A banana is worth more to a rat than a kilo of gold.
You may think the rat is stupid, but you can't eat gold.
So the only way you can get food for gold is if someone else _believes_ it's worth giving you food for it (or at least something else that can be eventually traded for food).
I wonder how many bananas the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund can buy now. I'm sure it's a lot less than what people believed it could in 2007.
You are more likely to find good code from a programmer with a track record of producing good stuff, than from a programmer with a track record of producing crap.
Average programmers might be able to eventually produce quality code, but it can take them 10x or even longer to do so. Some programmers will take 3 years to do something that others can do in a day. So if anyone is thinking of assigning a rating to programmers, a log scale might be a good choice.
If you ever come up with a system that somehow produces good code from crap programmers in a timely manner, you may have solved the AI problem or at least be making better progress than most AI researchers;).
"You made a broad generalization" "I thought it was only liberal elites that were into veganism and hybrid cars"
What is the proportion of liberal vegan, hybrid driving elites involved in making stuff compared to the other people involved?
Is stuff made by beer guzzling, red meat eating, monster truck driving rednecks cheaper than that made by rice and tofu eating, bicycle riding yellow people? Typical not.
Thanks for providing more evidence that $$$ cost is correlated to environmental cost;).
And how green is a hybrid compared to a bicycle, or just walking from worker housing to the factory?
If the Chinese factory workers started driving monster trucks and eating steak, then things will probably change. We might start seeing more "Made in Vietnam" stickers for one;).
So conclusion is we shouldn't buy so much stuff made by the rednecks? Not that it's so hard - I see a lot more "Made in China" stickers on stuff in the shops than "Proudly made in the USA" stickers.
I'll stop using my broad generalization if I have good evidence that it doesn't work well.
Or if you can show me a better and practical alternative to estimate the environmental cost then I'll use that instead. So far you're just providing supporting evidence.
Perhaps someone could calculate the environment cost of a fair number of common products, compare the $$$ costs and then prove me wrong or right.
Lastly, China seems to making huge plans about going into nuclear power for electricity. They know they have a coal problem AND they are doing something about it. Maybe in a few decades "Made in China" might not be as dirty as it is now. I hope they succeed.
I said the $$$ cost can often give him a good idea of the environmental cost.
A solar panel that costs 600 UK pounds is unlikely to be very environmentally friendly.
That 600 pounds will include the cost of energy, raw materials, factories, pure water, people[1] required to make it and in some countries the costs related to complying with environment laws and regulations (or the fines for not complying).
If it doesn't someone will be going out of business.
While it could be far out for some cases (e.g. luxury items), in most cases it should give you a ballpark figure.
And that's true especially for comparing stuff.
A solar panel that costs 300 to make is likely to cost the environment more than one that costs 100 to make. So if they produce the same output and last as long (a very important consideration), you might wish to pick the cheaper one.
If you wish, you could add a factor depending on which country it was made. If you think it costs the environment 3 x more to make stuff in China than say Japan you multiply the cost accordingly. China uses a lot more energy per unit of stuff made than Japan, and gets a lot of it from dirty coal.
But if both items are made in China (as is often the case - even for Japanese branded stuff), it's unlikely that one factory is going to be so much "cleaner" than the other one.
Yes there will be exceptions.
But so far if you look at some of the very $$$ expensive hyped "green" stuff, and you bother to figure out why it's $$$ expensive - you'll find that it actually does cost the environment more, compared to cheap "green" stuff.
A Prius probably costs the environment more to _make_ than a "conventional" car (I believe Toyota has said it costs more to make), but it _might_ cost the environment less to _run_. Environmentalists are probably still debating it - after all there are pretty decent diesel cars etc...
In contrast it is clear that a typical bicycle hurts the environment less to make and run than a Prius.
But if you use a bike, the environment is more likely to hurt you;).
[1] Even the class of people required to make it - the expensive people will tend to have SUVs, four TVs, eat lots of meat and basically use more energy and resources, whereas the cheap people won't.
Actually, the trick is knowing that you _aren't_ a great programmer (honestly what are the odds that you are a great programmer?), and thus choosing to reuse code from better (and hopefully great) programmers.
If you wish to delude yourself, you can believe that you are a great but lazy programmer and thus choose to reuse code from other great (and more hardworking) programmers.
Stuff like Perl + CPAN is good because of all that code you don't have to write. The less code you write, the fewer bugs you make.
More importantly the less code you write, the less code OTHER people have to figure out. If you use popular libraries/modules whenever possible, other people can just go "Ah, the standard wheel", instead of going "He calls it a wheel but is it really a wheel? Better check, the bug might be there". Or they might even go "Ah yes, it's probably that bug in the standard wheel, when are they going to get it fixed already, meanwhile we'll do the recommended workaround".
You can also reuse "code" in other ways. For example - using a popular RDMBS is one way of reusing code. With a good database you don't have to reinvent transactions, row level locking and all that. Lots of smart people have done all that work already. And you can use the DB as a common "interface" for other programs (also written by other people).
A lot of the languages the CS academics heap praises on are powerful for the code you have to write, not the code you don't have to write. Yes it's probably a catch-22 thing, but when it comes to "real world", I'd rather pick the language where I don't have to write so much stuff.
Prefab may be uglier, but it beats spending 10 years carving that perfect sculpture all by yourself, only to have the customer say "erm I want a sculpture of my wife not my ex-wife...".
(Note I am not a great programmer, so feel free to ignore me).
There's a reason why they are expensive - it's because they require big factories, lots of power and clean water to make.
Even if you have economies of scale, it'll take a while before they are as cheap as equivalent sized LCDs or plasma TVs - which aren't a dime a dozen either.
Personally, I'd rather have a reasonably portable and efficient fuel cell that can convert cooking oil (or other edible stuff) to electricity.
Then at least the human and gadget fuel is combined. Of course if "stuff happens" you get one more "fun" decision - who gets to eat - the gadgets or you:).
Re:Most humans aren't that smart
on
The State of Game AI
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well I guess you could script some of the AI enemy soldiers to try to save their comrades - who have had their legs blown off by you or something.
The mortally injured ones might alternate from cursing you and begging you to put them out of their misery.
Some might try to surrender to you if they cornered, out of ammo and clearly out-classed.
Might make for a different sort of game. Smart but not hard opponents:).
At the end of the game when you have killed thousands of these, maybe you'd need a shrink;).
I think the current level of game AI is tolerable.
I'd rather a better Aliens vs Predator game with Crysis sort of tech. With "predator" aliens that can climb trees or walls (unlike those in the previous AVP games - which couldn't - not even slowly).
Assuming very generously you get that 60w for 8 hours of sunlight (laugh if you're using it in the British Isles), this means 480wH a day = 0.480kwH a day.
3750/0.48 = 7800 days = 21 years for that panel to make 600UKP of electricity.
It does not appear to me to be a "Green" _alternative_ to mains power.
BUT if you were intending to be temporarily in the middle of nowhere, that 600UKP for 60W weighing 2.6 pounds may start to look like a bargain. It will cost a lot more in time, resources, and environmental damage to pull power cables to your ever changing remote location.
So is it a good option for _portable_ power?
I don't know - it might still be worth considering other sources of power dynamo, generators, etc.
2.6 pounds = 1.2kg. 1.2kg of vegetable oil contains 31MJ or 8.6kwH. It takes 143 hours of 60w to produce 8.6kwH - that's 18 days of 8 hour sunlight.
Yes there are inefficiencies in converting cooking oil to electricity, or diesel to electricty.
So do more thorough estimations/calculations to see which makes more sense for your scenarios.
If you're only spending a short time from mains power, it probably makes more sense to carry enough rechargeable batteries to last the whole time.
You can often have a good idea from the price tag if it's close enough to the cost of making it.
While it's not exact, it shouldn't be that far off in those cases.
If a device is priced at USD1000, costs USD500 to make, lasts 10 years and only saves you USD20 a year, it's probably not worth it in terms of the environment.
While it's true that in some places they don't value their environment that much, it's still not zero - even in China they are starting to value it more, and so it will be added to the cost of making stuff there.
Re:An example of great game A.I.
on
The State of Game AI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yeah, most people don't seem to get it. They show how stupid/ignorant they are by asking for "smarter/stronger" opponents.
It's trivial to program a computer to beat humans in most games.
But the problem AI is supposed to help solve in games is not "How to beat the human".
The problem AI is supposed to help solve is "How to make it _fun_ for the human, so that lots of humans will pay $$$ to play".
Most people would have near zero odds against a top notch computer opponent - FPS, RTS, whatever.
Does anyone really think that Starcraft, Doom etc would have sold so much if playing them was like playing against a World Champion or two?
I've seen the top humans play in FPS and they can aim pretty well. You'd never be the Hero winning against the odds if the _thousands_ of enemies you fought were even only half as good as a world champion.
But does increasing the I of the AI actually make games fun?
The Problem that AI is supposed to solve in most Games is not "how to beat the human". The Problem is "how to make it fun for the human".
Creating an AI that can consistently beat humans is not hard. Making it fun for most humans might not be so easy.
Fact is humans aren't that good at most games (amongst other things). You don't have to be very intelligent to be good at most games. How many of you can beat a computer at chess at high difficulty? How many people actually _lose_ in tic-tac-toe - I've seen more than a few:).
It's often not hard to make a computer extremely good at a game, at least good enough to beat most people. But does that make it fun?
In most FPS games, stupid humans want to be able to mow down _thousands_ of stupider computer controlled enemies - "against the odds". That's what makes it fun for them.
That's just not possible if the enemies start having a lot more brains. Then most players might have difficulty getting past the first 3 enemies:).
It's not that difficult to make an enemy FPS "bot" have superb tactics, coordination, timing etc. Especially if the map is pre-known (which is usually the case). You can code the tactics and heuristics in. If you hear the player in position X, group A enemies head to position Y and group B head to position Z, and bye bye player.
Imagine if enemies that are low in health kept running away and hiding, and then snipe at you from far away when they see that you are busy doing something else. While that might be more realistic, it might not be so fun eh? Who really wants realism in games?
At that rate the player can never pretend to be the hero he wants to be. He'll just be dead. And your game won't sell.
Same goes for RTS games, believe me, you don't have to make a computer cheat to beat humans - a computer can micromanage better than most humans.
Just ensure that basic stuff like navigation is better. Stuff doesn't have to be that smart, but at least they shouldn't be totally stupid - they should be able to walk around stuff without getting stuck - even a "dumb" animal can navigate open spaces better than many computer controlled stuff in games.
"If that's you, you can afford a professional alarm easily enough, though."
Maybe a bunch of smoke/fog machines might help too.
If soon after the alarms go off you fill the entire house with dense smoke, they might not be able to see well enough to make it out with your stuff...
Of course they might try to steal the smoke machines - they're cool after all:).
Slashdot Mirror
Your minds make it real.
What is gold worth?
A banana is worth more to a rat than a kilo of gold.
You may think the rat is stupid, but you can't eat gold.
So the only way you can get food for gold is if someone else _believes_ it's worth giving you food for it (or at least something else that can be eventually traded for food).
I wonder how many bananas the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund can buy now. I'm sure it's a lot less than what people believed it could in 2007.
Sure, that's why I said reuse good code.
;).
BUT where do you start looking for good code?
You are more likely to find good code from a programmer with a track record of producing good stuff, than from a programmer with a track record of producing crap.
Average programmers might be able to eventually produce quality code, but it can take them 10x or even longer to do so. Some programmers will take 3 years to do something that others can do in a day. So if anyone is thinking of assigning a rating to programmers, a log scale might be a good choice.
If you ever come up with a system that somehow produces good code from crap programmers in a timely manner, you may have solved the AI problem or at least be making better progress than most AI researchers
"You made a broad generalization" "I thought it was only liberal elites that were into veganism and hybrid cars"
;).
;).
What is the proportion of liberal vegan, hybrid driving elites involved in making stuff compared to the other people involved?
Is stuff made by beer guzzling, red meat eating, monster truck driving rednecks cheaper than that made by rice and tofu eating, bicycle riding yellow people? Typical not.
Thanks for providing more evidence that $$$ cost is correlated to environmental cost
And how green is a hybrid compared to a bicycle, or just walking from worker housing to the factory?
If the Chinese factory workers started driving monster trucks and eating steak, then things will probably change. We might start seeing more "Made in Vietnam" stickers for one
So conclusion is we shouldn't buy so much stuff made by the rednecks? Not that it's so hard - I see a lot more "Made in China" stickers on stuff in the shops than "Proudly made in the USA" stickers.
I'll stop using my broad generalization if I have good evidence that it doesn't work well.
Or if you can show me a better and practical alternative to estimate the environmental cost then I'll use that instead. So far you're just providing supporting evidence.
Perhaps someone could calculate the environment cost of a fair number of common products, compare the $$$ costs and then prove me wrong or right.
Lastly, China seems to making huge plans about going into nuclear power for electricity. They know they have a coal problem AND they are doing something about it. Maybe in a few decades "Made in China" might not be as dirty as it is now. I hope they succeed.
I was answering his question.
;).
I said the $$$ cost can often give him a good idea of the environmental cost.
A solar panel that costs 600 UK pounds is unlikely to be very environmentally friendly.
That 600 pounds will include the cost of energy, raw materials, factories, pure water, people[1] required to make it and in some countries the costs related to complying with environment laws and regulations (or the fines for not complying).
If it doesn't someone will be going out of business.
While it could be far out for some cases (e.g. luxury items), in most cases it should give you a ballpark figure.
And that's true especially for comparing stuff.
A solar panel that costs 300 to make is likely to cost the environment more than one that costs 100 to make. So if they produce the same output and last as long (a very important consideration), you might wish to pick the cheaper one.
If you wish, you could add a factor depending on which country it was made. If you think it costs the environment 3 x more to make stuff in China than say Japan you multiply the cost accordingly. China uses a lot more energy per unit of stuff made than Japan, and gets a lot of it from dirty coal.
But if both items are made in China (as is often the case - even for Japanese branded stuff), it's unlikely that one factory is going to be so much "cleaner" than the other one.
Yes there will be exceptions.
But so far if you look at some of the very $$$ expensive hyped "green" stuff, and you bother to figure out why it's $$$ expensive - you'll find that it actually does cost the environment more, compared to cheap "green" stuff.
A Prius probably costs the environment more to _make_ than a "conventional" car (I believe Toyota has said it costs more to make), but it _might_ cost the environment less to _run_. Environmentalists are probably still debating it - after all there are pretty decent diesel cars etc...
In contrast it is clear that a typical bicycle hurts the environment less to make and run than a Prius.
But if you use a bike, the environment is more likely to hurt you
[1] Even the class of people required to make it - the expensive people will tend to have SUVs, four TVs, eat lots of meat and basically use more energy and resources, whereas the cheap people won't.
Keyboard driver problem?
Actually, the trick is knowing that you _aren't_ a great programmer (honestly what are the odds that you are a great programmer?), and thus choosing to reuse code from better (and hopefully great) programmers.
If you wish to delude yourself, you can believe that you are a great but lazy programmer and thus choose to reuse code from other great (and more hardworking) programmers.
Stuff like Perl + CPAN is good because of all that code you don't have to write. The less code you write, the fewer bugs you make.
More importantly the less code you write, the less code OTHER people have to figure out. If you use popular libraries/modules whenever possible, other people can just go "Ah, the standard wheel", instead of going "He calls it a wheel but is it really a wheel? Better check, the bug might be there". Or they might even go "Ah yes, it's probably that bug in the standard wheel, when are they going to get it fixed already, meanwhile we'll do the recommended workaround".
You can also reuse "code" in other ways. For example - using a popular RDMBS is one way of reusing code. With a good database you don't have to reinvent transactions, row level locking and all that. Lots of smart people have done all that work already. And you can use the DB as a common "interface" for other programs (also written by other people).
A lot of the languages the CS academics heap praises on are powerful for the code you have to write, not the code you don't have to write. Yes it's probably a catch-22 thing, but when it comes to "real world", I'd rather pick the language where I don't have to write so much stuff.
Prefab may be uglier, but it beats spending 10 years carving that perfect sculpture all by yourself, only to have the customer say "erm I want a sculpture of my wife not my ex-wife...".
(Note I am not a great programmer, so feel free to ignore me).
OK I'm wrong.
But don't they already have pretty smart bots for those sort of games already?
If the Game AI is stupid it's usually a game where you're supposed to play against many enemies at a go, and that's why it's crappy.
If it's not stupid it's one where you play against very few enemies. Maybe even just one at a time.
I doubt these toys are green.
:).
600 UK pounds is a lot of money.
There's a reason why they are expensive - it's because they require big factories, lots of power and clean water to make.
Even if you have economies of scale, it'll take a while before they are as cheap as equivalent sized LCDs or plasma TVs - which aren't a dime a dozen either.
Personally, I'd rather have a reasonably portable and efficient fuel cell that can convert cooking oil (or other edible stuff) to electricity.
Then at least the human and gadget fuel is combined. Of course if "stuff happens" you get one more "fun" decision - who gets to eat - the gadgets or you
Well I guess you could script some of the AI enemy soldiers to try to save their comrades - who have had their legs blown off by you or something.
:).
;).
The mortally injured ones might alternate from cursing you and begging you to put them out of their misery.
Some might try to surrender to you if they cornered, out of ammo and clearly out-classed.
Might make for a different sort of game. Smart but not hard opponents
At the end of the game when you have killed thousands of these, maybe you'd need a shrink
I think the current level of game AI is tolerable.
I'd rather a better Aliens vs Predator game with Crysis sort of tech. With "predator" aliens that can climb trees or walls (unlike those in the previous AVP games - which couldn't - not even slowly).
One link said 30W for 490 UKP. Another had a 60W product for 600UKP. So I shall use this.
Assuming domestic electricity in the UK is about 16p/kwh ( http://www.britishgas.co.uk/pdf/Elec%20Price%20guarantee%202008.pdf )
600UKP = 3750kwh worth of electricity.
Assuming very generously you get that 60w for 8 hours of sunlight (laugh if you're using it in the British Isles), this means 480wH a day = 0.480kwH a day.
3750/0.48 = 7800 days = 21 years for that panel to make 600UKP of electricity.
It does not appear to me to be a "Green" _alternative_ to mains power.
BUT if you were intending to be temporarily in the middle of nowhere, that 600UKP for 60W weighing 2.6 pounds may start to look like a bargain. It will cost a lot more in time, resources, and environmental damage to pull power cables to your ever changing remote location.
So is it a good option for _portable_ power?
I don't know - it might still be worth considering other sources of power dynamo, generators, etc.
2.6 pounds = 1.2kg. 1.2kg of vegetable oil contains 31MJ or 8.6kwH. It takes 143 hours of 60w to produce 8.6kwH - that's 18 days of 8 hour sunlight.
Yes there are inefficiencies in converting cooking oil to electricity, or diesel to electricty.
So do more thorough estimations/calculations to see which makes more sense for your scenarios.
If you're only spending a short time from mains power, it probably makes more sense to carry enough rechargeable batteries to last the whole time.
You can often have a good idea from the price tag if it's close enough to the cost of making it.
While it's not exact, it shouldn't be that far off in those cases.
If a device is priced at USD1000, costs USD500 to make, lasts 10 years and only saves you USD20 a year, it's probably not worth it in terms of the environment.
While it's true that in some places they don't value their environment that much, it's still not zero - even in China they are starting to value it more, and so it will be added to the cost of making stuff there.
Yeah, most people don't seem to get it. They show how stupid/ignorant they are by asking for "smarter/stronger" opponents.
It's trivial to program a computer to beat humans in most games.
But the problem AI is supposed to help solve in games is not "How to beat the human".
The problem AI is supposed to help solve is "How to make it _fun_ for the human, so that lots of humans will pay $$$ to play".
Most people would have near zero odds against a top notch computer opponent - FPS, RTS, whatever.
Does anyone really think that Starcraft, Doom etc would have sold so much if playing them was like playing against a World Champion or two?
I've seen the top humans play in FPS and they can aim pretty well. You'd never be the Hero winning against the odds if the _thousands_ of enemies you fought were even only half as good as a world champion.
But does increasing the I of the AI actually make games fun?
:).
:).
The Problem that AI is supposed to solve in most Games is not "how to beat the human".
The Problem is "how to make it fun for the human".
Creating an AI that can consistently beat humans is not hard. Making it fun for most humans might not be so easy.
Fact is humans aren't that good at most games (amongst other things). You don't have to be very intelligent to be good at most games. How many of you can beat a computer at chess at high difficulty? How many people actually _lose_ in tic-tac-toe - I've seen more than a few
It's often not hard to make a computer extremely good at a game, at least good enough to beat most people. But does that make it fun?
In most FPS games, stupid humans want to be able to mow down _thousands_ of stupider computer controlled enemies - "against the odds". That's what makes it fun for them.
That's just not possible if the enemies start having a lot more brains. Then most players might have difficulty getting past the first 3 enemies
It's not that difficult to make an enemy FPS "bot" have superb tactics, coordination, timing etc. Especially if the map is pre-known (which is usually the case). You can code the tactics and heuristics in. If you hear the player in position X, group A enemies head to position Y and group B head to position Z, and bye bye player.
Imagine if enemies that are low in health kept running away and hiding, and then snipe at you from far away when they see that you are busy doing something else. While that might be more realistic, it might not be so fun eh? Who really wants realism in games?
At that rate the player can never pretend to be the hero he wants to be. He'll just be dead. And your game won't sell.
Same goes for RTS games, believe me, you don't have to make a computer cheat to beat humans - a computer can micromanage better than most humans.
Just ensure that basic stuff like navigation is better. Stuff doesn't have to be that smart, but at least they shouldn't be totally stupid - they should be able to walk around stuff without getting stuck - even a "dumb" animal can navigate open spaces better than many computer controlled stuff in games.
Some guy used RFID for his gun safe... Not sure if that's a good idea :).
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/guy-injects-rfid-into-his-hand-475871
Guns throughout the house might be a bit worrisome if you have "impulsive" relatives or children about.
If the alarm goes off often enough, people in the area might actually start wishing the car get stolen ASAP ;).
That's exactly what makes wireless stuff a problem to secure.
You can do what he did, safely far away.
You may not even have to be parked outside.
"If that's you, you can afford a professional alarm easily enough, though."
:).
Maybe a bunch of smoke/fog machines might help too.
If soon after the alarms go off you fill the entire house with dense smoke, they might not be able to see well enough to make it out with your stuff...
Of course they might try to steal the smoke machines - they're cool after all
Aren't safes normally fastened to the floor? Or even embedded in the floor.
How'd they take it away?
Well I hope he will be using his brain a bit more than you assume.
:).
But yeah, he does give the impression he's one of those stereotypes
Yes, but as I was saying, China isn't that big a threat to the USA as the US Gov keeps going on about.
The Chinese gov is a big threat to the chinese citizens (and those in Tibet and perhaps Taiwan).
The US gov is a big threat to US citizens (and various people around the world).
I actually screwed up the second sentence with my editing etc. Should end "the rest of the kids won't have enough balls.".
Oh well...
I suppose he could put up a sign: "Beware of dog. Do not tempt dog with remaining body parts."
All it takes is for your dog to retrieve one kid's balls for him and the rest of the kids won't have enough balls to play with ;).
They were in 2004.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf
W = Write-In
Wireless = a burglar could disable them remotely?
;).
Either by jamming or by spoofing.
Or trigger them often enough remotely so that they eventually get disabled
"spoilt" votes aren't counted? Seems like "write-ins" are counted.
;).
In 2004 there were about 62 million voting for Bush and 59 million for Kerry.
Turnout was 60.7% so that makes it 73 million who didn't vote.
73 million > 62 million
While it'll never happen, it would be interesting if 70 million showed up.
Politicians have more to fear from a 70 million that actually bothered to vote.
And at least some of the media interviews would be worth watching