When I first read that, I thought, hey how cool, the Creative Commons license made it in the news!
Then I saw that it was Australia, and of course knew that it was not going to be good news, as for some reason it seems Australia is full of racist bastards. Basically, white people.
But I think Star Trek, (at least, for the most part) has served an important role. I think it's kept us optimistic about the human spirit and about the future. That's the only reason there are trekkies. People like an uplifting message from time to time.
That having been said, I still haven't seen the final episodes of Season 3. The story arc was crap.
Season 4 on the other hand is quality. Although I'd like a few more non-mutli-parters, Enterprise has part of the original feel it had back in Season 1 back.
If you check my post history, you'll see I've called for the death of Entperprise several times. And been modded up heavily for it. I'm going to go right out and say it, Season 4 has made me rethink my position. I'm going to be sad when the show ends.
http://jhubert.club.fr/Go/Parties/Takagawa_GoSei ge n_1959/Takagawa_GoSeigen_1959_0.htm
I'm not sure what you're saying about the result is correct. I advise you to read the page i've linked above and google around for other information related to the situation.
Actually, yes it does have everything to do with solving the game. A good move heuristic is needed if you want to find a solution 150 ply deep, now isn't it?
I would also like to point out the increased computational challenge for RANKING a move.
A Go player has a significantly harder time judging whether groups of pieces are alive or dead than a chess player has deciding if he has killed a queen or not.
Similarly, Go is very much about more abstract qualities like territory and influence, thickness and lightness of play, good shape and bad. Although similarly abstract concepts exist in chess, my understanding is that at least in chess ai's aimed more at defeating the average player, these concepts don't even need to be explored. Those crazy machines they use to play against grandmasters are another story, I imagine.
I ramble. But suffice it to say the problem isn't entirely the exponentiality. There are significant challenges unrelated to alpha-beta pruning the search space before picking a decent move.
Despite the quanitty of Trademark, Copyright, and Patent law related articles posted here, the Slashdot Editors are not taking an active interest in educating themselves on the subjects. Which is sad, because there is actually a lot of low hanging fruit that should prevent them from making common mistakes in using terminology and deciding if a story is worth posting or not.
I went down that road too. Toss me an email at dogun_droppaDOTgeoATyahooDOTcom. I'm curious how far your work got.
But yes, I also agree that the real key for getting things right is 'conservation' of energy (sort of) - because without it, magic can too easily break game balance.
You're not far off from what I've thought about for a long time.
But yes, in order to do this right, it comes down to doing something similar to a programming language. The trick is to make it needlessly complex enough that players may be forced to generate their own secondary grammars (analogy: instructions->higher level programming language) in order to make substantial sense of things. The neat thing about this is it requires both enginuity, familiarity, and allows players to build standards if they so choose.
Also, I like the machine language analogy because you could envision 'devices' which corrospond to different aspects of the world. With a sufficiently complex model, you can probably expand that functionality indefinitely.
But yes, that's where the idea probably came from for me, too (Gemstone). After spending that much time in a RP heavy world, I really began to appreciate the difference between fighter and mage classes - fighters fight to gain levels. Shouldn't mages magic to gain levels?
I like the above poster's programming language analogy - I'm proposing a system similar to that but less straightforward. Indeed, behind the scenes, in order for the system to have the desired flexibility, it is very much the case that the system would need to be an interpreter for a scripting language of sorts, with a tendancy to 'crash' under certain conditions.
That having been said, there's nothing wrong with macros. Part of the thing about a magic system like this is that it's easy to defeat the idea of mages who don't know what's going on by simply providing mages with somatic components of different quality. If Bob tries to cast Sally's spell (assuming he can figure out the best matches in his mind to what Sally has done) there is no guarantee that Bob's spell will have a similar result, or that he will even survive try to repeat her cast, since his magical tolerances are different and magic is very chaotic outside of a tried and true grammar.
The trick is the grammar is somewhat different for everyone, because the components - be they words, gestures, runes, whatever, of the spell imply the grammar.
Nope. Mage: The Ascension requires human intervention.
I'm talking about something objective, in a video game without significant DM interaction. I'm not saying Mage: The Ascension isn't fun - it's just not what I'm looking at.
Also, Mage: The Ascension doesn't force the player to theorize and retheorize about how a spell is constructed - working out spell grammars and then realizing they're not right.
However, yes, the idea is for a magic system to be about that complete, and with similar, but slightly more severe, sideaffects than those of Paradox for poorly concieved magic.
Once you hit 13 characters or so, any nondictionary password is going to be a tough crack, massive parallel resources or not.
And I can tell you, typing a 13 character password is ruddy fast once you get good at it.
The difference between a 13 and a 42 character passwords is squat. At that point, you're in more danger of losing your password on a napkin and having someone else find it.
And who is to say that a magic system that complex would make what you prefer to do impossible? Don't feel like learning magical theory? Have someone make you an item that lets you throw silly sparks around at your enemies through use of a use magic items skill - channelling or whatnot.
Obviously a magic system of this sort implies a skill system, rather than a level system.
Slashdot Mirror
crybaby minorities... like me?
When in doubt, call the other person a crybaby.
I'm white.
You are technically correct.
The best kind of correct.
When I first read that, I thought, hey how cool, the Creative Commons license made it in the news!
Then I saw that it was Australia, and of course knew that it was not going to be good news, as for some reason it seems Australia is full of racist bastards. Basically, white people.
Prove me wrong.
Ah, someone out there is finally using the gaim encryption plugin. Good job!
(Normal AIM traffic is plaintext)
Yes. I'm submitting an article to my school paper noting that.
Here's a link: http://tinyurl.com/63znp
But I think Star Trek, (at least, for the most part) has served an important role. I think it's kept us optimistic about the human spirit and about the future. That's the only reason there are trekkies. People like an uplifting message from time to time.
That having been said, I still haven't seen the final episodes of Season 3. The story arc was crap.
Season 4 on the other hand is quality. Although I'd like a few more non-mutli-parters, Enterprise has part of the original feel it had back in Season 1 back.
If you check my post history, you'll see I've called for the death of Entperprise several times. And been modded up heavily for it. I'm going to go right out and say it, Season 4 has made me rethink my position. I'm going to be sad when the show ends.
I wouldn't put a lot of stock written about an abandoned child of LISP.
As the previous comment noted.
You might be referring to this game.
i ge n_1959/Takagawa_GoSeigen_1959_0.htm
http://jhubert.club.fr/Go/Parties/Takagawa_GoSe
I'm not sure what you're saying about the result is correct. I advise you to read the page i've linked above and google around for other information related to the situation.
Actually, yes it does have everything to do with solving the game. A good move heuristic is needed if you want to find a solution 150 ply deep, now isn't it?
Goddamnit you spoiled the movie for me.
You don't, it's 19x19.
but yes, 1/16th is reasonably close.
I would also like to point out the increased computational challenge for RANKING a move.
A Go player has a significantly harder time judging whether groups of pieces are alive or dead than a chess player has deciding if he has killed a queen or not.
Similarly, Go is very much about more abstract qualities like territory and influence, thickness and lightness of play, good shape and bad. Although similarly abstract concepts exist in chess, my understanding is that at least in chess ai's aimed more at defeating the average player, these concepts don't even need to be explored. Those crazy machines they use to play against grandmasters are another story, I imagine.
I ramble. But suffice it to say the problem isn't entirely the exponentiality. There are significant challenges unrelated to alpha-beta pruning the search space before picking a decent move.
My god you're a dumbass.
I've got a more likely explanation.
Despite the quanitty of Trademark, Copyright, and Patent law related articles posted here, the Slashdot Editors are not taking an active interest in educating themselves on the subjects. Which is sad, because there is actually a lot of low hanging fruit that should prevent them from making common mistakes in using terminology and deciding if a story is worth posting or not.
I'm impressed. They're very vague, which is both a good and bad sign about the magic system.
Specifically, I like the fact they mentioned elsewhere they are not going for the masses but rather for a niche. That's a particularly good sign.
I doubt they'll pull it off, but I'll keep an eye on them. If they do, I'm there. Thanks for the link.
I went down that road too. Toss me an email at dogun_droppaDOTgeoATyahooDOTcom. I'm curious how far your work got.
But yes, I also agree that the real key for getting things right is 'conservation' of energy (sort of) - because without it, magic can too easily break game balance.
You're not far off from what I've thought about for a long time.
But yes, in order to do this right, it comes down to doing something similar to a programming language. The trick is to make it needlessly complex enough that players may be forced to generate their own secondary grammars (analogy: instructions->higher level programming language) in order to make substantial sense of things. The neat thing about this is it requires both enginuity, familiarity, and allows players to build standards if they so choose.
Also, I like the machine language analogy because you could envision 'devices' which corrospond to different aspects of the world. With a sufficiently complex model, you can probably expand that functionality indefinitely.
Ah, a gamer after my own heart.
But yes, that's where the idea probably came from for me, too (Gemstone). After spending that much time in a RP heavy world, I really began to appreciate the difference between fighter and mage classes - fighters fight to gain levels. Shouldn't mages magic to gain levels?
You propose something similar to 'rune magic' in ToME. It's too limited for what I'm driving at, but a step in the right direction.
I have no idea what you're driving at.
I like the above poster's programming language analogy - I'm proposing a system similar to that but less straightforward. Indeed, behind the scenes, in order for the system to have the desired flexibility, it is very much the case that the system would need to be an interpreter for a scripting language of sorts, with a tendancy to 'crash' under certain conditions.
That having been said, there's nothing wrong with macros. Part of the thing about a magic system like this is that it's easy to defeat the idea of mages who don't know what's going on by simply providing mages with somatic components of different quality. If Bob tries to cast Sally's spell (assuming he can figure out the best matches in his mind to what Sally has done) there is no guarantee that Bob's spell will have a similar result, or that he will even survive try to repeat her cast, since his magical tolerances are different and magic is very chaotic outside of a tried and true grammar.
The trick is the grammar is somewhat different for everyone, because the components - be they words, gestures, runes, whatever, of the spell imply the grammar.
Nope. Mage: The Ascension requires human intervention.
I'm talking about something objective, in a video game without significant DM interaction. I'm not saying Mage: The Ascension isn't fun - it's just not what I'm looking at.
Also, Mage: The Ascension doesn't force the player to theorize and retheorize about how a spell is constructed - working out spell grammars and then realizing they're not right.
However, yes, the idea is for a magic system to be about that complete, and with similar, but slightly more severe, sideaffects than those of Paradox for poorly concieved magic.
Once you hit 13 characters or so, any nondictionary password is going to be a tough crack, massive parallel resources or not.
And I can tell you, typing a 13 character password is ruddy fast once you get good at it.
The difference between a 13 and a 42 character passwords is squat. At that point, you're in more danger of losing your password on a napkin and having someone else find it.
Also, why are LM hashes still used?
>
And who is to say that a magic system that complex would make what you prefer to do impossible? Don't feel like learning magical theory? Have someone make you an item that lets you throw silly sparks around at your enemies through use of a use magic items skill - channelling or whatnot.
Obviously a magic system of this sort implies a skill system, rather than a level system.