Slashdot Mirror

There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.

If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.

So which is it? Are you going to factually challenge someone's belief or backpedal from a badly played bluff because you simply don't have the cards?

I responded to you because I had just got done complaining about how much argument is taking place on this subject without a single mention of evidence. And then I happen upon you, who not only talks of evidence but suggests that there is an abundance of it, in favor of censorship — which is the windmill I happen to be tilting at today.

I mean I don't know anything about porn — I'd be lucky if I could perform a Google search on the topic without somehow lousing it up — but I strongly resist censorship. Especially when the folks doing the censoring cannot produce empirical data about what ill is being resolved by slicing up other people's access to empirical data and replacing it with falsehood.

I mean, no matter how many citations we might potentially find suggesting there is no causal link to harm, how can I find the studies you specifically claim to have that there is? Your claim is fantastic. On par with claiming to have proof of evidence of God. So imagine my disappointment when I learn you were just making it up as you went.

As to the Ad Hominem (please look that up too), If it's any help, I am sorry for suggesting you don't know the meaning of the word "poison". That was very passive-aggressive of me. I should have just flat out said it instead.

It's just that I have high expectations for people who spam promo codes, trying to make a buck convincing people that coconut oil can cure hypothyroidism. You've got to at least demonstrate knowledge of the basics, or you'll be taken about as seriously as Sarah Palin when somebody calls Bullshit on you.

"You can't quote to refute a work."

Where did you get that idea? Comment and Criticism is at the heart of Fair Use Doctrine.

As for the most effective means of refutation, line by line or paragraph-by-paragraph refutation of a work of any length might be effective in the abstract, but I doubt most people would read it. In practice it is more effective to create a general framework of critique, and use selective quotes to drive your point home. This is likely why there hasn't been a hue and cry about the stifling inability in our culture to engage in argument.

I also don't understand why you put law in quotes. It is law, whether you understand it or not.

"If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices." -- Thomas Aquinas (from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/)

This isn't like the 16->32 bit transition where it quickly became apparent that the benefits were large enough and the costs both small enough and rapidly decreasing that all but the smallest microcontrollers could benefit from both the switch and the economies of scale. 64-bit pointers help only in select situations, they come at a large cost, and as fabs start reaching the atomic scale we're much less confident that Moore's Law will decrease those costs to the level of irrelevance anytime soon.

Most uses don't need >4 gigabytes of RAM, and it takes extra memory to compensate for huge pointers. Cache pressure increases, causing a performance drop. Sure, often x86-64 code beats 32-bit x86 code, but that's mostly because x86-64 adds registers on a very register-constrained architecture and partly because of wider integer and FP units. 64-bit addressing is usually a drag, and it's the addressing that makes a CPU "64-bit". ARM doesn't have a similar register constraint problem, and the cost of 64-bit pointers would be especially obvious in the mobile space, where cache is more constrained- one of the most important things ARM has done to increase performance in recent years was Thumb mode i.e. 16-bit instructions, decreasing cache pressure.

Most of those who do need more than 4GB don't need more than 4G of virtual address space for a single process, in which case having the OS use 64-bit addressing while apps use 32-bit pointers is a performance boon. The ideal for x86 (which nobody seems to have tried) would be to have x86-64 instructions and registers available to programs but have the programs use 32-bit pointers, as noted by no less than Don Knuth:

It is absolutely idiotic to have 64-bit pointers when I compile a program that uses less than 4 gigabytes of RAM. When such pointer values appear inside a struct, they not only waste half the memory, they effectively throw away half of the cache.

The gcc manpage advertises an option "-mlong32" that sounds like what I want. Namely, I think it would compile code for my x86-64 architecture, taking advantage of the extra registers etc., but it would also know that my program is going to live inside a 32-bit virtual address space.

Unfortunately, the -mlong32 option was introduced only for MIPS computers, years ago. Nobody has yet adopted such conventions for today's most popular architecture. Probably that happens because programs compiled with this convention will need to be loaded with a special version of libc.

Please, somebody, make that possible.

It's funny to continually hear people clamoring for native 64-bit versions of their applications when that often will just slow things down. One notable instance: Sun/Oracle have told people all along not to use a 64-bit JVM unless they really need a single JVM instance to use more than 4GB of memory, and the pointer compression scheme they use for the 64-bit JVM is vital to keeping a reasonable level of performance with today's systems.

This is not intended to be a package manager replacement. In fact, keeping older possibly-buggy versions of libraries around is a good thing in some of the expected use cases, e.g.:

• Giving other academic researchers your code that will reproduce your results exactly, even if your code was triggering a bug in a specific library version you have
• A professor distributing a class assignment in executable form, and not having to worry about how many flavors of linux his students are running

There are many more use cases illustrated on the website, which you obviously did not read or else you wouldn't have compared CDE to a package manager. Almost all the examples he uses are ad-hoc transfers where the CDE package will only be used on a temporary basis, or where the effort required to bundle a package for each OS would be unwarranted, or where the lack of library upgrades is actually an advantage.

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth

Gates *LIKES* tech plays with it, it is his life. Balmer it is something to sell.

Cf. Donald Knuth who won't even do email.

we know through various studies that you are mainly shaped by your environment, not your genetics.

It depends on the trait, see information on the aforementioned heritability.

If you refer to "shaped" as in physical appearance excluding clothing, hair dye, and other accessories, then there are a number of physical traits (considered distinguishing in western culture) that have a substantial or very high heritability, e.g. eye colour, height, hair colour, skin colour. The accessories, or external "shapes" that we put onto ourselves, have extremely low heritability. But even then it's still not always zero, e.g. a person with polydactyly may not be able to fit a standard glove or shoe, hair dyes for some colours do not work for all base hair colours, a tetrachromat may have a different fashion sense and choose a greater variety of "green" clothes to wear.

A hexadecimal dollar is 100 hexadecimal = 256 decimal cents. There's a semantic difference in "1 (hexadecimal dollar)" (Knuth's version) vs "(1 hexadecimal) dollar" (your version).

See Donald Knuth's FAQ.

Also, it's a joke, so there's probably no point in arguing technicalities.

The biggest name schools aren't so expensive. The Ivies, and I assume Stanford, won't leave you with more than ~$20k of debt, and places like Yale and Princeton replaced loans with grants a few years back, leaving you with 0 debt. If you made the mistake of having a college fund, though, the amount they expect you to pay will magically increase by exactly the size of that fund.

True. At Stanford, children from families making less than $100k pay Zero tuition. Children from families that make less than $250k receive academic aid so that they end up paying less than if they had gone to a state school unassisted. I believe Harvard is going to start doing something similar.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/february8/tuition-financial-aid-020910.html

but what I'm waiting for is the answer to the Molyneux problem...

To be honest, it's not clear to me why they aren't imaging individual protein molecules directly. It can't be that hard to make a small hard X-Ray synchrotron and appropriate imaging hardware.

You wouldn't use a synchrotron for this; you need something called a "free electron laser". This science is in its infancy, and single-molecule imaging with FELs is still only theoretically possible. And it still isn't clear whether the resolution limit will be as good as we can get with crystallography. It's a very promising avenue of research, but it will probably take another decade for it to become truly practical, and decades longer (if ever) for it to supplant crystallography. (And FELs are neither small nor cheap - not that a state-of-the-art synchrotron is either, for that matter.)

I think you read into my post way too much.

I never said Solar/wind can't serve as baseload, I just said that they're still MORE EXPENSIVE than the sources typically used for baseload - coal, nuclear, and hydro, basically.

no-fuel.org link - depends on the size of your grid to actually make 'wind's always blowing somewhere' true. Doesn't change that a 1 GW max output windfarm is more likely to average 30-40% of what a 1 GW nuclear plant would produce over time. You need near perfect wind for the windfarm to reach max production, too fast or too slow and production drops.

for the stanford link -

Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission grid is a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by wind intermittency.

Additional interconnects cost money. A power source that costs $1/watt of maximum capacity costs more per kwh than a power source that costs $2/watt if the first only produces, on average, 30% of it's capacity while the second averages 90%.

Getting back to EVs vs Gasoline engines, the biggest problem with EVs is the battery. They're simply not good enough, not cheap enough. Often the cost of battery depreciation exceeds the cost of the electricity used as fuel over the life of the pack.

here we go again with the baseload fairytale.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
http://www.no-fuel.org/index.php?id=242

I remember being told a long time ago that some researchers will basically make several permutations of the same paper to submit to a bunch of different places. It's essentially the same paper, with nothing new in it, but if you can get several places to publish it, you can pad out your publications list.

So what? You can't plagiarize yourself. Researchers put out multiple, nearly identical papers all the time, especially those published in conference proceedings. (For example, this guy just go elected vice president of the American Physical Society.) It's also very common to recycle review material from one paper you have written to use in another.

This is entirely distinct from university academic misconduct policies which require papers and so forth submitted in fulfillment of course requirements to be original, i.e. not submitted to other courses.

Did you mean to reference Newton's Principles of Math in Nature (Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica)?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-principia/

Principia Mathematica is a more recent composition by Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead. I only mention this because I have a (33 year old) friend who learned calculus from Newton's untranslated Latin text. She can do square roots in her sleep...

As my wife says, "calculus has not changed much in the last 6 years, but my textbook has gone through 3 revisions in that time!"

I don't think basic calculus has changed in a few centuries.

Try reading the translated Principia Mathematica. (I won't ask you to go read the Latin)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/

The math itself hasn't changed. The way we write it has. It's like Shakespearian English vs. Modern English with all the variants in between.

You appear to be talking about this:
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/cm.html

It's the Latency, Stupid was written way back in the dark ages (1996), but Stuart Cheshire's essay on latency vs. bandwidth is still a good read.

He's gotten an early start on celebrating what would be John Lennon's 70th birthday.

That relates to this story in another way: George Harrison formed Handmade Films in order to finance the Monty Python film The Life of Brian. And another Python film, The Meaning of Life, features in its intro...wait for it...a moving building (tip: skip to 5:30 to see it).

Guess I've got Beatles on the Brain.

it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if—

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;

(2) the collections of the library or archives are
(i) open to the public, or
(ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and

(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.
(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if—

(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.

If you're referencing personal preservation rights then you should read this article from the Standford Libraries on copyright and fairuse.

If you already know C then it makes sense to jump into iOS programming. There are also a lot of really good resources from Apple to get you started :

- The iOS Dev Center has very extensive documentation on everything from the OjectiveC language to Apple's GUI guidelines and everything in between.
- There's a Stanford iPhone programming course you can download for free on iTunesU along with slides, assignments, etc. which is excellent.
- Very active userbase around the web, if you have a problem just Google it and somebody will have already discussed it somewhere

The downside is the cost which runs at $100 for a developer license (which you can get around if you don't mind jailbreaking) and you'll need a mac to do development, unless of course you use the open source toolchain but I wouldn't recommend it for beginners. If you work for an educational institution you might get a free dev license, I know Apple sometimes do this for students but I don't know the

You should read this:

Emotions Can Negatively Impact Investment Decisions. One of the study's authors was the same person, Antoine Bechara, who authored the other paper you mention.

One study does not equate with proof or dis-proof.

Assuming this is the link to the right article:
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~jonsid/savantcis.pdf

Then actually yes the system is aware of parallel vehicles and can avoid such collisions.
Reading some of the article looks like this is more of an exercise in neural networks than anything else.

What scares me most but actually makes sense is that the system does not have any video feed, and as far as I can tell, no feed of objects behind the car. It's strictly forward + side looking, and by "looking" I mean a Laser "RADAR".
An interesting aspect is that all of the "video" information (eg traffic light status) is to be obtained via live feed from "the authorities". This car does not have the sensors to figure out whether a light is red or green. Nor does it have any other video info (citing too costly processing requirements).

Sounds like it could be a pretty good driver assist (sophisticated cruise control + accident prevention), but looks like a truly autonomous vehicle is still some ways off.

• Study 1
• Study 2
• Study 3
• Study 4
• Bonus article

Let me know when you're done with those and I'll find some more.

As several earlier posts point out, the objectivity of Kraken is in question. Indeed, the Mozilla blog post says nothing about the substance of the benchmark. Why should we believe that this is a "step in the right direction"?

Some research has recently been published about the characteristics of popular JavaScript programs: An Analysis of the Dynamic Behavior of JavaScript Programs. At the end of the conference presentation, the first author (Richards) said that he was working on developing JavaScript benchmarks based on their analysis. I'd be curious to see how Richards' benchmarks compares to Kraken.

Actually, it is the income taxes.

Actually, using your scenario and even real world data, no, income taxes are not an issue for manufacturing in the United States.

About 22%, on avarege, of the price of American goods goes to pay income taxes incurred by US manufacturers. About 11.5% is recoverable by the companies if the income tax went away. Would a $25,000 Jeep Liberty selling for $22,125 sell better?

I believe you and I will have a very strong agreement on the importance of manufacturing in the United States. It is not only important for the United States economically but also for our national security and future prosperity. But where we will disagree is on income taxes imposed on manufacturing corporations.

First let me state that I think you are on to a very accurate and strong principle that has to do with global competition. Part of the cost in global competition is related to taxes and the cost of running the government of each nation. If the United States is bearing the burden of security costs around the world while other nations skimp on governmental security expenses then the United States will be placed at a significant economic disadvantage. All one has to do is look at French history before and after the American Revolutionary War to see how economic burden can destroy a nation.

That said, corporate taxes are levied on Gross Profits, not Retail Sales Prices. Based on this fact it becomes readily apparent that the amount of tax dollars in the retail price of a manufactured good is completely dependant upon the Gross Profit Margin. So we end up with the following equation:

gross % margin = tax % of retail price / corporate % tax rate

You say on average U.S. manufacturers have a 22% income tax burden attached to the price of retail goods. So we can calculate the average gross margin and verify this with real world numbers. 22% / 35% = 63% Gross Margin.

I am not sure where you acquired that 22% number but to me it looks like BS. From my personal experience with gross margins in electronics manufacturing a 63% gross margin profit is unheard of. In fact, based on recent data the highest gross margin for electronics manufacturers was 58.4%. From my experience the average gross margin is more like 20% to 40%.

And while I understand you are only making a point with the auto analogy I must point out that auto manufacturers have abysmal profit margins and as a result the average cost of corporate income taxes on the retail price of a car is more like 1%.

As I explicitly stated, I am not resigning in shame over the codebase. The program Danny, Jacob, and others rightly tore apart has no common lineage with what would have eventually become the Haystack release. As part of our short-lived attempt to open up, I described the design of that program in a lengthy post to liberation-tech. It is a generally reasonable design that could have worked. I believe the idea still has merit, and hope it is somehow pursued.

It is a shame it is conflated with the broken test program that, for better or for worse, saw a more general distribution than ever intended. (But then again, I should not be surprised.)

---- posted in verbatim for /. proof ----

Theres been a lot of alarming but rather brief statements in the past few days about Haystack, the anti-censorship software connected with the Iranian Green Movement. Austin Heap, the co-creator of Haystack and co-founder of parent non-profit, the Censorship Research Center, stated that it had halted ongoing testing of Haystack in Iran; EFF made a short announcement urging people to stop using the client software; the Washington Post wrote about unnamed engineers who said that lax security in the Haystack program could hurt users in Iran.

A few smart people asked the obvious, unanswered question here: What exactly happened? With all that light and fury, there is little public info about why the worlds view of Haystack should switch from it being a step forward for activists working in repressive environments that provides completely uncensored access to the internet from Iran while simultaneously protecting the users identity to being something that no-one should consider using.

Obviously, some security flaw in Haystack had become apparent, but why was the flaw not more widely documented? And why now?

As someone who knows a bit of the back story, Ill give as much information as I can. Firstly, let me say I am frustrated that I cannot provide all the details. After all, I believe the problem with Haystack all along has been due to explanations denied, either because its creators avoided them, or because those who publicized it failed to demand one. I hope I can convey why we still have one more incomplete explanation to attach to Haystacks name.

(Those whod like to read the broader context for what follows should look to the discussions on the Liberation Technology mailing list. Its an open and public mailing list, but it with moderated subscriptions and with the archives locked for subscribers only. Im hoping to get permission to publish the core of the Haystack discussion more publicly.)

First, the question that I get asked most often: why make such a fuss, when the word on the street is that a year on from its original announcement, the Haystack service was almost completely nonexistant, restricted to only a few test users, all of whom were in continuous contact with its creators?

One of the things that the external investigators of Haystack, led by Jacob Appelbaum and Evgeny Morozov, learned in the past few days is that there were more users of Haystack software than Haystacks creators knew about. Despite the lack of a public executable for examination, versions of the Haystack binary were being passed around, just like unofficial copies of Windows (or videos of Iranian political violence) get passed around. Copying: its how the Internet works.

We were also told that Haystack had a centralized, server-based model for providing the final leg of the censorship circumvention. We were assured that Haystack had a high granularity of control over usage. Surely those servers could control rogue copies, and ensure that bootleg Haystacks were exc

I'm late to this party, but: http://honorcode.stanford.edu/

Yes, pretty much every other US college has a pledge or policy like that (including the one I studied at). It is rarely or never properly enforced and not adhered to by students. (A cheater knows that what he's doing is wrong, pledge or no pledge.) If anything, it hinders punishment of cheaters -- when faced with the harsh decision to suspend/expel the cheater, ruin their lives and lose $10,000s in tuition money, the university usually decides to ignore the issue instead. (Proper solution IMO: F for the course, marked in the transcript as caused by "cheating".)

I'm late to this party, but: http://honorcode.stanford.edu/

but realistically its hard to see the rights to the Star Wars music for instance reverting to the individual orchestra after 35 years

Because the statute in question explicitly exempts works for hire. Which is why the GP's point is immaterial -- this orchestra is performing a work for hire, and the copyright holding company's charter explicitly releases the work into the public domain, which according to Stanford is ok. Of course they could be wrong but I trust Stanford more than I trust phiz187.

Just throwing this out there, I don't have the energy/mindset to talk about cyborgs theory whatsoever, but give Miz Haraway a shot if any of this Cyborg definition interests you. The Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century"

No it doesn't. The Earth is rotating and this may be demonstrated by experiment, ergo it cannot be said to be at rest. You can argue that one inertial frame of reference is as good as any other, but the Earth is not an inertial frame.

Ah but it is - in it's own locality within spacetime. That was one of two concepts the the Gravity Probe B experiment was all about:
Overview: http://einstein.stanford.edu/
Frame dragging: http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html#two_effects

"E si pur mouve" - true. More so in light of the above experiment - even if Galileo never said it ;)

No it doesn't. The Earth is rotating and this may be demonstrated by experiment, ergo it cannot be said to be at rest. You can argue that one inertial frame of reference is as good as any other, but the Earth is not an inertial frame.

Ah but it is - in it's own locality within spacetime. That was one of two concepts the the Gravity Probe B experiment was all about:
Overview: http://einstein.stanford.edu/
Frame dragging: http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html#two_effects

"E si pur mouve" - true. More so in light of the above experiment - even if Galileo never said it ;)

The estimates are that the cheaply available fissile material will be gone in about 70 years at the current rates of production.

True, but extremely misleading. Nuclear power is energetically profitable even with very expensive fissile material. Nuclear power plants consume astoundingly small amounts of fuel - a pound of uranium generates as much energy as 400,000 pounds of coal. A 10% increase in the price of coal makes a big difference to a coal plant. A 10% increase (or even 10000% increase) in the price of uranium is negligible to a nuclear plant. The energetic and financial cost of nuclear fuel is miniscule compared to the overhead costs of operating a nuclear plant.

A lot of people (including you) have no real idea just how much nuclear fuel the Earth contains. If we allow breeder reactors (which President Carter banned for political reasons related to nuclear weapons), uranium fuel will last for billions of years at current rates of consumption. Even if you allow for a drastically increased rate of consumption, it's still enough for several hundred million years.

What's most striking about the calculation in the link above is that it is so simple. It's not like oil reserve estimates where governments can fudge the numbers, and even the experts disagree. Anyone can take a sample of seawater and check the concentration of uranium.

These figures are with presently proven technology. No assumptions about future technology are required.

With frankencamera you could do HDR and a lot more things in an "intelligent" camera with software. In fact the first implementation in a mass consumption device was in the N900, it takes several photos, regulates exposition and other parameters to make that photo in a more parametrizable way that the iphone could do. But not sure if that would be enough for HDR video, if needs that the input, in real time, have different something at hardware level. In that case maybe something like this 3D camera would be needed. And could give some meaning to such devices... not only shooting in 3d, but in HDR video.

Stanford University's "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)" ( http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html ) has an analysis of how literature of Western Civilization has treated the subject of Zombies beginning with Descartes at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/.

If the course in question incorporates this level of discussion in the classes and homework and enable the students to improve their critical thinking and related analytical skills, it really doesn't matter if the "hook" to get students to take the course was the subject of Zombies, slasher flicks, or even a "critical" analysis of the Police Academy movies.

I have one off-spring currently in college studying to be an electrical engineer and can only hope that sometime in the next few years he can take a course that provides that type of "cross subject" context.

Stanford University's "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)" ( http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html ) has an analysis of how literature of Western Civilization has treated the subject of Zombies beginning with Descartes at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/.

If the course in question incorporates this level of discussion in the classes and homework and enable the students to improve their critical thinking and related analytical skills, it really doesn't matter if the "hook" to get students to take the course was the subject of Zombies, slasher flicks, or even a "critical" analysis of the Police Academy movies.

I have one off-spring currently in college studying to be an electrical engineer and can only hope that sometime in the next few years he can take a course that provides that type of "cross subject" context.

I've found that Wikipedia is actually a very reliable source.

Case in point: I compared the Wikipedia article with the Stanford article on the "Identity of Indiscernibles", a standard falsehood that is taught by philsophers everywhere as an almost axiomatic truth.

While the Standford article is still terrible, it is marginally better than the Wikipedia article. However, when I get a spare minute I will update the Wikipedia article to refer to the reference in the Stanford article that gets things at least vaguely correct, although it uses the bizarre and counter-intuitive formulation that the indiscernibles are not identical "in quantum mechanics", as if quantum mechanics did not describe reality. It also completely misses the deep and compelling proof that indiscernibles are not necessarily identical, which is the statistics of counting of identical particles. In any case, the Stanford article has pointed me toward a reasource to make the Wikipedia article better, and it is inevitable that Wikipedia will continue to improve in this way.

I like SuperGenPass. It never actually saves a copy of your passwords, it algorithmically generates them from the site's domain name and your master password.

I like this approach. Is this similar to Stanford's PwdHash bookmarklet? I've never heard of SuperGenPass or its author before. Here's a caution about not using it on pages you don't trust: http://akibjorklund.com/2009/supergenpass-is-not-that-secure

PwdHash online version: https://www.pwdhash.com/
Firefox add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1033/)

Anyone heard of the Sokal affair?

I think they might have.

Still waiting for the page to load...(thanks /.) But how can you beat an article about zombies from an "authoritative" source!? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

No, it's not legal to copy the articles to Wikipedia, since they grant no other right than free view. See their copyright: basically the author retains the copyright, and grants Stanford the right to publish the article electronically.

Where do you get this from?

Umm, people I've met who did it, reading and the like.

Here's three fairly prestigious ones for starters:

http://www.hbs.edu/mba/faq/#app_work

http://www.tuck.dartmouth.edu/admissions/faqs/index.html

http://www.stanford.edu/group/mba/blog/2007/08/no_work_experience_required_to.html

http://www.topmba.com/articles/ukireland/uk-meeting-mba-challenge

P.S. Did your MBA include statistics?

No I'm not. You are confusing the first and second incompleteness theorems.

OK, you made me read your post again.

(incidentally you forgot the assumptions Godel made for 2), showing that for example, there are consistent maths, we just don't use them, as they're not infinite, and not "generally useful" whatever that means)

There are indeed limited mathematics which are built upon first order logic and which are consistent and complete. They can even be infinite, if you allow for an infinite number of axioms by using an axiom scheme. But they are not strong enough to express arithmetics.

Additionally you forget the followup proofs, there are no consistent theories that can prove the consistency of "meaningful" mathematics (ie. +, -, *, /, n -> n + 1, ...). It's not just that the consistency of Peano arithmetic cannot be proved inside Peano arithmetic, it can't be proved, at all (in any meaningfull way : the only way to "prove" it is to accept it's correctness as axiom).

Using nothing but logic, one can build two kinds of mathematics which are strong enough (i.e. being of second order) to express arithmetics:
1) consistent (but incomplete) ones,
2) inconsistent ones - you say that all mathematics is inconsistent, but that is just plain wrong. Unless if one uses a paraconsistent logic to prevent the ex falso sequitur quodlibet, inconsistent mathematics is trivially complete, because all well-formed formulas would be true.
3) Gödel proves that the third kind, mathematics which are complete AND consistent do not exist.
3') One could consider mathematical theories of which we do not know if they are consistent or not as a third kind of mathematics, I don't know if anybody has ever constructed a mathematical system of which it can be proven that it is undecidable wether it is consistent or not (sounds like a nice project actually.)

So really math is not consistent (if something cannot be proved, even if not actually disproved, you cannot reasonably say that it *is*, because it isn't). You can NOT say that math (arithmetic) is consistent, that's WRONG. You *can* say it's inconsistent

You are confusing "consistency" with "completeness".

(if you've proven, correctly, that a plane can never be observed flying, is it really such a stretch to say that it's going to crash when it's haning up in the air and time is frozen ?).

I have no clue what you are talking about.

This is also not the sole problem with numbers. There are all sorts of unsolved paradoxes with even the natural number "infinite". (more general there are paradoxes that apply to any collection with infinite elements)

Yes, that's why there is a movement called finitism in maths.

And this is talking about *just* natural numbers. rational numbers and, God help us, real numbers have much, much worse problems than mere doubts. It is known that rational numbers are inconsistent, and real numbers cannot be proven to even exist. There are no known ways to construct real numbers that are not simple extensions of rational numbers.

Of course the existence of real numbers can be proved: take a triangle with a 90 angle & with both legs on that angle having a length of 1. Then the length of the third leg is a real number, SQR(2). It is easy to proof that SQR(2) is not integer nor rational. Now, defining and constructing real numbers is harder and there are non-standard mathematics which try to address the problems you hint at.

Well, propositional logic can be proven to be consistent (there are no contradictions) AND complete (all true propositions can be proven out of the axioms), so can first order predicate logic (in the PhD dissertation of Gödel, 1929).

To construct arithmetic out of logic, we however need second order predicate logic. Gödel (1930, published 1931) showed that axiomatic systems in second order logic are either incomplete (true non-provable sentences can be constructed) OR they are inconsistent (containing contradictions).

Ebola only occurs in one part of the world unlike malaria

Except that's not true. Here's a table of known cases of ebola outbreaks published by the CDC. In 1976 there was one in England. In the US the first one was in 1989. Other countries with outbreaks not in Africa is Italy and the Philippines.

Falcon

Hmm, with that resolution we could do the science fiction standard nonsense:

The fascinating part of that scene is that it actually is extremely close to reality. We already have tons of gigapixel images floating around on the net and in terms of resolution they seem to be quite up on par with the Bladerunner image (i.e. 10 gigapixel or so). The Bladerunner image gets a bit further in that it is not only 2D, but actually a bit 3D, but even that is possible with lightfield photography. Now today those gigapixel images are produced by cameras mounted on robots, but when you look at Sweep Panorama it is not hard to imagine that in a few years down the road we will be shooting those images with regular consumer gear. The final issue one might complain about is that he scans what looks like an actual analog photo for all that, but it is not hard to imagine that the picture itself might not contain all that data, but instead contain it on an embedded chip (see MicroSD) or the printed picture could just act as key to the full-res picture stored on the cloud. Or of course, maybe print resolution just got better, after all a 10 gigabyte image should fit nicely on a BluRay and thats about the same size as a photo.

i want this

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/ /. posted it here ~5 years ago.. still waiting

http://slashdot.org/articles/05/11/21/2316216.shtml?tid=126&tid=152