This takes a lot more than brute-forcing. I think that the reason computers play chess so well more likely good search algorithms.
According to the article, deep-blue is able to computer about 200,000,000 moves per second.
If the strategy was a depth-first search of the state-space of chess (which have an average branching factor of 35) and all
moves were considered, then deep-blue would only think about 5-6 moves ahead. I think Kasparov can do a bit better than that.
However, not all moves are considered. A lot of intelligent pruning techniques can be applied in chess. Apart from that, I would
assume that deep-blue also has quite a bit of storage capacity, so it could cache previous searches.
I wasn't aware of EPEAT. This is really nice, exactly the kind of objective investigation entity that we need.
Apples ranking on EPEAT is indeed impressive;-)
A part from that I think that the Greenpeace campaign will generate more positive publicity
for Apple than negative. If your look on the Greenpeace campaign site ahref=http://greenmyapple.org/rel=url2html-5552htt p://greenmyapple.org/>, I think the
attitude has become more positive. It wasn't really that bad from the beginning. The
slogan "I love my iPod, but can we loose the iWaste" bear witness to this.
But this is much bigger than Apple. Even though their iPods are selling quite well, they
only represent a fraction of the electronic market. And even for Apple, there is still a
long way to go...
The Greenpeace campaign is still necessary to raise awareness about the issue.
I think there is a definite need for the Greenpeace campaign.
I think what we really need to address the environmental issues concerning chemical waste and recycling policies,
is informed choices. That means that the information comes from a trusted an unbiased source. Greenpeace
undermines it position as such by running an uninformed campaign. That's sad, cause Greenpeace
are one of the only entities which can pull a campaign with some impact of. I think greenpeace should take
Job's advice: Hire experts and get the facts right. This way their campaign will have a lot more impact.
Even though the Apple affair was a bit of a FUD-filled the need for the campaign is still there. They have got
peoples attention, I hope they will use that attention constructively.
Besides pressuring PC manufacturers I think that Greenpeace should push for legislation.
I'm glad that Apple finally put some focus this. We need focus on this. Consumers have a lot to say, but they don't always contextualize. When they do contextualize they have a tendency to do it on a limited information basis. For instance the Greenpeace campaign (which I fully support) apparently didn't have all the relevant information about Apple.
While the power of the consumer is great to create focus on an issue, in this case, I think what we need is legislation. Set some limits for what chemical levels are allowed and require computer manufacturers to have a recycling policy. I think we need a objective and trusted investigation entity to determine how the computer manufacturers are doing.
A solution would be to put a tax on chemicals in computers. That would certainly encourage computer manufacturers to reduce those chemicals.
As a consumer I think I have the right to know
about this. Giving the vendor some time to fix
the bug is the usual procedure and is common courtesy. I don't know if Lynn gave cisco a window to fix the bugs. I know from experience how vendors can sometimes try to pull this window forever. At some point, the bug must be exposed. This way vendors are forced to fix their sh..
Maybe Lynn exposed this prematurely, which should probably have some consequences for him professionally (but legally? I don't think so)
The real villains here are Cisco:
An important point of full disclosure is that the bad guys and the good guys have the same information at the same time. This is opposed to the bad guys having the information, while the good guys are in the dark...
Which is the present situation: Cisco are leaving their customers in the dark right now.
Cisco is definately in the wrong covering this up.
(How am I supposed to protect my cisco router if the details of the attack are secret). I am sure the real "blackhats" are exploiting it this very moment.
So what Cisco is doing is basically giving the blackhats free hands while tying up the hands of their customers.
Somebody should sue the h... out of Cisco!
If you have the chance to do it the way
you wan't: Don't use CVS. Use Subversion instead.
SVN in short: CVS done right.
I think it's even being developed by the original
CVS developers.
Slashdot Mirror
See the "Related jobs" add at the end of the article with the contents "Could not get related jobs."
How about the game of Diplomacy as a challenge for game AI?
This takes a lot more than brute-forcing. I think that the reason computers play chess so well more likely good search algorithms. According to the article, deep-blue is able to computer about 200,000,000 moves per second. If the strategy was a depth-first search of the state-space of chess (which have an average branching factor of 35) and all moves were considered, then deep-blue would only think about 5-6 moves ahead. I think Kasparov can do a bit better than that. However, not all moves are considered. A lot of intelligent pruning techniques can be applied in chess. Apart from that, I would assume that deep-blue also has quite a bit of storage capacity, so it could cache previous searches.
I wasn't aware of EPEAT. This is really nice, exactly the kind of objective investigation entity that we need. Apples ranking on EPEAT is indeed impressive ;-)
A part from that I think that the Greenpeace campaign will generate more positive publicity
for Apple than negative. If your look on the Greenpeace campaign site ahref=http://greenmyapple.org/rel=url2html-5552htt p://greenmyapple.org/>, I think the
attitude has become more positive. It wasn't really that bad from the beginning. The
slogan "I love my iPod, but can we loose the iWaste" bear witness to this.
But this is much bigger than Apple. Even though their iPods are selling quite well, they
only represent a fraction of the electronic market. And even for Apple, there is still a
long way to go...
The Greenpeace campaign is still necessary to raise awareness about the issue.
I think there is a definite need for the Greenpeace campaign. I think what we really need to address the environmental issues concerning chemical waste and recycling policies, is informed choices. That means that the information comes from a trusted an unbiased source. Greenpeace undermines it position as such by running an uninformed campaign. That's sad, cause Greenpeace are one of the only entities which can pull a campaign with some impact of. I think greenpeace should take Job's advice: Hire experts and get the facts right. This way their campaign will have a lot more impact. Even though the Apple affair was a bit of a FUD-filled the need for the campaign is still there. They have got peoples attention, I hope they will use that attention constructively. Besides pressuring PC manufacturers I think that Greenpeace should push for legislation.
This almost sounds like some variant of reinforcement learning.. (The bit with confidence scores). Why do they never post real algorithm details :-(
I'm glad that Apple finally put some focus this. We need focus on this. Consumers have a lot to say, but they don't always contextualize. When they do contextualize they have a tendency to do it on a limited information basis. For instance the Greenpeace campaign (which I fully support) apparently didn't have all the relevant information about Apple. While the power of the consumer is great to create focus on an issue, in this case, I think what we need is legislation. Set some limits for what chemical levels are allowed and require computer manufacturers to have a recycling policy. I think we need a objective and trusted investigation entity to determine how the computer manufacturers are doing. A solution would be to put a tax on chemicals in computers. That would certainly encourage computer manufacturers to reduce those chemicals.
As a consumer I think I have the right to know about this. Giving the vendor some time to fix the bug is the usual procedure and is common courtesy. I don't know if Lynn gave cisco a window to fix the bugs. I know from experience how vendors can sometimes try to pull this window forever. At some point, the bug must be exposed. This way vendors are forced to fix their sh.. Maybe Lynn exposed this prematurely, which should probably have some consequences for him professionally (but legally? I don't think so) The real villains here are Cisco: An important point of full disclosure is that the bad guys and the good guys have the same information at the same time. This is opposed to the bad guys having the information, while the good guys are in the dark... Which is the present situation: Cisco are leaving their customers in the dark right now. Cisco is definately in the wrong covering this up. (How am I supposed to protect my cisco router if the details of the attack are secret). I am sure the real "blackhats" are exploiting it this very moment. So what Cisco is doing is basically giving the blackhats free hands while tying up the hands of their customers. Somebody should sue the h... out of Cisco!
If you have the chance to do it the way you wan't: Don't use CVS. Use Subversion instead. SVN in short: CVS done right. I think it's even being developed by the original CVS developers.