Computers are already better than humans at chess (and I can recall a time, back in the eighties, when there were predictions that this would never happen, or at least not for many decades), but they still don’t do that well at Go.
Two Hungarian scientists have now come up with an algorithm that helps computers pick the right move in Go, played by millions around the world, in which players must capture spaces by placing black and white marbles on a board in turn.
“On a nine by nine board we are not far from reaching the level of a professional Go player,” said Levente Kocsis at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences’ computing lab SZTAKI.
The 19 by 19 board which top players use is still hard for a machine, but the new method is promising because it makes better use of the growing power of computers than earlier Go software.
An Iraqi sheikh who doesn’t want to make the same mistake the Vietnamese did:
“One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping … put them back together,” MacFarland said. “The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they
An Iraqi sheikh who doesn’t want to make the same mistake the Vietnamese did:
“One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping … put them back together,” MacFarland said. “The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they
An Iraqi sheikh who doesn’t want to make the same mistake the Vietnamese did:
“One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping … put them back together,” MacFarland said. “The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they
…the investigation disclosed no violations of law whatsoever. Nevertheless, in his closing statement Fitzgerald made repeated references to the possibility that a covert officer’s identity had been disclosed maliciously and that people might die as a result–in spite of the fact that the referral letter apparently never referenced covert status as an issue.
…Beyond pointing up the essentially unethical nature of the Libby prosecution–long obvious–these factors suggest to me that there may have been a type of bait and switch at the heart of the entire investigation. The operation of this bait and switch relied on the public outcry in the MSM about the disclosure of a covert officer’s identitity. The reality, if the above analysis is correct, is that the referral letter did not reference such a possibility because it was known that Plame was not “covert” for purposes of the IIPA. The relevant officials at CIA and DoJ knew that this public scenario, replete with images of Administration officials frog marching out of the White house, bore no relation to the reality of the situation–especially in light of what those officials had learned from Richard Armitage. So, the investigation was an open ended warrant to find a violation of any statute or, failing that, to induce a process violation in the course of the investigation. The bait and switch relied on the public hue and cry to provide cover for turning the White House inside out in search of a crime–any crime.
…The real targets of the investigation (Cheney, Rove, Libby) would be told that they were not targets as such but merely witnesses. They would be required by the President to appear over and over before the Grand Jury, ostensibly to give evidence to assist the investigation of what publicly appeared to be the disclosure of a “covert” officer’s identity. These targets would rely on the Special Counsel’s representations because they had not committed the acts that appeared from public statements–including Comey’s letter–to be the focus of the investigation. The Special Counsel had deniability in the form of Comey’s letter, although all Fitzgerald’s actions have revealed all too clearly that they were in fact targets and not merely witnesses. No doubt the Special Counsel hoped that the targets’ sense of their own innocence of what was publicly alleged would lead them to reveal some factual situation that could be construed as a criminal violation–or, failing that, become involved in a process violation. Had the investigation in fact concerned the disclosure of a covert officer’s identity, the true target would of course have been Armitage. The lack of prosecutorial interest in Armitage gives the game away.
In response to a post about John Glenn’s vague boostering of the ISS, there’s an interesting discussion in comments over at Space Politics about its utility.
I agree with “anonymous” that orbital assembly techniques are crucial skills, and disagree with Donald Robertson that the ISS was a good or cost-effective (or even necessary) way to get them. Like Shuttle, to the degree we’ve learned things from ISS, it was much more how not to do things, and the cost of the education was far too high.
Matt Bowes writes not to give the environmentalists an inch on space tourism, or they will take a mile. I agree. We should consider the environment in our designs, but sensibly, with rational analyses, and not allow the class-warfare luddites to dictate the shape of the industry.
NASA’s news release said a memorandum of understanding called for the agency’s Ames Research Center to work together with Virgin Galactic, the space tourism company founded by British billionaire Richard Branson, to “explore possible collaborations in several technical areas, including hybrid rocket motors and hypersonic vehicles capable of traveling five or more times the speed of sound, employing NASA Ames’ unique capabilities and world-class facilities.”
NASA said the agreement was negotiated through NASA
By relying on existing technology, the design would allow for more efficient construction, narrowing the gap between the shuttle’s retirement in 2010 and the next manned flight. But it also stirred a hot debate within the aerospace community. “NASA’s attitude seems to be that Apollo worked, so let’s just redo Apollo,” says Charles Lurio, a Boston space consultant. Burt Rutan, the mastermind behind the rocket SpaceShipOne, likened the new CEV to an archeological dig. “To get to Mars and the moons of Saturn, we need breakthroughs. But the way NASA’s doing it, we won’t be learning anything new.”
Scott Horowitz, NASA’s associate administrator for Exploration Systems, defends the agency’s approach. “Sure, we’d love to have antimatter warp drive,” he says. “But I suspect that would be kind of expensive. Unfortunately, we just don’t have the money for huge technological breakthroughs. We’ve got to do the best we can within our constraints of performance, cost and schedule.”
Emphasis mine. Note that neither Lurio or Rutan were calling for “antimatter warp drive.” Neither were they calling for unaffordable “huge technical breakthroughs,” as far as I’ve ever heard. They were simply asking for something that would be worth the many billions being invested in it. Instead, NASA sets up the false choice that it’s either Apollo or Star Trek, and continues, in its attitude, to keep us mired in a world of high cost and low productivity in space.