- the Entscheidungsproblem refers to the problem of finding a general solution that will determine for all possible programs whether or not they are correct. This is an undecidable problem. However, this does NOT mean you can't find a solution for certain subclasses of programs, or a program that finds certain kinds of flaws.
- also, you already know there is an error (otherwise the program wouldn't be triggered), and the type of error (e.g. NULL pointer, array index out of bounds etc.) . That makes much easier again than the general Entscheidungsproblem.
Careful: a lot of excellent science undergrads also transfer into med school, law school, or business school after their bachelors. The good science students are not the ones ending up driving taxis or working for McDonalds, but they may still be leaving the field (and in fact it seems that this trend is accelerating).
As somebody else pointed out, it only holds for x>4.
The proof is simple.
1) If x> 4 and x-1 is a prime number, then x-1 is odd. Therefore x is even - i.e. 2 is a prime factor of x.
2) for any three successive integers x-1,x,x+1, exactly one of the three numbers is divisible by 3 (basically if x-1 mod 3 is 1, then x mod 3 is 2 and x+1 mod 3 is 0, etc). Back to our problem - since x-1 and x+1 are assumed to be primes, the number divisible by 3 is in fact x.
Thus, x is divisible by both 2 and 3, i.e. it is divisible by 6.
Now, this may not sound super useful for a single machine, but it makes it so easy to share an Application folder on a common file server, for example. Just imagine - PowerPC, Intel 32, Intel 64, all sharing the same mount point and applications with the same path. Brilliant.
But "free" only has that meaning when applied to people. For inanimate objects "free" always means "no charge". Even for animals "free" tends to mean "free of charge". For example, most people would associate the term "free dog" with somebody giving away puppies from a litter, not with a dog that doesn't have an owner (there is a separate adjective for that: "wild").
I am sure there will be a number of people here on/. that will now say "its just semantics", but the fact is that terminology matters when you try to convince people to adopt a goal. So yes, the term "free software" is unfortunate, since the general public does not associate it with the same thing as its advocates. This is hurting the "free" software movement. It is also hurting the open source movement. Everybody else doesn't really give a shit.
Right, because a democratically elected government would just wave its magic wand and make 1.2 billion historically impoverished people rich instantly. Or something.
I like my freedoms, but it is also hard to ignore that the single biggest reason for the recent wealth creation in China has been the mandatory one-child family. Unlike India, China has found a way to stop the number one reason for poverty. If you think 1.2 billion Chinese are a lot, just imagine that there would be around 3 billion by now without this policy in place. And China would almost certainly be at war with pretty much every county in the region in a fight for agricultural land.
The ocean levels have almost certainly NOT been "60 or 70 meters" higher than today (where did all that water go, I wonder?). A more likely explanation is that the bedrock that the corals sit on has moved up through geological processes such as plate movements.
First of all, government owned does not imply 100% tax funded. In fact it is a common model for applied research institutes to have their government funding tied to licensing and other external income as an incentive for those institutes to do practically relevant research. So for example they may have 50% of their annual budget from the government, and the rest from other sources of income. And of course, whatever money they make on this won't be distributed among shareholder, but re-invested into future projects, thus creating jobs. That is the model used in research institutes around the world, and it has arguably been exceedingly successful in producing industry-relevant applied research (basic research is a different story).
Secondly, even if the work was 100% government funded, it would still benefit Australia to have this patented and licensed, even if it means they individually have to pay a few bucks more for the devices. That is because there are many more of these devices sold outside Australia than within. Therefore, Australia has a net benefit.
It's called macro economics. Then again, you are not alone on/. in ignoring that particular branch of economics and trying to run whole economies like the neighborhood grocery shop.
Marie Lindor, Beckerman's client,...was accused of making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing program. After five depositions and three years of legal maneuvering, the RIAA has dropped the case against the woman whom Beckerman said has "never turned on a computer.
Let me get this straight. Who's providing "false information," "misdirecting... relevant facts and events," and concealing "critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue" again?
Look, with all due respect to NYCL, he is her lawyer. Do you really think the other side should drop a law suit just because her lawyer says she didn't do it? Really?
If they thought they had a case then it was within their right to go to court. That is what the courts are for: to resolve legal disputes. Now, if they just sued because they thought she would cave in and pay despite not having done anything wrong, then that would be an abuse of the legal system. But you'd have to prove that. And simply asserting that the RIAA can't be trusted won't do the job (although I personally agree).
"Communication is the process of transferring information from one entity to another" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication).
One way communication is an important and valuable form of communication. There are other forms, and they are equally important, but that doesn't mean there is no value in essays.
Essay, is just fine and dandy for "expressing", ranting, giving speeches and eulogies and all other forms of monologues - where you expect NO REPLY from the reader/listener.
I am sure that if your application essay was ranting or overly "expressing" that would not get you accepted. Just like in any other situation in life - if you meet with your boss and start rambling incoherently you are not going to be the one who gets the promotion. You can call that "thought crime" if you want. I call it life.
Find someone who CAN do that, and have them do so, for a cut of the result.
That is possible, but you have to communicate well enough to explain to them why your idea has potential and why they should care.
If you can't raise funding yourself and you can't manage people at least reasonably well, then chances are "they" will not be working for you. You will be working for "them".
Since when is "leader" synonymous with "politician"?
Do you really think being technically smart is all it takes to make things happen, even in technology? Tell me: even if you do invent the next internet or the next google, etc, how are you going to: communicate your idea to possible investors? Come up with a decent business plan? Raise the funding to turn this idea into a successful enterprise? Find and properly motivate employees?
Even in basic science the picture isn't much different. Look at the Nobel laureates announced this week. Brilliant scientists? Sure. But also excellent communicators and leaders.
Also, I know I'm splitting hairs here; but the University doesn't want 'talent' . They want someone who is willing to dedicate themselves and work hard. Talent is nice to have, but ancillary.
Actually, they want people who are likely to be successful, and become leaders of tomorrow. These are the people that will go out and advertise their alma mater to the next generation. They are also the kind of people who end up making the big alumni donations.
Absolutely not. MIT's interest is not to find the most capable geeks, it is to find balanced individuals with a broad range of interests, who are are likely to become the leaders of tomorrow. Communication skills are essential for that.
Being technically strong is only one ingredient of success, even in technical disciplines.
a) compatibility of drivers and commercial software (yes, even on linux - flash, various codecs etc.)
b) smaller memory footprint (32 bit pointers and ints vs. 64 bit)
c) better cache utilization and thus performance (due to item b)
I'd like to return the question and ask why on earth you would want to go with 64 bit unless you really have a single process that needs over 4GB of memory (remember that even 32 bit computers can use more than 4GB, just not from within one process).
Yes and no. My contractual duties don't require anything *in particular*, but they do require that I do several of a list things to get promotion or tenure. On that list is writing a textbook.
As a tenured prof, I can honestly say that I've never heard of a textbook (as in a book targeted at teaching as opposed to a research monograph) bearing any weight for promotion and tenure.
Also, in North America most faculty contracts allow for one day of consulting per week. If you declare the book writing as part of your consulting time, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can claim rights to that work.
You are correct that the line between work and spare time tends to get blurred for us, but that just means that YOU are responsible for drawing the line when you want to keep some fruits of your work. Legally, the university administration cannot demand ownership of work you did on top of your contractual 40 hour week, and tenure/promotion committees do not consider the ownership of the created IP when reaching their decision (they don't even have that information).
As for the financial incentive: a textbook for a 1st or 2nd year course in pretty much anything (including psychology) can fairly easily sell 3000-5000 copies a year, even if just a dozen universities adopt it. The author share for your typical $150 textbook is in the $20-25 range, so we are talking about royalties in the range of $60k-$100k/year. That's not bad at all.
That's because in academia the primary currency isn't the Almighty Buck but the Almighty Published Research.
Correction: the primary academic currency is peer reviewed published research. Everybody with too much time at their hands can publish a book. That by itself only counts for something in the social disciplines. In Science and Engineering, books are worthless from the point of view of academic impact. Text books in particular do often get written primarily for the money.
As a fellow prof, I have to disagree on a number of fronts:
1) my contractual duties do not include book writing. So if I write a book, I do that in my own spare time, and I should be able to reap the benefits, just like anybody else who takes on a second job.
2) most research monographs don't make a lot of money, but undergrad textbooks are a big business. If you can get a bunch of universities to adopt your book for first year intro classes, that can easily double your university salary.
Kind of what I thought. In fact, I have to wonder how many college/university books are actually funded in any sense by government. Every single example I have seen of a book written by a prof was written after hours, in the evening or on weekends. Book writing is not part of the regular paid duties of profs i.e. their salary does not cover those efforts.
Except Autodesk does not sell software, they sell limited-term licenses. In effect the guy rented the software. The first-sale doctrine does not apply ot rentals.
Rather than ranting at people, why don't you suggest your own solution? Oh, right. That's because you don't have one.
What is wrong with charging them with fraud? Maybe rather than having cops harass people for minor traffic violations and misdemeanors, they could re-allocate resources to prosecute actual crime? You know, the kind that actually has victims?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you are making two mistakes:
- the Entscheidungsproblem refers to the problem of finding a general solution that will determine for all possible programs whether or not they are correct. This is an undecidable problem. However, this does NOT mean you can't find a solution for certain subclasses of programs, or a program that finds certain kinds of flaws.
- also, you already know there is an error (otherwise the program wouldn't be triggered), and the type of error (e.g. NULL pointer, array index out of bounds etc.) . That makes much easier again than the general Entscheidungsproblem.
Careful: a lot of excellent science undergrads also transfer into med school, law school, or business school after their bachelors. The good science students are not the ones ending up driving taxis or working for McDonalds, but they may still be leaving the field (and in fact it seems that this trend is accelerating).
As somebody else pointed out, it only holds for x>4.
The proof is simple.
1) If x> 4 and x-1 is a prime number, then x-1 is odd. Therefore x is even - i.e. 2 is a prime factor of x.
2) for any three successive integers x-1,x,x+1, exactly one of the three numbers is divisible by 3 (basically if x-1 mod 3 is 1, then x mod 3 is 2 and x+1 mod 3 is 0, etc). Back to our problem - since x-1 and x+1 are assumed to be primes, the number divisible by 3 is in fact x.
Thus, x is divisible by both 2 and 3, i.e. it is divisible by 6.
That is not what the Mac does, though. On MacOS, you literally have the different platform binaries stored in a single file. For example:
# file /Applications/iMovie.app/Contents/MacOS/iMovie /Applications/iMovie.app/Contents/MacOS/iMovie: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures /Applications/iMovie.app/Contents/MacOS/iMovie (for architecture ppc): Mach-O executable ppc /Applications/iMovie.app/Contents/MacOS/iMovie (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
Now, this may not sound super useful for a single machine, but it makes it so easy to share an Application folder on a common file server, for example. Just imagine - PowerPC, Intel 32, Intel 64, all sharing the same mount point and applications with the same path. Brilliant.
But "free" only has that meaning when applied to people. For inanimate objects "free" always means "no charge". Even for animals "free" tends to mean "free of charge". For example, most people would associate the term "free dog" with somebody giving away puppies from a litter, not with a dog that doesn't have an owner (there is a separate adjective for that: "wild").
I am sure there will be a number of people here on /. that will now say "its just semantics", but the fact is that terminology matters when you try to convince people to adopt a goal. So yes, the term "free software" is unfortunate, since the general public does not associate it with the same thing as its advocates. This is hurting the "free" software movement. It is also hurting the open source movement. Everybody else doesn't really give a shit.
Around here it is more like a big room wit a gray ceiling and a malfunctioning sprinkler system right now :-(
Right, because a democratically elected government would just wave its magic wand and make 1.2 billion historically impoverished people rich instantly. Or something.
I like my freedoms, but it is also hard to ignore that the single biggest reason for the recent wealth creation in China has been the mandatory one-child family. Unlike India, China has found a way to stop the number one reason for poverty. If you think 1.2 billion Chinese are a lot, just imagine that there would be around 3 billion by now without this policy in place. And China would almost certainly be at war with pretty much every county in the region in a fight for agricultural land.
The ocean levels have almost certainly NOT been "60 or 70 meters" higher than today (where did all that water go, I wonder?). A more likely explanation is that the bedrock that the corals sit on has moved up through geological processes such as plate movements.
First of all, government owned does not imply 100% tax funded. In fact it is a common model for applied research institutes to have their government funding tied to licensing and other external income as an incentive for those institutes to do practically relevant research. So for example they may have 50% of their annual budget from the government, and the rest from other sources of income. And of course, whatever money they make on this won't be distributed among shareholder, but re-invested into future projects, thus creating jobs. That is the model used in research institutes around the world, and it has arguably been exceedingly successful in producing industry-relevant applied research (basic research is a different story).
Secondly, even if the work was 100% government funded, it would still benefit Australia to have this patented and licensed, even if it means they individually have to pay a few bucks more for the devices. That is because there are many more of these devices sold outside Australia than within. Therefore, Australia has a net benefit.
It's called macro economics. Then again, you are not alone on /. in ignoring that particular branch of economics and trying to run whole economies like the neighborhood grocery shop.
Marie Lindor, Beckerman's client, ...was accused of making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing program. After five depositions and three years of legal maneuvering, the RIAA has dropped the case against the woman whom Beckerman said has "never turned on a computer.
Let me get this straight. Who's providing "false information," "misdirecting... relevant facts and events," and concealing "critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue" again?
Look, with all due respect to NYCL, he is her lawyer. Do you really think the other side should drop a law suit just because her lawyer says she didn't do it? Really?
If they thought they had a case then it was within their right to go to court. That is what the courts are for: to resolve legal disputes. Now, if they just sued because they thought she would cave in and pay despite not having done anything wrong, then that would be an abuse of the legal system. But you'd have to prove that. And simply asserting that the RIAA can't be trusted won't do the job (although I personally agree).
"Communication is the process of transferring information from one entity to another" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication).
One way communication is an important and valuable form of communication. There are other forms, and they are equally important, but that doesn't mean there is no value in essays.
Essay, is just fine and dandy for "expressing", ranting, giving speeches and eulogies and all other forms of monologues - where you expect NO REPLY from the reader/listener.
I am sure that if your application essay was ranting or overly "expressing" that would not get you accepted. Just like in any other situation in life - if you meet with your boss and start rambling incoherently you are not going to be the one who gets the promotion. You can call that "thought crime" if you want. I call it life.
Find someone who CAN do that, and have them do so, for a cut of the result.
That is possible, but you have to communicate well enough to explain to them why your idea has potential and why they should care.
If you can't raise funding yourself and you can't manage people at least reasonably well, then chances are "they" will not be working for you. You will be working for "them".
Since when is "leader" synonymous with "politician"?
Do you really think being technically smart is all it takes to make things happen, even in technology? Tell me: even if you do invent the next internet or the next google, etc, how are you going to: communicate your idea to possible investors? Come up with a decent business plan? Raise the funding to turn this idea into a successful enterprise? Find and properly motivate employees?
Even in basic science the picture isn't much different. Look at the Nobel laureates announced this week. Brilliant scientists? Sure. But also excellent communicators and leaders.
Also, I know I'm splitting hairs here; but the University doesn't want 'talent' . They want someone who is willing to dedicate themselves and work hard. Talent is nice to have, but ancillary.
Actually, they want people who are likely to be successful, and become leaders of tomorrow. These are the people that will go out and advertise their alma mater to the next generation. They are also the kind of people who end up making the big alumni donations.
Absolutely not. MIT's interest is not to find the most capable geeks, it is to find balanced individuals with a broad range of interests, who are are likely to become the leaders of tomorrow. Communication skills are essential for that.
Being technically strong is only one ingredient of success, even in technical disciplines.
Two questions:
- how much time did you put in to buy the individual parts and assemble them?
- what is your hourly pay rate?
I don't know about you, but my time isn't free, you know.
Well, a DUI puts innocent bystanders at risk. Smoking a joint? Not so much.
Where to begin?
a) compatibility of drivers and commercial software (yes, even on linux - flash, various codecs etc.)
b) smaller memory footprint (32 bit pointers and ints vs. 64 bit)
c) better cache utilization and thus performance (due to item b)
I'd like to return the question and ask why on earth you would want to go with 64 bit unless you really have a single process that needs over 4GB of memory (remember that even 32 bit computers can use more than 4GB, just not from within one process).
Yes and no. My contractual duties don't require anything *in particular*, but they do require that I do several of a list things to get promotion or tenure. On that list is writing a textbook.
As a tenured prof, I can honestly say that I've never heard of a textbook (as in a book targeted at teaching as opposed to a research monograph) bearing any weight for promotion and tenure.
Also, in North America most faculty contracts allow for one day of consulting per week. If you declare the book writing as part of your consulting time, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can claim rights to that work.
You are correct that the line between work and spare time tends to get blurred for us, but that just means that YOU are responsible for drawing the line when you want to keep some fruits of your work. Legally, the university administration cannot demand ownership of work you did on top of your contractual 40 hour week, and tenure/promotion committees do not consider the ownership of the created IP when reaching their decision (they don't even have that information).
As for the financial incentive: a textbook for a 1st or 2nd year course in pretty much anything (including psychology) can fairly easily sell 3000-5000 copies a year, even if just a dozen universities adopt it. The author share for your typical $150 textbook is in the $20-25 range, so we are talking about royalties in the range of $60k-$100k/year. That's not bad at all.
That's because in academia the primary currency isn't the Almighty Buck but the Almighty Published Research.
Correction: the primary academic currency is peer reviewed published research. Everybody with too much time at their hands can publish a book. That by itself only counts for something in the social disciplines. In Science and Engineering, books are worthless from the point of view of academic impact. Text books in particular do often get written primarily for the money.
As a fellow prof, I have to disagree on a number of fronts:
1) my contractual duties do not include book writing. So if I write a book, I do that in my own spare time, and I should be able to reap the benefits, just like anybody else who takes on a second job.
2) most research monographs don't make a lot of money, but undergrad textbooks are a big business. If you can get a bunch of universities to adopt your book for first year intro classes, that can easily double your university salary.
Kind of what I thought. In fact, I have to wonder how many college/university books are actually funded in any sense by government. Every single example I have seen of a book written by a prof was written after hours, in the evening or on weekends. Book writing is not part of the regular paid duties of profs i.e. their salary does not cover those efforts.
Or maybe you are just getting old/mature, and are no longer drooling over toys for toys' sake? Just saying...
Except Autodesk does not sell software, they sell limited-term licenses. In effect the guy rented the software. The first-sale doctrine does not apply ot rentals.
Rather than ranting at people, why don't you suggest your own solution? Oh, right. That's because you don't have one.
What is wrong with charging them with fraud? Maybe rather than having cops harass people for minor traffic violations and misdemeanors, they could re-allocate resources to prosecute actual crime? You know, the kind that actually has victims?