Everyone is really missing the crux of this. Gary wasn't beaten by Big Blue, he was beaten by a team of programmers clever code. The machine is just a means, the code was his opponent.
Well duh. That's how computers do anything. So you won't be satisfied unless, say, a toaster could beat him out of the box?
That said, I'd wager by 2017 that a computer will have enough brute force power to simply guess all possible moves in Go or at least enough to be a human the majority of the time.
How you'll keep those folks from cheating your chess matches I don't know.
It's already happened many times. There are a few tournaments with large class prizes, where weaker players have chance to win a lot of money, and a bunch of those guys have been caught.
That's the funny thing about jokes online. If somebody doesn't get a joke, they're an idiot. And if you don't get their joke, well, they're still an idiot.
Google do themselves and their stakeholders no favours by artifically limiting their market
Don't you think it's reasonable to test out new ideas before doing them on a wider scale? It's not like it's free. There's a lot of support on Google's side that has to go into it. If it turns out to work well then of course it will expand.
While I agree that the big content holders don't deserve any sympathy, there are artists out there that actually ARE hurting from piracy.
Yet another reason for reformation of copyright law. As "clever" as Disney et. al. think they were, there are repercussions and eventual consequences to shoving through self-serving laws. One of those is that people stop respecting the law.
To hit an actual menu item I have two dimensions to worry about, and whilst one may be constrained (by the top of the screen) the other certainly isn't.
That's true. But you still have the top of the screen to act like a railing, allowing you to click anywhere and then just slide left or right to the correct menu, and without requiring a precise movement. And because it's a single menu bar not constrained to its window the menu names themselves can be larger. Bigger targets are easier to hit.
Those are the ideas behind the 'universal' menu bar, and were borne out in studies. Another interesting aspect of the studies was that many people thought that in-window menus were faster, despite the actual measurement showing the opposite.
If someone sees a fault in my math or reasoning, please point it out to me.
Cursor speed is not constant. You can just throw it towards the menu bar. This works because it's impossible to overshoot the target. With a local menu you have to carefully move to it.
In poker you have a finite number of cards, that are a lot smaller than the permutation of moves in chess or checkers.
in only a single paragraph and a few moments thought, yet another slashdotter solves a problem up until now considered rather difficult. The power of this site is amazing!
What I don't get is why all those so-called "researchers" don't just post an "ask slashdot" instead of fiddling away for years trying to figure it out.
a formal Rule 68 offer of judgment is something different than that. It's kind of a dare.
It seems like such a powerful tool that it would be almost automatic to offer a small amount. What happens in cases where it isn't done? Are costs typically shared evenly?
I didn't say everyone will. That would be an absurd statement. That's not the point. The point is you *can't* know now. If you want to do something, get a piercing. Or ten. You can take them out if you later decide it wasn't such a good idea. How many people do you know who had a piercing who later took it out? That right there should hint that people change their minds about things as time passes.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's because lose is pronounced differently from all other words spelled with a single "ose"?
Hose, nose, pose, rose, and...uh, dose.
Well duh. That's how computers do anything. So you won't be satisfied unless, say, a toaster could beat him out of the box?
You'd lose.
It's already happened many times. There are a few tournaments with large class prizes, where weaker players have chance to win a lot of money, and a bunch of those guys have been caught.
I think that was part of his point. He was using that to attempt to point out flawed reasoning in the gp.
I thought when he said bullet point maybe he meant they would whip out some powerpoint presentation. Hey, it makes about as much sense.
That's the funny thing about jokes online. If somebody doesn't get a joke, they're an idiot. And if you don't get their joke, well, they're still an idiot.
Don't you think it's reasonable to test out new ideas before doing them on a wider scale? It's not like it's free. There's a lot of support on Google's side that has to go into it. If it turns out to work well then of course it will expand.
loop_1:
if(bail_on_1) goto loop_done;
reset_bail_2;
loop_2:
if(bail_on_2) goto loop_1;
do_work;
if(bail_on_2) goto loop_extra_check_for_safety;
goto loop_2;
loop_extra_check_for_safety:
if(bail_on_2) goto loop_1;
goto loop_2;
loop_done:
ta_da;
Yet another reason for reformation of copyright law. As "clever" as Disney et. al. think they were, there are repercussions and eventual consequences to shoving through self-serving laws. One of those is that people stop respecting the law.
And smart-asses are resentated.
That's one I happen to agree with ;-)
That's true. But you still have the top of the screen to act like a railing, allowing you to click anywhere and then just slide left or right to the correct menu, and without requiring a precise movement. And because it's a single menu bar not constrained to its window the menu names themselves can be larger. Bigger targets are easier to hit.
Those are the ideas behind the 'universal' menu bar, and were borne out in studies. Another interesting aspect of the studies was that many people thought that in-window menus were faster, despite the actual measurement showing the opposite.
Cursor speed is not constant. You can just throw it towards the menu bar. This works because it's impossible to overshoot the target. With a local menu you have to carefully move to it.
Well if he were going to do that he probably wouldn't announce it.
in only a single paragraph and a few moments thought, yet another slashdotter solves a problem up until now considered rather difficult. The power of this site is amazing!
What I don't get is why all those so-called "researchers" don't just post an "ask slashdot" instead of fiddling away for years trying to figure it out.
Well I laughed, anyway.
Two years is being kind. And back in the 90's the signal-to-noise ratio was amazing. (or maybe I just remember it that way.)
And I suppose you also think that butter knives are made out of butter.
Vigilante justice - the mark of the civilized man. String 'em up first, ask questions later. Your logic has been used to justify uncountable wrongs.
The Microsoft CFO seems to disagree with you.
It seems like such a powerful tool that it would be almost automatic to offer a small amount. What happens in cases where it isn't done? Are costs typically shared evenly?
So you're saying that the law should be constructed around the fringe cases rather than the normal?
I didn't say everyone will. That would be an absurd statement. That's not the point. The point is you *can't* know now. If you want to do something, get a piercing. Or ten. You can take them out if you later decide it wasn't such a good idea. How many people do you know who had a piercing who later took it out? That right there should hint that people change their minds about things as time passes.
He said "Who gives a shit about the RIAA or what they do," so why was he reading the story? Was it really necessary for me to explain that?