jibalt

15 ms·

121.
by jibalt 11y ago
Sorry, but nothing of any interest would follow from that harebrained speculation being true.
122.
by jibalt 11y ago
"Isn't he dead?" Different case.
123.
by jibalt 11y ago
"What's important is the letter of the law, the relevant preceding decisions, and the judge's reason and conscience (which is checked by appeals). The context the law was originally written in is just fluff." Fascinating
124.
by jibalt 11y ago
So your argument is that, because a lot of time has passed since the All Writs Law was passed, judges should take it to mean whatever they want it to mean. On that bit about you seeing what all others fail to see, I suggest that you look up
125.
by jibalt 11y ago
Being the only one who sees something is an almost certain indication of being in error. In this case, your errors are remarkably numerous for such a short comment.
126.
by jibalt 11y ago
The judge's reasoning was explicitly based on many of the Founders being members of the first Congress, so you have granted that the argument is completely bogus. And the point of the comment you're responding to is that the quo
127.
by jibalt 11y ago
" I just think that treating them "differently" is not the solution." They are already treated differently ... duh.
128.
by jibalt 11y ago
Nim is fun but it's not even at version 1 and has a very small developer and user base. "The only thing in Go's favor ..." The selectivity of a true ideologue.
129.
by jibalt 11y ago
Oh, that Go.
130.
by jibalt 11y ago
Generate some random numbers. They aren't interesting.
131.
by jibalt 11y ago
"Presumably someone constructed it as a product of primes known only to them" It would be foolish to presume that. And knowing the factors of the Diffie-Hellman parameter isn't all that important.
132.
by jibalt 11y ago
It's clear that you haven't read it at all: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof The fact of the matter is that the sort of Platonic definition of proof that you fantasize is impossible because it
133.
by jibalt 11y ago
"Or maybe it's that somehow the probability changes when we have more information" Um, yes, that's all that probability is. See Bayes Theorem.
134.
by jibalt 11y ago
"It seems weird to go with the assumption that because something is extremely unlikely that it won't happen." No, it's rational. As for the rest of your post, you are confused between a priori and a posteriori probabilit
135.
by jibalt 11y ago
Your gut is bad at statistics.
136.
by jibalt 11y ago
1 million = 10^6. 1 billion = 10^9. 6+9+9 = 24. This isn't rocket science.
137.
by jibalt 11y ago
That book is remarkable!
138.
by jibalt 11y ago
I think you have quite missed the point.
139.
by jibalt 11y ago
Much of that code was inherited from Bell Labs UNIX, much of which came from Ritchie and Thompson.
140.
by jibalt 11y ago
Yes.
141.
by jibalt 11y ago
Of course they do, as they have said.
142.
by jibalt 11y ago
"put away like Deep Blue was" So what? The Stockfish app on your phone is stronger than Deep Blue was.
143.
by jibalt 11y ago
"so the premise of the paper that there is a valuation function v(s), where s is the board position, that determines game outcome is incorrect" No, it isn't, any more than the claim that there's a position evaluation for
144.
by jibalt 11y ago
Ridiculous comparison, when the top Go ELO is 3620 and Carlson is 2882. 2182 isn't even a Master.
145.
by jibalt 11y ago
Nonsense. The operators were weaker than Deep Blue, and Kasparov's reasons for thinking there was cheating are absurd and not based on evidence.
146.
by jibalt 11y ago
So what if he claimed it? It's not a credible claim, and in any case the current top chess programs are far stronger.
147.
by jibalt 11y ago
This is nonsense. To combine AI systems requires a mechanism to combine their evaluations. The most effect way would be a feedback system, where each system uses evaluations from other systems as input to possibly modify its own evaluation,
148.
by jibalt 11y ago
That's no counterpoint because the World team (of which I was a member) was made up of boobs on the internet, not players of Kasparov's strength, which was the premise of the question you responded to.
149.
by jibalt 11y ago
"while this method does tree search all the way to the end of the game" No it doesn't. You seem quite happy to just make stuff up that you know nothing about, like "2-3 moves into the future".
150.
by jibalt 11y ago
Do you ask that of natural evolution, too?

More ›