I highly recommend Xolox to anyone that can run Windows applications and uses GNUtella (haven't tried using it with Wine yet, could work). Xolox supports swarming, segmented downloading, resuming, automatic mirror searching, etc...
Xolox makes GNUtella useful! Trust me, you will find what you are looking for with Xolox, and you will be able to download it very quickly. Other clients lack swarming, which causes downloads to be a slow unreliable gamble, but with swarming, when you select to download a file, Xolox automatically searches for other peers that are sharing the same file - then Xolox downloads parts of the file concurrently from several peers. This allows for you to get maximum use of your broadband net connection. Furthermore, if you are downloading a file, and for some reason all of the peers that you were downloading from disconnect, Xolox searches for new peers with the file and resume the download were it left off. All of this is automatic, transparent, and very user-friendly.
While the company that made Xolox went under due to legal issues, a cracked version is available from the popular P2P site Zeropaid. Check it out! It's free, and it's useful.
Re:Circular track explanation is flawed..
on
Homemade Gauss Gun
·
· Score: 1
Well, the separation of the two magnets creates something similar to gravitational potential energy. The magnet that the ball is touching at rest acts as "glue" holding the ball above the magnet away from it (the anology to gravity makes this far away magnet the ground).
Python, Haskell, Clean, Mozart-Oz, Mercury, etc... all the same? Only to the blind. Open your eyes, open your mind.
Most "real" hackers, coders, developers, computer scientists, etc... love programming for programming's sake. I suggest that if you are one of these "real" types, you spend a weekend programming in Mercury, another programming in Haskell, another in Python. Each time think up a project that could be done in around 16 hours of time, and code it using a certain paradigm: functional, procedural, object-oriented, declarative, etc... Trust me, it will open your eyes to the many different ways to accomplish the same thing. For certain tasks some things are better than others.
"First" implies that there were more? Do you still jerk off to video games? Please, if Quake gets you hot and horny, check yourself into the local looney house!
Some functional languages have had strong higher-order (i.e. polymorphic/generic/parametric) types since the late 60s. If course, in an Object-Oriented world, your gotta be an Object-Oriented girl. Object-Orientation reminds me of the SUV. It's so 1990s sheek!
Actually, some people like strong steady progress and innovation. Patents slow down the progress and restrict innovation because people effectively own ideas. An analogy to farming would be that many people in my area are starving, and I am the only owner of fertile land. However, I refuse to do anything with the land, I own it, and I want to sit on it.
Patents should be restricted so that they are used only to recuperate money spent on R&D of the idea/concept/technology. This way researchers could, in theory, fund their own research, once they got the ball rolling. Under these restricted patents, your patent last for a very small amount of time, maybe a few years, and it can be cut short if you make enough money off of the patent so as to recover your R&D costs.
My guess is that this Oscar list is interesting to Slashdotters because one of the movies is about a super-geek, mathematician. That alone gives it a "nerd factor" worthy of Slashdot mention.
Ok guys, I need help finding a car for a biz project that my company is working on. My boss says that the car must have the following features: side panel wood trim, a hatch back, 60-inch wheels, a blue stick shift, firestone tires, a fiberglass bumber, and oh yeah, to be hip with the latest trends, it has to be a SUV. I am just having so much trouble finding a car that has all of these features.
The two most hyped programming languages ever are Microsoft's "Visual Basic" and Sun Microsystem's "Java". Though some might argue and claim that C++ is the most hyped programming language. Anyone want to start a discussion on "The Most Hyped PLs"?
For the arguement, lets assume that you implied the common assembly languages used for x86 ASM, MIPS ASM, etc... Well, yes, there are plenty of things that cannot be accomplished in assembly language. For example, you cannot automatically, statically verify that your program will always run in polynomial time. However, this is possible with some kinds of typed lambda-calculus. Another example would be that the ASM languages that you implied cannot automatically, statically verify that your program is free from concurrency errors such as race conditions, deadlock, etc... However, some typed mobile calculi can give you such safety.
Yup, so if you couldn't tell, strongly (statically) typed languages can allow you to do things that you can't do in assembly language. Therefore, calling "everything" syntactic sugar at some level is wrong, even when used in the extreme. Now, you will probably recite Church's Thesis at me about effective calcuability, but just because a language can be compiled into ASM language does not mean that ASM language accomplishes the things I mentioned above. Syntactic sugar things deal with context free grammers concepts, and most interesting type systems that make languages have certain special properties are proof-theory concepts.
I guess a really crude example would be a natural language in which you could not curse. Lets call it "Goodlish". So anytime you speak or write in Goodlish, everyone can be automatically sure that you aren't using profanity. We don't even have to read what you have written in Goodlish to know that you haven't used cuss words, because as long as we know that you have written in Goodlish, we know that it is curse-free. The Church Thesis arguement mentioned above, yet applied to my crude analogy would be that your "general purpose" natural language, say English, cannot let us do what I can in Goodlish. If you have written something in English, and that is all I know, there is no way to make sure that you haven't used profanity, curse words, etc. So yes, you can compile or translate Goodlish into English, but once your phrases are in English, you lose the garrentee that you are profane-free. You might try to restrict the choice of English words as your counter-arguement, but English is a context sensitive language, and therefore there are ways of cursing that can't be expressed in a grammer. So taking a context-free grammatical subset of English wouldn't cut it.
So there are extremely important mechanisms that high-level programming languages can supply that are not available in, say, assembly language, and cannot be done in ASM language without implementing an interpreter or compiler for another completely new and different language in ASM language.
Dynamic "types" are nothing more than extra pieces of runtime information, i.e part of the actual algorithm/program. Types are automatically inferred concepts used for (automatic) software verification. Types are NOT part of the actual algorithm/program. "Dynamic types" is an abuse of the word "type".
While "dynamic types" uses the word "type", it is far from the original meaning of "type" used by mathematicians such as Russell, Church, Curry, etc... "Dynamic types" only share a common word with true "types".
To claim that a "dynamic type" system is by any means a true type system is silly.
When I refer to Lisp, I am obviously referring to the common use and implementation of it. It addition, "dynamic" types do not form a type system that can be used for software verification, and therefore do not serve the original intent of type-checking. So yes, "typed" and "dynamically typed" are two totally different things that have names that are very similar. Other than that, a "dynamically typed" language is by no means strongly typed.
Haskell, unlike Lisp, is a true functional programming language in that it only makes use of function abstraction and application for expressing computation, while Lisp uses sequencing of commands and assignments. Not only that, Lisp uses a form of evaluation which is not strongly normalizing, while Haskell uses lazy evaluation, which is commonly known to be strongly normalizing. This means that I could write the same function in either language, and the Lisp version would never hault (i.e. lockup, infinite loop, diverge, etc), while the Haskell version would run correctly to completion.
In addition, Haskell has an extremely powerful mechanism for catching software errors/bugs: a polymorphic type inference system. You don't even have to type the variables or functions yourself, the compiler can figure them all out automatically. This is a great form of software verification. Lisp is untyped. The point is that Lisp shouldn't be the poster-boy for Functional Programming. Haskell is far sexier. Haskell is free, well documented, and there are several good introductory books on it.
Basically my point is that Lisp should be taught as a language with a historical value, but when you want to teach someone functional programming, teach them a purely FP language like Haskell.
http://www.haskell.org
Personally, I could give a damn about.NET/CLR and especially the appearence of FP or declarative languages on that platform. Most of the users of.NET/CLR are going to only know how to and only want to know how to program in one of two languages (C# or VB). I like to call that type of programmer "simple".
Yeah, and Mame (Arcade Emulator), zSNES (Super Nintendo Emulator), FCE Ultra (Nintendo Entertainment System Emulator and the best one that that), etc...
Even if other people don't care for random access, other people don't have DVHS players, but they do have DVD players wether they be in their Playstation2, PC, or standalone set-top-box.
Nice site. Thanks for the link. I guess you could say that I already supported the Palestinians since I don't support the Israeli occupation and all of the other bad things done to the Palestinian people.
However, just as I do not support Israeli violence, I do not support Palestinian violence. For a gross cutting to the point. Both sides should immediately stop fighting, and Israel should be force by the international community (especially the USA), to give the Palestinians back their land and money made from use of their land.
Still, its very sad to see the horrid bias in our nation's media. Palestinians are terrorists, while Israelis are soldiers protecting their land. *sigh* things couldn't be so far from the truth. Well, I am just a lowly American citizen, and so I will hand that link to everyone I know.
This is completely not true. I several of the best mathematicians (my list is from the view of a computer scientist) of the 20th century were totally sane:
Hilbert (started the whole metamathematics thing)
Russell (this guy had a finger in every pie, from maths to science to politics to poetry, etc)
Brouwer (created the Intuitionist foundations for mathematics, in addition to the fixed point theorem used by Nash)
Heyting (popularized Intuitionism, founded inituistionist logic)
Weyl
Church (lambda-calculus, effectively computable implies general recursive)
Turing (automata theory, AI, etc...)
Curry (fixed up the lambda-calculus, Curry-Howard isomorphism)
Rosser (Church-Rosser property, symmetric forms of Godel's incompleteness theorem)
Kleene (Metamathematics, Recursive Function Theory, etc... wrote some really good textbooks too CHECK THEM OUT)
Gentzen (father of Structural Proof Theory with his sequent calculus and cut-elimination for proofs)
Godel (incompleteness proof, he got paranoid towards the end of his life, but then again, he had friends that were assasssinated by Nazi fanatics, and then the whole communism scare thing was enough to make anyone paranoid)
Girard (system F, linear logic, ludics, oh and he is still alive)
I could go on, but listing more than 20 great 20th century mathematicians (sane or insane) is very difficult. I have only read so many biographies;-) Anyway, there are orders of magnitude more sane great mathematicians than insane great mathematicians. The invarient amongst all of the great mathematicians is that they spent allot of time studying and researching mathematics. Therefore, to imply that genius and insanity go hand-in-hand is absurd! Genius and hardwork go hand-in-hand.
Look at the great programmers of today like Linus and Carmack. Geniuses, yes, insane, no! Both do share one trait, and that is that they work almost everyday on their programming.
It's just like saying that most body builders use roids. No, in fact, most body builders lift weights everyday.
The fact is that the majority of the populus is too lazy to work with such focus on anything. Instead, they veg out in front of the TV, while the "greats" are working away at being great. Most aren't born with it, they earn it, which makes their greatness even more admirable.
Claiming that unnatural implies immoral is the one of the oldest ethical fallacies still in use. It has been used during the dark ages and most likely it has even been used by such lovely governments as the Taliban.
Lets do a little reductio ad absurdum. The only natural form of transportation for a human is to use your legs, arms, etc to move about. From this we see that using a car as a means of transportation is unnatural. Therefore, using a car is immoral.
Not only that, but any form of artificial insemenation or stuff like test tube (petri dish) conception is by definition unnatural and therefore immoral.
Modern medicine in and of itself is immoral. I mean, you are "playing god" by giving people drugs that make them live longer.
Computers are unnatural and therefore immoral. We are practically playing god by making this virtual world we call cyberspace.
The entire field of artificial intelligence is immoral.
Just because people are ignorant or even stupid does not mean that you should work within their incorrect ethical system and its silly moral boundries.
Slashdot Mirror
You should learn to read.
I highly recommend Xolox to anyone that can run Windows applications and uses GNUtella (haven't tried using it with Wine yet, could work). Xolox supports swarming, segmented downloading, resuming, automatic mirror searching, etc...
Xolox makes GNUtella useful! Trust me, you will find what you are looking for with Xolox, and you will be able to download it very quickly. Other clients lack swarming, which causes downloads to be a slow unreliable gamble, but with swarming, when you select to download a file, Xolox automatically searches for other peers that are sharing the same file - then Xolox downloads parts of the file concurrently from several peers. This allows for you to get maximum use of your broadband net connection. Furthermore, if you are downloading a file, and for some reason all of the peers that you were downloading from disconnect, Xolox searches for new peers with the file and resume the download were it left off. All of this is automatic, transparent, and very user-friendly.
While the company that made Xolox went under due to legal issues, a cracked version is available from the popular P2P site Zeropaid. Check it out! It's free, and it's useful.
Well, the separation of the two magnets creates something similar to gravitational potential energy. The magnet that the ball is touching at rest acts as "glue" holding the ball above the magnet away from it (the anology to gravity makes this far away magnet the ground).
They are free.
They are ad free.
They are more efficient, bandwidth wise.
Oh, and they are more stable. Slashdot has been unavailable far more often than my trusty newsgroups.
Python, Haskell, Clean, Mozart-Oz, Mercury, etc... all the same? Only to the blind. Open your eyes, open your mind.
Most "real" hackers, coders, developers, computer scientists, etc... love programming for programming's sake. I suggest that if you are one of these "real" types, you spend a weekend programming in Mercury, another programming in Haskell, another in Python. Each time think up a project that could be done in around 16 hours of time, and code it using a certain paradigm: functional, procedural, object-oriented, declarative, etc... Trust me, it will open your eyes to the many different ways to accomplish the same thing. For certain tasks some things are better than others.
DAO3 is spankable, but Raider is lame.
"First" implies that there were more? Do you still jerk off to video games? Please, if Quake gets you hot and horny, check yourself into the local looney house!
So wait, you claim that you have no problem rolling your own packages, but you do have a problem installing Debian? Do you happen to be an Enron CEO?
Some functional languages have had strong higher-order (i.e. polymorphic/generic/parametric) types since the late 60s. If course, in an Object-Oriented world, your gotta be an Object-Oriented girl. Object-Orientation reminds me of the SUV. It's so 1990s sheek!
Actually, some people like strong steady progress and innovation. Patents slow down the progress and restrict innovation because people effectively own ideas. An analogy to farming would be that many people in my area are starving, and I am the only owner of fertile land. However, I refuse to do anything with the land, I own it, and I want to sit on it.
Patents should be restricted so that they are used only to recuperate money spent on R&D of the idea/concept/technology. This way researchers could, in theory, fund their own research, once they got the ball rolling. Under these restricted patents, your patent last for a very small amount of time, maybe a few years, and it can be cut short if you make enough money off of the patent so as to recover your R&D costs.
Connelly in Beautiful Mind was just absolutely... well, beautiful!
My guess is that this Oscar list is interesting to Slashdotters because one of the movies is about a super-geek, mathematician. That alone gives it a "nerd factor" worthy of Slashdot mention.
Ok guys, I need help finding a car for a biz project that my company is working on. My boss says that the car must have the following features: side panel wood trim, a hatch back, 60-inch wheels, a blue stick shift, firestone tires, a fiberglass bumber, and oh yeah, to be hip with the latest trends, it has to be a SUV. I am just having so much trouble finding a car that has all of these features.
The two most hyped programming languages ever are Microsoft's "Visual Basic" and Sun Microsystem's "Java". Though some might argue and claim that C++ is the most hyped programming language. Anyone want to start a discussion on "The Most Hyped PLs"?
For the arguement, lets assume that you implied the common assembly languages used for x86 ASM, MIPS ASM, etc... Well, yes, there are plenty of things that cannot be accomplished in assembly language. For example, you cannot automatically, statically verify that your program will always run in polynomial time. However, this is possible with some kinds of typed lambda-calculus. Another example would be that the ASM languages that you implied cannot automatically, statically verify that your program is free from concurrency errors such as race conditions, deadlock, etc... However, some typed mobile calculi can give you such safety.
Yup, so if you couldn't tell, strongly (statically) typed languages can allow you to do things that you can't do in assembly language. Therefore, calling "everything" syntactic sugar at some level is wrong, even when used in the extreme. Now, you will probably recite Church's Thesis at me about effective calcuability, but just because a language can be compiled into ASM language does not mean that ASM language accomplishes the things I mentioned above. Syntactic sugar things deal with context free grammers concepts, and most interesting type systems that make languages have certain special properties are proof-theory concepts.
I guess a really crude example would be a natural language in which you could not curse. Lets call it "Goodlish". So anytime you speak or write in Goodlish, everyone can be automatically sure that you aren't using profanity. We don't even have to read what you have written in Goodlish to know that you haven't used cuss words, because as long as we know that you have written in Goodlish, we know that it is curse-free. The Church Thesis arguement mentioned above, yet applied to my crude analogy would be that your "general purpose" natural language, say English, cannot let us do what I can in Goodlish. If you have written something in English, and that is all I know, there is no way to make sure that you haven't used profanity, curse words, etc. So yes, you can compile or translate Goodlish into English, but once your phrases are in English, you lose the garrentee that you are profane-free. You might try to restrict the choice of English words as your counter-arguement, but English is a context sensitive language, and therefore there are ways of cursing that can't be expressed in a grammer. So taking a context-free grammatical subset of English wouldn't cut it.
So there are extremely important mechanisms that high-level programming languages can supply that are not available in, say, assembly language, and cannot be done in ASM language without implementing an interpreter or compiler for another completely new and different language in ASM language.
Dynamic "types" are nothing more than extra pieces of runtime information, i.e part of the actual algorithm/program. Types are automatically inferred concepts used for (automatic) software verification. Types are NOT part of the actual algorithm/program. "Dynamic types" is an abuse of the word "type".
While "dynamic types" uses the word "type", it is far from the original meaning of "type" used by mathematicians such as Russell, Church, Curry, etc... "Dynamic types" only share a common word with true "types".
To claim that a "dynamic type" system is by any means a true type system is silly.
When I refer to Lisp, I am obviously referring to the common use and implementation of it. It addition, "dynamic" types do not form a type system that can be used for software verification, and therefore do not serve the original intent of type-checking. So yes, "typed" and "dynamically typed" are two totally different things that have names that are very similar. Other than that, a "dynamically typed" language is by no means strongly typed.
Haskell, unlike Lisp, is a true functional programming language in that it only makes use of function abstraction and application for expressing computation, while Lisp uses sequencing of commands and assignments. Not only that, Lisp uses a form of evaluation which is not strongly normalizing, while Haskell uses lazy evaluation, which is commonly known to be strongly normalizing. This means that I could write the same function in either language, and the Lisp version would never hault (i.e. lockup, infinite loop, diverge, etc), while the Haskell version would run correctly to completion.
.NET/CLR and especially the appearence of FP or declarative languages on that platform. Most of the users of .NET/CLR are going to only know how to and only want to know how to program in one of two languages (C# or VB). I like to call that type of programmer "simple".
In addition, Haskell has an extremely powerful mechanism for catching software errors/bugs: a polymorphic type inference system. You don't even have to type the variables or functions yourself, the compiler can figure them all out automatically. This is a great form of software verification. Lisp is untyped. The point is that Lisp shouldn't be the poster-boy for Functional Programming. Haskell is far sexier. Haskell is free, well documented, and there are several good introductory books on it.
Basically my point is that Lisp should be taught as a language with a historical value, but when you want to teach someone functional programming, teach them a purely FP language like Haskell. http://www.haskell.org
Personally, I could give a damn about
Yeah, and you can still play Bubble Bobble with the Mame arcade emulator which runs on almost every computer known to man.
Yeah, and Mame (Arcade Emulator), zSNES (Super Nintendo Emulator), FCE Ultra (Nintendo Entertainment System Emulator and the best one that that), etc...
Even if other people don't care for random access, other people don't have DVHS players, but they do have DVD players wether they be in their Playstation2, PC, or standalone set-top-box.
DVD is here to stay.
Nice site. Thanks for the link. I guess you could say that I already supported the Palestinians since I don't support the Israeli occupation and all of the other bad things done to the Palestinian people.
However, just as I do not support Israeli violence, I do not support Palestinian violence. For a gross cutting to the point. Both sides should immediately stop fighting, and Israel should be force by the international community (especially the USA), to give the Palestinians back their land and money made from use of their land.
Still, its very sad to see the horrid bias in our nation's media. Palestinians are terrorists, while Israelis are soldiers protecting their land. *sigh* things couldn't be so far from the truth. Well, I am just a lowly American citizen, and so I will hand that link to everyone I know.
- Hilbert (started the whole metamathematics thing)
- Russell (this guy had a finger in every pie, from maths to science to politics to poetry, etc)
- Brouwer (created the Intuitionist foundations for mathematics, in addition to the fixed point theorem used by Nash)
- Heyting (popularized Intuitionism, founded inituistionist logic)
- Weyl
- Church (lambda-calculus, effectively computable implies general recursive)
- Turing (automata theory, AI, etc...)
- Curry (fixed up the lambda-calculus, Curry-Howard isomorphism)
- Rosser (Church-Rosser property, symmetric forms of Godel's incompleteness theorem)
- Kleene (Metamathematics, Recursive Function Theory, etc... wrote some really good textbooks too CHECK THEM OUT)
- Gentzen (father of Structural Proof Theory with his sequent calculus and cut-elimination for proofs)
- Godel (incompleteness proof, he got paranoid towards the end of his life, but then again, he had friends that were assasssinated by Nazi fanatics, and then the whole communism scare thing was enough to make anyone paranoid)
- Girard (system F, linear logic, ludics, oh and he is still alive)
I could go on, but listing more than 20 great 20th century mathematicians (sane or insane) is very difficult. I have only read so many biographiesLook at the great programmers of today like Linus and Carmack. Geniuses, yes, insane, no! Both do share one trait, and that is that they work almost everyday on their programming.
It's just like saying that most body builders use roids. No, in fact, most body builders lift weights everyday.
The fact is that the majority of the populus is too lazy to work with such focus on anything. Instead, they veg out in front of the TV, while the "greats" are working away at being great. Most aren't born with it, they earn it, which makes their greatness even more admirable.
Claiming that unnatural implies immoral is the one of the oldest ethical fallacies still in use. It has been used during the dark ages and most likely it has even been used by such lovely governments as the Taliban.
Lets do a little reductio ad absurdum. The only natural form of transportation for a human is to use your legs, arms, etc to move about. From this we see that using a car as a means of transportation is unnatural. Therefore, using a car is immoral.
Not only that, but any form of artificial insemenation or stuff like test tube (petri dish) conception is by definition unnatural and therefore immoral.
Modern medicine in and of itself is immoral. I mean, you are "playing god" by giving people drugs that make them live longer.
Computers are unnatural and therefore immoral. We are practically playing god by making this virtual world we call cyberspace.
The entire field of artificial intelligence is immoral.
Just because people are ignorant or even stupid does not mean that you should work within their incorrect ethical system and its silly moral boundries.
Oh come on. Cloning is just another form of conception. I still remember when test tube babies as a form of conception was considered immoral.