What you want is conformance to what you had before. We're asking you to try something different.
I think the problem is you guys are trying to fix things that aren't perceived as broken. People don't want to spend the time learning a new way to do something when they are happy with the current solution.
What are the connectors you are using? A standard HDD I see, not something you wire wrapped yourself?:-)
I don't even know what HDD is supposed to stand for. There's no connectors with that label, and HDD could refer to a hard drive or a high-definition display. Either way, I don't really care. Many companies make these commodity components. I don't want or need to wire my own. Of course, I could if I want. The protocols aren't secret.
Again, so Linux On The Desktop was soooo successful, right?
I'm happy running Linux. If it hasn't gone mainstream that still doesn't stop me from running tons of software and accessing the Internet.
What do you *realistically* want in a phone? I mean, we cant expect a bag of parts to be in the box, "assemble however you want!":-) Nor assembled phones that ask "please insert an SD card with Operating System ISO of your choice:-)" upon the first boot.
Look again to the PC. It can come pre-installed with software, or I can wipe it out and install my own.
I would think having devices that you can legally hack is the best of both worlds.
No, it sucks. I don't want to have "hack" my hardware just to install the software I want on it.
It has to be realistic, something that can actually happen. [...] I think hacking your Android or iOS device, and not being sent to Gitmo for it is the best of both worlds.
That's all fine and dandy until the company bans you from their network because you hacked their device, or invalidates your warranty for the same reason. Or until the hacks become harder and harder to pull off.
I'm not embracing Google and their illusionary open garden.
"The PC Market"? Like who? CERTAINLY NOT WINDOWS! Talk about "warping the market"... christ!
So then you're meaning like, some Linux distro?
You're confusing the PC hardware with the software that runs on it. I can buy a PC from any vendor, and there are some vendors that ship them barebones without an OS at all. I happen to be typing this comment on a PC with Linux, but the point is it could be anything, from FreeBSD to any operating system that you can dream up.
Well, the closest you would have is that Maemo thing Nokia is trying to cook up, you know, the thing that will most likely NEVER come out?
I never trusted Nokia any more than any other company when it comes to openness.
Theres a lot of talk about "extremely open" devices, but who buys them? NOBODY!
Yes, that's the way it is. I can tell you what I want, but it doesn't mean it will happen. Still, it doesn't mean it won't. The original PC was a proprietary platform by IBM that was blown wide open by clones. Who knows if some clone or free device will arise?
If Google say "the CPU must be at least this, the screen res..." to run their OS, then thats a GOOD thing.
Fuck that. Here I am typing this comment on a widescreen monitor of my choosing, on an operating system of my choosing, on a web browser of my choosing, with installed software of my choosing. I don't need or want any mother-Google dictating the terms.
It's best to hang on to your ideals instead of embracing the wolf in friendly clothing.
The reality is, "The Free Market" involves crooked deals among The Big Boys, ie Google giving out favours to Manufacturer X
...
I'd rather have a "free market with rules", with a Google who sets limits
So you want the same company that warps the market with crooked deals setting the limits?
What I want is a market like the PC market. One where the device is a commodity and you are free to install any software you want on it, and as long as it talks the standard protocol, it works. Fuck the Apple walled garden. Fuck Google-controlled, faux openness.
Back during the heath care debates before the law passed, I heard a segment on NPR saying a lot of the problems are the prices being charged by the health care providers, not just the insurance industry.
Sure, so long as we're revising history, the South and Germany both won.
You're the one who's revising history. Denying it, as a matter of fact.
His smarts were in marketing - exactly as I originally asserted.
Laughable. Did you miss the part about his proficiency in math? He was also a hard-core programmer and responsible for a large chunk of a very technically demanding software program that got them their first big contract and got their business rolling.
The business he created was only possible, not because of his awesome prowess, but because of IBM's misstep
He was already running a successful business before IBM came to them. That's why IBM came to them.
Perhaps you should bother to evaluate the actual market rather than take their own, biased, views o the subject.
Seriously, get off your prejudices and read the article.
That's just so much bullshit. People on the "extremely low" end of tech don't teach themselves programming in the early computer age and help write a Basic interpreter in a few kb of assembly.
Paul Allen had the following things to say about Bill in his article:
"When Bill got the news that heâ(TM)d been accepted at Harvard University, he wasnâ(TM)t surprised; heâ(TM)d been riding high since scoring near the top in the Putnam Competition, where heâ(TM)d tested his math skills against college undergraduates around the country."
"Each time I brought an idea to Bill, he would pop my balloon. âoeThat would take a bunch of people and a lot of money,â heâ(TM)d say. Or âoeThat sounds really complicated. Weâ(TM)re not hardware gurus, Paul,â heâ(TM)d remind me. âoeWhat we know is software.â And he was right. My ideas were ahead of their time or beyond our scope or both. It was ridiculous to think that two young guys in Boston could beat IBM on its own turf. Billâ(TM)s reality checks stopped us from wasting time in areas where we had scant chance of success."
"Shoehorned into about 3,200 bytes, roughly 2,000 lines of code, it was one tight little BASICâ"stripped down, for sure, but robust for its size. No one could have beaten the functionality and speed crammed into that tiny footprint of memory: âoeThe best piece of work we ever did,â as Bill told me recently. And it was a true collaboration. Iâ(TM)d estimate that 45 percent of the code was Billâ(TM)s, 30 percent Monteâ(TM)s, and 25 percent mine, excluding my development tools."
"All things considered, it was quite an achievement for three people our age. If you checked that software today, I believe it would stack up against anything written by our old mentors. Bill and I had grown into crack programmers. And we were just getting started."
Bill Gates was a ruthless business man, was an asshole personality-wise, came from a rich family, and had some luck . However, he also had smarts and tech-savvy, business acumen, and a drive to succeed.
He's never shown much smarts when it comes to matters of technology. Period. People have always attributed technological and business prowess where little actually exists. His business position has always been one of luck, usually by the ineptitude of others (cough, IBM) more so than any genius for business. Gate's real ability is in marketing and unethetical, cut-throat behavior. Its always been true. I can't help but look down on any and all who idolizes Gates.
You talk a lot about IBM, but they only got in the position to work with IBM because of Basic. You should try reading the article (the second link, the Vanity Fair one), which is written by Paul Allen and provides a detailed, early history of his partnership with Bill Gates and the creation of Microsoft. To say that Gates didn't have technical skill is completely ignorant.
PHP is astonishingly ugly and barely usable, and having spent the last week or two working on some Wordpress stuff in PHP I have to say it is hands down the most ridiculous language I have ever had the misfortune of using. I have no idea why anyone would prefer it to perl or Python on the server. My only guess is that it is sold to people who know nothing about software design as "you too can write amazing Web 2.0 applications!"
Pretty much, but PHP gained popularity well before the "Web 2.0" meme. It was basically Perl revamped with a hard focus on embedding code and database access into web pages. So yeah, it was sold as an easy way to throw together some web pages that barfed up some info from a database.
It's kind of like how HTML is a shitty markup language for serious development, yet was easy for amateurs to work with so it won. Worse is better, and all that.
A computer beating another computer is not the same as a computer beating a human that the other computer beat.
Not exactly the same, but it's enough to dispute my parent's ridiculous claims (of which he has made many).
Go playing computers often resign when they are behind and see no way to get ahead, for example
They usually resign when they are hopelessly behind and after removing all the aji in an attempt to win the game. Even so, I've played enough computer Go programs to know that they can be just as tricky as humans, even when you think you've got them beat. They also play strategically, sometimes in ways that surprise humans and end up beating them.
I dislike Chess, it is a child's game for simple minds
And Go is a game for navel-gazing elitist jackasses. Seriously, I prefer Go over chess, but there's no need to bash chess. To each their own.
Humans do shit you don't expect, and they see shit that you can't work out. We think abstractly.
There's no disputing that humans and computers approach games and problems differently, but in a narrowly defined problem like a board game results is what matters, and these days chess is dominated by computers and Go is starting to fall in that direction.
Because despite some looking down their noses on the sport crowd, others are jealous of the popularity of sports. On a more practical propaganda level, some people are trying to games like chess and Go into the Olympics. I kid you not.
You miss the point. There were GM players at the early tournaments, and the guys who won them played computers and either drew or lost. At later tournaments Rybka dominated among the computers, so it as at least as strong as the earlier ones that won or drew against very good players.
So your claim that a 2000-2100 player would beat Rybka at Fischer Random is just more bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about, as you've demonstrated over and over again. I'm not replying to you any more.
"At the same tournament in 2004, Aronian played two Fischer Random Chess games against the Dutch computer chess program The Baron, developed by Richard Pijl. Both games ended in a draw. It was the first ever man against machine match in Fischer Random Chess."
"The chess program Shredder, developed by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen from Düsseldorf, Germany, played two games against ZoltÃn AlmÃsi from Hungary; Shredder won 2-0."
The same page shows that Rybka won the computer event for Fischer Random in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
You just don't know what you are talking about. Computer chess players look millions of moves into the future. Seriously, just spend a few minutes on a web search.
There's not a need for a new word because "game" accurately describes what it is. There are other qualifiers like "tournament chess", "professional chess", "competitive chess", etc. that serve the same purpose without the bogus appeal to sports.
What is up with you? I've read another stupid comment from you minutes ago.
See, I could ask you the same question.
It's about the fact that every chessgame in the world that can beat me (and there are heaps of them) use databases.
So? Humans spend countless hours creating databases in their heads. Are you saying computers shouldn't be allowed to have a memory?
The program doesn't know how to play chess. It only knows the number of wins and losses after a position and move on the board.
You clearly don't understand how computer chess works. They win because they look ahead very far into the game, not just by having knowledge of previous games.
It's not whether you are taking it serious or not, it's that the word "sport", in common usage, applies to physical activity.
When chess fans use it, they are just trying to latch on to the popularity and good connotations of the term. Some English-speaking players have taken to calling these intellectual games "mind sports", which is just stupid.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Most people think the game is a draw. Theoretically it can be any possibility. There are no proofs.
Slashdot Mirror
What you want is conformance to what you had before. We're asking you to try something different.
I think the problem is you guys are trying to fix things that aren't perceived as broken. People don't want to spend the time learning a new way to do something when they are happy with the current solution.
What are the connectors you are using? A standard HDD I see, not something you wire wrapped yourself? :-)
I don't even know what HDD is supposed to stand for. There's no connectors with that label, and HDD could refer to a hard drive or a high-definition display. Either way, I don't really care. Many companies make these commodity components. I don't want or need to wire my own. Of course, I could if I want. The protocols aren't secret.
Again, so Linux On The Desktop was soooo successful, right?
I'm happy running Linux. If it hasn't gone mainstream that still doesn't stop me from running tons of software and accessing the Internet.
What do you *realistically* want in a phone? I mean, we cant expect a bag of parts to be in the box, "assemble however you want!" :-) Nor assembled phones that ask "please insert an SD card with Operating System ISO of your choice :-)" upon the first boot.
Look again to the PC. It can come pre-installed with software, or I can wipe it out and install my own.
I would think having devices that you can legally hack is the best of both worlds.
No, it sucks. I don't want to have "hack" my hardware just to install the software I want on it.
It has to be realistic, something that can actually happen. [...] I think hacking your Android or iOS device, and not being sent to Gitmo for it is the best of both worlds.
That's all fine and dandy until the company bans you from their network because you hacked their device, or invalidates your warranty for the same reason. Or until the hacks become harder and harder to pull off.
I'm not embracing Google and their illusionary open garden.
"The PC Market"? Like who? CERTAINLY NOT WINDOWS! Talk about "warping the market"... christ!
So then you're meaning like, some Linux distro?
You're confusing the PC hardware with the software that runs on it. I can buy a PC from any vendor, and there are some vendors that ship them barebones without an OS at all. I happen to be typing this comment on a PC with Linux, but the point is it could be anything, from FreeBSD to any operating system that you can dream up.
Well, the closest you would have is that Maemo thing Nokia is trying to cook up, you know, the thing that will most likely NEVER come out?
I never trusted Nokia any more than any other company when it comes to openness.
Theres a lot of talk about "extremely open" devices, but who buys them? NOBODY!
Yes, that's the way it is. I can tell you what I want, but it doesn't mean it will happen. Still, it doesn't mean it won't. The original PC was a proprietary platform by IBM that was blown wide open by clones. Who knows if some clone or free device will arise?
If Google say "the CPU must be at least this, the screen res..." to run their OS, then thats a GOOD thing.
Fuck that. Here I am typing this comment on a widescreen monitor of my choosing, on an operating system of my choosing, on a web browser of my choosing, with installed software of my choosing. I don't need or want any mother-Google dictating the terms.
It's best to hang on to your ideals instead of embracing the wolf in friendly clothing.
So I'm glad to see the FCC taking advantage of good OSS and thereby delivering a better product to the people at a lower overall cost.
Maybe they didn't spend a big chunk on licensing fees, but $1.35 million for a fairly vanilla website is quite expensive.
The reality is, "The Free Market" involves crooked deals among The Big Boys, ie Google giving out favours to Manufacturer X
...
I'd rather have a "free market with rules", with a Google who sets limits
So you want the same company that warps the market with crooked deals setting the limits?
What I want is a market like the PC market. One where the device is a commodity and you are free to install any software you want on it, and as long as it talks the standard protocol, it works. Fuck the Apple walled garden. Fuck Google-controlled, faux openness.
They are going commercial in a really bad sell out kind of way, and you can tell the developers I said it.
Wow, impressive words. I'm sure they'll give a shit that "elucido" on Slashdot said that.
Back during the heath care debates before the law passed, I heard a segment on NPR saying a lot of the problems are the prices being charged by the health care providers, not just the insurance industry.
Sure, so long as we're revising history, the South and Germany both won.
You're the one who's revising history. Denying it, as a matter of fact.
His smarts were in marketing - exactly as I originally asserted.
Laughable. Did you miss the part about his proficiency in math? He was also a hard-core programmer and responsible for a large chunk of a very technically demanding software program that got them their first big contract and got their business rolling.
The business he created was only possible, not because of his awesome prowess, but because of IBM's misstep
He was already running a successful business before IBM came to them. That's why IBM came to them.
Perhaps you should bother to evaluate the actual market rather than take their own, biased, views o the subject.
Seriously, get off your prejudices and read the article.
Gates is extremely low on the tech savvy scale
That's just so much bullshit. People on the "extremely low" end of tech don't teach themselves programming in the early computer age and help write a Basic interpreter in a few kb of assembly.
Paul Allen had the following things to say about Bill in his article:
"When Bill got the news that heâ(TM)d been accepted at Harvard University, he wasnâ(TM)t surprised; heâ(TM)d been riding high since scoring near the top in the Putnam Competition, where heâ(TM)d tested his math skills against college undergraduates around the country."
"Each time I brought an idea to Bill, he would pop my balloon. âoeThat would take a bunch of people and a lot of money,â heâ(TM)d say. Or âoeThat sounds really complicated. Weâ(TM)re not hardware gurus, Paul,â heâ(TM)d remind me. âoeWhat we know is software.â And he was right. My ideas were ahead of their time or beyond our scope or both. It was ridiculous to think that two young guys in Boston could beat IBM on its own turf. Billâ(TM)s reality checks stopped us from wasting time in areas where we had scant chance of success."
"Shoehorned into about 3,200 bytes, roughly 2,000 lines of code, it was one tight little BASICâ"stripped down, for sure, but robust for its size. No one could have beaten the functionality and speed crammed into that tiny footprint of memory: âoeThe best piece of work we ever did,â as Bill told me recently. And it was a true collaboration. Iâ(TM)d estimate that 45 percent of the code was Billâ(TM)s, 30 percent Monteâ(TM)s, and 25 percent mine, excluding my development tools."
"All things considered, it was quite an achievement for three people our age. If you checked that software today, I believe it would stack up against anything written by our old mentors. Bill and I had grown into crack programmers. And we were just getting started."
Bill Gates was a ruthless business man, was an asshole personality-wise, came from a rich family, and had some luck . However, he also had smarts and tech-savvy, business acumen, and a drive to succeed.
He's never shown much smarts when it comes to matters of technology. Period. People have always attributed technological and business prowess where little actually exists. His business position has always been one of luck, usually by the ineptitude of others (cough, IBM) more so than any genius for business. Gate's real ability is in marketing and unethetical, cut-throat behavior. Its always been true. I can't help but look down on any and all who idolizes Gates.
You talk a lot about IBM, but they only got in the position to work with IBM because of Basic. You should try reading the article (the second link, the Vanity Fair one), which is written by Paul Allen and provides a detailed, early history of his partnership with Bill Gates and the creation of Microsoft. To say that Gates didn't have technical skill is completely ignorant.
PHP is astonishingly ugly and barely usable, and having spent the last week or two working on some Wordpress stuff in PHP I have to say it is hands down the most ridiculous language I have ever had the misfortune of using. I have no idea why anyone would prefer it to perl or Python on the server. My only guess is that it is sold to people who know nothing about software design as "you too can write amazing Web 2.0 applications!"
Pretty much, but PHP gained popularity well before the "Web 2.0" meme. It was basically Perl revamped with a hard focus on embedding code and database access into web pages. So yeah, it was sold as an easy way to throw together some web pages that barfed up some info from a database.
It's kind of like how HTML is a shitty markup language for serious development, yet was easy for amateurs to work with so it won. Worse is better, and all that.
A computer beating another computer is not the same as a computer beating a human that the other computer beat.
Not exactly the same, but it's enough to dispute my parent's ridiculous claims (of which he has made many).
Go playing computers often resign when they are behind and see no way to get ahead, for example
They usually resign when they are hopelessly behind and after removing all the aji in an attempt to win the game. Even so, I've played enough computer Go programs to know that they can be just as tricky as humans, even when you think you've got them beat. They also play strategically, sometimes in ways that surprise humans and end up beating them.
I dislike Chess, it is a child's game for simple minds
And Go is a game for navel-gazing elitist jackasses. Seriously, I prefer Go over chess, but there's no need to bash chess. To each their own.
Humans do shit you don't expect, and they see shit that you can't work out. We think abstractly.
There's no disputing that humans and computers approach games and problems differently, but in a narrowly defined problem like a board game results is what matters, and these days chess is dominated by computers and Go is starting to fall in that direction.
I'd rather they kept their secrets and let somebody else figure it out than be granted a monopoly on an idea.
It is also quite nice to see this published openly.
And no doubt backed up by a dozen patents.
Yeah, that was worth a laugh.
Because despite some looking down their noses on the sport crowd, others are jealous of the popularity of sports. On a more practical propaganda level, some people are trying to games like chess and Go into the Olympics. I kid you not.
Yes, "games", "intellectual games", or "competitive gaming", or "professional gaming".
"mind sports" is stupid because of the strong association with physical activity.
You miss the point. There were GM players at the early tournaments, and the guys who won them played computers and either drew or lost. At later tournaments Rybka dominated among the computers, so it as at least as strong as the earlier ones that won or drew against very good players.
So your claim that a 2000-2100 player would beat Rybka at Fischer Random is just more bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about, as you've demonstrated over and over again. I'm not replying to you any more.
Physically unfit, old men can and do play the game at a high level. Please stop with the sports-envy. Chess players aren't athletes.
Don't you get tired of being wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960
"At the same tournament in 2004, Aronian played two Fischer Random Chess games against the Dutch computer chess program The Baron, developed by Richard Pijl. Both games ended in a draw. It was the first ever man against machine match in Fischer Random Chess."
"The chess program Shredder, developed by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen from Düsseldorf, Germany, played two games against ZoltÃn AlmÃsi from Hungary; Shredder won 2-0."
The same page shows that Rybka won the computer event for Fischer Random in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
You just don't know what you are talking about. Computer chess players look millions of moves into the future. Seriously, just spend a few minutes on a web search.
There's not a need for a new word because "game" accurately describes what it is. There are other qualifiers like "tournament chess", "professional chess", "competitive chess", etc. that serve the same purpose without the bogus appeal to sports.
What is up with you? I've read another stupid comment from you minutes ago.
See, I could ask you the same question.
It's about the fact that every chessgame in the world that can beat me (and there are heaps of them) use databases.
So? Humans spend countless hours creating databases in their heads. Are you saying computers shouldn't be allowed to have a memory?
The program doesn't know how to play chess. It only knows the number of wins and losses after a position and move on the board.
You clearly don't understand how computer chess works. They win because they look ahead very far into the game, not just by having knowledge of previous games.
It's not whether you are taking it serious or not, it's that the word "sport", in common usage, applies to physical activity.
When chess fans use it, they are just trying to latch on to the popularity and good connotations of the term. Some English-speaking players have taken to calling these intellectual games "mind sports", which is just stupid.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Most people think the game is a draw. Theoretically it can be any possibility. There are no proofs.