That's the thing that's always fascinated me about Go. It is essentially an extremely simple game gone terribly, terribly wrong. It's got about as many rules as Yahtzee, but is played on a 19x19 board. Compare that to Chess which has a pretty large (8x8) board, but has far more rules.
I'm no expert on computer game programming, but I think that's where some of the difficulty comes into play when building these guys. Chess has a nearly unlimited number of outcomes, however having those sets of rules helps. For example, of the 32 pieces, 16 of them are essentially limited to one space in front of them. In Go, however, the lack of rules means that you're left with the simple mathematical monstrosity of an enormous board.
The book The Immortal Game, aside from being an excellent read, goes into depth about computer programs playing chess, as well as Go and Checkers.
I haven't updated Google Earth in a while, mostly because I haven't used it in a while, but last I saw it definitely had Crime Statistics. Pollution and Economy are both a little more ethereal, but moreover, they're for a much broader locale. I may wonder the crime stats in Manhattan versus Brooklyn, but what's it gonna say for Pollution, or Economy? Good and good? Corporate and yuppie? Those terms really apply to large areas, much greater than cities. As far as small towns are concerned, all the cities have the same economy and pollution. You're just more likely to get killed in NYC than Seattle.
It's definitely a dubious title, especially since TFA says almost nothing about Google. I suppose, though, that they are technically using Google Earth in their predictions, because without it they'd have to write their own/use Mapquest. I'm sure a big part of it is getting to attach Google's name to something no one outside the department and government is really interested by, and I bet Google's happy to step in. Besides, GE is probably really nice to visualize their data with. Distance from major cities or energy producers, weather, temperature, terrain, etc.
You would, indeed, think that. I think the issue is that perhaps the close scrutiny of CO2 levels has unfortunately not been so close, at least up until now (or however long this paper took). The whole Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas debate is drawing so much attention and so many funds away from the work itself that it's making most of either side a moot point - we're getting close to when we'll just find out *when* it happens.
This isn't good news for us Climate Change folks. Not only does this show that things are possibly not nearly as worse as we thought they were, but that our understanding is potentially flawed, perhaps very flawed. It's cool and awesome, but it sure as hell doesn't convince the naysayers.
Actually, only about 20% of people found it insightful; the others thought it both informative and interesting, with the majority leaning toward informative.
All this is a lot like what Johnny did with the Wii-mote. He effectively turned the Wii (aka OLD technology by this point) into a tracker so he could manipulate items. He even used a screen to make images appear 3-D. In fact, his system is a lot more like Minority Report because, iirc, Cruise was touching a kind of screen, moving pictures and images across it, not hanging in mid-air.
AmEx - 1% of amount you spend Gap - 50% of profit Giorgio Armani - 40% RAZR - 6.5% Apple - 5% (according to the RED website)
Good enough for ya? I'm a firm believer that half a loaf is better than none. Previously these groups were doing nothing - now they're doing something. That's what Gates is suggesting - everyone gaining, whether large or small, is better than nothing.
You have completely missed the point. I'm guessing you just read the title, not even the summary! This is not Bill Gates speaking on behalf of Microshaft, this is Bill Gates speaking on behalf of good conscience, one of the greatest foundations in existence, and a complete understanding of the corporate world.
We'd all love to give money to help the world, but we all also happen to want/need it as well. It's hard for businesses to give money away because their job, their entire purpose, is to make it for themselves.
Take the example of the RED campaign, as given up-top. They managed to sell something (absurd, imho) that people buy, thereby making more money (and, presumably, problems) for them and their stockholders, but meanwhile a portion of all the profits goes to AIDS work.
That is Creative Capitalism.
Gates understands that you can't just throw money at a problem, you need to create a project that is beneficial for all parties involved. He's suggesting we do more for ourselves by helping others.
No it's not - he's the goddamned President! Hate the man all you want, but respect the bloody office. That's what's happening here - A government-funded organization is going to make a huge announcement about Mars being able to sustain life, and they are letting the President know ahead of time. As leader of the country, he deserves to know about anything important ASAP. It'd be a HUGE insult to him (and, yes, perhaps to funding) if he found out because his Chief of Staff watched the news that night.
Well, if you wanna play that game, then they're both screwed as/b/ has prior art in that arena. Besides, if CERN has some sort of GLaDOS-esque entity hooked up to the collider, I sure as hell wouldn't want to piss her off with a lawsuit.
It's come up before, and it will continue to come up - people just don't like paying the money. Does the RIAA or even the Senate seriously believe that Ohio University is going to offer a better music catalog or design or ease of use than Apple? There's no way, nobody can be that dumb. The music/movie execs are glad to get a win, even if it's pointless, because now it's on the books with overwhelming support, and is a small step forward for them. (I can see the headline now - "Senate Approves Anti-Piracy Act 83-8") The Senators get to sleep easily at night, knowing they helped keep America from advancing forward, assuming they actually read the entirety of the bill.
I hate the RIAA as much as the next/.er, but let's not forget - that business model fucking rocked. Not for the artists, but for them. And they're not the artists, they're themselves. I know if my seven-figure paycheck depended on screwing everyone else, I'd just ask where the condoms were!
To quote Upton Sinclair,
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Actually... he's an incredibly respectable lawyer who is incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, and writes the entire story based off good, solid facts. His only fault is for using a good lead-in sentence to get you hooked.
I'd even argue that it's un-American. And the good, Jeffersonian kind of American. Every entity in court should have the best representation possible. Monetary issues obviously come into play, but that's the "possible" part.
The raw absurdity of this case has already been stated many times over, but to restate: people who played a violent, aggressive game took the time and effort to seek out a bad "sex" scene, and are seeking cash to solve their irreparably damages.
But what really gets me is the fact that the 3,000 people, and the theoretical defendants, have to pay legal fees. TFA says that the fees over this case have already gone into the millions! That is money wasted. Literally thrown down the drain. Not wasted like "I want to light cigars with 100 dollar bills," (which is a waste but looks PIMP) but literally millions of dollars have disappeared into an already overly rich system.
They should have just walked in and said "Alright, look - this case is dumb. How about this: We donate half of our theoretical legal fees to Child's Play, which will help young children who actually need it, and you GTA-players can enjoy our product and, by not taking our money, ensure you continue getting the titles you love so much."
I have never, EVER heard the whole bandwidth issue be stated as perfectly as this. But it's true - in today's world, broadband is third only to water and electricity. I bet most people would sooner give up other assumed niceties before going to dial-up or something equally absurd.
I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on you. Can you, or someone else, please explain what that statement means? Identity is a state of mind - it's constantly changing based on new experiences, social influences, etc. This is just trying to provide a cool way to allow you to keep track of some extra information. Did someone say computers "reinforced the illusion of identity" because you could save a document? This is just a cool bit of tech, no more part of my identity than the list of books to take out of the library I keep on my machine.
It's the stuff we don't use this capability for that defines our identity. The third grade paper you wrote and got a C- on, but still filed away in the back of your storage unit takes thought and a conscious effort. This is effortless, and if anything, just helps to make the important stuff seem even more important, like a hand-written letter.
P.S. - Believe or not, my Dad actually *did* get a C- on a paper he wrote in the third grade.
That is categorically the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's akin to being bored, so you and your friends drive at 80 miles per hour and try to stop just before you hit a brick wall.
We could power the US off of Darwin's grave-spinning.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the thing that's always fascinated me about Go. It is essentially an extremely simple game gone terribly, terribly wrong. It's got about as many rules as Yahtzee, but is played on a 19x19 board. Compare that to Chess which has a pretty large (8x8) board, but has far more rules.
I'm no expert on computer game programming, but I think that's where some of the difficulty comes into play when building these guys. Chess has a nearly unlimited number of outcomes, however having those sets of rules helps. For example, of the 32 pieces, 16 of them are essentially limited to one space in front of them. In Go, however, the lack of rules means that you're left with the simple mathematical monstrosity of an enormous board.
The book The Immortal Game, aside from being an excellent read, goes into depth about computer programs playing chess, as well as Go and Checkers.
I haven't updated Google Earth in a while, mostly because I haven't used it in a while, but last I saw it definitely had Crime Statistics. Pollution and Economy are both a little more ethereal, but moreover, they're for a much broader locale. I may wonder the crime stats in Manhattan versus Brooklyn, but what's it gonna say for Pollution, or Economy? Good and good? Corporate and yuppie? Those terms really apply to large areas, much greater than cities. As far as small towns are concerned, all the cities have the same economy and pollution. You're just more likely to get killed in NYC than Seattle.
It's definitely a dubious title, especially since TFA says almost nothing about Google. I suppose, though, that they are technically using Google Earth in their predictions, because without it they'd have to write their own/use Mapquest. I'm sure a big part of it is getting to attach Google's name to something no one outside the department and government is really interested by, and I bet Google's happy to step in. Besides, GE is probably really nice to visualize their data with. Distance from major cities or energy producers, weather, temperature, terrain, etc.
You would, indeed, think that. I think the issue is that perhaps the close scrutiny of CO2 levels has unfortunately not been so close, at least up until now (or however long this paper took). The whole Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas debate is drawing so much attention and so many funds away from the work itself that it's making most of either side a moot point - we're getting close to when we'll just find out *when* it happens.
This isn't good news for us Climate Change folks. Not only does this show that things are possibly not nearly as worse as we thought they were, but that our understanding is potentially flawed, perhaps very flawed. It's cool and awesome, but it sure as hell doesn't convince the naysayers.
Sorry AC, but it's 2008 - what the fuck kind of brower are you using that can't handle a PDF?
maybe someone will find your comment insightful
Actually, only about 20% of people found it insightful; the others thought it both informative and interesting, with the majority leaning toward informative.
Too soon man, too soon.
I'm guessing the hydrocarbons are the Hot Wind? Yeah, I'm not visiting anytime soon...
No... The problem is that it's fucking written in COBOL!
All this is a lot like what Johnny did with the Wii-mote. He effectively turned the Wii (aka OLD technology by this point) into a tracker so he could manipulate items. He even used a screen to make images appear 3-D. In fact, his system is a lot more like Minority Report because, iirc, Cruise was touching a kind of screen, moving pictures and images across it, not hanging in mid-air.
Fair enough. Here you go:
AmEx - 1% of amount you spend
Gap - 50% of profit
Giorgio Armani - 40%
RAZR - 6.5%
Apple - 5% (according to the RED website)
Good enough for ya? I'm a firm believer that half a loaf is better than none. Previously these groups were doing nothing - now they're doing something. That's what Gates is suggesting - everyone gaining, whether large or small, is better than nothing.
You have completely missed the point. I'm guessing you just read the title, not even the summary! This is not Bill Gates speaking on behalf of Microshaft, this is Bill Gates speaking on behalf of good conscience, one of the greatest foundations in existence, and a complete understanding of the corporate world.
We'd all love to give money to help the world, but we all also happen to want/need it as well. It's hard for businesses to give money away because their job, their entire purpose, is to make it for themselves.
Take the example of the RED campaign, as given up-top. They managed to sell something (absurd, imho) that people buy, thereby making more money (and, presumably, problems) for them and their stockholders, but meanwhile a portion of all the profits goes to AIDS work.
That is Creative Capitalism.
Gates understands that you can't just throw money at a problem, you need to create a project that is beneficial for all parties involved. He's suggesting we do more for ourselves by helping others.
No it's not - he's the goddamned President! Hate the man all you want, but respect the bloody office. That's what's happening here - A government-funded organization is going to make a huge announcement about Mars being able to sustain life, and they are letting the President know ahead of time. As leader of the country, he deserves to know about anything important ASAP. It'd be a HUGE insult to him (and, yes, perhaps to funding) if he found out because his Chief of Staff watched the news that night.
Well, if you wanna play that game, then they're both screwed as /b/ has prior art in that arena. Besides, if CERN has some sort of GLaDOS-esque entity hooked up to the collider, I sure as hell wouldn't want to piss her off with a lawsuit.
*woosh*
Look! My karma's flying away!
When it stops being fun.
It's come up before, and it will continue to come up - people just don't like paying the money. Does the RIAA or even the Senate seriously believe that Ohio University is going to offer a better music catalog or design or ease of use than Apple? There's no way, nobody can be that dumb. The music/movie execs are glad to get a win, even if it's pointless, because now it's on the books with overwhelming support, and is a small step forward for them. (I can see the headline now - "Senate Approves Anti-Piracy Act 83-8") The Senators get to sleep easily at night, knowing they helped keep America from advancing forward, assuming they actually read the entirety of the bill.
I hate the RIAA as much as the next /.er, but let's not forget - that business model fucking rocked. Not for the artists, but for them. And they're not the artists, they're themselves. I know if my seven-figure paycheck depended on screwing everyone else, I'd just ask where the condoms were!
To quote Upton Sinclair,
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Actually... he's an incredibly respectable lawyer who is incredibly knowledgeable on the subject, and writes the entire story based off good, solid facts. His only fault is for using a good lead-in sentence to get you hooked.
I'd even argue that it's un-American. And the good, Jeffersonian kind of American. Every entity in court should have the best representation possible. Monetary issues obviously come into play, but that's the "possible" part.
The raw absurdity of this case has already been stated many times over, but to restate: people who played a violent, aggressive game took the time and effort to seek out a bad "sex" scene, and are seeking cash to solve their irreparably damages.
But what really gets me is the fact that the 3,000 people, and the theoretical defendants, have to pay legal fees. TFA says that the fees over this case have already gone into the millions! That is money wasted. Literally thrown down the drain. Not wasted like "I want to light cigars with 100 dollar bills," (which is a waste but looks PIMP) but literally millions of dollars have disappeared into an already overly rich system.
They should have just walked in and said "Alright, look - this case is dumb. How about this: We donate half of our theoretical legal fees to Child's Play, which will help young children who actually need it, and you GTA-players can enjoy our product and, by not taking our money, ensure you continue getting the titles you love so much."
Realistically, bandwidth _should_ be a utility.
I have never, EVER heard the whole bandwidth issue be stated as perfectly as this. But it's true - in today's world, broadband is third only to water and electricity. I bet most people would sooner give up other assumed niceties before going to dial-up or something equally absurd.
It's just the first step in NASA's plan to make sure the Moon is "perfectly safe."
Er... uh... well, rather at least no one was MURDERED by the vice president in this instance.
Dude... too soon.
I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on you. Can you, or someone else, please explain what that statement means? Identity is a state of mind - it's constantly changing based on new experiences, social influences, etc. This is just trying to provide a cool way to allow you to keep track of some extra information. Did someone say computers "reinforced the illusion of identity" because you could save a document? This is just a cool bit of tech, no more part of my identity than the list of books to take out of the library I keep on my machine.
It's the stuff we don't use this capability for that defines our identity. The third grade paper you wrote and got a C- on, but still filed away in the back of your storage unit takes thought and a conscious effort. This is effortless, and if anything, just helps to make the important stuff seem even more important, like a hand-written letter.
P.S. - Believe or not, my Dad actually *did* get a C- on a paper he wrote in the third grade.
That is categorically the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's akin to being bored, so you and your friends drive at 80 miles per hour and try to stop just before you hit a brick wall.
We could power the US off of Darwin's grave-spinning.