And it(factoring 15) was already done with 5 qubits, although the scientist doing the experiment had to help the machine a little. At the stage they're at, it's more important to just show that "it works".
Link in story: http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v2|2f40|0|0|% 2a| v;5176750;0-0;0;7859018;9323-728|90;2305354|230362 5|1;;%3fhttp://www.sun.com/bignews
And I'll even post with karma bonus, even though this is offtopic.
Human have known, for the last 35 000 years ( at least ) that a rock is an efficient weapon to throw at the head of your ennemy. There's just no way you'll prevent weapon discovery, big or small. Put more than 1 person in a group and noone can both enjoy freedom and be sure not be killed by another one.
That's why we have society. And culture. And laws. And morale. Preventing the technology use/discovery or whatever is pointless. You have to acknowledge that you are living in a big spaceship with 6 000 000 000 other living being. Jettison is not an option.
The solution is a social one, not a technological one. I do not claim to know it. I just claim that it is not by saying this XYZthingy could be a weapon that anyone's gonna solve anything.
If you want to solve problems, just take away the reason that LeaderXYZ has to kill others/invade country/destroy environment.
For extreme programming to work out, you and your team need to have outstanding ability.
XP(extreme programming) is great, but add into it a shaky designer, a loner in the team, or a delusionned (sp?) manager, and the whole thing will crash down in flames. In traditionnal methodology, the problem would rather settle with a non-optimal development process. With XP, you either fly high or crash badly.
The fact that it is a great development model and the fact that it will not work in most places are not incompatible.
But that's just my experience. Take it with a few tons of NaCl.
Please provide numbers and formulas backing up your argumentation. I am very doubtfull.
Also, you would need to take into account the fact that the melted iron current in the earth's core would react to this field. Or, seen otherwise, if the pole were to flip, they'd rip appart you little wire around the equator in no time.
The display uses two plates on each pixel that can get closer or farther one from the other. The interference occur in the reflective part of the monitor, only to create the right frequency. Just like a spinning black and white thing can take any perceived color, depending on the rotation rate. In their case, the distance between the plates modulate the light color. Once a ray leaves the screen, it is of a given color and won't change anymore.
What I didn't see is the issue of lighting the surface. This needs a front light. Put the technology has one main advantage: it can emits any visible frequency. Hence, its gamut should be much larger.
This might be true for high-visibility / high-tech corporation or organisation. Lets look at a real example : ( I do the software for them )
Papermill refiner : ( converts wood to chips ) Software function : select correct pressure for rotating plates to keep them 1-2 mm appart. Energy used : 70 Megawatts Consequences when the thing fails: Multiton Iron Plate Go Rolling Across Control Room, Killing Operators ( it happens ) Hardware used : Consummer grade PC. ( from the local shop, no joke )
Now, these thing are pretty stable these days. However, to do the high-level control, regulars PC are used doing various anaylsis on the signal. Fourier transforms, cross-corelations. About all mathematical anaylsis is used to keep those plates at the optimal place. The energy used is the main cost for running the papermill. What if the input signal from the refiner happens to have a patern that matches DRM signature ? Well, the PC will just prevent a fourrier analysis on the data. Best case, the lowlevel embedded stuff will do its job, and you have a refiner running with non-optimal settings that will cost a few tenths of cents per ton of paper. Worst case, this disruption in the control system cause a break : at least 1000000$ damage maybe deaths.
Sorry to burst you bubble, but the walmart PC is actually used to control dangerous machinery, and often the task it does is signal analysis. That is the exact thing DRM is targetting.
You'd have the same problem as with any other potential field:
You get access to particle X at extremity X0 of some energy potential field Y, compared to extermity X1.
However, in order to use this energy, you have to put something (a wire) between X0 and X1(the two ends of your elevator). This something(wire) however will receive the same field effect, and will cost you the same exact energy amount.
In plain terms, you've got to ship back those electrons to the top of the wire, to get electricity. The more easily they came down, the harder it gets to send them back.
Otherwise, you could do the same in airplanes. Airplanes, while travelling trough the magnetic field of earth build a good potential difference between their wing tips. If you try to use it, though, the wire you put will build the same voltage, preventing you from using this energy.
I tried everthing to develop my S.O. geekiness. Nothing worked. Right until she found the bat. Next thing I knew, she was on mailing lists, news servers, using latex (no pun), ghostview and ghostscript. She just bought a Zaurus, because its run linux, and sync all her stuff between PDA and computer. All of that start the day she found an email client she could tweak, and liked to tweak. Never tried it, but it sure sounds like the geek email client.
I choose to get pissed off in counter-strike because no one really cares, and if can't really affect me
So, basically, even though the game made you mad, it had no adverse effect on you as a well-behaved citizen. Hence, games are not bad.
You can't have it both ways. Either the game are bad for you, because you wouldn't had been able to deal with people in society anyway, or they are not bad.
Maybe, for other ppl, the games would have adverse effect, I'll agree. But then, fixing their ability to live in society is more important than removing the game from their reach.
I realize that my first post was rude and over the top, but it carried its point well.
If you can't deal with the way your friends play Counter-Strike, how do you expect to deal with your boss ?
If you can't deal with the way your friends play Counter-Strike, do you think you stand any chance of getting a mortgage(sp?) at your bank without getting seriously mad at the bank manager ?
How about dealing in a polite way with the police officer that will pull you out because your are driving at bit fast, the day you're late for your daughter birthday party ?
LEARN TO LIVE IN SOCIETY
Then, and only then, wonder if games are good or bad. Once you can stand the presence of other humans around you, you'll see that games, violent or not, have zero effect on your behaviour. There are other mechanism to control your behaviour. We call it morality and/or more generally, culture.
You realize that having this post moderated +4 with a bold:link directly to the crash-windows-in-one-easy-step binary actually augment the visibility of the said irresponsible comment ?
I would not have check the link otherwise.;-)
Re:How many arrests?
on
Tracking Hackers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Is this actually leading to arrests? If so, we need more honeypots; if not, it's a waste of time
This is Soooo Year 2002 thinking.
How 'bout Is this actually leading to less cracked systems? If so, we need more honeypots; if not, it's a waste of time
Guys, wake up, the whole point is not to arrest people doing bad things. The points is stopping those bad things from happening.
Okay, we should take that offline to email, but I'll stick one more answer here.
However many there are, there is no need to look at individual moves
When I make my first play, I don't ask myself where to play. I ask myself which of the very few opening I know I'll play. Mainly, the 4-4, 4-3, 3-3, and the 5-3 points are my only options.
Then, I don't even consider the answers. I know that the 3-3 gives me a solid corner, with no outside influence. and I know the 4-4 give me plenty of influence, but no corner. When the time comes, I'll lookup in my memory the correct answer.
An AI shoul deal with those high level concepts. Then, when the 4-4 opening is selected, the josekis saved in memory tell what is(are) the best(s) local move(s). The AI then only have to decide whether it still needs to play in this area, or if another area is more important.
Analogy: finite state machines.
Consider a system that must handle three values in the range 0-9. The analog way to do this to minimax searching in go, would be to have 1000 different states, one for each tuples of values.
The right way, analog to my idea of a go AI would be to have three state machines with ten states. This is a standard way to break problem down, bringing the number of states from 1000 to 30. In this case, the two different modules are
1) the high-level fight, namely, in what region of the board the next play should be. 2) the best local play for each region.
Now you need to add those complexities, just like you add the number of states, rather than multiplying them.
The logic will have to be much more complex than a simple minimax search, and much information will have to be given about Go to the system, but if you accept that, there is no proof that it can't be done.
You think that developping a general purpose AI will lead to a good Go AI, and that it (G.P. AI) should happen in the next couple of decades.
I think that developping a good Go AI will help in making a general purpose AI, and that it (Go AI) will happen in the next decade.
Those two statements don't seem contradictory anymore ! The only point to argue is if its better to do some specialized work first (Go) or some general work first (pure AI). This just depends on one's field of interest.
I tend to agree with most of your point, but the overall conclusion seems wrong.
we'll just switch to 21x21 and then you'll need another few orders of magnitude more powerful computers to win
You assume in your analysis that the complexity of the game grows faster than the square of the board size. I think there is two elements that affect the game complexity:
(a) High-level groups ( alive corner, small center moyo, ko-fight on the left side, etc.. )
(b) Network of relations between those groups.
The number of elements (a) grows with the surface of the board.
The number of links in (b) grows with the square of the number of (a).
This yelds something that seems huge O(N^4) on complex concepts. 25x25 would then be 9 times more complex that 19x19. We are a few order of magnitude short of your values.
I also feel that a human would lose its ability to grasp the whole board at a size not much larger than 25x25.
This game can be won by a computer. It just needs a lot of thinking outside the box by the programmer.
BTW, in the last competition in Edmonton, Gnu Go lost games to the 4 leading programs, and was ranked 7 th:
1 Many Faces
2 Go4++
3 Go Intellect
4 Katsunari
5 Aya
6 Neuro Go
7 GNU Go
Bottomline, we probably agree, just not on the time-frame.;-)
Here is the mistake. Before even thinking about putting AI in Go, you have to raise the level of the handled concept. If you still look at the move-level, you're too low.
I have a Go AI in development. However, I purposefully didn't put anything intelligent yet. For now, I'm just raising the concept level. When the program will be able to
detect life and death, find sure territory, find all the uncertain connections find all the possible attacks count all Ko... ( much other concept go here )
Then, it should rank everything on the board and make a graph of cause and effect on trying to change those states. i.e. : killing that corner causes to not connect those two groups.
At that point, the decision is much smaller, and searching become possible. Then, only, MiniMaxing this tree wil give results.
I'm sure this would work. Now, I just need the funding to work for 5 years, and you get than amateur 1-dan level AI.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you need one more qubit for control.
And it(factoring 15) was already done with 5 qubits, although the scientist doing the experiment had to help the machine a little. At the stage they're at, it's more important to just show that "it works".
Editors,
:% 2a| v;5176750;0-0;0;7859018;9323-728|90;2305354|230362 5|1;;%3fhttp://www.sun.com/bignews
this is unacceptable.
Link in story
http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v2|2f40|0|0|
And I'll even post with karma bonus, even though this is offtopic.
Or, in the words of Einstein :
I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
The problem is, there's no known way of raising the global IQ of a planet.
Human have known, for the last 35 000 years ( at least ) that a rock is an efficient weapon to throw at the head of your ennemy. There's just no way you'll prevent weapon discovery, big or small. Put more than 1 person in a group and noone can both enjoy freedom and be sure not be killed by another one.
That's why we have society. And culture. And laws. And morale. Preventing the technology use/discovery or whatever is pointless. You have to acknowledge that you are living in a big spaceship with 6 000 000 000 other living being. Jettison is not an option.
The solution is a social one, not a technological one. I do not claim to know it. I just claim that it is not by saying this XYZthingy could be a weapon that anyone's gonna solve anything.
If you want to solve problems, just take away the reason that LeaderXYZ has to kill others/invade country/destroy environment.
I'll summarize the book ( without reading it ) :
For extreme programming to work out, you and your team need to have outstanding ability.
XP(extreme programming) is great, but add into it a shaky designer, a loner in the team, or a delusionned (sp?) manager, and the whole thing will crash down in flames. In traditionnal methodology, the problem would rather settle with a non-optimal development process. With XP, you either fly high or crash badly.
The fact that it is a great development model and the fact that it will not work in most places are not incompatible.
But that's just my experience. Take it with a few tons of NaCl.
J.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
:
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Antibiotics don't kill viruses.
Got it ? No. That might help
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.
HTH.
mouhahah, first time I hit the lameness filter. Well, I guess the lameness filter picks up speech figures better than most humans.
You say a cross section of : 100m x 100m
:
To me, that gives : 100m x 100m x 40 000 000m
Or 400 000 000 000 m3 copper.
Copper is 8.96 gr/cm3
Or, 8960 kg/m3
That gives you 3.584x10^15 Kg of Copper.
Acoording to
Internation copper study group
, the world copper production is about 15000000 Kg/yr.
That gives us the final number of 238 933 333 years to extract the needed copper, assuming there is enough on earth.
I don't think this is possible.
Please provide numbers and formulas backing up your argumentation. I am very doubtfull.
Also, you would need to take into account the fact that the melted iron current in the earth's core would react to this field. Or, seen otherwise, if the pole were to flip, they'd rip appart you little wire around the equator in no time.
J.
I don't know if I should mod you up as funny, or down as flame-bait.
not everyone one is an introverted self hating geeek
You are right. Some of us are not catholic.
RTFA !
The display uses two plates on each pixel that can get closer or farther one from the other. The interference occur in the reflective part of the monitor, only to create the right frequency. Just like a spinning black and white thing can take any perceived color, depending on the rotation rate. In their case, the distance between the plates modulate the light color. Once a ray leaves the screen, it is of a given color and won't change anymore.
What I didn't see is the issue of lighting the surface. This needs a front light. Put the technology has one main advantage: it can emits any visible frequency. Hence, its gamut should be much larger.
J.
Check it out :
;-)
www.crufts.org.uk
HTH.
f.
This might be true for high-visibility / high-tech corporation or organisation. Lets look at a real example : ( I do the software for them )
:
Papermill refiner : ( converts wood to chips )
Software function : select correct pressure for rotating plates to keep them 1-2 mm appart.
Energy used : 70 Megawatts
Consequences when the thing fails
Multiton Iron Plate Go Rolling Across Control Room, Killing Operators ( it happens )
Hardware used : Consummer grade PC. ( from the local shop, no joke )
Now, these thing are pretty stable these days. However, to do the high-level control, regulars PC are used doing various anaylsis on the signal. Fourier transforms, cross-corelations. About all mathematical anaylsis is used to keep those plates at the optimal place. The energy used is the main cost for running the papermill.
What if the input signal from the refiner happens to have a patern that matches DRM signature ? Well, the PC will just prevent a fourrier analysis on the data. Best case, the lowlevel embedded stuff will do its job, and you have a refiner running with non-optimal settings that will cost a few tenths of cents per ton of paper. Worst case, this disruption in the control system cause a break : at least 1000000$ damage maybe deaths.
Sorry to burst you bubble, but the walmart PC is actually used to control dangerous machinery, and often the task it does is signal analysis. That is the exact thing DRM is targetting.
Useless.
:
.
You'd have the same problem as with any other potential field
You get access to particle X at extremity X0 of some energy potential field Y, compared to extermity X1
However, in order to use this energy, you have to put something (a wire) between X0 and X1(the two ends of your elevator). This something(wire) however will receive the same field effect, and will cost you the same exact energy amount.
In plain terms, you've got to ship back those electrons to the top of the wire, to get electricity. The more easily they came down, the harder it gets to send them back.
Otherwise, you could do the same in airplanes. Airplanes, while travelling trough the magnetic field of earth build a good potential difference between their wing tips. If you try to use it, though, the wire you put will build the same voltage, preventing you from using this energy.
BTW, that's also why you can't shield gravity.
HTH
J.
Slashdot also links to the DeCSS executable DeCSS.exe
You forgot the bat !
http://www.ritlabs.com/the_bat/
I tried everthing to develop my S.O. geekiness. Nothing worked. Right until she found the bat. Next thing I knew, she was on mailing lists, news servers, using latex (no pun), ghostview and ghostscript. She just bought a Zaurus, because its run linux, and sync all her stuff between PDA and computer. All of that start the day she found an email client she could tweak, and liked to tweak. Never tried it, but it sure sounds like the geek email client.
J.
Thanks, you just destroyed your initial argument.
I choose to get pissed off in counter-strike because no one really cares, and if can't really affect me
So, basically, even though the game made you mad, it had no adverse effect on you as a well-behaved citizen. Hence, games are not bad.
You can't have it both ways. Either the game are bad for you, because you wouldn't had been able to deal with people in society anyway, or they are not bad.
Maybe, for other ppl, the games would have adverse effect, I'll agree. But then, fixing their ability to live in society is more important than removing the game from their reach.
I realize that my first post was rude and over the top, but it carried its point well.
Even I'm guilty of this
If you can't deal with the way your friends play Counter-Strike, how do you expect to deal with your boss ?
If you can't deal with the way your friends play Counter-Strike, do you think you stand any chance of getting a mortgage(sp?) at your bank without getting seriously mad at the bank manager ?
How about dealing in a polite way with the police officer that will pull you out because your are driving at bit fast, the day you're late for your daughter birthday party ?
LEARN TO LIVE IN SOCIETY
Then, and only then, wonder if games are good or bad. Once you can stand the presence of other humans around you, you'll see that games, violent or not, have zero effect on your behaviour. There are other mechanism to control your behaviour. We call it morality and/or more generally, culture.
No, the data would move at the speed of the sound in a broom, which is quite low.
In a spam message near you soon :
See your t*e*e*n next door underwear getting cleaned in your browser
original video from the nearest college laundry !
You realize that having this post moderated +4 with a bold :link directly to the crash-windows-in-one-easy-step binary actually augment the visibility of the said irresponsible comment ?
;-)
I would not have check the link otherwise.
Is this actually leading to arrests? If so, we need more honeypots; if not, it's a waste of time
This is Soooo Year 2002 thinking.
How 'bout
Is this actually leading to less cracked systems? If so, we need more honeypots; if not, it's a waste of time
Guys, wake up, the whole point is not to arrest people doing bad things. The points is stopping those bad things from happening.
Okay, we should take that offline to email, but I'll stick one more answer here.
However many there are, there is no need to look at individual moves
When I make my first play, I don't ask myself where to play. I ask myself which of the very few opening I know I'll play. Mainly, the 4-4, 4-3, 3-3, and the 5-3 points are my only options.
Then, I don't even consider the answers. I know that the 3-3 gives me a solid corner, with no outside influence. and I know the 4-4 give me plenty of influence, but no corner. When the time comes, I'll lookup in my memory the correct answer.
An AI shoul deal with those high level concepts. Then, when the 4-4 opening is selected, the josekis saved in memory tell what is(are) the best(s) local move(s). The AI then only have to decide whether it still needs to play in this area, or if another area is more important.
Analogy: finite state machines.
Consider a system that must handle three values in the range 0-9. The analog way to do this to minimax searching in go, would be to have 1000 different states, one for each tuples of values.
The right way, analog to my idea of a go AI would be to have three state machines with ten states. This is a standard way to break problem down, bringing the number of states from 1000 to 30. In this case, the two different modules are
1) the high-level fight, namely, in what region of the board the next play should be.
2) the best local play for each region.
Now you need to add those complexities, just like you add the number of states, rather than multiplying them.
The logic will have to be much more complex than a simple minimax search, and much information will have to be given about Go to the system, but if you accept that, there is no proof that it can't be done.
Ok.
You think that developping a general purpose AI will lead to a good Go AI, and that it (G.P. AI) should happen in the next couple of decades.
I think that developping a good Go AI will help in making a general purpose AI, and that it (Go AI) will happen in the next decade.
Those two statements don't seem contradictory anymore ! The only point to argue is if its better to do some specialized work first (Go) or some general work first (pure AI). This just depends on one's field of interest.
I tend to agree with most of your point, but the overall conclusion seems wrong.
:
:
;-)
we'll just switch to 21x21 and then you'll need another few orders of magnitude more powerful computers to win
You assume in your analysis that the complexity of the game grows faster than the square of the board size. I think there is two elements that affect the game complexity
(a) High-level groups ( alive corner, small center moyo, ko-fight on the left side, etc.. )
(b) Network of relations between those groups.
The number of elements (a) grows with the surface of the board.
The number of links in (b) grows with the square of the number of (a).
This yelds something that seems huge O(N^4) on complex concepts. 25x25 would then be 9 times more complex that 19x19. We are a few order of magnitude short of your values.
I also feel that a human would lose its ability to grasp the whole board at a size not much larger than 25x25.
This game can be won by a computer. It just needs a lot of thinking outside the box by the programmer.
BTW, in the last competition in Edmonton, Gnu Go lost games to the 4 leading programs, and was ranked 7 th
1 Many Faces
2 Go4++
3 Go Intellect
4 Katsunari
5 Aya
6 Neuro Go
7 GNU Go
Bottomline, we probably agree, just not on the time-frame.
J.
I don't agree.
...
You can't help but start to use minimax search.
Here is the mistake. Before even thinking about putting AI in Go, you have to raise the level of the handled concept. If you still look at the move-level, you're too low.
I have a Go AI in development. However, I purposefully didn't put anything intelligent yet. For now, I'm just raising the concept level. When the program will be able to
detect life and death,
find sure territory,
find all the uncertain connections
find all the possible attacks
count all Ko
( much other concept go here )
Then, it should rank everything on the board and make a graph of cause and effect on trying to change those states. i.e. : killing that corner causes to not connect those two groups.
At that point, the decision is much smaller, and searching become possible. Then, only, MiniMaxing this tree wil give results.
I'm sure this would work. Now, I just need the funding to work for 5 years, and you get than amateur 1-dan level AI.
Anyone interested ?
jrainy at sympatico.ca