You should try Progress Quest, the ultimate automated rpg. No more annoying time sinks. Just start it and watch your character gain in strength. Besides, where else can you play as an enchanted motorcycle!
There is a huge presence of people on slashdot who value personal freedom and expression. These range mostly from economical libertarians to free thinking liberals.
Slashdot libertarians will often find a very nice support when it comes to issues of personal freedom but will be surprised when they don't get the same support on their economical ideas.
Democrats can do fine as long as they stay away from authoritarian baby sitting. Sure, libertarians will call any income redistribution authoritarian, but you can't please everyone.
Republicans can do ok, as long as they actually strive for a smaller goverment and don't promote war and other actions that are seen as authoritarian.
You can probably even get modded up promoting far left economics as long as you actually talk intelligently, like including suggestions on how to exploit the best part of the free market (scarce resource distribution efficency). However, if you want to promote authoritarian ruling you will get modded down pretty quickly. Which is why neither communism nor facism is popular here as both have come to symbolise authoritarian rule.
"When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."
So he believes in last mile regulation, because that is the only way you are going to get a open marketplace. Having each competitor lay down their own last mile to each house is simply not efficent use of resources, so instead they wil split up which houses each competitor gets, resulting in local monopolies or duopolies. Somehow I don't think he has thought that far though.
"John McCain supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off."
So he supports cracking down on a large part of the population (including a very huge part of the young) and he support the anti free market regulation known as copyright and patents, and probably in their current interpetation that have gone far overboard.
"Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation" and "John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not."
Common sense. Don't create unnecssary laws. Of course, the real problem is the next step which is to determine what is nescessary and what isn't. That is where the different political sides differ in opinion, thinking that their view is the only correct one.
when I traveled to the UK, many years ago, I ran into the same sentiment - that 'ask a friendly policeman on the corner' if you need help or have a question. nice friendly guys (....)
that ship has sailed. now, the current wisdom is to never talk to cops (2) [youtube.com] never talk to cops (1) [youtube.com]
Wow, you are completly misrepresenting those videos. Neither one says anything about not talking with the neighbourhood police. If you are a witness, victim or simply have a question they don't apply.
The videos specifically address the issue of being a suspect or in a position where you can become a suspect. In that kind of situation you shouldn't volunteer anything freely as it is never in your own interest to do so. Instead just shut up, repeat your rights, be polite and call a lawyer. That is just simple common sense and have always been. Of course, people have never had common sense, thinking instead that they can outsmart a professional interrogator (and yes, that is part of what a policeman is).
The first part (the lawyer part) is also about a failing justice system where getting convictions is more important thatn finding out the truth. When prosecutors will bend/hide the truth just to get a conviction, then you know that you have a problem. Also, the fact that in the US anything you say can be used against you, but nothing you say can be used for you is another big imbalance.
It also appears from this same document that the Swedish government put in a lot of regulation to allow other ISPs access to TeliaSonera's infrastructure.
This makes a large difference.
Having one company serve one town, and another company serve another isn't competition. It is just two local monopolies. Also having multiple companies laying down lines to the same house may be competition, but it sure isn't efficent competition, and what good is the market if it doesn't make things more efficent. Plus even if you have two competitors at one house, that often isn't enough to create real competition. Especially in a difficult to enter market.
Another important thing to further broadband adaptation is the ease at which companies can lay down lines without getting hindered by private or goverment restrictions. Finally, relating to all of the above, having towns be able to provide their own fiber networks without getting sued is a big plus.
Ok, I am not targetting a specific type of media here and instead focusing on piracy in general. Here is the biggest arguments that I could think of.
1. It is cheap.
This is an important reason, especially for those who are in economically bad situations. Children, Low salaray workers, Unemployed, etc.
2. The entertainment cost is untied from the amount of media you consume.
This is probably a more important factor than the first one for many. Not having to worry about spending x here and y there is liberating for the soul. Most of those heavy consumers that buy a lot but pirate even more probably fits into this category.
3. It is easier than buying things.
It is simply easy to pirate things. Just type into a search engine and get a torrent file back that you can use to get the media. Takes about 10 seconds.
4. Pirates tries to deliver high quality products.
No DRM or cd checks. High quality video encodings. No advertising before movies or that interrupt the tv shows. No streaming that you can't skip forward or backward in and can't replay at will. Playable on standard equipment. Storable directly on harddrives (not having to deal with annoying cd/dvd discs). Should I go on.
5. Can target money to the products you like.
This is self explanatory. Try before buying is the name of the game here.
6. Sharing is caring
Didn't know what I should say in the heading, but this is basically the community argument. Piracy is a life style for some.
Trying to fix point 1 and 2 is pretty much pointless. Piracy has a huge advantage here. Especially on the second point. The best you can do is to be efficent so that you can keep a not too high price. Also, target people that actually have money and are willing to spend it.
Point 3 and 4 is where you can make the biggest difference. Make it easy to buy/download with lots of information. Make it easy to use. Also, provide things that pirates don't. Possibility to save games online. Global highscores. Online play. And make this kind of functionality noticable enough that those who are pirating may consider buying it just for the feature. Finally, a user that is disatisified because of artifical limits can very well turn to piracy just because of that. DRM and other restrictions, as well as selling the same product with different quality at different prices are things that should be avoided as much as possible. (oh, and make sure that the consumer knows that your products are easy to use and doesn't contain DRM if they don't. Not having annoying DRM is a feature that should be marketed)
Point 5 is an important one. There is some opportunity here. Make sure you provide the demo as widely availible as possible, and that includes uploading it to filesharing networks. Selling secondary products works with some media. Especially music is big here, where you have the concept of concerts. For games you should make it easy to access the company from within the game. Maybe showcase other products for example or a newsfeed for the game. Everything to guide people who havn't yet bought the product to actually buying it. Finally, as it is pretty much impossible to get torrents removed from torrent sites, you should instead try to get what little you can out of it. Place comments linking to where you can buy the real product that looks like they are made from a fan of the game. Just don't spam or people will get annoyed and suspicious. And no, there is no need to post your own torrents.
Point 6 is a tough one. The safe way is to not mention piracy at all. Staying neutral is a safe bet. But it is also possible to embrace piracy, giving it a half approval. This allows for some free marketing but is also risky in a business perspective.
Unfortunally that kind of methodology is useless to measure scaling because any small change in something like reading ability will become exaggerated when the opponent otherwise plays exactly like yourself.
This doesn't mean that it is useless to pit bots against other versions of themself. Indeed, this exaggerated difference is actually useful because it can detect even very samll improvements between different versions.
However, trying to use this methodology to determine how well algorithms scale is simply a very bad idea.
for example, it lost 7 pts by playing dame (empty moves) in the end of the game... it would have won by 8.5 right there(!)
The goal of the game is to win.
It doesn't matter if you win by 0.5 points or 100.5 points. A win is a win. The best move is a move that wins. And those 7 points in dame obviously didn't change the fact that MoGo won.
Trying to maximize the amount you win by is a real sign of a weak player. Stronger players adept their play and play strong safe moves when ahead and try to force the game into a more complex situation for both players when behind.
One of the characteristics of MoGo is that it gives away territory nonchalantly when it feels confident of winning (because it only cares about win probability, not margin of victory)
I have read this argument before on the computer go mailing list and it simply isn't so (the giving away territory nonchalantly part that is). What Monte Carlo algorithms do is actually eaxctly what strong players do which is to play it safe when you are ahead and take risks when you are behind.
Playing it safe doesn't mean playing slow and unoptimal moves because that is a sure way to reduce win probability. Playing safe is about maintaining control by playing strong and solid moves and not choosing paths that lead into situations that you can't read out.
The keyword here is "nonchalantly". Mogo may indeed give away territory if it is ahead, but if it does, it in no way does so nonchalantly. Any territory it gives away must be traded for a greater likelyhood to win. As losing territory by itself decreases winning probability it must be trading quite a bit of safety for that territory. This is best seen in the endgame. When MoGo is ahead it may fix a weakness that really isn't much of a weakness. But by doing so it gets rid of any minor doubt it had about losing due to that weakness, however little doubt that is.
You may be correct in some ways though. If it is ahead it may not fight and attack as much as usual, which would invalidate my comment. However, looking at the game in question it looks like its style wasn't much different from usual. MoGo is simply sure enough about its tactical abilities to not back down from a fight that it can read out.
There is also the small detail of reaching the 100% limit. When simulations begin hitting 100% winning probability due to a Monto Carlo algorithm being too far ahead, then its judgement becomes crappy. I don't think 9 stones is enough for that to happen though.
"he'll probably gain a couple of points on me in the endgame in ways I hadn't thought of".
MoGo thinks exactly like this. Having a margin for a couple of points lost in the endgame will be automatically incoorporated into the winning probability of the many "random" playouts. Moves that doesn't give MoGo those extra few points will have lower winning probabilities.
1) Chess is 25-35 moves to endgame. Go is on average, 240 moves. 2) The number of potential endgames is around 10^700. Egad.
The biggest problem for AIs trying to play go is however not the number of possible moves. (although it helps keep the complexity of 19x19 high enough to keep from getting brute forced easily.)
The real problem is how every single move leaves weaknesses behind, but exploiting those weaknesses shouldn't be done immediatly for several reasons (not strong enough locally at the moment, several ways to exploit and using one way destroys another possibility, not worth enough at the moment to exploit).
This means that a go board is basically a collection of lots and lots of weaknesses waiting to be exploited and whenever you play a move you have to ask things that computers aren't very good at asking.
* Does this move put me in a situation to better exploit the opponents weaknesses * Am I leaving behind too much weaknesses that the opponent can exploit, or am I playing too solidly and slowly when I could leave more weakness behind while taking more points.
As these weaknesses can go unexploited for a long time, reading ahead is useless. You have to judge the positions locally and then try to decide how they will come into play on a strategic level.
Monte Carlo algorithms such as MoGo tries to do this by playing out games to the end giving it a way to examine which weaknesses comes into play. This works pretty well compared to traditional min-max expert system algorithms, but it is still far from perfect, and I am doubtful of the progress that can be done using the approach. Still, it is difficult to say yet.
Note that pro dan levels are more of an honor/promotion thing and has nothing to do with amateur ranks that are based on skill difference measured in stones of handicap given.
Yes, a 9-dan pro is stronger than 1-dan pro but the difference between the two is only about 2 stones of handicap.
Also note that the "2 to 4 Dan amateur level" estimation probably is a slight exaggeration. Large handicap games actually favor MoGo quite a bit since, from my experience playing the freely downloadable client, its specialty is fighting and making use of influence to attack. Which is exactly the best way to use stones in a handicap game. With 9 handicap stones, its weak areas are hardly exposed at all.
Another way to look at it is that each handicap stone is worth 10 points at the end of the game. So essentially the computer in this case started off 90 points ahead of the human player
Closer to 15 than 10.
There is also some evidence that more handicap stones provide extra advantage. A nine stone handicap between two go professionals result in approximatly 140 points difference in the end result. And with less than 20 stones you can prevent your opponent from getting a single point, so I would guess that a 9 stone handicap is probably closer to 10 or 11 stones in rank difference.
To elaborate, the MoGo programmers say that when the computing power (number of cores, or time) is doubled, the program beats the baseline version 63% of the time, and so far this seems to hold true no matter how large you scale it. A 63% victory rate corresponds to about a half-stone advantage in go. So, you need a computer roughly four times as fast to improve by one handicap stone. At the current rate of Moore's law (doubling every 2 years) that means about 4 years per stone.
Unfortunally you can't measure progress by having an ai play against itself. Small improvements are hugely exaggerated when playing against someone who thinks exactly as yourself because the small improvement represent that little extra needed to get past the other self. Reading only slightly further than your opponent at a critical moment is a huge advantage when your opponent otherwise thinks the same as you.
There was a discussion about this on the computer go list not too long ago (sometime this year).
Having an ai play against itself is a good way to compare two similar versions of an egine though. In fact, the amplifying effect can actually prove useful to detect smaller improvements. Just don't trust the size of improvement unless you test it against a wider amount of opponents.
Doom 3 is perfect if you played in a completly dark room where your eyes can adjust. In that kind of environment "different shades of black" actually works. Playing it in a light room however is painful unless you turn up gamma, which you can't do in the basic settings, instead requiring you to use the console. And if you do turn up gamma the visual quality of course goes down.
This is the problem when doing any visually dark game. You have to consider how the game plays in a not so dark room.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST CONGRESS ACTING "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"
I never did argue against it. I personally don't mind to have a short (5-10 year) commercial copyright law for exactly that purpose. I am just saying that the congress has no constitutional obligation to implement it. Which is good because the whole sentence in itself is a mindtrap. It implies that an exclusive right does indeed promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. It may very well have been true in some cases, but it is not nescessarily always true. What is the congress to do if it reaches the conclusion that restricting the flow of information hurts progress more than the redirection of money promotes it?
Anyway, from the same enumeration of powers of congress, here are some things I would argue that you definitly don't want the congress to be involved in every day.
* To borrow money on the credit of the United States; * To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
All things that the Congress has the power to do, but you really don't want them to do most of the time. Sometimes it can be good, but sometimes it is bad.
Harvard Law Journal on Legislation. The duty to act is well cited.
Umm, I read through it and didn't find a single bit of information that supported your suggestion that the congress have to implement copyright/Patents.
The document you posted only deal with the obligation/duty of the congress to follow the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" part of the constitutition if they do use their right to implement copyright/patents. Nothing more, nothing less. If the congress doesn't implement copyright or patents, they won't have any obligations at all in that regard.
I really can't get how some people can claim otherwise. The difference between "the congress shall have the power to do..." and "the congress shall do...." is pretty obvious. The first gives out powers to the congress, but doesn't actually force them to do anything with it. The second explicitly forces the congress to do something.
There is a reason that section 4 of the constitution doesn't say "The Congress shall have the power to assemble at least once in every year". It would be a meaningless thing to say.
Actually, no. The section starts with "The Congress shall have Power" and the continues with an enumeration of "To....." where the one you are referring to is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Note specifically that it doesn't just say "The congress shall". Instead it say "The Congress shall have the Power". The difference in meaning is enormous. That the congress have a right/power to do something doesn't imply that they must do it.
If you are trying to claim that I and am interpeting it incorrectly, then I'll just point you to a nearby enumerated item "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". Using your interpetation, that would mean that the Congress has to declare Wars at regular intervals or they would violate the constitution.
Online chess servers are all flawed because there are chess computers that can beat anyone. FPS shooters are all flawed because of aiming bots. Really, making a game where aiming is required to become better. How stupid. They should design their games better.
I could go on...
Still it doesn't change this Blizzard's request being utterly ridiculous. With all my genuine respect to the company, someone must have had a brainfart in this case.
Not really. Courtesy of wikipedia (Tortious interference):
Although the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference vary from one jurisdiction to another, they typically include the following:
*The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. *Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. *Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. *Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. *Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
The intent with Glider is pretty clear as it doesn't have any uses besides being a WoW bot which is clearly against the contract. Damages are easy to prove as Blizzard has both spent money on responding on complaints from people, and they most likely also have a long list of accounts that gave bots as the reason for quitting. If selling the software is tortious interference, then giving it away is probably so also.
I don't like the copyright/eula part of the Blizzard claim though. It is on far shakier grounds in my opinion. Although Blizzard has already have one win in that area with bnetd, the US laws are very unclear and fuzzy in that area, with court decisions having gone in both directions.
99% of progress is improving already existing ideas.
The remaining 1% is progress from smart people with all the prerequisite societal knowledge who by chance stumble upon a good idea. Often around the same time as someone on the other side of the globe gets the almost exact same idea because he also have the same prerequisite knowledge to make the deduction needed.
Nobody, just like Shakespeare and The Odessey. A basic familiarity with the law might help you here. Nobody ever filed for or was granted protection on those items, and if they had been, they'd be several thousands of years expired by now.
That is just insane. What about the ancestors of those great authors and game creators. Why shouldn't they have the right to protect their forefathers creations and make sure that they aren't misused, not to mention profiteered on.
I hereby suggest a slight change to the copyright law. How does an even 10000 year retroactive copyright law sound. I think that is a nice and even number that should adequatly protect the rights of the creator and his progeny, while still being constitutional. Copyright ensures that the work of art stays in control of the family who actually created it, instead of being stolen by the lazy pricks in society.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is obviously a thief and not worth debating with. Have a nice day.
- A righteous fighter for fairer (stronger) intellectual property rights
Disclaimer: The above doesn't represent my opinions. Any resemblance to common pro copyright arguments is likely intentional. I have no intention at devaluing the parent post, and it was only choosen because of the nice quote.
As you say, the market functions very badly when there isn't competition, and companies will do anything in their power to reduce competition so that they can make more money.
Competition can be reduced in many ways. Using laws such as copyright and patents. Getting the goverment to implement difficult to follow regulations. Using advertising/marketing to create the illusion that a product is better than other similar products. Buying out smaller competitors.
Of course, it is also possible to differ yourself from the competition by just producing a plain better (or cheaper depending on how you want to compete) product, but that simply isn't as profitable as using the other alternatives.
This is the reason why I personally don't worship capitalism and the free market. Sure, I like the free market as a tool for distributing scarce resources, but as with any tool it sucks if you don't use it well.
Rehabilitation is good... for people who WANT to be rehabilitated.
Good reply.
I do understand the grandparents frustration though. There is a lot of pure brutality in some of the postings here on slashdot about prison and what prisoners "deserve" . And which seems to echo with how a large part of the prison system is run in the US. I can stand the occasional prison rape joke, even if I personally don't find them funny, but the problem is that they aren't just jokes any longer. Some people actually agree with it, considering it just punishment.
Still, in this case we are dealing with a sociopath that would be near impossible to rehabilitate. even with extensive psychological care.
Agreed. Baning anonymous posting would be terrible. However, internet is a large place so it should be possible to have sites that require different types of authentication.
Right now it is easy to setup a site where you can post anonymously or with handles, but it is a pain in the ass to make a site where everyone are who they say they are.
I even like being able to misinform people about my identity. I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose as a 50-year-old man and see if her ideas will be taken seriously on their own merits.
The better solution is to not mention your age, gender or skincolor at all. If you want to be anonymous, be anonymous.
Lying about the most basic persona information to prevent unfair discrimination is within my moral threshold though. Still, it is a fine line to walk.
But not as a specific 50-year-old man who actually exists.
You are just an asshole. An asshole that prefers to rape people via proxy to keep your hands "clean", but having the exact same mentality as most rapists. The most common motive for male rapers is revenge or punishing the victim [1].
Oh, and please stop using we like you are claiming to represent everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
You should try Progress Quest, the ultimate automated rpg. No more annoying time sinks. Just start it and watch your character gain in strength. Besides, where else can you play as an enchanted motorcycle!
There is a huge presence of people on slashdot who value personal freedom and expression. These range mostly from economical libertarians to free thinking liberals.
Slashdot libertarians will often find a very nice support when it comes to issues of personal freedom but will be surprised when they don't get the same support on their economical ideas.
Democrats can do fine as long as they stay away from authoritarian baby sitting. Sure, libertarians will call any income redistribution authoritarian, but you can't please everyone.
Republicans can do ok, as long as they actually strive for a smaller goverment and don't promote war and other actions that are seen as authoritarian.
You can probably even get modded up promoting far left economics as long as you actually talk intelligently, like including suggestions on how to exploit the best part of the free market (scarce resource distribution efficency). However, if you want to promote authoritarian ruling you will get modded down pretty quickly. Which is why neither communism nor facism is popular here as both have come to symbolise authoritarian rule.
"When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts. John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices."
So he believes in last mile regulation, because that is the only way you are going to get a open marketplace. Having each competitor lay down their own last mile to each house is simply not efficent use of resources, so instead they wil split up which houses each competitor gets, resulting in local monopolies or duopolies. Somehow I don't think he has thought that far though.
"John McCain supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off."
So he supports cracking down on a large part of the population (including a very huge part of the young) and he support the anti free market regulation known as copyright and patents, and probably in their current interpetation that have gone far overboard.
"Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation" and "John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not."
Common sense. Don't create unnecssary laws. Of course, the real problem is the next step which is to determine what is nescessary and what isn't. That is where the different political sides differ in opinion, thinking that their view is the only correct one.
when I traveled to the UK, many years ago, I ran into the same sentiment - that 'ask a friendly policeman on the corner' if you need help or have a question. nice friendly guys (....)
that ship has sailed. now, the current wisdom is to never talk to cops (2) [youtube.com] never talk to cops (1) [youtube.com]
Wow, you are completly misrepresenting those videos. Neither one says anything about not talking with the neighbourhood police. If you are a witness, victim or simply have a question they don't apply.
The videos specifically address the issue of being a suspect or in a position where you can become a suspect. In that kind of situation you shouldn't volunteer anything freely as it is never in your own interest to do so. Instead just shut up, repeat your rights, be polite and call a lawyer. That is just simple common sense and have always been. Of course, people have never had common sense, thinking instead that they can outsmart a professional interrogator (and yes, that is part of what a policeman is).
The first part (the lawyer part) is also about a failing justice system where getting convictions is more important thatn finding out the truth. When prosecutors will bend/hide the truth just to get a conviction, then you know that you have a problem. Also, the fact that in the US anything you say can be used against you, but nothing you say can be used for you is another big imbalance.
It also appears from this same document that the Swedish government put in a lot of regulation to allow other ISPs access to TeliaSonera's infrastructure.
This makes a large difference.
Having one company serve one town, and another company serve another isn't competition. It is just two local monopolies. Also having multiple companies laying down lines to the same house may be competition, but it sure isn't efficent competition, and what good is the market if it doesn't make things more efficent. Plus even if you have two competitors at one house, that often isn't enough to create real competition. Especially in a difficult to enter market.
Another important thing to further broadband adaptation is the ease at which companies can lay down lines without getting hindered by private or goverment restrictions. Finally, relating to all of the above, having towns be able to provide their own fiber networks without getting sued is a big plus.
Ok, I am not targetting a specific type of media here and instead focusing on piracy in general. Here is the biggest arguments that I could think of.
1. It is cheap.
This is an important reason, especially for those who are in economically bad situations. Children, Low salaray workers, Unemployed, etc.
2. The entertainment cost is untied from the amount of media you consume.
This is probably a more important factor than the first one for many. Not having to worry about spending x here and y there is liberating for the soul. Most of those heavy consumers that buy a lot but pirate even more probably fits into this category.
3. It is easier than buying things.
It is simply easy to pirate things. Just type into a search engine and get a torrent file back that you can use to get the media. Takes about 10 seconds.
4. Pirates tries to deliver high quality products.
No DRM or cd checks. High quality video encodings. No advertising before movies or that interrupt the tv shows. No streaming that you can't skip forward or backward in and can't replay at will. Playable on standard equipment. Storable directly on harddrives (not having to deal with annoying cd/dvd discs). Should I go on.
5. Can target money to the products you like.
This is self explanatory. Try before buying is the name of the game here.
6. Sharing is caring
Didn't know what I should say in the heading, but this is basically the community argument. Piracy is a life style for some.
Trying to fix point 1 and 2 is pretty much pointless. Piracy has a huge advantage here. Especially on the second point. The best you can do is to be efficent so that you can keep a not too high price. Also, target people that actually have money and are willing to spend it.
Point 3 and 4 is where you can make the biggest difference. Make it easy to buy/download with lots of information. Make it easy to use. Also, provide things that pirates don't. Possibility to save games online. Global highscores. Online play. And make this kind of functionality noticable enough that those who are pirating may consider buying it just for the feature. Finally, a user that is disatisified because of artifical limits can very well turn to piracy just because of that. DRM and other restrictions, as well as selling the same product with different quality at different prices are things that should be avoided as much as possible. (oh, and make sure that the consumer knows that your products are easy to use and doesn't contain DRM if they don't. Not having annoying DRM is a feature that should be marketed)
Point 5 is an important one. There is some opportunity here. Make sure you provide the demo as widely availible as possible, and that includes uploading it to filesharing networks. Selling secondary products works with some media. Especially music is big here, where you have the concept of concerts. For games you should make it easy to access the company from within the game. Maybe showcase other products for example or a newsfeed for the game. Everything to guide people who havn't yet bought the product to actually buying it. Finally, as it is pretty much impossible to get torrents removed from torrent sites, you should instead try to get what little you can out of it. Place comments linking to where you can buy the real product that looks like they are made from a fan of the game. Just don't spam or people will get annoyed and suspicious. And no, there is no need to post your own torrents.
Point 6 is a tough one. The safe way is to not mention piracy at all. Staying neutral is a safe bet. But it is also possible to embrace piracy, giving it a half approval. This allows for some free marketing but is also risky in a business perspective.
Unfortunally that kind of methodology is useless to measure scaling because any small change in something like reading ability will become exaggerated when the opponent otherwise plays exactly like yourself.
This doesn't mean that it is useless to pit bots against other versions of themself. Indeed, this exaggerated difference is actually useful because it can detect even very samll improvements between different versions.
However, trying to use this methodology to determine how well algorithms scale is simply a very bad idea.
for example, it lost 7 pts by playing dame (empty moves) in the end of the game... it would have won by 8.5 right there(!)
The goal of the game is to win.
It doesn't matter if you win by 0.5 points or 100.5 points. A win is a win. The best move is a move that wins. And those 7 points in dame obviously didn't change the fact that MoGo won.
Trying to maximize the amount you win by is a real sign of a weak player. Stronger players adept their play and play strong safe moves when ahead and try to force the game into a more complex situation for both players when behind.
One of the characteristics of MoGo is that it gives away territory nonchalantly when it feels confident of winning (because it only cares about win probability, not margin of victory)
I have read this argument before on the computer go mailing list and it simply isn't so (the giving away territory nonchalantly part that is). What Monte Carlo algorithms do is actually eaxctly what strong players do which is to play it safe when you are ahead and take risks when you are behind.
Playing it safe doesn't mean playing slow and unoptimal moves because that is a sure way to reduce win probability. Playing safe is about maintaining control by playing strong and solid moves and not choosing paths that lead into situations that you can't read out.
The keyword here is "nonchalantly". Mogo may indeed give away territory if it is ahead, but if it does, it in no way does so nonchalantly. Any territory it gives away must be traded for a greater likelyhood to win. As losing territory by itself decreases winning probability it must be trading quite a bit of safety for that territory. This is best seen in the endgame. When MoGo is ahead it may fix a weakness that really isn't much of a weakness. But by doing so it gets rid of any minor doubt it had about losing due to that weakness, however little doubt that is.
You may be correct in some ways though. If it is ahead it may not fight and attack as much as usual, which would invalidate my comment. However, looking at the game in question it looks like its style wasn't much different from usual. MoGo is simply sure enough about its tactical abilities to not back down from a fight that it can read out.
There is also the small detail of reaching the 100% limit. When simulations begin hitting 100% winning probability due to a Monto Carlo algorithm being too far ahead, then its judgement becomes crappy. I don't think 9 stones is enough for that to happen though.
"he'll probably gain a couple of points on me in the endgame in ways I hadn't thought of".
MoGo thinks exactly like this. Having a margin for a couple of points lost in the endgame will be automatically incoorporated into the winning probability of the many "random" playouts. Moves that doesn't give MoGo those extra few points will have lower winning probabilities.
Some comments on this, in particular:
1) Chess is 25-35 moves to endgame. Go is on average, 240 moves.
2) The number of potential endgames is around 10^700. Egad.
The biggest problem for AIs trying to play go is however not the number of possible moves. (although it helps keep the complexity of 19x19 high enough to keep from getting brute forced easily.)
The real problem is how every single move leaves weaknesses behind, but exploiting those weaknesses shouldn't be done immediatly for several reasons (not strong enough locally at the moment, several ways to exploit and using one way destroys another possibility, not worth enough at the moment to exploit).
This means that a go board is basically a collection of lots and lots of weaknesses waiting to be exploited and whenever you play a move you have to ask things that computers aren't very good at asking.
* Does this move put me in a situation to better exploit the opponents weaknesses
* Am I leaving behind too much weaknesses that the opponent can exploit, or am I playing too solidly and slowly when I could leave more weakness behind while taking more points.
As these weaknesses can go unexploited for a long time, reading ahead is useless. You have to judge the positions locally and then try to decide how they will come into play on a strategic level.
Monte Carlo algorithms such as MoGo tries to do this by playing out games to the end giving it a way to examine which weaknesses comes into play. This works pretty well compared to traditional min-max expert system algorithms, but it is still far from perfect, and I am doubtful of the progress that can be done using the approach. Still, it is difficult to say yet.
The player was a PRO 8 Dan not an amateur.
Note that pro dan levels are more of an honor/promotion thing and has nothing to do with amateur ranks that are based on skill difference measured in stones of handicap given.
Yes, a 9-dan pro is stronger than 1-dan pro but the difference between the two is only about 2 stones of handicap.
Also note that the "2 to 4 Dan amateur level" estimation probably is a slight exaggeration. Large handicap games actually favor MoGo quite a bit since, from my experience playing the freely downloadable client, its specialty is fighting and making use of influence to attack. Which is exactly the best way to use stones in a handicap game. With 9 handicap stones, its weak areas are hardly exposed at all.
Another way to look at it is that each handicap stone is worth 10 points at the end of the game. So essentially the computer in this case started off 90 points ahead of the human player
Closer to 15 than 10.
There is also some evidence that more handicap stones provide extra advantage. A nine stone handicap between two go professionals result in approximatly 140 points difference in the end result. And with less than 20 stones you can prevent your opponent from getting a single point, so I would guess that a 9 stone handicap is probably closer to 10 or 11 stones in rank difference.
To elaborate, the MoGo programmers say that when the computing power (number of cores, or time) is doubled, the program beats the baseline version 63% of the time, and so far this seems to hold true no matter how large you scale it. A 63% victory rate corresponds to about a half-stone advantage in go. So, you need a computer roughly four times as fast to improve by one handicap stone. At the current rate of Moore's law (doubling every 2 years) that means about 4 years per stone.
Unfortunally you can't measure progress by having an ai play against itself. Small improvements are hugely exaggerated when playing against someone who thinks exactly as yourself because the small improvement represent that little extra needed to get past the other self. Reading only slightly further than your opponent at a critical moment is a huge advantage when your opponent otherwise thinks the same as you.
There was a discussion about this on the computer go list not too long ago (sometime this year).
Having an ai play against itself is a good way to compare two similar versions of an egine though. In fact, the amplifying effect can actually prove useful to detect smaller improvements. Just don't trust the size of improvement unless you test it against a wider amount of opponents.
Doom 3 is perfect if you played in a completly dark room where your eyes can adjust. In that kind of environment "different shades of black" actually works. Playing it in a light room however is painful unless you turn up gamma, which you can't do in the basic settings, instead requiring you to use the console. And if you do turn up gamma the visual quality of course goes down.
This is the problem when doing any visually dark game. You have to consider how the game plays in a not so dark room.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST CONGRESS ACTING "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"
I never did argue against it. I personally don't mind to have a short (5-10 year) commercial copyright law for exactly that purpose. I am just saying that the congress has no constitutional obligation to implement it. Which is good because the whole sentence in itself is a mindtrap. It implies that an exclusive right does indeed promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. It may very well have been true in some cases, but it is not nescessarily always true. What is the congress to do if it reaches the conclusion that restricting the flow of information hurts progress more than the redirection of money promotes it?
Anyway, from the same enumeration of powers of congress, here are some things I would argue that you definitly don't want the congress to be involved in every day.
* To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
* To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
All things that the Congress has the power to do, but you really don't want them to do most of the time. Sometimes it can be good, but sometimes it is bad.
Harvard Law Journal on Legislation. The duty to act is well cited.
Umm, I read through it and didn't find a single bit of information that supported your suggestion that the congress have to implement copyright/Patents.
The document you posted only deal with the obligation/duty of the congress to follow the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" part of the constitutition if they do use their right to implement copyright/patents. Nothing more, nothing less. If the congress doesn't implement copyright or patents, they won't have any obligations at all in that regard.
I really can't get how some people can claim otherwise. The difference between "the congress shall have the power to do..." and "the congress shall do...." is pretty obvious. The first gives out powers to the congress, but doesn't actually force them to do anything with it. The second explicitly forces the congress to do something.
There is a reason that section 4 of the constitution doesn't say "The Congress shall have the power to assemble at least once in every year". It would be a meaningless thing to say.
Actually, no. The section starts with "The Congress shall have Power" and the continues with an enumeration of "To ....." where the one you are referring to is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Note specifically that it doesn't just say "The congress shall". Instead it say "The Congress shall have the Power". The difference in meaning is enormous. That the congress have a right/power to do something doesn't imply that they must do it.
If you are trying to claim that I and am interpeting it incorrectly, then I'll just point you to a nearby enumerated item "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". Using your interpetation, that would mean that the Congress has to declare Wars at regular intervals or they would violate the constitution.
Online chess servers are all flawed because there are chess computers that can beat anyone. FPS shooters are all flawed because of aiming bots. Really, making a game where aiming is required to become better. How stupid. They should design their games better.
I could go on...
Still it doesn't change this Blizzard's request being utterly ridiculous. With all my genuine respect to the company, someone must have had a brainfart in this case.
Not really. Courtesy of wikipedia (Tortious interference):
Although the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference vary from one jurisdiction to another, they typically include the following:
*The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
*Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
*Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
*Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
*Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
The intent with Glider is pretty clear as it doesn't have any uses besides being a WoW bot which is clearly against the contract. Damages are easy to prove as Blizzard has both spent money on responding on complaints from people, and they most likely also have a long list of accounts that gave bots as the reason for quitting. If selling the software is tortious interference, then giving it away is probably so also.
I don't like the copyright/eula part of the Blizzard claim though. It is on far shakier grounds in my opinion. Although Blizzard has already have one win in that area with bnetd, the US laws are very unclear and fuzzy in that area, with court decisions having gone in both directions.
99% of progress is improving already existing ideas.
The remaining 1% is progress from smart people with all the prerequisite societal knowledge who by chance stumble upon a good idea. Often around the same time as someone on the other side of the globe gets the almost exact same idea because he also have the same prerequisite knowledge to make the deduction needed.
Nobody, just like Shakespeare and The Odessey. A basic familiarity with the law might help you here. Nobody ever filed for or was granted protection on those items, and if they had been, they'd be several thousands of years expired by now.
That is just insane. What about the ancestors of those great authors and game creators. Why shouldn't they have the right to protect their forefathers creations and make sure that they aren't misused, not to mention profiteered on.
I hereby suggest a slight change to the copyright law. How does an even 10000 year retroactive copyright law sound. I think that is a nice and even number that should adequatly protect the rights of the creator and his progeny, while still being constitutional. Copyright ensures that the work of art stays in control of the family who actually created it, instead of being stolen by the lazy pricks in society.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is obviously a thief and not worth debating with. Have a nice day.
- A righteous fighter for fairer (stronger) intellectual property rights
Disclaimer: The above doesn't represent my opinions. Any resemblance to common pro copyright arguments is likely intentional. I have no intention at devaluing the parent post, and it was only choosen because of the nice quote.
Good. If you have laws in place they should be applied to everyone.
I don't like the chinese firewall laws, but I dislike laws that aren't applied fairly to everyone even more.
As you say, the market functions very badly when there isn't competition, and companies will do anything in their power to reduce competition so that they can make more money.
Competition can be reduced in many ways. Using laws such as copyright and patents. Getting the goverment to implement difficult to follow regulations. Using advertising/marketing to create the illusion that a product is better than other similar products. Buying out smaller competitors.
Of course, it is also possible to differ yourself from the competition by just producing a plain better (or cheaper depending on how you want to compete) product, but that simply isn't as profitable as using the other alternatives.
This is the reason why I personally don't worship capitalism and the free market. Sure, I like the free market as a tool for distributing scarce resources, but as with any tool it sucks if you don't use it well.
Rehabilitation is good ... for people who WANT to be rehabilitated.
Good reply.
I do understand the grandparents frustration though. There is a lot of pure brutality in some of the postings here on slashdot about prison and what prisoners "deserve" . And which seems to echo with how a large part of the prison system is run in the US. I can stand the occasional prison rape joke, even if I personally don't find them funny, but the problem is that they aren't just jokes any longer. Some people actually agree with it, considering it just punishment.
Still, in this case we are dealing with a sociopath that would be near impossible to rehabilitate. even with extensive psychological care.
I like being able to post completely anonymously.
Agreed. Baning anonymous posting would be terrible. However, internet is a large place so it should be possible to have sites that require different types of authentication.
Right now it is easy to setup a site where you can post anonymously or with handles, but it is a pain in the ass to make a site where everyone are who they say they are.
I even like being able to misinform people about my identity. I think it's a good thing that a 14-year-old girl can pose as a 50-year-old man and see if her ideas will be taken seriously on their own merits.
The better solution is to not mention your age, gender or skincolor at all. If you want to be anonymous, be anonymous.
Lying about the most basic persona information to prevent unfair discrimination is within my moral threshold though. Still, it is a fine line to walk.
But not as a specific 50-year-old man who actually exists.
Agreed.
You are just an asshole. An asshole that prefers to rape people via proxy to keep your hands "clean", but having the exact same mentality as most rapists. The most common motive for male rapers is revenge or punishing the victim [1].
Oh, and please stop using we like you are claiming to represent everyone.
Ref:
[1] Motives of Reward Among Men Who Rape http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=171935