nobodysfool

As for your allegations of unfairness, code tweaks were allowed between games. It was part of the rules. Just not during games. And if Kasparov didn't think the rules were fair he could have declined the match.

Comment · 12 years ago

Yeah, and all those things exist for Python, yet you don't see people using Pyjamas everywhere instead of javascript... people are not going to switch to ruby to do front end work that will work fine in javascript, especially when you have all these plugins in javascript that are great.

Comment · 12 years ago

Reminds me of myself a few years back, but it was a different tactic. Ok maybe it was 13 years ago, but still... I was offered $14/hr for some job at a factory as computer support. I had an interview with the customer, and the agency accidentally forwards me what they were making. I asked for $17/hr or no deal. It was a fair deal because I knew how much they were making and their profit was still good. They threatened to get someone else, I hung up, they called back later and accepted the deal. After working there for a while I found the timesheets of the previous person ... at $17/hr. So I was glad that I held out. It was a fine moment of negotiation on my part. I could have asked for more, but I gave them a fair number that I knew they couldn't refuse.

Comment · 12 years ago

Mao is Chinese for cat.

Comment · 12 years ago

I think it's a bit premature to be bought out at this time. You're still a young company, and had just started to get traction, and I doubt you are profitable yet. A couple more years of not being profitable and your plug is pulled. That's just how it is in the corporate world. You look at all those yahoo acquisitions and notice most of them aren't around anymore. They weren't profitable, and so they were shut down. Good for you, but you had capital to last a few more years, and you could afford to be a bit more aggressive, but that didn't happen.

Comment · 12 years ago

I believe the word you mean is improbable. Nothing is impossible. And you may be using the later versions of the test. I'm not saying he was the smartest in the world, in fact, it may have been a flaw of the test. It was when the tests were being first developed. Regardless of what his intelligence was (it's far lower now thanks to a stroke he had a few years back) I'm just saying that it doesn't mean as much as it did.

Comment · 12 years ago

Supposedly 'Albert Einstein' had an IQ of around 160. My father's IQ was tested to be around 200. Yet you wouldn't know who the hell my father was even if I told you his name. It would place him as 1 in 4 billion according to these charts... http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx

However, Einstein would be 1 in 11,000. If the chart is to be believed, then people with an IQ of 160 or above would be about 655,000 (according to the current world population).

In any case, it doesn't matter so much anymore. My father is nearly broke, sick, and in poor health right now and lives with his parents. He was somewhat successful as a business man, but not overly so. He was well known within his community, and he certainly could do anything he wanted. He was a scuba diver, a pilot, an engineer, he speaks three languages, can play the piano and saxophone, he can program a computer and rebuild engines. Having super intelligent people will not make that much difference in the world, except in the cases where those people lead countries. Until we elect leaders who have such high intelligence, we won't see society change much at all. Intelligence does not equal money, and it doesn't equal power. It just means you can figure out things faster than others. With computers, an average person can solve complex mathematical problems faster than the highest IQ people could 100 years ago. IQ is far less relevant in today's world.

In any case, even if these high IQ people were elected, what happens when one of them has a stroke and all of a sudden their IQ is only half what it was (500)? Should we have a vote of no confidence and shun them from society? This just ends up as eugenics all over again. If you don't know what I am talking about, read about it here. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/science/haunted-files-the-...

Comment · 12 years ago

It is becoming an accepted spelling.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carmelize

Also it's not 'US Americans' but Usanians.