Some directions for solving the game of chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't look like chess is going to be solved anytime soon, but it doesn't mean chess is unsolvable. There are still some directions to look at using conventional computers.
One possible approach is dealing with the game symbolically. What does it means? Instead of scanning the whole possible run-tree of the game, or at least most of it, the way it would happen using conventional a-b-prunning techniques to unlimited depth, it is possible to describe a group of states in a symbolic way and thus scan huge number of games at ones.
This technique is commonly used in the domain of formal verification (also known as "model-checking). When we wish to prove a property on a protocol or hardware design that may have 2^100 states or more, it is impossible to solve it by going through all the states. Instead, the state space is encoded using a symbolic representation called BDD (binary decision diagram).
I would expect BDDs to fail in the case of chess. However, if we find the right symbolic representation, the game may be solved.
An interesting question is: assuming prime numbers are "randomly" distributed, what is the probability that an even number won't be the sum of two odd numbers?
Oops... a typo. I ment "two prime numbers" - not "two odd numbers"...
Disclaimer: long boring math stuff with a conclusion that may be interesting for some at the end...
An interesting question is: assuming prime numbers are "randomly" distributed, what is the probability that an even number won't be the sum of two odd numbers?
If the probability is rather high, yet we did not find any such even number, it can be an indication there may be some "meat" in goldbach theorem. On the other hand, if such probability is exremely low, than the verification of goldbach's theorem up to 4e+15 means nothing...
Well, according to Gauss' estimate for prime number density around sufficiently large n, the density is 1/log(n). To find pi(n), which is the number of prime numbers up to n, we need to integrate this, but pi(n)=n/log(n), so we can make life simpler and over-estimate the probability by taking the smaller number.
Now, given the number of prime numbers up to n, pi(n), if we choose x to be a prime number smaller than n, than the probability its pair: (n-x) is a prime number is: 2*pi(n)/n. (I multiplied by 2 since itcannot be possibly an even number, so no need to consider them). The probability that it is not a prime number is therefore (1-2*pi(n)/n).
Since there are pi(n) different prime numbers to choose from, the probability that an even number is not the sum of two prime numbers is: (1-2*pi(n)/n)^pi(n).
So what is the probability for numbers around 1e+15? If we use the estimate for pi(n), we get: pi(n)=2e+13 (1-2*pi(n)/n) = 0.959
Taking the last number by the power of pi(n), the result is that the probability is around: 10^-(4e11)
That is - an extremely small probability!!!
Conclusion: ----------
If Goldbach's theorem is false, the probability that an even number won't be the sum of two prime numbers is so small that we may need to check around 10^(10^11) numbers to find a counter example. This number is so big no computer could possibly handle it now or any time soon...
In other words: Don't bother to find a counter-example.
Frankly, I do not think my post above should be rated Off-topic. Browsing through other comments, I've noticed I'm not the only one that been unjustly down-rated by some moderator that "downgraded" posts for no good reason.
The moderator guidelines says moderators should focus on moderating ge gems up, and not moderating down. Maybe it should be enforced by alowing only up to 2 out of 5 negative moderations?
Both examples are not very good ones. IBM "opened" up the architecture for the PC not because they intended to create an open architecture, but because they where in a hurry to get their Prsonal Computer ready. They didn't have time to develop everything from scratch, so they built the machine out of existing components from outside sources. Once the PC market started getting crowded with "IBM-compatible" machines, IBM tried to fight it off with a proprietary platform - the PS/2, and failed.
And as for Intel, it was a business practice at that time to preffer buying components that have a second source, so Intel had no choice but to licence its 8086-80386 design to other companies, so that it could sell its chips to companies like IBM.
So in both cases those companies didn't open their product for the benefit of the market, but because there was no other choice for them, under the given circumstances.
Fallows made a mistake people often do, mixing the image of the company, with the people working for it. Ofcorse, programmers working for microsoft are not different from people working for any other software company.
I do think Microsoft is a VBT (Very Bad Thing), for two main reasons: 1. It holds too much power. 2. It abuses its power.
From sociological point of view, each group of people that gains power fights to keep others away from it, and thus it is no surprise Microsoft abuses its power. ANY other company that would be at the same position as Microsoft would act the same.
And this is where FREE (beer&speech) software comes it: It ensures no one would hold such absolute power.
I do not have modarator points right now, but if I did, I may have considered moderating this one up a little.
Its language may offend some of us, and I don't want to encorage too many simillar posts, but OTOH, this one is just too hillariously funny to be ignored, so we might forgive the streetlawyer.
While I liked this article and found it thought provoking, their projection on 2030 seem really overblown.
First problem is the assumption regarding the continuation of current trend up to year 2030. Does it seem realistic that computing power would continue to grow at current rate? We have every reason to believe it would not. The theoretical barriers of current silicon-based computers is approaching its theoretical limits. While its true that we easily overcame previous "theoretical barriers" - only about 10/15 years ago it was said we cannot go beyond 1-micron, and now we're using 0.18 micron, with 0.13 technonlogy around the corner, but then the problem was with lithography technology. Now we are aproaching, at a frightening pace the size of a single mulecule, and, at the same time, there is the problem of "parasitics" - neglegible effects that becomes not-so-neglegible at smaller scale. The power of the human brain coes not so much from speed, but from its massive parallelism. Don't forget that while the brain is on mulecular scale as well, it benefits from being 3-dimentional. A silicon chip, however, cannot go beyond several layers- there are big problems of power consumption and heat dissipation that are needed to be handled.
Ofcorse, one might say, we could move to new technologies like quantom computers and biological computers. However, those technologies are far from the point of going to practical use, and I don't think in 30 years we'll see quantom or biological computers on our desktop. What we're likely to see is a certain degree of stabilization, until new technologies are matured.
Another point: Even if raw computing power will continue its growth at the rate predicted by the article, we must not forget that we need to _emulate_ the brain structure. We are used to one CPU that emulates another, at an acceptable cost. However, all CPUs are basically similiar, while emulating such a complex analog device as the brain using a computer might be extremely slow, if possible at all. Note that in order to have a functional copy of the brain operating inside a computer, we need to have a very reliable simulation of neuron's function - which is far more complex than todays neural networks, which are a large simplification of the principle of the neuron's work. This task may need (10^6)x or more raw computing power.
And then, there is the question of the accuracy of the emulation of the brain and its environment. Very small and "unsignificant" errors in the emulation of the brain and its environment would easily result in a psychotic brain.
"This brain generated an illegal operation. If this error occures again, please report to Microsoft"
The movie "night of the living dead" Is translated in italian to: "duration of the night put out of order of the men"
And german geeks should love the movie: "room with a view"
Which is translated to: "Workstation with an opinion "
An then, also in german, "Pulp fiction" becomes: "Mass invention"
And the movie: "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" would be translated in german into: "Security electrical electric circuit, addition hardware modules and two smoking barrels"
You german guys are really into technical terms, aren't you?
The italian, however, would translate the same movie title into: "barrels for so that to obstruct, to the resupply of fuel and two to the smoke"
And how about: "Star wars"?
Both italian and french agrees on: "the star makes the war".
Once again, the germans get technical, and preffer: "Asterisk wars "
It is also curious to find that german vampires are irish: The translation of "Interview with the vampire" is: "Inerview with IrishIrish Irish"
And the last one: "As good as it gets" In italian becomes: "Good how much verification".
Try writing anything with the word "story" in it. It would always be translated back into "history". In any language. If it was only one language, it could be quirks of that language, but this seems consistant.
Translate: "I love microsoft windows operating system" into spanish, and you'll get: "Dominate to the system the operative one of the Windows of Microsoft "
Or try: "my computer runs only linux" into italian, and you'll get: "for so that it extracts in order to continue of the calcolarici in order to only work the linux"
Now for an important question: "Can bill gates rule the world"?
French: carries it that the invoice can it that it reigns the world?
German: can calculation gate arrange the world?
Spanish: can the door of the account to govern the world?
Portuguese: can the gate of the customer govern the world?
Italian: can the gate of the invoice regulate the world?
Until recently I was a rather normal guy. I went to work in the mornings, went out in the evenings, had a wife and two kids, and everything was just fine. Yes, I did surf the internet once in a while - nothing special. Only the light sites. I managed to avoid the highly addictive ones, like slashdot. Everything seems to be under control. Which is, as I later discovered, how most of us start. "It will not happen to me" - you think. Yeah, right. That what I thought. And then, one day, I read in the paper something about internet addiction. "I'm not an addict", was my first defensive thought. But then another, disturbing thought, creeped into my mind: "But I do surf the net... and what if I will become one?". I had to know more about internet addiction. To learn how to avoid it. So I started looking for information. I did not find much more about it in the papers, so I started searching the net. I've read page after page, and the more I've read, the more I wanted to know. Each day I was searching altavista again for "internet addicition", to find if there was any new information, fresh reaserch, a survey, a new support group. The more I heard stories, the more horrified I became. I thought about all those innocent hundreds of millions of people, surfing the net, not knowing what fate awaiting them. I had to warn them. I went to chat rooms, news groups, bulletin boards, and at each place I've warned anyone I just could about internet addiciton. In the meanwhile, I continued to look for more information. I no longer searched altavista alone. It is well known each search engine index only small part of the web. So I started using multi-search pages that search through lycos, excite, infoseek, GoTo, thunderstone, hotbot and opentext. I searched dejanews for new discussions on the subject, 5 times a day. I was visiting regularely 200 sites dealing with internet addiction each day to look directly for more information. I became obsessed with it, spending each day 12-16 hours on the net, searching, reading and writing to people on the subject. I stopped sleeping regularely, I've missed work days. I neglected my wife and children. I got fired from work. My wife left me. My kids would not speak to me. And then I realized I am in deep trouble.
So I went to the nearest rehabilitation center. "What do you know about internet addiction disorder?" Dr. Strausse asked me at the first interview. Hearing this question made me shake with excitement. The dopamine level in my brain reached new hights. I spilled facts and numbers. Quoted reaserches and surveys. Told him real life stories about internet addicts, until he stopped me. "Sorry", he said, "I am afraid I can't help you. You are a lost case. You long crossed the point of no return". "But there is more", I told him. "Don't you want to listen?" I begged, "I know more"...
He had to send for the nurse to drag me out of his office, while I was begging to tell him more about the dangers of internet addiction. "But wait, there is this new survey which is about to be published... Oh gosh, it is going to be published today. Quick, do you have an internet connection somewhere? I must check it. I must!"
The nurse pushed me into the cab, with explicit instruction to take me straight home. "Stop!" I shouted as I spotted an internet cafe on the way. "I want to get down here!".
Few days later they found me unconscious, my shirt all dirty from stains of coffee and pizza, my head lying on the keyboard. When I woke up, I found myself tied to an hospital bad. "What am I doing here?" I asked. "And why can't I move my arms?"
"Relax", told me an authorative voice. "I'm prof. Uffliner. I came here as soon as I could. Dr. Strausse think I'm the only one that can help you". "prof. Uffliner!" I was totally excited. "I'm your greatest fan! I've read all about your work... you're my hero! So what are the latest numbers, do you know? How many..." "I'm sorry", he said. "I am afraid I can't let you get exposed to any additional information right now". Yes, I knew all about prof. Uffliner's methods. Total deprivation of any on-line connection. Isolation from the net, for as long as it takes until I'm rehabilitated. Its a torture! I didn't know if I could take it. I felt as if my whole body was on fire. I asked for it. I begged for it. My face twisted and I had foam at the mouth. "just one minute to check deja-news!" I begged. They just ignored me.
Those where the longest and most horrible three months of my life. At the end of those three months they untied me.My wife came for me. "I've heard all you've been through", she said. "they say there is a chance you may get back to normal, but you need a year of total isolation from everything that have anything that talks about the net. No newspapers. No TV no radio. I just know what we need! We'll go to my father's summer-house in the mountains. It will be a great opportunity to rebuild out relationship! Just like a very long second honeymoon!" She said with excitement.
Well, thats about it. I'm still in a support group, and from time to time I have this urge to go back to the keyboard, but I manage to resist it. My wife and kids are very supportive. They really help. So that's my story.
I'm from Israel, one of the other countries effected by the export regulations. The reason Israel is effected by the export regulations is that our country refused to sign the treaty concerning nuclear weapons.
Now, guess who was the first client that got a Cray supercomputer, with the blessing of the US government? Right, the defense ministry. And at the same time, Israeli academic institutes couldn't even dream of getting such a computer. Now, go figure the logic behind it...
It seems like those export regulations long lost their point. It is true that computing power is needed for simulation of nuclear weapons - while the A-bombs in WWII where made without a computer - a simulation can be used to create even deadlier weapons using radioactive isotops which are easier to produce. The biggest problem is the detonation. There is a need to calculate the exact position and activation time of the different detinators in the bomb to make an efficient and fast chain-reaction.
Anyway, personal computer power has reached the point where it can solve those problems several years ago, so what are they trying to prevent now?
In nuclear physics there is critical mass neaded for the chain-reaction to be possible (probable) and for the bomb to explode. Likewise, there is "critical computing power" needed to develop nuclear weapons. Once we're past that point, increase in computing power won't change anything.
Wonder about mindcraft dealings with Microsoft? A quick look at mindcraft's main page makes you wonder even harder.
In addition to the Linux vs. NT, there are two other report: One that compares WinNT to Novell Netware 5.0, and another and compares WinNT to Solaris on an UltraSparc, and... what a surprise, they did some good efforts there as well to prove NT is much superior to each of the other alternatives (NT was 2.6x faster...).
Now, you may wonder: who sponsored both of the other tests? The NT vs. NetWare was sponsored by MS, and I bet the other report was sponsored by just the same company. It is interesting to note Mindcraft didn't expose at first who sponsored their NT vs. Netware study, as the client "did not authorize us to disclose their name". Only after publicly critisized by Novell, they published MS payed them for an "independent and unbiased assessment" - yeh, sure.
And if you still need more evidence about Mindcraft dealing with Microsoft, MS also payed them to prove that microsoft did nothing malicious to cause Quicktime plugins to fail. This was, if you remember, they main claim of apple against MS.
It's always good to have friend$$$ in the business...
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't look like chess is going to be solved anytime soon, but it doesn't mean chess is unsolvable. There are still some directions to look at using conventional computers.
One possible approach is dealing with the game symbolically. What does it means? Instead of scanning the whole possible run-tree of the game, or at least most of it, the way it would happen using conventional a-b-prunning techniques to unlimited depth, it is possible to describe a group of states in a symbolic way and thus scan huge number of games at ones.
This technique is commonly used in the domain of formal verification (also known as "model-checking). When we wish to prove a property on a protocol or hardware design that may have 2^100 states or more, it is impossible to solve it by going through all the states. Instead, the state space is encoded using a symbolic representation called BDD (binary decision diagram).
I would expect BDDs to fail in the case of chess. However, if we find the right symbolic representation, the game may be solved.
Sela
Why is this post 0? It seems very relevant to the discussion.
Sela
An interesting question is: assuming prime numbers are "randomly" distributed, what is the probability that an even number won't be the sum of two odd numbers?
Oops ... a typo. I ment "two prime numbers" - not "two odd numbers" ...
Sela
Disclaimer: long boring math stuff with a conclusion that may be interesting for some at the end ...
...
...
An interesting question is: assuming prime numbers are "randomly" distributed, what is the probability that an even number won't be the sum of two odd numbers?
If the probability is rather high, yet we did not find any such even number, it can be an indication there may be some "meat" in goldbach theorem. On the other hand, if such probability is exremely low, than the verification of goldbach's theorem up to 4e+15 means nothing
Well, according to Gauss' estimate for prime number density around sufficiently large n, the density is 1/log(n). To find pi(n), which is the number of prime numbers up to n, we need to integrate this, but pi(n)=n/log(n), so we can make life simpler and over-estimate the probability by taking the smaller number.
Now, given the number of prime numbers up to n, pi(n), if we choose x to be a prime number smaller than n, than the probability its pair: (n-x) is a prime number is: 2*pi(n)/n. (I multiplied by 2 since itcannot be possibly an even number, so no need to consider them).
The probability that it is not a prime number is therefore (1-2*pi(n)/n).
Since there are pi(n) different prime numbers to choose from, the probability that an even number is not the sum of two prime numbers is:
(1-2*pi(n)/n)^pi(n).
So what is the probability for numbers around 1e+15? If we use the estimate for pi(n), we get:
pi(n)=2e+13
(1-2*pi(n)/n) = 0.959
Taking the last number by the power of pi(n), the result is that the probability is around:
10^-(4e11)
That is - an extremely small probability!!!
Conclusion:
----------
If Goldbach's theorem is false, the probability that an even number won't be the sum of two prime numbers is so small that we may need to check around 10^(10^11) numbers to find a counter example. This number is so big no computer could possibly handle it now or any time soon
In other words: Don't bother to find a counter-example.
Sela
Frankly, I do not think my post above should be rated Off-topic. Browsing through other comments, I've noticed I'm not the only one that been unjustly down-rated by some moderator that "downgraded" posts for no good reason.
The moderator guidelines says moderators should focus on moderating ge gems up, and not moderating down. Maybe it should be enforced by alowing only up to 2 out of 5 negative moderations?
Both examples are not very good ones. IBM "opened" up the architecture for the PC not because they intended to create an open architecture, but because they where in a hurry to get their Prsonal Computer ready. They didn't have time to develop everything from scratch, so they built the machine out of existing components from outside sources.
Once the PC market started getting crowded with "IBM-compatible" machines, IBM tried to fight it off with a proprietary platform - the PS/2, and failed.
And as for Intel, it was a business practice at that time to preffer buying components that have a second source, so Intel had no choice but to licence its 8086-80386 design to other companies, so that it could sell its chips to companies like IBM.
So in both cases those companies didn't open their product for the benefit of the market, but because there was no other choice for them, under the given circumstances.
Sela
Fallows made a mistake people often do, mixing the image of the company, with the people working for it. Ofcorse, programmers working for microsoft are not different from people working for any other software company.
I do think Microsoft is a VBT (Very Bad Thing), for two main reasons:
1. It holds too much power.
2. It abuses its power.
From sociological point of view, each group of people that gains power fights to keep others away from it, and thus it is no surprise Microsoft abuses its power. ANY other company that would be at the same position as Microsoft would act the same.
And this is where FREE (beer&speech) software comes it: It ensures no one would hold such absolute power.
Sela
I do not have modarator points right now, but if I did, I may have considered moderating this one up a little.
Its language may offend some of us, and I don't want to encorage too many simillar posts, but OTOH, this one is just too hillariously funny to be ignored, so we might forgive the streetlawyer.
While I liked this article and found it thought provoking, their projection on 2030 seem really overblown.
First problem is the assumption regarding the continuation of current trend up to year 2030. Does it seem realistic that computing power would continue to grow at current rate? We have every reason to believe it would not. The theoretical barriers of current silicon-based computers is approaching its theoretical limits.
While its true that we easily overcame previous "theoretical barriers" - only about 10/15 years ago it was said we cannot go beyond 1-micron, and now we're using 0.18 micron, with 0.13 technonlogy around the corner, but then the problem was with lithography technology. Now we are aproaching, at a frightening pace the size of a single mulecule, and, at the same time, there is the problem of "parasitics" - neglegible effects that becomes not-so-neglegible at smaller scale.
The power of the human brain coes not so much from speed, but from its massive parallelism. Don't forget that while the brain is on mulecular scale as well, it benefits from being 3-dimentional. A silicon chip, however, cannot go beyond several layers- there are big problems of power consumption and heat dissipation that are needed to be handled.
Ofcorse, one might say, we could move to new technologies like quantom computers and biological computers. However, those technologies are far from the point of going to practical use, and I don't think in 30 years we'll see quantom or biological computers on our desktop. What we're likely to see is a certain degree of stabilization, until new technologies are matured.
Another point: Even if raw computing power will continue its growth at the rate predicted by the article, we must not forget that we need to _emulate_ the brain structure. We are used to one CPU that emulates another, at an acceptable cost. However, all CPUs are basically similiar, while emulating such a complex analog device as the brain using a computer might be extremely slow, if possible at all. Note that in order to have a functional copy of the brain operating inside a computer, we need to have a very reliable simulation of neuron's function - which is far more complex than todays neural networks, which are a large simplification of the principle of the neuron's work. This task may need (10^6)x or more raw computing power.
And then, there is the question of the accuracy of the emulation of the brain and its environment. Very small and "unsignificant" errors in the emulation of the brain and its environment would easily result in a psychotic brain.
"This brain generated an illegal operation. If this error occures again, please report to Microsoft"
Sela Mador-Haim
The movie "night of the living dead"
Is translated in italian to:
"duration of the night put out of order of the men"
And german geeks should love the movie: "room with a view"
Which is translated to:
"Workstation with an opinion "
An then, also in german, "Pulp fiction" becomes:
"Mass invention"
And the movie: "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" would be translated in german into:
"Security electrical electric circuit, addition hardware modules and two smoking barrels"
You german guys are really into technical terms, aren't you?
The italian, however, would translate the same movie title into:
"barrels for so that to obstruct, to the resupply of fuel and two to the smoke"
And how about: "Star wars"?
Both italian and french agrees on: "the star makes the war".
Once again, the germans get technical, and preffer: "Asterisk wars "
It is also curious to find that german vampires are irish: The translation of "Interview with the vampire" is:
"Inerview with IrishIrish Irish"
And the last one: "As good as it gets"
In italian becomes: "Good how much verification".
There are some other weird bugs
Try writing anything with the word "story" in it. It would always be translated back into "history". In any language.
If it was only one language, it could be quirks of that language, but this seems consistant.
Translate:
"I love microsoft windows operating system"
into spanish, and you'll get:
"Dominate to the system the operative one of the Windows of Microsoft "
Or try:
"my computer runs only linux"
into italian, and you'll get:
"for so that it extracts in order to continue of the calcolarici in order to only work the linux"
Now for an important question:
"Can bill gates rule the world"?
French: carries it that the invoice can it that it reigns the world?
German: can calculation gate arrange the world?
Spanish: can the door of the account to govern the world?
Portuguese: can the gate of the customer govern the world?
Italian: can the gate of the invoice regulate the world?
Until recently I was a rather normal guy. I went to work in the mornings, went out in the evenings, had a wife and two kids, and everything was just fine. ... and what if I will become one?".
...
... Oh gosh, it is going to be published today. Quick, do you have an internet connection somewhere? I must check it. I must!"
... you're my hero! So what are the latest numbers, do you know? How many ..."
Yes, I did surf the internet once in a while - nothing special. Only the light sites. I managed to avoid the highly addictive ones, like slashdot. Everything seems to be under control. Which is, as I later discovered, how most of us start. "It will not happen to me" - you think. Yeah, right. That what I thought.
And then, one day, I read in the paper something about internet addiction. "I'm not an addict", was my first defensive thought. But then another, disturbing thought, creeped into my mind: "But I do surf the net
I had to know more about internet addiction. To learn how to avoid it. So I started looking for information. I did not find much more about it in the papers, so I started searching the net. I've read page after page, and the more I've read, the more I wanted to know. Each day I was searching altavista again for "internet addicition", to find if there was any new information, fresh reaserch, a survey, a new support group. The more I heard stories, the more horrified I became. I thought about all those innocent hundreds of millions of people, surfing the net, not knowing what fate awaiting them. I had to warn them. I went to chat rooms, news groups, bulletin boards, and at each place I've warned anyone I just could about internet addiciton. In the meanwhile, I continued to look for more information. I no longer searched altavista alone. It is well known each search engine index only small part of the web. So I started using multi-search pages that search through lycos, excite, infoseek, GoTo, thunderstone, hotbot and opentext. I searched dejanews for new discussions on the subject, 5 times a day. I was visiting regularely 200 sites dealing with internet addiction each day to look directly for more information.
I became obsessed with it, spending each day 12-16 hours on the net, searching, reading and writing to people on the subject. I stopped sleeping regularely, I've missed work days. I neglected my wife and children. I got fired from work. My wife left me. My kids would not speak to me. And then I realized I am in deep trouble.
So I went to the nearest rehabilitation center. "What do you know about internet addiction disorder?" Dr. Strausse asked me at the first interview. Hearing this question made me shake with excitement. The dopamine level in my brain reached new hights. I spilled facts and numbers. Quoted reaserches and surveys. Told him real life stories about internet addicts, until he stopped me.
"Sorry", he said, "I am afraid I can't help you. You are a lost case. You long crossed the point of no return".
"But there is more", I told him. "Don't you want to listen?" I begged, "I know more"
He had to send for the nurse to drag me out of his office, while I was begging to tell him more about the dangers of internet addiction. "But wait, there is this new survey which is about to be published
The nurse pushed me into the cab, with explicit instruction to take me straight home. "Stop!" I shouted as I spotted an internet cafe on the way. "I want to get down here!".
Few days later they found me unconscious, my shirt all dirty from stains of coffee and pizza, my head lying on the keyboard. When I woke up, I found myself tied to an hospital bad. "What am I doing here?" I asked. "And why can't I move my arms?"
"Relax", told me an authorative voice. "I'm prof. Uffliner. I came here as soon as I could. Dr. Strausse think I'm the only one that can help you". "prof. Uffliner!" I was totally excited. "I'm your greatest fan! I've read all about your work
"I'm sorry", he said. "I am afraid I can't let you get exposed to any additional information right now".
Yes, I knew all about prof. Uffliner's methods. Total deprivation of any on-line connection. Isolation from the net, for as long as it takes until I'm rehabilitated. Its a torture! I didn't know if I could take it. I felt as if my whole body was on fire. I asked for it. I begged for it. My face twisted and I had foam at the mouth. "just one minute to check deja-news!" I begged. They just ignored me.
Those where the longest and most horrible three months of my life. At the end of those three months they untied me.My wife came for me. "I've heard all you've been through", she said. "they say there is a chance you may get back to normal, but you need a year of total isolation from everything that have anything that talks about the net. No newspapers. No TV no radio. I just know what we need! We'll go to my father's summer-house in the mountains. It will be a great opportunity to rebuild out relationship! Just like a very long second honeymoon!" She said with excitement.
Well, thats about it. I'm still in a support group, and from time to time I have this urge to go back to the keyboard, but I manage to resist it. My wife and kids are very supportive. They really help. So that's my story.
But be warned. Not all are as lucky as I've been.
I'm from Israel, one of the other countries effected by the export regulations. The reason Israel is effected by the export regulations is that our country refused to sign the treaty concerning nuclear weapons.
Now, guess who was the first client that got a Cray supercomputer, with the blessing of the US government? Right, the defense ministry. And at the same time, Israeli academic institutes couldn't even dream of getting such a computer. Now, go figure the logic behind it
It seems like those export regulations long lost their point. It is true that computing power is needed for simulation of nuclear weapons - while the A-bombs in WWII where made without a computer - a simulation can be used to create even deadlier weapons using radioactive isotops which are easier to produce. The biggest problem is the detonation. There is a need to calculate the exact position and activation time of the different detinators in the bomb to make an efficient and fast chain-reaction.
Anyway, personal computer power has reached the point where it can solve those problems several years ago, so what are they trying to prevent now?
In nuclear physics there is critical mass neaded for the chain-reaction to be possible (probable) and for the bomb to explode. Likewise, there is "critical computing power" needed to develop nuclear weapons. Once we're past that point, increase in computing power won't change anything.
Wonder about mindcraft dealings with Microsoft? A quick look at mindcraft's main page makes you wonder even harder.
... what a surprise, they did some good efforts there as well to prove NT is much superior to each of the other alternatives (NT was 2.6x faster ...).
...
In addition to the Linux vs. NT, there are two other report: One that compares WinNT to Novell Netware 5.0, and another and compares WinNT to Solaris on an UltraSparc, and
Now, you may wonder: who sponsored both of the other tests? The NT vs. NetWare was sponsored by MS, and I bet the other report was sponsored by just the same company.
It is interesting to note Mindcraft didn't expose at first who sponsored their NT vs. Netware study, as the client "did not authorize us to disclose their name". Only after publicly critisized by Novell, they published MS payed them for an "independent and unbiased assessment" - yeh, sure.
And if you still need more evidence about Mindcraft dealing with Microsoft, MS also payed them to prove that microsoft did nothing malicious to cause Quicktime plugins to fail. This was, if you remember, they main claim of apple against MS.
It's always good to have friend$$$ in the business