That means their simulation doesn't match their expectations, so they must "correct" the numbers to match the theory.
"Normal" means all their experiments show such irregularities, so they don't really pay attention anymore. Don't forget they are not used to ship products that must work ; they are theoricists. Quantum physics hasn't delivered anything for forty years.
The "mostly" means that there are so many that they just gave up and pretended it works fine instead.
Well, if you know a couple manager mumbling dialects, you don't have much problems reading between the lines of what physicists say. That's basically the same thing -- just a matter of convincing themselves and their investors that they are going to ship something... someday. And that it will mostly work. And that it's cool.
There is only one reason why the semiconductors market follows Moore's Law and the batteries market don't. The more durable the batteries, the less will be sold, so the manufacturers will make much less money. On the other hand, producing faster and faster semiconductors is the only way to force consumers to keep buying more of them.
Nowadays there is clear and insultant abuse of troll, flamebait and offtopic moderation. One can be moderated as troll for the following reason :
=>Use of irony
=>Not being politically correct
=>Not agree with replied post
=>Not agree with slashdot policy
=>Making a joke the moderator doesn't understand
=>Well, saying almost anything meaningful
Similarly, flamebait is used for ridiculous reasons, mainly whenever one explains a moron he should revise his math classes or know what he's talking about. Sometimes I cannot even figure out why it's being quoted flamebait.
Of course, to criticize slashdot moderation is a guarantee to get an immediate -1 offtopic and maybe be put on their black list. And then they complain about censorship.
Fuck you big time slashdot moderators !!! No one else in the world deserves it more than you !!! And moderate me down as much as you like !!!
The moment Chris Carter dreamed, then begged god to happen, and then desperated it would ever happen, has come true. That series FOX turned into a moron show from the sixth season will finally rest and idiots stop blaspheme about how Mulder and little green men are k3w1 and cute. I guess it had sunken that low that even FOX couldn't find anything else to say even to entertain the masses so once they sucked all the money out of it they call it quit. One more reason to despise FOX and to thank heavens they haven't done the same with Millennium.
The very first consequence would be the discoverer being arrested for having violated the DMCA. And the second would be to threaten/arrest all algorithmic mathematicians working on the problem and likely to understand a word of the solution.
Globalism is, among other things, the only way for local markets to keep expanding. Since there is nothing left beyond the world for now, I guess this is the last phase until the end of the old world and probably the beginning of a new middle age.
Don't get me wrong. Globalism in itself is the negation of any kind of territorialism being used as forms of abuse -- the fall of barriers. But those barriers still want to survive on their own ; if they're going to disappear, they may try not to go down alone and take a part of the world with them.
Therefore, any side-effect of globalism should not be attributed to itself. It is rather an opportunity to get rid of systems that do not have any use anymore, that will crash anyway on their own, and that can blow us with them if we do nothing. If we're going to globalize anyway, let's not do it half-assed.
If playing to the "mindless little robot" doesn't amuse you anymore (if it ever did;), then the only way to go back to your roots and enjoy it the way you used to is simply to go off-book. Use that creativity of yours -- that you may simply have forgotten -- and do something useful of it. Create a revolution in CS by rewriting the cookbooks from scratch with your own innovations.
Some suggestions :
=>Drop school. This isn't where you'll learn anything useful anyway, let alone find inspiration for creativity.
=>Study parallel fields, such as maths, electronics, physics, maybe even psychology. CS isn't going to do any good if applied only to itself anyway.
=>Dive into research papers. Of course it's a pain to understand anything in them given the way so-called 'experts' formulate things, but at least it'll give you some ideas where to start from ; you'll be aware of problems worth solving.
=>Find some peers that share your insatisfaction with. The more fools in such a quest the better.
Okay, two years ago I wouldn't have wanted to hear about a mac either. Now I don't want to hear from anything else. We used to make music on PC's only, and I insist, only because this is everything we've got. Now that Apple finally decided to build some good Power Mac's, there's no excuse. Both the software and the hardware is there. (And find a windows box supporting firewire devices:P)
I mean, really, take a look at new Macs ; it's really worth it. And then you won't wonder anymore why musicians swear only by that in magazines.
>>Or is it all just part of some wider, cosmic conspiracy?
Wake up. This "comic" conspiracy of those ridiculous clowns is lasting for more than forty years. Their so-called theories are shaken every week. They no more know what to invent in order to justify their work and now even the government starts loosing faith and cut their funds.
Slashdot admins are always the last ones to become aware of the obvious, and of course they have no clue why. That's just because they live in a dream and they are stupid.
The 'debate' I'm talking about is just lasting for a few decades... wake up.
BTW, regarding the one on slashdot, it is going to be an empty debate anyway (I've read down to pose #89 and disappointing is an euphemism).
I've been following all debates regarding biotechnologies and, whether for or against, I haven't seen any argument that isn't at best a sophism -- or at worst that is proving mankind is making progress at becoming more stupid everyday.
Most of times only statistics are invoked, of course contradicting each other. All studies turn out having been financed by either part and are laughable. And, an argument for the pro side that somewhat discredits the cons, no real inconvenient being caused by biotechnologies' products were found, either on human health or on the environment (I've seen many of them, all bogus, and whatever the one you have in mind I know it and I checked it out).
An example of misconception from the con side (they're the easiest to demolish) is about gene manipulations, being "unnatural" because of crossings between plants and animals, or between species. These idiots shall definitively follow a genetics course ; they would learn, for instance, that "finding a fish's gene in a cat" isn't at all uncommon and besides, the statement itself doesn't make any sense because there is nothing such as a "fish's gene" (that would be like calling each structure in a program a gene and matches between executables unnatural crossing, for instance;).
As for the pro side, there is just too much money at sake even to listen to their absolute absence of arguments. The only thing that is worth paying attention on their side is, after all, the technological stuff (but don't tell me their first worry is to feed little hungry africans).
Slashdot admins definitely get more stupid and ignorant every day. This shit is called dynamic recompilation, it exists and is being implemented in both free and commercial projects for *years*. Besides, you have to be really disconnected from reality (and awfully idiot) if EETimes tells you something you didn't know ; that level of ignorance should be punishable by death.
I've read a lot of questionable posts on Slashdot, and perhaps the anti-Microsoft propaganda is indeed part of it, as it sometimes reached beyond rational levels. It doesn't mean it wasn't justified, however ; Microsoft are indeed a gang of crooks and anyone claiming the opposite is ignorant, naive, or has been paid or blackmailed.
>>Plenty of questions remain about Microsoft and its practices.
All the following such-questions had already been answered countless times since the last decade :
>>Did the company ruthlessly, or illegally, discourage competition?
Of course they did. In fact, they did as soon as they artificially promoted Word by countering Wordperfect 5.0 with deloyal uses (in fact, they hired people to pretend being dissatisfied users of Wordperfect on BBS). They repeated the same thing over and over again, such as for Access vs Paradox, Quicken vs Money (they failed that time), and so on.
Besides, it has long been proved that already Windows 3.1 intentionally prevented Paradox from running right (or sometimes even from running at all) ; and everyone that attempted to download Netscape with IE knows that *curiously*, most of the times it hangs straight on accessing the download section. These are only the two most well known examples of Windows deliberately sabotaging competitors' products, and I could name others, namely Linux itself (Windows sabotages ext2 partitions on the same drive as the FAT32 boot partition since Win95b).
And what to think of clauses of employment contracts forbidding ex-employees to work for competitors for a period of several years ? They already several times applied those clauses by threatening companies hiring those employees, since everyone working in the computer science area IS a Microsoft competitor.
>>Did Microsoft make it too difficult or in some cases, impossible, for consumers to remove
IE from their desktops?
Is that supposed to be a serious question or what ? Since Win98 it is almost impossible to remove it, except by applying an underground patch one now finds only on warez sites.
They've gone even farther ; since Win98b you MUST register to MSN in order to be able to launch the browser for the first time (think of a deloyal attitude, you can't come up with anything more obvious), and this even I hadn't been able to hack a way around.
>>Did Microsoft unfairly -- or, more to the point, illegally --wipe out or damage potential competitors?
Need I say more ? Linux itself is concerned by this issue ; just think of Microsoft buying Corel parts just long enough for the latter to sell its Linux OS branch (think of a coincidence).
Now let's face it : how can Slashdot authorize such disinformation to be posted ? My opinion of Slashdot, by reading this, has dropped approximately to the level of AOL. Anyone following the case knows about the practices of Microsoft, and anyone even attempting to deny them ought to come with serious arguments ; otherwise he's either an incompetent or a crook himself working for them. Alright, I disapprove juge Jackson's attitude, yet to be honest I don't care as long as he allows to get rid of them.
By reading back comments I understand most people don't understand what would be the real point of replacing HTML by Latex. Here I explain :
By "Pure HTML 4.0", I mean being up to 4.0 standards. If you read up HTML 4.0 documentation carefully, you will undoubtely notice 99% of tags and attributes we used to code in version 3.x are marked "deprecated". Pure 4.0 structure is very heavy to handle as there are a lot of divisions and styles to define even before typing a single character. In comparison, all classes are already defined with Latex and coding style looks much more like HTML 3.x style, even simpler.
Also, as many pointed out, Latex is mostly device-independent, unlike HTML which looks very different from browser to browser due to the way it is interpreted. There is no way to publish a professional document online using HTML whenever you need some strict pagination parameters because the browser systematically alter them.
Unlike many seem to believe, Latex parsing is very fast, in fact mostly as fast as HTML since it is compiled. All browsers interpret HTML directly to screen and have to redraw content several times. Although it is supposed to give an impression of speed, it is rather annoying.
To those believing Latex is hard to learn, I answer all tags used in HTML have an *simpler* equivalent in Latex. Also, many features of Latex are just automatic, such as text justification, or are handled through standard classes one just have to load at the beginning of the document.
Finally, since HTML to Latex conversion is already commonplace through a simple utility, it would not break compatibility. People could still code in HTML if they want. But Latex browsers would undoubtely have an extra. Ultimately, it would turn out being as attractive to support Latex than Shockwave.
In my humble opinion, shortly HTML standards will run out of control and become a language much less convenient that it is now simply because it was not created to handle whatever tasks engineers of the web intend to make it run (what explains the drastic changes in 4.0 standards). At least Latex is a most solid and clean architecture, portable, simple to learn and to port to and from, and so on.
By "Pure HTML 4.0", I mean being up to 4.0 standards. If you read up HTML 4.0 documentation carefully, you will undoubtely notice 99% of tags and attributes we used to code in version 3.x are marked "deprecated". Pure 4.0 structure is very heavy to handle as there are a lot of divisions and styles to define even before typing a single character. In comparison, all classes are already defined with Latex and coding style looks much more like HTML 3.x style, even simpler.
Well, this is too "I'm a good and honest citizen, I'm small and weak and frail and leave me alone." Are you suggesting a single second to play the rules with such cheaters as Microsoft ??? My vote would rather for EVERYONE to steal their code and develop on (they stole our money, pushed our companies to bankrupt anyway, so what's wrong ?). Besides, if EVERYONE do it, then the principle of civil desobediance applies : MS cannot go against everyone, nor the DOJ, the police, anything. Nor can they attack free software seriously : they cannot force us to *sell* it. And besides, without proof, all accusations are futile, so unless you're caught with source code, you're safe. In fact, even if your code "looks alike" the code from MS, it can have been achieved by legal ways. Therefore I strongly encourage everyone to read their source thoroughly and completely, and to develop for it. Maybe if alternatives to MS software exist, they will fall into bankruptcy faster and therefore won't even have enough money to sue people to the other end.
I'd like to mention a few facts about the problem, the papers, maths, and all those posts in general :
->Thousands of false proofs of either P=NP or P!=NP have been submitted.
->Because it hasn't been either proved or disproved doesn't mean it is false. In fact, either answer has to be true, and both are unproved !!!
->P and NP are sets of algorithms, not real or natural numbers, so P and NP cannot be 0 or 1, and besides, even if it was the case, then it could be many other values (correct answer would be 0 and x).
->Earth is populated by 90% morons who don't know what they're talking about, and most of them post on Slashdot. Conversely, 90% of posts are from morons.
->One must have much time to loose to reply here instead of just reading the paper, and besides, it is plenty of obvious errors.
Slashdot Mirror
That's physicists' slang.
That means their simulation doesn't match their expectations, so they must "correct" the numbers to match the theory.
"Normal" means all their experiments show such irregularities, so they don't really pay attention anymore. Don't forget they are not used to ship products that must work ; they are theoricists. Quantum physics hasn't delivered anything for forty years.
The "mostly" means that there are so many that they just gave up and pretended it works fine instead.
Well, if you know a couple manager mumbling dialects, you don't have much problems reading between the lines of what physicists say. That's basically the same thing -- just a matter of convincing themselves and their investors that they are going to ship something... someday. And that it will mostly work. And that it's cool.
There is only one reason why the semiconductors market follows Moore's Law and the batteries market don't. The more durable the batteries, the less will be sold, so the manufacturers will make much less money. On the other hand, producing faster and faster semiconductors is the only way to force consumers to keep buying more of them.
--Martin
Your boss gave you requirements that only the programming languages in Star Trek can match.
--Martin
Nowadays there is clear and insultant abuse of troll, flamebait and offtopic moderation. One can be moderated as troll for the following reason :
=>Use of irony
=>Not being politically correct
=>Not agree with replied post
=>Not agree with slashdot policy
=>Making a joke the moderator doesn't understand
=>Well, saying almost anything meaningful
Similarly, flamebait is used for ridiculous reasons, mainly whenever one explains a moron he should revise his math classes or know what he's talking about. Sometimes I cannot even figure out why it's being quoted flamebait.
Of course, to criticize slashdot moderation is a guarantee to get an immediate -1 offtopic and maybe be put on their black list. And then they complain about censorship.
Fuck you big time slashdot moderators !!! No one else in the world deserves it more than you !!! And moderate me down as much as you like !!!
--Martin
The moment Chris Carter dreamed, then begged god to happen, and then desperated it would ever happen, has come true. That series FOX turned into a moron show from the sixth season will finally rest and idiots stop blaspheme about how Mulder and little green men are k3w1 and cute. I guess it had sunken that low that even FOX couldn't find anything else to say even to entertain the masses so once they sucked all the money out of it they call it quit. One more reason to despise FOX and to thank heavens they haven't done the same with Millennium.
;)
Fuck you all wannabe X-Files fans !!!
--Martin
The very first consequence would be the discoverer being arrested for having violated the DMCA. And the second would be to threaten/arrest all algorithmic mathematicians working on the problem and likely to understand a word of the solution.
--Martin
http://www.autodynamics.org/
Globalism is, among other things, the only way for local markets to keep expanding. Since there is nothing left beyond the world for now, I guess this is the last phase until the end of the old world and probably the beginning of a new middle age.
Don't get me wrong. Globalism in itself is the negation of any kind of territorialism being used as forms of abuse -- the fall of barriers. But those barriers still want to survive on their own ; if they're going to disappear, they may try not to go down alone and take a part of the world with them.
Therefore, any side-effect of globalism should not be attributed to itself. It is rather an opportunity to get rid of systems that do not have any use anymore, that will crash anyway on their own, and that can blow us with them if we do nothing. If we're going to globalize anyway, let's not do it half-assed.
--Martin
http://www.autodynamics.org/
. html
n ium/index.html
http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/Neutrino/SuperK
http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/Articles/Millen
If playing to the "mindless little robot" doesn't amuse you anymore (if it ever did ;), then the only way to go back to your roots and enjoy it the way you used to is simply to go off-book. Use that creativity of yours -- that you may simply have forgotten -- and do something useful of it. Create a revolution in CS by rewriting the cookbooks from scratch with your own innovations.
Some suggestions :
=>Drop school. This isn't where you'll learn anything useful anyway, let alone find inspiration for creativity.
=>Study parallel fields, such as maths, electronics, physics, maybe even psychology. CS isn't going to do any good if applied only to itself anyway.
=>Dive into research papers. Of course it's a pain to understand anything in them given the way so-called 'experts' formulate things, but at least it'll give you some ideas where to start from ; you'll be aware of problems worth solving.
=>Find some peers that share your insatisfaction with. The more fools in such a quest the better.
--Martin
martin001.girard@sympatico.ca
Okay, two years ago I wouldn't have wanted to hear about a mac either. Now I don't want to hear from anything else. We used to make music on PC's only, and I insist, only because this is everything we've got. Now that Apple finally decided to build some good Power Mac's, there's no excuse. Both the software and the hardware is there. (And find a windows box supporting firewire devices :P)
I mean, really, take a look at new Macs ; it's really worth it. And then you won't wonder anymore why musicians swear only by that in magazines.
>>Or is it all just part of some wider, cosmic conspiracy? Wake up. This "comic" conspiracy of those ridiculous clowns is lasting for more than forty years. Their so-called theories are shaken every week. They no more know what to invent in order to justify their work and now even the government starts loosing faith and cut their funds. Slashdot admins are always the last ones to become aware of the obvious, and of course they have no clue why. That's just because they live in a dream and they are stupid.
The 'debate' I'm talking about is just lasting for a few decades... wake up. BTW, regarding the one on slashdot, it is going to be an empty debate anyway (I've read down to pose #89 and disappointing is an euphemism).
I've been following all debates regarding biotechnologies and, whether for or against, I haven't seen any argument that isn't at best a sophism -- or at worst that is proving mankind is making progress at becoming more stupid everyday. Most of times only statistics are invoked, of course contradicting each other. All studies turn out having been financed by either part and are laughable. And, an argument for the pro side that somewhat discredits the cons, no real inconvenient being caused by biotechnologies' products were found, either on human health or on the environment (I've seen many of them, all bogus, and whatever the one you have in mind I know it and I checked it out). An example of misconception from the con side (they're the easiest to demolish) is about gene manipulations, being "unnatural" because of crossings between plants and animals, or between species. These idiots shall definitively follow a genetics course ; they would learn, for instance, that "finding a fish's gene in a cat" isn't at all uncommon and besides, the statement itself doesn't make any sense because there is nothing such as a "fish's gene" (that would be like calling each structure in a program a gene and matches between executables unnatural crossing, for instance ;).
As for the pro side, there is just too much money at sake even to listen to their absolute absence of arguments. The only thing that is worth paying attention on their side is, after all, the technological stuff (but don't tell me their first worry is to feed little hungry africans).
Slashdot admins definitely get more stupid and ignorant every day. This shit is called dynamic recompilation, it exists and is being implemented in both free and commercial projects for *years*. Besides, you have to be really disconnected from reality (and awfully idiot) if EETimes tells you something you didn't know ; that level of ignorance should be punishable by death.
I've read a lot of questionable posts on Slashdot, and perhaps the anti-Microsoft propaganda is indeed part of it, as it sometimes reached beyond rational levels. It doesn't mean it wasn't justified, however ; Microsoft are indeed a gang of crooks and anyone claiming the opposite is ignorant, naive, or has been paid or blackmailed. >>Plenty of questions remain about Microsoft and its practices. All the following such-questions had already been answered countless times since the last decade : >>Did the company ruthlessly, or illegally, discourage competition? Of course they did. In fact, they did as soon as they artificially promoted Word by countering Wordperfect 5.0 with deloyal uses (in fact, they hired people to pretend being dissatisfied users of Wordperfect on BBS). They repeated the same thing over and over again, such as for Access vs Paradox, Quicken vs Money (they failed that time), and so on. Besides, it has long been proved that already Windows 3.1 intentionally prevented Paradox from running right (or sometimes even from running at all) ; and everyone that attempted to download Netscape with IE knows that *curiously*, most of the times it hangs straight on accessing the download section. These are only the two most well known examples of Windows deliberately sabotaging competitors' products, and I could name others, namely Linux itself (Windows sabotages ext2 partitions on the same drive as the FAT32 boot partition since Win95b). And what to think of clauses of employment contracts forbidding ex-employees to work for competitors for a period of several years ? They already several times applied those clauses by threatening companies hiring those employees, since everyone working in the computer science area IS a Microsoft competitor. >>Did Microsoft make it too difficult or in some cases, impossible, for consumers to remove IE from their desktops? Is that supposed to be a serious question or what ? Since Win98 it is almost impossible to remove it, except by applying an underground patch one now finds only on warez sites. They've gone even farther ; since Win98b you MUST register to MSN in order to be able to launch the browser for the first time (think of a deloyal attitude, you can't come up with anything more obvious), and this even I hadn't been able to hack a way around. >>Did Microsoft unfairly -- or, more to the point, illegally --wipe out or damage potential competitors? Need I say more ? Linux itself is concerned by this issue ; just think of Microsoft buying Corel parts just long enough for the latter to sell its Linux OS branch (think of a coincidence). Now let's face it : how can Slashdot authorize such disinformation to be posted ? My opinion of Slashdot, by reading this, has dropped approximately to the level of AOL. Anyone following the case knows about the practices of Microsoft, and anyone even attempting to deny them ought to come with serious arguments ; otherwise he's either an incompetent or a crook himself working for them. Alright, I disapprove juge Jackson's attitude, yet to be honest I don't care as long as he allows to get rid of them.
By reading back comments I understand most people don't understand what would be the real point of replacing HTML by Latex. Here I explain : By "Pure HTML 4.0", I mean being up to 4.0 standards. If you read up HTML 4.0 documentation carefully, you will undoubtely notice 99% of tags and attributes we used to code in version 3.x are marked "deprecated". Pure 4.0 structure is very heavy to handle as there are a lot of divisions and styles to define even before typing a single character. In comparison, all classes are already defined with Latex and coding style looks much more like HTML 3.x style, even simpler. Also, as many pointed out, Latex is mostly device-independent, unlike HTML which looks very different from browser to browser due to the way it is interpreted. There is no way to publish a professional document online using HTML whenever you need some strict pagination parameters because the browser systematically alter them. Unlike many seem to believe, Latex parsing is very fast, in fact mostly as fast as HTML since it is compiled. All browsers interpret HTML directly to screen and have to redraw content several times. Although it is supposed to give an impression of speed, it is rather annoying. To those believing Latex is hard to learn, I answer all tags used in HTML have an *simpler* equivalent in Latex. Also, many features of Latex are just automatic, such as text justification, or are handled through standard classes one just have to load at the beginning of the document. Finally, since HTML to Latex conversion is already commonplace through a simple utility, it would not break compatibility. People could still code in HTML if they want. But Latex browsers would undoubtely have an extra. Ultimately, it would turn out being as attractive to support Latex than Shockwave. In my humble opinion, shortly HTML standards will run out of control and become a language much less convenient that it is now simply because it was not created to handle whatever tasks engineers of the web intend to make it run (what explains the drastic changes in 4.0 standards). At least Latex is a most solid and clean architecture, portable, simple to learn and to port to and from, and so on.
By "Pure HTML 4.0", I mean being up to 4.0 standards. If you read up HTML 4.0 documentation carefully, you will undoubtely notice 99% of tags and attributes we used to code in version 3.x are marked "deprecated". Pure 4.0 structure is very heavy to handle as there are a lot of divisions and styles to define even before typing a single character. In comparison, all classes are already defined with Latex and coding style looks much more like HTML 3.x style, even simpler.
Well, this is too "I'm a good and honest citizen, I'm small and weak and frail and leave me alone." Are you suggesting a single second to play the rules with such cheaters as Microsoft ??? My vote would rather for EVERYONE to steal their code and develop on (they stole our money, pushed our companies to bankrupt anyway, so what's wrong ?). Besides, if EVERYONE do it, then the principle of civil desobediance applies : MS cannot go against everyone, nor the DOJ, the police, anything. Nor can they attack free software seriously : they cannot force us to *sell* it. And besides, without proof, all accusations are futile, so unless you're caught with source code, you're safe. In fact, even if your code "looks alike" the code from MS, it can have been achieved by legal ways. Therefore I strongly encourage everyone to read their source thoroughly and completely, and to develop for it. Maybe if alternatives to MS software exist, they will fall into bankruptcy faster and therefore won't even have enough money to sue people to the other end.
I'd like to mention a few facts about the problem, the papers, maths, and all those posts in general :
->Thousands of false proofs of either P=NP or P!=NP have been submitted.
->Because it hasn't been either proved or disproved doesn't mean it is false. In fact, either answer has to be true, and both are unproved !!!
->P and NP are sets of algorithms, not real or natural numbers, so P and NP cannot be 0 or 1, and besides, even if it was the case, then it could be many other values (correct answer would be 0 and x).
->Earth is populated by 90% morons who don't know what they're talking about, and most of them post on Slashdot. Conversely, 90% of posts are from morons.
->One must have much time to loose to reply here instead of just reading the paper, and besides, it is plenty of obvious errors.