atleast not in Denmark, where I live. In danish, "tung" means heavy and "sten" means rock. So this is the "heavy rock t2". Not exactly a handheld I'd like to own!
Based on my detailed analysis of the data, I think there is good reason to suspect that it is during the the second week of the third semester that the surgeons move in and remove that piece of wetware in the student body.
The light is converted to another representation than light inside the crystal, so technically, the light is not being halted. Rather, it is being converted to another form, and then later converted back to light again.
Specifically, "stopping light" has nothing to do with it, though that is what the media in my country keeps calling it.
Wow! I hope I'm lucky and my maschine comes with a DVD bruner! I mean, the chance is 33%, so it's not that unlikely... If I don't get lucky the first time around, I'll just have to try again... really want a DVD burner!
... don't use the word "paradigme" among non-marketing people. Paradigme = bullshit. Everyone knows. Doubt me?
"Cooldrink, a new paradigme in refreshment!"
Don't tell me you can't spot that that is bullshit. Of course the word paradigme has valid uses wherein it is in fact not bullshit, but I think lots of people will have the "bullshit" trigger go off regardless.
Using guns to initiative or threathen to initiate force is indeed wrong. However, this has nothing to do with worse-than-western working conditions. People normally do *not* argue that it is wrong to initiate force against workers in the third world (something to which any libertarian would have to agree), the argument is rather that the working conditions are not the same as in western countries.
I believe what you are doing is called a strawman attack: implicitly or explicitly assume that libertarians think initiation of force is interely acceptable and then going on to refute that. However, libertarians do not think that.
Do you seriopusly think the US would face LESS terrorist attacks if the US just said "oh well, you killed thousands of our citizens, but don't worry, we forgive you!"
How many governments do you think will be willing to aid terrorists as the Taliban has done, after this?
Be glad you have a government that actually takes rational action to keep you safe, even when you don't seem to want them to.
If a shop required you to sign a contract prior to purchase that said you could not sell your new property, is that evil? I do not see how, though of course I'm not sure I'd be all that interested in buying stuff in that shop.
"Not if the producer/owner has a monopoly...it's the law, stupid."
Please think about what it means when I say "in a free country". You seem beyound help, so I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, though perhaps you will surprise me.
... should not the producer/owner of an item/piece of software get to decide the price others must pay in order to obtain it? It seems to me that anything else amounts to expropiation, where the government takes something and it is the government who takes that also gets to decide the price for doing so. Even if Microsoft has been so evil as to make a product many people want to use, I don't think that's fair.
(even though I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with it, don't tell me that you have no alternative. I can't believe any Slashdot reader doesn't know what open source or Free software is. If there is no open source/Free software that does what you need, get to work making one or stop complaining. Doing anything else just shows you aren't REALLY serious about Free software (though with open source the lines are not so clear))
Don't mod me down just because this is Slashdot and you don't like hearing what I'm saying.
for ((...) i++) is just WRONG. The proper way to do it is for ((...) ++i). The other way is both less effecient, and it makes it seem as if you need the original value of i for some special processing, while in fact you don't.
This story is grossly misleading. MS sends out some letters to people, prepaid and prestamped, and ask people to sign them and give them to the mailman. The letters "from the dead" were in fact signed by the families of the deceased. As I said, this story is grossly misleading.
I can't even say that I don't understand why MS is doing this. Their very existence is threatened by the government. There are not many ways for a company to defend itself in a world were wanting to earn money is viewed as some kind of moral shortcoming.
I agree with this too....but I don't agree that it is inevitable that computers will beat the human simply because processing speed will become so overwhelmingly fast that humans will not be able to out-compute the them.
That depends on the timeframe. Give a couple of hundred years and I think computers will have gotten fast enough... However, I for one don't think that something happening in 400 years is terribly interesting, which is why I also emphasize algorithmic improvements.
One of the "odd group" is called the Monster Group, and it has 2^46*3^20*5^9*7^6*17^2*13^2*17*19*23*29*31*41*47*5 9*71 group elements. A computer will choke if it tried to compute such a group by brute force (somebody figured this out in 1980 by piecing together a zillion theorems).
Brute forcing that monster would indeed be infeasible on a computer. Producing the proof of said theorem, however, might not be outside the reach of a sufficiently well-programmed AI (in the far, far future, of course).
My point is that human intuition is not easily replaced by brute computer power.
Algorithmic progress in chess consists largely of making the computer more clever. That is, it consists of making the programs less "brute" and more intelligent. The task is not one of replacing human intuition with brute computer power, it is one of replacing human chess intuition with the skill of the programmer/scientist in question, aided by immense computational power.
The computer will always lag behind the human in terms of theory
In the far, far, future, this may not be the case. Today, it is. However, the computer has BOTH theory and computational power. It does not need to utilize the theory as well as a human does in order to beat him. Deep Blue most certainly did not grasp chess theory as well as Kasparov (if it grasped anything at all), to take an example.
Slashdot Mirror
atleast not in Denmark, where I live. In danish, "tung" means heavy and "sten" means rock. So this is the "heavy rock t2". Not exactly a handheld I'd like to own!
Based on my detailed analysis of the data, I think there is good reason to suspect that it is during the the second week of the third semester that the surgeons move in and remove that piece of wetware in the student body.
I would think teaching them Basic would be the last thing you would want to do!
The implications for quantum computing are overwhelming!
There *is* no foton (a proton is something quite different) while "it" is being stored. You can't stop a car that doesn't exit.
The light is converted to another representation than light inside the crystal, so technically, the light is not being halted. Rather, it is being converted to another form, and then later converted back to light again.
Specifically, "stopping light" has nothing to do with it, though that is what the media in my country keeps calling it.
"DVD burner on one of 3 models"
Wow! I hope I'm lucky and my maschine comes with a DVD bruner! I mean, the chance is 33%, so it's not that unlikely... If I don't get lucky the first time around, I'll just have to try again... really want a DVD burner!
Seeing as I am dead, I can't respond. Sorry... ;-)
Yes, one should only avoid "paradigm" (wohoo! I can spell!) in certain contexts. Good point.
I will immediately do hara-kiri for my wrongdoings!
... don't use the word "paradigme" among non-marketing people. Paradigme = bullshit. Everyone knows. Doubt me?
"Cooldrink, a new paradigme in refreshment!"
Don't tell me you can't spot that that is bullshit. Of course the word paradigme has valid uses wherein it is in fact not bullshit, but I think lots of people will have the "bullshit" trigger go off regardless.
When I saw that title, I was thougth it was about clothing with screens on it.
Using guns to initiative or threathen to initiate force is indeed wrong. However, this has nothing to do with worse-than-western working conditions. People normally do *not* argue that it is wrong to initiate force against workers in the third world (something to which any libertarian would have to agree), the argument is rather that the working conditions are not the same as in western countries.
I believe what you are doing is called a strawman attack: implicitly or explicitly assume that libertarians think initiation of force is interely acceptable and then going on to refute that. However, libertarians do not think that.
If I had expected to die, then yes.
We have plenty of bang gang sites on the net already!
...not that I would know, of course!
Do you seriopusly think the US would face LESS terrorist attacks if the US just said "oh well, you killed thousands of our citizens, but don't worry, we forgive you!"
How many governments do you think will be willing to aid terrorists as the Taliban has done, after this?
Be glad you have a government that actually takes rational action to keep you safe, even when you don't seem to want them to.
If a shop required you to sign a contract prior to purchase that said you could not sell your new property, is that evil? I do not see how, though of course I'm not sure I'd be all that interested in buying stuff in that shop.
>
Not if they have entered into a deal that says they do not, obviously.
"Not if the producer/owner has a monopoly...it's the law, stupid."
Please think about what it means when I say "in a free country". You seem beyound help, so I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, though perhaps you will surprise me.
In a free country there must be laws against theft. This is exactly my point.
... should not the producer/owner of an item/piece of software get to decide the price others must pay in order to obtain it? It seems to me that anything else amounts to expropiation, where the government takes something and it is the government who takes that also gets to decide the price for doing so. Even if Microsoft has been so evil as to make a product many people want to use, I don't think that's fair.
(even though I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with it, don't tell me that you have no alternative. I can't believe any Slashdot reader doesn't know what open source or Free software is. If there is no open source/Free software that does what you need, get to work making one or stop complaining. Doing anything else just shows you aren't REALLY serious about Free software (though with open source the lines are not so clear))
Don't mod me down just because this is Slashdot and you don't like hearing what I'm saying.
I do not think the combined Slashdot readership can solve the NP=P? problem.
for ((...) i++) is just WRONG. The proper way to do it is for ((...) ++i). The other way is both less effecient, and it makes it seem as if you need the original value of i for some special processing, while in fact you don't.
This story is grossly misleading. MS sends out some letters to people, prepaid and prestamped, and ask people to sign them and give them to the mailman. The letters "from the dead" were in fact signed by the families of the deceased. As I said, this story is grossly misleading.
I can't even say that I don't understand why MS is doing this. Their very existence is threatened by the government. There are not many ways for a company to defend itself in a world were wanting to earn money is viewed as some kind of moral shortcoming.
I agree with this too....but I don't agree that it is inevitable that computers will beat the human simply because processing speed will become so overwhelmingly fast that humans will not be able to out-compute the them.
5 9*71 group elements. A computer will choke if it tried to compute such a group by brute force (somebody figured this out in 1980 by piecing together a zillion theorems).
That depends on the timeframe. Give a couple of hundred years and I think computers will have gotten fast enough... However, I for one don't think that something happening in 400 years is terribly interesting, which is why I also emphasize algorithmic improvements.
One of the "odd group" is called the Monster Group, and it has 2^46*3^20*5^9*7^6*17^2*13^2*17*19*23*29*31*41*47*
Brute forcing that monster would indeed be infeasible on a computer. Producing the proof of said theorem, however, might not be outside the reach of a sufficiently well-programmed AI (in the far, far future, of course).
My point is that human intuition is not easily replaced by brute computer power.
Algorithmic progress in chess consists largely of making the computer more clever. That is, it consists of making the programs less "brute" and more intelligent. The task is not one of replacing human intuition with brute computer power, it is one of replacing human chess intuition with the skill of the programmer/scientist in question, aided by immense computational power.
The computer will always lag behind the human in terms of theory
In the far, far, future, this may not be the case. Today, it is. However, the computer has BOTH theory and computational power. It does not need to utilize the theory as well as a human does in order to beat him. Deep Blue most certainly did not grasp chess theory as well as Kasparov (if it grasped anything at all), to take an example.