I agree, but this sounds pretty hard. The unpredictable guesses that a learning algorithm might make would probably be worse than just looking at the URL and adjusting my clicking behavior...
Most important features that I constantly miss in mainstream languages:
* products (tuples)
* sums (distinguished unions with pattern matching)
* no 'null' pointer (use sums instead)
* higher order functions!
* type inference
* parametric polymorphism
* parametrized modules
* static typing with type safety guarantees!
It's worth trying a modern typed functional language like ML if you don't know what these are; there's more to the world of programming than C-like scripting languages.
Seriously, it is a wonder to me why people are so in love with the W3C. Their standards are contorted and difficult to implement, driven by a dream of the web that has not yet, and probably will never be realized (perhaps because it is only shared by the W3C and their coterie, rather than by content publishers and consumers), their licensing restrictions are incompatible with open source (like the GPL), and their reference implementations are ridiculously sub-par. I'm all for standards, but most good internet standards arise from de facto means, not from lofty deliberation.
You might try communicating with "management types" instead of writing them off in the way you seem to do from the tone of your submission. I understand that the stereotype is humorous, but if you aren't able to communicate the reasons why Firefox is superior, then the blame falls as much on you as it does on him (or her).
It would be a real killer for software in general if developers were liable for damages caused from malfunctioning code. Therefore, licenses that disclaim warranties are really important.
If there were enough demand for it, you'd expect software companies that are developing for pay to warranty their code. This would be one area where they could clearly outperform free-beer software! But I don't think such demand is very high, except in certain niche industries (defense, transportation, etc. although I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that these areas are much better off than regular consumer/business software.)
Anyway, this really has nothing to do with Microsoft -- lord knows that there are and have been plenty of bad bugs in non-Microsoft software. (Even "open source" software!)
There are some serious implications...... Until now, it wasn't possible to cross a fish or a spider and a plant that grows corn. This is the danger with trying GMO's as...
This is precisely the kind of non-argument that I constantly hear. What are the implications? What is the danger? You say there is one but you don't say what it is.
I beg to differ. You could level the same argument against computer programmers, yet there is a huge amount of free labor to be found from hobbyist programmers, even ones who are professionals and have loads of experience. Many people just like to be involved in fun projects, and some people feel a strong social commitment to "open source" or "free software" or even "free art."
Personally (as artist and programmer!) I prefer to work on my own projects, but if the project were cool enough, I wouldn't feel cheated to work on it for no pay.
But the courts have protected "time shifting" and similar activities, even though these don't appear in the license. So it doesn't necessarily have to be in your license.
Incidental copies made in transit are not covered by copyright law. If his stream is private, I don't see why there would be any issue. (And I definitely think he'd want to make it private, since it would otherwise pull some serious bandwidth!)
Your mistake is believing that Slashdot posting the story somehow elevates its fact status. If blogs are public urination, Slashdot is public urination from a big, incontinent man with polyuria.
Why do any of us care how he went about doing this? It's fine for him to have fun doing it, but if that's all this is about, then it doesn't warrant a slashdot story. If it's actually interesting enough to deserve a story (which I don't think it is), then the story should at least have the tone of "look at this crazy thing that someone did!" instead of "HLA is a useful and increasingly popular language for developing applications, such as adventure games." The latter is essentially the tone of the article and the slashdot story.
Slashdot is glorifying a backwards practice, and I believe that is damaging to the naive budding programmers that read it, and damaging to the people that end up using their programs. Expressing my opposition to this is not ridiculous--if you have counter arguments to my actual claim, let's have a discussion.
My beef is that the use of assembly language for programming tasks as high-level as this is ridiculous, and that slashdot is doing a disservice to the world by promoting it.
It seems to me that the right thing is to develop your own small language along with an engine for interpreting it. ML happens to excel at parsing and interpreting languages, but just about anything with built in lists and strings is going to blow the pants off assembly for this task!
Mathematicians tackle difficult problems all of the time, regardless of the (lack of) money involved.
I don't know why you say that interest in "theoretical" mathematical proof is waning. It certainly isn't where I come from. (And what is ultra-math??!)
That's right, and in this case the publisher is making the assessment that the traditional model doesn't work (because it's too hard to tell whether the game will be good before it is released), and stipulating new contract obligations in order to mitigate that risk.
"We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide... and Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking?"
Math aside, the Matrix game sucked, and I don't think I'll ever buy any more Matrix games. It absolutely makes sense that bad games should be responsible for brand damage.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, when you're filling out something important, you should use your real name instead of a nickname. Isn't this obvious?
I agree, but this sounds pretty hard. The unpredictable guesses that a learning algorithm might make would probably be worse than just looking at the URL and adjusting my clicking behavior...
Most important features that I constantly miss in mainstream languages:
* products (tuples)
* sums (distinguished unions with pattern matching)
* no 'null' pointer (use sums instead)
* higher order functions!
* type inference
* parametric polymorphism
* parametrized modules
* static typing with type safety guarantees!
It's worth trying a modern typed functional language like ML if you don't know what these are; there's more to the world of programming than C-like scripting languages.
Khhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaannnnn!!!!!
Oooh the internet was invented by the W3C!
Seriously, it is a wonder to me why people are so in love with the W3C. Their standards are contorted and difficult to implement, driven by a dream of the web that has not yet, and probably will never be realized (perhaps because it is only shared by the W3C and their coterie, rather than by content publishers and consumers), their licensing restrictions are incompatible with open source (like the GPL), and their reference implementations are ridiculously sub-par. I'm all for standards, but most good internet standards arise from de facto means, not from lofty deliberation.
You might try communicating with "management types" instead of writing them off in the way you seem to do from the tone of your submission. I understand that the stereotype is humorous, but if you aren't able to communicate the reasons why Firefox is superior, then the blame falls as much on you as it does on him (or her).
It would be a real killer for software in general if developers were liable for damages caused from malfunctioning code. Therefore, licenses that disclaim warranties are really important.
If there were enough demand for it, you'd expect software companies that are developing for pay to warranty their code. This would be one area where they could clearly outperform free-beer software! But I don't think such demand is very high, except in certain niche industries (defense, transportation, etc. although I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought that these areas are much better off than regular consumer/business software.)
Anyway, this really has nothing to do with Microsoft -- lord knows that there are and have been plenty of bad bugs in non-Microsoft software. (Even "open source" software!)
There are some serious implications ... ... Until now, it wasn't possible to cross a fish or a spider and a plant that grows corn. This is the danger with trying GMO's as ...
This is precisely the kind of non-argument that I constantly hear. What are the implications? What is the danger? You say there is one but you don't say what it is.
What is the problem with "genetic engineering"? We've been doing it for ages with breeding, as has "nature."
I beg to differ. You could level the same argument against computer programmers, yet there is a huge amount of free labor to be found from hobbyist programmers, even ones who are professionals and have loads of experience. Many people just like to be involved in fun projects, and some people feel a strong social commitment to "open source" or "free software" or even "free art."
Personally (as artist and programmer!) I prefer to work on my own projects, but if the project were cool enough, I wouldn't feel cheated to work on it for no pay.
But the courts have protected "time shifting" and similar activities, even though these don't appear in the license. So it doesn't necessarily have to be in your license.
You guys are nuts. Think about this:
HIGH LATENCY TO QUAKE 3 SERVERS.
Webcams are usually better quality and cheaper than "security" cameras. They both just take pictures; what's wrong with using them?
Incidental copies made in transit are not covered by copyright law. If his stream is private, I don't see why there would be any issue. (And I definitely think he'd want to make it private, since it would otherwise pull some serious bandwidth!)
Your mistake is believing that Slashdot posting the story somehow elevates its fact status. If blogs are public urination, Slashdot is public urination from a big, incontinent man with polyuria.
I'm sure they are really appreciating the slashdotting given that they only have a few hours left to construct and sell their web-based application.
Why do any of us care how he went about doing this? It's fine for him to have fun doing it, but if that's all this is about, then it doesn't warrant a slashdot story. If it's actually interesting enough to deserve a story (which I don't think it is), then the story should at least have the tone of "look at this crazy thing that someone did!" instead of "HLA is a useful and increasingly popular language for developing applications, such as adventure games." The latter is essentially the tone of the article and the slashdot story.
Slashdot is glorifying a backwards practice, and I believe that is damaging to the naive budding programmers that read it, and damaging to the people that end up using their programs. Expressing my opposition to this is not ridiculous--if you have counter arguments to my actual claim, let's have a discussion.
My beef is that the use of assembly language for programming tasks as high-level as this is ridiculous, and that slashdot is doing a disservice to the world by promoting it.
It seems to me that the right thing is to develop your own small language along with an engine for interpreting it. ML happens to excel at parsing and interpreting languages, but just about anything with built in lists and strings is going to blow the pants off assembly for this task!
Assembly language is absolutely, with no doubt, the wrong language for writing adventure games.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?
Mathematicians tackle difficult problems all of the time, regardless of the (lack of) money involved.
I don't know why you say that interest in "theoretical" mathematical proof is waning. It certainly isn't where I come from. (And what is ultra-math??!)
That's right, and in this case the publisher is making the assessment that the traditional model doesn't work (because it's too hard to tell whether the game will be good before it is released), and stipulating new contract obligations in order to mitigate that risk.
"We sold four million copies. That's $250 million worldwide... and Warner Bros. would penalize us because we didn't achieve 70%? Are they joking?"
Math aside, the Matrix game sucked, and I don't think I'll ever buy any more Matrix games. It absolutely makes sense that bad games should be responsible for brand damage.
the water effects used in Super Mario Sunshine, cel shading effects used in Zelda, or the rippling water effects on Dead or Alive 3.
Wow, water effects, cell shading, and water effects? What an incredible breadth of effects available at the programmer's fingertips!
Why do mac users play on a different server? I don't get it.