Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Spends 2,200 Hours Defeating Bejeweled 2

Posted by Soulskill on from the wins-complimentary-straight-jacket dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A California steel contractor spent 2,200 total hours over the last three years racking up a high score in Bejeweled 2. He exceeded the 2^31-1 maximum score programmed for the score display, proving that there is, in fact, an end to the game. I suppose congratulations or condolences are in order."

123 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Signed int by Eudial · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah well, 2,147,483,647 points ought to be enough for anyone.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:Signed int by PatPending · · Score: 1

      But... Bill Gates said 640k was enough for anyone!

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Signed int by danny_lehman · · Score: 2, Funny

      well shit.. i thought my highest score of 2mill was pretty good.. Why do i even try at these things.

    3. Re:Signed int by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's actually an often misattributed quote. From Bill Gates's wiki article:

      Often attributed to Gates in 1981. Gates considered the IBM PC's 640kB program memory a significant breakthrough over 8-bit systems that were typically limited to 64kB, but he has denied making this remark. Also see the 1989 and 1993 remarks above.

      I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again. Gates (19 January 1996), "Career Opportunities in Computing—and More". Bloomberg Business News

      Do you realize the pain the industry went through while the IBM PC was limited to 640K? The machine was going to be 512K at one point, and we kept pushing it up. I never said that statement — I said the opposite of that. "Gates talks" (20 August 2001) U.S. News & World Report

    4. Re:Signed int by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Never let the truth get in the way of a good quote. (See also: "I can see Russia from my front my back yard").

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    5. Re:Signed int by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Give him another few years and he'll be denying he ever made those forgettable commercials with Jerry Seinfeld.

    6. Re:Signed int by camperdave · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sure he's said it at some point or another. You can't go through life having a misquote following you around like a love-sick teen following his crush without repeating the misquote somewhere along the line, even if it is "I never said 640K is enough for anybody"

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:Signed int by gringer · · Score: 1

      640K of memory is enough

      -- Bill Gates, Career Opportunities in Computing — and More (1996), as cited in http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1637882&cid=32056488

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    8. Re:Signed int by chronosan · · Score: 1

      I thought Sarah Palin was just one of Fey's characters...

  2. x64 by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Funny

    THE reason to upgrade to x64

    (Also, I thought my 5 days continuous freelancer game at university was extreme)

    1. Re:x64 by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      (Also, I thought my 5 days continuous freelancer game at university was extreme)

      It's really not that much when you think about it. 2200 hours divided over three years is only 2 hours a day.

    2. Re:x64 by HyperQuantum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      THE reason to upgrade to x64

      If the developer had used an UNsigned int, the game could have been twice as long.

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    3. Re:x64 by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      But then how would you show negative scores?

      Oh wait...

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      Not sure what language the game was written in, but I have a lot of problems when I used unsigned ints in C++. You cannot mix signed and unsigned ints or you get weird results when doing comparisons and basic math operations. It has to do with how the number is stored in memory (for the non-programmers). Limiting yourself to only unsigned numbers in a program is usually an annoyance.

    5. Re:x64 by 7+digits · · Score: 1

      Best part of the article:

      "In order to beat it, Little Gray killed 390,895 creatures, dealt 7,255,538,878 points of damage, completed 5,906 quests, raided 405 dungeons and hugged 11 players. We think he had sex zero times."

      Upgrading to x64 would probably be darwin award worthly...

    6. Re:x64 by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, 2 hours per day does sound rather manageable. Until you step back, take in a bit of perspective, and realize that he spent about as much time as the modern worker spends with his/her children on a cheap iPhone game.

      When the life energy of the members of our society is of such little value that such a huge chunk of it would be spent on such a mind bogglingly empty pursuit, one has to question the values that we as a society hold dear.

      Oh wait, we're free, that's right. Who am I to ask questions like that etc etc.

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:x64 by ezzzD55J · · Score: 1

      oh wait what?

    8. Re:x64 by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Recompiled... recompiled... RECOMPILED!! -- (gamer dude wakes up), Oh thank God, it was just a dream.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    9. Re:x64 by dingen · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, there's no such thing as a negative Bejeweled 2 score.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    10. Re:x64 by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      uuh... what?

      Signed and unsigned integral values are stored in exactly the same way on twos complement machines. Its rather beautiful.

      Your problems with mixing them is somewhere between your keyboard and your chair.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    11. Re:x64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      aww, sounds like someone is having an existential crisis...

    12. Re:x64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So? The average american spends far more than 2 hours a day watching TV. We all waste our life in different ways.

    13. Re:x64 by mick232 · · Score: 1

      You make exactly the same mistake as the original coder by assuming no one can actually achieve a score of 2^63-1. The way to go is to use some arbitrary precision math data type.

    14. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      The leading bit on signed numbers is the actual sign. The leading bit on unsigned numbers is part of the number. Even if you store them both as twos complement, you have an extra bit which is interpreted differently depending on whether or not it is signed. How can you say that makes them exactly the same? How can they be stored exactly the same, yet give different ranges of values for the same number of bytes? I just didn't want to explain the entire thing figuring a lot of people didn't really need the explanation.

    15. Re:x64 by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      But you talked about "comparisons and basic math operations", not bit operations (which hardly apply to keeping the score in a game btw)

      I'm no coder by any stretch of the imagination... but I've never had any problem mixing types in any language, as long as the numbers are small enough to fit into the smallest type involved in the whole operation. And even when doing bit stuff: just be aware of what type the variables you are using and accomodate for that, instead of doing something utterly insane like using the same type for all numbers heh?!

    16. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      I'm going to use a 4 bit number just to simplify things. Compare 15 (1111 unsigned) to -1 (1111 signed). The answer is they are equal. You can see a similar problem with addition. There is no problem if you are 100% sure both numbers will always be positive. The problem only occurs when the signed number is an actual negative number. You can never be 100% sure of anything in a nontrivial program. It makes debugging a nightmare, especially in group programming, when signed and unsigned variables are mixed. You take away the possibility of checking for an error by comparing a score calculation to 0. Even if a value should never be less than 0, a mistake somewhere else may make it so. It's not a good idea to use unsigned values because it masks this error. When I say you can use all unsigned values, I mean on the same programming line, not the entire program (my bad). If you keep your signed and unsigned values on separate lines of code and don't mix them in the same comparison or math operation, you are fine. This is also annoying in large programs.

    17. Re:x64 by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of Farmville? It's a major time waster. But it's cheap. Cheaper than ordering cable, for instance. Sometimes you have to find ways to keep busy just to make ends meet. I know every time I leave the house and go somewhere other than work, I'm out of at least 20 bux.

    18. Re:x64 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      (Also, I thought my 5 days continuous freelancer game at university was extreme)

      It's really not that much when you think about it. 2200 hours divided over three years is only 2 hours a day.

      Yet in those 2200 hours he could have learned two or three languages fluently, or he could have written a new application, compiler, OS, or he could have writen a book or two, or he could have learned to play a musical instrument...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:x64 by Bill+Dog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh noes, we're free, so we don't spend every waking moment of our lives working either for the man or society or the state. Individual leisure pursuits -- how terrible.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    20. Re:x64 by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Compare 15 (1111 unsigned) to -1 (1111 signed). The answer is they are equal

      when you compare the bits, yeah.. but when write "trivial" programs, you can do "(unsigned int) 5 == (signed int) 5" it will equal true. as I said, as long as all involved variables are small enough to fit into the smallest type involved.

    21. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      You still don't understand. A computer only knows how to compare bits and C++ does not automatically convert -1 to "invalid value" when you compare it to an unsigned int. You can compare unsigned int to POSITIVE signed ints. The trouble is when your signed int is NEGATIVE. The compiler just sees it as a really big positive number. So if you have unsigned int a = 5. And signed int b = -1. Even though the result is positive and small, you will get a = a + b = really big number. AND b > a will be true which is not what you might expect.

    22. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, bad example. Say b is -6.

    23. Re:x64 by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      so you're doing what on slashdot?
      What's that? Sorry didn't hear you the first time. :P

    24. Re:x64 by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      We all waste our life in different ways.

      Sorry to nitpick here, but I feel this is kind of important, even if it's just a matter of semantics.

      No, we all live our lives in different ways. Unless one believes in some kind of supreme metaphysical being against all evidence, then the only purpose our lives have is one that we assign to ourselves.

      I couldn't personally give a damn about Bejeleweled, or tv for that matter, and I wouldn't waste my time on them, but if somebody gains fulfilment and happiness from doing so then why should it be called a waste of his time? That's right, it shouldn't.

      End of existential rant.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    25. Re:x64 by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The leading bit on signed numbers is the actual sign.

      sigh... you realize that in twos complement, there isnt really a 'sign bit', right?

      -1 is not the bits of 1 with a "sign bit" also set. In twos complement, the negation of a number is strictly defined as (~x) + 1

      The beauty of it is that adding or subtracting integers works regardless of weather or not they are considered signed or not. They can both be signed. They can both be unsigned. One can be signed while the other not signed. In each of these cases the exact same silicon performs the addition in the exact same manner and knows NOTHING about "signs." On two's complement machines, there is only one ADD instruction. There isn't a SignedADD instruction or anything of the like. This is the reason thats two's complement won the complement war.

      So now I posit this:

      If the hardware is completely oblivious to the "sign" of the values, then how can it be that mixing signed and unsigned causes a problem for you? Well, it can only be that you are the problem. The bits outputted by the machine are the same in all cases.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    26. Re:x64 by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      How can they be stored exactly the same, yet give different ranges of values for the same number of bytes?

      The 'range' of values you are referring to are a higher abstraction than the CPU uses. The two's complement CPU see's a string of bits when adding and subtracting, not a value with lower and upper bounds.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    27. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      2s complement
      The most significant bit is 0, so the pattern represents a non-negative (positive) value....The most significant bit is 1, so the value represented is negative...
      I call that a sign bit. I didn't say it was the bits of 1 with a sign bit of 1 to represent -1. -1 is actually all of the bits set to 1.
      Since you didn't look that up, I know you didn't read my other post in this thread in reply to someone else.
      If you compare an unsigned value to a negative signed value, you get the result that the signed value is usually greater than the unsigned value. i.e. 3 > -5 Also, if you accidently add 3 and -5 and store it in an unsigned variable, you get a very large number instead of "invalid value".

    28. Re:x64 by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, have you never heard of a park? Visit a library? Take a walk along a river? Volunteer someplace? Build something? Try doing a local biodiversity survey. Collect stamps, or leaves, or something!

      There are so many opportunities for people to do things that don't cost money (or at least in amounts that are far less than $20). I think that you've been over-consumerized.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    29. Re:x64 by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The most significant bit is 0, so the pattern represents a non-negative (positive) value....The most significant bit is 1, so the value represented is negative...

      That doesnt make it a sign bit.. you know that, right?

      I call that a sign bit.

      Then you use the term incorrectly, and this misuse is the direct result of someone who doesnt understand twos complement.

      If you understood two's complement, you would know that the mixing signed with unsigned isnt a problem. You would in fact know that twos complement won out over ones complement precisely because the mixing of signed and unsigned values isnt a problem. In effect, two's complement is beautiful.

      Not knowing what type the compiler is currently treating the value as, now thats a real problem. A problem between keyboard and chair.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    30. Re:x64 by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Dude, have you never heard of a park? Visit a library? Take a walk along a river? Volunteer someplace? Build something? Try doing a local biodiversity survey. Collect stamps, or leaves, or something!

      Dude, have you ever heard of sex?

    31. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      Do you even write programs? The GNU C++ compiler will give you a warning if you compare a signed variable to an unsigned variable. This should tell you that it is a bad idea if you don't believe me. These 2 variables should both be signed or both be unsigned. If you make the score an unsigned value, then everything you compare it to should also be unsigned. Everything you add to it, multiply it by should also be unsigned. This is annoying with heavily used variables as you cannot use comparison to -1 to indicate an error has occurred as the value will never actually be negative...because, it's unsigned. 2's complement is nice in that it allows us to use signed variables with unsigned variables, but that doesn't mean we should. A variable is not a constant. Obviously, I wouldn't compare signed -1 to unsigned 5 if I knew that was the value of the variables. If you wrote complex software, you would realize that variables are not always in the correct range. That's one cause of software bugs. There are ways around it, but they involve speed trade offs. Every time I wanted to use a signed value to modify or compare to the score, I would have to first check to make sure it's not negative.
      I understand 2's complement, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the reason signed and unsigned don't mix well in programs. Terms mean different things to different people depending on context. I explained my definition of sign bit in my previous post to clear your confusion about what I was saying. Apparently, the current definition in wikipedia agrees with me, so I am not the only one. Maybe you could edit the page and enlighten everyone?

    32. Re:x64 by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Do you even write programs? The GNU C++ compiler will give you a warning if you compare a signed variable to an unsigned variable. This should tell you that it is a bad idea if you don't believe me.

      It in fact does work correctly which is why its a WARNING instead of an ERROR.

      The WARNING is because the compiler knows that it is performing an implicit, UNDEFINED, cast.

      The way you are talking, you seem to think that you should also be getting overflow exceptions and other shit that programmers fluent in twos complement also dont want.

      FACT: only people that write incorrect (BUGGY SHIT) code have a problem with mixing signed and unsigned.

      Others have already explained this to you. I have explained this to you. You seem to think that C compilers are supposed to hold your hand and make sure that you dont produce buggy code. Wrong.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    33. Re:x64 by Angeliqe · · Score: 1

      I guess that answers my question. You don't write code which is why you think it's possible to write bug free software. Even if it is for one perfect person, I can assure you there are plenty of programmers who write buggy shit. I have to deal with them from time to time. I never said it was impossible to mix signed and unsigned. I said it was annoying to me personally and bad programming practice on a large scale.

  3. What are the odds by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, who wants to bet that most of the time he spent playing Bejeweled he was also billing someone for contract work?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:What are the odds by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, who wants to bet that most of the time he spent playing Bejeweled he was also billing someone for contract work?

      So, he was a QA engineer?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:What are the odds by Voyager529 · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, he was a QA engineer?

      Likely for McAffee.

  4. Re:Why this is sad by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are a LOT of WoW players who average more than 2 hours a day. When I played I averaged 3 hours a day. This guy enjoyed bejeweled and came home and played Bejeweled after work. A lot of americans watch about that much TV per day and they're not even posting a high score. Healthy? No. Worse than a typical high end raider in WoW? No. Worse than a typical American watching TV? No.

  5. We need more people like this guy by arcite · · Score: 4, Funny
    You all saw The Last Starfighter right? This guy has skills! Who know when unmatched matching of coloured gems could come in handy. Maybe we'll be invaded by variously Gem shaped aliens who (through a quirk in quantum mechanics no doubt) have a fatal weakness when matched in pairs of three. This guy could someday LITERALLY save the world!

    Conversely, he may have a bright future as a stockboy at Walmart (or if you will, Target), which requires speed, precision, and the ability to organize matching products in rows of three, five, up to infinity. Clearly, he is a credit to the species.

    1. Re:We need more people like this guy by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is Slashdot. A certain degree of "semantic leniency" is called for.

      P.S., You insensitive clod.

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:We need more people like this guy by slamden · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's funny, we one time hired a guy to help us move in Chicago. He packed the truck like I had never seen before, perfectly floor to ceiling, all in the front half, tied down and perfectly stable. The back was 100% empty. It was certainly more efficient than the horizontal stacking that occurs whenever I pack a moving van.

      Turns out the guy was a former Tetris champ making a little side money to pay for grad school.

    3. Re:We need more people like this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't think there's anything wrong with "pairs of three." He obviously meant that each set of six aliens should be sorted into two matching groups of three.

    4. Re:We need more people like this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just as long as all of your belongings near the cab didn't magically disappear as he stacked them in, you know, because he may have been making even more money on the side, to pay for his cocaine habit.

    5. Re:We need more people like this guy by Jurily · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bad English cry baby Jesus makes.

    6. Re:We need more people like this guy by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Clearly, he is a credit to the species.

      Not even 1 woman volunteered yet?? What's going on?

      --
      testing out my trending skills
    7. Re:We need more people like this guy by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      parsing error on "pairs of three"

      That's no parsing error, that's a type checker exception!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:We need more people like this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My husband's a printer you insensitive clod.

    9. Re:We need more people like this guy by feardiagh · · Score: 5, Funny

      During one of my moves we had the a full wall minus one box all set. As my buddy was about to place the last box and complete the wall I called out "Wait! You can't put that box there or all my stuff will disappear." He laughed. Then he thought about it and started a second row saying "Just in case."

  6. There's always someone with less of a life by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    Such as the guy who beat World of Warcraft!

  7. Re:Why this is sad by McGiraf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Q: "how many hours does the average American watch TV a day? "

    A: "According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day"

    They should be locked up for that.

  8. Re:Why this is sad by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although maybe I shouldn't talk: how many hours does the average American watch TV a day? Although they wouldn't lock someone up for watching TV for 2 hrs a day, but if they did something crazy like, throw rocks at a tree for 2 hours, everyday, for 3 yrs, someone might notice. I think this guy needs professional help.

    Oh, so what...

    Really. Yes, plenty of people watch 2 hours of TV a day. Frankly, that's not all that excessive. Figure one 1-hour newscast and one 1-hour length drama/show. Does that put it more in perspective?

    I'm not a gamer, so personally, I wouldn't spend 2 hours, let alone 2 minutes, playing a computer game, but the guy hasn't caused anyone any harm, so who cares, really?

    It's not sad, it's just the way he chooses to spend his free time. Just as I might choose to spend my free time trying to learn another language - something that many other people would find boring and/or a waste of time.

  9. Hey it could be worse! by arcite · · Score: 1

    He could have been watching porn!

  10. Re:Why this is sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think this guy has a hobby he enjoys. It's one where no one else is being harmed, unless his playing has damaged his relationships with friends and family. No worse than someone who watches any kind of TV program or reads books two hours a day. IMO, no one has a beef long as this guy obeys the law, pays his taxes, etc. There are people all over the world who indulge in some kind of pastime for themselves, and even if no one else ever benefits from it, in the end all that matters is it made their lives more enjoyable.

  11. Re:Why this is sad by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


    but if they did something crazy like, throw rocks at a tree for 2 hours, everyday, for 3 yrs, someone might notice. I think this guy needs professional help.

    Throwing rocks at a tree is crazy? Talking to a tree and hearing a response is crazy. Throwing rocks at it might just be a new sport.

    Why is it you seem to think something you don't understand is crazy? I don't understand anyone that watches their local news on TV every night. The sensationalist simplistic nonsense that comes out of it makes me want to throw rocks at my television when I see glimpses of it. But I don't think people that do watch and enjoy it are crazy. Badly informed and prone to fear everything yes, but crazy?

    --
    AccountKiller
  12. Then he looked up and said... by xandercash · · Score: 1

    ...I wonder what happened to my wife?

  13. Why criticize? by cvnautilus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, for one, don't consider time playing video games as "wasted." If it made this guy happy, why does it matter so long as he isn't killing and eating your goats or something?

    1. Re:Why criticize? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

      About half of the people in the world think they know what is better for you than you do.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:Why criticize? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      OMG. For a moment there I thought I read "goatse."

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    3. Re:Why criticize? by mjpvirtual · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Since about half of the people in the world have below average intelligence, the other half probably *does* know better.

    4. Re:Why criticize? by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      This.

    5. Re:Why criticize? by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      OMG. For a moment there I thought I read "goatse."

      Concerned Onlooker is concerned. Also perhaps having a moment of Freudian Slippingness?

  14. Re:Why this is sad by kwerle · · Score: 1

    See, what makes him really cool is that he was playing WoW *at the same time* - 2-boxing, as it were.

    And watching TV.

    So this guy was getting 6 hours (average) of amusement crammed into 2 hours/day. I'm pretty sure he spent his other free time saving baby seals.

    NOW what do you have to say?

  15. I talk to trees. by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank you for sticking up for people like me who talk to trees. I should caveat that I USED talk to trees until some of the trees started calling me crazy and laughing at me behind my back. Now I am just kind of sad.

       

  16. Re:Why this is sad by Surt · · Score: 2, Funny

    The way it is worse is that bejeweled has a very limited repertoire of activity. This guy programmed his brain full of that limited range for 2k hours. At least with tv and wow you get a variety of social inputs.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  17. Re:Condolences? by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Informative

    What kind of awesome math did you use to come up with that?

    Three years = 1,095 days.
    2,200 hours = 132,000 minutes


    132,000 minutes / 1,095 days = 120 minutes / day

    Honestly, where the hell did you come up with 5?

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
  18. Re:Condolences? by hansraj · · Score: 1

    D'oh!

    It is 5 minutes every hour on avg. not in a day.

    The keys are right next to each other..

  19. Signed int? by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    Could they just put out a fix that uses an unsigned int and double his playtime? :)

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  20. Re:Condolences? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Funny

    D'oh!

    It is 5 minutes every hour on avg. not in a day.

    The keys are right next to each other..

    I am SO behind the times... I need to get one of these new keyboards with the "hour" and "day" keys!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  21. Re:Why this is sad by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With Bejeweled you're using your brain for problem solving. With TV you're not doing anything. You're just sitting on the couch like a very warm potato.

  22. Here's what I don't understand... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would you use a signed integer for a value like this? I mean, you're never going to have a negative score, and it's not like there's a performance benefit to using a signed integer instead of an unsigned integer. It would take up the same 32 bits of memory. Sure, a score of two billion should be enough and four billion is overkill, but that's really not the point - if you know you're never going to need negative values, why would you reserve a bit for them?

    I see this sort of thing all the time. For example, various IMAP clients (including Mozilla Thunderbird and Apple Mail) use a signed integer for the message UID, which breaks horribly in the unlikely event that you happen to have a message in your mailbox with a UID above 2^31. (Unlikely, unless your IMAP server stores the UID within the message itself as an X-UID header, and your SMTP server doesn't strip X-UID headers from incoming messages, allowing spammers to cause all sorts of interesting problems.)

    Is it really that much easier to use signed integers? Or are people just idiots?

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Here's what I don't understand... by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      The reason, or maybe just one reason, to use signed integers is to prevent accidental or implicit conversion of a negative into something very large.

      When a variable is near the neighborhood of 2^31, a 64 bit number should be used. And in cryptography, special data structures are used for even bigger numbers.

    2. Re:Here's what I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is it really that much easier to use signed integers?

      Yes. I don't know which language Bejeweled is programmed in, but in most that I'm familiar with, to get a signed integer, you need to say just "int", whereas for an unsigned integer, you explicitly need to say "unsigned int".

      Given that it took 3 years wall time, and 3 months solid of actual playing time to actually reach that point, I feel confident that the programmers figured that no one would actually ever get that high. And it's not like moving to an unsigned value would actually have gotten them anywhere - we'd just be having this same conversation in 2013. If they were really concerned about it, they should have gone for a long int or some sort of bignum value.

    3. Re:Here's what I don't understand... by wmbetts · · Score: 1

      It is so much easier to use signed integers. Think about all the productive lost typing unsigned!

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    4. Re:Here's what I don't understand... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``Why would you use a signed integer for a value like this?''

      Probably because you would be programming in a language that makes it easier to use signed integers than, say, a type that could actually represent arbitrarily large values, as long as there were enough bits of memory available. Had the program been written in, say, Common Lisp, Ruby, or Python, using such an unconstrained numeric would actually have been the easiest thing to do.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:Here's what I don't understand... by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      See also: Google coding style guide

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. Chicken or egg? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Was he super good at spatial relationships and packing because he was a Tetris champ? Or was he a Tetris champ because he was a savant at spatial relationships and packing?

    1. Re:Chicken or egg? by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Was he super good at spatial relationships and packing because he was a Tetris champ? Or was he a Tetris champ because he was a savant at spatial relationships and packing?

      I think in Last Starfighter that distinction wasn't relevant. Be it nature or nurture, the high score certifies that that dude sure splows him up some aliens.

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  25. Because of libraries and external dependencies by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why would you use a signed integer for a value like this?

    An honest, practical answer:

    Because most people who develop software link to other libraries, and many of those libraries don't have overloaded functions that take unsigned ints as parameters.

    For example, C#'s String.Substring function takes Int32s as parameters. So if you're using an UInt32 called x to hold some kind of index that you want to use in that function, you have to 1) check to see if x is less than zero (or better yet, less than UInt32.MinValue), and if so, throw an exception, then 2) cast x to an Int32, which takes a miniscule amount of time and resources.

    It's much easier just to define x as an Int32, even if you never intend for it to be negative.

    In the case of Bejewelled, I can only guess as to what dependencies might exist. Maybe the graphics routine to display the score on the screen is some kind of DisplayNumber(Int32 number,...) function that is generic enough so that they can write the function to display any number, positive or negative, and not have to build and maintain (and risk breaking when the code is updated) yet another function to do the same thing with uints because some weird bizarre edge cases exist where people use numbers > 2^31 but for whatever reason can't just use an Int64 instead.

    1. Re:Because of libraries and external dependencies by jfengel · · Score: 1

      It's one of the weaknesses of the language that you often hear people griping about, but I guess I can sort of see the logic.

      The difference between signed and unsigned originated when memories were a lot smaller and CPUs slower. (Hey, I wrote assembly for the 8080, which lacked even a 16-bit multiply.) A single extra bit made a noticeable difference.

      Today... hey, you think you're gonna need to count more than 2 billion? Fine, use an extra 4 bytes.

      For that rare set of circumstances where you need more than 2 billion, but definitely less than 4 billion, and your loops are so tight that the extra delay in the pipelining makes a noticeable difference... well, you don't want to be writing in a garbage-collecting language anyway, now do you?

    2. Re:Because of libraries and external dependencies by Splab · · Score: 1

      Why is that rare?

      When we do mediation in Java we don't have proper floating point available, so calculations are done in 1000 of a cent, when you already spent 5 digits to get to a dollar, the 2 billion mark isn't that far away.

    3. Re:Because of libraries and external dependencies by hansede · · Score: 1

      I think you're all overly-complicating things. I would guess that the authors just didn't care because they figured that 99.99999% of players would never reach the limits of a signed int, so what difference would it make? For the incredibly small minority of people who do hit the limit, they just saved them 3 years of their life by not making it unsigned. Having just finished writing a commercial game, I can tell you that I didn't care whether my ints for keeping track of score were signed or unsigned because the people who will hit that limit represent, for all intents and purposes, none of my potential customers. Anyone who is that serious about playing my game probably needs to chill once they hit 2^31-1 points (although I actually used 64-bit ints, so good luck with that).

    4. Re:Because of libraries and external dependencies by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Right, but the 4 billion mark isn't that much further away, just a factor of two. The conditions under which you'd need precisely 32 bits, without any risk of going over into 33, are relatively narrow.

  26. Re:Why this is sad by EvolutionsPeak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Figure 40-minute newscast, 40-minute drama/show, 40 minutes advertising

    FTFY

    (Your point still stands. I agree with you.)

  27. Re:Why this is sad by GospelHead821 · · Score: 1

    I throw pieces of rubber at metal poles for two hours at a time sometimes. Two hours is about right for 27 holes of disc golf.

    --
    Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
    Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  28. Sad but I appreciate it by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I want to point and laugh at him and yeah I still think he's done something worse than I have but still I have played virtually every Pokemon game and completed most of them even giving up socialising with friends for the latest Heartgold version and I've turned 33 this year. So really I shouldn't point and laugh at him.

  29. The Topper by edunbar93 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oh that's nothing. I spent more time than that changing my newborn's diapers and/or clothes. Just today.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  30. Re:Why this is sad by hitmark · · Score: 1

    tv so formula there is a whole wiki full of cookie cutter parts, and wow where one get ones ability to reproduce dissed by some tween using text speak in voice chat?

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  31. Re:Why this is sad by hitmark · · Score: 1

    one can tell newscasts and dramas apart these days?

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  32. Re:Why this is sad by Envy+Life · · Score: 1

    What muscle memory? This isn't Donkey Kong, It's a pattern recognition game that doesn't play the same way twice.

  33. Re:Time is relative. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    "My gaming life has died on the vine, and I regret to inform you how long it's been since the bathroom has been cleaned."

    I'm afraid to ask how these two are related.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  34. Re:Why this is sad by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    Q: "how many hours does the average American watch TV a day? "

    A: "According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day"

    They should be locked up for that.

    if we locked them up, then what would we do to the criminals?

  35. McAffee? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Who is McAffee? I have heard of McAfee though. :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  36. +1, Insightful by electrosoccertux · · Score: 2, Funny

    only on slashdot.

  37. Re:Why this is sad by McGiraf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Make them watch tv, that will teach them.

  38. The Killjoy Way by gringer · · Score: 1

    Why not just use a memory modification tool and set the score to something high (e.g. a few less than milestone scores like 2^31-1)?

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  39. Re:Why this is sad by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

    The (admittedly 'unproductive') pattern recognition and analytical processing involved in bejeweled is still more significant than watching commercials with NASCAR or sitcom breaks.

  40. Strange game, Professor Falken by nobodyman · · Score: 1

    The only winning move is not to play.

  41. Re:Why this is sad by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    According to my Xfire Profile, I've spent twice as much time as this guy but playing way more than any one game.

    Even so, I probably have anywhere from an additional 1,000-2,000 hours in Diablo II in the days before Xfire existed. There's very few games I could imagine playing for that long...

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  42. Re:Why this is sad by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    It probably would have been nice if I actually linked to my profile in that post. -_-

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  43. Re:Why this is sad by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    Yeah, most dramas don't have the same kind of foul language that newscasts have.

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  44. Re:Why this is sad by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    I've occasionally been known to throw parabolic pieces of metal at a stick in the ground, so I know where you're coming from.

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  45. Condolences to you, editor. by Tei · · Score: 1

    Writting and publishing articles for free on a website? puff... I suppose congratulations or condolences are in order.... that I extend to all these people that climb mountains. And.. oh... to all these people that explored the world. Poor Columbus, soo sad man. Also, all the scientist, advancing our knogment of how the world work for not other reason than "just because".

    Inventors, explorer, editors, people that beat things.. .IDIOTS!.. could be having sex, or doing something that give direct money instead!. What a bunch of idiots wasting his time. Probably nerds. And Slashdot editors hate nerds.

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  46. Re:Why this is sad by Miseph · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and the script writing is typically a bit better, especially in the "believability" department.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  47. Re:Why this is sad by rjhubs · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling if the average person watches two hours of tv.. its not of news and drama, but of mind numbing american idol

  48. Re:Why this is sad by Jer · · Score: 1

    From what I've seen of what the networks call "news" and "drama" lately, much of it isn't any less mind numbing than American Idol.

  49. Re:Why this is sad by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

    People seem to think doing anything for longer than $VAGUE_TIME per day is 'crazy' or stupid. You'll never get an 'appropriate' time out of them, though.

    2 hours is nothing. As stated before, the average TV time for Americans is 4 hours a day. Or to put it this way:

    Let's say the guy works 9am to 5pm.

    He gets up at 7pm, to catch the morning news and get ready for work. He plays the game @ 8AM for 15 minutes, leaves at 8:15 for work. Total time in game: 15 minutes.

    He gets home from work @ 5:30. He plays the game for a half hour to wind down. Total game time: 45 minutes.

    He heads out to do ACTIVITY for an hour. Heck, let's give him two hours. He gets home at 8pm. He rests up by playing the game for another 30 minutes. Total time in game: 1 hour, 15 minutes.

    It's 8:30. He heads out for dinner with the wife for an hour.

    Get home at 9:30. Wife wants to watch a TV show on the TV, so he gets on the computer while talking with her during the show. Show's a half hour. Total game time: 1 hour, 45 minutes.

    10 o'clock news comes on, kids want to use the computer for homework.

    at 10:30, everyone is going to bed. He plays the game for 15 minutes to wind down. Total game time: 2 hours.

    So not only is he still getting the full 8 hours of sleep here, but he's still only spending 8% of his entire day with the game! 33% at work. 33% sleeping, and 50% of is still "free" time.

    Even if he cuts back to an hour of gaming, that only gets him up to 54% 'free time' for the entire day.

    --
    "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
  50. Re:Time is relative. by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    That's because you spend too much time on slashdot :)

  51. Re:Why this is sad by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Q: "how many hours does the average American watch TV a day? "

    A: "According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day"

    They should be locked up for that.

    The difference is I can vaccume and do dishes while watching tv, try vaccuming and playing Halflife at the same time. Your cats will hate you 4evah.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  52. Re:Why this is sad by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    My cats hate me when I'm vacuuming akshually.

  53. Re:Why this is sad by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Talking to a tree and hearing a response is crazy. What if you throw a rock at a tree, and then hear it go "ouch!"? Is that crazy, or just the government surveillance people getting really creative with their disguises?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  54. My guess... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the software was originally written in Java, which subscribes to the philosophy that "We don't need no stinkin' unsigned numbers!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  55. Re:Time is relative. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Welcome to adulthood! I've found it helps to have children -- then you've got an excuse to buy and play games, at least for a few years until they become responsible adults themselves. Honest, I only the play the games to I can explain to my daughter how to do things when she gets stuck! Unfortunately, I frequently have to kick her off the computer for hours at a time while I research the games for her...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  56. Re:Why this is sad by Theoboley · · Score: 1

    1. Buy Roomba
    2. Set virtual walls
    3. Set cat on top of Roomba while Roomba Vacuums
    4. Play Half-Life

    --
    Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try