Actually in some circumstances we do refer to "Newtonian Physics". Nit-picking sure, but the big names do stick.
The whole argument over names is a little pointless in my opinion, but I've never put that much stock in names. Surely content and burden of proof are more relevant, but that's me as a scientist talking.
The evolution vs. creation debate will never be settled anyway. Every time theories of evolution are refined, developed or added to in order to make them "better", creationists can come back with arguments along the lines of "its so complicated it can only be the work of a higher being" etc.
The Simpsons had it right when the judge put a restraining order on science, banning it from coming with 200 yards of religion.
If anyone has a girlfriend/wife that understands what megahertz are, and would actually be impressed with a card that's measured in megahertz, for the love of God hold on to her...you've found yourself a keeper.
Modelling your opponents behaviour is something game AI programmers have done for some time. I studied AI for Games at University, and artificial players designed to be truely competitive (rather than for commercial games where they have to merely be challenging) usually attempt to model their opponents behaviour.
In turn-based games many AI players choose moves through forecasting the future based on what they guess their oppponent will do.
So in relation to the article I guess that means humans modelling AI modelling humans, and so on...
Slashdot Mirror
So it can be re-posted here next year, ad the year after that, and...
Judging from the past reliability (or lack of) that actually might happen...
TFA actually mentions no years, just "this year" and "last year".
Get the scientists on this right away, I have plans for New Years Eve and want to know if I should cancel them.
The whole argument over names is a little pointless in my opinion, but I've never put that much stock in names. Surely content and burden of proof are more relevant, but that's me as a scientist talking.
The evolution vs. creation debate will never be settled anyway. Every time theories of evolution are refined, developed or added to in order to make them "better", creationists can come back with arguments along the lines of "its so complicated it can only be the work of a higher being" etc.
The Simpsons had it right when the judge put a restraining order on science, banning it from coming with 200 yards of religion.
If anyone has a girlfriend/wife that understands what megahertz are, and would actually be impressed with a card that's measured in megahertz, for the love of God hold on to her...you've found yourself a keeper.
Modelling your opponents behaviour is something game AI programmers have done for some time. I studied AI for Games at University, and artificial players designed to be truely competitive (rather than for commercial games where they have to merely be challenging) usually attempt to model their opponents behaviour. In turn-based games many AI players choose moves through forecasting the future based on what they guess their oppponent will do. So in relation to the article I guess that means humans modelling AI modelling humans, and so on...