Part of it is already really based on random chance. Since there is a kill screen and the way certain events occur is (somewhat) random, the person with the highest score usually is the one that just got lucky a few more times than the runner up. At the level he, Wiebe, and Mitchell are at, I doubt there is really much of a "skill" difference between them.
They should all get together for a match of Smash Bros. Chien can play Mario, Wiebe can play Donkey Kong, and Mitchell can play Kirby and spend the whole match hiding in a corner mashing the "taunt" button.
Also, please check the meaning of "misnomer" in the dictionary.
I tried looking for "misnomer" in the dictionary and I couldn't find it. The closest I could find was "Misnom, Erin", and the definition was "555-0039".
People are always telling me to look things up in the dictionary, but really, I don't think it helps.
Have your phone solve the puzzle before you start, don't look at it, solve it yourself and then use the phone to check your answer?? Just trying to think of how this is useful... But really, most of the time the puzzles come with the answer anyways...
If it were a puzzle in a newspaper or something, the answer might not appear until the next issue.
Mostly I think the purpose of something like this is to impress onlookers with the power of one's (software-augmented) mighty Sudoken attack. It's also a testbed for future cybernetic implant versions.
1: Set up a cron job on the home machine to periodically check Amazon for new Sudoku books and buy them 2: Build a package receiving conveyor to bring the packages in once delivered. 3: On the conveyor, set up imaging sensors to analyze the package, and robot arms to remove the packaging. 4: Once the book is freed from its packaging, remove its binding. 5: Move the individual pages through a paper-feed system. Along the paper-feed system there will be an examination station in which lights will illuminate the page as the phone takes a picture of the puzzle and solves it. The page is then inverted and any puzzles on the opposite side are also solved. 6: Once each page is solved, it is no longer needed: the pages are deposited in paper recycling.
From there, the operator just needs to take the bin out to the curb every week... I love Sudoku!
I just tried it with a Sudoku puzzle of "Evil" difficulty, and my iPhone 3gs solved it in about five seconds.
I grew up on Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, but this is truly science fiction.
Science Fiction? Really?
I mean, in terms of visual recognition the pattern of the puzzle is pretty rigidly structured - a grid of numbers, probably with lines. If the image recognition can deal with things like working around the user's attempts to solve the puzzle, that's pretty good - but there are much more impressive image recognition feats out there. (Maybe Kinect is a good example?)
In terms of problem solving... The problem is an easy one for a computer program to attack, and the problems aren't very large.
Except that, the only information we have regarding what license applies is from Appnor's CEO (linked in summary), who states that he purchased the rights to WinMTR and that there was a single external contribution which they patched out.
So in reality, unless there is conflicting info, it would seem that there was no violation at all, and contacting SFLC or EFF would have been a gigantic waste of time; simply emailing the man would have sufficed.
Indeed. And everyone who posts about how common code has been found between WinMTR and the mtr project are looking at older versions of WinMTR, because the current release is (AFAIK) still not out in source form yet.
I guess when the code comes out people will be able to see whether they really did get rid of the mtr code in there... <shrug>
I read this and picture Popeye, powered up from a fresh dose of canned spinach, suddenly flexing and (for reasons that only begin to make sense in terms of his current situation) a picture of an anthropomorphic window-pane with arms and legs appears on his bicep. And the window is running...
The real issue is whether that code is still in the current version of WinMTR. The source code for the new version hasn't yet been released, so it remains to be seen.
Why does sourceforge allow the removal of GPL'd projects in the first place? You'd think that would be something you can't take back...
Here's a pretty good reason, IMO:
Ten years ago, I was really interested in writing programs for PalmOS. I spent some time working on some programs of dubious utility, plus a game that never quite got to the point of 100% working properly. Then, at some point, I just stopped. I moved on to other things. But still those projects were on Sourceforge.
Now, PalmOS is basically dead. You have to jump through some arcane hoops just to get an SDK. PalmOS is just about ready to drop off the map entirely.
I could leave my old junk sitting around on Sourceforge, cluttering up their namespace, or I could face facts: the chances that any of my old code would actually be useful to someone is so remote at this point, that it's not worth keeping it there. Certainly I haven't done anything in the way of keeping those pages updated... In that case, I think it's better to remove the projects.
Their claim is that 0.9, the current version, does not include code from mtr. They are going back to using the GPL for WinMTR and will be releasing the source - so that's the version to check if you want to find out if they were telling the truth.
There is nothing requiring them to continue to make available any of their own code that they had previously released GPLed.
However, they hosted the code on SourceForge. And SourceForge has a right to continue to make available the archives and version control history of their software from before it was GPL.
Part of the sourceforge terms of service is all products have to be GPL, and you can't destroy/remove your code, except under certain extenuating circumstances such as a court order requiring them to take down the archives
Right, just like there's a version of MAME that's still available under the GPL, while the mainline development has moved to a more restrictive license, and added support for a lot of new games since making the change...
So, you're making the same type of argument that SCO made when they claimed they actually owned Linux. "See, look at this scrap of code, it looks a lot like this other scrap of code." Of course, we all know how well that worked out for SCO.
Well, yes. It is possible for someone to make a legitimate claim, and someone else to make an invalid claim, and for the two claims to take the same form.
Really, that's how any "derived code" issue is bound to play out, unless the "derived code" is so trivially different from the original that huge, critically-important sections are character-for-character identical. The group making the claim will try to establish an argument that some other project constitutes a "derived work" and therefore should fall under their copyright claim... But since anybody who maintains a project (derived or not) is bound to change things over time, the code most likely won't be identical.
However, you do not want to set a legal precedent of "Yeah, I guess the GPL doesn't really matter" - and now that this is being discussed, a lawyer can take this page and say, "see, it was talked about, and they decided to let it slide, so we need to let it slide now that $INSERT_FAVORITE_FLAMEBAIT_HERE is in the cross hairs, since they are really doing the same thing, and our legal system does not play favorites"
I know that, "doesn't play favorites" is arguable, but if it gets called out in court, then I feel that in this case it will not help the case of anyone defending the GPL.
If the author(s) of mtr decided to let this slide, that would not undermine the GPL in general, just with regard to mtr.
As it happens, Appnor has decided to go back to GPL to avoid the whole issue.
The owner of the original work, and all the contributions, is Appnor. Doubtful they are going to sue themselves.
Well, the claim is that when Appnor wrote WinMTR, they used some code from mtr. But Appnor's counter-claim is that the new version of WinMTR doesn't include any of that original code.
And as long as nothing has been derived from that GPLed code, of course...
That also means defining "derived from" in such a way that it's aggressive enough to hold that code under the original license terms, and yet still reasonable enough to be legal...
I mean, there has to be some point at which it's OK to learn from GPL software and apply that knowledge to non-GPL software, right? Generally I think it's agreed that if you gain some knowledge from reading a piece of GPL source code and use that knowledge to write a new program, that does not constitute a "derived work". And then on the other end of the spectrum, if the new code contains substantial portions that are clearly taken straight from the GPL original, that does constitute a "derived work". Where's the line that separates the two cases? If the original "Starship Enterprise" were GPL, would the "Refit" be bound by the GPL, too? How about the "Sovereign Class"? There must be some point at which it's fair to say "we've done enough work on this thing ourselves that it no longer constitutes a derived work" - but where is that point?
If they have been maintaining this code for ten years with no external contributions, and if they have done enough development on the project that little or no important code not written by their group exists, then I think this could be quite reasonable. Claim that the code, in its current state, was written entirely by themselves and not offer any new copies under the GPL. They aren't able to revoke the licenses they already offered via GPL, of course, but if they can make a reasonable claim of copyright ownership over the current form of the project,
I don't know if that was the case, though. Their CEO claims that the new version doesn't contain any code from the "mtr" project, but... I don't know. At any rate, they decided to go back to GPL because of the Slashdot fury.
Most Americans (most people in fact) would puke, if they saw how the "real" cheese made, and how it smells during the process.
I say this as an amateur cheese maker at home...
Eh, big deal. Not everybody has the stomach to watch a cow get slaughtered, or a keen interest in watching the process of sausage making, but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy the end result. I think it's a mistake to think that enjoying a food must mean a full appreciation and understanding of the intermediate steps that led to that food.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be simpler to just copy the solutions pages at the back?
But then I wouldn't have the fun of delegating the responsibility of the task of solving the problem.
Honestly, I don't care who has the high score as long as it's not Billy Mitchell. I hate that guy with a passion.
Based on King of Kong?
Documentaries lie. In fact, in general, editing lies. It'd probably be best to base hate on first-hand impressions instead of being swayed by drama.
You have to use your hands?? That's a baby's toy!
Those kids must have been Kinect fans or something.
I certainly hope the hoverboards will be released according to schedule...
What? The article is dated yesterday. The summary is talking about the upcoming competition in March that he was preparing for.
Yeah, they have March every year.
Part of it is already really based on random chance. Since there is a kill screen and the way certain events occur is (somewhat) random, the person with the highest score usually is the one that just got lucky a few more times than the runner up. At the level he, Wiebe, and Mitchell are at, I doubt there is really much of a "skill" difference between them.
They should all get together for a match of Smash Bros. Chien can play Mario, Wiebe can play Donkey Kong, and Mitchell can play Kirby and spend the whole match hiding in a corner mashing the "taunt" button.
Please cite even one of these texts.
Also, please check the meaning of "misnomer" in the dictionary.
I tried looking for "misnomer" in the dictionary and I couldn't find it. The closest I could find was "Misnom, Erin", and the definition was "555-0039".
People are always telling me to look things up in the dictionary, but really, I don't think it helps.
Everything I've read about "The King of Kong" indicates that it's more fiction than fact.
Well, yeah, it's a documentary.
Have your phone solve the puzzle before you start, don't look at it, solve it yourself and then use the phone to check your answer?? Just trying to think of how this is useful... But really, most of the time the puzzles come with the answer anyways...
If it were a puzzle in a newspaper or something, the answer might not appear until the next issue.
Mostly I think the purpose of something like this is to impress onlookers with the power of one's (software-augmented) mighty Sudoken attack. It's also a testbed for future cybernetic implant versions.
1: Set up a cron job on the home machine to periodically check Amazon for new Sudoku books and buy them
2: Build a package receiving conveyor to bring the packages in once delivered.
3: On the conveyor, set up imaging sensors to analyze the package, and robot arms to remove the packaging.
4: Once the book is freed from its packaging, remove its binding.
5: Move the individual pages through a paper-feed system. Along the paper-feed system there will be an examination station in which lights will illuminate the page as the phone takes a picture of the puzzle and solves it. The page is then inverted and any puzzles on the opposite side are also solved.
6: Once each page is solved, it is no longer needed: the pages are deposited in paper recycling.
From there, the operator just needs to take the bin out to the curb every week... I love Sudoku!
I just tried it with a Sudoku puzzle of "Evil" difficulty, and my iPhone 3gs solved it in about five seconds.
I grew up on Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, but this is truly science fiction.
Science Fiction? Really?
I mean, in terms of visual recognition the pattern of the puzzle is pretty rigidly structured - a grid of numbers, probably with lines. If the image recognition can deal with things like working around the user's attempts to solve the puzzle, that's pretty good - but there are much more impressive image recognition feats out there. (Maybe Kinect is a good example?)
In terms of problem solving... The problem is an easy one for a computer program to attack, and the problems aren't very large.
Have you ever had the feeling that AI is getting just a little be too commonplace?
That's the final straw! If you slobs can't even watch your grammar, we can do without you.
-- SkyNet
Hey, I'm not sure if I think what you're doing is right.
-- John Henry
What's so exciting about this? Sudoku solvers have been around for ages. Personally I have even programmed one myself when I was 16...
Also, I'm sure Goggles isn't the first app to have this functionality.
Yes. The Goggles, they do nothing that we haven't seen before.
Except that, the only information we have regarding what license applies is from Appnor's CEO (linked in summary), who states that he purchased the rights to WinMTR and that there was a single external contribution which they patched out.
So in reality, unless there is conflicting info, it would seem that there was no violation at all, and contacting SFLC or EFF would have been a gigantic waste of time; simply emailing the man would have sufficed.
Indeed. And everyone who posts about how common code has been found between WinMTR and the mtr project are looking at older versions of WinMTR, because the current release is (AFAIK) still not out in source form yet.
I guess when the code comes out people will be able to see whether they really did get rid of the mtr code in there... <shrug>
Don't forget windows is now running on ARM..
I read this and picture Popeye, powered up from a fresh dose of canned spinach, suddenly flexing and (for reasons that only begin to make sense in terms of his current situation) a picture of an anthropomorphic window-pane with arms and legs appears on his bicep. And the window is running...
There's code from mtr in WinMTR.
The real issue is whether that code is still in the current version of WinMTR. The source code for the new version hasn't yet been released, so it remains to be seen.
Why does sourceforge allow the removal of GPL'd projects in the first place? You'd think that would be something you can't take back...
Here's a pretty good reason, IMO:
Ten years ago, I was really interested in writing programs for PalmOS. I spent some time working on some programs of dubious utility, plus a game that never quite got to the point of 100% working properly. Then, at some point, I just stopped. I moved on to other things. But still those projects were on Sourceforge.
Now, PalmOS is basically dead. You have to jump through some arcane hoops just to get an SDK. PalmOS is just about ready to drop off the map entirely.
I could leave my old junk sitting around on Sourceforge, cluttering up their namespace, or I could face facts: the chances that any of my old code would actually be useful to someone is so remote at this point, that it's not worth keeping it there. Certainly I haven't done anything in the way of keeping those pages updated... In that case, I think it's better to remove the projects.
Worse, there actually appears to be code directly copied from mtr in the WinMTR codebase, which contradicts Appnor's current claim that it was independently developed.
Their claim is that 0.9, the current version, does not include code from mtr. They are going back to using the GPL for WinMTR and will be releasing the source - so that's the version to check if you want to find out if they were telling the truth.
There is nothing requiring them to continue to make available any of their own code that they had previously released GPLed.
However, they hosted the code on SourceForge. And SourceForge has a right to continue to make available the archives and version control history of their software from before it was GPL.
Part of the sourceforge terms of service is all products have to be GPL, and you can't destroy/remove your code, except under certain extenuating circumstances such as a court order requiring them to take down the archives
Right, just like there's a version of MAME that's still available under the GPL, while the mainline development has moved to a more restrictive license, and added support for a lot of new games since making the change...
So, you're making the same type of argument that SCO made when they claimed they actually owned Linux. "See, look at this scrap of code, it looks a lot like this other scrap of code." Of course, we all know how well that worked out for SCO.
Well, yes. It is possible for someone to make a legitimate claim, and someone else to make an invalid claim, and for the two claims to take the same form.
Really, that's how any "derived code" issue is bound to play out, unless the "derived code" is so trivially different from the original that huge, critically-important sections are character-for-character identical. The group making the claim will try to establish an argument that some other project constitutes a "derived work" and therefore should fall under their copyright claim... But since anybody who maintains a project (derived or not) is bound to change things over time, the code most likely won't be identical.
However, you do not want to set a legal precedent of "Yeah, I guess the GPL doesn't really matter" - and now that this is being discussed, a lawyer can take this page and say, "see, it was talked about, and they decided to let it slide, so we need to let it slide now that $INSERT_FAVORITE_FLAMEBAIT_HERE is in the cross hairs, since they are really doing the same thing, and our legal system does not play favorites"
I know that, "doesn't play favorites" is arguable, but if it gets called out in court, then I feel that in this case it will not help the case of anyone defending the GPL.
If the author(s) of mtr decided to let this slide, that would not undermine the GPL in general, just with regard to mtr.
As it happens, Appnor has decided to go back to GPL to avoid the whole issue.
The owner of the original work, and all the contributions, is Appnor. Doubtful they are going to sue themselves.
Well, the claim is that when Appnor wrote WinMTR, they used some code from mtr. But Appnor's counter-claim is that the new version of WinMTR doesn't include any of that original code.
And as long as nothing has been derived from that GPLed code, of course...
That also means defining "derived from" in such a way that it's aggressive enough to hold that code under the original license terms, and yet still reasonable enough to be legal...
I mean, there has to be some point at which it's OK to learn from GPL software and apply that knowledge to non-GPL software, right? Generally I think it's agreed that if you gain some knowledge from reading a piece of GPL source code and use that knowledge to write a new program, that does not constitute a "derived work". And then on the other end of the spectrum, if the new code contains substantial portions that are clearly taken straight from the GPL original, that does constitute a "derived work". Where's the line that separates the two cases? If the original "Starship Enterprise" were GPL, would the "Refit" be bound by the GPL, too? How about the "Sovereign Class"? There must be some point at which it's fair to say "we've done enough work on this thing ourselves that it no longer constitutes a derived work" - but where is that point?
If they have been maintaining this code for ten years with no external contributions, and if they have done enough development on the project that little or no important code not written by their group exists, then I think this could be quite reasonable. Claim that the code, in its current state, was written entirely by themselves and not offer any new copies under the GPL. They aren't able to revoke the licenses they already offered via GPL, of course, but if they can make a reasonable claim of copyright ownership over the current form of the project,
I don't know if that was the case, though. Their CEO claims that the new version doesn't contain any code from the "mtr" project, but... I don't know. At any rate, they decided to go back to GPL because of the Slashdot fury.
What's that, the semiautolunacentric model?
You know, it sounds crazy... but with a few epicycles, it just might work...
I was hoping for caramel.
It's "candy-coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize."
Buzz Aldrin already got the prize, so if you plan to visit the Moon, don't be disappointed when you can't find it.
Not only that, but they ate all the peanuts...
Most Americans (most people in fact) would puke, if they saw how the "real" cheese made, and how it smells during the process.
I say this as an amateur cheese maker at home...
Eh, big deal. Not everybody has the stomach to watch a cow get slaughtered, or a keen interest in watching the process of sausage making, but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy the end result. I think it's a mistake to think that enjoying a food must mean a full appreciation and understanding of the intermediate steps that led to that food.