Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The computer mostly figures out the game design jsut like human players, and couples that with super fast reaction time.
The latter is the only reason it can beat the best human players.
The bigger story is: what games did it suck at and why?
PhD in machine learning or
secretaries - because we can all do our own docs
car repair mechanics - because it's really just about replacing modules or the whole car
architects - because there's lots of free 3-D drawing apps out there
carpenters - because, hey, how hard is it to nail wood together
lawyers - because just a little reading and memorization will tell you what you need to know
engineers - because they're like carpenters, only with metal and bigger things
programmers - because anyone can learn 'hello world', and it doesn't get much harder than that.
And so on. But remember, you get what you pay for.
Go go Japan, everything electric
a) cover thousands of acres of arable land with solar panels;
b) build and run more nuclear power plants; or
c) build and run more "fossil' fuel power plants?
It's lovely to get on the 'all electric' bandwagon, but really, the problem becomes creating that electricity and then efficiently converting it to useful work.
The same holds true for other countries like US, but at least the latter can claim to have:
a) land for solar (not necessarily easy to distribute it due to NIMBY attitude);
b) stable enough geography for nuclear power proliferation (not necessarily a good political/social climate for them though);
c) abundant natural resources for 'fossil' fuels (not necessarily cost effective
No this isn't "weather", this is large scale transport of particles in the atmosphere. And that is kind of critical to understanding climate (and weather).
Which simply tells you that the models, while possibly precise, are not accurate.
And when you are talking about sweeping changes in government policy or, more frighteningly, attempts at geo-engineering, then your models should be very accurate.
Or come with a warning and a statement of margin of error.
... though you have to wonder who would voluntarily do something like that. It's easy to see who want to do it _to_ someone though.
The implants are used on herd animals in farming and pets. Is that what those people feel they are?
In the hot dry climate, esp. a desert, you might not want to piss away your water cooling the (uninsulated) tent.
You might be able to find a better use for the rare and life-supporting resource.
In the latter it's PCA/SVD and it's used to reduce the dimensionality (compact) of large numbers of variables eg a linear approximation is almost as good as accounting for all the variables individually.
The problem in both text analysis and climate (or any other) models is that PCA/LDA/etc. are linear, and the data they are applied to are generally nonlinear.
The latter means that the solution space has many (infinite?) number of sub optimal solutions.
That in turn means PCA/LDA/etc. return a linear approximation to one of those solutions, and those solutions can be very different.
So, yeah, there is a margin of error. And yeah, the reasons for that error varies. No surprise, because text understanding (and the climate) are hugely complex and nonlinear problems.
BUT at least maybe more people will become aware that models are pretty much flawed
Is there some kind of reason we want to find things just like us?
Isn't that kind of boring?
A poor appreciation of what's actually happening.
A poor appreciation of what's at stake.
A poor appreciation of the cognitive abilities of the average politician in understanding any science.
A poor track record of taking any _personal_ action to address issues.
Put it all together and most are likely stating support because they know that that's the right answer to give in the current political space of climate change.
Individually, some of the most brilliant people on the planet.
As a group? Idiots.
Adding to the body of evidence that biology is not a science, simply 'butterfly collecting'. With no first principles, biology simply makes guesses based on what it has found in the past. It has zero capacity to predict the existence of life (even life 'as we know it'), let alone the nature of life.
Seriously? Proliferation of chemica/biological weapons doesn't register a nod over something as nebulous and topical as climate change?
What an example of bald-faced political commentary. Regardless of its origins with scientists, this is now just another meaningless and pretentious art show.
Want to decrease your carbon footprint in a sane, achievable fashion?
Stop WASTING resources
And 'remote' charging is so wasteful the mind boggles that it is done merely in the name of convenience.
... http://www.aetonix.com/. The targetdemographic are elderly and disabled, and the focus is communications with family, care providers, and medical staff. Not a tablet, but geared towards those for whom a tablet format isn't quite sufficient.
Going to get rid of your ride and take mass transit?
Going to use your electricity more efficiently eg. turn off pool pump/heater when not in use, shut off A/C/furnace when not in house, turn off lights and 'always on' appliances when not in use?
Going to start paying for repairs instead of throwing out whatever seems a bit broken?
Going to lose the dream of living in your own, lawn-ringed, home and move in to a small unit in an energy efficient, high density high-rise?
Didn't think so.
So how to stop these inane pseudo science, politically fuelled announcements?