Actually, I'm just listening to CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) radio, and they are claiming that MIT *did* supply a picture, but there is a scandal over it. Apparently they submitted a picture which was allegedly an original done by the professor's daughter, but which turned out to be swiped from a Montreal-based comic book; not a look alike, but a cut and past of an actual drawing. MIT lawyers are claiming they had every right to do that, while the comics-author is claiming this is blatant plagiarization. MIT has removed the drawing, and was not available for comment on CBC.
I'll post a link if I find one. Or if anyone else finds a link first, please post it.
> Most notably is an incorrectly placed semicolon (should be directly > after $sip, not after the brace).
As the programmer who thought up this script, I thank you for the feedback. At this point, I'm not sure if the error was my oversight, or a typo which got introduced by the printers. I'll try to get this corrected.
I would also like to point out that technically there was no error.
I can assure you that we've tested the code, and it ran fine.
To prove that this wasn't simply because it wasn't getting to that line for some reason (and that the printers hadn't accidentally changed the code after testing), I modified the script for debugging purposes:
open CAN, "excitedly"; join ($can, $mouth); while ($colaRemaining > 0) {if ($reallyThirsty) {$chug;}else {print $sip};} dump IN_RECYCLING_BOX; IN_RECYCLING_BOX: return;
This ran the correct output:
Slurp Slurp Slurp
(etc.)
Apparently, Perl, with it's famous TMTOWTDI (There's More Than One Way To Do It), allows the programmer to leave out a semicolon in a brace-enclosed single line (such as '{print $sip}'). Of course the following ';' between the braces--while doing no harm--has no function.
> Oh yeah, and what's the point of a scalar without a context of any > sort (aka the $chug and the $sip)?
Unfortunately we were unable to create functions that convinced our test-computers to actually drink, so we had to put up with scalers which only gave the "impression" of drinking a can of openCola.:-)
Unfortunately Microsoft's definition of open source will almost certainly not match our definition. They're "open source" license will more likely be along the lines of Sun's Community License.
It will not help in the creation of WINE for the same reason that Sun's Community License has not helped in the creation of a GPL'd Java.
Copying any code from the copywrited Sun JDK is illegal, and GPL Java programmers are better off not even looking at it, lest they are accidentally influenced by what they've seen.
Re:Jam the WTO... Jam etoys.com (and /. censorship
on
No EToy for Christmas
·
· Score: 1
The command "ping www.etoys.com" does not return anything. Perhaps they were getting so many pings that they took their ping off-line?
Even if they don't respond to our pings, thousands of pings per second should still tie up their network, should it not?
Also, if they did recently take their ping command off-line, it shows they are noticing that they are being opposed.
The reason Windows is not suitable for Palmtops is because it includes an interface which was designed for use with a mouse, keyboard, hi-res display, fast processor.
Linux does not have this problem. Linux is a low-level OS which does not inherently include a particular user interface. You can access it with the Bourne Shell or with Gnome--or for that matter a Palm-OS look-alike interface.
The advantage ucLinux has over PalmOS is that it has a versitile architecture that will easily keep abreast with Hardware. PalmOS already has memory heap problems. When standard PalmPilot hardware includes hi-res colour displays, 1 GHZ processors, 512 MB RAM, wireless modems--and voice recognition is commonplace--PalmOS will be as kludgy and buggy as DOS/Windows is today. And ucLinux will shine.
This whole time I had thought that the World was playing just Kasparov. But, in fact, Kasparov had a whole team working for him, as is evidenced by this quote from Danny King:
He [Kasparov] showed me just a few of the critical variations he and his team had worked on.
This quote came from http://www.zone.com/Kasparov/gameanalysis.asp
There were only three times in the Kasparov vs the World game where Irina Krush's advice wasn't followed. These were moves 51, 52, and 58.
58 was primarily Microsoft's fault. Irina's advice was not posted largely due to their NT server's error. At least that seems to be what they're implying at Irina's SmartFAQ. The game was definitely lost here if not earlier.
However moves 51 and 52 may have been due to many suddenly interested Slashdotters voting without having previously followed the game.
On Thursday, September 30th, 8:45 am, the news-story "Kasparov vs. The World: It's all different" by Hemos was posted on Slashdot. At 2 pm that same day, Irina's advice was not followed for the first time. This was move 51. Irina recommended 51..Ka1, but the world instead played 51..b5
Irina replied to this deviance:
The World chose a sharp and very interesting continuation with 51..b5 and must now deal with the discovered check on its King (after 52.Kf6+). I strongly recommend the move 52..Kc1.... In my estimation, 52..Kc1 is essential.
However, on the next move that Saturday, her essential advice was not followed. The world instead chose 52..Kb2. Irina claims that this was likely the losing point of the game (as stated in her SmartFAQ). To see the history of Irina Krush's (and the other analysts) comments, go to http://fdl.msn.com/zone/kasparov/gameanalysis.txt
Perhaps in similar future events, a stipulation giving more voting strength to longer term players could prevent such occurrences.
Developing a project like this as Open Source could quite quickly develop some powerful results, assuming it got interest. A competent chess player / programmer could start it off, and very quickly more knowledgable people could add in their own algorithms. Perhaps the project could splinter off from the GNU Chess program.
The intention of democracy has never been that people should make votes without discussing ideas with other people. Democracy has always depended on leaders who listen to people, and people who are empowered to vote for those that represent them best.
As a screensaver perhaps you're right. However as a low-priority process it would work fine. The UNIX/Linux seti@home (which I'm running) works as a background process which processes each time there is an idle CPU moment. Most home machines have a lot of spare CPU time on their hands, so this works fine. This is straight forward UNIX process management. All the Unix-people could thus process this game no problem (maybe they'd be given 1/4 to 1/2 hour chunks to work on). The computer would have to delegate processes out multiple times to compensate for computers not reporting in on time, of course.
Programming something like this for the Windows/Mac people would be somewhat more challenging. But it's not impossible to make some Windows/Mac code that looks at how hard the CPU is working and then decides how hard to work.
It could be done, and would certainly be an interesting study of chess, human collective nature, and distributed computing.
It is true that advisors were essential in this game. In fact, the world basically followed Irena Krush's game (I'm not sure whether there's a single move against Krush's advice). However, it is important to note that Krush paid a lot of attention to the players' suggestions. She posted lines of play on her web site developed by a variety of different players on the internet. She constantly upgraded her opinion based on what different players suggested. She herself freely admits that she could never have played a game of this strength without her huge support base.
I would argue this method reflects the development of the Linux kernel (and other free software). The Linux kernel has an obvious leader. This leader would not have gotten very far if not for the respect and support of various people putting in almost as much as him. These giants in turn would not have gotten very far if they hadn't had the support of a much larger group of somewhat influential designers. These people in turn were supported by a much larger group of slightly influential people.
Originally I thought that the democratic element of this chess game was unnecessary. Why not just put one person in charge, and let the world advise them. But, as in the development of the Linux kernel, it is necessary that the people get to choose their leader. The other three advisors did not pay a lot of attention to the world-team players, and therefore were not listened to nearly as carefully as Krush was. The democratic element allowed the world to choose a leader who would represent them.
The next interesting experiment to try is distributed computing vs humanity. Clearly computing power can defeat any single player, as was evidenced in the Kasperov vs Deep Blue game. And this new Kasperov vs the world game has shown the power of collective human chess playing.
A distributed set of PC's throughout the world should be able to create a player easily capable of defeating Deep Blue. Wouldn't it be a great match to witness (and play): the human world vs. the PC world?
If the computer can only write one unique story then the credit for writing the story should go to the programmer.
It's impossible to tell how creative the computer is by only reading one story. For example, the computer may be coming out with lines which in the first story come out as brilliant, but after reading four or five stories are tired cliches. Similarly its first plot might seem well crafted, but the others might have too many similarities to have merit.
If these scenarios are so, then the programmer was able to write a set of parameters which allow variations on a single story of his creating. He wasn't however, able to fulfill the goal of creating a machine capable of original story-writing. The results of the test would be more revealing if brutus.1 submitted more than one story.
What!? Why not? Disk druid is free software (as in free beer). I've used it on my Cheapbytes Red Hat clone distrobution. What on earth is Red Hat's motive for not making the source available?
I ran into this applet about six months ago, but dismissed it. While I imagine it's very fast, it has a major flaw: you must continually re-locate the stylus to the near-centre of the screen. This means you must look at the pen as you write. There's no way to avoid drifting if you're not looking.
I like to have the option of doing other things (ie watching a movie) while I write. When I am looking at what I'm doing, I prefer to look at the actual letters on the page rather than my stylus. Thus, I don't see getting into this device.
The article did not, however, take into account repetitive motion injuries. I haven't read of formal studies, but suspect that retraining costs might be shown to be cost effective when considering the number of workers on disability due to carpel tunnel syndrym.
Certainly for me, almost all repetitive motion problems went away with the switch to Dvorak.
Repositioning rather than eliminating
on
The Myth of QWERTY
·
· Score: 1
I don't think most of us are suggesting to lose the cap's lock all together. We simply mean assigning the cap's lock function to a more obscure location (I'm using my left Win95 key), thus enabling us to use the easy-to-access home row for a more common function.
A few facts about the QWERTY/Dvorak debate
on
The Myth of QWERTY
·
· Score: 1
>why not place the keys like "ABCDEFGHI..." Because it's really damn hard to type like that.
I suspect this alphabetical layout would be no harder to touch-type with than the Qwerty layout, which was designed before touch-typing had been invented.
It would also be a much easier layout to learn. And a much easier layout for non-touch typists with no interest in learning touch typing.
In my oppinion, an alphabetical layout would have been a much more sensible standard than qwerty.
I use my Cap's Lock key as a backspace. Since I probably hit backspace as often as any other letter, having it in such a convenient location saves me time and effort
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. That'd be it [blush]. Thanks!
Actually, I'm just listening to CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) radio, and they are claiming that MIT *did* supply a picture, but there is a scandal over it. Apparently they submitted a picture which was allegedly an original done by the professor's daughter, but which turned out to be swiped from a Montreal-based comic book; not a look alike, but a cut and past of an actual drawing. MIT lawyers are claiming they had every right to do that, while the comics-author is claiming this is blatant plagiarization. MIT has removed the drawing, and was not available for comment on CBC.
I'll post a link if I find one. Or if anyone else finds a link first, please post it.
> Most notably is an incorrectly placed semicolon (should be directly
:-)
> after $sip, not after the brace).
As the programmer who thought up this script, I thank you for the
feedback. At this point, I'm not sure if the error was my oversight,
or a typo which got introduced by the printers. I'll try to get
this corrected.
I would also like to point out that technically there was no error.
I can assure you that we've tested the code, and it ran fine.
To prove that this wasn't simply because it wasn't getting to that
line for some reason (and that the printers hadn't accidentally
changed the code after testing), I modified the script for debugging
purposes:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$sip = "Slurp\n";
$colaRemaining = 1;
$reallyThirsty = 0;
open CAN, "excitedly"; join ($can, $mouth);
while ($colaRemaining > 0)
{if ($reallyThirsty) {$chug;}else {print $sip};}
dump IN_RECYCLING_BOX; IN_RECYCLING_BOX:
return;
This ran the correct output:
Slurp
Slurp
Slurp
(etc.)
Apparently, Perl, with it's famous TMTOWTDI (There's More Than One Way
To Do It), allows the programmer to leave out a semicolon in a
brace-enclosed single line (such as '{print $sip}'). Of course the
following ';' between the braces--while doing no harm--has no function.
> Oh yeah, and what's the point of a scalar without a context of any
> sort (aka the $chug and the $sip)?
Unfortunately we were unable to create functions that convinced our
test-computers to actually drink, so we had to put up with scalers
which only gave the "impression" of drinking a can of openCola.
Unfortunately Microsoft's definition of open source will almost
certainly not match our definition. They're "open source" license
will more likely be along the lines of Sun's Community License.
It will not help in the creation of WINE for the same reason that
Sun's Community License has not helped in the creation of a GPL'd
Java.
Copying any code from the copywrited Sun JDK is illegal, and GPL Java
programmers are better off not even looking at it, lest they are
accidentally influenced by what they've seen.
The command "ping www.etoys.com" does not return anything. Perhaps they were getting so many pings that they took their ping off-line?
Even if they don't respond to our pings, thousands of pings per second should still tie up their network, should it not?
Also, if they did recently take their ping command off-line, it shows they are noticing that they are being opposed.
Linux does not have this problem. Linux is a low-level OS which does not inherently include a particular user interface. You can access it with the Bourne Shell or with Gnome--or for that matter a Palm-OS look-alike interface.
This is the advantage ucLinux has over WinCE.
The advantage ucLinux has over PalmOS is that it has a versitile architecture that will easily keep abreast with Hardware. PalmOS already has memory heap problems. When standard PalmPilot hardware includes hi-res colour displays, 1 GHZ processors, 512 MB RAM, wireless modems--and voice recognition is commonplace--PalmOS will be as kludgy and buggy as DOS/Windows is today. And ucLinux will shine.
This whole time I had thought that the World was playing just Kasparov. But, in fact, Kasparov had a whole team working for him, as is evidenced by this quote from Danny King:
He [Kasparov] showed me just a few of the critical variations he and his team had worked on.
This quote came from http://www.zone.com/Kasparov/gameanalysis.asp
There were only three times in the Kasparov vs the World game where Irina Krush's advice wasn't followed. These were moves 51, 52, and 58.
58 was primarily Microsoft's fault. Irina's advice was not posted largely due to their NT server's error. At least that seems to be what they're implying at Irina's SmartFAQ. The game was definitely lost here if not earlier.
However moves 51 and 52 may have been due to many suddenly interested Slashdotters voting without having previously followed the game.
On Thursday, September 30th, 8:45 am, the news-story "Kasparov vs. The World: It's all different" by Hemos was posted on Slashdot. At 2 pm that same day, Irina's advice was not followed for the first time. This was move 51. Irina recommended 51..Ka1, but the world instead played 51..b5
Irina replied to this deviance:
The World chose a sharp and very interesting continuation with 51..b5 and must now deal with the discovered check on its King (after 52.Kf6+). I strongly recommend the move 52..Kc1.... In my estimation, 52..Kc1 is essential.
However, on the next move that Saturday, her essential advice was not followed. The world instead chose 52..Kb2. Irina claims that this was likely the losing point of the game (as stated in her SmartFAQ). To see the history of Irina Krush's (and the other analysts) comments, go to http://fdl.msn.com/zone/kasparov/gameanalysis.txt
Perhaps in similar future events, a stipulation giving more voting strength to longer term players could prevent such occurrences.
If you type in "mosaic web browser" you also get the notorious evil page.
Developing a project like this as Open Source could quite quickly develop some powerful results, assuming it got interest. A competent chess player / programmer could start it off, and very quickly more knowledgable people could add in their own algorithms. Perhaps the project could splinter off from the GNU Chess program.
I was assuming that the distributed computing chess engine would be competently prgorammed of course ;-)
The intention of democracy has never been that people should make votes without discussing ideas with other people. Democracy has always depended on leaders who listen to people, and people who are empowered to vote for those that represent them best.
As a screensaver perhaps you're right. However as a low-priority process it would work fine. The UNIX/Linux seti@home (which I'm running) works as a background process which processes each time there is an idle CPU moment. Most home machines have a lot of spare CPU time on their hands, so this works fine. This is straight forward UNIX process management. All the Unix-people could thus process this game no problem (maybe they'd be given 1/4 to 1/2 hour chunks to work on). The computer would have to delegate processes out multiple times to compensate for computers not reporting in on time, of course.
Programming something like this for the Windows/Mac people would be somewhat more challenging. But it's not impossible to make some Windows/Mac code that looks at how hard the CPU is working and then decides how hard to work.
It could be done, and would certainly be an interesting study of chess, human collective nature, and distributed computing.
It is true that advisors were essential in this game. In fact, the world basically followed Irena Krush's game (I'm not sure whether there's a single move against Krush's advice). However, it is important to note that Krush paid a lot of attention to the players' suggestions. She posted lines of play on her web site developed by a variety of different players on the internet. She constantly upgraded her opinion based on what different players suggested. She herself freely admits that she could never have played a game of this strength without her huge support base.
I would argue this method reflects the development of the Linux kernel (and other free software). The Linux kernel has an obvious leader. This leader would not have gotten very far if not for the respect and support of various people putting in almost as much as him. These giants in turn would not have gotten very far if they hadn't had the support of a much larger group of somewhat influential designers. These people in turn were supported by a much larger group of slightly influential people.
Originally I thought that the democratic element of this chess game was unnecessary. Why not just put one person in charge, and let the world advise them. But, as in the development of the Linux kernel, it is necessary that the people get to choose their leader. The other three advisors did not pay a lot of attention to the world-team players, and therefore were not listened to nearly as carefully as Krush was. The democratic element allowed the world to choose a leader who would represent them.
The next interesting experiment to try is distributed computing vs humanity. Clearly computing power can defeat any single player, as was evidenced in the Kasperov vs Deep Blue game. And this new Kasperov vs the world game has shown the power of collective human chess playing.
A distributed set of PC's throughout the world should be able to create a player easily capable of defeating Deep Blue. Wouldn't it be a great match to witness (and play): the human world vs. the PC world?
If the computer can only write one unique story then the credit for writing the story should go to the programmer.
It's impossible to tell how creative the computer is by only reading one story. For example, the computer may be coming out with lines which in the first story come out as brilliant, but after reading four or five stories are tired cliches. Similarly its first plot might seem well crafted, but the others might have too many similarities to
have merit.
If these scenarios are so, then the programmer was able to write a set of parameters which allow variations on a single story of his creating. He wasn't however, able to fulfill the goal of creating a machine capable of original story-writing. The results of the test would be more revealing if brutus.1 submitted more than one story.
What!? Why not? Disk druid is free software (as in free beer). I've used it on my Cheapbytes Red Hat clone distrobution. What on earth is Red Hat's motive for not making the source available?
What particularly confuses the terminology is that "crackers" call themselves "hackers" rather than "crackers".
At least that's why Bruce Sterling said he named his book the "Hacker Crackdown" rather than the "Cracker Crackdown".
Good point. I could see using this system with a heads-up mode. Perhaps we should give this advice to the NYU team.
I ran into this applet about six months ago, but dismissed it. While I imagine it's very fast, it has a major flaw: you must continually re-locate the stylus to the near-centre of the screen. This means you must look at the pen as you write. There's no way to avoid drifting if you're not looking.
I like to have the option of doing other things (ie watching a movie) while I write. When I am looking at what I'm doing, I prefer to look at the actual letters on the page rather than my stylus. Thus, I don't see getting into this device.
The article did not, however, take into account repetitive motion injuries. I haven't read of formal studies, but suspect that retraining costs might be shown to be cost effective when considering the number of workers on disability due to carpel tunnel syndrym.
Certainly for me, almost all repetitive motion problems went away with the switch to Dvorak.
I don't think most of us are suggesting to lose the cap's lock all together. We simply mean assigning the cap's lock function to a more obscure location (I'm using my left Win95 key), thus enabling us to use the easy-to-access home row for a more common function.
>why not place the keys like "ABCDEFGHI..." Because it's really damn hard to type like that.
I suspect this alphabetical layout would be no harder to touch-type with than the Qwerty layout, which was designed before touch-typing had been invented.
It would also be a much easier layout to learn. And a much easier layout for non-touch typists with no interest in learning touch typing.
In my oppinion, an alphabetical layout would have been a much more sensible standard than qwerty.
I use my Cap's Lock key as a backspace. Since I probably hit backspace as often as any other letter, having it in such a convenient location saves me time and effort