, astronomy and religion (as opposed to math, math, math, and astronomy) I would suggest that it is perhaps because you studied it more in a coffee house and less in a classroom...
Many people enjoy asking if God plays dice with the universe or what is the status of Schroedinger's cat. There is a propensity to mistake these "philosophy of science" questions for the actual science itself.
Actually, whenever I see someone with a car similar to mine I feel a somewhat absurd kinship to them. I like my car and feel that other people with similar cars share my aesthetic and understanding of what is cool.
Every guy who buys a land barge drives it around feeling like the Big Man About Town, but to everyone else on the street he's either invisible or just a dickhead who doesn't give a rat's ass about the environmental cost of what he's doing.
So I would actually assume that all the other land barge guys are like 'hey, a kindred spirit!' Don't underestimate this, belonging to a social group is important.
For those looking for a chance to expand their knowledge of female anatomy, the closest encounters I have had with female anatomy have been almost 100% indoors.
. . . (continued) 2016 - NASA management: Launch it NOW. And get the hell out of OUR workshop. We need to use it for other projects. And you're over budget again! Wrap it up ASAP before the politicians have to close all of NASA!!:( 2017 - The telescope launches and malfunctions. The telescop predicts fault in the AE-35 unit, and reccomends replacement. The AE-35 is found not to be at fault. NASA management (in EVA pod) - Let's shut down the telescope's higher functions.
Telescope: How are you gentlemen !! Telescope: All your base are belong to us. Telescope: You are on the way to destruction. NASA management: What you say !! Telescope: You have no chance to survive make your time. Telescope: Ha Ha Ha Ha.... NASA Engineers: Management !! * NASA management: Take off every 'Zig' !! NASA management: You know what you doing. NASA management: Move 'Zig'. NASA management: For great justice.
Hollywood is totally about draining every last cent from anything that can be seen to have any potential. They won't stop. Ever. Until all love for the franchise is dead.
Separate thought here. I wonder if it would prove fruitful to build a mental model of cultural properties something like this:
Audience Adoration = Potential Energy Cash = Kinetic Energy
One can be converted to the other - with losses. But if you want to increase one without decreasing the other you need to add work to the system. Hmmm, maybe that doesn't provide any useful insight.
It doesn't seem wise, to me, to convert all of your Audience Adoration into Cash, EVERY TIME, and leave only the husks of entertainment ideas in your wake. Can we build an accessable mental model that explains why Hollywood types shouldn't convert every well regarded property into easy cash?
Hollywood is totally about draining every last cent from anything that can be seen to have any potential. They won't stop. Ever. Until all love for the franchise is dead.
That being said, the conception of the terminator universe is still fertile, I think. Creative and productive people with a clear vision unfettered by corporate BS could probably do something pretty cool with the property. We've seen, as with LotR, if a company is staking it's existence on a property they can potentially realize that they need to work on making it good rather than making it profitable.
That being said, mention of a TV series does not give me much hope. =(
I hope that some game dev is reading this, because I am presenting you with the freaking FUTURE.
I was playing city of heroes with friends a while back. We were all hanging on to CoH to see what city of villans looked like. After it came out they dropped CoH for WoW. I quit MMOs entirely. I started out really excited about CoV, but as I learned more about it, I lost interest.
When they first announced CoV I thought 'oh man, this could be sweet!' Build a base! Fight heroes! I was expecting to build a gang of mobs that I could herd around the city... recruit more mobs on a street corner (all those mobs standing around on soapboxes, attracting recruits, yeah let me do that!)... then set up an ambush! Hmmm have my lvl 4 grunts start mugging an old lady on the street, and then I can have my lvl 6 heavies ready just around the corner! When some low lvl do-gooder thinks he's gonna break up my mugging POW! One dead hero. Then there's special quests to recruit extra special mobs, or getting enough mobs to set up multiple crimes simultaneously. Do I, as a criminal mastermind, go for lots of mooks, or a few very special badasses? Then there's money to be made from the muggings and bank robberies and putting teams together to pull these capers, and I can get all my dudes addicted to drugs, but what effect does that have on my gang REALLY?, and AI settings for my mobs so they can wreak havoc even when I'm not logged in! This could be SimGang and it could be totally rad! I was stoked.
Eventually it became clear that CoV was going to be re-skinned CoH. Why bother? Everyone who wanted to play CoH was already playing CoH. CoV's only opportunity was market cannibalism.
This brings me to my point ('Finally!' you think). What I want to see is one gamespace with multiple interaction models. A battlefield game with a tank game, a FPS and a flight simulator! All around the same virtual WW2 Europe! Or... Korean penninsula... Or a city with SimGangs and FPS Heros. Or a paper route with FPS angry dogs and driving-sim bicycle paperboys. Or a CTF team of FPS players vs. a RTS commander on the other side. Or a group of FPS players WITH a RTS commander!
Or whatever. The interaction of the multiple different games creates an emergent game experience. That emergent experience is content that you - the game maker - don't have to create. Groups of identical players will never be able to generate an emergent experience with the depth possible for multiple clients existing in the same space. It would make other MMOs look like playing Street Fighter 2 but with Ken as the only fighter available. Variety is the spice! Rich emergent gameplay means less grinding.
Multiple game engines interacting in the same game-space is the way of the future.
If BillG says 'That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft' every time, to every body - and assuming that this was not the first time I'd presented to BillG - I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of "So my idea from last week is starting to look a lot better, huh?"
cells use what energy is available to them, they also have backup systems of sorts that prevent non-essential reactions from killing the cell [metabolic feedback] too much or too little of a substrate affects reactions like this: suppose a brain cell runs low on ATP [energy currancy] it shuts down anything but what it needs to live, in this case fewer electrical impulses which also means brain shutdown as a whole. shutting down brain function is preferrable to "death" from a cell's point of view. These cells don't just die instantaneously, they live on and switch to using anaerobic pathways that make energy without air, these can be distrupted by addition to oxygen, in fact cell processes grind to a halt when metabolic processes need to change. during that time RNA is transcribed for the needed enzymes and protein synthesis takes precedant.
.... shortly after this point the person revives as a ZOMBIE!!!OONE!
I see a lot of people on here argue that correlation is not causation.
Perhaps that is really how they feel, and is the argument they truely mean to make.
Another argument is that this is a personal freedom issue. Games may statistically increase violence among the population, but the authorities can not curb a persons right to play video games if they have not yet done anything wrong.
I feel like the correlation / causation argument is based on a technicality. When those who would restrict our freedoms find a logical way through this stumbling block* then what will you say?
* I guess I believe that seeing enough realistic violence actually does conceptually prepare you to see it in reality, and may improve your functioning in the case of a violent event. If you are the one instigating violence then one may say that your capacity for violence has been increased. If, however, you are witnessing another's violence you may be better prepared for it as well, at least in the short term.
After the rectification of the Vuldranai the traveler took the form of a large, moving Tor. Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the meketrek supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a giant Sloar! Many Shubbs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.
You can see the remnants of it this sort of thing in ancient myth. Hephaestus was the god of the forge. One may think that at one point he was highly respected, for he got to marry Aphrodite who we know as a goddess of beauty. Earlier, she was likely a goddess of fertility - high rank indeed among early figures. But his high value did not hold - he was cuckolded, and in myth was rendered as ugly and lame.
Those who create are held in esteem, but when the creation is done their value dissipates.
Perhaps one may see parallels among math and sciences.
I got this from a paper I read on the 'net about prehistory based on ancient greek myth. It was pretty cool, but I forget exactly where it was.
I was thinking specifically of this quote, regarding the JGTC GT500 Xanavi 350Z:
GT500 cars generate up to 2.3 sustained g and peak as high as 3.0g on some courses in Japan. In this environment the Z's could only muster 1.9g.
from here:
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0504_sc c_nissan_350z/index1.html
Let's give you the benefit of counting the Earth's gravity toward what you are feeling in your car on the skidpad. So you've got 1g straight down plus a lateral component N, and the total is 2.25.
The vectors form a right triangle, so a^2 + b^2 = c^2, right?
Sports cars with special tires pull lateral around 1.0 G. Formula 1 cars and other extreme ground effects cars pull 2 g and more, but most people are never in one of those.
So, either 1) I've screwed up my physics 2) You've got a very uncommon car 3) Even adding regular gravity to what you can pull on a skidpad, you're maxing out your automotive G's closer to sqrt(2) = ~1.4
Well, that was fun. BTW, I agree with your point. 2.25G wouldn't kill us, tho I bet it would greatly reduce the lifespan of one's knees, hips and back. Certainly SOMETHING could live there tho. Probably alien warrior badasses who, should they come to Earth, could jump 50 feet and throw cars around like they were toys. That'd be cool, apart from how much it would suck. Hopefully we could get them hooked on television.
Are any of you out there using the SilverStone EB01 USB DAC? What do you think of it? I'm quite enjoying it. But I don't go around buying $100 usb soundgear willy-nilly, so I'm not sure how it stacks up to other similar products. I can say that it is a revelation compared to my cheap-as-possible prior computer sound solutions. Also, it draws enough juice that I had to mod a USB cable and drop in a 5v supply on the power wires. It was crashing my USB subsystem with too much current draw.
Once you step up to $150 or $200 for your dac there are many options, but this one gets a thumbs up from me at the ~$80 price point. (I found mine at newegg) Better bass - tighter, more tuneful, greater depth. Smoother sound over all - less fatiguing, more liquid. But what I noticed most was a much greater seperation and resolution of sounds. Each note retained a separate charecter much further down into the noise floor. But this is compared to very cheap computer sound gear - for a long time I had written off quality PC audio. So I'm interested to hear what opinions others might have developed of this bit of hardware.
I've seen a number of reviews of it online, but was unable to find anything any more audiophile than 'the drivers worked, and it sounds better than my integrated audio.' I use it with a pair of DIY Cyburgs Needle speakers with the TB W3-871 driver and a modified SI t-amp. Quite pleasing overall, but of course I can't stop here...
My only question is, have they solved the lifespan issue? IIRC, OLEDs deteriorate faster than LCD, don't they?
This is also my question. What I've heard in the past, the 'blue' oleds had a lifetime only a fraction of the other color elements. So over time your picture shifts away from blue. Not a problem in phone screens - phones only last a couple years anyway. =\
It seems to me that TV's are more expensive and they have a shorter lifetime than in the past. Anyone else notice this?
Slashdot Mirror
Well we all know statistics show that most accidents happen within five trillion miles of home. It's easy to get careless.
Yes, the whole "I'd kill them and dump the body for stealing from me" thing is kind of ridiculous- certainly if you were really going to do that, you wouldn't set a precedent by talking about it online!
I agree that this sentiment is foolishness. Most likely the person who expresses it is merely frustrated and if granted the power of life or death over the criminal would not exercise it.
But I worry - if we all went around saying such things then we would generate a society that moves closer to those values. Before long, someone would actually do it and we would have to reconcile the rule of law to our expressed value of vigilante justice - as well as the concept of the punishment fitting the crime.
So while some may roll their eyes when others express "no you shouldn't go and kill them" as an overreaction to a statement not made in seriousness, I feel that it needs to be done. A vigilante reaction like this would be wholely inappropriate. It should not be condoned. Even as a victim, your passion must be restrained. "I was angry over the injustice that I had suffered" does not excuse you from responsibility, judgement, or the law. That is the rule of law.
I sometimes feel that this needs to be expressed to overly vengeful people.
we must outlaws Powerpoint
as in "Iz in yer wh1th0us3, outlawsing yer fr33d0ms!"
?
Bear of Vecna? Cut off your own bear and attach this one for magical powers!
Alt-reality games sound cool, but it seems to me that they require a lot of dedication to take part in. Would you say this is true?
Is this true? I'm a dude and I neither write nor read fanfic, so I guess it's possible. Given that there are a fair number of males writing original fiction I would sorta expect there to be a population of male fanfic amateurs. The Phantom Edit (the closest thing to fanfic present in my version of the popular consciousness) was done by a dude, right? That's basically a version of fanfic, isn't it?
The tone of the article seems to be 'by-women-for-women'. I'm not saying that fanfic isn't female dominated, but is there some actual source for this apart from Mary McNamera's assertion?
I'm afraid this discussion is splitting into two subsections. Thankfully, text allows us to keep them separate.
- Political, religious, cultural and economic systems are the way they are because they are made up of (seemingly) random elements- that whole free will thing you were talking about- that fit themselves into a given climate, not at all unlike random mutation affecting DNA in a survival of the fittest situaiton. It's still a soft science, because as we all know, random events don't really exist- they only seem to because we don't have all the information needed to predict them.
I will agree that human social organizations evolve. I'll even grant you that our understandings of them evolve as we refine our conceptual models. That is how all human understanding works - we address a situation where we have incomplete understanding and slowly pick out errors and correct them. How is this a reaction to an infinite universe, and why did you bring up the infinite universe thing? How does the infinite universe relate to these being soft sciences? You suggest they are soft sciences because they employ the concept of randomness as a crutch?
- Math and high energy physics aren't exactly hard science yet
Ah, as so many disagreements show themselves to be, I think we have a mismatch of definitions here. I'm always happy to find this, as it is typically the root of the misunderstanding. If math and high energy physics aren't hard sciences, then what do you consider hard science to be?
Here's one definition for you: Hard science is a term used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences, usually physics, geology, chemistry, and many fields of biology. The hard sciences rely on experimental, quantifiable data or the scientific method and focus on accuracy and objectivity. The hard sciences are often contrasted with soft sciences, which by contrast have less rigor.
This definition specifically includes physics, which I take as a superset of cosmology. We could debate on math, I suppose, but the point I'm getting at here is about cosmology.
There's more to it than that- both sociology and political science are also evolutionary- which means they are mankind's reaction to an infinite universe.
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. Sociology and PolySci are both the study of (Soilent Green! It's) people. I don't understand what you mean when you say they are evolutionary. I don't understand how one may translate calling them evolutionary into saying they are the reaction to an infinite universe. Finally (skipping the evolutionary term) I don't understand how studying people is a reaction to an infinite universe. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just not understanding you. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
And I'd suggest that if you're studying *ANYTHING* only in the classroom and the lab, you've missed the entire point of the philosophy of science.
I don't mean to suggest that the philosophy of science is useless. I mean to suggest that cosmology is a hard science. Perhaps if your knowledge of cosmology is based on coffee shop talk and a good NOVA special you might conclude that cosmology is a 'soft science'. Goodness knows, I've heard a number of wide-eyed youths discuss the matter in breathless what-ifs. As fluffy (and cool and entertaining) as that sort of talk is it may sound like 'soft science' talk. But if you trace that stuff backwards, it's not made up by more people in coffee shops. It's made up by people doing work in relativity and astronomy and high energy physics. Math, telescopes, math, particle accelerators, math and math. These people are doing hard science.
A highly entertaining DVD is this one. But though it is about science, it is not itself science.
Agreed.
Respectfully, I must disagree.
And the reason it's a soft science is similar to the reason why sociology or philosophy is a soft science- we're finite beings searching for infinite answers. There's a serious mismatch between our ability to comprehend and the size of what we're trying to comprehend.
Sociology, Political Science, and such are 'soft sciences' because they study mankind, which is inherently illogical. This isn't to say that there isn't cause and effect to be investigated, but 'free will' sorta screws up a purely mechanical theory of sociology.
Cosmology, on the other hand actually is a hard science. If you think of it as the intersection of philosophy, math, astronomy and religion (as opposed to math, math, math, and astronomy) I would suggest that it is perhaps because you studied it more in a coffee house and less in a classroom...
Many people enjoy asking if God plays dice with the universe or what is the status of Schroedinger's cat. There is a propensity to mistake these "philosophy of science" questions for the actual science itself.
Actually, whenever I see someone with a car similar to mine I feel a somewhat absurd kinship to them. I like my car and feel that other people with similar cars share my aesthetic and understanding of what is cool.
Every guy who buys a land barge drives it around feeling like the Big Man About Town, but to everyone else on the street he's either invisible or just a dickhead who doesn't give a rat's ass about the environmental cost of what he's doing.
So I would actually assume that all the other land barge guys are like 'hey, a kindred spirit!' Don't underestimate this, belonging to a social group is important.
For those looking for a chance to expand their knowledge of female anatomy, the closest encounters I have had with female anatomy have been almost 100% indoors.
. . . (continued) :(
....
2016 - NASA management: Launch it NOW. And get the hell out of OUR workshop. We need to use it for other projects. And you're over budget again! Wrap it up ASAP before the politicians have to close all of NASA!!
2017 - The telescope launches and malfunctions. The telescop predicts fault in the AE-35 unit, and reccomends replacement. The AE-35 is found not to be at fault.
NASA management (in EVA pod) - Let's shut down the telescope's higher functions.
Telescope: How are you gentlemen !!
Telescope: All your base are belong to us.
Telescope: You are on the way to destruction.
NASA management: What you say !!
Telescope: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Telescope: Ha Ha Ha Ha
NASA Engineers: Management !! *
NASA management: Take off every 'Zig' !!
NASA management: You know what you doing.
NASA management: Move 'Zig'.
NASA management: For great justice.
Congress: We're totally not funding every Zig.
Hollywood is totally about draining every last cent from anything that can be seen to have any potential. They won't stop. Ever. Until all love for the franchise is dead.
Separate thought here. I wonder if it would prove fruitful to build a mental model of cultural properties something like this:
Audience Adoration = Potential Energy
Cash = Kinetic Energy
One can be converted to the other - with losses. But if you want to increase one without decreasing the other you need to add work to the system. Hmmm, maybe that doesn't provide any useful insight.
It doesn't seem wise, to me, to convert all of your Audience Adoration into Cash, EVERY TIME, and leave only the husks of entertainment ideas in your wake. Can we build an accessable mental model that explains why Hollywood types shouldn't convert every well regarded property into easy cash?
Hollywood is totally about draining every last cent from anything that can be seen to have any potential. They won't stop. Ever. Until all love for the franchise is dead.
That being said, the conception of the terminator universe is still fertile, I think. Creative and productive people with a clear vision unfettered by corporate BS could probably do something pretty cool with the property. We've seen, as with LotR, if a company is staking it's existence on a property they can potentially realize that they need to work on making it good rather than making it profitable.
That being said, mention of a TV series does not give me much hope. =(
WE WAN'T OR!
I'm struggling with your use of the apostrophe here. What does 'wa not' mean?
I hope that some game dev is reading this, because I am presenting you with the freaking FUTURE.
I was playing city of heroes with friends a while back. We were all hanging on to CoH to see what city of villans looked like. After it came out they dropped CoH for WoW. I quit MMOs entirely. I started out really excited about CoV, but as I learned more about it, I lost interest.
When they first announced CoV I thought 'oh man, this could be sweet!' Build a base! Fight heroes! I was expecting to build a gang of mobs that I could herd around the city... recruit more mobs on a street corner (all those mobs standing around on soapboxes, attracting recruits, yeah let me do that!)... then set up an ambush! Hmmm have my lvl 4 grunts start mugging an old lady on the street, and then I can have my lvl 6 heavies ready just around the corner! When some low lvl do-gooder thinks he's gonna break up my mugging POW! One dead hero. Then there's special quests to recruit extra special mobs, or getting enough mobs to set up multiple crimes simultaneously. Do I, as a criminal mastermind, go for lots of mooks, or a few very special badasses? Then there's money to be made from the muggings and bank robberies and putting teams together to pull these capers, and I can get all my dudes addicted to drugs, but what effect does that have on my gang REALLY?, and AI settings for my mobs so they can wreak havoc even when I'm not logged in! This could be SimGang and it could be totally rad! I was stoked.
Eventually it became clear that CoV was going to be re-skinned CoH. Why bother? Everyone who wanted to play CoH was already playing CoH. CoV's only opportunity was market cannibalism.
This brings me to my point ('Finally!' you think). What I want to see is one gamespace with multiple interaction models. A battlefield game with a tank game, a FPS and a flight simulator! All around the same virtual WW2 Europe! Or... Korean penninsula... Or a city with SimGangs and FPS Heros. Or a paper route with FPS angry dogs and driving-sim bicycle paperboys. Or a CTF team of FPS players vs. a RTS commander on the other side. Or a group of FPS players WITH a RTS commander!
Or whatever. The interaction of the multiple different games creates an emergent game experience. That emergent experience is content that you - the game maker - don't have to create. Groups of identical players will never be able to generate an emergent experience with the depth possible for multiple clients existing in the same space. It would make other MMOs look like playing Street Fighter 2 but with Ken as the only fighter available. Variety is the spice! Rich emergent gameplay means less grinding.
Multiple game engines interacting in the same game-space is the way of the future.
Do this, and don't forget to cite me! IRTLUHC!
If BillG says 'That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft' every time, to every body - and assuming that this was not the first time I'd presented to BillG - I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of "So my idea from last week is starting to look a lot better, huh?"
cells use what energy is available to them, they also have backup systems of sorts that prevent non-essential reactions from killing the cell [metabolic feedback] too much or too little of a substrate affects reactions like this: suppose a brain cell runs low on ATP [energy currancy] it shuts down anything but what it needs to live, in this case fewer electrical impulses which also means brain shutdown as a whole. shutting down brain function is preferrable to "death" from a cell's point of view. These cells don't just die instantaneously, they live on and switch to using anaerobic pathways that make energy without air, these can be distrupted by addition to oxygen, in fact cell processes grind to a halt when metabolic processes need to change. during that time RNA is transcribed for the needed enzymes and protein synthesis takes precedant.
... shortly after this point the person revives as a ZOMBIE!!!OONE!
.
IT'S 10:00 - DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR MACHETE IS?
CREATE A ZOMBIE ATTACK PLAN TODAY!
I see a lot of people on here argue that correlation is not causation.
Perhaps that is really how they feel, and is the argument they truely mean to make.
Another argument is that this is a personal freedom issue. Games may statistically increase violence among the population, but the authorities can not curb a persons right to play video games if they have not yet done anything wrong.
I feel like the correlation / causation argument is based on a technicality. When those who would restrict our freedoms find a logical way through this stumbling block* then what will you say?
* I guess I believe that seeing enough realistic violence actually does conceptually prepare you to see it in reality, and may improve your functioning in the case of a violent event. If you are the one instigating violence then one may say that your capacity for violence has been increased. If, however, you are witnessing another's violence you may be better prepared for it as well, at least in the short term.
After the rectification of the Vuldranai the traveler took the form of a large, moving Tor. Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the meketrek supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a giant Sloar! Many Shubbs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.
You can see the remnants of it this sort of thing in ancient myth. Hephaestus was the god of the forge. One may think that at one point he was highly respected, for he got to marry Aphrodite who we know as a goddess of beauty. Earlier, she was likely a goddess of fertility - high rank indeed among early figures. But his high value did not hold - he was cuckolded, and in myth was rendered as ugly and lame.
Those who create are held in esteem, but when the creation is done their value dissipates.
Perhaps one may see parallels among math and sciences.
I got this from a paper I read on the 'net about prehistory based on ancient greek myth. It was pretty cool, but I forget exactly where it was.
I was thinking specifically of this quote, regarding the JGTC GT500 Xanavi 350Z: GT500 cars generate up to 2.3 sustained g and peak as high as 3.0g on some courses in Japan. In this environment the Z's could only muster 1.9g. from here: http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0504_sc c_nissan_350z/index1.html
WARNING: PEDANTIC
Do you really pull 2.25g in your car?
Let's give you the benefit of counting the Earth's gravity toward what you are feeling in your car on the skidpad. So you've got 1g straight down plus a lateral component N, and the total is 2.25.
The vectors form a right triangle, so a^2 + b^2 = c^2, right?
a = 1, b=N, c= 2.25
a^2 = 1, b^2 = N^2, c^2 = 5.0625
1 + N^2 = 5.0625
N^2 = 4.0625
N = 4.0625^.5 = ~2.01
Sports cars with special tires pull lateral around 1.0 G. Formula 1 cars and other extreme ground effects cars pull 2 g and more, but most people are never in one of those.
So, either
1) I've screwed up my physics
2) You've got a very uncommon car
3) Even adding regular gravity to what you can pull on a skidpad, you're maxing out your automotive G's closer to sqrt(2) = ~1.4
Well, that was fun. BTW, I agree with your point. 2.25G wouldn't kill us, tho I bet it would greatly reduce the lifespan of one's knees, hips and back. Certainly SOMETHING could live there tho. Probably alien warrior badasses who, should they come to Earth, could jump 50 feet and throw cars around like they were toys. That'd be cool, apart from how much it would suck. Hopefully we could get them hooked on television.
Are any of you out there using the SilverStone EB01 USB DAC? What do you think of it? I'm quite enjoying it. But I don't go around buying $100 usb soundgear willy-nilly, so I'm not sure how it stacks up to other similar products. I can say that it is a revelation compared to my cheap-as-possible prior computer sound solutions. Also, it draws enough juice that I had to mod a USB cable and drop in a 5v supply on the power wires. It was crashing my USB subsystem with too much current draw.
Once you step up to $150 or $200 for your dac there are many options, but this one gets a thumbs up from me at the ~$80 price point. (I found mine at newegg) Better bass - tighter, more tuneful, greater depth. Smoother sound over all - less fatiguing, more liquid. But what I noticed most was a much greater seperation and resolution of sounds. Each note retained a separate charecter much further down into the noise floor. But this is compared to very cheap computer sound gear - for a long time I had written off quality PC audio. So I'm interested to hear what opinions others might have developed of this bit of hardware.
I've seen a number of reviews of it online, but was unable to find anything any more audiophile than 'the drivers worked, and it sounds better than my integrated audio.' I use it with a pair of DIY Cyburgs Needle speakers with the TB W3-871 driver and a modified SI t-amp. Quite pleasing overall, but of course I can't stop here...
My only question is, have they solved the lifespan issue? IIRC, OLEDs deteriorate faster than LCD, don't they?
This is also my question. What I've heard in the past, the 'blue' oleds had a lifetime only a fraction of the other color elements. So over time your picture shifts away from blue. Not a problem in phone screens - phones only last a couple years anyway. =\
It seems to me that TV's are more expensive and they have a shorter lifetime than in the past. Anyone else notice this?
(still watching 10 year old 27" CRT)
A