Battlezone was a great example of perfect AI play causing a weakness. The enemy tank only fired on you when you were in it's sights. You could turn in place until you heard it's shot, then move forward causing a miss. Repeat until you are almost(but not quite) facing it, then go forward until you pass it, then back up, turn, fire. If it was changed to randomly fire in front of you or at you then it would have been a lot tougher.
Other people follow a rational process when acting. If you understand their process, you can predict their actions, and beat them - that's the vast majority of what tactics is. Sure, you might not get it right 100% of the time, and yeah, they might act unpredictably - but an unpredictable action is usually one that is tactically inferior (or you've made a failure in not identifying it as a tactical possibility). So yes, play against a human a bunch of times, and you will begin to understand their "algorithm", they'll begin to understand yours, and that's where the fun really starts.
AIs don't have the faculty to develop their own rational processes, so they're given algorithms that mimic them. A decent AI should generally make rational, tactical actions, and they should be somewhat predictable, based on what makes tactical sense given the physics of the gameworld, the current state of play, etc.
If your opponent intentionally tries to be unpredictable, the game is no fun. Try playing chess with someone who isn't making tactical moves, but just acting unpredictably - you might lose a few games due to over-thinking, but overall, you'll probably win, and get no satisfaction out of it because chess is a highly tactical game, and an unpredictable player removes a large part of the tactical element, making the game not fun.
When you reach a level of skill in Chess where you focus on positional play(tactics still exist, but they are backing up your strategies) instead of pure tactics then your opponent's unpredictable moves will probably mean they are not defending against your long-term strategy and they are not doing anything useful. Eventually your position will be strong enough that they can't defend themselves because they have too many weaknesses and you can choose which one to exploit. For example, the opening stage focuses on center control, if they do not actively counter your plan on controlling the center, then they will have a very cramped position.
Playing against someone who doesn't have any idea on how to play the position is very boring. But playing against someone in a position both sides have a lot of knowledge in is very satisfying, even if you lose.
Or maybe we could infect politicians on the take from pharma companies with deadly diseases so the R&D departments would have to actually work on cures for diseases instead of drugs that alleviate symptoms while adding nasty side effects.
I think the pharma companies would love that! They can bribe the politicians with free medication that they will be dependent on. They'll also want tax breaks to increase research and development on better versions that have less side effects. But cures will still be rare. They make more money being drug dealers to a continuously increasing market.
For crying out loud, why such a stupidity - we already had sail ships in the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s that had same size sails as this stillborn, and some of them were really good. Powering this by li-ion and photostatic is an excessive waste of precious resources and should be considered criminal negligence against the future of mankind.
If you want to wage war against anyone wasting precious resources, good luck, this ship is minor leagues compared to others. But I don't think they are trying to replace sails. It's not even claiming to be practical. It's cool that they don't need anything but the sun for powering on-board systems and locomotion. Sometime in the future when battery and photo-voltaic technology improves it will become more practical.
The first horse-less carriages probably seemed wasteful, but look at them now.
Edusystem 50 on a pdp-8 via teletype was my first. I remember thinking that when I become successful, I'll get a Decwriter II, those things are awesome!
My work laptop has a quad-core. It seems that at least one, sometimes two processors are required for the various security software that is always running on it. There's also other "maintenance" software that runs in the background. I can usually count on having one or two processors for work but it seems like Windows XP's scheduler makes the quad feel like a uni-processor.
It would be nice if I could run Linux, installed and maintained by myself, then I would have plenty of processing power, but that will never happen.
Some of us want a passionate and loving relationship, not a business relationship. I grew up witnessing so many married couples putting up with a spouse who they no longer had a loving relationship with, because they felt it was the "right thing to do". Because of that, I put up with my first marriage even though my spouse decided it was okay to be an abusive bitch. Other men complain about the same thing, so isn't normal? No, it is not! When she decided to have an affair that led to our divorce, it turned out to be a blessing, because I would have otherwise stuck it out in hell.
Now I'm married to someone who loves and respects me, and I love and respect her as well! Don't lower your expectations unless they are unreasonable. Instead, you should realize that you have a right to a healthy loving relationship.
I have little faith in commercial dating sites. On the worst ones, people who don't pay can't send messages, but you still see them anyway. So that means the vast majority of profiles you read, are utterly irrelevant. It's okay when people who don't pay can still respond to messages of paid members, though.
I agree, the commercial ones are horrible. You try to reach out to 20 profiles, but it turns out that only one is a paid member, but you don't know that so your ego goes south. Then, when your membership is almost done, you get a lot of "members" who are interested in you, you pay for another month and none of them reply back. They're run like a total scam!
As others have mentioned, including yourself, there are free sites that are much better than the commercial ones. Makes a huge difference when all members can reply back!
How many people prior to the 90s had to settle for whoever they met in a 50 mile radius of their place of birth?
Thank you! Somebody who get's it.
It's amazing how many idiots can't grasp this simple concept. The biggest advantage of online dating is it allows you to network yourself in the dating world more effectively. It's not like you can go into a bar and yell "I'm a computer geek who is looking for a single intelligent and attractive woman who is interested in techies who look like me! I'm going to Comic Con this weekend, any takers?", Nobody?? Fine, I'm off to the next bar.
What if your soul mate doesn't hang out in bars, or other social venues? Not much chance of it happening, is it?
IRL?? What do you Neo-Luddites think happens? Do you think we all jump into virtual reality and live our lives there? Of course IRL meetings happen, it's part of the process. Online interaction is not substituted for face-to-face interaction, it's a step before face-to-face interaction. Even better, it facilitates face-to-face interactions between people who would otherwise never meet, even though they are a good match.
For those "The old-fashion way is the best, I walked up to my future wife and started talking to her", really? Do you have psychic powers that let you home in on the right one? Or did you marry the first girl who would talk to you?
I met my current wife on OkCupid, and OMG I can't believe how much I am in love with her. She's awesome! Would I have met her without online resources? Not likely. Different states, different circles etc. But we were able to discover someone that extremely interested us. There was no other way it could have happened, other than developing psychic powers!
Am I the only one who thinks it's very bizarre that there are people interacting on an online forum who don't understand the concept of people interacting online?
When properly used in the right cases, Thorazine was great! Unfortunately, you have too many idiots over prescribing it and you have issues like Tardive dyskinesia and the "Thorazine shuffle". And the newer atypical anti-psychotics are dangerous as well(ie: Abilify). I swear they get kickbacks on prescribing these newer and very expensive medications.
I'm not knocking the meds, I think they are great when properly prescribed for the right people, but most of these quacks haven't a clue and the repercussions are making people afraid of using medication.
For a lot less money you could get a Looxcie 2 or Looxcie HD.
It fits and looks like a bluetooth headset, and you can use it for calls as well. My only issue is the red light that turns on to indicate it's recording.
There's tons of applications for it. Imagine being at a party and being able to use facial recognition to note people's names so you can remember them twenty minutes later. Techies will be able to emulate highly developed social skills!
Are you saying it's okay to increase the pool of qualified surgeons? Think of all the super steady handed surgeons who won't be able to charge a hefty sum for their services. Of course, those same surgeons will suddenly think it's a great idea when they lose their steady hand.
Robots do not have to be autonomous. They don't even have to have a cpu. But even if they did have a cpu, I wouldn't say they are deciding anything. Without a random number generator the resulting action should always be the same.
You would think so, but they don't. If they made it possible for you to tell the difference between a paying member and a non-paying member, then I think they would be a lot better. Before using OKCupid, I used match.com, which was a joke. I would get hits from across the country, rarely near me. One of them wanted to contact me using email and when I checked the headers it was from Russia! OKCupid was a million times better!
I met my wife through a good, and free, online dating service. The problem with the ones you pay for is that most of the members(95%?) can not reply back and they make it impossible to tell who is a paying member or non-paying member. But a good service allows you to find someone that is a great match. Without online services you have what? Bars, work, church? Even then you have to hope for good timing and the geographical range is limited.
The articles statement about you taking people for granted is BS. Some might, but that's because they have issues that exist outside of online dating. Know what you want and don't be afraid to set deal breakers. If you hate smoking and can't deal with it, no smokers, or the reverse if you love smoking. You need to be honest with yourself and your potential mate.
Look up New Hampshire gun laws and tell me it's difficult, because it's not. I don't even need a permit and there's no waiting period, I could get one right now! It would be easier for me to run out and buy a handgun than it would be to buy a Wii-U deluxe gaming system.
Don't say it's not easy, because it's so very easy.
Still less people killed and not for a lack of trying. Americans are lazy, it's a lot easier to squeeze a trigger than to run around trying to melee everyone. Plus with a knife you actually have to face your victims. But with an assault rifle you can just fire it all around you and have no idea how many people you killed, or who you killed.
Using bombs are another way to kill your victims without facing them. I suspect a lot of these lunatics don't have the guts to face their victims. That takes a special kind of crazy.
We don't have to make it easier for psychos to kill large numbers of people on a whim.
We should at least ban assault rifles. You do not need an assault rifle unless there's a zombie apocalypse, and that's not happening. And you don't need high capacity magazines either. Give people a chance of rushing you between clips.
Sure killings will still happen, but not as many and amazingly enough there were probably plenty of people who tried and failed before they were stopped. I'm guessing that most psychos with an assault rifle successfully killed someone once they got their finger on the trigger.
Slashdot Mirror
Battlezone was a great example of perfect AI play causing a weakness. The enemy tank only fired on you when you were in it's sights. You could turn in place until you heard it's shot, then move forward causing a miss. Repeat until you are almost(but not quite) facing it, then go forward until you pass it, then back up, turn, fire. If it was changed to randomly fire in front of you or at you then it would have been a lot tougher.
Other people follow a rational process when acting. If you understand their process, you can predict their actions, and beat them - that's the vast majority of what tactics is. Sure, you might not get it right 100% of the time, and yeah, they might act unpredictably - but an unpredictable action is usually one that is tactically inferior (or you've made a failure in not identifying it as a tactical possibility). So yes, play against a human a bunch of times, and you will begin to understand their "algorithm", they'll begin to understand yours, and that's where the fun really starts.
AIs don't have the faculty to develop their own rational processes, so they're given algorithms that mimic them. A decent AI should generally make rational, tactical actions, and they should be somewhat predictable, based on what makes tactical sense given the physics of the gameworld, the current state of play, etc.
If your opponent intentionally tries to be unpredictable, the game is no fun. Try playing chess with someone who isn't making tactical moves, but just acting unpredictably - you might lose a few games due to over-thinking, but overall, you'll probably win, and get no satisfaction out of it because chess is a highly tactical game, and an unpredictable player removes a large part of the tactical element, making the game not fun.
When you reach a level of skill in Chess where you focus on positional play(tactics still exist, but they are backing up your strategies) instead of pure tactics then your opponent's unpredictable moves will probably mean they are not defending against your long-term strategy and they are not doing anything useful. Eventually your position will be strong enough that they can't defend themselves because they have too many weaknesses and you can choose which one to exploit. For example, the opening stage focuses on center control, if they do not actively counter your plan on controlling the center, then they will have a very cramped position.
Playing against someone who doesn't have any idea on how to play the position is very boring. But playing against someone in a position both sides have a lot of knowledge in is very satisfying, even if you lose.
Or maybe we could infect politicians on the take from pharma companies with deadly diseases so the R&D departments would have to actually work on cures for diseases instead of drugs that alleviate symptoms while adding nasty side effects.
I think the pharma companies would love that! They can bribe the politicians with free medication that they will be dependent on. They'll also want tax breaks to increase research and development on better versions that have less side effects. But cures will still be rare. They make more money being drug dealers to a continuously increasing market.
For crying out loud, why such a stupidity - we already had sail ships in the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s that had same size sails as this stillborn, and some of them were really good. Powering this by li-ion and photostatic is an excessive waste of precious resources and should be considered criminal negligence against the future of mankind.
If you want to wage war against anyone wasting precious resources, good luck, this ship is minor leagues compared to others. But I don't think they are trying to replace sails. It's not even claiming to be practical. It's cool that they don't need anything but the sun for powering on-board systems and locomotion. Sometime in the future when battery and photo-voltaic technology improves it will become more practical.
The first horse-less carriages probably seemed wasteful, but look at them now.
and it's designed for children
So, like Apple.
That was not necessary. You shouldn't imply that they are that ignorant.
Edusystem 50 on a pdp-8 via teletype was my first. I remember thinking that when I become successful, I'll get a Decwriter II, those things are awesome!
My work laptop has a quad-core. It seems that at least one, sometimes two processors are required for the various security software that is always running on it. There's also other "maintenance" software that runs in the background. I can usually count on having one or two processors for work but it seems like Windows XP's scheduler makes the quad feel like a uni-processor.
It would be nice if I could run Linux, installed and maintained by myself, then I would have plenty of processing power, but that will never happen.
Some of us want a passionate and loving relationship, not a business relationship. I grew up witnessing so many married couples putting up with a spouse who they no longer had a loving relationship with, because they felt it was the "right thing to do". Because of that, I put up with my first marriage even though my spouse decided it was okay to be an abusive bitch. Other men complain about the same thing, so isn't normal? No, it is not! When she decided to have an affair that led to our divorce, it turned out to be a blessing, because I would have otherwise stuck it out in hell.
Now I'm married to someone who loves and respects me, and I love and respect her as well! Don't lower your expectations unless they are unreasonable. Instead, you should realize that you have a right to a healthy loving relationship.
I have little faith in commercial dating sites. On the worst ones, people who don't pay can't send messages, but you still see them anyway. So that means the vast majority of profiles you read, are utterly irrelevant. It's okay when people who don't pay can still respond to messages of paid members, though.
I agree, the commercial ones are horrible. You try to reach out to 20 profiles, but it turns out that only one is a paid member, but you don't know that so your ego goes south. Then, when your membership is almost done, you get a lot of "members" who are interested in you, you pay for another month and none of them reply back. They're run like a total scam!
As others have mentioned, including yourself, there are free sites that are much better than the commercial ones. Makes a huge difference when all members can reply back!
How many people prior to the 90s had to settle for whoever they met in a 50 mile radius of their place of birth?
Thank you! Somebody who get's it.
It's amazing how many idiots can't grasp this simple concept. The biggest advantage of online dating is it allows you to network yourself in the dating world more effectively. It's not like you can go into a bar and yell "I'm a computer geek who is looking for a single intelligent and attractive woman who is interested in techies who look like me! I'm going to Comic Con this weekend, any takers?", Nobody?? Fine, I'm off to the next bar.
What if your soul mate doesn't hang out in bars, or other social venues? Not much chance of it happening, is it?
IRL?? What do you Neo-Luddites think happens? Do you think we all jump into virtual reality and live our lives there? Of course IRL meetings happen, it's part of the process. Online interaction is not substituted for face-to-face interaction, it's a step before face-to-face interaction. Even better, it facilitates face-to-face interactions between people who would otherwise never meet, even though they are a good match.
For those "The old-fashion way is the best, I walked up to my future wife and started talking to her", really? Do you have psychic powers that let you home in on the right one? Or did you marry the first girl who would talk to you?
I met my current wife on OkCupid, and OMG I can't believe how much I am in love with her. She's awesome! Would I have met her without online resources? Not likely. Different states, different circles etc. But we were able to discover someone that extremely interested us. There was no other way it could have happened, other than developing psychic powers!
Am I the only one who thinks it's very bizarre that there are people interacting on an online forum who don't understand the concept of people interacting online?
When properly used in the right cases, Thorazine was great! Unfortunately, you have too many idiots over prescribing it and you have issues like Tardive dyskinesia and the "Thorazine shuffle". And the newer atypical anti-psychotics are dangerous as well(ie: Abilify). I swear they get kickbacks on prescribing these newer and very expensive medications.
I'm not knocking the meds, I think they are great when properly prescribed for the right people, but most of these quacks haven't a clue and the repercussions are making people afraid of using medication.
The latency would make me go insane!
For a lot less money you could get a Looxcie 2 or Looxcie HD.
It fits and looks like a bluetooth headset, and you can use it for calls as well. My only issue is the red light that turns on to indicate it's recording.
There's tons of applications for it. Imagine being at a party and being able to use facial recognition to note people's names so you can remember them twenty minutes later. Techies will be able to emulate highly developed social skills!
Are you saying it's okay to increase the pool of qualified surgeons? Think of all the super steady handed surgeons who won't be able to charge a hefty sum for their services. Of course, those same surgeons will suddenly think it's a great idea when they lose their steady hand.
Robots do not have to be autonomous. They don't even have to have a cpu. But even if they did have a cpu, I wouldn't say they are deciding anything. Without a random number generator the resulting action should always be the same.
Brake-by-wire, combined with today's brilliant programmers. Time to reboot the car.
You would think so, but they don't. If they made it possible for you to tell the difference between a paying member and a non-paying member, then I think they would be a lot better. Before using OKCupid, I used match.com, which was a joke. I would get hits from across the country, rarely near me. One of them wanted to contact me using email and when I checked the headers it was from Russia! OKCupid was a million times better!
OKCupid, before they were bought by match.com. Not sure what they are like now. They also have some pretty good articles.
I met my wife through a good, and free, online dating service. The problem with the ones you pay for is that most of the members(95%?) can not reply back and they make it impossible to tell who is a paying member or non-paying member. But a good service allows you to find someone that is a great match. Without online services you have what? Bars, work, church? Even then you have to hope for good timing and the geographical range is limited.
The articles statement about you taking people for granted is BS. Some might, but that's because they have issues that exist outside of online dating. Know what you want and don't be afraid to set deal breakers. If you hate smoking and can't deal with it, no smokers, or the reverse if you love smoking. You need to be honest with yourself and your potential mate.
I see lack of comments, lack of comments, and god damned polish notation.
Hungarian notation? I assume because of the "lack of comments".
Look up New Hampshire gun laws and tell me it's difficult, because it's not. I don't even need a permit and there's no waiting period, I could get one right now! It would be easier for me to run out and buy a handgun than it would be to buy a Wii-U deluxe gaming system.
Don't say it's not easy, because it's so very easy.
Still less people killed and not for a lack of trying. Americans are lazy, it's a lot easier to squeeze a trigger than to run around trying to melee everyone. Plus with a knife you actually have to face your victims. But with an assault rifle you can just fire it all around you and have no idea how many people you killed, or who you killed.
Using bombs are another way to kill your victims without facing them. I suspect a lot of these lunatics don't have the guts to face their victims. That takes a special kind of crazy.
We don't have to make it easier for psychos to kill large numbers of people on a whim.
We should at least ban assault rifles. You do not need an assault rifle unless there's a zombie apocalypse, and that's not happening. And you don't need high capacity magazines either. Give people a chance of rushing you between clips.
Sure killings will still happen, but not as many and amazingly enough there were probably plenty of people who tried and failed before they were stopped. I'm guessing that most psychos with an assault rifle successfully killed someone once they got their finger on the trigger.
But if you want to talk about how Jersey Shore could be merged with Final Destination, I might be interested.
Sounds like a kickstarter project! Someone should start it up. Use the current cast of "Jersey Shore" and arrange elaborate accidents and film them!