Sorry for the pun:-) (For the uninformed, Go pieces are called 'stones' )
I too find Go more challengling. Chess seems to be "static" while Go seems more dynamic.
> For those of you not familiar with it, Go is a Japanese equivalent to chess. I was going to write a Go game, until I realized the complexity is WAY PAST chess. Sure, Go only has 2 pieces, but on a 19x19 board, the number of legal moves after a few turns is ridiculously large. THEN throw in strategy, and you can get the picture.
Anyone know of a free Go-Online service? It would be great to be able to play with people around the world 24 hrs/day.
At first glance I thought the book would be a dry language philosophy book, but after reading the first 2 chapters, it is turning out to be an interesting read.
Thx for the first book name, I'll have to pick that one up to.
> Macros are there only for C compatiblity. Even Brian Kernighan doesn't like them.
Technically Macros ARE NOT part of the language - they only exist in the preprocessor.
> The reason [for using macros] is performance: a macro avoids the overhead of a function call
Macros still have their place, as they are GUARANTEED to be inlined. "inline" is only a HINT to the compiler. i.e. Usually a 'debug' version ignores them.
> I'm no expert, but I don't think the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
I didn't think it was either until I saw a show last year called Space 2000 or Discover 2000. It might of been on PBS, but I don't remember the exact station/channel.
They mentioned astronomers knew the unverse was expanding but they didn't know the rate. Just recently they measured it and found the universe expansion was accelerating.
It was an important discovery, as some people (Stephen Hawking being one) had postulated the theory that the universe would expand, slow down, stop, and then contract on itself, which is now tossed out.
> this happens is that the OS community wasn't able to come up with an English word better than "free" to describe software that is both open-source and free.
English is such a bastardized language I don't understand why it just can't use "gratis"
> I'm amazed that a ground-based telescope was the discoverer of this as opposed to Hubble given the limitations from observing through an atmosphere.
You do realize that trying to "cover" all the directions away from the earth is darn near infinite.
Analogy: Pretend you wanted to build a spehere around the earth, but you only had one type of object: a interconnecting square tile with dimensions of only 1 meter by 1 meter (or foot for the Imperialists;-) Now, how long would it take to incapsulate the Earth? Hope that made sense.
> but there IS no center of the universe, at least not in the sense we think of "center"
Since the universe is expanding (and accelerating) why can't we just simulate the reverse. It will converge on point (which is relative to our position here on Earth)
Another question: WHY is the universe accelerating? Where is the Universe getting the force to constantly accelerate itself??!!
> Some other points about MacOS interface that drive me mad: > - When a message box comes with up with Yes and No buttons, you can't just press Y or N. You have to click. > - You can't just enter to select a button on a message box which has the focus. Again, you have to click. > - You can't move between the buttons a message box with the arrow keys. How un-intuitive.
Hear Hear.
Or why does the load dialog only list files it THINKS you should be able to load, instead of ALL files. Oh wait, the user is just an idiot, and doesn't need to do that. Sure, for the beginner, but these just frustrate any experienced user.
Of course, the real question is, WHY can't I as a user, turn these "FEATURES" off / on !?
> Its just a way for programmers to go on ego trips by talking about programming all the time, rather than doing it.
By the at logic, doctors shouldn't know nomenclature of the human anatomy. Yeah, right.
When I talk to another programmer I want to be able to express ideas clearly, not spending 20 minutes detailing the intricate structure of an algorithm. Design Patterns are one way to do that.
You are correct. They are not a "silver bullet" They just help in managing the complexity of software development.
> This is just like those people who insist on an object structure when one really isn't necessary
> The real issue is the marrige license (at least here in the US).
You don't need a marriage license in order to be legally married.
> That needs the signatures of all involved > (judge/clergy, bride, groom, witnesses
If you look up Marriage in Black's Law Dictionary, pg 973 (6th ed) you will find: A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry. (Thats the REAL reason you need a marriage license, otherwise you don't.)
Right above you will find "Marriage certificate": An instrument which certifies a marriage.
And if you look under Marriage (the previous page) you will see "Informal Marriage" A marriage in which promises are exchanged between the parties without an official ecclesiastical representitative present. See Consensual Marriage.
Looking at Consensual Marriage on pge 384 it reads: Marriage resting simply on consent per verba de praesenti, between competent parties. See Common-law marriage. (We see here Marriage is just a contact)
And finally we see Common-law marriage. One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. non-ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabiation.
The astute reader should know that if you live together with someone for 7 years, that is also considered a common-law marriage.
Ask a judge if you need more info then what I provided here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for the pun :-) (For the uninformed, Go pieces are called 'stones' )
I too find Go more challengling. Chess seems to be "static" while Go seems more dynamic.
> For those of you not familiar with it, Go is a Japanese equivalent to chess.
I was going to write a Go game, until I realized the complexity is WAY PAST chess. Sure, Go only has 2 pieces, but on a 19x19 board, the number of legal moves after a few turns is ridiculously large. THEN throw in strategy, and you can get the picture.
Anyone know of a free Go-Online service? It would be great to be able to play with people around the world 24 hrs/day.
Cheers
> What is the game theoretic value of Chess? { 1 = White wins, 0 = White loses, 0.5 = Draw }
;-)
Uhm, puzzle implies "a challengle solveable within our lifetime" and I dont see Chess being solved within the next 100 years.
Besides, Go is a much more interesting game
Cheers
... that they [Trey Parker] will rewrite the lyrics for "Blame Canada"
... maybe someone needs to lighten up ;-)
Now Canada isn't good enough to be used in Jokes??
As a Canadian I found the "original" song to be hilarious. Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself
This guy should check out "Royal Canadian Air Farce", some of the best political humour around.
Cheers
> Luca Cardelli's A Theory of Objects
At first glance I thought the book would be a dry language philosophy book, but after reading the first 2 chapters, it is turning out to be an interesting read.
Thx for the first book name, I'll have to pick that one up to.
Cheers
We prefix "0x" and "O" respectively for hex and octal literals, but there is none to designate binary.
i.e. 0x10 hex = 020 oct = 16 dec
Why can't we use "0z" for a binary number?
i.e. 0z10000
Cheers
> Macros are there only for C compatiblity. Even Brian Kernighan doesn't like them.
Technically Macros ARE NOT part of the language - they only exist in the preprocessor.
> The reason [for using macros] is performance: a macro avoids the overhead of a function call
Macros still have their place, as they are GUARANTEED to be inlined. "inline" is only a HINT to the compiler. i.e. Usually a 'debug' version ignores them.
Cheers
> I'm no expert, but I don't think the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
I didn't think it was either until I saw a show last year called Space 2000 or Discover 2000. It might of been on PBS, but I don't remember the exact station/channel.
They mentioned astronomers knew the unverse was expanding but they didn't know the rate. Just recently they measured it and found the universe expansion was accelerating.
It was an important discovery, as some people (Stephen Hawking being one) had postulated the theory that the universe would expand, slow down, stop, and then contract on itself, which is now tossed out.
Cheers
I agree that a debugger provides a lot of great features. Unfortunately templates are still almost impossible to debug without the old printf style.
i.e.
typedef Vector3<int> Vec3i;
typedef Vector3<float> Vec3f;
Cheers
> Did you try disabling Microsoft extensions?
...
Why is it that you can't even COMPILE a windows program if you disable extensions?
Cheers
> this happens is that the OS community wasn't able to come up with an English word better than "free" to describe software that is both open-source and free.
English is such a bastardized language I don't understand why it just can't use "gratis"
Cheers
Sybase dropped development of their Watcom compiler last year. :-( They are still supporting it till June 2000 though.
http://techinfo.sybase.c om/css/techinfo.nsf/DocID/ID=20510
Now if only they would release the source for it...
Their inline pragma asm was the cleanest way to inline and achieve maximum efficiency.
Cheers
> However, in Pascal, "=" is equivalent, and ":=" is assignment. I sometimes _really_ wish that this were also the case in C...
:= =
I _REALY_ wish C had used ?= instead of == for comparision. The C token for assignment, rightly, only uses one character.
As to your point, I'm not sure why this wouldn't work?
#define
Cheers
> And when I'm on the net, I'm either e-mailing/IRCing people that are TOO far away to meet in person
I hear ya. Computers allow people to have friends all over the world AND inexpensively stay in contact !
> As for staying at home.. those people would stay at home regardless if they had a 'puter or not.
Exactly. Before I was into computers I would do a lot of sci-fi reading, and chess playing. With the computer I still do those things.
New technology doesn't drive solitude up. In fact, it helps DIFFUSE it. Now I can find info on subjects with people that have similiar interests.
Cheers
> BTW, does studying theology make you an expert in theology?
It depends. Sometimes yes.
i.e.
Jefferson and Franklin never went to law school but were considered lawyers.
Cheers
> I'm amazed that a ground-based telescope was the discoverer of this as opposed to Hubble given the limitations from observing through an atmosphere.
;-) Now, how long would it take to incapsulate the Earth?
You do realize that trying to "cover" all the directions away from the earth is darn near infinite.
Analogy: Pretend you wanted to build a spehere around the earth, but you only had one type of object: a interconnecting square tile with dimensions of only 1 meter by 1 meter (or foot for the Imperialists
Hope that made sense.
Cheers
> If we can go faster than the speed of light
Uhm, that requires infinite engery. Now unless you can pack a nuclear station in your pocket, we won't be colonizing the universe anytime soon.
Cheers
> Do you know if anyone has used the observations of the 'most distant objects observed' to triangulate the x/y/z coordinates of our solar system?
The problem is ALL reference points are moving away from each other. (The universe is expanding and accelerating)
The only meaningfull number would be relative coordinates at a given time.
Cheers
> but there IS no center of the universe, at least not in the sense we think of "center"
Since the universe is expanding (and accelerating) why can't we just simulate the reverse. It will converge on point (which is relative to our position here on Earth)
Another question:
WHY is the universe accelerating? Where is the Universe getting the force to constantly accelerate itself??!!
Cheers
> The earth is 4000 years old. The bible says so!
And your proof is ?
Oh wait, I forgot you were reading Genesis literally.
Cheers
> what makes you think that there are any hidden API's remaining in current MS platforms?
I take it you have never written a NT device driver, but here is the proof:
Inside the Native API
Inside Native Applications
> I would really love to see any kind of proof that they exist
When NT 4 starts up, chkdsk is a native NT app. HOW could it be a win32 app, when win32 hasn't been loaded yet?!
Cheers
> Please name some of these undocumented API calls.
Under NT, that is easy:
Inside the Native API
Inside Native Applications
Cheers
> Some other points about MacOS interface that drive me mad:
> - When a message box comes with up with Yes and No buttons, you can't just press Y or N. You have to click.
> - You can't just enter to select a button on a message box which has the focus. Again, you have to click.
> - You can't move between the buttons a message box with the arrow keys. How un-intuitive.
Hear Hear.
Or why does the load dialog only list files it THINKS you should be able to load, instead of ALL files. Oh wait, the user is just an idiot, and doesn't need to do that. Sure, for the beginner, but these just frustrate any experienced user.
Of course, the real question is, WHY can't I as a user, turn these "FEATURES" off / on !?
Cheers
> Its just a way for programmers to go on ego trips by talking about programming all the time, rather than doing it.
By the at logic, doctors shouldn't know nomenclature of the human anatomy. Yeah, right.
When I talk to another programmer I want to be able to express ideas clearly, not spending 20 minutes detailing the intricate structure of an algorithm. Design Patterns are one way to do that.
You are correct. They are not a "silver bullet" They just help in managing the complexity of software development.
> This is just like those people who insist on an object structure when one really isn't necessary
Can you show an example of this?
Cheers
> The real issue is the marrige license (at least here in the US).
You don't need a marriage license in order to be legally married.
> That needs the signatures of all involved
> (judge/clergy, bride, groom, witnesses
If you look up Marriage in Black's Law Dictionary, pg 973 (6th ed) you will find: A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry. (Thats the REAL reason you need a marriage license, otherwise you don't.)
Right above you will find "Marriage certificate": An instrument which certifies a marriage.
And if you look under Marriage (the previous page) you will see "Informal Marriage" A marriage in which promises are exchanged between the parties without an official ecclesiastical representitative present. See Consensual Marriage.
Looking at Consensual Marriage on pge 384 it reads: Marriage resting simply on consent per verba de praesenti, between competent parties. See Common-law marriage. (We see here Marriage is just a contact)
And finally we see Common-law marriage. One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. non-ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabiation.
The astute reader should know that if you live together with someone for 7 years, that is also considered a common-law marriage.
Ask a judge if you need more info then what I provided here.
Cheers
> but even if you think of it logically - would living an evil course for only a few years put you into torture FOREVER
:-( (Crusades, paying for repentence, etc.)
Yes. That was precisely my point.
Nothing like a few hypocritical christians to give a bad name for the rest of us.
Or some bible basher who can't even back up what the bible "supposedly" says.
This thread is dangerously off-topic.
Cheers