Imagine the result in a "three strikes" state like California. It's conceivable, and was recently upheld by the Supreme Court, that someone could get LIFE IN PRISON for having a record of 3 felonies, each of which was for file trading.
Don't at least one of the crimes need to be serious (violent).
All the cases I've heard of involved people that had committed two violent crimes then stole a pizza and getting locked up for life for the third crime.
The place i'd like to see them used more is in the vacation industry. Seadream is planning on using them for tours of portofino, and other places in europe. This is where it would truly shine.
Oh great. Now we're going to have lots of loud Americans with their Hawaiian shirts and windshield-sized sun glasses zooming around Piazza San Marco and the Vatican on their Segways. Guidebook in one hand and camera in the other.
It's not the searching, it's the evaluation of the position at the end of the search, usually only a handful of moves (relatively speaking) down the track.
Both humans and computers do this the same way, evaluate a number of lines to a certain depth then evaluate the position. Computers, with their speed, can evaluate many more lines but not to any greater depth really. It's the evaluation of the position at the end (which traditionally favours the human) that is impressive.
Why does everyone in the USA assume that everyone else in the world will somehow obey US law when it is made "illegal"?
I don't care if everyone in the world obeys US law. Everyone in the US would be a great start. Almost all my spam ultimately comes from US sources.
Even some in the US would be okay. Plenty of people will do things that are morally questionable as long as it's "legal". If you make it illegal then you'll stop 50% in it's tracks right there.
My point is that this is wrong. No, it really is. This statement was predicated on the assumption that there are an infinite number of "games", which there isn't. There are a finite number of board configurations, period. So, given enough computing power and enough space, you can, in fact, precompute all the possible games.
There's finite and there's finite. As another poster pointed out: number of atoms in the universe and pico-seconds since the big bang come to mind.
Yes there are a finite number of games in chess but the number is so huge that no amount of computing power increases will ever overcome it. We're not just talking about Moore's Law here, we're talking about storage capacity greater than is possible with all the atoms of the universe.
So, to you, yes, the number of configurations is practically infinite, but to a computer with enough resources, it's not.
Sorry. Yes it is. No computer will ever have "enough resources".
Note also that the relatively smaller number of possible board positions doesn't help you either. You still need to determine the correct move for each position. Again, something that is impossible to compute in this universe.
I always thought the term was "brush fires". When you say "bush" I think: 1.) The obvious presidential reference, 2.) The wilderness in the land downunder, 3.) Revenge of the Nerds slang for -ahem-... You've seen the movie.
You might be surprised to find that the rest of the world is not as US-centric as you. In Australia brush refers to low vegetation. When the flames are 50m high and houses are destroyed in minutes it's a bit more than a brush fire.
Sounds like one of the Batman movies, the one with the Penguin. There was a herd of penguins running amok through the city, but they were all CG, with this 'logic' making them stampede correctly.
If I remember correctly this work was done by Craig Reynolds. Famous in A-Life circles for his boids algorithm for flocking birds.
In a nutshell, the each bird uses the following rules:
1. Match the velocity of the group
2. Move towards the centre of mass of the group
3. Move away from the nearest neighbour
Now, obviously, each rule gives a different vector (maybe even opposite for 2 and 3) which are then weighted and summed for the resultant motion. Stir and repeat. These simple rules give remarkably realistic looking results and are a good example of emergent behaviour which is the hallmark of A-Life.
My big objection is that it makes variables harder to read, and puts the mind's focus on the detail of the variable rather than the algorithms, which is where most errors are likely to occur.
I've always agreed with the proposal that variable names should be pronouncable.
That's true. Compressed it comes down to about 20M, but that's lossless compression. jpeg's defintely bring it down much further but aren't much good if you want to do some further post-processing.
Only 1mb?? I've got a 3000dpi neg scanner that generates 30M scans in it's normal mode. 60M if I double the depth. Even compressed I can't get a roll of film on 1 CD.
Slashdot Mirror
On earth, where most people are, weight and mass are synonomous.
If you say "hacking around with some kernels", and they understand you, then you're not talking to the masses.
Don't at least one of the crimes need to be serious (violent).
All the cases I've heard of involved people that had committed two violent crimes then stole a pizza and getting locked up for life for the third crime.
If you've got to explain that it's a joke, it's not a joke.
You may not shout out your credit card but I imagine you still support credit card fraud as being illegal.
Just because you minimise your risk of exposure doesn't mean that the underlying act you are protecting yourself against can't be made illegal.
Oh great. Now we're going to have lots of loud Americans with their Hawaiian shirts and windshield-sized sun glasses zooming around Piazza San Marco and the Vatican on their Segways. Guidebook in one hand and camera in the other.
It's not the searching, it's the evaluation of the position at the end of the search, usually only a handful of moves (relatively speaking) down the track.
Both humans and computers do this the same way, evaluate a number of lines to a certain depth then evaluate the position. Computers, with their speed, can evaluate many more lines but not to any greater depth really. It's the evaluation of the position at the end (which traditionally favours the human) that is impressive.
I don't care if everyone in the world obeys US law. Everyone in the US would be a great start. Almost all my spam ultimately comes from US sources.
Even some in the US would be okay. Plenty of people will do things that are morally questionable as long as it's "legal". If you make it illegal then you'll stop 50% in it's tracks right there.
There's finite and there's finite. As another poster pointed out: number of atoms in the universe and pico-seconds since the big bang come to mind.
Yes there are a finite number of games in chess but the number is so huge that no amount of computing power increases will ever overcome it. We're not just talking about Moore's Law here, we're talking about storage capacity greater than is possible with all the atoms of the universe.
So, to you, yes, the number of configurations is practically infinite, but to a computer with enough resources, it's not.
Sorry. Yes it is. No computer will ever have "enough resources".
Note also that the relatively smaller number of possible board positions doesn't help you either. You still need to determine the correct move for each position. Again, something that is impossible to compute in this universe.
Since everyone knows that the first three digits are always 555.
Nice work.
Lots of detail at the Sydney Morning Herald but here's a specific story.
You might be surprised to find that the rest of the world is not as US-centric as you. In Australia brush refers to low vegetation. When the flames are 50m high and houses are destroyed in minutes it's a bit more than a brush fire.
Yes. Four so far.
+5 Insightful?
What revenue stream do the airlines have from inflight movies? And I don't know about you but I've never seen anyone use the inflight phone.
Put away that gameboy? What airline do you fly? The only electronics I've seen banned during flight are RF transmitters.
What sort of car are you driving?
How about the editors read their own site?
Geez, it's not that hard for the rest of us to recognise a dupe.
Well that's ruined that bit for me.
Or the editors could just read their own site. Where are they? Reading kuro5hin?
If I remember correctly this work was done by Craig Reynolds. Famous in A-Life circles for his boids algorithm for flocking birds.
In a nutshell, the each bird uses the following rules:
1. Match the velocity of the group
2. Move towards the centre of mass of the group
3. Move away from the nearest neighbour
Now, obviously, each rule gives a different vector (maybe even opposite for 2 and 3) which are then weighted and summed for the resultant motion. Stir and repeat. These simple rules give remarkably realistic looking results and are a good example of emergent behaviour which is the hallmark of A-Life.
Configuration files and the registry are not scripting.
Amen to that.
My big objection is that it makes variables harder to read, and puts the mind's focus on the detail of the variable rather than the algorithms, which is where most errors are likely to occur.
I've always agreed with the proposal that variable names should be pronouncable.
That's true. Compressed it comes down to about 20M, but that's lossless compression. jpeg's defintely bring it down much further but aren't much good if you want to do some further post-processing.
Only 1mb?? I've got a 3000dpi neg scanner that generates 30M scans in it's normal mode. 60M if I double the depth. Even compressed I can't get a roll of film on 1 CD.
I'd send back your keyboard as well. It seems to be missing an enter key.