Not to mention that the tests were run by Greenpeace, and they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. In conclusion, this is a stupid story written by stupid people and the massive attention it has received in the press just goes to prove that there are a lot of stupid people out there.
Your system of statements either shows the Goldbach Conjecture to be true/false or it doesn't. If it does, then that is proof to go with your knowledge. If it doesn't, then it is not "known".
Your whole idea seems to hinge on "within arithmetic". Well I don't care what system you work in. Either you have a proof of truth/falseness or the fact is not known. Maybe that proof involves a proof of undecidability within a certain system, but it doesn't matter.
Except that the photo of his alleged things clearly shows a new-style plastic-from-the-start certificate complete with hologram. Kind of hard to forge that.
Well no, if it's shown to be undecidable then either it's true or there exists some counterexample. Just because nobody has found it yet doesn't mean it's not there. And since it's impossible to search all of the integers looking for one, you can never say that one doesn't exist, unless you actually prove the thing to be true. Thus it would not be "known", because it could be either true or false.
Many of Fossett's exploits were performed outside of the US, and as I recall the plastic version swiftly became necessary to legally fly in other countries on the basis of a US certificate. That alone would be sufficient reason for him to have one. Other reasons would include adding a new rating, losing the old certificate, or just wanting to keep up with the latest shiny.
In any case, the certificate in that photo is most certainly the plastic kind. (The paper ones don't look anything like that.) You might argue about why he would have one, but the idea that the photo indicates something wrong solely because the item in the center isn't warped and dirty is simply broken.
Just for the record, FAA pilot information is public and it would be trivial to get all of the information that would appear on Fossett's pilot certificate. However, performing the actual forgery is well beyond simply finding that information, and this doesn't smell like a hoax to me. Also note that an FAA pilot certificate is not ID, or at least not photo ID, as it has no photo on it, just a name. In order to be valid it must be combined with government-issued photo ID. But it's still probably pretty harshly frowned upon to forge it.
Well you mentioned numbers that appeared to be an awful lot like math. You said pretty clearly that $10 trillion:$700 billion::kidney transplant:$0.01. I was just pointing out the brokenness of that comparison.
Your logic overall doesn't make a lot of sense to me. This bailout is still a significant percentage of the affected market. It's the nature of these things that a (relatively) small input can result in a big change in the output.
Imagine if you own a house and are facing foreclosure. Imagine further that your house has appreciated and you've already paid off a significant portion of the loan (not too likely in the current climate, but this is hypothetical). You're not very far behind and are making some money, but you're falling further behind as interest and fees add up. Your net worth is still pretty high, but it's not liquid and doesn't help you. Getting your hands on some cash equal to only one percent of your net worth could let you catch up to those payments and be back in the black.
I think your dismissal of the current problems as psychological is ill-founded. Ultimately these market problems are nearly all psychological. Right now there's a credit crunch, which basically just means that the people who have money don't want to lend it because they're afraid of further economic problems, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But there's nothing unusual about it, and the fact that it's psychological doesn't make the potential consequences any less devastating.
The French one would be trÃs. (That's a ` over an e in case Slashdot fucks over non-English like it usually does.) I'm not aware of trÃs meaning anything.
Now is the time for a new Apollo program, but in the biological sciences. Now is the time to pick a family of viruses, like influenza, and learn to attack it, not just by public health and immunization measures, but directly through its genetic, biochemical and biological characteristics.
Would this be a program where we focus a good chunk of the national GDP on curing the flu, finally cure it in twelve people, and then never do it again?
True but completely misses the point. The point being, unless you're aware of AIDS or you have access to a lot of different cases and are good at spotting abnormal patterns, AIDS deaths look like deaths from other diseases. In other words, AIDS could suddenly appear on the scene without being detected because, to doctors who would see AIDS deaths, it just looks like more of the same.
You write code. You can talk about that code. But if that code is based on somebody else's code, and that somebody else has that code under NDA, and your code implies information about their code, then you have to keep it under wraps.
More concretely, Apple's NDA cannot prevent you from discussing your own code. But if your code contains information about the iPhone code, you can't discuss that.
Now that things are being lifted, you can discuss the iPhone code and therefore your own code which relies on it. The only remaining restriction is that you can't talk about iPhone code which isn't public yet, and by implication any of your own code which relies on the non-public changes.
So this change covers only their prerelease software, and by extension any of your software which contains information about their prerelease software. But it doesn't, and can't, cover your own prerelease software by itself.
No. The NDA only covers Apple's stuff, it does not and cannot cover yours. (Developers couldn't talk about their stuff, but only because talking about their stuff implied talking about Apple's stuff.)
When Apple says unreleased software they mean their unreleased software. You can talk about your unreleased software all you want, so long as this doesn't involve things like betas of new iPhone OSes.
In other words, the policy is going to be the same as it is for Mac OS X, where prerelease versions are covered under non-disclosure but you can talk about publicly released versions all you want.
What it comes down to is that there are vast similarities between gambling and the stock market.
There are vast trivial similarities. But let's do a real comparison.
The stock market is a fairly easy way to make money in the long term. Tens, possibly hundreds of millions of people have successfully used it for their retirements, often without even knowing it. If you have a pension then very likely you are making money on the stock market without even knowing it.
Making money at gambling, on the other hand, is something that only works if you own a casino or if you are an above-average poker player with more time to waste at it than most people care to spare.
It's trivial to make good investments in the stock market. Buy a diverse portfolio (mutual funds make this really easy) and let it sit. Realize that downturns like the recent unpleasantness happen, and that the only thing you should do is nothing. Now your rate of return won't be as high as if you spent a great deal of time and effort on trading and took more risks. But the point is that there still is a rate of return!
There simply is no similar plan with casino gambling. If you disagree, present the plan.
If people enjoy it, then it's entertainment. Period.
And people do enjoy it. Much more than they're going to enjoy your stupid refrigerator.
Do you spend any money on entertainment ever? Pay money to a movie theater, or to rent a movie? Have you ever purchased a DVD player, a TV, a book, or a video game? How is throwing your money away on those any more justified than throwing it away in a casino?
No thanks. I prefer to stick with what's real. Everything else is just fantasy and delusion. People seem to enjoy it, but it's not for me.
If you want to talk about unprovable statements that your gut tells you are true, that's fine, but it would be helpful to the discussion if you didn't place them on equal footing with mathematically provable facts.
You, and everybody else, seem to be giving this system mysterious and powerful properties that it does not possess.
The system will exclude thoerems which don't carry a correct machine-readable proof. This is not mystical, or very difficult to grasp. You put in a theorem, you put in a proof. If proof is correct, accepted. If proof cannot be verified, fix the proof. If you think the proof is correct but it can't be verified by the system, then either you're wrong, the system is buggy, or you're making fundamentally different assumptions (axioms). Nothing Earth-shaking there.
You're only dealing with it if you're trying to decide if it halts (or if it's true, i.e. Godel's version).
This wiki will not do that. It does not claim to do that.
I don't understand why people cannot grasp this. All it does is automatically check a human-given proof that accompanies a human-given theorem. This is not revolutionary or even very hard. Why people feel the need to bandy about claims of mathematical impossibility is utterly beyond me. It has nothing to do with Godel's theorem.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that the tests were run by Greenpeace, and they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. In conclusion, this is a stupid story written by stupid people and the massive attention it has received in the press just goes to prove that there are a lot of stupid people out there.
Your system of statements either shows the Goldbach Conjecture to be true/false or it doesn't. If it does, then that is proof to go with your knowledge. If it doesn't, then it is not "known".
Your whole idea seems to hinge on "within arithmetic". Well I don't care what system you work in. Either you have a proof of truth/falseness or the fact is not known. Maybe that proof involves a proof of undecidability within a certain system, but it doesn't matter.
Except that the photo of his alleged things clearly shows a new-style plastic-from-the-start certificate complete with hologram. Kind of hard to forge that.
Well no, if it's shown to be undecidable then either it's true or there exists some counterexample. Just because nobody has found it yet doesn't mean it's not there. And since it's impossible to search all of the integers looking for one, you can never say that one doesn't exist, unless you actually prove the thing to be true. Thus it would not be "known", because it could be either true or false.
Many of Fossett's exploits were performed outside of the US, and as I recall the plastic version swiftly became necessary to legally fly in other countries on the basis of a US certificate. That alone would be sufficient reason for him to have one. Other reasons would include adding a new rating, losing the old certificate, or just wanting to keep up with the latest shiny.
In any case, the certificate in that photo is most certainly the plastic kind. (The paper ones don't look anything like that.) You might argue about why he would have one, but the idea that the photo indicates something wrong solely because the item in the center isn't warped and dirty is simply broken.
Just for the record, FAA pilot information is public and it would be trivial to get all of the information that would appear on Fossett's pilot certificate. However, performing the actual forgery is well beyond simply finding that information, and this doesn't smell like a hoax to me. Also note that an FAA pilot certificate is not ID, or at least not photo ID, as it has no photo on it, just a name. In order to be valid it must be combined with government-issued photo ID. But it's still probably pretty harshly frowned upon to forge it.
Well you mentioned numbers that appeared to be an awful lot like math. You said pretty clearly that $10 trillion:$700 billion::kidney transplant:$0.01. I was just pointing out the brokenness of that comparison.
Your logic overall doesn't make a lot of sense to me. This bailout is still a significant percentage of the affected market. It's the nature of these things that a (relatively) small input can result in a big change in the output.
Imagine if you own a house and are facing foreclosure. Imagine further that your house has appreciated and you've already paid off a significant portion of the loan (not too likely in the current climate, but this is hypothetical). You're not very far behind and are making some money, but you're falling further behind as interest and fees add up. Your net worth is still pretty high, but it's not liquid and doesn't help you. Getting your hands on some cash equal to only one percent of your net worth could let you catch up to those payments and be back in the black.
I think your dismissal of the current problems as psychological is ill-founded. Ultimately these market problems are nearly all psychological. Right now there's a credit crunch, which basically just means that the people who have money don't want to lend it because they're afraid of further economic problems, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But there's nothing unusual about it, and the fact that it's psychological doesn't make the potential consequences any less devastating.
The French one would be trÃs. (That's a ` over an e in case Slashdot fucks over non-English like it usually does.) I'm not aware of trÃs meaning anything.
Why, is your OS incapable of spinning down HDs that aren't being used?
So I'm curious, which poor lifestyle choices did Isaac Asimov make?
Now is the time for a new Apollo program, but in the biological sciences. Now is the time to pick a family of viruses, like influenza, and learn to attack it, not just by public health and immunization measures, but directly through its genetic, biochemical and biological characteristics.
Would this be a program where we focus a good chunk of the national GDP on curing the flu, finally cure it in twelve people, and then never do it again?
It's a tremendously sad commentary on this site that you got moderated Informative/Insightful instead of Funny.
True but completely misses the point. The point being, unless you're aware of AIDS or you have access to a lot of different cases and are good at spotting abnormal patterns, AIDS deaths look like deaths from other diseases. In other words, AIDS could suddenly appear on the scene without being detected because, to doctors who would see AIDS deaths, it just looks like more of the same.
Thanks for the info, makes sense now.
So how did they build all those jailbreak apps in the months before Apple released the official SDK?
...And? I knew what he was referring to. His implied connection was wrong, as I discussed.
Yes.
You write code. You can talk about that code. But if that code is based on somebody else's code, and that somebody else has that code under NDA, and your code implies information about their code, then you have to keep it under wraps.
More concretely, Apple's NDA cannot prevent you from discussing your own code. But if your code contains information about the iPhone code, you can't discuss that.
Now that things are being lifted, you can discuss the iPhone code and therefore your own code which relies on it. The only remaining restriction is that you can't talk about iPhone code which isn't public yet, and by implication any of your own code which relies on the non-public changes.
So this change covers only their prerelease software, and by extension any of your software which contains information about their prerelease software. But it doesn't, and can't, cover your own prerelease software by itself.
Why would this affect jailbreakers? Why would they have ever agreed to an Apple NDA?
No. The NDA only covers Apple's stuff, it does not and cannot cover yours. (Developers couldn't talk about their stuff, but only because talking about their stuff implied talking about Apple's stuff.)
When Apple says unreleased software they mean their unreleased software. You can talk about your unreleased software all you want, so long as this doesn't involve things like betas of new iPhone OSes.
In other words, the policy is going to be the same as it is for Mac OS X, where prerelease versions are covered under non-disclosure but you can talk about publicly released versions all you want.
What it comes down to is that there are vast similarities between gambling and the stock market.
There are vast trivial similarities. But let's do a real comparison.
The stock market is a fairly easy way to make money in the long term. Tens, possibly hundreds of millions of people have successfully used it for their retirements, often without even knowing it. If you have a pension then very likely you are making money on the stock market without even knowing it.
Making money at gambling, on the other hand, is something that only works if you own a casino or if you are an above-average poker player with more time to waste at it than most people care to spare.
It's trivial to make good investments in the stock market. Buy a diverse portfolio (mutual funds make this really easy) and let it sit. Realize that downturns like the recent unpleasantness happen, and that the only thing you should do is nothing. Now your rate of return won't be as high as if you spent a great deal of time and effort on trading and took more risks. But the point is that there still is a rate of return!
There simply is no similar plan with casino gambling. If you disagree, present the plan.
Your math is severely broken. Do you seriously think that a kidney transplant costs 14 cents, or what?
If people enjoy it, then it's entertainment. Period.
And people do enjoy it. Much more than they're going to enjoy your stupid refrigerator.
Do you spend any money on entertainment ever? Pay money to a movie theater, or to rent a movie? Have you ever purchased a DVD player, a TV, a book, or a video game? How is throwing your money away on those any more justified than throwing it away in a casino?
No thanks. I prefer to stick with what's real. Everything else is just fantasy and delusion. People seem to enjoy it, but it's not for me.
If you want to talk about unprovable statements that your gut tells you are true, that's fine, but it would be helpful to the discussion if you didn't place them on equal footing with mathematically provable facts.
You, and everybody else, seem to be giving this system mysterious and powerful properties that it does not possess.
The system will exclude thoerems which don't carry a correct machine-readable proof. This is not mystical, or very difficult to grasp. You put in a theorem, you put in a proof. If proof is correct, accepted. If proof cannot be verified, fix the proof. If you think the proof is correct but it can't be verified by the system, then either you're wrong, the system is buggy, or you're making fundamentally different assumptions (axioms). Nothing Earth-shaking there.
You're only dealing with it if you're trying to decide if it halts (or if it's true, i.e. Godel's version).
This wiki will not do that. It does not claim to do that.
I don't understand why people cannot grasp this. All it does is automatically check a human-given proof that accompanies a human-given theorem. This is not revolutionary or even very hard. Why people feel the need to bandy about claims of mathematical impossibility is utterly beyond me. It has nothing to do with Godel's theorem.