It's ridiculous that people who least understand the research hold the strongest opinions about it and try to stop it from happening.
That's because it's a reaction based on emotional fear and not facts. Keep in mind that people usually form opinions for one of two reasons:
1) Because of the tangible facts that and the persons ability to logically reason and understand what those facts mean. Usually this is the "science" crowd -
2) Because of the way they feel based on their emotional response. Usually this is the "religion" crowd -
But, as in politics, no person can be said to be 100% rational or 100% emotional. The scary part about this is that the scientists opinions can usually be swayed by presenting proof or facts; while the religious crowd needs something to either scare them away from their current position or make them feel better about a different position.
This can be seen as evidence in just about any political race. Instead of presenting the facts about "why you should vote for me", which to us scientists makes a lot of sense, they use the emotional approach saying "why you should be afraid to vote for him".
Fear is one of the most powerful emotions. These people are afraid of what could happen because they've been programmed to be afraid. To overcome that fear will take a new emotional response rather than showering them with facts.
My god you read too much science fiction. Let me give you this example, why do we all not have plastic surgery? We could all look "perfect", we dont because that is not important.
Why does it have to be a single failure that caused the outage? I have seen my fair share of system outages that were caused by multiple concurrent issues. In fact, I believe that last year's massive power outages was a good example of an outage caused by multiple failures in a system designed to handle only single points of failure.
The idea is that the odds of a single failure are like 100,000 to 1 making the odds of 2 concurrent failures 100,000 * 100,000 (10,000,000,000) to 1. And while that is highly unlikely, it is still incredibly possible and occassionally will still happen.
One of the ideas that is elaborated on throughout the posts here is the that music is composed of "notes" which are repeatedly implied as specific wave frequencies (i.e. the A note, the B-flat note, etc.) This is really only part of the picture.
There is a significant amount of music that is composed of rhythms, and often from inharmonic or atonal instruments (i.e. percussion).
So, it's inaccurate to describe music exclusively with the concept of pitch. You must also incorporate rhythm. And even then, it may not be enough.
There is an infamous composition by John Cage called 4'33" - meaning 4 minutes, 33 seconds. It goes like this:
Pianist walks to a piano. Opens the lid. Sits for 4'33". Closes the lid, walks off stage. Some say that's not music, some say it is. Some say Andy Warhol is art, some say it's not. The interesting thing is only whether the "art" in question speaks to you personally. If it does it's art, if not it's not. Art is not unanimous. I use this description:
"Art is that thing which you so desperately wish to speak only to you". In other words, some work A may appeal to you and it's art. It may not appeal to me so it's not. It might appeal to you and three million other people and then it's not. While mass appreciation doesn't change the artifact you are appreciating, it can affect your appreciation of it.
The same as being hit by one meteorite now. For example:
What are the odds of getting heads or tails? Well, 1/2. What are the odds of getting two heads? Well, 1/4. But...
It works like this:
First heads odds: 1/2 Second heads odds: 1/2
In other words, the two odds are multiplied out to find the odds of getting two heads (i.e. 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4). However, once the first heads is achieved, the odds of the second heads is still 1/2 - thus making the odds of the pair now 1/2.
The funny thing is that the odds change as each opportunity is explored. For example, what are the odds of throwing 5 heads? Well, 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/32.
Now, let's examine how this works. Before the first toss, the odds are still 1/32.
After the first toss, the odds become 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 or 1/16, since we the first heads is already established. Following this through:
So, as you can see, your odds actually improve with each successful toss. However, you can never improve on the 1/2 odds for each individual toss.
An interesting side note as well - since each toss counts equally with a coin, then it bears to reason that you are more likely to get 5 heads in a row, than to get heads, tails, heads, tails, heads, tails. Which sounds strange because the heads/tails is more "complex". But much like pouring liquids from a short wide container to a tall narrow one, this is only an illusion.
Now, back to our meteorite. The probability is the same as being hit by a single meteorite with one exception: if the first meteorite somehow biases the spot so that it is more or less likely than the standard, then the odds are different.
Well, that's all very well, and indeed, quite good mathematics, sir. However, it says very little about the more infamous, and infinitely more important, Ramen Hypothesis.
In short, this theory states that:
All non-trivial zeroed-out accounts of the bank function lie on their backs while consuming large amounts of artificial flavors with real noodles. Don't forget the water.
To date, this is the only one of the acclaimed Menial Problems from the Claypot Mathematics Institute that has not been solved. The Pointcare Conjecture was thrown out, because no one cared about the point. The Hodge-Podge Conjecture was also thrown out as it was revealed to be nothing more than an aggregation of previous "mathematical refuse".
This is a literal quote from the bottom of the article at http://www.adti.net/samizdat/brown.reply.june.04.h tml:
Kenneth Brown is president of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and director of its technology research programs. He is the author of numerous research papers and popular articles on technology issues, including the 2002 report, "Opening the open-source debate," one of the first papers to raise serious questions about the security of open- and hybrid-source computer software, a point recently raised by the president of Symantec Corporation. He is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer," but nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people, and is accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world.
And further, 1 line of C code != 1 line of ASM != 1 line of COBOL != 1 line of Java != 1 line of any language.
I don't write much C code anymore- but back in the day I can remember producing up to 1500 lines in a single day sometimes. Of course, that wasn't everyday - but I know it can be done. Given that - I should have been able to physically code the original kernel in about a week. Of course, the hard part of writing any software is not the typing - it's the conceptualization, design, and debugging that seems to take time.
There are 8 bits in a byte. There are 1024 bits in a kilobit. There are 1048576 bits in a megabit. There are 1073741824 bits in a gigabit. There are 1099511627776 bits in a terabit. There are 101155069755392 bits in 92 terabits.
There is 1 byte in 8 bits. There is 1 kilobyte in 8192 bits. There is 1 megabyte in 8388608 bits. There is 1 gigabyte in 8589934592 bits. There is 1 terabyte in 8796093022208 bits. There are 11.5 terabytes in 101155069755392 bits. There are 11.5 terabytes in 92 terabits.
What in the hell are you smoking? This is a direct quote from the article:
Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.
What part of this don't you understand? I agree they aren't saying these are the minimal requirements - but they certainly aren't saying that this is just what's going to be available. They are saying that the Microsoft recommends a system with these specs.
Not only that - but the quote above follows the statement in the article saying that Microsoft is expected to unveil the "system and driver requirements". This implies that the specs provided are relevant to what they are unveiling.
So - in summary, the article does say and imply that these are the specifications for running Longhorn.
Now, as for running XP on a 400MHz machine - that's some serious crack smoking.
They have also made a logic element out of a pair of leech neurons (nerve cells from blood-sucking worms) placed on a microchip. Dr Ditto readily admits that, like quantum computing, this technology is still in its infancy. But it certainly has potential--even though many people feel that existing computers are quite chaotic enough already.
i think this paragraph really sums things up. the editor is such a moron as to explicitly state the obvious grammatical correlation between mathematically chaotic logic circuits and the general "chaos" users experience with their computers. and that preceded by a description that sounds like some kind of vampirian (or is it vampirical?), frankensteinian, technological monster. (rob zombie brings you "attack of the chaotic leech borgs"!).
p.s. the chaotic leech borgs would be a good name for a band
While English grammar may not include genders, certainly the English language does include the word with usage as applied by the original author.
The main reason to use the word gender over the word sex is that sex is a more ambiguous term, grammatically speaking. Sex can refer to biological sexual orientation and to the act of fornication. Gender always refers to the distinction between masculine and feminine or male and female.
The problem is your assumption and assertion that gender is purely a grammar term. Unfortunately, both are incorrect.
Hell, not only do I not watch TV, but I don't read the NY Times as much either. I blame it on things like this:
In a world where fortunes are made and lost over the evanescent jitterings of fractions of audience share, the Nielsen announcement was the equivalent of a nuclear strike, a smallpox outbreak and a bad hair day all rolled into one.
I guess the writer meant for that to be more poetic and less, well, bad.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is not a "typical" dictionary, for those of you who are not familiar with it.
I noticed several people mentioning concerns about the use of words prior to some of the dates mentioned and also about non-print use of words. The thing is, the OED attempts to define words as they have been used in printed literature. In other words, without the Star-Trek script that illustrates the use of the term "cloaking device", they cannot verify it and date it properly.
The thinking, if I am not mistaken, is based on the idea that a word in published print has gone through an editing process. The editor is then responsible for making sure that the words used in the final publication are valid and used accurately. The OED attempts to catalog any new words or new uses of existing words that appear after having gone through this process. The assumption being that any new words or new uses of words are now "valid" as a result of having been printed.
Whether you agree with this process is probably not relevant; but that is the way that I understand it to work.
If you would like more information you should read the book "The Professor and The Madman" by Simon Winchester. It's a great story that details how the OED came to be; and Mr. Winchester is a fine autor.
Would you really want to have a "famous" phone number? Just think about all the random calls you would get? How many people call 867-5309 just to see if someone answers? Then again, I am considering buying 1-800-eat-shit for my technical support line...
Slashdot Mirror
It's ridiculous that people who least understand the research hold the strongest opinions about it and try to stop it from happening.
That's because it's a reaction based on emotional fear and not facts. Keep in mind that people usually form opinions for one of two reasons:
1) Because of the tangible facts that and the persons ability to logically reason and understand what those facts mean. Usually this is the "science" crowd -
2) Because of the way they feel based on their emotional response. Usually this is the "religion" crowd -
But, as in politics, no person can be said to be 100% rational or 100% emotional. The scary part about this is that the scientists opinions can usually be swayed by presenting proof or facts; while the religious crowd needs something to either scare them away from their current position or make them feel better about a different position.
This can be seen as evidence in just about any political race. Instead of presenting the facts about "why you should vote for me", which to us scientists makes a lot of sense, they use the emotional approach saying "why you should be afraid to vote for him".
Fear is one of the most powerful emotions. These people are afraid of what could happen because they've been programmed to be afraid. To overcome that fear will take a new emotional response rather than showering them with facts.
My god you read too much science fiction. Let me give you this example, why do we all not have plastic surgery? We could all look "perfect", we dont because that is not important.
Have you ever been to L.A.?
no, but seriously...
first post....
but i mean - does M$ _really_ compete with Tivo in this segment?
my first slashism:
in soviet russia, the moon circumnavigates you!
Why does it have to be a single failure that caused the outage? I have seen my fair share of system outages that were caused by multiple concurrent issues. In fact, I believe that last year's massive power outages was a good example of an outage caused by multiple failures in a system designed to handle only single points of failure.
The idea is that the odds of a single failure are like 100,000 to 1 making the odds of 2 concurrent failures 100,000 * 100,000 (10,000,000,000) to 1. And while that is highly unlikely, it is still incredibly possible and occassionally will still happen.
One of the ideas that is elaborated on throughout the posts here is the that music is composed of "notes" which are repeatedly implied as specific wave frequencies (i.e. the A note, the B-flat note, etc.) This is really only part of the picture.
There is a significant amount of music that is composed of rhythms, and often from inharmonic or atonal instruments (i.e. percussion).
So, it's inaccurate to describe music exclusively with the concept of pitch. You must also incorporate rhythm. And even then, it may not be enough.
There is an infamous composition by John Cage called 4'33" - meaning 4 minutes, 33 seconds. It goes like this:
Pianist walks to a piano. Opens the lid. Sits for 4'33". Closes the lid, walks off stage. Some say that's not music, some say it is. Some say Andy Warhol is art, some say it's not. The interesting thing is only whether the "art" in question speaks to you personally. If it does it's art, if not it's not. Art is not unanimous. I use this description:
"Art is that thing which you so desperately wish to speak only to you". In other words, some work A may appeal to you and it's art. It may not appeal to me so it's not. It might appeal to you and three million other people and then it's not. While mass appreciation doesn't change the artifact you are appreciating, it can affect your appreciation of it.
Doesn't mentioning 'aryan' pretty much instantiate Godwin's Law?
So, move along folks, this thread is dead.
The same as being hit by one meteorite now. For example:
What are the odds of getting heads or tails? Well, 1/2. What are the odds of getting two heads? Well, 1/4. But...
It works like this:
First heads odds: 1/2
Second heads odds: 1/2
In other words, the two odds are multiplied out to find the odds of getting two heads (i.e. 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4). However, once the first heads is achieved, the odds of the second heads is still 1/2 - thus making the odds of the pair now 1/2.
The funny thing is that the odds change as each opportunity is explored. For example, what are the odds of throwing 5 heads? Well, 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/32.
Now, let's examine how this works. Before the first toss, the odds are still 1/32.
After the first toss, the odds become 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 or 1/16, since we the first heads is already established. Following this through:
Toss 1: 1/32
Toss 2: 1/16
Toss 3: 1/8
Toss 4: 1/4
Toss 5: 1/2
So, as you can see, your odds actually improve with each successful toss. However, you can never improve on the 1/2 odds for each individual toss.
An interesting side note as well - since each toss counts equally with a coin, then it bears to reason that you are more likely to get 5 heads in a row, than to get heads, tails, heads, tails, heads, tails. Which sounds strange because the heads/tails is more "complex". But much like pouring liquids from a short wide container to a tall narrow one, this is only an illusion.
Now, back to our meteorite. The probability is the same as being hit by a single meteorite with one exception: if the first meteorite somehow biases the spot so that it is more or less likely than the standard, then the odds are different.
Well, that's all very well, and indeed, quite good mathematics, sir. However, it says very little about the more infamous, and infinitely more important, Ramen Hypothesis.
In short, this theory states that:
All non-trivial zeroed-out accounts of the bank function lie on their backs while consuming large amounts of artificial flavors with real noodles. Don't forget the water.
To date, this is the only one of the acclaimed Menial Problems from the Claypot Mathematics Institute that has not been solved. The Pointcare Conjecture was thrown out, because no one cared about the point. The Hodge-Podge Conjecture was also thrown out as it was revealed to be nothing more than an aggregation of previous "mathematical refuse".
(emphasis added)
Well, you can say that again...
I agree with the sentiments about lines of code.
And further, 1 line of C code != 1 line of ASM != 1 line of COBOL != 1 line of Java != 1 line of any language.
I don't write much C code anymore- but back in the day I can remember producing up to 1500 lines in a single day sometimes. Of course, that wasn't everyday - but I know it can be done. Given that - I should have been able to physically code the original kernel in about a week. Of course, the hard part of writing any software is not the typing - it's the conceptualization, design, and debugging that seems to take time.
How do you figure 19 terabytes?
There are 8 bits in a byte.
There are 1024 bits in a kilobit.
There are 1048576 bits in a megabit.
There are 1073741824 bits in a gigabit.
There are 1099511627776 bits in a terabit.
There are 101155069755392 bits in 92 terabits.
There is 1 byte in 8 bits.
There is 1 kilobyte in 8192 bits.
There is 1 megabyte in 8388608 bits.
There is 1 gigabyte in 8589934592 bits.
There is 1 terabyte in 8796093022208 bits.
There are 11.5 terabytes in 101155069755392 bits.
There are 11.5 terabytes in 92 terabits.
I guess now you have to give the teacher a Macintosh instead of a Red Delicious.... ;-)
is that a British thing?
According to dictionary.com:
[Greek nnos, nannos, little old man, dwarf, from nanns, uncle.]
This seems to imply that the Brits have it right... so why does America use nano instead of nanno?
Oh, and by the way, does that mean that these are bacteria from little old men? 'cause that's just disgusting....
I beg your pardon. Evan Williams is not "cheap whiskey". In fact, it's often referred to as the best kept secret in Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey.
While it is less expensive than some others, it's certainly not cheap (at least not in the Very Old Bartons manner).
This is great news!
I mean - uhm..
What?
er... wait. They don't mean Evan Williams as in Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey?
ahem. nevermind.
What in the hell are you smoking? This is a direct quote from the article:
Microsoft is expected to recommend that the "average" Longhorn PC feature a dual-core CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage; a 1 Gbit, built-in, Ethernet-wired port and an 802.11g wireless link; and a graphics processor that runs three times faster than those on the market today.
What part of this don't you understand? I agree they aren't saying these are the minimal requirements - but they certainly aren't saying that this is just what's going to be available. They are saying that the Microsoft recommends a system with these specs.
Not only that - but the quote above follows the statement in the article saying that Microsoft is expected to unveil the "system and driver requirements". This implies that the specs provided are relevant to what they are unveiling.
So - in summary, the article does say and imply that these are the specifications for running Longhorn.
Now, as for running XP on a 400MHz machine - that's some serious crack smoking.
If this stuff boils at 120, how useful and practical is it for fire suppression?
IYRTA you can see that this machine cleary has 1 front wheel and 2 back wheels. I thought this was a technical audience... ?!
i think this paragraph really sums things up. the editor is such a moron as to explicitly state the obvious grammatical correlation between mathematically chaotic logic circuits and the general "chaos" users experience with their computers. and that preceded by a description that sounds like some kind of vampirian (or is it vampirical?), frankensteinian, technological monster. (rob zombie brings you "attack of the chaotic leech borgs"!).
p.s. the chaotic leech borgs would be a good name for a band
While English grammar may not include genders, certainly the English language does include the word with usage as applied by the original author.
The main reason to use the word gender over the word sex is that sex is a more ambiguous term, grammatically speaking. Sex can refer to biological sexual orientation and to the act of fornication. Gender always refers to the distinction between masculine and feminine or male and female.
The problem is your assumption and assertion that gender is purely a grammar term. Unfortunately, both are incorrect.
I guess the writer meant for that to be more poetic and less, well, bad.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is not a "typical" dictionary, for those of you who are not familiar with it.
I noticed several people mentioning concerns about the use of words prior to some of the dates mentioned and also about non-print use of words. The thing is, the OED attempts to define words as they have been used in printed literature. In other words, without the Star-Trek script that illustrates the use of the term "cloaking device", they cannot verify it and date it properly.
The thinking, if I am not mistaken, is based on the idea that a word in published print has gone through an editing process. The editor is then responsible for making sure that the words used in the final publication are valid and used accurately. The OED attempts to catalog any new words or new uses of existing words that appear after having gone through this process. The assumption being that any new words or new uses of words are now "valid" as a result of having been printed.
Whether you agree with this process is probably not relevant; but that is the way that I understand it to work.
If you would like more information you should read the book "The Professor and The Madman" by Simon Winchester. It's a great story that details how the OED came to be; and Mr. Winchester is a fine autor.
I tried to get to the article. The "ad" certainly played fine, but the article appears to be slashdotted.
What's worse? This at the bottom of the error message:
North American Help Desk (800) 943-8397
European Help Desk +32 2 529-1230
I'm afraid this might let me experience the article first hand....
Would you really want to have a "famous" phone number? Just think about all the random calls you would get? How many people call 867-5309 just to see if someone answers? Then again, I am considering buying 1-800-eat-shit for my technical support line...