wikicities.com · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Wiki by Bios_Hakr · 2006-03-15 12:28 · Score: 1 · on Software for a One-Man IT Department?

Wikis are great when you know what you want to know. For instance, when I see someone use a term like "mukluk", I can right-click and Wikipedia for it. A few seconds later, I feel a tad bit smarter.

Wikis are terrible when you don't know what you want to know. I recently started playing Galactic Civilizations 2. They have very little information in the manual (but excellent video tutorials in-game) about exactly how to play the game. I looked around and found this wiki. And, while it's a great database when you want to know something, it sucks when you just want to browse a new topic.

I know that some will say there is a random subject button. But sometimes, you want a good outline to follow. Without a decent table of contents, 99% of the crap in a wiki will remain unseen.

Of course, the furry fandom is all over that by greenreaper · 2006-03-09 12:13 · Score: 4, Interesting · on The Creative Power of Second Life

Places like The Forest, FurNation Worlds and Luskwood are brimming with user-created stuff. Not all of it is very good, but there's certainly a market for it - or at least a lot of people willing to create stuff in the hope that they can sell it.

Of course, the furry fandom is all over that by greenreaper · 2006-03-09 12:13 · Score: 4, Interesting · on The Creative Power of Second Life

Places like The Forest, FurNation Worlds and Luskwood are brimming with user-created stuff. Not all of it is very good, but there's certainly a market for it - or at least a lot of people willing to create stuff in the hope that they can sell it.

Of course, the furry fandom is all over that by greenreaper · 2006-03-09 12:13 · Score: 4, Interesting · on The Creative Power of Second Life

Places like The Forest, FurNation Worlds and Luskwood are brimming with user-created stuff. Not all of it is very good, but there's certainly a market for it - or at least a lot of people willing to create stuff in the hope that they can sell it.

Re:People Like to Own Things by danila · 2006-02-16 08:47 · Score: 1 · on Moore Calls Game Discs Ridiculous

Stupid.

The way things are progressing, 10 years from now people will be buying things (including games and music) in virtual reality malls. At least that's what the Japanese National Institute of Science and Technology Policy thinks. And since the accuracy of their past 30-year forecasts was, on average, 60-70%, you should at least listen.

Really, I am amazed at how little people know about the future.

Re:People Like to Own Things by danila · 2006-02-16 08:47 · Score: 1 · on Moore Calls Game Discs Ridiculous

Stupid.

The way things are progressing, 10 years from now people will be buying things (including games and music) in virtual reality malls. At least that's what the Japanese National Institute of Science and Technology Policy thinks. And since the accuracy of their past 30-year forecasts was, on average, 60-70%, you should at least listen.

Really, I am amazed at how little people know about the future.

Re:People Like to Own Things by danila · 2006-02-16 08:47 · Score: 1 · on Moore Calls Game Discs Ridiculous

Stupid.

The way things are progressing, 10 years from now people will be buying things (including games and music) in virtual reality malls. At least that's what the Japanese National Institute of Science and Technology Policy thinks. And since the accuracy of their past 30-year forecasts was, on average, 60-70%, you should at least listen.

Really, I am amazed at how little people know about the future.

Re:Making Money from Furries by Blakey+Rat · 2006-02-08 08:19 · Score: 1 · on Making A Living In Second Life

http://furry.wikicities.com/wiki/WikiFur:What_Wiki Fur_is

Someone beat you to it. Sorry.

Re:I've always wondered by LionKimbro · 2006-01-13 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful · on The Future of Nanobiotech Predicted

Hm, you may be interested in this: Predicting mid-range global futures (2005-2050).

In particular, it talks about the Delphi method, and shows how Japan predicted, in the 1970's:

Possibility to a certain degree of working at home through the use of TV-telephones, telefaxes, etc. (forecast: 1998)
Acquisition of observation data from unmanned probes around Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and outside the solar system. (1999)
Development of optical communication technology that can realize substantial savings in the use of copper. (1999)
Possibility of external fertilization or artificial womb. (2001)
Widespread use of heart transplant from human being by resolving problems such as transplant immunity, rejection and donor. (2001)
Practical use of rapid-transit railway using iron rail and iron wheel, which can run at 300 km/h. (2006)
Development of artificial ear. (2007)

They were rated at 64-71% accurate, which is not bad, considering that you're jumping out 30 years into the future, and making specific and useful predictions.

This is much better than psychic's prediction, unless the psychic happened to have an article on Moore's Law hidden beneath the table.

While there are a lot of well-reported predictions that are basically bunk, and even though the public has fixated on images that make no sense, there are also sources that are doing their homework, and are actually well researched. It's sad that the good stuff goes unreported.

All this said, even near-term futures are very exciting and interested, and people simply don't know about what's happening. I've personally worn a NOMAD headset, for example. Anyone can have one, for $2,000. These devices are certain to get cheaper, and will be in color, within 5 years. They're great devices, and I personally think that they'll be as common as bluetooth headsets are now. Bluetooth headsets will get cheaper, and become much more useful, as wireless networks expand, (as they are sure to,) and Internet access becomes much more pervasive.

The "Camp" phenomenon happening right now is exploding. Investments in communications and intelligence technology is leading to this sort of thing, and the work of these sorts of things is further compounded into more communications and intelligence technology, and the spread of the technology.

Another poster here rightly said it: Even if predictions turn out false, they are still extremely useful. In many cases, we predict so we can make sure that they turn out false. To ensure that they come out false. Every single human being makes predictions about the course of their life, so that they can steer themselves in one direction, or to avoid another. It would be very surprising to me if human societies did not engage in this activity. (This is scenario planning, and used by just about every corporation and government.)

Technology prediction in some ways is the easiest thing to predict, looking into mid-range futures (the hardest territory.) If you put your money on Moore's Law, you're doing far better than (say) betting on baseball games, or who wins the presidency.

Re:I've always wondered by LionKimbro · 2006-01-13 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful · on The Future of Nanobiotech Predicted

Hm, you may be interested in this: Predicting mid-range global futures (2005-2050).

In particular, it talks about the Delphi method, and shows how Japan predicted, in the 1970's:

Possibility to a certain degree of working at home through the use of TV-telephones, telefaxes, etc. (forecast: 1998)
Acquisition of observation data from unmanned probes around Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and outside the solar system. (1999)
Development of optical communication technology that can realize substantial savings in the use of copper. (1999)
Possibility of external fertilization or artificial womb. (2001)
Widespread use of heart transplant from human being by resolving problems such as transplant immunity, rejection and donor. (2001)
Practical use of rapid-transit railway using iron rail and iron wheel, which can run at 300 km/h. (2006)
Development of artificial ear. (2007)

They were rated at 64-71% accurate, which is not bad, considering that you're jumping out 30 years into the future, and making specific and useful predictions.

This is much better than psychic's prediction, unless the psychic happened to have an article on Moore's Law hidden beneath the table.

While there are a lot of well-reported predictions that are basically bunk, and even though the public has fixated on images that make no sense, there are also sources that are doing their homework, and are actually well researched. It's sad that the good stuff goes unreported.

All this said, even near-term futures are very exciting and interested, and people simply don't know about what's happening. I've personally worn a NOMAD headset, for example. Anyone can have one, for $2,000. These devices are certain to get cheaper, and will be in color, within 5 years. They're great devices, and I personally think that they'll be as common as bluetooth headsets are now. Bluetooth headsets will get cheaper, and become much more useful, as wireless networks expand, (as they are sure to,) and Internet access becomes much more pervasive.

The "Camp" phenomenon happening right now is exploding. Investments in communications and intelligence technology is leading to this sort of thing, and the work of these sorts of things is further compounded into more communications and intelligence technology, and the spread of the technology.

Another poster here rightly said it: Even if predictions turn out false, they are still extremely useful. In many cases, we predict so we can make sure that they turn out false. To ensure that they come out false. Every single human being makes predictions about the course of their life, so that they can steer themselves in one direction, or to avoid another. It would be very surprising to me if human societies did not engage in this activity. (This is scenario planning, and used by just about every corporation and government.)

Technology prediction in some ways is the easiest thing to predict, looking into mid-range futures (the hardest territory.) If you put your money on Moore's Law, you're doing far better than (say) betting on baseball games, or who wins the presidency.

Re:I've always wondered by danila · 2006-01-13 04:32 · Score: 1 · on The Future of Nanobiotech Predicted

Aren't you tired of repeating the same tired (and, what is even worse, false) argument?

Japanese technology foresight project run by NISTEP has the average accuracy rate of around 60-70% for its 1st, 2nd and 3rd reports (1970, 1975, 1980). The reports predict technological developments for the next 30 years.

Now it would be insanely great if every illiterate luddite posting right now on Slashdot about how predictions are worthless and always wrong would just familiarise himself with actual work being done in the field of predicting the future, not with retarded news coverage of the tabloids. If you don't even make an effort to understand which predictions are good and which are bad (and which experts, and which methodologies, etc.), then you have no right to demand accuracy.

Really, people, sometimes you look like you don't have any IQ at all...

Re:This just in... by danila · 2005-12-30 09:40 · Score: 1 · on Nanotech in Microchips by 2015

A Big Dork indeed. You may be surprised, but technological predictions are rather reliable and accurate when made properly. It's only when morons insist on believing the most ridiculous pop-culture speculations that they are disappointed.

Was there a report "produced cooperatively by... industry associations from Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the United States", that was "used by the semiconductor industry as a planning tool to determine how best to spend research and development money for new technology" promise you flying cars and Jupiter missions? Or may be super-intelligent computers?

What do I hear? There was no such report? You got your predictions from tabloids, popular newspapers and Hollywood movies? Or may be you even weren't born when those things were promised and are just a teenage cry-baby? I thought so.

Now that we have annoying whining dorks out of this discussion, the rest of us can actually exchange intelligent ideas and opinions about development of nanotechnology.

Cool! by polyp2000 · 2005-12-20 21:45 · Score: 1 · on Canadian Company Developing New Space Shuttle

Its about time our space-ships looked like the ones in the movies.
This one bears more than a passing resemblance to the star destroyer!

http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Venator-class_ Star_Destroyer

nick...

Re:Blogs Are Here To Stay And The Impact Will ODee by LionKimbro · 2005-12-08 04:30 · Score: 1 · on Bloggers the Tech World's New Elite?

So it's just disinterest, not so much disagreement.

Okay; I can live with that.

Disinterest is good. It means life-changing tech is adopted.

Re:DirectX and id??? by AlexMax2742 · 2005-11-12 22:06 · Score: 3, Informative · on Bill Gates' Doom Video From 1995

Found a source: http://doom.wikicities.com/wiki/Doom_95

Hope that helps.

Re:DirectX and id??? by BrynM · 2005-11-12 17:53 · Score: 1 · on Bill Gates' Doom Video From 1995

It wasn't id that ported it. I remember salivating at the chance of playing Doom ][ under NT 3.51. Then Quake came out and changed everything (dual boot DOS to play). Ah, back when those tech baby steps were truly exciting.

Re:a vision through cataracts (well, he IS aging) by LionKimbro · 2005-10-27 08:43 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Takes Aim At Google

I don't know that it's so much that we want to talk to computers, as much as it is that we want to talk with people, through computers. That is, sending people textual messages through the audio interface. Text is much less obtrusive, scannable, etc., etc.,. Sending SMS by voice will be very useful.

That said, we'll still want to talk with computers. You're thinking of a desktop computer, where you've got a keyboard in front of you. In those cases, yeah: Go with the keyboard.

The thing is, there are a zillion places where we want to use computers, where we can't, because we're tethered by the keyboard.

For instance, if you're one of the guys working at an auto repair factory, and you've got a visor that you use to see your schematics, fishing around for the keyboard when you've got your hands on the wrench is a real problem. Much better to just say: "Pull up the engine specs for (car model here.)" It frees up your manipulators.

Re:Offtopic by AngelaB · 2005-10-12 04:29 · Score: 1 · on 200gb Hack for iPod Nano

No, Wikicities does not run on Wikimedia servers. Wikicities is not a Wikimedia project. Wikicities and Uncyclopedia are managed by Wikia, a for-profit company, whereas Wikimedia, though run by some of the same people, is a non-profit organization that relies on grants and donations rather than Google ads.

Offtopic by slthytove · 2005-10-12 04:02 · Score: 1 · on 200gb Hack for iPod Nano

Darn you all! You slashdotted my wiki host!

Good old Wikia, providing free MediaWikis (at http://www.wikicities.com/), and you had to go ahead and kill it. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Re:Okay- time for a shorter reply. by LionKimbro · 2005-10-08 07:50 · Score: 1 · on Flock, the New Browser on the Block

(my apologies for making the previous post too long)

The point to them being "web applications" is not that this allows them to be integrated, but that it allows them to be used by all participants without them having to download, install, and configure software.

OK, yes. But, I think if you're making a really big and complex environment, it can be easier to just say, "Screw it," and make your own client system. I mean: MMORPGs aren't written on top of the web, Second Life isn't written on top of the web; I don't see why we should expect a super-online-collaboration-environment to be written on top of the web, either.

The closest thing to a solution I have ever seen is to restrict chat to one channel.

Exactly. This is exactly why I believe that it is so important to have a super-integrated-single-medium, rather than trying to cobble together the super-environment out of lots and lots of pieces of medium implemented on different websites.

This is exactly the reason why.

But putting all those things into one single AJAX web-app is going to be too much; It's going to be too complicated for even a large team (such as Google!) to write. For at least the next 10 years, it'll just be too hard to manufacture. To put all the code into one single AJAX environment. Just pragmatically- you're not going to be able to pull it off.

That's why I believe so strongly that we're going to see super-mediums develop in special clients. Yes, it's going to suck that they aren't as cross-platform as the web browser. But, it'll happen anyways. Because it's going to be cheaper to do it this way, and people really want to do this. People ''love'' bandwidth. (Not the bit kind; I mean the human-communication kind.)

As for the rest, I don't need to read it. Greg Egan, Cory Docterow, Charley Stross, Vernor Vinge, David Brin, these people have done a much better job of presenting that argument... and I'm way ahead of you there.

This is where I get confused. What argument do you mean? I've read all of those guys. Do you mean trans-humanism in general? Or do you mean the mechanics of some particular user interface issue that I'm missing?

(I want to note- Cory Doctorow liked Second Life. He thought it was a good idea, he thought it was cool. He didn't say, "Nah, this is dumb. It should be an AJAX app.")

What I'm talking about is a Second Life that's more focused towards developers.

I wrote two pages about my dreams for it, and why we would want such a thing:

If you're way ahead of me, I want to hear about it. If my vision is behind the times, I want to know the up-to-date version.

If you're going to argue thought that the web isn't going to be "live," if you're arguing that those "live web" ideas are dumb, then (A) I'm going to disagree with you, (B) I'm going to ask you where those authors made the argument that the web won't be live. Because I've read them, and I think that they would all agree with my vision. Not the particulars, mind you- I'm sure I'm wrong on details. But I think the general idea of how things will go? I think it's right on. Much more so than what most people imagine of the future web ("faster web pages! better graphics!"), at the very least. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe I just didn't read something, in which case: I'd like to see it. Those authors are very persuasive to me, and if they say and argue something, I think it will make more sense to me.

Re:Oh, god, please, no... by LionKimbro · 2005-10-06 09:41 · Score: 1 · on Flock, the New Browser on the Block

Sorry for jumping on you like that; I'm just a little angry at having been so thoroughly misunderstood.

AHEM:

There are times in the universe when people want to interact live.

As it is, live interaction over the Internet sucks.

There is no good general-purpose interactive platform right now.

Croquet, Second Life-- these are neat places to make things and meet people, but you can't perform a business meeting there, you can't work on code together there, etc., etc.,.

Now, there is a loooonng continuum between "completely live interaction and expectations," and "a web where people send messages in bottles to one another over vast distances in time." That continuum is very long, and it's not at all clear where people will draw lines. Most likely, I believe, software will develop to cover and mediate the whole range of expressions.

Right now, due to the technology, it's almost entirely in the "sending messages in a bottle."

Now, if you believe people are inattentive and have some sort of mindset that says people need to concentrate, meditate, reflect more, not talk live, live slow, etc., etc., - whatever's going on in your personal life or that you observe going on in the social world, fine, fine, fine. I'm not going to bother arguing or talking with you about it right now.

If you're a software developer looking at the world of "what does technology enable, and not enable," then you're who I'm talking with. And surely you will agree: There's no good basically free technology for working live on code with others, having meetings over a share whiteboard, meeting other people who happen to be in the same space with you, etc., etc.,.

As evidence of demand for this stuff, I point you to all the bulletin board systems that tell you who else is online right now. As evidence for the demand for FOAF type stuff, I point you to the explosion of activity there, and I point you to Slashdot's own friend/foe system. If you want to see Wikipedia of the future, I point you to #wikipedia.

People want and need live interaction. We have not been giving it to them.

Technologists have been thinking AJAX is the way to enable this stuff, and making side systems to the web.

I used to be a strong proponent of the approach as well, but just recently I'm having second thoughts. Second Life can be humbling, and when I look ahead into the future, I realize just how archaic our web experience is right now, and how unsustainable the technical platform is. If you're not a web developer, I don't know how useful my post is for you. It's clearly not communicating to people, since they have (wrongly) imagined I think we're all going to be spending all day waiting for people to finish their blog entries.

Now again: If you're in the "slow down" "stop making technology" crowd, we can't have a conversation. If you're in the "computers = distraction = evil / info-overload worries" crowd, then let me say that the problem isn't the amount of communication that's the problem, (we have a deficit in successful communications, actually,) the problem is that the management of communications and the mediation of spaces is the problem.

In material life, we have all these mechanisms for communicating and realizing what kinds of loads people have and are carrying. We can just look at a person, and infer all this information, and make judgements, totally unconsciously. Without all the paralanguage, we can't do much.

Communicating paralanguage is an increase in communication. Just because it's not words, doesn't mean it's not communication. Back again to "the problem is organizing communications, not the amount of communication." That's where we get wikipedia and social bookmarking and all these things. Again, it's organizing communication,

Database is down by Sheepdot · 2005-09-29 06:48 · Score: 2, Informative · on Episode III Deleted Scenes Leaked Online

Re:Links to informational resources by LionKimbro · 2005-09-25 11:41 · Score: 1 · on Skyhook Robot Passes 1000 Foot Mark

You seem knowledgable on this subject! Would you write something for the WikiCities futures wiki?

In particular, could you write up what sorts of technologies are required, or would be helpful, in the construction of a space elevator?

Could you write up what sorts of technologies would be unlocked by having a space elevator? What sorts of things people would do with it?

Lastly, if you know of estimates on the timing of those things, could you write those up as well? We always appreciate links to reports, studies, organizations, etc.,.

Feel free to start small..!

Re:Links to informational resources by LionKimbro · 2005-09-25 11:41 · Score: 1 · on Skyhook Robot Passes 1000 Foot Mark

You seem knowledgable on this subject! Would you write something for the WikiCities futures wiki?

In particular, could you write up what sorts of technologies are required, or would be helpful, in the construction of a space elevator?

Could you write up what sorts of technologies would be unlocked by having a space elevator? What sorts of things people would do with it?

Lastly, if you know of estimates on the timing of those things, could you write those up as well? We always appreciate links to reports, studies, organizations, etc.,.

Feel free to start small..!

Re:Death of copyright? by danila · 2005-09-20 10:53 · Score: 1 · on The Implications of Google's Digital Library

Everything fits. Today scanning and OCRing books is difficult, because you either need expensive equipment (thousands of $$$), or you need tedious manual work. But in a few years it would 1) be possible to use a camera (webcam or camcorder) to convert book to ebook just by flipping the pages or 2) use desktop manufacturing to make a robotic scanning system and mass-convert books automatically. By 2015 someone will make all books available online for free. Of course, the transition to the future of unlimited accessible knowledge will not be smooth, but only because it makes sense to start as early as possible! Google is betting that it can be the first, it's willing to take a risk and it may fail. If not they, the Europeans will charge ahead with their project... We don't know how exactly it will happen, but we know the end result.

See digital libraries a bit at the Future Wiki. Feel free to contribute.

Re:Death of copyright? by danila · 2005-09-20 10:53 · Score: 1 · on The Implications of Google's Digital Library

Everything fits. Today scanning and OCRing books is difficult, because you either need expensive equipment (thousands of $$$), or you need tedious manual work. But in a few years it would 1) be possible to use a camera (webcam or camcorder) to convert book to ebook just by flipping the pages or 2) use desktop manufacturing to make a robotic scanning system and mass-convert books automatically. By 2015 someone will make all books available online for free. Of course, the transition to the future of unlimited accessible knowledge will not be smooth, but only because it makes sense to start as early as possible! Google is betting that it can be the first, it's willing to take a risk and it may fail. If not they, the Europeans will charge ahead with their project... We don't know how exactly it will happen, but we know the end result.

See digital libraries a bit at the Future Wiki. Feel free to contribute.

real-time super-resolution & 3D model generati by LionKimbro · 2005-09-18 19:11 · Score: 4, Interesting · on Camera Phone As High-precision Scanner

So, according to the article, we will see this commercially around 2008-2010.

Justin Rattner tells us that in 2015, we should expect to see real-time super-resolution from cell cameras. That is, the ability to pick up several frames, and figure out more about the image, in real time, just based on the offsetting from holding a camera with a minute unconscious shake. (The problem is parallelizable, and 2015's x10-x100 core systems should take care of it.)

We already have the software to construct models & textures, after some rendering, from video footage.

If we could do real-time super-resolution in 2015, then it makes sense to me that, with some processing time, cell phone cameras in 2015 will render 3D-model textures and models. If the 4G network is around by then, (and it should be,) we could very well see instead that the data is sent to more powerful processing arrays elsewhere, (ie, on your home computers, or on Google's computers) and rendered into models in real-time. 4G is around 20Mb, perhaps 3G at 3Mb is enough to transmit low-grade video capture in real-time; Enough to make our 3D models in real time as well.

Presently, the OCR cameras require some rendering time. That requirement will clearly be gone by 2015; The cameras will automatically OCR text that is identified on-screen. (Perhaps the alarm will be a constant chirping buzz, whenever you use it?)

As a side note: Perhaps Google maps of the future will learn about what street names go to what streets, simply by recognizing and reading the sign posts.

What do you want to bet Google's going to get video footage of every city, and crank it into full-on 3D models? You better believe it. I'm betting on 2015, tops. (Who knows; I wouldn't be shocked if they weren't cranking on their Seattle footage now.)

We should also expect, I think, that the public will assemble it's own models from public footage. Volunteers will capture footage with their cell phones (or, if they are showing off, sophisticated digital video recordsers,) and feed it to a public free culture grid, which will churn out 3D models and textures for distribution and retrieval.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning? Are these outlandish thoughts for 2015? No! You can't have your Flying Car! Down boy! Retrain your imagination! Yes, people have predicted the future before; read about NISTEP's 1970's predictions for 1990-2000.

Re:My Take by danila · 2005-09-08 06:11 · Score: 1 · on S3 Graphics Comes out of Hiding with Chrome20

the longer we go on optimizing algorithms and hardware for these triangle based systems the more unlikely such a revolution will come.

Ever heard of S-curves?

It is extremely likely that eventually you will hit diminishing returns and all those hundreds of millions of dollars will not help getting further performance gains. Or may be the performance will continue to improve at the placid pace of Moore's law (meaning as fast as all other computational hardware). It is extremely likely that it will be at just that point that it would make monetary sense to try other, non-triangular approaches to rendering. This happens with technologies all the time, they are replaced with better ones, with the next-generation.

I obviously can't tell you what it will be - if I could, I would be busy making it. :) It's possible that splines, voxels or fractals will make a comeback, but may be it will be something else. Most likely, it will be a totally different technology, not a triangle-replacement, but a different approach alltogether.

So, even though triangles still have a lot of potential and I personally look forward to playing the photo-realistic games in 2015, I am not sure that they will be triangle-based. And I am even less sure about the ultra-realistic VR in 2025.

Great attempt trying to slip in a Family Guy line by boy_afraid · 2005-09-08 03:08 · Score: 0 · on Introduction to Competitive Programming

Not sure if I'm being pedantic or not, but the problem

Lois: Ah, what's the worst that could happen?

PETER ( to " Rock Me, Amadeus" ): I'm a tumor, I'm a tumor I'm a tumor, I'm a tumor, I'm a tumor I'm a tumor, I'm a tumor, I'm a tumor Oh, oh, oh, I'm a tumor.

The Administration's plan for peace in the Middle East is shallow and pedantic. I agree. Shallow and pedantic.

Peter: Mmm, I agree, as well. Shallow and pedantic. Hmm.

Lois: Everything all right, Peter?

Peter: Well Lois, since you asked, I find this meat loaf rather shallow and pedantic.

Brian: What is this? You're gonna talk down to everyone just because you won a game of Trivial Pursuit?

Peter: Perhaps.

http://familyguy.wikicities.com/wiki/Petarded/Tran script

Re:Kessel Run benchmark score ? by Alphax.au · 2005-09-07 03:17 · Score: 1 · on 6.8GHz 1TB RAM and 2TB HDD Laptop?

And it will make the Kessel run in 11.9 parsecs ? Good way to measure. By the way, my brand-new Nissan makes the New York-Los Angeles run in only 1000 miles !

The point about the Kessel Run is that Han Solo went dangerously close to large gravitational objects (eg. black holes) to make the journey in a shorter distance. Now if this laptop could bend spacetime...

Re:It's been like this for years... by anthony_dipierro · 2005-08-14 02:33 · Score: 1 · on Server Based Slots of the Future

You're joking, I assume, but here in Tampa there were rumors that the poker rooms were going to actually do that. You'd play against other people in the same room as you, but you'd do so on a computer screen.

Re:Won't happen (hopefully) by Gallvs · 2005-08-06 07:44 · Score: 1 · on Windows Vista May Degrade OpenGL

Yeah, they would probably go berserk!

Re:MS applied for a recent VIOP patent by GerbilSoft · 2005-07-02 09:05 · Score: 1 · on Microsoft Serious About VoIP

Apple did that already.

Re:thank god by RDW · 2005-06-28 22:46 · Score: 2, Informative · on Java to Appear in Next-Gen DVD players

You might find these pages useful:
http://www.dvd-replica.com/DVD/vmcommands.php
http://www.dvd-replica.com/DVD/vmcmdset.php
http://dvdlab.wikicities.com/wiki/Commands
(brief descriptions of the current DVD VM commands).

Re:yes, but does it play OGG? by Josh+Coalson · 2005-06-17 13:00 · Score: 1 · on Simple Route To Linux On The iPod

They can play FLAC though.

Re:Out of curiousity... by SAN1701 · 2005-05-16 13:33 · Score: 5, Informative · on Free Pascal 2.0 Released

First, I have to say I'm a big fan of Delphi. I've done dozens of projects with it in the last 10 years.

Yes, I do use C++/Objective-C (when I have to program in OS-X with the Cocoa framework), and C# and Java. The productive gap I fell between the two first C-like languages is that, in Delphi, the work is done in a tenth of the time, specially for GUI and Database-enabled apps. When compared with Java and C# I would say that the time spent is twice or three times lower in Delphi.

Of course, the fact that I develop mostly in Delphi makes easier to me to be productive in this language. But I have a friend who went to work in a full-Java environment, being good at it to the point of being a lecturer, and he agree that the Java world is still way behind when it comes to RAD.

Having said all of this, many windows applications are built in Delphi. Here's a list of only the most famous.

Delphi is generally considered the best tool for development in Windows. Simply put, its strengths are:

Complete OO language, including real properties that were now copied by C# (actually, chief architect of Delphi-1 and 2, Anders Heijlsberg, is doing the same role in MS for C#).
Easy to use IDE.
Targets Win32, .NET (and Linux if you use Kylix, which was somewhat abandoned by Borland).
A complete and mature framework, the VCL, with thousands of free components available on the web.
Compiled code (when in Win32), which generates executables comparable in speed to those in C++.

So why isn't it more widely used? I would say that one thing is because of Borland is a tiny company when compared to MS or Sun. The other is that it is a proprietary tool. And the third, generally the most commented, is that Borland maybe didn't know how to sell it properly.

More information on 3D scene generation by Anonymous Coward · 2005-05-08 04:09 · Score: 0 · on Fast Generation of 3D City Models

See content acquisition section here.

Re:Doom in CLI by fredrikj · 2005-05-07 11:47 · Score: 1 · on A Non-Dogmatic History of the GUI

FOOM!

Re:alternative? by Eloquence · 2005-04-13 16:24 · Score: 1 · on Meetup.com Ends Free Meetups

I've started a free wiki at Wikicities called EventWiki that can be used for the same purpose (but is broader in scope than MeetUp).

Re:alternative? by Eloquence · 2005-04-13 16:24 · Score: 1 · on Meetup.com Ends Free Meetups

I've started a free wiki at Wikicities called EventWiki that can be used for the same purpose (but is broader in scope than MeetUp).

Futures wiki by LionKimbro · 2005-03-26 17:03 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Meshing Developmental Evolution and Technology

You may all be interested in the TaoRiver Futures wiki.

There's also another one developing, the WikiCities Futures wiki.

The idea is that by combining our understandings from our respective fields, we can attempt to better understand the possibilities open to us, and the timing and dependencies behind them.

Many other related wiki are listed on the Futures wiki WikiNode.

Re:At last! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-03-09 06:03 · Score: 0 · on Puppy Linux Lets You Run From, Save To The Same CD

For the future Puppy will be the basis for
http://peace.wikicities.com/wiki/Tmxxine_Linux
which is the first Linux being created for public domain time travel research and development. The innovation of the CD-RW Puppy (tested and already working) provides us with extremes of simplicity, speed, reliability and flexibility. Other distros with all their software serve other needs. Pups are cuter.

Fortunately, Wikicities is still online . . . by greenreaper · 2005-02-21 18:38 · Score: 2, Informative · on Power Outage Takes Wikimedia Down

And going strong!

They *are* using it on Wikicities by greenreaper · 2005-02-10 13:30 · Score: 1 · on Google Donating Bandwidth and Servers to Wikipedia

See, for example, the Creatures Wiki (blatent advertising, I admit :-). They have incorporated it into the layout. It works reasonably well. It's not a bad deal in terms of free supported hosting of wikis with no worries about bandwidth, backups or what have you.

You want lust? Try Norns. by greenreaper · 2005-02-02 14:15 · Score: 1 · on Robots that Lust and Reproduce

Seriously, just try firing up a copy of Creatures and letting them get at it. Especially if you leave a few tomato[e]s around the place. Maybe they're just programmed to do it, but they certainly act the part . . .

Slashdot Mirror

Domain: wikicities.com

Comments · 45