continue into infinity forwards, yes, backwards, no. Time was created 13.7 billion years ago, therefore you cannot say "before". Thinking that there must have been a "before" is a fallacy brought on by you analogizing the Big Bang with events you've experienced in your life (which all do have a "before").
They get called 'wackjobs' because their 'research' is rather unscientific. If it turns out that what the wackjobs were saying is true, it would just be a coincidence.
Baryon density 0.044 +- 0.004 Matter density 0.27 +- 0.04 Dark energy density 0.73 +- 0.04 Total density 1.02 +- 0.02
The figures in the abstract have assumed that "Total density" is 1.00 (as this fits in nicely with other theories, and is within the uncertainty margin).
Note also that the baryons are part of the "matter density", and the figure "dark matter" in the abstract was obtained by subtracting these two.
Assuming that total density = 1.00, the figures are actually:
Baryons (incl. leptons) between 4.0% and 4.8% Dark energy between 69% and 77% Dark matter between 19% and 27% (approx.)
PS. To calculate (0.27+-0.04) - (0.044+-0.004) I have rounded the latter; someone who remembers how to do it the proper way could correct me:)
Yes, so if someone says to you "hey you can have 10 million in stock options for your company" you should be thinking the same sort of thing as "hey you can have 1 million cash for your company".
I'd rather have 1 mill in the bank than 1 mill in stocks. If I wanted to invest it I could then go invest it in some fund... not putting all my eggs in the one basket.
The article suggests that computers are 'catching up' to humans. IMHO the computers are already ahead of the humans. If the humans play normally they get crushed (eg. game 3). The humans can only win by luring the computer into an area of known weakness, keeping it there until the human's plans are ready, and then executing the attack with a precision beyond even many Grandmasters.
The endgame is only played perfectly for positions that the computer has tablebases for (all 3, 4, or 5 piece positions, and only some 6 piece positions). However the endgame can be reached with 20 or more pieces on the board.
Computers have a reputation for being bad at endgames that aren't in their tablebase (or nearly in it). If you have watched a Grandmaster analyse an ending then this will be clear. The way the human thinks is: "Given that the pawns are like they are, I want my King here (points to square), my Rook here (points)... and I want to stop my opponent getting his King to here (points)".
The human knows from experience and study that if the pieces are in those positions then the game is won. The computer does not know this (it is a heuristic quality that the computer may be programmed with, but humans have an advantage of being able to recognize when the position is one that these rules apply, and what the exceptions are).
The human then begins to look at sequences of moves which will end up in the pieces getting to where he wants them (and prevent the opponent's pieces getting to where the opponent wants them).
On the other hand, the computer is just exploring almost completely by brute force (positional factors mean much less, or absolutely nothing, in endgames. Computers will often rate a position as +2.5 , or even +4, when humans can see that it is clearly drawn. This even happened in the Kasparov - DJ match where the computer had a passed pawn in a rook ending and thought it was +2.5, but Kasparov knew he was safe). The computer will only win the ending if its brute force tree is big enough that it stumbles into a tactic, or into its tablebase.
Ending play is also a good gauge of a human's strength: great players are great endgame players.
Now, onto the openings. The computer's opening book is not necessarily an advantage. Sure, the book has moves, but are they the best moves? In the Kramnik - Deep Fritz match, Kramnik analysed the book before the match and found positions that were in the book but where the book's evaluation was wrong (that is to say, the book's programmers gave a line saying "this is good for me", but the line was actually good for the opponent and the programmers hasn't realised).
Human grandmasters follow the latest developments in opening theory and are able to steer the openings into ones that they know well. The human also has the great advantage of knowing what sort of opening moves translate to what sort of middlegame positions.
Consider the last game of Kasparov - DJ. That surely was in the computer's opening book for some time. But Kasparov knew that once the opening book ran out, the computer would not have a clue what to do because the position was one in which both players have to shuffle their pieces around behind their ranks preparing for the right moment to strike. The only way to know a good move is to have experience in the positions and know what squares will turn out to be good ones once the action begins. This was reflected in the match play, the computer mucked around horribly until Kasparov was nice enough to offer it a draw.
Actually this is not true. Each player still had about 40 minutes remaining to make another 15 or so moves, in the final position. And then another hour would have been added to each player's clock for each set of 20 moves following that. The time is never up, in theory the game could have lasted for days (or years!).
In the post-match interview, Kasparov said he wanted to draw because the position was too complicated. If you heard the word 'time', it may have been in a context such as "I don't have enough time to work out all the complications" (meaning that Kasparov would reach the time controls before he was able to analyze the position to his content).
Would you shut up already, moderators mod this guy down. Look at his post history and you will see half a dozen posts on this thread going "it was fake it was fake!" An obvious troll.
That reminds me of that recent Slashdot article about some people that sold their company for millions of dollars worth of stock options, then the company tanked, and they lost it all.
I think I'm really going out on a limb here, but why don't people ask for actual money when selling? Seems like it'd save a lot of heartbreak
Your post gives me an idea: why not just use UTF-8 for domain names?
This wouldn't require any bullshit approval and crap, no existing DNS systems would break because they currently reject requests with non-ascii utf-8 characters, the only implementation barrier would be waiting for any apps that want to support it to encode their URLs with a UTF-8 library.
Yeah, that's really annoying. Is it possible to change it to just say 'Dns Error' or 'Connection Refused' ?
When you get the stupid IE error page you dont know if it was a dns error or the side was down, unless you look at the statusbar in time and see 'dnserror.shdoc.navdll' or whatever
Slashdot Mirror
How do you determine "equally likely"
(note - random is not the same as "distribution of each digit is the same" etc.)
how do you define 'random' then, if 'depending on the state of the universe around your computer' is enough to make it non-random?
so 2^64 ~= 10^19
so 2^128 ~= 10^38
you seem to have said that since 2^64 is easy then 2^128 is easy ? how did you make that step?
continue into infinity forwards, yes, backwards, no.
Time was created 13.7 billion years ago, therefore you cannot say "before". Thinking that there must have been a "before" is a fallacy brought on by you analogizing the Big Bang with events you've experienced in your life (which all do have a "before").
They get called 'wackjobs' because their 'research' is rather unscientific. If it turns out that what the wackjobs were saying is true, it would just be a coincidence.
Can anyone tell me what the L2 point is?
Actually, you could read the article and do some calculations and then be able to say "She was the size of the universe! (after x nanosecions)"
Not quite.
:)
From the PDF in the article:
Baryon density 0.044 +- 0.004
Matter density 0.27 +- 0.04
Dark energy density 0.73 +- 0.04
Total density 1.02 +- 0.02
The figures in the abstract have assumed that "Total density" is 1.00 (as this fits in nicely with other theories, and is within the uncertainty margin).
Note also that the baryons are part of the "matter density", and the figure "dark matter" in the abstract was obtained by subtracting these two.
Assuming that total density = 1.00, the figures are actually:
Baryons (incl. leptons) between 4.0% and 4.8%
Dark energy between 69% and 77%
Dark matter between 19% and 27% (approx.)
PS. To calculate (0.27+-0.04) - (0.044+-0.004) I have rounded the latter; someone who remembers how to do it the proper way could correct me
4.4% baryons, 95% we don't know, 0.6% people with no mathematical training
Yeah, you beat live horses. I know, I've seen Freddy Got Fingered
Yes, so if someone says to you "hey you can have 10 million in stock options for your company" you should be thinking the same sort of thing as "hey you can have 1 million cash for your company".
I'd rather have 1 mill in the bank than 1 mill in stocks. If I wanted to invest it I could then go invest it in some fund... not putting all my eggs in the one basket.
Welcome to my Home Page!
I KICK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lameness filter sucks lameness filter sucks lameness filter sucks
I wish my rating were higher than my user ID :)
The article suggests that computers are 'catching up' to humans. IMHO the computers are already ahead of the humans. If the humans play normally they get crushed (eg. game 3). The humans can only win by luring the computer into an area of known weakness, keeping it there until the human's plans are ready, and then executing the attack with a precision beyond even many Grandmasters.
The endgame is only played perfectly for positions that the computer has tablebases for (all 3, 4, or 5 piece positions, and only some 6 piece positions). However the endgame can be reached with 20 or more pieces on the board.
... and I want to stop my opponent getting his King to here (points)".
Computers have a reputation for being bad at endgames that aren't in their tablebase (or nearly in it). If you have watched a Grandmaster analyse an ending then this will be clear. The way the human thinks is: "Given that the pawns are like they are, I want my King here (points to square), my Rook here (points)
The human knows from experience and study that if the pieces are in those positions then the game is won. The computer does not know this (it is a heuristic quality that the computer may be programmed with, but humans have an advantage of being able to recognize when the position is one that these rules apply, and what the exceptions are).
The human then begins to look at sequences of moves which will end up in the pieces getting to where he wants them (and prevent the opponent's pieces getting to where the opponent wants them).
On the other hand, the computer is just exploring almost completely by brute force (positional factors mean much less, or absolutely nothing, in endgames. Computers will often rate a position as +2.5 , or even +4, when humans can see that it is clearly drawn. This even happened in the Kasparov - DJ match where the computer had a passed pawn in a rook ending and thought it was +2.5, but Kasparov knew he was safe).
The computer will only win the ending if its brute force tree is big enough that it stumbles into a tactic, or into its tablebase.
Ending play is also a good gauge of a human's strength: great players are great endgame players.
Now, onto the openings. The computer's opening book is not necessarily an advantage. Sure, the book has moves, but are they the best moves? In the Kramnik - Deep Fritz match, Kramnik analysed the book before the match and found positions that were in the book but where the book's evaluation was wrong (that is to say, the book's programmers gave a line saying "this is good for me", but the line was actually good for the opponent and the programmers hasn't realised).
Human grandmasters follow the latest developments in opening theory and are able to steer the openings into ones that they know well. The human also has the great advantage of knowing what sort of opening moves translate to what sort of middlegame positions.
Consider the last game of Kasparov - DJ. That surely was in the computer's opening book for some time. But Kasparov knew that once the opening book ran out, the computer would not have a clue what to do because the position was one in which both players have to shuffle their pieces around behind their ranks preparing for the right moment to strike. The only way to know a good move is to have experience in the positions and know what squares will turn out to be good ones once the action begins. This was reflected in the match play, the computer mucked around horribly until Kasparov was nice enough to offer it a draw.
Actually this is not true. Each player still had about 40 minutes remaining to make another 15 or so moves, in the final position. And then another hour would have been added to each player's clock for each set of 20 moves following that.
The time is never up, in theory the game could have lasted for days (or years!).
In the post-match interview, Kasparov said he wanted to draw because the position was too complicated. If you heard the word 'time', it may have been in a context such as "I don't have enough time to work out all the complications" (meaning that Kasparov would reach the time controls before he was able to analyze the position to his content).
Would you shut up already, moderators mod this guy down.
Look at his post history and you will see half a dozen posts on this thread going "it was fake it was fake!"
An obvious troll.
Well I'm sure it's been covered an even number of times..
-1 Offtopic - you aren't allowed to post on this unless you're complaining about the dupe
The story must have been posted from Columbia when it was going at 18 times the speed of light
That reminds me of that recent Slashdot article about some people that sold their company for millions of dollars worth of stock options, then the company tanked, and they lost it all.
I think I'm really going out on a limb here, but why don't people ask for actual money when selling? Seems like it'd save a lot of heartbreak
Your post gives me an idea: why not just use UTF-8 for domain names?
This wouldn't require any bullshit approval and crap, no existing DNS systems would break because they currently reject requests with non-ascii utf-8 characters, the only implementation barrier would be waiting for any apps that want to support it to encode their URLs with a UTF-8 library.
Yeah, that's really annoying. Is it possible to change it to just say 'Dns Error' or 'Connection Refused' ?
When you get the stupid IE error page you dont know if it was a dns error or the side was down, unless you look at the statusbar in time and see 'dnserror.shdoc.navdll' or whatever
My question: what's the point?
We all know that NT4 microkernel is good and the reason it crashes so much is because people install drivers with bugs.
The same drivers will crash, regardless of whether the rest of the system is open or not..
Well, until five minutes ago I would have said that resolving non-ascii URLs to a set IP would be impossible to implement