demagogue

Oh, yeah. The only time I ever dabbled in this kind of thing was back in like 1996 on those MUDs where everything was ascii, "_" was walls and "$" was gold, and players/monsters were just capital letters. And still before aol-speak. Only problem were people that'd just write a program to play the game for them while they were away, so they'd quickly become immortal, allowing them just run around everywhere slapping people with impunity. I guess, after all the graphics/gameplay improvements, it's still just about people wanting to do that.

Oh, right ... this thread actually had an original topic, didn't it? Well, nice to see you still producing. Keep us posted.

Did you see the size for it? It's only 87 kb. I have recipes in Word that are bigger than that!

If you are going on a ZBaiting spree, unless you are a sucker for punishment, you need to try harder than that. Unless this is some kind of meta-irony for humor's sake ("say that again in English?"), in which case, uh, work on your funny. The quote you posted was pretty gold, though.

May be just a matter of opinion about what ideas are interesting. I'm sure the articles that describe it will be dense and technical ... but you could say the same thing about two massive black holes colliding and it doesn't make the very idea any less cooler. Observable quantum entanglement is something I would put right at the top of a list of things that just sound inherently cool in the very concept ... anything but "dry".

Well, while we're on this free-for-all of interesting science stuff ... The most interesting thing I've read about applications of quantum physics lately (was it already posted here? can't remember) is the experiments in freezing things near to absolute zero with lasers. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/super-cool.html The idea is, thermal behavior is one of the main things that keeps quantum effects from manifesting on a macro-level. But if you freeze it to near enough absolute zero, quantum effects are the only real controlling thing left. If all of this goes well, with a little luck we may be able to literally see, if not Schrodinger's cat, full-on quantum weirdness on a macroscopic scale in our lifetime! I thought it was a very cool idea. (By the way, I'm not sure you learn what that first sentence says in high school physics. I mean, I don't know what high school he went to...)

Right. I'm being incredibly lazy in my terms, but my humble point that began the whole thing wasn't really impressive enough to deserve the critical scrutiny to begin with. You can be commended for keeping me honest, though. Edit: Actually, though, I pretty much meant to be just talking about Darwinian evolution from the beginning, anyway ... that's the one I care about. So you can read it as "necessary (but not sufficient) elements for natural selection in Darwinian evolution".

Yes, of course. I should have added "... as far as the necessary conditions go from the organism's internal perspective" (competition, scarce resources, etc, are external factors). But what you say is totally right; what I said is necessary but not sufficient. By the way, the other conditions you just listed are also handled under very conventional classic physics, so my basic point is the same. I guess I've been on this train of thought lately ... the more and more I read, the more it impresses me how really basic elements -- basically electromagnatism and gravity, and the material conditions earth gives us, the soil/water composition, the carbon cycle, energy cycle, water cycle, etc -- all working together to create everything we see around us, life, evolution, minds, language, society, culture ... There really isn't a point where things break-down and you can't explain it with these basic ideas so you have to resort to weirdo metaphysics to cover it. Even some of the more exotic but very real physics (the unstable particles/cosmic rays, quantum effects, black holes) aren't really adding much to the basic picture just from what I mentioned above, in my understanding. I mean, it's one thing to have that idea as something intuitive, like a commitment to naturalism, but it's something more to actually see how it fits together. That's why I've been like Spar lately, really interested in learning about not just relativity, and quantum physics (and brushing up on electromagnatism) but also genetics/microbiology, neurophysiology, computational linguistics/AI, and microeconomics/game theory (and maybe political economy), those 6 or 8 in particular. I feel like when I went to college, I wasn't left with a clear picture of how all the pieces fit together. I just had a lot of the details thrown at me. But suddenly recently (I guess because the internet makes it all so handy to get ahold of) I've felt this drive to fill in the gaps in my understanding, at the very least with place-fillers so I have a name and the basic idea for how X works, from the most basic elements all the way up to the big picture.

The 747 itself is a red-herring just to dramatize the logic of the point ... so it's not worth focusing on it. Although I did once find a quantum physics course that had as an exam question computing the probability of it happening, with a boatload of simplifying assumptions. Spar had it right with spontaneous particle creation, there is a non-zero probability that virtual particles -- which can spontaneously trigger even from the energy of a total vacuum -- can collapse into "real" (stable, or mostly stable) particles. And get enough of those happening in just the right way, there's supposed to be a probability that it can also put into motion any arbitrary collection of particles as well. (I mean, it's already technically created *this* universe once, from the original singularity subject to these quantum effects, if you want to think about it that way). But as I said, it's an incredibly esoteric, probability-driven argument. So it's not really all that serious in the way I was using it, I think. And, yes, it's quantum effects that are driving all of this (and their non-zero probability of any arbitrary particle creation) ... *not* thermodynamics per se, although quantum effects also have to follow the laws of thermodynamics, so it's incredibly unlikely you'll get spontaneous local entropy increase/organization. One thing, quantum effects get almost totally erased on the classical level of big things. You might see particles spontaneously disappearing and appearing all the time at a very small size, but never at a large size, where pretty much just electromagnatism and gravity run the whole show and keep quantum effects from rearing their weirdo head. So anything about evolution is going to be about just those two forces. I mean, once you've got DNA and transcription and protein creation, you've basically got natural selection up and running, and probably no quantum effects ever being relevant. I'm not a physicist, either. I studied a lot of logic and probability stuff ... from studying metaphysics (*not* the new-age b.s. metaphysics, but the really logic/math based). So I had to learn just enough of the logic of relativity and quantum physics to deal with the questions we were asking, what is space/time, is quantum physics logically sound? Stuff like that. I actually love it when someone with a greater scientific background clarifies things for me, though. So what I just wrote is just my understanding of things I've read ... but I'd be happy to hear what's accurate and not accurate about it.

One part of quantum physics is that there is a non-zero probability of essentially any physically possible interaction. So, e.g., there is a non-zero probability that a 747 jetliner will spontaneously form in your backyard, with a probability you could actually calculate (granted it's a very small probability). If you add the assumption that the universe is infinite in duration, one way or another, then you have the law of big numbers, a mathematical idea which says that, as long as you have a non-zero probability, the longer time you have to wait for it, the more likely even the most unlikely things will happen, until you reach eternal time, in which case, so the principle says, all non-zero probabilities are integrated essentially up to 100% likely. Adding these two ideas together, you come to the conclusion that the physical events that make up your life have a non-zero probability of occurring in their same sequence again, and there's enough time/opportunity to allow it to happen, so it will happen. It's about the same as the argument that somewhere in pi is your genetic code encoded as numbers, or your life story, or any sequence you want ... and that exact sequence (no matter how long it is) is not just there once, but an infinite number of times ... the deeper you go, the more likely, and since it's infinitely long, 100% likely. Like most mathematically driven arguments, though, it smells a little fishy in the real world (the "infinite lives" argument, I mean; the "any number in pi" argument is solid). But it makes for a fun thought experiment anyway. Relativity is "cleaner" than quantum physics. I think one of its big advantages in the PR department is that it's so geometry-focused, you really have a concrete image you can focus on. Also, because SR and GR both present you with such WEIRD ideas which seem insane when you start considering them. It's like when you spill puzzle pieces on a table, you look at them and you first think, there's no way this is going to all fit, but as you slowly piece them together, it all fits together like magic, and the whole image emerges before your eyes, that's very fun to watch work out! Space contraction + time dilation = the same speed of light in every moving frame of reference; it actually works! The energy density (like the overall pressure) at the center of gravity of a mass = exactly the way particles flying around the mass will bend around it; you know one, you automatically know the other ... they are on two sides of an equals sign. Talk about diving into murky waters and coming up with a fish with that idea! There's nothing intuitive about it, but it all works out. With quantum physics, you can get an idea of how the equations work out, but after so much reading you're still not sure what you're really looking at. It's just not as gratifying a feeling ... more bewildering. Although, then again, it's very weirdness that just refuses to resolve itself (like it does with relativity) is some of its charm.

Yeah, but then those variations aren't "you". Or are they??? Or what does it mean to be "you", anyway?

Living it an infinite number of times. Nietzsche liked this idea so much because he thought you'd damn well make good decisions if you thought you were making them for eternity. Pretty much captures what existentialism is all about. I mean, you may not remember living before, but if you knew that you had*, the not-remembering part would be even more ominous. You don't know what's coming, but it's inevitable. Amor fati. * I guess for this I mean, you know the math supports infinite time and quantum fluctuations ensure every physical possibility at some non-zero probability , and you are ensured the universe keeps "living", through infinite expansion or black hole recursion or compactification, take your pick ... if you have those assumptions, you are virtually absolutely guaranteed to have all of this repeated, and infinitely so, along with every variation.

Nope, apparently you're going to have to use the encoding for Shift-JIS* if you've got it (sorry about that). It's Japanese (you mean the anime smilie didn't give it away?). I suppose I could take the time to dig up some Japanese characters that work with unicode that say exactly what I want it to, but I'm just that lazy to not be buggered with it. I just thought that Yiddish and Japanese would be a funny combo. * Nope, Shift-JIS isn't working either. Damn, I can't see that thing with any encoding! Lol ... oh well, I tried. I swear I could see it when I first posted it, but now I forgot just what encoding I used.

You mean meshugenah? no wait ... wait ... ç§é”ã¯ã™ã¹ã¦ç‹‚æ°—ã§ã‚る。( ^ _ ^ )

Hey Fidcal, I just wanted to say that was an awesome job on the review. I think you guys won over a lot of new fans with that.

Yes, this is what I meant. Apologies for being confusing (technically photogallery sites are photohosting sites, as well, by necessity. But, in any event, it's the gallery option that you're looking for.)

Man, you gotta think transcendent. TDM is all about gameplay transcending story. I think as a next generation thing, it's kind of cool that it's going to have to learn to walk all on its own so it can stand on its own, so to speak. The gameplay will see it through.

Well, what he should do is have a dedicated website for them where they are all arranged by thumbnail, and then just have a link to that site. I'm pretty sure there are some free photo-hosting sites that will do that for you if you can't do it on where you have them now. Just use a search engine to find a good one.

That's the paradox that the engine itself isn't really seen as much as the assets it is rendering. I do sometimes think some of the textures tend to the plastic-y look, I guess because of the specular, and hope that they can be made to look a little duller and more natural. But I'm not too worried about it. It still looks good, and I think that can be worked out, too. I should have said, rather than the choice, cheering your good fortune that the D3 Engine became available for you to use when it did, and is what it is. Not to anyone's great credit for such an easy choice, so much as just good timing.

Ah, rowdy Roddy Piper's finest moment (well, he had a lot of fine moments ... so one of them, anyway) Funny enough I just looked this movie up very recently for some random reason ... after years, decades of ever thinking about it. So it's funny to suddenly see it independently referred to by someone else. It really is an under-appreciated pulp classic.

This is probably one thing that excites me more than anything about working with TDM. You guys should still be patting yourselves on the back for making the right decision on that.

Yeah, this is what Krypt told us in the ttlg TDS forum long ago (link), that I mentioned here. That's what made me more optimistic about DX3 in the sense that the biggest mistake in DXIW was really a preventable one, and everything else was fluff compared to that one. The rest of the interviews make for interesting reading, though. Thanks.

Well, my advice is to find an established site, like an ezine, that already does what you're looking to do, and start submitting articles to them and just offering your time and support. You'll get more credibility much faster if you go through something already established rather than start your own thing, which will be automatically suspect. Research around. I enjoy reading some of the zines on independent PC gaming. The other important part of my point is to say that the critical PC gaming community needs to be banding together more than fragmenting apart. It's also good that you gravitate to something already established because they honestly need the support/help, whereas if you go-it-alone you will find it hard to get support and only further fragment the community of people writing on this topic, just one more isolated site people would have to go to follow the trend when they'd prefer to go to just a few established sites. Plus the community and support you'll get from an established site would be honestly energizing, I'd think. Better to be a smaller fish among many, but you'll be part of the team, than a bigger fish that's lonely in your own bowl.

Well, what would be really cool for the voice when you put it that way -- and I'm just thinking aloud here, appropriately enough, not saying this is the definitive best thing or anything -- but if you want it to sound a little "robotic", it would be cool to put your loud, articulate voice recording (normal voice or played up, either way) through a filter that put an electronic edge on it. That would make it sound better and more consistent than trying to get your voice to do it unaided, I think. And then you could play with the filter attributes to get a really cool sound. And, as a bonus, it might also help you get a better sound recording for the video generally, so you could kick out two issues with one stone. I'm almost sure that there's freely available software that does that. Anyway, just an idea.

Yeah, I concentrated in cognitive science in undergrad, and I don't remember a single moment where QM effects were ever taken seriously for a second. The basic unit of functional organization in the brain is the neuron (anything lower than that just doesn't have functional relevance to how information moves or is "processed" throughout the brain, hence, cognition). And just about everything you'd want to explain about the neuron itself is safely covered by classical electromagnetism and fluid mechanics, basically charges and concentrations, nothing very fancy, and then there's nothing remaining left to explain. All the hard questions are about how neurons are organized to work together, not really how individual neurons work ... which we actually know a good deal about. So I don't know what they think QM is really contributing. Well, I think the idea started because people got the idea that superpositions didn't collapse until they were "observed", so they figured there must be some connection between the observing-process (consciousness) and QM state collapse, and then they must have figured it works in the other direction, too. Or something... the whole idea is so out-of-touch with anything going on in cogsci that I don't know what they think they're doing. ... still waiting for that answer to "momentum", though.