Of course this isn't so good for real time comms. And the more layers you add, the less easily you're able to get at your data. (unless you're only using one passphrase for eveything which can then be cracked...)
areas produce reources which are not limited (in that my getting resources does not prevent you from getting resources).
Actually, in Settlers of Catan, players can hoard resources (even though there are mechanisms in place to prevent this from being abused) so that even if you are entitled a resource, you may not be able to collect it.
Also, there are a finite number of the special cards, as well as there being only one each of the "largest army" and "longest roads" cards. The "zero-sum"-ness of a game is hard to pin down if there are a lot of factors to consider.
Okay, your replies are well advised - but Perl and BASIC have the advantage of being fairly static (ahem wrt Perl) and easy to parse - in the sense that if you give a computer with an interpreter/compiler (yes, another program) a syntactically valid Perl/BASIC program, it should function with very high probability (unless the compiler's broken.)
Now take a spoken language; (yes, this is going to be a different argument with little bearing on the previous post...) it's not well-defined what writing a compiler/interpreter that will act meaningfully on *any* syntactically valid English statements. Where by meaningful, I mean even a program that would print "accept" for valid sentences and "reject" for invalid ones. Spoken language is (mostly) less static than (currently) machine-readable language.... and... err... more ambiguous...
On further reflection though, I guess it just won't be long until English is source. Ah well. Then we'll need the "Talking to your Computer for Dummies(TM)" series of books.
Although a very good brief in whole, one part that strikes me as "suspect" is that dealing with the concept of "English as source."
If a machine takes speech (or even textual English for instance) as input then processes that data, the machine isn't running object code derived from human language... it's data processing, based on some other code the machine happens to be running.
Slashdot Mirror
Shades of "In Living Color"!
"99 cent!? Good Lord, that's a lot of money... how about I give you a nickel and I get the guitar solo?"
...or, you have it solve a problem in NP, for
which the answer isn't known but can be confirmed in polynomial time.
Is there anything Amazon isn't going for a patent on?
Relevant documentation here and here.
Of course this isn't so good for real time comms. And the more layers you add, the less easily you're able to get at your data. (unless you're only using one passphrase for eveything which can then be cracked...)
areas produce reources which are not limited (in that my getting resources does not prevent you from getting resources).
Actually, in Settlers of Catan, players can hoard resources (even though there are mechanisms in place to prevent this from being abused) so that even if you are entitled a resource, you may not be able to collect it.
Also, there are a finite number of the special cards, as well as there being only one each of the "largest army" and "longest roads" cards. The "zero-sum"-ness of a game is hard to pin down if there are a lot of factors to consider.
Okay, your replies are well advised - but Perl and BASIC have the advantage of being fairly static (ahem wrt Perl) and easy to parse - in the sense that if you give a computer with an interpreter/compiler (yes, another program) a syntactically valid Perl/BASIC program, it should function with very high probability (unless the compiler's broken.)
Now take a spoken language; (yes, this is going to be a different argument with little bearing on the previous post...) it's not well-defined what writing a compiler/interpreter that will act meaningfully on *any* syntactically valid English statements. Where by meaningful, I mean even a program that would print "accept" for valid sentences and "reject" for invalid ones. Spoken language is (mostly) less static than (currently) machine-readable language.... and... err... more ambiguous...
On further reflection though, I guess it just won't be long until English is source. Ah well. Then we'll need the "Talking to your Computer for Dummies(TM)" series of books.
Although a very good brief in whole, one part that strikes me as "suspect" is that dealing with the concept of "English as source."
If a machine takes speech (or even textual English for instance) as input then processes that data, the machine isn't running object code derived from human language... it's data processing, based on some other code the machine happens to be running.