The problem is, everyone may use a different one. You mentioned three different calculators, but I personally use either an 89 or a laptop.
These days, people just get software for their laptop as opposed to a new calculator.
Everyone knows that the reason for global warming is lots of pirates. Look, yesterday was speak like a pirate day, and today, an article about global warming? 'Tis definitely the work of the great noodly one!
Erm, I actually read the sample chapter, and one thing I don't get: What did he do that is so revolutionary?
He redefined a side of a triangle with a Quadrance - a square of distance. He claims this removes the square root, but guess what? d^2 has the same effect.
He also defined a spread, which is the relationship between two lines. The catch? It is PROPORTIONALLY EQUAL to an angle. 90 degrees is 1, 0 degrees is 0, 45 degrees is 1/2.
I haven't read the full book, but from what I can tell, all this is doing is redefining the constraints of trigonometry, causing nice even numbers to be used.
Most people are saying that it would be harder to play an FPS, as it's less precise. Guess what, everyone will be handicapped the same way, and it's actually more realistic. Since when do you aim a gun just by moving the mouse? Aiming at a person, literally, and shooting would be so much more intuitive.
Oh, and on another point. If the controller did have an IR port, and it could detect furniture, could you imagine your precious fps played in real life, ducking behind furniture and such? I sure can.
Eclipse was actually my first experience with pre-defined test cases.
And in order to make a GUI test, it's hard to think of the logistics. How exactly is it wrong if a control is one pixel down, or if it doesn't use the right layout. What they really need is an on-the-fly GUI editor. Not a form-editor, but a way to change the code, and reissue a pack in order to change the UI.
As much as the student programmer in me would want to say "Who needs testing, I'm perfect!" I have to admit, this looks impressive.
Expected exceptions look pretty useful, although I'm wondering if the syntax is actually proper java coding.
If this is an open-source solution, it would be an extremely useful tool to have.
Unfortunately, HCI is an extremely lacking field at the moment. There are too many coders writing the interfaces, but not many are looking at the faults with them. The result? We are stuck with weird things that make no sense.
I am lucky to attend a college with one of the top HCI labs in the country [UMD], but from what I can tell, their main focus is children's interfaces. We need people to actually study what normal users think of interfaces - not the programmers.
What I meant was the levels on which you could do it. You can have a computer do one level, as in you can make it search prior knowledge. With a bit of coding, you can make it do the next level, which is to not only search prior knowledge, but make connections. What you cannot currently make a computer do is to actually recode itself to speak about dogs - which can be called as a stretch of a person getting a pHD in Canine Development, or some such.
A human can change his thought patterns, if he tries hard enough. He can force himself to study, he can force himself to change his mind, etc. A computer cannot currently do that without human involvement.
Basically when we think, we can change our thought rules on the fly.
For example, if someone says to me: "The word dog is the same as a canine" I would learn that, and file it away, and the next time I encounter the word canine, I would be able to associate it with the furry thing with 4 legs whenever.
Until a computer can truly rewrite its own code on the fly, it will not be able to emulate a human brain.
Sure there may be ways of layering scripts in order to give the impression that the computer is changing its code, but the sheer volume, as somebody stated, of the different things we know makes it impractical. If you were to train a computer like a baby, it would take a long time to get it even close to an average human intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, everyone may use a different one. You mentioned three different calculators, but I personally use either an 89 or a laptop. These days, people just get software for their laptop as opposed to a new calculator.
Everyone knows that the reason for global warming is lots of pirates. Look, yesterday was speak like a pirate day, and today, an article about global warming? 'Tis definitely the work of the great noodly one!
You would think that actually using the reader would be illegal
:P
And they DO erase them after you check out, don't they? It could be a precaution telling you not to lose it
It was in the FAQ.
Is anyone else freaked out by one of the FAQ questions?
We've included the option to install the Google Toolbar because it improves your browsing experience.
That seems like they aren't above bundling something just because they think you should use it. Scary?
Nope! That actually sounds like something a marketing m$-fanboy would say!
;-))
(Why else would a lurker post that?
The scary thing is, I thought you were serious until that DRM part.
It is based on a proportion. I never said it was linear, however. Basically he's redefining the domain of the functions to be neater.
Calculating their definition of spread is the exact same calculation as the definition of arctangent, as far as I can tell.
Spread is the relationship between quadrances. Directly proportional to angle, 45deg = 1/2, 90 deg = 1
I'm glad I'm not the only one!
Erm, I actually read the sample chapter, and one thing I don't get: What did he do that is so revolutionary?
He redefined a side of a triangle with a Quadrance - a square of distance. He claims this removes the square root, but guess what? d^2 has the same effect.
He also defined a spread, which is the relationship between two lines. The catch? It is PROPORTIONALLY EQUAL to an angle. 90 degrees is 1, 0 degrees is 0, 45 degrees is 1/2.
I haven't read the full book, but from what I can tell, all this is doing is redefining the constraints of trigonometry, causing nice even numbers to be used.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they use RF, if only to send the signal back to the console.
Isn't the fact that it's peer to peer kind of by definition preventing them from being wiped out?
Most people are saying that it would be harder to play an FPS, as it's less precise. Guess what, everyone will be handicapped the same way, and it's actually more realistic. Since when do you aim a gun just by moving the mouse? Aiming at a person, literally, and shooting would be so much more intuitive.
Oh, and on another point. If the controller did have an IR port, and it could detect furniture, could you imagine your precious fps played in real life, ducking behind furniture and such? I sure can.
Oh, I thought that that was kinda assumed. I'm used to the eclipse panels.
Eclipse was actually my first experience with pre-defined test cases. And in order to make a GUI test, it's hard to think of the logistics. How exactly is it wrong if a control is one pixel down, or if it doesn't use the right layout. What they really need is an on-the-fly GUI editor. Not a form-editor, but a way to change the code, and reissue a pack in order to change the UI.
As much as the student programmer in me would want to say "Who needs testing, I'm perfect!" I have to admit, this looks impressive. Expected exceptions look pretty useful, although I'm wondering if the syntax is actually proper java coding. If this is an open-source solution, it would be an extremely useful tool to have.
The horror, the horror! A person with actual MORALS on /.!
Opened up a google search. Using: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Waterpony/1.0.6 (Firefox/1.0.6 polymorph)
I myself have participated in a few of those types of competitions while still in college.
Some of the competitions were fun, and there are a lot of them out there - ASCL and ACM are just two of the national ones.
I'm sure a lot of the original players were kids who were too young to play legally.
I would much rather go to a normal casino, and lose my money the old-fashioned way.
Unfortunately, HCI is an extremely lacking field at the moment. There are too many coders writing the interfaces, but not many are looking at the faults with them. The result? We are stuck with weird things that make no sense.
I am lucky to attend a college with one of the top HCI labs in the country [UMD], but from what I can tell, their main focus is children's interfaces. We need people to actually study what normal users think of interfaces - not the programmers.
What I meant was the levels on which you could do it. You can have a computer do one level, as in you can make it search prior knowledge. With a bit of coding, you can make it do the next level, which is to not only search prior knowledge, but make connections. What you cannot currently make a computer do is to actually recode itself to speak about dogs - which can be called as a stretch of a person getting a pHD in Canine Development, or some such.
A human can change his thought patterns, if he tries hard enough. He can force himself to study, he can force himself to change his mind, etc. A computer cannot currently do that without human involvement.
Basically when we think, we can change our thought rules on the fly.
For example, if someone says to me: "The word dog is the same as a canine" I would learn that, and file it away, and the next time I encounter the word canine, I would be able to associate it with the furry thing with 4 legs whenever.
Until a computer can truly rewrite its own code on the fly, it will not be able to emulate a human brain.
Sure there may be ways of layering scripts in order to give the impression that the computer is changing its code, but the sheer volume, as somebody stated, of the different things we know makes it impractical. If you were to train a computer like a baby, it would take a long time to get it even close to an average human intelligence.