Slashdot Mirror

Or maybe just look on the web? Jeez...My first programs were on a TI calculator, there are a million easier (and better documented) learn-to-program web sites out there now. Here's a Basic site, just as an example: http://www.calormen.com/jsbasi...

I have a dim understanding that modern physics believes that faster-than-light travel is not possible, full stop. I don't quite understand the equivalence, but FTL is the equivalent of time travel, and since we believe that time travel would violate causality, we believe that FTL is impossible no matter what mechanism you propose (teleportation, hyperspace, whatever).

Even with the pretty diagrams I'm not sure I get it.

http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html

I've also read that FTL shouldn't be impossible if the whole universe had a common frame of reference, but according to the theory of relativity, there is no such common frame of reference in the universe. But I've read a couple of discussions that say that maybe FTL would be possible if "hyperspace" or "subspace" travel imposes a common frame of reference. Again I don't really understand this.

http://www.calormen.com/star_trek/FAQs/warp-faq.htm

I'd love it if someone with physics understanding could explain it in a way that my poor grasp of physics can understand, using car analogies or whatever.

> Hell, have you even tried to FIND a BASIC interpreter for Windows or Macs these days?

It's not that hard. For starters there's:

Chipmunk BASIC
PC-BASIC
True BASIC

You can even run AppleSoft BASIC and QBASIC in your browser.

Online Apple BASIC emulator, with code samples:

http://www.calormen.com/jsbasi...

How about a BASIC-like interpreter implemented in JavaScript?

Quite BASIC
Applesoft BASIC
QBasic
Simple Web BASIC

I've also seen these kinds of things before. There's also one for Apple Basic that's fun to reminisce with for those who grew up on 80's tech:

http://www.calormen.com/jsbasi...

No, 'mobile computing' constitutes that computing gets done on a mobile device. The iProducts certainly do that. In fact, it takes huge leaps of logic to claim that the iProducts are not general purpose computing devices. Here is a link that proves my comment beyond a shadow of a doubt. http://www.calormen.com/applesoft/

The warts are things you can legitimately complain about iProducts for. Claims that using iProducts are not 'mobile computing' is NOT a legitimate complaint because it just isn't true. It isn't even vaguely similar to true. In shades of gray, it is #000000. It is comments like yours that reinforces Apple fanboys belief that there is an army of 'Apple Haters' out to harm their beloved product through lies.

Don't laugh!

Because Apple has banned it from the iPhones and iPads that most of the "cool kids" are using nowadays.

Bogus. All interpreters are banned, not just BASIC.

And they run javascript sites just fine, some of which implement BASIC.

Easily solved: do your emulating in javascript! I'll get you started. Here's an Apple BASIC interpretor in javascript. Here's a C64 emulator in javascript. And here's an NES emulator in javascript!

if only he didn't post a link to an interpreter where it compiled just fine... then you wouldn't look like a fucking retard for stating that it "will not."

how about this one, does it contain bugs?

10 PRINT "Meshach is never wrong!";
20 GOTO 10;

Yes, BASIC doesn't use semicolons at the end of lines.

every basic interpreter i've ever used, since my first on an apple ][, optionally use semicolons to do many things, including ending lines for aesthetics sake. functionally it signifies concatenation. at the end of a line or command, it would be interpreted as concatenate with nothing. no harm. no foul.

whoever moderated this insightful is an idiot.

TEST IT FOR YOURSELF

this site is full of retards, and retarded retards that will wholeheartedly praise anything a retard says that seemingly goes against something said against one their other retarded own.

It turns out there is even an LOGO interpreter in Javascript:

http://www.calormen.com/Logo/

It is the pencil war documentation ! http://www.calormen.com/PaperandPencilSpaceCombatGame.htm We played with tanks. Awesomeness.

And with M1A1 you can play through the original Marathon on Windows (only Marathon 2 was ever released for Windows): http://orbitalarm.bungie.org/downloads/alephone.ht ml#M1A1_SE

I've been playing through M1A1, and it still holds up pretty well.

And a comment like that would go amiss without a link to the ASCII pr0n archive - and for the people still reading this interested in Star Trek ASCII art - try here.

Yes, I think we are able to do something like this. The question is whether this will ever be a big hit outside the geek scene.
Free Software/Open Source is one thing: You program once, have fun, and then release the compiled files together with the source. Of which the latter will be gladly ignored by the masses. But that's OK. They use the compiled version and are happy. And you are happy that your program is being used. That you also share the compiled version doesn't add extra cost for you because it's digital stuff that can be copied effortlessly.
But with hardware it's a different game, IMO. Even if you offer the schematics for such a multimedia all-purpose entertainment thing, someone still has to compile... ehh build it. This time it's physical so easy copying is not possible (unless you have access to a replicator somewhere). So, who is going to do this? People won't be willing to assemble stuff for themselves. Heck, even *I* used to do more myself when I was younger (and had more time and enthusiasm). Nowadays I buy quite a lot...
But maybe it's the chance for some garage company to just build the stuff based on open sourced layouts? Hmmm... Not sure that this will work either. What about distribution channels? One reason why Free Software/OSS has been so successful is that almost everybody has access to the Internet somehow and if a person knows the right address, he/she can download all that is needed. So, the distribution is more or less just a matter of getting people to know where to look. Physical things however have to be shipped, to be physically delivered by any means. And people will want to have a look at them in some kind of shop before they are going to buy them. (The gateway business model)
So the bottomline of my reasoning is, that I am quite sceptical whether it will be a big success. But it could be a reasonable (moral) succes within the geek community, so why not try? Just don't expect to see the equivalent of RedHat or SuSE anytime soon.

I really liked that this article was written to explain what was being done so that just about anyone would understand it. The Star Trek reference was, however, inaccurate. From this article, it sounds like they make a duplicate of Kirk using something similar to light. This is not how the transporter works.

We have some evidence of the inner workings of transporters, but not much. They employ Heisenberg compensators, pattern buffers, phase transition coils, Biofilters, matter streams, confinement beams, and matter-energy converters, and phased matter. As for what they do, we know that you are conscious during transport (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, "Realm of Fear" [TNG]), but can also be held in stasis ("Day of the Dove" [TOS], "Relics" [TNG]). Further, while in transport, you appear whole to yourself.
I hypothesize that the Annular Confinement Beam first locks onto, then disassembles the subject into phased matter, via the phase transition coils, causing it to take on a very energy-like state somewhat akin to plasma, called phased matter. The matter stream is then fed into the pattern buffer, piped through wave-guide conduits to one of the beam emitters on the hull of the starship, and then relayed to a point on the ground where the ACB reconstructs the subject.
This was taken from Transporters, Replicators and Phasing FAQ by Joshua Bell.