They cluster in Waterloo, Ontario, to forge new, mind-bending ideas about the ultimate nature of our universe, from space and time to matter and forces. Driven by curiosity, their mission is to unlock nature's most profound secrets hidden deep inside the atom and far across the universe.
As Big Lebowski would say: "far out... far fucking out!"
But he doesn't necessarily have to be smarter than slashdot to do what he claims.
He claims he is smarter than slashdot, plain and simple, and he isn't. The question then is indeed what he's saying he's doing in the post. It's a manipulation of a sort which always resorts back to that same claim. For example: I religiously follow slashdot but I know better, I love skepticism on the Internet but I can find the truth; I know TFA are not important but I'd rather stick to the important question posed by the post, etc.
Usually when someone posts something incorrect as a comment on slashdot it is either modded down or someone more knowledgeable will correct it.
Fine, but again that's not what was written in the post I replied to. Go find your statement in: "I know how to look at the comments, deal with conflicting statements, and find the real answer."
As it perhaps becomes obvious by now, to achieve such stupendous claims, "All the reader has to do is either skip the comments modded to 0 or 1 or read the correction." is not enough. Instead, a certain judgement is implied to be always at hand and so self-assured that it is nothing left for me but to peek and poke it.
I notice the only thing supporting the idea that wiki defines true comes from wiki, which is not an outside-wiki source. Therefore it can't be verified (without RTFA at least) and is not true.
Truth you speak, almost: as though to make things more interesting, Hugh writes in the master post:
On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.
so then, as though it says that the truth indeed comes from within the wiki: a wiki subiectum, broken and battered, gathers its pieces of viewpoints together within itself and assembles the consensus view (all of this presumably via Descartes) of itself as the subiectum, thus attaining or approaching the truth. Oki-doki?
Vincent, is that you? Check this out man: in a post just near yours, sandysnowbeard writes:
[...] I was using wikipedia to look at some Van Gogh paintings a few weeks back, and one that I loved was purportedly in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Then I checked the museum archives itself, and I found out it's not there! What a load of hooey, I'm not even sure anymore that the painting is by our beloved half-eared expressionist, as it has disappeared from the wiki article, too.
The point is, quantum crypto was never intended to be used as the standard encryption, just a perfectly (yes, perfect. Not even quantum computers can break it.) secure means of transmitting a small amount of critical information. To be used, let's see, to transmit private keys of classical crypto, or attack orders in times of war, that kind of stuff.
Yes, but if one eavesdrops quantum exchange of keys, all the time, then what? no exchange ever take place since they all have been touched.
He's got a point in being touchy. Did you read the article? It is so anti-intellectual that me thinks Mr. Dooling will have hysterical fits every time somebody mentions words like "algorithm" or "simulation" or, god forbid, "geek" for months to come. Of course, he is not without his own little strategy there (about that in a moment). You write
The point is not that the crisis is the fault of "the nerds", but that the risk was effectively masked by the conversion of mortgages into ill-understood derivatives.
Ill-understood? I don't thinks so, nor do I think that there lies the problem with the current
crisis. I've noticed that the article never talks about NINA but does blame everything on nothing else but computers. Read it for yourself this:
Over and over again, financial experts and wonkish talking heads endeavor to explain these mysterious, "toxic" financial instruments to us lay folk. Over and over, they ignobly fail, because we all know that no one understands credit default obligations and derivatives, except perhaps Mr. Buffett and the computers who created them. [emphasize added]
One hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, was a leader in reckless behavior back in the 90's. It seems like all the other hedge funds today had actually copied their model of investment.
If they did it, it's because their model is not that bad at all. It worked really well for a while, then they got hit with two (or was it three?) big rare events and collapsed.
They followed the same idea that a bunch of bad things could not happen all at once.
Same idea as whose idea? If you're comparing LTCM with the current crisis, two don't have much in common, except that in both cases we have some serious gambling going on. Whoever copied LTCM at the time and didn't go as far as they did, made loads of money. In contradistinction,
what is going on no with mortgages is pretty close to having a semi-scam business conducted in parallel with the regular business, so when the shit hit the fan all these businessmen don't trust anymore one another.
Maybe that's right, the way I remember it is that Sharon was his wife, but that he later discovered that she's also an agent, instructed to marry him, so the tinkering wasn't that important for this subplot. There was also no other woman involved with him I think.
Yeah, the overheating part could be solved by investing in more racks, and then putting half as many units on each rack. and to remedy the problem with extra space needed to store all those units taken out from the racks, I suggest that they should use twice as small units.
Actually, they are buying twice as much hardware as they would otherwise need, according to TFA. Er, not that I read it or anything, I swear,.... I don't know whether you can read or not, but your post surely makes no sense: you're saying that you've read that google buys more hardware that they would otherwise need. Other than what? Do they buy hardware that they don't need? I don't think so, that does not make sense. Okidoki?
You forgot to incorporate life-time of components into your calculation. Same everything but longer life time and more expensive component should become cheaper in the long-run and/or large-scale use.
I'd like to see the traffic patterns for their data centers. Our University has a daily and weekly pattern, no surprise there, but I wonder how much their traffic changes through the night. There is no 'night' and 'day' for a worldwide internet-based organization such as google. When you have night, someone else has day. Both of you use google. and the distribution of google uses is uniform across all the meridians of this world all the time---if this is not globalization then I don't what is: no night, no day, no east, no west, no nothin, just the steady state gooogling all the time everywhere...
My argument, however, is mostly about how we are creating a situation in which future generations are likely to become so dependent on high-level tools that the number of people who are qualified to create those tools are going to dwindle. And its not even really about software development, per se. We live you know in a technological world. Technology becoming more sophisticated, complicated, harder to understand and explain, makes the world only more of a technological world, but just because the tools are getting more complex does not mean that there will be no more those who can build those tools to specification. One part of your worries is exactly that you're afraid that there will be no more humans in the future because of the technology.
You are in fact worried that the technology will supplement natural thinking, which you deem as bad, and also believe that some special diet must be held in schools so that natural thinking is preserved and that the technology should only be kept as a supplement to the natural thinking:
[teaching the kids the tool that makes sure they won't have to actually do stuff... is]
making us lazy, fat and bandy. its double-plus ungood. Now you should use your natural intelligence to figure out all the contradictions in your demands.
You noticed the pun. At the time you pressed "Submit" you intended the pun. Why deny it? If you think its tasteless, edit what came before. If you like it, admit it; we won't think any less of you (I mean seriously, he's a murderer according to a jury of his peers). But still, there is no guarantee that the reader will have noticed the pun. That's the pun of writing "no pun intended". Then "no pun intended" may defeat the intentionality of the writer (who might have intended to write: yes, I know there is a pun here, but the text has meaning beside the pun, I'd like you to focus on that).
Saying "no pun intended" is fine, because you can't unsay something. Writing "no pun intended" on a computer is silly and makes the language meaningless. Meaningless language is bad because it defeats the purpose. The pun of written "no pun intended" thus forks the meaning by diverting the purpose, intention, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
They cluster in Waterloo, Ontario, to forge new, mind-bending ideas about the ultimate nature of our universe, from space and time to matter and forces. Driven by curiosity, their mission is to unlock nature's most profound secrets hidden deep inside the atom and far across the universe.
As Big Lebowski would say: "far out... far fucking out!"
But he doesn't necessarily have to be smarter than slashdot to do what he claims.
He claims he is smarter than slashdot, plain and simple, and he isn't. The question then is indeed what he's saying he's doing in the post. It's a manipulation of a sort which always resorts back to that same claim. For example: I religiously follow slashdot but I know better, I love skepticism on the Internet but I can find the truth; I know TFA are not important but I'd rather stick to the important question posed by the post, etc.
Usually when someone posts something incorrect as a comment on slashdot it is either modded down or someone more knowledgeable will correct it.
Fine, but again that's not what was written in the post I replied to. Go find your statement in: "I know how to look at the comments, deal with conflicting statements, and find the real answer."
As it perhaps becomes obvious by now, to achieve such stupendous claims, "All the reader has to do is either skip the comments modded to 0 or 1 or read the correction." is not enough. Instead, a certain judgement is implied to be always at hand and so self-assured that it is nothing left for me but to peek and poke it.
I notice the only thing supporting the idea that wiki defines true comes from wiki, which is not an outside-wiki source. Therefore it can't be verified (without RTFA at least) and is not true.
Truth you speak, almost: as though to make things more interesting, Hugh writes in the master post:
On Wikipedia, truth is received truth: the consensus view of a subject.
so then, as though it says that the truth indeed comes from within the wiki: a wiki subiectum, broken and battered, gathers its pieces of viewpoints together within itself and assembles the consensus view (all of this presumably via Descartes) of itself as the subiectum, thus attaining or approaching the truth. Oki-doki?
the part:
I'm glad to hear that you know better than slashdot. You're just too good for, just to good to be true pal:
should read:
I'm glad to hear that you know better than slashdot. You're just too good for us, just to good to be true pal:
Sorry for the reading inconveniences.
Sincerely sincere,
ioshhdflwuegfh
[...] I was using wikipedia to look at some Van Gogh paintings a few weeks back, and one that I loved was purportedly in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Then I checked the museum archives itself, and I found out it's not there! What a load of hooey, I'm not even sure anymore that the painting is by our beloved half-eared expressionist, as it has disappeared from the wiki article, too.
exactly.
I never took a philosophy class [...]I don't know that converting everyone to empiricism is actually a rational goal.
Sure things, both of them: U didn't and It ain't cuz being rational does not mean being empiricist and vice versa.
I know how to look at the comments, deal with conflicting statements, and find the real answer.
I doubt that you could find a needle in a haystack, let alone the real answer.
The point is, quantum crypto was never intended to be used as the standard encryption, just a perfectly (yes, perfect. Not even quantum computers can break it.) secure means of transmitting a small amount of critical information. To be used, let's see, to transmit private keys of classical crypto, or attack orders in times of war, that kind of stuff.
Yes, but if one eavesdrops quantum exchange of keys, all the time, then what? no exchange ever take place since they all have been touched.
Give me any large prime, and I will factor it for you instantly!
Give me any two large primes, and I'll factor their product instantly.
The point is not that the crisis is the fault of "the nerds", but that the risk was effectively masked by the conversion of mortgages into ill-understood derivatives.
Ill-understood? I don't thinks so, nor do I think that there lies the problem with the current crisis. I've noticed that the article never talks about NINA but does blame everything on nothing else but computers. Read it for yourself this:
Over and over again, financial experts and wonkish talking heads endeavor to explain these mysterious, "toxic" financial instruments to us lay folk. Over and over, they ignobly fail, because we all know that no one understands credit default obligations and derivatives, except perhaps Mr. Buffett and the computers who created them. [emphasize added]
One hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, was a leader in reckless behavior back in the 90's. It seems like all the other hedge funds today had actually copied their model of investment.
If they did it, it's because their model is not that bad at all. It worked really well for a while, then they got hit with two (or was it three?) big rare events and collapsed.
They followed the same idea that a bunch of bad things could not happen all at once.
Same idea as whose idea? If you're comparing LTCM with the current crisis, two don't have much in common, except that in both cases we have some serious gambling going on. Whoever copied LTCM at the time and didn't go as far as they did, made loads of money. In contradistinction, what is going on no with mortgages is pretty close to having a semi-scam business conducted in parallel with the regular business, so when the shit hit the fan all these businessmen don't trust anymore one another.
Earth to anaesthetica: dudes on stock market all want to make money.
Yes, you just go to judge and say: "Judge, I want to divorce this person because she's not my wife".
Maybe that's right, the way I remember it is that Sharon was his wife, but that he later discovered that she's also an agent, instructed to marry him, so the tinkering wasn't that important for this subplot. There was also no other woman involved with him I think.
You forgot to incorporate life-time of components into your calculation. Same everything but longer life time and more expensive component should become cheaper in the long-run and/or large-scale use.
You are in fact worried that the technology will supplement natural thinking, which you deem as bad, and also believe that some special diet must be held in schools so that natural thinking is preserved and that the technology should only be kept as a supplement to the natural thinking: [teaching the kids the tool that makes sure they won't have to actually do stuff... is] making us lazy, fat and bandy. its double-plus ungood. Now you should use your natural intelligence to figure out all the contradictions in your demands.
You noticed the pun. At the time you pressed "Submit" you intended the pun. Why deny it? If you think its tasteless, edit what came before. If you like it, admit it; we won't think any less of you (I mean seriously, he's a murderer according to a jury of his peers). But still, there is no guarantee that the reader will have noticed the pun. That's the pun of writing "no pun intended". Then "no pun intended" may defeat the intentionality of the writer (who might have intended to write: yes, I know there is a pun here, but the text has meaning beside the pun, I'd like you to focus on that). Saying "no pun intended" is fine, because you can't unsay something. Writing "no pun intended" on a computer is silly and makes the language meaningless. Meaningless language is bad because it defeats the purpose. The pun of written "no pun intended" thus forks the meaning by diverting the purpose, intention, etc...
I was wondering myself about that.