Well, there are limited options on a chess game. You just have 64 positions and 32 pieces, there's a limited number of plays. That makes easy for a computer to beat humans. The game is nearly deterministic, no randomness as in poker.
Just because there is a limited number of options because of rules on movement etcetera, that doesn't mean that this limited number of plays isn't a bloody huge number beyond the capacity of most computers. Imagine the starting position of a chess game: white has 20 moves, and black has the same 20 moves. That is already 400 combinations, after only 1 move. In the next move, there are a few more options because a bishop can escape, say 25 options, same for black. That's a quarter of a million possibilities after only 2 moves.
Besides, brute force doesn't get you far. There is the "horizon problem", where a chess computer thinking x moves ahead, will keep pushing back threats until they are x+1 moves away, only to reappear on the horizon in the very next move. It takes more than brute force to work around that.
Yes, i guess you could call chess deterministic, but perhaps not, given the huge number of possibilities. And since you make the comparison with poker... I dare to guess that there are more possible chess games than poker games, given a limit on the amount of money involved.
Or Nazi gold...
I always thought Nazi Gold was a right-extremist radio station?
but I can readily admit that most Mac users are Yahoo Answers-grade stupid when it comes to computers.
What, and Windows users aren't? I agree that most Mac users aren't exactly the brightest computer users, but get real, most Windows users don't even know other OS's exist, let alone what an OS is. Mindless flock of sheep, really.
Two can play at that game. If I ever create something popular enough to require quite a bit of bandwidth (unlikely, I know, but it might happen...), I know which ISPs will get more "traffic shape"ed than others (i.e. this pair and Virgin whose top dick made similar statements a couple of years ago).
Hah, and if your potential customers try to reach you, and find out your service is painstakingly slow... Who do you think they will blame? Their provider (who has no trouble with them visiting facebook or whatever), or your site? Hm?
The only thing you'll accomplish, is having fewer customers than you could have had. I'm afraid that this game cannot be played by two that simple.
but who do you hate more...the crackhead or the asshole dealer that will do anything to enable and string out the addict until there's nothing left?
I think the correct SW line would be: who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?
I didn't see it mentioned when quickly scanning TFA, but how does this codec handle packet loss?
It is all nice and well to develop a codec to cram as much speech as possible in as few bits as possible, but in this case, one lost packet could mean a gap of several seconds. The success of a low-bandwidth codec, at least when it comes to IP telephony, also depends on how well it can handle lost packets. Low bandwidth codecs are usually used in low bandwidth networks, such as the internet, and there the packetloss is the highest.
Same goes for delay and jitter, by the way. If a stream of packets is delayed, and more voice is crammed in fewer bits, then the delays in the voice stream will get longer too.
Massive earthquakes? LAZARS!
Yes, i've seen that in a rather shocking real life documentary on SyFy, called MegaFault. They could stop an earthquake ripping open half the US (avoiding large cities, thank God) by firing lasers at it. Then some lave came up, then something froze, it got all too high-tech for me... But the same mastermind that designed KITT in the new Knight Rider was behind it, i am grateful we have such geniusses with us in this era.
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League