I have a simple MP3 player with a display so crappy that I never look at it. Basically, there's play/stop, forward and back, and volume controls--all of which can be found by touch--what else do you need?
Man, I fucken hate when electronics have badly attached jacks. That is the most common way that my stuff dies, and it's so easy to get it right: just mount the jack to the chassis instead of the PCB.
Yeah, damn, I totally thought they were talking about that kind of license for the first half of the description text. All I could imagine was, bad guys being allowed to copy my ammo, but only if I got a share of their frags..
This is precisely the question I just answered. We don't "know;" we take it on faith that axioms in the metamathematics are consistent. The meaning of the systems is also belief- or philosophy-oriented. Indeed, we often come up with consequences that do not seem meaningful or intuitive, such as the Banach-Tarski paradox.
I love doing proofs and I would get no satisfaction out of pressing a few buttons on a computer and being done.
Well, believe me, doing proofs by computer is usually much harder than doing them on paper, because the quality of the proof that results is so much higher. We're definitely not at the stage where you can just press a button to prove something.
Well, fortunately we're not in a court, so what you say doesn't demonstrate the software's (il)legality. It only serves to back up your statement with some actual substance.
It's unlikely that they will really sue you. Just saying a phrase doesn't constitute trademark infringement. Since you're not a commercial site, you're not really engaging in trade. The cost of suing you, given the fact that the case is hardly slam and dunk, would certainly outweigh the benefit -- especially since, if you're sued, the phrase "hard radio" will be google-immortalized to your page from all of the bad press they'll get. (The final irony!) I say, make sure you don't spend any money on it, and wait for them to at least actually sue you before you start worrying about it (this strategy worked for me). Sending threatening letters from lawyers is really cheap, and everyone who doesn't like being bullied should be working to make it more expensive.
By the way, "legal action" within 48 hours sounds an awful lot like barratry to me.
Uh, because we take certain beliefs as axiomatic and then prove our object mathematics consistent relative to those axioms. Any endeavor is going to have a certain amount of "faith;" just because mathematics can't remove the faith component entirely doesn't mean that it isn't vastly superior to other kinds of reasoning. Mathematics is not dead.
Higher order lamba calculus is (probably) undecidable.
Halting of polymorphic typed lambda calculus is decidable (all programs halt). Halting of any untyped lambda calculus is undecidable. (Which do you mean by higher-order?) Type inference is undecidable for the polymorphic typed lambda calculus. With the prenex restriction it is decidable (Hindley-Milner). But what does this have to do with Godel or proof generation/checking?
because we have no way of KNOWING if the computer has built up the proof correctly, except that it says it has
Sure we do -- typical theorem provers spit out a proof that can be checked by hand (god forbid), or else checked by a simple procedure. Understanding that a theorem prover is implemented correctly is tough, but understanding that a checker is implemented correctly isn't. I trust such proofs more than I trust hand-checked proofs, because humans are more susceptible to mistakes than computers are.
What strange timing -- I just saw a talk this morning from Hales at CMU about his work on formalizing the Kepler conjecture ("theorem") in HOL Light.
I can understand not wanting to trust a big piece of C code that purports to check a huge number of cases of a proof doing numerical analysis. It took 6 years of 4 people trying to verify his computer proof of the Kepler conjecture--before they gave up. If a program is that hard to believe, then it does indeed deserve lesser status than a handwritten proof that can be checked by mathematicians in shorter time.
On the other hand, there are other computer tools that we really should trust, and that are revolutionizing mathematics. The idea is simple: write your proofs in such detail that they can be mechanically checked by a simple (easy to verify) procedure. This is much better than paper proofs, because the potential for human error is minimized. (I don't think anyone will argue that published proofs have often been wrong, and the proofs have not been caught by the peer reviewers!) Since it's really, really bad to believe wrong proofs, there's a very real benefit that is offset by the sometimes tedious work necessary in formalization.
That's what Tom Hales is doing with flyspeck, and I think it is the future of mathematics. (In fact, I have recently become addicted to mechanizing my own proofs in Twelf--it's not only immensely satisfying, but it helps me sleep better at night and makes for stronger papers.)
Getting rid of null is easy in programming languages; just add a polymorphic sum ("container," if you will) called "option", and then have your functions return an "list option" rather than a "list"--then anything of list type really has a list in it. Many functional languages do this very thing and it is superior in every way to null. (Except that some people aren't "used" to it.)
Almost any media player can play an mp3 straight from an HTTP source (without any special support for "streaming"), so you could host your MP3s on a web server and then just add URLs to a local playlist.
But why did you bother reimplementing it? There are loads of free, public domain implementations, unless you are working in some fringe language (no shame in that).
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I don't think remote attestation can be used for peer-to-peer applications.
Remote attestation is an inherently client-server "feature" because it requires that the server know the hash of the client. Therefore, the client must exist before the server is built, because the client's hash is a piece of data in the server's code. The client then asks for the OS to sign/send this hash to the server, which can verify it. However, it's not possible for a piece of software to intrinsically "know" its own hash--it can only know the hash of things that are built before it--a chicken and egg problem. (Changing the hash data means changing the program which means changing the hash data...). Therefore, a client can't verify that it is talking to itself.
There may be some extra way of "tying the knot," but it's not described in any of the descriptions of remote attestation that I've seen.
Anyway, legal protection from being unable to tamper with your own software to see what it does is probably not necessary. It should be enough to simply have the practice of deleting and wiping your log files (what's the difference between deliberately covering your tracks and deliberately choosing a program that leaves no tracks?) On the other hand, being able to tamper with your own software has a lot of good uses! Therefore I find these arguments for TC and RA rather weak.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a simple MP3 player with a display so crappy that I never look at it. Basically, there's play/stop, forward and back, and volume controls--all of which can be found by touch--what else do you need?
Man, I fucken hate when electronics have badly attached jacks. That is the most common way that my stuff dies, and it's so easy to get it right: just mount the jack to the chassis instead of the PCB.
You might find my technique for fixing my own cheap player (w/ pictures) amusing.
Yeah, damn, I totally thought they were talking about that kind of license for the first half of the description text. All I could imagine was, bad guys being allowed to copy my ammo, but only if I got a share of their frags..
A settlement is an agreement between the two parties. You can't "demand" a settlement.
.. but tapes of the sounds produced by magnetically levitated and normal trains
Maybe they shouldn't have used magnetic tape around gigantic magnets.
This is precisely the question I just answered. We don't "know;" we take it on faith that axioms in the metamathematics are consistent. The meaning of the systems is also belief- or philosophy-oriented. Indeed, we often come up with consequences that do not seem meaningful or intuitive, such as the Banach-Tarski paradox.
I love doing proofs and I would get no satisfaction out of pressing a few buttons on a computer and being done.
Well, believe me, doing proofs by computer is usually much harder than doing them on paper, because the quality of the proof that results is so much higher. We're definitely not at the stage where you can just press a button to prove something.
Well, fortunately we're not in a court, so what you say doesn't demonstrate the software's (il)legality. It only serves to back up your statement with some actual substance.
They are no longer claiming trademark infringement. They are claiming trademark confusion and dilloution(sp)
Dilution is only for famous marks, and I don't think they're claiming that HardRadio is famous or that they would be successful with such an argument.
Well, if you think I'm wrong, maybe you should post your response to my argument, which I've outlined on the page?
It's unlikely that they will really sue you. Just saying a phrase doesn't constitute trademark infringement. Since you're not a commercial site, you're not really engaging in trade. The cost of suing you, given the fact that the case is hardly slam and dunk, would certainly outweigh the benefit -- especially since, if you're sued, the phrase "hard radio" will be google-immortalized to your page from all of the bad press they'll get. (The final irony!) I say, make sure you don't spend any money on it, and wait for them to at least actually sue you before you start worrying about it (this strategy worked for me). Sending threatening letters from lawyers is really cheap, and everyone who doesn't like being bullied should be working to make it more expensive.
By the way, "legal action" within 48 hours sounds an awful lot like barratry to me.
Uh, because we take certain beliefs as axiomatic and then prove our object mathematics consistent relative to those axioms. Any endeavor is going to have a certain amount of "faith;" just because mathematics can't remove the faith component entirely doesn't mean that it isn't vastly superior to other kinds of reasoning. Mathematics is not dead.
I rather like the Razer Boomslang for two reasons:
- It has a very low profile
- It has extremely high resolution, so I hardly have to move my hand to use it accurately.
No.
Higher order lamba calculus is (probably) undecidable.
Halting of polymorphic typed lambda calculus is decidable (all programs halt). Halting of any untyped lambda calculus is undecidable. (Which do you mean by higher-order?) Type inference is undecidable for the polymorphic typed lambda calculus. With the prenex restriction it is decidable (Hindley-Milner). But what does this have to do with Godel or proof generation/checking?
because we have no way of KNOWING if the computer has built up the proof correctly, except that it says it has
Sure we do -- typical theorem provers spit out a proof that can be checked by hand (god forbid), or else checked by a simple procedure. Understanding that a theorem prover is implemented correctly is tough, but understanding that a checker is implemented correctly isn't. I trust such proofs more than I trust hand-checked proofs, because humans are more susceptible to mistakes than computers are.
What strange timing -- I just saw a talk this morning from Hales at CMU about his work on formalizing the Kepler conjecture ("theorem") in HOL Light.
I can understand not wanting to trust a big piece of C code that purports to check a huge number of cases of a proof doing numerical analysis. It took 6 years of 4 people trying to verify his computer proof of the Kepler conjecture--before they gave up. If a program is that hard to believe, then it does indeed deserve lesser status than a handwritten proof that can be checked by mathematicians in shorter time.
On the other hand, there are other computer tools that we really should trust, and that are revolutionizing mathematics. The idea is simple: write your proofs in such detail that they can be mechanically checked by a simple (easy to verify) procedure. This is much better than paper proofs, because the potential for human error is minimized. (I don't think anyone will argue that published proofs have often been wrong, and the proofs have not been caught by the peer reviewers!) Since it's really, really bad to believe wrong proofs, there's a very real benefit that is offset by the sometimes tedious work necessary in formalization.
That's what Tom Hales is doing with flyspeck, and I think it is the future of mathematics. (In fact, I have recently become addicted to mechanizing my own proofs in Twelf--it's not only immensely satisfying, but it helps me sleep better at night and makes for stronger papers.)
It looks like it would roll... ;)
Getting rid of null is easy in programming languages; just add a polymorphic sum ("container," if you will) called "option", and then have your functions return an "list option" rather than a "list"--then anything of list type really has a list in it. Many functional languages do this very thing and it is superior in every way to null. (Except that some people aren't "used" to it.)
I helped proofread this one recently at pgdp.net. It's in post-processing now, so it will be in Gutenberg soon!
Almost any media player can play an mp3 straight from an HTTP source (without any special support for "streaming"), so you could host your MP3s on a web server and then just add URLs to a local playlist.
MD5 is not weak for password hashing.
But why did you bother reimplementing it? There are loads of free, public domain implementations, unless you are working in some fringe language (no shame in that).
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I don't think remote attestation can be used for peer-to-peer applications.
...). Therefore, a client can't verify that it is talking to itself.
Remote attestation is an inherently client-server "feature" because it requires that the server know the hash of the client. Therefore, the client must exist before the server is built, because the client's hash is a piece of data in the server's code. The client then asks for the OS to sign/send this hash to the server, which can verify it. However, it's not possible for a piece of software to intrinsically "know" its own hash--it can only know the hash of things that are built before it--a chicken and egg problem. (Changing the hash data means changing the program which means changing the hash data
There may be some extra way of "tying the knot," but it's not described in any of the descriptions of remote attestation that I've seen.
Anyway, legal protection from being unable to tamper with your own software to see what it does is probably not necessary. It should be enough to simply have the practice of deleting and wiping your log files (what's the difference between deliberately covering your tracks and deliberately choosing a program that leaves no tracks?) On the other hand, being able to tamper with your own software has a lot of good uses! Therefore I find these arguments for TC and RA rather weak.
... and I'm still looking at axis-aligned rectangles and big unaligned textures.
This was not intended as a troll. I have never seen a 3D interface that is anything more than whizzydo.