I had an old game (magic the gathering) that ran on Win 98. I had problems running it on win 2k mainly due to the fact it would run too fast and was unplayable. I heard running in under 98 made it run the proper speed so I setup a Win 98 VMWARE instance to play it. As the others replying have said, you can forget running anything that requires 3d. It makes a great sandbox to test other stuff in though.
Re:Maybe it's because of poor quality.
on
Palm's Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Tungsten C here. After about 4 months the keyboard broke. About 6 keys just stopped working. Got a replacement. So far so good, but the digitizer is slightly off. Recalibrate makes you tap upper left, center, and lower right. Those areas are ok but the lower left of my screen is off by a millimeter or so. I wish there was a recalibrate that did all screen areas.
I also had a Palm V several years ago, which died, was replaced, and died again.
Clearly you haven't written 'quite a bit of LISP', you just find Lisp advocates annoying. You probably gave it a cursory examination, decided it looked too weird, or too hard to get your brain around, and therefore is no good. But you still have to deal with those occasional annoying Lisp zealots, and the nagging worry they might be right.
The particle appears from nothing along with its antiparticle. The two immediately annihilate each other. Now what part of "something coming from nothing" don't you get?
We are getting bogged down in the mushiness of what it means to design something. Yes the GA is designed, the parameters are all chosen etc.
The GA then finds the target algorithm on its own by examining thousands of mutations and keeping best results. Over time the mutations accumulate and a good algorithm emerges. The target algorithm is never explicitly designed although the machinery which made it was.
Perhaps "ultimately" the system as a whole is designed but I'm talking specifically about the target algorithm.
It is irrelevant that the environment is designed. The question is can the GA design something. If you think that the GA is merely filtering existing information then you don't understand GA. You don't start with all algorithms and filter out the bad ones. You mutate the algorithm and filter out bad results. The mutations produce random new (but similar) algorithms.
This is the life raft you cling to in an ocean of scientific evidence supporting evolution? "you can't explain how matter was formed" ???
All creationists (er IDers) can come up with is "we don't understand it, god musta done it". It's primitive thinking and its pathetic.
And you're still left with the question: where did god come from?
arguments from complexity are similar: such and such feature is too complex, it must have been designed. How about an entity that could design such a feature? It would have to be orders of magnitude more complex. You just multiplied the problem by introducing even more complexity to explain.
Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that your superhuman reading skillz were BECAUSE of all that busywork rather than IN SPITE of it? How do you know that work was useless?
Artificial senses could easily be integrated into the experience. What, you think you actually smell that woman? Everything in your brain is represented symbolically, including sensory information. Think about a brain surgeon stimulating parts of a brain on a patient who is awake. He is activating symbols.
Re:As Usual, The Metaphysical Problem is Glossed O
on
Download Your Brain
·
· Score: 1
Suppose you were created this morning with a head full of false memories. Would you be able to tell? How do you know you are the same person who fell asleep in your bed last night?
Would waking up from sleeping all night and waking up from having just been created 'feel' any different? If not, then from the standpoint of YOU at the moment you wake up would it in fact *be* any different?
Your point is right. This is not immortality, it's replication. You don't wake up in the computer, someone who remembers being you does. But that's not necessarily differently from waking up every morning. Is it?
How do you know that your mind is not subject to the Incompleteness Theorem?
There are states in your mind that are 'unreachable' during normal operation. Much like a true statement that cannot be reached by applying the theorems of a formal system. (these mental states are thus "true but unprovable"). Taking drugs (going outside the system) allows you to reach these states.
No, light still hits you from behind at light speed. This is what relativity is all about, and why it is hard to get your brain around it.
Re:Exceptions. Big deal. Just glorified gotos.
on
Practical Common Lisp
·
· Score: 1
What the hell are you talking about? You clearly have no knowledge of how exceptions/conditions are handled in Common Lisp. Possibly any other language either.
Re:Exceptions. Big deal. Just glorified gotos.
on
Practical Common Lisp
·
· Score: 1
Are you saying that robust exception handling is a bad thing?? I hope not.
Errors cause the flow of control to go wrong, exception handling lets you manage this.
Slashdot Mirror
I had an old game (magic the gathering) that ran on Win 98. I had problems running it on win 2k mainly due to the fact it would run too fast and was unplayable. I heard running in under 98 made it run the proper speed so I setup a Win 98 VMWARE instance to play it. As the others replying have said, you can forget running anything that requires 3d. It makes a great sandbox to test other stuff in though.
Some, not all of the power of Lisp.
Tungsten C here. After about 4 months the keyboard broke. About 6 keys just stopped working. Got a replacement. So far so good, but the digitizer is slightly off. Recalibrate makes you tap upper left, center, and lower right. Those areas are ok but the lower left of my screen is off by a millimeter or so. I wish there was a recalibrate that did all screen areas.
I also had a Palm V several years ago, which died, was replaced, and died again.
This Tungsten C will be my last Palm product.
14757 is obviously new here..
Clearly you haven't written 'quite a bit of LISP', you just find Lisp advocates annoying. You probably gave it a cursory examination, decided it looked too weird, or too hard to get your brain around, and therefore is no good. But you still have to deal with those occasional annoying Lisp zealots, and the nagging worry they might be right.
<tag2>
some data
</tag1>
</tag2> ; OOPS
(tag1 (tag2 some data))
I'll take the second one thanks. My editor can show me which closing paren corresponds to which opening one.
The particle appears from nothing along with its antiparticle. The two immediately annihilate each other. Now what part of "something coming from nothing" don't you get?
Nothing in, two particles out.
We are getting bogged down in the mushiness of what it means to design something. Yes the GA is designed, the parameters are all chosen etc.
The GA then finds the target algorithm on its own by examining thousands of mutations and keeping best results. Over time the mutations accumulate and a good algorithm emerges. The target algorithm is never explicitly designed although the machinery which made it was.
Perhaps "ultimately" the system as a whole is designed but I'm talking specifically about the target algorithm.
It is irrelevant that the environment is designed. The question is can the GA design something. If you think that the GA is merely filtering existing information then you don't understand GA. You don't start with all algorithms and filter out the bad ones. You mutate the algorithm and filter out bad results. The mutations produce random new (but similar) algorithms.
everything you need to know is at talkorigins.org
They did, but they're called horses, and we mostly stopped using them when we invented superior mechanical cars.
That is absolutely not true. We can use the principles of natural selection to design many things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
stuff comes from nothing all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuation
This is the life raft you cling to in an ocean of scientific evidence supporting evolution? "you can't explain how matter was formed" ???
All creationists (er IDers) can come up with is "we don't understand it, god musta done it". It's primitive thinking and its pathetic.
And you're still left with the question: where did god come from?
arguments from complexity are similar: such and such feature is too complex, it must have been designed. How about an entity that could design such a feature? It would have to be orders of magnitude more complex. You just multiplied the problem by introducing even more complexity to explain.
Upsi-dasium is from Rocky and Bullwinkle, MST3K must have borrowed it from there.
Not to mention that ethanol still produces CO and CO2, contributing to global warming.
No, it merely releases the CO2 that was recently removed from the atmosphere when the corn grew. There is no net increase of CO2.
Its not the same as burning fossil fuels, which releases CO2 that was taken from the atmosphere millions of years ago.
You can switch Opera tabs using the '1' and '2' keys. Just keep your fingers on those keys all the time.
I believe the coal contains trace amounts of radioactive elements, which are released into the atmosphere when it is burned.
Just google nukeular er nuclear vs. coal or something like that.
Agree. It's only a toy if it doesn't support subqueries. Insert coin.
Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that your superhuman reading skillz were BECAUSE of all that busywork rather than IN SPITE of it? How do you know that work was useless?
Artificial senses could easily be integrated into the experience. What, you think you actually smell that woman? Everything in your brain is represented symbolically, including sensory information. Think about a brain surgeon stimulating parts of a brain on a patient who is awake. He is activating symbols.
Suppose you were created this morning with a head full of false memories. Would you be able to tell? How do you know you are the same person who fell asleep in your bed last night?
Would waking up from sleeping all night and waking up from having just been created 'feel' any different? If not, then from the standpoint of YOU at the moment you wake up would it in fact *be* any different?
Your point is right. This is not immortality, it's replication. You don't wake up in the computer, someone who remembers being you does. But that's not necessarily differently from waking up every morning. Is it?
How do you know that your mind is not subject to the Incompleteness Theorem?
There are states in your mind that are 'unreachable' during normal operation. Much like a true statement that cannot be reached by applying the theorems of a formal system. (these mental states are thus "true but unprovable"). Taking drugs (going outside the system) allows you to reach these states.
No, light still hits you from behind at light speed. This is what relativity is all about, and why it is hard to get your brain around it.
What the hell are you talking about? You clearly have no knowledge of how exceptions/conditions are handled in Common Lisp. Possibly any other language either.
Are you saying that robust exception handling is a bad thing?? I hope not.
Errors cause the flow of control to go wrong, exception handling lets you manage this.