The point is not what Scientology may or may not want to do in order to energize (or whatever) their followers, but rather if that organization is breaking the law. The former is next to irrelevant. The interesting part is if the law can be successfully applied in this case, assuming that sufficient evidence of breaking the law exists.
"what exactly it all meant when a computer finally beat a grand master?" It is not the _computer_ which beat a grand master, but rather accumulated know-how of many people in various disciplines (including chess, programming, hardware design), supported by the current level of material culture. One human lost to many other humans rather than to a single machine, and within unfair time limits: consider all the time it took to assemble, encode, and execute the knowledge that was brought to bear against the human player.
Consequently, the question is misleading, if not plain silly, even if asked ad nauseam.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not what Scientology may or may not want to do in order to energize (or whatever) their followers, but rather if that organization is breaking the law.
The former is next to irrelevant. The interesting part is if the law can be successfully applied in this case, assuming that sufficient evidence of breaking the law exists.
"what exactly it all meant when a computer finally beat a grand master?"
It is not the _computer_ which beat a grand master, but rather accumulated know-how of many people in various disciplines (including chess, programming, hardware design), supported by the current level of material culture. One human lost to many other humans rather than to a single machine, and within unfair time limits: consider all the time it took to assemble, encode, and execute the knowledge that was brought to bear against the human player.
Consequently, the question is misleading, if not plain silly, even if asked ad nauseam.