Let's put it like this: The so-called halting problem does not make sense on systems with finite memory because the answer is trivial. The so-called halting problem implies that memory is unlimited because otherwise it's not a problem at all.
It's the same as with computational complexity. The question "what is the computational complexity of this algorithm?" only makes sense on unlimited RAM because otherwise the answer is trivial ("either O(1) or the algorithm cannot be computed because of limited RAM").
The answers to these questions are still useful in systems with limited memory because they provide useful information about the behavior of these algorithms and what can be deduced about them.
What an odd generalization. Perhaps "most NES games are simple and linear" would be correct, but certainly not all of them. Metroid, castlevania and the different JRPGs (such as the Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior series) are well-known examples.
In the "first world" people are educated. That's why when disaster struck Japan everyone helped each other, even in a desperate situation.
In Africa you don't think of others, you think of yourself. Yourself first.
You do realize just how terrible this sounds, right? Perhaps not intentionally, but it really is horribly racist. "Yeah, us smart people know how to work together, but those backwards barbarians are too greedy to pull themselves out of the mud."
*sigh* I don't know if I should laugh or cry every time someone pulls out the racism card. If something can be interpreted as racist, then it automatically is racism.
Where do you draw the line? If someone says "African countries are in average much poorer than European countries", is that racist (for the simple reason that the average skin color of African population is darker than the European population)? If not, then where exactly do you draw the line when making claims about large populations becomes "racist"?
Not to mention that the "first world" is the reason so much of Africa is in such a bad state. Colonialism really wreaked havoc there.
And why is that not a racist comment? After all, these colonialists had all a certain skin tone.
(Yes, this could be interpreted as a racist comment according to your standards. Not a single living person today is responsible for colonialism, and even back then not every person was responsible for that either. In fact, only a minority of Europeans engaged in colonialism. Yet you are putting them all together under the same category and assigning global responsibility to them all based solely on where they lived.)
And this even assuming that your claim is true.
I have another question.... What if I'm traveling at 66% of c and someone else is traveling at 66% of c in the oposite direction? I will see him traveling faster than c?
No, if you round both speeds to 2c/3, you'll see him traveling at 12c/13 (in special relativity). More generally, the composition of any two subluminal velocities will always result in a subluminal one.
What happens is that you will see the rest of the universe compressed in the direction you are traveling, and when you measure the speed of the other object, it will be under c.
(This is the reason why you can travel from one point to another in an arbitrarily short period of time from your own perspective, even though from an outsider's perspective your speed never exceeds c. You can travel from Earth to Alpha Centauri in one second, make a 180-degree turn and come back in another second. However, from Earth's perspective your round-trip takes over 8 years. When you come back you will be 2 seconds older, while everyone on Earth will be over 8 years older. Effectively you have traveled to the future. Relativity is wonky like that.)
There has ALWAYS been a "in-game time" category for Super Metroid in addition to the "real time" category. It's not some wonky or arbitrary new category; it's existed since Cpadolf's original run in March of 2008.
The old adage goes: Past mistakes don't justify repeating them.
(This doesn't mean the in-game-timing run shouldn't be published. It just means that "we have done so in the past" is not a good argument for doing so.)
Reading up on the halting problem in the link Bisqwit posted earlier, it seems that the halting problem is only undeciable on Turing machines with infinite memory. The NES, of course, does not have infinite memory, so the halting problem is actually decidable.
No, the halting problem does not become decidable if you limit the amount of RAM. You still can't say "this algorithm will halt" (or not halt).
What happens with a finite amount of RAM is that some algorithms become uncomputable. In other words, you can't get an answer to the problem "will this algorithm halt?" because the limited resources don't permit running the whole algorithm. It may run out of memory in practice and hence either terminate because of that or enter an infinite loop (which is an incorrect implementation of the algorithm), but that's not an answer to the problem.
(Likewise a terminating algorithm doesn't become O(1) if you limit the amount of RAM, regardless of what its computational complexity was originally. The only thing you achieve with this is that some inputs cannot be computed. It doesn't change the complexity.)
Could someone please explain to me, once again, why ingame time is any kind of desirable goal with this game. What's the point?
To me it looks like the major difference between an ingame-time run and a wallclock-time run is that in the former you get to see more door transitions than in the latter, which I don't think is a positive thing at all. So what exactly justifies the ingame-timing as a goal?
Finally finished watching it. Voted yes. I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should obsolete the warped run or not.
I'm probably not the first one to notice, but it's just hilariously ironic that the game end entices the player to push the B button.
The idea of walkathon, to me, does not represent speed.
Just because an alternative goal or constraint is applied to the run doesn't mean it's not speed-oriented. It still tries to achieve the faster possible completion time under those conditions (as opposed to "contains speed/entertainment tradeoffs", where the fastest routes/actions are not always performed for the sole purpose of making the video more entertaining to watch, but without any explicit rule or constraint being applied, and also as opposed to "playaround", where speed is not a goal at all).
Other examples of runs that use special constraints but are still fully speed-oriented are those under the categories "100% completion", "uses sub-optimal character", "forgoes warps" and "pacifist".
Of course this does not affect whether this run should obsolete the warped run or not. That's a different question.
the reason My PS3 is used only for blu-ray and exclusive titles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ8NhxD0-Ek
granted, it's like that on the 360 as well, but not as severely, and the installing of the game is optional.
I'm actually quite surprised how relatively fast the loading times are on the Xbox360 even if you are playing the game directly from the DVD. I'm amazed at how well they have optimized it.
Anyways, I always install the game to HD before playing it, for two reasons: Firstly, and most obviously, it makes the loading times even faster. Secondly, it's a quick way of checking the integrity of the entire disk. Nothing is more irritating than having played the game for 30 hours and then it giving you a read error. (It's also very convenient that if there happens to be an error, I can go immediately to the store to change it, rather than after several weeks.) (And no, reading errors are not common at all. So far I have had only one case, and that's because one of the disks came in a paper envelope, and this particular game is quite infamous for it.)
It's a very common phenomenon with (exclusive) fans of a certain product/company that if the product/company does not offer a feature that the biggest competitor is offering, the feature is deemed as useless, unneeded, if not even detrimental, or at the very least "not all that good" by these fans. Invariably if/when their pet product/company starts offering said feature (or something equivalent to it), it suddenly becomes great (and in many cases "better" than what the competitor is offering).
You can see this with anything. Just think about Windows/Linux/MacOS fans, C++/Java/C# fans, and so on.
If the trials are independent, then the probability of even not happening in y trials is this to the power of y, i.e. (1-x)^y.
E.g. if x=0.01 (1% chance) and y=100 (100 attempts), this yields ~36.6%.
You might want to revise that result.
(Hint: The correct number is something like 10-198%.)
Your credibility went just down the toilet with that comment.
FODA wrote:
Well then, I've fallen prey to the media tactic of labeling the protest simply as anti-capitalism. There are people in wall street holding signs that say "capitalism doesn't work", which helps support that. Also, people are posting anti-capitalism stuff on my facebook page. Imagine my rage, now they're gone too far.
I'm all about capitalism.
Perhaps they oppose the form of capitalism that is enacted in the US. You know, the form of capitalism where big corporations basically get to decide who gets into congress, and in turn congress gives all kinds of irrational benefits to big corporations while at the same time discriminating workers and depriving them of basic rights (I think it's a travesty that there are some states where labor unions are illegal; what kind of banana republic totalitarian dictatorships are they? Workers also lack all kinds of other forms of protection; for instance, employers can fire employees at a whim, at any time, for any reason, without notice, effective immediately, and there's nothing the employee can do about it.)
And you're right; death grunts are far inferior to the singing of a Freddy Mercury or Bruce Dickinson. However, compared to the crappy, third-rate vocals of a Sum 41 or Zebrahead, they're at least as good.
Normal singing requires a lot of both natural talent and practice, and it's certainly possible to greatly appreciate someone's singing voice and ability regardless of what they are singing (iow. even if the song itself is pure crap).
However, that's only one side of singing (and music in general). The other side is the feeling that the singing causes. People seldom listen to music purely for the technical quality of it, but because of the emotions that it produces (otherwise almost nobody would listen to music; it would be boring as hell).
Normal singing can cause very strong emotions. Death grunt can also cause emotions, although usually rather different ones. In this case it's not so much what the technical quality of the singing might be (in the traditional sense) but how it sounds and how it makes you feel. That's the main point, and arguing that death "isn't singing" or very crappy singing isn't really relevant, (Yes, I know you weren't saying that. I'm just commenting on a parallel point.)
* End input as soon as the game will end on its own (with no further input)
* End input as soon as it is impossible for further input to prevent the end of the game
* End input as soon as the game begins its ending
I like this one the most:
* End input as soon as no further input can make the game ending happen faster.
(The major problem with "impossible for further input to prevent the end of the game" is that you have to then specify "except reset, start, and any possible button that pauses or interrupts the game even at the game end".)
Then, you showed up and started angrily responding to my every post.
For the record, that first reply I made to your post was humorous, not "angry" or "aggressive". I do not often use smileys to denote the tone of my posts, but I do use the mood avatars (I use this avatar for serious posts and the other avatars for non-serious ones).
You, on the other hand, have called me in particular and the community in general "infantile", "obsessed fanboy" and "having tastes of a 8-year old". (And no, before you object, I did not call you a fat beer-drinking etc. guy; I simply said that your behavior reminds me of that kind of behavior, iow. a bit on the hypocritical side.) Why do you need the feel to insult me and the fans of the show?
I wonder if there's any music genre that's harder and more aggressive than deathcore...
If you like more melodic death metal, try this (one of my favorites): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zCPwR4c3bA
3) The meme-friendly nature of the internet acts as a sort of self-reinforcing sounding board.
I will never see an episode in the same way anymore after reading about wingboners. Damn you internet!
On another note, one thing that surprises me a bit about this series are the songs. I usually don't dig songs that much, especially not in TV series, but the songs in this series are surprisingly catchy. I'm always like "ach, not a song again... hey, this is not half-bad". Even songs that are supposed to be bad in-story (such as the "you gotta share, you gotta care") are surprisingly good. (I'm pretty impressed how the author of this song really managed to make the song sound both believably bad, yet still catchy.)
However, since you keep bringing it up, I will tell you why the show has popularity with an older crowd, too; it's the infantilization of modern-day culture.
That claim would be more believable if most kids' shows were popular among teenagers and adults. They aren't, hence your claim is BS.
You have a curiously aggressive attitude towards this phenomenon. I'm wondering why.
(It actually reminds me of those fat mustard-stained-shirt-wearing beer-drinking unkempt men sitting on their couch watching a local news story about eg. an anime convention and muttering "nerds, get a life".)
And btw, you still missed my point. Again: You didn't say "this is a low-quality show". You said "there's not much that this has to offer to this periphery demographic", to which I objected. That's not the same thing.
But there's not much content for those in the 13+ year old age range.
They disagree with you.
Actually, most don't. However, even if you were correct about the numbers, I've always considered the populist argument really goddamn stupid.
The "populist argument" as you call it (with which you probably mean "argument from popularity", which I think is not the same thing) isn't actually stupid in this case.
You didn't say "this show is not very good" to which I replied "most people disagree with you". You said "there's not much content for a certain age range". If that were true, then not many people from that age range would watch the show. Quite many do, which means there is some content there that they like. (After all, there are hundreds if not even thousands of kids programs playing currently around the world, and the vast majority is not followed by any significant number of teenagers nor adults. This show is. There must be something different about it.)
Lots of people love Twilight, at least ten times more than those that like MLP; are those suddenly great books and movies according to you, Warp?
You didn't say anything about quality, only about content (that appeals to people). That's what I was replying to.
(And I have a confession to make: I have watched all three movies and didn't find them bad. They might appeal to womanly fantasies, but I think they were pretty good otherwise too.)
Argue the actual merits of the show, not the lame "lots of other people like it" fallacy.
Strong characterization, humor, emotional appeal, innocent fun. Not boring to watch. There are certainly much worse things one could be watching than this.
