Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Easy answers (Score 1) 269

by Ardyvee (#46822563) Attached to: 'The Door Problem' of Game Design

You do expect that all doors will behave like doors. If you try the handle (assuming nothing stops you from physically reaching the door), you'll either open them or fail because they are locked. If they are locked, they'll usually make a noise (either because you pull and the lock won't let it open, or because the handle will not continue down).

The main complain about the whole door thing is that you find games that have what looks like a door and isn't: you click your action key and it does nothing because what you are seeing looks only like a door. It'd be fine if it behaved like a locked door, but not even that. It simply ISN'T a door. It's just a painting of a door.

Also, all doors open. Whether you need to unlock/unblock them first or not is another thing. But doors open.

Comment: Re:Easy answers (Score 1) 269

by Ardyvee (#46821675) Attached to: 'The Door Problem' of Game Design

If it is locked, then that implies that the door opens, but it's being blocked by a device (the lock). If the door wouldn't open (ever), then it's probably just a texture that looks like a door instead of an actual, in-game door that it's just locked.

I think it was in F.E.A.R. where there were doors whose sole purpose was to look pretty. They opened, except there were some boxes or stuff on the other side so you could never go through them. Perhaps you would go to the other side through another way, or perhaps you wouldn't. Either way, they behaved like doors instead of being just a texture on a wall that looks like a door.

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 1) 188

by Ardyvee (#46788009) Attached to: Heartbleed Sparks 'Responsible' Disclosure Debate

Couldn't sys admins disable the heartbeat feature as a preventive measure while the patch was prepared? Please note that I'm rather ignorant on all the things involved, but AFAIK the feature in question in the very recent case was not crititcal and could be disabled with minimal damages to the functioning of the service.

I agree with you, though, that the developers should be informed of it first. But I also think that it depends on the issue. If you tell me that feature x in software a has a security issue and I can live without feature x while devs fix it, I think I would rather know so I can disable it instead of waiting for a patch. Just saying.

Comment: Re:Um, right. (Score 5, Insightful) 278

by Ardyvee (#46552121) Attached to: Don't Help Your Kids With Their Homework

To be honest my mom never understood some of the things she helped me with. What she did was read the textbook, see what I was having issue with, have me explain to her what I was trying to accomplish and how, and if she still didn't have an insight, she would tell me to ask somebody else. She knew her limitations (perhaps because her education is high school, and a bad one).

Comment: Re:use this extension when you cannot stand austra (Score 1) 256

by Ardyvee (#46545007) Attached to: Firefox 29 Beta Arrives With UI Overhaul And CSS3 Variables

I don't like their logic regarding functionality. "If only a small subset of our population uses that feature, then it belongs in a add-on". It makes sense to reduce as much as you can the many points of failure. Sure. But, it's kind of like the same complaint people point towards arma: they rely too much on add-ons and things like that, and the base experience turns out to be rather mediocre to a subset of people. On the bright side, since they rely so much on the community, add-ons do get made, forks exists and there is about something for everyone.

Comment: Re:Prison is more than punishment (Score 5, Insightful) 914

I don't think a 1000 years punishments would do much to... rehabilitate prisoners. If anything, it'll break them beyond breaking or turn them into madmen that will be your worst enemy on they get out.

The idea of "punishment" for a crime makes little sense beyond a certain point. Sure, you want to punish behaviors as a way to reduce them (the same way we punish kids for behaving incorrectly) but there gets a point where going beyond in the scale of punishment is futile and even counter productive, specially because most of the time all you are doing is giving the satisfaction to the victims that somebody is still being punished (paying for what they did), instead of becoming a better person (which should be the aim of jail time but isn't).

And, on topic: if living for 1000 years for a normal person would usually result in worse than bad results (loss of friends, lack of usual boundaries/inhibitions because you just need to wait), never mind them being locked up (imagine watching the same place and for years at a time, following the same routine over and over again, or in the case of the drug, watching a wall for the equivalent of months at a time)... It'd take a specially strong mind to withstand that and still be functional afterwards. And it's that kind of people that you don't want locked up ever (instead you want them following the law, or for the second option, dead). If you just lock them up, they are going to hate you afterwards for it, if they don't try to escape during sentence.

Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe