Your video, Zero Punctuation: Far Cry 3, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Odd that Americans have to listen to RT to get correct news. MSNBC is a far cry from any truth.

Maybe. But why hide her face then?

>> ^VoodooV:

the girl may not have realized what she was getting into. But that's a far cry from being innocent. My guess is that she knew exactly what she was doing, just either wasn't expecting to be caught or maybe thought the other side did it too (very probably true, in either case, it's no excuse)
I'm sorry, kids can be dumb, but not quite that dumb. not understanding the consequences isn't the same thing as knowing you're deliberately trying to include one group and exclude the other.

the girl may not have realized what she was getting into. But that's a far cry from being innocent. My guess is that she knew exactly what she was doing, just either wasn't expecting to be caught or maybe thought the other side did it too (very probably true, in either case, it's no excuse)

I'm sorry, kids can be dumb, but not quite that dumb. not understanding the consequences isn't the same thing as knowing you're deliberately trying to include one group and exclude the other.

and Kofi, making a few funny posts doesn't excuse deliberate troll posts. That's like saying it's ok to be a dick as long as I help grandma across the street a few times.

That was som superb and *quality software engineering in there. If this one opens up just like Crysis 1 (the one truly meant for computers, and it's older but smaller brother Far Cry REALLY showed you what this engine has to offer in open-ended gameplay), if you pull down walls, open all the buildings, and truly force you to think outside the box again (back when your gun was usually the LAST thing you would resort too as everything else--every other option was FAR more fun. You felt like a demi-God that was dropped off in a hot zone to deal with insects, until you meet the aliens and the ante is brought up. All that fun you had, NOW it really gets tested.

But, with consoles some of the scope has been killed, like in Cnrysis 2. I hate to say that, but it pisses a lot of PC Gamers off. But, luckily they are still developing basically everything on the PC. But, some changesg I'D like to see are: huge, unlimited outdoor areas (like Crysis UNO), up to and over 100 objects--that is aliens and people plus moving vehicles and things like this that are active in the frame--are supported (with the computing power we have I'm sure they could max out your field of vision), drastically increased object A.I. From enemies to super-graphic-froggies, further increases and even more (as I do know they've added some, like the "smart crumpling" of cars--making crashes FAR more realistic and neat) to the overall Physics system--inevitably I hope it would be the core component to every program element in the game before ANYTHING else happens (basically, it is the tried and true foundational component for the whole show, I would hope with some programmers that know Physics and Engineering--being able to reproduce in-game MACHINES and inventions of their own...--well AND enjoy it, and more programmers that like Physics too, but they are fans of very well done science fiction and comics--that way you have an aggressive "baseline" controlling everything except for a small section which the science fiction and comics crew can come up--I mean if they really get ambitious, eventually, they could add Biology; The sky is the limit!--and they'd add in elements for all the nano-technology, possibly genetic modification (which is just a few lines of code right now), everything the aliens need ( which means there would. Have to be a "theoretical Physics add-on to the full Physics component...

In the future if they just kept developing this Engine to say Cry Engine ver 15.0, just imagine the literal mind-blowing capabilities this thing could do and produce. You might have scientists from every field, even the military, involved in it's development--people from jobs and different walks of life (like a cancer survivor)--across the world inputting their most-valuable lifetime of experiences.

The game may not be Crysis anymore, but maybe a lot of people will finally realize that not only does your game get better with more infomation... But, if you have an accurate enough simulator to life, AMAZING things can be done. We can, all day create craft to fly in, see what fails IMMEDIATLY and the others that produce Hypersonic flight with LOW fuel usage. The possibilities would be endless, and the frog could become a virtual pet.

So I really hope they come full throttle to the PC and create a secondary division dealing with the consoles from the barebones PC Realese. Thus allowing them to push the technology to it's boundaries!

None-the-less I love the CryEngine out of any other for playing a game--a modern game.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

While I agree that business holds much more sway over our current government than I am comfortable with, they are still a legitimate constituency. Passing this bill, in spite of all the concessions Obama had to make to business, is still a major accomplishment that will expand care to a large number of people that could not otherwise not afford it. It may be a far cry from superior health care systems in Canada or the UK, but it's still a huge step in the right direction for a country that has allowed the private sector to put healthcare out of reach to so many for so long. We've got our foot in the door. Savor the moment.
>> ^criticalthud:
No major piece of legislation gets passed these days without tipping the balance in favor of corporate interests over those of the people, especially in the Citizens United age. For every one thing in a law that favors the people, the insanely powerful and wealthy interests at play get the same plus some.



I'd love to agree with you. but did anyone notice insurance companies taking a bath yesterday on wall street? - i think we can safely say that the drafters of this law (largely, insurance companies) wrote in language that will protect their profit margin.

and even if insurance companies are losing profit in the short run, they are gaining a significant amount of power over the people, one that gives them, their paid-for-government, and whatever private security corps they choose buckets of reasons to finish trampling on any privacy notions we might have.

and all the elements that makes american "health" care suck are still firmly in place.

the first and most important job of an insurance company is to convince you that you need them.
the second is price fixing.

While I agree that business holds much more sway over our current government than I am comfortable with, they are still a legitimate constituency. Passing this bill, in spite of all the concessions Obama had to make to business, is still a major accomplishment that will expand care to a large number of people that could not otherwise not afford it. It may be a far cry from superior health care systems in Canada or the UK, but it's still a huge step in the right direction for a country that has allowed the private sector to put healthcare out of reach to so many for so long. We've got our foot in the door. Savor the moment.

>> ^criticalthud:

No major piece of legislation gets passed these days without tipping the balance in favor of corporate interests over those of the people, especially in the Citizens United age. For every one thing in a law that favors the people, the insanely powerful and wealthy interests at play get the same plus some.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^darkrowan:
Goosebumps... pure, fucking goosebumps when he pulled out and showed he was still in the editor.

Somewhere in the past in the developement of UE4...
"Holy Crap, that Crytek WYSIWYG editor was fucking awesome."


Yah, they've been doing that since Far Cry 1 (2004).

See, this is where Obama's announcement is paying off in my opinion. It's forcing the sociopaths like this into the light. Even if you're the least bit moderate, even if you're the least bit sympathetic towards homosexuals. You may not like homosexuality, you may not agree with it. But when you see shitheads like this advocating violence or concentration camps, that's an entirely different matter. Disliking something or thinking homosexuality is gross is a far cry from violence and/or extermination. I'm sure there are sifters here who don't think homosexuals deserve equal rights, but something tells me they don't have the stomach to do what this guy is advocating.

That's a line many people are not willing to cross.

Obama's announcement may not win him re-election or anything, but it did advance human rights so that we'll all win in the long run.

Yeah... I'm not condoning what happened, but I'm with @dystopianfuturetoday. Could have just been a freudian slip or a mis-read. Happens to me all the time when I read in class.

Besides, I've watched this show over the years. It's the last place I'd expect a big slant or some slight of hand that might ruin the shows integrity. It's a dull show with slow moving, methodical commentary/interviews. A far cry from Hannity or Olberman.

"Ok, you need to understand two different concepts........the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality.....supposedly bring down evolution."

Minor disagreements? I'm having a hard time believing that you've seriously investigated this subject if you are now claiming (scaled back from your prior claim of perfect agreement between "scores" of them) that molecular and morphological phylogonies typically have a high level of agreement. They don't. Agreement is the exception, not the rule. Even worse, molecular phylogonies don't agree with eachother either:

As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology. . . .

Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published (e.g. 132, 152, 170), structure or resolution tends to evaporate

Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001101

"If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference"

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution""

Your charge of quote mining is false. Quote mining is the logical fallacy of quoting something out of context, distorting its intended meaning. The quote I provided was very much in context, and showed support for the assertion that molecular and morphological phylogenies do not have "perfect" agreement, and now I have further supported that assertion (and disproven your scaled back claim of very statistically significant agreement) that their agreement is actually very superficial. It is far more significant how little agreement there actually is.

The very reason there is a contention about which is the "best" method is precisely because there is so little agreement. In any case, molecular homology appears to be winning the battle, perhaps because the evolutionists are getting tired of never finding any evolution in the fossil record.

Which brings us to the many issues with molecular homologies, specifically, their lack of falsifiability:

"We believe that it is possible to draw up a list of basic rules that underlie existing molecular evolutionary models:

All theories are monophyletic, meaning that they all start with the Urgene and the Urzelle which have given rise to all proteins and all species, respectively.

Complexity evolves mainly through duplications and mutations in structural and control genes.

Genes can mutate or remain stable, migrate laterally from species to species, spread through a population by mechanisms whose operation is not fully understood, evolve coordinately, splice, stay silent, and exist as pseudogenes.

Ad hoc arguments can be invented (such as insect vectors or viruses) that can transport a gene into places where no monophyletic logic could otherwise explain its presence.

This liberal spread of rules, each of which can be observed in use by scientists, does not just sound facetious but also, in our opinion, robs monophyletic evolution of its vulnerability to disproof, and thereby its entitlement to the status of a scientific theory.

The absolute, explicit and implicit, adherence to all the monophyletic principle and consequently the decision to interpret all observations in the light of this principle is the major cause of incongruities as well as for the invention of all the genetic sidestepping rules cited above."

A Polyphyletic View of Evolution

Schwabe and Warr

This is why Schwabe, a biochemist, wrote:

Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist I should be elated. Instead it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many, in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message

It's a shell game where virtually any kind of data can be accomodated, and at no point is the theory questioned. Ad hoc explanations can be invented for any kind of discrepency.

""There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.""

A mountain of weak, circumstantial evidence (much of which contradicts itself) does not prove macro evolution. "We're working on it" does not somehow validate that evidence. We know the holocaust happened; there is no proof for macro evolution.

""As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.""

There are numerous sources showing that junk dna is not junk:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/28/1103894108.full.pdf+html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025112059.htm

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211

Based on your earlier argument, "we're working on it", you should realize that what some scientists consider to be junk dna stems entirely from ignorance. The idea that it got in there by "viral dna insertions" and the like is simply another ad hoc explanation among many.

""And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on""

I have already demonstrated that the consensus is very weak. What you need to provide is data backing up your claims regarding cytochrome c. I am awaiting the "scores" of phylogonies that will match that data.

@shinyblurry - No, yours is and here's why:

Ok, you need to understand two different concepts. The first, is the notion that science is constantly refining itself. It is never 100% correct, and there is near constant debate about what is the best method of determining something to be factual. In this case, we're talking about whether molecular systematics or morphological characteristics are the most accurate means of determining phylogeny. The second is the notion of statistical significance. Now I'll admit that in saying that they "coincide perfectly," I failed to adhere to a more accurate and rigorous description of what is actually happening, so I'll rectify that now. The correlation between the different trees constructed by different fields within biology have an extremely statistically significant amount of correlation. This means that while we can expect disagreement and there will be debate about the best method to refine the results, the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality where science is never 100% correct and there is a constant debate over the relative effectiveness of varying methods of phylogenetic determination, there will be a huge excess of material for you to quote mine in an effort to distort the significance of the minor disagreements that are common in science to a scale that can supposedly bring down evolution.

If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference:

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution.

There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.

As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.

And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

@shinyblurry - No, yours is and here's why:


Ok, you need to understand two different concepts. The first, is the notion that science is constantly refining itself. It is never 100% correct, and there is near constant debate about what is the best method of determining something to be factual. In this case, we're talking about whether molecular systematics or morphological characteristics are the most accurate means of determining phylogeny. The second is the notion of statistical significance. Now I'll admit that in saying that they "coincide perfectly," I failed to adhere to a more accurate and rigorous description of what is actually happening, so I'll rectify that now. The correlation between the different trees constructed by different fields within biology have an extremely statistically significant amount of correlation. This means that while we can expect disagreement and there will be debate about the best method to refine the results, the odds of getting so much similarity by accident is exceedingly small.

So in light of this reality where science is never 100% correct and there is a constant debate over the relative effectiveness of varying methods of phylogenetic determination, there will be a huge excess of material for you to quote mine in an effort to distort the significance of the minor disagreements that are common in science to a scale that can supposedly bring down evolution.

If only you were a bit better at it. Even the quotes you chose to mine serve to undermine your point. I think my point can be summarized by the following quote from your reference:

“On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the BEST way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history.”

The relevant part here is the word “best.” These people are clearly just trying to decide what the most accurate method of phylogenetic determination is and this article represents nothing more than a discussion of one of the many battles that go on in the constant refinement of science. And this disagreement does nothing at all to disprove evolution.

There are analogous debates going on in nearly all branches of academic study. Taking an example with fewer existential implications for religion, look towards the Holocaust. There is an ongoing effort by Yad Va Shem, a jewish organization, to catalogue all those who died under the Nazi regime as well as those who aided jews in various ways (http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/remembrance/hall_of_names.asp). Now at the moment they have verified only three million names and something like 24000 people who helped, and details on each vary. But wait, oh no! We all know that there were roughly six million victims! And we don’t even have complete information about the paltry three million we’ve catalogued. Does this mean that the Holocaust did not happen? Of course it doesn’t. You need to take the internal debate in context and realize that the total sum of evidence is overwhelming. Creationists, however, can not be so objective with such a threatening theory as evolution.

As for your junk DNA article, you similarly blow the relevance way out of proportion. Here’s the last sentence from the text that summarizes the relevance of the article:

“The present study suggests that some selfish DNA transposons can instead confer an important role to their hosts, thereby establishing themselves as long-term residents of the genome.”

Here it states simply that some of the junk DNA, not all of it, can become useful to the cell. This sentence proves you wrong in two ways. First, it admits that they have only found a few instances of utility for this junk DNA, which is a far cry from the evidence that would be necessary for the slow death you speak of. Second, the acknowledges that this as an instance of Junk DNA incorporating itself into the genome and taking on novel and useful roles. In other words, evolution!

The genome is huge and nowhere in biology does it say that all of the DNA we have designated as junk is most certainly junk. Again, this is just another example of incrementally refining our understanding about how things work, but it is not revolutionary and it still demonstrates a clear framework.

And regardless or whether or not your article shows that a lot of Junk DNA has function (which is common knowledge, by the way), it does not at all disprove the fact that junk DNA shows typically exhibits much higher rates of mutation because its specific sequence is less rigidly constrained than coding DNA (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n11/full/nrg3098.html?WT.ec_id=NRG-201111). It is not a complete lack of function that demonstrates evolution, but simply a higher rate of mutation that results in sequences that will be more varied the more distantly related two species are.

And finally, read these articles if you want a more complete understanding about how the comparisons between phylogenetic trees are indeed imperfect, but well supported and constantly refined:

http://cmgm.stanford.edu/phylip/consense.html
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/cplite/ch4.pdf
http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/paper_file/McGill/Bryant/03ConsensusAMS.pdf
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/423
http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/12/1556.full

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these articles detailing what is essentially a whole, distinct area of study. Just search the term “consensus trees” and you’ll see what I mean.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=onhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=consensus+trees&hl=en
&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on

>> ^legacy0100:

The publishers tried that with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, but they F ed it up realllllly bad and killed the franchise in one fell swoop. So I don't think that'll be happening any time soon.
Besides, there is no need for an overhaul of old Enemy Territory because other games have already surpassed its legacy. Modern Warfare, Call of Duty, Far Cry and Team Fortress 2 have taken Enemy Territory's concept and have surpassed it far and beyond.


Yeah, I didn't like ET:QW.

The publishers tried that with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, but they F***ed it up realllllly bad and killed the franchise in one fell swoop. So I don't think that'll be happening any time soon.

Besides, there is no need for an overhaul of old Enemy Territory because other games have already surpassed its legacy. Modern Warfare, Call of Duty, Far Cry and Team Fortress 2 have taken Enemy Territory's concept and have surpassed it far and beyond.