I thought it was more if you win playing the same moves that a computer would make you are cheating.
This presupposes that computers play chess differently to humans. My understanding with chess is that there are certain 'stock' moves, openings and such like, that players memorize and use to their advantage. What if someone has set up positions and studied a computer response to those positions or play, would repeating the learned computer moves be the equivalent of cheating? What impact does an eidetic memory have on this where a person is able recall those positions and moves exactly?
The idea that there was some undetected cheating mechanism at play in the case in the article seems to go against the principle of Occam's Razor. The simplest solution to the issue is that either Ivanov just had a great tournament, or that his opponents played into situations for which he'd prepared with the aid of a computer, or a combination of the two. Such appears to be the level of mistrust in chess though that this simple solution is dismissed in search of something more fantastical.
If older gamers are unable to play twitch FPS games who is buying them? I guess I shouldn't be as I'm approaching 50 but I play console FPS games casually. I'm not rabid about my stats, my K/D ratio, or any of the other rubbish that dominates the testosterone filled minds of the kids, but that doesn't mean that I can't play at a decent level and get some fun out of it. People will play the games that interest them regardless of age. You don't suddenly get a pipe and slippers and resort to board game simulations once you turn 40.
The cloud based devices will garner some success but won't challenge consoles for during the lifetime of the next console generation. The main reason is that the additional lag and contention caused by cloud gaming will disrupt the experience. It doesn't matter if the lag is slight, some lag is lag and people notice it. With my console I can switch it on as long as I've power. I don't need a network connection, I don't need certain performance out of the network, it just works. Why would I swap that for buying something that may not work?
It's that 90% of the techies suck, to one degree or another. When they're young it's easy to overlook because you just assume they're inexperienced. The older they get the harder it is to overlook the fact that they really don't know all that much about their trade.
^^^ this.
I've often said that you could get rid of 90% of the people employed in technology and productivity would probably improve. There are people in tech jobs that are there because its where the money is, because they were told it was a good option and there were available jobs, they lack a feel for what they are doing. To them its just a job. The 10% are hampered because they have to explain things to the people that don't understand.
Its not a factor of age or education. Its a question of understanding.
As a freelancer I spent a chunk of the dotcom years wandering from short-term contract to short-term contract fixing the mess of the previous person that they'd hired. Companies that had bought fully redundant network kit but the techie they'd employed had plugged all of the interfaces of the DB server into the same blade of one of a pair of switches. People who striped their DB partitions across all of the disks in their JBOD arrays, including those hold swap, because they told them to. Architects that specified multiple swap partitions on a single spindle.
The real problem is employing people that look at IT as job rather than as a calling.
Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury
People don't wear helmets because they are worried they are going to fall of their bike. They wear them because they are worried they are going to get hit by a car and then have their heads hit the pavement with much greater force.
I used to ride to work. I was overtaken by on a downhill, doing 20+ mph, by a car that turned straight across my path causing me to hit him just behind the front wheel. I flew across the junction my head making contact with the kerbstone on the other side. My helmet cracked with the impact. I was concussed and my head and neck hurt for a few days. I have no doubt, nor did the emergency doctor at the time, that without the helmet I probably wouldn't have survived the impact.
I don't sit on multiple ISPs in a SAS70 rated datacenter. I do however host my own DNS. Its running hosted on a number of servers connected to different ISPs hosted at people's houses. There are outages for these connections but, due to the DNS configuration I'd have to lose all of them for a number of days before my domains disappeared off the internet.
DNS was designed for an Internet that pre-dated such datacenters, one with slower communications and regular outages. The primary rule is don't but your eggs all in the same basket, or subnet, or datacenter. DNS allows you to remove any single point of failure by its design. To not take advantage of that, preferring to rely on 5 9s uptimes, seems nonsensical.
Personally I would trust Google to consider user rights a little bit more, but the exploitation of such a system is damn scary.
I'd be interested to hear your reasoning behind that.
Google still have WiFi data that they collected when creating street view. Google and privacy aren't too things that go too well together, the overall impression I have is that they don't care about it at all.
If the end comes, which I don't believe just that general purpose computers will go back to being a more specialist/expensive tool, then we, the technologists, will only have ourselves to blame.
The reason this is happening is because we have just cared about the other tech users. We've poured scorn on people that click on the wrong link and download a virus. We've tutted at those people that don't know what a file-system is, or why one is better than others. We've laughed when we've heard that someone is still running Windows ME. In short we've cared about ourselves, and our needs, rather than the needs of everyone.
If we had tried to make things simpler and harder to break, but still retained the flexibility, we could probably have done it but it was cooler to rewrite a device driver, or develop a new filesystem/GUI. We didn't, and this is the result.
Then they need to put their PR machine on it. Smear the judge in the media, smear the whole damn thing. make it exceedingly embarrassing for the judge to do anything but be fair.
A dirty bought off judge needs to have their character attacked in the public eye, They deserve nothing but contempt.
Ah, that's it. The judge has been bought off. There's no point in a having a trial, the result is forgone.
Why does this stuff get modded as insightful on slashdot? Have we all become a bunch of in-grained idiots cheering for our favourites, without paying even lip service to the facts? How about, rather than pre-judging everything, and accusing judges of being crooked, we wait a little while and examine the facts that are revealed? I know its a lot to ask, but aren't we supposed to be geeks? Aren't facts and logic what we deal with?
There is a misconception here that this is a trail before the court of public opinion. This is not the case. This is a trial before the law. It doesn't matter what we believe is fair and just, frequently the law isn't to all parties, it matters what can be proven in law. Of course if you're backing Samsung, because Apple is evil, none of this matters. They are guilty and should just cease trading and give all of their IP to Google for the benefit of mankind.
Call me old fashioned but I'd like to hear the evidence before making a judgement.
I have meetings most days. I have a handful of 'virtual' meetings. Regardless of the technology there is no substitute for being there.
Concorde could made meetings that much more practical. Post 9-11 the increased times for check-in, security checks, meant that the advantage of flying by Concorde was gone.
FFS Motorola are trying to charge way above the norm for FRAND patents. If everyone with a FRAND patent charged the percentage Motorola is after there would be no way for anyone to make anything.
Its much easier to just bash Apple though. Way to let your agenda and prejudice show.
Absolutely. We have moved into the age of the appliance. For the majority of people this is a good thing. They don't understand, and have no interest in understanding, the complexity of general purpose computers. They want access to the internet, an ability to manipulate digital media, and something to load useful apps and games onto. They want something that is protected from being rooted by malicious hackers. They want to be able to trust their device to not transfer all of their account details to someone able to install a keylogger or similar.
You really believe this stuff don't you? I thought you were all trolls but I've finally come to the understanding that the world is in fact doomed. WARNING here comes the clue stick...
*whack* People buy iOS devices out of choice. No through brain washing etc
*whack* Most users are not technically savvy.
*whack* People just want their things to work. The App Store model came about because the previous unrestricted install model caused issues that users couldn't fix.
*whack* There is no much more friendly computer out there.
And what dip shits like you fail to understand is those updates may be necessary to keep the iPad device working properly. There in lies the problem. Given that no injunction has been issued preventing Apple from selling the app, Apple has no compelling reason for removing the app.
Oooh... you used an insult, that must make your point more valid.
If its working now then it will continue to work. Don't apply updates and it will continue to function. Its not really that difficult. I realise that from your tone you probably aren't familiar with the concept of not fixing what isn't broken but, in general, it works.
Whilst I can see the points being made, and understand them, there is little difference between closed and open source from an ordinary end-user point of view. If they are unable to examine, update, modify, and build the software themselves there is no real difference between open source or closed source software. To the contrary closed source is likely to better serve their particular needs as the closed source vendor has to persuade them to spend money on it.
There has to be some benefit to R&D or people won't do it. If you invent a new dohickey get it to market but someone else with deep pockets then copies it, under-cuts you, and stops you reaping the benefits, potentially putting you out of business are you just going to shrug your shoulders and say "it's just capitalism in action."?
Some of the patents are too broad, some of the things Apple is using are ridiculous, however there is no doubt that Samsung has copied Apple's products as near as it can in order to leech off Apple's R&D. Samsung could have put more differentiation in their interface, as other manufacturers have done, but they didn't. They've chosen to copy and deal with the ongoing fallout in the courts.
If Apple loses these cases, and Samsung is free to copy, how long before others do the same? Its a shame that the majority of visitors here are still using GoogleVision (tm) and can't see the wood for the trees.
Only recently, one Scottish local authority was fined £140,000 ($220,000) for five separate data breaches — the highest fine imposed by the courts to date.
Furthermore the summary was quoting the original article, hence the quotation marks, so don't take it out on the summary.
I think you're mistaking use requirements with superiority. I don't want to start a flame war, or fan the flames, but technically both iOS and Android have similar capabilties. The examples you give are design choices to make things easier for ordinary people rather than measures of inferiority. This isn't an apology just an observation.
Consider the placing of files on a filesystem. The number of times I've had to help people find images, movies, other files, on their phone because they didn't know where it was. Was it on the internal memory, was it on a memory card. It shouldn't matter. They just want to look at the picture, not learn how the filesystem on their phone is organised. Its unnecessary detail. Its a design choice to make things easier to understand.
As a counter example; Text messaging on an HTC Android phone. The more messages you have on the phone the worse performance gets. You get a nice helpful display of the count of messages you have exchanged with a person but the way that these are managed and presented causes the phone to lock up once the message count gets high as it loads all the messages. On iOS this performance hit doesn't happen. You are only presented with a manageable number of the most recent messages. If you want to go further back you hit a button to load more messages. This is a design choice by both and in this case iOS is superior.
Superiority is a judgement call based on requirements. For your specific requirements Android is obviously a better fit, for others iOS is a better fit.
Consider why Google is so keen on making Android a success. Its nothing to do with battling the evil of Apple. Its nothing to do with fighting the OSS fight. Its nothing to do with making the data free. Its all about keeping Google relevant in the post-PC world and ensuring they are able to deliver GoogleAds to as many people as possible and thus maintain an income. This move by Google is to make sure that their partners stick with Android and don't go off and do their own thing.
According to my iPhone there is no calendar beyond Wednesday 2nd April 2149. It won't even let you book an all day event, so the end must come sometime during that day.
It will be afforded the normal protection due to the ships of the flag carrying nation. It doesn't suddenly become the wild uncontrolled seas once you head out into international waters. I wouldn't be surprised if there are reciprocal aggrements in place that would give say Marshall Islands registered ships some protection from the US Coastguard even though they are in international waters.
I don't agree with the original poster about the deficiencies in IrDA.
This was in a time when dial-up access was the norm, if you were lucky you had ISDN, and your cellphone gave you patch 9600 baud connectivity. IrDA was fine in this situation.
I used my Nokia 6320 phone and Palm V to restart servers whilst on call from the comfort of restaurants, and even to make changes to Perl scripts from a different country. The range was poor, but fine, the performance was limited by the cellphone not IrDA.
and I think that youre mostly kind of wrong. Who wins?
Google keeps what makes it money secret. The rest is just about driving traffic towards Google to allow it to make money. Its not important to the bottom line so there is no need to keep it secret. This isn't so different to Apple placing Darwin and WebKit in the public domain.
No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable.
Slashdot Mirror
If you win against a computer you are cheating
I thought it was more if you win playing the same moves that a computer would make you are cheating.
This presupposes that computers play chess differently to humans. My understanding with chess is that there are certain 'stock' moves, openings and such like, that players memorize and use to their advantage. What if someone has set up positions and studied a computer response to those positions or play, would repeating the learned computer moves be the equivalent of cheating? What impact does an eidetic memory have on this where a person is able recall those positions and moves exactly?
The idea that there was some undetected cheating mechanism at play in the case in the article seems to go against the principle of Occam's Razor. The simplest solution to the issue is that either Ivanov just had a great tournament, or that his opponents played into situations for which he'd prepared with the aid of a computer, or a combination of the two. Such appears to be the level of mistrust in chess though that this simple solution is dismissed in search of something more fantastical.
If older gamers are unable to play twitch FPS games who is buying them? I guess I shouldn't be as I'm approaching 50 but I play console FPS games casually. I'm not rabid about my stats, my K/D ratio, or any of the other rubbish that dominates the testosterone filled minds of the kids, but that doesn't mean that I can't play at a decent level and get some fun out of it. People will play the games that interest them regardless of age. You don't suddenly get a pipe and slippers and resort to board game simulations once you turn 40.
The cloud based devices will garner some success but won't challenge consoles for during the lifetime of the next console generation. The main reason is that the additional lag and contention caused by cloud gaming will disrupt the experience. It doesn't matter if the lag is slight, some lag is lag and people notice it. With my console I can switch it on as long as I've power. I don't need a network connection, I don't need certain performance out of the network, it just works. Why would I swap that for buying something that may not work?
It's that 90% of the techies suck, to one degree or another. When they're young it's easy to overlook because you just assume they're inexperienced. The older they get the harder it is to overlook the fact that they really don't know all that much about their trade.
^^^ this.
I've often said that you could get rid of 90% of the people employed in technology and productivity would probably improve. There are people in tech jobs that are there because its where the money is, because they were told it was a good option and there were available jobs, they lack a feel for what they are doing. To them its just a job. The 10% are hampered because they have to explain things to the people that don't understand.
Its not a factor of age or education. Its a question of understanding.
As a freelancer I spent a chunk of the dotcom years wandering from short-term contract to short-term contract fixing the mess of the previous person that they'd hired. Companies that had bought fully redundant network kit but the techie they'd employed had plugged all of the interfaces of the DB server into the same blade of one of a pair of switches. People who striped their DB partitions across all of the disks in their JBOD arrays, including those hold swap, because they told them to. Architects that specified multiple swap partitions on a single spindle.
The real problem is employing people that look at IT as job rather than as a calling.
Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury
People don't wear helmets because they are worried they are going to fall of their bike. They wear them because they are worried they are going to get hit by a car and then have their heads hit the pavement with much greater force.
I used to ride to work. I was overtaken by on a downhill, doing 20+ mph, by a car that turned straight across my path causing me to hit him just behind the front wheel. I flew across the junction my head making contact with the kerbstone on the other side. My helmet cracked with the impact. I was concussed and my head and neck hurt for a few days. I have no doubt, nor did the emergency doctor at the time, that without the helmet I probably wouldn't have survived the impact.
Wear a helmet, it makes sense.
I don't sit on multiple ISPs in a SAS70 rated datacenter. I do however host my own DNS. Its running hosted on a number of servers connected to different ISPs hosted at people's houses. There are outages for these connections but, due to the DNS configuration I'd have to lose all of them for a number of days before my domains disappeared off the internet.
DNS was designed for an Internet that pre-dated such datacenters, one with slower communications and regular outages. The primary rule is don't but your eggs all in the same basket, or subnet, or datacenter. DNS allows you to remove any single point of failure by its design. To not take advantage of that, preferring to rely on 5 9s uptimes, seems nonsensical.
Personally I would trust Google to consider user rights a little bit more, but the exploitation of such a system is damn scary.
I'd be interested to hear your reasoning behind that.
Google still have WiFi data that they collected when creating street view. Google and privacy aren't too things that go too well together, the overall impression I have is that they don't care about it at all.
If the end comes, which I don't believe just that general purpose computers will go back to being a more specialist/expensive tool, then we, the technologists, will only have ourselves to blame.
The reason this is happening is because we have just cared about the other tech users. We've poured scorn on people that click on the wrong link and download a virus. We've tutted at those people that don't know what a file-system is, or why one is better than others. We've laughed when we've heard that someone is still running Windows ME. In short we've cared about ourselves, and our needs, rather than the needs of everyone.
If we had tried to make things simpler and harder to break, but still retained the flexibility, we could probably have done it but it was cooler to rewrite a device driver, or develop a new filesystem/GUI. We didn't, and this is the result.
Then they need to put their PR machine on it. Smear the judge in the media, smear the whole damn thing. make it exceedingly embarrassing for the judge to do anything but be fair.
A dirty bought off judge needs to have their character attacked in the public eye, They deserve nothing but contempt.
Ah, that's it. The judge has been bought off. There's no point in a having a trial, the result is forgone.
Why does this stuff get modded as insightful on slashdot? Have we all become a bunch of in-grained idiots cheering for our favourites, without paying even lip service to the facts? How about, rather than pre-judging everything, and accusing judges of being crooked, we wait a little while and examine the facts that are revealed? I know its a lot to ask, but aren't we supposed to be geeks? Aren't facts and logic what we deal with?
There is a misconception here that this is a trail before the court of public opinion. This is not the case. This is a trial before the law. It doesn't matter what we believe is fair and just, frequently the law isn't to all parties, it matters what can be proven in law. Of course if you're backing Samsung, because Apple is evil, none of this matters. They are guilty and should just cease trading and give all of their IP to Google for the benefit of mankind.
Call me old fashioned but I'd like to hear the evidence before making a judgement.
I have meetings most days. I have a handful of 'virtual' meetings. Regardless of the technology there is no substitute for being there.
Concorde could made meetings that much more practical. Post 9-11 the increased times for check-in, security checks, meant that the advantage of flying by Concorde was gone.
FFS Motorola are trying to charge way above the norm for FRAND patents. If everyone with a FRAND patent charged the percentage Motorola is after there would be no way for anyone to make anything.
Its much easier to just bash Apple though. Way to let your agenda and prejudice show.
year of the demise of the desktop...
Absolutely. We have moved into the age of the appliance. For the majority of people this is a good thing. They don't understand, and have no interest in understanding, the complexity of general purpose computers. They want access to the internet, an ability to manipulate digital media, and something to load useful apps and games onto. They want something that is protected from being rooted by malicious hackers. They want to be able to trust their device to not transfer all of their account details to someone able to install a keylogger or similar.
Its interesting that if you make a comment against the hive mind you its flamebait. Oh well, debate is dead here anyway.
Ha ha ha ha
You really believe this stuff don't you? I thought you were all trolls but I've finally come to the understanding that the world is in fact doomed. WARNING here comes the clue stick...
*whack* People buy iOS devices out of choice. No through brain washing etc
*whack* Most users are not technically savvy.
*whack* People just want their things to work. The App Store model came about because the previous unrestricted install model caused issues that users couldn't fix.
*whack* There is no much more friendly computer out there.
And what dip shits like you fail to understand is those updates may be necessary to keep the iPad device working properly. There in lies the problem. Given that no injunction has been issued preventing Apple from selling the app, Apple has no compelling reason for removing the app.
Oooh ... you used an insult, that must make your point more valid.
If its working now then it will continue to work. Don't apply updates and it will continue to function. Its not really that difficult. I realise that from your tone you probably aren't familiar with the concept of not fixing what isn't broken but, in general, it works.
Don't apply the iOS update until the situation is resolved. Its not that difficult.
Whilst I can see the points being made, and understand them, there is little difference between closed and open source from an ordinary end-user point of view. If they are unable to examine, update, modify, and build the software themselves there is no real difference between open source or closed source software. To the contrary closed source is likely to better serve their particular needs as the closed source vendor has to persuade them to spend money on it.
There has to be some benefit to R&D or people won't do it. If you invent a new dohickey get it to market but someone else with deep pockets then copies it, under-cuts you, and stops you reaping the benefits, potentially putting you out of business are you just going to shrug your shoulders and say "it's just capitalism in action."?
Some of the patents are too broad, some of the things Apple is using are ridiculous, however there is no doubt that Samsung has copied Apple's products as near as it can in order to leech off Apple's R&D. Samsung could have put more differentiation in their interface, as other manufacturers have done, but they didn't. They've chosen to copy and deal with the ongoing fallout in the courts.
If Apple loses these cases, and Samsung is free to copy, how long before others do the same? Its a shame that the majority of visitors here are still using GoogleVision (tm) and can't see the wood for the trees.
If they get enough people like Massie in the Tea Party, they might bring up the average IQ into triple digits.
Hi IQ is no barrier to wrong headed thinking.
If you read the linked article you will see:
Furthermore the summary was quoting the original article, hence the quotation marks, so don't take it out on the summary.
I think you're mistaking use requirements with superiority. I don't want to start a flame war, or fan the flames, but technically both iOS and Android have similar capabilties. The examples you give are design choices to make things easier for ordinary people rather than measures of inferiority. This isn't an apology just an observation.
Consider the placing of files on a filesystem. The number of times I've had to help people find images, movies, other files, on their phone because they didn't know where it was. Was it on the internal memory, was it on a memory card. It shouldn't matter. They just want to look at the picture, not learn how the filesystem on their phone is organised. Its unnecessary detail. Its a design choice to make things easier to understand.
As a counter example; Text messaging on an HTC Android phone. The more messages you have on the phone the worse performance gets. You get a nice helpful display of the count of messages you have exchanged with a person but the way that these are managed and presented causes the phone to lock up once the message count gets high as it loads all the messages. On iOS this performance hit doesn't happen. You are only presented with a manageable number of the most recent messages. If you want to go further back you hit a button to load more messages. This is a design choice by both and in this case iOS is superior.
Superiority is a judgement call based on requirements. For your specific requirements Android is obviously a better fit, for others iOS is a better fit.
Consider why Google is so keen on making Android a success. Its nothing to do with battling the evil of Apple. Its nothing to do with fighting the OSS fight. Its nothing to do with making the data free. Its all about keeping Google relevant in the post-PC world and ensuring they are able to deliver GoogleAds to as many people as possible and thus maintain an income. This move by Google is to make sure that their partners stick with Android and don't go off and do their own thing.
According to my iPhone there is no calendar beyond Wednesday 2nd April 2149. It won't even let you book an all day event, so the end must come sometime during that day.
It will be afforded the normal protection due to the ships of the flag carrying nation. It doesn't suddenly become the wild uncontrolled seas once you head out into international waters. I wouldn't be surprised if there are reciprocal aggrements in place that would give say Marshall Islands registered ships some protection from the US Coastguard even though they are in international waters.
I don't agree with the original poster about the deficiencies in IrDA.
This was in a time when dial-up access was the norm, if you were lucky you had ISDN, and your cellphone gave you patch 9600 baud connectivity. IrDA was fine in this situation.
I used my Nokia 6320 phone and Palm V to restart servers whilst on call from the comfort of restaurants, and even to make changes to Perl scripts from a different country. The range was poor, but fine, the performance was limited by the cellphone not IrDA.
Kids of today, they've no idea
but i think im mostly kind of right.
and I think that youre mostly kind of wrong. Who wins?
Google keeps what makes it money secret. The rest is just about driving traffic towards Google to allow it to make money. Its not important to the bottom line so there is no need to keep it secret. This isn't so different to Apple placing Darwin and WebKit in the public domain.
No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable.