Unfortunately, there are still people who have prejudices about certain languages, without having programmed in them at the first place.
Common Lisp has grown alot in the past years, but it's expresiveness of theoretical problems is superb above most other languages. Wether you are a programmer with no mathematical background, or a mathematician with no programming background, CL will be easy to learn.
One should definitely have a look at CLOS (Common Lisp Object System), which beats most other Object Systems with ease (especially because of the metaobject protocol).
Then take C (and all derived languages, such as C++, Java (and Perl)). Most OO paradigms in these languages are hacks, not expresive, not extendible, no reflection. I'm not saying these languages are bad; these are just the languages in which most work has been done for the past 30 years. But there are more languages to see and to learn.
You should definitely have a good look at Lisp, for me it was an eye-opener.
Some years ago I wrote the following design for a massive multiplayer game. It works by checksums and differential updates on an object orientated hierarchical design.
Server updates
The server updates will go by checking objectblocks.
The client sends a checksum of his representatation about an object block
or a set of objectblocks. If the checksum differs with the one on the
server, an update is sent. The update is done by a diff, or a complete
update.
The client keeps it's current representation and a copy of the last correct
representation in memory. The server keeps a total of n copies of the last
timeframes in memory.
Pro's:
- Not much datatransfer
- At high latency, connection will still be fast.
Contra's
- Much overhead for the server, keeping n copies of the complete
representation.
(I had to remove some information, especially ascii art sheets which the lameness filter catches)
Dr. Dobbs recently had an interesting article about ternary trees (http://www.ddj.com/articles/1998/9804/9804a/9804a.htm), which also discussed some performance comparisons between binary trees and hashes.
We just did some testing, comparing those search algorithms with eachother. Although hashes are more or less comparable in speed with ternary trees, binary trees are much slower.
Some sample output: (btw, we didn't balance the ternary tree, although we did some really basic balancing on the binary tree).
testing binary tree
elements = 235807
235807 insertions in 97.995633 seconds
tree depth = 7882
235807 lookups in 95.111857 seconds
testing hash table
elements = 235807
235807 insertions in 0.442643 seconds
tree depth = 63709 (number of buckets in use)
235807 lookups in 0.345933 seconds
testing ternary tree
elements = 235807
235807 insertions in 0.744229 seconds
tree depth = 93
235807 lookups in 0.386081 seconds
Clearly the ternary tree and hash are much faster than the binary tree. Although there are still some optimisations to make, we believe that the ternary tree will outperform the binary tree at all times.
We also made some (very) cool graphs with Graphviz, but unfortunately have no good place to share it with the rest of the/. reading audience.
If you had read the article, Commander, you had found out that this new technology in rendering is based on subsurface scattering.
Instead of assuming that light will scatter to all places on top of the surface it also scatters inside the material.
This is, because not all materials are non-translucent. For example: milk looks as a non-translucent white, but a very tiny drop of milk is actually translucent.
The same goes for skin, Guinness and snow. By assuming that the light will not scatter back at the same place as the light impacts the material, but also makes a little travel inside the material, the overal image looks much more confincing.
> ls
Tue Jul 24 02:06:22 CEST 2001
> rm -n
...
> rm/bin
rm:/bin: No such file or directory
> rm /
foo bar baz foobar
> exit
exit: Too few arguments
> quit
quit: Command not found
> ^D
> ^C
> ^]
<telnet> quit
It should most certainly be noted that on the website (www.blender.nl) some excellent tuturial material can be found. With these a new user should be able to master the basics of Blender (which is quite an ellaborate program) in a couple of weeks. Trying to learn the program by trying random key/mouse combination is a pain (believe me, I've tried it, there wasn't much documentation available a couple of years ago).
About the question if there has been done any professional work with Blender: yes there has been, and there will be. Not only used by NaN but also used as teaching material for future generations of 3D artists, this tool could quite well set a new standard to 3D modelling and game creation.
After having used the program for around 3 years and heard many many user feedback, I'm quite certain of the following points:
- User interface is quite hard to learn, but pays back once you're common with it.
- *Very* quick modelling posibilities
- multiplatform
- free
- fast
- nice modular setup of UI
- bit edgy on some things, used to have some bugs which caused the program to crash. Many of them are removed right now.
- fully OpenGL (including the GUI)
I think if you're only faintly interested in 3D modelling, you should give it a try, it's worth the effort.
The book seems to be good material, although I have not bought it yet (I've seen it though). Excellent fullcolor images, clear layout, good texts. It also supports NaN ofcourse, which is generally a good thing:]
I must say that the direction keyboards has gone to, from the clickyclick '80s keyboard to the unusable cheap devices available now, could be one of the sources of RSI. After reading the documents on the zero-force keyboard, you'll see that one cannot hold their fingers on the keyboard while typing. It is however possible to bang all 10 fingers simultaniously on the keyboard to indicate a "rest".
Such keyboards might be very interesting in places where it is necessery to keep dust and dirt away (like in kitchens), but as a working keyboard I think it misses the comfort of an "old" keyboard. I still think it's a step into the right direction however. Maybe time will learn. At least these keyboards look quite "startrek" like:]
Benefit? From the utter sources created by Microsoft programmers? It would set back the very percentage of good opensource code back by at least 50%. As if there isn't enough slugish code already.
I think the most important request for donations from the userbase come from the need of making a distribution work on as many platforms as possible. Since there is a lot of different hardware around, it is necessary to be able to test the various implementations of kernels and installersoftware on most of them.
Then the obvious next step is to buy hardware, which costs money. Luckily alot of hardware manufacturers are happy to donate hardware to the kernel/installer hackers or even submit patches themselves, but unfortunately there are some who don't (especially NVidea, who doesn't want to give any specs on their hardware).
There are other parts of cost for hosting a free distribution, eg. servers, webhosting, administration. It's questionable if all these costs can be paid by the income from consumers buying their products instead of downloading them.
As a last (important) point there is the availability of highspeed internet to many users. Many users who'd first buy a CD are now able to download them, taking away income from the
distribution providers.
Sorry to interupt you there, but I can't really draw the line between: "Resolving hostnames", BIND security problems and network integrity. I hope you realise that a nameserver and the root nameservers don't have anything to do with the lower levels (like IP and ARP). Well, of course they do for a bit, without them, a nameserver will usually not run, but they are on a higher level (TCP to be precise).
Attacking a nameserver only moves the problem away. Other nameservers have caching abilities and there are around 20 main nameservers on the internet to serve us with the toplevel domains.
You might want to read some RFC's on http://www.faqs.org.
Normally I don't reply to my threats I start myself but:
This is exactly one of the reasons why package installers can be quite usefull. As long as a checksum can be download from a "trusted" site, the checksum from the tarballs can be compared with it, making this source trusted. As far as I know the BSD ports collection does this, and so does Debian.
Why use binaries when there is the Source? Except for some non-opensoftware I am interested in, 99% of my machine works on homebuilt binaries, directly from source. Not only are these binaries optimised for my particular machine, I am also able to tweak things in the source myself.
I have yet to see a virus which infects.c files.
Apart from that: just take all binaries you use from sites you trust (eg. Netscape from http://www.netscape.com, Blender from http://www.blender.nl).
May I just comment on the fact that the hardware specs and device interface specs are just available on the site? Why bother with: "This will be only Windows software for now", when it's quite easy to write a driver for this stuff?
Admitted, I've not written a driver before for Linux or BSD yet, but I assume it shouldn't be too hard if the specs are public available.
At least this makes it quite a lot easier than to write a driver for nvidea chipsets.
Someone who started that thread
on
MUD Shell
·
· Score: 2
Well, something from someone who posted the initial idea. I don't know where to begin, but this is great. I just submitted me to the project (without even trying the sourcecode).
It would be nice to carry files around with you (with maximum weight of course).
Really, I never expected this, it was just a "general" idea. I played with it after I posted it and got so many positive replies, but I was already planning another new program (something around Icecast and voting). Now I have to stop thinking about that thing, and help implement the real adventure-shell!
Well, something from someone who posted the initial idea. I don't know where to begin, but this is great. I just submitted me to the project (without even trying the sourcecode).
It would be nice to carry files around with you (with maximum weight of course).
Really, I never expected this, it was just a "general" idea. I played with it after I posted it and got so many positive replies, but I was already planning another new program (something around Icecast and voting). Now I have to stop thinking about that thing, and help implement the real adventure-shell!
How much is apt-get alike the ports collection from the BSD versions? This is because I really enjoy the easy of installing under ports. What I've been told it also does the downloading/checksum/patching/configuring/make/mak e install in one go. apt-get however, does this in a seperate command whereas ports have a directory structure for it.
I would like to see an objective review of these two "packaging" formats. Any comments?
Tell me: what extra functionality do I get when I use Gnome instead of editing files by hand? Mostly I can fetch a certain option faster in a config file than clicking through loads of windows?
You state that the "standard nowadays" requires 128Meg. I think you're wrong.
I'm completely productive, producing my documents in LaTeX or just plain text, editing files with Vim (which has neat syntax highlighting and loads of usefull features), and using Windowmaker as my windowmanager (which works perfectly, can't see any usefull improvements which could make it better).
With all respect, I've been through a lot of horror learning all these tools, but I just know I work a lot more effective using only these tools.
I was wondering: where is the UNIX spirit? You say UNIX desktop environment, but I can't see a use in going for them. And yes: the only thing I needed GNOME for was a divx player (which for some strange reason needed the GNOME libraries, while it would be much more effective when ran with GTK libraries).
I'm using this configuration as my *primary* configuration for around one year (sometimes switched windowmanager, but never to KDE or GNOME).
My daily stuff: mutt for mail, tin for news, ircii for irc, vim for editing, LaTeX for document processing, Gimp for editing, Blender for 3D content, Netscape (bloat) for websites, Windowmaker for keeping my windows apart, mpg123 for some music, apache for hosting our website and this all on 64 MB ram. Ah, did I mention Sendmail?
Are these programs impossible to learn? IMHO, no. It just takes some time, and some programs have quite a high learning curve, but they can be learned. And it's really IMVHO that these tools are more flexible and productive than any KDE or GNOME app I've seen around.
This is my bit of view on this subject, feel free to argue.
Not even the best of the best, only the stuff which the masses like. This could be called "hypemarketing": change the hype often enough to let people buy more and more CD's, without considering quality.
Yes, I consider quality when I buy a product, also a CD. But I know most people buy because of the magic word: "hype".
Let's mix up the terms hype and art. Put it in a can, close the lid and mix it around a bit. Look again, and you'll see Art in a small corner and Hype all over the place.
Music is art IMHO, and art should be promoted. It's utterly insane to think that record labels can make the decisions of us to consider whats good and whats bad art.
One line: "Record companies promote hype, not art!"
It seems that I'm one of the few people who really agree with your points. My standpoints:
- Music is fun, listening and producing
- Many artists have a second job for their income
- Artists *do* get paid when they perform, it might not be enough to make a living, but it covers the expense of instruments, travel and thelike
Many artists make music because they love music not because they want to earn a lot of money (and yes, music is something you can really love). And yes, this music can often be much better than their commercial counterparts.
But why do we hear nothing from these artists? Because they are completely overwhelmed by the commercial ones. They get a lot of budget, marketing and advertising. It is not because these artists are really good, it is because the mass record companies make them popular.
There is one very particular thing with music which you can find everywhere else: addiction. Record companies bombard us with music which "we should like". Yes, we get a choice, but only a choice from the commercially funded bands.
Oh, I can think of hundreds (not litteraly) other arguments on: "Kill the big record companies: it's good for music". If you want more, just ask on this thread.
Disclaimer: I play in a Jazzrock band and have seen many very non-commercial talented bands.
(sorry, there isn't really a line in this post, please draw one with a pencil)
From what I've read from the article, aminoacids, complex carbonstructures and water are the key elements to life (at least life as we know it). Consider the following points:
1) A solar system is a complex entity with a lot of different stages in the amounts of particles, temperature and type of molecules
2) There is a big energy source around, capable of creating almost all of the lower weight atoms.
3) Because of the energy source, there is a lot of different entropies in the system
Consider these facts, and add the key element "time". Time is the main actor in evolution, allowing more complex elements to be formed.
It's no so strange that there is water around a lot of (early) solar systems. I would find it strange if time didn't create aminoacids yet.
Let's make an parallel with real life. Take the following ingredients:
1. Time 2. Coffee and hot water (energy sources)
3. A coffee mug
Make coffee, put coffee in mug and wait a little. Voila, you'll get white stuff on your coffee although the surroundings where completely random.
Okay, what you're going to say is: this is completely logical, nature have made a way to use all energy available. But can't we stretch such a thing into the large, solar system-sized area?
I'm really wondering, but I think the most important key elements are there with every solar system.
Since we would all be using OSI if TCP/IP hadn't been available under the BSD license, I know to which camp I belong.
Maybe I completely miss your point there, but TCP/IP is not licensed under BSD. These are protocols, and protocols can't be licensed (or at least it would have been called a patent). The TCP/IP stack however can be licensed. But since the TCP and IP is available to all people who want to implement it, specific implementations can be released under any license.
To a few other posts: the TCP stack under Microsofts operating systems are only derived from BSD code in the NT and 2000 releases. This is why NT and 2000 are so much faster in these areas, and this is why 2000 and not 98 is compatitive towards BSD's network speed.
No I can't fully agree with you. Let me state my points:
Yes, hardware and software capabilities have added a lot to the photorealism of any game.
Yes, games are more impressive nowadays.
No, gameplay has not been increased by the advantage of newer techniques.
First of all: why do you think people still play chess? It isn't really what you call: state of the art 3D simulation, is it? Second of all: why do you think there are still emulators for old machines? Could there still be a usergroup?
For many years I've been playing Transport Tycoon Deluxe (TTD), which is IMHO a game with a *very* good gameplay, and a *very* good concept. Even now, the graphics look very good and it is still a lot of fun to see all those trains and busses driving around.
Why do I think the gaming business didn't fetched the hardware capabilities to give their games a better gameplay? Lazyness and the fact that every big company is betting at the best horse: which are all concepts which already excist. I'm not a diehard gamer myself, but I enjoy a good *game* on a MUD more than shooting eachother off in Quake for example. A MUD is so much more detailed and flexible in comparison with a 3D shoot'em up, and that at a resolution of 80x25 and 256 different "colors".
(ps. sorry for my English, correct spelling at the fly please)
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, there are still people who have prejudices about certain languages, without having programmed in them at the first place.
Common Lisp has grown alot in the past years, but it's expresiveness of theoretical problems is superb above most other languages. Wether you are a programmer with no mathematical background, or a mathematician with no programming background, CL will be easy to learn.
One should definitely have a look at CLOS (Common Lisp Object System), which beats most other Object Systems with ease (especially because of the metaobject protocol).
Then take C (and all derived languages, such as C++, Java (and Perl)). Most OO paradigms in these languages are hacks, not expresive, not extendible, no reflection. I'm not saying these languages are bad; these are just the languages in which most work has been done for the past 30 years. But there are more languages to see and to learn.
You should definitely have a good look at Lisp, for me it was an eye-opener.
(I had to remove some information, especially ascii art sheets which the lameness filter catches)
Hey! Thats my IP!
We just did some testing, comparing those search algorithms with eachother. Although hashes are more or less comparable in speed with ternary trees, binary trees are much slower.
Some sample output: (btw, we didn't balance the ternary tree, although we did some really basic balancing on the binary tree).
Clearly the ternary tree and hash are much faster than the binary tree. Although there are still some optimisations to make, we believe that the ternary tree will outperform the binary tree at all times.
We also made some (very) cool graphs with Graphviz, but unfortunately have no good place to share it with the rest of the
RFC 432 contains one of the oldest maps of the internet, with only a couple of hosts.
rfc432 in pdf format
If you had read the article, Commander, you had found out that this new technology in rendering is based on subsurface scattering.
:]
Instead of assuming that light will scatter to all places on top of the surface it also scatters inside the material.
This is, because not all materials are non-translucent. For example: milk looks as a non-translucent white, but a very tiny drop of milk is actually translucent.
The same goes for skin, Guinness and snow. By assuming that the light will not scatter back at the same place as the light impacts the material, but also makes a little travel inside the material, the overal image looks much more confincing.
Please read before commenting, Taco
Welcome to obscur0S kernel version 1.0.0
..
/bin
/bin: No such file or directory
login: root
password:
> ls
Tue Jul 24 02:06:22 CEST 2001
> rm -n
.
> rm
rm:
> rm /
foo bar baz foobar
> exit
exit: Too few arguments
> quit
quit: Command not found
> ^D
> ^C
> ^]
<telnet> quit
It should most certainly be noted that on the website (www.blender.nl) some excellent tuturial material can be found. With these a new user should be able to master the basics of Blender (which is quite an ellaborate program) in a couple of weeks. Trying to learn the program by trying random key/mouse combination is a pain (believe me, I've tried it, there wasn't much documentation available a couple of years ago).
:]
About the question if there has been done any professional work with Blender: yes there has been, and there will be. Not only used by NaN but also used as teaching material for future generations of 3D artists, this tool could quite well set a new standard to 3D modelling and game creation.
After having used the program for around 3 years and heard many many user feedback, I'm quite certain of the following points:
- User interface is quite hard to learn, but pays back once you're common with it.
- *Very* quick modelling posibilities
- multiplatform
- free
- fast
- nice modular setup of UI
- bit edgy on some things, used to have some bugs which caused the program to crash. Many of them are removed right now.
- fully OpenGL (including the GUI)
I think if you're only faintly interested in 3D modelling, you should give it a try, it's worth the effort.
The book seems to be good material, although I have not bought it yet (I've seen it though). Excellent fullcolor images, clear layout, good texts. It also supports NaN ofcourse, which is generally a good thing
I must say that the direction keyboards has gone to, from the clickyclick '80s keyboard to the unusable cheap devices available now, could be one of the sources of RSI. After reading the documents on the zero-force keyboard, you'll see that one cannot hold their fingers on the keyboard while typing. It is however possible to bang all 10 fingers simultaniously on the keyboard to indicate a "rest".
:]
Such keyboards might be very interesting in places where it is necessery to keep dust and dirt away (like in kitchens), but as a working keyboard I think it misses the comfort of an "old" keyboard. I still think it's a step into the right direction however. Maybe time will learn. At least these keyboards look quite "startrek" like
Benefit? From the utter sources created by Microsoft programmers? It would set back the very percentage of good opensource code back by at least 50%. As if there isn't enough slugish code already.
I think the most important request for donations from the userbase come from the need of making a distribution work on as many platforms as possible. Since there is a lot of different hardware around, it is necessary to be able to test the various implementations of kernels and installersoftware on most of them.
Then the obvious next step is to buy hardware, which costs money. Luckily alot of hardware manufacturers are happy to donate hardware to the kernel/installer hackers or even submit patches themselves, but unfortunately there are some who don't (especially NVidea, who doesn't want to give any specs on their hardware).
There are other parts of cost for hosting a free distribution, eg. servers, webhosting, administration. It's questionable if all these costs can be paid by the income from consumers buying their products instead of downloading them.
As a last (important) point there is the availability of highspeed internet to many users. Many users who'd first buy a CD are now able to download them, taking away income from the
distribution providers.
*slams himself on his forehead*
Yes, you're absolutely correct, I should read some more RFC's also *grin*
Sorry to interupt you there, but I can't really draw the line between: "Resolving hostnames", BIND security problems and network integrity. I hope you realise that a nameserver and the root nameservers don't have anything to do with the lower levels (like IP and ARP). Well, of course they do for a bit, without them, a nameserver will usually not run, but they are on a higher level (TCP to be precise).
Attacking a nameserver only moves the problem away. Other nameservers have caching abilities and there are around 20 main nameservers on the internet to serve us with the toplevel domains.
You might want to read some RFC's on http://www.faqs.org.
Normally I don't reply to my threats I start myself but:
This is exactly one of the reasons why package installers can be quite usefull. As long as a checksum can be download from a "trusted" site, the checksum from the tarballs can be compared with it, making this source trusted. As far as I know the BSD ports collection does this, and so does Debian.
Why use binaries when there is the Source? Except for some non-opensoftware I am interested in, 99% of my machine works on homebuilt binaries, directly from source. Not only are these binaries optimised for my particular machine, I am also able to tweak things in the source myself. .c files.
I have yet to see a virus which infects
Apart from that: just take all binaries you use from sites you trust (eg. Netscape from http://www.netscape.com, Blender from http://www.blender.nl).
May I just comment on the fact that the hardware specs and device interface specs are just available on the site? Why bother with: "This will be only Windows software for now", when it's quite easy to write a driver for this stuff?
Admitted, I've not written a driver before for Linux or BSD yet, but I assume it shouldn't be too hard if the specs are public available.
At least this makes it quite a lot easier than to write a driver for nvidea chipsets.
Well, something from someone who posted the initial idea. I don't know where to begin, but this is great. I just submitted me to the project (without even trying the sourcecode).
It would be nice to carry files around with you (with maximum weight of course).
Really, I never expected this, it was just a "general" idea. I played with it after I posted it and got so many positive replies, but I was already planning another new program (something around Icecast and voting). Now I have to stop thinking about that thing, and help implement the real adventure-shell!
People, this project needs some hard work!
Well, something from someone who posted the initial idea. I don't know where to begin, but this is great. I just submitted me to the project (without even trying the sourcecode).
It would be nice to carry files around with you (with maximum weight of course).
Really, I never expected this, it was just a "general" idea. I played with it after I posted it and got so many positive replies, but I was already planning another new program (something around Icecast and voting). Now I have to stop thinking about that thing, and help implement the real adventure-shell!
People, this project needs some hard work!
How much is apt-get alike the ports collection from the BSD versions? This is because I really enjoy the easy of installing under ports. What I've been told it also does the downloading/checksum/patching/configuring/make/mak e install in one go. apt-get however, does this in a seperate command whereas ports have a directory structure for it.
I would like to see an objective review of these two "packaging" formats. Any comments?
Tell me: what extra functionality do I get when I use Gnome instead of editing files by hand? Mostly I can fetch a certain option faster in a config file than clicking through loads of windows?
You state that the "standard nowadays" requires 128Meg. I think you're wrong.
I'm completely productive, producing my documents in LaTeX or just plain text, editing files with Vim (which has neat syntax highlighting and loads of usefull features), and using Windowmaker as my windowmanager (which works perfectly, can't see any usefull improvements which could make it better).
With all respect, I've been through a lot of horror learning all these tools, but I just know I work a lot more effective using only these tools.
I was wondering: where is the UNIX spirit? You say UNIX desktop environment, but I can't see a use in going for them. And yes: the only thing I needed GNOME for was a divx player (which for some strange reason needed the GNOME libraries, while it would be much more effective when ran with GTK libraries).
I'm using this configuration as my *primary* configuration for around one year (sometimes switched windowmanager, but never to KDE or GNOME).
My daily stuff: mutt for mail, tin for news, ircii for irc, vim for editing, LaTeX for document processing, Gimp for editing, Blender for 3D content, Netscape (bloat) for websites, Windowmaker for keeping my windows apart, mpg123 for some music, apache for hosting our website and this all on 64 MB ram. Ah, did I mention Sendmail?
Are these programs impossible to learn? IMHO, no. It just takes some time, and some programs have quite a high learning curve, but they can be learned. And it's really IMVHO that these tools are more flexible and productive than any KDE or GNOME app I've seen around.
This is my bit of view on this subject, feel free to argue.
Not even the best of the best, only the stuff which the masses like. This could be called "hypemarketing": change the hype often enough to let people buy more and more CD's, without considering quality.
Yes, I consider quality when I buy a product, also a CD. But I know most people buy because of the magic word: "hype".
Let's mix up the terms hype and art. Put it in a can, close the lid and mix it around a bit. Look again, and you'll see Art in a small corner and Hype all over the place.
Music is art IMHO, and art should be promoted. It's utterly insane to think that record labels can make the decisions of us to consider whats good and whats bad art.
One line: "Record companies promote hype, not art!"
It seems that I'm one of the few people who really agree with your points. My standpoints:
- Music is fun, listening and producing
- Many artists have a second job for their income
- Artists *do* get paid when they perform, it might not be enough to make a living, but it covers the expense of instruments, travel and thelike
Many artists make music because they love music not because they want to earn a lot of money (and yes, music is something you can really love). And yes, this music can often be much better than their commercial counterparts.
But why do we hear nothing from these artists? Because they are completely overwhelmed by the commercial ones. They get a lot of budget, marketing and advertising. It is not because these artists are really good, it is because the mass record companies make them popular.
There is one very particular thing with music which you can find everywhere else: addiction. Record companies bombard us with music which "we should like". Yes, we get a choice, but only a choice from the commercially funded bands.
Oh, I can think of hundreds (not litteraly) other arguments on: "Kill the big record companies: it's good for music". If you want more, just ask on this thread.
Disclaimer: I play in a Jazzrock band and have seen many very non-commercial talented bands.
(sorry, there isn't really a line in this post, please draw one with a pencil)
From what I've read from the article, aminoacids, complex carbonstructures and water are the key elements to life (at least life as we know it). Consider the following points:
1) A solar system is a complex entity with a lot of different stages in the amounts of particles, temperature and type of molecules
2) There is a big energy source around, capable of creating almost all of the lower weight atoms.
3) Because of the energy source, there is a lot of different entropies in the system
Consider these facts, and add the key element "time". Time is the main actor in evolution, allowing more complex elements to be formed.
It's no so strange that there is water around a lot of (early) solar systems. I would find it strange if time didn't create aminoacids yet.
Let's make an parallel with real life. Take the following ingredients:
1. Time
2. Coffee and hot water (energy sources)
3. A coffee mug
Make coffee, put coffee in mug and wait a little. Voila, you'll get white stuff on your coffee although the surroundings where completely random.
Okay, what you're going to say is: this is completely logical, nature have made a way to use all energy available. But can't we stretch such a thing into the large, solar system-sized area?
I'm really wondering, but I think the most important key elements are there with every solar system.
Since we would all be using OSI if TCP/IP hadn't been available under the BSD license, I know to which camp I belong.
Maybe I completely miss your point there, but TCP/IP is not licensed under BSD. These are protocols, and protocols can't be licensed (or at least it would have been called a patent). The TCP/IP stack however can be licensed. But since the TCP and IP is available to all people who want to implement it, specific implementations can be released under any license.
To a few other posts: the TCP stack under Microsofts operating systems are only derived from BSD code in the NT and 2000 releases. This is why NT and 2000 are so much faster in these areas, and this is why 2000 and not 98 is compatitive towards BSD's network speed.
No I can't fully agree with you. Let me state my points:
Yes, hardware and software capabilities have added a lot to the photorealism of any game.
Yes, games are more impressive nowadays.
No, gameplay has not been increased by the advantage of newer techniques.
First of all: why do you think people still play chess? It isn't really what you call: state of the art 3D simulation, is it? Second of all: why do you think there are still emulators for old machines? Could there still be a usergroup?
For many years I've been playing Transport Tycoon Deluxe (TTD), which is IMHO a game with a *very* good gameplay, and a *very* good concept. Even now, the graphics look very good and it is still a lot of fun to see all those trains and busses driving around.
Why do I think the gaming business didn't fetched the hardware capabilities to give their games a better gameplay? Lazyness and the fact that every big company is betting at the best horse: which are all concepts which already excist. I'm not a diehard gamer myself, but I enjoy a good *game* on a MUD more than shooting eachother off in Quake for example. A MUD is so much more detailed and flexible in comparison with a 3D shoot'em up, and that at a resolution of 80x25 and 256 different "colors".
(ps. sorry for my English, correct spelling at the fly please)