I would say that the saddest Geek meal I'd ever heard of was when a Math PhD (who lived in a trailer, btw) was describing this "casserole":
1. Take some canned peas. Drain.
2. Take some canned corn. Drain.
3. Take some canned tuna. Drain.
4. Add peas to bottom of microwave-safe container, preferably tupperware.
5. Layer corn on top.
6. Layer tuna on top.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 until desired height is reached.
8. Microwave. Serves one.
At that moment I wished harder than I ever had in my life that I was a dumb jock living in a frat house.
I'll buy a ThinkGeek T-shirt for the first person who can prove that they really got a job from résumé spamming.
Well, I came close -- I got an interview with a small web development firm. I customized my resume somewhat, but I'd still consider what I did to be very close to spamming.
I'm not proud of it, but desperate times call for desparate measures.
Now that computers are starting to plateau off in strength, more game results are coming down to the quality of the opening book (just like in real Grandmaster tournaments)....
I wonder what quantum computing (which i suppose might be the next major plateau in processing power) will do to the world of chess -- computer v human or otherwise. Personally, I know that I lost all interest in playing checkers when I heard that Chinook beat just about every human master there was. (A little irrational, I know.) On the other hand, if Deeper Blue was still around, I'm sure there are a lot of Grandmasters that could win games against it.
Oh, well. There's always Go...
There are a number of efforts at automating the process of creating an opening book, but the results have been mediocre....
This is a little disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. What are the main problems here? Is it more a matter of not having enough statistical power to make opening book refinements?
However, outside of their books full of rote opening moves, most programs don't have opening specific knowledge, such as knowing about certain thematic sacrifices and plans in particular openings. For example, a computer out of its book in the Sicilian Dragon will not make the thematic queenside RxN sacrifice....
On the other hand, if the computer knows that the Sicilian Dragon was the opening, maybe during the early middlegame it could always consider that move with a few extra plys. It still smacks of
soft AI, but I suppose it's not too far-removed from how humans learn to play chess (memorizing openings, learning themes).
My program [PostModernist] is participating. What I do is to go through all the games it has played recently at ICC and try to determine which openings it seems to play sensibly.
This makes me wonder whether computers could refine their own opening lines eventually. Maybe you could write a chess program called MetaPostModernist to do the job =) (Actually, that sounds more like a font than a program title.)
I've heard that the best openings to play against computers are the ones that are positional in nature instead of tactical. That is, computers are clumsy when it comes to general assessments of the board, whereas they are better at direct attack and defense. So human chess adepts generally avoid these tactical situations. Additionally, when chess adepts play computers, they tend to deviate from well-known or standard opening lines to get the computer "out of book" as soon as possible.
I wonder, though, if there are any particular opening strategies when computers play each other, as opposed to human v computer? It seems to me that chess programs with good opening books would almost never fall into well-documented opening traps like the one that claimed Kasparov in his losing match against Deeper Blue. Do computers stick to the tried and true main lines when playing against each other, or would employing opening "novelties" work well?
If you plot temperature (degrees C, for example) vs heat added (Joules, calories, etc), you'll see that during phase changes, the temperature stays constant until all of the matter has changed to the new phase. For example, during the change from solid to liquid, all the heat goes to the phase change (the heat of fusion) and not to changes in temperature. I Am Not A Chemist/Physicist, but to me this constitutes a good starting point to the definition of phase changes and states of matter.
94% doesn't meet my standards for "permanently sterile surfaces". Even 99%, but maybe that's because of measurement limits.
After all this is bacteria we are talking about. Proper use of antibiotics = 100% kill rate (either patient dies or all the targeted bacteria die;) ).
actually, the clinical definition of "sterile" doesn't always mean zero microbes. why? because a small concentration of bacteria can be successfully fought off by the immune system. so proper use of antibiotics doesn't mean 100% kill rate by the antibiotic -- it just means knocking off enough of the little buggers to that the body can take care of the rest.
it seems to me that a good way to handle diagonals would be to UNorthogonalize the knobs: you'd have your horizontal and vertical knobs, but then add knobs for 45/225 and 135/-45 degrees. you could go even further by adding the multiples of 30. that way, to get finer control of your diagonals, for example, you'd twist the 30 and 45 degree knobs...
Slashdot Mirror
this paves the way for FreeWin3.1
I would say that the saddest Geek meal I'd ever heard of was when a Math PhD (who lived in a trailer, btw) was describing this "casserole":
1. Take some canned peas. Drain.
2. Take some canned corn. Drain.
3. Take some canned tuna. Drain.
4. Add peas to bottom of microwave-safe container, preferably tupperware.
5. Layer corn on top.
6. Layer tuna on top.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 until desired height is reached.
8. Microwave. Serves one.
At that moment I wished harder than I ever had in my life that I was a dumb jock living in a frat house.
lines
I'll buy a ThinkGeek T-shirt for the first person who can prove that they really got a job from résumé spamming.
Well, I came close -- I got an interview with a small web development firm. I customized my resume somewhat, but I'd still consider what I did to be very close to spamming.
I'm not proud of it, but desperate times call for desparate measures.
Hmm. I live in Springfield, and we find three-eyed fish all the time just downstream from the nuclear power plant.
Good question.
Now that computers are starting to plateau off in strength, more game results are coming down to the quality of the opening book (just like in real Grandmaster tournaments)....
I wonder what quantum computing (which i suppose might be the next major plateau in processing power) will do to the world of chess -- computer v human or otherwise. Personally, I know that I lost all interest in playing checkers when I heard that Chinook beat just about every human master there was. (A little irrational, I know.) On the other hand, if Deeper Blue was still around, I'm sure there are a lot of Grandmasters that could win games against it.
Oh, well. There's always Go...
There are a number of efforts at automating the process of creating an opening book, but the results have been mediocre....
This is a little disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. What are the main problems here? Is it more a matter of not having enough statistical power to make opening book refinements?
However, outside of their books full of rote opening moves, most programs don't have opening specific knowledge, such as knowing about certain thematic sacrifices and plans in particular openings. For example, a computer out of its book in the Sicilian Dragon will not make the thematic queenside RxN sacrifice....
On the other hand, if the computer knows that the Sicilian Dragon was the opening, maybe during the early middlegame it could always consider that move with a few extra plys. It still smacks of soft AI, but I suppose it's not too far-removed from how humans learn to play chess (memorizing openings, learning themes).
My program [PostModernist] is participating. What I do is to go through all the games it has played recently at ICC and try to determine which openings it seems to play sensibly.
This makes me wonder whether computers could refine their own opening lines eventually. Maybe you could write a chess program called MetaPostModernist to do the job =) (Actually, that sounds more like a font than a program title.)
I've heard that the best openings to play against computers are the ones that are positional in nature instead of tactical. That is, computers are clumsy when it comes to general assessments of the board, whereas they are better at direct attack and defense. So human chess adepts generally avoid these tactical situations. Additionally, when chess adepts play computers, they tend to deviate from well-known or standard opening lines to get the computer "out of book" as soon as possible.
I wonder, though, if there are any particular opening strategies when computers play each other, as opposed to human v computer? It seems to me that chess programs with good opening books would almost never fall into well-documented opening traps like the one that claimed Kasparov in his losing match against Deeper Blue. Do computers stick to the tried and true main lines when playing against each other, or would employing opening "novelties" work well?
...the Bulwer-Lutton Fiction Contest, which consists of reader-submitted snippets of godawful prose.
If you plot temperature (degrees C, for example) vs heat added (Joules, calories, etc), you'll see that during phase changes, the temperature stays constant until all of the matter has changed to the new phase. For example, during the change from solid to liquid, all the heat goes to the phase change (the heat of fusion) and not to changes in temperature. I Am Not A Chemist/Physicist, but to me this constitutes a good starting point to the definition of phase changes and states of matter.
hobbes
I'm wondering if this also means that blood samples can be taken via different routes? No need for blood from the vein if a finger-sitck will do.
my roommate's resolution is to stop drinking beer. he's going to drink *hard liquor only*
Binary Digit == Bit
So maybe a Ternary Bit would be a Trit.
and a Ternary Byte would be a Trite.
And a Nibble, of course...
Hobbes
Who says they're using base 10? After 0.9.9, they could simply go to 0.9.A =)
hbz
94% doesn't meet my standards for "permanently sterile surfaces". Even 99%, but maybe that's because of measurement limits. After all this is bacteria we are talking about. Proper use of antibiotics = 100% kill rate (either patient dies or all the targeted bacteria die ;) ).
actually, the clinical definition of "sterile" doesn't always mean zero microbes. why? because a small concentration of bacteria can be successfully fought off by the immune system. so proper use of antibiotics doesn't mean 100% kill rate by the antibiotic -- it just means knocking off enough of the little buggers to that the body can take care of the rest.
hobbes
it seems to me that a good way to handle diagonals would be to UNorthogonalize the knobs: you'd have your horizontal and vertical knobs, but then add knobs for 45/225 and 135/-45 degrees. you could go even further by adding the multiples of 30. that way, to get finer control of your diagonals, for example, you'd twist the 30 and 45 degree knobs...
just a thought...
hobbes
i guess i should've read the references section and the april 1 date below it. but really, who cares to read (and verify) references anymore? ;)
damn.