Slashback: Hilbert's, Transgenic, Silicon

Slashback tonight with another round of updates and corrections to recent stories, including transgenic fish, Hilbert's 16th problem, Microsoft's FAT patent plans, Utah's hyped public fiber network, and more. Read on for the details.

Still an acorn at this point. Jose Nazario writes with a correction to my recent post claiming that OpenBSD had gained a "fuzzy" user-profiling IDS. Jose writes: "It is NOT in tree. it is a privately developed research project. It is not an official project."

And Yes, the Apple I schematics were available, too. In response to the recent article about the freely available chip design from opencores.org implemented by Flextronics, Henry Keultjes offers a reminder that this is not the first time chip whose internals have been open for inspection:

"Happened quite some time ago with PowerPC. That's the essence of Microsoft's deal with IBM because without that Open Architecture Microsoft would have had to buy a lot more than it did. This for example is used in a roughly $150 French set-top box that has USB and, according to a friend in the UK who has tried that, runs just fine as a PC with the attached USB HDD, KB and rodent."

Could Wayne Inouye sell you an eMachine? After reading many pointed comments in the story about eMachine's Athlon offerings, arrasmith writes "To add to the topic of AMD64 eMachines and the launch of "I hate eMachine" posts I'll throw out why you should buy one.

eMachines are the number-3 seller of computers, only behind Dell and HP. If you are wondering about how that happened, you need to read about the new CEO.

Wayne Inouye has had some articles published about him in Business Week and Forbes. Great articles on how you can sell good computers at reasonable prices. And if you are wondering why eMachines is selling an AMD64 system read the Business Week article."

OK, as long as you buy it from us. Alien54 writes "As reported in the most recent Spyware Info Newsletter, Dell seems to have listened to the criticism handed to them last week, after their decision to forbid tech support persons from providing assistance to spyware-infected customers became public knowledge. They have partnered with PestPatrol, Inc. to sell Pest Patrol's spyware removal software to Dell customers. It is interesting to note that Dell does not recommend any freeware or shareware product because 'we cannot test these open source utilities reliably.' Which is simply silly, of course."

Utah may not be Utopia after all. brysnot writes "The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the Utopia project, which plans to run fiber to every home in Utah, has miscalculated its 2003 budget and now needs each member cities to come up with an additional $250,000. Also reported is that 'Its largest member, Salt Lake City, is uncertain whether to provide financial backing to guarantee payment of the principal and interest on the bonds the project needs -- a development that could force the project to be scaled back.'"

Writes Lighthop "The best way to overcome Qwest's vast resources and well orchestrated opposition is for citizens and business owners to speak out and let their city council members know we support them in approving UTOPIA's funding. We have to be visible and give them some political cover.

The 18 UTOPIA member cities are Brigham City, Cedar City, Cedar Hills, Centerville, Layton, Lindon, Midvale, Murray, Orem, Payson, Perry, Riverton, Roy, Salt Lake City, South Jordan, Taylorsville, Tremonton and West Valley."

Hilbert's 16th is still a problem. commodoresloat writes "The work of Elin Oxenhielm, the 22-year old Swedish student who apparently solved part of the 16th Hilbert problem, is coming under heavy fire from some prominent mathematicians, including her own adviser, who said the work contained "serious mistakes, which I think any educated mathematician can easily see." Here's an article in English. Oxenhielm responded to the criticism by saying that the journal that accepted her work, which now owns the copyright, is responsible for any errors. More information on this weblog."

Periscope is up, showdown commences. McSpew writes "The Register states that Microsoft's patents on the FAT filesystem may be subject to new scrutiny, thanks to their announced plan to collect royalties from media and CE manufacturers. The Public Patent Foundation is behind the effort to get the USPTO to start from scratch with Microsoft's FAT patents."

FDA gives GM fish sales the eerie green light. fishfishfish writes "The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Tuesday released a statement saying that it will not be stopping the sale of transgenic Zebra danios in the USA. The move could allow fish retailers in any U.S. state to sell the fish. Apart from California, where Arnie has banned them..."

Comments

From her own adviser

[Adam_Trask]

including her own adviser, who said the work contained "serious mistakes, which I think any educated mathematician can easily see."...
We know geniuses tend to be social geeks, but getting that from your own adviser while you are still doing you PhD...wow! Good luck with that PhD!!

Re:From her own adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

clearly she is on an Annabel Chong o-thon.

what easier way to pul a load of guys (the sex starved ones being easier)??? she doesn't care about math, but expect the video in an internet retailer near you soon!

Re:From her own adviser

[Noren]

Zhou was her advisor when she got her Master's degree, but is no longer her advisor now that she's working on her PhD. From the blog cited in the story:

Finally, I have a correction. I have spoken of Yishao Zhou as being both Elin Oxenhielm's professor and supervisor. The fact is, though, that Zhou was an advisor for Oxenhielm's masters degree. She is neither her professor nor her current advisor. And the paper submitted to Nonlinear Analysis isn't a paper that Zhou has been an advisor for.

Re:From her own adviser

[kramer2718]

She's still very hot, and obviously very intelligent. I'm in love with her regardless whether or not the proof stands.

Re:From her own adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

"She's still very hot, and obviously very intelligent. I'm in love with her regardless whether or not the proof stands."

1) Publish solutions to hilbert equations, along with cute photo
2) ???
3) Boyfriend

(sorry!)

Dell is mixing upo OSS with Shareware/Freeware...

[Androgynous Coward]

...Dell does not recommend any freeware or shareware product becausefreeware or shareware product because 'we cannot test these open source utilities reliably.'

Someone should inform Dell that freeware and/or shareware products are not necessarily open-source.

AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Space cowboy]

So, assuming I get hold of one of these AMD 64-bit boxes, how hard/easy is it to get Linux compiled for 64-bit. What are the pitfalls with gcc (is an int 64 bit in 64-bit mode ?)

The only reviews I've seen are on Windows OS's running in 32 bit mode (why, for crying out loud, if linux runs on them cleanly...) I think I saw that RH and Suse have 64-bit offerings, but RH is expensive... never tried Suse ....

Just curious. Pointers to informative articles would be welcome :-)

Simon

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Anonymous Coward]

And, somehow, this question is topical?

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Fulcrum of Evil]

o, assuming I get hold of one of these AMD 64-bit boxes, how hard/easy is it to get Linux compiled for 64-bit. What are the pitfalls with gcc (is an int 64 bit in 64-bit mode ?)

Here is a list of supported distros. And yes, I believe an int is 64 bits in 64 bit mode

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Bradmont]

There's always Debian!

ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/woody/main/dis ks -ia64/

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Spoons]

ia64 is Intel's 64 bit arch (Itanium and Itanium-2). This won't run on AMD64 Cpus. There are a couple of people trying to put together Debian for AMD64 but there is no finished product yet.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Roadkills-R-Us]

An int *should* be 64 bits with a 64 bit processor. If not, somebody goofed up!

``RH is expensive...'' If it's Linux, they have to provide source for free, remember? The source they compiled from? Right?

Though we've been primarily a Red Hat shop to date (with almost 300 RH8 boxes at the moment), we do have one copy of SuSe running - on our dual Opteron. Lovely software. We bought it with the system, but again - they have to provide free source!

Of course, if you want free binaries, that could be a bit trickier. But even most of those can be got for free. As one of the big vendors freely admits (once you corner them 8^) they aren't primarily selling software (though there may be some non-copyable material on the CDs); they're selling support.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[mcelrath]

An int on a 64-bit CPU is 32-bits. A long int is 64 bits and an int* is 64 bits. Thus most C code is highly compatible. The fatal flaw being when programmers assume sizeof(int)=sizeof(int*) which fails.

The other posts in this thread indicating otherwise are wrong. An int is 32 bits on 64-bit archs under linux and gcc. (I know, I have 2 alphas and a sparc)

-- Bob

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[nsayer]

There is a standard notation for this sort of question.

Most of us work with enviroments described best as ILP32. That is, ints, longs and pointers are 32 bits.

So far as I have read, most of the time folks talk about 64 bit arches, they mean LP64 (ints are 32 bits, longs and pointers are 64 bits).

Windows 3.1 (without win32 extensions) was IP16, for what that's worth. Ints and pointers were 16 bits, longs were 32.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[timeOday]

An int *should* be 64 bits with a 64 bit processor. If not, somebody goofed up!

I sure don't feel that way. Having 'long int' and 'int' mean the same thing seems pointles, and should 'short' mean 16 or 32 bits? Why not just do it like Sparc:

char 1
short 2
int 4
long 8
long long 8
void * 8
float 4
double 8
long double 16

I can't imagine there are modern general-purpose 64 bit platforms which don't handle 32 bit values efficiently.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[nsayer]

Oops. I've been corrected... Win31 was LP32. I found a page that talks about all of this stuff.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[timeOday]

In the Windows 31 era you had to manually select the desired pointer size, they had this notion of "far" pointers. (I was about to deride that situation, but in a few years maybe people will think short/int/long/long long is stupid and wonder why we didn't just use 64 bit everything.)

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[iminplaya]

I'm confused. Should it matter which distro you're running? I understand that different distros have different programs, but the kernel and modules are similar, right?

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[JoeBuck]

No, on 64-bit Linux platforms int is still 32 bits, while long is 64 bits. Pointers are also 64 bits.

The two most common C models are commonly referred to as ILP32 (int, long, pointers all 32 bit) or LP64 (long and pointer are 64 bit).

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[stonecypher]

Insightfully wrong.

A 64-bit platform is a platform which has been attacked by marketroids. The C Standard says nothing about the sizes of any of the base types in comparison to any of the various sizes a 64-bit platform might choose to support, rather referring only to comparisons: char may not be longer than int, short may not be longer than int, long may not be shorter than int, et cetera.

Granted, many C compilers choose to ignore the advice of the standard, which is to implement int as the fastest integer type for native math, and implement it as a 32-bit because buttheads like you can't get through your thick skulls not to use raw types. But good compilers, and also good programmers, don't suffer such silly strictures.

vu8 * clueBat = "rtfm";

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Anonymous Coward]

long double 16

Dude, I saw that movie, that was smokin!

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[ron_ivi]

"int" should but in't required be whatever type is native to the processor; but is required to be at least 16 bits (thanks to a requirement that it can hold values from INT_MIN to INT_MAX whose minimum and maximum values are -32767 and 32767 respectively.

If your code cares beyond that, use the standard C types (defined in stdint.h) that specify the sizes.

From the many year old C99 standard (part B.17 Integer types ):

• If you want an exactly 64-bit type use an int64_t.
• If you want an exactly 32-bit type, use an int32_t.
• If you want a fast type that's at least 32 bits, use a int_least64_t.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[bluGill]

int was defined in K&R1 to the best size for the CPU to deal with. Short and char could be shorter, long could be longer. Then they had a chart showing how several "common" machines implimented it, which included one machine that implimented all of the above types with 36 bits.

I still think that int should be the easiest size for the machine to deal with. If your intiger math is all 64 bits, when I say int I mean that I don't want you take an extra step to make the result fit into 32 bits. If your CPU is 16 bits, then by int I mean don't go through the extra effort to do 32 bit addition.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[ron_ivi]

Parent wrote:"The C Standard says nothing about the sizes of any of the base types in comparison to any of the various sizes a 64-bit platform might choose to support, rather referring only to comparisons: char may not be longer than int, short may not be longer than int, long may not be shorter than int, et cetera."

Nonsense. ANSI C's description of requires that int's have a range of INT_MIN to INT_MAX, with a maximum value for INT_MIN being -32767 and INT_MAX being 32767. This implies a requirement of at least 16 bits for an int. (Yes, both end in a '7', but this still implies at least 16 bits). Similarly the range between LONG_MAX and LONG_MIN imply at least 32 bits for a long.

While we're at it, the C standard (ISO/IEC 9899, or C99) also specifies a range for
LLONG_MAX >= 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 and
LLONG_MIN

For more...
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~dglo/c_class/fundamental _types.html
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/
http://www.dinkumware.com/htm_cl/limits.html
http://home.tiscalinet.ch/t_wolf/tw/c/c9x_changes. html

PS: It's been years since the standard came out... but many people still think K&R C, which AFAIK had many fewer restrictions.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[ron_ivi]

No, they'll think we're stupid why we don't use the Standard C

"int_64t" where we require 64 bits, and

"int_32t" where we require 32 bits, and

"int" where we require a native size >= 16 bits.

More trivia, Some cool processors (like some TI DSPs) have 40-bit "long" datatypes, so sizeof(long)==5. Pretty cool?

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[donscarletti]

The length of data types are chosen by the compiler, not the chip. An int can be 256 bits on a 16 bit computer as long as it is no smaller than a char and no bigger than a long

And while we are on the topic of "serious mistakes, which I think any educated mathematician can easily see", I would like to point out that the logic of your sig is flawed.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidently, if you want exact-width types in C, you should use uint8_t, uint16_t, uint32_t, uint64_t, etc. which are defined in the header file stdint.h

stdint.h is a feature of C99 but there's nothing stopping you from writing a stdint.h file for your old C89 compiler.

Oh yes, there's a uintptr_t type in there too, for unsigned values that must be large enough to contain an address.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that "K&R1" had no compatibility issues to deal with.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[moncyb]

When you are talking about different processor architectures, distro does matter as it provides the precompiled binaries for your system to run. A program compiled for a PowerPC won't run on a IA32 (aka i386) system and vice versa.

The kernel and modules are even more critical. Sometimes the basic design of computers using the same processor are different, so the kernel/bootloader has to use different code to load the system. The only examples I can think of right now might be something like the Amiga, the classic Mac, and Atari ST. They all used the 680x0 processor, but I believe the rest of their designs were completely different.

It also matters which hardware options were precompiled into your kernel. If the distro left out ISA support (perhaps they assume everyone uses only PCI), then you can't boot their system on an older computer which uses ISA cards--such as a 386 or many 486s.

Even source based distros (such as Gentoo) have to use binaries at some point. You can't compile without a compiler binary, and you can't run a compiler binary (or even boot) without a kernel binary. Though with source based the maintainers probably have less work to support each new processor.

So, yes it does make a big difference which distro you use when you want to use a new (or less common or just different from what they decided to support) processor architecture. Most of them support the most common type (IA32), but some distros may wait before they try to support these new 64 bit processors, if at all. However IA32 support should work fine--assuming they are fully backwards compatible. The software just won't take advantage of the extra power.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think the original reason it became popular to have 32-bit ints was to be able to have 8, 16, 32 and 64-bit types on those architectures without resorting to compiler-specific extensions.

Otherwise programmers writing portable code would always either have to define their own, compiler-specific types for those systems or often have their data structures explode in size.

This was long before c99, of course.

Besides, I'm not aware of any 64-bit machine where computing with 32-bit values would be slower than 64-bit values. They both get allocated whole registers locally, but 64-bit values in data structures use up more memory bandwidth, cache etc. So the only thing you lose is range, and old programs would not assume 64-bit ints, anyhow...

Backward-compatibility is one of the most significant reasons why things evolve to be quite a mess.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you meant "int_least32_t" in that last exmaple. But yes, the standard C types that specify sizes should be used instead of blindly hoping.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[renoX]

>I still think that int should be the easiest size for the machine to deal with.

Correct, but any 64-bit CPU that I know about about instructions for manipulating 32bit variables easily too.
These "64bit" CPU manipulate 32bit value as easily as 64bit values, which means K&R rules that the int should be the "natural" int of the CPU doesn't tell you anything about wether an int should be 32 or 64 bit..

So I'm for the int=32bit and long=64bit rule..

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[beguyld]

Well, many of us do not use raw types. Bu here is the issue: if an int = 64 bits, then according to the rules of C, a long must also be 64 bits. If that happens, then there is NO WAY TO DEFINE A 32 BIT VALUE. And that is important for some types of programming (drivers, embedded, etc.) It would require some kind of compiler specific hack.

The problem here is like that of the Win2K issue, we are now crossing into the realm where the designers of the language (and the people that wrote programs in that language) did not think we would go.

The whole thing breaks down after 32 bits because an int can't be larger than a long. The model only has worked so far because there have been basically two sizes of int in wide use as we moved from 8 to 16 to 32 bits (8-bit compilers use int=16 bits). As long as the int was no smaller than a 'short' and no longer than a 'long' everything worked fine, and met the rules for an int. That requires that int be either 16 or 32 bits, and nothing else. Otherwise the value of long has be redefined to 64 bits instead of the 32 bits it always was, which starts to break some code.

This is true even for those of us that rarely use the int type at all, and carefully use short or long or longlong so we know the limits (usually through typedefs). Perhaps it is not a real disaster for everyone if longs become 64 bits and there is no 32 bit type, but it depends on what kind of code you're writing. The closer you are to the hardware the more potentional for trouble.

This has of course already been handled before with other machines, but it really will be hitting the mainstream now, and affecting a large amount of legacy code in coming years. I can see why the most direct route to not royally screwing up a lot of code is to just keep an int at 32 bits. Like today, the 64-bit value is there if you need it. But 32-bits is enough for most things, and it makes porting all the legacy software from PCs a whole lot easier.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Lars T.]

You mean C isn't a little vague about the size of int because it can't be less than 16 bit? My standard compliant int is 37 bit, with INT_MIN == -(INT_MAX*3). Will the Linux kernel compile?

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[cybersquid]

>then there is NO WAY TO DEFINE A 32 BIT VALUE

Can't speak for Opteron, but on our 64-bit sparc that would be a short.
Here are a few results:

Byte Bit
Type Size Size
---- ----- -----
char 1 8
int 4 32
short 2 16
long 8 64
void* 8 64

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[ron_ivi]

If it doesn't, that's really a shortcoming in the kernel itself.

C is intentionally a little vague about the sizes of ints.

Using your 37-bit CPU example:
If all you're doing is manipulating values from 1 to 1000, you really don't want your C compiler doing software-checks for 32-bit overflow and underflow every time you use your registers. You really want a type that matches the native register.

If this kernel you're trying to compile really needs a variable with math that has predictable 32-bit underflow and overflow, you want a int_32t.

PS: Is that 37-bit example real? I know of ones with 24 bit (some motorolla dsps), 20 bit (Zoran ZR 38001), and 40-bit (Texas Instruments 67XX.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[Lars T.]

PS: Is that 37-bit example real?

I would hope not ;-) I should have said "my hypothetical, yet fully standard compliant int...". The fact remains, things like int_32t are just retro-fitted sanity to C (and all offspring), and most programers are oblivious to that whole mess. This may haunt us as much as Y2K.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[ron_ivi]

I kinda agree. But I think it's the obliviousness that will haunt us more than the language spec itself. Mostly my comment was just meant to reduce the number of people oblivious to this mess.

It is nice that I can map a "int" to a register on DSPs (instead of having to have my 20-bit architecture emulate a 32-bit one with 2 registers).

The worst thing is that C++, AFAIK, is still even more of a mess than C in this regard.

At least with C, it is possible to write portable code. With C++, it's much much harder. Since the C++ standard apparently still ignored this issue, you're best off using the (awesome!) Boost libraries that bring the best parts of C to C++, such as their cstdin.hpp header file that takes care of fixed-sized types.-

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[vrmlguy]

Why not have the smallest addressable unit be a 16-bit value, instead of the now-standard 8 bits? This would remove the need to distinguish between chars and wchars, with "bytes" able to hold Unicode. Then, shorts would be two "bytes", or 32 bits, ints would be four "bytes", or 64 bits, and longs could even be 128 bits, without any issues.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[stonecypher]

Bu here is the issue: if an int = 64 bits, then according to the rules of C, a long must also be 64 bits. If that happens, then there is NO WAY TO DEFINE A 32 BIT VALUE.

You mean like a short? Or a wchar? or a char? Or maybe, er, by making a new type? or using the POSIX types? or a compiler specific extension? Hey, how about bitfields? Or reads over a thinner bus? Um, what about DMAs with read width? Or, I know, how about truncating opcodes? Hey, I know, there's always operator new, or overloading global new, or compositing still smaller types, or unions. Oh, wait, there's also going to be library support from any sane platform. Also, compilers for platforms which introduce base types that aren't in the C standard generally offer access to those base types; witness the varying reactions to Intel's 80-bit float.

See, 64-bit-base-ints are nothing new. If you'd crawl out of your MSVS cave, you'd realize that these things were solved in the 80s.

Also, that long doesn't have to be 64 bits - it could, and probably would be - larger.

And that is important for some types of programming (drivers, embedded, etc.)

Boy, I do embedded for a living. Maybe you should realize that the standard list of types is only the minimum list of types available, not the total list.

It would require some kind of compiler specific hack.

Hardware support base types are as much of a hack as support for a segmented memory model.

The problem here is like that of the Win2K issue, we are now crossing into the realm where the designers of the language (and the people that wrote programs in that language) did not think we would go.

Bullshit. The language was carefully designed for base type ignorance. They worked in an era where bytes were commonly 7,8,9 bits. Moreover, there were 64 bit machines back then just like there are now. Please start speaking out of the left side of your ass; the right side is getting overused.

Maybe you forget that the Playstation 2 is a 128-bit machine and has been running C and C++ compilers without issues for years. Maybe you forget that the crays for which valarray was developed are generally 256bit machines, and have been running C for decades. Maybe you forgot Seymour Cray's comparison of the ease of adapting the C language to preposterous sizes to the degree by which Fortran could optimize.

Maybe what you don't understand is that the MFC and ATL were not designed for >32bits, and that that's not C or C++'s fault. The STL works fine in 64bit, 256bit, 1024bit. There're no problems. How's CString looking under CE to you? Want a thin character?

The whole thing breaks down after 32 bits because an int can't be larger than a long. The model only has worked so far because there have been basically two sizes of int in wide use as we moved from 8 to 16 to 32 bits (8-bit compilers use int=16 bits).

Weren't you the one talking about embedded just a minute ago? Do you not know what fixed point is? Have you never heard of a wchar, or posix types?

Here's an example, not the only possible one, of a valid progression of the powers of two using standard types.

char=8, wchar=16, short=32, int=64, long=128, long long=256 (yes, there's a long long.)

That gives machine support base types for ^4 the size you're whining about without new base types or using any of the half dozen standards for handling this setup already.

Remember comp? double? extended?

Otherwise the value of long has be redefined to 64 bits instead of the 32 bits it always was

Long hasn't always been 32 bits. For example, on the Honeywell 6000, a contemporary machine when C was created and one of the original reasons for C's portability, to build the Unix kernel on wildly varying machines, it was 36 bits. On the Casio Wizard, it was 28 bits. There are a number of non-power-of-two base size systems in use up and until the mid 1980s, when silico

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[beguyld]

Why not have the smallest addressable unit be a 16-bit value, instead of the now-standard 8 bits?

Because sometimes you really need 8 bit values. While there are ways around it, it can certainly be problematic in some cases.

Re:AMD 64bit CPU's and linux

[beguyld]

While I honestly have to admit that some of your points are relevant, some are way off base compared to what I was trying to say.

I'm not blaming the language for anything. I program almost exclusively in C and C++; apps, drivers and embedded code. And I like the languages a lot. For the work I do they are about the only reasonable solution. And I don't have much trouble with any size issues. I was attempting to make a point about the HUGE base of legacy code out there, and much of it is not good code. (are you really suprised?). So it will be a real problem, and someone will have to deal with it.

Granted, I may not have effectively communicated what I was trying to say, and you had some valid points and corrections. Sad thing is that your ranting and raving and sarcasm makes it difficult to have a rational discussion with you, so I'm not going to try.

Try doing a count of the number of times you used the word "YOU" in your reply and think about how that makes it a personal attack on someone rather than passing on information. (I see the same thing in some of your reponses to others) When passing on information, "YOU" does not get used very much. Read K&R and see how many times "you" is used to communicate information. Therefore, it seems your intent was not to communicate information. Worth considering what it really was...

This is the sort of attitude that gives techies a bad name. Your programming skills may be great, but if you are so abusive that people don't want to work with you, what is the point?

In the parent comment, you said "because buttheads like you can't get through your thick skulls not to use raw types" And that got modded up for being "insightful." The comment guidelines specifically say that "...Inflammatory... comments might be moderated" Sad thing is, it seems they actually get modded UP! Have to be careful what behaviour gets rewarded...

I've looked at some of your recent postings and you're obviously a very bright person that is able to reason effectively and make real contributions here. If you could just drop the personal insults....

the FDA?

[Mad_Rain]

So how come the Food and Drug Administration is the organization approving the sale of transgenic fish?

Isn't there a more appropriate group to be handling this? Sure, let the FDA approve them if you plan on eating the fish, but I figured they were for display only. ;)

Re:the FDA?

[Carnildo]

My understanding is that the FDA is the last agency to say either "this isn't under our jurisdiction" or "we see no problem with it". The other agencies that might be involved have already given it the green light.

Re:the FDA?

[el-spectre]

Because a day-glow fish is highly likely to become food :)

Re:the FDA?

[iminplaya]

" Isn't there a more appropriate group to be handling this?"
Maybe the ASPCA? On the other hand the FDA is involved because there is going to be a lot of pledges eating them next fall.

Re:the FDA?

[penguinoid]

So how come the Food and Drug Administration is the organization approving the sale of transgenic fish?

Depends. Do they also approve cat food? :-)

Re:the FDA?

[ron_ivi]

Wonder what they say about other GM fish like these fish that were genetically engineered to grow faster

Re:the FDA?

[AigariusDebian]

Then those poor night glow fishes would all be eaten already by those hungry /.ers going pass the the aquarium to the fridge.

Re:the FDA?

[AigariusDebian]

at 2 in the night that is. :)

Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Ryne]

From the weblog:
The fact is, though, that Zhou was an advisor for Oxenhielm's masters degree. She is neither her professor nor her current advisor.

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Ryne]

Oh, and here is Elin's take on the story:
http://www.ozenhielm.com/

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Ryne]

Great, replying two times to my own post. The address should be:
http://www.oxenhielm.com

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

err... to quote firebird "the website could not be found".

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think that the mathematical criticism on my paper 'On the Second Part of Hilbert's 16th Problem' has been very constructive, and I welcome it. It is an open problem and there lies a great prestige in solving it. It is a natural thing that people try to find flaws in my proof, and I was expecting this from the very start. Unfortunately, there exist many rumours about me and my paper,..."

It is a natural thing that people try to find flaws in my proof???
A proof is a proof. It may have no flaws, otherwise it is not a proof.

"I refer to Nonlinear Analysis at http://www.sciencedirect.com. They have evaluated the paper, they accepted it for publication and they have the copyright of its contents"
As much as it may seem nice, developing a mathematical proof is not the same as working for a company saying "there, I've done what I said, you did not dispute me then, so you have no recourse now...".

a mathematical proof promotes one's reputation in the math world... getting it wrong may not be all bad if you had some good ideas along the way which can be worked though (historical proofs are very tough, just getting near is great credibility). denying responsibility makes the author sound petty, childish, headline grabbing and ultimately incompetant.

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

"A proof is a proof. It may have no flaws, otherwise it is not a proof."

Whatever you meant by that, it betrays a real ignorance of the nature of mathematics...

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

why?

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in casual conversation a proof is still *called* a "proof" even if it is an incorrect proof. This is just the way it semantically works.

Re:Zhou is currently not her advisor

[joto]

It is a natural thing that people try to find flaws in my proof???

A proof is a proof. It may have no flaws, otherwise it is not a proof.

While technically true, this has very little to do with how mathematics work. I'm sure you've seen "funny proofs", that try to convince the reader that 2+2=1 or a right angle is acute, etc... The reason we are fooled by these "proofs", are that it's very easy to overlook one small flaw in a mathematical proof.

While "funny proofs" are deliberate, it should come as no surprise that errors sneak into serious mathematics too. Let's face it, math is hard, and it's easy to do mistakes. There are steps you can take to minimize the errors, such as looking for counterexamples, peer-reviewing the proof, and checking the proof by an automated proof checker.

None of these are guaranteed to work. First, you may not be able to come up with counterexamples for something that's wrong. Second, it is possible for thousands of people to not catch an error, just as it is possible for one person to do so. And third, the proof-checker itself may not work correctly, and it is also a hassle to write proofs in the amount of detail needed for automated checking to work.

Finally, this was never even claimed to be a proof, it was more like a "proof-sketch", which means, if she was right, it should be possible to develop a complete proof from the ideas she presented.

a mathematical proof promotes one's reputation in the math world... getting it wrong may not be all bad if you had some good ideas along the way which can be worked though (historical proofs are very tough, just getting near is great credibility). denying responsibility makes the author sound petty, childish, headline grabbing and ultimately incompetant.

Agreed.

Why is there no law.....

[Microsofts slave]

that makes it impossible for a patent holder to hold people hostage on a technology after it becomes ubiquitous.

Re:Why is there no law.....

[stewball]

because charging rents on the use of a patented invention is exactly the purpose of patents. they're very powerful, which is why they're limited in time and geography. they've also been pretty badly abused in the last few years, not in terms of charging license fees for legitimate patents, but in what one can ram through the pto.

you may also, if you like, challenge the whole concept of people having the exclusive rights to an invention, no matter how radical and new. people have. myself, i think it's a good idea when implemented properly.
--------------------

Re:Why is there no law.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because it's hard to legally define what "ubiquitous" is.

Re:Why is there no law.....

[Cajun Hell]

There's no market for such a law. Who would buy it?

Re:Why is there no law.....

[JoeBuck]

There are rules that require disclosure of pending patents during standards body proceedings, which is where Rambus originally got into trouble (trick people into making something a standard, without mentioning that you have patent pending on it). But it appears that they won on appeal.

Re:Why is there no law.....

[Dyolf Knip]

Why is there no law that makes it impossible for a patent holder to hold people hostage on a technology after it becomes ubiquitous?

Because I've already patented it! And companies are paying me millions _not_ to license it to Congress.

Re:Why is there no law.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, that's insightful.

Re:Why is there no law.....

[stonecypher]

It's called "Submarining a patent." Read Title III.

The real problem is how difficult it is to define whether a product has become ubiquitous. For a lesson in how difficult that is, refer to CompuServe's superficially compelling arguments about the dominance of JPEG that allowed them to fool a judge into thinking the resurfacing of the LZ patents was okay. Sometimes a patent really can't be judged in time, and sometimes a company gets into commercialization beforehand knowing fully well that it'll have to stop; see the issue with the chemical that made wacky wall walkers, and Klutz Press.

Re:Why is there no law.....

[GreatBallsOfFire]

Hey, did Microsoft screw up?

They did offer up a FAT32 standard for EFI, used in IA64 boot partitions. The did this, guaranteeing your safety through a mutual "no sue" clause. In effect, they actively misrepresented their intentions by luring people to use the standard, then turn around and use strong arm tactics on the semiconductor folks.

Go to their page at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/hardware/fatge n.mspx and read the agreement. It specifically says you can use their file system in any operating system that will make use of EFI, the IA64 booting standard.

What this means is:

1. That operating systems such as linux can incorporate FAT32 as long as it runs on an Itanium platform.
2. Only the semiconductor folks are screwed due to 1(b) of the agreement, because it is possible to show that a flash device is a microprocessor circuit and excluded from "Necessary Claims."

I am not a lawyer, but this is what I think I read in the agreement.

Conspiracy?

[jfmiller]

If one were a conspiracy theorist, and I am not, one might postulate that dell ether now or in the future plans to install spyware themselves and that open source programs would mess this up. Therefore they have told there techs not to recommend any of them, and now have found a willing corp. that will agree with them about the difference between marketing tools and spyware. Bu there is of course no proof and since I am not a conspiracy theorist, I will not make such accusations.

IANACT

JFMILLER

Re:Conspiracy?

[gl4ss]

well.. it's even more conspiracy that they are now probably only able to tell you about a commercial product that costs money to use.. ..as a problem solver to a problem every single one(that has internet and uses internet explorer) of their customers will have(that is, an extra cost they don't tell the customer up front about when they buy the computer).

for pest patrol i guess this will be a huge thing though, having shitloads of drones hurled their way without knoweledge of anything better/free.

in any other field of business they would be facing some serious shit from customer watchdog groups(in areas where they have teeth).

Re:Conspiracy?

[Hanzie]

Sorry I just burned my mod points, or I'd give this +1 insightful.

Why UTOPIA?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the beginning, Utopia billed its networking venture as low risk to taxpayers. Once built, its proponents maintained, the network and its city owners would act as wholesalers providing access to the fiber-optic lines to private operations that could provide services such as video on demand, high-definition television and lightning-quick Internet connections.

What do the taxpayers get by building an infrastructure that will be turned over to private providers? Just wondering why I wouldn't want the private providers to build their own infrastructure.

Re:Why UTOPIA?

[penguinoid]

What do the taxpayers get by building an infrastructure that will be turned over to private providers? Just wondering why I wouldn't want the private providers to build their own infrastructure.

There are things known as "natural monopolies", in which producion costs decrease as the size of the firm increases. Networks (cables, piping, roads/railroads) belong to this category. It is more efficient for there to be a single shared network, than many small ones owned by some company who does not want to share it, reducing (potentially, at least) the cost for everyone. Just my $0.02; I did not RTFA.

Re:Why UTOPIA?

[sprekken]

Uh, didn't Qwest already build an infrastructure...? It is based on copper phone lines going to every house in the state.

I think that the Utopia project is the best thing that Utah has going for it. Seriously. The taxpayers not only get one of the best information infrastructures in the nation, but they also have the liberating privilege of choosing between many different companies' services.

Yes, Qwest already has an infrastructure, but it holds onto it with an iron fist. No competition, no choice, no opportunity for emerging companies to compete. With the control of this infrastructure in the cities' hands they can open it up for several different companies to lease. That makes it better for everyone... everyone that is except Qwest. Buahaaaahaahaaa!

Re:Why UTOPIA?

[t0ny]

So in other words, the taxpayers should have a redundant, government run version of an already existing service, which is run by an evil company who has coordination and resources?

Sounds highly stupid to me. I thought having the government compete with the private sector was socialism, not capitalism. Also, having worked for the government, I can say they are definitely NOT who you want to call when you have a problem.

Finally, since at least half the people in this country are huge goofballs who bought into the bullshit spiel of "small government, lower taxes", it seems like they are always the first people in line to approve huge, unnecessary spending measures.

Re:Why UTOPIA?

[sprekken]

So in other words, the taxpayers should have a redundant, government run version of an already existing service, which is run by an evil company who has coordination and resources?

Yep.

Label me whatever you choose, but I think that this is a good idea. I'll explain why:

Qwest is bad, we all know that. Their infrastructure is decades old, and cannot handle the type of dataflow that the Utopia fiber optic lines can. Even if it could, they would likely charge hundreds or even thousands of dollars per customer per month for the connection. They are just a private company trying to reap the greatest profits. There is no problem with that, except that they are a monopoly. When monopolies exist, they are always a problem and a threat to capitalism for that market. That is why the US government has instituted various anti-trust measures to limit monopoly power. In the case of Qwest (and several other telecoms) this hasn't happened fast enough IMO and the entire telecom industry is becoming stagnant.

I would like to see many of the up-and-coming technologies have a chance to prove themselves in the same playing field as the big dogs. There have been some amazing inventions/innovations in the past few years, but they just don't have the resources to compete with the monopoly telecoms that control the nation's information infrastructure.

I'll shorten this by just saying that I am a believer in capitalism, but that I distrust and dislike monopolies in any form. If liking this Utopia project makes me a socialist, well fuck it, maybe I'm a bit of that too. I really don't think that the government is going to play a big role in the services part of the project however, I think they're just going to lease the lines to whoever wants access.

This is the part that I like. Qwest no longer has control, and has to compete just like everyone else - based on quality, reliability, and price. That, and the fact that I'll be able to get a helluva fat bidirectional pipe going into my house! Who could be against that?

Re:Why UTOPIA?

[t0ny]

There is no problem with that, except that they are a monopoly

As far as they provide a service nobody else does, that is correct. However, there is absolutely nothing preventing somebody from building a competing network. If it were lucrative, somebody would have done it.

But it seems they are a monopoly in the same way the only gas station in a small town is.

Personally, I am of the opinion that you dont want a business being run where there is no real accountability, as is the case with government run services. Here is what will happen- Utopia will drive Qwest out of the area, leaving a government-run monopoly. Eventaully, the service will degrade, and will need service and support. The difference between a company, monopoly or not, is that the market is still playing a part- if the company is incredibly mismanaged, it goes out of business due to lack of funds. But if a government institution is incredibly mismanaged, they just raise taxes or slash budgets for other (probably more useful) projects.

I have done work for the local government, and the waste is horrible. Not only that, but the services are being provided by people who wouldnt be able to cut it in the private sector. The worst charlatans and theives always flock to the public sector with their hands out.

"we can not test"...

[dbc]

Well, they don't mention *why* they can not test. In a past life, I have managed both hardware and software validation laboratories. It is an expensive proposition to do it well. Windows is the worst.. Between 95, 95osr1, 95osr2, 98, 98se, 98me, variants of 2000... and the fact that every application install is an OS upgrade because of DLL-Hell... and then add in a zillion flavors of language support (OK, I was running 98me with the left-to-right Hebrew keyboard, the German version of Visual Studio, and Oriental character file name support...) ... oh, now cross all these with hardware variation, chipset, cpu, what-have-you.

So, personally, I can well believe that *if* they looked at the cost of validating some particular build of some particular OSS software for download from their web site, that they would conclude that it cost too much. So "We can't because it costs too much" is a reasonable response. Chicken, yes, and maybe doesn't server the customer the best possible way, but reasonable.

Of course, every time I've dealt with Dell in the past they've been idiots, so that might be a reason, too.

Re:"we can not test"...

[Sabalon]

The true answer is

"We can not find someone else to blame or talk to when it doesn't work like it should."

I've seen it tons of times with OpenSource, Freeware and Shareware...people are hesitant to use it as a solution - not because it isn't up to the task, but if there is something that goes wrong, they can't call the company and get someone else to look at it, fix it, etc... someone to escalate the problem to.

Re:"we can not test"...

[dbc]

quite true. non-self-supporting users are looking for someone who will shoulder the support burden. inserting one's self in the middle can lead to customer satisfaction issues if not well handled.

Re:"we can not test"...

[Duhavid]

All the above is very true.

The thing missed is that they have *all* that with the version that they are selling, also.

Re:"we can not test"...

[dbc]

I disagree, because the vendor that makes the software gets to take on the validation costs. They have an escalate path and someone specific to crank on when it fails.

Re:"we can not test"...

[Sabalon]

What is annoying is I work for a university system that uses SCT's Banner product, like lots of schools. On the web component, it is recommended you get a $20,000 Sun or HP to run the Oracle iAS component, along with the annual maintanence costs.

Instead, we have a $3000 Dell running it just fine. Love the way the state wants us to blow money just because if someone calls about an issue, they have no one to pass the buck to.

For a while, we were running on an old sun box. The one time I called for support on the Oracle app, since adding an SSL cert was causing it to crash, they gave me the phone number and account number for support FOR SOLARIS. That's when I moved it to Linux. It's fun listening to the other people whine about the support issues and cost.

Re:"we can not test"...

[Duhavid]

But have they ( has the vendor done the validation )? I think there is a question on either models part of how well tested and validated the software is. You cant know, unless you perform your own validation.

AFA escalation paths and cranking on someone, how much has that actually accomplished in your experience, honestly? It hasnt done much in mine. So, you have someone to scream at. Feel better? Here is the invoice. Thanks!

Re:"we can not test"...

[dbc]

We're talking about a vendor-to-vendor relationship here, so there is more room to ask questions, and you are talking to a different sales force. You can ask them about what validation they do, or even tour their validation lab. Escalate paths are the same thing... consumer-to-vendor escalate paths vary wildly. Vendor-to-vendor escalate paths have a much better action-to-bullshit ratio, in general. (Been on both ends of *that* :-)

Her first mistake...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was studying mathematics instead of CS - I for one would have welcomed her as my new demi-goddess of all nerdly women, given the opportunity. Mamacita! What a gorgeous, gorgeous skull!

Open source testing

[gid13]

I suspect the reason they don't endorse anything open source is because if an open source project gives Dell a cut of the sale it's still nothing.

I wonder if the claim they can't reliably test them would fall under false advertising or libel or something similar. Free software has a hard enough time getting accepted without the big companies that the masses haven't yet learned not to trust spreading complete crap like this.

Re:Open source testing

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I wonder if the claim they can't reliably test them would fall under false advertising or libel or something similar. Free software has a hard enough time getting accepted without the big companies that the masses haven't yet learned not to trust spreading complete crap like this.

I doubt it. They only have to prove that by their definition, under their peculiar set of circumstances, "they" "can not" "reliably" "test" "those open source products" (the ones they have had time and inclination to look at). IANAL, but I doubt they would have a hard time defending against that one.

Re:Open source testing

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the major spyware removal packages are open source, so it's a completely academic point.

Re:Open source testing

[bm_luethke]

Dell supports at least one open source projects I used to work on, oscar

They did a pretty good job of supplying free test equipment and thier labs provided a lot of internal testing time. So either the original article is incorrect or the person quoted in the article is not familiar with Dell's involvement in Open Source projects.

So lets not totally bash them yet (in fact, I liked the people I dealt with there a great deal and can not speak too highly of them).

copyright ownership?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oxenhielm responded to the criticism by saying that the journal that accepted her work, which now owns the copyright, is responsible for any errors.

(1) Uh.. can you even "sell" the copyright of mathematical proofs like this? Mathematics is truly in a scary and sorry state if you have to hand over full copyright of such a work to get it published..

(2) Way to dodge credibility and responsibility by claiming the journal that bought your work is now responsible if it's broken. She would have a great future in software sales.

Re:copyright ownership?

[Noren]

1) It's fairly standard that the submission process for major peer-reviewed science(and, apparently, mathematics) journals requires authors to sign over copyright on the manuscript as part of the submission process.

This applies to the manuscript itself, and the figures therein, but not the concepts. Copyright(at least the US definition) doesn't cover concepts such as mathematical proofs, anyhow. I think a proof might be patentable, though... not that'd be useful for most mathematical proofs, but that's how intellectual property of abstract ideas is generally handled.

2) yeah, that was a total copout. A "I hadn't considered that, that is a problem" response would have been better received.

Re:copyright ownership?

[thorgil]

the journal owns the text, not what the text says.
big difference.

In "ordinary errors" should have been catched in the review process. If not, the journal has bad reviewers.
It sometimes cost money to publish scientific articles.
In essance, you pay them to review your paper.
Major errors that slip through, should be blamed on the journal, yes.

Re:copyright ownership?

[praksys]

(1) Uh.. can you even "sell" the copyright of mathematical proofs like this? Mathematics is truly in a scary and sorry state if you have to hand over full copyright of such a work to get it published...

You can't copyright a mathematical proof, but you can copyright an article in which a proof is given. In accademia there is nothing unusual about having to hand over the copyright to your work in order to get it published. In some fields accademics can't even give their work away - they have to pay journals to publish their articles. No big surprise either. If you ever spend any time reading the crap that gets published you will soon wish that you were being paid to read it.

Re:copyright ownership?

[Anonymous Coward]

The others who replied saying that it is common to be required to transfer copyright for papers on mathematics to the publisher are incorrect. The publisher will sometimes ask you to sign a contract which, in part, transfers the copyright for the paper to them. You do not need to transfer copyright though. You can request a contract which allows you to retain copyright. You can also release your work to the public domain. This allows for the publisher to print it and for you to continue to publish it as well.

Re:Dell is mixing upo OSS with Shareware/Freeware.

[Bagels]

Besides which, you should be able to test open source products far better than closed source products - because you can see what makes them tick and design tests accordingly.

they're not

[dangermouse]

If you read the statement, you'll see that they're not "approving" sales of the glofish. They're saying exactly what you are-- the glofish aren't in the FDA's bailiwick.

Because tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes...

Drawing the Hardware/Software line

[segment]

Dell seems to have listened to the criticism handed to them last week, after their decision to forbid tech support persons from providing assistance to spyware-infected customers became public knowledge.

I'm all for helping people when necessary, and I would agree with Dell for not wanting to waste their own money on people's stupidities.

Now I work at an ISP and sub as IT staff at a mid sized college every here and there. (Fixing T1's, students' comps, all sorts of shit) main causes of students' issues? Spyware. I visited I think 80% of the campus based students for the same shit... Joe football player wants VirtuaGirl on his machine and clicks on everything in existence... Result? Spyware, viruses, and trojans. One chick had a 8k phone bill on her cellphone because she kept her info on a backdoored machine. All this after they receive bulletins, I've told the same ones over and over, etc.

I would side with Dell, just think about the costs of a persons moronicy on the Dell level. So you have say low ball figure of 100,000 morons calling you because they've just downloaded garbage...

TS = Tech Support (low ball salary) $10.00 an hour...

DU = duration of call say 5 minutes

CL = Calls (per 8 hour day)

Whats that an extra +1000 tech support staff that need to be hired? 20mill per year thrown away on morons...

Re:Drawing the Hardware/Software line

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I think you're being a bit harsh. Part of it is a lot of this crap comes from holes in software. Is someone who got rooted (can I say Administrator'ed?) because of an IE hole a moron? And before you say "patch your systems" I can say zero-day exploits and unpatched holes in IE.

But lets say thats just part of the issue, most people are running unpacthed versions of Windows, using IE (unpacthed IE, shudder). They're browsing the web because . . . they bought the computer to browse the web. They're opening email attachments because . . . attachments are made for you to open. They're using the machien for what it's designed for. They're doing what all the nice shiny pretty people in the commercials say they can do.

Closest real world analogy I can think of would be:
guy comes home. Guy doesn't lock door. Robber comes in, beats guy up. Guy goes to hospital, but insurance refuses to pay because he was too stupid to lock the dorr, so go bleed somewhere else.

Would never happen. We'd just solve the problem. Even the door angle is too simplistic, for most people it would be closer to "robber comes in through grate at bottom of building that connects through shaft which goes to his room". Non obvious stuff.

The issue is computers are immature. Neither windows nor Unix were originally designed to be in a hostile network environment. UNIX has improved a lot more than Windows has, but there are still flaws. Until we redesign everything to live in a hostile world, we will have issues. Until then, it will be us morons who program the systems, and the marketing morons who sell a bill of goods that can't be delivered.

Re:Drawing the Hardware/Software line

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to figure out the customer has spyware: 30 seconds
Time to tell them to type www.google.com and enter "spyware": 15 seconds
Honoring your agreement for tech support: Less than it cost to advertise it in the first place.

Re:Drawing the Hardware/Software line

[timeOday]

I disagree that Dell is particularly a hardware company in the first place. They don't make hardware any more than they make software, what they do is put together the hardware, software, and support in a convenient package for the end-user. As for the morons, well, they pay the bills. Apparently Dell thinks pleasing the customer plus their cut of the Pest Patrol proceeds will boost their profit, so where is the problem again?

Re:Drawing the Hardware/Software line

[segment]

Sure try explaining that to the 60 year old who doesnt have a clue or the moron in school who doesnt care as long as he sees his porn, and they'll be the repetitive callers...

Re:Drawing the Hardware/Software line

[dubl-u]

what they do is put together the hardware, software, and support in a convenient package for the end-user. As for the morons, well, they pay the bills.

Amen to that. I'm so tired of elitist geeks, especially ones who make unusable garbage and then blame the user for not getting it. Really smart geeks recognize that if they make stuff that only a geek can use, that's about 1% of the population. If they want broad adoption of something, then they have to make it so that people in the 20th percentile can use it, too.

What really gets me is that some of the people who are the worst offenders in this don't seem to realize that they are acting just like the people they love to hate. Those snobby, ignorant jocks and cheerleaders? They're also in the top 1% in a small slice of the world, and they measure everybody else in terms of their particular talents. Annoying and shallow, isn't it?

It would please me greatly if the users-are-all-idiots crowd would use some of their immense brainpower to discover that there are more aspects to people and the broader world than can be measured by IQ tests.

illegal fish

[dirvish]

The move could allow fish retailers in any U.S. state to sell the fish. Apart from California, where Arnie has banned them...

Are they completely illegal, or is it just illegal to sell them? Could I legally bring them from another state into California?

Re:illegal fish

[Rura Penthe]

You can bring one into Cali, they are just banned from being sold there.

Zhou is protecting herself

[GuyMannDude]

Did you read the article that was linked to? Zhou's public comments are an attempt to distance herself from Oxenhielm. Oxenhielm thanks Zhou in her (possibly flawed) paper for assistance and Zhou is terrified that the community is going to laugh at her (Zhou). It's easy to forgive a youngster for getting excited and making mistakes but they would come down very hard on Zhou for letting stuff like this slip through. Effectively Oxenhielm has put Zhou's name on this work in spite of the fact that Zhou never reviewed it. You wouldn't want to be blamed for something you had no hand in, would you?

Oxenhielm is probably too young to remember what happened to Ponds and Fleishman at University of Utah regarding cold fusion. Zhou wants to make sure that Oxenhielm doesn't take her down too when her proof gets shot down.

GMD

Re:Zhou is protecting herself

[Licensed2Hack]

You wouldn't want to be blamed for something you had no hand in, would you?

Spoken like someone who has never been married.

Re:Zhou is protecting herself

[Anonymous Coward]

The flaws in the paper are not of the type that "slip through". If anything, Zhou is probably concerned about her reputation as an advisor, not as a mathematician.

Re:Zhou is protecting herself

[DasBub]

Call me a stickler, but it's "Pons" and "Fleischman."

My work here is done.

Re:Zhou is protecting herself

[izx]

If you will check out http://www.oxenhielm.com/ , Elin produces screenshots of three emails from Zhou, where Zhou talks to her about the paper, congratulates her on publication, and a third. Elin also states that it was Zhou who suggested she try the method she used to try to solve the relevant part of Hilbert's Problem.

I think it's just Zhou trying to cover her ass after she didn't pay enough attention to what Elin was doing, whether it be out of neglect or ignorance.

Re:Zhou is protecting herself

[Anonymous Coward]

what happened to Ponds and Fleishman

Their line of skin care products was disgraced?

Re:Dell is mixing upo OSS with Shareware/Freeware.

[edrugtrader]

someone should inform you that dell's main cost on the systems they sell is the OS. Making friends with microsoft is good business sense.

The journal is not responsible for the errors.

[mathematician]

Oxenhielm responded to the criticism by saying that the journal that accepted her work, which now owns the copyright, is responsible for any errors.

As one who has refereed math papers, I think that this is not true. When I am sent a letter asking me to referee, I am asked to comment on how important the result is, and I am asked to assess how correct the paper is, but often I am explicitly told that errors in the paper are the responsibility of the author, and not the referee.

Re:The journal is not responsible for the errors.

[Noren]

From the Instructions for Authors for the Journal Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications:

Disclaimer. Whilst every effort is made by the publishers and editorial board to see that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement appears in this journal, they wish to make it clear that the data and opinions appearing in the articles and advertisements herein are the sole responsibility of the contributor or advertiser concerned. Accordingly, the publishers, the editorial board and editors and their respective employees, officers and agents accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for the consequences of any such inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statement.

Re:The journal is not responsible for the errors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of Bates?

Re:The journal is not responsible for the errors.

[tgibbs]

This might simply be shaky english. Yes, the author is ultimately responsible, and errors appear in refereed papers all the time. Nevertheless, a legitimate response to criticism is, "Hey, it passed peer review." In effect, it raises the bar for criticism. The fact that at least a couple of presumably qualified reviewers failed to find errors doesn't mean that there aren't any, but they are unlikely to be glaring or trivial.

Re:The journal is not responsible for the errors.

[boho]

This is from the article in Nature about this (emphasis mine):

Originally approved by one reviewer, the paper has now been sent to two more mathematicians for further round of review, along with a defence by Oxenhielm, who says that the critics do not understand her methods.

Her adviser ain't bad either!

[pr0ntab]

Yishao Zhou

Two non-fugly math chicks! What are the chances?

Re:Her adviser ain't bad either!

[drix]

??

Note to self: stop posting on Slashdot after 2-for-1 happy hour at Bennigans.

They could swim into the state.

[sulli]

Just release them into Lake Tahoe on the Nevada side. Of course they will freeze to death, but that is a different issue.

Re:They could swim into the state.

[dirvish]

I have heard that one of the reasons they are illegal in Cali is concern that they will be released and will interfere with salmon. I am no biologist (IANAB?) but I fail to see how little glowing fish will interfere with much larger salmon. I don't see them doing any more damage than little non-glowing fish...

Re:They could swim into the state.

[rmull]

Maybe the salmon will be distracted. "Ooh! Look at the little glowing fish! I've lost all interest in spawning!"

Re:They could swim into the state.

[Daniel_Staal]

"Ooh! Look at the little glowing fish! I've lost all interest in spawning!"

*Sigh*. No, this is closer: "I'm sorry, I just can't do this with it glowing at me!"

"Ok, I'll get him out of the stream." (Pause, splash) "Now, where were we..."

(Fishy noises)

"I just can't... I can't stop thinking about it glowing at me."

"It's gone. It can't be glowing at you now."

"But I can't get it out of my head!"

"What is it, really? Am I to fat? To thin? To red? Not red enough? What? Last night you had a headache, the night before that it was your 'time of the month', before that... Don't you love me anymore?"

"I... I don't know. I'm not sure I do."

"What happened? What went wrong?"

"I'm not sure. I think we just grew apart. Please, let's not talk about it now. I... I need to sleep."

"Fine."

"Um, could you sleep on the other side of the streambed..."

And it is all due to a glowing fish...

Re:They could swim into the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitter? Him? Not at all.

Re:They could swim into the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

their glowing; that means there radioactive, and thus NUKULAR!!!!11!!11!!111one

Disappointed

[TeknoHog]

"I refer to Nonlinear Analysis. They have evaluated the paper, they accepted it for publication and they have the copyright of its contents - and thus they are responsible for its correctness," Oxenhielm told Aftenposten English.

This sounds very unprofessional and unscientific. I hope this is a misunderstanding on the side of Aftenposten. Otherwise this seems like a stupid publicity stunt. I wonder if we have to pay a $699 license to access the original paper ;-).

Re:Disappointed

[mrsev]

You were joking but you are not far off. We scientists do much research with public and charity money. We then submit a paper, must pay some of the costs of the printing, and then to read it must subscribe to the journal. (OK, some journals are free). There are several campains going on in the scientific community to get all journals for free, but this is still far off.
There are many great papers that I would like to read and must resort to ,
a) writing to the first author and asking for a copy,
b) get a copy for the British Library for around 20EUR,
c)buy a single copy from the publisher at around 30EUR each paper.
I host on my website some of my papers and am breaking copyright law by doing so. THe way I see it I have no choice. If some young student wants to work in my lab and they want to see what we do and to study before the interview how else can they read this work. ..my 0.02EUR anyway

Fish & Game Dept. doesn't have the funds...

[djupedal]

Whom do you think is going to be called upon to deal with these little guys when you flush them into the sewer system?

The apparent worry (not that I agree) is that some strange bio-compound will be turned loose on the general public, sort of like mercury in fish.

I think that shopping cart handle that just came in from outside, where it was used as a perch by birds, would be more of a concern...

The important thing is...

[herrvinny]

The work of Elin Oxenhielm, the 22-year old Swedish student who apparently solved part of the 16th Hilbert problem, is coming under heavy fire from some prominent mathematicians, including her own adviser,

Well, the important thing is, she got her name mentioned on slashdot. That's gotta be good on your resume... ;-)

Little math discrepency?

[kwalker]

According to the SLTrib article:

"...needs member cities to pony up an additional $250,000 so it can continue to pursue its bond offering."

So it looks like they're just $250k short, not $4.5 million short as the poster seemed to indicate. In fact, if I'm reading this right, it means each city would only need to come up with ~$14k each, if they're going to split it equally.

Re:Little math discrepency?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and now needs each member cities to come up with an additional $250,000."

I wish it wasn't so... :(

Re:Little math discrepency?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to brush up on the word "each." And why did you leave it out of your 'quote'?

Re:Little math discrepency?

[the pickle]

I think the Trib meant "$250,000 each."

And it just so happens that 18 * $250K = $4.5 million.

It seems a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a word. Such a little word....

p

I quote:

[cliffy2000]

"Utah may not be Utopia after all."
Gee... what tipped you off to that?
Maybe the fact that SCO is headquartered there?

Re:I quote:

[wildchild07770]

That explains it.... SCO is a bunch of mormons errr morons.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not impossible: Inevitable

[GuyMannDude]

Two non-fugly math chicks! What are the chances?

Chances are probably not as bad as you might think. Two non-fugly math girls, lonely for a little love yet repulsed by the animate male lumps of lard and sweat surrounding them. Both so lonely, so sad. Trying to concentrate on their work. Young student huddled close together with advisor, going over a math problem. Then it happens! Zhou's hair brushes ever so lightly against Oxenheilm's cheek. They pull back from each other in surprise. They both felt it. And in that moment, their lives changed forever. It was unavoidable. It was their destiny. Their professional composure decays exponentially fast as they both realize the inexorable truth. They are going to have sex and there is nothing either of them can do to stop it. Is this attraction stable? Does it matter anymore?

Clothes are pulled off each other in an optimal fashion. Each woman studies the continuous curvature of the other's body. Fingers trace the inflexion points, the saddle points, the contours, and then, utimately, the poles. Their fingers now slick with the complex residue of the other, their heart beats begin to constructively interfere with each other. The intensity of one heart increased by the feedback from the other. So wrong. So dangerous. So good.

Groups give way to gropes. Rings give way to rimjobs. Fields give way to fondles. Their fingers, so skilled at manipulating mathematical equations, now find a use in manipulating each other's boundary layers. Both women writhe and squirm in unison until they are epsilon away from a mutual orgasm (epsilon -> 0 quadratically fast).

And then it's over. No more theorems, lemmas, corrolaries or proofs. The two young women lie on the floor knowing that their relationship has changed forever. Without a word they clothe themselves and the impressionable young student leaves the office. Never again will they discuss this incident. This will be an isolated singularity hidden for all time in the vast infiniteness of time.

GMD

Whether she's right or wrong...

[dysprosia]

If she developed some new techniques in solving the problem or made some advance into solving the problem, then that's important enough. Math is a collaborative science, too, in any case...if she's not right, someone could build on her work and improve it.

Math? Blech

[NanoGator]

Can anybody give me a layman's version of what this mystical math problem is? The f'n article thinks I already know this.

Re:Math? Blech

[Ioldanach]

The problem isn't really distillable into layman's terms. If you aren't a mathematician you probably won't understand it. I've taken enough calculus to know I have no idea what the problem wants. :)

You can find a technical description Here, however.

Re:Math? Blech

[azaris]

It concerns certain types of differential equation systems where the solutions can approach a number of "attractors" (basically just complicated sets of points) and circulate around them periodically. The problem is classifying the maximum number of these periodic attractors (it has been shown to be a finite number) and their relative position in the vector field.

The Lorentz attractor is an example of a system which has two periodic attractors (you can see a Java-implementation here) and was the result of an attempt to predict the weather during the 60's.

Re:Math? Blech

[An Anonymous Hero]

Man! A picture on the Aftenposten page even shows you exactly where the holes are in the proof!

Here's an idea for Dell...

[bckrispi]

Instead of making their customers jump through hoops to remove the preinstalled spyware, why don't they grow a pair and forbid the crap from being installed in the first place??? Don't they have some kind of say-so in what gets loaded on their products? Shouldn't they be held accountable for protecting their customers' privacy? As the saying goes: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". It looks like Dell has already determined which side of the line they want to be on.

FreeBSD is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't keed to be Kreskin to look into FreeBSD's future. Even a child knows that FreeBSD is dying. All major marketing surveys show that FreeBSD has steadily declined in market share. FreeBSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yve you ever seen an animal backed into a corner and fighting for its life? That is the situation OpenBSD finds itself in. The OpenBSD fans are in a state of desperation, and even the mildest criticism of their hobby horse results in wild and paranoid outbuet another charnel house.

The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The loss of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral. In truth, for all practical purposes FreeBSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking. It's a fact: FreeBSD is dying.

32 bits int, 64 bits long and pointer

[r6144]

This has been explained in the some other post, I just summarize that in the subject. Note that this is just a convention, and certain 64-bit systems do adopt different conventions such as 64-bit int's.

Re:Ownership of Proof

[jonwil]

I believe that ownership only applies to the specific text and images and not the actual proof itself.

FAT Patents

[certsoft]

As was pointed out numerous times in the original slashdot article, the patents refer to long file names. If you don't implement them, then no problem, so why insist on saying the patent is on FAT?

Re:FAT Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it sounds a lot more ridiculous that way. Sensationalistic journalism at its best.

So Elin Oxenhielm isn't any good at figurin'

[eclectro]

But what matters is that she is good at lovin'

Yeah, right.....

[eclectro]

This will be an isolated singularity hidden for all time in the vast infiniteness of time.

Until the video hits the internet.

Re:Ownership of Proof

[StrutterX]

I have always found that directly e-mailing the author of any paper buried like this always results in them getting a copy to me. Academics are great about stuff like that. Wonderful people. I'll never forget asking for a copy of one wavelet paper from a researcher at an Italian University and three days later this enormous box full of copies of every paper the author had written turned up on my doorstep - and I don't even live on the same continent as Italy.

Re:Dell is mixing upo OSS with Shareware/Freeware.

[Anonymous Coward]

update your sig.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Governator

[Scrameustache]

it will not be stopping the sale of transgenic Zebra danios in the USA. [...] Apart from California, where Arnie has banned them...

Apparently, Arnold want to be the only genetically modified organism in California...

I hope you never become an investigator

[segment]

guy comes home. Guy doesn't lock door. Robber comes in, beats guy up. Guy goes to hospital, but insurance refuses to pay because he was too stupid to lock the dorr, so go bleed somewhere else.

Guy comes home after hospitalization and again leaves door open. Do you expect me to pity him? Ever hear the saying fool me once shame on you... etc etc...

Re:I hope you never become an investigator

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about "pity"; it's a binding contract which is part of a thriving economy which is part usury and part gambling.

Hmm.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO feedback form

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

That has got to be the most pathetic, perverted, rediculous math geek fantasy I've ever heard!

plz write more ;)

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

RE: eMachines. Depends -- like everything

[smchris]

What do you need? What will it cost you?

I set up an uncompressed Knoppix on a dual-boot for an eMachine dial-up user new to linux. Didn't go badly. 64 meg video was OK. Response was OK. There was a proprietary modem driver available with a crippled demo download that installed fine. If you just need a computer and can get a good price, I wouldn't knock it.

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[Fnkmaster]

Dude, you should be a mathematician pornographer.

I don't care how high e-machines ranks

[Anonymous Coward]

My advice to my clients is and always has been: If you are gonna buy an e-machine, make sure you buy two. If you get two and I can swap parts between them, I can probably keep one running!

They really need to take care of quality control. Power supplies are a particular weak point.

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[CausticWindow]

Best. Post. Ever.

GuyMannDude, you are my new hero.

Since the sig is more on topic than the parent

[PaladinAlpha]

1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0. Let's break this down. One to the second power is one. (Good enough.) Negative one to the second power is one. (Also ok.) One to the second power is equal to negative one to the second power. (Fair enough.) And this is where it beaks down. For in moving from there to one is equal to negative one, you have made the assumption that the square root of one squared is equal to the square root of negative one squared, which isn't one at all. i != 1, math is saved. (Sorry, bored.)

AWHOOOOOGA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Submarine patent off the port bow!

Permission to fire depth charges, Keptin.

Holy jesus.

[pr0ntab]

I was NOT expecting that. Maybe a comment about Zhou needing braces, but not the erotic nerd fiction. You get a gold star.

coding 64-bit apps on Unixes and Windows

[LinuxParanoid]

In general, most Unixes and Linux (as you say) have adopted the LP64 model where longs/pointers are 64-bits and ints are 32 bits (some gory details here. (Cray's Unix is an exception; it's ILP64).

Windows OSes however have adopted the LLP64 model where ints and longs are 32-bits still, but long longs and pointers are 64-bits (gory Windows details here and here.)

Both 32-bit Windows and Unix traditionally used ILP32, so the porting characteristics moving to 64-bit code are slightly different across the two platforms.

--LinuxParanoid

Re:coding 64-bit apps on Unixes and Windows

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Here's a silly question: on an ILP64 system like a Cray (and also an Alpha, if I remember correctly), how do you get a 32-bit int?

I mean, I'm sure that one of the header files defines int32_t, but what does that turn into? There should be some C-native name that corresponds to a 32-bit int, right?

Re:coding 64-bit apps on Unixes and Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Cray did this stuff before there were any "C-native" standards for handling 64 bits. I believe they used _int32 for 32-bit ints.

There's a nice Open Group white paper on the subject of different 64-bit programming models written back when the main Unix vendors were making these decisions.

--LP

Proper Disclaimer

[Skjellifetti]

Next paper I publish I'm gonna use this as the disclaimer:

The author would like to thank Dr. X, Dr. Y, and 2 anonymous referees for several helpful suggestions. But while the author is delighted to share credit for any useful ideas in the present paper, he selfishly insists on retaining full blame for any errors or ommisions.

Incorrect PowerPC/M$ story

[bit01]

And Yes, the Apple I schematics were available, too. In response to the recent article about the freely available chip design from opencores.org implemented by Flextronics, Henry Keultjes offers a reminder that this is not the first time chip whose internals have been open for inspection: "Happened quite some time ago with PowerPC. That's the essence of Microsoft's deal with IBM because without that Open Architecture Microsoft would have had to buy a lot more than it did. This for example is used in a roughly $150 French set-top box that has USB and, according to a friend in the UK who has tried that, runs just fine as a PC with the attached USB HDD, KB and rodent."

Check out the link. The above comment has nothing to do with open chip cores. While it may be a simple error by a non- hardware person the unnecessary mention of M$, which normally has little to do with PowerPC's, suggests an M$ astroturfer/troll in action.

The link shows nothing more than a high level chip diagram. This has nothing to do with open chip designs.

---

Astroturfers are scum

Idea/expression dichotomy

[tepples]

Anybody can reword the proof. Completely reworded proofs are outside the scope of what constitutes a derivative work (17 USC 102(b)).

Author's responsibility

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

In mathematics, the accuracy of a proof is the responsibility of the author. A referee will attempt to determine the correctness of a proof but neither an editor nor a referee is ultimately responsible. Publishing an incorrect proof is not always bad; the "Yamabe conjecture" arose from a paper by Yamabe in 1960 (Osaka Math. Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 21-37) which was accepted as correct. (Rick Schoen provided a correct proof for the case of compact manifolds in 1984 and, for example, Zhiren Jin provided a counterexample for noncompact manifolds in 1986.) However, claiming that the publisher is responsible for errors is silly and unprofessional.

eMachines T6000 is now in my hands

[fo0bar]

I am now the first owner of an eMachines T6000 in Reno (which isn't too suprising considering this town...)

After reading the original story, I tracked down the bestbuy.com page for it, and it said that they had pickup service for this specific item at the local best buy. I called them up and spent about a half hour on the phone while they tracked them down. Turns out they didn't even have them on the floor yet.

I hopped in the car and drove down. Turns out they had 5 in, and I was buying the first one. Nifty. I literally just got back about 10 minutes ago and have just plugged it in, so I don't have much of a review yet, except for this: the 32-bit Windows XP Home that was preloaded took a little under 4 seconds to go from the end of the computer's POST to a start menu.

20:58 <@xi> that is pretty fast
20:59 <@xi> now imagine how fast a *real* OS will boot

I am currently downloading the gentoo amd64 livecd.

Re:Ownership of Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get Goedel's most famous work in paperback from Dover. His complete works are available in hardcover. Cohen's work was published four times, the latest in 1998. You can get a decent collection of papers by Tarski in print for $30.

If you want to see Cohen's proof, there are more modern (post-modern?) books on set theory with simplified treatments.

on Oxenhielm's paper

[varaani]

(disclaimer: my background in dynamical systems, much less this particular problem, is not that strong)

The second part of Hilbert's 16th problem deals with limit cycles, the way things will go on eventually in dynamical systems if they are not disturbed externally. The subproblem 2/3 of this problem (it's the indexing that makes math complicated..) asks if there exists an upper bound on the number of different limit cycles one can have in the system.

Oxenhielm attacks the problem by considering first a special case called the Lienard equation and approximating its solution by harmonic oscillation. The proof begins: "Noticing that the state variable x of the Lienard equation (1) behaves approximately like a sine function in simulations (see Fig.1),we assume -- in order to make a good approximation of x -- that both state variables are dominated by a harmonic term ...."
Now, to my engineer's eyes, the functions in Fig.1 seem more like triangular waves, with definitely more than one single frequency component. Yet the accuracy of the approximation has not been considered at all in the paper. Also, 'proof by looking at results of simulations' is not really valid if you don't have any other evidence.

Another bad part is on page 6, where it is claimed that "Note that the method of describing functions may be used in a similar manner as in the proof above,to find the upper bounds for the Hilbert number in any planar polynomial vectorfield. Thus, it is possible to completely solve the second part of Hilbert's 16th problem by using this approach."
Wait a minute, how did that happen? What if the harmonic approximation fails on other than Lienard equations? It might just work, I have no idea, but this assertment hardly proves the fact.

Note however that this is very different from Andrew Wiles' proof of the Fermat conjencture. While very few people in the world could understand the odd-hundred pages of Wiles' proof, Oxenhielm's paper is just eight pages of much more accessible mathematics.

But I have a paper in the review process myself, and sure as hell would hate to see nonqualified people discussing its validity publicly, so maybe I'll just shut up now :)

Re:on Oxenhielm's paper

[RevMike]

Oxenhielm attacks the problem by considering first a special case called the Lienard equation and approximating its solution by harmonic oscillation. The proof begins: "Noticing that the state variable x of the Lienard equation (1) behaves approximately like a sine function in simulations (see Fig.1),we assume -- in order to make a good approximation of x -- that both state variables are dominated by a harmonic term ...."

You'fe heard of the race horse trainer who hires a physicist to help prepare his horse for the Kentucky Derby? The physicist's ideas all begin "Assume a perfectly spherical horse..."

name suggestion

[commodoresloat]

shouldn't these be called FATents?

Re:Ownership of Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Many cases? For which theorems can you not find another source?

Arnie has banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apart from California, where Arnie has banned them..."

The law that prohibits sales of genetically modified fish is old, it's not something new to Arnie...

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[Zork the Almighty]

Clothes are pulled off each other in an optimal fashion.

If this doesn't win some sort of award, I don't know what can.

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much.

I'm fucking speechless...

hilbert's

[squarefish]

I'm a vegetarian, but last time I was down in Austin, my buddy Sam has this bright idea to order lunch from Hilbert's. It's a fuckin' buger joint. The bastard kept reassuring me that it would be ok, but they totally fucked up my order. I hate sam now....

I would have to say that this was personally first problem with Hilbert's, but it was such a large problem that I will never order food from them again.

Elin Feiss?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And then I had to do it again, so it wasn't as good. It was kind of.. a bummer."

Babies.

[Grendel Drago]

I think I want to have your babies. Pardon me while I set about constructing a Jovian womb for that purpose.

*putter*

--grendel drago

Re:Dell is mixing upo OSS with Shareware/Freeware.

[danila]

Since when just being the largest PC manufacturer is not enough to qualify as a MS friend? And I would think that if MS OS costs them so much, becoming acquanted with open source might be an even better business strategy...

Hmmm...

[chaoticset]

...maybe this is her attempt to show that the editorial standards of academic journals are slipping?

I mean, that sort of thing has happened before.

But she's a Geek-Chick

[X-Nc]

After you look at the pics here and here you can see that she is obviouslly a geek chick. It also looks like she could be kinda cute if she let her hair down, frillied up a bit and took off the glasses (though, for me, the glasses are an actractive feature). How many girls out there are geek enough to handle this level of techieness? I don't care if her "proof" turns out to be 100% correct or not. Just the fact that she can understand this level of geekness is enough for me. If I wasn't twice her age and in the wrong hemisphere you know I'd have to seek her out and ask her on a date. (And you also know that even if I was a local 22yo geek guy she'd still wouldn't go out with me).

Re:Dell is mixing upo OSS with Shareware/Freeware.

[westlake]

if Dell wants source, Dell will get source

try naming a third party vendor wouldn't give an arm and a leg to see their product as part of the default Dell install

Andrew Wiles

[Mostly Harmless]

Um, doesn't anyone remember that his first public proof of Fermat's Last Theorem contained a huge, embarrassing mistake? But because he was respected, nobody criticized him. But some young Swedish girl makes an error, and everyone is on her back? Give me a break.

Re:Andrew Wiles

[HuguesT]

The proper way is simply to point out the flaws if they are real, not to wave arms and make qualitative comments about them. All mathematicians, being people, make mistakes, so much so that important proofs are often not considered valid until several years after publication, until enough interested people have studied the proof and agree that it is valid.

There was an original `proof' of the 4-colour theorem that was considered valid for something like 20 years until someone pointed out an assumption was wrong, I'm sure it's not even the most glaring example.

The prizes for the highly important proofs on the list of the Clay Mathematical Institute are supposed to be awarded only two years after publication in a major journal.

What happened to the poor Swedish woman is just math in action. You need to be prepared to defend your methods and to expect that people will pick on every detail of your work.

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in tears. Funniest Slashdot post ever!

You really don't think....

[Grog6]

..that software engineers at dell can actually understand source code, do you?

Judging from the POS dell systems I have to deal with at work, windows scripting is beyond them.

Our dell-certified microsoft-certified IT idiot recommends reformatting and reinstalling windows after a system crash; He wonders why his schedule is always full.

Re:Dell is mixing upo OSS with Shareware/Freeware.

[t0ny]

It is interesting to note that Dell does not recommend any freeware or shareware product because 'we cannot test these open source utilities reliably.' Which is simply silly, of course."

Regardless of the symantic complain about opensource, Dell is right. They cant provide support for every goofy application users may install. So they did the intelligent thing: they picked one software package, and will provide support for it.

This is exactly why I hate slashdotters- you complain, the complaint gets addressed, and you complain some more. Why cant somebody just say "OK, thats cool, they are going to help people get rid of spyware now"?

Re:Not impossible: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have two heroes now; the dancing guy, of course, and you, GMD.

Re:Hilbert

[scott_evil]

Wrong fuckwit.