Your computer didn't beat you at chess, a programmer did.
This is a common misconception. People say "A computer only follows the rules that the programmer gave it, so it's the programmer's knowledge and skills that are used to play the game." The misconception is that the programmer is NOT actually telling the computer how to play chess. The programmer only tells the computer how to THINK ABOUT playing chess. And by executing this thinking program, the computer designs its own chess-playing strategies.
Granted, in many cases the programmer helps the computer a bit by making suggestions, like "try to keep your knights in the middle of the board," much like a human teacher would give a student suggestions. But the computer is not, as was the case for chess programs 20 years ago, obliged to follow up on those suggestions. It only uses them to select amongst the possible moves to consider with priority.
That is why chess programs surprise chess experts. That is why chess programs written by amateur chess players manage to defeat world champions.
And for those who suggest that the computer only uses brute force to determine the best move, consider that a supercomputer that uses 1,000 top-of-the-line processors, employing the latest and greatest enhancements for alpha-beta search, would need about 20,000 years to play its opening move. Brute force is a start, but real chess intelligence is needed to play a strong game within tournament time.
Face it, it is the computer which is highly skilled at playing chess, not the programmer.
Please get a grip. Films have always been full of innacuracies. It's fiction for heaven's sake. Just because these fictions are in your area of expertise is no reason to get so wound up by it. If it bothers you so much, don't watch it.
I am quite willing to cut movies, especially science fiction movies, some slack. Of course it is all about entertainment. And if they want to show off an uberprogrammer by letting him move pretty 3D graphics around the screen to create complex programs in an instance, who cares? I mean, I know some people who can create complex programs very fast. Sure, they bring a memory stick filled with libraries and have their own tweaked compiler, but the point is, that plot-wise the introduction of an uberprogrammer is not unrealistic, however zany he is depicted.
But things get annoying when the plot hinges on "well-known facts" which are not factual at all. Jeff Goldblum uploading a virus into an alien computer to save Earth from an alien invasion is ridiculous. The whole point of the plot of the movie is to get us wondering how Earth will be saved. And if it is saved by a factual mistake, that destroys the plot. And for me it destroys the movie (not that Independence Day wasn't already destroyed for me before that scene, but I disgress).
There was a time when patents were awarded for inventions. Nowadays they are awarded for innovations. What is the difference?
The difference is that an invention is something new. An innovation is something old and well-known, where the innovator is the first to apply for a patent for, with the words "on the Internet" added.
Plus I don't like quitting games part way through.
Me neither. That is why I was infuriated when I discovered that I do not possess the twitch skills to finish the Meat Circus. It's the f*cking very last level! The rest of the game is very cool, and I enjoyed it immensely; even I, with my weak skills, could get through each and every level without too much troubles, even getting almost all dream figments. It was so cool, actually, that I played through the first 90% twice. But the endgame is just incredibly frustrating. Had the ending been playable, Psychonauts would be among my games top-20 at least. As it is, it's somewhere around "mediocre", sharing a seat with KotOR 2 (of which the endgame was playable, but sucked to no end).
While I think that the professor is not doing anything wrong by charging $2.50 for a taped lecture, it does not seem like a smart move to me to charge for it. It gives him more responsibility which is not adequately paid for, and does not provide him with arguing opportunities.
First, he charges for a lecture. Can a student complain about the product he bought if part of the tape is not understandable? If the professor starts to cough? If the professor misses a taping opportunity and one of his lectures is not for sale? There, all kinds of responsibilities which the professor gets $1 per file for. That's not a good deal for the guy.
Second, imagine this conversation:
"Professor, I failed my exam because I did not know about subject A."
"I covered that in my lecture dated xx/xx/xx."
"I know, but I missed that lecture, because I was ill."
"GOTCHA! That is no excuse, the lecture is available online!"
"Yeah, but it costs $2.50 and I cannot afford that."
"..."
(Granted, if I were the professor I would end this conversation with "You can afford beer, right?", but still, no arguing would be necessary if the lecture was there for the taking.)
The site is slashdotted, but if THESE games are missing, they miss all of my favorite ones (except maybe some LucasArts adventures, but I have no real hope of them being on the list)! What is the world coming to?
Hey, it was not as if I had any choice. I have to use that thing for work, and at work there is a certain 'standard.' PCs are not only a hobby, you know.
Everyone I know who's complained about WGA has a dodgy copy of windows
I've got TWO legal copies of XP for my current PC. The first was delivered with the PC, but not in the language I preferred. So I bought a second copy.
And I hate the WGA. I hate the fact that Microsoft will automatically inspect my PC every time I turn it on. I hate the fact that if I place too many new components in my PC, Microsoft will rate it as a new PC and will give me troubles. I hate the fact that Microsoft can influence the behaviour of my PC from a distance. And I hate the fact that I am treated like a criminal, while I have no intention of being one (except that I maybe get stimulated by all these flashes of hate to become one).
I've only known one person with a legal windows copy who got screwed by WGA
The deliberate move is to integrate the security measures in such a way in the system that they cannot be removed, nor providing third-party vendors with the necessary APIs to interface with the system to provide alternatives.
It's like making a new model of a car with the tires welded to the wheel casings.
And about McAfee: I fucking hate it. What a load of user-unfriendly crap these guys are producing.
When I buy a car, I expect it to have tires. However, when I drive a lot through the snow, I might want special tires which make driving through snow easier. As it is now, I can simply buy those better tires and put them on my car.
The point that the EU wants to make is that if you buy Windows and you are not content with one of its features, you should be able to replace that. And the feature which they ask that for specifically is one that has been replaced by many third-party vendors because the product that Microsoft delivered sucked. What Microsoft tries to do with Vista is make this feature - security - integrated in the system in such a way that it cannot be replaced. And that is a deliberate move. From Microsoft's point of view, a move to get rid of some competitors. From the user's point of view, a move that gives them less choice and forces them to place their trust in a company on a very sensitive issue which that company has shown in the past not to take very serious.
Since Microsoft has an army of salaried lawyers at its disposal, I assume they have standing orders like:
"When you are not currently working on a case, browse the web to see if there is someone who is possibly infringing on Microsoft's IP. If you do find someone, send out a letter. If they back down, fine. If not, see if you can make a profitable case out of it. Since your salary is already paid, this can never hurt."
While I haven't read TFA yet, I have some difficulty with the word "best". I can think of various definitions of "best" for which Linux has been ahead of Windows, and various definitions for which Windows is ahead of Linux.
You should read TFA then. With "best" they simply mean: has the biggest user base.
Bigger user base = more chances for profit, which is what mainly counts for most economists.
or better yet (gasp!) your own staff to do the voices if they are really needed
Actually, that would be a pretty bad idea. This was common practice a couple of years ago and voices in games REALLY REALLY sucked. That said, there is no need to hire Ben Affleck if you can get an entire crew of professional voice actors for the same amount of cash.
And personally, I would prefer a game with the tagline "NOT voiced by Ben Affleck" over the opposite any day.
I have made a couple of inventions, which I did NOT want patents for. I want the general public to benefit from them (besides, filing for a patent is too expensive for my meagre budget).
Now Microsoft (or another evil big company) reads about my research, and files for a patent. The consequence is that they will get a patent for my work, which I did not allow them to get. And the main reason is that there is NO WAY to apply for NOT getting a patent. The only thing I can do is to publish my invention, and hope that it takes Microsoft more than one year to discover that publication. One year after first publication a patent cannot be applied for anymore, so that would make my invention safe.
It happens quite often that I present research at conferences, and someone in the audience gets up and asks with a gleam in his eye, "Did you apply for a patent yet?" I know what that guy is thinking.
I'd be committed for genocide. I just killed off all the Aztecs and Zulus in Civilization, and then I rounded it off by getting rid of nearly all the French. Perhaps that last act would exonerate me.
Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
So you are saying that the fact that of the 1500 DVDs I own none of them is an illegal copy, is because I am afraid that I get prosecuted. Sorry, no, the chance that I would get arrested for owning illegal DVDs is zilch. I can easily get most DVDs I own from the corner black-market guy, for 4-5 euros per movie, instead of paying 10-15 euros per movie. But I never did. And why? The main one is that it is not the same product that is offered. First of all, I like to browse. My neighbourhood dealer gives me a list of titles and I have to mark those that I want. No browsing, just titles. Not how I want to conduct business. Secondly, I distrust the quality of rips. And, as I understand from people who do buy from our local fence, rightly so. Thirdly, when I buy a DVD to give as a present, I want to give the real thing, and not a rip. Fourthly, my interest is not so much in the big blockbusters, but more in 'quality' movies (whatever that may be) and high-quality editions (think Criterion). That is not what the peddler offers.
The point is that the 'legal' movies will keep my business as long as they offer a product that I prefer over what the black market offers. Unfortunately, the 'legal' market is quickly getting spoiled, because of stupid stuff like DRM, region codes, Macrovision, quick-and-dirty editions, ridiculously high prices, forcing the quality shops out of business because they only want to deal in the high-volume-stuff, releasing four different editions of the same movie over the course of a year, etc. etc. We are dangerously close to the borderline where the product offered by the crooks is actually a lot better than the legal product (and maybe we have already crossed the line).
The music industry has already lost my business because of a few bad experiences. I am not yet downloading stuff, since my interest in pop music is pretty low and I already have all the classical music I need for the coming decade. But a tell-tale sign is that I have stopped browsing music in shops. If I do not browse, I will not buy. Make browsing easy, informative, and enjoyable, and there is business.
Yeah, I forgot that in my post. I am in computer science, and literally every thesis written since the advent of the Internet is found online somewhere. But, of course, computer science is a pretty extreme research area in that respect.
Besides, most of the useful information is published elsewhere (i.e. in journals) in easier to digest forms
Actually, I have found that journal articles published after the thesis came out are usually way better than the thesis itself. After the whole circus of writing, publishing, and defending the thesis, the fresh doctor finally gets the insights on what he or she should have written in the thesis. And that is what gets in the papers.
This will never happen on any sort of feasible scale. It isn't a matter of being "honest" (or as most people who take the same position you have, of being "moral") it is a simple matter of economics - rationale consumers will not pay for something they can get for free.
Weird. Computer games can be downloaded for free, or acquired for a very small fee from your neighbourhood copy-peddler. And still the game-development industry is steadily increasing its revenues. And music? People can download any song they want through eDonkey and such, and the music industry does not seem to suffer. Movies? The movie industry gets richer and richer by the day.
You might think it is rational what you say, but practice shows differently. It seems you are not taking everything into account. Probably, if you scan this thread a little more, you'll find out what that is.
Yes, I agree with what you say, and if I would personally use the term "soul" I would be talking about what you indicate. But the episode in question seems to specifically refer to a "soul" as a metaphysical construct that exists separately from physical matter. The judge asks "Does Data have a soul?" Would she be referring to self-consciousness, then she should have said "Is Data sentient?"
And certainly, computer programs today are not sentient. But, in my opinion, Data should be called sentient. Picard makes excellent arguments in that respect.
Slashdot Mirror
Your computer didn't beat you at chess, a programmer did.
This is a common misconception. People say "A computer only follows the rules that the programmer gave it, so it's the programmer's knowledge and skills that are used to play the game." The misconception is that the programmer is NOT actually telling the computer how to play chess. The programmer only tells the computer how to THINK ABOUT playing chess. And by executing this thinking program, the computer designs its own chess-playing strategies.
Granted, in many cases the programmer helps the computer a bit by making suggestions, like "try to keep your knights in the middle of the board," much like a human teacher would give a student suggestions. But the computer is not, as was the case for chess programs 20 years ago, obliged to follow up on those suggestions. It only uses them to select amongst the possible moves to consider with priority.
That is why chess programs surprise chess experts. That is why chess programs written by amateur chess players manage to defeat world champions.
And for those who suggest that the computer only uses brute force to determine the best move, consider that a supercomputer that uses 1,000 top-of-the-line processors, employing the latest and greatest enhancements for alpha-beta search, would need about 20,000 years to play its opening move. Brute force is a start, but real chess intelligence is needed to play a strong game within tournament time.
Face it, it is the computer which is highly skilled at playing chess, not the programmer.
Please get a grip. Films have always been full of innacuracies. It's fiction for heaven's sake. Just because these fictions are in your area of expertise is no reason to get so wound up by it. If it bothers you so much, don't watch it.
I am quite willing to cut movies, especially science fiction movies, some slack. Of course it is all about entertainment. And if they want to show off an uberprogrammer by letting him move pretty 3D graphics around the screen to create complex programs in an instance, who cares? I mean, I know some people who can create complex programs very fast. Sure, they bring a memory stick filled with libraries and have their own tweaked compiler, but the point is, that plot-wise the introduction of an uberprogrammer is not unrealistic, however zany he is depicted.
But things get annoying when the plot hinges on "well-known facts" which are not factual at all. Jeff Goldblum uploading a virus into an alien computer to save Earth from an alien invasion is ridiculous. The whole point of the plot of the movie is to get us wondering how Earth will be saved. And if it is saved by a factual mistake, that destroys the plot. And for me it destroys the movie (not that Independence Day wasn't already destroyed for me before that scene, but I disgress).
but laws telling the government what to do have absolutely no punishment when the government breaks them
The EPO is not a government. It is an independent institute, that has the EC-granted power to award patents.
However, even the EC is now getting weary that, in practice, the EPO is actively involved in policy-making, instead of just executing the policies set by the EC.
May I be the first European to say:
"You Americans are soooo screwed!"
In Europe we will never be so stupid to legitimize software patents!
*** continues dreaming ***
There was a time when patents were awarded for inventions. Nowadays they are awarded for innovations. What is the difference?
The difference is that an invention is something new. An innovation is something old and well-known, where the innovator is the first to apply for a patent for, with the words "on the Internet" added.
Manned flight? Already done in 1982.
Plus I don't like quitting games part way through.
Me neither. That is why I was infuriated when I discovered that I do not possess the twitch skills to finish the Meat Circus. It's the f*cking very last level! The rest of the game is very cool, and I enjoyed it immensely; even I, with my weak skills, could get through each and every level without too much troubles, even getting almost all dream figments. It was so cool, actually, that I played through the first 90% twice. But the endgame is just incredibly frustrating. Had the ending been playable, Psychonauts would be among my games top-20 at least. As it is, it's somewhere around "mediocre", sharing a seat with KotOR 2 (of which the endgame was playable, but sucked to no end).
While I think that the professor is not doing anything wrong by charging $2.50 for a taped lecture, it does not seem like a smart move to me to charge for it. It gives him more responsibility which is not adequately paid for, and does not provide him with arguing opportunities.
First, he charges for a lecture. Can a student complain about the product he bought if part of the tape is not understandable? If the professor starts to cough? If the professor misses a taping opportunity and one of his lectures is not for sale? There, all kinds of responsibilities which the professor gets $1 per file for. That's not a good deal for the guy.
Second, imagine this conversation:
"Professor, I failed my exam because I did not know about subject A."
"I covered that in my lecture dated xx/xx/xx."
"I know, but I missed that lecture, because I was ill."
"GOTCHA! That is no excuse, the lecture is available online!"
"Yeah, but it costs $2.50 and I cannot afford that."
"..."
(Granted, if I were the professor I would end this conversation with "You can afford beer, right?", but still, no arguing would be necessary if the lecture was there for the taking.)
The site is slashdotted, but if THESE games are missing, they miss all of my favorite ones (except maybe some LucasArts adventures, but I have no real hope of them being on the list)! What is the world coming to?
Hey, it was not as if I had any choice. I have to use that thing for work, and at work there is a certain 'standard.' PCs are not only a hobby, you know.
Everyone I know who's complained about WGA has a dodgy copy of windows
I've got TWO legal copies of XP for my current PC. The first was delivered with the PC, but not in the language I preferred. So I bought a second copy.
And I hate the WGA. I hate the fact that Microsoft will automatically inspect my PC every time I turn it on. I hate the fact that if I place too many new components in my PC, Microsoft will rate it as a new PC and will give me troubles. I hate the fact that Microsoft can influence the behaviour of my PC from a distance. And I hate the fact that I am treated like a criminal, while I have no intention of being one (except that I maybe get stimulated by all these flashes of hate to become one).
I've only known one person with a legal windows copy who got screwed by WGA
I'd say that is one too many.
The deliberate move is to integrate the security measures in such a way in the system that they cannot be removed, nor providing third-party vendors with the necessary APIs to interface with the system to provide alternatives.
It's like making a new model of a car with the tires welded to the wheel casings.
And about McAfee: I fucking hate it. What a load of user-unfriendly crap these guys are producing.
True, but consider this:
When I buy a car, I expect it to have tires. However, when I drive a lot through the snow, I might want special tires which make driving through snow easier. As it is now, I can simply buy those better tires and put them on my car.
The point that the EU wants to make is that if you buy Windows and you are not content with one of its features, you should be able to replace that. And the feature which they ask that for specifically is one that has been replaced by many third-party vendors because the product that Microsoft delivered sucked. What Microsoft tries to do with Vista is make this feature - security - integrated in the system in such a way that it cannot be replaced. And that is a deliberate move. From Microsoft's point of view, a move to get rid of some competitors. From the user's point of view, a move that gives them less choice and forces them to place their trust in a company on a very sensitive issue which that company has shown in the past not to take very serious.
From TFA: The posthumous discovery of his second wife and fortune has shocked many of his friends and family.
He cannot have enjoyed his wealth too much, if his family didn't notice anything.
Since Microsoft has an army of salaried lawyers at its disposal, I assume they have standing orders like:
"When you are not currently working on a case, browse the web to see if there is someone who is possibly infringing on Microsoft's IP. If you do find someone, send out a letter. If they back down, fine. If not, see if you can make a profitable case out of it. Since your salary is already paid, this can never hurt."
While I haven't read TFA yet, I have some difficulty with the word "best". I can think of various definitions of "best" for which Linux has been ahead of Windows, and various definitions for which Windows is ahead of Linux.
You should read TFA then. With "best" they simply mean: has the biggest user base.
Bigger user base = more chances for profit, which is what mainly counts for most economists.
or better yet (gasp!) your own staff to do the voices if they are really needed
Actually, that would be a pretty bad idea. This was common practice a couple of years ago and voices in games REALLY REALLY sucked. That said, there is no need to hire Ben Affleck if you can get an entire crew of professional voice actors for the same amount of cash.
And personally, I would prefer a game with the tagline "NOT voiced by Ben Affleck" over the opposite any day.
Probably he just needs to dictate a letter...
Actually, there is a big change.
I have made a couple of inventions, which I did NOT want patents for. I want the general public to benefit from them (besides, filing for a patent is too expensive for my meagre budget).
Now Microsoft (or another evil big company) reads about my research, and files for a patent. The consequence is that they will get a patent for my work, which I did not allow them to get. And the main reason is that there is NO WAY to apply for NOT getting a patent. The only thing I can do is to publish my invention, and hope that it takes Microsoft more than one year to discover that publication. One year after first publication a patent cannot be applied for anymore, so that would make my invention safe.
It happens quite often that I present research at conferences, and someone in the audience gets up and asks with a gleam in his eye, "Did you apply for a patent yet?" I know what that guy is thinking.
I'd be committed for genocide. I just killed off all the Aztecs and Zulus in Civilization, and then I rounded it off by getting rid of nearly all the French. Perhaps that last act would exonerate me.
Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
So you are saying that the fact that of the 1500 DVDs I own none of them is an illegal copy, is because I am afraid that I get prosecuted. Sorry, no, the chance that I would get arrested for owning illegal DVDs is zilch. I can easily get most DVDs I own from the corner black-market guy, for 4-5 euros per movie, instead of paying 10-15 euros per movie. But I never did. And why? The main one is that it is not the same product that is offered. First of all, I like to browse. My neighbourhood dealer gives me a list of titles and I have to mark those that I want. No browsing, just titles. Not how I want to conduct business. Secondly, I distrust the quality of rips. And, as I understand from people who do buy from our local fence, rightly so. Thirdly, when I buy a DVD to give as a present, I want to give the real thing, and not a rip. Fourthly, my interest is not so much in the big blockbusters, but more in 'quality' movies (whatever that may be) and high-quality editions (think Criterion). That is not what the peddler offers.
The point is that the 'legal' movies will keep my business as long as they offer a product that I prefer over what the black market offers. Unfortunately, the 'legal' market is quickly getting spoiled, because of stupid stuff like DRM, region codes, Macrovision, quick-and-dirty editions, ridiculously high prices, forcing the quality shops out of business because they only want to deal in the high-volume-stuff, releasing four different editions of the same movie over the course of a year, etc. etc. We are dangerously close to the borderline where the product offered by the crooks is actually a lot better than the legal product (and maybe we have already crossed the line).
The music industry has already lost my business because of a few bad experiences. I am not yet downloading stuff, since my interest in pop music is pretty low and I already have all the classical music I need for the coming decade. But a tell-tale sign is that I have stopped browsing music in shops. If I do not browse, I will not buy. Make browsing easy, informative, and enjoyable, and there is business.
And, yes, that is economics. Practical economics.
know this stuff is field-dependent
Yeah, I forgot that in my post. I am in computer science, and literally every thesis written since the advent of the Internet is found online somewhere. But, of course, computer science is a pretty extreme research area in that respect.
Besides, most of the useful information is published elsewhere (i.e. in journals) in easier to digest forms
Actually, I have found that journal articles published after the thesis came out are usually way better than the thesis itself. After the whole circus of writing, publishing, and defending the thesis, the fresh doctor finally gets the insights on what he or she should have written in the thesis. And that is what gets in the papers.
This will never happen on any sort of feasible scale. It isn't a matter of being "honest" (or as most people who take the same position you have, of being "moral") it is a simple matter of economics - rationale consumers will not pay for something they can get for free.
Weird. Computer games can be downloaded for free, or acquired for a very small fee from your neighbourhood copy-peddler. And still the game-development industry is steadily increasing its revenues. And music? People can download any song they want through eDonkey and such, and the music industry does not seem to suffer. Movies? The movie industry gets richer and richer by the day.
You might think it is rational what you say, but practice shows differently. It seems you are not taking everything into account. Probably, if you scan this thread a little more, you'll find out what that is.
Yes, I agree with what you say, and if I would personally use the term "soul" I would be talking about what you indicate. But the episode in question seems to specifically refer to a "soul" as a metaphysical construct that exists separately from physical matter. The judge asks "Does Data have a soul?" Would she be referring to self-consciousness, then she should have said "Is Data sentient?"
And certainly, computer programs today are not sentient. But, in my opinion, Data should be called sentient. Picard makes excellent arguments in that respect.