Tell you what, you roll anything trickier than "hello world" from scratch in C/C++, and I'll do the same in Java, and we'll see who has the choice of more predefined stuff to use, and who finishes faster with a program that runs more correctly.
I pick a 3d shooter. Now you get to pick anything less yawn inspiring than a database driven office app right? This is a fun game.;)
Seriously though, each language has applications that it's well or badly suited for. Each moderatly proficient software developer should be able to pick the right tools for the job and be able to use them. No need to start holy wars over them.
There are some types of games where this might work, I think guildwars uses this for the henchmen if not for large parts of the instance. But for many games which are strictly competitive, the risk of client side tampering, making the AI cooperative or making knowledge that only the AI should have available to the local player is a big risk.
Well since it's covered in strange symbols it would only require mild persuasion to convince the dungeon master, that today the round thingy with the squigly bit means you scored a critical hit.
From $5 to 10, the more experienced the developer is the better the deal they can get from a publisher.
I'd back this up with references, but it's partialy from own experience and partialy from gamasutra.com, for which you need a subscription nowadays.
All the posts above that claim that the reason they can cut money like this is because 'the creators' are greedy are wrong. The publishers and retailers take the biggest cut by far and they use it to pay for those games that don't make a profit (90% of all games) and to break into new markets like china and russia.
Well it's not as much being smart as being dedicated. Programming something like numutils is not that hard, even in C. Its strong point is the idea of a bunch of tools that are easy to use. It would be an even better idea if it was made using the best tool for this particular job. If you want to make tools that are included in distributions you should use the best tool, or someone else who knows how to use those tools will.
Programs that are elligable to be included in destributions have to be very good and I disagree with you that it's much harder to write good programs in C than it is in perl. The hard part is not the syntax of the language used or the speed, but the interoperatability, compatibility, longetivity and some other stuff that ends in -ity.
You are right that for a task that consist almost entirely of dictionary operations perl maybe the better tool, but your reasons are basically just
anecdotical evidence.
I am usually suspicious of claims that higher programming languages are faster than C, since they are almost always implemented in C themselves (like perl).
Also factors of speedups greater than 5 usually suggest a design flaw instead of an optimization problem. A skilled C/C++ programmer will have no problem making the same task as fast as perl.
I agree that implementation time is another important factor, but spending a few hours to make a tool faster so thousands of users can run their tasks a little faster and save many more combined hours is easily worth it.
For smaller tasks, like comparing or adding a few numbers as num-utils mostly does, accessing the perl interpreter soon becomes a big memory,file io and cpu overhead, so imho C would have been the better choice here.
What a great oversimplification of science. Thousands of very competent cognitive scientists use carefully gathered neurological and psychological data to construct numerous interesting theories. Some of those support eachother some of those contradict eachother. Then they create complicated mathematical models to support their theories and other cognitive scientists try to improve on them or refute their results. Together they have come a long way since the 1900s when people thought that there was basically a big old clock in your head and if it was a little off some good smacking might help.
At some time during all of this, one of the more veteran researchers feels it time to sum up a large portion of it so Junks Jerzey can undestand it. Unfortunatly he's lost a little perspective by going from symposium to lecture to meet all these great scientists and forgets to put a little introduction in there that cognitive science is a well respected branch of psychology, philosphy and even computer science and that he didn't make all this up just to confuse poor Junks Jerzey. Also he forgets to explain that, much like in comic books, in science not all people agree on things.
The bottom line is that the above is not a post at all, just a lot of conjecture.
On the other hand, the EQ account is in Dad's name and Dad's credit card. The ultimate disciplinary threat is, "No EverCrack for a month!"
Ouch! That is dangerously like having a kid on chemical drugs and using the supply to discipline him. I would suggest getting rid of the handgun before doing that.Of course it's far better only to use that 'power' to regulate the time spend on EQ and slowly cut it back while introducing other interesting stimuli. (no not liquor)
Is the machine I always considered the ultimate hacking challenge. It's pretty unorthodox with it's vector display and gives a great perspective on the road PC technology could have taken.
Also there's lots of info on it, because nearly everyone that has one uses it as a hacking project.
That is what I thought when DMCA hit the US. Now a similar bill has passed the European Parlement. If this law or something a little tuned down for compromise, passes in the US, European goverments will surely follow.
Eventually only rogue nations will make hardware that is not certified by a team of 'experts' (MPAA executives) and only profesional pirates will be able to afford them. (If CD-Burners are outlawed, only outlaws will have CD-Burners).
This will all help to battle piracy but in the meantime I won't be able to manipulate my bought and paid for data in the way I want to.
You might like the idea of neural programming as well. It works by coupling different types of 'neurons' in certain ways until you get the correct behaviour. Lots of the tweaking is better left to genetic algorithms, but guiding the GA by manually intervening helps create more complex neural nets in less time.
The coupling of neural units like visual input, edge detection, object detection, object avoidance can be done by hand and GA's can be used to tune the individual function of these units. A friend of mine created a small (real world) soccer robot using this method.
I don't know what the state of neural simulators is nowadays but they used to have a really steep learning curve and they were always lacking some essential features needed for this type of 'neural-engineering' but they might have gotten better. (google em out)
I was suprised that there was no information at all to be found regarding genetic programming
Genetic programming is considered part of the artificial life field. Although closely mathematically related, it is not artificial intelligence. I know of a couple of papers describing models of cognition using genetic programming. They speculate that the brain sometimes generates competing models, but test-data suggests just a couple of models. I find this hard to compare with genetic programming which needs many thousands of models to provide for its strong point: loose description of the solution.
This seems to me like the most likely means of creating a software that could eventually pass a Turing test.
Genetics already created neural networks that could pass the turing test. This is true. To artificially reproduce this result would take such a large of amount of computational power and such an efficient representation of the neural network, that we'll probably end up using a biological implementation. This will work so similarly to 'the real thing' that it might be besides the point. Also it took nature a few billion years to evolve the brain and to speed up the breeding process would probably make it more of a biological problem than an AI solution.
The work that is being done, (sorry, no link either:-/) creating neural networks with genetic programming, usually targets sub-insect intelligence. This is, in my perception, the general direction in AI nowadays. reveal the secrets of the brain by trying to emulate the smallest structures first.
This is also more interesting to the AI-industry, because who needs to talk to a computer about poetry(turing) anyway. An intelligent cruise control/collision avoidance system in your car is much more usefull.
We have lots of tin cans in orbit that do work properly. Possibly an orbital particle detector doesn't have to be a manned spacestation. On the other hand it is a real challenge to build such a thing on earth so it will probably be nigh impossible to build in space.
You were amazingly perceptive in recognizing that the post by -razor- contained an opinion that was not entirely in line with the other comments in the thread. Furthermore you amaze me by concluding with great clarity that this _must_ be a troll!! I was truly amazed that you were able to capture this bold reasoning in the most difficult form of humor known to mankind: sarcasm.
My deepest respects.
Burn the heretic -razor- for questioning such holy rights as being allowed to carry the means to wipe out an entire room in seconds!!
So this seems to me as an inconsistency in his theory, Since I'm not at all a genius mathematician that must point to something that I misunderstood.
The omega number for a non-halting turing machine(for which it can't be proved that it halts) is a pure random sequence of bits, and of infinite length (right?). According to kolmogorov complexity, random means that it can't be described in a shorter way. But it is also 'described' by the turing machine that is analysed and the turing machine computing the number, which need not be of infinite length.
My question:
How do these theories combine? or where is my logic error?
Slashdot Mirror
Well luckily he has enough tubes for all those internets!
I pick a 3d shooter. Now you get to pick anything less yawn inspiring than a database driven office app right? This is a fun game. ;)
Seriously though, each language has applications that it's well or badly suited for. Each moderatly proficient software developer should be able to pick the right tools for the job and be able to use them. No need to start holy wars over them.
There are some types of games where this might work, I think guildwars uses this for the henchmen if not for large parts of the instance. But for many games which are strictly competitive, the risk of client side tampering, making the AI cooperative or making knowledge that only the AI should have available to the local player is a big risk.
No a K is 1024 so it's about W1.9560546875K
Source please.
Well since it's covered in strange symbols it would only require mild persuasion to convince the dungeon master, that today the round thingy with the squigly bit means you scored a critical hit.
From $5 to 10, the more experienced the developer is the better the deal they can get from a publisher. I'd back this up with references, but it's partialy from own experience and partialy from gamasutra.com, for which you need a subscription nowadays. All the posts above that claim that the reason they can cut money like this is because 'the creators' are greedy are wrong. The publishers and retailers take the biggest cut by far and they use it to pay for those games that don't make a profit (90% of all games) and to break into new markets like china and russia.
Well it's not as much being smart as being dedicated. Programming something like numutils is not that hard, even in C. Its strong point is the idea of a bunch of tools that are easy to use. It would be an even better idea if it was made using the best tool for this particular job. If you want to make tools that are included in distributions you should use the best tool, or someone else who knows how to use those tools will.
Programs that are elligable to be included in destributions have to be very good and I disagree with you that it's much harder to write good programs in C than it is in perl. The hard part is not the syntax of the language used or the speed, but the interoperatability, compatibility, longetivity and some other stuff that ends in -ity.
You are right that for a task that consist almost entirely of dictionary operations perl maybe the better tool, but your reasons are basically just anecdotical evidence.
I am usually suspicious of claims that higher programming languages are faster than C, since they are almost always implemented in C themselves (like perl). Also factors of speedups greater than 5 usually suggest a design flaw instead of an optimization problem. A skilled C/C++ programmer will have no problem making the same task as fast as perl.
I agree that implementation time is another important factor, but spending a few hours to make a tool faster so thousands of users can run their tasks a little faster and save many more combined hours is easily worth it.
For smaller tasks, like comparing or adding a few numbers as num-utils mostly does, accessing the perl interpreter soon becomes a big memory,file io and cpu overhead, so imho C would have been the better choice here.
look monitor get disk look monitor now try again
Yes, marriages /a) etc are failing. I played it for 3 years before my addicttion sort of faded. In that time I have met a few people who actually were in divorce because they couldn't stop playing. I've also seen a lot of couples playing together and loving it though. Dropping out of college/university is also a common side effect of playing EQ, but I haven't seen people who got fired because they didn't show up for work because of it.
IANAP(sychologist) but I'd say it's not comparible to chemical drugs, only to a really bad TV addiction. EQ and other MMORPG's are good way to relax after work or fight boredom. So good actually that an addict doesn't feel the need any more to look for other forms of entertainment like sport or spending time with friends or family.
This site managed to explain it to this programmer with only a moderate starting knowledge of particle physics.
What a great oversimplification of science. Thousands of very competent cognitive scientists use carefully gathered neurological and psychological data to construct numerous interesting theories. Some of those support eachother some of those contradict eachother. Then they create complicated mathematical models to support their theories and other cognitive scientists try to improve on them or refute their results. Together they have come a long way since the 1900s when people thought that there was basically a big old clock in your head and if it was a little off some good smacking might help. At some time during all of this, one of the more veteran researchers feels it time to sum up a large portion of it so Junks Jerzey can undestand it. Unfortunatly he's lost a little perspective by going from symposium to lecture to meet all these great scientists and forgets to put a little introduction in there that cognitive science is a well respected branch of psychology, philosphy and even computer science and that he didn't make all this up just to confuse poor Junks Jerzey. Also he forgets to explain that, much like in comic books, in science not all people agree on things. The bottom line is that the above is not a post at all, just a lot of conjecture.
I don't remember reading this part in the book.
And kill them!
Usuless post that could be resumed to:
"Person A doesn't like the article".
Ha, the lost minutes
On the other hand, the EQ account is in Dad's name and Dad's credit card. The ultimate disciplinary threat is, "No EverCrack for a month!"
Ouch! That is dangerously like having a kid on chemical drugs and using the supply to discipline him. I would suggest getting rid of the handgun before doing that.Of course it's far better only to use that 'power' to regulate the time spend on EQ and slowly cut it back while introducing other interesting stimuli. (no not liquor)
Is the machine I always considered the ultimate hacking challenge. It's pretty unorthodox with it's vector display and gives a great perspective on the road PC technology could have taken. Also there's lots of info on it, because nearly everyone that has one uses it as a hacking project.
That is what I thought when DMCA hit the US. Now a similar bill has passed the European Parlement. If this law or something a little tuned down for compromise, passes in the US, European goverments will surely follow. Eventually only rogue nations will make hardware that is not certified by a team of 'experts' (MPAA executives) and only profesional pirates will be able to afford them. (If CD-Burners are outlawed, only outlaws will have CD-Burners). This will all help to battle piracy but in the meantime I won't be able to manipulate my bought and paid for data in the way I want to.
Current technology is even more advanced than you imagined! With current 3d graphics you don't even have to be a grandma to scare yourself to death.
You might like the idea of neural programming as well. It works by coupling different types of 'neurons' in certain ways until you get the correct behaviour. Lots of the tweaking is better left to genetic algorithms, but guiding the GA by manually intervening helps create more complex neural nets in less time. The coupling of neural units like visual input, edge detection, object detection, object avoidance can be done by hand and GA's can be used to tune the individual function of these units. A friend of mine created a small (real world) soccer robot using this method. I don't know what the state of neural simulators is nowadays but they used to have a really steep learning curve and they were always lacking some essential features needed for this type of 'neural-engineering' but they might have gotten better. (google em out)
We have lots of tin cans in orbit that do work properly. Possibly an orbital particle detector doesn't have to be a manned spacestation. On the other hand it is a real challenge to build such a thing on earth so it will probably be nigh impossible to build in space.
You were amazingly perceptive in recognizing that the post by -razor- contained an opinion that was not entirely in line with the other comments in the thread. Furthermore you amaze me by concluding with great clarity that this _must_ be a troll!! I was truly amazed that you were able to capture this bold reasoning in the most difficult form of humor known to mankind: sarcasm. My deepest respects. Burn the heretic -razor- for questioning such holy rights as being allowed to carry the means to wipe out an entire room in seconds!!
So this seems to me as an inconsistency in his theory, Since I'm not at all a genius mathematician that must point to something that I misunderstood. The omega number for a non-halting turing machine(for which it can't be proved that it halts) is a pure random sequence of bits, and of infinite length (right?). According to kolmogorov complexity, random means that it can't be described in a shorter way. But it is also 'described' by the turing machine that is analysed and the turing machine computing the number, which need not be of infinite length. My question: How do these theories combine? or where is my logic error?