First off, asking questions about the law on Slashdot is a futile endeavour. The best that can happen is that you don't get any answers at all. The worst is that you do, but they're all wrong.
I managed to find some general info on the net for you though; check this and this. I have no idea of whether or not they are relevant to your inquiry. I just happened to stumble upon them while googling for an answer to an even more general question, namely: "what the #%&! are 'zoning restrictions'?" (I'm not a US citizen and therefore have no idea.)
I do thank you for being more technical for the readers who want it. I was trying to be less technical (and therefore using as simple of terminology as I possibly could to make it easier for most of slashdot to understand.)
You made a lot of very grave errors in your post. Are we supposed to believe you did that in the name of simplicity? Simplicity and accuracy are not mutually exclusive concepts. Do you think that Perelman would have needed to make your errors in order to explain his results to laymen? Allow me to be doubtful.
I am not putting down Smale and Freedman's proofs. They are excellent pieces of mathematical work.
You don't know that. You just like to pretend that you know things you don't. Before you dismiss that as mere trolling, maybe you should ask yourself: "Do I understand these proofs? Have I even read them? Am I competent enough to pass judgment on them?" A sincere answer to those questions could do wonders for your knowledge of who you are, as opposed to who you'd like to be.
I am just saying that in this dimension, the proof has been found to be so incredibly elusive, that it is fascinating to me. Even though, the other proofs were difficult and well thought out, this proof still hasn't been found. That alone makes this interesting to me.
A proof you wouldn't understand of a conjecture you don't understand hasn't been found, and this in spite of a similar proof being so easy as to merely be awarded a Fields medal. Must really keep you awake at nights.
Perhaps I should put a quick disclaimer before hand in the future and note that I purposefully remove the rigor and accuracy to these "dumbing down" of mathematics to make it easier to understand.
"In the future"? Can't this be your last "explanation" of a difficult mathematical result? Your posts are modded up because people who don't know anything about these things assume you're not just a hack and that you give a decent explanation. It's not fair to them and it's terribly irritating to the rest of us.
I usually don't care and just post it hoping that more people will be interested in the mathematics and go and learn more. (and perhaps even discover that my translation wasn't very accurate, just accurate enough to get the idea across.)
I should apologize to fellow mathematicians though. I understand the need to keep rigor and logic formal in mathematics, I just also like to every once and a while introduce someone to the basic concepts without having to teach them first year real analysis.
"Go and learn more"? It is plain to see that you like to think of yourself as some kind of mathematical prophet, teaching the dumb masses about the wonders of math. It's more than a little pathetic.
And as far as mathematical rigor is concerned, you are to that as CmdrTaco is to grammar.
I haven't yet read the article, and so cannot comment on it, but my intuition and experience with these kind of diatribes tell me you are right on the mark.
Take the Bill Joy piece referenced in the write up, for example. While amusing, it was an unbelievably far-out vision of a near future full of hyped up sci-fi scenarios (robots come alive, nano-tech grey goo etc. etc.) that are rarely discussed in anywhere but in pulp fiction. Bill Joy is smart and rich, I grant him that (though he should go to hell for writing vi), but with what authority can he speak of the dangers of sentient robots or nanotechnology still hundreds of years in the future?
Celebrities speak out on all kinds of issues they don't know anything about, but while the average Slashdotter wouldn't take Britney Spears comments on world politics very seriously (although her knowledge of semiconductor physics is more than decent), there is a tendency to forget this very sound and skeptical attitude when it comes to what a respected scientist/engineer/intellectual has to say on matters, regardless if they are part of his/her domain of expertise or not.
We all know that everything you read on the net is true, but sometimes there might be a point in pretending that this were not the case. That's all.
PS. As an example of the opposite phenomenon, remember the time Dubya was asked to name foreign heads of state and fared rather badly? That was completely unfair! Why is he expected to know that sort of thing when he's in office to fight against terrorists, something completely unrelated!
Don't worry, wasting time is what Slashdot is about. But why do you keep hiding as an AC? I'd make you a friend if I could. Grammar Nazis who actually know what they're talking about are hard to come by.
The site is Slashdotted so I can't get through, but the write up contradicts Seti's official version which states that
There was a potential buffer overrun in the networking code of the client that is fixed with version 3.08. Note that to exploit this vulnerability, a potential attacker would have to trick the client into contacting a fake server rather than the actual SETI@home server. To our knowledge,
no SETI@home client has ever been attacked in this manner.
Whereas Jamie claims that
an Exploit [sic.] was found in Seti@Home and
there is code exploiting the hole actually running about in the wild.
Can anybody help clear this up until the linked site get back online?
First off, note that the write up mentions only satellites and says nothing about moons.
But as for your question: historically there hasn't been a need for a hard definition, and hence there isn't one. At this point in time, however, with 118 official moons in the solar system and a whole bunch of candidates, lines need to be drawn.
Researchers have after years of study finally discovered a polynomial time algorithm for using toilet paper, refuting the conjecture set forth by many researchers that this problem was intractable.
The related problem of determining whether the toilet seat should be up or down has, on the other hand, been proven to be NP-complete.
Isn't it cute when someone equates hackers fooling around with a piece of software just for the hell of it with people willing to die for their cause? I wish I could do that with a straight face, it'd make argumentation so much easier.
And "property rights derive from physical truth"? Do you even understand what you're saying? You don't need a 21st century version of the Pineal Gland to understand the value of copyright. Nor do you need the high moral ground to defend your incling to have a little fun with an operating system that doesn't treat you like you were still in kindergarten.
Linux users all over the world admire IBM for their adoption of Linux. Fifty years ago they helped Hitler slaughter the majority of the European jewry. Funny how things aren't always so clearcut, isn't it?
Get a sense of perspective. Comments like yours just cheese me off no end.
Almost. You made it difficult to pick nits, but I found one:
While I do not know enough of NASA's inner workings to determine whether or not the American people get good value for the money.
Ah, but this is not true! Both forms are valid. I quote from Dictionary.com:
Whetherconj.
1. Used in indirect questions to introduce one alternative: We should find out whether the museum is open.
Also on shakey ground is "there's going to be some friction." You were speaking in the past tense, and this tends to be interpreted as the present tense. However, a case can be made that by "there's" you meant "there was," so I am letting that one slide.
It's legitimate, although it is correct that it is commonly interpreted as being in the present tense.
If you by "here" mean the US, the answer is no. I don't think it has any particular relevance to the topic at hand, but since I know that I can be quite the grammar nazi myself I won't argue. And I admit that there were some rather embarrassing mistakes in that post. For your viewing pleasure, post #5665976 version 2.0:
Its a bit like the invention of bungee jumping, base jumping etc. exactly what would the loss to humanity be if people had not invented them?
Apart from a new way for millionaires to go for thrill rides there does not appear to be a major payoff here.
Oh, but there is! Many people believe NASA has become too bureaucratic and ineffective. While I do not know enough of NASA's inner workings to determine whether the American people get good value for money or not, it is not unreasonable to assume that they don't. When the space race began NASA was a small company which was all of a sudden given an almost unlimited budget. It grew too fast - of course there's going to be some friction.
What I'm getting at is that projects of this sort may wake people up. Maybe NASA isn't the only way of getting into space. Maybe there are other ways - better ways. We'll never know until we try, that's all.
Next time I'll even try to read it through before posting. Happy now?
Its a bit like the invention of bungee jumping, base jumping etc. exactly what would the loss to humanity be if people had not invented them?
Apart from a new way for millionaires to go for thrill rides there does not appear to be a major payoff here.
Oh, but there is! Many people believe NASA has become too buerocratic and ineffective. While I do not know enough of NASA's inner working to determine whether the American people get good value for money or not, it is not unreasonable to assume that they don't. When the space race began NASA was a small company that all of a sudden was given an almost unlimited budget. It growed to fast - of course there's going to be some friction.
What I'm getting at is that projects of this sort may wake people up. Maybe NASA isn't the only way of getting into space. Maybe there are other ways - better ways. We'll never know until we try, that's all.
This story is at least a couple of days old, and has already run in various media.
You see, not every story is a joke today. Even if there are those who are so accustomed to that being the case that they make fools of themselves instead while racking down on Taco&co for posting stories that are actually (well, partly) true.
Commondreams do run some questionable stories, yes, but this one has actually featured in respectable media as well. I just picked the first link I could find.
If you think this theory is "out there," believe me, you haven't seen shit.
Re:If you're a Google H4X0R...
on
Google Hacks
·
· Score: 1
My point is that your comment was misleading and of no benefit to the conversation.
Yes it was. Look at how it's modded, and look on the replies. Obviously someone found those links useful. Furthermore, nobody but you seems to have been particularly offended by it.
I for one (and obviously not just I) benefited from those posts, and moderation played an important part.
But it was only a gibe. A smirk. A joke. Get it yet? Maybe it wasn't a very good one, but still, as I said, don't take everything so goddamn seriously.
So what? We should ask the same of you. A user enters a comment that is witty (hacking with the h4x0r interface) and you have to poo poo it.
But I didn't do that. I can't even begin to understand why you would read something like that into what I actually wrote. I wasn't disparaging anyone. That you interpreted it otherwise says a lot more about you than it does about my post.
So what if they get mod points, where is the harm in this? Who cares? The people who have to deal with your condescension.
Sigh. See above.
Next time if you don't have anything to add to the conversation (the difference between your post and all the posts above it) may I suggest not adding anything at all.
Again, see above (second paragraph).
I really wish there was some way to respond in private on Slashdot, as this doesn't deserve to end up in any thread anywhere. If you reply to this you'll be ignored. Seriously, I won't even read it. This discussion is so supremely pointless I don't even know why I'm taking it this far.
Re:If you're a Google H4X0R...
on
Google Hacks
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
It's more than just logos
Well, excuse me.
[I]f you had taken the time to enter a search you might have noticed that the entire interface is in a different language, such as h4x0r, bork, Elmer Fudd or Klingon.
You don't have to enter a search. It's obvious anyway. Your point being?
If anything is over moderated [sic.] it's you
Why do you people always take everything so seriously? Three comments providing alternative logos (yeah yeah, interfaces too) were modded 4 and above. I made a jibe. So what? Who cares?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a thing for smug self-reference. Sorry.
First off, asking questions about the law on Slashdot is a futile endeavour. The best that can happen is that you don't get any answers at all. The worst is that you do, but they're all wrong.
I managed to find some general info on the net for you though; check this and this. I have no idea of whether or not they are relevant to your inquiry. I just happened to stumble upon them while googling for an answer to an even more general question, namely: "what the #%&! are 'zoning restrictions'?" (I'm not a US citizen and therefore have no idea.)
What other tips do you have for someone starting their own home-based software business?
1. Build time machine.
2. Go back to 1999.
3. Start your company.
4. Profit!
Other than that I have no idea, the economy being what it is. Or perhaps being what it isn't.
PS. Trolls complaining about the lack of a "???" step: you may safely substitute that for the first three if so inclined.
I do thank you for being more technical for the readers who want it. I was trying to be less technical (and therefore using as simple of terminology as I possibly could to make it easier for most of slashdot to understand.)
You made a lot of very grave errors in your post. Are we supposed to believe you did that in the name of simplicity? Simplicity and accuracy are not mutually exclusive concepts. Do you think that Perelman would have needed to make your errors in order to explain his results to laymen? Allow me to be doubtful.
I am not putting down Smale and Freedman's proofs. They are excellent pieces of mathematical work.
You don't know that. You just like to pretend that you know things you don't. Before you dismiss that as mere trolling, maybe you should ask yourself: "Do I understand these proofs? Have I even read them? Am I competent enough to pass judgment on them?" A sincere answer to those questions could do wonders for your knowledge of who you are, as opposed to who you'd like to be.
I am just saying that in this dimension, the proof has been found to be so incredibly elusive, that it is fascinating to me. Even though, the other proofs were difficult and well thought out, this proof still hasn't been found. That alone makes this interesting to me.
A proof you wouldn't understand of a conjecture you don't understand hasn't been found, and this in spite of a similar proof being so easy as to merely be awarded a Fields medal. Must really keep you awake at nights.
Perhaps I should put a quick disclaimer before hand in the future and note that I purposefully remove the rigor and accuracy to these "dumbing down" of mathematics to make it easier to understand.
"In the future"? Can't this be your last "explanation" of a difficult mathematical result? Your posts are modded up because people who don't know anything about these things assume you're not just a hack and that you give a decent explanation. It's not fair to them and it's terribly irritating to the rest of us.
I usually don't care and just post it hoping that more people will be interested in the mathematics and go and learn more. (and perhaps even discover that my translation wasn't very accurate, just accurate enough to get the idea across.)
I should apologize to fellow mathematicians though. I understand the need to keep rigor and logic formal in mathematics, I just also like to every once and a while introduce someone to the basic concepts without having to teach them first year real analysis.
"Go and learn more"? It is plain to see that you like to think of yourself as some kind of mathematical prophet, teaching the dumb masses about the wonders of math. It's more than a little pathetic.
And as far as mathematical rigor is concerned, you are to that as CmdrTaco is to grammar.
I haven't yet read the article, and so cannot comment on it, but my intuition and experience with these kind of diatribes tell me you are right on the mark.
Take the Bill Joy piece referenced in the write up, for example. While amusing, it was an unbelievably far-out vision of a near future full of hyped up sci-fi scenarios (robots come alive, nano-tech grey goo etc. etc.) that are rarely discussed in anywhere but in pulp fiction. Bill Joy is smart and rich, I grant him that (though he should go to hell for writing vi), but with what authority can he speak of the dangers of sentient robots or nanotechnology still hundreds of years in the future?
Celebrities speak out on all kinds of issues they don't know anything about, but while the average Slashdotter wouldn't take Britney Spears comments on world politics very seriously (although her knowledge of semiconductor physics is more than decent), there is a tendency to forget this very sound and skeptical attitude when it comes to what a respected scientist/engineer/intellectual has to say on matters, regardless if they are part of his/her domain of expertise or not.
We all know that everything you read on the net is true, but sometimes there might be a point in pretending that this were not the case. That's all.
PS. As an example of the opposite phenomenon, remember the time Dubya was asked to name foreign heads of state and fared rather badly? That was completely unfair! Why is he expected to know that sort of thing when he's in office to fight against terrorists, something completely unrelated!
Don't worry, wasting time is what Slashdot is about. But why do you keep hiding as an AC? I'd make you a friend if I could. Grammar Nazis who actually know what they're talking about are hard to come by.
AI = AC. I'm too used to Plastic's "Anonymous Idiot."
AI: 1.
Theodore Logan: 0.
over here.
- There was a potential buffer overrun in the networking code of the client that is fixed with version 3.08. Note that to exploit this vulnerability, a potential attacker would have to trick the client into contacting a fake server rather than the actual SETI@home server. To our knowledge,
- no SETI@home client has ever been attacked in this manner.
Whereas Jamie claims that- an Exploit [sic.] was found in Seti@Home and
- there is code exploiting the hole actually running about in the wild.
Can anybody help clear this up until the linked site get back online?First off, note that the write up mentions only satellites and says nothing about moons.
But as for your question: historically there hasn't been a need for a hard definition, and hence there isn't one. At this point in time, however, with 118 official moons in the solar system and a whole bunch of candidates, lines need to be drawn.
You may want to read this article for details.
That may be true, but when the main story is located at "asciipr0n.com" things have hit a new low.
Researchers have after years of study finally discovered a polynomial time algorithm for using toilet paper, refuting the conjecture set forth by many researchers that this problem was intractable.
The related problem of determining whether the toilet seat should be up or down has, on the other hand, been proven to be NP-complete.
Isn't it cute when someone equates hackers fooling around with a piece of software just for the hell of it with people willing to die for their cause? I wish I could do that with a straight face, it'd make argumentation so much easier.
And "property rights derive from physical truth"? Do you even understand what you're saying? You don't need a 21st century version of the Pineal Gland to understand the value of copyright. Nor do you need the high moral ground to defend your incling to have a little fun with an operating system that doesn't treat you like you were still in kindergarten.
Linux users all over the world admire IBM for their adoption of Linux. Fifty years ago they helped Hitler slaughter the majority of the European jewry. Funny how things aren't always so clearcut, isn't it?
Get a sense of perspective. Comments like yours just cheese me off no end.
While I do not know enough of NASA's inner workings to determine whether or not the American people get good value for the money.
Ah, but this is not true! Both forms are valid. I quote from Dictionary.com:
- Whether conj.
Also on shakey ground is "there's going to be some friction." You were speaking in the past tense, and this tends to be interpreted as the present tense. However, a case can be made that by "there's" you meant "there was," so I am letting that one slide.1. Used in indirect questions to introduce one alternative: We should find out whether the museum is open.
It's legitimate, although it is correct that it is commonly interpreted as being in the present tense.
Enough already, tough guy?
Its a bit like the invention of bungee jumping, base jumping etc. exactly what would the loss to humanity be if people had not invented them?
Apart from a new way for millionaires to go for thrill rides there does not appear to be a major payoff here.
Oh, but there is! Many people believe NASA has become too bureaucratic and ineffective. While I do not know enough of NASA's inner workings to determine whether the American people get good value for money or not, it is not unreasonable to assume that they don't. When the space race began NASA was a small company which was all of a sudden given an almost unlimited budget. It grew too fast - of course there's going to be some friction.
What I'm getting at is that projects of this sort may wake people up. Maybe NASA isn't the only way of getting into space. Maybe there are other ways - better ways. We'll never know until we try, that's all.
Next time I'll even try to read it through before posting. Happy now?
Its a bit like the invention of bungee jumping, base jumping etc. exactly what would the loss to humanity be if people had not invented them?
Apart from a new way for millionaires to go for thrill rides there does not appear to be a major payoff here.
Oh, but there is! Many people believe NASA has become too buerocratic and ineffective. While I do not know enough of NASA's inner working to determine whether the American people get good value for money or not, it is not unreasonable to assume that they don't. When the space race began NASA was a small company that all of a sudden was given an almost unlimited budget. It growed to fast - of course there's going to be some friction.
What I'm getting at is that projects of this sort may wake people up. Maybe NASA isn't the only way of getting into space. Maybe there are other ways - better ways. We'll never know until we try, that's all.
I assume he could be, but up to now I hadn't even heard of him. I thought everybody's favorite was Brian Walker.
It's not so amazing that you didn't find any Marvin references, considering that you obviously didn't even read the story. From the first paragraph:
Who cares? If you don't get what you want you can always grab it from kazaa.
This story is at least a couple of days old, and has already run in various media.
You see, not every story is a joke today. Even if there are those who are so accustomed to that being the case that they make fools of themselves instead while racking down on Taco&co for posting stories that are actually (well, partly) true.
Commondreams do run some questionable stories, yes, but this one has actually featured in respectable media as well. I just picked the first link I could find.
If you think this theory is "out there," believe me, you haven't seen shit.
You might want to read this.
My point is that your comment was misleading and of no benefit to the conversation.
Yes it was. Look at how it's modded, and look on the replies. Obviously someone found those links useful. Furthermore, nobody but you seems to have been particularly offended by it.
I for one (and obviously not just I) benefited from those posts, and moderation played an important part.
But it was only a gibe. A smirk. A joke. Get it yet? Maybe it wasn't a very good one, but still, as I said, don't take everything so goddamn seriously.
So what? We should ask the same of you. A user enters a comment that is witty (hacking with the h4x0r interface) and you have to poo poo it.
But I didn't do that. I can't even begin to understand why you would read something like that into what I actually wrote. I wasn't disparaging anyone. That you interpreted it otherwise says a lot more about you than it does about my post.
So what if they get mod points, where is the harm in this? Who cares? The people who have to deal with your condescension.
Sigh. See above.
Next time if you don't have anything to add to the conversation (the difference between your post and all the posts above it) may I suggest not adding anything at all.
Again, see above (second paragraph).
I really wish there was some way to respond in private on Slashdot, as this doesn't deserve to end up in any thread anywhere. If you reply to this you'll be ignored. Seriously, I won't even read it. This discussion is so supremely pointless I don't even know why I'm taking it this far.
It's more than just logos
:-)
Well, excuse me.
[I]f you had taken the time to enter a search you might have noticed that the entire interface is in a different language, such as h4x0r, bork, Elmer Fudd or Klingon.
You don't have to enter a search. It's obvious anyway. Your point being?
If anything is over moderated [sic.] it's you
Why do you people always take everything so seriously? Three comments providing alternative logos (yeah yeah, interfaces too) were modded 4 and above. I made a jibe. So what? Who cares?
Nope, not funny. Not even remotely.