Hmm, not sure. This is a tricky one. But if you send out messages, I think it's your responsiblity to find out what the recipient is going to do with them.
No analogy is great for this situation, but say you sent a letter to the address marked for the letters page of your local newspaper. The editor surely has the right to print anything legal that is sent to that address since that is the reason the address exists.
Similarly, if a spammer sends a spam to someone hosting a spam prevention site that would seem to be to be almost a/request/ to be added. If the spammer is flooding random addresses with crap, s/he can't complain about what happens to the messages. What happens if one address ends up at a script which automatically posts to a website everything that is sent to it?
I'm not sure the analogy with broadcast media holds, because email is not really designed for broadcasting (even if the spammer is attempting to treat it like it is.)
15%??? Did you leave out a decimal point there? I call your bluff. Name of the union please.
And can someone really be fired for not being in a union (I presume in the US)? In the UK I beleive we have laws enforcing your right to join or not join a union.
I know how the theory goes. But as a black box, the system guarantees that only the intended person (etc.) gets the decrypted data. Someone reading stray photons does not compromise the system as the original poster claimed, but perhaps they were trolling.
This would be at the detriment of the security of the key as the greater the signal strength, the more photons it carries, the easier it is to split off a portion of the beam to be read
Isn't the whole point of cryptography that information can be sent freely with only the intended recipient being able to easily decrypt it? And isn't the point of quantum cryptography to guarantee that only the intended recipient can decrypt it?
The meta tags could be useful again, if there were some limitations. Say, perhaps, we were limited to 5 description tags, and as an industry standard, the remainder were ignored
Yes indeed. Or have some sort of logarithmic scale where the "power" of one of your tags decreases as the total number of description tags the document has increases. So if you searched for "sex", you'd get a document with just a "sex" tag ranked higher than one with "sex" and "beer" tags. I considered writing a test search engine like this, but then Google came along and hijacking searches became very difficult anyway.
Don't use GNU sofware then if you're that outraged. All they've done is give you some free software for free with a request that you call it by a certain name. At least don't whine about it if you're going to take their software and not honour that request.
Get a checksum from each bot and maybe someway to track parentage and see who's dominating. This should hopefully avoid compeltely stupid robots and robots that are really good at killing their stupid offspring but nothing else.
I'm unconvinced! Unless you're going to code the bots yourself using a bit of pyschology, your only measure of success is going to be how could your robots are at beating the examples you give them.
I assume the orginal poster meant to evolve programs before the contest. This is difficult though; what measure are you going to use to select the best robots? The sample ones? Your other generated robots? I don't think a genetic approach like this would work very well. I imagine there must be quite a bit of psychology in programming these robots - a robot that is devastating against one robot is likely to be very susceptible against the tactics of another. How do you avoid the rock-paper-scissors vulnerability?
And evolving the bytecode would be hard. Much easier to use a higher level evolving system. You could constrain the programs you generate to a certain grammar at least to eliminate your problem of evolving syntactically-incorrect programs.
There have been successful GP systems evolving programs at the machine code level, but none that I'm aware of based on Java bytecode.
An idea that occurs to me: maybe you could use a simple GA system with a small number of parameters (gun fire rate, shot power, attraction to certain corners etc.) and try and measure your opponents' values for these (maybe hard, I forget how much information you have access to in the game) and try and combine the parameters of the best robots in your tournament. This might take a lot of rounds though before you found the best combination. Or if you were allowed to enter several robots and have them swap genetic material at the end of a round.
I've played with the system, and it's a lot of fun. Especially if you can get a few friends to enter robots.
I'm surprised more authors haven't released books in electronic form. Think of the extra features they could add. Imagine, for example, a DVD version with the text of the book, a reading of the book by the author, interviews, copies of draft versions of the book, an "author's commentary" of notes parallel to teh main text, illustrations etc. "Deleted" scenes, hmm. Biographies of the main characters.
I'm thinking of several works by several authors I would be interested in buying a "special edition" of.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
I thought you were saying that TV license officers were implicitly granted a warrant to search your pad - obviously not.
As for the letters - well, that didn't happen to me. I just ignored the first one.
I agree, though, that the way it works is crap. I don't understand why the license fee isn't just abolished and the BBC not funded out of the general taxation system. A lot of cash & police & court time must be wasted.
and they automatically get granted search warrants to break into and search your property
Actually I'm sure[*] this is untrue. Just ignore the letters asking you to buy a TV license and no one will come to check up on you, at least in person. I've never had a problem. If anyone does appear, just refuse to let them into your [flat|house], as they do not have automatic search warrant rights (I've heard that the tactic they use is to knock on your door and tell you that they've come to check if you have a TV without telling you you have a right to refuse tehm entry.) Even if they discover you have a TV without a license I believe they give you a warning in the first instance.
A large misconception about this game is that it's "free". When you consider the fact that it was paid for with our tax dollars, you can throw that idea out the window.
Not for those of us who aren't USian as has already been pointed out:)
Besides, I'd rather see as much military cash as possible being spent on computer games if the alternatives are to spend it on bombs and bullets.
This is simply incorrect. I'd suggest you look up the difference between `sign' and `ratify', and then go back and read your own article. 73 nations have signed the treaty, but far, far fewer have ratified it. *Sigh* You know, you're rather amusingly wrong. Not only do I know the difference between ratifying and signing, I was correct: 73 nations have ratified the treaty. 84 have actually signed it. (Source.) It certainly makes your statement about almost no one having signed it look a bit stupid.
has no legal impact until they do so and enough other nations to make up 55% of the world's emissions do so Which should be a formality, since Russia seems almost certain to sign it.
In comparison, many less developed nations, such as China, which make up a huge percentage of the world's emissions, are not even restricted by the treaty. The US alone produces >36% of the world's CO2 emissions. China produces about half of that, and that's in absolute terms, not per capita. Obviously developing countries, since they produce a tiny percentage of the world's emissions are going to get more leeway under the treaty.
This article [jewishworldreview.com] is a good place to start. Didn't read anything on that link about CO2 emissons. The fact remains that the US, by any reasonable measurement, is by far the world's biggest polluter.
Almost no one else ratified it? Hahaha, you have been brainwashed by the US corporate education system (unless you're a troll... but your ignorant views seems fairly consistent in your user history.) Actually 73 countries have ratified it so far. Japan did so today. And all 15 EU states have ratified it as well. Which countries were you thinking of that haven't signed it?
while not placing any restrictions on those nations using the most pollution-heavy technologies What, you mean the US?
Europe loves the idea of the US signing, because they don't manufacture much anymore anyway Are you trolling or are you just stupid?
for a US economy which is producing less pollution every year anyway, the treaty offers nothing TThat's news to me. Care to share your source?
But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money
Are you trolling?
From gnu.org:
[Y]ou always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, not sure. This is a tricky one. But if you send out messages, I think it's your responsiblity to find out what the recipient is going to do with them.
/request/ to be added. If the spammer is flooding random addresses with crap, s/he can't complain about what happens to the messages. What happens if one address ends up at a script which automatically posts to a website everything that is sent to it?
No analogy is great for this situation, but say you sent a letter to the address marked for the letters page of your local newspaper. The editor surely has the right to print anything legal that is sent to that address since that is the reason the address exists.
Similarly, if a spammer sends a spam to someone hosting a spam prevention site that would seem to be to be almost a
I'm not sure the analogy with broadcast media holds, because email is not really designed for broadcasting (even if the spammer is attempting to treat it like it is.)
The Leatherman Squirt is even smaller and more useful (IMHO). Looks better too, but costs a bit extra.
15%??? Did you leave out a decimal point there? I call your bluff. Name of the union please.
And can someone really be fired for not being in a union (I presume in the US)? In the UK I beleive we have laws enforcing your right to join or not join a union.
I know how the theory goes. But as a black box, the system guarantees that only the intended person (etc.) gets the decrypted data. Someone reading stray photons does not compromise the system as the original poster claimed, but perhaps they were trolling.
Who said there has to be a decrypting pad? :)
This would be at the detriment of the security of the key as the greater the signal strength, the more photons it carries, the easier it is to split off a portion of the beam to be read
Isn't the whole point of cryptography that information can be sent freely with only the intended recipient being able to easily decrypt it? And isn't the point of quantum cryptography to guarantee that only the intended recipient can decrypt it?
The meta tags could be useful again, if there were some limitations. Say, perhaps, we were limited to 5 description tags, and as an industry standard, the remainder were ignored
Yes indeed. Or have some sort of logarithmic scale where the "power" of one of your tags decreases as the total number of description tags the document has increases. So if you searched for "sex", you'd get a document with just a "sex" tag ranked higher than one with "sex" and "beer" tags. I considered writing a test search engine like this, but then Google came along and hijacking searches became very difficult anyway.
Perhaps the notion of catharsis is correct? Can you post links to some of these studies?
Don't use GNU sofware then if you're that outraged. All they've done is give you some free software for free with a request that you call it by a certain name. At least don't whine about it if you're going to take their software and not honour that request.
Get a checksum from each bot and maybe someway to track parentage and see who's dominating. This should hopefully avoid compeltely stupid robots and robots that are really good at killing their stupid offspring but nothing else.
I'm unconvinced! Unless you're going to code the bots yourself using a bit of pyschology, your only measure of success is going to be how could your robots are at beating the examples you give them.
the coolest part of genetic AI. It comes up with ways to win that normal people wouldn't even think of
On that note, I can't help but mention this story.
Have a look at the comp.ai.genetic faq.
I assume the orginal poster meant to evolve programs before the contest. This is difficult though; what measure are you going to use to select the best robots? The sample ones? Your other generated robots? I don't think a genetic approach like this would work very well. I imagine there must be quite a bit of psychology in programming these robots - a robot that is devastating against one robot is likely to be very susceptible against the tactics of another. How do you avoid the rock-paper-scissors vulnerability?
And evolving the bytecode would be hard. Much easier to use a higher level evolving system. You could constrain the programs you generate to a certain grammar at least to eliminate your problem of evolving syntactically-incorrect programs.
There have been successful GP systems evolving programs at the machine code level, but none that I'm aware of based on Java bytecode.
An idea that occurs to me: maybe you could use a simple GA system with a small number of parameters (gun fire rate, shot power, attraction to certain corners etc.) and try and measure your opponents' values for these (maybe hard, I forget how much information you have access to in the game) and try and combine the parameters of the best robots in your tournament. This might take a lot of rounds though before you found the best combination. Or if you were allowed to enter several robots and have them swap genetic material at the end of a round.
I've played with the system, and it's a lot of fun. Especially if you can get a few friends to enter robots.
anyone with even the smallest knowledge of scientific research can tell you that those results will never get published in any acientific journal
/. story, you'll see that this has /already/ been published in Nature.
'acientific'? Freudian pseudo double-negative?
If you read the article, or even the
I'm surprised more authors haven't released books in electronic form. Think of the extra features they could add. Imagine, for example, a DVD version with the text of the book, a reading of the book by the author, interviews, copies of draft versions of the book, an "author's commentary" of notes parallel to teh main text, illustrations etc. "Deleted" scenes, hmm. Biographies of the main characters.
I'm thinking of several works by several authors I would be interested in buying a "special edition" of.
s/Reasonable/Unreasonable/
Reasonable does not necessarily == bad. See Shaw:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Where is this moon rock you can touch, out of interest?
I thought you were saying that TV license officers were implicitly granted a warrant to search your pad - obviously not.
As for the letters - well, that didn't happen to me. I just ignored the first one.
I agree, though, that the way it works is crap. I don't understand why the license fee isn't just abolished and the BBC not funded out of the general taxation system. A lot of cash & police & court time must be wasted.
and they automatically get granted search warrants to break into and search your property
Actually I'm sure[*] this is untrue. Just ignore the letters asking you to buy a TV license and no one will come to check up on you, at least in person. I've never had a problem. If anyone does appear, just refuse to let them into your [flat|house], as they do not have automatic search warrant rights (I've heard that the tactic they use is to knock on your door and tell you that they've come to check if you have a TV without telling you you have a right to refuse tehm entry.) Even if they discover you have a TV without a license I believe they give you a warning in the first instance.
* Insert usual IANA TV license expert clause
If Sealand wasn't there to provide a "secure" data haven, MI5 would probably have to start their own.
How do you know they didn't?
A large misconception about this game is that it's "free". When you consider the fact that it was paid for with our tax dollars, you can throw that idea out the window.
:)
Not for those of us who aren't USian as has already been pointed out
Besides, I'd rather see as much military cash as possible being spent on computer games if the alternatives are to spend it on bombs and bullets.
This is simply incorrect. I'd suggest you look up the difference between `sign' and `ratify', and then go back and read your own article. 73 nations have signed the treaty, but far, far fewer have ratified it.
*Sigh* You know, you're rather amusingly wrong. Not only do I know the difference between ratifying and signing, I was correct: 73 nations have ratified the treaty. 84 have actually signed it. (Source.) It certainly makes your statement about almost no one having signed it look a bit stupid.
has no legal impact until they do so and enough other nations to make up 55% of the world's emissions do so
Which should be a formality, since Russia seems almost certain to sign it.
In comparison, many less developed nations, such as China, which make up a huge percentage of the world's emissions, are not even restricted by the treaty.
The US alone produces >36% of the world's CO2 emissions. China produces about half of that, and that's in absolute terms, not per capita. Obviously developing countries, since they produce a tiny percentage of the world's emissions are going to get more leeway under the treaty.
This article [jewishworldreview.com] is a good place to start.
Didn't read anything on that link about CO2 emissons. The fact remains that the US, by any reasonable measurement, is by far the world's biggest polluter.
Almost no one else ratified it? Hahaha, you have been brainwashed by the US corporate education system (unless you're a troll... but your ignorant views seems fairly consistent in your user history.) Actually 73 countries have ratified it so far. Japan did so today. And all 15 EU states have ratified it as well. Which countries were you thinking of that haven't signed it?
while not placing any restrictions on those nations using the most pollution-heavy technologies
What, you mean the US?
Europe loves the idea of the US signing, because they don't manufacture much anymore anyway
Are you trolling or are you just stupid?
for a US economy which is producing less pollution every year anyway, the treaty offers nothing
TThat's news to me. Care to share your source?
But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money
Are you trolling?
From gnu.org:
[Y]ou always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important