The ballot's pretty fucking obvious. The number "3" beside Gore's name makes it pretty fucking clear that you punch the third hole for Gore.
And it's "pretty fucking obvious" that you, who obviously have yet to learn how to form a sentence without including at least two "fuck"'s, is the right person to judge whether people find it "pretty fucking clear" what to punch and not to punch.
If you honestly believe in what you're saying, there is no point in using such language. Otherwise, however, it's probably as good as any other desperately pathetic attempt to strengthen one's hollow arguments.
Although, I wonder if we were to give 'e' a different name that it might have as much popularity.
I don't think it would. The uses of pi is so much more trivial (multiply it with the diameter and you have the circumference), e would never stand a chance regardless of what you'd call it.
yes (as already explained in at least one other reply to this post).
Proving that pi^sqrt(2) and e^pi or whatever compositions it was are trascendental, on the other hand, was in the early 20th century still not possible, and Hilbert even announced that they were probably not to be proven to be or not be during his lifetime. "Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems", he claimed. Hilbert was wrong on that one, and they were proven to be trascendental and thus of infinite lenghts too, not so long after he made his claims.
However, I'm pretty sure that whether pi^sqrt(2)^e and similar monsters are of infinite lenghts or not is still an open question (although I'm also pretty sure no sane math major would ever express the thought that they might not be). There seems to be no easy way of determining whether a specific combination of trascendental numbers is a trascendental number too, so until we see some sort of universal proof you won't be able to relax anyhow.:)
A bazillion years ago (or at least what feels like it), I had the unpleasure of working doing market-research for the Gartner Group, and can tell you that concluding something of value from those surveys is not a trivial task.
None of the people working there knew anything about computers or computer related topics whatsoever, and they certainly didn't care about whether the survey was conducted in a proper way or not. What concerned them was getting enough interviews, however badly conducted, a day, because not getting enough interviews was equal to losing your job, and if that isn't something sure to lower the quality and reliability of the results, I don't know what is.
Needless to say, this might not be the way the Gartner Group always do things, but it was quite obvious that the surveys I contributed to was flawed, to say the least.
Do as you wish. I wouldn't touch any of their reports with a ten foot pole.
what's up with all this "WTG Shawn", "Great speech Shawn" bs? Shawn Fanning holds presently about 5% of Napsters shares. Why wouldn't he be but a puppet of his rich and corrupted uncle? Do you honestly think he even wrote one sentence of that speech himself? Sure, it wasn't as slick as Mr. Marketing Strategist would have put it, but then again, an even more well-produced speech might trigger this sort of responses, and no fat caviar-eating shareholder would want that, would they?
Yeah, yeah.. flame on. I know all of you consider Shawn a hero, and I know you'd really like to think he's all on his own, and that what he says expressed his views and not those of the suits above him. So would I, but come on, get real!
first: this is not some sort of disguised flamebait, the following questions are serious ones.
I have never heard of this institute, should I have? Also, isn't SANS an abbrevation for some other institute, conducting research in some completly different area (can't remember which one at the moment), as well?
10 years ago: Didn't know anything about anything related to programming. Had no real goals, except finding out why anyone would like to program.
8 - 9 years ago: Because I liked it. Nothing more, nothing less.
5 - 7 years ago: By this time the demoscene had caught my interest. These days it was to impress people, and push the limits.
4 - 1 year ago: Didn't program. The internet was growing, everyone was talking about computers and IT, and it sort of bored me into not caring much.
Now: For the fun of it. And to make money (it just too easy these days).
I'm pretty convinced not many people in here had a down period like the one I had, which lasted for a big part of my teens. Besides from that, however, it would not surprise me if a lot of people have a similar history.
And please don't moderate me to hell / flame me for this; I am actually on topic, although I'm speaking about myself.
Finally, he argues argues, this threat [machinery] to humanity is much greater than that of nuclear weapons because those are hard to build.
HAHAHA!
Please. We can't even write a web browser within three years, much less program sentient robot roaches that could destroy our planet.
You're completely missing the point. What he's saying isn't that, right now, building a sinister intelligent seek-and-destroy nano-cyborg is any easier than it is to build an atombomb. In fact, he knows, as do the rest of the world, that it's not even possible at all. However, if (when?) nano becomes a reality, it will be a far less complicated task for the average evil-world-conquerer Joe to build that cyborg than it, today, is for him to build himself an H bomb.
Watchmen, by Alan Moore (and Dave Gibbons), is in my opinion the best piece of science fiction ever written, but since it's a graphic novel (or, if you want to - a comic book), and not a novel in the orignial sense, it's usually forgotten in these kind of discussions (although it has won both the HUGO, NEBULA and numerous other awards). That, however, does by no means change the fact that it is an astondingly eminent piece of literature.
Although probably not be very suitable for a thirteen year old, it's a must read for the rest of you.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's "pretty fucking obvious" that you, who obviously have yet to learn how to form a sentence without including at least two "fuck"'s, is the right person to judge whether people find it "pretty fucking clear" what to punch and not to punch.
If you honestly believe in what you're saying, there is no point in using such language. Otherwise, however, it's probably as good as any other desperately pathetic attempt to strengthen one's hollow arguments.
I don't think it would. The uses of pi is so much more trivial (multiply it with the diameter and you have the circumference), e would never stand a chance regardless of what you'd call it.
Proving that pi^sqrt(2) and e^pi or whatever compositions it was are trascendental, on the other hand, was in the early 20th century still not possible, and Hilbert even announced that they were probably not to be proven to be or not be during his lifetime. "Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems", he claimed. Hilbert was wrong on that one, and they were proven to be trascendental and thus of infinite lenghts too, not so long after he made his claims.
However, I'm pretty sure that whether pi^sqrt(2)^e and similar monsters are of infinite lenghts or not is still an open question (although I'm also pretty sure no sane math major would ever express the thought that they might not be). There seems to be no easy way of determining whether a specific combination of trascendental numbers is a trascendental number too, so until we see some sort of universal proof you won't be able to relax anyhow. :)
Was this off-topic? I'm sure it was. Damn me.
A bazillion years ago (or at least what feels like it), I had the unpleasure of working doing market-research for the Gartner Group, and can tell you that concluding something of value from those surveys is not a trivial task.
None of the people working there knew anything about computers or computer related topics whatsoever, and they certainly didn't care about whether the survey was conducted in a proper way or not. What concerned them was getting enough interviews, however badly conducted, a day, because not getting enough interviews was equal to losing your job, and if that isn't something sure to lower the quality and reliability of the results, I don't know what is.
Needless to say, this might not be the way the Gartner Group always do things, but it was quite obvious that the surveys I contributed to was flawed, to say the least.
Do as you wish. I wouldn't touch any of their reports with a ten foot pole.
"Americans invariably do the right thing. After all, they have tried every other alternative" - Churchill
Yeah, yeah.. flame on. I know all of you consider Shawn a hero, and I know you'd really like to think he's all on his own, and that what he says expressed his views and not those of the suits above him. So would I, but come on, get real!
will a move like this make the dow go up or down?
I have never heard of this institute, should I have? Also, isn't SANS an abbrevation for some other institute, conducting research in some completly different area (can't remember which one at the moment), as well?
10 years ago: Didn't know anything about anything related to programming. Had no real goals, except finding out why anyone would like to program.
8 - 9 years ago: Because I liked it. Nothing more, nothing less.
5 - 7 years ago: By this time the demoscene had caught my interest. These days it was to impress people, and push the limits.
4 - 1 year ago: Didn't program. The internet was growing, everyone was talking about computers and IT, and it sort of bored me into not caring much.
Now: For the fun of it. And to make money (it just too easy these days).
I'm pretty convinced not many people in here had a down period like the one I had, which lasted for a big part of my teens. Besides from that, however, it would not surprise me if a lot of people have a similar history.
And please don't moderate me to hell / flame me for this; I am actually on topic, although I'm speaking about myself.
HAHAHA!
Please. We can't even write a web browser within three years, much less program sentient robot roaches that could destroy our planet.
You're completely missing the point. What he's saying isn't that, right now, building a sinister intelligent seek-and-destroy nano-cyborg is any easier than it is to build an atombomb. In fact, he knows, as do the rest of the world, that it's not even possible at all. However, if (when?) nano becomes a reality, it will be a far less complicated task for the average evil-world-conquerer Joe to build that cyborg than it, today, is for him to build himself an H bomb.
Was that really so hard to comprehend?
Although probably not be very suitable for a thirteen year old, it's a must read for the rest of you.