Who was it that caused you to write the joke above? It appears that he is a far more interesting person that how you've caricatured him. A quote, a webpage or a name would satisfy me.
I'm afraid I don't understand this trust argument. I trust Google. But SHOULD one trust google? Based on their track record, one could grant it. Does one trust the USPS? Well yes. Should one trust the USPS? Based on their record of failed mail deliveries, no.
Google may not sell your email transcripts, but how do you know some unethical Google employee may not be reading your email on the sly? Of course, I'm not insinuating that it is or it will, but think of the potential for abuse here. Then think about what happens when other dotcoms start to offer such a service.
Personally, I would NEVER use such a service.
If I want good search functions for email, I'll do that by writing my own email reader. Thank Goodness of Open Source and Free Software!
Here's an idea for the open source developers out there - start modularizing your search functions RIGHT NOW, in anticipation of better, pluggable algorithms to do that search.
You have something there, until the philosophy about communism/materialism/capitalism. Realise that you know nothing about those things, stop making inane comments about those subjects, and you'll do just fine.
Remember, if Sun open sources Java, then MS benefits! Sun is better off as a friend and dead. They also support OO.org. Think about their whole portfolio before ragging and asking only for ONE THING.
And to second your point, I think it is in the best interests of the community to NOT see Sun die. They are one of the last vendors of Unix left - if they die, do you forsee Redhat or Suse stepping up to the table?
By all means, ask for x86 support. But DON'T KILL SUN. Now is not the time to ask for Java to be open sourced. It would be a good thing, however, to extract from them, some promise that as Java evolves, some earlier version can be open-sourced.
In fact, you can COUNT. That's the whole point of Cantor's argument. You just can't exhaust it. You might think I am pulling your leg, but counting, in a mathematical sense, means establishing a one-to-one map between it, and the integers.
What do you call someone who reads about an idea an digests it and communicates it better? A teacher. Yes. Since you are just finishing up a Masters, you very likely took courses. In each course, teachers plagiarized....
Can you honestly tell me that is using a word intelligently?
Please take this simple test: To look up a chemical element's mass, I looked up the Periodic table. Is or is that plagiarism? Another student simply computed that based on the proton and electron numbers. Is that plagiarism? Who do you think is more accurate and precise? Do you think it matters?
To win an argument in slashdot, I checked up dictionary.com. Plagiarism. Waitaminute. Isn't the function of a dictionary to settle disputes like that? So it's plagiarism, but is ALLOWED PLAGIARISM. But me, asking people to make take the time to think about such differences, is somehow arguing against you.
The chief effect of your stupid play with words, is to dull yourself into not thinking plagiarism is a crime. NOW THAT, is simply moronic.
There are different degrees of plagiarism, some blatantly wrong and some blurring the line of acceptibility, but they are all plagiarism.
And just in case you still don't get it, let me rephrase that line of yours:
There are different degrees of originality, some blatantly wrong and some blurring the line of acceptibility, but they are all originality.
This is how I detect you are telling me the same thing, using different words, but from a different point of view. From one academic to another: One certainly can take the opposite POV.
This is a very clever way to avoid the argument, by embracing it. In other words, we are all plagiarists. For example: Is Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibria" a new original idea? Is it? If you reduce the idea of gradualism to an equation, you will notice that one is missing an idea. That idea, suitably interpreted, becomes "Punctuated Equilibria".
Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. That the true "originalists" are abstract mathematicians.
Oh wait - I wonder if you've heard of that idea before. If you haven't, remember, you heard it here first! If you have, then please, tell me your sources!
If there is any evidence of intellectual rot, this is it. There are clear examples of plagiarism, and there are clear examples of originality. In between, there are lots of ambiguity. So we reserve our accolades for the truly original, and none for those not. Where you want to set that dial, is up to you. It has nothing to do with academia. But within those system of academic references, is a way to track the movements of ideas, and that we have this system is good. Someone else can choose to hold a different criterion of originality.
Are you sure that the right use of the word? A plagiarist is someone who copies wholesale, words and paragraphs not belonging to him. A plagiarist exploits people who attribute depth to some idea, but short-circuits the thought processes that went into creating the idea. Instead the plagiatist copies.
Now if someone reads about an idea, digests it, and is able to communicate the idea BETTER, is that plagiarism?
What is it with you slashdotters? You seem to have a grade school understanding of ideas and plagiarism. Have you ever seen DIFFERENT WORDINGS of the same idea? Have you ever seen DIFFERENT IDEAS worded similarly? Have you ever taken an undergraduate philosophy class? Until you can tell those situations apart and come up with a nuanced opinion, please learn not to label such things as plagiarism. It's akin to calling a flirt a rapist, or a lab mouse a rat.
I did, and went straight for their experiments. There's a lot of talk about how it is not random, etc, but ONLY THE EXPERIMENTS MATTER. If they are telling me 51% of 10000 without letting on their experimental procedure, then I reserve the right to call it bollocks.
In fact, the article is singularly BAD for a quality of science reporting. It's good for the intelligent layman who believes coin-tossing is fair. For those of us who know that the details of how the coin was toss matters, this article is decidedly un-informative.
And yes, subtle effects matter. But, please show it, via detailed experiments.
Is a coin fair or unfair. So you perform the experiment 10000 times. Does one expect it to be the same 5000 times exactly? No! The fractional devation expects to see is sqrt(1/10000) = 1%. One should expect to see an error of 1% about 2/3 of the time.
So they did the experirment and got 51%. This is wholly compatible with the notion that the coin is random.
And by the way, ONE trial of 10000 does not prove anything. Show me 51% for ALL trials of 10000 and then lets' talk.
This is what they want to do: bash$ play unDRMed_music.mp3 play:/dev/audio permission denied bash$ play DRM_music.mp3 play: legal mp3 format recognized and authenticated play: 44.1 kHz, 128 bps play: Title - All Your Bases Are Belong to Us play: Artist - Hilary Rosen and Darl McBride play: Copyrright - RIAA. Don't steal music.
Slashdot Mirror
My cell phone does not work! Terrible tragedy that.
CO2 is odorless.
Who was it that caused you to write the joke above? It appears that he is a far more interesting person that how you've caricatured him. A quote, a webpage or a name would satisfy me.
Keep up the excellent work!
I'm afraid I don't understand this trust argument. I trust Google. But SHOULD one trust google? Based on their track record, one could grant it. Does one trust the USPS? Well yes. Should one trust the USPS?
Based on their record of failed mail deliveries, no.
Personally, I would NEVER use such a service.
If I want good search functions for email, I'll do that by writing my own email reader. Thank Goodness of Open Source and Free Software!
Here's an idea for the open source developers out there - start modularizing your search functions RIGHT NOW, in anticipation of better, pluggable algorithms to do that search.
Ah - money and porn. The eternal purpose of computing.
Nokia is not a Japanese company.
You have something there, until the philosophy about communism/materialism/capitalism. Realise that you know nothing about those things, stop making inane comments about those subjects, and you'll do just fine.
I meant friend "than" dead. Sorry!
Remember, if Sun open sources Java, then MS benefits! Sun is better off as a friend and dead. They also support OO.org. Think about their whole portfolio before ragging and asking only for ONE THING.
By all means, ask for x86 support. But DON'T KILL SUN. Now is not the time to ask for Java to be open sourced. It would be a good thing, however, to extract from them, some promise that as Java evolves, some earlier version can be open-sourced.
In fact, you can COUNT. That's the whole point of Cantor's argument. You just can't exhaust it. You might think I am pulling your leg, but counting, in a mathematical sense, means establishing a one-to-one map between it, and the integers.
Their software market is being suppressed by the huge influx of pirated MS software. Stop that, and see what happens!
So grateful for the opportunity to be there, in spirit.
Can you honestly tell me that is using a word intelligently?
Please take this simple test: To look up a chemical element's mass, I looked up the Periodic table. Is or is that plagiarism? Another student simply computed that based on the proton and electron numbers. Is that plagiarism? Who do you think is more accurate and precise? Do you think it matters?
To win an argument in slashdot, I checked up dictionary.com. Plagiarism. Waitaminute. Isn't the function of a dictionary to settle disputes like that? So it's plagiarism, but is ALLOWED PLAGIARISM. But me, asking people to make take the time to think about such differences, is somehow arguing against you.
The chief effect of your stupid play with words, is to dull yourself into not thinking plagiarism is a crime. NOW THAT, is simply moronic.
And just in case you still don't get it, let me rephrase that line of yours:
This is how I detect you are telling me the same thing, using different words, but from a different point of view. From one academic to another: One certainly can take the opposite POV.
Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. That the true "originalists" are abstract mathematicians.
Oh wait - I wonder if you've heard of that idea before. If you haven't, remember, you heard it here first! If you have, then please, tell me your sources!
If there is any evidence of intellectual rot, this is it. There are clear examples of plagiarism, and there are clear examples of originality. In between, there are lots of ambiguity. So we reserve our accolades for the truly original, and none for those not. Where you want to set that dial, is up to you. It has nothing to do with academia. But within those system of academic references, is a way to track the movements of ideas, and that we have this system is good. Someone else can choose to hold a different criterion of originality.
Now if someone reads about an idea, digests it, and is able to communicate the idea BETTER, is that plagiarism?
What is it with you slashdotters? You seem to have a grade school understanding of ideas and plagiarism. Have you ever seen DIFFERENT WORDINGS of the same idea? Have you ever seen DIFFERENT IDEAS worded similarly? Have you ever taken an undergraduate philosophy class? Until you can tell those situations apart and come up with a nuanced opinion, please learn not to label such things as plagiarism. It's akin to calling a flirt a rapist, or a lab mouse a rat.
EV1
Finnish guy
God
All the modelling in the world is not as persuasive as a single, well-performed experiment.
You have to account for the Martian pressure.
In fact, the article is singularly BAD for a quality of science reporting. It's good for the intelligent layman who believes coin-tossing is fair. For those of us who know that the details of how the coin was toss matters, this article is decidedly un-informative.
And yes, subtle effects matter. But, please show it, via detailed experiments.
So they did the experirment and got 51%. This is wholly compatible with the notion that the coin is random.
And by the way, ONE trial of 10000 does not prove anything. Show me 51% for ALL trials of 10000 and then lets' talk.
This is what they want to do: /dev/audio permission denied
bash$ play unDRMed_music.mp3
play:
bash$ play DRM_music.mp3
play: legal mp3 format recognized and authenticated
play: 44.1 kHz, 128 bps
play: Title - All Your Bases Are Belong to Us
play: Artist - Hilary Rosen and Darl McBride
play: Copyrright - RIAA. Don't steal music.