On the other hand, there is a genetic research done in Canada on genetically modify Salmons so they grown to several times the size of normal salmon at half the time. One problem, a scientist/mathematician on that team was in charged to predict the effect of a single GM salmon will have on the wild. I'm not going to go into all the equation he used to derive the result. But the result is, if even one salmon was released into the wild and have a chance to breed even once, the global salmon population would be devastated.
When biologist create new races of animals by manual selection and breeding, they're using animal that CAN already breed togather, just because some circumstances (mostly geographical or low pop density) they didn't do it much. But the "new race" would still be a relatively normal speicies since nature have a potential to create them, biologists merely increase the chance of that happening. Genetic engineering on the other hand can combine genome of two completely different animals (jellyfish and normal fish can't breed with each other, jellyfish would eat the normal fish first), so the result from it would have never happen in nature. I don't think genetic scientists are evil, however, I do believe that genetic scientists in particular must have a much higher ethical/moral standard then any other field, since they're dealing with subjects that WILL affect the entire nature.
You have a good point there, I guess my exusation was somewhat unfounded. I suppoer genetic engineering, I just don't want to see projects that have no academic purpose cropping up and giving genetic engineering a bad name. Of course, I also don't want it to go way out of hand.
Come to think about it, since RIAA have been kicking and screaming for Congress to pass law to sanction hacking music trader's computer, why not a law that sanction Spamming against spammers?
Point of note. If I remember correctly, no 15 years old will bother reading through the End License agreement. And most 15 years old won't understand what a Share Folder actually do. For them, Internet is a one way traffic, download.
Okay, I would agree to most... except for the labor policy and corruption. You want corruption? Look at all countries in Asia, Africa, South America, some in Europe, they got corruption FAR worse then we do. Do I think we need to get rid of corruption? Yes. Do I think the US political system is corrupted from top to bottom? I don't know. But do I think we need to refresh democracy over the blood of tyrants for our current situation? Heck no. If we're gonna do it, the entire world would have their "Refreshing" bath in blood every decade.
And the fact that the RIAA isn't doing anything else to help solve the problem. On one hand they are suing people, on the other hand they're forcing online music store that tries to solve problems for them (the new Napster) into ridiculously restrictive licensing scheme.
For the past few months (okay, a few years) I was somewhat sympathetic about RIAA's action. Even though I don't like it, it's the only way they know to go about it. Even when they sued a twelve years old, I was hoping it would be one of their "shock" cases... but this just went too far. If they were doing some drastic remodeling of their business model when they sue people, I would still be sympathetic. But now, they just sue, sue and sue and no actice action on how to repair it at the base, their own out-dated business model.
Actually from what I heard, IBM was trying to do that, but just wanted to go through the court cases first to set some precedences. Either way, SCO is going down.
Actually if they lose their next court case, it will be 2 years. IBM, at least one of their speaker that came to our college, said that their court date was set in two years.
FYI, firing squad are actually less painless, at least for those who're light weighted. Hanging take a long while to die. While with firing squad, as long as they hit your vital (Head, heart, etc.), you die pretty quick or instant.
Thank god you didn't play him, although I'm perplexed, you got Fool's Mated? The only way you can lose like that is opening your King-side pawn all the way, an extremely dumb move at that. However, I'm glad you didn't play that guy again for the following reasons.
1. That guy doesn't have any Chess manner. Even if your oppoenent is extremely dumb/idiotic, you don't swept the pieces off the board and leave. 2. Playing any more chess with him will make you a jerk. 3. He has no honor.
I would assume it was a program glitch, a bug in the program that make it do that. Or the algorithm actually "asked" the processor to recalculate it, while the programmer might no be aware of it.
This goodness function has a name, it's called conditioning. Humans are "rewarded" when they accomplish a desire outcome, therefore pushing them for more actions that will lead to a desire outcome.
There's alway the brute force approach that uses the following rules. 1. Brute forcefully play all the game to the end, stop each move when the same previous board state is met (make one move, check all past moves, if duplicated, stop). 2. Prune out all moves that a computer can make that ensures a loss. 3. Mark all branches that a computer can make that ensures a win (basically, look for series moves that regardless of opponent actions, computer will win). 4. Make moves by computer that will allow opponent make a move that will lead to a computer loss as the least preferred moves (in another word, place any moves by computer that will give its opponent a statistically better chance at winnning). 5. Make moves by computer that will diminish oppoenent's chance of winning at preferred one. 6. After any subsequent game played, if the computer wins, raise preferences for moves that were used in that game. If the comptuer loses, lower the preferences for moves that were used in that game.
Of course, although this might make a computer extremely good at chess, you're talking about massive hard-drive spaces to store all those outcomes, and VERY, VERY large processing power. (Millions of cray computer perhaps).
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, there is a genetic research done in Canada on genetically modify Salmons so they grown to several times the size of normal salmon at half the time. One problem, a scientist/mathematician on that team was in charged to predict the effect of a single GM salmon will have on the wild. I'm not going to go into all the equation he used to derive the result. But the result is, if even one salmon was released into the wild and have a chance to breed even once, the global salmon population would be devastated.
n bt/journal/v18/n2/full/nbt0200_143a.html
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/
HYI, Dogs and wolves are of the same genetic family, the Canine.
When biologist create new races of animals by manual selection and breeding, they're using animal that CAN already breed togather, just because some circumstances (mostly geographical or low pop density) they didn't do it much. But the "new race" would still be a relatively normal speicies since nature have a potential to create them, biologists merely increase the chance of that happening. Genetic engineering on the other hand can combine genome of two completely different animals (jellyfish and normal fish can't breed with each other, jellyfish would eat the normal fish first), so the result from it would have never happen in nature. I don't think genetic scientists are evil, however, I do believe that genetic scientists in particular must have a much higher ethical/moral standard then any other field, since they're dealing with subjects that WILL affect the entire nature.
You have a good point there, I guess my exusation was somewhat unfounded. I suppoer genetic engineering, I just don't want to see projects that have no academic purpose cropping up and giving genetic engineering a bad name. Of course, I also don't want it to go way out of hand.
You know, this has gone too far. Genetic engineering just for the heck of it? What purpose do a glowing fish have?
Come to think about it, since RIAA have been kicking and screaming for Congress to pass law to sanction hacking music trader's computer, why not a law that sanction Spamming against spammers?
For one, I don't think that will happen. Wal-mart takes their customer relation very seriously
One of these three, 16, 18 or 21. 16 for legal driving, 18 for voting, 21 for alcoholic consumption.
Point of note. If I remember correctly, no 15 years old will bother reading through the End License agreement. And most 15 years old won't understand what a Share Folder actually do. For them, Internet is a one way traffic, download.
Okay, I would agree to most... except for the labor policy and corruption. You want corruption? Look at all countries in Asia, Africa, South America, some in Europe, they got corruption FAR worse then we do. Do I think we need to get rid of corruption? Yes. Do I think the US political system is corrupted from top to bottom? I don't know. But do I think we need to refresh democracy over the blood of tyrants for our current situation? Heck no. If we're gonna do it, the entire world would have their "Refreshing" bath in blood every decade.
And the fact that the RIAA isn't doing anything else to help solve the problem. On one hand they are suing people, on the other hand they're forcing online music store that tries to solve problems for them (the new Napster) into ridiculously restrictive licensing scheme.
They're digging their own grave in this case. Alienating consumers isn't good.
For the past few months (okay, a few years) I was somewhat sympathetic about RIAA's action. Even though I don't like it, it's the only way they know to go about it. Even when they sued a twelve years old, I was hoping it would be one of their "shock" cases... but this just went too far. If they were doing some drastic remodeling of their business model when they sue people, I would still be sympathetic. But now, they just sue, sue and sue and no actice action on how to repair it at the base, their own out-dated business model.
Actually from what I heard, IBM was trying to do that, but just wanted to go through the court cases first to set some precedences. Either way, SCO is going down.
Don't worry, this is going to court in two years. If you think that's slow, in a business setting, its blazing fast.
Actually if they lose their next court case, it will be 2 years. IBM, at least one of their speaker that came to our college, said that their court date was set in two years.
Let's just say the instance he even attempt to try to charge for a "piece" of alleged software code, the following might happen.
1. The alleged software code will get removed and rewritten.
2. Everyone who worked with Linux will charged against SCO for IP infringement.
Of course, I agree with your concern and are crossing my finger. Gotta do it for two years thou (fastest court date for SCO v. IBM)
FYI, firing squad are actually less painless, at least for those who're light weighted. Hanging take a long while to die. While with firing squad, as long as they hit your vital (Head, heart, etc.), you die pretty quick or instant.
Actually you can find it online. It's called a Fool's Mate.
m
http://www.geocities.com/matthew1585/foolsmate.ht
Thank god you didn't play him, although I'm perplexed, you got Fool's Mated? The only way you can lose like that is opening your King-side pawn all the way, an extremely dumb move at that. However, I'm glad you didn't play that guy again for the following reasons.
1. That guy doesn't have any Chess manner. Even if your oppoenent is extremely dumb/idiotic, you don't swept the pieces off the board and leave.
2. Playing any more chess with him will make you a jerk.
3. He has no honor.
Hey, that's what all living things are about, procreation.
I would assume it was a program glitch, a bug in the program that make it do that. Or the algorithm actually "asked" the processor to recalculate it, while the programmer might no be aware of it.
I think Kasparov knows how to use a strong Pawn structure.
This goodness function has a name, it's called conditioning. Humans are "rewarded" when they accomplish a desire outcome, therefore pushing them for more actions that will lead to a desire outcome.
There's alway the brute force approach that uses the following rules.
1. Brute forcefully play all the game to the end, stop each move when the same previous board state is met (make one move, check all past moves, if duplicated, stop).
2. Prune out all moves that a computer can make that ensures a loss.
3. Mark all branches that a computer can make that ensures a win (basically, look for series moves that regardless of opponent actions, computer will win).
4. Make moves by computer that will allow opponent make a move that will lead to a computer loss as the least preferred moves (in another word, place any moves by computer that will give its opponent a statistically better chance at winnning).
5. Make moves by computer that will diminish oppoenent's chance of winning at preferred one.
6. After any subsequent game played, if the computer wins, raise preferences for moves that were used in that game. If the comptuer loses, lower the preferences for moves that were used in that game.
Of course, although this might make a computer extremely good at chess, you're talking about massive hard-drive spaces to store all those outcomes, and VERY, VERY large processing power. (Millions of cray computer perhaps).