Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BFEL]

((I KNOW! Miya has a UNIVERSAL AMP and all he ever seems to use it for is the same old microwave crap. I am disappoint))

snip

((I was under the impression that all amps used the same amount of energy, assuming they were affecting the same area. I figured why keep heating a 1 foot sphere when you could convert a 1 foot sphere into confetti or crush that 1 foot sphere using gravity.

I wasn't trying to say "why don't you use more taxing tactics" I was trying to say "why don't you mix things up a bit"
Which apparently those are the same thing, which I didn't know.

Basically I was saying you should use the same energy with some other amp functions so it was less boring but yeah I digress.))

[Sean Mirrsen]

((A universal amp is like a swiss army knife. Or, perhaps more aptly, like an assembly code compiler. Where with a specialized amp, the difficulty and strain changes linearly with the magnitude of the task you want to achieve, a universal amp has to work with low-level effects to produce the same things - so the difficulty scales also with the nature of the task. Creating or removing thermal energy locally is nearly the easiest thing to do. Moving something is harder, as it requires applying that energy as kinetic force, and controlling and directing the outcome. And so on and so on. So the simpler things really will drain less mental stamina than the more complex things.

Also, ouch. Poor drone. Dammit, I'm running out of those things. Gonna have to start constructing a swarm of murderbots out of scout eyes.))

[Kriellya]

((A universal amp is like a swiss army knife. Or, perhaps more aptly, like an assembly code compiler. Where with a specialized amp, the difficulty and strain changes linearly with the magnitude of the task you want to achieve, a universal amp has to work with low-level effects to produce the same things - so the difficulty scales also with the nature of the task. Creating or removing thermal energy locally is nearly the easiest thing to do. Moving something is harder, as it requires applying that energy as kinetic force, and controlling and directing the outcome. And so on and so on. So the simpler things really will drain less mental stamina than the more complex things.

Also, ouch. Poor drone. Dammit, I'm running out of those things. Gonna have to start constructing a swarm of murderbots out of scout eyes.))

(( Assembly code compiler. That's a pretty good analogy actually. It can do literally anything the computer can! Just don't expect it to help you add 1 and 1 in any sensible way. The universal manipulator can heat up a sphere of space just as well as the microwave manipulator. It's just way more effort to actually *get* the universal manipulator to do that when compared to the microwave. ))

[BFEL]

((So in essence the Microwave amp is a Microwave amp, and the Universal amp is a mishmash of things what resemble the other amps?

So a Universal amp is basically Fry's brain in Futurama, it does everything a normal brain does, but poorly, yet has some extra things sticking out.))

[Sean Mirrsen]

((So in essence the Microwave amp is a Microwave amp, and the Universal amp is a mishmash of things what resemble the other amps?

So a Universal amp is basically Fry's brain in Futurama, it does everything a normal brain does, but poorly, yet has some extra things sticking out.))

((Which was the reasoning behind my initial comparison to a Swiss army knife. It has the capability to do anything, but it'll take more effort to do it than with a specialized tool.))

[GreatWyrmGold]

((I think I understood your explanation more before you tried to compare amps to assembly compilers.

...Which lead me to a question: How do you compile the first compiler?))

[Parisbre56]

((I think I understood your explanation more before you tried to compare amps to assembly compilers.

...Which lead me to a question: How do you compile the first compiler?))

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

((I think the correct term is "assembly translator" or simply "assembler". They take keywords and numbers (like ADD $t0, $t1, $t2, which means add the contents of the t1 and t2 registers and store the result in t0) and translate them into binary instructions to be used by the processor (the above translates to 012A4020 in hex on a MIPS processor).
And considering that processors don't have that many instructions (about 100 in a MIPS processor), you can create a translator very easily.

(you've got a few instructions for basic arithmetic (addition, multiplication and division), instructions for comparing numbers (for example "slti $t0, $t1, 100" which means "is $t1 smaller than 100? If yes, set $t0 to 1, else set it to 0"), instructions for jumping to another part of the code (Instruction "beq $t0, $zero, 124" means "Jump to instruction <next instruction+124> if $t2 is zero, else continue" for example) and instructions for loading and storing things to and from memory ("li $t0, 100" means "load the number 100 to register $t0" for example))

There used to be typewriter-like things that could do it, in the early days of computing. You just typed the commands in the typewriter and they translated it and typed it in punched cards.

Of course, as you can see from the above examples, there are very little things you can do in assembly with a few instructions. You can't just say "display that image". You need to get each byte of the image you want to display and put it in the correct spot in memory. That's assuming the image is part of the file you're using, if you need to load the image from the disk, then that's an entirely different type of headache...
The main difference between a compiler and an assembler is that a compiler can take a line of code and translate it into a thousand instructions for the processor, while the assembler will translate each line to a single instruction. Which means that in a compiler, you can just say "display that  image" and it displays that image, simple as that, even though it had to compile that one instructions into thousands of lines of assembly code.

So I think the correct way of saying it is: "Using a microwave manipulator is like programming in BASIC, while using a universal manipulator is like programming in Assembly."
Because BASIC is a simple language that any beginner can learn to use within minutes, but you can only use it for very limited things, like adding stuff or displaying text.
Assembly on the other hand, literally gives you full control over the CPU and most of the computer's components, but the knowledge you must have to use it and the amount of lines you need to write to do the simplest of things, make it really hard to use.
Not to mention impractical, since changing a single thing in the hardware, like the processor or graphics card you're running the program on, can cause it to fail, since each could have their own instruction set.

I can provide a more information, if you desire.))

[Sean Mirrsen]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

((I think the correct term is "assembly translator" or simply "assembler". They take keywords and numbers (like ADD $t0, $t1, $t2, which means add the contents of the t1 and t2 registers and store the result in t0) and translate them into binary instructions to be used by the processor (the above translates to 012A4020 in hex on a MIPS processor).
And considering that processors don't have that many instructions (about 100 in a MIPS processor), you can create a translator very easily.

(you've got a few instructions for basic arithmetic (addition, multiplication and division), instructions for comparing numbers (for example "slti $t0, $t1, 100" which means "is $t1 smaller than 100? If yes, set $t0 to 1, else set it to 0"), instructions for jumping to another part of the code (Instruction "beq $t0, $zero, 124" means "Jump to instruction <next instruction+124> if $t2 is zero, else continue" for example) and instructions for loading and storing things to and from memory ("li $t0, 100" means "load the number 100 to register $t0" for example))

There used to be typewriter-like things that could do it, in the early days of computing. You just typed the commands in the typewriter and they translated it and typed it in punched cards.

Of course, as you can see from the above examples, there are very little things you can do in assembly with a few instructions. You can't just say "display that image". You need to get each byte of the image you want to display and put it in the correct spot in memory. That's assuming the image is part of the file you're using, if you need to load the image from the disk, then that's an entirely different type of headache...
The main difference between a compiler and an assembler is that a compiler can take a line of code and translate it into a thousand instructions for the processor, while the assembler will translate each line to a single instruction. Which means that in a compiler, you can just say "display that  image" and it displays that image, simple as that, even though it had to compile that one instructions into thousands of lines of assembly code.

So I think the correct way of saying it is: "Using a microwave manipulator is like programming in BASIC, while using a universal manipulator is like programming in Assembly."
Because BASIC is a simple language that any beginner can learn to use within minutes, but you can only use it for very limited things, like adding stuff or displaying text.
Assembly on the other hand, literally gives you full control over the CPU and most of the computer's components, but the knowledge you must have to use it and the amount of lines you need to write to do the simplest of things, make it really hard to use.
Not to mention impractical, since changing a single thing in the hardware, like the processor or graphics card you're running the program on, can cause it to fail, since each could have their own language.

I can provide a more information, if you desire.))

((Thankfully the amps use the Universe's assembly code, and changes in that hardware don't happen often. ))

"Well... crap. There goes another one. And I can't even target the guy precisely."

Anton looks over the area that the Amper's hideout is situated under.

"Hm. Could try indirect..."

Take the MFM, focus. Try to heat a column of rock, around a foot thick and ten feet high, immediately above where I think the Amper is hiding, to melting point. Toss the MFM into the crater if it malfunctions.

[BFEL]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

((I think the correct term is "assembly translator" or simply "assembler". They take keywords and numbers (like ADD $t0, $t1, $t2, which means add the contents of the t1 and t2 registers and store the result in t0) and translate them into binary instructions to be used by the processor (the above translates to 012A4020 in hex on a MIPS processor).
And considering that processors don't have that many instructions (about 100 in a MIPS processor), you can create a translator very easily.

(you've got a few instructions for basic arithmetic (addition, multiplication and division), instructions for comparing numbers (for example "slti $t0, $t1, 100" which means "is $t1 smaller than 100? If yes, set $t0 to 1, else set it to 0"), instructions for jumping to another part of the code (Instruction "beq $t0, $zero, 124" means "Jump to instruction <next instruction+124> if $t2 is zero, else continue" for example) and instructions for loading and storing things to and from memory ("li $t0, 100" means "load the number 100 to register $t0" for example))

There used to be typewriter-like things that could do it, in the early days of computing. You just typed the commands in the typewriter and they translated it and typed it in punched cards.

Of course, as you can see from the above examples, there are very little things you can do in assembly with a few instructions. You can't just say "display that image". You need to get each byte of the image you want to display and put it in the correct spot in memory. That's assuming the image is part of the file you're using, if you need to load the image from the disk, then that's an entirely different type of headache...
The main difference between a compiler and an assembler is that a compiler can take a line of code and translate it into a thousand instructions for the processor, while the assembler will translate each line to a single instruction. Which means that in a compiler, you can just say "display that  image" and it displays that image, simple as that, even though it had to compile that one instructions into thousands of lines of assembly code.

So I think the correct way of saying it is: "Using a microwave manipulator is like programming in BASIC, while using a universal manipulator is like programming in Assembly."
Because BASIC is a simple language that any beginner can learn to use within minutes, but you can only use it for very limited things, like adding stuff or displaying text.
Assembly on the other hand, literally gives you full control over the CPU and most of the computer's components, but the knowledge you must have to use it and the amount of lines you need to write to do the simplest of things, make it really hard to use.
Not to mention impractical, since changing a single thing in the hardware, like the processor or graphics card you're running the program on, can cause it to fail, since each could have their own language.

I can provide a more information, if you desire.))

((Thankfully the amps use the Universe's assembly code, and changes in that hardware don't happen often. ))

"Well... crap. There goes another one. And I can't even target the guy precisely."

Anton looks over the area that the Amper's hideout is situated under.

"Hm. Could try indirect..."

Take the MFM, focus. Try to heat a column of rock, around a foot thick and ten feet high, immediately above where I think the Amper is hiding, to melting point. Toss the MFM into the crater if it malfunctions.

((this was basically my plan, except changing "if it malfunctions" to "make damn sure it malfunctions and turns the area under our wheelchaired friend into a molten path to the center of the planet"))

[GreatWyrmGold]

((Malfunctioning manipulators are not the path to success.))

[Sean Mirrsen]

((Unless your definition of "success" includes "dying in a thermonuclear fireball but taking your enemies and/or teammates with you".))

[Xantalos]

((Just get Renen to do it then run away.))

[Radio Controlled]

((@ Sean, Kriellya and Paris: thanks for helping to explain, saves me quite some typing  ))

((Malfunctioning manipulators are not the path to success.))

((Ain't that the truth.))

[BFEL]

((well if said manipulator is on a timer...SUCCESS ENSUES))

[Parisbre56]

((Yeah, I think China-9 was technically a success, wasn't it?))