> Civ, though, was using an offset-square map, which is no different than a hex map, so I think it only amounts to a different look plus a marketing spiel.
What do you mean by that?
Civ Rev wasn't a port of Civ IV any more than Civ II was a port of Civ I. It was a completely different game, with different mechanics, graphics, civilizations, etc.
It was definitely "dumbed down" compared to Civ IV, but it was not a port.
As I understand it the "Advanced" list is correct - it is the one that the application itself is enforcing (if you uncheck an option there, the application will not use the specified certificate for that purpose). The list of purposes under "view" is, I believe, the list of purposes declared by the certificate itself, as specified by whoever generated the certificate. You may choose to use it for a smaller list of purposes, which is what Chrome is doing wrt email (in the same way, Firefox only trusts the CNNIC cert for SSL, not for email or binary signing).
Why does there have be hysteresis to the process? That is, why does the burden of proof change once Mozilla has accepted the certificate? If you see how the process worked, it was basically the case that by the time it became relatively common knowledge that the CNNIC certificate was going be added, the time for comments had passed (not many people make the habit of trolling through Bugzilla entries or the Mozilla "RFC" page to find things they may want to comment on). If, once it became common knowledge, there were serious objections raised to adding the certificate - why not start the process again from scratch? Why force anyone to prove that CNNIC will violate the duties of a CA, especially given that these violations may be in the future?
Furthermore, the whole discussion should be considered special given that the "great firewall" has apparently begun blocking most of the threads discussing the issue, such that open discussion isn't even possible since the very people who may be affected by this most (those within China) are being prevented from discussing it.
This kind of vulnerability extends even to very commonly used applications. The firefox download, remarkably, does not occur over HTTPS, and yet that is the way in which you get your root certificates used by SSL. It is entirely possible for someone to intercept your download and return you a hacked version of firefox which contains malicious root certificates which would then could to sign any sort of phishing or other attack site, allowing spoofing of pretty much any website's identity.
Deflate doesn't work well on shortish strings because (a) it has some 11 or bytes of overhead you pay no matter what (b) you are no likely to find a lot of long-run duplication in short strings (c) the relative cost of including the huffman tree in the output is large, so it is likely that a less efficient static variation will be chosen.
Despite what AC says, the grandparent post is correct, as long you use the correct semantics for "zero gravity" and "partial gravity".
"Zero gravity" means an environment where an objects is accelerating at the same rate as that imposed by the force of gravity at that location. So for example you experience zero gravity when you jump of the Eiffel Tower. You also experience zero gravity in deep space (where the force of gravity is approximately zero). Although these like two totally different situations, the effect on the body is the same.
"Partial gravity" that the magnitude of the difference between a body's current acceleration and the acceleration of gravity of that point is greater than 0 but less than 9.8 m/s/s.
For example, standing on Mars you experience partial gravity because in some frame of reference you are not moving, while the force gravity would accelerate you down at ~3 m/s/s. If you jumped on an elevator going up at 7 m/s/s, then would be back to normal gravity.
So the grandparent post is correct when he asserts the accuracy of the original statement:
...it will be the first time mammals of any kind have lived in partial gravity for an extended period...
Since weightlessness = zero gravity, for all practical purposes - mammals have only experienced either "Full Gravity" or "Zero Gravity" - nothing in between (for an extended period of time).
I call shenanigans on that 51% thing. If that were true you could just rip up two bills such that you turn in two-thrids of a bill three times, increasing your cash by 50% in the process.
I think the real criteria used by banks includes the presence of the serial numbers, etc.
Sure, click here, then "LOG IN AS A GUEST", scroll to the first post and click on the enclosure in the first response. Has a jpg the face side of a new new 20 - will not open in PSCS.
Plus the problem seems to only crop up when you go to print
Did you read the comments on the Adobe forum? The protection prevents you from opening or scanning any image that it detects to be of a disallowed note (even greyscale) - it does not wait until printing is attempted.
This sort of precludes adhering the 75/150 percent rule since you can't open the file to make the required modifications in the first place.
Nothing that these reasearchers are doing allows any type of information or energy or matter to travel faster than light - that is forbidden. It only allows "spooky action at a distance" - but such action cannot transmit information. So no 0.0 latency gaming, no faster than light travel, and so on.
Also, the technology doesn't replicate the photon, it is actually transported, ie the "original" photon is destroyed, no copies are made.
Actually, in the "Tetris is NP-Hard" article, the authors specifically mention that normal tetris, like the one this AI plays, is not NP-Hard and "could be solved by a simple dynamic programming algorithm", although they do not elaborate further on such an algorithm.
The authors prove only that the difficulty of tetris does not scale in a polynomial fashion (so long as P!=NP) with the size of the board, really not a useful result, since the size of the board is fixed, in practice.
In summary, Tetris as we know it, and as it is played by this AI, is not NP-Hard.
The question here surrounds what defines the size of the problem - one would think that it is the number of pieces that must be placed optimally, regardless of the size of the grid - however, they talk about the scaling as the size of the board increases, which isn't the intuition notion of hardness in this case.
True, but the state space of go (or chess) also stays small, yet this does not prevent the optimal play problem from being intractable (on today's hardware, with today's algorithms). The difference is that to analyse possible future moves beginning from the current (small) state space, a program (traditionally) must investigate a huge, typically exponential, number of possible future state spaces, based on possible future moves, etc.
Note that the version of tetris considered in the paper is the offline version, where the sequence of pieces is known in advance, rather than just the next piece - certainly if they considered the model of the game where only the next piece was known, then deterministically optimal play would be impossible, rather than simply intractable, and the question would be a probablistic one instead. For example it has been shown that the optimal solution for the Mastermind style of game is calculable in a probabalistic sense, yet is intractable (due to the size of the payoff matrix).
When minesweeper was shown to be NP-complete, it was likely shown that determining whether puzzle was solvable without guessing is in NP, rather than simply finding a solution, since obviously situations exist when this is not possible.
More particularly, they show that given an arbitrary size game board, and prior knowledge of the sequence of pieces, the problem of computing the optimal solution to four problems is NP-Hard:
(1) Eliminating all blocks on the playfield in a minumum number of moves.
(2) Maximising the possible number of tetrises obtained.
(3) Maximising the number of lines cleared.
(4) Minimizing the height of the block configuration.
Note that they prove (1) essentially by starting from a very particular arrangement of blocks on the playing field, such that the reduction to 3-Partition is "easy" to prove (I use the word "easy" in the loosest sense). They then go on to prove (2),(3), and (4) using small modifications to the basic setup.
The admit that the "empty initial field" problem is an open one, but I would imagine that that problem can also be proven NP-Hard.
I don't think the "N remains small, no matter how you look at it" - consider the case where many hundreds of pieces are played - certainly not unusual among higher level players. A number of this magnitude is certainly enough to make many NP problem intractable.
But since there are only 4 blocks in each piece, "exponential" is not that big, the computer can easily compute an optimal placement without breaking a sweat.
That's just wrong.
If you read the article, you would see that the fact that tetrominos (that's what they call 'em) are four block combinations does not define the magnitude of the (likely, assuming P != NP) exponential relationship. In fact, they show that the problem scales in an NP fashion with the number of pieces - the number four doesn't come into it.
What the Nintendo version shows is that a simple AI (with perfect movement abilities) and so on can come close enough to optimal in a usual situation (the article presenet an extremely contrived worse case scenario) to beat a human player. This has no bearing on the NP completeness of the problem.
On another note, the authors admit that the Tetris problem is NOT NP-Complete except for arbitrarily large game fields.
The top of the third page, the authors reveal a major change to the definition of Tetris they made in order to prove NP-Completeness:
It is natural to generalize the Tetris gameboard to m-by-n, since a relatively simple dynamic
program solves the case of a constant-size gameboard in time polynomial in the number of pieces.
Of course every version of Tetris that I have played has been on a "constant-size game board" - and so the real result is that Tetris, as the rest of the world knows it, is NOT NP-Complete, and is solvable in P(n) time - I find that the generalization to m x n gameboards breaks the problem, while the other simplifications or generalizations they introduce are reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
> Civ, though, was using an offset-square map, which is no different than a hex map, so I think it only amounts to a different look plus a marketing spiel. What do you mean by that?
Civ Rev wasn't a port of Civ IV any more than Civ II was a port of Civ I. It was a completely different game, with different mechanics, graphics, civilizations, etc. It was definitely "dumbed down" compared to Civ IV, but it was not a port.
As I understand it the "Advanced" list is correct - it is the one that the application itself is enforcing (if you uncheck an option there, the application will not use the specified certificate for that purpose). The list of purposes under "view" is, I believe, the list of purposes declared by the certificate itself, as specified by whoever generated the certificate. You may choose to use it for a smaller list of purposes, which is what Chrome is doing wrt email (in the same way, Firefox only trusts the CNNIC cert for SSL, not for email or binary signing).
Why does there have be hysteresis to the process? That is, why does the burden of proof change once Mozilla has accepted the certificate? If you see how the process worked, it was basically the case that by the time it became relatively common knowledge that the CNNIC certificate was going be added, the time for comments had passed (not many people make the habit of trolling through Bugzilla entries or the Mozilla "RFC" page to find things they may want to comment on). If, once it became common knowledge, there were serious objections raised to adding the certificate - why not start the process again from scratch? Why force anyone to prove that CNNIC will violate the duties of a CA, especially given that these violations may be in the future? Furthermore, the whole discussion should be considered special given that the "great firewall" has apparently begun blocking most of the threads discussing the issue, such that open discussion isn't even possible since the very people who may be affected by this most (those within China) are being prevented from discussing it.
Not sure about Opera, but here is the resolution of the same issue for Firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340198
This kind of vulnerability extends even to very commonly used applications. The firefox download, remarkably, does not occur over HTTPS, and yet that is the way in which you get your root certificates used by SSL. It is entirely possible for someone to intercept your download and return you a hacked version of firefox which contains malicious root certificates which would then could to sign any sort of phishing or other attack site, allowing spoofing of pretty much any website's identity.
Deflate doesn't work well on shortish strings because (a) it has some 11 or bytes of overhead you pay no matter what (b) you are no likely to find a lot of long-run duplication in short strings (c) the relative cost of including the huffman tree in the output is large, so it is likely that a less efficient static variation will be chosen.
How do you know?
"Zero gravity" means an environment where an objects is accelerating at the same rate as that imposed by the force of gravity at that location. So for example you experience zero gravity when you jump of the Eiffel Tower. You also experience zero gravity in deep space (where the force of gravity is approximately zero). Although these like two totally different situations, the effect on the body is the same.
"Partial gravity" that the magnitude of the difference between a body's current acceleration and the acceleration of gravity of that point is greater than 0 but less than 9.8 m/s/s.
For example, standing on Mars you experience partial gravity because in some frame of reference you are not moving, while the force gravity would accelerate you down at ~3 m/s/s. If you jumped on an elevator going up at 7 m/s/s, then would be back to normal gravity.
So the grandparent post is correct when he asserts the accuracy of the original statement:
Since weightlessness = zero gravity, for all practical purposes - mammals have only experienced either "Full Gravity" or "Zero Gravity" - nothing in between (for an extended period of time).
I also wanted to work in a "large business environment after college" - so I got a degree in Greek Mythology.
Now I work at the largest provider of fast food in world. My Big Mac assembly skills are second to none...
I call shenanigans on that 51% thing. If that were true you could just rip up two bills such that you turn in two-thrids of a bill three times, increasing your cash by 50% in the process. I think the real criteria used by banks includes the presence of the serial numbers, etc.
Sure, click here, then "LOG IN AS A GUEST", scroll to the first post and click on the enclosure in the first response. Has a jpg the face side of a new new 20 - will not open in PSCS.
No registration is required for the Adobe forums link - use "Enter as guest" or equivalent.
Plus the problem seems to only crop up when you go to print
Did you read the comments on the Adobe forum? The protection prevents you from opening or scanning any image that it detects to be of a disallowed note (even greyscale) - it does not wait until printing is attempted.
This sort of precludes adhering the 75/150 percent rule since you can't open the file to make the required modifications in the first place.
Nothing that these reasearchers are doing allows any type of information or energy or matter to travel faster than light - that is forbidden. It only allows "spooky action at a distance" - but such action cannot transmit information. So no 0.0 latency gaming, no faster than light travel, and so on. Also, the technology doesn't replicate the photon, it is actually transported, ie the "original" photon is destroyed, no copies are made.
The authors prove only that the difficulty of tetris does not scale in a polynomial fashion (so long as P!=NP) with the size of the board, really not a useful result, since the size of the board is fixed, in practice.
In summary, Tetris as we know it, and as it is played by this AI, is not NP-Hard.
oops, that should read "...which isn't the intuitive notion..."
The question here surrounds what defines the size of the problem - one would think that it is the number of pieces that must be placed optimally, regardless of the size of the grid - however, they talk about the scaling as the size of the board increases, which isn't the intuition notion of hardness in this case.
True, but the state space of go (or chess) also stays small, yet this does not prevent the optimal play problem from being intractable (on today's hardware, with today's algorithms). The difference is that to analyse possible future moves beginning from the current (small) state space, a program (traditionally) must investigate a huge, typically exponential, number of possible future state spaces, based on possible future moves, etc.
Note that the version of tetris considered in the paper is the offline version, where the sequence of pieces is known in advance, rather than just the next piece - certainly if they considered the model of the game where only the next piece was known, then deterministically optimal play would be impossible, rather than simply intractable, and the question would be a probablistic one instead. For example it has been shown that the optimal solution for the Mastermind style of game is calculable in a probabalistic sense, yet is intractable (due to the size of the payoff matrix).
When minesweeper was shown to be NP-complete, it was likely shown that determining whether puzzle was solvable without guessing is in NP, rather than simply finding a solution, since obviously situations exist when this is not possible.
(1) Eliminating all blocks on the playfield in a minumum number of moves.
(2) Maximising the possible number of tetrises obtained.
(3) Maximising the number of lines cleared.
(4) Minimizing the height of the block configuration.
Note that they prove (1) essentially by starting from a very particular arrangement of blocks on the playing field, such that the reduction to 3-Partition is "easy" to prove (I use the word "easy" in the loosest sense). They then go on to prove (2),(3), and (4) using small modifications to the basic setup.
The admit that the "empty initial field" problem is an open one, but I would imagine that that problem can also be proven NP-Hard.
I don't think the "N remains small, no matter how you look at it" - consider the case where many hundreds of pieces are played - certainly not unusual among higher level players. A number of this magnitude is certainly enough to make many NP problem intractable.
That's just wrong.
If you read the article, you would see that the fact that tetrominos (that's what they call 'em) are four block combinations does not define the magnitude of the (likely, assuming P != NP) exponential relationship. In fact, they show that the problem scales in an NP fashion with the number of pieces - the number four doesn't come into it.
What the Nintendo version shows is that a simple AI (with perfect movement abilities) and so on can come close enough to optimal in a usual situation (the article presenet an extremely contrived worse case scenario) to beat a human player. This has no bearing on the NP completeness of the problem.
On another note, the authors admit that the Tetris problem is NOT NP-Complete except for arbitrarily large game fields.
Well I've never posted on slashdot before, but I've also never laughed out loud while reading ./ either, so kudos.