I grew up near the Black Sea, fairly mild climate. First time came to Moscow in January, -25C outside, walk on a street, plenty of street vendors selling - guess what - an ice cream! And plenty of people eating that ice cream, right outside. In Russia Moscow's ice cream had reputation as the best one you can get (in Soviet Union), so I got some and ate it, right on a street, as well. Yes, it was tasty. Actually at -25C it kind of warmed me up, too.
(But the air is very dry, not damp like in Boston. So even -30C is OK as long as there is no wind.)
On quality, not on price. Remember that if necessary Microsoft will distribute Windows for free or even pay you to use it. So Linux can't win solely on price tab. But quality is where it has an upper hand.
(i) I am XP user (since 2003) and I don't suffer. Well, not *that* much.
(ii) The first reason I don't switch to Linux is specific applications I use under Windows (which are not free, by the way) which I can't find the equivalent on Linux.
(iii) The second reason I don't switch to Linux is potential incompatibilities with laptop (hardware). Not that I didn't try.
Clearly, I have no incentives moving to Windows 7. Even if (and when) I need new laptop, I'll try to make sure XP is supported. The only reason I would move to Windows 7 (or 8 or 9) if the current version of application XYZ I'm using is no longer supported under XP, and for whatever reason I *must* upgrade.
So, fundamentally, I care very little which OS I'm using. OS is just a platform to run some applications (I guess this statement qualifies me as non-geek, so sue me).
properly render this particular entry. The last two lines got overlaid with the 'keywords'. Surely we need the alternative browser, just to browse Slashdot. Eh?
undecidability in math has nothing to do with the principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics. There is no 'randomness' involved in principle of undecidability in math. and the next point is that claiming that mathematics and the way physics see the real world is deeply related is sooo 19th century. Math made quite a progress since then, you know. In particular, mathematics no longer uses the real world as a litmus test, so to speak. The key criteria is sufficient richness and consistency (which does *not* precludes undecidability). If there is anything in the 'profound connection between physics and math', the connection is that the modern physics completely ran out of any ideas of how to proceed, so they randomly take one math model, or another, and try to use it to spew some mumbo-jumbo no one can verify (string theory, anyone), whereas mathematics quite honestly treats its construct as logical constructs, which *may* or *may not* have some relationships to out world, but that's the issue mathematicians are going to loose their sleep over.
The only reason mathematician (I mean those specializing in pure math, of course) would claim that his/her research has some practical importance is to get some money from NSA or DARPA.
there are some areas like formal logic and staff which is heavily set-theoretical (like point-set topology) where automated provers are already available. you probably can add most of the algebra as well. OTOH, things like analysis (real, complex, functional) is much harder to formalize, many proofs end up with "now take epsilon to 0", or "take n to infinity", you have to deal with countable vs uncountable infinities. I'm not saying it's impossible to formalize, only that that's much harder.
that was a common practice a few years back. I still remember when I was working for BBN/Planet, e-mail announcement: we just hired a new manager. Her background: something related to musical education based on Carl Orff methods. ditto for project leaders. I remember working on traffic shaping for Frame Relay, I had to report the progress to the project leader. He had no clue about either Frame Relay, nor traffic shaping, nothing in general. In my short stunt at Lotus/IBM, hiring of non-technical manager was pretty much standard. Not understanding anything, their methods of management was screaming and intimidation. Well, I'm no longer involved in IT/Datacom, but my experience is that that field used to attract very strange "we're only here for money" people.
Slashdot Mirror
who stole Windows 7 Beta. Same old, same old.
I grew up near the Black Sea, fairly mild climate. First time came to Moscow in January, -25C outside, walk on a street, plenty of street vendors selling - guess what - an ice cream! And plenty of people eating that ice cream, right outside. In Russia Moscow's ice cream had reputation as the best one you can get (in Soviet Union), so I got some and ate it, right on a street, as well. Yes, it was tasty. Actually at -25C it kind of warmed me up, too.
(But the air is very dry, not damp like in Boston. So even -30C is OK as long as there is no wind.)
wascally wabbis.
On quality, not on price. Remember that if necessary Microsoft will distribute Windows for free or even pay you to use it. So Linux can't win solely on price tab. But quality is where it has an upper hand.
with cow dung.
Imagine RAID of those!
In Soviet Russia a beowulf cluster of those imagines you.
Speaking for myself,
(i) I am XP user (since 2003) and I don't suffer. Well, not *that* much.
(ii) The first reason I don't switch to Linux is specific applications I use under Windows (which are not free, by the way) which I can't find the equivalent on Linux.
(iii) The second reason I don't switch to Linux is potential incompatibilities with laptop (hardware). Not that I didn't try.
Clearly, I have no incentives moving to Windows 7. Even if (and when) I need new laptop, I'll try to make sure XP is supported. The only reason I would move to Windows 7 (or 8 or 9) if the current version of application XYZ I'm using is no longer supported under XP, and for whatever reason I *must* upgrade.
So, fundamentally, I care very little which OS I'm using. OS is just a platform to run some applications (I guess this statement qualifies me as non-geek, so sue me).
we certainly should preserve that memory. until we find yet lower watermark.
Even the Texas board of education can evolve!
Thanks dude. I was loosing my mind over that Yet Another Acronym. You post was revelation ... you know, like hearing one hand clapping.
properly render this particular entry. The last two lines got overlaid with the 'keywords'. Surely we need the alternative browser, just to browse Slashdot. Eh?
undecidability in math has nothing to do with the principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics. There is no 'randomness' involved in principle of undecidability in math. and the next point is that claiming that mathematics and the way physics see the real world is deeply related is sooo 19th century. Math made quite a progress since then, you know. In particular, mathematics no longer uses the real world as a litmus test, so to speak. The key criteria is sufficient richness and consistency (which does *not* precludes undecidability). If there is anything in the 'profound connection between physics and math', the connection is that the modern physics completely ran out of any ideas of how to proceed, so they randomly take one math model, or another, and try to use it to spew some mumbo-jumbo no one can verify (string theory, anyone), whereas mathematics quite honestly treats its construct as logical constructs, which *may* or *may not* have some relationships to out world, but that's the issue mathematicians are going to loose their sleep over.
The only reason mathematician (I mean those specializing in pure math, of course) would claim that his/her research has some practical importance is to get some money from NSA or DARPA.
to accept any digitally altered photo from Pentagon, for their Photoshop Friday feature.
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/
let's sell them New Jersy. No one objects, right?
rather than post-neo-retro games is hopelessly behind the curve.
A date with conspirators, that is.
Show me something that does *not* outperform Vista. Duh.
pretending he's human. no lady geek can resist.
> The problem is certainly related to the lack of logic, however I think, it shouldn't be blamed on 525 million years old animals.
Unless it's Senator McCain, of course.
and still no "Imagine Beowulf of those!". What the world is coming to?
> His post got delayed by the transition mechanism.
or rather by the Beowulf of those.
there are some areas like formal logic and staff which is heavily set-theoretical (like point-set topology) where automated provers are already available. you probably can add most of the algebra as well. OTOH, things like analysis (real, complex, functional) is much harder to formalize, many proofs end up with "now take epsilon to 0", or "take n to infinity", you have to deal with countable vs uncountable infinities. I'm not saying it's impossible to formalize, only that that's much harder.
Any Key? I can't find damn "Any" key.
The only consolation is imagining Beowulf of "those Internet things".
that was a common practice a few years back. I still remember when I was working for BBN/Planet, e-mail announcement: we just hired a new manager. Her background: something related to musical education based on Carl Orff methods. ditto for project leaders. I remember working on traffic shaping for Frame Relay, I had to report the progress to the project leader. He had no clue about either Frame Relay, nor traffic shaping, nothing in general. In my short stunt at Lotus/IBM, hiring of non-technical manager was pretty much standard. Not understanding anything, their methods of management was screaming and intimidation. Well, I'm no longer involved in IT/Datacom, but my experience is that that field used to attract very strange "we're only here for money" people.