It works in chess as well. The randomness is just more subtle. White noise is almost never a good strategy (outside of say, "Rocks, Paper, and Scissors"), but incorporating a moderate amount of randomness can slide your game into a state that the foe hasn't seen before.
It works, because chess at a certain level is all about memorized patterns. You memorize the most strategically valid positions the board is most likely to be in. If you're at that level, and you see a state you haven't memorized, it's most likely because that state is strategically inferior. However, as you say, a slight loss of strategic value might be worthwhile, if it means the opponent doesn't have a ready counter, like you do for all the patterns you've got stored. But the randomness has to be very small, or the gap between optimal strategy and your semi-random one grows too great.
Incidentally, that's why I don't like chess much; I feel like I'm doing a computer's job poorly when it's all data storage and retrieval.
Do you kickban people who make a sound tactical decision that you've predicted they'll do?
look, a game where you already know what the enemy is going to do with certainty is a game ALREADY PLAYED. what's the point, except maybe to demonstrate to someone else how the game works? which is what sid was doing in the story in the article.
Not necessarily - like I said, how the enemy acts is only one factor. In the simplistic game from the article, yeah, fine, once you understood the algorithm, playing was pointless. But using your WoW example: it's one thing to know that the dragon is going to breathe fire at a certain time - it's another to be able to manage your resources so you still have your defensive/movement abilities ready for that situation, to co-ordinate the group so that they can react accordingly, and to still be able to pull out enough damage to kill it before it hits its enrage timer and kills you all.
Tower defence is another genre where you can almost always know exactly what the enemy is going to do - and yet people still enjoy them. Why? Because they're games of strategy and resource-management, rather than tactical out-thinking of the opponent.
It's sort of like admitting that you can only follow a fixed formula yourself and that you are incapable of adapting to your opponent. How do you deal with playing against another person? Are you unable to plan for them because they might react in unexpected ways? Or do your friends all play according to some fixed recipe?
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.
if you just memorize how every enemy on the screen acts on the screen you're none the wiser in a new level. once you can guess how the pattern will go for a new level then yes, you have deduced the algorithm. this is when a game loses it's magic.
if it never deviates from it, then the quickly observed pattern is the algorithm.. look, it's not rocket science. if you notice that everytime you're in the direction D from the enemy sprite a thing X happens. they you know the algorithm.
many games even nowadays have algorithms you can guess (accurately, mind you) what they are for enemy "ai"(which is a fucking joke still). even in games like WOW - that's what instancing, pulling and all that depends on. you even have "street names" for the internal variables like aggro.
So, what you're saying is that perfect AI is simply a case of using random behaviour? It's never predictable, therefore the game never loses its magic, and nobody can ever predict the opponents behaviour. Perfect!
Guessing how the enemy is going to respond is only part of the game. The rest of it is managing the resources required to set the situation up so that they will react the way you want them to. The player knowing how the AI will react (or at least having a pretty good idea) is required for any game that has tactical depth - if you don't know how they will react, you cannot prepare traps, counters, misdirections, etc.
Um, no they're not - where are you even getting that? These people are bundling GPLed javascript libraries in with their own HTML/CSS/JS/images and not open-sourcing the accompanying resources. "Split licensing" doesn't refer to diving up a GPL-licensed file, it means when a given package contains code with two different licenses.
They basically consider HTML as a container, like a ZIP archive. So, the "bundling" that occurs when HTML is combined and rendered to the browser is not considered a derivative work in the eyes of FSF, just like if you bundle GPL files with non-GPL files in a ZIP file, the contents of the ZIP do not all fall under the GPL.
The thing is, the FSF has absolutely zero say in what is and is not a derivative work, unless that definition is enshrined in the license that people use.
Barring that, the only definitions that matter are those of the lawyer sending you the cease and desist, or the judge presiding over the case after you give said lawyer the finger. Unless the law considers HTML as a container, you can still be screwed over.
This is why the GPL is dangerous - it's complex, it's complexities create ambiguities, and the interpretation of the its ambiguities are in the hands of an authority completely divorced from the creators of the license. That's why every man and his dog is using far simpler, non-GPL licenses these days (BSD, MIT, Apache, etc).
To which the lawyer for the defence would respond, with a quote from the GPL:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Seriously - this is the reason nobody wants to use the GPL any more. They don't want lawyers taking their stuff away from them. This attitude is poison to the adoption of the GPL, and is why pretty much everything I use these days is BSD or MIT licensed (including every javascript library I know of - jQuery, Prototype, MooTools).
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
It's only with GPLv3 that RMS jumped the shark and tried to take everyone else's stuff. Prior to that, the intention was clearly spelled out in the GPL.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
Javascript libraries (which is what this article is talking about) are not linked or compiled with the HTML/CSS that is packaged with them.
Yes, yes it is. Because you're atatcking a strawman. Nobody is "moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary". TFA is discussing how theme authors create a theme for an OpenSource platform (for example, Wordpress) bundle an open source javascript library (for example, jQuery) with their theme, but then don't open source their own javascript, CSS or HTML.
No, you don't. You're another one who's just as at fault as the submitter.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
and, in the section on modifications
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
If you don't modify the code of the library, you can redistribute it as much as your little heart desires. And most of these theme authors aren't going to be modifying the jQuery library the package with their little themes.
It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap that Microsoft et al have been capitalising.
This behaviour ("split licensing") is perfectly fine, legal and moral.
The GPL is all about preserving access to code. If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well. This is to stop people "proprieterizing" GPLed code by making a few incompatible changes and releasing it.
The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project. But people are afraid it does mean that, due to people like the poster, and Microsoft's FUD. If you want to know why people are shying away from the GPL, and view it as a threat, look to the article submitter.
There seems to be an attitude amongst certain people that space resources should belong to those rich enough to grab them. There hasn't yet been a serious discussion of paying for this exploitation of nature
So what you're saying is they should belong to those rich enough to control the government instead...
1) No, competently run small businesses by definition do not ever run week-to-week.
Pretty much every business will have run week-to-week at some point. What, you think that contracts and clients just spring into being the moment you hang out your shingle?
2) He didn’t say the guy was doing “no work,” he said he wasn’t pulling his weight.
Whatever. He wasn't doing the work expected of him.
3) I didn’t “demand” anything, I called out what by all appearances was a dick move. I don’t know what the fallacy is called where only people who have done a particular thing can say anything about it, but it’s a dumb one and you stepped right in it.
Your "dick move" was, apparently, not giving charity (as in, money he didn't earn) to someone going through a divorce. My question wasn't intended to formally disprove your assertion, it was intended to show you as hypocritical - in declaiming someone else for their inaction, how many times have you given charity to divorcees? If you haven't, why is your inaction any worse than theirs?
Maybe you’re right and one should, for example, avoid hiring women because they might get pregnant and go on maternity leave.
Many companies do - officially or unofficially. Of course, guaranteed paternity leave offsets that to some extend by artificially extending the same risk to men.
Businesses exist for people, not the other way around.
Yeah they do - they exist for their owners, and the clients who engage them. They exist for their workers inasmuch as they provide a honest day's wage for an honest day's work. For random people who expect free money due to circumstances generated by their own personal decisions? Not so much. That's who charities exist for.
Because all businesses are large multi-national corporations with massive employee pools who can afford to just suck up inefficiency? Many small businesses run week-to-week as they seek to get established, and yeah, one deadweight employee could drive the business under.
Even if the OP wasn't the business owner and is responsible just for his division, having a guy taking a salary but doing no work is going to have an impact. Projects are delayed, targets aren't met, money isn't made. Depending on the track-record of the team, the state of the company, and the length of the "temporary" difficulty, that could result in the OP and his team losing jobs.
Who are you to demand that they risk that. How many incapable-of-work divorcees have you funded out of your own pocket that give you the moral superiority to demand that others do the same?
I'm sure getting fired right after a divorce helped him learn the lesson of “just rolling with it.” How come you didn't “just roll with” the guy’s temporary difficulty? Oh right, because you didn’t have to. Your livelihood didn’t depend on it so that made it okay to shit on other people
Why do you assert that the GPs livelihood didn't depend on it? Because he was an employer? Do you think handing out a salary to someone not doing the job might not have an effect on his livelihood? Why should he be forced to bankrupt himself to save someone else's job?
That's probably because you're hearing it in the context of "using" the cloud (ie: using other people's systems to store data). OpenStack is more about "running" a cloud.
Usually because these sort of categories are more objective. Was a person using a mobile device at the time of the crash? That's a binary yes-no, and is fairly easy to determine. Was someone "driving recklessly"? Well, that depends on your definition of reckless, and is hard to determine after the fact. So lawmakers attempt to define reckless; stuff like: driving over the speed limit, driving while using a mobile device, driving under the influence, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
It works in chess as well. The randomness is just more subtle. White noise is almost never a good strategy (outside of say, "Rocks, Paper, and Scissors"), but incorporating a moderate amount of randomness can slide your game into a state that the foe hasn't seen before.
It works, because chess at a certain level is all about memorized patterns. You memorize the most strategically valid positions the board is most likely to be in. If you're at that level, and you see a state you haven't memorized, it's most likely because that state is strategically inferior. However, as you say, a slight loss of strategic value might be worthwhile, if it means the opponent doesn't have a ready counter, like you do for all the patterns you've got stored. But the randomness has to be very small, or the gap between optimal strategy and your semi-random one grows too great.
Incidentally, that's why I don't like chess much; I feel like I'm doing a computer's job poorly when it's all data storage and retrieval.
Not when it's continually expanding - that's like an always-on facelift.
Do you kickban people who make a sound tactical decision that you've predicted they'll do?
look, a game where you already know what the enemy is going to do with certainty is a game ALREADY PLAYED. what's the point, except maybe to demonstrate to someone else how the game works? which is what sid was doing in the story in the article.
Not necessarily - like I said, how the enemy acts is only one factor. In the simplistic game from the article, yeah, fine, once you understood the algorithm, playing was pointless. But using your WoW example: it's one thing to know that the dragon is going to breathe fire at a certain time - it's another to be able to manage your resources so you still have your defensive/movement abilities ready for that situation, to co-ordinate the group so that they can react accordingly, and to still be able to pull out enough damage to kill it before it hits its enrage timer and kills you all.
Tower defence is another genre where you can almost always know exactly what the enemy is going to do - and yet people still enjoy them. Why? Because they're games of strategy and resource-management, rather than tactical out-thinking of the opponent.
It's sort of like admitting that you can only follow a fixed formula yourself and that you are incapable of adapting to your opponent.
How do you deal with playing against another person? Are you unable to plan for them because they might react in unexpected ways?
Or do your friends all play according to some fixed recipe?
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.
if you just memorize how every enemy on the screen acts on the screen you're none the wiser in a new level. once you can guess how the pattern will go for a new level then yes, you have deduced the algorithm. this is when a game loses it's magic.
if it never deviates from it, then the quickly observed pattern is the algorithm.. look, it's not rocket science. if you notice that everytime you're in the direction D from the enemy sprite a thing X happens. they you know the algorithm.
many games even nowadays have algorithms you can guess (accurately, mind you) what they are for enemy "ai"(which is a fucking joke still). even in games like WOW - that's what instancing, pulling and all that depends on. you even have "street names" for the internal variables like aggro.
So, what you're saying is that perfect AI is simply a case of using random behaviour? It's never predictable, therefore the game never loses its magic, and nobody can ever predict the opponents behaviour. Perfect!
Guessing how the enemy is going to respond is only part of the game. The rest of it is managing the resources required to set the situation up so that they will react the way you want them to. The player knowing how the AI will react (or at least having a pretty good idea) is required for any game that has tactical depth - if you don't know how they will react, you cannot prepare traps, counters, misdirections, etc.
You've probably heard of "Scotland Yard", which is a nickname for the Metropolitan Police.
Um, no they're not - where are you even getting that? These people are bundling GPLed javascript libraries in with their own HTML/CSS/JS/images and not open-sourcing the accompanying resources. "Split licensing" doesn't refer to diving up a GPL-licensed file, it means when a given package contains code with two different licenses.
The removal of the quoted paragraphs.
They basically consider HTML as a container, like a ZIP archive. So, the "bundling" that occurs when HTML is combined and rendered to the browser is not considered a derivative work in the eyes of FSF, just like if you bundle GPL files with non-GPL files in a ZIP file, the contents of the ZIP do not all fall under the GPL.
The thing is, the FSF has absolutely zero say in what is and is not a derivative work, unless that definition is enshrined in the license that people use.
Barring that, the only definitions that matter are those of the lawyer sending you the cease and desist, or the judge presiding over the case after you give said lawyer the finger. Unless the law considers HTML as a container, you can still be screwed over.
This is why the GPL is dangerous - it's complex, it's complexities create ambiguities, and the interpretation of the its ambiguities are in the hands of an authority completely divorced from the creators of the license. That's why every man and his dog is using far simpler, non-GPL licenses these days (BSD, MIT, Apache, etc).
Tell me how including jQuery in a zip file with some HTML and CSS includes symbols from the library into the code.
To which the lawyer for the defence would respond, with a quote from the GPL:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Seriously - this is the reason nobody wants to use the GPL any more. They don't want lawyers taking their stuff away from them. This attitude is poison to the adoption of the GPL, and is why pretty much everything I use these days is BSD or MIT licensed (including every javascript library I know of - jQuery, Prototype, MooTools).
You're wrong
From GPLv2
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
It's only with GPLv3 that RMS jumped the shark and tried to take everyone else's stuff. Prior to that, the intention was clearly spelled out in the GPL.
Javascript libraries (which is what this article is about) are not compiled or linked with their accompanying HTML/CSS files.
You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
Javascript libraries (which is what this article is talking about) are not linked or compiled with the HTML/CSS that is packaged with them.
Yes, yes it is. Because you're atatcking a strawman. Nobody is "moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary". TFA is discussing how theme authors create a theme for an OpenSource platform (for example, Wordpress) bundle an open source javascript library (for example, jQuery) with their theme, but then don't open source their own javascript, CSS or HTML.
No, you don't. You're another one who's just as at fault as the submitter.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
and, in the section on modifications
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
If you don't modify the code of the library, you can redistribute it as much as your little heart desires. And most of these theme authors aren't going to be modifying the jQuery library the package with their little themes.
It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap that Microsoft et al have been capitalising.
This behaviour ("split licensing") is perfectly fine, legal and moral.
The GPL is all about preserving access to code. If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well. This is to stop people "proprieterizing" GPLed code by making a few incompatible changes and releasing it.
The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project. But people are afraid it does mean that, due to people like the poster, and Microsoft's FUD. If you want to know why people are shying away from the GPL, and view it as a threat, look to the article submitter.
There seems to be an attitude amongst certain people that space resources should belong to those rich enough to grab them. There hasn't yet been a serious discussion of paying for this exploitation of nature
So what you're saying is they should belong to those rich enough to control the government instead...
1) No, competently run small businesses by definition do not ever run week-to-week.
Pretty much every business will have run week-to-week at some point. What, you think that contracts and clients just spring into being the moment you hang out your shingle?
2) He didn’t say the guy was doing “no work,” he said he wasn’t pulling his weight.
Whatever. He wasn't doing the work expected of him.
3) I didn’t “demand” anything, I called out what by all appearances was a dick move. I don’t know what the fallacy is called where only people who have done a particular thing can say anything about it, but it’s a dumb one and you stepped right in it.
Your "dick move" was, apparently, not giving charity (as in, money he didn't earn) to someone going through a divorce. My question wasn't intended to formally disprove your assertion, it was intended to show you as hypocritical - in declaiming someone else for their inaction, how many times have you given charity to divorcees? If you haven't, why is your inaction any worse than theirs?
Maybe you’re right and one should, for example, avoid hiring women because they might get pregnant and go on maternity leave.
Many companies do - officially or unofficially. Of course, guaranteed paternity leave offsets that to some extend by artificially extending the same risk to men.
Businesses exist for people, not the other way around.
Yeah they do - they exist for their owners, and the clients who engage them. They exist for their workers inasmuch as they provide a honest day's wage for an honest day's work. For random people who expect free money due to circumstances generated by their own personal decisions? Not so much. That's who charities exist for.
Because all businesses are large multi-national corporations with massive employee pools who can afford to just suck up inefficiency? Many small businesses run week-to-week as they seek to get established, and yeah, one deadweight employee could drive the business under.
Even if the OP wasn't the business owner and is responsible just for his division, having a guy taking a salary but doing no work is going to have an impact. Projects are delayed, targets aren't met, money isn't made. Depending on the track-record of the team, the state of the company, and the length of the "temporary" difficulty, that could result in the OP and his team losing jobs.
Who are you to demand that they risk that. How many incapable-of-work divorcees have you funded out of your own pocket that give you the moral superiority to demand that others do the same?
I'm sure getting fired right after a divorce helped him learn the lesson of “just rolling with it.” How come you didn't “just roll with” the guy’s temporary difficulty? Oh right, because you didn’t have to. Your livelihood didn’t depend on it so that made it okay to shit on other people
Why do you assert that the GPs livelihood didn't depend on it? Because he was an employer? Do you think handing out a salary to someone not doing the job might not have an effect on his livelihood? Why should he be forced to bankrupt himself to save someone else's job?
If you want to change the world vote with your wallet not with a ballot.
The problem with that, is the person with the biggest wallet gets the most votes. Which is what lead us to where we are now.
That's probably because you're hearing it in the context of "using" the cloud (ie: using other people's systems to store data). OpenStack is more about "running" a cloud.
Usually because these sort of categories are more objective. Was a person using a mobile device at the time of the crash? That's a binary yes-no, and is fairly easy to determine. Was someone "driving recklessly"? Well, that depends on your definition of reckless, and is hard to determine after the fact. So lawmakers attempt to define reckless; stuff like: driving over the speed limit, driving while using a mobile device, driving under the influence, etc.