Yes, it would be a great project... the only problem is storage. Storing one possible game would, at minimum, require ~10k (really, really ballpark figure). Storing 10 billion games (and believe me, there are more than that) therefore takes 100TB of disk space... AFAIK there's only a few disk arrays in the world that have this much capacity (and they're probably all pr0n anyways...).
IBM had a better solution with Deep Blue, and that was to store all of the games played by Grandmasters in the last 100ish years, giving them a vast selection of good games to search.
I take it back... there are even more possible opening moves. Since a pawn can move one or two spaces, there's 16+2, or 18 moves for each player. That's a total of 324 possible states after the first round.
An AI that 'won' in a natural selection process agains other AI's is going to be adapted to playing other AI's, not humans. Much as land animals tend to fare poorly when put into marine environments, and vice versa; AI chess players won't do to well agains human opponents.
Also, there's an incredibly massive state space for chess... the first player has 10 options (8 pawns+2 knights) on his first move, so in the first pair of moves there's already 100 possible states... strategy and/or complete tree-traversals is nearly impossible (unless you encode the entire tree of possible moves beforehand, then search it... but I don't think we have that much storage capacity available yet...).
Sure, but if you use say two colors _and_ two different rotations of the pixel, you can encode two bits with one pixel. Or, if you prefer, the pixel can have more than two states thus creating some sort of quasi-quantnum data storage.
That was a rather narrow-minded statement of you...
Software congolmerate Microsoft and Linux giant RedHat announced today that they will work together to produce Microsoft's next generation operating system, Windows X. Microsoft's chief software architect, William H. Gates III called the partnership an "exciting opportunity to steal, err, expand upon the work of thousands of unpaid open source developers".
While RedHat was not available for comment, Apple CEO Steve Jobs did remark that "if that f@#$ing bastard steals my ideas one more time, I'll f@#$ing kick his scrawny b@#%&h ass all the way back to Harvard".
Yes, some sort of security would be needed... maybe a trust system where AOL and the like get first priority, then another ring of users etc... joe-schmuck on his 14.4 gets the lowest pritority...
Uplink bandwidth is limited, but it's still faster than some sites I've seen slashdotted...
Firstly, most internet users are still on those slow dialups.
Don't include them, or give them a lower priority.
...unless they have some kind of similar client, you're just going to be sitting their aimlessly
If they don't have the client (I imagined it as a browser plugin, but it could be an OS feature, actually, if it's windows the plugin is an os feature;) ), then they wouldn't be on the 'list', so to speak.
Thirdly, you would be using the other person's (the hosts') upload bandwidth, and bandwidth is something no one wants to sacrifice.
Yes, but it's upstream bandwidth. How much upstream bandwidth does the average 'net user utilize each day?
Akamai is just one example of different systems people have come up with for working around the inherent flaws of the internet (which are clearly demonstrated by the "Slashdot Effect"). The problem is, everyone wants to look at the same content at the same time; under the current system, the server has to send out one copy of the data to each client that requests it, so if 1000 clients request it, the server has to send 1000 copies.
This is completely bass-ackwards. The content that becomes more popular becomes harder to get, even though many, many more copies are made available. If said server sends out these 1000 copies of a file, why can't some of the clients share those 1000 copies?
Potential solutions to this problem can be derrived from systems that have already found a way around it, such as Gnutella and any MCAST implementation.
Gnutella, although its network model has other problems, allieviates the previously mentioned problem by forcing (or suggesting that) all clients cache and share for redistribution any content they download, thus increasing the number of available copies. MCAST, and other streaming technologies, handle the problem by allowing the server to send one copy of the content that can be shared by many clients... this is why we don't have to wait for TV/Radio shows to download.
The problem with universally applying an MCAST-type solution to the internet is that the internet is not like TV and radio: the internet is supposed to be content-on-demand. If you turn on your TV five minutes before a show, you can't start watching it early; simlarily, if you tune in five minutes late you can't start back at the beginning (TVIO users aside). I think many/. readers would go into shock if they could only read slashdot on the hour, every hour. (Sidenote: one potential workaround for really busy sites is to broadcast the data every x number of seconds continuously, that way the data restarts often enough. The problem with this is that users with slower connections won't be able to keep up, and users with faster connections will be limited to whatever the server's streaming at. Also, the server will keep broadcasting regardless of what sort of traffic it gets, clogging up its bandwith).
Gnutella is a much better solution. I'm not going to try to work out the details, but stick with me for the big picture. When a user hits a webpage, even with the current model, all of the content is cached on the local hard drive, or sometimes somewhere in between the user and the server. What if everyone's browser was capable of serving requests for that cached data? This would not be efficient for sites with only a little traffic, but for/.ted sites or CNN and the like, it would work very well. The problem is finding another client that has the data you want cached, this might be resolveable using either peering groups (like routers and gnutella), or using a central server to track it all (like napster). This however gives bad users a chance to replace CNN's banner with their own ads etc, but this could perhaps be worked around with some sort of trust metric system?
Well, there's my two cents, sorry if it's incoherent.
I've had cable in houston for over a year now (courtesy of TW/AOL), and I've been getting downstream speeds of 2Mbps+, and upload speeds of 384-512Kbps.
I also know people who recieve DSL service from (SW)Bell and Mindspring. I don't know the numbers, but overall I've heard that Mindspring DSL is at least 3x faster than SWB.... I think mindspring caps off at about 1.5Mbps though...
I've had cable in houston for over a year now (courtesy of TW/AOL), and I've been getting downstream speeds of 2Mbps+, and upload speeds of 384-512Kbps.
I also know people who recieve DSL service from (SW)Bell and Mindspring. I don't know the numbers, but overall I've heard that Mindspring DSL is at least 3x faster than SWB.... I think mindspring caps off at about 1.5Mbps though...
So, suppose I figure out the ISN sequence for a TCP connection between two computers. Now how do I listen in? There's no way in hell I can sniff all of the trillions of packets that zigzag across the internet each day. Or even 50%. Or 10%. Maybe 1% if I have a somewhat central connection and a really, really capable router.
Intel binary compatibility is quite another matter
There is no such thing as an "Intel binary", if there were we could run windows apps on linux, vice versa, and whatnot.
Granted the assembly language to run on x86 machines is quite differerent from that to run PPC, Alpha, Sparc and others (and much less efficient too), so you could have meant that the "Intel instruction set", but that's a different thing. Assuming you're writing in a cross platform language (C/C++/Java) like a normal person, going from Linux to Windows isn't any harder than Linux to MacOS, or Solaris or whatever, all you have to do is recompile.
Although this qualifies as a commercial implementation, the instruction translation of which you speak is the basis of what Transmeta's doing with their code morphing stuff, but that's a bit offtopic.
...let you assign a permanent (phony) credit card number to a site where you do ongoing business. If you use several such sites, each will have a different number.
Doesn't this seem like a lot of overhead for the card companies? Now, not only do they have to keep track of millions of cards and billions of dollars spent through them, but they also have to ensure that the right cards are being used by the right retailers. Yes it's convienent, but how much is it going to cost?
This also doesn't exactly solve the problem... if I have a one-retailer use card set up for Amazon.com, someone can still steal that and buy stuff in my name from Amazon...
Same concept with the one-use cards, it seems like they'd exhaust the card # space a lot quicker if each person can use 500 card numbers in a year as opposed to 1 every 5 years...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but then do you have to redefine functions and operators for them? 'cause that would be a pain in the ass if I couldn't add or subtract my FOO's.
IBM had a better solution with Deep Blue, and that was to store all of the games played by Grandmasters in the last 100ish years, giving them a vast selection of good games to search.
I take it back... there are even more possible opening moves. Since a pawn can move one or two spaces, there's 16+2, or 18 moves for each player. That's a total of 324 possible states after the first round.
An AI that 'won' in a natural selection process agains other AI's is going to be adapted to playing other AI's, not humans. Much as land animals tend to fare poorly when put into marine environments, and vice versa; AI chess players won't do to well agains human opponents.
Also, there's an incredibly massive state space for chess... the first player has 10 options (8 pawns+2 knights) on his first move, so in the first pair of moves there's already 100 possible states... strategy and/or complete tree-traversals is nearly impossible (unless you encode the entire tree of possible moves beforehand, then search it... but I don't think we have that much storage capacity available yet...).
No, no, michael. The purpose is to preserver biological samples, not plastic. They'll have plenty of that in the future.
I was just finishing patching 7.0 into a usable state...
I can see the case now: "Slashdot vs. Anonymous Coward(s)"...
I agree that they've done a lot of GUI work, but I think suggesting that they're worth $4000 per license is a load of crap.
That was a rather narrow-minded statement of you...
I can't wait for tomorrow...
Software congolmerate Microsoft and Linux giant RedHat announced today that they will work together to produce Microsoft's next generation operating system, Windows X. Microsoft's chief software architect, William H. Gates III called the partnership an "exciting opportunity to steal, err, expand upon the work of thousands of unpaid open source developers".
While RedHat was not available for comment, Apple CEO Steve Jobs did remark that "if that f@#$ing bastard steals my ideas one more time, I'll f@#$ing kick his scrawny b@#%&h ass all the way back to Harvard".
Uplink bandwidth is limited, but it's still faster than some sites I've seen slashdotted...
Don't include them, or give them a lower priority.
If they don't have the client (I imagined it as a browser plugin, but it could be an OS feature, actually, if it's windows the plugin is an os feature ;) ), then they wouldn't be on the 'list', so to speak.
Thirdly, you would be using the other person's (the hosts') upload bandwidth, and bandwidth is something no one wants to sacrifice.
Yes, but it's upstream bandwidth. How much upstream bandwidth does the average 'net user utilize each day?
This is completely bass-ackwards. The content that becomes more popular becomes harder to get, even though many, many more copies are made available. If said server sends out these 1000 copies of a file, why can't some of the clients share those 1000 copies?
Potential solutions to this problem can be derrived from systems that have already found a way around it, such as Gnutella and any MCAST implementation.
Gnutella, although its network model has other problems, allieviates the previously mentioned problem by forcing (or suggesting that) all clients cache and share for redistribution any content they download, thus increasing the number of available copies. MCAST, and other streaming technologies, handle the problem by allowing the server to send one copy of the content that can be shared by many clients... this is why we don't have to wait for TV/Radio shows to download.
The problem with universally applying an MCAST-type solution to the internet is that the internet is not like TV and radio: the internet is supposed to be content-on-demand. If you turn on your TV five minutes before a show, you can't start watching it early; simlarily, if you tune in five minutes late you can't start back at the beginning (TVIO users aside). I think many /. readers would go into shock if they could only read slashdot on the hour, every hour. (Sidenote: one potential workaround for really busy sites is to broadcast the data every x number of seconds continuously, that way the data restarts often enough. The problem with this is that users with slower connections won't be able to keep up, and users with faster connections will be limited to whatever the server's streaming at. Also, the server will keep broadcasting regardless of what sort of traffic it gets, clogging up its bandwith).
Gnutella is a much better solution. I'm not going to try to work out the details, but stick with me for the big picture. When a user hits a webpage, even with the current model, all of the content is cached on the local hard drive, or sometimes somewhere in between the user and the server. What if everyone's browser was capable of serving requests for that cached data? This would not be efficient for sites with only a little traffic, but for /.ted sites or CNN and the like, it would work very well. The problem is finding another client that has the data you want cached, this might be resolveable using either peering groups (like routers and gnutella), or using a central server to track it all (like napster). This however gives bad users a chance to replace CNN's banner with their own ads etc, but this could perhaps be worked around with some sort of trust metric system?
Well, there's my two cents, sorry if it's incoherent.
I've had cable in houston for over a year now (courtesy of TW/AOL), and I've been getting downstream speeds of 2Mbps+, and upload speeds of 384-512Kbps.
I also know people who recieve DSL service from (SW)Bell and Mindspring. I don't know the numbers, but overall I've heard that Mindspring DSL is at least 3x faster than SWB.... I think mindspring caps off at about 1.5Mbps though...
I also know people who recieve DSL service from (SW)Bell and Mindspring. I don't know the numbers, but overall I've heard that Mindspring DSL is at least 3x faster than SWB.... I think mindspring caps off at about 1.5Mbps though...
This still isn't a big deal.
Is perfectly ok, as long as it works reasonably well.
If you had read the article, you would have noticed that it's really the Children's Internet Protection Act...
If I can't bring my paper copy of playboy into the library and read it, why should I be able to access it online? It's the same thing people...
When can we have linux on this?
my bad
There is no such thing as an "Intel binary", if there were we could run windows apps on linux, vice versa, and whatnot.
Granted the assembly language to run on x86 machines is quite differerent from that to run PPC, Alpha, Sparc and others (and much less efficient too), so you could have meant that the "Intel instruction set", but that's a different thing. Assuming you're writing in a cross platform language (C/C++/Java) like a normal person, going from Linux to Windows isn't any harder than Linux to MacOS, or Solaris or whatever, all you have to do is recompile.
Although this qualifies as a commercial implementation, the instruction translation of which you speak is the basis of what Transmeta's doing with their code morphing stuff, but that's a bit offtopic.
Then I could run netscape in 4 OS's at the same time (OSX, Mac OS9, Linux, and Winders, using VirtualPC or something like that)...
That would make quite a screenshot... =)
Doesn't this seem like a lot of overhead for the card companies? Now, not only do they have to keep track of millions of cards and billions of dollars spent through them, but they also have to ensure that the right cards are being used by the right retailers. Yes it's convienent, but how much is it going to cost?
This also doesn't exactly solve the problem... if I have a one-retailer use card set up for Amazon.com, someone can still steal that and buy stuff in my name from Amazon...
Same concept with the one-use cards, it seems like they'd exhaust the card # space a lot quicker if each person can use 500 card numbers in a year as opposed to 1 every 5 years...
Sorry if that was incoherent