One of the big failings of CASE is that you have to translate the business requirements from random English into something that the computer understands (let's call it CASE English) [other human languages could be substituted here, but I'm an obnoxious American]. That right there is the same thing that programmers do every day -- translate English into a language the computer understands (BASIC, COBOL, C, Java, C#, PHP, RoR, HTML, etc.). So, if you are going to be converting the English into CASE English, there's not much difference to converting it to a programming language -- and programmers are already pretty good at it (well, most of them, I could name some names). The results of the CASE step is code in the programming language anyway, which has to be tweaked for the specifics and performance, so why bother with the CASE step when it's not really the hard or time consuming piece of the puzzle (80/20 rule and all).
Most important thing I learned from my dad......do something you love because you have to work for around 40 years and that's a long time to hate your job. My dad started at a paper mill when he was 18 and retired at 60. He hated it but had the obligation of providing for a family (and by the time he could change, it was really too late to bother changing). He was always miserable. I program because I love it (don't tell my boss, but I'd do it for less money). When I'm not at work, I'm programming on the side or for fun or taking programming classes (game programming, I work in business apps) or just generally being involved in computers. My worst day as a programmer is still better than the best day doing something I hate.
It's ok to change fields, but don't be miserable doing it.
When was the last time you heard of someone crashing their car due to mechanical failure, in or out of warranty? And I mean actual failure ('the suspension arm broke', or 'brakes failed' or whatever)
The difference being that the car doesn't fall out of the sky when it breaks down. Consider a flat tire; a structural failure of a key part -- not always the cause of a wreck, but happens often enough that I regularly see people on the side of the road fixing them. If a flying car has a mechanical issue, I don't think it would immediately fall from the sky, but those safety measures need to be included in the design (something to prevent crashes in the event of most mechanical failures).
Man, holding this button down just to be able to dose these guys is a pain. I'll just put some duct tape over it in the down position. That'll make it easier on me.
Already on Sprint (as of a few days ago) with the chinless Hero. And on Nov. 1st, the Samsung Moment. So, not only does Sprint have Android, but they will have two devices within weeks.
Honestly, I think the only reason why the iPhone will be tough to beat (and FWIW, I have Windows Mobile and am considering Android) is iTunes. iTunes is locked to Apple products and is a huge factor in what will make or break a platform. If people can't get their music out of iTunes and on to their phone, the platform won't succeed. If a "better iTunes" came along that wasn't tied to Apple products, you might see people flocking away from the vendor lock in. The App store was initially a key differentiator, but all platforms are getting one (and I'm surprised it took MS this long since WinMo has been around this long). And really, the killer app is still iTunes.
One could argue the other side and say that by not having to worry about innovating on the tech side to fit a game into an unknown hardware spec, the developers can spend more time innovating on the game play side.
But really, I think the argument is moot. Both PCs and Consoles need each other even if just as an adversary such that there is no stagnation in the industry. Without PCs, Consoles have no reason to go to the next gen. Without Consoles, PCs have no reason to make drastic changes to game play.
F) Order those troops to surrender (a.k.a. punt). G) Political negotiations for a cease fire H) Create havok in another area (of strength) such that the opposing general needs to pull some of the resources in that area or risk getting supply lines cut off I) etc. etc.
The thing about humans is that they aren't limited to pre-programmed options. Combos weren't part of the original Street Fighter games until humans figured them out. Then they were added to later versions so that the computer could take advantage of them. Rocket Jumps? I'm sure the developers coded for it from day 1. Etc. And different humans have different creative problem solving methods. This is why real AI is hard. You can't code for all contingencies.....and a truly adaptable AI would need to have learning skills to handle those scenarios that were not inherently programmed in.
I'd love to see it. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it, either. I'll take the decision tree + random variance that we get now, throw in a little "Easy = 3, Medium = 5, Hard = 10" Enemy scaling and I'll still play video games. When I want an opponent that is challenging, I'll go online and play against real people.
The big problem with the implementations of adaptable I've seen is that it's just "more".
Too easy to beat up a squad of 5 baddies? Throw in three more. Still not enough? Let's take it to 11. If not more enemies, then more AI options. At level one, they don't strafe. At level 9, they strafe and jump both.
A real adaptable challenge needs to adapt like a human would. And that's HARD (computer implementation hard). But more power to you if you can accomplish it. You'll get lots of kudos from the gaming industry.....at least until they all rip you off.;)
I've started calling "no child left behind" as "everybody passes".
disclaimer: 3 kids (one recently graduated, one currently in high school and one currently in middle school) and a wife that's a teacher.....
These days kids get to do test corrections to bring their grade up, they get retakes, they get minimum grades, they get all kinds of crutches so that they'll pass --- well, except for actual accountability for learning the material. Texas has a standardized test that kids at certain grade levels must pass before they can go to the next grade (other grades take the test, but it is not a requirement for advancement). Kids are given THREE times to pass the test and then, if they still haven't passed, there is a conference with the parents, teacher, and principal where -- if the student shows "progress" -- the child is allow to continue to the next grade in spite of failing the test. The "problem" is passed along to the next grade instead of looking at where the system is failing this kid.
They don't teach logic and problem solving. They teach memorization.
An example: In my day, we learned Phonics and word roots and context clues. When we encountered new words, we were told to sound it out. Using our word roots and context, we were asked what the word might mean. We took those pieces of knowledge and had a decent idea of what a word meant. Sure, we might have thought that preamble was the time before we walked around aimlessly, but we were reasonably close. These days, kids are taught to read via "sight words". When they encounter a new word, they have no clue how to pronounce it (the youngest two have only had exposure to Phonics at home and still have trouble pronouncing new words). They don't focus on prefixes and suffixes and word roots. The middle daughter just started asking about word context this year. Kids have trouble with new words because they've never seen it before, don't know what the root word implies, and don't know how to use the words around it to determine meaning. These factors are the *logic* of language and kids don't have that exposure.
True curiosity, not trolling or goading (disclosure: haven't read any of the links, just a lot of the comments).
So, you've set up a life insurance policy that pays out upon your death to the company that maintains your body until possible revival or 1,000 years, whichever comes first. I get that. That's how you pay them for long term maintenance. But at what point are you frozen? I assume it has to be while you are still in a living/pseudo-living state of some sort, otherwise, revival would be impossible. So, wouldn't the insurance company have an argument against paying out (as insurance companies are wont to have)?
I'm curious if those small USB 'monitors' would work for this. You'd only need to plug it in as needed and could use it on your main machine when not being used on the server. Or, he could always get a USB video card.
I've always said that I want to be the top guy on an elite team not the top guy on a mediocre team. It's in my best interest to improve everyone around me (including myself) so that I look even better when the entire team is recognized as top-notch.
I think you need both types. You need the narrow focused people to ferret out new maths or new physics equations or what have you. You need the broad focused people to figure out how to take advantage of the new facts in a completely unlreated field (usually in a practical manner). Both are lauded in our history books as you can find plenty of examples of each. Franklin, Edison, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Tesla, etc. -- it should be easy to figure out which brilliant mind is associated with broad or narrow focus.
Jim Bob's knowledge of deer skinning may give an astute observer insight into how that skin connects to the underlying tissue which might be the key to solving a problem with skin cancer in humans. But the scientist searching for the cancer cure would never have figured it out without Jim Bob being a deer skinning expert.
If there are people on the surface, you switch from calculating the landing on Earth to targetting an orbit. Once orbit is established, the Martians nee Earthlings would trigger a landing sequence and possibly even steer it down. Should get your accuracy up quite a bit. I think they've missed orbit less.
And a car has brake, accellerate, swerve left, and swerve right. And that really can't be done on a dime, either. The amount of "on a dime" is based on speed -- faster travel means less maneuverability which is why planes can't turn on a dime; they are travelling much faster.
It should be relatively easy to establish "rules of the sky" where the northern/eastern most plane can take either up or North/East and the southern/western most plane can take either down or South/West to avoid a collision much like (in the US) a driver should steer right to avoid one.
Slashdot Mirror
Splitting a continent may leave you with only one continent......just one that is divided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
But if you put a bunch of them in a bowl and pour in some milk......Cooooooooooooooooookie Crip!
One of the big failings of CASE is that you have to translate the business requirements from random English into something that the computer understands (let's call it CASE English) [other human languages could be substituted here, but I'm an obnoxious American]. That right there is the same thing that programmers do every day -- translate English into a language the computer understands (BASIC, COBOL, C, Java, C#, PHP, RoR, HTML, etc.). So, if you are going to be converting the English into CASE English, there's not much difference to converting it to a programming language -- and programmers are already pretty good at it (well, most of them, I could name some names). The results of the CASE step is code in the programming language anyway, which has to be tweaked for the specifics and performance, so why bother with the CASE step when it's not really the hard or time consuming piece of the puzzle (80/20 rule and all).
Most important thing I learned from my dad......do something you love because you have to work for around 40 years and that's a long time to hate your job. My dad started at a paper mill when he was 18 and retired at 60. He hated it but had the obligation of providing for a family (and by the time he could change, it was really too late to bother changing). He was always miserable. I program because I love it (don't tell my boss, but I'd do it for less money). When I'm not at work, I'm programming on the side or for fun or taking programming classes (game programming, I work in business apps) or just generally being involved in computers. My worst day as a programmer is still better than the best day doing something I hate.
It's ok to change fields, but don't be miserable doing it.
When was the last time you heard of someone crashing their car due to mechanical failure, in or out of warranty? And I mean actual failure ('the suspension arm broke', or 'brakes failed' or whatever)
The difference being that the car doesn't fall out of the sky when it breaks down. Consider a flat tire; a structural failure of a key part -- not always the cause of a wreck, but happens often enough that I regularly see people on the side of the road fixing them. If a flying car has a mechanical issue, I don't think it would immediately fall from the sky, but those safety measures need to be included in the design (something to prevent crashes in the event of most mechanical failures).
Actually, it would be black on the outside but lit up on the inside......all of the light would be funneled to the core.
Man, holding this button down just to be able to dose these guys is a pain. I'll just put some duct tape over it in the down position. That'll make it easier on me.
Already on Sprint (as of a few days ago) with the chinless Hero. And on Nov. 1st, the Samsung Moment. So, not only does Sprint have Android, but they will have two devices within weeks.
Honestly, I think the only reason why the iPhone will be tough to beat (and FWIW, I have Windows Mobile and am considering Android) is iTunes. iTunes is locked to Apple products and is a huge factor in what will make or break a platform. If people can't get their music out of iTunes and on to their phone, the platform won't succeed. If a "better iTunes" came along that wasn't tied to Apple products, you might see people flocking away from the vendor lock in. The App store was initially a key differentiator, but all platforms are getting one (and I'm surprised it took MS this long since WinMo has been around this long). And really, the killer app is still iTunes.
One could argue the other side and say that by not having to worry about innovating on the tech side to fit a game into an unknown hardware spec, the developers can spend more time innovating on the game play side.
But really, I think the argument is moot. Both PCs and Consoles need each other even if just as an adversary such that there is no stagnation in the industry. Without PCs, Consoles have no reason to go to the next gen. Without Consoles, PCs have no reason to make drastic changes to game play.
I was expecting the first response to that line to be a Goat-C link......Slashdot has failed me.........again.
F) Order those troops to surrender (a.k.a. punt).
G) Political negotiations for a cease fire
H) Create havok in another area (of strength) such that the opposing general needs to pull some of the resources in that area or risk getting supply lines cut off
I) etc. etc.
The thing about humans is that they aren't limited to pre-programmed options. Combos weren't part of the original Street Fighter games until humans figured them out. Then they were added to later versions so that the computer could take advantage of them. Rocket Jumps? I'm sure the developers coded for it from day 1. Etc. And different humans have different creative problem solving methods. This is why real AI is hard. You can't code for all contingencies.....and a truly adaptable AI would need to have learning skills to handle those scenarios that were not inherently programmed in.
I'd love to see it. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it, either. I'll take the decision tree + random variance that we get now, throw in a little "Easy = 3, Medium = 5, Hard = 10" Enemy scaling and I'll still play video games. When I want an opponent that is challenging, I'll go online and play against real people.
The big problem with the implementations of adaptable I've seen is that it's just "more".
Too easy to beat up a squad of 5 baddies? Throw in three more. Still not enough? Let's take it to 11.
If not more enemies, then more AI options. At level one, they don't strafe. At level 9, they strafe and jump both.
A real adaptable challenge needs to adapt like a human would. And that's HARD (computer implementation hard). But more power to you if you can accomplish it. You'll get lots of kudos from the gaming industry.....at least until they all rip you off. ;)
The cost would be higher, of course, but I'm sure obtaining funding would be even easier.
I know where they can get a lot of funding.
"Funding provided by NERF(tm)"
I've started calling "no child left behind" as "everybody passes".
disclaimer: 3 kids (one recently graduated, one currently in high school and one currently in middle school) and a wife that's a teacher.....
These days kids get to do test corrections to bring their grade up, they get retakes, they get minimum grades, they get all kinds of crutches so that they'll pass --- well, except for actual accountability for learning the material. Texas has a standardized test that kids at certain grade levels must pass before they can go to the next grade (other grades take the test, but it is not a requirement for advancement). Kids are given THREE times to pass the test and then, if they still haven't passed, there is a conference with the parents, teacher, and principal where -- if the student shows "progress" -- the child is allow to continue to the next grade in spite of failing the test. The "problem" is passed along to the next grade instead of looking at where the system is failing this kid.
They don't teach logic and problem solving. They teach memorization.
An example: In my day, we learned Phonics and word roots and context clues. When we encountered new words, we were told to sound it out. Using our word roots and context, we were asked what the word might mean. We took those pieces of knowledge and had a decent idea of what a word meant. Sure, we might have thought that preamble was the time before we walked around aimlessly, but we were reasonably close. These days, kids are taught to read via "sight words". When they encounter a new word, they have no clue how to pronounce it (the youngest two have only had exposure to Phonics at home and still have trouble pronouncing new words). They don't focus on prefixes and suffixes and word roots. The middle daughter just started asking about word context this year. Kids have trouble with new words because they've never seen it before, don't know what the root word implies, and don't know how to use the words around it to determine meaning. These factors are the *logic* of language and kids don't have that exposure.
True curiosity, not trolling or goading (disclosure: haven't read any of the links, just a lot of the comments).
So, you've set up a life insurance policy that pays out upon your death to the company that maintains your body until possible revival or 1,000 years, whichever comes first. I get that. That's how you pay them for long term maintenance. But at what point are you frozen? I assume it has to be while you are still in a living/pseudo-living state of some sort, otherwise, revival would be impossible. So, wouldn't the insurance company have an argument against paying out (as insurance companies are wont to have)?
National Science Foundation (NSF)
It was "research" all in the name of Science!
I'm curious if those small USB 'monitors' would work for this. You'd only need to plug it in as needed and could use it on your main machine when not being used on the server. Or, he could always get a USB video card.
Does the suspension bridge in Black Hole count as a corridor?
I've always said that I want to be the top guy on an elite team not the top guy on a mediocre team. It's in my best interest to improve everyone around me (including myself) so that I look even better when the entire team is recognized as top-notch.
I think you need both types. You need the narrow focused people to ferret out new maths or new physics equations or what have you. You need the broad focused people to figure out how to take advantage of the new facts in a completely unlreated field (usually in a practical manner). Both are lauded in our history books as you can find plenty of examples of each. Franklin, Edison, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Tesla, etc. -- it should be easy to figure out which brilliant mind is associated with broad or narrow focus.
Jim Bob's knowledge of deer skinning may give an astute observer insight into how that skin connects to the underlying tissue which might be the key to solving a problem with skin cancer in humans. But the scientist searching for the cancer cure would never have figured it out without Jim Bob being a deer skinning expert.
And don't even think you'd be the one getting Frist Psot!
If there are people on the surface, you switch from calculating the landing on Earth to targetting an orbit. Once orbit is established, the Martians nee Earthlings would trigger a landing sequence and possibly even steer it down. Should get your accuracy up quite a bit. I think they've missed orbit less.
So, you're saying that nerds can't get HIV?!?
And a car has brake, accellerate, swerve left, and swerve right. And that really can't be done on a dime, either. The amount of "on a dime" is based on speed -- faster travel means less maneuverability which is why planes can't turn on a dime; they are travelling much faster.
It should be relatively easy to establish "rules of the sky" where the northern/eastern most plane can take either up or North/East and the southern/western most plane can take either down or South/West to avoid a collision much like (in the US) a driver should steer right to avoid one.