dpandza

Members
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

166 Neutral

About dpandza

  • Rank
    Member
  1. The importance of hardware knowledge?

    [quote name='dublindan' timestamp='1305251670' post='4810047'] [quote name='forsandifs' timestamp='1305112309' post='4809356'] How many of you would be able to make a working, programable computer? (i.e. not from pre-built parts) [/quote] Please explain this question. What counts as a prebuilt part? Certainly a motherboard or graphics card, but what about a RAM module? A processor? A microcontroller? EEPROM chips? Logic (ie AND, OR NOT, 555 timers etc) chips? Transistors? Resistors? Capacitors? Where do you draw the line? If you really do mean NO pre-built parts, then I don't think theres very many people who could do it. You mention the £15 computer that guy built, but he uses plenty of prebuilt things: ARM processor, USB controller, EEPROM, SD card reader, oscillators, resistors, capacitors, wiring (I'm taking an educated guess as to what parts he used - I did not look it up). If you have to build everything from scratch, what about purified silicon? It of course is possible to do this and thats how we eventually got to where we are today, but there is a LOT of detail and many many components in a modern computer. I doubt any one person could build one from scratch from nothing. If I can use basic semiconductor components and basic logic and memory ICs, I could possibly build you a very very very simple computer... but it wouldn't really resemble a modern computer and not be nearly as capable. [/quote] Exactly, it would take a long time to get back on the track we had before the presumed apocalypse. I could build a very, very simple computer in a few years (if I had to start from scratch), but it would be pretty much useless. I'd need at least a decade of work to make something meaningful and useful. And even then it would be light years behind of what we have today. Not to mention that the given computer couldn't be easily reproduced. With parts, which is the more likely possibility even in an apocalypse, I would be watching reruns of Star Trek in under a year. Funny thing is, I'd probably have a better computer than the one I have today. Just raid a local hardware store, kill a few raiders, do a quest or two and come home with the epic loot of prewar relics like i7, a 590gtx and 16 GB of RAM sticks. Let the pipboy 3000 guide you Also, as others have pointed out so far, you'd have a bunch of other things to worry about in an event of an apocalypse. But I must say that I do not agree on the problem of electricity, that's not a huge problem. Generating electricity in a post-apocalyptic world would be crude, but effective.
  2. Osama Bin Laden is Dead.

    What the likelihood of those schmucks actually acting on their latest threats ( blood turning to tears and all that )? One thing that worries me is that 9/11 is closing again and those idiots really don't know when to quit. It's "perfect" for them... Ten years anniversary, 9/11, dead Osama, new target?
  3. Blizzard was once known as [font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][b][i]Silicon & Synapse[/i][/b][i], [/i]if it's any consolation[i]. [/i][/size][/font]
  4. Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds

    [quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304947675' post='4808526'] If all of you are complaining that Taby is trolling, then why do you continue to feed the alleged troll? [/quote] Indeed, you make a good point. I'll simply exclude myself from further "discussion".
  5. Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds

    [font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"][size="2"][quote name='taby'] Yes that's right, I have an oversized ego because I call out liars who pretend to know more than they actually do. I'm not ashamed. Let me know if you're also interested in the personal tutorial on QG / LQG. Perhaps if Human Resource, forsandifs, Peter Woit, and Lee Smolin hadn't always lied or been so negatively critical of the extremely hard work put in by string theorists for no good reason whatsoever, I would have responded more positively. Once a hater always a hater, I guess. I'm not ashamed of attacking such people. What's really funny is that their defense is always "why are you so mean to other people"? ROFLMAOBBQ. [/quote] Oh, I've got absolutely nothing against string theory, unless it condones your Q-continuum behavior. So far, string theory has given no tangible evidence whatsoever, only a lot of untested jibber jabber. I wonder what would Pauli have to say on all this... I am quite certain that he would take the stance of people like Woit, Smolin and Krauss. Science has been and always will be based on empirical evidence. You can bash all you want, but all you've got is some cute math with little or no verifiable evidence. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong"]It's not even wrong[/url].[/size][/font] If you are serious about your claims, you are going to stop insulting other people, acquire some sensibility and learn about social protocols... Then you are going to take your work and prove it. If string theory indeed works, alright, awesome. The first order of business for you is to learn how to differentiate mathematics and physics. Contrary to your belief, they do not map one to one. And if you'd stop being an utter, egoistic asshole for one second, you'd realize that scientists have no secret agendas towards "hiding the truth", lying or any other way someone would classify steering away from the truth. [b]It is possible[/b] that you are smarter than all the scientists in the world of modern physics. But you see, there is a strict difference between possibility and likelihood. Thus, yes, you being the ultimate overlord of science *is* a possibility, but the *likelihood* of that happening is approximately equal to the chance of a big fat midget, having impregnated a gorilla with an alien's fetus, getting enticed to destroy Earth and humanity for their possible, but unlikely future interference in the offspring's development. But, seriously, I think you are the David Icke of physics! [b]The most important thing you should take home from this post is there are no liars in science at large, just decent people fascinated by the Universe we inhabit. Science should be skeptical and science should be rational. Everything is subject to scrutiny. But it's all directed towards giving us a chance of better understanding the Universe. Thus said, if you are going to be a stupid egoistic asshole for the rest of your life... Then I honestly feel sorry for you.[/b] [b] [/b] You know what would I like? Exotic matter! But that's just the cruelty of math playing with my space-faring trekkie heart. Such matter has never been observed thus far, it's just a consequence of mathematics and theoretical possibility. You don't see me getting angry at everyone because I believe ( I don't, I agree with them ) they are mistaken about that observing such properties is [b]highly unlikely[/b]. ROFLMAOBBQ only proves that you are a childish 14-year old trolling from his mum's basement. Anything else would be just sad. How about you finish school (if you are not a dropout), get a degree in physics and battle those "liars" face to face. It's easy to play overlord with a bunch of game developers who emulate matter with triangles. Now, what is more likely? Everyone is lying and you are the last beacon of truth... Or the other way around?
  6. Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds

    [quote name='taby' timestamp='1304880996' post='4808197'] Oops, I guess you're right... I did have one other postulate that spacetime was plastic. I've since realized that this would mean that gravity is dissipative, which seems absurd to me now. If you want to read up on other postulates related to dissipative gravity though, check out 't Hooft. Oh, and leave David Deutsch's shadow photon theory out of this. [b]Unlike you, he's not a total asshole.[/b] [/quote] The part in bold was necessary because...? One question... If you are such a brilliant scientist, how come your reputation has decreased over 9 times since you've joined this thread? If I recall correctly, it was 75 only five days ago.
  7. Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds

    [quote name='taby'] ... [/quote] I'm not hiding behind anything, there's no need for anonymity... I have postulated no theories of my own nor do I have a definitive grasp on physics. Until I get my degree in Computer science, physics will remain to be just an interest. But the next in line after CS would be a degree in physics. For now, I just repeat things as I understand them ( I do not claim my understanding is correct, far from it, there's always more to learn) and look for discrepancies in various claims over different physical theories while trying to keep an open mind. If you have some papers and some solid mathematical proof, why don't you try forwarding it to a scientific journal, get feedback from the scientific community? I understand time is not purely a scalar value as it is shown in general relativity, but although a mathematical possibility exists of it being a vector quantity, we still have no proof that a change of direction of time is possible. Observation is key and until some experimental data shows that it is indeed possible to experimentally prove time is a vector quantity ie. make it go backwards, okay. But for now it's just a belief generated out of current scientific development. For now, it's only a mathematical advantage to think about it as a vector. But it is a [b]component of a four-vector[/b] and is crucial to Lorentz transforms. Whether it truly is a traversable dimension, only time will show. All that I am stating is the fact we've never observed such a thing.
  8. Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds

    Taby, you remind me of a guy I met on a local astrophysics forum who claimed that shadows are nothing but black light. He had a lot of theories, actually... Some of them were that the celestial bodies have nothing to do with tides, others yet discussed that the "force of gravity has no acceleration" (his words), that the Earth is actually going around the Sun and that the atmosphere is "sexually reproducing" because of the EM radiation, thus creating life on Earth. A good scientist will always look for an error on his part, rather than rushing out and bashing everyone else calling them a fraud, trollbaiter and what not. None of your theories are worth squat until you prove them, but that would require you to put your real name behind it. It's much simpler when you can hide behind a nickname on a game development forum, isn't it? But do continue, I love reading your posts, they crack me up. Before calling someone a fraud, consider the meaning of that word... According to the wiki, [font="sans-serif"][size="2"]fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage". I assure you, I've received $0 for my statements here, my only purpose is to gain a broader understanding with fellow colleagues interested in physics, in a decent and friendly environment. Your response to me, for example, was pure gibberish which proved nothing. You were only restating the work of scientists whose work you've been bashing from the beginning of this thread (and knowing types like you, and beyond). [b]Velocity vector is 4D, yes, it includes the time aspect which helps model spacetime and all the repercussions of the relativistic theory, but it's only a component of a vector, currently only ensuring the constancy of the speed of light across different reference frames (and all the consequences of such a claim)... Alone, it's a scalar which has never been observed "going the other way". That's a fact, your drug induced dreams might suggest otherwise, but that's not science... As your established, esteemed brain is probably aware of.[/b][/size][/font] [font="sans-serif"][size="2"][b] [/b][/size][/font] [font="sans-serif"][size="2"]Show me experimental evidence and I'll believe you. Honestly. [/size][/font] [font="sans-serif"][size="2"]All you've done here is spread your nonsense, no-proof theories and bash on the work of scientists who have proven themselves a long time ago. Standing behind what they say with their name and honor. Where is your brilliant mind out there? They'd slap you in your seat in .5 seconds. [b]If nothing, at least try to be polite to other people.[/b][/size][/font]
  9. How publishers could save costs.

    Even if such a thing were possible, it would just dampen the creativity of studios even more...[b] It is[/b] about the money for [b]the publishers[/b], but if you ask any game developer who makes a decent living, it's more about the thrill and challenge of creating great games. When you start copying so much stuff, the line between trivial and important gets blurred and the whole game suffers. Not to mention the ratings of reviewers who are getting more critical by the minute! And of course, every bad rating is a hit on sales. Creativity and fresh, genuine stuff matters! Games are like cars, it's okay to share the engine, but the actual car has to be unique, beautiful and most of all, a thrill to hop in. Now, if Audi XX looked almost the same as BMW XX, you wouldn't be really enticed to buy it, would you? Something I've noticed as a game developer is that the broad strokes are not really important, it's the trivial details that matter the most... When a player exits from a car whose wheels are rotated to the left and they actually stay that way rather than reverting to the idle animation like in most games, it stays with you (Mafia 2 is one example). When a car's chassis reacts to turns of a vehicle in place, it stays with you. If developers got forced to share by their publishers, they'd eventually start to make skins all based on one general, shared game. That perhaps isn't the idea OP had in mind, but nonetheless, this would happen if publishers were to enforce something like this.
  10. The end - how much do you think about it?

    Thanks everyone for your replies they've been quite illuminating! But I must say, I've also found myself on numerous occasions thinking about death quite embracingly. For example, when I'm facing a tough decision or a rather grim development in my life, I always "make a note" to myself that I am going to die anyways, so why the hell not. Or, fuck it, it'll end someday anyways. Do you guys ever find such comfort in death, to actually go on with something risky (ambitious project) you wouldn't normally do if you hadn't considered your mortality previously? And there are opposite things, like skydiving, when your mortality suggests otherwise. Anyways, we can all agree on one thing, we should make the most of what we've got here on this little planet in this huge Universe! My only regret is that I won't see what comes after, since, in my heart, I have been and always will be a Starfleet officer.
  11. Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds

    Velocity is a vector, negating a vector only reverses its direction, not magnitude. Reversal of time is pointless... Time going backwards should be explicitly that, every object "retracing" all its changes and movement over a given interval of time. Time is, for now, a scalar. It has no "direction" because we've never observed objects going to a previous state experimentally, if we were to observe such a thing, it would mean spontaneous entropy reduction and going to a higher energy state. Until that happens, everything discussed here is a repercussion of mathematics which does not necessarily convey the same logic as the real world. Just like negative mass and negative energy density. We are going to learn a lot of new stuff as time proceeds onwards ( and since we've observed none other, onwards is really just a figure of speech), kick some old stuff in the teeth, but that will be through moderated experiments... Theoretical physics is good, but any theory is practically worthless until it's confirmed by an experiment, the basis of empirical reasoning. And if someone would like to rage on about time reversal, you first need to explain a lot of other things which would not add up as a repercussion of your theory.
  12. The end - how much do you think about it?

    [quote name='owl' timestamp='1304647832' post='4807201'] Think of it this way: You won't be paying taxes anymore! [/quote] Ahahah, good one! @Hodgman - That's a very down to earth approach, but what always captures my imagination is the transition from the living to the dead, no matter what the final actual form is. Specifically, how does it "feel" like, the shutting down. I love Richard Dawkins' quote: "Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Some people find this thought disturbing, I find the reality thrilling." That's somehow what I feel about this world and our short existence (relative to the age of the cosmos), but still... I can't shake the fear of the actual end, losing my memories and experiences, everything that defines me... The rest is just a shell. Some people would say that fear is good, it's a reminder you're still alive.
  13. Good morning/day/evening, everyone! Personally, I find myself thinking about death rather often when I'm lying in my bed encompassed by darkness and silence... Sometimes to the extent of horrific feelings that envelop me whilst contemplating various thoughts on what could... Or perhaps could not be after we die. A cold shiver down my spine would be the closest approximation. What I'd like to know, since all of you are like-minded game developers, is how much death "bothers" you? Do you think about it often and if you are a wee-bit older, does that "pressure" get harder on you with passing years or have you settled with reality through religion or some other form of... Uhm, philosophy? As of my beliefs, I'm an agnostic since I find all stories about gods like outdated fairy tales that people take too seriously (no offense, anyone). The likelihood of something like that is so... Surreal to me. I don't like the inconsistency, "greater plans" and dogmatic nature of not asking questions. That's too much to ask from a rational human being. I am not even certain that something bigger exists in any form, let alone a human-conceived image of god. The truth is, the Universe (and I refer to absoultely everything that "exists" in some way or another) doesn't necessarily have to respond to the same notion of our logical reasoning, perhaps it has nothing even close to the concept of a cause and consequence. The question why does everything exists could be easily counteracted by a "[b]why not?[/b]". Without turning this into a monologue, I was wondering... What do you guys think? Since we all are game developers, we are all very adept at thinking about an end of a project or a game's story/campaign. How do you rationalize the [i]possible end[/i] of our existence? Honestly, death always manages to freak me out. I am not afraid of the unknown as long as [b]there is an unknown[/b] besides oblivion. One thing that bogs me down even more is the thought of dying alone, damn, that's messed up. I apologise if the topic is too grim, I'd just like to hear your thoughts on this. I am a very open person and even though I am agnostic with expressed disbelief in various gods,[b] I would still love to hear everyone's opinion[/b]. Maybe you have something in perspective that I do not, who knows?
  14. A few questions....

    Java and C# are very much alike and you'd quickly adapt, but there is always some finer points that are worth getting a book from the library and just skimming through. As of resources and books for C#/XNA, just check out Amazon, there's a bunch of them. Hope it helps! Cheers!
  15. Starting C++ games

    [quote name='joeparrilla' timestamp='1304548420' post='4806625'] Hey everyone, So Ive messed around with programming games in Java for a while now and I really feel like I want to move to C++. The documentation and support for Java in games is just sort of scarce, I want to use something more standard. I do know C++, so Im not really concerned with learning the language, what I want to know is what I will need to begin 2d games. The more popular books ive seen seem to use DirectX, but I would prefer OpenGL. So basically, what would you recommend for me to start with, any good books or tutorials? I know about SDL and Allegro, but Im really not sure about what I need. With Java it was pretty simple, I just used Java2d for my stuff, but I know I need to add libraries to be able to use C++. Thanks in advance. [/quote] It's a matter of preference and project needs, if you want to target multiple platforms, your best shot would be SDL and OpenGL which will remove all the trivial code that gets you away from the specific underlying architectures of various operating systems and what not. If you are going to stay on the Windows platform, then you can simply use DirectX, there is a rich, guided documentation, lots of books and tutorials. A huge percentage of games are written exclusively in DirectX, exclusively for the Windows platform. And, is still, the number one platform for desktop gaming. In the end, OpenGL and DirectX (or more abstract libraries/frameworks) are just two ways of getting to the same goal. If you want to start quickly, go for SDL and OpenGL. If you have some patience to study some additional stuff and no need for multi-platforming, go for DirectX. DirectX is a complete software development kit and includes a lot of the stuff which OpenGL, as a graphics-only library, doesn't have (although SDL compensates). Hope it helps!