At 12/11/07 10:28 PM, TheRyoku wrote:

At 12/11/07 10:23 PM, zannebrain wrote: I came to the conclusion that the rubiks cube isn't worth the effort to solve so I've been working on a program to do it for me. Anyway my question is, will the rubiks cube be solved if one colored side is put in order if each block is in its proper orientation and position? If not, If the program solves the face sides in an order(red to blue to green whatever) will that solve it? Should i just ignore the color concept and solve it differently, as in using block numbers to develope some system? Thanks for any help! :)

You sir are a pathetic, lazy hobo. Solving a Rubik's cube is so freaking simple! I love the 4x4, it's actually challenging! Go look up some tutorials, and memorize a few patterns! It's really not that hard, base your program on those solutions!

Bah. 4x4 are the worst. 3x3 are fun because you can solve them quickly and easily without thinking too much and just work on speed. 5x5 are fun because you actually have to think as you solve them, but there are less moves to memorize compared to the 4x4 (more parity errors are possible with the 4x4, at least the way I solve it). 4x4 are just boring. So much of the time is just spent figuring out which colour should go on each side (I haven't done it enough to memorize the positions of the colours relative to each other) and doing the same move over and over again to solve the centers.

Here's my solution: http://hpaste.org/2573#a0 I wasn't sure exactly how you wanted to format the output, so I just kept it simple.

At 9/3/07 11:19 PM, authorblues wrote: no takers, huh? i hope to see some submissions by tomorrow night. im kinda sad no one has written the 12 lines this program takes (seriously, really fucking easy)

Honestly, if you want to get more submissions, you should probably not restrict it to just c++. Challenges like this are a fun way to try out new languages and techniques. Personally, I would have submitted a solution if it weren't for the language restriction. It's just a few lines of code in Haskell (I've implemented the sieve of Eratosthenes in Haskell before, and it's very compact). I'm not very familiar with Haskell, and I like to code little things like this to get used to it. Because Haskell is such a radically different language, you can often think about the problem in a different way and come up with neat solutions.

It's really up to you if you want to add so many restrictions and be so strict, but that isn't a great way to have a fun challenge that people want to participate in.

Try thinking outside of the box rather than just generating Fibonacci numbers and summing them. The sequence of Fibonacci sums is pretty similar to the Fibonacci sequence itself. You can write it (in Haskell) as
s 1 = 1
s 2 = 2
s n = s (n - 1) + s (n - 2) + 1

or, in a more concise form as an infinite list (similar to thoughtpolice's solution):

s2 = 1 : 2 : zipWith (\x y -> 1 + x + y) s2 (tail s2)

I had fun doing this. You should do some more, hopefully a bit more complex (although this one was interesting because it had an obvious solution and a not so obvious one).

Wikipedia got most of them, but there are still a couple of fun ones left. Iota, Jot, Zot, Lazy K, and Unlambda come to mind.

At 5/24/07 01:13 PM, thoughtpolice wrote: Also, it's worth noting that map is not a monadic function; map is a pure function. Look at my example above; mapM is the monadic version of map which is for functions that have IO side effects (IOWs, functions in the IO monad,) which may have been your problem.

Thanks. That was my problem (as I mentioned before, I'm not too familiar with actually using monads. With that, a new, cleaner version (far closer to how I imagined the solution should be):
http://hpaste.org/32

I would love to talk to you on msn about Haskell more often. I've been busy lately, but school is winding down, so I should have more time later.

Oops. I just reread the topic and saw that obfuscation/cleverness was the goal. Oh well. At least I got to write a couple of lines of Haskell (and use nub, the coolest named function ever :)

Here's my attempt in Haskell.
http://hpaste.org/24
I've never really used the language, so a lot of it could probably be cleaned up. I spent a long time struggling with the type inference system just because I'm not familiar with it. Overall, I think it should have been a bit shorter. I couldn't find any count function built in, so I had to write my own (I was really happy to find nub though). I wish I had come up with a better way to go through and print each one. I would have done something with map, but I kept screwing it up due to my lack of knowledge of monads.

Oh, and I did a test for null in the print_freq rather than having a case for the empty list because I kept getting the strangest error. I'll figure it out eventually.

At 3/15/07 01:07 AM, thoughtpolice wrote:

At 3/14/07 12:33 PM, That-Is-Bull wrote: Which ones are the best

Fedora Core (fedora is really nice for a quick system, but I still despise RPMs.)

Fedora Core? Quick? I'm running it now, and I have to say, it's anything but quick. If you mean quick to get up and running, I'm still not sure I can agree. The installation on my fancy new computer took a lot longer than installing any other distro on a far older computer. Right now, I'm forced to run it because most distros don't behave with my hard drive, but I definitely wouldn't do it if I had a choice. It's not horrible, but there are definitely better distros out there.

I personally think that Debian based distros are the best. Ubuntu is nice if you want to get up and running quickly, but once that's done, it's pretty much the same as Debian. I'm not too sure about Gentoo. On my old computer, it was pretty shitty. The computer was very slow, so installing anything took a *long* time. The installation used to be pretty bad, but I believe it's improved a fair amount since I last installed it. I would like to give it a try again on my new computer where I wouldn't need to worry about compilation speed so much. Sadly, the live CD won't even boot up (due to my hard drive probably).

At 2/1/07 03:58 PM, RageOfOrder wrote:

At 2/1/07 03:54 PM, NeillS wrote:

At 2/1/07 03:41 PM, whatthedeuce wrote: You're an idiot. Dell bought Alienware almost a year ago.

No, I believe YOU are the idiot . One for flaming in this thread. And two for not understnding. They bought them . That means shit. Alienware still does everything themselves. It has nothing to with with Dell.

AOL bought out Nullsoft (winamp) years ago... They still release my favorite (windows) media player.

First off, the AOL + Nullsoft example doesn't exactly work in you favour. I can't say anything about the quality of winamp, as I don't use it, but the the founder of the company (Justin Frankel) eventually resigned in disgust after the sale, Nullsoft's office was shut down, and 450 people were laid off. Not a very good example of a sale not affecting the company.

On the topic of Dell/Alienware, it's hypocritical to insult Dell while praising Alienware. Your claim that Alienware has nothing to with do with Dell is ridiculous. Alienware is a fully owned subsidiary of Dell. That means is has initiative to do what it wants, but it's still controlled by Dell. Alienware has been affected by the merger, although it was most likely for the positive.

That said, I really don't have anything against either company. I use Dell to get really cheap computers. If you're looking to get the best bang for your buck, you would be better building your own computer, but if you don't want to bother with that, go ahead and get an Alienware computer and save yourself the hassle. Just don't act like an elitist dick about it.

At 2/1/07 03:07 PM, NeillS wrote:

At 2/1/07 02:55 PM, DFox wrote: I bet you're paying through the teeth.

It is shit expensive but its worth it. And dude, for a Dell with the same specs itd be more than $3,500 its almost doublt alienware for half the quality.

You're an idiot. Dell bought Alienware almost a year ago.

At 12/31/06 02:46 PM, Pilot-Doofy wrote: Python isn't really similar to any language, per say. Python is based entirely off of indention, while Javascript isn't, at all.

It's completely true that Python is completely different from Javascript, but not because blocks are denoted by indentation. That's a minor, unimportant difference that rarely matters (it can hurt automatic indentation, but not much else).

At 12/18/06 09:01 PM, Jessii wrote:

At 12/18/06 08:17 PM, whatthedeuce wrote: Your response, "Language is Unix based

Would it have been better if I said "The language is built on a Unix foundation?" Foundation being the key there. Sure, it's different languages rolled into one but the foundation is the same.

We don't seem to be communicating, but this may well be my fault. What language are you talking about?

At 12/18/06 07:32 PM, Jessii wrote:

At 12/18/06 07:13 PM, whatthedeuce wrote: What are you talking about? His question made little sense. Your response made even less.

The question is, what are you talking about? His question made perfect sense.
Ubuntu (I believe this is the GNOME version) and part of the Ubuntu project is Kubuntu (KDE version). Both are versions of Linux.

His question "what language does it use?" did not make sense. Linux is not constrained by any one language (programming or otherwise). Your response, "Language is Unix based - you can use Kubuntu, Ubuntu, and many other versions." also made no sense. I am well aware that Kubuntu and Ubuntu are Linux distros. I'm running Kubuntu right now. However, they have nothing to do with language.

At 12/18/06 06:23 PM, Jessii wrote: Language is Unix based - you can use Kubuntu, Ubuntu, and many other versions.

What are you talking about? His question made little sense. Your response made even less.

Moving on, the pros of Linux are that it gives you more choices, and the community tends to be more tech savy. The main cons are that it isn't Windows, so a large amount of programs don't work on it (of course, a large amount of Linux programs don't work on Windows) and the userbase is much smaller.

At 12/17/06 12:43 AM, RageOfOrder wrote:

At 12/17/06 12:11 AM, whatthedeuce wrote: Really, I don't see anything wrong with comparing Fluxbox to KDE or Gnome. The same way it's okay to compare Python to C (even though Python is interpreted and C isn't). Although they aren't the same thing, they can easily be compared.

No, not really.....

KDE is an entire collection of apps and services, and has its own window manager.

Fluxbox is nothing but a window manager. "emerge fluxbox" leaves you with a slit, and a right click menu. Anything else you want, you have to download.
"emerge kde" leaves you with several hundred apps (too much bloat for me, so I emerged startkde and then only what I needed).

How can you compare Fluxbox and KDE when I can run fluxbox from within KDE? Both at once.. They aren't the same thing...

I can completely agree that they aren't the same thing. I just see nothing wrong with comparing them. Yes, you can run fluxbox from within KDE (although it's buggy as hell), but far more often it's used by itself, and in such a situation, it seems like it's clearer to compare it to KDE rather than KWin.

At 12/17/06 12:03 AM, RageOfOrder wrote:

At 12/16/06 10:53 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Fluxbox>KDE>Gnome>Xfce

I love how you compare a DE to a WM...

At least compare Fluxbox with KWin and Metacity, not KDE and GNOME. It's not the same thing.

Really, I don't see anything wrong with comparing Fluxbox to KDE or Gnome. The same way it's okay to compare Python to C (even though Python is interpreted and C isn't). Although they aren't the same thing, they can easily be compared.

At 12/16/06 10:53 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Eterm>Bash

Um...what? Eterm and bash don't do the same thing. Eterm is a terminal emulator. Bash is a shell.

At 12/16/06 06:00 PM, Jordan wrote: Keep it computer/programming related and don't let this start a flamewar!

No offence, but what is this going to do except start a flamewar?

To get the flames rolling, here's my say:

linux > windows
zsh > bash
fluxbox > KDE > e16 > Gnome > xfce
emacs == vim > vi > everything else
amarok > everything else
Konqueror > Firefox > IE
Reddit > Digg > Slashdot
OCaml > Python > Erlang > Ruby > Lisp > Java > C > C++
Microsoft Office > KOffice > Open Office.org
apt > portage
synaptic > adept

Is that enough to get me flamed into oblivion?

I would say that my favourite language is OCaml. I haven't used it too much, but it's just beautiful to program in. Little things, like pattern matching (before you PHP people chime in, you probably have no idea what this is) and currying make a huge difference. Having a powerful, inferring type system is glorious. All this and being fast (as fast as C++ at times) makes for an amazing language.

However, the language I use the most is Python, as it's the easiest to get things done in. It doesn't always come up with the most elegant solution, but it's quick, easy, and nice. My only qualm is the sub-par metaprogramming (although that's being remedied in newer versions).

To all the people who say PHP is their favourite language, that just makes it obvious that you haven't done significant work in better languages. PHP takes all the art out of programming. Anyone (and their dog) could program in PHP, and come up with the same program. OCaml requires a bit more patience and skill, but the results are rewarding, and you will end up creating better programs, faster.

At 12/12/06 08:36 PM, swatkatz wrote: Hard choice between Erlang, Common Lisp, and Ruby.

I think for the most part, I love Erlang the most. CL and Ruby chalk it higher than just about any other programming language I know I'd say (and after that would probably come C then Java.)

May I ask why you like Erlang so much? It's great in it's particular domain, but outside of concurrent stuff, it really doesn't have anything over other functional languages.

At 12/10/06 11:19 AM, Loccie wrote:

At 12/9/06 06:18 PM, whatthedeuce wrote: You're joking, right? That's one thing that movies do that is relatively accurate. Plenty of programmers don't use the mouse at all. I try to use it as little as possible while coding (I'm not good enough with vim yet to completely eliminate it). It really slows you down.

I know all the shortcuts and use them but in the movies they do everything with the keyboard and nothing with the mouse. You think that I will press the tab key 8 times instead of just pressing post it? If it's to change to another field below the one I'm typing I'll press tab but if it's faster with the mouse why use shortcuts, that would ruin the whole point.

In movies, people tend to be programming rather than making a post on the forum. There are plenty of text editors (mainly vim and emacs) that are far quicker if you only use the keyboard.

Oh, and my web browser has a feature that I can hit control and then "P" to hit the "Post It!" button.

At 12/9/06 03:02 PM, Craige wrote:

At 12/9/06 02:15 PM, Loccie wrote: I am happy that someone else is annoyed by the fact that in movies programmers never use the mouse.

As am I.

You're joking, right? That's one thing that movies do that is relatively accurate. Plenty of programmers don't use the mouse at all. I try to use it as little as possible while coding (I'm not good enough with vim yet to completely eliminate it). It really slows you down.

I think it's fairly obvious that programming will always remain hard, and nothing can really change that, but on the other hand, I *really* love functional languages. Right now, I'm really into OCaml. It's fast, expressive, and really fun to use. Once you get used to the syntax, it seems a bit easier to understand than most other languages, although it's also possible that is because OCaml code tends to be better written than code in languages like C++, as it's use is mainly in academia. Haskell is very impressive, but it's a daunting task to learn it, and I still haven't gotten around to it. OCaml has many advantages of Haskell, but with a bit more...sanity (I've yet to find a good example of Monads...the spaceship analogy is easy to understand, but it gives no explanation of why monads are neccessary).

The article itself is pretty funny, but the real joke is on the people who think that its real.

At 12/7/06 12:14 PM, PONGpaddle wrote: Where did that come from?

And no, that's not the password. It doesn't matter anyway, it's on localhost while it's development, so it's not like anyone can hack it.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong message. I was talking to LolOutLoud.

At 12/6/06 02:19 PM, PONGpaddle wrote: A bit of unimportant code from my project.

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=code qp0.png

I really hope "binary" isn't the password for your database. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I've seen stuff like this happen before.

At 11/8/06 05:08 PM, Bizarro wrote:

At 11/8/06 04:31 PM, Smulse wrote: Does Opera use IE's engine?
It says 'Click to activate this control' on a flash application and it displays the same horrendous bug on my layout that IE does.

Nope opera is its own cool funky engine and its the only major browser out that passes the Acid2 test for HTML and CSS compatibility. So what its rendering should be pretty damn accurate.

Safari and Konqueror aren't major browsers? Maybe not Konqueror, but Safari definitely is.

At 11/4/06 10:27 AM, CronoMan wrote: 5 : Please stop "not worrying about speed" because then you suck. People like you are the ones that made me crush my fucking keyboard when playing games like Medal Of Honor, Battlefield, Söldner, Sacred and all those retarded games.
Seriously, Quake 3 ran at about 200fps on my old computer, Medal Of Honor ran at about ... 15fps? IT'S THE SAME FUCKING ENGINE BUT WITH LOWER RES TEXTURES

I've come to the shocking realization that you have no clue what the software industry it about. You seem to think that games are the whole industry. You realize that people eventually grow up and stop playing stupid games, right?

At 10/31/06 09:06 PM, Stick714 wrote: nevermind the last post, i tested it out and it said there was a problem with this line

if(isset($vid) {

Just put another bracket after $vid