I've never thought of this, (mainly because I don't have breasts), but I wonder if most women here in the U.S. would feel more (or less) confident knowing that their mammograms are being analyzed by somebody over in India who may very well be on a "productivity schedule" - requiring that "X" number of mammograms be processed each hour? Does an Indian radiologist really care as much about your x-ray as perhaps the radiologist who works for your personal physician in your hometown?
Yourdon's observation about American politicians not really giving a damn about American programmers - and whether or not their jobs stay here in the United States - is spot on correct. Unlike CEO's and business people in general, who tend to be "organized" and highly involved in politics, (read "fundraising"), knowledge workers are notorious for being politically uninvolved. (Engineers are especially noteworthy for being averse to politics.) Of course, there is a cost involved in shunning political involvement, and (increasingly) that "cost" is your job.
No doubt, a renewed space program - such as the one envisioned in this article - would be a big boon for my hometown. (Huntsville, Alabama is home to the Marshall Space Flight Center, a major NASA center primarily responsible for the development of propulsion systems and launch vehicles.) However, I really doubt if any of this will happen. President Bush may propose, but the Congress will (quickly) dispose...
The primary reason? As mentioned in the article, personal relationships between members of Congress and high-level NASA officials are abysmal. There is a feeling (a strong belief) in Congress that NASA has lied to the Congress. There is deep mistrust and suspicion, and these feelings are longstanding. (A lot of this came out during the investigation of the space shuttle Columbia accident.) Also, NASA doesn't have a PAC and is not generally known for contributing to political parties. (Most of the time, when NASA goes up to Capitol Hill, it's with their hand out.) For politicians, (most politicians), the unspoken question is: "OK NASA, what's in this for me?"
As an example of what I'm talking about, consider the following. Going back to the moon (and beyond) will cost a LOT of money - at least in the tens (if not the hundreds) of BILLIONs of dollars. How would Donna's Congressman, Representative Howard Koble, explain a vote for that kind of expenditure to his constituents? I suspect his answer would be "I voted against it." (If there were a major NASA center, or a major NASA contractor, in Donna's district; Representative Koble might vote differently. All politics is local...)
For the majority of elected public officials, there is no political payoff in supporting the space program. The 1960's (and the race to the moon) was a fluke based totally on geopolitical considerations. My prediction is that this proposal will go nowhere.
The final game of the X3D "Man versus Machine" 2003 Chess Championship has ended in a 27-move draw. Going into today's final game, the match was tied with both Kasparov and the computer each having won a game and drawn a game; for a match score of 1.5 to 1.5. With today's draw, the final match score is 2.0 to 2.0. Had Kasparov won today, he would have won the match, but it was not to be...
This must be a disappointment for Garry as he probably feels (with some justification) that he should have won the match. In fact, he WAS winning Game 2 (the only game of the match he actually lost) when he committed a horrendous blunder under time pressure and instantly lost to the machine. Had Kasparov not committed that error, he [probably] would have went on to victory as he was clearly ahead at that point in Game 2.
So, Garry has defended the honor of humanity - for at least another year. I guess this can be looked at as a case of the glass being both half empty and half full - depending on your point of view. On the one hand, it is a human triumph that Garry Kasparov was able to withstand the machine's onslaught, (and in one of the games even handed the machine its head!), especially considering the fact that Garry is 40 years old and still playing top-level chess. (Most human grandmasters, by the time they reach 40, are far past their prime; and Garry may be well past his prime...)
The downside is that next year (for Garry) will be tougher. Fritz's programming team has undoubtedly "gone to school" on this match and probably has a multitude of ideas for further improving the machine's play. If "Fritz's" programmers are smart, they will expend great effort in trying to program more "chess knowledge" (and knowledge-based hueristics) into the machine. (This is what they will have to do in order to avoid embarrassments such as what occurred in Game 3 when Kasparov humiliated the machine and cruised to an easy victory.) Basically, they will attempt to program greater ability for Fritz to demonstrate sound "strategic judgment" in areas such as pawn structure, strong and weak squares, "good" versus "bad" bishops, open versus closed positions, and a ton of other intangible factors that are second nature to [human] grandmasters. What we're really talking about here is the human's (Kasparov's) superiority in long range planning. If the programmers go home saying, "All we need to do is just get the machine to see "deeper" (i.e. calculate further down into each position), then next year will likely be a repeat of this year. Chess (good chess) is NOT mere "brute force" calculation: Kasparov clearly demonstrated this in Game 3. The difficulty for Fritz's programming team is that programming chess "knowledge" into a machine is exceedingly difficult. It's NOT the same as storing an "Opening Library" of canned moves into the machine's memory.
One must feel some [human] empathy for Garry Kasparov. Playing against a monster such as Fritz is a grueling experience for a flesh-and-blood human being - for ANY flesh-and-blood human being. I have played against a commercial version of Fritz. I am (barely) an average woodpusher. The best I have ever achieved against the program was forcing it to "think" for about 4 minutes on one position (in one game) at full strength. I have never beaten Fritz (or any of the other chess playing programs) under a standard time control of 40 moves in two hours. One has the feeling, (when locked in battle against a program like "Fritz" or "Deep Junior"), of being surrounded and squeezed - as if you're trapped in the coils of a python - gasping for air. It is really hard for a human to hold up under that kind of unrelenting pressure. That is the advantage that the machine has...
It will be interesting to see whether Garry has also "gone to school" on Fritz and is better prepared for next year's rematch. There are still ways for the human to beat the machine, (as was demonstrated in Game 3), but it's getting harder. If "Fritz's" programmers make substantial progress in imparting new chess knowledge into the machine; I fear that humans' days [of chess superiority] will be over.
Alan C. Lawhon - Carbon-Based Bigot
Slashdot Mirror
I've never thought of this, (mainly because I don't have breasts), but I wonder if most women here in the U.S. would feel more (or less) confident knowing that their mammograms are being analyzed by somebody over in India who may very well be on a "productivity schedule" - requiring that "X" number of mammograms be processed each hour? Does an Indian radiologist really care as much about your x-ray as perhaps the radiologist who works for your personal physician in your hometown? Yourdon's observation about American politicians not really giving a damn about American programmers - and whether or not their jobs stay here in the United States - is spot on correct. Unlike CEO's and business people in general, who tend to be "organized" and highly involved in politics, (read "fundraising"), knowledge workers are notorious for being politically uninvolved. (Engineers are especially noteworthy for being averse to politics.) Of course, there is a cost involved in shunning political involvement, and (increasingly) that "cost" is your job.
No doubt, a renewed space program - such as the one envisioned in this article - would be a big boon for my hometown. (Huntsville, Alabama is home to the Marshall Space Flight Center, a major NASA center primarily responsible for the development of propulsion systems and launch vehicles.) However, I really doubt if any of this will happen. President Bush may propose, but the Congress will (quickly) dispose ...
...)
The primary reason? As mentioned in the article, personal relationships between members of Congress and high-level NASA officials are abysmal. There is a feeling (a strong belief) in Congress that NASA has lied to the Congress. There is deep mistrust and suspicion, and these feelings are longstanding. (A lot of this came out during the investigation of the space shuttle Columbia accident.) Also, NASA doesn't have a PAC and is not generally known for contributing to political parties. (Most of the time, when NASA goes up to Capitol Hill, it's with their hand out.) For politicians, (most politicians), the unspoken question is: "OK NASA, what's in this for me?"
As an example of what I'm talking about, consider the following. Going back to the moon (and beyond) will cost a LOT of money - at least in the tens (if not the hundreds) of BILLIONs of dollars. How would Donna's Congressman, Representative Howard Koble, explain a vote for that kind of expenditure to his constituents? I suspect his answer would be "I voted against it." (If there were a major NASA center, or a major NASA contractor, in Donna's district; Representative Koble might vote differently. All politics is local
For the majority of elected public officials, there is no political payoff in supporting the space program. The 1960's (and the race to the moon) was a fluke based totally on geopolitical considerations. My prediction is that this proposal will go nowhere.
The final game of the X3D "Man versus Machine" 2003 Chess Championship has ended in a 27-move draw. Going into today's final game, the match was tied with both Kasparov and the computer each having won a game and drawn a game; for a match score of 1.5 to 1.5. With today's draw, the final match score is 2.0 to 2.0. Had Kasparov won today, he would have won the match, but it was not to be ...
This must be a disappointment for Garry as he probably feels (with some justification) that he should have won the match. In fact, he WAS winning Game 2 (the only game of the match he actually lost) when he committed a horrendous blunder under time pressure and instantly lost to the machine. Had Kasparov not committed that error, he [probably] would have went on to victory as he was clearly ahead at that point in Game 2.
So, Garry has defended the honor of humanity - for at least another year. I guess this can be looked at as a case of the glass being both half empty and half full - depending on your point of view. On the one hand, it is a human triumph that Garry Kasparov was able to withstand the machine's onslaught, (and in one of the games even handed the machine its head!), especially considering the fact that Garry is 40 years old and still playing top-level chess. (Most human grandmasters, by the time they reach 40, are far past their prime; and Garry may be well past his prime ...)
The downside is that next year (for Garry) will be tougher. Fritz's programming team has undoubtedly "gone to school" on this match and probably has a multitude of ideas for further improving the machine's play. If "Fritz's" programmers are smart, they will expend great effort in trying to program more "chess knowledge" (and knowledge-based hueristics) into the machine. (This is what they will have to do in order to avoid embarrassments such as what occurred in Game 3 when Kasparov humiliated the machine and cruised to an easy victory.) Basically, they will attempt to program greater ability for Fritz to demonstrate sound "strategic judgment" in areas such as pawn structure, strong and weak squares, "good" versus "bad" bishops, open versus closed positions, and a ton of other intangible factors that are second nature to [human] grandmasters. What we're really talking about here is the human's (Kasparov's) superiority in long range planning. If the programmers go home saying, "All we need to do is just get the machine to see "deeper" (i.e. calculate further down into each position), then next year will likely be a repeat of this year. Chess (good chess) is NOT mere "brute force" calculation: Kasparov clearly demonstrated this in Game 3. The difficulty for Fritz's programming team is that programming chess "knowledge" into a machine is exceedingly difficult. It's NOT the same as storing an "Opening Library" of canned moves into the machine's memory.
One must feel some [human] empathy for Garry Kasparov. Playing against a monster such as Fritz is a grueling experience for a flesh-and-blood human being - for ANY flesh-and-blood human being. I have played against a commercial version of Fritz. I am (barely) an average woodpusher. The best I have ever achieved against the program was forcing it to "think" for about 4 minutes on one position (in one game) at full strength. I have never beaten Fritz (or any of the other chess playing programs) under a standard time control of 40 moves in two hours. One has the feeling, (when locked in battle against a program like "Fritz" or "Deep Junior"), of being surrounded and squeezed - as if you're trapped in the coils of a python - gasping for air. It is really hard for a human to hold up under that kind of unrelenting pressure. That is the advantage that the machine has ...
It will be interesting to see whether Garry has also "gone to school" on Fritz and is better prepared for next year's rematch. There are still ways for the human to beat the machine, (as was demonstrated in Game 3), but it's getting harder. If "Fritz's" programmers make substantial progress in imparting new chess knowledge into the machine; I fear that humans' days [of chess superiority] will be over.
Alan C. Lawhon - Carbon-Based Bigot