Nice try. If I'm talking to Joe, I'll tell him that I play Homeworld, Alpha Centurai (sp?), Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft 2, Unreal Tournament (all versions) and Medal of Honour. And civ3, Morrowind, Red Alert 2, Silent Hunter II, Armada 2 and everything else I've tried work ok under emulation, they're a bit slow but playable. There are commercial games for linux, there aren't enough for the hardcore gamers but the average user can find something they like. Most "Joe"s I know don't play many games, they just want web, email (in fact they probably use hotmail or gmail so they don't need a separate email client), and instant messaging. Oh, and word processing. All of those linux can do fine.
WTF? I read Foucault's Pendulum. The plot runs "Me and a friend get a bit of parchment and see how much conspiracy theory we can make from it. It was actually just some merchant's laundry list. Some people took the theory seriously and now they killed him and they're about to kill me." And take a look at broken sword for a game that has a plot.
You're right though, most games have very little plot etc. But there are plenty of books like that. And it doesn't have to be that way. If intellectuals were willing to play games, rather than looking down on them, there would be a market for more cerebral games and they would get made. I don't think this is a fundamental problem with the medium, just a problem with the games currently being made
The final point about imagination is interesting. However, I think a good game will require imagination to work out the plot and what to do next, and reward it.
The advantage of games is that they are interactive. Doing something is always more effective for learning it than being told it. I think good games have the potential to educate better than books can. I wouldn't say many of today's titles do it, but I'm confident it's possible.
They put them in elite private schools because they get the best results. They don't care how they're taught.
And where do people get this idea that books are intrinsincly better? You have to be very good to learn a lot from a videogame and nothing else - but exactly the same is true of a book.
No, but how often do schoolchildren discuss what they've read? Video games are very interactive. Learning is not hard, we are just told it is. If they are good games, I see no reason why learning through games would not be better than learning through books.
they can never provide the kind of mind expansion that reading a lot of novels can.
Why do people always say this? FWIW I do read a lot, but I can't see any reason why a book is somehow "better" than a movie or a game. Yet large numbers of people seem to take it as a given. There are good and bad books and games, and possibly more bad games than bad books, but why is it always assumed that a good game can never be as good as a good book?
The thing that people tend to forget is that the web is about amatuers. That's why it took off. Anyone could write html, write their own website, and they did. Preserving that situation is a good thing.
No. But it can break anything based on the discrete logarithm problem or the factorisation of large numbers (which means RSA and most public-key stuff in use today), as well as any block cipher with a reasonably big bit of ciphertext (as it lets you check all possible keys very quickly).
We've got working photon transmission through 2km of air. I think that's only going to increase. Besides, there are plenty of people for whom a single absolutely secure fiber-optic cable is worthwhile. Banks, for example, could probably use a guaranteed secure link to their national headquaters.
We're making progress in QKD through the air though. It doesn't and probably won't have the range for global communications. But it could easily have the range for battlefield ones.
What you say is true, but WRT 1. I don't think you're paranoid enough. When DES was first set up, the NSA not only knew about differential cryptanalysis, but had had it for long enough that they were worried other people would discover it. They have more conventional computing power *and* more mathematicians than any other institution in the world. There is no theoretical barrier to having a big working QC, it's all engineering. The NSA has one, count on it.
I suspect that only those who can afford to will live, and we will have one- or even zero-child policies put in place in most of the world. In the longer term we'll see a lowering of the value of human life, and then a bunch of no-hopers will go out on a crazy attempt to start a colony on another planet. They will probably die, but eventually one such group will succeed. And then we start to conquer the galaxy.
Why does it matter if there is no tail-call optimisation? OK, this technique may make your code a bit slower. Or even a lot slower. But it's worth it if you can program faster. But to answer the question, this technique means you can use any compiler for anything, so all languages now have tail-call optimisation.
But it makes the spamming pointless. Most of the spammers are just adding links to improve their google results. If that stops happening, we can hope the spammers will stop too.
The replies there also apply, but what about if you want internet via your mobile phone company? What about if in a couple of years you want to connect with broadband over power lines? What if someone invents something new?
Slashdot Mirror
Speed and anonymity are mutually exclusive, because the only way to get anonymity is by having people proxy for each other.
Nice try. If I'm talking to Joe, I'll tell him that I play Homeworld, Alpha Centurai (sp?), Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft 2, Unreal Tournament (all versions) and Medal of Honour. And civ3, Morrowind, Red Alert 2, Silent Hunter II, Armada 2 and everything else I've tried work ok under emulation, they're a bit slow but playable. There are commercial games for linux, there aren't enough for the hardcore gamers but the average user can find something they like. Most "Joe"s I know don't play many games, they just want web, email (in fact they probably use hotmail or gmail so they don't need a separate email client), and instant messaging. Oh, and word processing. All of those linux can do fine.
And the more articles there are, the more Joes will hear about it.
I suspect I'm not the only one saying this, but if you're serious I'd like it.
You're right though, most games have very little plot etc. But there are plenty of books like that. And it doesn't have to be that way. If intellectuals were willing to play games, rather than looking down on them, there would be a market for more cerebral games and they would get made. I don't think this is a fundamental problem with the medium, just a problem with the games currently being made
The final point about imagination is interesting. However, I think a good game will require imagination to work out the plot and what to do next, and reward it.
The advantage of games is that they are interactive. Doing something is always more effective for learning it than being told it. I think good games have the potential to educate better than books can. I wouldn't say many of today's titles do it, but I'm confident it's possible.
And where do people get this idea that books are intrinsincly better? You have to be very good to learn a lot from a videogame and nothing else - but exactly the same is true of a book.
You show me a really great book that teaches Calc I and I'll try.
No, but how often do schoolchildren discuss what they've read? Video games are very interactive. Learning is not hard, we are just told it is. If they are good games, I see no reason why learning through games would not be better than learning through books.
But books are no more real world than video games.
Why do people always say this? FWIW I do read a lot, but I can't see any reason why a book is somehow "better" than a movie or a game. Yet large numbers of people seem to take it as a given. There are good and bad books and games, and possibly more bad games than bad books, but why is it always assumed that a good game can never be as good as a good book?
They switch between implicit and explicit, I imagine. The .net compilers manage issues like this well enough.
The thing that people tend to forget is that the web is about amatuers. That's why it took off. Anyone could write html, write their own website, and they did. Preserving that situation is a good thing.
AIUI they were running the hubs rather than actually sharing the files.
No. But it can break anything based on the discrete logarithm problem or the factorisation of large numbers (which means RSA and most public-key stuff in use today), as well as any block cipher with a reasonably big bit of ciphertext (as it lets you check all possible keys very quickly).
We've got working photon transmission through 2km of air. I think that's only going to increase. Besides, there are plenty of people for whom a single absolutely secure fiber-optic cable is worthwhile. Banks, for example, could probably use a guaranteed secure link to their national headquaters.
We're making progress in QKD through the air though. It doesn't and probably won't have the range for global communications. But it could easily have the range for battlefield ones.
What you say is true, but WRT 1. I don't think you're paranoid enough. When DES was first set up, the NSA not only knew about differential cryptanalysis, but had had it for long enough that they were worried other people would discover it. They have more conventional computing power *and* more mathematicians than any other institution in the world. There is no theoretical barrier to having a big working QC, it's all engineering. The NSA has one, count on it.
I suspect that only those who can afford to will live, and we will have one- or even zero-child policies put in place in most of the world. In the longer term we'll see a lowering of the value of human life, and then a bunch of no-hopers will go out on a crazy attempt to start a colony on another planet. They will probably die, but eventually one such group will succeed. And then we start to conquer the galaxy.
Why does it matter if there is no tail-call optimisation? OK, this technique may make your code a bit slower. Or even a lot slower. But it's worth it if you can program faster. But to answer the question, this technique means you can use any compiler for anything, so all languages now have tail-call optimisation.
My point is that if it was true then it would matter. Which the OP didn't seem to think was the case.
No. If it wasn't preventing the library fulfilling its legal obligations, the library wouldn't need the exception.
2. Usually more expensive, and for the new technologies USB is not always fast enough. Did you ever see a Firewire modem?
But it makes the spamming pointless. Most of the spammers are just adding links to improve their google results. If that stops happening, we can hope the spammers will stop too.
You're saying using windows is intuitive?
The replies there also apply, but what about if you want internet via your mobile phone company? What about if in a couple of years you want to connect with broadband over power lines? What if someone invents something new?