AFAIK, the current state of the art of Go on computers is Goemate and Go4++.
GNU Go is actively developed, but it still does not match commercial Go software, ranking 1-2 stones weaker. It is rated from 8 to 9 kru, which is a weak amateur.
Computers have thus far not been too great at cracking go via the usual searching algorithms, as it has a high branching factor - starting at 361, much higher than chess! It is only recently that Go programs have even begun to achieve low levels of competence. Besides the limited searching and pattern recognition of current software, future programs may improve by decomposing Go into 'subgames', allowing it to be more readily attacked.
Atom Smasher atom at smasher.org Wed Feb 16 21:56:25 CET 2005
Hash: SHA256
this should help put the (alleged until proven otherwise) SHA-1 break into perspective. thanks to Sascha Kiefer for giving me the idea.
let's say that unbroken SHA-1 represents a 100 meter (328 ft) wall. if a break allows a collision to be found in merely 2^69 operations (on average), that would mean the wall has crumbled to 4.9 cm (1.9 in) tall. that's broken!!
OTOH, let's say that unbroken MD5 represents a 100 meter (328 ft) wall. comparing unbroken MD5 to broken SHA-1 means the wall would actually grow from 100 meters (328 ft) tall to 3.2 km (1.99 miles) tall. SHA-1, even if it's broken enough to find a collision in 2^69 operations (on average), is still stronger than MD5 was ever meant to be.
again, using unbroken MD5 as our reference of a 100 meter (328 ft) wall, unbroken SHA-1 would be a wall 6553.6 km (4072 miles) tall. SHA-1 was intended to be incredibly stronger than MD5.
Daniel's life story is not the same as Ireneo Funes' fictional life, but in a way they both lead to the same question - what does it mean to think?
Without effort, he had learned English, French, Portuguese, Latin. I suspect, nevertheless, that he was not very capable of thought. To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. In the overly replete world of Funes there were nothing but details, almost contiguous details.
In March 2001, there was an article in Science, "The Art of Forgetting" which touched on these issues, and more current research begins to detail the chemical methods of action for the brain's 'forgetting system'. Indeed, life would not be possible if we remembered everything. Human cognition seems to be defendant on removing details, as much of what we do is through abstracting away the differences... this allows us to generalize. Of course, over-generalization is a failure-point for human cognition as well, as we all know.
All of this will be very useful to AI research, especially if we are trying to model computer minds after the ones nature evolved.
In a joint statement yesterday, http://www.igeb.gov/2004-US-Russia-statement.pdf, the United States and Russian Federation announced "their commitment...to continue to provide the GPS and GLONASS civil signals appropriate for commercial, scientific and safety of life use on a continuous, worldwide basis, free of direct user fees."
Sounds as though they want to quench any arguement Europe may have in regards to the reinstatement of Selective Availability (although we must remember that SA was not reactivated even after/during the September 11th attacks). Not like this will make any difference though.. the EU has its heart set on implementing its own satellite navigation system - I for one will welcome the increased accuracy this will bring, especially in tight city streets where it is currently hard/impossible to get a good satellite lock("shooting the bird"). OTOH, at least it isn't American taxpayers footing the bill this time!:) Redundancy is good in any system.
I wonder when receivers will be on the market which lock onto GPS & Galileo? Perhaps firmware upgrades could suffice on newer models?
You do awesome drugs... But seriously, I have had similar thoughts:) Maybe our universe is just a logic gate?! All that we do just goes down to 1 output..!@#@
Slowly but surely, change is coming to the world of telecommunications regulation. While it's easy to get pessimistic about the sluggish pace of reform in the eight years since the not-so-revolutionary Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed, recent developments prove that central planning is finally starting to give way to a future of free markets and consumer choice.
Consider that, on October 14, the Federal Communications Commission quietly promulgated a new rule allowing incumbent telephone companies to run "fiber-to-the-curb" (FTTC) lines within 500 feet of a customer's home or office without fear of infrastructure-sharing mandates. (A previous FCC decision had already liberated "fiber-to-the-home" (FTTH), making it clear that telcos would not be forced to share lines that ran all the way to the customer's premises.) On the same day, the FCC announced new rules allowing energy and electricity carriers to offer Broadband over Power Line (BPL) service to their customers.
Those unfamiliar with the mysteries of modern communications regulation might reasonably ask: Why does the government have any say over these decisions to begin with? Shouldn't these companies be free to offer consumers these innovative new services without asking "Mother, May I"? Of course they should, but that's not the way telecom regulation has long worked. In the eyes of many regulators, you are guilty of being a monopolist until proven innocent.
Yet, many regulators are finally coming to see that there is no denying the realities of our competitive communications marketplace. Shackling one set of players with unique rules no longer makes any sense in a world where every home or office has two or three wires to choose from, and wireless options too. As these two recent FCC decisions illustrate, the war over telecom is drawing to a close. But let's step back for a moment and consider just how costly and unproductive this war has been.
Leave No Telecom Consultant Behind. A few years ago, a rather remarkable advertising/public relations battle took place over a piece of telecom reform legislation sponsored by Representatives Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.). Ads both praising and blasting the "Tauzin-Dingell" bill littered the papers, television and radio, and even Internet websites. The industry combatants who waged this battle spent countless millions. A lot of lawyers, consultants and PR companies got very rich by coming up with crafty bumper-sticker slogans and slick-looking ads. The funny (or perhaps sad) thing is, despite all the time, energy, and money devoted it, few even knew what this fight was really all about.
Nonetheless, the fight was important. At stake was the question of how future communications and broadband markets, networks, and technologies would be regulated. Simply put, the Tauzin-Dingell bill stood for the proposition that it didn't make sense to regulate the new stuff the same way we regulated the old stuff. More specifically, the bill proposed a regulatory quarantine of sorts between the rules governing old telecom networks and those for next generation high-speed broadband services. The Tauzin-Dingell bill exempted new investments and networks from the infrastructure sharing rules that governed old copper telecom systems.
The legislative war over Tauzin-Dingell was epic, but ultimately little came of it. After years of shelling from both sides, the guns fell silent on Capitol Hill as the battle shifted to other fronts, namely the FCC and the courts. Things weren't much better at the FCC. Agency officials engaged in protracted debates over the regulations spawned by the Telecom Act. Among many other things, the question of the old rules--new networks problem was raised again. And, again, policymakers delayed giving the industry specific answers about what to expect.
"we held off until we could find the FCC's information page."
Hmmm, FCC.gov. Click the top link "FCC Gives Conditoned Approval to AOL - Time Warner Merger. 1/11/01"
Hope they didn't have to hold off *too* long.:>
You can get the list of words that Napster will block if you have their 'swear filter' on by running strings on the.exe of one of their old clients (beta 3..) But just what does 'jodio, pendejo, and ramera' mean? Anyone know? =]
Someone tried to convince me that this was true today by arguing, 'Well, the moon is going to be really close to the earth and the sun's going to be directly behind it.' Hrm, sounds to me that it would be day if the sun was in the sky.. It's funny hearing how people get mislead and everything just propagates. Wish this got posted last night;)
A few folks said they heard it was going to be possible to drive without their headlights since the moon was going to be oh-so-bright... Let's watch for an increase in accidents;)
Oh well, we all know that night's when the sun goes to sleep anyway - 's why NASA's planning their Sun Polar Observer mission to land during the night...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that should read *peaking* at 361 (which is of course 19^2).
AFAIK, the current state of the art of Go on computers is Goemate and Go4++.
GNU Go is actively developed, but it still does not match commercial Go software, ranking 1-2 stones weaker. It is rated from 8 to 9 kru, which is a weak amateur.
Computers have thus far not been too great at cracking go via the usual searching algorithms, as it has a high branching factor - starting at 361, much higher than chess! It is only recently that Go programs have even begun to achieve low levels of competence. Besides the limited searching and pattern recognition of current software, future programs may improve by decomposing Go into 'subgames', allowing it to be more readily attacked.
I've noticed that GMail won't let me send zips which have exes in them. It will however, allow me to send rars of exes.
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2005- February/024862.html
...atom
Atom Smasher atom at smasher.org
Wed Feb 16 21:56:25 CET 2005
Hash: SHA256
this should help put the (alleged until proven otherwise) SHA-1 break into
perspective. thanks to Sascha Kiefer for giving me the idea.
let's say that unbroken SHA-1 represents a 100 meter (328 ft) wall. if a
break allows a collision to be found in merely 2^69 operations (on
average), that would mean the wall has crumbled to 4.9 cm (1.9 in) tall.
that's broken!!
OTOH, let's say that unbroken MD5 represents a 100 meter (328 ft) wall.
comparing unbroken MD5 to broken SHA-1 means the wall would actually grow
from 100 meters (328 ft) tall to 3.2 km (1.99 miles) tall. SHA-1, even if
it's broken enough to find a collision in 2^69 operations (on average), is
still stronger than MD5 was ever meant to be.
again, using unbroken MD5 as our reference of a 100 meter (328 ft) wall,
unbroken SHA-1 would be a wall 6553.6 km (4072 miles) tall. SHA-1 was
intended to be incredibly stronger than MD5.
- --
Thanks - I just read the summery of that book online, and it looks good. I think I'll read it some day.
This man's abilities reminds me of a story, Funes, The Memorious.
Daniel's life story is not the same as Ireneo Funes' fictional life, but in a way they both lead to the same question - what does it mean to think?
Without effort, he had learned English, French, Portuguese, Latin. I suspect, nevertheless, that he was not very capable of thought. To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. In the overly replete world of Funes there were nothing but details, almost contiguous details.
In March 2001, there was an article in Science, "The Art of Forgetting" which touched on these issues, and more current research begins to detail the chemical methods of action for the brain's 'forgetting system'. Indeed, life would not be possible if we remembered everything. Human cognition seems to be defendant on removing details, as much of what we do is through abstracting away the differences... this allows us to generalize. Of course, over-generalization is a failure-point for human cognition as well, as we all know.
All of this will be very useful to AI research, especially if we are trying to model computer minds after the ones nature evolved.
In a joint statement yesterday, http://www.igeb.gov/2004-US-Russia-statement.pdf, the United States and Russian Federation announced "their commitment...to continue to provide the GPS and GLONASS civil signals appropriate for commercial, scientific and safety of life use on a continuous, worldwide basis, free of direct user fees."
:) Redundancy is good in any system.
Sounds as though they want to quench any arguement Europe may have in regards to the reinstatement of Selective Availability (although we must remember that SA was not reactivated even after/during the September 11th attacks). Not like this will make any difference though.. the EU has its heart set on implementing its own satellite navigation system - I for one will welcome the increased accuracy this will bring, especially in tight city streets where it is currently hard/impossible to get a good satellite lock("shooting the bird"). OTOH, at least it isn't American taxpayers footing the bill this time!
I wonder when receivers will be on the market which lock onto GPS & Galileo? Perhaps firmware upgrades could suffice on newer models?
!i!i!i!i!i reminds me of about 10 years ago on something called "The Sierra Network"..
You do awesome drugs... :)
But seriously, I have had similar thoughts
Maybe our universe is just a logic gate?! All that we do just goes down to 1 output..!@#@
Twilight for Traditional Telecom Regulation?
Cato TechKnowledge Issue #91
October 25, 2004
by Adam Thierer
Slowly but surely, change is coming to the world of telecommunications regulation. While it's easy to get pessimistic about the sluggish pace of reform in the eight years since the not-so-revolutionary Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed, recent developments prove that central planning is finally starting to give way to a future of free markets and consumer choice.
Consider that, on October 14, the Federal Communications Commission quietly promulgated a new rule allowing incumbent telephone companies to run "fiber-to-the-curb" (FTTC) lines within 500 feet of a customer's home or office without fear of infrastructure-sharing mandates. (A previous FCC decision had already liberated "fiber-to-the-home" (FTTH), making it clear that telcos would not be forced to share lines that ran all the way to the customer's premises.) On the same day, the FCC announced new rules allowing energy and electricity carriers to offer Broadband over Power Line (BPL) service to their customers.
Those unfamiliar with the mysteries of modern communications regulation might reasonably ask: Why does the government have any say over these decisions to begin with? Shouldn't these companies be free to offer consumers these innovative new services without asking "Mother, May I"? Of course they should, but that's not the way telecom regulation has long worked. In the eyes of many regulators, you are guilty of being a monopolist until proven innocent.
Yet, many regulators are finally coming to see that there is no denying the realities of our competitive communications marketplace. Shackling one set of players with unique rules no longer makes any sense in a world where every home or office has two or three wires to choose from, and wireless options too. As these two recent FCC decisions illustrate, the war over telecom is drawing to a close. But let's step back for a moment and consider just how costly and unproductive this war has been.
Leave No Telecom Consultant Behind. A few years ago, a rather remarkable advertising/public relations battle took place over a piece of telecom reform legislation sponsored by Representatives Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.). Ads both praising and blasting the "Tauzin-Dingell" bill littered the papers, television and radio, and even Internet websites. The industry combatants who waged this battle spent countless millions. A lot of lawyers, consultants and PR companies got very rich by coming up with crafty bumper-sticker slogans and slick-looking ads. The funny (or perhaps sad) thing is, despite all the time, energy, and money devoted it, few even knew what this fight was really all about.
Nonetheless, the fight was important. At stake was the question of how future communications and broadband markets, networks, and technologies would be regulated. Simply put, the Tauzin-Dingell bill stood for the proposition that it didn't make sense to regulate the new stuff the same way we regulated the old stuff. More specifically, the bill proposed a regulatory quarantine of sorts between the rules governing old telecom networks and those for next generation high-speed broadband services. The Tauzin-Dingell bill exempted new investments and networks from the infrastructure sharing rules that governed old copper telecom systems.
The legislative war over Tauzin-Dingell was epic, but ultimately little came of it. After years of shelling from both sides, the guns fell silent on Capitol Hill as the battle shifted to other fronts, namely the FCC and the courts. Things weren't much better at the FCC. Agency officials engaged in protracted debates over the regulations spawned by the Telecom Act. Among many other things, the question of the old rules--new networks problem was raised again. And, again, policymakers delayed giving the industry specific answers about what to expect.
Uncertainty ruled. Markets tanked. Carriers scratched thei
factoring large primes? Reminds me of a Billy G quote..
:) We know what'cha mean though ;)
Anyway, the defination of a prime is that it *cannot* be factored.
"we held off until we could find the FCC's information page." Hmmm, FCC.gov. Click the top link "FCC Gives Conditoned Approval to AOL - Time Warner Merger. 1/11/01" Hope they didn't have to hold off *too* long. :>
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence =]
> Slashdot at whistle3? You betcha... ThuddaThuddaThudda Thud
I actually met someone who read Slashdot at whistle3... he was wearing a 'Got Root?' t-shirt, so I had to pop the question
Where are you, Got Root guy?!
You can get the list of words that Napster will block if you have their 'swear filter' on by running strings on the .exe of one of their old clients (beta 3..) But just what does 'jodio, pendejo, and ramera' mean? Anyone know? =]
Someone tried to convince me that this was true today by arguing, 'Well, the moon is going to be really close to the earth and the sun's going to be directly behind it.' Hrm, sounds to me that it would be day if the sun was in the sky.. It's funny hearing how people get mislead and everything just propagates. Wish this got posted last night ;)
;)
A few folks said they heard it was going to be possible to drive without their headlights since the moon was going to be oh-so-bright... Let's watch for an increase in accidents
Oh well, we all know that night's when the sun goes to sleep anyway - 's why NASA's planning their Sun Polar Observer mission to land during the night...
-keen