Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.
And that's the real point here. Lots of people in countries like Indian and China are transporting themselves and their entire family on old and dangerous motorbikes not suited for that task. The Nano isn't to get more people on the road, it's to get road users to use a safer vehicle, more suited for their needs.
I wonder how the Tata Nano compares to various voiturettes/brommobiels/other tiny car-like vehicles. Those are very popular nowadays, partially for disableds, partially for youths who don't have a driver's license yet.
I expected them to be not much more expensive than a scooter, and similar in performance to the Tata Nano. Imagine my surprise when I find that they tend to cost $10,000 or more, which is more than some real cars that are fast enough for motorways.
And he has obviously not played Go with this top-ranked (professional 9 dan) Go player.
I feel better now. I once lost a tournament game because for just one turn, I neglected to pay attention to a threat I'd been aware of for most of the game.
Prolonged cursing is not really appreciated during go tournaments, although they were understanding about my situation.
I'm not suggesting that the carriers don't want the iPhone, I'm saying that they're sacrificing their Network in order to do it. AT&T is being sued because their network can't scale up. They'll have to dump a cool billion in order to upgrade.
They already have a 3G network, right? How the hell did they possible get a 3G network that's unable to handle real 3G data?
How is it possible that AT&T's network has so much less bandwidth than European 3G networks? (My problem is coverage, especially inside supermarkters, for some reason. But when I have signal, I have bandwidth, and plenty of it.)
It really sounds like AT&T wanted this new tech, but tried to save a few cents by crippling the network. A really bad case of penny wise, pound foolish.
Although the big bonuses for a failing company are disgusting, this new tax law is just wrong on too many levels.
If the government didn't want rescued companies to spend money on bonuses, then that should have been a condition for the bailout money. Bailing out failing companies gives the government a perfect opportunity to set criteria and make demands of a company that would otherwise have gone bankrupt.
I'm all for saving vital functions of the economy, but giving away billions for free with no conditions what so ever is just stupid.
How does the AI cheat? I can't believe the legions of OCD TBS players didn't call him on it if it does.
I'm talking Galciv 1, not 2, and he was called on it, and he admitted that the AI knew where the yellow suns are, which is where most of the good planets are. The human player doesn't know this, so he has to spend time building scouts and exploring with them before he knows where to send his colony ships. The AI doesn't have to do that, and that saves time.
After a couple of patches, the AI also became less and less inclined to trade techs with the human player, but that's not such a big issue, because they were already crap at trading them amongst themselves, so being the big distributor of technologies was a big advantage for the human player, and it still was a reasonable advantage after all those patches.
End result: at the start, the AIs grab a big slice of the pie, sometimes bigger than that of the human, sometimes they expand less and start building wonders and trade goods before the human does. But in the long run, a good human player will always catch up and overtake them.
The AI cheats, but it cheats less then in any other TBS game where the AI is not a complete walkover. And the AI is pretty good, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.
That it is easier to program Artificial Intelligence than Artificial Stupidity?
No. It means it's easy to make computers cheat in computer games. People complaining about AI being too smart are either pretty stupid, or their problem is an AI that takes advantage of information or other resources that they don't have.
Intelligence has been studied a lot.
Not nearly enough. We still hardly know what intelligence really is or how it works.
You should try Galactic Civilizations II. The AI doesn't cheat.
For real this time? Brad Wardell claimed the AI of Galactic Civilizations I didn't cheat either, but it did. Not blatantly, but it wasn't a completely level playing field either.
And while it was much better than any other strategy AI I'd seen, it still made lots of ridiculous mistakes, like not protecting its transports, not killing my transports when it got the opportunity, attacking my planets without a transport, etc.
You're joking, but having realistic actions like teabagging a defeated corpse brings a lot more illusion of reality than a lot of the other stuff they do.
As for the article, I saw a lot of 'dumbing down' and 'intelligent mistakes'... But I saw absolutely nothing about 'personality'. -That- is what makes an AI seem real.
That's what Galactic Civilizations did. Each alien empire got its own custom AI. Really different, written from scratch. On top of that, I think some additional parameters could be randomised (like how expansionistic the AI is).
The idea behind this was that each empire's AI would have its own personality, and a trick that worked against one might not work against another.
Not sure how well this turned out in practice, though. They were all still too stupid to pose a serious threat. Except for the beginning, where they didn't need to build scouts because they already knew the good places to colonise.
At some point, Brad Wardell even dumbed down the AI because he thought it was too good and too nasty. I'm playing at the hardest difficuly level because I want good and nasty AI. If I wanted an easy win, I'd play at an easier difficulty level.
I would agree - to a degree. To me, an AI should be as smart as possible (even if superhumanly so - if I wanted a human opponent, I'd go to a gaming club), but should do so on no more information than a human player would have. Thus, you should not have one side play in a "fog of war" and the other be given a full-information scenario. That doesn't cut it.
Exactly. I want a level playing field, and an AI that can beat me on that field. I've never seen that, unfortunately.
I don't need Artificial Stupidity before I see some Artifical Intelligence. The only games where AI is supposedly "too good" and needs to be dumbed down in a realistic way, are the ones that aren't so much about intelligence, but about fast reflexes and having access to information (exact position of the enemy, despite distance, walls in between, looking the other way, etc). Dumbing the AI down there is just making the cheating less obvious, less blatant. But it's still cheating.
I want AI that doesn't cheat, but is still smart enough to beat me. I'm not going to see that for quite some time, I'm afraid.
Deep Blue played chess, regardless of the way it did that. Can you look at a chess game and distinguish one played through heuristics from one played through brute force?
In a way, yes. Computers tend to go for measurable improvement of their position, humans can go for positions where you can't point your finger on why they're better, but they just feel that way for someone with lots of experience.
I think Kasparov said he was surprised because Deep Blue at some point did the second kind of move: one that Kasparov felt was good, but didn't seem to give any kind of clear advantage.
The reason Deep Blue did that move, was because he simply calculated so far ahead that he could see the measurable advantage that Kasparov couldn't see. It was still brute force, but it didn't seem that way to Kasparov.
A pity they don't remember him, Anatoly Karpov, Aryan Pride and the ol' Soviet Union. Kasparov was the Jesse Owens of chess in his day.
Who the hell is Jesse Owens?
I think Kasparov has plenty of immortality. He is, for the time being at least, the last real World Champion, he's one of the more exciting world champions, was the first reigning world champion to lose to a computer, and after his chess career, he challenged the Russian political system. Would have been nice if that last one had been successful.
Last time I checked, Tomcat was just a servlet container, not a full J2EE stack.
Last (and only) time I worked with Websphere, it couldn't do what our own system on Jetty could do. We (well, my previous employer) rely a lot on JMS, and Websphere's crappy JMS implementation threw messages out with no notification. IBM considered it Not Their Problem, so we, being the smaller partner here, had to develop our own reliable messaging service on top of Websphere's crap.
The fact that something is big doesn't always make it good.
IBM does a lit of interesting stuff in Java. I think they'd like being able to call the shots in Javaland.
That on its own is not enough to justify this deal of course, but it's a nice bonus, and there are a lot of other areas where Sun and IBM are working in the same direction, sometimes competing, sometimes complementing each other.
If you want a whitelist, Glubble is great. It gives parents complete control over what their children can see, and if a child wants to visit a not-yet approved site, the parent received a message and can approve it immediately. It's aimed at younger children, though. I think it'd be too restrictive for teens.
Also, it completely changes the appearance of Firefox into something more childish.
Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)
So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?
This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken.
I don't think it'll stand up in any court. It's just wrong on too many levels.
And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings.
Looks like the boy's dad might be criminally negligent for leaving his gun out of the safe. (He has several guns, all of them nicely locked up in a safe according to the law, except for the one his son used at school.)
So at least when a kid goes crazy, there's someone to blame other than video games and music.
A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.
No idea if it's true, but I once heard that no weapon in human history killed as many people as the AK-47, including gas and nuclear bombs.
Slashdot Mirror
Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.
And that's the real point here. Lots of people in countries like Indian and China are transporting themselves and their entire family on old and dangerous motorbikes not suited for that task. The Nano isn't to get more people on the road, it's to get road users to use a safer vehicle, more suited for their needs.
I wonder how the Tata Nano compares to various voiturettes/brommobiels/other tiny car-like vehicles. Those are very popular nowadays, partially for disableds, partially for youths who don't have a driver's license yet.
I expected them to be not much more expensive than a scooter, and similar in performance to the Tata Nano. Imagine my surprise when I find that they tend to cost $10,000 or more, which is more than some real cars that are fast enough for motorways.
And he has obviously not played Go with this top-ranked (professional 9 dan) Go player.
I feel better now. I once lost a tournament game because for just one turn, I neglected to pay attention to a threat I'd been aware of for most of the game.
Prolonged cursing is not really appreciated during go tournaments, although they were understanding about my situation.
I apologize if I got the tech wrong. It was whatever was decent on the telecom side 29 years ago...damned if I know what it was.
A 300 baud modem on a normal phone line.
I'm not suggesting that the carriers don't want the iPhone, I'm saying that they're sacrificing their Network in order to do it. AT&T is being sued because their network can't scale up. They'll have to dump a cool billion in order to upgrade.
They already have a 3G network, right? How the hell did they possible get a 3G network that's unable to handle real 3G data?
How is it possible that AT&T's network has so much less bandwidth than European 3G networks? (My problem is coverage, especially inside supermarkters, for some reason. But when I have signal, I have bandwidth, and plenty of it.)
It really sounds like AT&T wanted this new tech, but tried to save a few cents by crippling the network. A really bad case of penny wise, pound foolish.
Although the big bonuses for a failing company are disgusting, this new tax law is just wrong on too many levels.
If the government didn't want rescued companies to spend money on bonuses, then that should have been a condition for the bailout money. Bailing out failing companies gives the government a perfect opportunity to set criteria and make demands of a company that would otherwise have gone bankrupt.
I'm all for saving vital functions of the economy, but giving away billions for free with no conditions what so ever is just stupid.
How does the AI cheat? I can't believe the legions of OCD TBS players didn't call him on it if it does.
I'm talking Galciv 1, not 2, and he was called on it, and he admitted that the AI knew where the yellow suns are, which is where most of the good planets are. The human player doesn't know this, so he has to spend time building scouts and exploring with them before he knows where to send his colony ships. The AI doesn't have to do that, and that saves time.
After a couple of patches, the AI also became less and less inclined to trade techs with the human player, but that's not such a big issue, because they were already crap at trading them amongst themselves, so being the big distributor of technologies was a big advantage for the human player, and it still was a reasonable advantage after all those patches.
End result: at the start, the AIs grab a big slice of the pie, sometimes bigger than that of the human, sometimes they expand less and start building wonders and trade goods before the human does. But in the long run, a good human player will always catch up and overtake them.
The AI cheats, but it cheats less then in any other TBS game where the AI is not a complete walkover. And the AI is pretty good, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.
I haven't played GalCiv 2 unfortunately.
until they wake the computer opponent disconnect from the game in a strop or use your quick load over and over until it beats you.
Didn't Baldur's Gate 2 do that?
That it is easier to program Artificial Intelligence than Artificial Stupidity?
No. It means it's easy to make computers cheat in computer games. People complaining about AI being too smart are either pretty stupid, or their problem is an AI that takes advantage of information or other resources that they don't have.
Intelligence has been studied a lot.
Not nearly enough. We still hardly know what intelligence really is or how it works.
You should try Galactic Civilizations II. The AI doesn't cheat.
For real this time? Brad Wardell claimed the AI of Galactic Civilizations I didn't cheat either, but it did. Not blatantly, but it wasn't a completely level playing field either.
And while it was much better than any other strategy AI I'd seen, it still made lots of ridiculous mistakes, like not protecting its transports, not killing my transports when it got the opportunity, attacking my planets without a transport, etc.
You're joking, but having realistic actions like teabagging a defeated corpse brings a lot more illusion of reality than a lot of the other stuff they do.
As for the article, I saw a lot of 'dumbing down' and 'intelligent mistakes' ... But I saw absolutely nothing about 'personality'. -That- is what makes an AI seem real.
That's what Galactic Civilizations did. Each alien empire got its own custom AI. Really different, written from scratch. On top of that, I think some additional parameters could be randomised (like how expansionistic the AI is).
The idea behind this was that each empire's AI would have its own personality, and a trick that worked against one might not work against another.
Not sure how well this turned out in practice, though. They were all still too stupid to pose a serious threat. Except for the beginning, where they didn't need to build scouts because they already knew the good places to colonise.
At some point, Brad Wardell even dumbed down the AI because he thought it was too good and too nasty. I'm playing at the hardest difficuly level because I want good and nasty AI. If I wanted an easy win, I'd play at an easier difficulty level.
I would agree - to a degree. To me, an AI should be as smart as possible (even if superhumanly so - if I wanted a human opponent, I'd go to a gaming club), but should do so on no more information than a human player would have. Thus, you should not have one side play in a "fog of war" and the other be given a full-information scenario. That doesn't cut it.
Exactly. I want a level playing field, and an AI that can beat me on that field. I've never seen that, unfortunately.
I don't need Artificial Stupidity before I see some Artifical Intelligence. The only games where AI is supposedly "too good" and needs to be dumbed down in a realistic way, are the ones that aren't so much about intelligence, but about fast reflexes and having access to information (exact position of the enemy, despite distance, walls in between, looking the other way, etc). Dumbing the AI down there is just making the cheating less obvious, less blatant. But it's still cheating.
I want AI that doesn't cheat, but is still smart enough to beat me. I'm not going to see that for quite some time, I'm afraid.
But at least that's in its own world. The AI knows everything 'cuz it can see everything. In the real world... they aren't as well blessed.
That, and the AI controls the world in which it lives.
Not if it's been set up fairly.
Why does that matter?
Deep Blue played chess, regardless of the way it did that. Can you look at a chess game and distinguish one played through heuristics from one played through brute force?
In a way, yes. Computers tend to go for measurable improvement of their position, humans can go for positions where you can't point your finger on why they're better, but they just feel that way for someone with lots of experience.
I think Kasparov said he was surprised because Deep Blue at some point did the second kind of move: one that Kasparov felt was good, but didn't seem to give any kind of clear advantage.
The reason Deep Blue did that move, was because he simply calculated so far ahead that he could see the measurable advantage that Kasparov couldn't see. It was still brute force, but it didn't seem that way to Kasparov.
A pity they don't remember him, Anatoly Karpov, Aryan Pride and the ol' Soviet Union. Kasparov was the Jesse Owens of chess in his day.
Who the hell is Jesse Owens?
I think Kasparov has plenty of immortality. He is, for the time being at least, the last real World Champion, he's one of the more exciting world champions, was the first reigning world champion to lose to a computer, and after his chess career, he challenged the Russian political system. Would have been nice if that last one had been successful.
He's definitely an interesting person.
and just call it "indie games"?
Isn't that what they're doing?
I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
Last time I checked, Tomcat was just a servlet container, not a full J2EE stack.
Last (and only) time I worked with Websphere, it couldn't do what our own system on Jetty could do. We (well, my previous employer) rely a lot on JMS, and Websphere's crappy JMS implementation threw messages out with no notification. IBM considered it Not Their Problem, so we, being the smaller partner here, had to develop our own reliable messaging service on top of Websphere's crap.
The fact that something is big doesn't always make it good.
IBM does a lit of interesting stuff in Java. I think they'd like being able to call the shots in Javaland.
That on its own is not enough to justify this deal of course, but it's a nice bonus, and there are a lot of other areas where Sun and IBM are working in the same direction, sometimes competing, sometimes complementing each other.
I can definitely see the sense in this deal.
Are they sure it's not a mynock?
If you want a whitelist, Glubble is great. It gives parents complete control over what their children can see, and if a child wants to visit a not-yet approved site, the parent received a message and can approve it immediately. It's aimed at younger children, though. I think it'd be too restrictive for teens.
Also, it completely changes the appearance of Firefox into something more childish.
Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)
So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?
This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken.
I don't think it'll stand up in any court. It's just wrong on too many levels.
And yet for all the gun control in Germany they still have mass casualty school shootings.
Looks like the boy's dad might be criminally negligent for leaving his gun out of the safe. (He has several guns, all of them nicely locked up in a safe according to the law, except for the one his son used at school.)
So at least when a kid goes crazy, there's someone to blame other than video games and music.
A rifle is used EVERY DAY to defend a country. It's only one tool in the box, but it's an important one. I wager that, still, more battles were won by rifles in Iraq or Afghanistan than were won by missile strikes.
No idea if it's true, but I once heard that no weapon in human history killed as many people as the AK-47, including gas and nuclear bombs.
Nope, it doesn't. The Israelis do far better... in fact the kill ratio is 100-to-1 in their favor. During the Gaza adventure, IDF killed 1,434 Palestinians, while 13 Israelis were killed (3 by rockets fired.) 5,303 Palestinians injured.
Keep in mind that the Israelis are throwing a lot more money at it. Could be that their ROI isn't really all that different.
wow, most amazing, and rather cool, I am surprised that no one used this as automotive belts for cars
I think that has actually been done. Or maybe it was some other application. You do need a certain amount of length to keep the twist from messing up.