Depending on what I may be missing with "free to everyone", care to say what you are researching? I am peeking at all kinds of new topics just to see what is out there, so if Google eats Links, I'll add one for you!
Please sit down safely before I assist with your laughing attack.
Seriously now, combining all kinds of weird topics including international computer law etc, suppose Slashdot united as many of the 2,050,000 of us as Taco could muster and WE did our own study? It would be officially announced in Lawyer Advised Ways, but then *that's all the warning they get* - and even that is "too much"! (But ya have to be nice ya know.) Types range all the way from goatse from our new friends in the 2mil-uid crew, to (makes stuff up) self replicating shadow packets.
As many of us as feel motivated would document our stuff, and submit it when we felt like we were done.
Wouldn't we be a scary crew? Some forums might have a higher skill per user but I think slashdot is in the race for broadest overall reach to smart users.
(Joke - please someone get someone running Amiga OS6 to help. I can just see that result! "Okay, what opsys is this event... amiga-WHAT?... we're being attacked by a system that only exists in four copies in the entire world?!?")
For an extra $1 you can buy the tool that lets you plant a flower x times per game that dies from metal poisoning from the bomb rust into the soil around it!
You're just an AC, so you might not see this, but I'm working on some really wild counter-troll concepts. My original post meant a LOIC style event though.
First let me say I like your shifts in perspective, and the main reason I don't play go is that I feel like I'm out of time to pick up a whole second game competently.
The structure of the two games leads to different insights. Chess has no game-level handicap, only ability based pairings and clock times. Go doesn't have Chess's problem with draws. So Chess has a "metagame information problem" where the game may not make sense until you look at tourney score notes and it says X player was in a Must Win scenario 3 games in a row to win money. Meanwhile Kramnik developed his style to win an entire match one win ahead because it forces the opponent to rock the boat whereupon his boat takes on water.
Yikes! I thought I was referring to Alexi Shirov and Kramnik.
I don't have the math chops to do it right, but you in fact can quantify how close a win or a loss is in chess, which some say is why chess is just barely going to lose to Go in the big picture this century.
A good Master combo puts you up "+4" which is about a piece and a pawn. Once it resolves all the way, the response is typically "resigns". (You get some ten moves to clarify a point or maybe do a favor for the audience, but that's it.) The chief criterion of beauty for "Fire" in chess is how anti-intuitive it looks at first, second, or third wave until when it does finally resolve the master emerges with the win.
Modern analysis is showing that typically when searched with a computer there are some one-three chances where a perfect opponent could theoretically have escaped, but once those chances were gone, the rest runs like a nuclear reactor and you just hang on for a ride.
The Ice players (the Russian term is "Play for Two Results (not to lose) play for steady increases of tenth-pawn positional advantages until finally the opponent just misses some one of twenty semi-required moves and then goes down a pawn. Then the Ice player is now +1.6 and wins the endgame.
Something about standard deviations or calculus 2nd derivatives/Jerkiness quantify the result and these are the methods the comps use. You can set them to your choice of "go for combo with a subtle flaw to maximize win potential" or "minimize losing positions".
It does work differently in blitz chess which does tend to be about playing the opponent - let's agree you are talking more about classical long games. Taking one look at the opponent's rating is vital because while not an "idiot", at least for me it changes my clock usage. If I am rating favored by 300 points I am "supposed to win", so the best long haul is to focus on solidity and staying out of time trouble. If the opponent is a master ahead of me by 300 points, it's more of a gamble against the clock looking for entirely new classes of strategy out of the twilight zone.
Does Go have "Fire" and "Ice" players? "Fire" players are apt to aim an ion cannon at your overall game and escaping into an almost drawn ending a pawn down is pretty good, and you might have one chance at a comeback shot. "Ice" players trick you into over-reaching because no one move does anything exciting but after 30 moves of blandness if you give them two outposts and a doubled pawn you're hosed. Generally I try to play a little faster / pragmatically vs "Ice" players because you need some of your original time bloc left if you expect to be going into move 50.
Chess is an example of microcosm knowledge much closer to science than most games. You get a growing body of established theory, some of which is occasionally overturned, you get the study of tactical vs strategic styles and the weaknesses and strengths of both, you get logic trees as well as what happens when a terrible first move in the tree leads to "castles of absurdity" and more.
Check out the process we needed to go to for teaching computers chess.
Chess might be the game with the biggest body of "homework" though. In that case, studying chess would produce results not normally seen in other games without that study element. Also, it might be one of the top 10 board games with the longest shelf life in that at least people don't look at you funny like if you say you're a Chutes & Ladders champion. (Counter example for "mere intervetion and attention etc).
Go could have worked, if say China wanted to do something, because it's about a country's heritage. We all know what Russian-territories did for chess, so it makes perfect sense culturally.
Chess got me through my 20's, and only about age 30 I traded chess for some ten other interests.
If I wished upon a star I'd wish for some paid devs to flesh out the desktop environments - "all five-ish of them". (Do some Project Management to roll features of #'s 6-15 into the other five).
For simplicity of naming, do a Heavy & Light version of each that you can toggle by a setting instead of five more names.
Then let's say we get Gnome 3, KDE 4, XFCE-LXDE maybe merged as Heavy-Light, Unity & Unity Light, and your choice of a fifth.
Since most users (probably including me!) barely know what an OS does behind the desktop, we can simplify the back ends too. I'd like to be down to some five distros by getting the smaller guys to work together with an approach more like Add-Ons to a backbone distro.
We've been given a relatively lot of time, but I feel we're just about to run out of it. The big companies are killing us by taking our backbones and throwing front ends onto it. Apple is the most famous, with its BSD backbone, followed by Ubuntu taking Debian into murky waters, and last but not least Google taking (something) and making Android mobile OS out of it.
Something in that just reeks of the high school nerd working for 15 years in his basement until he comes up with some cool stuff, then the Kool Kids swipe it and make millions. We're left with a weak "well, we never wanted to be cool anyway" hurt comment.
We're just about to get a firestorm of former XP machines coming off the XP market, so it really IS time for Linux on the Desktop but we have to get a grip. Bonus - we like lean coding more than the big guys too.
It seem to take about seven years for a paradigm shift, so "only a year" should be easy for a smart company that wants to kill time. Better yet, havehim produce pieces of work "for games" that "just happen" to have mobilr phone implications.
If execs can get past the crazy lifestyle, their $10,000 in savings might last a while. Then the world can hire them and the ori. board wsted 9 months on strategy direction.
If I listen to any one qualifying song more than some five times, it hits a threshold where I'll add it to a possible-playlist, and then its value increases some 20X. (The others fade away and get under 4 playings). So I am just in the verge of spending some $200 to get songs I like so I can legitimately call them Format Shifted Research Copies (not shared) because I like tempo or speed dropped versions of songs.
With minor grumbling, I'll view ads to get to my authorized copies. Just quit the campaign of terror where five copies of Liam Kyle Sullivan's shows might cost me my house.
Atribution is not at all the same as endorsement. Endorsement is the "like" thing, aka "____ approves this content".
Attribution simply lists the prior source of the content, (preferably 2 levels deep so an average user would get both Vanilla Ice and Queen etc.)
Your context thing might be optional. I could begin with "original context is ____" , but I may totally disagree where the end results lie. Made up example: "Did you know that while you were working on music theory context ___ , you accidentally hit information theory _________ " ?
Or hard drive stability theory hits cloud storage, etc.
Innovation comes from attributing the source, then taking it WAY outside the box. (total fiction example, I have no idea what means - rhetoric only) "Did you know that your song construction applies to space suit safety for martian astronauts?!!"
As long as you attribute it and avoid the plagarism problem, I think that's enough.
We could give the prisons to Wizards of the Coast!
They could ensure each prison truck contains 11 common prisoners, 3 uncommon prisoners, and a rare convict. Each building has no more than 4 of any type of prisoner, but only one of certain restricted types. The death row prisoners are Banned and held separately in a building with golden-hued borders.
Slashdot Mirror
All data is archived somewhere. Data is sexy. No one in authority can resist troves of data for long.
Hi there!
Depending on what I may be missing with "free to everyone", care to say what you are researching? I am peeking at all kinds of new topics just to see what is out there, so if Google eats Links, I'll add one for you!
Dear Andy,
Please sit down safely before I assist with your laughing attack.
Seriously now, combining all kinds of weird topics including international computer law etc, suppose Slashdot united as many of the 2,050,000 of us as Taco could muster and WE did our own study? It would be officially announced in Lawyer Advised Ways, but then *that's all the warning they get* - and even that is "too much"! (But ya have to be nice ya know.) Types range all the way from goatse from our new friends in the 2mil-uid crew, to (makes stuff up) self replicating shadow packets.
As many of us as feel motivated would document our stuff, and submit it when we felt like we were done.
Wouldn't we be a scary crew? Some forums might have a higher skill per user but I think slashdot is in the race for broadest overall reach to smart users.
(Joke - please someone get someone running Amiga OS6 to help. I can just see that result! "Okay, what opsys is this event... amiga-WHAT?... we're being attacked by a system that only exists in four copies in the entire world?!?")
Slashdotters have limited or no ineteraction with girlfriends, but heavy use of evil lairs.
(Going for Funny) One attack made a copy of the complete discograpy of Metallica. (/Ruining Joke for Mods)
For an extra $1 you can buy the tool that lets you plant a flower x times per game that dies from metal poisoning from the bomb rust into the soil around it!
You're just an AC, so you might not see this, but I'm working on some really wild counter-troll concepts. My original post meant a LOIC style event though.
First let me say I like your shifts in perspective, and the main reason I don't play go is that I feel like I'm out of time to pick up a whole second game competently.
The structure of the two games leads to different insights. Chess has no game-level handicap, only ability based pairings and clock times. Go doesn't have Chess's problem with draws. So Chess has a "metagame information problem" where the game may not make sense until you look at tourney score notes and it says X player was in a Must Win scenario 3 games in a row to win money. Meanwhile Kramnik developed his style to win an entire match one win ahead because it forces the opponent to rock the boat whereupon his boat takes on water.
Yikes! I thought I was referring to Alexi Shirov and Kramnik.
I don't have the math chops to do it right, but you in fact can quantify how close a win or a loss is in chess, which some say is why chess is just barely going to lose to Go in the big picture this century.
A good Master combo puts you up "+4" which is about a piece and a pawn. Once it resolves all the way, the response is typically "resigns". (You get some ten moves to clarify a point or maybe do a favor for the audience, but that's it.) The chief criterion of beauty for "Fire" in chess is how anti-intuitive it looks at first, second, or third wave until when it does finally resolve the master emerges with the win.
Modern analysis is showing that typically when searched with a computer there are some one-three chances where a perfect opponent could theoretically have escaped, but once those chances were gone, the rest runs like a nuclear reactor and you just hang on for a ride.
The Ice players (the Russian term is "Play for Two Results (not to lose) play for steady increases of tenth-pawn positional advantages until finally the opponent just misses some one of twenty semi-required moves and then goes down a pawn. Then the Ice player is now +1.6 and wins the endgame.
Something about standard deviations or calculus 2nd derivatives/Jerkiness quantify the result and these are the methods the comps use. You can set them to your choice of "go for combo with a subtle flaw to maximize win potential" or "minimize losing positions".
What if we DDOS the Russian Goatse copy that the recent crew of trolls is using? Maybe those links will start showing Unavailable instead?
(Question for the Philosophy majors - what are the ethics of hacking a troll?)
It does work differently in blitz chess which does tend to be about playing the opponent - let's agree you are talking more about classical long games. Taking one look at the opponent's rating is vital because while not an "idiot", at least for me it changes my clock usage. If I am rating favored by 300 points I am "supposed to win", so the best long haul is to focus on solidity and staying out of time trouble. If the opponent is a master ahead of me by 300 points, it's more of a gamble against the clock looking for entirely new classes of strategy out of the twilight zone.
Does Go have "Fire" and "Ice" players? "Fire" players are apt to aim an ion cannon at your overall game and escaping into an almost drawn ending a pawn down is pretty good, and you might have one chance at a comeback shot. "Ice" players trick you into over-reaching because no one move does anything exciting but after 30 moves of blandness if you give them two outposts and a doubled pawn you're hosed. Generally I try to play a little faster / pragmatically vs "Ice" players because you need some of your original time bloc left if you expect to be going into move 50.
Quoting The Previous F Article
"If this is a hoax, it's really well done".
Is *Faking* break-ins the new L33T?
I believe you are sorely mistaken.
Chess is an example of microcosm knowledge much closer to science than most games. You get a growing body of established theory, some of which is occasionally overturned, you get the study of tactical vs strategic styles and the weaknesses and strengths of both, you get logic trees as well as what happens when a terrible first move in the tree leads to "castles of absurdity" and more.
Check out the process we needed to go to for teaching computers chess.
Chess might be the game with the biggest body of "homework" though. In that case, studying chess would produce results not normally seen in other games without that study element. Also, it might be one of the top 10 board games with the longest shelf life in that at least people don't look at you funny like if you say you're a Chutes & Ladders champion. (Counter example for "mere intervetion and attention etc).
Go could have worked, if say China wanted to do something, because it's about a country's heritage. We all know what Russian-territories did for chess, so it makes perfect sense culturally.
Chess got me through my 20's, and only about age 30 I traded chess for some ten other interests.
(
(xkcd ftw again!)
If I wished upon a star I'd wish for some paid devs to flesh out the desktop environments - "all five-ish of them". (Do some Project Management to roll features of #'s 6-15 into the other five).
For simplicity of naming, do a Heavy & Light version of each that you can toggle by a setting instead of five more names.
Then let's say we get Gnome 3, KDE 4, XFCE-LXDE maybe merged as Heavy-Light, Unity & Unity Light, and your choice of a fifth.
Since most users (probably including me!) barely know what an OS does behind the desktop, we can simplify the back ends too. I'd like to be down to some five distros by getting the smaller guys to work together with an approach more like Add-Ons to a backbone distro.
We've been given a relatively lot of time, but I feel we're just about to run out of it. The big companies are killing us by taking our backbones and throwing front ends onto it. Apple is the most famous, with its BSD backbone, followed by Ubuntu taking Debian into murky waters, and last but not least Google taking (something) and making Android mobile OS out of it.
Something in that just reeks of the high school nerd working for 15 years in his basement until he comes up with some cool stuff, then the Kool Kids swipe it and make millions. We're left with a weak "well, we never wanted to be cool anyway" hurt comment.
We're just about to get a firestorm of former XP machines coming off the XP market, so it really IS time for Linux on the Desktop but we have to get a grip. Bonus - we like lean coding more than the big guys too.
Exactly.
There are some seven uses in this post above me.
Does he want to download seven copies per song?!!
Nah -
We need a system that fairy takes a single paid copy and lets you make ReSpins as you like.
(What, the Orig. Artists didn't do that?? Shame on them if the original is tempo 25% too fast and timbre 37% too high.)
Gang, for once Fristy was right.
"Only a year"
It seem to take about seven years for a paradigm shift, so "only a year" should be easy for a smart company that wants to kill time. Better yet, havehim produce pieces of work "for games" that "just happen" to have mobilr phone implications.
Offtopic:
I know the White Hat Black Hat framework.
What does a Silver Hat hacker do?
Again I'll reply to you though there are points downstream.
Soon Corp USA will have to upgrade. It will be painful, but they'll have to deal with it say within 3 years.
They will have to migrate from IE 6 to IE11.
They hope that will buy them another 4 years of peace. (They missed the extra fast dev cycles.)
Still, I'd rather Corp USA was not SEVEN copies of IE behind.
I'll reply to you though there are some points below you,
MS designed a lockin strategy in some 2004 designed to take care of 2004-2008 .
It Worked.
Now they just have to resolve the artifacts created by such a strategy 4 years after its useful life.
I pointed out a week ago that IE 10 discarded Vista, to which was met mostly "so what".
I say now, that such a fast dropping of Vista is quite a corp statement.
You might be right -
If execs can get past the crazy lifestyle, their $10,000 in savings might last a while. Then the world can hire them and the ori. board wsted 9 months on strategy direction.
Then they can do what they want.
Hm. Songs.
If I listen to any one qualifying song more than some five times, it hits a threshold where I'll add it to a possible-playlist, and then its value increases some 20X. (The others fade away and get under 4 playings). So I am just in the verge of spending some $200 to get songs I like so I can legitimately call them Format Shifted Research Copies (not shared) because I like tempo or speed dropped versions of songs.
With minor grumbling, I'll view ads to get to my authorized copies. Just quit the campaign of terror where five copies of Liam Kyle Sullivan's shows might cost me my house.
Hi there.
Great answer, and it gives me stuff to work with.
Atribution is not at all the same as endorsement. Endorsement is the "like" thing, aka "____ approves this content".
Attribution simply lists the prior source of the content, (preferably 2 levels deep so an average user would get both Vanilla Ice and Queen etc.)
Your context thing might be optional. I could begin with "original context is ____" , but I may totally disagree where the end results lie.
Made up example: "Did you know that while you were working on music theory context ___ , you accidentally hit information theory _________ " ?
Or hard drive stability theory hits cloud storage, etc.
Innovation comes from attributing the source, then taking it WAY outside the box.
(total fiction example, I have no idea what means - rhetoric only) "Did you know that your song construction applies to space suit safety for martian astronauts?!!"
As long as you attribute it and avoid the plagarism problem, I think that's enough.
We could give the prisons to Wizards of the Coast!
They could ensure each prison truck contains 11 common prisoners, 3 uncommon prisoners, and a rare convict. Each building has no more than 4 of any type of prisoner, but only one of certain restricted types. The death row prisoners are Banned and held separately in a building with golden-hued borders.