metadigital

Why, the ones that hide themselves for best effect, of course. elementary, my dear crazy ... er ... joe. So any Chaotic Evil people out there * points determinedly away from self * are hardly going to metaphorically stick their hand up to be gawped at by all the goody-two-shoes who have posted so far, or indeed laughed at by all the other CE people who have kept a low profile ...

Are you referring to a merkin, or ...

And, look at the inspiration for the industry: Hollywood. The current trend -- because budgets are now in the hundreds of millions -- is to try to reduce the probability of failure at the box office, to regain the invested capital and keep the system paying for itself and onto the next cycle. And this leads to Police Academy 5 and Termination 3 (not a bad fim, per se, but when you compare it to the Terminator, there is no comparison). Innovation, by its very nature, is risky. Therefore the more expensive the development cycle, the less risk will be implemented. This is also to do with big companies swallowing little companies, trying to exercise economies of scale -- which, I feel, the jury is still out on for creative endeavours. Beethoven worked alone. Doom was a freeware labour of love from id Software. Waterworld cost US$200M.

Actually it's a JV with Sega and Neo Geo, and its called the Neo Sega Geo ][

Um, I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but here: (<{POST_SNAPBACK}>)

... Yeah, I hadn't thought of that as "spoken", but it is, isn't it? So even that is technically wrong, too. Good point Flatus!

... Or, his head (and the camera) is out of phase with his body and this universe. He's just annouced the first aphasic interdimensional rip to ever be caught on camera, and everyone else is foolishly been distrcted into talking about fashion!

I agree with your sentiments, but you have to consider that we aren't close to a de-/con-structable game environment such as what you envisage, not by a long chalk. We are getting close to the destructive part, with real physics, and the parallel development of real HDR lighting, to make perceptions similar ingame and IRL, but there needs to be another development path -- which is what I think we're all scating around here -- of a political engine. NPC and PC interaction needs to be taken along to the next level. Morrowind as made a half step in the right direction (and a couple fo sideways shuffles, too), but we need a visionary to come along and do for the political dynamics of an RPG what Doom did for graphics (i.e. spawning a whole graphics chip industry): can you imagine a seperate chip for organisational (groups) and psychological (individual NPCs') behaviour? It would probably need to be a massively parallel processor, like the proposed quantum computers, able to solve analogue (as opposed to digital) problems instantaneously; the equivalent of a multi-teraflops digital processor ... ... In the meantime we just have to keep feeding the conveyor belt hoping that the next step is nearly the last until we get to the promised land ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not convinced that guy's (very, very old) facts are k

That short story I mentioned earlier, by Isaac Asimov, about the guy going to "heaven" and God setting him to work with everyone/thing else there to come up with the way to end God's existence was called "The Final Calculation", btw.

There are a lot of people who respect Japanese traditions when deals are being sealed, then ...

Maybe he crossed over when playing Call of Cthullhu ? Or perhaps he's just having trouble convinving himself that the computer in front of him is real, and the little bright squiggles are words of a language he knows, and was written by people he remembers. He always did have a bias against artificial metaphysical constructs like physics ...

Yep, I like that.

This is spoiler stuff, Bastila! Kreia knows exactly where Revan went: to the Outer Rim!

Do you think that equates to Clint Eastwood's character (I haven't read the novels)? What troubles me is that I share some of the sentiments that you express, too, yet I think I fall a little north of you on the alignment map ...

You must be well versed in the dark arts of necromancy ...

Huh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wiki Aleph

I just wanna say there are several answers to the equation ... or at least there could be if you really want there to be. one plus one can also equal one for if you take two objects and combined them you do not get two you still have one object ie, water + water = water or one or one plus one can equal three for if you take the two single objects and combined them they produce a third object ie equalling three. ie, man + woman = child which is now three i never was very good in math. (w00t) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As Flatus said, you are confusing scalars and groups. That's not a problem with mathematics, that's a problem with your semantics. I would have been more impressed with you pulling infinity out as an example (which is a special case, as it is not a fixed number): ∞ + ∞ = ∞ (e.g. the set of all positive integers and the set of all negative integers) ∞ - ∞ = ∞ (e.g. think of the set of all numbers, less the set of all negative numbers) ∞

Curses, I fell into the trap! A very cunning rhetorical technique, Mr Reveiled. I'll get you next time!

I have seen the ghost of Baley on these boards, too. * sound of clinking chains * :ph34r: Some say he was eaten by a green dragon. Others whisper of a long trek to another world, and a calamity involving falling off this flat plane ... others speak in hushed tones of a dimension made entirely of spam, and worry that poor Baley invoked one-too-many spam spells and incurred the wrath of some arch-spam-d

I would expect that to be a reasonable conclusion, yes. After all, the rote-learning is for the basic arithmetic components and algorithms necessary to compute more complex calculations. For example, if you don't know your times table, you have to add seven to itself seven times to find seven times eight: the lack of basic mathematical "language" skills leads to more and more entropy in a mathematical conversation. If I can converse with you about the angular components of a particle, given the particles overall velocity, then I don't have to waste bandwidth discussing cos and sin to derive the angular components, so we can use that information, rather than re-hashing it. (Just shows you how much the GCSEs have gone to pot: that sort of question should be worth five percent in a three hour paper. )

) There is a very real, if tiny, probabilty that in smashing highly charged sub-atomic particles together scientists might actually unleash a black hole at CERN (or wherever).

Ooooh, I know! I know! Two. *waits for effusive praise from teacher* <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bravo. You get a gold star. Now, for extra credit, tell me this: Why? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is a self-evident fact. By definition, two single units operated on with the (communitive) addition process are totaled. It's called an axiom. Addition, multiplication (which is just a shorthand way to express addition), subtraction (or addition of a negative) and division (or a shorthand method to express multiple identical subtractions), etc onto powers and logarithms and bases and natural, integer, rational, irrational, real, imaginary and any other number systems yet to be developed are all perfect models. The actual model self-evidently requires sel-referential integrity to be consistent (i.e. a model). So 1+1 = 2, or √(-1) = i or whatever, because we have defined it so (define it as something else, if you like: it is just a naming convention at this level of analysis). Why do we need referential integrity (and therefore consistency in the model): because that is the point of the model, to consistenty predict and measure the thing it models. You may as well ask why the colour green is called green. Now, a better question might revolve around the application of mathematics to the real world (model on reality). This is a little contrived when using basic mathematics as the example. Perhaps we stick to the speed of light. Why does light travel at the speed it does (300kmps)? That is a much better question, and more to the point of your original comment about the difference between the how and the why. If we follow the scientific line of reasoning, we might reasonably say that all things have a maximum velocity, light included, so that's why. But then we ask: why is it 300kmps? Now we are in difficulty, and the coup de gr

... Or Baley :ph34r: DL: Electrotron! (Said in the stentorian voice of Orson Wells): that's kewl!

Just have a proper "exit" exam: pass or die.