I can theorize as well. Their methodology doesn't seem much more accurate than an educated guess.
As for the topic itself, from personal experience, watching has not much to do with the additional info that the audience has, because most live streams aren't good enough at highlighting such things. The players themselves are much more attuned to the timing and rhythm of their game and even if one player can't see what the other is doing directly, he is usually more expectant of it happening than the audience can be. In many cases, he knows exactly what the other player is doing with high probability be being correct without having direct knowledge of it.
To me, watching is fun because I know how to play the game. And I know that everything the pros are doing on screen takes tons of research and practice to get right. Some are physically impossible for me to do (the speed of their clicks and key presses, for example). From playing the game, I've learned to appreciate what goes into every little action I see on screen.
dimension. Yes - we get our "knowledge" from experts just as people of faith do. But the difference is with science, everyone can test and observe the same claims. Maybe only one person ever has witnessed the described effects of that particle accelerator, but the process is fundamentally trustworthy enough that we don't need to bother to test his claims. That is not to say that we CANNOT test his claims. If someone else has enough funding and time he can do the same thing.
As the summary mentions, 4 years is a long time range to be making such predictions. Who knows if there'll be a killer platform to come out or if Windows will scrap WP7 altogether?
(disregarding sammyF70's joke about tablet fanboys)
You know, there are people out there who just do not need a keyboard. The keyboard is optimized to construct words in an alphabetic language. Chinese users have struggled since the beginning of computing to figure out a good method to construct words on the keyboard. The most optimal solution now is a combination of some typing shorthand + auto-completion. Chinese is a language best written by hand. For that, a touch interface is actually superior.
I mean in practice probably the ones that are big enough are the only ones who will be affected by this anyway (who has time to go after the small companies?)
But it'd be really difficult to enforce. Probably the effect of it will be that US companies will audit their suppliers for violating licenses - this will be a good thing.
No biology test will ever ask that. If however questioned about the mechanisms of osmosis and they said, "god makes the water go this way or that", then yea you should probably fail him.
Great point. For me, imagining what the setting is like is fun, but it is much more rewarding to see a whole world constructed. The world doesn't come from cool gadgets and flashy science or magic, but about how people behave differently or similarly in the presence of such things. It takes more work on the part of the movie/book writers and more imagination in the parts of the actors.
But it's quite clear they're talking in the plural, not singular. "Your Kids' SSNs" would correctly convey that Google wants multiple SSNs, one from each of multiple kids.
The only good point you've made is the elimination of one of the dimensions of movement. However, the combination of piece value and target file is much more significant than a 10% compression of the game. For example, at any given point in the game, there's very few different moves possible from those conditions. The non-moving pieces are non-moving; even in chess notation nobody cares about those.
Additionally, the goal of this exercise is to deterministically convert chess to music. So I think you're missing the point if you count that as a negative.
Calling this 20% of music is a bit harsh as well. True, many elements of music are not represented here, but arguably this is adding an additional element.
High frequency trading actually facilitates more accurate pricing of securities because of the liquidity it introduces to the market. The benefit of accurate pricing is hard to explain fully without getting deeper into the economics of markets, but it's definitely there. The animosity you raised is probably due to a perceived lack of contribution (no tangible products produced). But actually, facilitating better pricing will route investment into areas that deserve it (e.g. to the guy who produces 2 potatoes per unit resource instead of 1.5 potatoes). The sum effect of these actions is a raised social utility.
I don't know whether I should be awed that we have discovered something like this hundreds/thousands of years ago or whether I should be frustrated that people take this knowledge for granted. We should be able to build upon all the things we discovered for progress, not digress centuries into the past.
As much as I agree with this sentiment, nobody is quite throwing it back in their faces. We're currently just having civil discourse on an Internet forum. As such, we should be as accurate and reasonable as possible. If we're trying to list points we can use in a logical debate, we should state it as such.
It's art in a different form than the fine art that this article refers to. It's the art of simplicity and elegance, similar to a nice mathematical proof. But I think the article is relating computing to the art developed for the prime purpose of aesthetics.
How about the opposite? What are the consequences of systematically introducing low doses of fear to our daily lives? We might all become sheep. This is the kind of thing harmony-seeking governments would want to have control over.
Slashdot Mirror
I can theorize as well. Their methodology doesn't seem much more accurate than an educated guess.
As for the topic itself, from personal experience, watching has not much to do with the additional info that the audience has, because most live streams aren't good enough at highlighting such things. The players themselves are much more attuned to the timing and rhythm of their game and even if one player can't see what the other is doing directly, he is usually more expectant of it happening than the audience can be. In many cases, he knows exactly what the other player is doing with high probability be being correct without having direct knowledge of it.
To me, watching is fun because I know how to play the game. And I know that everything the pros are doing on screen takes tons of research and practice to get right. Some are physically impossible for me to do (the speed of their clicks and key presses, for example). From playing the game, I've learned to appreciate what goes into every little action I see on screen.
I think the breakthrough is the speed improvements to do this in real time on reasonable commodity hardware?
Yea it's pretty silly indeed. Though the thought can be worded less combatively, the idea itself is pretty amusingly ridiculous indeed.
dimension. Yes - we get our "knowledge" from experts just as people of faith do. But the difference is with science, everyone can test and observe the same claims. Maybe only one person ever has witnessed the described effects of that particle accelerator, but the process is fundamentally trustworthy enough that we don't need to bother to test his claims. That is not to say that we CANNOT test his claims. If someone else has enough funding and time he can do the same thing.
Agreed. This is quite obvious. The report would be more interesting if they factored out those components.
As the summary mentions, 4 years is a long time range to be making such predictions. Who knows if there'll be a killer platform to come out or if Windows will scrap WP7 altogether?
(disregarding sammyF70's joke about tablet fanboys)
You know, there are people out there who just do not need a keyboard. The keyboard is optimized to construct words in an alphabetic language. Chinese users have struggled since the beginning of computing to figure out a good method to construct words on the keyboard. The most optimal solution now is a combination of some typing shorthand + auto-completion. Chinese is a language best written by hand. For that, a touch interface is actually superior.
I mean in practice probably the ones that are big enough are the only ones who will be affected by this anyway (who has time to go after the small companies?)
But it'd be really difficult to enforce. Probably the effect of it will be that US companies will audit their suppliers for violating licenses - this will be a good thing.
No biology test will ever ask that. If however questioned about the mechanisms of osmosis and they said, "god makes the water go this way or that", then yea you should probably fail him.
Great point. For me, imagining what the setting is like is fun, but it is much more rewarding to see a whole world constructed. The world doesn't come from cool gadgets and flashy science or magic, but about how people behave differently or similarly in the presence of such things. It takes more work on the part of the movie/book writers and more imagination in the parts of the actors.
Why not base 7 representation of Pi?
But it's quite clear they're talking in the plural, not singular. "Your Kids' SSNs" would correctly convey that Google wants multiple SSNs, one from each of multiple kids.
The only good point you've made is the elimination of one of the dimensions of movement. However, the combination of piece value and target file is much more significant than a 10% compression of the game. For example, at any given point in the game, there's very few different moves possible from those conditions. The non-moving pieces are non-moving; even in chess notation nobody cares about those.
Additionally, the goal of this exercise is to deterministically convert chess to music. So I think you're missing the point if you count that as a negative.
Calling this 20% of music is a bit harsh as well. True, many elements of music are not represented here, but arguably this is adding an additional element.
Was anyone else bothered that the summary and headline didn't read Kids', but instead read Kid's?
By the way, whether there's a better way of accomplishing the same thing is questionable, but it's not completely a useless idea.
High frequency trading actually facilitates more accurate pricing of securities because of the liquidity it introduces to the market. The benefit of accurate pricing is hard to explain fully without getting deeper into the economics of markets, but it's definitely there. The animosity you raised is probably due to a perceived lack of contribution (no tangible products produced). But actually, facilitating better pricing will route investment into areas that deserve it (e.g. to the guy who produces 2 potatoes per unit resource instead of 1.5 potatoes). The sum effect of these actions is a raised social utility.
I don't know whether I should be awed that we have discovered something like this hundreds/thousands of years ago or whether I should be frustrated that people take this knowledge for granted. We should be able to build upon all the things we discovered for progress, not digress centuries into the past.
As much as I agree with this sentiment, nobody is quite throwing it back in their faces. We're currently just having civil discourse on an Internet forum. As such, we should be as accurate and reasonable as possible. If we're trying to list points we can use in a logical debate, we should state it as such.
That's not a valid line of rationale with regards to privacy issues. Why should that be used now?
Yea. The discovery is that, IF our theory of gravity is correct, this is more evidence for the existence of dark matter.
"Waiters" as a group you unobservant clod!
There's waiters too you insensitive clod. (as well as unpleasant waitresses)
It's art in a different form than the fine art that this article refers to. It's the art of simplicity and elegance, similar to a nice mathematical proof. But I think the article is relating computing to the art developed for the prime purpose of aesthetics.
How about the opposite? What are the consequences of systematically introducing low doses of fear to our daily lives? We might all become sheep. This is the kind of thing harmony-seeking governments would want to have control over.