And until it is understood, it cannot be programmed.
That's a common fallacy. We're doing a lot of stuff now that people don't understand. See for instance Q-Learning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... What's required is a value that indicates the amount of progress at each point in time, and the system can learn how to make progress by trial and error, finding patterns between input, actions, and results by itself. The system can then apply those patterns in different but similar circumstances.
The better the algorithm, the less brute force it needs.
Exactly. Deep Blue, when it was playing Kasparov in 1997 did 200 million positions per second. A modern chess engine running a desktop PC would easily beat Deep Blue while only looking at 1-2 million positions per second. The brute force speed is lower, but the amount of chess knowledge is much higher.
Oh Wikipedia said so? It must be an immutable fact...
No, it's not a fact, it's a theory. And the Wikipedia article isn't meant a definitive proof. It's a starting point to learn more about it. You are encouraged to check out the references at the bottom.
military satellites are often into the billions of dollars, and as such are less price sensitive on the launch and more success sensitive.
It doesn't make sense to pay 5 times more for a satellite (or launch) in return for a slightly improved chance of success. For less money you could make two satellites and launch them on two rockets, and get a much better improvement.
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer.
Musk is a strong believer in powerful AI coming soon. He should combine his two visions, and send robots to Mars so they can build a nice cozy house for him to live in, and enjoy the sunset.
Wait, you mean the store itself doesn't have landlines that a 911 call could be made from?
I'm sure they do, but after you figure out that your cell phone doesn't work, ask for a bystander to try his phone, and then locate a clerk to make a call on the landline, critical time may have been lost.
Google's job is to index the web, and return relevant search results based on a fair algorithm. Hiding bing maps on the bottom of the 9th page (I finally found it), is not doing its job.
This is akin to USA Today complaining that the New York Times only advertises their own paper.
That's not the issue. The problem is not Google advertising their own search engine. The problem is abusing their dominant search engine to promote other business interests they own.
You don't see the irony of using diesel powered vessels to investigate the damage fossil fuels are doing to the environment?
Not really. On the total scale of all CO2 production, the single diesel powered icebreaker isn't going to make a difference, so why spend large amounts of money on a symbolic gesture ?
They are more than welcome to start up their own competing search engine, then.
So, if Google buys up a hotel chain, and hides search results from competing hotels, the nice little family owned hotel here in town needs to make their own global search engine ? That's your answer ?
Read a few messages up this thread: the problem is not for the users. The problem is for Google's competitors on other services, who don't get to play on a level playing field because Google is promoting their own services over theirs.
For instance, if I search for 'maps' on Google here on a European google server, I don't see a result for 'bing maps' on the first couple of pages. Based on those results, I wouldn't even know bing maps existed. On the other hand, google maps is returned as the first and second result.
Google does not have a monopoly, there are several very capable alternatives.
Google has over 90% market share in Europe, which is a defacto monopoly. And according to EU law, a company with such a dominant position may not abuse that in order to gain market share in other areas.
takes next to no time to switch your search engine away from Google. That's maybe 8 seconds and a few mouse clicks -> done.
There is no incentive for computer users to switch to another search engine, because they are not the ones suffering from Google's abuse of dominance. It's the competing companies that suffer, and they can't tell their potential customers to use a different search engine.
Slashdot Mirror
And until it is understood, it cannot be programmed.
That's a common fallacy. We're doing a lot of stuff now that people don't understand. See for instance Q-Learning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... What's required is a value that indicates the amount of progress at each point in time, and the system can learn how to make progress by trial and error, finding patterns between input, actions, and results by itself. The system can then apply those patterns in different but similar circumstances.
And the only thing it evolved for is to survive long enough to replicate under a narrow (on a cosmic scale) set of conditions.
And chess is mostly played by men to show that they can dominate other men, and become more attractive as a mate.
The better the algorithm, the less brute force it needs.
Exactly. Deep Blue, when it was playing Kasparov in 1997 did 200 million positions per second. A modern chess engine running a desktop PC would easily beat Deep Blue while only looking at 1-2 million positions per second. The brute force speed is lower, but the amount of chess knowledge is much higher.
I don't understand why anyone would willingly use a currency like that.
Because the alternative is worse, maybe ?
Do you have reason to believe the individual state governments would have voted otherwise ?
The official exchange rate is fairly stable, but meaningless. The black market exchange rate is collapsing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
Oh Wikipedia said so? It must be an immutable fact...
No, it's not a fact, it's a theory. And the Wikipedia article isn't meant a definitive proof. It's a starting point to learn more about it. You are encouraged to check out the references at the bottom.
Research Suggests Effects of Shift Work or Jet Lag On Our Body Clocks Can Be Reduced By Simply Changing Meal Times
Don't most people already change their meal times to align with the new time zone ?
The US does not have two satellites to risk.
Why not ? If you can make one satellite, you can make two for less than double the price.
someone ignoring the point that many US government launches include payloads that are north of a billion dollars
You seem to be having trouble reading. I was talking about the payloads.
military satellites are often into the billions of dollars, and as such are less price sensitive on the launch and more success sensitive.
It doesn't make sense to pay 5 times more for a satellite (or launch) in return for a slightly improved chance of success. For less money you could make two satellites and launch them on two rockets, and get a much better improvement.
None of these experiments have actual communication faster than light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer.
We can say this because it may in fact be easier to get to Mars and create a colony there than some places on Earth.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/88...
Musk is a strong believer in powerful AI coming soon. He should combine his two visions, and send robots to Mars so they can build a nice cozy house for him to live in, and enjoy the sunset.
Wait, you mean the store itself doesn't have landlines that a 911 call could be made from?
I'm sure they do, but after you figure out that your cell phone doesn't work, ask for a bystander to try his phone, and then locate a clerk to make a call on the landline, critical time may have been lost.
It's not Google's job to advertise for Bing.
Google's job is to index the web, and return relevant search results based on a fair algorithm. Hiding bing maps on the bottom of the 9th page (I finally found it), is not doing its job.
This is akin to USA Today complaining that the New York Times only advertises their own paper.
That's not the issue. The problem is not Google advertising their own search engine. The problem is abusing their dominant search engine to promote other business interests they own.
You don't see the irony of using diesel powered vessels to investigate the damage fossil fuels are doing to the environment?
Not really. On the total scale of all CO2 production, the single diesel powered icebreaker isn't going to make a difference, so why spend large amounts of money on a symbolic gesture ?
They are more than welcome to start up their own competing search engine, then.
So, if Google buys up a hotel chain, and hides search results from competing hotels, the nice little family owned hotel here in town needs to make their own global search engine ? That's your answer ?
That means they are happy with the deal, including the results Google delivers, including promoting other Google services.
How is the user supposed to know that a company he is not aware of, is not returned in the search results ?
any firm that dealing with the EU, they will be treated punitively in direct proportion to the size of their wallet.
Only if they choose to break the law.
Read a few messages up this thread: the problem is not for the users. The problem is for Google's competitors on other services, who don't get to play on a level playing field because Google is promoting their own services over theirs.
For instance, if I search for 'maps' on Google here on a European google server, I don't see a result for 'bing maps' on the first couple of pages. Based on those results, I wouldn't even know bing maps existed. On the other hand, google maps is returned as the first and second result.
Google does not have a monopoly, there are several very capable alternatives.
Google has over 90% market share in Europe, which is a defacto monopoly. And according to EU law, a company with such a dominant position may not abuse that in order to gain market share in other areas.
takes next to no time to switch your search engine away from Google. That's maybe 8 seconds and a few mouse clicks -> done.
There is no incentive for computer users to switch to another search engine, because they are not the ones suffering from Google's abuse of dominance. It's the competing companies that suffer, and they can't tell their potential customers to use a different search engine.
But in this case, no one has to use Google.
But it is the dominant search engine, and that's what the EU uses as a criterium.
And this information is enough to ban the server's IP at the route
If they are so desperate to prevent a price comparison, it's probably worth it to go back home and order it on-line.