In my opinion its the best game in the world, but a little too simplistic. That's why some friends and I are in prelim design of something similar but much better. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to play with more than 4 players in real time? That's what we are working on. And its gonna be for linux.
It would be more practical (and Palm-like) to keep robots on six legs, which gives them just as much all-terrain ability in a much smaller and faster package.
This is true unless of course the purpose of designing your robot is to navigate and perform in human environments, which means that a six legged robot that could perform human activities would probably be too large to navigate the human workspace. If you listen closely to the videos you see that the crew who built this robot stated this exact thing.
While I tend to agree with what you are saying for the most part I believe that you are approaching the situation a little bit too objectively for the like of the author of the original post. My impression of the original post's author is that he is of the christian type who sees the bible as the direct, infallible word of God dictated to each author and translator of the said book.
What this means [to them] is that the bible is the TRUTH. The truth cannot be looked at objectively by someone in the previously defined position. The bible cannot be looked at objectively by those people either. Nor can the truth be criticized by someone outside of the system using external proofs to try and clarify matters. Most followers of this interpretation of the bible choose to side-step and ignore the glaring inconsitencies and paradoxes of the bible because if they were to admit that any part of the bible were fallible then that would leave room for claiming that all of it could be fallible.
So what I'm trying to show is that the direct assault is not the best assault. Since they know the truth, the words you say about their Holy doctrine, no matter how sound they are [these words], if they lie outside the doctrine that is taken as truth, are false.
I have found that a more effective means is to try and address the issue from within their set of rules. What needs to be shown is actual inconsistencies between translations especially those of political agenda, which I believe that you alude to. One of my favorite avenues is to address the issue of the ultimate evil dead that Satan could do. Wouldn't it be simply evil if the devil were to influence the hand of the writer just as god did? This would introduce inconsitencies into the bible would it not? Another approach I have seen taken by actual biblical scholars themselves is the critique of the process by which books were chosen for addition to the bible. Did you know that Martin Luther opposed the inclusion of the books of Hebrews and James into the bible because of their questionable content, the very books that many of these Christian sects rely upon heavliy for their propoganda.
Unfortunately many many religious affiliates are suspect of being entirely too subjective and many non-religious affiliates are suspect of being too objective. I'm not sure if I adequately described the idea I had in the back of my head. All I know is that if you ever want to effect people's cosmologies [the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe ] you need to do it in a way that they will not outright object to and from my experiences with people such as the writer of the original post your approach would fall on deaf ears as being of the devil or just blatently incorrect. Like I said before, I personally agree with you but all an axiom bashing arguement does is lead to anger. I personally believe that any dialogue between individuals should lead toward the finding of truth. To communicate effectively we must understand our audience.
I seem to remember a thread a number of months ago that mentioned that Microsoft was hiring linux knowledgeable people. I think it was during the Microsoft vs. Linux benchmark test. This was probably in anticipation of the possible break up. You can probably expect that they are already working on some of this software. And for those of you who are always criticizing IE, have you ever used Netscape or Mozilla for more than ten minutes in Linux and not had it crashed? Every browser I have used in linux sucks A$$ and I would welcome another better attempt by the crew in Redmond.
I have been a much happier man since I abandoned the demon box four years ago. Now when I do get close to one of the cursed things I really start to notice how they grab your consciousness away from you. They have a scary sedating affect upon a person. I see so many of my friends whose lives revolve around "what's on TV." I won't say its all bad programming ( I like watching the Simpsons,) but in general it's shit. TV exposure in my youth has contributed to my past attention span problems. I see it affecting my friends' capabilities making them appathetic, unambitious people who have so much potential yet never use it. "Fuck DTV. Fuck TV."
AC, You have some good ideas here. I understand your hesitance to hunt down a prof at a university as a mentor. I would like to point out that many of the academics (professors) you run in to may surprise you with some of their experience. My mentor at the university I attend just came to the University two years ago from his home in South Korea. Before he was a professor there he worked for Motorola and wrote one of their main compilers, one that was used for five years. He left the industry and went into academics. He gave me the best advice. He said to do as much as I can in my twenties because that has traditionaly been when people have done their most creative work. He said that I should work on my "BIG" project now.
My point is that academicicians can make great mentors if you look for the right ones. Don't just select any old professor for a mentor. Mine gave me a lot of insight into the industry and helped me learn to deal with my current job. I'm 22 and project technical lead on a number of projects in a medium size software company. I'm the youngest person in development, yet am considered to be a "senior" developer. In fact, I'm still in college. Its all about amibition, thats what I learned from my mentor. Go out and get what you want and use whatever tools are necessary. Relevant goals are important. He taught me to be concerned about my career early and not get stuck in something I didn't want to do (I learned this from my father as well (engineer).) Know where you are going, at least know how to steer yourself away from unpleasant ends. I do this by not concerning myself so much with immaculate code but rather with honing my SE skills. It is also important to learn when to utilize someone else's skills (team member.) A good mentor should be able to teach you how to survive in the industry, not just how to code, unless of course you want to be an academic, maybe then it is important to learn to survive in that industry.
Metrol, Did you actually read and understand what advid was saying? By the statement you make above we are led to believe that you have not understood his remarks. Advid describes the difference between the realization of the communist idea as opposed to the intrinsic qualities of that idea. Through corollary we can deduce that you claim that the idea itself is the same as its realization. I don't mean to pull a "Socrates" on you but to come to the truth of the matter we need to logically dissect your statements. You have declared that there is something intrinsically evil about communism. I think that we need to take a look as some definitions here.
As we can see, the word intrinsic is an adjective (used to describe a noun.) In our case the noun is "evil" and the word "intrinsic" is applied to that noun in reference to the target "thing" or "it" as the definition refers, this "thing" or "it" being communism. Or, "communism is intrinsically evil." We will address the validity of that statment later.
The logical error involved in the total statement of yours comes in when you say that there is something "intrinsically" wrong with the idea and try to prove this through the citing of imperfect instances of its implementation. It is not a logical error to say that something is "intrinsically" wrong if it is in the nature of the thing to be wrong but it IS a logical error to say that a system is "intrinsically" wrong if it has been implemented in a way that goes AGAINST the very nature [intrinsic] of the system. At this point a separation is made between the ideal and the actual. The implementation of communism at the hands of Stalin and Mao is contrary to the philosophical basis [very nature] of communism (see the definition above.) Advid has said as much in his statement.
It seems that you have overlooked the main point of Advid's post by missinterpreting the meaning of the word "intrinsic", unless you intended to imply that the end product defines the intrinsic qualities of an idea. This is a very dangerous statement to make because of the circular argument that arises. Analyzing your statements with the definition of intrinsic we can see that it is logically inconsitent to claim that an action that takes place after the creation of something defines the creation of the said thing.
By you saying that communism is intrinsically evil, and by using the definition of the word intrinsic we can extrapolate equivalent statements "Evil belongs to communism by communisms very nature." Or "communism is evil by its very nature." This statement can be logically refuted. I bet you could read all the communist literature (real, not propaganda) and NOT ever come up with a statement that says that communism is evil. We can say that Stalin and Mao are evil because of their actions, but we can not say that communism is evil because they chose to implement it in ways contrary to its purpose. Now if you want to claim that the end product defines the beginning ideal, by all means try, but be prepared for a firestorm of debate following this idea. There are probably more instances of misuse of an ideal than there are of proper use.
In programmer's language : Improper use of the C++ language (exceeding array bounds) does not make C++ an evil or wrong language. This makes the person who implements the language incorrectly evil or wrong in their implementation of the language.
Have you been listening to the posts that Kevin has been making on various websites? Markoff does NOT know what he is talking about and Kevin has repeatedly exposed the lies that Markoff has written about him. I won't dispute your claim, but I think that people like Markoff should no longer be used as reliable sources for valid Mitnick information.
Just because One is proven guilty for one crime does not mean that one shall by be assumed equally guilty for another crime by association of character. Mitnick served his time and paid for his mistakes. He admitted that he was wrong. His debt to society has by the law been repaid, has it not (yah I know of cases where it wouldn't, child molestation, murder etc.) We SHALL not now label him a criminal and assume that once a criminal always a criminal. This is character generalization. I hope that we can all see the problems with this. It leaves no room for one to be a human being and make mistakes.
"If Mitnick isn't willing to demonstrate that the material on the drives is legit, then the assumption that it's illegit isn't too far off base."
Do the words "innocent until PROVEN guilty mean anything anymore? The US judicial system is not founded on making assumptions. I would not want to be sent to jail because the government read my mind and placed intentions in my actions that did not exist. This comes back to the same bullshit arguement: "Why should I care if the government bugs my phone if I'm not doing anything wrong?" Just because Kevin doesn't choose to divulge the information does not make it illegal. What if it is P@rN pics of his ex-girlfriend? Would you want those paraded around a court room? Your constitutional rights as an American (if you are one) prohibit your incarceration based upon speculative evidence and un-based assumptions.
If you let "The MAN" get away with one small infraction of freedom eventually these small pieces will get larger and larger until you cant even urinate without the proper paper work and permit.
Just because the DOJ couldn't crack it doesn't mean that another organization couldn't, for instance the N$A. But as far as I know they wouldn't be involved in a civil dispute like this unless it involved national security. Anyone know anything more about this? Kevin probably used a one time pad from some e-book he got in a kids store or something.
Someone earlier was mentioning great games that should be ported. I actual have a question. Does anyone know if "Machiavelli the Prince" has been ported to linux? It was made by microprose in the early nineties. It was for ms-dos. It has to be one of the greatest games of all times.
I have logged hundreds of hours playing it and I still spend many long nights playing away. It was a hot seat politcal intrigue/ trading game. Very cool. I would also be interested in a web version. Is anyone interested in an open source version of this game, or maybe something similar so we wouldn't step on Microprose's feet? I've been contimplating this for a while now. I'd need some help moving my develoment mindset into Linux (I'm a prof. windows programmer but I know OpenGl) but using a proper setup we could bust a linux version of this game out in no time.
Man, theif has got to be the creapiest game I have ever played. The level with the zombies was almost too much excitement for me. I was playing in the dark with the sub woofer turned up. I had to wipe my hard drive to do a clean install (while installing Linux.. imagine that ) and now I am afraid to play the game again because I don't want to have to go through that creepy zombie level.
You guys seem to be missing a very important point in the hardware support debate. Who do you think can write the best drivers for a piece of hardware? Obviously the answer is the people who built the piece of hardware. That is what MS does. It uses something called HAL/HEL which stands for Hardware allocation layer/ hardware emulation layer. It forces All hardware manufacturers to write drivers that comply to windows. From there DirectX queries the computer for available hardware support. If the computer doesn't have hardware support for certain functionality then it will emulate it. In this manner programmers aren't forced to program drivers for EVERY single video card out there. Programmers interface to DirectX (which interfaces and implemenation rarely changes except through new versions) and they aren't (and in my opinion shouldn't be) required to know how to interface to EVERY specific video card. As far as game programming goes, the graphics portion of most of them is really one of the smaller parts of the program if done correctly.
To the extent of my knowledge and experience (yes I have done graphics in both Windoze and X) linux doesn't have an allocation/emulation layer and this is why John Carmack talks about having to write drivers for every video card he wants Q3 to support in Linux. Linux needs to get a standard graphics interface layer if they ever want to really take off in gaming. Being a programmer I can tell you, I really dislike tinkering with hardware and I choose to use directX on an MS box rather than using other graphics packages with X and fooling around with unimportant hardware shtuff. Custom tweaking is something that gets to be tedious and annoying to real developers. We have a lot of other things to worry about. As far as most developers I know goes, we prefer to abstract as far away from the hardware as possible because dealing with hardware is really really buggy and unpredicatable most of the times not to mention the fact that not all cards support nearly the same feature set.
I'll probably get chewed out by you guys for knowing this kind of stuff, but if you have ever worked with the actual DirectX package you would realize that a conversion is not as complex as it may seem.
DirectX was designed to be a package of graphics/sound/communication libraries that interacts quickly with the windows operating system. I'm sure we all knew that. The important part of that statement is that they are libraries. There is a theory in computer programming that the main functionality of the game should be separated from the user interface. In fact even when the coding and design gets to the user interface level much of the design has been abstracted to such a point that to execute graphics routines/ sound routines/ and communication routines the coders will make calls to the graphics package of their choice. This is the key to reusability. When coding one should keep most of these library calls to only a few mandatory design layers. When a conversion is then in order all it requires is that the modules that handle the above mentioned routines be replaced with modules that are system compliant. Of course this requires work, but this is where a wrapper can come in to place and wrap all of the old DirectX calls and redirect them into "our" own system dependent modules.
If the product is designed correctly the hard part shouldn't be in the porting. The hard part is in the actual coding. These ideas are bordering on component technology, but in my research it seems that a lot of the hard code game industry and other development companies are going that route, be it through CORBA, COM/DCOM or any of the other component based technologies. Reusability and portability just becomes a matter of wrapping a few things here and there.
If anyone notices any errors please comment. Also, I am well aware of the design issues involved with abstracting graphics routines including the execution time. But if you do any real coding with this stuff you realize that the real time saving is not made by reducing function calls by eliminating redirection, but rather through optimizing algorithms. And finally, MS claims that there is a version of COM that works with UNIX/LINUX but DirectX's use of COM shouldn't important in a conversion if DirectX is being wrapped. It is definitely not important if the DirectX routines are being replaced by those of another graphics routine or by custom routines, but if there is some kind of DirectX emulation going on I'm not sure if COM would be required to work on the LINUX boxes.
As far as maps go, all of the maps are stored in data files as exported information (I'm pretty sure about that.) Just because the graphics are handled differently doesn't mean that the underlying data is handled differently. In reality the map data is exactly the same. The system dependent program will import a standard map data file and display the said data file in its own system dependent manner.
I disagree with the statement that each gender thinks differently if you claim that it is because of biological reasons. I feel that if the statement were true it would probably be because cultural conditioning. If this is so WE CAN CHANGE what is happening. I have noticed the same thing you have in computer science classes. I found that the reasons these ladies dropped out of the classes was not because they were "not good at math" but because they were "missinformed" as to what computer science is.
I met a young lady a number of years ago when I was a freshman in college who was a first year computer science student. She thought that a computer scientist was a person who was really good at "USING" a computer. It is as if the word "science" went in one ear and out the other. She had no idea that her first course in computer science was not a course in how to use a mouse, but rather in how to write a program. She dropped out after two weeks in the CSci program. Another young lady I met thought that computer viruses "just happened when a computer got sick." Her jaw hit the floor when I told her that people write them. Another case of missinformation or lack of information.
I am not trying to make a generalization about all women, but the majority [not all mind you] of women I know in computer science are in it because it is a good vehicle for expressing mathematics [data interpolation etc.] or because it is a booming field where the money is good or because it is a science field where, if they excel, they can stick it to "the man", literally. But you know what? I think that the majority of men I know in computer science are the same way. I know people who are seniors in computer science who have never used a data structure more complicated than an array because they can't comprehend what they are studying. They are, on the other hand very good computer techs and "USERS", but they are in no way innovative or artistic or inventive and they stumble through their classes getting pity "C's" from their profs. They like games and they like the money they will make pretending to work while their cubical mate pumps out code. [We all know code whores (excuse the language)]
Some of the best mathematicians I know, by the way, are women. It seems that in general that women are just a predisposed as men toward excellence in mathematics, yet more men seem to be interested in it. You know back in high school all the boys took shop and all the girls took Home Economics [except the guys looking for easy grades and looking to hang out with girls.] I am trying to point out that cultural conditioning is more of a factor than biological imperative. If I spent all of my time writing poetry and baking cookies as a young boy because everyone told me that is what young boys do I bet you I too would have a very difficult time with calculus and I would say "Math sucks" or "its too hard". I also know many computer techs and self proclaimed programmers who can't pass a basic algebra class, not because they are dumb but because they don't know how to apply themselves.
One thing I try to do when I meet someone who asks what I do is explain what computer science is. Is start by describing all of the ones and zeros [current no current etc] going on in the computer and then I continue to describe the layers of abstraction that the data goes through. I then go on to describe what coding is and how it is really an artistic endeavor. I show them that I am a computer scientist because of the beauty I see in programming, not because of the money and not because I am obsessed with technology [I have problems setting up my own modem for god's sake, but I sure could write a nifty data transmission program.] Usually their response is awe followed by "wow I didn't know that computers were so cool", [this coming from religion and english majors.
Those of us who consider ourselves "nerds" need to inform the public as to what our passions are. This too could be a reason that many women seem to be in it for the money and if they don't suceed right away they don't continue. They don't see the beauty in it because no one has ever shown them. We are all too busy showing off our new 1000 function calculator's functionality to describe to them "why" it is a work of art and why our scientific pursuits are so worth while and beautiful.
I probably just ranted and didn't make any sense. I just want to say that we as humans shouldn't accept any biological restraints that physiologists, psychologists, doctors, religious leaders, or scientists put upon our physical potential. People said that it wasn't possible for mankind to run the mile in under five minutes and now everyone's grandma can do it. We limit what we can accomplish by accepting bounds to our abilities. Don't listen to other people telling you what you can and can't do just because they cant do it. [I realize that not everyone can jump high enough to slam dunk a basketball, but some martial arts experts would argue with that.]
I'm sorry that this is so long but it needs to be said, and if someone else beat me to it, oh well, redundancy isn't so bad.
First of all I know how slashdot uses the word "karma" and I'm not sure if I really like it. Do you know where Karma comes from? Its roots are in sanskrit. I realize that we English speakers like to bastardize other peoples' languages and use their meanings for our own purposes but in some cases [as in Karma] this is not necessarily very noble. It can breed ignorance of the true meaning of very simple, yet profound ideas. Just look at the bastardized, fundamentally flawed, partial interpretations of "tao", and the t'ai chi principle of "yin-yang."
Of course this is not the only definition of Karma but slashdot acts as if Karma is some kind of one sided "do good and you'll go to heaven" type thing or "if you sound smart enough then you are kool."
As far as I know, the only time I have heard of gaining Karma is when one does something "bad" [I'm gonna say that word and point out that I realize the eastern philosophical trap.] And one "works off" karma by doing "good" deeds?
What I so loosely characterized as good and bad is actually not what we westerners think of as good and bad in a moral sense. The good and bad in relationship to karma are related to dharma [loosely: The principle or law that orders the universe. The individual conduct in conformity with this principle. And the essential function or nature of a thing.] So something "good" is something that goes along with the principles of the universe. Something bad is something that goes against the true nature of the universe.
Dan, I loved the post. I am happy to see that some people who read this site are fluent and are very constructive thinkers. For those of you who claim to not understand it and claim to know what karma is; go read some books. Become literate. Learn what a sound, constructive argument is.
Why do all of the ignorant people who can't hold their attention span for more than a three word sentence seem to think that the only things worth reading can be written in under three minutes?
"Dude, Linux Rulz." "Down with Microserf." "Reading is hard." "huh, insightful arguement?" "correct grammar yes?" "Three word sentence?" Tip of the day: If you don't know the word use "www.dictionary.com"
I'm not attacking anyone, but why is it that those who don't really seem to care about anyone or anything attack those who seem to have a little insight? Is it a backlash against intellect, spirituality, and anti-ignorance or is it jealousy? Oh, this post is also in response to many of the other bandwagon jumping iliterates who posted below.
Random Task
"wu-wei" man "we-wei"
Feel free to correct my grammar if you think it proves some point.
Where is the dividing line between FPS and Sim? Look at Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear. These games are FPS that also have elements of real swat tactic (sim). It is seen as constructive because you play the good guy (government agent) killing the bad guy (terrorist). There seems to be a point to the killing in games like this (a distincly American/Eurpoean point.) Lets imagine a sim where you play the Iraqi Army. You get to kill Kuwaitis and Americans. Do you think there wouldn't be a bit of outcry about this? I do, especially by the American media.
I think with games, the defining line between "good" games and "bad" games, be they sims, FPS or whatever is the American Media's view of what is good and bad. (Most game companies are American, and most of the criticism comes from the American media. I'm not trying to country motivated.)
The American media sees value in simulations of WWII battles because they are part of history. It sees value in Rainbow Six because it teaches kids how to become good SWAT team members. *snicker* Whereas Quake, Blood, etc are games that graphically depict violence for _no_ sociological beneficial reason. They are there for killing alone. They do not sustain the lifestyle and innocence of the American people that the press so wants to keep.
If it protrays intentions that are dangerous to the current (supposed) American way of life then it is "bad". If not then it is "ok". It is all media propaganda. Why won't they let us change?
If I put a house key under the welcome mat at my house does that mean that ANY one, by law is allowed to enter? NO. Just because the key is there and anyone could easily find it if they looked doesn't mean that it isn't against the law to exploit it. Its still breaking and entering.
Don't get me wrong, I love SlashDot as much as the next person, but what frustrates me about the majority of the posting that goes on here is the level of unfactual ranting.
Just because we are techno weinies doesn't give us credibility.
Really, what does three hundred posts on why product X is better than product Y really do when the people touting product X only know about product X and feel justified in down talking product Y without stated justification? Maybe my assumption that those people don't know about the product they bad mouth is premature, but when they only post about why product X is better do we really see anything different from them? All these kind of posts do is take up space.
If you want to contribute, how about some benchmarks and some information that shows that you are versed in both sides of the issue. We see the same thing with people saying how Windows programming sucks compared to Linux programming. Well how many of these people on either side of the debate have used both Extensively? These, in my opinion are the people who should be posting. Sorry to pick on you anonymous coward, but I'd had enough by the time I'd read your post.
If you are concerned about server load, programming CGI scripts in C or C++ is still the wrong way to go. You will need some system such as mod_perl, Fast_CGI, NSAPI, ISAPI or some other non-CGI solution. CGI is the problem, not perl.
Why is C/C++ the wrong way to go? Why mod_perl? Why is CGI the problem? I could just as easily go ranting about how Visual Basic is just as credible and usable, and then continue with why its not CGI, its the TCP/IP Suite. These words are flash factor when not qualified and they don't really mean anything.
p.s. I do know what they mean, just trying to make a point. Random Task
I was reading in a science magazine a number of months ago (Discovery I think, before the new editor) about the so called "spooky nature of photons." I am not exactly sure how the expirement worked or how the scientists got one photon to be tied to another photon, but here is the jist of what happened.
They sent two photons along fiber optic cables at 90 degrees from each other for approx 20 kilometers (is this right?) Then they ran expirements with these photons such as stopping one photon in travel, etc. The spooky thing that happened was that when one of the photons was stopped, the other photon also stopped 100's of kilometers away at the same instant (in the mathematical definition).
What this has to do with computer speeds (if anything) is that if we could harness this power then we would have near _instantaneous_ data transfer and processing speed. Of course there would still be a little bit of light speed overhead if we made the chips transfer any light, but the possibilities are amazing. Imagine zero latency downloading! It would probably change the entire way that architectures are built.
If anyone has anymore info on the subject please post it. My memory may be flawed and so may be my data but this is what I remember. I'm not a physicist, just a programmer.
I think that I agree with you. I too believe that code has applications that music and art don't. I see programming as a very amazing form of art. I describe what I do to my liberal arts oriented friends, who see computers as boxes of wires, as painting a Monet and sticking it into the trunk of the car so no one sees it. Then driving the car around. I suppose this could be extended toward the engine of the car also being a work of art that isn't seen, but it is more easily understandable to use an analogy of what most people consider "real art."
So I'm trying to show that code and programming is really art, but it is different than print media and music. Our art is concerned with the process that it accomplishes on its visual side. I think that the computer programmer is probably more concerned with "quality" (as Pirsig would say) than with esthetics. This quality can be anything from speed, to low line count, to clever algorithms. It's all about the art, but the differnce between our art and other art is that people use our art to function in society, so as artists in this sense we somehow owe our audience something. They depend on our approach being "good" so that they get the best product.
With this in mind we programmers realize that it is no longer just OUR art. It is the user's art now also. And anything that can be done to make it more "beautiful" can be seen as beneficial to us as artists and to our artwork. Unlike a painting or a song, our work is never done with out project. We program to make a piece of art, not to claim it for our own. We are a community working on a painting instead of just one person. I'm sure a lot of you don't agree with this, but its how I approach my work and it makes it all so much more enjoyable. I'd rather program with a team of people who appreciate my skills and my artistic expression any day over programming alone.
Sorry for the long post, I just thought it needed to be said. Thanks, Random_Task
You know they say that power can corrupt a person when that person succumbs to it. It is impressive that Mr. C has been able to focus his abilities and his ambitions into a truely noble pursuit. I am sure that if he were to succumb to the power of upper level management he too would find it difficult to live an uncorrupted life. You gotta admit, being a CEO would be a tough job (morally and spiritually.) I think Mr. C's approach toward his profession is great and he is a good role model for those of us in the development industry who want to be both successful, revolutionary (contributing to technology for humanity's sake),and charismatic, yet still exercise human civility, compassion, morals (be yours what they may), and be empethetic toward other humans. I must say I was very impressed with the interview. Great catch Slashdot, and thanks Mr. C.
Slashdot Mirror
In my opinion its the best game in the world, but a little too simplistic. That's why some friends and I are in prelim design of something similar but much better. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to play with more than 4 players in real time? That's what we are working on. And its gonna be for linux.
It would be more practical (and Palm-like) to keep robots on six legs, which gives them just as much all-terrain ability in a much smaller and faster package.
This is true unless of course the purpose of designing your robot is to navigate and perform in human environments, which means that a six legged robot that could perform human activities would probably be too large to navigate the human workspace. If you listen closely to the videos you see that the crew who built this robot stated this exact thing.
Random Task
While I tend to agree with what you are saying for the most part I believe that you are approaching the situation a little bit too objectively for the like of the author of the original post. My impression of the original post's author is that he is of the christian type who sees the bible as the direct, infallible word of God dictated to each author and translator of the said book.
What this means [to them] is that the bible is the TRUTH. The truth cannot be looked at objectively by someone in the previously defined position. The bible cannot be looked at objectively by those people either. Nor can the truth be criticized by someone outside of the system using external proofs to try and clarify matters. Most followers of this interpretation of the bible choose to side-step and ignore the glaring inconsitencies and paradoxes of the bible because if they were to admit that any part of the bible were fallible then that would leave room for claiming that all of it could be fallible.
So what I'm trying to show is that the direct assault is not the best assault. Since they know the truth, the words you say about their Holy doctrine, no matter how sound they are [these words], if they lie outside the doctrine that is taken as truth, are false.
I have found that a more effective means is to try and address the issue from within their set of rules. What needs to be shown is actual inconsistencies between translations especially those of political agenda, which I believe that you alude to. One of my favorite avenues is to address the issue of the ultimate evil dead that Satan could do. Wouldn't it be simply evil if the devil were to influence the hand of the writer just as god did? This would introduce inconsitencies into the bible would it not? Another approach I have seen taken by actual biblical scholars themselves is the critique of the process by which books were chosen for addition to the bible. Did you know that Martin Luther opposed the inclusion of the books of Hebrews and James into the bible because of their questionable content, the very books that many of these Christian sects rely upon heavliy for their propoganda.
Unfortunately many many religious affiliates are suspect of being entirely too subjective and many non-religious affiliates are suspect of being too objective. I'm not sure if I adequately described the idea I had in the back of my head. All I know is that if you ever want to effect people's cosmologies [the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe ] you need to do it in a way that they will not outright object to and from my experiences with people such as the writer of the original post your approach would fall on deaf ears as being of the devil or just blatently incorrect. Like I said before, I personally agree with you but all an axiom bashing arguement does is lead to anger. I personally believe that any dialogue between individuals should lead toward the finding of truth. To communicate effectively we must understand our audience.
Random Task
I seem to remember a thread a number of months ago that mentioned that Microsoft was hiring linux knowledgeable people. I think it was during the Microsoft vs. Linux benchmark test. This was probably in anticipation of the possible break up. You can probably expect that they are already working on some of this software. And for those of you who are always criticizing IE, have you ever used Netscape or Mozilla for more than ten minutes in Linux and not had it crashed? Every browser I have used in linux sucks A$$ and I would welcome another better attempt by the crew in Redmond.
Random Task
"Fuck DTV. Fuck TV."
A-men brother,
I have been a much happier man since I abandoned the demon box four years ago. Now when I do get close to one of the cursed things I really start to notice how they grab your consciousness away from you. They have a scary sedating affect upon a person. I see so many of my friends whose lives revolve around "what's on TV." I won't say its all bad programming ( I like watching the Simpsons,) but in general it's shit. TV exposure in my youth has contributed to my past attention span problems. I see it affecting my friends' capabilities making them appathetic, unambitious people who have so much potential yet never use it. "Fuck DTV. Fuck TV."
Random Task
AC,
You have some good ideas here. I understand your hesitance to hunt down a prof at a university as a mentor. I would like to point out that many of the academics (professors) you run in to may surprise you with some of their experience. My mentor at the university I attend just came to the University two years ago from his home in South Korea. Before he was a professor there he worked for Motorola and wrote one of their main compilers, one that was used for five years. He left the industry and went into academics. He gave me the best advice. He said to do as much as I can in my twenties because that has traditionaly been when people have done their most creative work. He said that I should work on my "BIG" project now.
My point is that academicicians can make great mentors if you look for the right ones. Don't just select any old professor for a mentor. Mine gave me a lot of insight into the industry and helped me learn to deal with my current job. I'm 22 and project technical lead on a number of projects in a medium size software company. I'm the youngest person in development, yet am considered to be a "senior" developer. In fact, I'm still in college. Its all about amibition, thats what I learned from my mentor. Go out and get what you want and use whatever tools are necessary. Relevant goals are important. He taught me to be concerned about my career early and not get stuck in something I didn't want to do (I learned this from my father as well (engineer).) Know where you are going, at least know how to steer yourself away from unpleasant ends. I do this by not concerning myself so much with immaculate code but rather with honing my SE skills. It is also important to learn when to utilize someone else's skills (team member.) A good mentor should be able to teach you how to survive in the industry, not just how to code, unless of course you want to be an academic, maybe then it is important to learn to survive in that industry.
Random Task
Metrol,
Did you actually read and understand what advid was saying? By the statement you make above we are led to believe that you have not understood his remarks. Advid describes the difference between the realization of the communist idea as opposed to the intrinsic qualities of that idea. Through corollary we can deduce that you claim that the idea itself is the same as its realization. I don't mean to pull a "Socrates" on you but to come to the truth of the matter we need to logically dissect your statements. You have declared that there is something intrinsically evil about communism. I think that we need to take a look as some definitions here.
intrinsic adj 1: belonging to a thing by its very nature; "form was treated as something intrinsic, as the very essence of the thing"- John Dewey [syn: intrinsical] [ant: extrinsic]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
intrinsic ( n-tr n z k, -s k) adj.
1. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
communism \Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all. Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
As we can see, the word intrinsic is an adjective (used to describe a noun.) In our case the noun is "evil" and the word "intrinsic" is applied to that noun in reference to the target "thing" or "it" as the definition refers, this "thing" or "it" being communism. Or, "communism is intrinsically evil." We will address the validity of that statment later.
The logical error involved in the total statement of yours comes in when you say that there is something "intrinsically" wrong with the idea and try to prove this through the citing of imperfect instances of its implementation. It is not a logical error to say that something is "intrinsically" wrong if it is in the nature of the thing to be wrong but it IS a logical error to say that a system is "intrinsically" wrong if it has been implemented in a way that goes AGAINST the very nature [intrinsic] of the system. At this point a separation is made between the ideal and the actual. The implementation of communism at the hands of Stalin and Mao is contrary to the philosophical basis [very nature] of communism (see the definition above.) Advid has said as much in his statement.
It seems that you have overlooked the main point of Advid's post by missinterpreting the meaning of the word "intrinsic", unless you intended to imply that the end product defines the intrinsic qualities of an idea. This is a very dangerous statement to make because of the circular argument that arises. Analyzing your statements with the definition of intrinsic we can see that it is logically inconsitent to claim that an action that takes place after the creation of something defines the creation of the said thing.
By you saying that communism is intrinsically evil, and by using the definition of the word intrinsic we can extrapolate equivalent statements "Evil belongs to communism by communisms very nature." Or "communism is evil by its very nature." This statement can be logically refuted. I bet you could read all the communist literature (real, not propaganda) and NOT ever come up with a statement that says that communism is evil. We can say that Stalin and Mao are evil because of their actions, but we can not say that communism is evil because they chose to implement it in ways contrary to its purpose. Now if you want to claim that the end product defines the beginning ideal, by all means try, but be prepared for a firestorm of debate following this idea. There are probably more instances of misuse of an ideal than there are of proper use.
In programmer's language : Improper use of the C++ language (exceeding array bounds) does not make C++ an evil or wrong language. This makes the person who implements the language incorrectly evil or wrong in their implementation of the language.
Sorry this is so long.
Random_Task
Have you been listening to the posts that Kevin has been making on various websites? Markoff does NOT know what he is talking about and Kevin has repeatedly exposed the lies that Markoff has written about him. I won't dispute your claim, but I think that people like Markoff should no longer be used as reliable sources for valid Mitnick information.
Just because One is proven guilty for one crime does not mean that one shall by be assumed equally guilty for another crime by association of character. Mitnick served his time and paid for his mistakes. He admitted that he was wrong. His debt to society has by the law been repaid, has it not (yah I know of cases where it wouldn't, child molestation, murder etc.) We SHALL not now label him a criminal and assume that once a criminal always a criminal. This is character generalization. I hope that we can all see the problems with this. It leaves no room for one to be a human being and make mistakes.
Random Task
I think we were thinking the same thing at the same time *laugh*.
Random Task
"If Mitnick isn't willing to demonstrate that the material on the drives is legit, then the assumption that it's illegit isn't too far off base."
Do the words "innocent until PROVEN guilty mean anything anymore? The US judicial system is not founded on making assumptions. I would not want to be sent to jail because the government read my mind and placed intentions in my actions that did not exist. This comes back to the same bullshit arguement: "Why should I care if the government bugs my phone if I'm not doing anything wrong?" Just because Kevin doesn't choose to divulge the information does not make it illegal. What if it is P@rN pics of his ex-girlfriend? Would you want those paraded around a court room? Your constitutional rights as an American (if you are one) prohibit your incarceration based upon speculative evidence and un-based assumptions.
If you let "The MAN" get away with one small infraction of freedom eventually these small pieces will get larger and larger until you cant even urinate without the proper paper work and permit.
Random Task
Just because the DOJ couldn't crack it doesn't mean that another organization couldn't, for instance the N$A. But as far as I know they wouldn't be involved in a civil dispute like this unless it involved national security. Anyone know anything more about this? Kevin probably used a one time pad from some e-book he got in a kids store or something.
Random Task
Someone earlier was mentioning great games that should be ported. I actual have a question. Does anyone know if "Machiavelli the Prince" has been ported to linux? It was made by microprose in the early nineties. It was for ms-dos. It has to be one of the greatest games of all times.
I have logged hundreds of hours playing it and I still spend many long nights playing away. It was a hot seat politcal intrigue/ trading game. Very cool. I would also be interested in a web version. Is anyone interested in an open source version of this game, or maybe something similar so we wouldn't step on Microprose's feet? I've been contimplating this for a while now. I'd need some help moving my develoment mindset into Linux (I'm a prof. windows programmer but I know OpenGl) but using a proper setup we could bust a linux version of this game out in no time.
Man, theif has got to be the creapiest game I have ever played. The level with the zombies was almost too much excitement for me. I was playing in the dark with the sub woofer turned up. I had to wipe my hard drive to do a clean install (while installing Linux.. imagine that ) and now I am afraid to play the game again because I don't want to have to go through that creepy zombie level.
You guys seem to be missing a very important point in the hardware support debate. Who do you think can write the best drivers for a piece of hardware? Obviously the answer is the people who built the piece of hardware. That is what MS does. It uses something called HAL/HEL which stands for Hardware allocation layer/ hardware emulation layer. It forces All hardware manufacturers to write drivers that comply to windows. From there DirectX queries the computer for available hardware support. If the computer doesn't have hardware support for certain functionality then it will emulate it. In this manner programmers aren't forced to program drivers for EVERY single video card out there. Programmers interface to DirectX (which interfaces and implemenation rarely changes except through new versions) and they aren't (and in my opinion shouldn't be) required to know how to interface to EVERY specific video card. As far as game programming goes, the graphics portion of most of them is really one of the smaller parts of the program if done correctly.
To the extent of my knowledge and experience (yes I have done graphics in both Windoze and X) linux doesn't have an allocation/emulation layer and this is why John Carmack talks about having to write drivers for every video card he wants Q3 to support in Linux. Linux needs to get a standard graphics interface layer if they ever want to really take off in gaming. Being a programmer I can tell you, I really dislike tinkering with hardware and I choose to use directX on an MS box rather than using other graphics packages with X and fooling around with unimportant hardware shtuff. Custom tweaking is something that gets to be tedious and annoying to real developers. We have a lot of other things to worry about. As far as most developers I know goes, we prefer to abstract as far away from the hardware as possible because dealing with hardware is really really buggy and unpredicatable most of the times not to mention the fact that not all cards support nearly the same feature set.
Random Task
I'll probably get chewed out by you guys for knowing this kind of stuff, but if you have ever worked with the actual DirectX package you would realize that a conversion is not as complex as it may seem.
... brr its cold up here in ND..
DirectX was designed to be a package of graphics/sound/communication libraries that interacts quickly with the windows operating system. I'm sure we all knew that. The important part of that statement is that they are libraries. There is a theory in computer programming that the main functionality of the game should be separated from the user interface. In fact even when the coding and design gets to the user interface level much of the design has been abstracted to such a point that to execute graphics routines/ sound routines/ and communication routines the coders will make calls to the graphics package of their choice. This is the key to reusability. When coding one should keep most of these library calls to only a few mandatory design layers. When a conversion is then in order all it requires is that the modules that handle the above mentioned routines be replaced with modules that are system compliant. Of course this requires work, but this is where a wrapper can come in to place and wrap all of the old DirectX calls and redirect them into "our" own system dependent modules.
If the product is designed correctly the hard part shouldn't be in the porting. The hard part is in the actual coding. These ideas are bordering on component technology, but in my research it seems that a lot of the hard code game industry and other development companies are going that route, be it through CORBA, COM/DCOM or any of the other component based technologies. Reusability and portability just becomes a matter of wrapping a few things here and there.
If anyone notices any errors please comment. Also, I am well aware of the design issues involved with abstracting graphics routines including the execution time. But if you do any real coding with this stuff you realize that the real time saving is not made by reducing function calls by eliminating redirection, but rather through optimizing algorithms. And finally, MS claims that there is a version of COM that works with UNIX/LINUX but DirectX's use of COM shouldn't important in a conversion if DirectX is being wrapped. It is definitely not important if the DirectX routines are being replaced by those of another graphics routine or by custom routines, but if there is some kind of DirectX emulation going on I'm not sure if COM would be required to work on the LINUX boxes.
As far as maps go, all of the maps are stored in data files as exported information (I'm pretty sure about that.) Just because the graphics are handled differently doesn't mean that the underlying data is handled differently. In reality the map data is exactly the same. The system dependent program will import a standard map data file and display the said data file in its own system dependent manner.
This has probably already been said by now.
Random Task
I disagree with the statement that each gender thinks differently if you claim that it is because of biological reasons. I feel that if the statement were true it would probably be because cultural conditioning. If this is so WE CAN CHANGE what is happening. I have noticed the same thing you have in computer science classes. I found that the reasons these ladies dropped out of the classes was not because they were "not good at math" but because they were "missinformed" as to what computer science is.
I met a young lady a number of years ago when I was a freshman in college who was a first year computer science student. She thought that a computer scientist was a person who was really good at "USING" a computer. It is as if the word "science" went in one ear and out the other. She had no idea that her first course in computer science was not a course in how to use a mouse, but rather in how to write a program. She dropped out after two weeks in the CSci program. Another young lady I met thought that computer viruses "just happened when a computer got sick." Her jaw hit the floor when I told her that people write them. Another case of missinformation or lack of information.
I am not trying to make a generalization about all women, but the majority [not all mind you] of women I know in computer science are in it because it is a good vehicle for expressing mathematics [data interpolation etc.] or because it is a booming field where the money is good or because it is a science field where, if they excel, they can stick it to "the man", literally. But you know what? I think that the majority of men I know in computer science are the same way. I know people who are seniors in computer science who have never used a data structure more complicated than an array because they can't comprehend what they are studying. They are, on the other hand very good computer techs and "USERS", but they are in no way innovative or artistic or inventive and they stumble through their classes getting pity "C's" from their profs. They like games and they like the money they will make pretending to work while their cubical mate pumps out code. [We all know code whores (excuse the language)]
Some of the best mathematicians I know, by the way, are women. It seems that in general that women are just a predisposed as men toward excellence in mathematics, yet more men seem to be interested in it. You know back in high school all the boys took shop and all the girls took Home Economics [except the guys looking for easy grades and looking to hang out with girls.] I am trying to point out that cultural conditioning is more of a factor than biological imperative. If I spent all of my time writing poetry and baking cookies as a young boy because everyone told me that is what young boys do I bet you I too would have a very difficult time with calculus and I would say "Math sucks" or "its too hard". I also know many computer techs and self proclaimed programmers who can't pass a basic algebra class, not because they are dumb but because they don't know how to apply themselves.
One thing I try to do when I meet someone who asks what I do is explain what computer science is. Is start by describing all of the ones and zeros [current no current etc] going on in the computer and then I continue to describe the layers of abstraction that the data goes through. I then go on to describe what coding is and how it is really an artistic endeavor. I show them that I am a computer scientist because of the beauty I see in programming, not because of the money and not because I am obsessed with technology [I have problems setting up my own modem for god's sake, but I sure could write a nifty data transmission program.] Usually their response is awe followed by "wow I didn't know that computers were so cool", [this coming from religion and english majors.
Those of us who consider ourselves "nerds" need to inform the public as to what our passions are. This too could be a reason that many women seem to be in it for the money and if they don't suceed right away they don't continue. They don't see the beauty in it because no one has ever shown them. We are all too busy showing off our new 1000 function calculator's functionality to describe to them "why" it is a work of art and why our scientific pursuits are so worth while and beautiful.
I probably just ranted and didn't make any sense. I just want to say that we as humans shouldn't accept any biological restraints that physiologists, psychologists, doctors, religious leaders, or scientists put upon our physical potential. People said that it wasn't possible for mankind to run the mile in under five minutes and now everyone's grandma can do it. We limit what we can accomplish by accepting bounds to our abilities. Don't listen to other people telling you what you can and can't do just because they cant do it. [I realize that not everyone can jump high enough to slam dunk a basketball, but some martial arts experts would argue with that.]
I'm sorry that this is so long but it needs to be said, and if someone else beat me to it, oh well, redundancy isn't so bad.
Random Task
Dudes,
First of all I know how slashdot uses the word "karma" and I'm not sure if I really like it. Do you know where Karma comes from? Its roots are in sanskrit. I realize that we English speakers like to bastardize other peoples' languages and use their meanings for our own purposes but in some cases [as in Karma] this is not necessarily very noble. It can breed ignorance of the true meaning of very simple, yet profound ideas. Just look at the bastardized, fundamentally flawed, partial interpretations of "tao", and the t'ai chi principle of "yin-yang."
karma n : (Hinduism and Buddhism) the effects of a person's actions that determine his destiny in his next incarnation Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Of course this is not the only definition of Karma but slashdot acts as if Karma is some kind of one sided "do good and you'll go to heaven" type thing or "if you sound smart enough then you are kool."
As far as I know, the only time I have heard of gaining Karma is when one does something "bad" [I'm gonna say that word and point out that I realize the eastern philosophical trap.] And one "works off" karma by doing "good" deeds?
What I so loosely characterized as good and bad is actually not what we westerners think of as good and bad in a moral sense. The good and bad in relationship to karma are related to dharma [loosely: The principle or law that orders the universe. The individual conduct in conformity with this principle. And the essential function or nature of a thing.] So something "good" is something that goes along with the principles of the universe. Something bad is something that goes against the true nature of the universe.
I have heard it used differently in both traditions [hinduism and buddhism.] I'm not really sure, but I think that Karma is not really used in the sense of "good karma", and "bad karma" outside of colloquialism [colloquialism n : a colloquial expression; characteristic of spoken or written communication that seeks to imitate informal speech Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University ]. I'm not sure if a buddhist or hindu would place a moral value upon karma as some of us are so fond of doing. I'm not sure if it would even be considered a philosophical possibility. If someone knows more about this please elaborate [my main interest lying in tao rather than buddhism or hinduism, though "dharma" in some ways resembles tao.. hrmm]
Dan, I loved the post. I am happy to see that some people who read this site are fluent and are very constructive thinkers. For those of you who claim to not understand it and claim to know what karma is; go read some books. Become literate. Learn what a sound, constructive argument is.
Why do all of the ignorant people who can't hold their attention span for more than a three word sentence seem to think that the only things worth reading can be written in under three minutes?
"Dude, Linux Rulz."
"Down with Microserf."
"Reading is hard."
"huh, insightful arguement?"
"correct grammar yes?"
"Three word sentence?"
Tip of the day: If you don't know the word use "www.dictionary.com"
I'm not attacking anyone, but why is it that those who don't really seem to care about anyone or anything attack those who seem to have a little insight? Is it a backlash against intellect, spirituality, and anti-ignorance or is it jealousy? Oh, this post is also in response to many of the other bandwagon jumping iliterates who posted below.
Random Task
"wu-wei" man "we-wei"
Feel free to correct my grammar if you think it proves some point.
Where is the dividing line between FPS and Sim? Look at Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear. These games are FPS that also have elements of real swat tactic (sim). It is seen as constructive because you play the good guy (government agent) killing the bad guy (terrorist). There seems to be a point to the killing in games like this (a distincly American/Eurpoean point.) Lets imagine a sim where you play the Iraqi Army. You get to kill Kuwaitis and Americans. Do you think there wouldn't be a bit of outcry about this? I do, especially by the American media.
I think with games, the defining line between "good" games and "bad" games, be they sims, FPS or whatever is the American Media's view of what is good and bad. (Most game companies are American, and most of the criticism comes from the American media. I'm not trying to country motivated.)
The American media sees value in simulations of WWII battles because they are part of history. It sees value in Rainbow Six because it teaches kids how to become good SWAT team members. *snicker* Whereas Quake, Blood, etc are games that graphically depict violence for _no_ sociological beneficial reason. They are there for killing alone. They do not sustain the lifestyle and innocence of the American people that the press so wants to keep.
If it protrays intentions that are dangerous to the current (supposed) American way of life then it is "bad". If not then it is "ok". It is all media propaganda. Why won't they let us change?
Gotta run to the "electric mind society"
Random Task
If I put a house key under the welcome mat at my house does that mean that ANY one, by law is allowed to enter? NO. Just because the key is there and anyone could easily find it if they looked doesn't mean that it isn't against the law to exploit it. Its still breaking and entering.
Don't get me wrong, I love SlashDot as much as the next person, but what frustrates me about the majority of the posting that goes on here is the level of unfactual ranting.
Just because we are techno weinies doesn't give us credibility.
Really, what does three hundred posts on why product X is better than product Y really do when the people touting product X only know about product X and feel justified in down talking product Y without stated justification? Maybe my assumption that those people don't know about the product they bad mouth is premature, but when they only post about why product X is better do we really see anything different from them? All these kind of posts do is take up space.
If you want to contribute, how about some benchmarks and some information that shows that you are versed in both sides of the issue. We see the same thing with people saying how Windows programming sucks compared to Linux programming. Well how many of these people on either side of the debate have used both Extensively? These, in my opinion are the people who should be posting. Sorry to pick on you anonymous coward, but I'd had enough by the time I'd read your post.
If you are concerned about server load, programming CGI scripts in C or C++ is still the wrong way to go. You will need some system such as mod_perl, Fast_CGI, NSAPI, ISAPI or some other non-CGI solution. CGI is the problem, not perl.
Why is C/C++ the wrong way to go? Why mod_perl? Why is CGI the problem? I could just as easily go ranting about how Visual Basic is just as credible and usable, and then continue with why its not CGI, its the TCP/IP Suite. These words are flash factor when not qualified and they don't really mean anything.
p.s. I do know what they mean, just trying to make a point. Random Task
I was reading in a science magazine a number of months ago (Discovery I think, before the new editor) about the so called "spooky nature of photons." I am not exactly sure how the expirement worked or how the scientists got one photon to be tied to another photon, but here is the jist of what happened.
They sent two photons along fiber optic cables at 90 degrees from each other for approx 20 kilometers (is this right?) Then they ran expirements with these photons such as stopping one photon in travel, etc. The spooky thing that happened was that when one of the photons was stopped, the other photon also stopped 100's of kilometers away at the same instant (in the mathematical definition).
What this has to do with computer speeds (if anything) is that if we could harness this power then we would have near _instantaneous_ data transfer and processing speed. Of course there would still be a little bit of light speed overhead if we made the chips transfer any light, but the possibilities are amazing. Imagine zero latency downloading! It would probably change the entire way that architectures are built.
If anyone has anymore info on the subject please post it. My memory may be flawed and so may be my data but this is what I remember. I'm not a physicist, just a programmer.
I think that I agree with you. I too believe that code has applications that music and art don't. I see programming as a very amazing form of art. I describe what I do to my liberal arts oriented friends, who see computers as boxes of wires, as painting a Monet and sticking it into the trunk of the car so no one sees it. Then driving the car around. I suppose this could be extended toward the engine of the car also being a work of art that isn't seen, but it is more easily understandable to use an analogy of what most people consider "real art."
So I'm trying to show that code and programming is really art, but it is different than print media and music. Our art is concerned with the process that it accomplishes on its visual side. I think that the computer programmer is probably more concerned with "quality" (as Pirsig would say) than with esthetics. This quality can be anything from speed, to low line count, to clever algorithms. It's all about the art, but the differnce between our art and other art is that people use our art to function in society, so as artists in this sense we somehow owe our audience something. They depend on our approach being "good" so that they get the best product.
With this in mind we programmers realize that it is no longer just OUR art. It is the user's art now also. And anything that can be done to make it more "beautiful" can be seen as beneficial to us as artists and to our artwork. Unlike a painting or a song, our work is never done with out project. We program to make a piece of art, not to claim it for our own. We are a community working on a painting instead of just one person. I'm sure a lot of you don't agree with this, but its how I approach my work and it makes it all so much more enjoyable. I'd rather program with a team of people who appreciate my skills and my artistic expression any day over programming alone.
Sorry for the long post, I just thought it needed to be said.
Thanks,
Random_Task
You know they say that power can corrupt a person when that person succumbs to it. It is impressive that Mr. C has been able to focus his abilities and his ambitions into a truely noble pursuit. I am sure that if he were to succumb to the power of upper level management he too would find it difficult to live an uncorrupted life. You gotta admit, being a CEO would be a tough job (morally and spiritually.) I think Mr. C's approach toward his profession is great and he is a good role model for those of us in the development industry who want to be both successful, revolutionary (contributing to technology for humanity's sake),and charismatic, yet still exercise human civility, compassion, morals (be yours what they may), and be empethetic toward other humans. I must say I was very impressed with the interview. Great catch Slashdot, and thanks Mr. C.