1  ...  2  3  4  5  |   Order by index

Dec 18, 2002, 11:09am

Yes we use it pretty much the same here (Finland).
I must say I have the excact same problem knowing which is noon, which
midnight. I think something that is excatly on a border is neither. Like
when people talk about temperature and use either -0 or +0, I find it really
strange, since as far as I know zero is neither. Maybe there should not be
any 12 am nor 12 pm but 12 d and 12 n.

We do not have a different he/she pronom in finnsih; both are hän. It seldom
cause any confusion. If it is essential to know which sex someone is and it
cannot be understood otherwise, we simple say it; otherwise everyone is just
hän.

Drac
ananas <vha at oct31.de> kirjoitti viestissä:3DFD9890.7AAD7610 at oct31.de...
> Here (germany) we actually use both. In normal speech, when you
> meet a person face to face, and it's clear that it can only be
> in the morning or evening, everyone uses the 12 hours system.
> Even without those modifiers "in the morning" or "evening".
>
> If it's in a letter or email, where the other person cannot ask
> at once, if something is not clear, we always use 24 hours, as
> misunderstandings are impossible then.
>
> In all 12-hour countries they use the 24 hours system too, for
> all kinds of official or technical time measurements.
>
> The only problem I have with converting to the British 12 hours
> system occurs at midnight and at noon. In our everyday language,
> 12°° at noon is not before or after something, it's just noon.
> That's why I'm often not sure, if the 12 am/pm means noon or
> midnight. Of course, the "a" in "am" is a little problem too, as
> _a_nte" does not mean _a_fter ;)
>
> These errors or misunderstandings are not possible in 24 hours.
> Plus it's easier to remember - you remember one number, instead
> of one number plus a modifier behind it.
>
> Those problems are a clear point for the 24 hours system in an
> international environment, in the exchange of time schedules.
>
> In chat I can ask if it isn't clear, so it's works if everyone uses
> his local system. In publishing a schedule, it's always better to
> use the official 24 hours system, as it allows no misunderstandings.
>
>
[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2002, 6:44pm

I disagree.

The new features are being added as they will greatly enhance the world/game
builder's ability to create.

Almost all the features will be controlable by the SDK or with a more
advanced world server such as NewAw runs.

Once we get 3.4 out the door we will begin a new release. AW users will not
have to run mto catch a bus bus that already left... they can fly circles
around it :) in fact, if they do catch it... they WILL be able to ride it.

E

(still believes)


[View Quote]

Dec 18, 2002, 7:02pm

so, how about adding my avatar idea? where in the avatar.dat file you add a
line which controls the avatar speed. so you can have cars and such

[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 2:46am

[View Quote]
This might be the case for later releases, but currently, I do not see
it, frankly. There are lots and lots of improvements that could be made
to the existing state that would enable a variatey of new game and
simulation ideas and implementations and not even need to touch the
basic program experiences. In short words, a more concise and granular
control of a world and the commands in it.
I just mention here additional switches for existing commands and, of
course, the per-avatar configuration of world rights and features-
Especially the latter one was on Rolands wish list for a long time but
had always been postponed by the order of management. Still today, there
is no chance to allow bird avatars to fly while human avatars need to
walk, still today, it is impossible to grant more than 36 citzens any
specific right (and disallowing is even completely impossible).
Of course, rights cannot be seen in the client, they do not add any
graphic or sound effect, all they would do is to add more control, make
games and simulations better and allow yet unused implementations - but
something that not everybody can see right away might not be good enough
for an "upgrade".

The WWW once made a huge mis-step in thinking that the more colorful and
bouncing a website became, the more "valeuable" it would become as well,
but really, it just managed to hid more the view on the real content and
the real "value" that could be found. Likewise, graphics is not all in
AW, because graphics is thing you look at a couple of times, and then
you know well and look for other challenges, like playing a game,
simulating situations and so on. Let me point out again, that, not
without any reason, there are 2d environments out there, and even pure
text style (eg. rpg games) ones that have still a lot of participants,
and if graphic was the only God, this certainly had not happened.

So - what I am asking for, is a decent balance in new feature implements
that address BOTH the desire for eyecatchers and the desire to use the
already existing features and options more close, more granular and to a
higher extent.

Mentioning the sdk - how many programmers are out there, in all
universes and worlds together, how really take advantage of all what the
sdk offers? 10? And 10 is a quite high number already.
But now, let's compare this to the number of world owners who control
their world by using the tools they are provided with by the client only
- how many are those? 2000? 3000? 5000 over a period of 3 years,or even
more?

In this regard, your argument with the sdk is not a substantial one.
Right, all those new things COULD be controlled by sdk appplications,
but ARE they, in reality? No, they are not - most worlds, and "most" is
here a term for a significant higher number, are controlled with the
world features and rights dialogue and using the building commands that
can be applied. You certainly can now say that most new features could
be accessed via the features dialogue as well, and this is correct, but
only in a numeric, not a qualitative and practical way (eg. something
simple as a day/night transition, where there could be an option for it
in the world features rather than manually manipulating 20 and more
parameters every couple of minutes).

I could, in fact, go on for hours and pages here and bring hundreds of
examples, but I think you understand my point here. :-)

Dec 19, 2002, 7:33am

In the case of -0 and +0, what you are generally looking at is a number that has been rounded off, with the sign indicating which side of zero the actual value is on. There are also the infinitesimal number (+0) that I like to call "potential zero" which is the multiplicative inverse of potential infinity, and it's additive inverse, negative potential zero (-0), but generallr if a quantity is that close to zero it is considered for all practical purposes to be unsigned.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 3:50pm

Yes I can understand that one want to indicate with the + or - , which is
more likely (or so). I was just thought at school, and the teacher pointed
it out often, that zero is zero not positive nor negative.
Maybe a more proper way would be < 0 and > 0 ?
The later sounds like some higher math, and math was never the subject I
enjoyed at school,,, as a matter of fact I do not remeber enjoying anything
in school; if something maybe biology and langauges to some point.

Drac
technozeus <TechnoZeus at techie.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e019269 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> In the case of -0 and +0, what you are generally looking at is a number
that has been rounded off, with the sign indicating which side of zero the
actual value is on. There are also the infinitesimal number (+0) that I
like to call "potential zero" which is the multiplicative inverse of
potential infinity, and it's additive inverse, negative potential zero (-0),
but generallr if a quantity is that close to zero it is considered for all
practical purposes to be unsigned.
>
> TechnoZeus
>
[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 4:18pm

featurecreeper :P

I am sure there will be all kinds of cool av stuff in 3.5 or 4.0 or whatever
comes next. Yor particular idea is probably already possible with the NewAW
server.



E


[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 4:25pm

.... Almost all the features will be controlable by the SDK or with a "more
advanced world server such as NewAw runs."

The latter part of that sentence while perhaps a bit vague should at least
give an inkling as to the direction AW is taking. Perhaps if the world
server is extended all that you ask for will become available. As far as
your example... it already is possible in NewAW.


E



[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 4:29pm

Too bad E n z o, There no 3.5! we stay in 3.4 forever! Maybe you could Make
3.5 of aw Uni! that Should next year, E n z o

Jacob The Hero
[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 5:03pm

As far as your example... it already is possible in NewAW.
<<<

That is not the point. The point was rather: Can the normal, average,
world owner control and use all those features WITHOUT being a
programmer or having somebody write a specifically customized program
for him?

I am fully aware about the possibilities, they are more than can be
experienced in NewAW, even already without a modified world server. :-)
The question is, though, how effective and stabile external plug-in
applications can be, see also some discussions about sdk issues here -
in this regard, a world server upgrade would be in fact, a much
appreciated matter.
However, my point here was also a different one: it was the order,
focus and form of improvement and changes, not the fact or nessecity
itself, which I do not negate at all.

Dec 19, 2002, 5:21pm

[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 6:42pm

Yep. I know what you mean. Unfortunately mathematics can be a difficult subject due to the fact that so many educational institutions, text books, and teachers tend to teach it in stages treating each stage as if the next one doesn't exist. They start out, for example, by telling you that numbers can be counted on your fingers. Then they tell you that you haven't got enugh fingers to handle all of the numbers but if you gather enough objects together you can count to any number by counting objects. Then they tell you that you can count backward also but that when you get to 1 you run out of numbers. Then they tell you that there's a number that represents no objects, so suddenly you can count backward farther than they told you could be done. Then they teach you how to add and subtract, and tell you that any two numbers can be added in any order but you can't subtract a bigger number from a smaller one. Then they teach you how to multiply and divide numbers, and they tell you that you can multiply any two numbers, but that you can only divide certain numbers. Then they tell you that you can divide numbers that you were already told couldn't be divided, but that you'll end up with something left over. Then they tell you that if you multiply the number you divided by times the number that you got from the division you will get the number that was divided. Then they tell you that if there was a number left over when you divided you can't multiply the results of your division by the divisor to find the dividend.

Aafter all this, they tell you that there are numbers between the numbers that you've been told all along had no numbers between them, and they show you where they are on a number line. In fact, they generally go on to tell you that "all" numbers are on the number line somewhere, but that they're all between other numbers. Then try to teach you how to divide numbers that you were told would always have something left over and get one of these new numbers with nothing left over. Then they tell you that you can subtract a bigger number from a smaller number afterall, and that you can count backward beyond zero. Then they try to teach you how to add the new fractional numbers that exist between the other numbers, and most people find that very difficult because they're still having enough trouble just dealing with the fact that their earlier education about numbers told them there were no such numbers. Then they try to teach you how to subtact fractional numbers, or "rational" numbers, and that turns out to be even more of a challange. Then they tell you that there are numbers that can't be represented by digits because they have unknown quantities. Then they try to teach you how to add and subtract the new "negative" numbers that are lower than zero and again the brain wants to reject either the old education or the new education because they disagree with each other, and most people find this part of mathematics to be unreasonably difficult.

As if that isn't enough, then they go on to teach you how to multiply and divide using negative numbers, and you have to deal with the fact that not only do these negative numbers exist in spite of the fact that you had been told otherwise but they don't behave like the numbers you've been dealing with all along, so you have to learn that if you are multiplying a negative number and a positive number together the results will be negative and that the same is true of division, but that multiplying or dividing two numbers with the same sign always gives you a positive number and never a negative number. Then they teach you about exponents, first saying they are always posative, then adding in that an exponent can be zero, then later adding in that an exponent can also be fractional or "rational", and eventually telling you that an exponent can even be negative. Somewhere around this point they generally would tell you about square roots, but neglect to tell you that there are other kinds of roots as well or that the square root of a number is the same as that number given a fractional exponent of 1/2 or 0.5 and further confusing the issue by stating that negative numbers have no square roots. Well, eventually that will have to be corrected also if you take math far enough and you end up finding out that there's anothe number line that intersects the first number line, and this one contains all of the square roots of negative numbers, and as if that wasn't confusing enough they call them "imaginary" numbers and generally don't bother to mention that it's just a name and doesn't mean that there's no real use for them. In fact, it turns out then, usually to a person's complete astonishment and disbelief if they even understand it at all, that you can add the numbers on this new number line to the numbers on the old number line and get numbers that are not on the number line at all, and there are more of these "complex" numbers than there are of the so called "real" and "imaginary" numbers combined! Now, of course, at that point if you've managed to survive the ordeal without deciding that you hate math and throwing in the towel, they reassure you that the complex numbers are all there is. Hehehe... well, don't believe that either because there are still quaternions and octonions to deal with and really that's just the beginning.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 9:43pm

Ok, this would be a perfect example of saying too much to say absolutely
nothing (pun intended). You people are arguing over zero, fer COB's
sake! Take it to general discussion if you must, or better yet, email.
And get to the point! :P

[View Quote] --
Goober King
And he thought *he* was too wordy...
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Dec 19, 2002, 10:07pm

I wasn't arguing at all... and although I like your pun, I disagree about it being nothing. As a matter of fact, it was about "almost nothing" which is why +0 and -0 were used. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 19, 2002, 10:15pm

I'd be happy if we could just have more than 63 terrain textures ;O) <nudge nudge, wink wink, hint hint>


[View Quote]

Dec 20, 2002, 1:11am

I agree, the limit imposed by 63 textures (0-62) make it hard to develop
realistic landscapes for various environments and seasons including
pathes, etc.

However, the textures are encoded in one value together with the
orientation (rotation) of a terrain cell - it is sort of "there will
never ever be the need for more than 640kB main memory" approach and I
doubt that we will see a change here soon, since it means to alter the
code for the whole terrain implementation (in which it would be a good
idea then to alter the 1 terrain/10m limit also <g>).



[View Quote]

Dec 20, 2002, 2:00am

I know, was just thinking out loud :O) and I agree..... 10 meters per "cell" gives me hassles too...... 5 meters might have been
better, but so it goes.......


[View Quote]

Dec 20, 2002, 11:45am

well, how do we get the NewAW server source code? lol

[View Quote]

Dec 20, 2002, 12:10pm

there isnt a single thing in which the average user can customise to his
liking without being a programmer. You gotta learn to program to make real
games, so why should it be diffrent in aw? and how you gonna make the bots
for the world without being able to program? get someone else to? if so,
just get someone else to make your world

[View Quote]

Dec 20, 2002, 3:17pm

Running a day/night change has nothing to do with a game (which is AW
not anyway), but with environment. And the environment can, in many
cases, not be controlled to a good non-static extent, rights management
(which also has nothing to do with games) is only possible to a little
degree in both regards quantity and quality.

The need to be a programmer and even more, to have access to a
permanently running machine on which the bot applications are run is not
a necessary part of an application - there are already examples that
simple environments and interactions can be scripted server-side and
with an easy to learn language (without compilers, sdks and server
access).

[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2002, 2:25am

LOL. Since I am still at the level where I count fingers (and toes) these
examples in the end of your posting is something I do not understand,
however, I have many times wondered why one cannot divide with zero. I once
during school asked my math teacher and she gave some strange answer, from
which I got the impression that it was just a thing that had been decided.
I belive seeing tho that zero can be divided. I guess the problem with
dividing with zero would be that zero x (any number) cannot be anything else
than zero, that would result in that zero divided with zero would be 1,
which would be a bit strange tho. She told me that there is some way of
dividing with a number that aproches zero (but at that point I was so
confused that I decided I like biology better).
I guess math can be really facinating, unfortunatly I do not have enough
braincapacity to ever figure it out. It seems tho that I am not alone, but
atleast our tax-department have similar problems.

Drac
technozeus <TechnoZeus at techie.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e022f3a at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Yep. I know what you mean. Unfortunately mathematics can be a difficult
subject due to the fact that so many educational institutions, text books,
and teachers tend to teach it in stages treating each stage as if the next
one doesn't exist. They start out, for example, by telling you that numbers
can be counted on your fingers. Then they tell you that you haven't got
enugh fingers to handle all of the numbers but if you gather enough objects
together you can count to any number by counting objects. Then they tell you
that you can count backward also but that when you get to 1 you run out of
numbers. Then they tell you that there's a number that represents no
objects, so suddenly you can count backward farther than they told you could
be done. Then they teach you how to add and subtract, and tell you that any
two numbers can be added in any order but you can't subtract a bigger number
from a smaller one. Then they teach you how to multiply and divide numbers,
and they tell you that you can multiply any two numbers, but that you can
only divide certain numbers. Then they tell you that you can divide numbers
that you were already told couldn't be divided, but that you'll end up with
something left over. Then they tell you that if you multiply the number you
divided by times the number that you got from the division you will get the
number that was divided. Then they tell you that if there was a number left
over when you divided you can't multiply the results of your division by the
divisor to find the dividend.
>
> Aafter all this, they tell you that there are numbers between the numbers
that you've been told all along had no numbers between them, and they show
you where they are on a number line. In fact, they generally go on to tell
you that "all" numbers are on the number line somewhere, but that they're
all between other numbers. Then try to teach you how to divide numbers that
you were told would always have something left over and get one of these new
numbers with nothing left over. Then they tell you that you can subtract a
bigger number from a smaller number afterall, and that you can count
backward beyond zero. Then they try to teach you how to add the new
fractional numbers that exist between the other numbers, and most people
find that very difficult because they're still having enough trouble just
dealing with the fact that their earlier education about numbers told them
there were no such numbers. Then they try to teach you how to subtact
fractional numbers, or "rational" numbers, and that turns out to be even
more of a challange. Then they tell you that there are numbers that can't
be represented by digits because they have unknown quantities. Then they
try to teach you how to add and subtract the new "negative" numbers that are
lower than zero and again the brain wants to reject either the old education
or the new education because they disagree with each other, and most people
find this part of mathematics to be unreasonably difficult.
>
> As if that isn't enough, then they go on to teach you how to multiply and
divide using negative numbers, and you have to deal with the fact that not
only do these negative numbers exist in spite of the fact that you had been
told otherwise but they don't behave like the numbers you've been dealing
with all along, so you have to learn that if you are multiplying a negative
number and a positive number together the results will be negative and that
the same is true of division, but that multiplying or dividing two numbers
with the same sign always gives you a positive number and never a negative
number. Then they teach you about exponents, first saying they are always
posative, then adding in that an exponent can be zero, then later adding in
that an exponent can also be fractional or "rational", and eventually
telling you that an exponent can even be negative. Somewhere around this
point they generally would tell you about square roots, but neglect to tell
you that there are other kinds of roots as well or that the square root of a
number is the same as that number given a fractional exponent of 1/2 or 0.5
and further confusing the issue by stating that negative numbers have no
square roots. Well, eventually that will have to be corrected also if you
take math far enough and you end up finding out that there's anothe number
line that intersects the first number line, and this one contains all of the
square roots of negative numbers, and as if that wasn't confusing enough
they call them "imaginary" numbers and generally don't bother to mention
that it's just a name and doesn't mean that there's no real use for them.
In fact, it turns out then, usually to a person's complete astonishment and
disbelief if they even understand it at all, that you can add the numbers on
this new number line to the numbers on the old number line and get numbers
that are not on the number line at all, and there are more of these
"complex" numbers than there are of the so called "real" and "imaginary"
numbers combined! Now, of course, at that point if you've managed to
survive the ordeal without deciding that you hate math and throwing in the
towel, they reassure you that the complex numbers are all there is.
Hehehe... well, don't believe that either because there are still
quaternions and octonions to deal with and really that's just the beginning.
>
> TechnoZeus
>
[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2002, 2:27am

We are not arguing lol

Drac
goober king <gooberking at utn.cjb.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3E0252F0.2040202 at utn.cjb.net...
> Ok, this would be a perfect example of saying too much to say absolutely
> nothing (pun intended). You people are arguing over zero, fer COB's
> sake! Take it to general discussion if you must, or better yet, email.
> And get to the point! :P
>
[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2002, 2:33am

yes, actually a very interesting question: is zero something or nothing? If
zero is nothing what are then negative numbers? moore nothing? This would
mean that moore nothing x moore nothing = something; and the moore the
nothing multiplied with the othe more nothing is, the more something it will
be. Then again no matter how much moore nothing it is , if it is multiplied
with zero it will be zero (which must be either something or nothing?).
Moore nothing and something if multiplied will always result im more nothing
tho.
Ok I guess i better go and take some of those pills my shrink gave me...

Drac
technozeus <TechnoZeus at techie.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e025f56$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I wasn't arguing at all... and although I like your pun, I disagree about
it being nothing. As a matter of fact, it was about "almost nothing" which
is why +0 and -0 were used. :)
>
> TechnoZeus
>
[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2002, 11:29am

Actually, that's a good example. If you divide a finite number (such as 1) by zero, you get an infinite number as the result, so if you divide a finite number by a number that is almost zero, you should get a number that is almost infinity. Well, this is where we get into the concepts of what to consider "almost" zero or "almost" infinity. For example, some people would say that 1 is almost zero, but by that definition, 1/1=1 would mean that 1 is also almost infinity, which seems a litttle off to me. If we say that 0.000000001 is almost zero, then that would mean 1000000000 would be almost infinity. As you can see, we just don't usually use numbers that are all that close to zero. :)

Here's a tip. If a math teacher ever tells you that you can perform a certain mathematical operation on almost any number but not on certain ones, just take that to mean that either they don't know how what really should happen if you tried it with those certain numbers, or they know but for some reason aren't telling you yet. Maybe they think you're not ready for it. Maybe they're not sure they can explain it correctly. What ever the case may be, there probably "is" an answer, but for the sake of the math class they are teaching, they want you to treat it as if the answer is "undefined" which means simply that it's not defined yet at that level of mathematics.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2002, 4:50pm

What part of "take it to general discussion" don't you people get? :P

[View Quote]
--
Goober King
Newsgroup Enforcer
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

Dec 21, 2002, 4:57pm

Goober King
Newsgroup Enforcer
gooberking at utn.cjb.net

There's your problem.

[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2002, 6:10pm

I have lost any inkling as to what this original thread was about... What
are you talking about? You're not still on about time systems are you?

*gloss* *faint*

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

Chris

[View Quote]

Dec 21, 2002, 7:51pm

*blinks*

I was responding to the post that I quoted. I may be blind, but I don't see anything there about time systems.

[View Quote]

Dec 25, 2002, 6:59pm

The 24h time notation specified here has already been the de-facto standard
all over the world in written language for decades. The only exception are a
few English speaking countries, where still notations with hours between 1
and 12 and additions like "a.m." and "p.m." are in wide use. The common 24h
international standard notation is widely used now even in England (e.g. at
airports, cinemas, bus/train timetables, etc.). Most other languages don't
even have abbreviations like "a.m." and "p.m." and the 12h notation is
certainly hardly ever used on Continental Europe to write or display a time.
Even in the U.S., the military and computer programmers have been using the
24h notation for a long time.

The old English 12h notation has many disadvantages like:

It is longer than the normal 24h notation.
It takes somewhat more time for humans to compare two times in 12h notation.
It is not clear, how 00:00, 12:00 and 24:00 are represented. Even
encyclopedias and style manuals contain contradicting descriptions and a
common quick fix seems to be to avoid "12:00 a.m./p.m." altogether and write
"noon", "midnight", or "12:01 a.m./p.m." instead, although the word
"midnight" still does not distinguish between 00:00 and 24:00 (midnight at
the start or end of a given day).
It makes people often believe that the next day starts at the overflow from
"12:59 a.m." to "1:00 a.m.", which is a common problem not only when people
try to program the timer of VCRs shortly after midnight.
It is not easily comparable with a string compare operation.
It is not immediately clear for the unaware, whether the time between "12:00
a.m./p.m." and "1:00 a.m./p.m." starts at 00:00 or at 12:00, i.e. the
English 12h notation is more difficult to understand.
Please consider the 12h time to be a relic from the dark ages when Roman
numerals were used, the number zero had not yet been invented and analog
clocks were the only known form of displaying a time. Please avoid using it
today, especially in technical applications! Even in the U.S., the widely
respected Chicago Manual of Style now recommends using the international
standard time notation in publications.


[View Quote]

1  ...  2  3  4  5  |   Order by index