Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I agree (Score 1) 596

by ggambett (#35091926) Attached to: Microsoft Vehemently Denies Google's "Bing Sting"

What happens is even if that customer data is only weighted as 0.001% as important as their other metrics, if that customer data is the ONLY data they have for these bogus search terms, this would happen

Or they could say "we're so far below the confidence threshold that we should report no results found"...

Comment: Dark Sun (SSI Gold Box) (Score 1) 89

by ggambett (#33213244) Attached to: How <em>Death Rally</em> Got Ported
For years I've wanted to port Dark Sun I and II to modern architectures. Since the games have been released as freeware a few years ago, I don't think there's any good reason to avoid such a port; however, I've been unable to track down someone who can give me access to the source code (and I have good reasons to believe it does exist somewhere).

If anyone happens to know who may be contacted regarding this, please let me know...

Comment: Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score 1) 380

by ggambett (#31687430) Attached to: Novell Wins vs. SCO
Argh. My example with triangles was just that, an example. I was talking about "the nature of proof" and the impossibility to prove something doesn't exist suggested by the parent post. What I said can be expressed as "once you prove P(X) is true for all X, you can trivially prove that an X for which P(X) is false doesn't exist". Let me repeat that : ONCE YOU PROVE. I wasn't discussing whether or not you CAN prove it, or under what conditions you can prove it (I obviously assumed euclidean axioms), for my example that proof is part of the hypothesis. My example with triangles (which is valid, BTW, because by saying "once you prove" I automatically implied a set of axioms where you *can* prove it) was supposed to make my point easier to understand by lowering the abstraction level at which I was expressing it, but looks like no matter how low the abstraction level goes, some people go to great lengths to NOT understand it :(

Comment: Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score 1) 380

by ggambett (#31678936) Attached to: Novell Wins vs. SCO
Read carefully. I said "once you prove". If you *can* *prove* that, the non-existence proof trivially follows. You can obviously prove it starting from euclidean axioms, but you can't prove it with your set of axioms (euclidian minus the uniqueness of parallel lines?), so your comment doesn't apply to what I said. Who's the troll?

Comment: Combat Arms + Enemy Territory (Score 3, Informative) 205

by ggambett (#26430921) Attached to: Most Popular Free, Arena-Style FPS?
You must definitely check Combat Arms. Free to play, microtransaction-based upgrades and customization (not really needed to play though, as you can "steal" weapons for a while)

Not "arena" per se, but ET is lots of fun, class-based. Graphics are a bit outdated (2003ish) but you can't beat the gameplay.

+ - The birth of a FOSS application

Submitted by
Joe Barr
Joe Barr writes: "Brice Burges explains why and how he created a new free software application, as well as what he learned from the birthing process, in a story on The story provides first-hand insights into the frustrations and satisfactions of developers working on free/open source projects."

NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater