True jealousy comes not from those of us with slower machines but from those of us who have to do Windows programming for a living. I don't want their machines. I want their jobs. [sniff]
I run it on a 75 Mhz Pentium and am quite happy. It is not utterly crisp, but it is certainly usable, and it doesn't seem particularly slower than other desktops.
There are some things that don't go quite the way I'd like, but well, that's what the '0' in '0.15' there for.
(I'm not going to mention them here because it is mostly the same old configuration stuff other people have mentioned.)
It irates me when people nitpick about works in progress, especially when they are not putting their own code on the line. Sending a bug fix or a comment by e-mail is one thing. Publically saying "it sucks" when "it" isn't done is just bad form.
The best thing is to have different people working on what they think is cool. That way, we get lots of choices and we all get the desktop we want.
It is an unfortunate aspect of our society that we insist on finding the "best" and the "winner". What is wrong with having different people working on different desktops?
That choice is one of the biggest things that drew me to Linux in the first place.
(For some reason, slashdot made me anonymous with the original post. Oh well.)
Yes, Turbo C. I didn't much care for Pascal then, and don't now. (I also went to UC San Diego and thus had access to UCSD Pascal, making price somewhat moot. there.)
It was the first cheap C compiler for the PC. That was what was important to me, at least, and judging from Borland's sales at the time, many others as well. Up until then, C seemed to be mostly a big-iron thing (relatively speaking).
One might note that their fortunes went down as their price went up, though that is most likely coincidental. It did light a fire under other vendors, though. Borland wasn't alone at that $99 price for long.
Exactly. It is like Columbus. He didn't find what he is looking for, but obviously that didn't mean much in the long run. Hell, what he found was more interesting than what he was looking for!
Science is filled with people who found something while looking for something else.
Given that they backed up the index.html file, this is more like the digital equivalent of leaving a note on your neighbor's credenza than painting a wall.
At the moment, virtually everyone ignores the KKK website. Hacking the KKK website virtually guarantees that the KKK website will be seen by millions of people on the evening news.
That is not a good thing.
One could even claim that this little security breach is a good thing as if we're lucky, it may generate publicity for Seti.
I take it you didn't see "Trainspotting" before "The Phantom Menace".
It is obvious to me that Qui-Jon left Obi-Wan back at the ship at Tattoine because he was afraid that Obi-Wan would try to score if he made it to Mos Eisley.
I'd just be happy with a computer game that had even moderate machine intelligence. Nearly every strategy game I've played did really stupid things. Things not hard to program around. For example, the AI in Civilization II has a nasty habit of trying to build the same wonder in multiple cities. Both stupid AND easy to program against.
It is one thing to expect human style learning and creativity. That is not likely. However, an AI in a decent strategy game should be able to at least build cities, units etc. fairly optimally, yet so often they don't even do this. Having a list of buildings to build isn't just poor AI. It isn't even an attempt at AI.
Civ II (and the current Alpha Centauri) are great examples because both have "state of the art" AIs in that they are as good as most games, yet both have really horrible AIs. Both seem to control each city as an individual entity, without much in the way of strategy attempted. Both have only the simplest sort of build strategy. Both seem to use a "one size fits all" strategy, regardless of conditions.
Since, in both games, you are competing against six opponents, you should only be able to beat the game one out of seven times. Most humans can learn to beat it most of the time even with gross disadvantages. A truly good AI ought to be able to cut this down to 50% without cheating.
There have been truly good AIs. The game OS/2 game "Galactic Civilization" did this and could give an extremely good game, without cheating. (Actually, there was one cheat. It knew the map at the start.)
It did some things that I haven't seen another game do. For one thing, it had separate strategy modules modeled after strategies perfected by human players. Most other games use a "one size fits all" strategy that is mediocre, and doesn't seem to be modelled at all. Just sort of thrown together until it could give a novice a decent game.
One good piece of evidence that much better AI is possible is that it is so easy for humans to come up with a "by-the-numbers" strategy. I've got a strategy that can beat Civ 2 that is simple to state and easy to program. Build certain things at certain times. Research things in a certain order. Use certain basic tactics. It is simple to the point of making the game boring. Someone ought to be able to program it! (I would love to volunteer!)
From what I've seen, "Age of Empires" is similar. Look at the web. People talk about simple strategies (Like the "Cavalry Rush") that work well. Why can't the AI use them?
Game designers ought to write AIs that create strategies and attempt to implement them over multiple turns. That change strategies based on conditions. That attempt to trick players. (Just once, I'd like to se an AI in a Civ game mass an army BEFORE declaring war.) That are modeled over human players. I don't think you can say that it is impossible until someone tries it!
Slashdot Mirror
True jealousy comes not from those of us with slower machines but from those of us who have to do Windows programming for a living. I don't want their machines. I want their jobs. [sniff]
I run it on a 75 Mhz Pentium and am quite happy. It is not utterly crisp, but it is certainly usable, and it doesn't seem particularly slower than other desktops.
There are some things that don't go quite the way I'd like, but well, that's what the '0' in '0.15' there for.
(I'm not going to mention them here because it is mostly the same old configuration stuff other people have mentioned.)
It irates me when people nitpick about works in progress, especially when they are not putting their own code on the line. Sending a bug fix or a comment by e-mail is one thing. Publically saying "it sucks" when "it" isn't done is just bad form.
(Unless it is a Windows Beta, of course.)
The best thing is to have different people working on what they think is cool. That way, we get lots of choices and we all get the desktop we want.
It is an unfortunate aspect of our society that we insist on finding the "best" and the "winner". What is wrong with having different people working on different desktops?
That choice is one of the biggest things that drew me to Linux in the first place.
(For some reason, slashdot made me anonymous with the original post. Oh well.)
Yes, Turbo C. I didn't much care for Pascal then, and don't now. (I also went to UC San Diego and thus had access to UCSD Pascal, making price somewhat moot. there.)
It was the first cheap C compiler for the PC. That was what was important to me, at least, and judging from Borland's sales at the time, many others as well. Up until then, C seemed to be mostly a big-iron thing (relatively speaking).
One might note that their fortunes went down as their price went up, though that is most likely coincidental. It did light a fire under other vendors, though. Borland wasn't alone at that $99 price for long.
Exactly. It is like Columbus. He didn't find what he is looking for, but obviously that didn't mean much in the long run. Hell, what he found was more interesting than what he was looking for!
Science is filled with people who found something while looking for something else.
Given that they backed up the index.html file, this is more like the digital equivalent of leaving a note on your neighbor's credenza than painting a wall.
At the moment, virtually everyone ignores the KKK website. Hacking the KKK website virtually guarantees that the KKK website will be seen by millions of people on the evening news.
That is not a good thing.
One could even claim that this little security breach is a good thing as if we're lucky, it may generate publicity for Seti.
Unlike physical graffiti, this can be cleared up quickly at no cost.
Besides, the important thing is the work, not the site, and as I just watched my latest block upload, the work appears to be going on unabated.
Now let's hope someone at Seti notices and tightens up their security.
(Oh yeah, pun intended.)
I take it you didn't see "Trainspotting" before "The Phantom Menace".
It is obvious to me that Qui-Jon left Obi-Wan back at the ship at Tattoine because he was afraid that Obi-Wan would try to score if he made it to Mos Eisley.
I'd just be happy with a computer game that had even moderate machine intelligence. Nearly every strategy game I've played did really stupid things. Things not hard to program around. For example, the AI in Civilization II has a nasty habit of trying to build the same wonder in multiple cities. Both stupid AND easy to program against.
It is one thing to expect human style learning and creativity. That is not likely. However, an AI in a decent strategy game should be able to at least build cities, units etc. fairly optimally, yet so often they don't even do this. Having a list of buildings to build isn't just poor AI. It isn't even an attempt at AI.
Civ II (and the current Alpha Centauri) are great examples because both have "state of the art" AIs in that they are as good as most games, yet both have really horrible AIs. Both seem to control each city as an individual entity, without much in the way of strategy attempted. Both have only the simplest sort of build strategy. Both seem to use a "one size fits all" strategy, regardless of conditions.
Since, in both games, you are competing against six opponents, you should only be able to beat the game one out of seven times. Most humans can learn to beat it most of the time even with gross disadvantages. A truly good AI ought to be able to cut this down to 50% without cheating.
There have been truly good AIs. The game OS/2 game "Galactic Civilization" did this and could give an extremely good game, without cheating. (Actually, there was one cheat. It knew the map at the start.)
It did some things that I haven't seen another game do. For one thing, it had separate strategy modules modeled after strategies perfected by human players. Most other games use a "one size fits all" strategy that is mediocre, and doesn't seem to be modelled at all. Just sort of thrown together until it could give a novice a decent game.
One good piece of evidence that much better AI is possible is that it is so easy for humans to come up with a "by-the-numbers" strategy. I've got a strategy that can beat Civ 2 that is simple to state and easy to program. Build certain things at certain times. Research things in a certain order. Use certain basic tactics. It is simple to the point of making the game boring. Someone ought to be able to program it! (I would love to volunteer!)
From what I've seen, "Age of Empires" is similar. Look at the web. People talk about simple strategies (Like the "Cavalry Rush") that work well. Why can't the AI use them?
Game designers ought to write AIs that create strategies and attempt to implement them over multiple turns. That change strategies based on conditions. That attempt to trick players. (Just once, I'd like to se an AI in a Civ game mass an army BEFORE declaring war.) That are modeled over human players. I don't think you can say that it is impossible until someone tries it!