Nexus

Don't you think you'd be rolling around in the grass like a screaming Italian after getting hammered in the head by a knee, cut in the neck by an elbow, or socked in the face repeatedly? The Italians got their act together in those last 2 minutes, and that's all that mattered. 2-0.

I think it's a matter of sample size, much like in polling.

It's not uncommon for East Asians to be short. Anyway, very attractive lass by Asian or Western standards.

Self-replicating, self-directed organic computers?

Now, assuming this works and it sounds reasonable - individuals with multiple negative mutations being "weeded out" - what's the implications in mankind's future where medical science has become advanced enough to save those negative epistasis(es?) and have them reasonably healthy and able to pass on their genes? By the way, here's another bone to contemplate before closing: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The mixing of genes (crossovers and recombination) creates potential for individuals with collections of good copies of genes and bad copies of genes. There'll still be a bell-curve regarding the distribution of quality and number of mutations, of course, but creating individuals who can "concentrate" the mutations, as the article suggests, and getting rid of them, via natural selection, in a few generations, is beneficial to a group/population. (Not good for that individual. In a way, it's like death by a thousand pinpricks.) Deadly mutations will likely eliminate themselves quickly. However, if this theory is right, you can take less beneficial mutations and also clear the population of them. With humankind, it might be a gradual spread of not-so-great mutations through the gene pool, but one has to also keep in mind there are several other mechanisms and barriers which are in place, like miscarriage or other health problems/disasters that might catch an individual before treatment is possible. Hard to say. Also, infectious diseases are always a reality, and those are another powerful arm of natural selection. Natural selection will never go away entirely. Increasing survival rates can lead to higher populations and more crowding, which would favor infectious disease and higher mortality rates.

I'm coming into this conversation quite a few weeks late (since I don't check this board much, except when friends recommend a link). I think Gromnir has a point, but faults Tolkien a little much. Tolkien's style may not have much to offer, but his world, its events, and its mythic resonance do. Academians and scientists typically have poor, abstract, or wordy writing. It's rampant in 19th and 20th century works by British academians-turned-authors as well as a few holdovers (like China Mieville). While I agree that character is not the essence of good literature, I think it comes down more to a matter of artistic intentions or purpose (as you discuss) and what can be worked within, or prompted, by the limitations of the genre (for example, noticeable differences in types of dialogue between novels, plays, short stories, etc., limitations that often dictate how certain elements must adapt). I see it more as Tolkien's world, Middle Earth, is the main character of his novels. The characters serve not so much as personages as devices to explore the history, geography, struggles, and lore of Middle Earth. In some ways, Tolkien's books remind me of dry, but lovely, travel guides to Middle Earth. Less important are the travelers than the land well traveled. There are the echoes of Middle Earth, those impressions in memory, which linger once the journey is done. While I am an avid fan of Wolfe, I don't believe that any of these authors, excepting Martin, "dominate the imaginative genres." More fantasy readers are familiar with Tolkien, Goodkind, Brooks, Eddings, or Jordan. (And I dislike Mieville. He has no concept of plot or character, leaving sub-plots and characters a-dangling. His prose is questionable as well.) The "traditional distinction," or traditional dichotomy, between high-brow and low-brow (popular) entertainment is not so traditional as you might think. The Iliad and Odyssey, long regarded as examples of "high literature," are themselves the products of popular entertainment. Regarded well by both the mighty and masses in their day. It seems to me a false dichotomy. A better approach might be general social group preference, which can be demonstrated for a wide variety of genres and forms. (In particular, I am thinking of Japanese theatre: noh, kabuki, bunraku, etc., which all had different audiences in different social groups. There are many other examples from other cultures.) There are significant movements in an independent game scene. Please read Gamasutra, RPGDOT, or any of a number of game sites or talk to game developers to get a sense of it. It is still small, but events like the Independent Game Festival are good vital signs of something more.

JE, have you read any good books or manuals on fencing?

Orson Scott Card is a good author. I read the original Ender trilogy and Hart's Hope. Good stuff. His fiction writing books are also top notch.

Cool, another person who has read The Iliad. I finished re-reading it a week ago. It says in it quite a few times that Achilles has a longing and liking for Briseis, the slave girl, who was taken from him by Agamemnon. Still haven't seen the movie. Maybe I'll wait until I can rent it.

I'm wondering who are the artists of Obsidian.

In some games, it might work, but I have a harder time seeing advertising used in CRPGs. Tommy Hilfiger emblazoned upon your suit of armor? All in your imagination. (And let's keep it that way.)

The best mods are invisible, who right what has been wronged, and no more and no less. I'd recommend Fionavar or Tarna for mods, for they have extensive records as previous BIS/IPLY mods as well as being mods or administrators at other large gaming message boards. Though I've been a mod at the BIS/IPLY board and now at another, I have little desire to mod here. It's a time commitment I can't afford, and besides, I'm happier to be a fan than a mod a micron higher in the hierarchy. As a mod, you draw undue and unwanted attention, mostly negative, and you need to find someone who will put up with it. Someone who is helpful 110% of the time, always presents a good face to board members, and can hold his or her tongue despite the constant complaints and criticism. Feargus already has extensive experience with past mods, and I'm sure he and the others will make good choices, if they do pick any board members to become mods.

Having seen 20+ page RT vs TB topics on the old BIS and Interplay mesage boards (which I'm sure the ex-BIS people remember fondly), you guys are not going to resolve this issue anytime soon. It came up during Lionheart's development, during Jefferon's, during Van Buren's, in the general feedback forum, and anywhere people could have a say on it. You've got martyrs for TB, others who'll crusade for RT, and a few heretics like me who like 'em all, as long as they've been well thought out and present options and a challenge. As long as they're fun and interesting. And that's what I think people are forgetting. TB isn't going to make a game better if the rest of the game sucks. RT isn't going to worsen a great game, except in the minds of a few. Which is why I say let the devs choose. Whatever they're game for. In my writing classes, I learned that while it's important to write for an intended audience, it is just as important to write for oneself, so that you can have enthusiasm for your work and make it better. I believe the same applies here.

A nexus is the link or tie between things or the core or center. Either way, both meanings seem appropriate. My avatar is the Chinese character for crane.

Devs or anyone in the game industry, do you guys have recommendations for computer science guys looking to become future game programmers? What kind of skills, courses, etc. they should take in school and what is expected? A friend wanted me to ask this, since he wants to go into the game industry.