Re: [opensource-dev] Consensus? was: Client-side scripting in Snowglobe
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 04:57:18PM -0800, Dzonatas Sol wrote: >> When LL said "here is a sphere the size of a quarter in diameter... >> 1 2 3 4 5 6" as one points top, bottom, left, right, back, front. >> And says "Stupid" with a superiority look. >> >> Obviously the person that was challenged, the one to be hired, said "Odd." >> >> If you know if it is "even" or "odd" then you know who gets the last >> move, and wins. > > This is clearly a way to measure someones spatial insight. > > Now note that if it's a game, and coins are not allowed to be moved > around once they are placed, then it's very unlikely that you will > be able to place 6 coins on the surface of that sphere (with diameter > equal to the coin), because the one who'd put down the fifth coin > would not put it such that you can put down the sixth coin, but > somewhere in the middle of the left-over surface, leaving no spot > for the sixth coin. Calling people stupid over this game surprises > me however (because I happen to have a extremely large spatial > insight, officially measured mind you (although, they couldn't > actually graph it in their graph because I scored not just out of > the graph but even off the paper that the graph outline was printed > on)), because I'm having a hardtime to quickly guess if you CAN put > five coins on the sphere... It seems not unlikely that only four > coins will make it... which would mean that the one that begins > will try to leave open as much space as possible when putting > down the third coin. The person to move second would try to use > as much space as possible. So, first goes on top say, second on > grounds of symmetry probably on the bottom, then again forced to > play without any strategy, the third coin just goes on the side, > and the fourth coin, wanting to be last, takes the exact > opposite of that, leaving two places free: Oh hell... that > way you STILL end up with six coins being placed, even though > both tried to screw the other with strategy. The only freedom > that still exists would be the one placing the second coin: by > not placing it exactly on the opposite side, you'll likely end > up with only five coins. However, since putting it on the exact > opposite side caused this player to win, he has little reason > to play it elsewhere. Hence, due to perfect symmetry, the first > player has no real choice, ever. And the second one, who wins, > can control the game completely; hence 6 coins. > > Not THAT simple however. > There's really no way to figure it out without information about either of the player's strategies. It seems like what the interview was really asking is what the maximum number of coins that could be fit on that surface was, or he should have specified that these two players were perfect and playing optimally. Colin ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] "Resposibility" - Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Vex Streeter wrote: > > GPL also specifically disclaims warranty and liability unless you choose to > provide such for your code or distribution. Policy sections 1.c.i and > 1.c.ii are redundant w/rt GPL but_requiring_ such statements of downstream > distributors conflicts with GPL. Policy section 7.d is even worse as it > directly contradicts GPL liability disclaimers. > Nothing in the TPV contradicts or violates the GPL, because the GPL is all about distribution of software, and the TPV is about whether or not LL will allow a viewer to connect to their servers, not whether you'll be allowed to distribute it. Colin ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Moving forward with open development
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM, JB Hancroft wrote: > I'm concerned that there are so many divergent viewer projects, that the > end-user experience is going to be fractured. > What happens when I want "this shiny new thing" (available only with the ABC > viewer), and "that other shiny" (available only with the XYZ viewer)? > > I'd like to avoid this, in the future: > (Person 1: "Oh, you Don't Have the RubyShine-on-steroids plugin for > Snowglobe? <*smirk*> > Well, Everyone Knows... you just can't enjoy > high-end SL jewelry without it." > Person 2: "Well, yeah, but I have to choose between my Super-Gizmo > Estate Mgmt Viewer, and awesome jewelry... Sigh") > I think this is an unavoidable consequence of open source. If LL hired more developers and implemented all the new things that have appeared in third-party viewers, then the third-party viewers would just build on top of that and add even more new features. Think of it like this: the official viewer is developed by 42 (I just made this up) developers. Third-party viewers are developed by those same 42 developers, plus more people! So third-party viewers are always going to be a step ahead, no matter how much effort LL puts in to keep up, the third-party viewers are always building on top of that. If you're implying that we have all these third-party viewers because the process of getting patches accepted into the official viewer is difficult, I'm not going to disagree with you. It could be a lot easier, and if it were some of these people might have contributed their code to the official viewer instead of spawning a third-party viewer. But look at any open source project, even the most open ones. There's always going to be someone that decides they don't want to contribute back to the original program, they want to fork it and develop on their own. Colin ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
