In chess, each player knows where all the pieces are and knows all the moves available.
In poker, neither player knows where all the 'pieces' are.
So the problem the computer has to solve is totally different. In chess, the computer has to compute the best next move. In poker, the computer has to determine if it's hand is better than the opponent's hand, AND if its hand is better, win as much money from the opponent as possible, AND if its hand is weaker, lose as little money as possible, OR convince the opponent that its hand actually is better than the opponent's hand so the opponent folds, and win as much money doing that as possible.
The key difference is that in poker, you're asking the computer to solve a problem where some of the information necessary to solve the problem is only known by the opponent.
Then if a fat person and a skinny person hang out, which one is dominate?
Most likely, the fat person.
Think about it. If someone is fat, they are not willing or even able to do a lot of athletic activities that a more fit person might do. They probably also eat more often, and may eat less healthy things.
So maybe a fit person, who might normally play volleyball with friends, or camp, or go skiing, or swim, or just go to the county fair and walk around a bit, when they get a new friend who is fat and start hanging around with them more, that new fat friend is probably not going to be interested in doing those things. They probably would rather sit at home and watch DVDs than do anything active. And they probably eat more. And so if you're spending time with them, that means you're sitting around watching DVDs and eating more and guess what - you get fatter too.
if your business can't manage to set up a cold site with failover for critical infrastructure without doubling your infrastructure overhead, someone needs to be fired.
If you don't understand that failover limited to CRITICAL infrastructure is not FULLY redundant, you should be fired.
I didn't say it was ALWAYS better to just let shit happen. I said it MAY be better. And I didn't say 'critical systems', I said 'fully redundant backup'. If you have X hardware and connectivity in your system, and you want full redundancy of that, it's going to cost you the same amount to establish that same hardware and redundancy elsewhere.
Now, certainly, you might make an educated decision that not everything your system does is critical, and you only need to support a few functions on your backup system. And that might mean, for example, that your web presence is not determined to be critical, and you accept that if your main system goes down, you'll, in the example of Netflix, keep your ability to process DVD returns but lose your website presence. Or in the case of CNet, you might keep your main page up but let your forums be down.
Regardless, my point to the GGP poster was that JUST because the websites of these companies went down does not mean those companies were negligent - it could just mean that they made an educated decision that it was cheaper to risk their website being down than to pay more to further reduce that risk. You have to draw the line between additional expense and additional reliability somewhere.
I'm certainly forwarding this article to my boss, who abruptly decided to put an end to planning for a backup site on the basis of "aw, nothing is going to happen".
The thing is, letting something happen may be a better decision than trying to stop it.
If you're going to have a fully-redundant setup, it's going to cost you twice as much as having just one setup. And if you're not going to have a fully-redundant setup, your backup site is going to buckle under the full load of normal traffic anyway.
The correct business decision might just be "I just saved a bunch of money on my data center insurance," and if you lose a day's business, oh well, that was still cheaper than keeping a backup data center around.
What you're missing is that social network messaging solves THE problem that email has. You know who sent you the message. And barrier to spam is higher than with email.
Lots of other email-like functionality is missing, but the authentication issue (sender and receiver have authenticated themselves to a third party) has been fixed.
I'm pretty sure my shoes and coffee mug are going to make it through this ordeal.
You coffee mug is especially vulnerable to java.
I can also see where this vulnerability might extend to your shoes, especially if you are standing, holding a coffee mug with java installed, and there are other java users moving around you.
1) Failed to secure nuclear facilities in Iraq. (They did however make a big effort to secure the oil wells).
The whole problem with the justification for invading Iraq was that there WERE NO NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN IRAQ!
2) Distributed in Iraq, without care or record, twelve billions dollars of Iraqs money in cash.
How else would you distribute the money? Iraq doesn't exactly have a banking system or an ATM network.
I dislike the Bush administration as much as the next guy. But that's no reason to manufacture problems and ignore the real ones. The REAL reason you can tell this isn't about terrorism is that the administration invaded Iraq when the terrorists were in Afghanistan. There weren't any terrorist in Iraq until we got rid of the one guy in Iraq who was more scared of terrorist in Iraq than we were.
If the administration was serious about stopping terrorism, they would have committed all of our forces to hunting terrorists instead of instituting regime change, destroying a country's infrastructure in the process, and then doing police work.
You are. You install a browser plugin that adds the button to the Amazon.com pages that you view - it just takes the ISBN number from the Amazon page and matches it up with the ISBN number at the library and adds the button for you.
Maybe you have to pay for that plugin, but quite likely it'll be a free plugin just like many plugins currently are.
Identity Theft. EVERYONE has something to hide. The fewer people that have access to your private information, the harder it is for people to steal from you.
The more people, even people working for the government, that have access to your information, the easier it is for you to be turned into a victim. And in the case of things like identity theft, the less you THINK you have to hide, the more attractive of a target you probably are. (Upstanding citizens probably have good credit to exploit.)
If spectrum were, indeed, not scarce, then the companies that owned spectrum already would deploy whatever technology is available to more effectively use spectrum instead of paying billions of dollars to get access to more of it.
The price paid for the spectrum indicates that it must be scarce. If it wasn't scarce, nobody would be paying big dollars for it.
I'm not saying there arn't bands that write good original music. I'm saying that there are a LOT of bands that do not, and play covers instead. If you take away their ability to play covers, then you have a lot of bands that either have to stop playing, or you have a lot of bands subjecting their listeners to original 'music' that sucks.
You're ignoring the fact that a gallon has been standardised as being measured at 60 degrees F.
I'm not ignoring, I'm entirely discounting. There is no LEGAL standard that says a gallon has to be measured at 60 degrees. Does your milk have to be measured at 60 degrees? No. It does not.
The gas station is advertising that they will sell you a gallon. Anywhere in commerce, if I advertise that I'm going to sell you a certain volume of something, present conditions like temperature are assumed. Now, if the gas station was advertising a price for a gallon measured at 60 degrees F, then you might have something, but they're not. There is no reasonable expectation on the part of the consumer that when they buy a gallon of gas they are buying a gallon of gas measured at some temperature OTHER than the current temperature.
It worked against Saddam and it is working against the US Army in Iraq. If there was no violence, we would have accomplished our objectives, put in the democracy, and would be long gone. As it is, the area is likely to fall into the hands of the most violent people after we leave.
What the hell is your definition of 'works'? If works is you kill some people, then yes, violence works. That's kinda the definition of violence. But if you definition of 'works' is 'effect a desired change', then both of your examples show that violence does not work. Yes, we bagged Saddam, but we took a secular country and turned it into a terrorist haven. Yes, the insurgents are killing US troops, but they havn't gotten us to leave either. And as far as the terrorists in Iraq go, violence can never really 'work' for them, as they don't even have a goal, other than 'being terrorists'.
Violence does NOT work. There are much better ways to effect change, and even if change cannot otherwise be effected, you're usually in a case where whatever is bugging you isn't as bad as the consequences of violent action. 40 years of Palestinian resistance has gotten them - what? Economic ruin?
There is nothing wrong here. The price advertised is for a gallon. You pay for a gallon, you get a gallon. If it bothers you that the amount of energy in a gallon changes based on the temperature, find someone who will sell you gas by the pound.
"MY right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs MY right not to get blown up."
You don't choose between walking the streets unmolested and other people getting blown up. You choose between walking the streets unmolested and YOU getting blown up. And when that is the choice, it's pretty clear that neither NO molestation by the police (and strong risk of getting blown up) nor NO risk of getting blown up (but absolute safety from the police) is the correct way to go. Some risk of being molested by the police and some risk of being blown up is the correct answer, but each individual's preference for police molesting vs. risk of turning into tiny bits is going to be different. Some people will prefer a greater risk of explosion, and some people will prefer more hassle from law enforcement.
Suddenly, insurance companies would have to compete because they know that it is easy for clients who are sick of paying insane premiums while getting denied service will bolt no matter how many boob jobs they approve.
My company pays about $900/month to insure myself and my wife. We could be similarly insured for about $250/month in the private market, since we're young and healthy.
The problem is, since we're young and healthy, it costs far less to provide us with healthcare than the people I work with who are, say, 45 years old. So what happens when you let people just take the money instead of the insurance? People like me leave the employer insurance pool and get private insurance, and then the company ends up spending $1600/month to insure the people who are left. Except now at $1600/month, even more people would pay less with private insurance, so now THEY leavue the employer pool, and you're left with a company that is now paying $5,000 a month for the diabetics and others with chronic diseases and the rest of us are all on private insurance.
Of course, this doesn't really happen. Because once isnrance starts costing $1,600, $5,000 month, and the company is BOTH paying that for the people who actually take the insurance, and giving it ot the people who don't take the insurance, the company just decides to stop offering insurance at all. Now nobody is insured.
Employer-provided health insurance works the way it does because it's the only way it can work.
I'm not talking about the mentally disabled here. If you are going to sign an agreement, make sure you understand the agreement. If you're not capable of understanding the agreement, find someone you trust who is, or even pay someone to understand and explain the agreement for you.
If you don't understand the agreement, or don't like the terms of the agreement, then don't agree to the agreement.
See? Not hard. Not rocket science.
People who rack up high-interest debt generally fall into two categories: Uninformed people who should have availed themselves of the opportunity to be informed, and informed people who make bad decisions anyway.
Too many Americans don't seem to be able to correlate what they want to buy with the amount of money they have to spend. You'll find the highest percentage of them in Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
In chess, each player knows where all the pieces are and knows all the moves available.
In poker, neither player knows where all the 'pieces' are.
So the problem the computer has to solve is totally different. In chess, the computer has to compute the best next move. In poker, the computer has to determine if it's hand is better than the opponent's hand, AND if its hand is better, win as much money from the opponent as possible, AND if its hand is weaker, lose as little money as possible, OR convince the opponent that its hand actually is better than the opponent's hand so the opponent folds, and win as much money doing that as possible.
The key difference is that in poker, you're asking the computer to solve a problem where some of the information necessary to solve the problem is only known by the opponent.
The researchers didn't choose which bots were used themselves - they had ANOTHER 'coach' bot that moved the 'player' bots in and out.
Then if a fat person and a skinny person hang out, which one is dominate?
Most likely, the fat person.
Think about it. If someone is fat, they are not willing or even able to do a lot of athletic activities that a more fit person might do. They probably also eat more often, and may eat less healthy things.
So maybe a fit person, who might normally play volleyball with friends, or camp, or go skiing, or swim, or just go to the county fair and walk around a bit, when they get a new friend who is fat and start hanging around with them more, that new fat friend is probably not going to be interested in doing those things. They probably would rather sit at home and watch DVDs than do anything active. And they probably eat more. And so if you're spending time with them, that means you're sitting around watching DVDs and eating more and guess what - you get fatter too.
if your business can't manage to set up a cold site with failover for critical infrastructure without doubling your infrastructure overhead, someone needs to be fired.
If you don't understand that failover limited to CRITICAL infrastructure is not FULLY redundant, you should be fired.
I didn't say it was ALWAYS better to just let shit happen. I said it MAY be better. And I didn't say 'critical systems', I said 'fully redundant backup'. If you have X hardware and connectivity in your system, and you want full redundancy of that, it's going to cost you the same amount to establish that same hardware and redundancy elsewhere.
Now, certainly, you might make an educated decision that not everything your system does is critical, and you only need to support a few functions on your backup system. And that might mean, for example, that your web presence is not determined to be critical, and you accept that if your main system goes down, you'll, in the example of Netflix, keep your ability to process DVD returns but lose your website presence. Or in the case of CNet, you might keep your main page up but let your forums be down.
Regardless, my point to the GGP poster was that JUST because the websites of these companies went down does not mean those companies were negligent - it could just mean that they made an educated decision that it was cheaper to risk their website being down than to pay more to further reduce that risk. You have to draw the line between additional expense and additional reliability somewhere.
I'm certainly forwarding this article to my boss, who abruptly decided to put an end to planning for a backup site on the basis of "aw, nothing is going to happen".
The thing is, letting something happen may be a better decision than trying to stop it.
If you're going to have a fully-redundant setup, it's going to cost you twice as much as having just one setup. And if you're not going to have a fully-redundant setup, your backup site is going to buckle under the full load of normal traffic anyway.
The correct business decision might just be "I just saved a bunch of money on my data center insurance," and if you lose a day's business, oh well, that was still cheaper than keeping a backup data center around.
At least we have lots of aircraft carriers.
We also have more native-language porn.
especially when there's no additional benefits.
What you're missing is that social network messaging solves THE problem that email has. You know who sent you the message. And barrier to spam is higher than with email.
Lots of other email-like functionality is missing, but the authentication issue (sender and receiver have authenticated themselves to a third party) has been fixed.
I think the GP is right, the kids will whine because they can't play games.
I think you mean, the can't play the latest 3D game releases.
Slip 'em a copy of DOOM. I bet even DOOM II will run great. You could probably even run Quake or Quake II on there without much trouble.
Duke Nuk'em might take forever though.
Guess what, identity theft is a smaller problem in Europe
Ok, assuming we accept this unsubstantiated assertion as true...
with its more stringent privacy laws, than in the USA.
That doesn't mean that this has anything to do with it. It could simply be because the USA has SS#'s and Europe doesn't.
I'm pretty sure my shoes and coffee mug are going to make it through this ordeal.
You coffee mug is especially vulnerable to java.
I can also see where this vulnerability might extend to your shoes, especially if you are standing, holding a coffee mug with java installed, and there are other java users moving around you.
1) Failed to secure nuclear facilities in Iraq. (They did however make a big effort to secure the oil wells).
The whole problem with the justification for invading Iraq was that there WERE NO NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN IRAQ!
2) Distributed in Iraq, without care or record, twelve billions dollars of Iraqs money in cash.
How else would you distribute the money? Iraq doesn't exactly have a banking system or an ATM network.
I dislike the Bush administration as much as the next guy. But that's no reason to manufacture problems and ignore the real ones. The REAL reason you can tell this isn't about terrorism is that the administration invaded Iraq when the terrorists were in Afghanistan. There weren't any terrorist in Iraq until we got rid of the one guy in Iraq who was more scared of terrorist in Iraq than we were.
If the administration was serious about stopping terrorism, they would have committed all of our forces to hunting terrorists instead of instituting regime change, destroying a country's infrastructure in the process, and then doing police work.
but who is going to pay the bills?
You are. You install a browser plugin that adds the button to the Amazon.com pages that you view - it just takes the ISBN number from the Amazon page and matches it up with the ISBN number at the library and adds the button for you.
Maybe you have to pay for that plugin, but quite likely it'll be a free plugin just like many plugins currently are.
Identity Theft. EVERYONE has something to hide. The fewer people that have access to your private information, the harder it is for people to steal from you.
The more people, even people working for the government, that have access to your information, the easier it is for you to be turned into a victim. And in the case of things like identity theft, the less you THINK you have to hide, the more attractive of a target you probably are. (Upstanding citizens probably have good credit to exploit.)
If spectrum were, indeed, not scarce, then the companies that owned spectrum already would deploy whatever technology is available to more effectively use spectrum instead of paying billions of dollars to get access to more of it.
The price paid for the spectrum indicates that it must be scarce. If it wasn't scarce, nobody would be paying big dollars for it.
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
I'm not saying there arn't bands that write good original music. I'm saying that there are a LOT of bands that do not, and play covers instead. If you take away their ability to play covers, then you have a lot of bands that either have to stop playing, or you have a lot of bands subjecting their listeners to original 'music' that sucks.
No, Fascism begins when people decide that fighting Communism is more important than protecting rights.
s/Communism/Terrorism/g
Oh come on, think about all the bands you've ever heard that play covers.
Now think about how many of them had original music that was any good.
Just because you can play music doesn't mean you can write any that's worth a crap.
but consider what a boom this might be for people writing their own music.
Consider what a burden this will be to people who have to LISTEN to the people who write their own music.
Most music is crap. Let bands play covers so we don't have to be subjected to their original work.
You're ignoring the fact that a gallon has been standardised as being measured at 60 degrees F.
I'm not ignoring, I'm entirely discounting. There is no LEGAL standard that says a gallon has to be measured at 60 degrees. Does your milk have to be measured at 60 degrees? No. It does not.
The gas station is advertising that they will sell you a gallon. Anywhere in commerce, if I advertise that I'm going to sell you a certain volume of something, present conditions like temperature are assumed. Now, if the gas station was advertising a price for a gallon measured at 60 degrees F, then you might have something, but they're not. There is no reasonable expectation on the part of the consumer that when they buy a gallon of gas they are buying a gallon of gas measured at some temperature OTHER than the current temperature.
It worked against Saddam and it is working against the US Army in Iraq. If there was no violence, we would have accomplished our objectives, put in the democracy, and would be long gone. As it is, the area is likely to fall into the hands of the most violent people after we leave.
What the hell is your definition of 'works'? If works is you kill some people, then yes, violence works. That's kinda the definition of violence. But if you definition of 'works' is 'effect a desired change', then both of your examples show that violence does not work. Yes, we bagged Saddam, but we took a secular country and turned it into a terrorist haven. Yes, the insurgents are killing US troops, but they havn't gotten us to leave either. And as far as the terrorists in Iraq go, violence can never really 'work' for them, as they don't even have a goal, other than 'being terrorists'.
Violence does NOT work. There are much better ways to effect change, and even if change cannot otherwise be effected, you're usually in a case where whatever is bugging you isn't as bad as the consequences of violent action. 40 years of Palestinian resistance has gotten them - what? Economic ruin?
There is nothing wrong here. The price advertised is for a gallon. You pay for a gallon, you get a gallon. If it bothers you that the amount of energy in a gallon changes based on the temperature, find someone who will sell you gas by the pound.
A much better statement to evaluate is:
"MY right to walk the streets unmolested by the police outweighs MY right not to get blown up."
You don't choose between walking the streets unmolested and other people getting blown up. You choose between walking the streets unmolested and YOU getting blown up. And when that is the choice, it's pretty clear that neither NO molestation by the police (and strong risk of getting blown up) nor NO risk of getting blown up (but absolute safety from the police) is the correct way to go. Some risk of being molested by the police and some risk of being blown up is the correct answer, but each individual's preference for police molesting vs. risk of turning into tiny bits is going to be different. Some people will prefer a greater risk of explosion, and some people will prefer more hassle from law enforcement.
Suddenly, insurance companies would have to compete because they know that it is easy for clients who are sick of paying insane premiums while getting denied service will bolt no matter how many boob jobs they approve.
My company pays about $900/month to insure myself and my wife. We could be similarly insured for about $250/month in the private market, since we're young and healthy.
The problem is, since we're young and healthy, it costs far less to provide us with healthcare than the people I work with who are, say, 45 years old. So what happens when you let people just take the money instead of the insurance? People like me leave the employer insurance pool and get private insurance, and then the company ends up spending $1600/month to insure the people who are left. Except now at $1600/month, even more people would pay less with private insurance, so now THEY leavue the employer pool, and you're left with a company that is now paying $5,000 a month for the diabetics and others with chronic diseases and the rest of us are all on private insurance.
Of course, this doesn't really happen. Because once isnrance starts costing $1,600, $5,000 month, and the company is BOTH paying that for the people who actually take the insurance, and giving it ot the people who don't take the insurance, the company just decides to stop offering insurance at all. Now nobody is insured.
Employer-provided health insurance works the way it does because it's the only way it can work.
I'm not talking about the mentally disabled here. If you are going to sign an agreement, make sure you understand the agreement. If you're not capable of understanding the agreement, find someone you trust who is, or even pay someone to understand and explain the agreement for you.
If you don't understand the agreement, or don't like the terms of the agreement, then don't agree to the agreement.
See? Not hard. Not rocket science.
People who rack up high-interest debt generally fall into two categories: Uninformed people who should have availed themselves of the opportunity to be informed, and informed people who make bad decisions anyway.
Too many Americans don't seem to be able to correlate what they want to buy with the amount of money they have to spend. You'll find the highest percentage of them in Congress.