Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Introduces Programming Challenge In Advance Of GoogleIO

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the with-great-power-comes-cool-freebies dept.

Google 114

First time accepted submitter X10 writes "Google announced some time ago that they want only developers to attend their Google IO conference. They hinted at developing a 'programming test' that you have to pass before you can register. Now, they have introduced the Input Output machine at the same time they announced that Google IO registration will open on March 27. I take it that registrations will be ordered according to the quality of one's IO machine. Cute idea ..."

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362759)

n/t

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (3, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362959)

Even if you have an account it asks you "Google Developers is requesting permission to: Know how you are on Google, Perform these operations when I'm not using the application". If you click "No thanks" instead of "Allow access", you get "Access Denied".

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363311)

Company that makes money from harvesting your personal details to send you advertising demands more access to your personal details in exchange for features you may like.

I don't think we need a film for this one, guys. Animated short at 11.

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39364613)

Wait, are you arguing that Google doesn't ALREADY know all the details you gave to Google+?

How exactly would you expect giving Google Developers special permission to mine your Google+ account make the situation any worse?

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (1)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363353)

Tried it in Firefox, didn't seem to work; must need Chrome. Tried it in Chrome, didn't seem to work; remembered WebGL is disabled because the Linux ATI driver is blacklisted. Restart Chrome with google-chrome --ignore-gpu-blacklist but it still doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's a puzzle and I just don't get it; I'll check the comments on slashdot.

This is what the web felt like 10 years ago. Maybe it's my fault for not realizing I had to sign in, but there isn't anything on the page to indicate that, and I don't use Google+ anyways.

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (1)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363391)

Self reply.... FlashBlock was my problem. I'm going for coffee.

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363699)

Yep, they must not want any machine I might make more than they want to target me for ads. They get neither.

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365763)

And hundreds of people are willing to fill that void, and come up with machines just as great or greater.

Re:Requires Google+. Lame. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39365105)

Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame.

Sucks to be the "accountless" then. I have a Google+ account and my machine rocks. Life's too short to get hung up on minutia.

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365399)

Irony is, most people probably already have a G+ account, even if they never signed up for one.

Of course, if you're wanting to go to Google I/O you probably are an Android user, which means you have a Google account and by definition, it's a G+ account even if you did nothing...

Hell, I bet if all you did was sign up for YouTube you have a G+ account.

Re:Not for the accountless. Requires Google+. Lame (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366343)

Yes, wanting to go to Google I/O but don't want to participate in Google's main ID hub... Isn't that a bit like wanting to drive without a license?

interesting (0)

netskink (1169915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362765)

I want to go to google io. I have never been before. Maybe this will help my chances. I'm not opposed to this entry criteria.

Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (3, Interesting)

perbu (624267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362783)

It fails to load in Chrome but works flawlessly in Firefox. Is somebody not eating their dogfood?

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362803)

Works fine in Chrome. As I tell my users on a regular basis, there's a significant difference between "it doesn't work" and "it didn't work one time".

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (-1, Troll)

evanbd (210358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362933)

Works fine in Chrome. As I tell my users on a regular basis, there's a significant difference between "it doesn't work" and "it didn't work one time".

You are part of the reason that software sucks so badly.

"The software has errors" is still "the software has errors", even if some errors make their presence felt less frequently.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363181)

And if the end user is just being impatient or didn't read the instructions?

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363265)

If the software requires Swiss-precision timing and/or extensive and convoluted steps in order to get it to work, then it very much "has errors." Double that for a Web page.

          -dZ.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363389)

Can you explain to me how hitting the refresh button once is equivalent to requiring convoluted steps and swiss precision timing?

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363955)

Can you explain to me how closing all your programs and restarting your computer is.... yea retarded

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39365049)

Rebooting your computer for a software flaw is retarded (and so are you). Refreshing your page if a web page has an error is far from retarded.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365797)

But that's not the situation here. For many people, it's just been that they don't have Flash enabled.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (0)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365887)

That may be true, I have no idea. My comment was in response to the parent post regarding application errors and impatient users.

Mark me off-topic.

You mean, if the user isn't you? (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363423)

Why, then, it might mean that the user isn't willing to put in the time, thought and preparation necessary for an inherently complex task.

Or it might mean that the user is trying to do something simple (registration? hello?), and the implementation is brittle, obfuscated, and/or inefficient.

If your user has to read instructions in order to register for an event, YOU fail, not your user.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363515)

And you're a part of it as well. "The software has errors" is still "I'm unable to provide a remotely meaningful description of the problem I'm seeing".

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364351)

Unless like one of the earlier posters there is something specific to his configuration that is the problem, which seems increasingly likely (an extension? Flashblock, noscript?)

The website generally doesnt change from visitor to visitor; its usually the visitor configurations that are different, and thus if one out of a hundred people cant get in it is very likely some wonky configuration they have done.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365783)

"It didn't work one time" doesn't mean that the software has errors. It could very well be a PEBKAC issue.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362951)

I run dev channel Chrome and it doesn't work for me. (tm)

Firefox works... for a little while. It froze on me.

Maybe my IO machine is just too good. I don't get how this is related to development though, it's a cute little game.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39365163)

Works fine in plain vanilla Chrome.

I'm going to guess a person who can't get that to work doesn't belong in the challenge.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365833)

I'm sure there's something to do with developing algorithms, or visual programming using steps and tweaking parameters in there somewhere.

I don't know, I'm just having fun.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362973)

Works fine here. I somebody making shitty generalizations from too little data?

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363037)

It works fine in Chrome if you turn off FlashBlock, Abine, and AdBlock. Hmmm.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (2)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364003)

I left Adblock on, only Flashblock had to be disabled.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365931)

There's an invisible swf that plays the annoying bgm. Since its invisible you can't click-to-play it, and if you do get it running, you can't click to turn the noise off.

Maybe their dogfood has different spices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363045)

They're probably eating their dogfood but there's some combination you've exposed that affects either the tool or Chrome.

As for me, it works fine in my copy of Chrome. I run sans extensions in Win 7. Both Win 7 and Chrome auto-update.

Re:Fails in Chrome - works in Firefox (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363339)

It might be just overcrowded now.

Too Busy to Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362787)

No one is commenting because they are too busy trying to get tutorial machine built...

IO Machine Quality? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362797)

I take it that registrations will be ordered according to the quality of one's IO machine. Cute idea ...

So I guess my "blank canvas art" submission won't get be an invite?

Re:IO Machine Quality? (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363537)

No, but perhaps the two piece machine I did just now might be.

Google Sausage Party 2012 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362799)

You'll find more women at a priests' rectory than at this event

Re:Google Sausage Party 2012 (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362843)

So what? Life contains much fascinating fun stuff other than being around women. I for one, would have loved to attend this event in person, but sadly wont have the money or the time to spare.

Re:Google Sausage Party 2012 (5, Informative)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362851)

You'll find more women at a priests' rectory than at this event

Yeah, for instance the organizers [blogspot.com] and the Slashdot submitter [christine.nl] are all men.

Not So Correct (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362805)

Google has commented on various other comments in the google+ posts for IO that it's a first come first served process on the 27th. There have been some comments about an easter egg in the game which gives a link for preregistration but google has not confirmed. Known IOn members (Those who have attended 3 IO's) have gotten preregistered this week, and the rumor is that Past attendees will get the nod next week. But as of now google has been saying it's a free for all on the 27th. I'm betting they want to break their previous record for how fast you can sellout a conference. And I think that the price hike to $900 is their plan to try and keep out those who simply want to get whatever they give away. We'll see on the 27th how well that worked.

..really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362827)

Is there anyone at all who'd be interested in this other than developers and the press?

Gimmicky marketing is gimmick.

Re:..really? (2)

LordofChaos (99262) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362863)

For most of the IO's except for maybe the first Google has given away more free stuff then the cost of the conference itself. A noticable group has went simply to get this swag. 2 years ago they gave out 2 phones. Last year they gave out a special edition Galaxy Tab, a 4g LTE Mifi, and a Chromebook to attendees, and certain sessions also gave out things, one was a PS phone and one was an Arduino. I think almost doubling the price to $900 from last years $550 (I believe) is more to attempt to drive these people out. I was there last year and you could tell who was only there for the swag as they sat in the back and left the sessions or keynotes for the swag desk as soon as things were announced.

Re:..really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362895)

And I can see that, but I think that assuming there aren't "developers" out there not just going for the swag is preposterous. I know I would be if I was attending, because honestly I find a lot of what Google has to say about programming to be uninspired and uninteresting, so that would be about the only reason I'd be there.

wtf load music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362841)

I could really do without the shitty load music

Re:wtf load music (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363051)

It's Google's mating call to attract the soulless. So no, it would actually not work at all without the shitty music. They need that.

Re:wtf load music (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363127)

It's Google's mating call to attract the soulless.

I wonder if I can get that as a ringtone for my iPhone ;-)

Re:wtf load music (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363239)

But why, you already have the iPhone, that's an even more powerful statement :P

"Track" piece (1)

Spiflicator (64611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362847)

How do you use this... the ball always seems to bounce violently off of it.

Re:"Track" piece (1)

LordofChaos (99262) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362885)

It's more of a repeller then a track the ball follows. When it gets close it will bounce back at the complementary angle to its approach to the track for a normal ball. I haven't tried it yet with an Anti grav or Android ball.

Re:"Track" piece (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363727)

Right, as a novice javascript hacker who's had a couple of beers and is not going to IO anyway - how do you activate the three other ball types?

I've tried looking at the source, I didn't get anywhere. Give me some good old-fashioned C any day...

Re:"Track" piece (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364015)

Hmm, turns out I may have just over-thought this as now I've published the empty machine it's unlocked another ball type.

What exactly is the point of this nonsense? I can't exactly see how it's a developer challenge either.

Re:"Track" piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362925)

not sure, just put a wall above it

Re:"Track" piece (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364999)

Like this:

One piece I/O machine [google.com]
(you might have to resize the browser width a bit)

Re:"Track" piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39365517)

Yeah that didn't work on my screen... Until I re-sized it.

My guess is there's a solution that works on all browser widths??? I don't know how that would be possible, but I can figure that Google guys would figure out a way.... Maybe some kind of loop on larger screen?

Does not work in Chrome/Linux (1)

Torp (199297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362853)

Way to go google!

Re:Does not work in Chrome/Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362917)

Lol you must be some kind of noobtard... I was using this all of yesterday in Chrome/Linux. Try to dev branch.

Re:Does not work in Chrome/Linux (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363077)

So you spent a whole day on some idiotic Google Plus toy, and that makes *others* idiots? Hahahahahaha. Neato.

The way Google treats devs, why bother ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362861)

Last year we heard many stories from Android developers that they didn't get paid while their app was being purchased. People complained to Google, heard nothing, and eventually found their way onto a dev. forum. Result of all that? Google locked down the forum telling people to e-mail them and eventually removed the entire forum all together.

Even though one of the most heard complaints in that thread was that Google never responded to e-mails.

You'd think they'd learn from this lesson but no: they are at it again" [google.com] !. How long before that thread will get a lock down as well ?

It amazes me how much people tend to look the other way with ill practices like there merely because "Its Google". Especially since its plain out obvious what is going on; "divide & conquer". With a group devs. can make a stand, but alone its almost not worth the effort because the fee's are marginal at best.

And the world looks on and doesn't seem to care, amazing.

Re:The way Google treats devs, why bother ? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362941)

What does your contract with Google say about payment schedules?

Because if it says nothing, or says something that means they *can* delay payment, you don't have a leg to stand on and Google aren't technically doing anything wrong (you may have a moral argument, but that's about it).

The only quote I've found is:

"Google expects to initiate payments to your bank account on the second of the month; exceptions to this are weekends or Bank Holidays. Payments will include sales processed from the first day to the last day of the previous month. Google Checkout will send your payout to your bank account; however, your bank may take an additional three business days to register the payout in your bank account. Please contact your bank representative for the specifics of your bank's turnaround time for electronically deposited funds. Note that in the event of a technical issue, your payout may be delayed and is expected to be initiated by the 15th of the month."

Considering it constantly says "expects" and not "will definitely and guaranteeably pay", that suggests to me that there is no "deadline". If you signed up to that, that's your own fault.

Dunno why... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362897)

.. this brings to mind the experience of a friend who applied for a job as technical writer. He was given a "test" to write a fully-specked chapter of documentation for a supplied program undergoing beta testing. On showing up for the interview carrying his "test' assignment, he ran into another interviewee who carried a draft of a different "test" chapter.

welcome (0)

nidaye (2596037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362905)

You could be the focus among the people; you could be the one who never ordinary. replica Hermes [replica-aaa.com] is looking for its host, the highest quality, the best color and the best service is what we can provide to you. You deserve to have one.

conspiracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362949)

"Sign in with Google+"

They just want to track people who can program.

Re:conspiracy (1)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362995)

Not altogether unlikely.

Takes a long time to load (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362997)

still looking at the 'spinning record player of Death' icon...

Re:Takes a long time to load (2)

morgosmaci (1277138) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364413)

It has a hidden flash object, so if you block flash then all you see is the spinning record player.

Lemme guess (0)

chebucto (992517) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363011)

The challenge is to port a stable copy of ICS to the Nexus S for OTA delivery?

I can only dream of the day when the challenge is to write Android in such a way that it runs any hardware that meets basic standards, a la Windows. As opposed to the current model, which seems to be lengthy OS re-writes for each individual handset.

Re:Lemme guess (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363189)

For that to happen, you first need a standard. Ask that to the countless ARM licensors, I am sure they don't want to do that

Re:Lemme guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363581)

So was the point of this comment to show you are an idiot?
These are embedded devices, they don't have PCI nor all the other nice stuff we have on PCs. This means every mobile OS needs lots of work for each device.

Re:Lemme guess (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366057)

Tell ya what: You go make a standard SoC that ALL of the Android handsets will use, and I'm sure we can make the Android thing work.

Hell, we're comparing it to PCs. Make two. Shouldn't be that hard, right?

It's not consistent (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363061)

Just built a machine that, depending on some hidden factor, either catches the ball and transports it, throws the ball away off the bottom of the screen, or just misses the catch entirely and lets it smash into the end wall. But the actual result seems random because I don't change anything in-between, just press the spacebar to "launch" a ball.

Sorry, but I played The Incredible Machine when I was a child, thanks, and it was frustrating enough even when it WAS consistent. I don't program in languages that like to change the parameters at random.

Re:It's not consistent (1)

SadButTrue (848439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363479)

state machines are for cowards :p

Re:It's not consistent (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364129)

I even found that the tutorial is hit & miss. First in FF, the initially placed pendulum NEVER caught the ball. Being an older PC, I figured I should throw chrome at the problem in-case it was some timing problem. Now the same pendulum catches the ball about 50% of the time.

It's too frustrating to even do the tutorial when you don't even know if the adjustment you have made has helped or not. Bah, looked like it would be fun too!

Re:It's not consistent (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364139)

Unless, if it is designed to be inconsistent rather than it just being buggy, then I may be inclined to have more of a play with it...

Re:It's not consistent (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366109)

I don't think so. On my machine at work, it's pretty consistent. It just really sucks that you have to be so precise with your placements, and you can't even see the last path the ball took, or see the expected path.

Re:It's not consistent (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366967)

I think that there was more to it than I thought... I think placing new objects may have a gravitational effect on the ball...

Re:It's not consistent (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39364657)

I wondered if I was the only one that this was happening to. I'd be half way through building something and then all of a sudden the ball starts flying past the contact point where it was hitting before. I'll adjust for that, it'll work fine for awhile more and then third step in it starts missing that contact point. I couldn't figure out if there was some weird variation happening or if my work filter was screwing with whatever physics calculations were happening or if it was supposed to be truly random or what. Finally I just gave up and decided I had better things to bang my head against!

Re:It's not consistent (1)

PGGreens (1699764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366035)

Yeah. This is really frustrating! I just had one working, and then it mysteriously broke. And I can't imagine that sharing them via G+ would get much more than a bunch of "uhh.. it doesn't work, idiot" responses.

It's more about design than programming. (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363159)

A tip for anyone who wants to go through with it. The simple design is usually the better design. The inconsistency are factors which you have to factor for in your design. Kind of like how in life nothing is truly consistent.

Re:It's more about design than programming. (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39365769)

KISS principle. If I had time I'd have designed it with only one part. I managed with two that's consistent. The less moving parts you can get away with, the better- whether it's a physical device or software.

Re:It's more about design than programming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366043)

KISS principle. If I had time I'd have designed it with only one part. I managed with two that's consistent. The less moving parts you can get away with, the better- whether it's a physical device or software.

Can be done with one non-moving wall due to over-elastic collisions. Not sure what kind of people this test could possibly keep out of a conference.

Re:It's more about design than programming. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366775)

The inconsistency are factors which you have to factor for in your design. Kind of like how in life nothing is truly consistent.

I deal with issues such as these on a regular basis. You want your physics to run at discrete increments, so if too much time has passed between updates, you don't just process the time delta in one pass, you execute multiple physics steps eg:
while( playingTheGame ) {
ProcessInput();
for ( timeAccum += getElapsedMillsec(); timeAccum >= stepSize; timeAccum -= stepSize )
UpdatePhysics( stepSize );
Render();
}

This will only update the physics in consistent discrete steps such that the simulation runs the same on slow or fast machines.
If necessary, you can UpdatePhysics( someFractionOfStep ) to get interpolation between physic tics. However, only use these values as temporary for rendering purposes because
UpdatePhysics( 20 ); UpdatePhysics( 20 ); is not always equivalent to UpdatePhysics( 40 );

In short, everyone who's ever had to write physics code for game logic knows what to do. Otherwise your multi-player game or your recorded game demo desynchronises.

Either HTML5 and JS are too slow on the average hardware to run the logic correctly (in which case they should tell you so or not release as complex a product), or someone failed Main Game Loops 101. Stick to your map-reduce, Google; Let us high-school drop-outs handle the basic math.

Re:It's more about design than programming. (1)

malakai (136531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367123)

You can also edit the source directly ( click the </> on the bottom right) and they don't do much checking. You can make a track with 50 points, 200 long. Basically a hover conveyor belt to the output.

Also, many people don't realize you can move the input and output gates.

Build a computer? (1)

adkeswani (1261278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363191)

Haven't played around much with this yet, but it could be used in a similar way to how Minecraft was used to build an ALU, right? Wonder if they'll eventually allow you to chain multiple machines together with multiple outputs...then I think you'd be able to do it...

Re:Build a computer? (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366127)

It'd be cool, but I think from what I've seen, it's too small of a work area.

because ..... (1)

lindoran (1190189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363201)

A sales rep would never hire a programmer to pass the test for them... that would never happen...

Doubtful (1)

Syphonius (11602) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363445)

There's nothing to support the idea that machine quality is linked to registration.

I believe the hike to $900 is their response to 'freeloaders' showing up just to get swag.

Re:Doubtful (1)

bolthole (122186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367147)

If the cost is anything greater than $0, then by definition, they are not "free"loaders.

Only Developers Could Write This (5, Funny)

swsuehr (612400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363463)

Ugh. Seeing a sentence like this "...architect a machine only you could have dreamt of" makes me think that they may want to consider allowing just *one* non-developer... someone who can write.

Steve

Re:Only Developers Could Write This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39364823)

Breaking pointless grammar rules is a sign of intelligence.

Re:Only Developers Could Write This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39365377)

they used google translate for Hindi->English duh

Fire the Manager (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363501)

I hope when they fire the idiot responsible for this, it will be the manager and not the developer. (Also hope this is not some developer-centric manager behind this shit.)

Help me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39363599)

I have been trying to create a machine which spells "stupid" but I am finding it difficult because of the "p". I have now settled for a machine which spells "stunt" but after the ball leaves the "u", it heads upwards and dies. What should I do?

Re:Help me (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363823)

Maybe it would be easier if you replaced the 's' & 't' with 'c'?

Re:Help me (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366283)

I've tried putting a wall along the top, and will probably put one along the bottom. However, recently my machine has also caught the "The ball doesn't go where it used to go" problem.

This is annoying (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39363717)

The tutorial level you have to complete in order to actually be able to play with it has an annoying non-dismissable pop up at the bottom which covers up part of the machine. Either it's buggy or they don't like my monitor size.

Re:This is annoying (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366435)

Did you view it in Chrome? :)

Speculative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39364673)

I don't buy it. I think registration will be a form and a cart. The dev challenge is can you afford $900.

"Then, share your machine on Google+ using #io12. Build well and you won't lose your marbles — build a machine of epic design and your creation could be featured at Google I/O 2012. "
http://googledevelopers.blogspot.com/

Easy (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366277)

Input: Any text. Output: "Buy (any text) online in canada! Available at your local shopping mart!!!! Great deals (any text) secrets they don't want you to know!!"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>