Oops, sorry. I can read, though my original post wouldn't show that.. Let me toss some more numbers here, hopefully ones that aren't listed in the original post..
From 5406 => 5909 MPH is a change of 503 MPH, or ~738 FPS. Doing this in.03 seconds gives an acceleration of 24,591 FPS^2. Dividing by 32 FPS^2 (the force of gravity) gives an average acceleration of 768.5 Gs over the flight of the scramjet. Not that anyone else couldn't figure this out, I just figured I'd do the calculation for you, and maybe make up for my earlier post...
According to the article, the scramjet projectile was fired from a cannon at ~5400 MPH. From what I can gather, that much was done without any power from the scramjet system. At that initial velocity, 5400 MPH = 7920 FPS, it would cover the 260 feet in ~30 milliseconds, the total flight time of the projectile, according to the article. I'm not going to do the physics calculations, but I'm going to assume that in.03 seconds, wind resistance isn't going to have much affect on the velocity of the projectile, so what did the scramjet do?
Of course Intel is going to tell computer manufacturers not to use the other guy's chipset. And the reason? Not because it isn't compatible, or isn't as fast as the Intel alternative, but because Intel will sue them if they do. Because Intel can't/won't put out a chipset that people want to use (only offering RDRAM or old and slow PC133), they sure as hell don't want someone else doing it. With how poorly the P4 is doing, however, you'd think Intel would be happy to have something out there to move more chips..
Stepping aside from the personal issues which plague all questions of "which (insert technology here) should I use?", the best answer is to use what best fits the problem.
First, to answer the person/people who said that assembly should be the first language taught, that's about the craziest thing I've ever heard. There's no doubt that understanding what a computer does at a low level can helps you program in a more informed manner, but the basic concepts of programming (variables, control structures, etc) are not best taught in an environment that makes them incredibly challenging. This is why pascal was such a popular language for so long - it taught the basics without overloading the beginning programmer with excessive details.It wasn't popular because it was a great language for creating business applications in (although you could inline assembly in Borland's Turbo Pascall), but it was wonderful for getting people to the stages where they could develop such applications in other languages.
This is the same reason that Java is a good choice for teaching OOP design. No one that knows Java can argue it doesn't implement virtually all object-oriented design elements. The syntax is virtually identical to C++ (although I'm not sure why they took out the enumerated type), so you can't argue that it's a particularly bad style of language (unless you don't like c++..) The argument that it's slow goes back to the reason that pascal is/was a great teaching language. It doesn't matter how fast/slow an application runs in a teaching language (although it does say something about using it in mission critical applications.. something that I just don't understand why people would choose Java for). Also, as a plus for Java, there are free (notice the lower case.. free as in beer) SDK and IDE implementations for virtually all platforms. This means students can have easy and inexpensive access to development tools on their home boxes and school can spend the money they would have spent on MSVC++ licenses (or whatever other language they were using) on other things to make their department/school a better place.
--XaXXon
Stepping aside from the personal issues which plague all questions of "which (insert technology here) should I use?", the best answer is to use what best fits the problem.
First, to answer the person/people who said that assembly should be the first language taught, that's about the craziest thing I've ever heard. There's no doubt that understanding what a computer does at a low level can helps you program in a more informed manner, but the basic concepts of programming (variables, control structures, etc) are not best taught in an environment that makes them incredibly challenging. This is why pascal was such a popular language for so long - it taught the basics without overloading the beginning programmer with excessive details.It wasn't popular because it was a great language for creating business applications in (although you could inline assembly in Borland's Turbo Pascall), but it was wonderful for getting people to the stages where they could develop such applications in other languages.
This is the same reason that Java is a good choice for teaching OOP design. No one that knows Java can argue it doesn't implement virtually all object-oriented design elements. The syntax is virtually identical to C++ (although I'm not sure why they took out the enumerated type), so you can't argue that it's a particularly bad style of language (unless you don't like c++..) The argument that it's slow goes back to the reason that pascal is/was a great teaching language. It doesn't matter how fast/slow an application runs in a teaching language (although it does say something about using it in mission critical applications.. something that I just don't understand why people would choose Java for). Also, as a plus for Java, there are free (notice the lower case.. free as in beer) SDK and IDE implementations for virtually all platforms. This means students can have easy and inexpensive access to development tools on their home boxes and school can spend the money they would have spent on MSVC++ licenses (or whatever other language they were using) on other things to make their department/school a better place.
--XaXXon
The problem here is that the best/worst cheats are the ones that are the least noticable. When you make the aimbot so it makes you 10% more accurate, or a lighting change that makes people visible (and easier to shoot) in dark areas, these are the types of changes that are very hard to protect against and are made significantly easier with the source code sitting right in front of you.. These are the problems/dilemas I face when trying to determine whether or not to release the source to my current endeavour or not..
What I think I'd really like is a system to make the client prove itself.. but how do you do that in a way that you can't just hard-code in the answers?
But if the "enemy" has the source available to them, all they have to do is compute what the checksum should be, hard code that in to where you send that checksum to the server, and *poof* they're in..
Not to go too far on a tangent, but while reading some other comments, it begs the question, "How do you keep an open source game secure?" I've been working on a real-time, multiplayer and have been trying to figure out how to work the network protocol to be secure enough to stop people from cheating. This is hard enough when the "bad people" have to snoop through binary packets to determine what is being sent, but when they have the actual code, it becomes trivial. The argument that came to mind after that was, "If you release the source, then there will be people to help you find and fix those bugs." Call be cynical, but I'm thinking there'll be more people looking to exploit the bugs than fix them.
I wonder if this was all caused by someone going up w/ a bad case of athlete's foot.. or maybe a funky fingernail disease. Someone shoot up a bottle of *BOOM* Tough Actin' Tinactin(tm)
Ya know.. sometimes I wish one of these "impending disasters" would just happen so there wouldn't be any more impending disasters. Y2K.. nothing, had to listen to the media go off about how they saved us from doom by reporting on all the problems (over and over again for a year and a half), or the meteor that was going to hit us 6 months ago (that is actually off by a few million miles (MCI math?)). I'm sick of all the hype and let down. JUST DO IT AND GET IT OVER WITH!
Good for her that she has a clue about how the music industry works (unlike some people from Metallia.) I've never understood how bands could support the RIAA knowing how much money the RIAA gets and how little the bands get. I'm thinking Dr Dre and Metallica were paid by the RIAA to pretend like they don't like MP3 stuff.
From what I've seen from the sony memory stick stuff, they don't charge you so much for the player (like the razor), but when you want to make it useful with multiple memory sticks (new razors), THEN they get you for the money..
Can anyone say "The Matrix".. stuff like this is cool, but if the machines get smart enough to make even a slightly smarter machine.. and that computer can make a slightly smarter machine..
And what if they go open source...?
I just want to laugh at you.. first post?? try fifth post.. whatta moron
No console competes with the genre of games for PC
on
Salon on the XBox
·
· Score: 1
No console can really compete with the games for a PC. Plots for console games are normally shallow, with limited forms of input (no keyboard/mouse), and with high speed Internet not available on console boxes, there simply are not the quality indepth and massively multiplayer games for consoles that make PC games so popular
I'm going to miss the famous r2d2 waddle when he tries to walk.. and we all saw what happened when they introduced jar jar as a CGI character... sigh.. george lucas, what have you done?
Katz yet again states the blatently obvious..
on
The New Mediascape
·
· Score: 1
People will always entertainment.. before television there was radio. People will always go for the newest thing to keep themselves entertained..
Thanks for the scientific breakthrough, Dr Katz, PhD...
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, sorry. I can read, though my original post wouldn't show that.. Let me toss some more numbers here, hopefully ones that aren't listed in the original post..
.03 seconds gives an acceleration of 24,591 FPS^2. Dividing by 32 FPS^2 (the force of gravity) gives an average acceleration of 768.5 Gs over the flight of the scramjet. Not that anyone else couldn't figure this out, I just figured I'd do the calculation for you, and maybe make up for my earlier post...
From 5406 => 5909 MPH is a change of 503 MPH, or ~738 FPS. Doing this in
According to the article, the scramjet projectile was fired from a cannon at ~5400 MPH. From what I can gather, that much was done without any power from the scramjet system. At that initial velocity, 5400 MPH = 7920 FPS, it would cover the 260 feet in ~30 milliseconds, the total flight time of the projectile, according to the article. I'm not going to do the physics calculations, but I'm going to assume that in .03 seconds, wind resistance isn't going to have much affect on the velocity of the projectile, so what did the scramjet do?
Of course Intel is going to tell computer manufacturers not to use the other guy's chipset. And the reason? Not because it isn't compatible, or isn't as fast as the Intel alternative, but because Intel will sue them if they do. Because Intel can't/won't put out a chipset that people want to use (only offering RDRAM or old and slow PC133), they sure as hell don't want someone else doing it. With how poorly the P4 is doing, however, you'd think Intel would be happy to have something out there to move more chips..
Stepping aside from the personal issues which plague all questions of "which (insert technology here) should I use?", the best answer is to use what best fits the problem. First, to answer the person/people who said that assembly should be the first language taught, that's about the craziest thing I've ever heard. There's no doubt that understanding what a computer does at a low level can helps you program in a more informed manner, but the basic concepts of programming (variables, control structures, etc) are not best taught in an environment that makes them incredibly challenging. This is why pascal was such a popular language for so long - it taught the basics without overloading the beginning programmer with excessive details.It wasn't popular because it was a great language for creating business applications in (although you could inline assembly in Borland's Turbo Pascall), but it was wonderful for getting people to the stages where they could develop such applications in other languages. This is the same reason that Java is a good choice for teaching OOP design. No one that knows Java can argue it doesn't implement virtually all object-oriented design elements. The syntax is virtually identical to C++ (although I'm not sure why they took out the enumerated type), so you can't argue that it's a particularly bad style of language (unless you don't like c++..) The argument that it's slow goes back to the reason that pascal is/was a great teaching language. It doesn't matter how fast/slow an application runs in a teaching language (although it does say something about using it in mission critical applications.. something that I just don't understand why people would choose Java for). Also, as a plus for Java, there are free (notice the lower case.. free as in beer) SDK and IDE implementations for virtually all platforms. This means students can have easy and inexpensive access to development tools on their home boxes and school can spend the money they would have spent on MSVC++ licenses (or whatever other language they were using) on other things to make their department/school a better place. --XaXXon
Stepping aside from the personal issues which plague all questions of "which (insert technology here) should I use?", the best answer is to use what best fits the problem. First, to answer the person/people who said that assembly should be the first language taught, that's about the craziest thing I've ever heard. There's no doubt that understanding what a computer does at a low level can helps you program in a more informed manner, but the basic concepts of programming (variables, control structures, etc) are not best taught in an environment that makes them incredibly challenging. This is why pascal was such a popular language for so long - it taught the basics without overloading the beginning programmer with excessive details.It wasn't popular because it was a great language for creating business applications in (although you could inline assembly in Borland's Turbo Pascall), but it was wonderful for getting people to the stages where they could develop such applications in other languages. This is the same reason that Java is a good choice for teaching OOP design. No one that knows Java can argue it doesn't implement virtually all object-oriented design elements. The syntax is virtually identical to C++ (although I'm not sure why they took out the enumerated type), so you can't argue that it's a particularly bad style of language (unless you don't like c++..) The argument that it's slow goes back to the reason that pascal is/was a great teaching language. It doesn't matter how fast/slow an application runs in a teaching language (although it does say something about using it in mission critical applications.. something that I just don't understand why people would choose Java for). Also, as a plus for Java, there are free (notice the lower case.. free as in beer) SDK and IDE implementations for virtually all platforms. This means students can have easy and inexpensive access to development tools on their home boxes and school can spend the money they would have spent on MSVC++ licenses (or whatever other language they were using) on other things to make their department/school a better place. --XaXXon
The problem here is that the best/worst cheats are the ones that are the least noticable. When you make the aimbot so it makes you 10% more accurate, or a lighting change that makes people visible (and easier to shoot) in dark areas, these are the types of changes that are very hard to protect against and are made significantly easier with the source code sitting right in front of you.. These are the problems/dilemas I face when trying to determine whether or not to release the source to my current endeavour or not.. What I think I'd really like is a system to make the client prove itself.. but how do you do that in a way that you can't just hard-code in the answers?
But if the "enemy" has the source available to them, all they have to do is compute what the checksum should be, hard code that in to where you send that checksum to the server, and *poof* they're in..
Not to go too far on a tangent, but while reading some other comments, it begs the question, "How do you keep an open source game secure?" I've been working on a real-time, multiplayer and have been trying to figure out how to work the network protocol to be secure enough to stop people from cheating. This is hard enough when the "bad people" have to snoop through binary packets to determine what is being sent, but when they have the actual code, it becomes trivial. The argument that came to mind after that was, "If you release the source, then there will be people to help you find and fix those bugs." Call be cynical, but I'm thinking there'll be more people looking to exploit the bugs than fix them.
I wonder if this was all caused by someone going up w/ a bad case of athlete's foot.. or maybe a funky fingernail disease. Someone shoot up a bottle of *BOOM* Tough Actin' Tinactin(tm)
Ya know.. sometimes I wish one of these "impending disasters" would just happen so there wouldn't be any more impending disasters. Y2K.. nothing, had to listen to the media go off about how they saved us from doom by reporting on all the problems (over and over again for a year and a half), or the meteor that was going to hit us 6 months ago (that is actually off by a few million miles (MCI math?)). I'm sick of all the hype and let down. JUST DO IT AND GET IT OVER WITH!
Good for her that she has a clue about how the music industry works (unlike some people from Metallia.) I've never understood how bands could support the RIAA knowing how much money the RIAA gets and how little the bands get. I'm thinking Dr Dre and Metallica were paid by the RIAA to pretend like they don't like MP3 stuff.
Just a little warning.. it appears that this link crashes netscape under linux (redhat 6.2)..
From what I've seen from the sony memory stick stuff, they don't charge you so much for the player (like the razor), but when you want to make it useful with multiple memory sticks (new razors), THEN they get you for the money..
Can anyone say "The Matrix".. stuff like this is cool, but if the machines get smart enough to make even a slightly smarter machine.. and that computer can make a slightly smarter machine.. And what if they go open source...?
I just want to laugh at you.. first post?? try fifth post.. whatta moron
No console can really compete with the games for a PC. Plots for console games are normally shallow, with limited forms of input (no keyboard/mouse), and with high speed Internet not available on console boxes, there simply are not the quality indepth and massively multiplayer games for consoles that make PC games so popular
I'm going to miss the famous r2d2 waddle when he tries to walk.. and we all saw what happened when they introduced jar jar as a CGI character... sigh.. george lucas, what have you done?
People will always entertainment.. before television there was radio. People will always go for the newest thing to keep themselves entertained.. Thanks for the scientific breakthrough, Dr Katz, PhD...