Comment Editors??? What is this I don't even (Score 0) 150
Does no one proof read? This is painful to read
Comment Re:Those things that annoy us in other games are s (Score 1) 128
To be honest, I'm somewhat sad to see this go as well. It all comes down to management and sacrifice. Playing an Monk in the original Guild Wars, nothing was more exciting then being strained to switch to your high mana set (at the cost of mana regeneration) and having your team just barely survive the encounter. Swapping weapon sets to hide your mana from Energy Burn mesmers, keeping everyone's positioning in mind, knowing who to prot (much more effective then heal), and managing a skill bar of 8 that not only had to be able to deal with the wide variety of enemy compositions while maintaining survivability, mana and cooldown management, and positioning was the majority of the fun playing a support class.
I fully expect GW2 to be a great game, but think they are missing some key things that made the original great. Here's to hoping they bring back actual GvG
I fully expect GW2 to be a great game, but think they are missing some key things that made the original great. Here's to hoping they bring back actual GvG
Comment Re:Open beta? (Score 3, Informative) 128
Almost true. There is a difference between pre-order (Amazon) and pre-purchase (buy.guildwars2.com).
If you pre-purchase the game up front (money is paid), you can play in the next Beta Weekend Event.
If you pre-order the game from a retailer like Amazon (who doesn't charge you until the game ships), then you will not have access to the BWE.
Comment Re:Spell check (Score 1) 235
What 13 year old actually uses spell check in IM?
Comment Re:Bill, Are You That Much Out of Touch? (Score 1) 575
I have to shake my head reading that list of 10...Overly idealized, not very well thought out. For instance
1) Students will have automatically updated information
You really think so based on the publishing industry? Expect to pay for each iteration of that constantly updating information. Publishers aren't going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
2) Promotes active, engaging learning
It also promotes an active and engaging distraction. Go to any college campus and watch what students are doing on their laptops.
4) Budget-friendly equals more access
Really? The iPad is suddenly budget friendly? I get that their are cheaper tablets out there, but the fact that this article is touting iPads as being what changes education, it really makes me question the articles validity. Not to mention, you can get a cheap netbook thats not locked down for just as much access.
5) It offers a range of tools without multitasking options
What an argument. Single tasking is a feature as it prevents kids from playing games? A) Kids are going to get around it, B) I'd be surprised if iPads stay single tasking forever...
1) Students will have automatically updated information
You really think so based on the publishing industry? Expect to pay for each iteration of that constantly updating information. Publishers aren't going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
2) Promotes active, engaging learning
It also promotes an active and engaging distraction. Go to any college campus and watch what students are doing on their laptops.
4) Budget-friendly equals more access
Really? The iPad is suddenly budget friendly? I get that their are cheaper tablets out there, but the fact that this article is touting iPads as being what changes education, it really makes me question the articles validity. Not to mention, you can get a cheap netbook thats not locked down for just as much access.
5) It offers a range of tools without multitasking options
What an argument. Single tasking is a feature as it prevents kids from playing games? A) Kids are going to get around it, B) I'd be surprised if iPads stay single tasking forever...
Comment Re:"We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple (Score 1) 409
Sharov describes the lack of communication and cooperation as a symptom of a company that has never before had to work closely with the security industry. 'For Microsoft, we have all the security response team's addresses,' he says. 'We don't know the antivirus group inside Apple.'"
Seriously? Is it really that difficult for a security company to search for "security" on apple's website and find this page?
I don't see a list of security team members on that page you linked to, which is what I believe Boris was referring to when he mentioned they have "all the security response team's addresses" for Microsoft
Submission + - Adobe to tax speed of Flash 3D (ncannasse.fr)
An anonymous reader writes: Adobe announced today that they are adding "premium features" to the Flash Player. Instead, they are actually preventing usage of already existing features, and make your pay for it. These features were used by many game developers to get speed boost for memory manipulation. Now you have to pay back 9% of your revenues to Adobe in order to get decent speed.
Submission + - What book publishers should learn from Harry Potter (gigaom.com)
Volanin writes: The e-book versions of Harry Potter are being released through Pottermore, and Rowling has chosen to do a number of interesting things with them, including releasing them without DRM restrictions.
One of the encouraging things about the Pottermore launch is that the books will be available on virtually every platform simultaneously, including the Sony Reader, the Nook, the Kindle and Google’s e-book service.
Even Amazon has bowed to the power of the series and done what would previously have seemed unthinkable: it sends users who come to the titles on Amazon to Pottermore to finish the transaction.
One of the encouraging things about the Pottermore launch is that the books will be available on virtually every platform simultaneously, including the Sony Reader, the Nook, the Kindle and Google’s e-book service.
Even Amazon has bowed to the power of the series and done what would previously have seemed unthinkable: it sends users who come to the titles on Amazon to Pottermore to finish the transaction.
Submission + - A Pinterest spammer tells it all (dailydot.com)
vikingpower writes: "His name is Steve, and he lives in "one of the lower 48 states". So he says. He also tells the Daily Dot that makes about $1000 a day by spamming PInterest . The article is in so far interesting as it seems honest: nothing of the usual bragging indulged in so often by spammers. We may suppose, however, that Steve's business model is kaputt, now: the PInterest site which, by the way, has huge traffic but no revenue , is for sure going to take measures against Steve."
Submission + - Google is being pressured by UK govt to make it easier to delete links (bbc.co.uk)
politkal writes: "An influential group of UK lawmakers has called on Google to introduce an algorithm to remove search links found to be in breach of privacy — or face legislation to force it to do so.
It follows complaints from ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley about the difficulty he faced in getting a video removed from the internet.
The search giant argued it was not its job to monitor net content.
The cross-party committee said this argument was "totally unconvincing".
The report by a committee of MPs and peers was commissioned by the government to look into privacy and free speech issues after a series of high profile super-injunctions were made public last year.
Celebrities including Ryan Giggs found that gagging orders against newspapers were routinely flouted online. In Mr Giggs' case, the details of his super-injunction were mentioned at least 75,000 times on Twitter, the committee said.
Its report said that online firms needed to be brought in line with offline media in such cases.
"We recommend that, when granting an injunction, courts should be proactive in directing the claimant to serve notice on internet content platforms such as Twitter and Facebook," it said.
Some of the harshest criticism was reserved for Google.
"Where an individual has obtained a clear court order that certain material infringes their privacy and so should not be published, we do not find it acceptable that he or she should have to return to court repeatedly in order to remove the same material from internet searches," the report said."
more at the source url...
It follows complaints from ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley about the difficulty he faced in getting a video removed from the internet.
The search giant argued it was not its job to monitor net content.
The cross-party committee said this argument was "totally unconvincing".
The report by a committee of MPs and peers was commissioned by the government to look into privacy and free speech issues after a series of high profile super-injunctions were made public last year.
Celebrities including Ryan Giggs found that gagging orders against newspapers were routinely flouted online. In Mr Giggs' case, the details of his super-injunction were mentioned at least 75,000 times on Twitter, the committee said.
Its report said that online firms needed to be brought in line with offline media in such cases.
"We recommend that, when granting an injunction, courts should be proactive in directing the claimant to serve notice on internet content platforms such as Twitter and Facebook," it said.
Some of the harshest criticism was reserved for Google.
"Where an individual has obtained a clear court order that certain material infringes their privacy and so should not be published, we do not find it acceptable that he or she should have to return to court repeatedly in order to remove the same material from internet searches," the report said."
more at the source url...
Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 183
Another fallacy of equivocation.
The set I am talking about is the set of digits that is drawn from for this infinite sequence. The set itself is not infinite. Set A has 10 members {0,9}. Set B has 9 members {0,2-9}.
You are arguing based on a different understanding of what the sets are. Even still, your argument does not hold up.
In your case, let set X be the set of all infinitely long number randomly generated. Pick any number from this set, and remove all of the ones. The resulting number exists in a set that is not a subset of set X. Why? Because set X is the set of all numbers that are both infinitely long and random and it is impossible for a number without 1s to exist in set X. Both conditions are important.
If the number is truly randomly generated, each digit (0-9) have an equal probability of appearing. For a finite length of digits (even if said length is large), it is possible (though improbable) that the number wouldn't contain a 1. If we were arguing for finite length numbers, your argument would be fine. However, for infinite length, it is impossible because as length approaches infinity, the probability of a digit not appearing approaches 0. At infinity, it would be 0. This is where your argument breaks down. The number with all 1s removed is not a part of set X so your argument above as a counter example is invalid. This number would be a part of set Y where Y is the set of all infinitely long numbers randomly generated from set B.
These sets are not equivalent, and it is important to keep this in mind when constructing a proof.
You are arguing based on a different understanding of what the sets are. Even still, your argument does not hold up.
In your case, let set X be the set of all infinitely long number randomly generated. Pick any number from this set, and remove all of the ones. The resulting number exists in a set that is not a subset of set X. Why? Because set X is the set of all numbers that are both infinitely long and random and it is impossible for a number without 1s to exist in set X. Both conditions are important.
If the number is truly randomly generated, each digit (0-9) have an equal probability of appearing. For a finite length of digits (even if said length is large), it is possible (though improbable) that the number wouldn't contain a 1. If we were arguing for finite length numbers, your argument would be fine. However, for infinite length, it is impossible because as length approaches infinity, the probability of a digit not appearing approaches 0. At infinity, it would be 0. This is where your argument breaks down. The number with all 1s removed is not a part of set X so your argument above as a counter example is invalid. This number would be a part of set Y where Y is the set of all infinitely long numbers randomly generated from set B.
These sets are not equivalent, and it is important to keep this in mind when constructing a proof.
Comment Re:There's a big leap of faith there (Score 3, Insightful) 429
Author also forgets to take into account that the number of options available for streaming generally suck. I gave up on Netflix for movies when 85% of what I wanted to watch wasn't available. I'll use it for TV shows, but that's it.
Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 183
The first set is a subset of the second set.
Yes, but it is not a super set which is the issue. A subset can have additional properties that the super set doesn't have.
-Square is a proper subset of rectangle (all 4 sides are equal)
-Natural numbers are a proper subset of integers (includes negatives of the non-zero natural numbers)
-{0,2-9} is a proper subset of {0,9}
My point still stands. Removing the ones from a random sequence of numbers from the set {0,9} means the resulting sequence of numbers is no longer random by that set. It is random by the set {0,2-9}. Your sequence of numbers cannot be random with respect to the set {0,9} because you know with absolute certainty that a 1 is not in the sequence. There is no equal probability for all the numbers in {0,9} to be chosen.
Note, I'm not disagreeing the possibility that Pi doesn't include every finite pattern within it (though I'm inclined to think it does). I'm disagreeing with your proof for why its not.
Yes, but it is not a super set which is the issue. A subset can have additional properties that the super set doesn't have.
-Square is a proper subset of rectangle (all 4 sides are equal)
-Natural numbers are a proper subset of integers (includes negatives of the non-zero natural numbers)
-{0,2-9} is a proper subset of {0,9}
My point still stands. Removing the ones from a random sequence of numbers from the set {0,9} means the resulting sequence of numbers is no longer random by that set. It is random by the set {0,2-9}. Your sequence of numbers cannot be random with respect to the set {0,9} because you know with absolute certainty that a 1 is not in the sequence. There is no equal probability for all the numbers in {0,9} to be chosen.
Note, I'm not disagreeing the possibility that Pi doesn't include every finite pattern within it (though I'm inclined to think it does). I'm disagreeing with your proof for why its not.
Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 183
Yes, I agree with that. I realized as soon as I stepped away from my computer I may not have been clear. I don't disagree with Hatta's point that it's possible Pi might not contain all possible finite patterns. I merely disagreed with his proof.
My intuition says that Pi does, but that is just my opinion and I have no mathematical proof to back that up.
My intuition says that Pi does, but that is just my opinion and I have no mathematical proof to back that up.
Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 183
I also know that there is a 0% chance there will be a 1 in the sequence.
My issue with your analogy is that you allow the the possible subsets (finite patterns within the infinite sequence) to pull from a different set of numbers then the original sequence itself. The original assertion phrased another way would be given a set of 10 digits {0-9}, an infinite and random ordering of those digits will contain every possible finite pattern of 10 digits (0-9).
When you remove the digit 1 from the sequence above, you are left with a random infinite sequence of numbers from the set {0,2-9}, not a random sequence of numbers from the original set. You've done nothing to prove that an infinite random sequence of numbers does not contain every possible finite pattern because said finite pattern must be drawn from the same set of numbers {0,2-9}. I can argue that this new set of numbers contains every possible finite pattern for numbers from the set {0,2-9}
Your argument suffers the fallacy of equivocation. The resulting sequence is random by the set {0,2-9} but not by the set {0,9}.
My issue with your analogy is that you allow the the possible subsets (finite patterns within the infinite sequence) to pull from a different set of numbers then the original sequence itself. The original assertion phrased another way would be given a set of 10 digits {0-9}, an infinite and random ordering of those digits will contain every possible finite pattern of 10 digits (0-9).
When you remove the digit 1 from the sequence above, you are left with a random infinite sequence of numbers from the set {0,2-9}, not a random sequence of numbers from the original set. You've done nothing to prove that an infinite random sequence of numbers does not contain every possible finite pattern because said finite pattern must be drawn from the same set of numbers {0,2-9}. I can argue that this new set of numbers contains every possible finite pattern for numbers from the set {0,2-9}
Your argument suffers the fallacy of equivocation. The resulting sequence is random by the set {0,2-9} but not by the set {0,9}.
