Go is much harder than Chess for computers because brute force doesn't work even remotely as well. The branching factor is much higher (until the endgame, there are 100-360 possibilities per ply, compared to a dozen or two for chess), and the depth you might need to search is much deeper (consider a ladder starting on one side of the board whose outcome depends on the stones on the other side, 30 ply down the tree, and determines the life or death of a large group).
Note that I'm not saying the good Chess programs are pure brute force. They are basically a combination of brute force and good AI working together, but the brute force is a critical component of their success. With Go, the AI has to pull all the weight, and it isn't nearly good enough.
He explained on several occasions that one of their amusements was lowering a long antenna and jamming garage door frequencies and other civilian applications (e.g. keyless door locks). I couldn't imagine why the air force would want to interfere with garage doors and he never had a good explanation other than they were told to do that and the crew always found it amusing
The proper response to that kind of thing is to analyze the interference and deduce interesting things and publicize them. If they are messing with garage doors and other stuff, then they are leaking information, and there is probably something in there that someone in the military is paranoid enough to want to keep secret.
Do that, and they'll tell those crews to stop playing jokes on the civilians.
ok, i'm a little stoopid - can you (or someone) explain what this means? 'must accept any interference'?
Basically, if a primary user's signal interferes with a secondary user, the secondary user is the one responsible for dealing with the problem (e.g., shielding their equipment, moving, etc). The primary users don't have to take any steps to avoid interfering with secondary users.
Secondary users, on the other hand, have to avoid interfering with primary users. If a secondary user interferes with a primary user, the secondary user has to stop, shield their equipment, move, etc.
The neat thing about Sony is that they seem willing to experiment more than most other companies. They will develop interesting new devices that anyone can see will have very little market, but are really cool, and they will market them. They usually fail and disappear, but at least they tried. (Example: they had an eBook reader in the late 80's, using a mini-CD format).
I think there are people deep in Sony who watched a lot of The Jetsons and Star Trek as kids, and really really really want to make all that cool technology happen.
It will be interesting to see if they can bring this spirit to the current portable audio market.
Everything but one... they still use their nasty-sounding ATRAC format (the same one used for minidiscs)
Huh? ATRAC is the format that most audiophiles seem to choose if they want a portable device and are willing to use lossy compression (e.g., they go with MiniDisc).
Regardless, there are dozens of players on the mark with more features than Apple's. It's subjective, but I think many of them look better and are easier to use. The far majority of them are much cheaper. Despite all this, the iPod dominates the market
What Sony has that Apple has, and that those others don't have, is money. They can advertise.
Yeah, but... in TFA, it says "[Secunia's] service, easily accessible on its website, allows enterprises to gather exact information on specific products, by collating advisories from a large number of third-party security firms." To use an old phrase, GIGO. MS doesn't have to influence Secunia if it's influenced the third parties, does it?
You can trivially go to Secunia's site and view their lists of advisories, grouped by product or vendor, and easily check for yourself whether their interpretation of the data is reasonable.
So that article is basically saying that as the iTunes files are encoded at 128 kbps, they are intrinsically worse than files encoded at 192 kpbs. However, he's comparing an AAC coded file with an MP3 encoded file!
No, he's comparing iTMS to Rhapsody. Rhapsody uses one of Real's codecs, not MP3.
Not that it matters: 192 kbps MP3 is much better than 128 kbps AAC. Look at the published listening tests--the differences between MP3, Ogg, AAC, Real, and WMA aren't huge, and will be swamped in the difference between 128 and 192.
I could see this being especially useful for counter-sniper sweeps. If you can see through buildings, you can do a helicopter sweep of the area and verify that no snipers are waiting to kill a VIP on the move
Even without range issues, I don't think that would really work that well. For example, suppose they had done that in 1963 along the Kennedy motorcade route. They would have found out someone was in the book depository. The problem is that someone being in the book depository is not suspicious. Without a lot more resolution than it sounds like this technology provides, you wouldn't be able to tell a sniper from anyone else.
Sure, there might be some cases where it would work, such as when the sniper is someplace that no one should be, but thinking about most assasinations by sniper, the sniper is usually someplace where you'd expect to find people.
But we are talking about a PITCH-BLACK theatre. There's a HUGE difference, being in a window-less room where it's so dark that nobody can see
Uhm...I don't know what kind of theaters you go to, but in the ones I've seen there is a very bright light being projected onto a big screen, which reflects much of that light back on the audience. It's quite easy to see other people.
I wouldn't call UPNP "superior" by any stretch of the imagination.
Comparisons have been done. I'd rather have low traffic and better service separation vs the "use-http-for-everything" strategy
You are focusing on the part that doesn't matter. I suspect that in real life, you'd have a hard time finding any performance difference due to the heavier traffic. It's lost in the noise.
The part that is important is specifying the commands and data to/from devices. We learned this lesson back with SCSI-1. When you leave important things up to each vendor (like the way Rendezvous leaves stuff in unstructured text fields for the vendors to define), you end up having to build into your host software a bunch of vendor-specific knowledge. You end up not being able to just go buy and plug in a printer or scanner or whatever and have it work, because the vendor hasn't released documentation to the Linux developers yet.
Notice how much cleaner everything was with SCSI-2 due to having all the important commands specified in the standard, so that you could have generic disk and tape and other drivers that utilized all the device capabilities.
It seems to me that Rendezvous is making the SCSI-1 mistake, which was understandable for SCSI-1 since they didn't have anything to apply hindsight to. The Rendezvous people should be able to look at SCSI-1, though, and see the importance of complete device specifications.
In fact the whole idea of RF over power lines, though attractive at first sight, is a triumph of will over physics. A system designed to take kilovolts at around 50-60Hz, with mechanical switches all over the network and a mixture of capacitors and inductors to adjust power factor, is not a benign environment for RF
Change 60 Hz to a few kilohertz, and you've described the phone system. Yet, DSL works.
Some providers completely ignore your TTL entries when they cache them
It could be things below the level of providers. There is often DNS caching all the way to the end-user machine. One of the reasons so many things at that level ignore TTL entries is that the normal interface to DNS (gethostbyname, and the equivalent on Windows) doesn't return them.
Re:Babbling? Where is the GPL link then.
on
Red Hat announces GFS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to their web page, you must have a subscription to get it, which costs 2200 bucks.
No, that's to get a supported version. If you would actually read the announement linked to in the story, you'd get a link to where you can get the source code from cvs.
You are mixing different parts of the GPL, and it has confused you--you've mixed up the licensing requirements with the distribution requirements. Here's a summary of how it works.
1. If you distribute GPL'ed source code, you have basically satisified your GPL requirements.
2. If you distribute GPL'ed binaries, and distribute the source with them, you have satisfifed the GPL.
3. If you distribute GPL'ed binaries without source, you basically have to make the source available to third parties.
Taking is removing. By copying something, you aren't removing a damn thing. No, I'm not arguing semantics or splitting hairs to make it sound less serious. I'm calling it exactly what it is, copyright infringment. The content industries have called copying something its not (stealing) to make it sound *worse* than it really is, and unfortunatly a lot of poeple (like you) have bought their propoganda. Well, they are wrong and you are wrong, which is why we need to correct you
You are the one engaging in propoganda here. Copyright infringement has long been considered a form of theft, It is only in recent years, when technology made copying easy enough that obeying the law became inconvenient, that people started using the "I'm not taking anything physical so its not theft" argument to try to rationalize what they are doing.
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in. That's stealing. It is irrelevant that the property right is an abstract one created by law.
Slashdot Mirror
Go is much harder than Chess for computers because brute force doesn't work even remotely as well. The branching factor is much higher (until the endgame, there are 100-360 possibilities per ply, compared to a dozen or two for chess), and the depth you might need to search is much deeper (consider a ladder starting on one side of the board whose outcome depends on the stones on the other side, 30 ply down the tree, and determines the life or death of a large group).
Note that I'm not saying the good Chess programs are pure brute force. They are basically a combination of brute force and good AI working together, but the brute force is a critical component of their success. With Go, the AI has to pull all the weight, and it isn't nearly good enough.
The proper response to that kind of thing is to analyze the interference and deduce interesting things and publicize them. If they are messing with garage doors and other stuff, then they are leaking information, and there is probably something in there that someone in the military is paranoid enough to want to keep secret.
Do that, and they'll tell those crews to stop playing jokes on the civilians.
Basically, if a primary user's signal interferes with a secondary user, the secondary user is the one responsible for dealing with the problem (e.g., shielding their equipment, moving, etc). The primary users don't have to take any steps to avoid interfering with secondary users.
Secondary users, on the other hand, have to avoid interfering with primary users. If a secondary user interferes with a primary user, the secondary user has to stop, shield their equipment, move, etc.
I think there are people deep in Sony who watched a lot of The Jetsons and Star Trek as kids, and really really really want to make all that cool technology happen.
It will be interesting to see if they can bring this spirit to the current portable audio market.
Huh? ATRAC is the format that most audiophiles seem to choose if they want a portable device and are willing to use lossy compression (e.g., they go with MiniDisc).
Their problem is no support for any major online music stores. They need to add support for protected WMA, and then they would be almost perfect.
What Sony has that Apple has, and that those others don't have, is money. They can advertise.
Look at the advertising budget for the iPod.
You can trivially go to Secunia's site and view their lists of advisories, grouped by product or vendor, and easily check for yourself whether their interpretation of the data is reasonable.
No, he's comparing iTMS to Rhapsody. Rhapsody uses one of Real's codecs, not MP3.
Not that it matters: 192 kbps MP3 is much better than 128 kbps AAC. Look at the published listening tests--the differences between MP3, Ogg, AAC, Real, and WMA aren't huge, and will be swamped in the difference between 128 and 192.
No, it's a slightly different story. AAC beats MP3 in listening tests, but only by a little bit. (And Ogg Vorbis beats AAC, again by a little bit).
Even without range issues, I don't think that would really work that well. For example, suppose they had done that in 1963 along the Kennedy motorcade route. They would have found out someone was in the book depository. The problem is that someone being in the book depository is not suspicious. Without a lot more resolution than it sounds like this technology provides, you wouldn't be able to tell a sniper from anyone else.
Sure, there might be some cases where it would work, such as when the sniper is someplace that no one should be, but thinking about most assasinations by sniper, the sniper is usually someplace where you'd expect to find people.
What makes you think the Dell doesn't work with AllOfMP3.com?
Because they are trying to see people from far away in low light conditions. Duh!
It's quite easy to see people within a few rows of yourself without any special equipment.
Uhm...I don't know what kind of theaters you go to, but in the ones I've seen there is a very bright light being projected onto a big screen, which reflects much of that light back on the audience. It's quite easy to see other people.
Comparisons have been done. I'd rather have low traffic and better service separation vs the "use-http-for-everything" strategy
You are focusing on the part that doesn't matter. I suspect that in real life, you'd have a hard time finding any performance difference due to the heavier traffic. It's lost in the noise.
The part that is important is specifying the commands and data to/from devices. We learned this lesson back with SCSI-1. When you leave important things up to each vendor (like the way Rendezvous leaves stuff in unstructured text fields for the vendors to define), you end up having to build into your host software a bunch of vendor-specific knowledge. You end up not being able to just go buy and plug in a printer or scanner or whatever and have it work, because the vendor hasn't released documentation to the Linux developers yet.
Notice how much cleaner everything was with SCSI-2 due to having all the important commands specified in the standard, so that you could have generic disk and tape and other drivers that utilized all the device capabilities.
It seems to me that Rendezvous is making the SCSI-1 mistake, which was understandable for SCSI-1 since they didn't have anything to apply hindsight to. The Rendezvous people should be able to look at SCSI-1, though, and see the importance of complete device specifications.
Microsoft has UPNP, which is supported by pretty much everyone who isn't Apple.
Here's the Linux UPNP stuff.
As far as I can tell, UPNP is the superior technology.
Change 60 Hz to a few kilohertz, and you've described the phone system. Yet, DSL works.
1. They are upset that Apple is offering music from the major record labels. They think Apple should have basically started a completely new label.
2. They think it is too expense, because ripping a CD from a friend and sending a buck to the artist directly is cheaper.
3. They don't like lossy compression. They don't explain anywhere what this has to do with ripping off artists.
4. Kazaa is cheaper. How this gets money to the artists is not covered.
The one sentence summary: iTunes doesn't give enough to the artists, so it is better to use methods that give nothing at all to them.
It could be things below the level of providers. There is often DNS caching all the way to the end-user machine. One of the reasons so many things at that level ignore TTL entries is that the normal interface to DNS (gethostbyname, and the equivalent on Windows) doesn't return them.
No, that's to get a supported version. If you would actually read the announement linked to in the story, you'd get a link to where you can get the source code from cvs.
1. If you distribute GPL'ed source code, you have basically satisified your GPL requirements.
2. If you distribute GPL'ed binaries, and distribute the source with them, you have satisfifed the GPL.
3. If you distribute GPL'ed binaries without source, you basically have to make the source available to third parties.
You are the one engaging in propoganda here. Copyright infringement has long been considered a form of theft, It is only in recent years, when technology made copying easy enough that obeying the law became inconvenient, that people started using the "I'm not taking anything physical so its not theft" argument to try to rationalize what they are doing.
You've taken the copyright owner's control.
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in. That's stealing. It is irrelevant that the property right is an abstract one created by law.