Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Is it just me? (Score 1) 138

by michelcolman (#48932561) Attached to: The Quantum Experiment That Simulates a Time Machine

But oscillations imply some kind of meta-time so that history itself can change. There would need to be some other, perpendicular time-dimension in which these changes to spacetime would take place. History "used to be" a certain way but "now" (measured in meta-time) history is different.

And then we can start arguing about whether or not it's possible to go back in meta-time, etc...

Comment: Re:Is it just me? (Score 1) 138

by michelcolman (#48931967) Attached to: The Quantum Experiment That Simulates a Time Machine

So what exactly is your solution to the paradox? There are a few possibilities: alternate universes, total lack of free will preventing you from killing your grandfather, some sort of physical conspiracy of the universe always making something happen that thwarts your efforts (gun not firing), etc.) but none of them are as straightforward and obvious as you make it seem.

Comment: Re:Just give the option to turn it off... (Score 2) 820

by michelcolman (#48882887) Attached to: Fake Engine Noise Is the Auto Industry's Dirty Little Secret

Even at 10 mph you can clearly hear the tires of an electric car. Especially blind people who usually have excellent hearing.

Now, of course, if you compare an electric car to a Ford Mustang, people are probably more likely to notice the sound of the latter. Compare it to a Rolls Royce, though, and you'll find a much smaller difference if any at all. They'll have us add noise to electric cars to actually let them noisier than some conventional cars, it's ridiculous.

Please, can we just have quieter roads? Does everything have to make noise all the time to warn the idiots who don't pay attention? I would just like to hear the birds sing.

Comment: Re:Perfect? Really? (Score 1) 340

by michelcolman (#48773271) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player

The big difference with rock/paper/scissors is that in poker, your opponent's actions are input to your own decision. In cases where you have the advantage, they may let your algorithm think it has a disadvantage by betting in a different, unexpected way. But if you don't take your opponent's actions into account, you're throwing information away AND you're giving them information based on your bets. Apparently this amount of information is small enough in limit poker.

Comment: Re:Perfect? Really? (Score 1) 340

by michelcolman (#48773253) Attached to: Researchers "Solve" Texas Hold'Em, Create Perfect Robotic Player

The robot doesn't bet $100 every time it thinks it has a 73% chance of winning. Its algorithm will be something like "if I have a 73% of winning, I will pick a random number and make certain bets with certain predetermined probablilities. For some cards, it could bet 60% of the time and fold 40% of the time, determined by chance. Strategies that couple fixed actions to certain scenarios have no chance of beating a player or bot with an optimal randomized strategy.

It's called a Nash equilibrium. The only problem is that the other player's actions are part of your input, and they can therefore influence your decisions. This complicates things enormously.

"Paul Lynde to block..." -- a contestant on "Hollywood Squares"

Working...