But would you really? Would you really install Red Hat or Mandrake on your parent's machine, when you know all they need is a web browser, an email client and perhaps an instant messenger client?
Um, what now? Because Microsoft Windows is in a position not unlike the Catholic Pope - Windows alone has divine guidance in providing a web browser, email client, and IM client that is easy to use? People who are new to computers are genetically bred to understand IE's thousands of flaws but are confused by Mozilla, Opera, etc.?
If I were inflicting a computer onto my parents and all they wanted were web, email, IM, and basic office apps, how stupid would I be to use Windows? I'm being objective here. We have driver hell, security hell, blue screen hell, Clippy the Paper Clip hell, pop-up adds, and a system that perpetually claims to know "what I want" and do thousands of irritating things just to "help me out".
On the other hand, exactly WHAT is the downside to a linux desktop? It's more complicated to update the software - something the folks wouldn't do in Windows anyway?
So sorry, microsoft.com, but the simple, easy to use, dependable desktop/internet kiosk platform for your mom and pop has never made Linux look like a perfect solution.
Last time I checked, Microsoft was on a mission to make money, not benevolently provide a gaming console for the good all mankind. In order to make money, we all know that they are taking a loss on the console in a frantic quest to gain market share, then sell game licenses to everyone who has an Xbox.
How many Xbox games am I going to buy if I don't own an Xbox? How many dollars will Microsoft's Xbox division make from me if I never buy an Xbox?
Alternatively, suppose that I can use the Xbox to emulate a SNES, PSX, or boot linux and serve MP3s, DVDs, and use it for other media agnostic entertainment purposes. If I can get all of this for $150 and some patch cables, you can color me an interested consumer. Granted, Microsoft does not profit from that purchase. However, Inspector, you may make the astounding observation that I am suddenly part of the potential market for Xbox games. I bought the thing to hack, but if Microsoft licenses a killer game, I'm 5000 times more likely to purchase said game, provide profit for Microsoft, and use my Xbox for the intended purpose.
But if we pretend that MS has eliminated the possibility that I can serve my home theatre with DVDs, MP3s, etc., and can only play Xbox games, then they can screw off. I won't buy the Xbox, I won't buy the Xbox games, and I will very likely spend my money on a product that meets my desires - a PS2. Like I said in the first place, it's a pretty bizarre method of increasing market share and driving up profits, and by "interesting", I mean "short sighted and ignorant of potentially large segment of the market".
People buy products that they can use in ways they appreciate. Microsoft is doing all that they can to make the Xbox less appealling than a PS2. That's their choice, but it's not one that I would expect from a company interested in making lots of dollars.
Ok, let's fancy that Microsoft has permanently prevented their XBox from being customized by clever consumers.
I might have bought an XBox if I could use it as a general purpose entertainment device. Now I won't buy one at all. That's an odd way of moving units and increasing your market share.
I don't think it's that insightful, but people buy stuff if they like what they can do with it. Nobody that I'm aware of has a black market XBox manufacturing plant - every piece of hardware is purchased through Microsoft. Nobody that I'm aware of without an XBox is buying XBox games. If I can't get my hypothetical XBox hacked, I'm not buying one, and I'm sure as hell not buying an XBox game or dozen.
High school physics class. The teacher had put together an electron beam demonstration, and we were running electric current through nearby conductors to see the electromagnetic affect this had. Very cool display.
The teacher and I had a passive-aggressive dynamic, and he saw that I was mesmerized by the stream of vibrantly lit electrons, so he had me demonstrate the electromagnetic affect first. He hooked up a dry cell to a stiff piece of copper and handed it to me in a way such that I would naturally grab it by the unshielded part of the alligator clips.
Sure, I should have known, but I was 17 and that thing looked really cool. I moved the wire close to the electron beam when suddenly my arms went numb past the elbows, I blacked out, and when I regained some sense of what was going on, I was rotated 180 degrees from the demonstration and cursing uncontrollably. Everybody laughed, a fun time was had by all.
I was later told that I had been zapped by about 12,000 volts at microamps. Couldn't tell you if those numbers are legitimate or not, but it was the only time I blacked out due to electric shock.
And on-topic, I once shorted a motherboard to the case causing many neat-o sparks and a generous discharge of magic smoke. It would have been simply irritating, but it was at 2am half a week before finals. Ah well...
Why list the submitter as an Anonymous Coward if you're going to link to what appears to be a personal email address? No good deed goes unpunished indeed...
Hopefully without sounding like that guy on the phone commercial saying, "Think outside of the paradiggim," every 3D MMORPG I've seen and many text based MMORPGs are based on a paradigm that constricts the players enjoyment.
All these posts about, "Now I don't have to waste X hours getting a character I can enjoy," have missed the fact that now you can waste infinite hours doing precisely what you paid to avoid. Except now, you have cooler make-believe internet fantasy computer game magic spells. Enjoy your escapism...
So few people have questioned why games are designed like this. Why can't I have a role playing game that I can enjoy from the very first minute? Why must I always begin the game with $0.32 and a dagger? Why must I spend an exorbitant amount of hours to progress in the game's single rewarding advancement system (combat ability)?
Think about it. If it were a roleplaying game, you would play a role believably. You would not devote all of your time to honing your combat skills. You would have a hobby that you would advance for your amusement and the admiration of others in your hobby. You would participate in politics at some level, be it state, community, or personal. You would spend time seeking out entertainment. Oh, and you would want to practice with your sword, too.
The problem, as I see it, is that D&D was a genre defining game, but being a human-driven engine, it could not feasibly make a real role playing game. It was a great fantasy medieval combat game. When people starting taking the D&D idea and moving it into computer games, they failed to identify that that the computer driven game had the capacity to fully simulate a medieval fantasy world in which a player can truly assume a complete role.
The result? Being level 1 sucks. The coolness of the game is oriented linearly along your combat skills. For the first 20% or 40% of the game, your level sucks, your character sucks, and the game isn't much fun. The half-witted solution? Sell characters that are past this point on the crippled game's linear scale of entertainment.
The industry changing solution? Develop a role playing game that does not have a single linear advancement system. Sell me game that is fun to play, not just fun to dominate. Sell me a game where you can have 100 more levels of combat ability than me, but I can have 100 more levels of musicianship than you, and if we're hanging out in the bar singing songs, I'm going to score women and you aren't. The RPG industry is hobbled by this belief that a game that focuses strictly on combat is a role playing game, and that is why they will all ultimately fail.
I've done quite a lot of community service with a program in Virginia that teaches basic computer skills to mostly elderly folks. These people have no experience with a computer and are very intimidated by the thing. They can learn to use KDE with Open Office just as easily as they can learn MS Windows with MS Office.
The great tragedy on the consumer side which has led to MS's monopoly has been this false idea that MS has some God-given ability to make a "user friendly" environment which no one else can scratch. Apple can do it, Gnome and KDE can do it.
What would be good for the consumers would be the ability to switch between these environments at will, just as a Chevrolet owner can drive a borrowed Toyota or Ford without problems. To a large extent, we're nearly there with desktop environments.
Well, that, or the consumer shrugs off the "Smart Stuff is Too Hard For Me" attitude and makes adaptability an admirable trait. Nah... it'll never happen.
There is no reason why one desktop is inherently more intuitive than multiple desktops. In fact, among my computer illiterate friends, they look over my shoulder and say that multiple desktops make much more sense than a single one.
What is the intrinsic value of a single desktop anyway? All the windows stack and you can only use one full screen application at a time. With multiple desktops, each one can have a dedicated purpose and you can switch between many full screen apps instantly (if mousing off the edge of the screen switches desktops). That is far better than any Alt-Tab (or variation) through open windows.
A single desktop vs. multiple desktops is really an arbitrary paradigm that Windows users have adopted. The Start button could just as easily be on the right side of the screen and double-click could be a simultaneous left & right click. Convention is not synonymous with superiority.
About 18 months ago I was in the Shanghai area and the Chinese government / customs / people could not have been friendlier to me. From the armed guards at the airport smiling and greeting me to the passport inspectors making small talk, they were more than happy to have me in their country.
As a tourist, I was constantly approached by merchants selling their "Varrah goot [silk|trinkets|bootleg CDs]" and was completely unsupervised. Granted, I was with a tourist group, but we were frequently given several hours to wander about the town doing as we pleased. Considering that I was never questioned, never searched, not even looked at sideways, I could have very easily delivered any type of banned literature to Shanghai, Nanjing, Wu-Xi ("Mo-set" in Cantonese?).
A long way from Tianemen? Absolutely. From everything I saw, they seem to have a mostly command economy, a non-familial monarchy, and a willingness to bridge the gap with the rest of the world. I imagine an event like Tianemen would be practically impossible these days, with the Chinese government keeping a sharp eye on the outside world.
For what it's worth, I was treated like an old friend by China's customs, a guest by Hong Kong's customs, and a criminal by American customs in Seattle.
For example, we call the Saudi's "our fiends". Bullshit! They would slice our thoat in a heart beat if we were not their biggest customer. They are a twisted theocracy that rejects womens rights, democracy, personal liberty, religious freedom, etc. We have nothing in common.
Why are you such a fan of Al-qaeda? Do you wear an I Terrorism T-shirt and have a poster of Osama bin Laden on your bedroom wall? It is clear that you understand almost nothing of the social or political makeup of the most influential Muslim nation, and this trait most likely applies to other Arab and/or Muslim states.
That's not your fault, of course. Assuming that you are American, the education system has ignored that third of the globe for years. Entertainment sources like MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and so forth will tell you exactly what will sell commercials, and that hardly involves a clear explanation of what goes on in the world. So it's not your fault.
What is puzzling is why you are such an Al-qaeda fanboy. Why are you so eager to be a complete tool to aid Osama bin Laden's plan of evil genius to create a rift between the West and the Muslim nations. The last thing in the world that bin Laden wants is for Americans to educate themselves and understand more about Islam or Arabic nations.
And you have come to a public forum and shared your valuable little gem of wisdom (ignorance) with us. What can I say? GO USA #1! OUR TEAM RULEZ, OTHER TEAMZ DROOL!
This is actually a premise we can test, and it's simply false. Many studies have been done comparing religious and non-religious people, and it's never been found that religious people end up with "better luck" (better health, better livelyhood, better children, etc) that non-religious people
Let's see... Better jobs, wisdom, power, money, boats, toyS, WOMEN, MAGIC SPELLS! GOD GIVES NONE OF THESE, THEREFORE GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
You're woefully inadequate at disproving God's existence. It's a travesty that your post was marked "Insightful", but it's hardly a surprise.
If God exists, and you believe, worship, fear, blah blah woof woof, you would have a better -life-, have more satisfying relationships with humans, and have less to fear from worldly dangers. Guess what - ask people with strong faith - they'll confirm all of this.
Double negative? It is precisely what is meant. "Doesn't mean you're not a moron" is not functionally equivalent (in a literary sense) to "means you are a moron". The quality being described is "not a moron", and a person can be or not be "not a moron".
An antonym for "moron" could have been used, but surely you recognize that "not a moron" has a separate meaning from "clever", for example. In fact, using an antonym in place of the negative is completely unsuitable. The concept conveyed is that a degree does not imply that some minimum level of competence is met. Logically equivalent yet of a completely different color and implication is the idea that a degree does not assure that high standards are satisfied.
Of course, you then (facetiously?) provide Google as a substitute for a library, making the question of "not a moron" a rather satiric endeavor at best. Naturally, identifying double negatives doesn't mean that you're smart as a whip.
Why don't we buy bread for $10 a loaf? Because someone else is already selling it for $2 a loaf.
As long as the hardware is accessible, someone can develop a p2p protocol and rebirth the internet in its current form.
Suppose proprietary hardware and protocol had come about as you suggested. What prevents anyone from hacking the hardware and implementing TCP/IP across it? Slap in the face to the corporation and the internet is reborn.
The saving grace was that the internet was first developed by universities and R&D groups. The protocol is almost communist - route your traffic through anyone's box for free, unrestricted. There is no way to retrofit a system like this to a fee-driven old-economy economic model. The cat was out of the bag when the first email was sent 35 years ago.
Sure, I'll just develop some computer games, wait 20 years, and post to Slashdot about how "retro" or "cool" they suddenly are, and watch my sales go through the roof!
I never considered Slashdot to be some pinnacle of jounalistic integrity, but come on, this is nothing more than a ploy to boost Atari's cartridge sales and edge out up-start Nintendo. That is so not rad, guys.
It's relative more to how you spent your time than your age, I think. I was born in '80 and The Classic was the Vic-20 I played with as a kid.
When the NES and Sega Master System came about, all the other kids were dazzled and stupefied. It was just a suped up old trick to me at that point.
As I understand it, the programmer writes a program that is the "player" which controls the robot. In effect, it is the entire challenge to implement the AI that will control the robot and win the game, unless implementing the rules and protocol is supposed to be daunting...
This "player" program will run on their system, locally. Got it.
I suppose that rather than ambiguous rules, it is a case of ambiguous terms. Programmers program players, players control robots, robots play the game. Human contestants are only the programmers. That makes sense. The personification of the player program makes it a little odd.
Maybe I missed something, but they say that the player will be controlling the robots and then say that this will be running on their machine.
It's not much of a contest to just write a client for this game that a human player runs locally, but why would they even mention a player if the contest is to write the client and robot AI to play?
Counterstrike is trash.
Unreal Tournament runs on Linux, though I'm not sure if you can still get a copy of it. At any rate, Infiltration is reality FPS as they should be.
Aim with the gun, not a video game crosshair. No running around like you're on cocaine. Weapons fire where they are pointed. It's a community driven project and as far as I know, open source.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, what now? Because Microsoft Windows is in a position not unlike the Catholic Pope - Windows alone has divine guidance in providing a web browser, email client, and IM client that is easy to use? People who are new to computers are genetically bred to understand IE's thousands of flaws but are confused by Mozilla, Opera, etc.?
If I were inflicting a computer onto my parents and all they wanted were web, email, IM, and basic office apps, how stupid would I be to use Windows? I'm being objective here. We have driver hell, security hell, blue screen hell, Clippy the Paper Clip hell, pop-up adds, and a system that perpetually claims to know "what I want" and do thousands of irritating things just to "help me out".
On the other hand, exactly WHAT is the downside to a linux desktop? It's more complicated to update the software - something the folks wouldn't do in Windows anyway?
So sorry, microsoft.com, but the simple, easy to use, dependable desktop/internet kiosk platform for your mom and pop has never made Linux look like a perfect solution.
Last time I checked, Microsoft was on a mission to make money, not benevolently provide a gaming console for the good all mankind. In order to make money, we all know that they are taking a loss on the console in a frantic quest to gain market share, then sell game licenses to everyone who has an Xbox.
How many Xbox games am I going to buy if I don't own an Xbox? How many dollars will Microsoft's Xbox division make from me if I never buy an Xbox?
Alternatively, suppose that I can use the Xbox to emulate a SNES, PSX, or boot linux and serve MP3s, DVDs, and use it for other media agnostic entertainment purposes. If I can get all of this for $150 and some patch cables, you can color me an interested consumer. Granted, Microsoft does not profit from that purchase. However, Inspector, you may make the astounding observation that I am suddenly part of the potential market for Xbox games. I bought the thing to hack, but if Microsoft licenses a killer game, I'm 5000 times more likely to purchase said game, provide profit for Microsoft, and use my Xbox for the intended purpose.
But if we pretend that MS has eliminated the possibility that I can serve my home theatre with DVDs, MP3s, etc., and can only play Xbox games, then they can screw off. I won't buy the Xbox, I won't buy the Xbox games, and I will very likely spend my money on a product that meets my desires - a PS2. Like I said in the first place, it's a pretty bizarre method of increasing market share and driving up profits, and by "interesting", I mean "short sighted and ignorant of potentially large segment of the market".
People buy products that they can use in ways they appreciate. Microsoft is doing all that they can to make the Xbox less appealling than a PS2. That's their choice, but it's not one that I would expect from a company interested in making lots of dollars.
I might have bought an XBox if I could use it as a general purpose entertainment device. Now I won't buy one at all. That's an odd way of moving units and increasing your market share.
I don't think it's that insightful, but people buy stuff if they like what they can do with it. Nobody that I'm aware of has a black market XBox manufacturing plant - every piece of hardware is purchased through Microsoft. Nobody that I'm aware of without an XBox is buying XBox games. If I can't get my hypothetical XBox hacked, I'm not buying one, and I'm sure as hell not buying an XBox game or dozen.
Jesus was the son of a carpenter. The Man Himself was a motivational speaker.
Anybody want to share their experiences with UT2003 on Linux with whatever video card you have? Many here might be going shopping.
The teacher and I had a passive-aggressive dynamic, and he saw that I was mesmerized by the stream of vibrantly lit electrons, so he had me demonstrate the electromagnetic affect first. He hooked up a dry cell to a stiff piece of copper and handed it to me in a way such that I would naturally grab it by the unshielded part of the alligator clips.
Sure, I should have known, but I was 17 and that thing looked really cool. I moved the wire close to the electron beam when suddenly my arms went numb past the elbows, I blacked out, and when I regained some sense of what was going on, I was rotated 180 degrees from the demonstration and cursing uncontrollably. Everybody laughed, a fun time was had by all.
I was later told that I had been zapped by about 12,000 volts at microamps. Couldn't tell you if those numbers are legitimate or not, but it was the only time I blacked out due to electric shock.
And on-topic, I once shorted a motherboard to the case causing many neat-o sparks and a generous discharge of magic smoke. It would have been simply irritating, but it was at 2am half a week before finals. Ah well...
Oooh oooh, let me buzz in!
I believe the assholes were the ones who won the war. Thank you, thank you.
Why list the submitter as an Anonymous Coward if you're going to link to what appears to be a personal email address? No good deed goes unpunished indeed...
All these posts about, "Now I don't have to waste X hours getting a character I can enjoy," have missed the fact that now you can waste infinite hours doing precisely what you paid to avoid. Except now, you have cooler make-believe internet fantasy computer game magic spells. Enjoy your escapism...
So few people have questioned why games are designed like this. Why can't I have a role playing game that I can enjoy from the very first minute? Why must I always begin the game with $0.32 and a dagger? Why must I spend an exorbitant amount of hours to progress in the game's single rewarding advancement system (combat ability)?
Think about it. If it were a roleplaying game, you would play a role believably. You would not devote all of your time to honing your combat skills. You would have a hobby that you would advance for your amusement and the admiration of others in your hobby. You would participate in politics at some level, be it state, community, or personal. You would spend time seeking out entertainment. Oh, and you would want to practice with your sword, too.
The problem, as I see it, is that D&D was a genre defining game, but being a human-driven engine, it could not feasibly make a real role playing game. It was a great fantasy medieval combat game. When people starting taking the D&D idea and moving it into computer games, they failed to identify that that the computer driven game had the capacity to fully simulate a medieval fantasy world in which a player can truly assume a complete role.
The result? Being level 1 sucks. The coolness of the game is oriented linearly along your combat skills. For the first 20% or 40% of the game, your level sucks, your character sucks, and the game isn't much fun. The half-witted solution? Sell characters that are past this point on the crippled game's linear scale of entertainment.
The industry changing solution? Develop a role playing game that does not have a single linear advancement system. Sell me game that is fun to play, not just fun to dominate. Sell me a game where you can have 100 more levels of combat ability than me, but I can have 100 more levels of musicianship than you, and if we're hanging out in the bar singing songs, I'm going to score women and you aren't. The RPG industry is hobbled by this belief that a game that focuses strictly on combat is a role playing game, and that is why they will all ultimately fail.
I've done quite a lot of community service with a program in Virginia that teaches basic computer skills to mostly elderly folks. These people have no experience with a computer and are very intimidated by the thing. They can learn to use KDE with Open Office just as easily as they can learn MS Windows with MS Office.
The great tragedy on the consumer side which has led to MS's monopoly has been this false idea that MS has some God-given ability to make a "user friendly" environment which no one else can scratch. Apple can do it, Gnome and KDE can do it.
What would be good for the consumers would be the ability to switch between these environments at will, just as a Chevrolet owner can drive a borrowed Toyota or Ford without problems. To a large extent, we're nearly there with desktop environments.
Well, that, or the consumer shrugs off the "Smart Stuff is Too Hard For Me" attitude and makes adaptability an admirable trait. Nah... it'll never happen.
What is the intrinsic value of a single desktop anyway? All the windows stack and you can only use one full screen application at a time. With multiple desktops, each one can have a dedicated purpose and you can switch between many full screen apps instantly (if mousing off the edge of the screen switches desktops). That is far better than any Alt-Tab (or variation) through open windows.
A single desktop vs. multiple desktops is really an arbitrary paradigm that Windows users have adopted. The Start button could just as easily be on the right side of the screen and double-click could be a simultaneous left & right click. Convention is not synonymous with superiority.
As a tourist, I was constantly approached by merchants selling their "Varrah goot [silk|trinkets|bootleg CDs]" and was completely unsupervised. Granted, I was with a tourist group, but we were frequently given several hours to wander about the town doing as we pleased. Considering that I was never questioned, never searched, not even looked at sideways, I could have very easily delivered any type of banned literature to Shanghai, Nanjing, Wu-Xi ("Mo-set" in Cantonese?).
A long way from Tianemen? Absolutely. From everything I saw, they seem to have a mostly command economy, a non-familial monarchy, and a willingness to bridge the gap with the rest of the world. I imagine an event like Tianemen would be practically impossible these days, with the Chinese government keeping a sharp eye on the outside world.
For what it's worth, I was treated like an old friend by China's customs, a guest by Hong Kong's customs, and a criminal by American customs in Seattle.
Why are you such a fan of Al-qaeda? Do you wear an I Terrorism T-shirt and have a poster of Osama bin Laden on your bedroom wall? It is clear that you understand almost nothing of the social or political makeup of the most influential Muslim nation, and this trait most likely applies to other Arab and/or Muslim states.
That's not your fault, of course. Assuming that you are American, the education system has ignored that third of the globe for years. Entertainment sources like MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and so forth will tell you exactly what will sell commercials, and that hardly involves a clear explanation of what goes on in the world. So it's not your fault.
What is puzzling is why you are such an Al-qaeda fanboy. Why are you so eager to be a complete tool to aid Osama bin Laden's plan of evil genius to create a rift between the West and the Muslim nations. The last thing in the world that bin Laden wants is for Americans to educate themselves and understand more about Islam or Arabic nations.
And you have come to a public forum and shared your valuable little gem of wisdom (ignorance) with us. What can I say? GO USA #1! OUR TEAM RULEZ, OTHER TEAMZ DROOL!
Let's see... Better jobs, wisdom, power, money, boats, toyS, WOMEN, MAGIC SPELLS! GOD GIVES NONE OF THESE, THEREFORE GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
You're woefully inadequate at disproving God's existence. It's a travesty that your post was marked "Insightful", but it's hardly a surprise.
If God exists, and you believe, worship, fear, blah blah woof woof, you would have a better -life-, have more satisfying relationships with humans, and have less to fear from worldly dangers. Guess what - ask people with strong faith - they'll confirm all of this.
An antonym for "moron" could have been used, but surely you recognize that "not a moron" has a separate meaning from "clever", for example. In fact, using an antonym in place of the negative is completely unsuitable. The concept conveyed is that a degree does not imply that some minimum level of competence is met. Logically equivalent yet of a completely different color and implication is the idea that a degree does not assure that high standards are satisfied.
Of course, you then (facetiously?) provide Google as a substitute for a library, making the question of "not a moron" a rather satiric endeavor at best. Naturally, identifying double negatives doesn't mean that you're smart as a whip.
Why don't we buy bread for $10 a loaf? Because someone else is already selling it for $2 a loaf.
As long as the hardware is accessible, someone can develop a p2p protocol and rebirth the internet in its current form.
Suppose proprietary hardware and protocol had come about as you suggested. What prevents anyone from hacking the hardware and implementing TCP/IP across it? Slap in the face to the corporation and the internet is reborn.
The saving grace was that the internet was first developed by universities and R&D groups. The protocol is almost communist - route your traffic through anyone's box for free, unrestricted. There is no way to retrofit a system like this to a fee-driven old-economy economic model. The cat was out of the bag when the first email was sent 35 years ago.
I never considered Slashdot to be some pinnacle of jounalistic integrity, but come on, this is nothing more than a ploy to boost Atari's cartridge sales and edge out up-start Nintendo. That is so not rad, guys.
It's relative more to how you spent your time than your age, I think. I was born in '80 and The Classic was the Vic-20 I played with as a kid. When the NES and Sega Master System came about, all the other kids were dazzled and stupefied. It was just a suped up old trick to me at that point.
If I enter, I am the programmer.
As I understand it, the programmer writes a program that is the "player" which controls the robot. In effect, it is the entire challenge to implement the AI that will control the robot and win the game, unless implementing the rules and protocol is supposed to be daunting...
This "player" program will run on their system, locally. Got it.
I suppose that rather than ambiguous rules, it is a case of ambiguous terms. Programmers program players, players control robots, robots play the game. Human contestants are only the programmers. That makes sense. The personification of the player program makes it a little odd.
Maybe I missed something, but they say that the player will be controlling the robots and then say that this will be running on their machine. It's not much of a contest to just write a client for this game that a human player runs locally, but why would they even mention a player if the contest is to write the client and robot AI to play?
Somethingawful also has a "Dance Dance Karnov" flash game that is hilarious.
Counterstrike is trash. Unreal Tournament runs on Linux, though I'm not sure if you can still get a copy of it. At any rate, Infiltration is reality FPS as they should be. Aim with the gun, not a video game crosshair. No running around like you're on cocaine. Weapons fire where they are pointed. It's a community driven project and as far as I know, open source.