This is the first thing I thought of when I read the summary also.
According to Wikipedia, rechargeable Zinc-Air fuel cells do exist, and ReVolt has developed rechargeable Zinc-Air batteries for use in vehicles, although they are not on the market yet.
Lithium-Air was first suggested for powering cars in the 1970's, but there is a whole host of challenges listed on that page. The biggest issue is dealing with oxidation from the environment. IBM seems to have put out this article just to draw attention to the concept, but I don't think they've actually solved any of the problems.
Well, he probably wasn't aware exactly which model of monitor you had. Generalizations tend to be bad for this reason.
I, for example, have an LCD projector with a dynamic iris. It dims the bulb for dark scenes, and it is only for the improvement in contrast ratios. I know this, because it doesn't dim the bulb by decreasing the voltage over the filament, but by closing shutters (the iris) between the bulb and the LCD panel. It's described in more detail here
I don't know the full history of the feature on monitors, but I'd assume it was originally to increase contrast ratio. After one marketer slapped a "energy efficient" sticker on the box, the manufacturers realized the marketing benefit of the feature, and probably renamed the menu for later models.
Only the slashdot summary makes this mistake. The actual article is written by someone who knows a lot more about the subject than the slashdot submitter and the slashdot editor who approved this story.
Who ever brought up sympathy? I think you're in the wrong discussion.
There's a company with a professionally managed network (let's call it Goliath) that has huge open vulnerabilities. All the adults stand around and point, and discuss it. "I'd take it down, to show how bad this vulnerability is, except that it's too easy. It's not that I'm afraid of being caught... No, no, I'm not chicken. It's just... below me."
Finally some 15 year old kiddie named David steps up, and says "Why are you so afraid of Goliath? Give me a bash-style sling, and 5 smooth scripts, and I'll take it down!"
As David is hauled off to prison, the adults observing the matter continue to discuss it: "Well, he deserves prison. I have no sympathy for sling and smooth scripts kiddies."
11982 has now eluded solution by probably thousands of human solvers, and at least eight independent computer programs I am aware of (most of which are designed to search exhaustively for a solution), and I am confident in calling it impossible.
I really wish the FAQ had been linked from the slashdot summary, it's far more interesting, and better written than the gaemological.com article.
As I understand the quote above, there is at least 5 different programs (ie. more than half of "at least eight") that have solved hand 11982, and all arrived at the same solution: #11982 is not winnable. This has persuaded the FAQ's author to call [winning the hand] impossible.
The great-grandparent of this post said that you have "proven the hand unsolvable", when he probably meant to say "proven the hand unwinnable."
So, the post you replied to was correct. If something is "demonstrated to be unsolveable", then nothing has been proven. I'm not sure if it's relevant, however, unless we are all extremely concerned about the proof-reading ability of the great-grandparent.
It would be easy to write a program to brute force it...which would be a proof even if there's no fancy theory telling you why.
Um, writing a program to "brute force it" is always easy. The notion of "brute force" is that you don't worry about optimizations, because the problem you are solving can be solved in the given time, even without reducing the problem space. Therefore, the writing of a brute force method is always "easy".
Unfortunately, if the problem space is already reduced by identifying equivalent states, or by other elimination factors, and it still takes too long, then the solution is never to "brute-force it". That would mean to throw away all your optimizations, and run an inefficient search. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that they do that.
My point (in the top post of this thread) was that the article is vague, which is very bad form for mathematical subject matter.
If you have to assume that they went "so far that...", then you've proved the point. The article is vague.
I really want to tell my friends that one of the 32,000 is cannot be won, and the article certainly seems to imply this, but from the article, it's just not clear if that is true.
The hypothetical question above ("At what point... consider the experiment finished?") has a very simple answer. Once you give up and stop researching the problem, you can consider the experiment finished. The bigger question (What is required for the experiment to be successful) was implied, but not asked.
It doesn't look like he ever proved that the hand in question was not solvable. It only claims that by having many human players try to solve it and several different AI approaches, that it was never solved.
The article ends by implying that this was a victory, because the outcome of all 32,000 hands is now known. But, as far as I can tell, one hand is still undecided!
So, funding fusion projects on kickstarter has been done before. The lack of meaningful rewards for supporters means that it's unlikely to ever be a great funding method.
No one thinks that the cable quality isn't important. For long runs, it is very important. But, the cables sold at Best Buy don't have important information (like the gauge of the cable) on the packaging, and they are terribly over priced (often priced 5-10 times higher than they should).
There is a vault of very valuable information about buying the right cables to avoid signal loss at this site. The "Tartan" brand cables made by the owners of that site are extremely good for the price, and I use them exclusively for anything over 15-20 feet.
One of the popular Bible apps on the IOS appstore is made by a friend of mine. He's Southern Baptist.
The first mobile Bible App I ever used was the "Pocket e-Sword" developed for PocketPC in 2000. I used it in a very conservative Baptist church back in about 2001, and no one thought it was strange. That was 11 year ago.
It's written in English, so it is most likely using the short-scale (American system, as you call it). The U.S. has always used the short scale system, and the U.K. (and almost all other English speaking countries) have used it since 1974.
The long system is hardly used any place outside of Europe. So, this is one of the strange cases where the U.S. and the U.K. use the same system, and it's the system used by the majority of the world. In this case, it is France/Italy/Germany/Spain/Portugal/Netherlends that insist on using their own system.
That's the first thing that I thought of too, so I figured the article may specify that it was the "most sensitive spring scale" or "most sensitive balance", so that mass spectrometry instruments would be excluded.
But, after reading the very poorly made article, It looks like it is neither a scale nor a balance. Instead, a molecule of Xenon was placed on nanotubes, and the way that the nanotubes "vibrate" determines how much mass was resting upon them. The xenon does not form any bonds with the scale's surface, and I think the only interaction is gravitational, so maybe this could be considered a scale, in a way.
I would guess that another article with more precise wording exists some place, but I can't find any such article on the web.
Well, that's obviously what will happen if teachers actually use this software. As soon as "grammar-parsing" software is used for grading, students will buy copies of it to make sure nothing is flagged as incorrect. The next step will be versions that can write the essays also.
They sound fancy and smart. Even the dumbest character with a British accent sounds smarter.
Hey, you need some qualifiers in that statement. There are a lot of different British accents, and even us Americans can pick up the differences.
Think about it... A lot of the humor in Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail is based on different types of British accents, many of which cause the actor to appear as a dumb character.
Pollster: Do you believe that the government should fund a $500 million grant to a group study whether noise pollution from road work crews affects bird mating behaviors? Conservative: Um, I don't really think that's a pressing issue. And $500 million seems like an auful lot of money. Pollster: So, you're against the spending of that money that way? Conservatve: That's right. Pollster tallies one more conservative who doesn't believe in science
If you “believe” in science, you’re doing it wrong.
The whole article is about a study or poll (it's hard to tell which one) that indicates conservatives don't "believe" in "science". Yet there is nothing in the article that illustrates what types of questions were asked to come to this conclusion, nor is there any indication what the margin of error was or how different responses were based on political leanings.
It seems clear that this article was a title first, and then they crafted the article around the title. No research or poll was done.
I think a better way to state it, would be to say that efficiency per square foot of ground used is not important, unless the cost of the cells come down.
Now that there is word of a new manufacturing process to reduce cost, two weeks later, we find an article about how to arrange low-cost cells.
There are lots of addons that help with redstone wiring. The premiere one is probably RedPower2. In addition to giving unit-sized gates, latches, and flip-flops, it also gives buses, which can carry 8 bits of data along a single line.
I just can't believe that this is all done without addons. Even building a BDD (Binary to Decimal Decoder) is difficult in Minecraft, and translating that to display the correct digits is complex. I don't mean "complex so that a child couldn't understand it", but complex as in taking a lot of clock cycles. There are only 20 ticks per second in Minecraft, so all these operations quickly add up to a lot of time.
In addition to binary/decimal conversions, and the logic for doing complex operations (dividing is very hard), this calculator even has typesetting. When you have a power, it places the the displayed value as a superscript! Radicals are drawn over values for the SQRT operations!
In essence, I'm a bit skeptical about this. I believed it when I first saw it a few days ago, but the more I think about it, I think it's all staged. I'm curious to see what others think.
As far as my own redstone experience: I've done far more than the average minecraft player, including building adders and counters, but haven't ever attempted any mega projects.
I want to contradict you, but after reading the entire article, there's no claim that he had actually proved a way to beat the house, even with his custom rule changes.
The article seems to indicate that he always like gambling (ie. playing even when you can lose), but only increased his rate of gambling once he started getting these special custom deals. Since he hadn't played big before, he wasn't known at the time, and that gave him the opportunity to get in and out fast. The evidence that he took enough from 3 chains to be banned is anecdotal evidence only.
I saw a 60-minutes special on a sports gambler who hired 4-5 people to do full-time research for him. He turned it into a sustainable business, and kept extremely close records of every wager placed. I don't see any evidence that Don Johnson has done the same thing. He could have won big a few places and been thrown out, and lost just as much at other casinos, and the article would still have been written.
Europe had a record setting winter, where they shattered many records for both snow and cold, and 112 people died, but it still rather a rather minor rate of change compared to what the world saw in the 1500's.
I really think that people have begun to freak out lately, just because we keep such careful records today. When they had abnormally warm or cold days in the U.S. in the 1800's, no one knew for sure how abnormal they were. Now we have data to compare, and we've become hypochondriacs.
then raise the (guess) 100 trillion to build it. Maybe 200-500 years.
That's actually rather optimistic, in my opinion. The catastrophic devastation that would be caused by a collapse is enough to prevent such a structure from ever being built. And unless we suddenly develop some kind of miracle material that makes nanotubes look ordinary, we'll never have the material needed anyway.
Because in the bigger view, most games in these categories will eventually be playable by computers - it's only because chess was so famous that the proper programming theory developed in with advances in comp science.
Arimaa is a game designed to take the place of chess. It can be played with a chess board and pieces, and there's been a $10,000 challenge to develop an AI that can beat a top human player. The challenge has been around for a long time, and is good through the year 2020.
Computers may overtake humans in Go, just because we've seen human ability has already pretty much peaked in the game. It was a hugely popular game 50 years ago, but kids aren't learning it and playing it today. So, we already know what mark AI has to meet.
Arimaa is still growing in popularity. The champions today are much better than those 10 years ago, and dominant strategies among top players are still being debated and changed. Even though the game can be brute-force searched easier than Go, I think humans will hold the edge in it considerably longer than Go.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the first thing I thought of when I read the summary also.
According to Wikipedia, rechargeable Zinc-Air fuel cells do exist, and ReVolt has developed rechargeable Zinc-Air batteries for use in vehicles, although they are not on the market yet.
Lithium-Air was first suggested for powering cars in the 1970's, but there is a whole host of challenges listed on that page. The biggest issue is dealing with oxidation from the environment. IBM seems to have put out this article just to draw attention to the concept, but I don't think they've actually solved any of the problems.
Well, he probably wasn't aware exactly which model of monitor you had. Generalizations tend to be bad for this reason.
I, for example, have an LCD projector with a dynamic iris. It dims the bulb for dark scenes, and it is only for the improvement in contrast ratios. I know this, because it doesn't dim the bulb by decreasing the voltage over the filament, but by closing shutters (the iris) between the bulb and the LCD panel. It's described in more detail here
I don't know the full history of the feature on monitors, but I'd assume it was originally to increase contrast ratio. After one marketer slapped a "energy efficient" sticker on the box, the manufacturers realized the marketing benefit of the feature, and probably renamed the menu for later models.
You are correct.
Only the slashdot summary makes this mistake. The actual article is written by someone who knows a lot more about the subject than the slashdot submitter and the slashdot editor who approved this story.
Who ever brought up sympathy? I think you're in the wrong discussion.
There's a company with a professionally managed network (let's call it Goliath) that has huge open vulnerabilities. All the adults stand around and point, and discuss it. "I'd take it down, to show how bad this vulnerability is, except that it's too easy. It's not that I'm afraid of being caught... No, no, I'm not chicken. It's just... below me."
Finally some 15 year old kiddie named David steps up, and says "Why are you so afraid of Goliath? Give me a bash-style sling, and 5 smooth scripts, and I'll take it down!"
As David is hauled off to prison, the adults observing the matter continue to discuss it: "Well, he deserves prison. I have no sympathy for sling and smooth scripts kiddies."
The article seemed to imply that it was proved unwinnable, but never absolutely stated it..
I found something a little better: http://www.solitairelaboratory.com/fcfaq.html
11982 has now eluded solution by probably thousands of human solvers, and at least eight independent computer programs I am aware of (most of which are designed to search exhaustively for a solution), and I am confident in calling it impossible.
I really wish the FAQ had been linked from the slashdot summary, it's far more interesting, and better written than the gaemological.com article.
As I understand the quote above, there is at least 5 different programs (ie. more than half of "at least eight") that have solved hand 11982, and all arrived at the same solution: #11982 is not winnable. This has persuaded the FAQ's author to call [winning the hand] impossible.
The great-grandparent of this post said that you have "proven the hand unsolvable", when he probably meant to say "proven the hand unwinnable."
So, the post you replied to was correct. If something is "demonstrated to be unsolveable", then nothing has been proven. I'm not sure if it's relevant, however, unless we are all extremely concerned about the proof-reading ability of the great-grandparent.
It would be easy to write a program to brute force it...which would be a proof even if there's no fancy theory telling you why.
Um, writing a program to "brute force it" is always easy. The notion of "brute force" is that you don't worry about optimizations, because the problem you are solving can be solved in the given time, even without reducing the problem space. Therefore, the writing of a brute force method is always "easy".
Unfortunately, if the problem space is already reduced by identifying equivalent states, or by other elimination factors, and it still takes too long, then the solution is never to "brute-force it". That would mean to throw away all your optimizations, and run an inefficient search. I'm not sure why you are suggesting that they do that.
My point (in the top post of this thread) was that the article is vague, which is very bad form for mathematical subject matter.
If you have to assume that they went "so far that...", then you've proved the point. The article is vague.
I really want to tell my friends that one of the 32,000 is cannot be won, and the article certainly seems to imply this, but from the article, it's just not clear if that is true.
The hypothetical question above ("At what point ... consider the experiment finished?") has a very simple answer. Once you give up and stop researching the problem, you can consider the experiment finished. The bigger question (What is required for the experiment to be successful) was implied, but not asked.
It doesn't look like he ever proved that the hand in question was not solvable. It only claims that by having many human players try to solve it and several different AI approaches, that it was never solved.
The article ends by implying that this was a victory, because the outcome of all 32,000 hands is now known. But, as far as I can tell, one hand is still undecided!
obligatory link.
So, funding fusion projects on kickstarter has been done before. The lack of meaningful rewards for supporters means that it's unlikely to ever be a great funding method.
No one thinks that the cable quality isn't important. For long runs, it is very important. But, the cables sold at Best Buy don't have important information (like the gauge of the cable) on the packaging, and they are terribly over priced (often priced 5-10 times higher than they should).
There is a vault of very valuable information about buying the right cables to avoid signal loss at this site. The "Tartan" brand cables made by the owners of that site are extremely good for the price, and I use them exclusively for anything over 15-20 feet.
One of the popular Bible apps on the IOS appstore is made by a friend of mine. He's Southern Baptist.
The first mobile Bible App I ever used was the "Pocket e-Sword" developed for PocketPC in 2000. I used it in a very conservative Baptist church back in about 2001, and no one thought it was strange. That was 11 year ago.
It's written in English, so it is most likely using the short-scale (American system, as you call it). The U.S. has always used the short scale system, and the U.K. (and almost all other English speaking countries) have used it since 1974.
The long system is hardly used any place outside of Europe. So, this is one of the strange cases where the U.S. and the U.K. use the same system, and it's the system used by the majority of the world. In this case, it is France/Italy/Germany/Spain/Portugal/Netherlends that insist on using their own system.
That's the first thing that I thought of too, so I figured the article may specify that it was the "most sensitive spring scale" or "most sensitive balance", so that mass spectrometry instruments would be excluded.
But, after reading the very poorly made article, It looks like it is neither a scale nor a balance. Instead, a molecule of Xenon was placed on nanotubes, and the way that the nanotubes "vibrate" determines how much mass was resting upon them. The xenon does not form any bonds with the scale's surface, and I think the only interaction is gravitational, so maybe this could be considered a scale, in a way.
I would guess that another article with more precise wording exists some place, but I can't find any such article on the web.
Well, that's obviously what will happen if teachers actually use this software. As soon as "grammar-parsing" software is used for grading, students will buy copies of it to make sure nothing is flagged as incorrect. The next step will be versions that can write the essays also.
They sound fancy and smart. Even the dumbest character with a British accent sounds smarter.
Hey, you need some qualifiers in that statement. There are a lot of different British accents, and even us Americans can pick up the differences.
Think about it... A lot of the humor in Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail is based on different types of British accents, many of which cause the actor to appear as a dumb character.
Pollster: Do you believe that the government should fund a $500 million grant to a group study whether noise pollution from road work crews affects bird mating behaviors?
Conservative: Um, I don't really think that's a pressing issue. And $500 million seems like an auful lot of money.
Pollster: So, you're against the spending of that money that way?
Conservatve: That's right.
Pollster tallies one more conservative who doesn't believe in science
The first response on TFA is
The whole article is about a study or poll (it's hard to tell which one) that indicates conservatives don't "believe" in "science". Yet there is nothing in the article that illustrates what types of questions were asked to come to this conclusion, nor is there any indication what the margin of error was or how different responses were based on political leanings.
It seems clear that this article was a title first, and then they crafted the article around the title. No research or poll was done.
Bah. If I'm behind you, that's negative distance!
Actually, that's negative displacement.
Distance is a well defined term, both in physics and mathematics, and can never be negative or non-real.
The Ion cannon article was featured on Slashdot two weeks ago.
I think a better way to state it, would be to say that efficiency per square foot of ground used is not important, unless the cost of the cells come down.
Now that there is word of a new manufacturing process to reduce cost, two weeks later, we find an article about how to arrange low-cost cells.
There are lots of addons that help with redstone wiring. The premiere one is probably RedPower2. In addition to giving unit-sized gates, latches, and flip-flops, it also gives buses, which can carry 8 bits of data along a single line.
I just can't believe that this is all done without addons. Even building a BDD (Binary to Decimal Decoder) is difficult in Minecraft, and translating that to display the correct digits is complex. I don't mean "complex so that a child couldn't understand it", but complex as in taking a lot of clock cycles. There are only 20 ticks per second in Minecraft, so all these operations quickly add up to a lot of time.
In addition to binary/decimal conversions, and the logic for doing complex operations (dividing is very hard), this calculator even has typesetting. When you have a power, it places the the displayed value as a superscript! Radicals are drawn over values for the SQRT operations!
In essence, I'm a bit skeptical about this. I believed it when I first saw it a few days ago, but the more I think about it, I think it's all staged. I'm curious to see what others think.
As far as my own redstone experience: I've done far more than the average minecraft player, including building adders and counters, but haven't ever attempted any mega projects.
I want to contradict you, but after reading the entire article, there's no claim that he had actually proved a way to beat the house, even with his custom rule changes.
The article seems to indicate that he always like gambling (ie. playing even when you can lose), but only increased his rate of gambling once he started getting these special custom deals. Since he hadn't played big before, he wasn't known at the time, and that gave him the opportunity to get in and out fast. The evidence that he took enough from 3 chains to be banned is anecdotal evidence only.
I saw a 60-minutes special on a sports gambler who hired 4-5 people to do full-time research for him. He turned it into a sustainable business, and kept extremely close records of every wager placed. I don't see any evidence that Don Johnson has done the same thing. He could have won big a few places and been thrown out, and lost just as much at other casinos, and the article would still have been written.
Europe had a record setting winter, where they shattered many records for both snow and cold, and 112 people died, but it still rather a rather minor rate of change compared to what the world saw in the 1500's.
I really think that people have begun to freak out lately, just because we keep such careful records today. When they had abnormally warm or cold days in the U.S. in the 1800's, no one knew for sure how abnormal they were. Now we have data to compare, and we've become hypochondriacs.
then raise the (guess) 100 trillion to build it. Maybe 200-500 years.
That's actually rather optimistic, in my opinion. The catastrophic devastation that would be caused by a collapse is enough to prevent such a structure from ever being built. And unless we suddenly develop some kind of miracle material that makes nanotubes look ordinary, we'll never have the material needed anyway.
Because in the bigger view, most games in these categories will eventually be playable by computers - it's only because chess was so famous that the proper programming theory developed in with advances in comp science.
Arimaa is a game designed to take the place of chess. It can be played with a chess board and pieces, and there's been a $10,000 challenge to develop an AI that can beat a top human player. The challenge has been around for a long time, and is good through the year 2020.
Computers may overtake humans in Go, just because we've seen human ability has already pretty much peaked in the game. It was a hugely popular game 50 years ago, but kids aren't learning it and playing it today. So, we already know what mark AI has to meet.
Arimaa is still growing in popularity. The champions today are much better than those 10 years ago, and dominant strategies among top players are still being debated and changed. Even though the game can be brute-force searched easier than Go, I think humans will hold the edge in it considerably longer than Go.