I changed the title. Although honestly, I could have done that at first. The line drawings were quite helpful...

In reply to this comment by radx:
Bloody hell, you keep finding the wierdest stuff.

This semi-instructional clip on how to hide a boner was part of an educational programme that was aired on a tv channel meant for kids/teens.

Bloody hell, you keep finding the wierdest stuff.

This semi-instructional clip on how to hide a boner was part of an educational programme that was aired on a tv channel meant for kids/teens.

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.

>> ^Fletch:

Beijing may have ruined it for all future Olympic host cities, but that was the most boring opening ceremony I've ever seen. I kept switching over to "Deadliest Catch" repeats. And Paul McCartney? "I wonder if he'll sing 'Hey J...' yep, there he goes". At least the audience participation limits the amount of seventy year-old sour notes they are subjected to. Tell me that wasn't hard to watch. It was entertaining the way "FOX and Friends" is entertaining, or the way running your tongue over a painful canker sore again and again is entertaining.
By the way, Elliot finally came through and found the crab, to the relief of his crew.


Yeah. Meh for that one after seeing Beijing, China, in 2008 (why did the I delete my high definition (HD)'s recording?). The industrial revolution's ring forge was cool and nice bassy music. James Bond (007) skit wasn't that great either. At least Mr. Bean's skit was funny, and he should have been in the whole opening ceremony! Not enough special effects and colors!

Will anyone be able to 2008's summer game's opening ceremony? Oh well. Thanks goodness for recording to avoid watching 4.5 hours of it and its commercials/advertisements (ads.)/spots! What happened to Dr. Who (excluding the audio)?

>> ^Babymech:

How the hell do you find this kind of thing in the first place?

The concept of going past the boundaries of a memory segment isn't new to most programmers, and since most older games pack things in so tightly in order to make the most of their limited space, it isn't too hard to pull off such tricks. The main challenge is figuring out which bits to switch (to turn on the "you win!" flag) and how to switch them (If the bit is represented as an unbreakable block to Mario, then he couldn't really change it). You'd also need to figure out how to glitch your way into that area of memory in the first place (in this case it was to create those blocks through another glitch, then use the standard Mario Jumping Through Walls glitch to get there, etc). So yeah, it's not a trivial task, but ROM hackers tend to spend a lot of time looking at that code anyway, so it's not surprising they'd come up with a method.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bcglorf:
So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.

Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.
That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.
And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.
What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.
To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?


You can see Mann's latest work here. Just don't stop with reading the abstract where he declares the reinforcement of his previous studies and findings. Go further down and look at the reconstruction of the last 2k years the article was built on. The green EIV line is the 'newer' statistical method recommended to him by statisticians that claimed his previous method was biased towards 0(minimized highs and lows). You can clearly see the EIV reconstruction shows multiple peaks in the past. More importantly though, look at the last 100 years on the graph. The bold red line is the instrumental record. It blots out most of the last 100 years, but if you look closely, you can see that none of the reconstructed lines spike away into scary land like the instrumental record. In fact, none of the reconstructed lines climb above where the EIV line has peaked multiple times in the past. To me that screams the need to look harder still at the probability that our methods for reconstruction aren't sensitive enough to pick up a short spike like what we know from the instrumental record is currently taking place. That doesn't prove spikes like the last 100 years are common, but it DOES call into serious question the claim that it's never happened before in the last 2k years. That final claim is the vital and key point between everyone panic and lets study this further to understand it fully.

>> ^bcglorf:

So the moral is, it is absolutely time to panic.
Not just maybe, but absolutely time to panic.
Fortunately, he IS overstating the situation. Right from the very start he declares how stable the last 10k years have been, and that the last 100 have already broken all records seen over those 10k years. Go use google scholar and read Michael Mann's recent work on reconstructing the last 2k years. Mann is one of the leading scientists arguing that it is time to panic and things are getting bad very fast. His research is publicly available on google scholar for everyone to go and read.
If you can be bothered to go and read that before shouting me down as a denier, you will find the following in his research. That there is at least some evidence that on at least two occasions over the last 2k years, climate HAS been as warm or warmer than current.
I'm not saying it's all roses and that there is nothing to see here. I AM saying that if you go read the actual research you'll find a much more nuanced and less panic stricken assortment of facts than what is presented in this video.


Can you post a link to the page your talking about? I used google scholar, but Mann has published quite a few papers and I really don't have time to read them all.

That said, even if I read the paper, I'm not confident I'd understand it fully. From my limited research into climatology, it's a reasonably complex science. My problem is that I don't really have time to study all the theory around this.

And frankly, I shouldn't have to. I'm not a climatologist. No-one alive today can possibly hope to understand all science in every field. That's why we specialise. With a small amount of ego, I'm willing to say that most climatologists are worse programmers than I am, but that's ok too, 'cos that's not their field.

What I'm trying to say in my trademark, rambling, incoherent way is that I generally accept a scientific consensus (assuming it's been properly peer reviewed and so on). Fallacy of majority? Possibly. I'm willing to accept the possibility that there's a gifted climatologist out there who is desperately trying to get the rest of them to understand the crucial theory/evidence/algorithm they've missed, and it's all going to be ok. Hell, I hope there is, but it seems unlikely to me.

To apply Occams razor: which makes more sense?

I like you and your opinions (in general) so lets get that out of the way. This isn't personal. My wife is studying computer science and puts up with the kind of latent sexism that I believe your statements represent (so maybe it is a bit personal, but it isn't meant to be a personal attack against you.)

I just enjoy a good debate. <== bold font of peace
Again, I don't necessarily think you're a sexist or a misogynist. I think you may be suffering from the same "boys club" attitude that many of the engineers I've worked with operate under. I just want you to introspect a little and consider the possibility.

For the sake of argument, what if we replaced the masculine/feminine terms in your question with racial ones:

"why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single [race] dominated to the other [race], e.g. [some profession] to [blacks], [some other profession] to [whites]?"

I'm drawing no conclusions about the importance or the value of one profession over the other, merely putting it into racial terms instead of sexual ones. To me, it feels just as icky.

I believe that sexism is still widely accepted in our society, to a much higher degree than racial intolerance, or even tolerance of "alternate lifestyles". It's insidious, and it crosses the entirety of our society (sexism in every racial community.) Women still get paid less for the same work, they still have a harder time getting promotions (and then still make less money.) Women are even very sexist against each-other (you should see the looks my wife gets when she tells other mothers at school functions that she's finishing a compsci degree.)

Maybe I'm overly touchy about it, and for that I apologize.
In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
In reply to this comment by KnivesOut:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ChaosEngine" title="member since November 9th, 2009" class="profilelink">ChaosEngine you said "why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?"

Was that your question that I was supposed to answer? My answer is: that's a sexist question.

I know you fucking love bold type, so I thought that might help to get through.


I resisted for a few days but I eventually gave in and read your reply. I could escalate this little feud with a few more petty insults, but fuck it, it's late, I'm tired and having read some of your other posts, I don't think you're actually a bad guy.

That said, I believe you're wrong here. It's not a sexist question. One could imply a sexist answer from it, but that was not the spirit in which it was intended. Hell, it wasn't even rhetorical. It was genuinely meant to provoke a discussion around what careers and vocations appeal to genders and what are the ramifications of that. The fact that there are less women in science does not mean that women are less intelligent than men, as much as the fact that there are less men in nursing does not mean that mean are less caring.

My question was (and still is) about whether we need a "programme" to change this. What are the benefits of this versus an "organic" approach of just letting people do what they want or are good at?

If you really feel the need to establish my sexist/non sexist credentials, maybe you should read some of my earlier posts on the subject. Hell, ask bareboards, I've had a lot of interesting discussions on this.

Anyway, consider this a virtual olive branch. I truly have better things to do with my time than fight you over this, but I don't appreciate being labelled something I'm not.

Oh, and bold type is fucking awesome :

I work as a game programmer, mainly in UI. We work in Unity3D with C#.


I get up at 8(ish), brush my teeth and take the bus to work. Get in at 9, set down and work on awesome stuff. At 17 (5 PM for you 12h types) I go back home and play starcraft or diablo or @Lann.

From Wikipedia:

In June 2012, Carr's involvement in an alleged K2 tax avoidance scheme came to light after an investigation by The Times newspaper. The scheme is understood to involve UK earners "quitting" their job and signing new employment contracts with offshore shell companies based in the tax haven of Jersey.

Earlier in 2012 Carr had lampooned people who avoid tax during the second series of Channel 4's satirical news programme 10 O'Clock Live. A sketch from the show, in which he poked fun at the 1 per cent tax rate of Barclays Bank has now "come back to haunt him".

Awesome. I played this back in 2009/2010 when I was interviewing the programmer for Owlboy. It pretty well convinced me that we needed to hire him.

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.

Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.
>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.


I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^KnivesOut:

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".

>> ^KnivesOut:

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.

That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.


I don't disagree with promoting science.

So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.

Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.
Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.
I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.
Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.
Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.
The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.