Chaplin began is career with gimmicky commedy. Haven't you seen his Tramp's early short movies? They are mostly based on slapstick. It wasn't until he began making long movies that his storytelling developed, and much the same can be said about long movies in general. So GP post describing the cinema scene as "years of news reports and gimmicky comedies" is accurate.
If your GUI requires you to associate application icons with complex technical commands in order to play smoothly, then something is very wrong with it.
Nice try, but you have missed this link with exactly the user friendly information that an ordinary computer user would need. Note that even if you don't know what an.iso is, you can request to have a printed CD delivered to your home.
I can show you animals and objects, and ask you about which one "has more soul". In the end I should be able to tell which of two beings you find have soul, and which haven't.
There are even programs that can control an object that people would say doesn't have soul (a group of metal pieces) and behave as one that some people would say it has soul (a robot)!!
But games have always been married to the hardware, and I don't see how that could change any time soon.
What makes you think functional programming can't be married to the hardware? In fact, multicore computers are better programed through functional languages than with the glorified Von-Neumann architecture that is C++.
Also, there is nothing keeping you from controlling memory allocation for textures & poligons by using a functional dedicated library.
Sorry you posted anonymous. I'd be interested about what you have to say about corporations and finance theory, and I'd like to add you to my friends list to read you often.
Come on moderators, how is parent "Flamebait"? I thought that label applied to name-calling or ad-hominem attacs, not to any opinion different to the mainstream.
If so, then also is perfectly possible to study the soul in a scientific way. The two concepts are strongly connected, and you can't provide a universal definition of neither one to which everyone will agree.
There is already an experimental search module that does what you describe - though it searched images in your hard drive only. I remeber seeing it advertised in/. a couple of years ago. Its accuracy leave something to be desired but it worked as proof of concept. The program was open source, I'm sure it'll still be available at freshmeat. Look for image galleries software, you'll find it there (I think it was either KMRML or imgSeek). Now it even has a web version.
Cars marketed to Europe do consume less fuel, even with all the airbags and electronic controllers. When the major maintenance cost is the power supply, efficiency is a priority. Moral of the story, American car market does not care about fuel consumption - until now they've had an unlimited cheap supply.
I prefer fast and lean binary encoding (with complete documentation of its structures)
You put that in parentheses as a secondary characteristic, but that's the very distinguishing reason why XML was invented. You're not supposed to need complete documentation for using a XML file format, they should mostly self-documenting - it was designed as a flexible format for interchange. Binary and XML are for different goals, you preferring one over the other is like saying that you prefer cars over railways because they're oh so easier to park in your garage.
Problem is not that XML is bloated, is that it's being used for something it was not intended. But thanks to its desirable property of having universal parsers now it's being used elsewhere. Before 1998 you'd have to build your own parsers for every file format using yacc or bison, today you can reuse code - even when it's not be the best solution. But you can't blame programmers for following the path of least resistance.
Yeah, but the principal thing I can't stand of command lines is that they're one-dimensional - you can't go back and start working on some data that was upstream on the text flow, you have to first copy that relevant information to the end of the window. The Archy environment is a good idea because it involves an interaction style very similar to that of command lines, but the entry point is wherever the cursor is, instead of on the last line. I see it as a "Command notebook".
Command-centered control is a good paradigm, but the command line is just not the best way to implement it.
Also note from your link that these newbies that I taught is that they were not in any way stupid or slow. Many of them had mastered complex technical jobs and excelled in their chosen field and that these people were baby sitted with a teacher guiding them over the shoulder ("A message of the day was set up informing the users", "Users were encouraged to maintain a list of interesting commands using the pico editor"...), not left alone to discover the possibilities of the computer. CLI is an awful paradigm for self-discovery.
CLI has been a successful paradigm over the years and there's no deny that it has powerful capabilities that we should be using in our current desktop+web metaphor. But offering it as a remedy for beginners is being blind to its many problems, specially in how it presents information for anything more complex than a single-task dialog-like interaction.
Yeah, it was awful. All the BSDs went away, and nobody used their code anymore.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring. How many of those projects are compiled with a BSD-licensed compiler, or use BSD-licensed version control? Those projects survive because they benefit from the comunity built around the stable GPL projects - otherwise it would have long died to the UNIX wars long ago. How many people were using OpenBSD before 1991?
Mac OS X is the best example - you only have access to the Darwin source because Apple decides to keep it public - they could take it away anytime they wanted. And you don't have access at all to the tightly integrated OS X desktop.
I don't deny that there are cases where MIT/BSD is the best license - just they're not the best when you expect to maintain in time a free, compatible core. If you don't mind your project becoming host of many independent proprietary vendors that publish modifications that you will not be able to integrate into the mainstream then yes, BSD is for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Chaplin began is career with gimmicky commedy. Haven't you seen his Tramp's early short movies? They are mostly based on slapstick. It wasn't until he began making long movies that his storytelling developed, and much the same can be said about long movies in general. So GP post describing the cinema scene as "years of news reports and gimmicky comedies" is accurate.
You can't do that in classic cinema. Why would you like to do it in 3D cinema?
... like this?
I thought that was Jeopardy?
If your GUI requires you to associate application icons with complex technical commands in order to play smoothly, then something is very wrong with it.
I wouldn't mind if ALL rootkit & DRM devices were thrown into the sun...
It gains security over just typing the password, and it gains speed about asking security questions each time you log in.
Nice try, but you have missed this link with exactly the user friendly information that an ordinary computer user would need. Note that even if you don't know what an .iso is, you can request to have a printed CD delivered to your home.
You can do that with souls, too!!!
I can show you animals and objects, and ask you about which one "has more soul". In the end I should be able to tell which of two beings you find have soul, and which haven't.
There are even programs that can control an object that people would say doesn't have soul (a group of metal pieces) and behave as one that some people would say it has soul (a robot)!!
But games have always been married to the hardware, and I don't see how that could change any time soon.
What makes you think functional programming can't be married to the hardware? In fact, multicore computers are better programed through functional languages than with the glorified Von-Neumann architecture that is C++.
Also, there is nothing keeping you from controlling memory allocation for textures & poligons by using a functional dedicated library.
News like this make you appreciate techniques like TrackMeNot.
Sorry you posted anonymous. I'd be interested about what you have to say about corporations and finance theory, and I'd like to add you to my friends list to read you often.
Come on moderators, how is parent "Flamebait"? I thought that label applied to name-calling or ad-hominem attacs, not to any opinion different to the mainstream.
Then why didn't you provide an example?
If so, then also is perfectly possible to study the soul in a scientific way. The two concepts are strongly connected, and you can't provide a universal definition of neither one to which everyone will agree.
So, what is the scientific definition of beauty? Or it doesn't exist?
I'm curious, how do you collect evidence against something that you can't define scientifically?
There is already an experimental search module that does what you describe - though it searched images in your hard drive only. I remeber seeing it advertised in /. a couple of years ago. Its accuracy leave something to be desired but it worked as proof of concept. The program was open source, I'm sure it'll still be available at freshmeat. Look for image galleries software, you'll find it there (I think it was either KMRML or imgSeek). Now it even has a web version.
Cars marketed to Europe do consume less fuel, even with all the airbags and electronic controllers. When the major maintenance cost is the power supply, efficiency is a priority. Moral of the story, American car market does not care about fuel consumption - until now they've had an unlimited cheap supply.
And Space Opera is a well stablished sub-genre of Science Fiction.
I prefer fast and lean binary encoding (with complete documentation of its structures)
You put that in parentheses as a secondary characteristic, but that's the very distinguishing reason why XML was invented. You're not supposed to need complete documentation for using a XML file format, they should mostly self-documenting - it was designed as a flexible format for interchange. Binary and XML are for different goals, you preferring one over the other is like saying that you prefer cars over railways because they're oh so easier to park in your garage.
Problem is not that XML is bloated, is that it's being used for something it was not intended. But thanks to its desirable property of having universal parsers now it's being used elsewhere. Before 1998 you'd have to build your own parsers for every file format using yacc or bison, today you can reuse code - even when it's not be the best solution. But you can't blame programmers for following the path of least resistance.
This is why I personally would prefer that everyone laugh at the PaintCo for assuming they'd agree to the ridiculous demands and just go buy Linux.
Yes, but does Linux run in wood fences?
Yeah, but the principal thing I can't stand of command lines is that they're one-dimensional - you can't go back and start working on some data that was upstream on the text flow, you have to first copy that relevant information to the end of the window. The Archy environment is a good idea because it involves an interaction style very similar to that of command lines, but the entry point is wherever the cursor is, instead of on the last line. I see it as a "Command notebook".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy
Command-centered control is a good paradigm, but the command line is just not the best way to implement it.
Also note from your link that these newbies that I taught is that they were not in any way stupid or slow. Many of them had mastered complex technical jobs and excelled in their chosen field and that these people were baby sitted with a teacher guiding them over the shoulder ("A message of the day was set up informing the users", "Users were encouraged to maintain a list of interesting commands using the pico editor"...), not left alone to discover the possibilities of the computer. CLI is an awful paradigm for self-discovery.
CLI has been a successful paradigm over the years and there's no deny that it has powerful capabilities that we should be using in our current desktop+web metaphor. But offering it as a remedy for beginners is being blind to its many problems, specially in how it presents information for anything more complex than a single-task dialog-like interaction.
A market requires actual money to be changing hands.
Didn't you get the memo? On the web, Attention is the new money.
Yeah, it was awful. All the BSDs went away, and nobody used their code anymore.
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring. How many of those projects are compiled with a BSD-licensed compiler, or use BSD-licensed version control? Those projects survive because they benefit from the comunity built around the stable GPL projects - otherwise it would have long died to the UNIX wars long ago. How many people were using OpenBSD before 1991?
Mac OS X is the best example - you only have access to the Darwin source because Apple decides to keep it public - they could take it away anytime they wanted. And you don't have access at all to the tightly integrated OS X desktop.
I don't deny that there are cases where MIT/BSD is the best license - just they're not the best when you expect to maintain in time a free, compatible core. If you don't mind your project becoming host of many independent proprietary vendors that publish modifications that you will not be able to integrate into the mainstream then yes, BSD is for you.