The main issue is distiguishing between shapes that are "alive" and shapes that are "dead" (a shape that is alive can't be captured). This is difficult for humans to do, sometimes even for skilled players.
Due to this, it can be much more difficult to tell when a game is over in Go. All this makes for a set of problems that don't submit well to brute force analysis and are very difficult to develop other types of algorithms for.
Lastly, the above problems can/do occur in multiple areas of the board. Unlike chess where a single material or structural advantage typically ends up deciding the game, a single Go game can produce multiple smaller "battles" that in themselves won't be enough to decide the overall game.
...a swastika means (let's take it's modern meaning, rather than the original). It's not just a bunch of line segments to the rest of the world...
Uh...so "the rest of the world" doesn't places include India, China, and Japan? You'll find swastikas on Hindu and Buddhist temples, street maps in Japan marking said Buddhist temples, and the Falun Gong doesn't seem to have a problem with the shape either. Last I checked those things are both modern and part of "the rest of the world".
This is a great example. Unless you want to add superfluous words or change the wording entirely you just can't arrange it any other way and not sound bizarre.
Seriously. English is one of the hardest, most bastardized language in the world.
Agreed. The thing that really gets me though is that some of the bastardizations are the fault of grammarians themselves.
For example, two of the main things that get grammar folks screaming are ending sentences in prepositions and splitting infinitives... these aren't even real problems. Hell, there not even the result of English's polyglot roots. A few jerks about a century ago decided that English should conform to the Latin rules of grammar. Since the aformentioned two things can't happen in Latin it was decided that it must be wrong in English.
Having to keep track of the wacked out spelling "rules", a bunch of moods, and neat things like homophones is hard enough. No need to add artifical complexity as well.
I see the same situation on the programming side of things. During the.com boom everyone who could spell html and read in a file with perl was calling themselves a 'Software Engineer'.
Because there's a one to one relationship between assembler instructions and the machine intstructions. Assembler is just human mnemonics for opcodes. Effectively, assembler is the machine code.
For example, take a simple function call for a function returning void and taking an integer (with standard calling convention) in C:
ack (3);
the assembly for this would look something like:
mov eax, 3 push eax call ack
In this very simple case there's a three to one increase in statements. That's why assembler is more "on the machine" than high level languages (which technically C is one of).
Disclaimers:
1) Yeah, I know the one to one thing doesn't hold true for certain directives and etc in macro assemblers...but that's not what I'm referring to.
2) Yeah, I know most chips that support the 80x86 instruction set produced in recent years don't actually execute the 80x86 instructions "natively" but rather have risc-like cores and execute microcode etc...but for the purposes of the above it doesn't matter.
"Part of the reason for the misunderstanding over what "begging the question" means may be due to the confusing term itself, which was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii, would be translated more accurately as "Petitioning the Principle," or "Claiming the truth of the very matter in question," but the more pithy "Begging the question" has become the well-known translation."
"C++ is meant to take C and throw it in an OOP direction."
Wrong. It was designed to support a variety of programming paradigms. OOP only being one of them.
"It's stupid comments like yours that really drive down the merits of actual computer science. Since you don't understand the issue you take up an irrational and off-base point of view."
Nice screed. It'd be better if it wasn't based on incorrect information and shallow analysis.
"The problem is that the world is full of lazy stupid people just like you."
And pompous people who think they know something but clearly don't. And by clearly I mean that anyone who wants to can go get a copy of the D&E and see why you're wrong.
This is NOT a strong vs weak typing thing. This is a static vs dynamic typing thing. The strength of a type system has no relation to when it's enforced.
And as far as being pedantic goes, I imagine you've grown up thinking that capitalism is a necessary evil that has to be endured because people are assholes by nature.
Interesting choice of wording, cowardly, but interesteng. I refer specifically to "...you've grown up...'. I take it that the implication is supposed to be that I'm regurgitating some doctrine that I was inculcated with while young and that you are old and wise enough to notice.
What's amusing is that exactly the opposite is true. I spent most of my thinking life in agreement with your position. Then I came to realize how flawed it is. And no, I didn't have something unfortunate happen to me to make me bitter. I comfortably make my living in the private sector and fall under high tax bracket.
My guess is that you're just pissed off because everyone buys from a company who competes with whatever your darling product du jour is.
Is that all you've got? I'm criticizing your shallow cheerleading of large private entities. My personal product preferences don't enter into it.
Btw, how much money have you donated to charity over the last few years? I bet Bill Gates gave more (I think somewhere in the $billions).
And? How is this in any way relevant?
Yeah, you're right, let's dismantle his company because Netscape pretty much went under, and because Dell gets cheap windows licenses in exchange for bundling windows. What a monster.
Nice use of hyperbole in lieu of an argument. How does the incidient with Stac Electronics fit in to the rosy picture you've painted?
Sigh, I'm well aware of the reasoning behind monopoly-breaking legislation. I also think that when it comes to privately owned companies built from the ground up it's stupid, and possibly immoral to tear them down.
Do you happen to own a leather bound signed copy of "Atlas Shrugged"? Only an Objectivist could be so pendantic with regard to governments and markets. If a private entity becomes powerful enough to control a market then that market is no longer 'free'. As such, it's completely spurious, or at best naive, to offer "They created products people bought" as proof that a private entity "deserves" it's position.
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 1
Who said anything about justification? It's disingenuous to imply that a reason doesn't exist simply because you don't accept it.
Justification is irrelevent to my previous comment. But since you asked...
One person's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". And sometimes it changes when convenient. E.G., the Mujahadin were "Afghani Freedom Fighters" when they were fighting the "Evil Soviet Empire". Now they're "terrorists" or "illegal combatants".
Personally, I don't find the targeting of civilians to be morally acceptable. However, I'm sitting comfortably within the borders of the United States where I have the leisure of making easy distinctions between what's "morally acceptable" and who is a "civilian". Had I spent my life in Northern Ireland, the Basque region, or the Gaza strip such distinctions might prove to be naive at best.
The whole concept of "terrorism" is being used now a magical incantation invoked against convenient targets. What exactly do you consider to be "terrorism"?
Re:The logistics of building the Death Star
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow. You might want to lay off Fox News for a while. You seem to be getting a bit worked up if you think that anyone (except the occasional serial killer or vampire) engages in that sort of activity for absolutely no reason.
hmmm...I have that one here somewhere...it's been a while since I watched it...
IIRC, it may have the "play multiple big players off of each other" theme, but I think it had a different structure. But rather than try and guess some more I'll go watch it:)
Slashdot Mirror
Duh, it's a joke. I'd already did.
So, why are Flamingos pink?
The main issue is distiguishing between shapes that are "alive" and shapes that are "dead" (a shape that is alive can't be captured). This is difficult for humans to do, sometimes even for skilled players.
Due to this, it can be much more difficult to tell when a game is over in Go. All this makes for a set of problems that don't submit well to brute force analysis and are very difficult to develop other types of algorithms for.
Lastly, the above problems can/do occur in multiple areas of the board. Unlike chess where a single material or structural advantage typically ends up deciding the game, a single Go game can produce multiple smaller "battles" that in themselves won't be enough to decide the overall game.
...a swastika means (let's take it's modern meaning, rather than the original). It's not just a bunch of line segments to the rest of the world...
Uh...so "the rest of the world" doesn't places include India, China, and Japan? You'll find swastikas on Hindu and Buddhist temples, street maps in Japan marking said Buddhist temples, and the Falun Gong doesn't seem to have a problem with the shape either. Last I checked those things are both modern and part of "the rest of the world".
Are you coming up?
This is a great example. Unless you want to add superfluous words or change the wording entirely you just can't arrange it any other way and not sound bizarre.
Damn it. File that under the complaint about homophones.
Seriously. English is one of the hardest, most bastardized language in the world.
Agreed. The thing that really gets me though is that some of the bastardizations are the fault of grammarians themselves.
For example, two of the main things that get grammar folks screaming are ending sentences in prepositions and splitting infinitives... these aren't even real problems. Hell, there not even the result of English's polyglot roots. A few jerks about a century ago decided that English should conform to the Latin rules of grammar. Since the aformentioned two things can't happen in Latin it was decided that it must be wrong in English.
Having to keep track of the wacked out spelling "rules", a bunch of moods, and neat things like homophones is hard enough. No need to add artifical complexity as well.
I see the same situation on the programming side of things. During the .com boom everyone who could spell html and read in a file with perl was calling themselves a 'Software Engineer'.
Not until they're able to create the forecasting algorthims.
Because there's a one to one relationship between assembler instructions and the machine intstructions. Assembler is just human mnemonics for opcodes. Effectively, assembler is the machine code.
For example, take a simple function call for a function returning void and taking an integer (with standard calling convention) in C:
ack (3);
the assembly for this would look something like:
mov eax, 3
push eax
call ack
In this very simple case there's a three to one increase in statements. That's why assembler is more "on the machine" than high level languages (which technically C is one of).
Disclaimers:
1) Yeah, I know the one to one thing doesn't hold true for certain directives and etc in macro assemblers...but that's not what I'm referring to.
2) Yeah, I know most chips that support the 80x86 instruction set produced in recent years don't actually execute the 80x86 instructions "natively" but rather have risc-like cores and execute microcode etc...but for the purposes of the above it doesn't matter.
From wikipedia:
"Part of the reason for the misunderstanding over what "begging the question" means may be due to the confusing term itself, which was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii, would be translated more accurately as "Petitioning the Principle," or "Claiming the truth of the very matter in question," but the more pithy "Begging the question" has become the well-known translation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
You're absolutely correct. Thanks.
Congratulations! You just made the same type of over-simplification that caused you to go ape shit and flame the last guy.
"In fact I can't think of any other reason to use C++ over C aside from classes and the various forms of inheritance."
Which proves that you don't know nearly enough about either to have an informed opinion, much less call people lazy and stupid.
"C++ is meant to take C and throw it in an OOP direction."
Wrong. It was designed to support a variety of programming paradigms. OOP only being one of them.
"It's stupid comments like yours that really drive down the merits of actual computer science. Since you don't understand the issue you take up an irrational and off-base point of view."
Nice screed. It'd be better if it wasn't based on incorrect information and shallow analysis.
"The problem is that the world is full of lazy stupid people just like you."
And pompous people who think they know something but clearly don't. And by clearly I mean that anyone who wants to can go get a copy of the D&E and see why you're wrong.
You've obviously never read (or perhaps even heard of) the D&E.
This is NOT a strong vs weak typing thing. This is a static vs dynamic typing thing. The strength of a type system has no relation to when it's enforced.
You can have all combinations:
How is pornography contrary to Communist ideology?
And as far as being pedantic goes, I imagine you've grown up thinking that capitalism is a necessary evil that has to be endured because people are assholes by nature.
Interesting choice of wording, cowardly, but interesteng. I refer specifically to "...you've grown up...'. I take it that the implication is supposed to be that I'm regurgitating some doctrine that I was inculcated with while young and that you are old and wise enough to notice.
What's amusing is that exactly the opposite is true. I spent most of my thinking life in agreement with your position. Then I came to realize how flawed it is. And no, I didn't have something unfortunate happen to me to make me bitter. I comfortably make my living in the private sector and fall under high tax bracket.
My guess is that you're just pissed off because everyone buys from a company who competes with whatever your darling product du jour is.
Is that all you've got? I'm criticizing your shallow cheerleading of large private entities. My personal product preferences don't enter into it.
Btw, how much money have you donated to charity over the last few years? I bet Bill Gates gave more (I think somewhere in the $billions).
And? How is this in any way relevant?
Yeah, you're right, let's dismantle his company because Netscape pretty much went under, and because Dell gets cheap windows licenses in exchange for bundling windows. What a monster.
Nice use of hyperbole in lieu of an argument. How does the incidient with Stac Electronics fit in to the rosy picture you've painted?
Sigh, I'm well aware of the reasoning behind monopoly-breaking legislation. I also think that when it comes to privately owned companies built from the ground up it's stupid, and possibly immoral to tear them down.
Do you happen to own a leather bound signed copy of "Atlas Shrugged"? Only an Objectivist could be so pendantic with regard to governments and markets. If a private entity becomes powerful enough to control a market then that market is no longer 'free'. As such, it's completely spurious, or at best naive, to offer "They created products people bought" as proof that a private entity "deserves" it's position.
Who said anything about justification? It's disingenuous to imply that a reason doesn't exist simply because you don't accept it.
Justification is irrelevent to my previous comment. But since you asked...
One person's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". And sometimes it changes when convenient. E.G., the Mujahadin were "Afghani Freedom Fighters" when they were fighting the "Evil Soviet Empire". Now they're "terrorists" or "illegal combatants".
Personally, I don't find the targeting of civilians to be morally acceptable. However, I'm sitting comfortably within the borders of the United States where I have the leisure of making easy distinctions between what's "morally acceptable" and who is a "civilian". Had I spent my life in Northern Ireland, the Basque region, or the Gaza strip such distinctions might prove to be naive at best.
The whole concept of "terrorism" is being used now a magical incantation invoked against convenient targets. What exactly do you consider to be "terrorism"?
Wow. You might want to lay off Fox News for a while. You seem to be getting a bit worked up if you think that anyone (except the occasional serial killer or vampire) engages in that sort of activity for absolutely no reason.
I have a Trek ThumbDrive that got run through the washing machine. I was surprised (and happy) to find that it still works.
...businesses trying to honor the rules...
These words don't make any sense together.
hmmm...I have that one here somewhere...it's been a while since I watched it...
:)
IIRC, it may have the "play multiple big players off of each other" theme, but I think it had a different structure. But rather than try and guess some more I'll go watch it
Thanks for the tip.
"Fist Full of Dollars"
and the third rev:
"Last Man Standing"