Funny, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if that happened the next time I tried to install it.
"It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you call 555-8475 and tell the person you're going to tell the cops about his operation, and provide your address."
hmm...
*** One week later ***
"Dude, you're a fucking asshole. You called up a drug dealer while installing Ubuntu, threatened to narc, told him your address, nearly got killed, then mouthed off at the forum when someone suggested using the CD burner at the US embassy in Columbia?"
a) Bookmarked. But there doesn't even have to be "a" transformation. It could, for example, just give a sliding bar that tries a bunch of different transformations that are likely to make it useful. (remember, the goal is just to make color-coded images readable, not to make all images "as nice" for those who see colors differently)
b) Maybe not. You could have to "hack" your way around and e.g. just allow the user to open a new window for the image with the transformation applied.
c) Hey, the thank you note doesn't have to come from you;-) I just want to be like Ray Kurzweil: a sighted person who got an award for making a useful device for differently-sighted people.
Btw, after all these suggestions I've made for making websites better usable for people who can't see all colors, you really seem like you favor "cursing the darkness" over "lighting a match":-P
Correct me if I'm wrong, UbuntuDupe, but - I don't think he was saying "let's solve a different game". He was just pointing out that the whole point Go is so hot in AI programming is that its state space is big enough that it *can't* be brute forced, and so whatever-it-is that you need to play it well with a human-sized intellect might just be 'intelligence'. Simply waiting until your hardware is swanky enough to brute force it is missing the point. Yes, thank you, that's what I meant. Well put. If we can keep beating the computer by expanding the game's search space, we're not mechanizing the "intelligence" that we want.
(I could have been more specific the first time around...)
FTA:
Lieberman, Michel, and their co-authors project that the next word to regularize will likely be "wed." Maybe, but Zonk is doing his best to make sure that it's "weave" instead.
(Zonk has, of course, given up hope on regularizing "to be".)
Yes, but did they allow a software failure to cascade to the engine? Have there been recalls because of software that causes the engine to e.g. decrease the fuel mix when it's not supposed to?
Apple's would be the lowest-stress, lowest-committment option because hey, if you don't like your trainer, you can fire it easily.
Re:why check everything
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
Let me just tell you that a stone displaced by a mere one position can lead to very, very sure loss. Besides heuristics are good when we have at better understanding of the mechanics. All top books and players about go talk about "harmony", "beauty", "balance"... let's just fix what the bleep are we talking about and THEN teach it to a computer, shall we? The theory is more of meditation than a strategy guide
Or as I say, "If you want to do a brute force method, how about whole brain emulation?"
Re:Exhaustive?
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Ditto. As long as we're going with gut feelings, my "gut feeling" is that this is a futile endeavor.
So you can brute force a victory on a game with 10^60 possible endings? Okay, then I'll invent a game with a much bigger space to search and a bigger decision tree. Then what?
You've found a way to weed out fruitless branches, so it collapses into a problem that requires only 10^12 flops to solve? And this method isn't in use yet? Submit it to a journal, and add it to the corpus of Go algorithms.
So what's the breakthrough here?
Re:I couldn't agree with TFA more....
on
Gaming Usability 101
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Partially disagree. Making you experience the genuine feelings you'd have if the game's scenario were actually happening, is a good thing. In real life, you can't "save and reload". You can't send information back in time. To the extent that a game allows you to, it is breaking immersion. I would consider the Holy Grail to be a game with a storyline, in which you cannot use information gained in a previous game, in a new one, nor retain useful information past a reload.
Still, you're correct in that there are downsides to this: the "one save" can make it so frustrating as to outweigh any gain that can come form the greater immersion. And unless the game is designed not to dump you into dead ends, it will condemn you to replays you may not have time for. A better compromise is to have a special mode where you are permitted one save, like "Iron Man" option in Alpha Centauri (and I assume, Civilization).
Ah, yes...that does ring a bell...somewhere. We never did come to a mutual satisfactional conclusion, but the conversation was interesting. No doubt, on slashdot the topic will come up again, and we'll be able to continue.;-)
That's the good and the bad about Slashdot. Discussions have very good comments, but at the same time, there's a lot of re-inventing the wheel. Too much, I would say. People have to remake (or save for later linking) comments that were made very well a hundred times before. I wish there were a "message board with stickies" version of Slashdot.
Anyway, now that I've resubscribed, I can maybe dig up that old discussion and link it any time I see someone say, "IP is invalid because it isn't scarce". That way, we won't have to go over it again!
There are so many good discussions going on on this topic, it's hard to pick what I should join. But your comment made it irresistible to respond here:
Many court cases, including some from notable power courts such as the Supreme Court of California have held that Jury Nullification is "contrary to [the court's] ideal of justice of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law."
LOL! Yeah, heaven forbid we allow equal justice for all to be circumvented by whimsical juries.
Did they somehow miss the enormous spread in award size and "standards of liability" juries apply in product liability, medical malpractice, IP infringment[1] and, well, anything that doesn't have an easily-observable market price? They have a term for it: the "lawsuit lottery".
Juries render verdicts to get on Oprah. Because they're upset that that the CEO didn't show up at the trial. Because one of the attorneys had a nice smile. Because they just felt sorry for the plaintiff, irrespective of the defendant's fault. Because they want to stick it to the big corporations. Because that speech about the relevance of a caesarian section to newborn health just sounded so sweet.
Hey -- it's a damn shame that whimsical juries can make application of the law so unpredictable. Really, it is. But that ship has not only already sailed, it has reached its destination and unloaded its cargo. They have a lot more to worry about than juries making a conscious decision not to enforce laws they consider morally wrong.
[1]Yes, I know there's no such as "IP infringement", just "copyright infringement", "trademark infringement", and "patent infringement". You can go back to being a hobo at MIT now.
Of course you know me: we had a long exchange about the moral implications of non-scarcity of intellectual works, remember?
I generally get modded up when not talking about Ubuntu. Yes, I pissed off the Ubuntu forums one time. But look at it from my perspective:
The instructions told me ("HIGHLY RECOMMENDED") to disable install safety precautions I had taken, and then locked me out of my computer and CD burner, and then I was told the only way out was to burn a CD.
How many unforgiveable mistakes happened there?
-It told me to unnecessarily disable a precaution. -The recommended option didn't work. -By not working, it locked me out of doing anything with my computer except installing OSes that can't load. -It left me without any tools to fix the problem.
Any *one* of those not happening, and I'd be fine. If it hadn't told me to install Grub, the failure would be isolated to a secondary hard drive and I could have gotten help from windows.
If the recommended option (of install Grub on the MBR) had worked, I'd be fine.
If it had listed all troubleshooting tools I would need as "required", I'd be fine.
But it didn't do any one of these very basic things.
How did it get to the point where it was considered ready for release, given all these shortcomings?
And I'm going to give you a harsh dose of reality, which you would do well to listen to, since I'm not stupid enough to work for a company that's failing because of unfunded impossible promises it made:
-You don't need to factor giant semiprimes to hack OnStar. You just need to corrupt someone with access to the private key database. Encryption is as strong as its key. -Allowing a software failure to cascade to the engine is just stupid. -Someone who resorts to naked emotional appeals in radio ads doesn't believe in the quality of his product. (GM promotes OnStar with real radio recordings of people panicking and being saved by OnStar. ) -OnStar only exists because GM is trying to guilt people into overpaying for something in which it has a comparative advantage so it can hope to pay off legacy costs it should have funded in advance.
***
That said, I fully support the right of people to make an informed decision to allow this kind of device in their car if they believe it will work to their advantage.
Yeah, good point. If the Canadian Mint doesn't go after the people in this campaign for using the term "one cent" in its promotion, we may see the day when anyone can use the term "one cent" in any context whatsoever, because they didn't go after the people who started misappropriating it.
I don't want to see that day. And I don't want my kids to, either. The RCM worked hard to put meaning into the term "one cent". If not for their diligent efforts, "cent" would just be a meaningless homophone of "scent" and "sent".
Slashdot Mirror
Or at least, in a superposition of having been tampered with and not having been tampered with.
Funny, but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if that happened the next time I tried to install it.
"It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED that you call 555-8475 and tell the person you're going to tell the cops about his operation, and provide your address."
hmm...
*** One week later ***
"Dude, you're a fucking asshole. You called up a drug dealer while installing Ubuntu, threatened to narc, told him your address, nearly got killed, then mouthed off at the forum when someone suggested using the CD burner at the US embassy in Columbia?"
a) Bookmarked. But there doesn't even have to be "a" transformation. It could, for example, just give a sliding bar that tries a bunch of different transformations that are likely to make it useful. (remember, the goal is just to make color-coded images readable, not to make all images "as nice" for those who see colors differently)
;-) I just want to be like Ray Kurzweil: a sighted person who got an award for making a useful device for differently-sighted people.
:-P
b) Maybe not. You could have to "hack" your way around and e.g. just allow the user to open a new window for the image with the transformation applied.
c) Hey, the thank you note doesn't have to come from you
Btw, after all these suggestions I've made for making websites better usable for people who can't see all colors, you really seem like you favor "cursing the darkness" over "lighting a match"
Yes.
I agree. UFOs are REAL!!!!!!
There is, however, no credible evidence supporting its existence of SETI.
Get a browser with a vertical input column?
Yes, it's flippant, but nothing compared to my solution for the article's dilemma:
ATTENTION ARAB- AND HEBREW- SPEAKING PEOPLES. We have fixed the internets. Please use the following protocols in all communications:
The ".net" domain is now "ten." ; ".com" is "moc." and so on.
The proper procedure for forming a URL is is: subpage, top-level-domain, domain, subdomain, then "//:ptth".
PLEASE USE THIS PROTOCOL AND ONLY THIS PROTOCOL IN YOUR FUTURE USE OF ALL OF THE INTERNETS.
I'd be glad to devise the transformation myself, as long as:
:-)
a) I can get a transformation that shows me what the result looks like to a differently (and severely) color-sighted person so I can tune it.
b) Someone else will navigate the Firefox plugin process.
c) I get at least one thank-you note from a differently color-sighted person
It's more like:
a) Some dialects drop a terminal -r, AND add them where they don't exist. These are "non-rhotic".
ex: I heah a good ideer.
b) Other dialects pronounce terminal -r's, and DON'T add them where they don't exist. These are "rhotic".
ex: I hear a good idea.
(I could have been more specific the first time around...)
"Non-rhotic accent" is just a euphemism for "doesn't feel like pronouncing trailing r's, but will add them where they don't exist".
(Zonk has, of course, given up hope on regularizing "to be".)
Yes, but did they allow a software failure to cascade to the engine? Have there been recalls because of software that causes the engine to e.g. decrease the fuel mix when it's not supposed to?
Apple's would be the lowest-stress, lowest-committment option because hey, if you don't like your trainer, you can fire it easily.
Let me just tell you that a stone displaced by a mere one position can lead to very, very sure loss. Besides heuristics are good when we have at better understanding of the mechanics. All top books and players about go talk about "harmony", "beauty", "balance" ... let's just fix what the bleep are we talking about and THEN teach it to a computer, shall we? The theory is more of meditation than a strategy guide
Or as I say, "If you want to do a brute force method, how about whole brain emulation?"
This is provably incorrect.
Don't do that.
Ditto. As long as we're going with gut feelings, my "gut feeling" is that this is a futile endeavor.
So you can brute force a victory on a game with 10^60 possible endings? Okay, then I'll invent a game with a much bigger space to search and a bigger decision tree. Then what?
You've found a way to weed out fruitless branches, so it collapses into a problem that requires only 10^12 flops to solve? And this method isn't in use yet? Submit it to a journal, and add it to the corpus of Go algorithms.
So what's the breakthrough here?
Partially disagree. Making you experience the genuine feelings you'd have if the game's scenario were actually happening, is a good thing. In real life, you can't "save and reload". You can't send information back in time. To the extent that a game allows you to, it is breaking immersion. I would consider the Holy Grail to be a game with a storyline, in which you cannot use information gained in a previous game, in a new one, nor retain useful information past a reload.
Still, you're correct in that there are downsides to this: the "one save" can make it so frustrating as to outweigh any gain that can come form the greater immersion. And unless the game is designed not to dump you into dead ends, it will condemn you to replays you may not have time for. A better compromise is to have a special mode where you are permitted one save, like "Iron Man" option in Alpha Centauri (and I assume, Civilization).
Ah, yes...that does ring a bell...somewhere. We never did come to a mutual satisfactional conclusion, but the conversation was interesting. No doubt, on slashdot the topic will come up again, and we'll be able to continue. ;-)
That's the good and the bad about Slashdot. Discussions have very good comments, but at the same time, there's a lot of re-inventing the wheel. Too much, I would say. People have to remake (or save for later linking) comments that were made very well a hundred times before. I wish there were a "message board with stickies" version of Slashdot.
Anyway, now that I've resubscribed, I can maybe dig up that old discussion and link it any time I see someone say, "IP is invalid because it isn't scarce". That way, we won't have to go over it again!
Of course a vice manager of a place is going to be trigger-happy about strip searches. Duh?
Assistant managers should show a little more restraint though.
Finally, a comment making sense (no pun intended) of the entire dispute, and you don't even get modded up :-P
There are so many good discussions going on on this topic, it's hard to pick what I should join. But your comment made it irresistible to respond here:
Many court cases, including some from notable power courts such as the Supreme Court of California have held that Jury Nullification is "contrary to [the court's] ideal of justice of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law."
LOL! Yeah, heaven forbid we allow equal justice for all to be circumvented by whimsical juries.
Did they somehow miss the enormous spread in award size and "standards of liability" juries apply in product liability, medical malpractice, IP infringment[1] and, well, anything that doesn't have an easily-observable market price? They have a term for it: the "lawsuit lottery".
Juries render verdicts to get on Oprah. Because they're upset that that the CEO didn't show up at the trial. Because one of the attorneys had a nice smile. Because they just felt sorry for the plaintiff, irrespective of the defendant's fault. Because they want to stick it to the big corporations. Because that speech about the relevance of a caesarian section to newborn health just sounded so sweet.
Hey -- it's a damn shame that whimsical juries can make application of the law so unpredictable. Really, it is. But that ship has not only already sailed, it has reached its destination and unloaded its cargo. They have a lot more to worry about than juries making a conscious decision not to enforce laws they consider morally wrong.
[1]Yes, I know there's no such as "IP infringement", just "copyright infringement", "trademark infringement", and "patent infringement". You can go back to being a hobo at MIT now.
Of course you know me: we had a long exchange about the moral implications of non-scarcity of intellectual works, remember?
I generally get modded up when not talking about Ubuntu. Yes, I pissed off the Ubuntu forums one time. But look at it from my perspective:
The instructions told me ("HIGHLY RECOMMENDED") to disable install safety precautions I had taken, and then locked me out of my computer and CD burner, and then I was told the only way out was to burn a CD.
How many unforgiveable mistakes happened there?
-It told me to unnecessarily disable a precaution.
-The recommended option didn't work.
-By not working, it locked me out of doing anything with my computer except installing OSes that can't load.
-It left me without any tools to fix the problem.
Any *one* of those not happening, and I'd be fine. If it hadn't told me to install Grub, the failure would be isolated to a secondary hard drive and I could have gotten help from windows.
If the recommended option (of install Grub on the MBR) had worked, I'd be fine.
If it had listed all troubleshooting tools I would need as "required", I'd be fine.
But it didn't do any one of these very basic things.
How did it get to the point where it was considered ready for release, given all these shortcomings?
...yes.
And I'm going to give you a harsh dose of reality, which you would do well to listen to, since I'm not stupid enough to work for a company that's failing because of unfunded impossible promises it made:
-You don't need to factor giant semiprimes to hack OnStar. You just need to corrupt someone with access to the private key database. Encryption is as strong as its key.
-Allowing a software failure to cascade to the engine is just stupid.
-Someone who resorts to naked emotional appeals in radio ads doesn't believe in the quality of his product. (GM promotes OnStar with real radio recordings of people panicking and being saved by OnStar. )
-OnStar only exists because GM is trying to guilt people into overpaying for something in which it has a comparative advantage so it can hope to pay off legacy costs it should have funded in advance.
***
That said, I fully support the right of people to make an informed decision to allow this kind of device in their car if they believe it will work to their advantage.
Yeah, good point. If the Canadian Mint doesn't go after the people in this campaign for using the term "one cent" in its promotion, we may see the day when anyone can use the term "one cent" in any context whatsoever, because they didn't go after the people who started misappropriating it.
I don't want to see that day. And I don't want my kids to, either. The RCM worked hard to put meaning into the term "one cent". If not for their diligent efforts, "cent" would just be a meaningless homophone of "scent" and "sent".