Computers do that too. You might want to look at the A* algorithm and variations (there's a nice Java applet floating around that illustrates it, but I can't seem to find it again just now).
Personally, if they gave me my own spacious cave/cell like Hannibal Lecter with free WIFI for reading slashdot and visiting FBI trainees asking about C++ rules for sequence points, I'd consider it.
Re:nothing of value was gained
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Naively, I'd imagine that a human player most closely resembles a stochastic hill-climbing agent,
That's too naive. Most game players don't just play the game once (start game, yay, play, win a little, die, never play this game again). Instead, they play many times, and use their previous knowledge as leverage to improve their performance.
That puts the hill climbing analogy into more modern optimization territory, like multiple randomized restarts, adaptive strategies, etc. As such, the odds of winning are high when players are willing to put in the hours.
Ya because Americans being able to get decently priced drugs, is such a crime. My father buys drugs from a company like the ones they mention in the ads. He can't afford drugs here in the USA even though the ones he gets from Canada are exactly the same, yet cost one tenth the price.
M'kay, seniors, you shouldn't do drugs, m'kay, drugs are bad. You see, I was at the bottom of the barrel, I was a wreck. Why, I didn't even care about money. I was wasting my life... You mature Americans need to listen up, m'kay, what I'm talking about might save your life some day... Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs. If you do them, you're bad, because drugs are bad. It's a bad thing to do drugs, so don't be bad by doing drugs, m'kay, that'd be bad.
It's the ethos of the easy to use GUI. Without consistency and sameness of operation, the main argument of GUI proponents, that WIMP interfaces are superior to CLIs, is untenable.
If you have to hunt and peck for hidden menus and separately learn how each app you want to use works, then you might as well use more powerful command line and terminal apps straightaway. They are just as heterogeneous, but the programmers didn't waste 80% of their development time contorting the functionality into an outdated office paradigm.
Why give liability to the owner when he's not in control? Liability should be squarely on the manufacturer for all time.
It's an eat your own dogfood kind of principle. If the manufacturer is *not* willing to shoulder the burden of paying for all damages, then he's obviously not willing to trust that the car technology is safe.
In that case, why should innocent customers trust *their* future on this usafe car technology?
They can never get rid of the flies, though.
What we need is better miniaturization so we can put cameras on flies.
(Or better teleportation, so we can make flies that can carry cameras...)
The two ideas are *exactly* alike, Mr Apple fanboy! There's nobody putting a gun to your head and *forcing* you to use GPL.
You really don't have to write an application using GPL software, it's just that if you do then you have a vast audience of people who may elect to use it, and also probably a better looking application with a faster development cycle.
BTW, what does really force you is copyright law. It forces you to obey intellectual property rules under threat of legal reprisals.
Why "informative?" It's "Hearsay."
Now, "Informative" would be giving in detail all the steps to actually delete the account. Don't look at me, I don't have a G+ account.
Those would be perfectly valid if upon discovering your girder was 3 inches too short you could instantly create
a copy of it, set the original aside, then alter and test that copy of the girder. Then you might leave a few
extras lying around.
Only in a lab environment. If the bridge was taken out of the lab, and placed on a busy river, then even if
you wanted to alter the girders, the traffic wouldn't allow it. You'd have to wait until midnight on Christmas Eve to fix not just the girder but make all the other design changes you've been preparing for months, and you'd have only an hour to do it all.
I only use firefox for a few sites which don't work without
javascript, so I don't have an extensive set of customizations for
specific sites. Only adblock, ghostery, and firemacs. I notice the
google jjjjj/kkkkk behaviour when I happen to be using the graphical
browser and want to quickly search for something in a different tab.
I actually prefer to use w3m as my browser, because it launches an
instance of Emacs for comment boxes. I find the graphical UI text
boxes in Gnome/KDE/firefox/etc way too limited and frustrating.
That's why I use a text browser for google searches (via surfraw). The damn google javascript nonsense always fucks up trying to search for jjjjjjj and kkkkkkkkkk as soon as I start scrolling...
If I hire you to write a closed-source program for me, and you write the
program but then release the source code, even if there's no copyright law
making this specifically illegal, you've still failed to fulfil your
contract.
How would that work? If it's not illegal for an employee to copy the source,
then every employee with access may have made a copy. How would you prove which employee released it, and assuming you could, how would you prove that particular employee actually released it himself instead of someone else making a legal copy from his copy with/without his knowledge?
And if you threaten employees, who all have your source, what do you think will happen, legally, if you fire any or all of them, or fail to pay them for their work?
As to the janitor, supposing your source is "very valuable" (which is debatable - most source isn't that valuable), he might not care about getting fired if he knows someone who will "buy" a legal copy of the source. He might even take the job just for that reason. If this sounds like spying/stealing, it's not in a world where copying anything is legal.
The final outcome of these ideas is that, in a world where copying
anything is legal, most source won't be kept secret, because enforcing
enough physical security to prevent the code from leaking would be
*much* more expensive than the code is worth (ie Pentagon like security). And *that* ultimately means,
for most code, one could just ask for the source from someone
who has access to it, no hassles.
You also seem not to grasp the difference between copyleft and copycenter. A
world without copyright would approximate the latter, most decidedly not the
former.
No it wouldn't. The reason BSD type licenses are exploitable by unscrupulous
companies is precisely because copyright exists: copyright prevents *us*
from taking *their* modifications back into the community. Without copyright,
we just take a copy of their modified source, legally, for the same reasons as above.
Of course I can have source code. In a world where it's not illegal to make a copy of anything, any employee who has access to it can make a legal copy if they wish. Even a janitor could do it. Or a customer who has access to "shared source". A world without copyright is *very* different from our world.
And so on. Without copyright laws, the GPL is powerless.
Powerless to do what exactly? Powerless to force
people to give back their changes to the community? In a world
without copyright, that's already trivial: any member of the
community can just copy anything they like and make changes, then
publish the new version, etc. All legally.
It's a better world, but until then, we
use the GPL *today* to undo some of the damage that copyright does *today*.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, uh. But now the DHS knows what he did...
Computers do that too. You might want to look at the A* algorithm and variations (there's a nice Java applet floating around that illustrates it, but I can't seem to find it again just now).
Personally, if they gave me my own spacious cave/cell like Hannibal Lecter with free WIFI for reading slashdot and visiting FBI trainees asking about C++ rules for sequence points, I'd consider it.
That's too naive. Most game players don't just play the game once (start game, yay, play, win a little, die, never play this game again). Instead, they play many times, and use their previous knowledge as leverage to improve their performance.
That puts the hill climbing analogy into more modern optimization territory, like multiple randomized restarts, adaptive strategies, etc. As such, the odds of winning are high when players are willing to put in the hours.
M'kay, seniors, you shouldn't do drugs, m'kay, drugs are bad. You see, I was at the bottom of the barrel, I was a wreck. Why, I didn't even care about money. I was wasting my life... You mature Americans need to listen up, m'kay, what I'm talking about might save your life some day... Drugs are bad. You shouldn't do drugs. If you do them, you're bad, because drugs are bad. It's a bad thing to do drugs, so don't be bad by doing drugs, m'kay, that'd be bad.
The judge is an idiot, or maybe he doesn't go much to the movies. The compositional idea isn't original at all. girl in the red coat
If you have to hunt and peck for hidden menus and separately learn how each app you want to use works, then you might as well use more powerful command line and terminal apps straightaway. They are just as heterogeneous, but the programmers didn't waste 80% of their development time contorting the functionality into an outdated office paradigm.
It's getting about time that someone does a GoogleSmurfs parody...
It's an eat your own dogfood kind of principle. If the manufacturer is *not* willing to shoulder the burden of paying for all damages, then he's obviously not willing to trust that the car technology is safe.
In that case, why should innocent customers trust *their* future on this usafe car technology?
Secret plot by Apple.
Evil Apple, Evil Apps.
GOOG snowed in by Them.
They can never get rid of the flies, though. What we need is better miniaturization so we can put cameras on flies. (Or better teleportation, so we can make flies that can carry cameras...)
The two ideas are *exactly* alike, Mr Apple fanboy! There's nobody putting a gun to your head and *forcing* you to use GPL.
You really don't have to write an application using GPL software, it's just that if you do then you have a vast audience of people who may elect to use it, and also probably a better looking application with a faster development cycle.
BTW, what does really force you is copyright law. It forces you to obey intellectual property rules under threat of legal reprisals.
That's more like it. Mod parent informative!
Why "informative?" It's "Hearsay." Now, "Informative" would be giving in detail all the steps to actually delete the account. Don't look at me, I don't have a G+ account.
Doctor: "Well, it looks like you have a common cold. But let's be sure, shall we? I just got this new DNA sequencing machine. Come back tomorrow."
The next day...
Patient: "Hebho bhoctor, bhat dho I habh?"
Doctor: "Well, it looks like you have a common cold. That will be $1000."
Only in a lab environment. If the bridge was taken out of the lab, and placed on a busy river, then even if you wanted to alter the girders, the traffic wouldn't allow it. You'd have to wait until midnight on Christmas Eve to fix not just the girder but make all the other design changes you've been preparing for months, and you'd have only an hour to do it all.
That's because the Germans were involved. When Germans are on the team, things get organized a lot faster.
I actually prefer to use w3m as my browser, because it launches an instance of Emacs for comment boxes. I find the graphical UI text boxes in Gnome/KDE/firefox/etc way too limited and frustrating.
That's why I use a text browser for google searches (via surfraw). The damn google javascript nonsense always fucks up trying to search for jjjjjjj and kkkkkkkkkk as soon as I start scrolling...
Gah! How wrong can you be! Some buggy whip makers actually liked the air freshening scent of Eau de Cheval, you insensitive clod!
How would that work? If it's not illegal for an employee to copy the source, then every employee with access may have made a copy. How would you prove which employee released it, and assuming you could, how would you prove that particular employee actually released it himself instead of someone else making a legal copy from his copy with/without his knowledge?
And if you threaten employees, who all have your source, what do you think will happen, legally, if you fire any or all of them, or fail to pay them for their work?
As to the janitor, supposing your source is "very valuable" (which is debatable - most source isn't that valuable), he might not care about getting fired if he knows someone who will "buy" a legal copy of the source. He might even take the job just for that reason. If this sounds like spying/stealing, it's not in a world where copying anything is legal.
The final outcome of these ideas is that, in a world where copying anything is legal, most source won't be kept secret, because enforcing enough physical security to prevent the code from leaking would be *much* more expensive than the code is worth (ie Pentagon like security). And *that* ultimately means, for most code, one could just ask for the source from someone who has access to it, no hassles.
No it wouldn't. The reason BSD type licenses are exploitable by unscrupulous companies is precisely because copyright exists: copyright prevents *us* from taking *their* modifications back into the community. Without copyright, we just take a copy of their modified source, legally, for the same reasons as above.
Student: What if I integrate this term on the left here?
Hawking: I'm afraid you can't do that, Dave.
Please, there are kids reading this site!
There's no "cat" in a "box", it's a thinkpad! (*)
(*) keyboard may contain a nipple.
Of course I can have source code. In a world where it's not illegal to make a copy of anything, any employee who has access to it can make a legal copy if they wish. Even a janitor could do it. Or a customer who has access to "shared source". A world without copyright is *very* different from our world.
Powerless to do what exactly? Powerless to force people to give back their changes to the community? In a world without copyright, that's already trivial: any member of the community can just copy anything they like and make changes, then publish the new version, etc. All legally. It's a better world, but until then, we use the GPL *today* to undo some of the damage that copyright does *today*.