>>Thats not meaning. Thats an insult. Life is not meant to worship. Thats was Roman emperors wanted. That is a life for slaves.
>It was a result of christianity that slavery was abolished (admittedly not completed even today). Your argument is empty. Christianity was rejected and illegal by the Romans well before it was the state religion. Nero the emperor used to burn Christians alive and kill them. This is definately not a religion created by any government as a tool, either by the Roman empire or the Jews who wanted to overthrow the Romans.
it was embrace and extend, jujistu, there were a lot of splintered small groups. The spirit was coopted and particular sects chosen to work through.
Isn't it odd that Paul, founder of The Church was originally a persecutor of Christians? He was not a disciple of Christ while Christ lived, iirc.
On the other hand Christ himself seems to have been a brilliant philosopher with a message as of yet still not listened too on Earth.
what you say isn't true of XML. If you are complaining about the mess of XML based markup lang,uages... that's the point of XML, to support development of markup-languages, those are applications of XML to various domains... and they are not a part of XML itself any more than MS Word is a part of C++ (in which it is written).
commercial software development is developing a tool that you sell, so if you buy, your customer can certainly also buy, there is no automatic advantage.
To achieve what you mention, you need to hire software engineers and undergo custom development. OSS actually strengthens this part of the industry, while potentially weakening the "shrink-wrap" part of the industry.
And I don't think we owe Microsoft anything... I don't think there is a single product of theres that would not have been created by other companies. There is no example, I think, that you can come up with where Microsoft's unique invovlement has led to what we have today.
Microsoft owes it's success to us, the computer industry, not the other way around. Their cavalier, "we are the end all be all, the everything" has earned them well deserved disrespect.
>But on a more personal note, I think publishing journals is kind of dumb, because for the most part the average person has nothing interesting to say.
of interest to you, maybe.
but in the wide wide world of 6 billion people, if your idea is only of interest to one in a million, there are 6000 interested people out there.
More importantly there are larger groups not being spoken to. More importantly still, how are you supposed to know who has something truly interesting to say other than by encouraging people to speak up?
I'm convinced the sandbox is an excellent isolation environment. However, I think the same thing is possible with traditional compiled languages eventually, it requires a uniformity that is easier simulated for now in a virtual architecture.
And we are only really talking about taking arbitrary code and running it... something common on the client side, perhaps, but on the server side, and the enterprise systems, the code you run is in no way arbitrary. There is no doubt it can be made securely in that sense of the term "secure".
>Listing off the memory footprint of various "demo" applications. The "Hello World" reference gives this away as totally bogus. Anyone who's used Java knows about its memory consumption. From day one people understand that it is not recommended for smaller applications.
I thought Java was for small applications called applets and servlets?
sloppy adaptations are how myth and legend come to be, after generations and generations of adaptations.
these are not the last movies that will be created from Lord Of The Rings, in other words. There are many more to come and none will actually capture the original work, in themselves, that will motivate more to try, and the whole set of them, together, start to resemble the world tapped into by the original.
Basically, they can, at best, hope to assymptotically approach the performance of traditional compiled code, so they will always be worse in performance, all other things being equal.
Furthermore the technique by which VMs get fast is cheating the question... that is, it's to optimize bottleneck operations by coding them in a regular compiled language.
Example: years back I worked in SCI, Sierra-Online's language for making the old interactive fiction games, like Space Quest. It ran pretty fast even though it did complex (for the time) graphical applications. Well, this was, of course, because the graphical operations were optimized. You feel like you are programming this graphical operation in SCI, but the reality is that the intense part is executed in sizeable chunks of C code. Essentially you just inform the underlying C/C++ (etc.) program of what you the VM based program want, and it's handed off to a program that can actually handle the work.
So as a comparitive matter, yes, VM do always have to be pigs. There are many things SCI was still a pig at, of course, things it wasn't optimized for. That's the thing. VMs can be good, and not-piggy when they are special purpose languages, when the problems they all have can be solved by proper understanding of a specific problem frame that they intended to work within.
Java Servlets, for example, is an idiom in which use of Java is efficient, and an good argument can be had for all of Java's benefits, even WORA. You keep a VM up, you send applets to it.
In fact, there are a lot of distributed computing environments, which central servers dole out java code and use them as a plug-in language, in which Java will likely survive as by far the best solution.
Stand-alone applications and servers? I'm not convinced.
but his point was about the popular national vote, the fact that it came down to a few dimpled votes in florida is the point! The nationwide margin was in the six figures, in Gore's favor.
One can take either of two views, that the system DEFINES justice, or it's trying to ACHIEVE justive.
If one takes the latter view, then one can talk about winning with respect to the justice that is the goal.
It's that way everywhere. Over the years us old timers could go into arcades and still find Joust and Tempest, but those machines must have finally begun to expire, as it's far less common to find them even in the corner of the arcade where 1/2 the machines are broken...:(
I feel just like you about violent games. The place for violence is the real world dammit!!! Not the hallowed halls of interactive imagination.
I don't think it's changed forever, however, these kind of games really seem overtipped. That is... the real mass market for video games has not been tapped. This is a barrier. The mass market doesn't want 90% exploding blood games, they want it to be 60% or some other still-to-high-but-less-complete-number. The mainstream megastar video games are not violent. I'm not going by sales numbers... I'm talking about games that became cultural phenomenon, more or less celebrated universally, like Pac-Man and Tetris.
Sort of breakthrough games. A game like GTA3 is number one because there is a huge number of the game market that will respond to violence pretending because that market has become selected for that. A ubiquitous hit like GTA3 will be huge, because video games are currently a big thing, it's true, but that in itself doesn't indicate the true mass market. Media like movies and TV serve this wider market. And though violence is still clearly pre-eminant, it's no where near the whole monopoly.
The other reason is more mundane. It's easier to make this kind of game. It's nothing but an old platform game, rewards, bullets, monsters, boss. All the hard stuff is in the 3D immersive technology. (The cleverest developers are being kept busy and happy occupied with fog and lighting and other neat stuff. When/if they finish their 3D research, then they may branch out again).
Games that capture interest with such simple things are difficult. If you could generate interactive plot with the quality of a movie (not graphically, just plot wise), then you would see more of that. But with the very simple rule base we have available, it's difficult to make an interesting game. Most abstract games with simple rules don't end up as captivating as tetris or even pac-man. BUT: something trying to get you, and you trying to get it... that works with very simple game principles. Add this stunning 3D r&d that's going on and you have a formula for success, and of course, such a formula is the only goal of the corporate game world, and it's compared not to creative success, but just to success against the corporate competition. (i.e. they are in a rut called "the sure thing" (which humorously enough is far from a sure thing **cough**Daikatana**couph**)
What is needed is a break through in game rules. It's related to the recent/. article about game AI research. But that implies you need complex rules. I don't believe so (btw, I'm backing up all this hot air with the fact that I worked for in the game industry for 9 years, working in networked games). What is needed is good reuseable simple rules. Some simple sets of rules can be captivating, and such rules are generally reuseable.
Think about box and board games... like say "party games" like taboo, or trivial pursuit that are popular among non-gamer types, rely on simple rules, and notice that many of the rules involved are not yet exploited by computer games, usually because the technological solution hasn't been figured out.
A simple game like Monopoly relies on a huge non-computable advantage: You may make deals with other players. You can change the rules themselves in this process. This flexibility makes Monopoly more than what it's computer versions can be. You could do it, but you would have to produce a game that has a far more flexible idea about how game rules are implimented. And if you just went off and did this now, you would end up with a game that was too complicated for most people to run, a Monopoly Toolkit requiring burdensome customization and a built in scripting language. Some simplifying breakthrough in logic, how we think, is needed. Some insight in using discrete methods to produce organic conceptual content (aka "plot" or "content", or my favorite, "feature").
Computers promised to help do all the tedious math of Tabletop Role Playing Games and bring them to the masses. If they were easier to play, we figure people would love them, they love role playing. They role play in their imagination when they watch movies. But not yet. Such progress has been hampered by the failed attempt to replace the human "Dungeon Master".
Holy hell that was long... when was I going to shut up?
cheers.
PS: btw, have you noticed in arcades now there is one growing ubiquity that isn't violent, those Dance Dance Revolution games and their knockoffs? You and I are not the only ones wandering by hoping for something different.
I used a minimal definition leaving open a more particular definition. But I think so far I stick by the simple definition. As far as I know those types of advertising you mention are all spam.
Solicited advertising: T-shirts with a logo you paid for, free t-shirts with a logo, all the junk you get on the floor of a convention center, the pages one reads if one goes to a companies site, like apple.com.
But from what I hear, the Tivo adverts may be more like a free t-shirt than spam, and the difference would have to be, spam is interstitial, it interrupts content you actually want. (?)
Slashdot Mirror
Zarathustra...
is that you?
>>Thats not meaning. Thats an insult. Life is not meant to worship. Thats was Roman emperors wanted. That is a life for slaves.
>It was a result of christianity that slavery was abolished (admittedly not completed even today). Your argument is empty. Christianity was rejected and illegal by the Romans well before it was the state religion. Nero the emperor used to burn Christians alive and kill them. This is definately not a religion created by any government as a tool, either by the Roman empire or the Jews who wanted to overthrow the Romans.
it was embrace and extend, jujistu, there were a lot of splintered small groups. The spirit was coopted and particular sects chosen to work through.
Isn't it odd that Paul, founder of The Church was originally a persecutor of Christians? He was not a disciple of Christ while Christ lived, iirc.
On the other hand Christ himself seems to have been a brilliant philosopher with a message as of yet still not listened too on Earth.
what you say isn't true of XML. If you are complaining about the mess of XML based markup lang,uages... that's the point of XML, to support development of markup-languages, those are applications of XML to various domains... and they are not a part of XML itself any more than MS Word is a part of C++ (in which it is written).
I think it's "nine is prime enough for practical matters".
commercial software development is developing a tool that you sell, so if you buy, your customer can certainly also buy, there is no automatic advantage.
To achieve what you mention, you need to hire software engineers and undergo custom development. OSS actually strengthens this part of the industry, while potentially weakening the "shrink-wrap" part of the industry.
evidently you don't know what Microsoft has done.
You don't know.
You need to find out.
And I don't think we owe Microsoft anything... I don't think there is a single product of theres that would not have been created by other companies. There is no example, I think, that you can come up with where Microsoft's unique invovlement has led to what we have today.
Microsoft owes it's success to us, the computer industry, not the other way around. Their cavalier, "we are the end all be all, the everything" has earned them well deserved disrespect.
", he said, whispering calmly into the storm.
What you have said is The Point.
>But on a more personal note, I think publishing journals is kind of dumb, because for the most part the average person has nothing interesting to say.
of interest to you, maybe.
but in the wide wide world of 6 billion people, if your idea is only of interest to one in a million, there are 6000 interested people out there.
More importantly there are larger groups not being spoken to. More importantly still, how are you supposed to know who has something truly interesting to say other than by encouraging people to speak up?
I'm convinced the sandbox is an excellent isolation environment. However, I think the same thing is possible with traditional compiled languages eventually, it requires a uniformity that is easier simulated for now in a virtual architecture.
And we are only really talking about taking arbitrary code and running it... something common on the client side, perhaps, but on the server side, and the enterprise systems, the code you run is in no way arbitrary. There is no doubt it can be made securely in that sense of the term "secure".
if it's a contest between Java and Solaris, and for Java to be perfect I have to think Solaris is buggy, then I still don't think of Solaris as buggy.
>Listing off the memory footprint of various "demo" applications. The "Hello World" reference gives this away as totally bogus. Anyone who's used Java knows about its memory consumption. From day one people understand that it is not recommended for smaller applications.
I thought Java was for small applications called applets and servlets?
of course it can make a good movie, after all, it's really just a love story.
just a little joke there. very little.
sloppy adaptations are how myth and legend come to be, after generations and generations of adaptations.
these are not the last movies that will be created from Lord Of The Rings, in other words. There are many more to come and none will actually capture the original work, in themselves, that will motivate more to try, and the whole set of them, together, start to resemble the world tapped into by the original.
because then it could be possible to be an individual in a world where obviously individuality should not play a role?
they do! here is why.
Basically, they can, at best, hope to assymptotically approach the performance of traditional compiled code, so they will always be worse in performance, all other things being equal.
Furthermore the technique by which VMs get fast is cheating the question... that is, it's to optimize bottleneck operations by coding them in a regular compiled language.
Example: years back I worked in SCI, Sierra-Online's language for making the old interactive fiction games, like Space Quest. It ran pretty fast even though it did complex (for the time) graphical applications. Well, this was, of course, because the graphical operations were optimized. You feel like you are programming this graphical operation in SCI, but the reality is that the intense part is executed in sizeable chunks of C code. Essentially you just inform the underlying C/C++ (etc.) program of what you the VM based program want, and it's handed off to a program that can actually handle the work.
So as a comparitive matter, yes, VM do always have to be pigs. There are many things SCI was still a pig at, of course, things it wasn't optimized for. That's the thing. VMs can be good, and not-piggy when they are special purpose languages, when the problems they all have can be solved by proper understanding of a specific problem frame that they intended to work within.
Java Servlets, for example, is an idiom in which use of Java is efficient, and an good argument can be had for all of Java's benefits, even WORA. You keep a VM up, you send applets to it.
In fact, there are a lot of distributed computing environments, which central servers dole out java code and use them as a plug-in language, in which Java will likely survive as by far the best solution.
Stand-alone applications and servers? I'm not convinced.
I asked this of a poster above, what is the problem loading classes dynamically in the compiled version?
other compiled languages can dynamically load and link to code in separate modules.
What is the problem in compiled-java's case?
i don't get this.
one can easily dynamically load code, and that can be a class, in compiled languages.
In other words, "C++ already does this, though it's hard to remember for sure".
but his point was about the popular national vote, the fact that it came down to a few dimpled votes in florida is the point! The nationwide margin was in the six figures, in Gore's favor.
One can take either of two views, that the system DEFINES justice, or it's trying to ACHIEVE justive.
If one takes the latter view, then one can talk about winning with respect to the justice that is the goal.
It's that way everywhere. Over the years us old timers could go into arcades and still find Joust and Tempest, but those machines must have finally begun to expire, as it's far less common to find them even in the corner of the arcade where 1/2 the machines are broken... :(
/. article about game AI research. But that implies you need complex rules. I don't believe so (btw, I'm backing up all this hot air with the fact that I worked for in the game industry for 9 years, working in networked games). What is needed is good reuseable simple rules. Some simple sets of rules can be captivating, and such rules are generally reuseable.
I feel just like you about violent games. The place for violence is the real world dammit!!! Not the hallowed halls of interactive imagination.
I don't think it's changed forever, however, these kind of games really seem overtipped. That is... the real mass market for video games has not been tapped. This is a barrier. The mass market doesn't want 90% exploding blood games, they want it to be 60% or some other still-to-high-but-less-complete-number. The mainstream megastar video games are not violent. I'm not going by sales numbers... I'm talking about games that became cultural phenomenon, more or less celebrated universally, like Pac-Man and Tetris.
Sort of breakthrough games. A game like GTA3 is number one because there is a huge number of the game market that will respond to violence pretending because that market has become selected for that. A ubiquitous hit like GTA3 will be huge, because video games are currently a big thing, it's true, but that in itself doesn't indicate the true mass market. Media like movies and TV serve this wider market. And though violence is still clearly pre-eminant, it's no where near the whole monopoly.
The other reason is more mundane. It's easier to make this kind of game. It's nothing but an old platform game, rewards, bullets, monsters, boss. All the hard stuff is in the 3D immersive technology. (The cleverest developers are being kept busy and happy occupied with fog and lighting and other neat stuff. When/if they finish their 3D research, then they may branch out again).
Games that capture interest with such simple things are difficult. If you could generate interactive plot with the quality of a movie (not graphically, just plot wise), then you would see more of that. But with the very simple rule base we have available, it's difficult to make an interesting game. Most abstract games with simple rules don't end up as captivating as tetris or even pac-man. BUT: something trying to get you, and you trying to get it... that works with very simple game principles. Add this stunning 3D r&d that's going on and you have a formula for success, and of course, such a formula is the only goal of the corporate game world, and it's compared not to creative success, but just to success against the corporate competition. (i.e. they are in a rut called "the sure thing" (which humorously enough is far from a sure thing **cough**Daikatana**couph**)
What is needed is a break through in game rules. It's related to the recent
Think about box and board games... like say "party games" like taboo, or trivial pursuit that are popular among non-gamer types, rely on simple rules, and notice that many of the rules involved are not yet exploited by computer games, usually because the technological solution hasn't been figured out.
A simple game like Monopoly relies on a huge non-computable advantage: You may make deals with other players. You can change the rules themselves in this process. This flexibility makes Monopoly more than what it's computer versions can be. You could do it, but you would have to produce a game that has a far more flexible idea about how game rules are implimented. And if you just went off and did this now, you would end up with a game that was too complicated for most people to run, a Monopoly Toolkit requiring burdensome customization and a built in scripting language. Some simplifying breakthrough in logic, how we think, is needed. Some insight in using discrete methods to produce organic conceptual content (aka "plot" or "content", or my favorite, "feature").
Computers promised to help do all the tedious math of Tabletop Role Playing Games and bring them to the masses. If they were easier to play, we figure people would love them, they love role playing. They role play in their imagination when they watch movies. But not yet. Such progress has been hampered by the failed attempt to replace the human "Dungeon Master".
Holy hell that was long... when was I going to shut up?
cheers.
PS: btw, have you noticed in arcades now there is one growing ubiquity that isn't violent, those Dance Dance Revolution games and their knockoffs? You and I are not the only ones wandering by hoping for something different.
he can't, he was busy working from home last night.
It must be nice to not need a resume.
yike! good point. I was thinking only of the guy wearing the shirt.
For you the innocent victim... I guess it would be spam by that definition.
I used a minimal definition leaving open a more particular definition. But I think so far I stick by the simple definition. As far as I know those types of advertising you mention are all spam.
Solicited advertising: T-shirts with a logo you paid for, free t-shirts with a logo, all the junk you get on the floor of a convention center, the pages one reads if one goes to a companies site, like apple.com.
But from what I hear, the Tivo adverts may be more like a free t-shirt than spam, and the difference would have to be, spam is interstitial, it interrupts content you actually want. (?)
spam is unsolicited advertising... are you trying to say this is solicited advertising?
I'm not really trying to convince you otherwise, I'm wondering what your defintion of "actual" spam is.