I can't think of any TLD that can be entered with only single button-presses per character. "net" (66, 22, 8) is easier than "com" (222, 666, 6), but the best I can think of is "au" (2, 88).
As far as domains for sex sites, you couldn't go wrong with T (8) W (9) A (2) T (8).:-)
Calling this an "experiment" or "science" is complete BS. This has no value. Anything you could learn from a robotic simulation of that nature, you could learn far more efficiently from a pure software simulation. This is clearly entertainment masquerading as science. Now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be interesting to watch, but, for crying out loud, don't call it science!
It seems to me that this is an obvious result. The rewards being given are very one-dimensional...they only reward scoring. If rewards were given individually, but also given for, say, blocked shots, or breaking up passes, the results would change. You would be able to condition "players" through individual rewards to play offensively or defensively. Variable magnitudes of reward would help to, since you could reward a prospective forward more than a prospective defenseman for scoring a goal and vice versa for defensive play.
It is somewhat interesting that rewarding the whole team when goals are scored produces some robots specialized for defense, but really, that result is obvious too. Basically, what you are saying with the reward is that whatever position that robot was in, or sequence of actions they were taking at the time of the goal was a good one. If they were in a defensive position at the time of the goal, they'll become slightly more predisposed to defense (assuming that's more or less how their programming works). In other words, it seems to me that all these experiments demonstrate is that their algorithms work.
Possible, I suppose. I've only read the first book.... *shrug* I thought one of my friends who had read them all said they didn't exist in any of the books, but *I* may have just been smoking too much crack.:-)
I hesitate to even reply to this thread, but I thought I'd point out that the original Dune game was NOT an RTS. It was more of an adventure game, and, frankly, wasn't very interesting. Dune 2 was an RTS which had nothing to do with the original game, and little to do story-wise with the movie either (they even invented another house so they could have three factions in the game). Dune 2K was a windoze-ized version of Dune 2. Dune 2 was a great game for its time but seems primitive by modern RTS standards.
That said, the article that this is attached to has nothing to do with any of those games. I believe (as do the moderators, apparently) that the author of the original comment of this thread realized this and was trying to be funny.
Hmmmm..... Is somebody here not familiar with the concept of portable code? It can be done, ya know. On the other hand, I think the author's point was that if you have three separately implemented systems with the same functionality, they are not likely to have the same flaws, which makes your redundancy more valuable. Even if you just use one code base and port it, at least the OS of your back-up system is not subject to the same problems as your main system. A back-up is of little value if, as soon as you fail over, it fails due to the same condition that crashed the first one. Since NASA's running on a shoe-string budget (compared to the support they once had) these days, and I imagine that the support from the other nations involved with ISS is not much better, however, I'm not surprised that they didn't go that route.
The world is becoming disturbingly postmodern. In the beginning there was bartering. Then people started using precious metals to represent the value of objects. Then they started using pieces of paper to represent the metals. Then they started using plastic cards to represent pieces of paper. Now they're trading that in for a number in a database.
You say this as if it were something now. If you have a bank account, your money has been nothing more than a number in a database for tens of years.
OK, yeah, money is necessary to survive, and to be able to get some of the things you want, but it is not an end in and of itself.
I think it's great to want to go to college because I think it's a great experience. It's a time to get away from the 'rents, experience new things, and maybe, just maybe, learn something interesting.
So, go to college, take some cool classes about stuff that interests you, have a kick-ass time, and, as a fringe benefit, come out of it with a piece of paper that tells employers they should pay you more. Or drop out and do your own thing. There is no one "right" path.
Only one thing is certain in my mind, and that is that, if money is your sole motivator you will end up no better than the other corporate whore schmucks.
Re:School isn't just to get a job
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
From what I've seen, it is largely untrue that you don't need a degree to get a development job. Granted, there are exceptions. If you have connections and skill you can get a development job. Going in cold, with no connections, however, you'll probably need a degree to get in the door, unless you've got some really impressive experience. Get the degree, you'll be glad you did.
I hope this entire review was merely an attempt to mirror the style of the book, thus illustrating how bad it is. Otherwise, I feel deeply sorry for the author.
Call me crazy, but poorly written reviews which assert that books are poorly written don't carry much weight with me.
The reason that you can't see your posts is that you are posting anonymously and therefore your posts start with a score of zero (0) and you most likely are browsing with a threshold of 1. For more info, try the link for the FAQ.
I swear this book was released electronically years ago. I remember reading it as a text file in my dorm room in 93 or 94. At least I'm pretty sure it was that book. If not, I read it somewhere else.... Sorry, I doubt I still have the text file.
Everyone I know uses ICQ. A couple use AIM, but also use ICQ. Is it just the masses of AOL drones putting AIM on top?
On another note, the article says "Competitors have criticized the Web powerhouse for not allowing open IM access for seamless communication, regardless of Internet service provider." AIM is available regardless of your ISP! Somebody needs to get their facts straight.
On yet another note, who CARES who I use for my IM provider? I don't pay for it. It doesn't show me any ads. What do they gain by having a larger user base other than even more users? Does a monopoly on this market really affect anyone? I mean, if AOL started charging for AIM service one day, everyone would just switch back to ICQ. Am I missing something, or is this whole thing a non-issue?
Re:Who really needs a lesson
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
I would say that most of us at least here on/. are doing as much as we can against a corrupt gov't system that has too much influence by business interests. It all comes down to money, we the have-nots against the haves.
This is a huge cop-out. When was the last time you called your senators/representative about a bill that you felt threatened by? If your answer is anything other than "the last time there was one", then you are not doing everything you can. I admit I'm not doing everything I can. Why? Because I'm lazy. Not because I don't have the money. Not because I'm powerless. Because I'm lazy. The truth is we all need to stop being lazy, realize that to effect change requires action, and start taking that action. Whining that we don't have enough money to make a difference gets us nowhere.
I would like to believe the myth that if every constituent writes their rep and tells them they are against a bill, that the rep will vote against the bill. It's probably also a myth that every congressperson is under the thumb of some corporate interest, and listens to one person rather than 1 million people they are supposed to represent. Reality is somewhere in between, but I would suspect it's closer to the latter.
Um, I hate to burst your bubble, but politicians have to get re-elected, and all the money in the world will do them no good if they can't get votes. If they've gotten enough letters from constituents to make them believe their is a threat to their re-election, you'd better believe they will respond.
Since this article is simply citing information from SharkyExtreme (the original of which is linked), it is not Slashdot who you are calling into question here, but SE, who claims to have gotten the info directly from Intel, at their Developer's Forum, and it doesn't seem they have any reason to lie....
Perhaps we should consider the true source here, rather than questioning it because it's on Slashdot.
I can cook my eggs on my P4 heatsink. The only problem is, I have to cook in the dark, because if I turn the lights on at the same time as the computer, it blows the breaker.:-)
Time to get accounts on every available free web page service and put DeCSS on them.
Yes, I know this is an ignorant answer and would result mainly in a huge pain in the ass for the administrators of the free services in question...but maybe we could use only ones provided by MS and AOL?:-)
I'd certainly like to see an analysis of the exact impact of this change. Since I'm not intimately familiar with either of the licenses involved I too am confused as to what exactly this means.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't think of any TLD that can be entered with only single button-presses per character. "net" (66, 22, 8) is easier than "com" (222, 666, 6), but the best I can think of is "au" (2, 88).
:-)
As far as domains for sex sites, you couldn't go wrong with T (8) W (9) A (2) T (8).
Calling this an "experiment" or "science" is complete BS. This has no value. Anything you could learn from a robotic simulation of that nature, you could learn far more efficiently from a pure software simulation. This is clearly entertainment masquerading as science. Now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be interesting to watch, but, for crying out loud, don't call it science!
It seems to me that this is an obvious result. The rewards being given are very one-dimensional...they only reward scoring. If rewards were given individually, but also given for, say, blocked shots, or breaking up passes, the results would change. You would be able to condition "players" through individual rewards to play offensively or defensively. Variable magnitudes of reward would help to, since you could reward a prospective forward more than a prospective defenseman for scoring a goal and vice versa for defensive play.
It is somewhat interesting that rewarding the whole team when goals are scored produces some robots specialized for defense, but really, that result is obvious too. Basically, what you are saying with the reward is that whatever position that robot was in, or sequence of actions they were taking at the time of the goal was a good one. If they were in a defensive position at the time of the goal, they'll become slightly more predisposed to defense (assuming that's more or less how their programming works). In other words, it seems to me that all these experiments demonstrate is that their algorithms work.
Possible, I suppose. I've only read the first book.... *shrug* I thought one of my friends who had read them all said they didn't exist in any of the books, but *I* may have just been smoking too much crack. :-)
I hesitate to even reply to this thread, but I thought I'd point out that the original Dune game was NOT an RTS. It was more of an adventure game, and, frankly, wasn't very interesting. Dune 2 was an RTS which had nothing to do with the original game, and little to do story-wise with the movie either (they even invented another house so they could have three factions in the game). Dune 2K was a windoze-ized version of Dune 2. Dune 2 was a great game for its time but seems primitive by modern RTS standards.
That said, the article that this is attached to has nothing to do with any of those games. I believe (as do the moderators, apparently) that the author of the original comment of this thread realized this and was trying to be funny.
when somebody gets modded to 4 for copying and pasting from the link in the article.
Or you could read the linked press release and find out for yourself.
However, his Quake2 version IS a game....
Hmmmm..... Is somebody here not familiar with the concept of portable code? It can be done, ya know. On the other hand, I think the author's point was that if you have three separately implemented systems with the same functionality, they are not likely to have the same flaws, which makes your redundancy more valuable. Even if you just use one code base and port it, at least the OS of your back-up system is not subject to the same problems as your main system. A back-up is of little value if, as soon as you fail over, it fails due to the same condition that crashed the first one. Since NASA's running on a shoe-string budget (compared to the support they once had) these days, and I imagine that the support from the other nations involved with ISS is not much better, however, I'm not surprised that they didn't go that route.
The world is becoming disturbingly postmodern. In the beginning there was bartering. Then people started using precious metals to represent the value of objects. Then they started using pieces of paper to represent the metals. Then they started using plastic cards to represent pieces of paper. Now they're trading that in for a number in a database.
You say this as if it were something now. If you have a bank account, your money has been nothing more than a number in a database for tens of years.
Just because they don't have a very professional looking website, doesn't mean it isn't legitimate.
Grrraaagghhh!!!!!
Money, money, money!!!
What is the obsession????
OK, yeah, money is necessary to survive, and to be able to get some of the things you want, but it is not an end in and of itself.
I think it's great to want to go to college because I think it's a great experience. It's a time to get away from the 'rents, experience new things, and maybe, just maybe, learn something interesting.
So, go to college, take some cool classes about stuff that interests you, have a kick-ass time, and, as a fringe benefit, come out of it with a piece of paper that tells employers they should pay you more. Or drop out and do your own thing. There is no one "right" path.
Only one thing is certain in my mind, and that is that, if money is your sole motivator you will end up no better than the other corporate whore schmucks.
From what I've seen, it is largely untrue that you don't need a degree to get a development job. Granted, there are exceptions. If you have connections and skill you can get a development job. Going in cold, with no connections, however, you'll probably need a degree to get in the door, unless you've got some really impressive experience. Get the degree, you'll be glad you did.
I hope this entire review was merely an attempt to mirror the style of the book, thus illustrating how bad it is. Otherwise, I feel deeply sorry for the author.
Call me crazy, but poorly written reviews which assert that books are poorly written don't carry much weight with me.
The reason that you can't see your posts is that you are posting anonymously and therefore your posts start with a score of zero (0) and you most likely are browsing with a threshold of 1. For more info, try the link for the FAQ.
Here is yet another explanation of moore's law, and who Moore is, on Everything2.
I swear this book was released electronically years ago. I remember reading it as a text file in my dorm room in 93 or 94. At least I'm pretty sure it was that book. If not, I read it somewhere else.... Sorry, I doubt I still have the text file.
Huh. It all makes sense now. That's why ya ask questions. :-)
As for the questions you raise, I'm stumped. I can't imagine why AOL wouldn't want to integrate those two products.
Everyone I know uses ICQ. A couple use AIM, but also use ICQ. Is it just the masses of AOL drones putting AIM on top?
On another note, the article says "Competitors have criticized the Web powerhouse for not allowing open IM access for seamless communication, regardless of Internet service provider." AIM is available regardless of your ISP! Somebody needs to get their facts straight.
On yet another note, who CARES who I use for my IM provider? I don't pay for it. It doesn't show me any ads. What do they gain by having a larger user base other than even more users? Does a monopoly on this market really affect anyone? I mean, if AOL started charging for AIM service one day, everyone would just switch back to ICQ. Am I missing something, or is this whole thing a non-issue?
I would say that most of us at least here on /. are doing as much as we can against a corrupt gov't system that has too much influence by business interests. It all comes down to money, we the have-nots against the haves.
This is a huge cop-out. When was the last time you called your senators/representative about a bill that you felt threatened by? If your answer is anything other than "the last time there was one", then you are not doing everything you can. I admit I'm not doing everything I can. Why? Because I'm lazy. Not because I don't have the money. Not because I'm powerless. Because I'm lazy. The truth is we all need to stop being lazy, realize that to effect change requires action, and start taking that action. Whining that we don't have enough money to make a difference gets us nowhere.
I would like to believe the myth that if every constituent writes their rep and tells them they are against a bill, that the rep will vote against the bill. It's probably also a myth that every congressperson is under the thumb of some corporate interest, and listens to one person rather than 1 million people they are supposed to represent. Reality is somewhere in between, but I would suspect it's closer to the latter.
Um, I hate to burst your bubble, but politicians have to get re-elected, and all the money in the world will do them no good if they can't get votes. If they've gotten enough letters from constituents to make them believe their is a threat to their re-election, you'd better believe they will respond.
Since this article is simply citing information from SharkyExtreme (the original of which is linked), it is not Slashdot who you are calling into question here, but SE, who claims to have gotten the info directly from Intel, at their Developer's Forum, and it doesn't seem they have any reason to lie....
Perhaps we should consider the true source here, rather than questioning it because it's on Slashdot.
I can cook my eggs on my P4 heatsink. The only problem is, I have to cook in the dark, because if I turn the lights on at the same time as the computer, it blows the breaker. :-)
Time to get accounts on every available free web page service and put DeCSS on them.
:-)
Yes, I know this is an ignorant answer and would result mainly in a huge pain in the ass for the administrators of the free services in question...but maybe we could use only ones provided by MS and AOL?
thinking bank holdups via the internet, murders via the internet, etc.?
Forget people hacking your robotic watchdog and using it against you. What's to stop me from using my own robotic watchdog offensively?
I'd certainly like to see an analysis of the exact impact of this change. Since I'm not intimately familiar with either of the licenses involved I too am confused as to what exactly this means.