I do think that movie had a good solid scientific background, except for the part where the paradoxes started to affect the character's health. I don't see any evidence to the contrary, but its kind of an odd leap to make.

Yes, its valuable to research the hard, practical stuff. But come on, do you really want to live in a world where no one explores the interesting possibilities?

This post strikes me as narcissistic and pessimistic. Reminds me of those wise words, "If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings."

I started taking a medication years ago that made my dreams more vivid, and for the last 4 or 5 years I have lucid dreams almost every morning right before I wake up. I find them very interesting, and I have often wondered about dreams and if their evolutionary purpose is to train us for potential threat situations.

So yes, I am interested in hearing more research on this topic.

I remember reading a previous slashdot story about dreams being "threat simulators" and a lot of people were quite skeptical that dreams could actually serve this purpose. Anecdotally, most people recounted dreams that seemed pointless and unrealistic. I would argue that those dreams could have actually been training them in many ways that those people don't realize.

Any time your dream changes in a way that is totally unrealistic, you learn to expect the unexpected. And if that's true, then dreaming really is an important area of human study.

As a computer programmer at a Bioware, I can tell you that video game design degrees/diplomas are respected here. I do know several people who came in with a game design diploma. Most of the game designers I know came in with a Comp Sci degree though.

I also know people who came in as QA or got lucky and were hired with no experience when the company was starting.

I do not, however, know anyone who was hired after developing an indie game, without a degree or diploma.

4 or 5 years ago, it was basically comparable to Unreal 3. The motion blur was probably the best feature I saw. Fine graphics, but nothing really mind blowing. Having said that, I have not seen what they've done since Intel bought them, but I'm guessing its basically support for Intel's research projects.

As a developer of modern console and PC games, My Professional Opinion is that there's nothing new to see here.

You're assuming that if everyone learned logic, they'd come to your conclusions. The problem is that (approx) half of the population of North America bases their entire belief system on the existence of a greater good higher than logic, and logic prevents us from categorically claiming they shouldn't believe it. I can logically decide to invade Iraq and support the RIAA simply because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Instead of ignorant masses, you'd have well organized masses of people that want to enforce their logic on you.

Kind of like slashdotters.

So... you're saying punish the parents.

Disagree.

If you're still following this, I meant a "greedy" solution as in algorithms, in other words a solution that is aimed at the local maximum instead of the global maximum. Not necessarily a moral judgment.

However I don't mind your characterization of the issue.

I find those links incredibly interesting, so thank you!

I should have been clearer.

I meant that if activity is popular, then it helps show that the law is unfair. I did not mean that all laws are fair if they govern unpopular activities.

It probably is a harder problem but I'm suggesting solving the privacy problem first might be a "greedy" solution - not the optimal solution.

My first thought on this whole line of question is that protecting our privacy is the short term goal, but shouldn't the long term goal be to, well, be able to be free?

Personally, expressing myself to the world is quite important, and I willfully show everything to everyone on facebook, because I feel the most confident about myself that way. I smoke pot once or twice a year and I'm a computer programmer at Bioware, and if they want to fire me because I shared some personal information online, then that's their loss. (N.B. - I don't share this information with my parents, because I still prefer some privacy.)

So I interpret this whole thing positively. If everyone just damn well admits that they smoke pot, they can't ostracize the one who does it openly. There will always be some sense of privacy required (anything you aren't comfortable sharing) but my opinion is that the first concern is protecting your right to share information without the fear of reprisal.

-Thomas

It doesn't really work that way because TV shows and movies have a lot of sound in the high and low ranges, while commercials have more in the mid ranges. A decibel of sound in the high or low ranges can seem quite while a decibel in the mid ranges can seem loud, depending on the TV and the listener.

Further, if a TV show was extremely quiet, the commercial would be forced to be quiet...

-Thomas

During my internship, I worked on a University research project in games and ended up building the material for the first "games" themed CS course at the U of A. I finished my CS degree next year and now I'm a game programmer at Bioware.

I disagree with your comment that the course will sucker students. If the course is sufficiently difficult (as other CS courses are) it will weed out the disinterested. I know a couple of students who weren't great at Math but because excellent at it once they understood it in the context of a physics engine.

Personally, my feedback would be: Games related courses would be incredible useful, but profs are not incredibly good at creating them. Games programming is about hacking solutions, designing for fun rather than correctness, and project management for short deadlines. CS profs aren't known for any of those things.