First off, not everyone uses Google as their search engine. Only a certain type of desktop user. Next, many desktops aren't used to surf the web. Another thing that would throw off Google's stats is that many Linux users have their web browser claim that it is Internet Explorer running on MS Windows. This effectively lowers the Linux count and raises the MS count.
Why play a closed source game, when you can play a great opensource (GPL) game like Quake? The gameplay in Quake is just as good (some say it is even better) than the latest and greatest first person shooter. Not only that, but Quake runs nicely on 4 year old PCs. You can already play Quake on Linux starting today, so why wait for a closed course, expensive rehashing of the same thing thats already here?
Actually, Hitler killed about 3 million jews. A horrible, sick, ticket-to-hell thing, but the 6 million jews number is a lie. Exaggerating what Hitler did only gives "deny-ers" fuel for the fire.
Don't trust the mainstream media's portrayal of anything related to computers because the mainstream media is created by and targetted towards a very large group of people who do not understand computers. I don't think I need to explain how people tend to fear what they don't understand.
Buy a VIA's "Eden EPIA" instead. It is a tiny x86 motherboard with integrated ethernet, audio, video, and CPU. It costs $80. Just add ram, harddrive, and powersupply, and you have a tiny computer great for settop box projects. The entire setup doesn't need any fans, just a small heatsink on the CPU. It also consumes very little power. The CPU runs at 533mhz, and the built in video has TV-Outs.
Why not just play Quake1 then? Many opensource clients are available with various improvements. I suggest getting a Quakeworld client because it is simply Quake1 with an improved network protocol that allows for various levels of "prediction" in addition to simply being more efficient than the original Quake network protocol. In fact, in Quakeworld, you can set a prediction threshold known as pushlatency.
For example, "pushlatency 0" means that any lag above 0 miliseconds is lag you want to not have predicted. That is most likely what you are looking for. So you get an efficient network protocol, but the client doesn't try to hide the lag. "Pushlatency 0" is effectively "What You See Is What You Get". While "pushlantency -500" means that any lag above 500 miliseconds (half a second) is lag you want to not have predicted. Such a setting is useful for modem players that want a smooth feel, but still want to "feel" any extreme lag.
I still play Quakeworld regularly, and I usually have less than a 100ms ping, and I play with "pushlatency -2000". Such a setting basically says "give me full prediction and hide all my lag". If your lag goes above 2000ms, that means its been 2 minutes since your client has talked to the server. So with that lag, you most likely aren't connected to the server anymore;-)
Seeing as Quake1 is still getting graphical improvements in addition to many other improvements, and add in the fact that it is opensource and inexpensive... why not just play quake 1? It has gameplay as good as or better than all of the other FPS games out there.
Re:Is Quake Still Played?
on
Tenebrae Quake
·
· Score: 2
Of course people still play Quake 1. In fact, I play Quakeworld all the time. Quakeworld is Quake 1 with enhanced netcode. I suggest playing on any of the KTPRO servers, as they use the most up-to-date version of the Quakeworld server out there. Other servers have an annoying jumping bug that causes your jumps to randomly fail. Really annoying bug that will have you screaming "I PRESSED JUMP!". The older servers have a few other bugs that are fixed in the new KTPRO server.
The KTPRO servers also have automatic server-side demo recording. These demos can be viewed from any perspective... so yeah, improvements have been made in other areas.
Re:Is Quake Still Played?
on
Tenebrae Quake
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Those servers are gay! They have self damage disabled, so the rocket launcher is overpowering.
Brouwer's Intuitionism (one form of constructive math) admits the existence of some guidelines by which mathematical things are created. In fact, Intuitionism claims that these guidelines are built into our minds, and goes on to claim that such guidelines cannot be written down as the logicists claim. Godel and Church proved the Intuitionists correct.
So the distinction is found elsewhere... but I see what you are saying. You would just say that one of these "guidelines" has the side effect of the law of the excluded middle in addition to other side effects. As to what that actual "guideline" or "thing that constrains" actually is... well we can't say;-)
Limiting math to constructivist foundations results in a math of abstract things that can be computed or calculated. Proofs in formal constructive mathematics can be shown to be isomorphic to algorithms in the lambda-calculus. Of course, incompleteness issues create the need for "more" than what formal constructive math offers. So you are right that CS includes more than constructive math, but the objects of main concern to computer scientists, algorithms, are definitely constructive mathematical objects....while the objects of interest to a physicist are inherently not constructive.
Finally, Hilbert's backstabbing of Brouwer is why most of us only know of classical math as opposed to a constructive math.
You are right! When I took the SAT about 6 years ago, I was confused when I sat down and saw a problem where you were supposed to think "x" meant "blank space for a digit". While it only took me a couple minutes to figure this out because I worked the problem as soon as I saw it, realized the answer didn't match the multiple choices, reworked it, realized I was right but misunderstood the problem... anyway, it cost me time on a timed test.
Such an example is why SAT like standardized tests are bad. It would be like using the word "cat" in the analogies section, but using "cat" to mean "Computer Aided Teacher". Don't teach us one definition and then implicitly use another in a time limited standardized test. I mean, at least the SAT could use canonical symbolisms for algebra, as opposed to using that kind of crap.
Please tell me where this "real world" is located. I would like to visit it sometime.
By the way, you should have taken IS (info science), CE (computer engineering), SE (software engineering), or EE (electrical engineering) as opposed to CS (computer science). Computer Science was born from research in metamathematics such as: proof theory, lambda-calculi, and automata theory. So its not just "a few people" that think CS is a branch of math. Many people actually know the history of computer science and realize that it is a or at least was born from a branch of mathematics.
Just because you ordered something you don't like to eat doesn't mean the chef or the dish is anything less. The world will always need more plebians like you - leave the "useless" theory to the rest of us.
Whats funny is that you are right about the large number of plebs that don't care for theory. I saw another software company claiming to be able to achieve a level of compression that the "useless" theory proves impossible. I wonder how much money, time, and effort will be wasted on that business. Those "useless" (economic) theories also fortold the economic disaster known as the dotcom-bomb. Its funny how useful those "useless" theories are.
But hey, I like plebs like you, so let me give you a little idea I was going to patent. Instead you can patent it. Its a program that checks another program's code to make sure it doesn't get in any infinite loops. The program takes the filename for your source code, and it returns "Safe" if the program source code has no infinite loops and it returns "Unsafe" if the program source code has at least one infinite loop. The beauty of this program is that it will save millions of dollars for software developers because it will catch "lock up" bugs before test time where it is more expensive to catch them. Go gather some of your pleb friends and start a company on that piece of IP. I mean, how long do you think it would take you and your superior friends to develop a program to solve such a simple problem?
While I agree that people should be taught at least basic mathematics... I disagree with how it is taught. Currently our educational system stresses formal mathematics for intuitionistic mathematics.
One of the problems with generic education is that since you are only giving people a sample, if you don't give them a good or correct sample, you will forever turn them off to the entire subject. Math is a perfect example. Most don't even know what math is, even though they were supposedly given a "sample" of it in the generic education. I see allot of people equating arithmetic with math. Others equate algebra with math. I mean, even though we get taught only very basic anatomy in our generic education, do we equate nose with human?
Finally, I have and continue to study CS. I use lots of math, but never have made use of Newtonian Calculus... which is taught to most first year CS students. In fact, Computer Science isn't even founded on such math. Such a mathematical system is continuous as opposed to discrete. Computer Science is all about the discrete, and it sprung forth from discrete, constructive metamathematics: proof theory, lambda-calculi, and automata theory.
As a computer scientist, I use math all the time. Usually, I use just discrete math, but I also use Category Theory, which is neither discrete or continuous. In fact, I believe that CS is a branch of mathematics originally known as metamathematics.
Humans possess the spark of imagination that is wonderous in its abilities to do and create like never before. It is unfortunate when I see anyone creating the false dichotomy of beauty, art, and science, for they are all the same. We must teach children from the beginning to solve problems, to create what has never existed before, and help them along the way. Algreba should not be a subject in and of itself, it is the most basic form of deductive logic that should be a part of a simple logic class. Math in general should not be a stand alone subject, but taught as a tool in the course of study.
This is how it should be.
You two don't even seem to know what math is! Math is all about deductive reasoning about precise abstract concepts. So you say that math shouldn't be a stand alone subject, but taught as a "tool". A tool for what? For science? Well using your same reasoning, science is a tool for something else....and the same can be said for whatever you claim math is a tool for.
Many study math for math. Not math for science. Not math for accounting, etc... In fact, it can be shown that having a class of people who study math for furthering abstract math itself, creates for a more efficient society where scientists can make use of abstract mathematical concepts created hundreds of years earlier.
If no one studied math for its own sake, then scientists would continously have to cease progress on their research in order to develop a complete math system in which to explain their research.
Organizing knowledge helps us divide-and-conquer a nearly intractable task.
It seems that you guys don't know what math is. Its not memorizing multiplication tables or solving random problems. So don't preach, unless you understand.
Oh, and lovely, you bring up Albert Einstien, who was known to be a crappy mathematician. Great, he did a good job of not being a mathematician. Well in order for Einstien to formulate his theories, an abstract mathematical system was created thousands of years before he was born and this abstract mathematical system was fine tuned year after year up until and after Einstien's birth.
But math shouldn't be taught for its own sake... however, physics should? We should listen to Albert Eistien, a physicist, about mathematics? Whats next? Shall we listen to an auto mechanic about heart surgery?
Ask scientists about science. Leave math to the mathematicians. Finally, don't ever comment on something you do not understand. Math is not what you seem to think it is.
It all depends on the philosophical foundation that you use for your mathematics. Most constructive mathematicians would say that math ideas (truth and algorithms are part of math) are created.
But yes, because of our public school system what is effectively the Platonic philosophy of math is taught as the one correct understanding. Such a philosophy states that mathematical ideas already exist... Now, in my opinion, such a foundation for mathematics seems to be very irrational and non-mathematical. Assuming that math ideas already exists is something akin to assuming that god exists. Hence it requires faith like a religion.
This is why L.E.J. Brouwer, for example, put great effort in founding mathematics on constructive foundations as opposed to Platonic foundations. Ideas are created, created again, and again. No, ideas don't already exist... for who created them? Where do they exist? For how long have they existed?
Finally, such a distinction isn't trivial or meaningless as the philosophy used as a foundation for mathematics greatly influences what can and cannot be proven to be true in your mathematical system. The math that you seem to subscribe to is what is sometimes referred to as "classical", while the math that I am talking about is typicaly called "constructive". Computer Science is part of constructive mathematics, for reasons that I will not go into now.
With the whole sphere of water thing, you are wrong. The old belief was that beyond the sky was water, and the stars were holes in the protective bubble that let water leak through causing rain. The flood wasn't the collapse of all of the water through the protective dome above the earth. You or someone fairly recent is making that up. With time, science shows the bible to be wrong, so people change the bible through transliteration, interpretation, and flat out cut and pasting.
Also there are herbs that bear seeds that are poisionous. So yeah, thats a mistake too. Now, please tell me what the new interpretation/translation/edit is which explains that.
The most used weapon in Quake online professional duels is the lightning gun. Second most used weapon is the rocket launcher. So get your facts straight. Weapon balance might sound like a good idea, but in fact, it sucks.
"The probability that the world happened by chance is less than the probability of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary forming from an explosion of a print shop"
Have you recently thought about what the world would have had to go through in order to have life spontaneously generate?
Here's how the evolution story goes. There is an object in space (Where did it come from? Who knows.) BOOM there is a huge explosion. Stuff goes flying everywhere. Eventually the dust settles and there is a pile of goop. It is on a barren planet. Suddenly, something happens, and the goop comes to life! (We mock B horror movies when something like this happens, but we just accept it when people pass it off as evolution). And what is hilarious is that there are all sorts of these things throughout "History". A rat becomes a bat. Missing link? Still missing. (Not to mention, a half-rat half-bat would not be very well designed to survive).
Current estimates of the size of the universe state that you have neglected to consider one of the most important things. The law of large numbers. If there is a probability greater than zero that something could happen, and you make enough attempts at that "something", then that "something" will happen!
Basically, to us it seems like really good luck that, by chance, our planet formed and gave forth life, but why don't you tell that to the billions of trillions of other planets that formed, by chance, unable to give birth to life? The universe is so large that the actual probability of "the world happening by chance" is almost 100%. That is it is just about necessary.
So yes, you are right, the probability of such a thing happening for any one planet is extremely low, but what is that probability for it happening for at least 1 in a million planets? At least 1 in a billion? A trillion? Oh, you can bet there are more!
For example, I could write a very small program, wouldn't take but a few minutes, that would create every text file possible. Given enough time it would create every book ever written in addition to your bible and your Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Not only that, but it would create the text of every email in your inbox. Are you starting to understand the power of large numbers?
Paul hijacked early Christianity... most every significant thing Paul says contradicts the teachings of Jesus. The reason people go with the sayings of Paul as opposed to Jesus is because the stuff that Jesus taught is very difficult. Turn the cheek, love your enemy, help those in need, etc... I mean, you would have to live the life of Mother Teresa for godsakes!
Pong, Sokoban, and Tetris have less plotline than effects... yet they all seem to be great games! True classics! When will people realize that a game doesn't have to be based on reallife, games don't need storylines... games need to be fun to play.
Computer game developers need to take a long look at board games, sports games, and old video games. Those "games" truely are games, while many recent "games" are more movie or simulation than game. Soccer has no plot, yet billions enjoy it!
Now, if you can make a real game and put a story in it, more power to ya. Hey, if you can put a kitchen sink in too, that would be great.
So his day job involves being one of the world's best software engineers... and in his spare time he is a rocket scientist? Someone tell God to spread the smarts around, ok? Maybe the Joe-sixpacks and Soccer-moms could get a little?
While consumer-level services that use Linux on the backend are well established, with examples such as Google and Amazon, consumer products are just now showing their colors.
Everyone loves their TiVo, a device that makes TV worth watching, and the Zaurus has reached a critical mass where there is enough mindshare to facilitate the development of tons of great custom software for the Linux based PDA. So what will we see next? I think that it would be nice to see the Zaurus technology used in a mobile phone.
For many, PDAs are great, but for most, PDAs take a backseat to their mobile phone. Why not cut the chase and combine the two?
Category Theory is the most intuitive and practical branch of mathematics. Category Theory is even more useful and intuitive than counting. It is the glue that ties together the vast sea of concepts within your head. Category Theory is not just useful for continous or discrete mathematics/sciences, but instead Category Theory is useful for all kinds of exact thought! It lets you move from arithmetic to logic, from logic to set theory, from set theory to geometry, from geometry to a specific daily situation, from a specific daily situation back to a formal branch of matheatics, etc...
You didn't get it taught to you in school because its such a young field of mathematics at around 50 years of age. Most branches of mathematics are at least hundreds of years old. However, you already use parts of Category Theory, even though you don't know the words for it, just as you used parts of counting before you knew the words "one", "two",... So just as you learned the rest of counting, why not learn the rest of Category Theory? It will give you a whole new insight into Computer Science. For its not just about the specific ideas used in Computer Science... its also about having enough "string" to tie it all together. Category Theory is an infinite supply of that "string".
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously they weren't educated enough to know not to fly a plane into the WTC.
First off, not everyone uses Google as their search engine. Only a certain type of desktop user. Next, many desktops aren't used to surf the web. Another thing that would throw off Google's stats is that many Linux users have their web browser claim that it is Internet Explorer running on MS Windows. This effectively lowers the Linux count and raises the MS count.
Why play a closed source game, when you can play a great opensource (GPL) game like Quake? The gameplay in Quake is just as good (some say it is even better) than the latest and greatest first person shooter. Not only that, but Quake runs nicely on 4 year old PCs. You can already play Quake on Linux starting today, so why wait for a closed course, expensive rehashing of the same thing thats already here?
Actually, Hitler killed about 3 million jews. A horrible, sick, ticket-to-hell thing, but the 6 million jews number is a lie. Exaggerating what Hitler did only gives "deny-ers" fuel for the fire.
It is opensource, easy to use, and available here.
Remember Y2K!
Remember the hype!
Remember the scare!
Don't trust the mainstream media's portrayal of anything related to computers because the mainstream media is created by and targetted towards a very large group of people who do not understand computers. I don't think I need to explain how people tend to fear what they don't understand.
Buy a VIA's "Eden EPIA" instead. It is a tiny x86 motherboard with integrated ethernet, audio, video, and CPU. It costs $80. Just add ram, harddrive, and powersupply, and you have a tiny computer great for settop box projects. The entire setup doesn't need any fans, just a small heatsink on the CPU. It also consumes very little power. The CPU runs at 533mhz, and the built in video has TV-Outs.
Why not just play Quake1 then? Many opensource clients are available with various improvements. I suggest getting a Quakeworld client because it is simply Quake1 with an improved network protocol that allows for various levels of "prediction" in addition to simply being more efficient than the original Quake network protocol. In fact, in Quakeworld, you can set a prediction threshold known as pushlatency.
;-)
For example, "pushlatency 0" means that any lag above 0 miliseconds is lag you want to not have predicted. That is most likely what you are looking for. So you get an efficient network protocol, but the client doesn't try to hide the lag. "Pushlatency 0" is effectively "What You See Is What You Get". While "pushlantency -500" means that any lag above 500 miliseconds (half a second) is lag you want to not have predicted. Such a setting is useful for modem players that want a smooth feel, but still want to "feel" any extreme lag.
I still play Quakeworld regularly, and I usually have less than a 100ms ping, and I play with "pushlatency -2000". Such a setting basically says "give me full prediction and hide all my lag". If your lag goes above 2000ms, that means its been 2 minutes since your client has talked to the server. So with that lag, you most likely aren't connected to the server anymore
Seeing as Quake1 is still getting graphical improvements in addition to many other improvements, and add in the fact that it is opensource and inexpensive... why not just play quake 1? It has gameplay as good as or better than all of the other FPS games out there.
Of course people still play Quake 1. In fact, I play Quakeworld all the time. Quakeworld is Quake 1 with enhanced netcode. I suggest playing on any of the KTPRO servers, as they use the most up-to-date version of the Quakeworld server out there. Other servers have an annoying jumping bug that causes your jumps to randomly fail. Really annoying bug that will have you screaming "I PRESSED JUMP!". The older servers have a few other bugs that are fixed in the new KTPRO server.
The KTPRO servers also have automatic server-side demo recording. These demos can be viewed from any perspective... so yeah, improvements have been made in other areas.
Those servers are gay! They have self damage disabled, so the rocket launcher is overpowering.
Brouwer's Intuitionism (one form of constructive math) admits the existence of some guidelines by which mathematical things are created. In fact, Intuitionism claims that these guidelines are built into our minds, and goes on to claim that such guidelines cannot be written down as the logicists claim. Godel and Church proved the Intuitionists correct.
;-)
...while the objects of interest to a physicist are inherently not constructive.
So the distinction is found elsewhere... but I see what you are saying. You would just say that one of these "guidelines" has the side effect of the law of the excluded middle in addition to other side effects. As to what that actual "guideline" or "thing that constrains" actually is... well we can't say
Limiting math to constructivist foundations results in a math of abstract things that can be computed or calculated. Proofs in formal constructive mathematics can be shown to be isomorphic to algorithms in the lambda-calculus. Of course, incompleteness issues create the need for "more" than what formal constructive math offers. So you are right that CS includes more than constructive math, but the objects of main concern to computer scientists, algorithms, are definitely constructive mathematical objects.
Finally, Hilbert's backstabbing of Brouwer is why most of us only know of classical math as opposed to a constructive math.
You are right! When I took the SAT about 6 years ago, I was confused when I sat down and saw a problem where you were supposed to think "x" meant "blank space for a digit". While it only took me a couple minutes to figure this out because I worked the problem as soon as I saw it, realized the answer didn't match the multiple choices, reworked it, realized I was right but misunderstood the problem... anyway, it cost me time on a timed test.
Such an example is why SAT like standardized tests are bad. It would be like using the word "cat" in the analogies section, but using "cat" to mean "Computer Aided Teacher". Don't teach us one definition and then implicitly use another in a time limited standardized test. I mean, at least the SAT could use canonical symbolisms for algebra, as opposed to using that kind of crap.
Please tell me where this "real world" is located. I would like to visit it sometime.
By the way, you should have taken IS (info science), CE (computer engineering), SE (software engineering), or EE (electrical engineering) as opposed to CS (computer science). Computer Science was born from research in metamathematics such as: proof theory, lambda-calculi, and automata theory. So its not just "a few people" that think CS is a branch of math. Many people actually know the history of computer science and realize that it is a or at least was born from a branch of mathematics.
Just because you ordered something you don't like to eat doesn't mean the chef or the dish is anything less. The world will always need more plebians like you - leave the "useless" theory to the rest of us.
Whats funny is that you are right about the large number of plebs that don't care for theory. I saw another software company claiming to be able to achieve a level of compression that the "useless" theory proves impossible. I wonder how much money, time, and effort will be wasted on that business. Those "useless" (economic) theories also fortold the economic disaster known as the dotcom-bomb. Its funny how useful those "useless" theories are.
But hey, I like plebs like you, so let me give you a little idea I was going to patent. Instead you can patent it. Its a program that checks another program's code to make sure it doesn't get in any infinite loops. The program takes the filename for your source code, and it returns "Safe" if the program source code has no infinite loops and it returns "Unsafe" if the program source code has at least one infinite loop. The beauty of this program is that it will save millions of dollars for software developers because it will catch "lock up" bugs before test time where it is more expensive to catch them. Go gather some of your pleb friends and start a company on that piece of IP. I mean, how long do you think it would take you and your superior friends to develop a program to solve such a simple problem?
While I agree that people should be taught at least basic mathematics... I disagree with how it is taught. Currently our educational system stresses formal mathematics for intuitionistic mathematics.
One of the problems with generic education is that since you are only giving people a sample, if you don't give them a good or correct sample, you will forever turn them off to the entire subject. Math is a perfect example. Most don't even know what math is, even though they were supposedly given a "sample" of it in the generic education. I see allot of people equating arithmetic with math. Others equate algebra with math. I mean, even though we get taught only very basic anatomy in our generic education, do we equate nose with human?
Finally, I have and continue to study CS. I use lots of math, but never have made use of Newtonian Calculus... which is taught to most first year CS students. In fact, Computer Science isn't even founded on such math. Such a mathematical system is continuous as opposed to discrete. Computer Science is all about the discrete, and it sprung forth from discrete, constructive metamathematics: proof theory, lambda-calculi, and automata theory.
As a computer scientist, I use math all the time. Usually, I use just discrete math, but I also use Category Theory, which is neither discrete or continuous. In fact, I believe that CS is a branch of mathematics originally known as metamathematics.
Many study math for math. Not math for science. Not math for accounting, etc... In fact, it can be shown that having a class of people who study math for furthering abstract math itself, creates for a more efficient society where scientists can make use of abstract mathematical concepts created hundreds of years earlier.
If no one studied math for its own sake, then scientists would continously have to cease progress on their research in order to develop a complete math system in which to explain their research.
Organizing knowledge helps us divide-and-conquer a nearly intractable task.
It seems that you guys don't know what math is. Its not memorizing multiplication tables or solving random problems. So don't preach, unless you understand.
Oh, and lovely, you bring up Albert Einstien, who was known to be a crappy mathematician. Great, he did a good job of not being a mathematician. Well in order for Einstien to formulate his theories, an abstract mathematical system was created thousands of years before he was born and this abstract mathematical system was fine tuned year after year up until and after Einstien's birth.
But math shouldn't be taught for its own sake... however, physics should? We should listen to Albert Eistien, a physicist, about mathematics? Whats next? Shall we listen to an auto mechanic about heart surgery?
Ask scientists about science. Leave math to the mathematicians. Finally, don't ever comment on something you do not understand. Math is not what you seem to think it is.
It all depends on the philosophical foundation that you use for your mathematics. Most constructive mathematicians would say that math ideas (truth and algorithms are part of math) are created.
But yes, because of our public school system what is effectively the Platonic philosophy of math is taught as the one correct understanding. Such a philosophy states that mathematical ideas already exist... Now, in my opinion, such a foundation for mathematics seems to be very irrational and non-mathematical. Assuming that math ideas already exists is something akin to assuming that god exists. Hence it requires faith like a religion.
This is why L.E.J. Brouwer, for example, put great effort in founding mathematics on constructive foundations as opposed to Platonic foundations. Ideas are created, created again, and again. No, ideas don't already exist... for who created them? Where do they exist? For how long have they existed?
Finally, such a distinction isn't trivial or meaningless as the philosophy used as a foundation for mathematics greatly influences what can and cannot be proven to be true in your mathematical system. The math that you seem to subscribe to is what is sometimes referred to as "classical", while the math that I am talking about is typicaly called "constructive". Computer Science is part of constructive mathematics, for reasons that I will not go into now.
With the whole sphere of water thing, you are wrong. The old belief was that beyond the sky was water, and the stars were holes in the protective bubble that let water leak through causing rain. The flood wasn't the collapse of all of the water through the protective dome above the earth. You or someone fairly recent is making that up. With time, science shows the bible to be wrong, so people change the bible through transliteration, interpretation, and flat out cut and pasting.
Also there are herbs that bear seeds that are poisionous. So yeah, thats a mistake too. Now, please tell me what the new interpretation/translation/edit is which explains that.
The most used weapon in Quake online professional duels is the lightning gun. Second most used weapon is the rocket launcher. So get your facts straight. Weapon balance might sound like a good idea, but in fact, it sucks.
No, its:
"I love the smell of creationists backpedaling in the morning."
Basically, to us it seems like really good luck that, by chance, our planet formed and gave forth life, but why don't you tell that to the billions of trillions of other planets that formed, by chance, unable to give birth to life? The universe is so large that the actual probability of "the world happening by chance" is almost 100%. That is it is just about necessary.
So yes, you are right, the probability of such a thing happening for any one planet is extremely low, but what is that probability for it happening for at least 1 in a million planets? At least 1 in a billion? A trillion? Oh, you can bet there are more!
For example, I could write a very small program, wouldn't take but a few minutes, that would create every text file possible. Given enough time it would create every book ever written in addition to your bible and your Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Not only that, but it would create the text of every email in your inbox. Are you starting to understand the power of large numbers?
Paul hijacked early Christianity... most every significant thing Paul says contradicts the teachings of Jesus. The reason people go with the sayings of Paul as opposed to Jesus is because the stuff that Jesus taught is very difficult. Turn the cheek, love your enemy, help those in need, etc... I mean, you would have to live the life of Mother Teresa for godsakes!
Pong, Sokoban, and Tetris have less plotline than effects... yet they all seem to be great games! True classics! When will people realize that a game doesn't have to be based on reallife, games don't need storylines... games need to be fun to play.
Computer game developers need to take a long look at board games, sports games, and old video games. Those "games" truely are games, while many recent "games" are more movie or simulation than game. Soccer has no plot, yet billions enjoy it!
Now, if you can make a real game and put a story in it, more power to ya. Hey, if you can put a kitchen sink in too, that would be great.
So his day job involves being one of the world's best software engineers... and in his spare time he is a rocket scientist? Someone tell God to spread the smarts around, ok? Maybe the Joe-sixpacks and Soccer-moms could get a little?
While consumer-level services that use Linux on the backend are well established, with examples such as Google and Amazon, consumer products are just now showing their colors.
Everyone loves their TiVo, a device that makes TV worth watching, and the Zaurus has reached a critical mass where there is enough mindshare to facilitate the development of tons of great custom software for the Linux based PDA. So what will we see next? I think that it would be nice to see the Zaurus technology used in a mobile phone.
For many, PDAs are great, but for most, PDAs take a backseat to their mobile phone. Why not cut the chase and combine the two?
Category Theory is the most intuitive and practical branch of mathematics. Category Theory is even more useful and intuitive than counting. It is the glue that ties together the vast sea of concepts within your head. Category Theory is not just useful for continous or discrete mathematics/sciences, but instead Category Theory is useful for all kinds of exact thought! It lets you move from arithmetic to logic, from logic to set theory, from set theory to geometry, from geometry to a specific daily situation, from a specific daily situation back to a formal branch of matheatics, etc...
... So just as you learned the rest of counting, why not learn the rest of Category Theory ? It will give you a whole new insight into Computer Science.
You didn't get it taught to you in school because its such a young field of mathematics at around 50 years of age. Most branches of mathematics are at least hundreds of years old. However, you already use parts of Category Theory, even though you don't know the words for it, just as you used parts of counting before you knew the words "one", "two",
For its not just about the specific ideas used in Computer Science... its also about having enough "string" to tie it all together. Category Theory is an infinite supply of that "string".