Overheard somewhere in the Middle East, ten days from now:
Muslim boy: "Ma, you know that stinking Osama Bin-Ladin is hiding somewhere in our beautiful country since that awful terror attack in the US, right?"
Muslin mom: "Yes my son, why?"
Muslim boy: "Well, I just intercepted some secure CIA communication channel. Seems like there are a bunch of MIG 29 coming in shortly to nuke our village."
Muslim mom: "Ok, let me just get the chopper up and going. Tell your brother Mustafa we're leaving in five minutes."
Muslim boy: "Sure. Should I tell the Mohammuds and the Achmeds too before we leave?"
Muslim mom: "Naah.. no time. But nevermind them, if they are stupid enough sitting on their porch in the middle of a war zone they have themselves to blame. Sheesh"
Seriously though, that was probably the most clueless comment yet.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This situation is a tragedy. Your attitude is another one. A third is that many people actually seem to agree with you. I have replied to so many posts just like yours these past two days that it's getting tiresome, but I will try once again anyhow.
This has little to do with right and wrong
I disagree. When you have to decide whether to kill people or not, it always has to do with right and wrong.
This is a war. You will have to kill innocent civillians.
This is an act of terrorism, not war. If you don't believe there is a difference, look both words up in your dictionary of choice - you may be surprised at what you find. And no, you don't have to kill innocent civilians. I am embarrased having to point this out, but if someone is to be killed, it is the people responsible. Innocent civilians are, well, uuh, innocent. Does that not make it clear enough why they should not be killed for a crime (and allow me to repeat that: this is an act of terrorism, in other word a crime, not an act of war (or at least that's what we think at this point in time)) someone else, who may or may share their opinions about americans, committed.
Americans killed plenty of innocent Germans and Italians and Japanese in WW2 to protect its interests. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.
Really? If I try real hard, I think I can see a tiny difference between killing civilians because there is total war in all of Europe, and where more than 15 million people have died, than when some random extremists bomb a couple of buildings and where casualties MAY count in the thousands (that is not yet for sure - may as well be hundreds).
If every country replied to terrorist acts the way you think they should be replied to, we would have total war, everywhere, all the time.
Move cautiously. Think rationally. Locate the guilty. Punish the guilty. Forget. Move on. REPEAT
that's besides the point. The point is that the two "yuppies" mentioned had heard five seconds of news and probably didn't know anything about Osama Bin Laden except that he has a big beard and is considered a Bad Guy, yet they instantaniously arrive at this conclusion.
Something inside me is saying it is ethically wrong to be reading about how I might get a few more GB's on my next hard drive. Thousands of families are praying that they will see their
husbands, wifes, mothers and fathers again, alive.
Did you know that a couple of children dies every second from starvation? Or that 22 million people are currently fugitives of totalitarian regimes? Or that thousands people somewhere in the world are being tortured for their political views on a daily basis? What's more, this has been so, more or less, for every second of your life.
So either never read Slashdot, and donate blood every minute of your waking life or whatever, or stop trolling. It's not more ethically wrong to read about harddrives now than any other day.
I think there should be a battery of cruise missles launched at every known, suspected or rumored terrorist hangout, EVERYWHERE in the world. There are arguments to this that we should wait until we are sure who it is, that we should not retaliate at all because this will just perpetuate the hostilities.
Brilliant thinking! If someone could just would have arrived at that conclusion in Oklahoma when 168 people were killed, we could have nuked these palestinians off the planet without having this long pointless investigation. Retaliation should be swift and decisive, I agree. Let's just wipe them out before.. what? They later found out that american extremists did were responsible? Uhhm... in that case.. uuhmmm.. well I'm sure it would have been a good solution to nuke random terrorist sites anyway as.. what you say? The US might have had to go to war, for bombing terrorists that had nothing to do with this attack, should that have happened?
Uuhmm.. uuhmm.. blah! I say we nuke them anyway! After all, we're americans. No need for second thoughts.
This used in conjunction with the javascript crappy 2nd generation darth paperclip technology mentioned in the recent Spyware story will make for some horrific web experiences. Remember static web pages, where you chose what to read an what to do and how to react when you dragged the mouse over a link? Odds are, in five years you won't.
END RANT MODE
Re:Aptitude vs. Intelligence vs. Effectiveness
on
Bobby Fischer Online?
·
· Score: 1
Capablanca (ex World Champion, called "the Mozart of chess", and generally hailed as one of the absolutely greatest ever) once became even more famous by uttering
To play chess requires no intelligence at all
Capablanca himself never read chess books and claimed to make moves solely based on intuition, and never on analysis (and most people believe he actually did). Whether chess requires or does not require intelligence is one of the great controversies in the chess community.
perhaps you already knew this, but in case not (and besides, there may be others who don't): part of the prize in this contest is to have the judge proclaim the language you used to be the "language of choice for discriminating hackers". If the winning entry had been written in VB, they'd have to say it too.
uhmm.. no, actually I can't. A beowulf cluster does, by definition, run Linux or some other free (as in beer) OS. WinXP isn't free.
I can't believe there are beowulf trolls that don't even know what they're talking about. I take that back, I can. But you should really have a look at the beowulf faq anyway.
Re:previous discussion
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
..and for people too lazy to follow that link, I'll just paste the by far funniest comment:
Ahem, does nobody remember that we had this very discussion just a couple of days ago? Some interesting points were made there, perhaps you should all have a review before spitting out the same lame jokes in this thread as well (those relating to copyright and DeCSS and privacy, for example).
Everyone and their brother is suggesting all these smarty-pants books, very predictable. Those are all good, but how about the kid in second grade who knows nothing about programming and wants to take his first awkward steps into the field? Should he begin with Stroustup? Knuth? Please.
Keep a number of books on BASIC. And at least one of Friedmans The little lisper, which is truly wonderful.
Besides, even for hard-core programmers, Knuth is usually overkill. If you have tried to read it, you know what I'm talking about. It's more of a mathematics text than an actual guide to programming (I had volume III as course literature in a graduate combinatorics course). The wizard book (Structure and Interpretation of computer programs) is, in my opinion, both a lot easier to read and more stuffed with startling insights.
But these are, of course, nothing but opinions, and I understand if they are nowhere near as interesting as other slashdot posters undeniable truths.
Actually, starting at the 74088th digit is 70574957481696694062334272. However you interpret the ascii table, that's not "So long and thanks for all the fish" (and that was the dolphins anyway). Assuming two-digits ascii values it reads "F91190`E(>!*H". What god meant by that is probably explained by an AC in the reply to this post (isn't it always?).
In addition, a simple formula discovered makes it possible to
calculate the Nth binary digit of Pi without computing any of the first N-1 digits
I thought this was not only extremely difficult, but actually impossible. Pi is proven to be irrational many years ago now. I thought it had also been proven (also many years ago) that you cannot ever know the Nth digit of a irrational number without computing the N-1 first. I also remember an earlier slashdot discussion when some 20 year old had calculated the trillionth digit of pi using some distributed scheme. Naturally, some poster wanted to know whether he had calculated the trillion-1 digits before that one also, and he got instaniously drenched by replys claiming and proving that such a feat is impossible, so at least I'm not the only one having heard this.
Could some math grad with knowledge about this help clear it up?
Re:The Good, the Bad, the Ugly...
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 1
Whenever I feel like reading something new, and interesting, I go to the book store and just roam around for a bit hoping I'll stumble into something that looks interesting.
When I find something, I pick it up, flip through it and decide to buy it or not.
With this system, the above situation is impossible. The book doesn't exist until I buy it. Sure, I can "flip through it" on a computer monitor, just like I can on Amazon.
Though, I can honestly say I've never bought a random book off Amazon.
This point has been made many times during this discussion, and I could not disagree more. Although this may not be the case for you and others, I find books on amazon every day (yes, I actually browse amazon for a couple of minutes every day) that I would never come across in a bookshop, and I frequently buy them. Believe you me, when 95% percent of all books published the last 100 years or so are less than 6 clicks away on Amazon, you're bound to come across more of them than you are in any book store, no matter how big. And, as a sidenote, at least for me reading reviews gives me a better impression of a book than "flipping it's pages", and I'm sure I'm not alone on that one.
I'd very much like to see some statistics on how many "obscure" books are bought of amazon versus how many are bought in book stores. Chances are such a survey would prove you and others wrong in a rather dramatic way.
I'll gladly admit that I didn't come up with this one myself, but it is kinda sweet.
The author says he wouldn't recommend using it on anything less than a P400 (on which it still "results in noticeable delays in the appearance of the prompt"). If that's not hardcore enough, count me out...
Slashdot Mirror
Muslim boy: "Ma, you know that stinking Osama Bin-Ladin is hiding somewhere in our beautiful country since that awful terror attack in the US, right?"
Muslin mom: "Yes my son, why?"
Muslim boy: "Well, I just intercepted some secure CIA communication channel. Seems like there are a bunch of MIG 29 coming in shortly to nuke our village."
Muslim mom: "Ok, let me just get the chopper up and going. Tell your brother Mustafa we're leaving in five minutes."
Muslim boy: "Sure. Should I tell the Mohammuds and the Achmeds too before we leave?"
Muslim mom: "Naah.. no time. But nevermind them, if they are stupid enough sitting on their porch in the middle of a war zone they have themselves to blame. Sheesh"
Seriously though, that was probably the most clueless comment yet.
This has little to do with right and wrong
I disagree. When you have to decide whether to kill people or not, it always has to do with right and wrong.
This is a war. You will have to kill innocent civillians.
This is an act of terrorism, not war. If you don't believe there is a difference, look both words up in your dictionary of choice - you may be surprised at what you find. And no, you don't have to kill innocent civilians. I am embarrased having to point this out, but if someone is to be killed, it is the people responsible. Innocent civilians are, well, uuh, innocent. Does that not make it clear enough why they should not be killed for a crime (and allow me to repeat that: this is an act of terrorism, in other word a crime, not an act of war (or at least that's what we think at this point in time)) someone else, who may or may share their opinions about americans, committed.
Americans killed plenty of innocent Germans and Italians and Japanese in WW2 to protect its interests. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.
Really? If I try real hard, I think I can see a tiny difference between killing civilians because there is total war in all of Europe, and where more than 15 million people have died, than when some random extremists bomb a couple of buildings and where casualties MAY count in the thousands (that is not yet for sure - may as well be hundreds).
If every country replied to terrorist acts the way you think they should be replied to, we would have total war, everywhere, all the time.
Move cautiously. Think rationally. Locate the guilty. Punish the guilty. Forget. Move on. REPEAT
there's always The Hunger Site.
that's besides the point. The point is that the two "yuppies" mentioned had heard five seconds of news and probably didn't know anything about Osama Bin Laden except that he has a big beard and is considered a Bad Guy, yet they instantaniously arrive at this conclusion.
Did you know that a couple of children dies every second from starvation? Or that 22 million people are currently fugitives of totalitarian regimes? Or that thousands people somewhere in the world are being tortured for their political views on a daily basis? What's more, this has been so, more or less, for every second of your life.
So either never read Slashdot, and donate blood every minute of your waking life or whatever, or stop trolling. It's not more ethically wrong to read about harddrives now than any other day.
And remember people, today is election day (seriously!).
Brilliant thinking! If someone could just would have arrived at that conclusion in Oklahoma when 168 people were killed, we could have nuked these palestinians off the planet without having this long pointless investigation. Retaliation should be swift and decisive, I agree. Let's just wipe them out before.. what? They later found out that american extremists did were responsible? Uhhm... in that case.. uuhmmm.. well I'm sure it would have been a good solution to nuke random terrorist sites anyway as.. what you say? The US might have had to go to war, for bombing terrorists that had nothing to do with this attack, should that have happened?
Uuhmm.. uuhmm.. blah! I say we nuke them anyway! After all, we're americans. No need for second thoughts.
A third plane has appearantly crashed into Pentagon. The story is on washington post, and here a video of pentagon burning.
ok, that wasn't very funny, this actually being very bad news. My apologies.
You don't that someone set us up da.. naah. Forget it.
END RANT MODE
Capablanca himself never read chess books and claimed to make moves solely based on intuition, and never on analysis (and most people believe he actually did). Whether chess requires or does not require intelligence is one of the great controversies in the chess community.
perhaps you already knew this, but in case not (and besides, there may be others who don't): part of the prize in this contest is to have the judge proclaim the language you used to be the "language of choice for discriminating hackers". If the winning entry had been written in VB, they'd have to say it too.
thought that was just someones .sig here on slashdot
And then he complains they might not be able to control their behaviour? =)
I can't believe there are beowulf trolls that don't even know what they're talking about. I take that back, I can. But you should really have a look at the beowulf faq anyway.
The string 1337 was found at position 222222 counting from the first digit after the decimal point. The 3. is not counted.
Wow, Pi is Leet!
Ahem, does nobody remember that we had this very discussion just a couple of days ago? Some interesting points were made there, perhaps you should all have a review before spitting out the same lame jokes in this thread as well (those relating to copyright and DeCSS and privacy, for example).
Keep a number of books on BASIC. And at least one of Friedmans The little lisper, which is truly wonderful.
Besides, even for hard-core programmers, Knuth is usually overkill. If you have tried to read it, you know what I'm talking about. It's more of a mathematics text than an actual guide to programming (I had volume III as course literature in a graduate combinatorics course). The wizard book (Structure and Interpretation of computer programs) is, in my opinion, both a lot easier to read and more stuffed with startling insights.
But these are, of course, nothing but opinions, and I understand if they are nowhere near as interesting as other slashdot posters undeniable truths.
Yes, I have too much spare time.
I evidently should have read the comments before posting this. Quite obviously, I and others were wrong.
I thought this was not only extremely difficult, but actually impossible. Pi is proven to be irrational many years ago now. I thought it had also been proven (also many years ago) that you cannot ever know the Nth digit of a irrational number without computing the N-1 first. I also remember an earlier slashdot discussion when some 20 year old had calculated the trillionth digit of pi using some distributed scheme. Naturally, some poster wanted to know whether he had calculated the trillion-1 digits before that one also, and he got instaniously drenched by replys claiming and proving that such a feat is impossible, so at least I'm not the only one having heard this.
Could some math grad with knowledge about this help clear it up?
With this system, the above situation is impossible. The book doesn't exist until I buy it. Sure, I can "flip through it" on a computer monitor, just like I can on Amazon. Though, I can honestly say I've never bought a random book off Amazon.
This point has been made many times during this discussion, and I could not disagree more. Although this may not be the case for you and others, I find books on amazon every day (yes, I actually browse amazon for a couple of minutes every day) that I would never come across in a bookshop, and I frequently buy them. Believe you me, when 95% percent of all books published the last 100 years or so are less than 6 clicks away on Amazon, you're bound to come across more of them than you are in any book store, no matter how big. And, as a sidenote, at least for me reading reviews gives me a better impression of a book than "flipping it's pages", and I'm sure I'm not alone on that one.
I'd very much like to see some statistics on how many "obscure" books are bought of amazon versus how many are bought in book stores. Chances are such a survey would prove you and others wrong in a rather dramatic way.
I'll gladly admit that I didn't come up with this one myself, but it is kinda sweet. The author says he wouldn't recommend using it on anything less than a P400 (on which it still "results in noticeable delays in the appearance of the prompt"). If that's not hardcore enough, count me out...
I suggest you have a look at Malbolge. Just for the hell of it.