better "in society"? Wow, there's a really loaded statement with no basis on anything.
Chess is no more scientific than Poker, and Poker involves a LOT more math. They are both equally approachable, of course it's open to all audiences. You don't have to play poker for money any more than you have to play any other card game. The fact that it is a game played to win a certain *thing* instead of just pure strategy doesn't make it any less noble.
All of your indictments of poker as based on the idea that gambling is inherently bad, which is frankly a little naive. Schools will never encourage it for this same reason, but it teaches the average player significantly more useful skills (math, probability, social skills, etc.) than chess does.
Wow, I wish you were being a troll, but sadly I think you're just stupid.
The challenge in poker is learning how your opponent plays and knowing when they're bluffing, along with not giving away too much yourself, and being able to bluff well. Chess might take more mathmatical and/or logic skills, but Poker takes a lot more skill when it comes to intangibles and the subtle differences in your opponents' skills. This makes for a much much tougher programming challenge.
If bot A simply bets what it should based on the chance of the cards it is holding, another smarter bot (bot B) will do the same thing [b]and[/b] figure out what bot Ais doing, which will give bot B a big advantage, and over time, a win.
It's more the size/shape than the smell. I already have some pretty large odd plants in the yard, like this one Mine is still growing, the biggest leaves are only about 3-4' across.
Something about plants that look large and/or weird enough to eat you, or take off a finger or two really fascinates me.
I'm sorry, but if your complaint about cell phones on planes is based on the fact that people might have "banal conversations" I can't imagine how you go out in public, what with all the idiots ruining your day by saying something that doesn't measure up to your standards.
Yes, by all means, lets prevent people from communicating because they might say something stupid!
That's the beauty of the extra-long ending, it doesn't matter what they are! It's so vague and pointless, you can make anything you want up and it will fit.
I agree, stop with the stupid fucking Spielberg everyone's-happy ending. Not every movie needs 5 endings to show how everything worked out nicely. I was so pissed off that the movie didn't end right when he fell into the water, I seriously wish I had walked out right then and never had to endure the "real" ending.
You don't get it. This case is not claiming his use of encryption is/was illegal, it's not even adding the use of it to the charges, it's simply showing *criminal intent*
If you built an underground cavern with a hidden door, security cameras, and multiple locks to hide the dead bodies from your killing rampage, the fact you spent all that time doing it should be evidence in the case of your intent.
This person is not being indicted for using crypto, his use of it is simply being used to show intent... why is that so wrong?
If you hide evidence in the course of any crime, the fact that you hid it is a perfectly reasonable thing to be brought up at trial, is this any different?
If someone gets arrested with bolt cutters breaking into a building, it's reasonable to use the presence of the bolt cutters at trial, just as it's reasonable to show any other tools (such as crypto) that were used to commit a crime.
Wrong. This is simply adding intent and conspiracy elements to the crime, it would be the same as you killing someone with a knife and then buying five gallons of bleach to clean up the blood splatters on the walls. Buying bleach is of course legal, and no one is questioning that, but adding the fact that you bought/used the bleach for a specific purposes related to the crime absolutely shows that you a) knew what you were doing b) had the presence of mind to clean up after yourself c) intended to conceal the crime.
This is one of those cases where use of a legal tool to aid or cover up a crime can absolutely be part of the case, and it is NOT an indictment of the tool.
Sounds to me like it's simply a terrorism search engine designed perfectly for terrorists. What purposes would culling bits and pieces of info about how to take down an airplane serve for anti-terror efforts? You would find out that it's possible to find lots of info on the subject... great... now what? You're not really going to be able to stop that information from existing.
I find the American "The Office" really really funny, as do a lot of people I know. I never saw the (British) original which is probably why. It stands on its own very well, and the only people I've found that dislike it strongly only do so because they're comparing it to the original.
But why should I have to compare it to that one to enjoy it?
Why wouldn't they? Can you imagine now much a 30 second spot during this show would cost? Existing Xbox games, gamer-focused products, etc. will pay big money to get their ads in. If I were MTV, I would be more than willing to give up an hour for a guaranteed demographic in a focused market (games) and very captive audience. MTV's salespeople would fall all over themselves selling ads during this to EA and any other game publisher.
I understand that the EULA lets you return it now, but you can't take a car back to a dealer after you buy it and return the power windows and ask for manual ones, plus a refund. If you've already bought it, you don't have that right.
Are you really entitled to a refund? Can you take apart any product and return the parts that you don't want? There are plenty of hardware devices (computer and otherwise) that would retain some functionality if you removed part of the system, but do you have the right to pick and choose what you feel you need, and return those that you don't, do you?
To use the (slightly flawed) car analogy, can I return the spare tire because I don't feel I need it and ask for $50 back? The car works just fine without it, just like a PC works just fine without windows. To use a hardware/software analogy, can I buy a Cisco product that uses some IOS features I don't need, then tell Cisco I will simply remove the features and expect them to write me a check for "returning" them?
I agree in theory, but I would love to see how you think that Apple has been able to decrease the quality of a competitor's product in this case, I just don't see that.
In fact, in my example, how would Sony or MS be affecting the quality of the other company's product?
There's no monopoly here, and there's no market control by any one company. The fact that the iPod is popular does not make it a monopoly, likewise for the iTunes Music Store. If Apple didn't allow any other files except for ones purchased at the store, you might have half a leg to stand on, but that's not the case. The inability for other online stores to offer DRM-free downloads should not necessitate Apple changing its product do allow someone else to work with it. It would be better, sure, but it's not against the law in any way.
The fact that a major label doesn't sell music in that format does not mean they are being prevented from doing it. Show me a company that sells Ferraris for $2.50. Wait, you mean there isn't one! That would be better for me as a consumer, I should ask my senator to look into it.
Of course it would be better for the consumer, but is it congresses job to make sure companies are doing what's best for the consumer? Your statement that "congress would look into it" led me to believe you thought it was against the law... silly me for thinking congress would be looking into something because of that.
Something simply being better for the consumer is not a good reason for the US congress to launch an investigation. Last time I looked, there were plenty of alternatives to the iPod, and since popularity != monopoly, congress has no business regulating how apple sells its products.
Actually anyone can sell music that works on it, AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, take your pick.
So, it's just like CDs in that regard - if Sony made Cd players that only play Sony discs, then Congress might have paid attention back then.
God, you're ignorant. You make it sound like it's illegal to make proprietary formats and/or proprietary hardware. Sony can make a CD player that only plays Sony CDs all they want. Just like Nintendo can make a gamecube that only plays gamecube games.
Slashdot Mirror
Chess is no more scientific than Poker, and Poker involves a LOT more math. They are both equally approachable, of course it's open to all audiences. You don't have to play poker for money any more than you have to play any other card game. The fact that it is a game played to win a certain *thing* instead of just pure strategy doesn't make it any less noble.
All of your indictments of poker as based on the idea that gambling is inherently bad, which is frankly a little naive. Schools will never encourage it for this same reason, but it teaches the average player significantly more useful skills (math, probability, social skills, etc.) than chess does.
The challenge in poker is learning how your opponent plays and knowing when they're bluffing, along with not giving away too much yourself, and being able to bluff well. Chess might take more mathmatical and/or logic skills, but Poker takes a lot more skill when it comes to intangibles and the subtle differences in your opponents' skills. This makes for a much much tougher programming challenge.
If bot A simply bets what it should based on the chance of the cards it is holding, another smarter bot (bot B) will do the same thing [b]and[/b] figure out what bot Ais doing, which will give bot B a big advantage, and over time, a win.
Something about plants that look large and/or weird enough to eat you, or take off a finger or two really fascinates me.
That thing is straight out of nightmares. Seriously, it scares the fuck out of me... I want one.
FWIW, Real uses AAC now too.
Yes, by all means, lets prevent people from communicating because they might say something stupid!
Because the person that wrote the headline is a complete idiot?
Have you not read ANY of the news about this announcement? It's x86. They did the demo yesterday on a P4.
It's crow. Eat up. (I'll have to eat my share too.)
I agree, stop with the stupid fucking Spielberg everyone's-happy ending. Not every movie needs 5 endings to show how everything worked out nicely. I was so pissed off that the movie didn't end right when he fell into the water, I seriously wish I had walked out right then and never had to endure the "real" ending.
If you built an underground cavern with a hidden door, security cameras, and multiple locks to hide the dead bodies from your killing rampage, the fact you spent all that time doing it should be evidence in the case of your intent.
This person is not being indicted for using crypto, his use of it is simply being used to show intent... why is that so wrong?
If you hide evidence in the course of any crime, the fact that you hid it is a perfectly reasonable thing to be brought up at trial, is this any different?
If someone gets arrested with bolt cutters breaking into a building, it's reasonable to use the presence of the bolt cutters at trial, just as it's reasonable to show any other tools (such as crypto) that were used to commit a crime.
This is one of those cases where use of a legal tool to aid or cover up a crime can absolutely be part of the case, and it is NOT an indictment of the tool.
Sounds to me like it's simply a terrorism search engine designed perfectly for terrorists. What purposes would culling bits and pieces of info about how to take down an airplane serve for anti-terror efforts? You would find out that it's possible to find lots of info on the subject... great... now what? You're not really going to be able to stop that information from existing.
This comment made me laugh, then I realized you might not be joking and i was very, very sad.
I think that last statement describes America quite well.
I have no idea what you just said, but my head hurts now. Hung a monkey?
But why should I have to compare it to that one to enjoy it?
Why wouldn't they? Can you imagine now much a 30 second spot during this show would cost? Existing Xbox games, gamer-focused products, etc. will pay big money to get their ads in. If I were MTV, I would be more than willing to give up an hour for a guaranteed demographic in a focused market (games) and very captive audience. MTV's salespeople would fall all over themselves selling ads during this to EA and any other game publisher.
The intersection of people without cable, and people buying a new Xbox2 is pretty close to 0.
I understand that the EULA lets you return it now, but you can't take a car back to a dealer after you buy it and return the power windows and ask for manual ones, plus a refund. If you've already bought it, you don't have that right.
Well there you go, thanks, I wasn't aware of that.
Are you really entitled to a refund? Can you take apart any product and return the parts that you don't want? There are plenty of hardware devices (computer and otherwise) that would retain some functionality if you removed part of the system, but do you have the right to pick and choose what you feel you need, and return those that you don't, do you?
To use the (slightly flawed) car analogy, can I return the spare tire because I don't feel I need it and ask for $50 back? The car works just fine without it, just like a PC works just fine without windows. To use a hardware/software analogy, can I buy a Cisco product that uses some IOS features I don't need, then tell Cisco I will simply remove the features and expect them to write me a check for "returning" them?
In fact, in my example, how would Sony or MS be affecting the quality of the other company's product?
There's no monopoly here, and there's no market control by any one company. The fact that the iPod is popular does not make it a monopoly, likewise for the iTunes Music Store. If Apple didn't allow any other files except for ones purchased at the store, you might have half a leg to stand on, but that's not the case. The inability for other online stores to offer DRM-free downloads should not necessitate Apple changing its product do allow someone else to work with it. It would be better, sure, but it's not against the law in any way.
Something simply being better for the consumer is not a good reason for the US congress to launch an investigation. Last time I looked, there were plenty of alternatives to the iPod, and since popularity != monopoly, congress has no business regulating how apple sells its products.
So, it's just like CDs in that regard - if Sony made Cd players that only play Sony discs, then Congress might have paid attention back then.
God, you're ignorant. You make it sound like it's illegal to make proprietary formats and/or proprietary hardware. Sony can make a CD player that only plays Sony CDs all they want. Just like Nintendo can make a gamecube that only plays gamecube games.