Actually, the reverse is probably true. I'm sure there's some good image-editing utility on the EMACS operating system. For text editing, though, I'd choose vi. EMACS is great, but it lacks a good text editor.
Indeed. The video looks like original work to me. There are some excerpts that are probably copyrighted, but their inclusion is without a doubt fair use. Who the hell could think that it infringes copyright? Sheesh. Next time, they'll call our home-made videos 'copyright infringements'.
The point is, this way anybody could beat a pro player, given enough time to do calculations (although it'd probably take billions of years;)). Would you consider it a fair win if somebody won a sprint competition by using a motorcycle?
It improves precisely because of the combination of time per move and computing power. More power allows you to do more a exhaustive search in the same time. It still doesn't make the program any better, only faster.
This result says nothing about the program's 'intelligence'. It doesn't even say much about its go proficiency. Although I'm sure that the algorithms used are very sophisticated, the program won only by the virtue of sheer computing power of the hardware it was running on. Using 800-core supercomputer, it managed to beat 8-dan pro in a 9 stone handicap game. Perhaps using 8000-core supercomputer it would manage to beat him in an even game. Or, at 80000-cores beat do it giving him 9 stones. But the program is still as dumb running on 80000 cores as it is running on 800 cores, or on one core for that matter.
The human brain is not such an amazing tool because of cunning algorithms or huge computing power, but because of the sheer size of the network of simple elements it consists of. There's a crucial difference in how algorithms and neuron scale. If you take some algorithm and run it on a computer with a vast memory and computing power, it's still the same dumb algorithm, no matter how many gigabytes and teraflops you throw at it. But if you take a neuron (either biological one or a computer simulation) and start connecting it to other neurons, then the larger the network, the more it capable of. At some point you might even say it's intelligent:P.
I think it's highly doubtful that AI research will ever come up with something better than simply simulating a neural network. Intelligence is not something that can be contained within a single algorithm, no matter how ingenious and how powerful hardware it's run on. It's an emergent property of huge networks of simple elements. An algorithm can at best mimic some aspects of intelligence, but there's never any real thought behind it.
I was semi-serious. And I didn't say it would be easy. It can't be. It took nature millions of years to store all that carbon in fossil fuels like coal or oil. It then took us only a few decades to release all that carbon back to the atmosphere.
How do you propose we get it out of the atmosphere again? Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not going to stop global warming. Heh, stopping them completely probably wouldn't stop global warming. We have to somehow deal with all the shit we've already released.
If its bio-degrade, I dont get that either. They arent the largest things around. Is it a significant issue? Things barely degrade in landfills anyhow, they are anaerobic.
I don't get biodegradable plastic bags either, but for different reasons. My guess is that - with our current problem with global warming - you'd want your plastic bags to last as long as possible, instead of decomposing into carbon dioxide, right?
Come on. While Portal is one utterly awesome game, I'd hardly call it a puzzle game. On every level it takes about 5 seconds tops to figure out what you need to do and the rest is just executing it. It's more of a game of skill, precision etc. than logic.
I tried searching for a first non-trivial thing that came to my mind: how to make a bow (as in a thing to shot arrows with).
The top result for 'making bows' from Google is a page of instructions on how to tie a ribbon bow, but the second result is relevant to my query, as well as several others in the top 10. Google also found a page about making violin bows - I wouldn't have thought about something like that, but it's an interesting topic as well, if irrelevant to my query.
Cuil on the other hand returned a page of results related almost entirely to ribbon bows. Not only that, most of the links are trash: only 4 have any actual content, 1 is an error, 1 is Runescape (MMORPG), the rest are either some kind of search engine, a list of keywords or something that appears completely unrelated to my query.
You've missed the point. I'm referring to the difference between a U.S. gallon and a U.K. gallon. Nobody seems to ever clarify that. How on Earth am I going know which gallon they mean?
Ah, the gallon. The most evil unit to use on the net. How much is a gallon? To me, the most accurate description you can give is 'a couple or so large bottles'. There you have it.
WHICH gallon, genius?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? 2008 is the coldest year of the century? What about 2023? Or 2057? Or the Great Long Winter of 2076?
Why the hell are you modding this flamebait instead of funny?
Actually, the reverse is probably true. I'm sure there's some good image-editing utility on the EMACS operating system. For text editing, though, I'd choose vi. EMACS is great, but it lacks a good text editor.
Indeed. The video looks like original work to me. There are some excerpts that are probably copyrighted, but their inclusion is without a doubt fair use. Who the hell could think that it infringes copyright? Sheesh. Next time, they'll call our home-made videos 'copyright infringements'.
The point is, this way anybody could beat a pro player, given enough time to do calculations (although it'd probably take billions of years ;)). Would you consider it a fair win if somebody won a sprint competition by using a motorcycle?
It improves precisely because of the combination of time per move and computing power. More power allows you to do more a exhaustive search in the same time. It still doesn't make the program any better, only faster.
Trust me, 800 cores is nowhere near enough do to brute force computing in go. 2^800 cores, that's more like it.
This result says nothing about the program's 'intelligence'. It doesn't even say much about its go proficiency. Although I'm sure that the algorithms used are very sophisticated, the program won only by the virtue of sheer computing power of the hardware it was running on. Using 800-core supercomputer, it managed to beat 8-dan pro in a 9 stone handicap game. Perhaps using 8000-core supercomputer it would manage to beat him in an even game. Or, at 80000-cores beat do it giving him 9 stones. But the program is still as dumb running on 80000 cores as it is running on 800 cores, or on one core for that matter.
The human brain is not such an amazing tool because of cunning algorithms or huge computing power, but because of the sheer size of the network of simple elements it consists of. There's a crucial difference in how algorithms and neuron scale. If you take some algorithm and run it on a computer with a vast memory and computing power, it's still the same dumb algorithm, no matter how many gigabytes and teraflops you throw at it. But if you take a neuron (either biological one or a computer simulation) and start connecting it to other neurons, then the larger the network, the more it capable of. At some point you might even say it's intelligent :P.
I think it's highly doubtful that AI research will ever come up with something better than simply simulating a neural network. Intelligence is not something that can be contained within a single algorithm, no matter how ingenious and how powerful hardware it's run on. It's an emergent property of huge networks of simple elements. An algorithm can at best mimic some aspects of intelligence, but there's never any real thought behind it.
So what's this `Oxygene' stuff? Is it in any way related to oxygen?
I was semi-serious. And I didn't say it would be easy. It can't be. It took nature millions of years to store all that carbon in fossil fuels like coal or oil. It then took us only a few decades to release all that carbon back to the atmosphere.
How do you propose we get it out of the atmosphere again? Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not going to stop global warming. Heh, stopping them completely probably wouldn't stop global warming. We have to somehow deal with all the shit we've already released.
Just bury them in deep mines, like nuclear waste.
If its bio-degrade, I dont get that either. They arent the largest things around. Is it a significant issue? Things barely degrade in landfills anyhow, they are anaerobic.
I don't get biodegradable plastic bags either, but for different reasons. My guess is that - with our current problem with global warming - you'd want your plastic bags to last as long as possible, instead of decomposing into carbon dioxide, right?
The only thing I can think of to prevent this, is tying the MAC address to the physical port on the router.
Even this wouldn't prevent it if you can physically access the cables.
I've always thought that in a democracy the people are the sovereign, not the government: Popular sovereignty. I guess the judge has different ideas.
Land of the free, my ass.
Not the case for me. The searches I did today gave results just as useless as the ones I did back then.
My questions is, what is the damn completely unrelated picture and the dumb banner doing on a PRINT version? Do those people think I piss ink?
#5 - Once you take care of the "introverted" problem... get a girlfriend and do a lot of the world's #1 calorie-burning exercise.
I'll take care of my "introverted" problem once you have taken care of your "extroverted" problem.
Come on. While Portal is one utterly awesome game, I'd hardly call it a puzzle game. On every level it takes about 5 seconds tops to figure out what you need to do and the rest is just executing it. It's more of a game of skill, precision etc. than logic.
I tried searching for a first non-trivial thing that came to my mind: how to make a bow (as in a thing to shot arrows with).
The top result for 'making bows' from Google is a page of instructions on how to tie a ribbon bow, but the second result is relevant to my query, as well as several others in the top 10. Google also found a page about making violin bows - I wouldn't have thought about something like that, but it's an interesting topic as well, if irrelevant to my query.
Cuil on the other hand returned a page of results related almost entirely to ribbon bows. Not only that, most of the links are trash: only 4 have any actual content, 1 is an error, 1 is Runescape (MMORPG), the rest are either some kind of search engine, a list of keywords or something that appears completely unrelated to my query.
You've missed the point. I'm referring to the difference between a U.S. gallon and a U.K. gallon. Nobody seems to ever clarify that. How on Earth am I going know which gallon they mean?
This method will suffice to crack ANY CAPTCHA!
Wrong. This method will only suffice to crack a CAPTCHA that is solvable by a human. Already there are CAPTCHAs I fail more often than not.
Ah, the gallon. The most evil unit to use on the net. How much is a gallon? To me, the most accurate description you can give is 'a couple or so large bottles'. There you have it. WHICH gallon, genius?
You mean it was legal before?
Oh, it's rental. So I guess that once the time is up, I should send the program back to MS via e-mail, right?