Re:Please, Deep Blue is not AI, chess is a limited
on
Behind Deep Blue
·
· Score: 2
Your comments are naive. "Billions" is a bit of an understatement - like going to a beach and saying "There are dozens of grains of sand here".
Even the most recent man-machine match featured the human winning 2 games against the strongest computer in the world (it's much stronger than Deep Blue was), despite being able to see 20ply ahead in all lines and over 100ply ahead in selected lines.
My point is that just brute force is not good enough to be an effective chess program; the programs also use various forms of reasoning to assess the position. Is intelligence more than just the use of heuristic algorithms?
Well - adding negotiation to the current infrastructure will exacerbate what is in my opinion the worst aspect of spam: the amount of bandwidth it consumes.
IM2000 does have an impact on spam filtering: it is more reliable for an ISP to prevent its users spamming by scanning its hard drives, than it is to intercept their outgoing traffic (especially if the spammer does not use the ISP's SMTP server).
Under IM2000, ISPs could be responsible for their users' spam (because it is realistic for them to control it in this scenario); and it would be relatively easy to blacklist servers which did generate spam. Perhaps even some chain system for trusted servers could be set up so that your mail client would tell you if some waiting mail was from an unauthorised source, and automatically hide it, so that the spam does not cause annoyance value.
I tried the Sandblad#10 working code exploit (seems to be the latest post on this issue on bugtraq?) and it didn't work, despite my system being on the list of affected systems. So now I will not have to bother with disabling everything until MS comes up with a patch..
Interesting point. I guess we're lucky here - there are a number of peer sites in the country which most (all?) ISPs either belong to, or their uplink belongs to. It's rare to take 10 hops to reach someone else in the country. Perhaps more intelligent peering could save your state's ISPs in bandwidth costs as well as improving customer service?
Here (New Zealand) all broadband ISPs have data caps (eg. 10Gb free per month and 10c/Mb after), but many only apply this limit to international traffic, and offer free national traffic.
This means that the ISP is fast for international traffic because it isn't full of people leeching warez from america, and fast for national traffic because there is a lot of national broadband infrastructure.
It also means that I download my stuff from people in the same country --- and let those who do have unlimited access for whatever reason (eg. works at a big ISP) do all the importing, and then several people download it from this person's web server, and then everybody else can grab it from the national P2P network, which is not subject to throttling like the international networks.
Since ISPs introduced these caps, my P2P usage (and that of many others) has increased. The ISPs save money and provide better service too, the only losers are the vampires who continuously download without giving anything back.
Upwards and onwards!
I imagine ISPs in the USA may offer similar free-for-this-state traffic, and cap inter-state and international traffic..?
It is just B.S.'s "recommended style" to use the C++ cast operators. You don't actually have to do it if you are not casting to a class type (as was the case in this thread's example)
Re the second point - I'll give you that if you give me the first - in this case the compiler doesn't complain but it is "good style" to be specific.
Actually this is rubbish, you don't have to explicitly cast in C++. The compiler will guess the right cast type, the same as it does in C.
If you're going to complain about casting int to char * without warning, as you do in the second example, you should also complain about converting void * to char * without warning..
The guy's point was that at least with C you only need to grok one layer of abstraction, but with say SQL over an XML database, you need to grok several new levels of abstraction *as well as* the C level(s), since your SQL and XML tools were probably written in C. The upshot being that programming these days requires much more sophisticated abstraction layer knowledge by the programmers, to be able to "use them properly" , as you would say.
There are very few legal C constructs that are not legal C++ [and behaving in the same way] - I'd even suggest that this set is as small as possible as can be with an incremental upgrade (eg. you're always going to get reserved-word conflicts when you incrementally add new reserved words).
"string" and "array" are high level concepts that C doesn't have. The "leak" that the author perceived exists only in the minds of people who lay the idea of array objects over the actual case of some data in adjacent memory locations.
Why doesn't C have string or array objects built in? Because C is designed to be fast and low-level, and any array implementation that creates an object will do something that is not optimally fast in some applications.
Regarding the author's class - he should teach them that "foo" is not an object, it's a number representing a memory address, but String("foo") is. Then the "foo + bar" confusion will never arise.
Doesn't sound too different to iD software.. remember how they were promising in Quake 1 you'd be able to kill something, and then rip its arm off and go around using that as a weapon, and so on?
Keep dreaming bud... Worse case scenario (from MS's point of view) is that they'll have to stop IE displaying plugins. Then they will of course legally challenge what constitutes a "plugin" as far as they can.
Most likely IMHO they'll just ignore any court ruling for 5 years until the court finally decides to threaten them with something serious, at which point technology will have advanced so that they lose nothing by complying. And of course this is only in the good old US of A, the EU doesn't recognize US software patents.
Not really. His idea can run over any other OS, it's just that his development tools are for win2k and nobody has ported it to other OS's yet. I bet that there are people who've read this story and started on a Linux version already..
Slashdot Mirror
Your comments are naive. "Billions" is a bit of an understatement - like going to a beach and saying "There are dozens of grains of sand here".
Even the most recent man-machine match featured the human winning 2 games against the strongest computer in the world (it's much stronger than Deep Blue was), despite being able to see 20ply ahead in all lines and over 100ply ahead in selected lines.
My point is that just brute force is not good enough to be an effective chess program; the programs also use various forms of reasoning to assess the position. Is intelligence more than just the use of heuristic algorithms?
Well - adding negotiation to the current infrastructure will exacerbate what is in my opinion the worst aspect of spam: the amount of bandwidth it consumes.
IM2000 does have an impact on spam filtering: it is more reliable for an ISP to prevent its users spamming by scanning its hard drives, than it is to intercept their outgoing traffic (especially if the spammer does not use the ISP's SMTP server).
Under IM2000, ISPs could be responsible for their users' spam (because it is realistic for them to control it in this scenario); and it would be relatively easy to blacklist servers which did generate spam. Perhaps even some chain system for trusted servers could be set up so that your mail client would tell you if some waiting mail was from an unauthorised source, and automatically hide it, so that the spam does not cause annoyance value.
I agree.
I tried the Sandblad#10 working code exploit (seems to be the latest post on this issue on bugtraq?) and it didn't work, despite my system being on the list of affected systems. So now I will not have to bother with disabling everything until MS comes up with a patch..
Interesting point. I guess we're lucky here - there are a number of peer sites in the country which most (all?) ISPs either belong to, or their uplink belongs to. It's rare to take 10 hops to reach someone else in the country. Perhaps more intelligent peering could save your state's ISPs in bandwidth costs as well as improving customer service?
Here (New Zealand) all broadband ISPs have data caps (eg. 10Gb free per month and 10c/Mb after), but many only apply this limit to international traffic, and offer free national traffic.
This means that the ISP is fast for international traffic because it isn't full of people leeching warez from america, and fast for national traffic because there is a lot of national broadband infrastructure.
It also means that I download my stuff from people in the same country --- and let those who do have unlimited access for whatever reason (eg. works at a big ISP) do all the importing, and then several people download it from this person's web server, and then everybody else can grab it from the national P2P network, which is not subject to throttling like the international networks.
Since ISPs introduced these caps, my P2P usage (and that of many others) has increased. The ISPs save money and provide better service too, the only losers are the vampires who continuously download without giving anything back.
Upwards and onwards!
I imagine ISPs in the USA may offer similar free-for-this-state traffic, and cap inter-state and international traffic..?
The worse spam gets, the more people will look to alternatives. Maybe it's time to set up some infrastructure for Internet Mail 2000.
It is just B.S.'s "recommended style" to use the C++ cast operators. You don't actually have to do it if you are not casting to a class type (as was the case in this thread's example)
Re the second point - I'll give you that if you give me the first - in this case the compiler doesn't complain but it is "good style" to be specific.
Slashdot reported a while ago that google.com used a cluster of 8,000 Red Hat boxes. Surely this would make the top 500 list?
what else is "gay" used for?
So, has Gillette licensed 500,000,000 of the address space, or have they purchased this many actual devices? The article isn't very clear.
Actually this is rubbish, you don't have to explicitly cast in C++. The compiler will guess the right cast type, the same as it does in C.
If you're going to complain about casting int to char * without warning, as you do in the second example, you should also complain about converting void * to char * without warning..
Oh there's heaps, just google for it. Just off the top of my head:
/* that was legal in C but not C++ */
/* reserved word in C++ */
void func();
main() { func(a, b); }
char *old;
char *new;
The guy's point was that at least with C you only need to grok one layer of abstraction, but with say SQL over an XML database, you need to grok several new levels of abstraction *as well as* the C level(s), since your SQL and XML tools were probably written in C. The upshot being that programming these days requires much more sophisticated abstraction layer knowledge by the programmers, to be able to "use them properly" , as you would say.
I like C and C++ for the same reason. I know the languages well enough know that (barring compiler bugs!!) what I write is what I get.
Could this not be the same for HLLs?
There are very few legal C constructs that are not legal C++ [and behaving in the same way] - I'd even suggest that this set is as small as possible as can be with an incremental upgrade (eg. you're always going to get reserved-word conflicts when you incrementally add new reserved words).
"string" and "array" are high level concepts that C doesn't have. The "leak" that the author perceived exists only in the minds of people who lay the idea of array objects over the actual case of some data in adjacent memory locations.
Why doesn't C have string or array objects built in? Because C is designed to be fast and low-level, and any array implementation that creates an object will do something that is not optimally fast in some applications.
Regarding the author's class - he should teach them that "foo" is not an object, it's a number representing a memory address, but String("foo") is. Then the "foo + bar" confusion will never arise.
Doesn't sound too different to iD software.. remember how they were promising in Quake 1 you'd be able to kill something, and then rip its arm off and go around using that as a weapon, and so on?
It did actually come out in 1999, didn't it? The startup screen says (c) Microsoft, whenever-1999
Keep dreaming bud...
Worse case scenario (from MS's point of view) is that they'll have to stop IE displaying plugins. Then they will of course legally challenge what constitutes a "plugin" as far as they can.
Most likely IMHO they'll just ignore any court ruling for 5 years until the court finally decides to threaten them with something serious, at which point technology will have advanced so that they lose nothing by complying. And of course this is only in the good old US of A, the EU doesn't recognize US software patents.
Everything's obvious after somebody else has already done it..
(apart from physics maybe)
Nor does Win98 or later. They boot their kernel out of dos (the same way that LDLINUX does).
Not really. His idea can run over any other OS, it's just that his development tools are for win2k and nobody has ported it to other OS's yet. I bet that there are people who've read this story and started on a Linux version already..
I wonder if there will be a "George Michael" key that you can press while in the toilets
Dammit, now I have to reload at -1 to see what you are talking about
Here's a hint. Why don't you not click on the links to the screenshots and videos, or not download the leaked version. Sheesh.