I think I was the only person in the world that liked Crystal Pepsi. I am hoping for its second coming, but I think it's about as likely as the J-man's.
Re:Data Thief? ... More likely after the laptop pa
on
Cellular Repo Man
·
· Score: 1
Sorry; when you include two or three words for prepositions and articles, my lower bound is safer as 10000^3 (one noun; one adjective; one verb, of each of which there are well over 10000). That's still a trillion sentences.
OK, then where is the cutoff? Even in longer works, coincidental overlaps happen (for example, to use Alan Moore again, the ending of the Watchmen is very similar to an episode of The Outer Limits from 1968, although he came up with it independently), and even six words gives you a lot of leverage. To be conservative, there are well over 10000^6 possible six word sentences. Although not all of them are semantically unique, the number of ideas expressible in six words is staggering.
I feel healthiest when I spend $2/day on food. If only it weren't as time consuming.
I wonder if I could hire an illegal for $3/hour (=$10/week) to cook a week's worth of mujadara (or curry or whatever) for me. My roommates probably wouldn't appreciate it.:-/
Yeah, I suspect that a Fields medalist-combinatorist being involved just might have had more to do with it, than the fact that it was on a blog. Hell, everyone involved was already "world-class", which is frankly a bit unusual for a blog (not unique, just not representative) and definitely not what most people associate with "open collaboration"...
I see what you're saying. I dunno; why should there be any limit at all on the amount of metadata?
It looks like id3v2 has had, from the first implementation, an explicitly declared frame-type called "general encapsulated object", comprising a MIME-type; filename; and an arbitrary binary chunk. It's hardly abuse, then, to fill these frames with lossless audio(-deltas). Any application that chokes on this "new" format, chokes on the (now eleven years old) standard.
I have a 50 minute-long track. It's an mp3, but as a FLAC it'd either exceed or get damned near to 256MB. (FLAC gives you a file that's roughly 50-70% the size of the uncompressed audio. There are codecs that do better in ratio but they seem to all (?) require much more effort to decode.)
You are right, I would say that a truly competent government would actually represent the people, and so we wouldn't mind paying taxes so much. Clearly this is impossible, but how close we are and can get is the issue. I agree w.r.t. centralization and its downsides, and patents seem to me more horribly centralized than taxes: the so-called intellectual property system cries out for global "harmonization" because it is so easy to cheat on the game otherwise. In contrast, under liberalism countries have some freedom in setting tax rates so as to draw business; this is balanced somewhat by labor unrest and calls for socialization.
Even beyond centralization, bad patents have a punishing effect on "good capitalists" that seems to be greater than taxes. In short, there are such thing as patent trolls, but I couldn't imagine a tax troll. I mean, here we have a system whereby your competitor can game the system against you and get government to stop you by force. I can't say for sure, being a broke student, but I think I'd rather pay 80% taxes than be gutted by a competitor who is superior to me only in having been first to get the government to grant him a monopoly. It's sickening.
I sometimes think we'd be much better off having government just give out money for public-domained innovation, collected from an industrial-tax base. At least this way the costs could be made apparent; they are quite well hidden with the current monopoly system... I know this is anathema to libertarians; but I suspect it's not really any less libertarian than the government-monopolies...
If it's wrong for one of our former colonies to have little cars that do 60mpg, presumably it is even more wrong for another former colony to have big cars that do 15mpg.
That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on slashdot. Thanks.
Usually in politics, the words "in theory" mean "in my delusional world".
Despite what you think the libertarians ought to be, a majority of them are on record as pro-patent and this is the mainline stance of the party. Of course they throw in a line about how they are "concerned" about abuse of the system but never a concrete suggestion for reform (just like every other politician). For some reason, slashdotters believe the libertarians but not the others. Must be an underdog effect.
I've never gotten a good answer from an L to this question: if the government is too incompetent to tax us, why are they competent enough to grant 17+-year monopolies on ideas?
Not really. Partnerships emerge, but they tend to be medium-to-long term and toward the goal of developing a theory to mine for papers (not that there's anything wrong with this). This is different from forming a spontaneous "team" to solve a single problem in combinatorics.
My comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously; I was going for a bitter "funny". I don't understand "troll"; how many real working mathematicians are there on slashdot anyway? Ten at most?
It's not whining, it's a statement of damages. The world would be a better place, if the aggregate of costs like this were counted in policing decisions.
Fat chance, though; here in the US, stomping black teens to death and shooting mothers; grandmothers; kids; and even the mayor's dogs, is just a day in the life of a SWAT Drug Warrior.
So a guy had a problem to solve, and batted some ideas back-and-forth amongst a few of his mates. Why is this newsworthy?
Well, a group of mathematicians from different institutions formed and managed, within a few weeks, to stop grandstanding for long enough to accomplish and exceed a pre-determined goal. This is somewhat remarkable.
What I remember was "Shatterday"; it was the premier episode for the New Twilight Zone series, and it's a great watch even though it's dated! Directed by Wes Craven; starring Bruce Willis as Peter J. Novins.
You can find it on youtube although it's in horrible quality and it has Japanese (?) subtitles.
I loved it in high school; didn't find out it was Ellison until I found it in an anthology a few years later. It was sort of mind-blowing.
This isn't true. The Nyquist theorem says that sounds up to Frequency/2 can be faithfully reproduced. It does not say that sound above Frequency/2 is completely eradicated and, in fact, it is not.
Here's an example: draw a pure 1Hz sine wave on graph paper, and sample it yourself at 1.5Hz. You'll notice that the samples you end up with, are indistinguishable from samples of a signal of frequency 0.5Hz. Things get worse with irrational frequencies.
This happens in general; higher-than-Nyquist frequency sound is projected onto lower frequencies. This phenomenon is called "aliasing"; it distorts music; and yes, some people do notice it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I was the only person in the world that liked Crystal Pepsi. I am hoping for its second coming, but I think it's about as likely as the J-man's.
imbecuntcile
This almost passes as German...
Sorry; when you include two or three words for prepositions and articles, my lower bound is safer as 10000^3 (one noun; one adjective; one verb, of each of which there are well over 10000). That's still a trillion sentences.
OK, then where is the cutoff? Even in longer works, coincidental overlaps happen (for example, to use Alan Moore again, the ending of the Watchmen is very similar to an episode of The Outer Limits from 1968, although he came up with it independently), and even six words gives you a lot of leverage. To be conservative, there are well over 10000^6 possible six word sentences. Although not all of them are semantically unique, the number of ideas expressible in six words is staggering.
Here is an "anthology" of six-word-long short stories; maybe you'd agree that at least a few of them are art?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/sixwords.html
(Of course, there might be a problem with "derived works" here - Alan Moore and Darren Aronofsky independently wrote basically the same thing.)
Good call.
I'll be watching you; when you make a post about umbrellas or raincoats... I'll be there. ;-)
Fuck coffee. Caffeine pills. Cents on the dollar; less variability in dosage; and easier on your stomach to boot.
Yeah, I do the once a week thing sometimes - I just wish I could pay someone else to do it.
Co-op: That would be nice. I live in NYC; people don't go for that here. It'd be too human.
(OK, those two sentences make me feel a bit hypocritical I suppose. Whatever.)
I feel healthiest when I spend $2/day on food. If only it weren't as time consuming.
I wonder if I could hire an illegal for $3/hour (=$10/week) to cook a week's worth of mujadara (or curry or whatever) for me. My roommates probably wouldn't appreciate it. :-/
Yeah, I suspect that a Fields medalist-combinatorist being involved just might have had more to do with it, than the fact that it was on a blog. Hell, everyone involved was already "world-class", which is frankly a bit unusual for a blog (not unique, just not representative) and definitely not what most people associate with "open collaboration"...
I see what you're saying. I dunno; why should there be any limit at all on the amount of metadata?
It looks like id3v2 has had, from the first implementation, an explicitly declared frame-type called "general encapsulated object", comprising a MIME-type; filename; and an arbitrary binary chunk. It's hardly abuse, then, to fill these frames with lossless audio(-deltas). Any application that chokes on this "new" format, chokes on the (now eleven years old) standard.
The 256MB is for the lossless part, not the mp3.
I have a 50 minute-long track. It's an mp3, but as a FLAC it'd either exceed or get damned near to 256MB. (FLAC gives you a file that's roughly 50-70% the size of the uncompressed audio. There are codecs that do better in ratio but they seem to all (?) require much more effort to decode.)
How so? It's exactly the portion needed to analyze and discuss the test, then.
+1, Obscure Godwin-bait.
You are right, I would say that a truly competent government would actually represent the people, and so we wouldn't mind paying taxes so much. Clearly this is impossible, but how close we are and can get is the issue. I agree w.r.t. centralization and its downsides, and patents seem to me more horribly centralized than taxes: the so-called intellectual property system cries out for global "harmonization" because it is so easy to cheat on the game otherwise. In contrast, under liberalism countries have some freedom in setting tax rates so as to draw business; this is balanced somewhat by labor unrest and calls for socialization.
Even beyond centralization, bad patents have a punishing effect on "good capitalists" that seems to be greater than taxes. In short, there are such thing as patent trolls, but I couldn't imagine a tax troll. I mean, here we have a system whereby your competitor can game the system against you and get government to stop you by force. I can't say for sure, being a broke student, but I think I'd rather pay 80% taxes than be gutted by a competitor who is superior to me only in having been first to get the government to grant him a monopoly. It's sickening.
I sometimes think we'd be much better off having government just give out money for public-domained innovation, collected from an industrial-tax base. At least this way the costs could be made apparent; they are quite well hidden with the current monopoly system... I know this is anathema to libertarians; but I suspect it's not really any less libertarian than the government-monopolies...
If it's wrong for one of our former colonies to have little cars that do 60mpg, presumably it is even more wrong for another former colony to have big cars that do 15mpg.
That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on slashdot. Thanks.
Usually in politics, the words "in theory" mean "in my delusional world".
Despite what you think the libertarians ought to be, a majority of them are on record as pro-patent and this is the mainline stance of the party. Of course they throw in a line about how they are "concerned" about abuse of the system but never a concrete suggestion for reform (just like every other politician). For some reason, slashdotters believe the libertarians but not the others. Must be an underdog effect.
I've never gotten a good answer from an L to this question: if the government is too incompetent to tax us, why are they competent enough to grant 17+-year monopolies on ideas?
Not really. Partnerships emerge, but they tend to be medium-to-long term and toward the goal of developing a theory to mine for papers (not that there's anything wrong with this). This is different from forming a spontaneous "team" to solve a single problem in combinatorics.
My comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously; I was going for a bitter "funny". I don't understand "troll"; how many real working mathematicians are there on slashdot anyway? Ten at most?
It's not whining, it's a statement of damages. The world would be a better place, if the aggregate of costs like this were counted in policing decisions.
Fat chance, though; here in the US, stomping black teens to death and shooting mothers; grandmothers; kids; and even the mayor's dogs, is just a day in the life of a SWAT Drug Warrior.
So a guy had a problem to solve, and batted some ideas back-and-forth amongst a few of his mates. Why is this newsworthy?
Well, a group of mathematicians from different institutions formed and managed, within a few weeks, to stop grandstanding for long enough to accomplish and exceed a pre-determined goal. This is somewhat remarkable.
They did "Paladin"? I'll have to look that up.
What I remember was "Shatterday"; it was the premier episode for the New Twilight Zone series, and it's a great watch even though it's dated! Directed by Wes Craven; starring Bruce Willis as Peter J. Novins.
You can find it on youtube although it's in horrible quality and it has Japanese (?) subtitles.
I loved it in high school; didn't find out it was Ellison until I found it in an anthology a few years later. It was sort of mind-blowing.
It's even more funny when you get it right; it's "Goodbye, little fuck!"
(obligatory: this is an old apocryphal joke about Harlan Ellison trying to use a pick-up line. The man is short.)
I really don't think that "Tromeo and Juliet" was going at all for the same market as "Romeo + Juliet".
Troma fans have slightly better taste than Baz Luhrmann fans. ;-)
Eww. I hope it wasn't a thrush.
This isn't true. The Nyquist theorem says that sounds up to Frequency/2 can be faithfully reproduced. It does not say that sound above Frequency/2 is completely eradicated and, in fact, it is not.
Here's an example: draw a pure 1Hz sine wave on graph paper, and sample it yourself at 1.5Hz. You'll notice that the samples you end up with, are indistinguishable from samples of a signal of frequency 0.5Hz. Things get worse with irrational frequencies.
This happens in general; higher-than-Nyquist frequency sound is projected onto lower frequencies. This phenomenon is called "aliasing"; it distorts music; and yes, some people do notice it.