But your example has 8 reds and 5 blacks. The other example had 13 blacks. As far as the probability of any particular SEQUENCE, yes, these probabilities are the same. But there are MANY possibilities where there were 8 reds and 5 blacks, but only ONE possibility with all 13 being black. So the two situations, if you look at it purely in terms of how many reds and blacks were hit, are very different.
Or to put it another way, the chances of getting 13 blacks in a row are 1/48^13. The chances of getting 8 reds and 5 blacks, in SOME order, is far higher than that.
In your overly strict mathematical-terminological prison, maybe. Here in the real world, "Base 1" is pretty easy to define: 1 = 1, 2 = 11, 3 = 111, 4 = 1111, 5 = 11111, 6 = 111111, etc. In other words, Base 1 is good old "tick marks."
Even more useless is base 0, where each unique integer gets it's own unique name. 1 = Bob, 2 = Janet, 3 = Teddy, 4 = Albert, 5 = Trish, 6 = Don. You have to simply memorize that Bob + Janet = Teddy, Trish - Albert = Bob, etc.
Freedom is not an excuse. And no one needs an excuse for minding his own business driving along a road endangering no one. I could say you are the "excuse-maker", excusing the government's overreach for fund-raising through speeding fines and allowing folks to arbitrarily control the lives of their neighbors. But that's not really productive.
I'm not debating that the enforcement of speeding laws is largely revenue-driven. It pisses me off, too. But I don't see how a system based on the idea that "You are punished only if you hurt someone" is workable. By that time, it's too late -- somebody has already been hurt. How is punishment at that point going to "un-hurt" the person?
Our society is filled with mostly reasonable restrictions on our activities so that we all gain a certain amount of safety. I don't see how speeding laws are any different than any other law in that regard. Do you hate all laws or just the ones you regularly break?
Except that most supercomputers on the Top 500 list aren't defined as such because of their raw memory, or MFLOPS, etc... Supercomputers are different from the average PC/iPhone/whatever consumer device not quantatively - but qualatively. Not of degree, but of kind.
Which makes the appellation "supercomputer" even LESS appropriate for this device, wouldn't you say?
Throwing things on the floor go much faster than 9.8 m/s^2.
No it doesn't, at least once the object leaves your hand. Then it's back under the influence of good old gravity, at 9.8 m/s^2, regardless of how fast you may have thrown it.
He's got a pretty bizarre definition of "supercomputer." I've always understood supercomputers to be the fastest, craziest computers currently available. Obviously, this changes over time. I propose that a hand-held computer BY DEFINITION cannot be a "supercomputer." It may be a very, very fast computer. But take thousands of such hand-held "supercomputers" and slap them together, that's a REAL supercomputer. Just like it's always been.
In 1980, many of our desktop machines would have been considered "supercomputers" on the basis of their speed and memory capacities. But supercomputers THEY AIN'T, at least not in 2007.
A supercomputer is, and probably always will be, a physically large, hot-running machine in the basement of a research lab somewhere.
That's equivalent to a 1 gram mass traveling at about 1.8 meters per second. Depending on the hardness of such an object, you'd probably say "Ouch" if it hit you in the eye. Now imagine all that energy packed into a SINGLE SUBATOMIC PARTICLE. Yeah. That's a lot of energy.
He should be arrested for reckless or dangerous driving.
And when you read the text of such laws... What do they say? They sure as hell refer to excessive speed, among other things. What, are we not allowed to use the phrase "He was going too fast?" Are we not allowed to name the specific number that indicates his speed?
You seem to be agreeing that people who drive dangerously fast should go to jail. You seem to have some hang-up over what exact law would cause that to happen. Get over it.
You were minding your own business and endangering no one. "Freedom" is a fundamental right.
Blah blah blah, at this point insert the usual argument that we don't own the road and therefore can't expect to be allowed to do whatever the fuck we please when driving on it. You're another excuse-maker.
Speed limits on highways are about raising fund by ticketing people for profit -- nothing else.
Maybe, maybe not. But what about the jackass who puts my life in danger on the highway? Are you saying the laws are not about that? At all?
I've driven 120 miles per hour on a deserted stretch of straight-as-an-arrow country road where nobody was around. It was fun, reasonably safe, and also illegal. I'm not particularly fussed up by the fact that I COULD have received a ticket for doing it. I'm not going to sit around claiming that driving that fast is some kind of fundamental right, though.
Stop trying to control everyone. We don't need your help. No one wants to get in a car crash. We are all competent adults and must be assumed to know how to drive. We can judge speed, traffic, weather, road conditions and available light to choose our own speed.
God, how I wish it were true. Let me propose a compromise, tell me what you think of it. Everyone on the highway can drive however the hell they want to. As fast or as slow as they want. The one single condition is this: if you threaten my life by your driving habits, I get to shoot you. I can pull a weapon out right there on the road and KILL you.
I'm not trying to be facetious, sarcastic, or anything. I'm dead serious. Yes, by all means, let people drive however they want. But give me the right to defend myself on the road against psychotics.
If that doesn't sound reasonable to you, maybe you should rethink the idea of speed limits a little bit. There is an enormous difference between driving 100 MPH down a quiet country road in the middle of the night, and blowing by me on the wrong side of the road going 60 in the middle of heavy traffic. If it were up to me, this is how it would work: you do that, you die. By my hand.
That's irrelevant. They could make money selling pizzas on the street corner, so why aren't they doing it? True, the first responsibility of a corporation is to its stock-holders. That doesn't mean they have to do any possible thing to make a buck.
Nice ploy; pretend to be Republican or Conservative.
You're right -- I'm not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat, a conservative, a liberal, or anything else. I'm a CITIZEN who has opinions on issues, opinions formulated based on my personal perceptions of reality. You on the other hand prefer to avoid actual thought by aligning yourself with a political abstraction. I suppose you can fly through the polls in 10 minutes flat. You seem to be the one who wants to avoid facts.
As for Limbaugh, I have no idea if he's fat or even what the guy looks like. What the hell does it matter if the guy is fat? I just know that, based on a few things I've heard him say, he's an inflammatory jackass.
Interesting - but couldn't this be a correlation != causation issue?
Jesus people, do we have to trot that crap out every time an interesting correlation is observed? Correlation doesn't imply causation but it hints that such a causation MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. Or it could hint that there is a HIDDEN VARIABLE somewhere which links the two measurements. In other words, the first step to FINDING causative relationships is discovering THE CORRELATIONS.
Should we just GIVE UP looking for patterns in our world just because not every pattern is meaningful?
The "correlation is not causation" argument is only appropriate when a researcher has EXPLICITLY claimed that the correlation must imply a causative relationship. Otherwise it's just sticking your head in the sand.
The liberal mind is so interesting; capable of much technical knowledge, yet devoid of self-control and wisdom; the programming runs deep. Calling me a 'Fucktard' doesn't promote your insistance, win the argument, or do anything but embarrass yourself.
The idiot mind is more interesting. You actually think I'm a "liberal" just because I dislike your partisan shit-slinging. You've gone wrong in the first 10 seconds of the "debate." I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 8 years.
Your logic is basically, "I'm a Republican, he doesn't like me, therefore he must be a liberal Democrat." You have the IQ of a nematode. I don't like you because you seem to group each one of the hundreds of millions in this country into one of two groups, not because you are a Republican, not even because you want to defend that idiot Limbaugh. Like I said, you were on a good course until you decided to slip into partisan shit-slinging. You also define yourself in terms of which class of people you despise. Only a complete moron thinks like that.
Remember that issuance of a bad patent isn't the end of the world. The patent system was designed to be fault-tolerant. If Amazon wants to sue on the basis of their bad patent, they'll face difficulties in court, not to mention in the court of public opinion.
Surely Amazon also knows this, so why the hell would they spend money on lawyers to get a bogus patent? What is the point?
Amazon, you are a bunch of stupid fucks. Your business is ONLINE SHOPPING. You are not a technology company no matter how much you wish you were. Is raking in billions of dollars not good enough for you? You need to resort to suing the little guy for a couple grand at a time? You are a bunch of fucking slime balls.
Having said that, is it innovative? I certainly never thought of doing it before I saw others do it.
Not having thought of it doesn't make it non-obvious. There are an infinite number of obvious things in the universe, but the human brain can only conceive of a finite number of them.
When I first saw it I thought to myself "Huh, that's pretty nifty, I wonder how they did it?"
I am also amazed at the ability of Bill Gates to get himself out of bed in the morning. I wonder how he does it?
Thank you for again proving my point: switch to profanity and claim defeat.
Defeat? You are the -- what's the term again... fucktard -- who has framed this as an "us vs. them" debate. You presume a battle where none exists. At least, none EXISTED until you chose to diverge from rational discourse and switch to partisan buffoonery. I don't really care if you claim to be a Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, at this point. You are simply a fucktard.
Precisely. I'm having a debate, you're having a name-calling session. Rarely is the open-mindedness and enlightenment so, so....."progressive".
You're not debating, you're identifying all Democrats as idiots. I could just as easily say the same about all Republicans, but I won't, because such a generalization is untrue and pointless. I made a specific statement about YOU. YOU sir, are a fucktard.
Conservatives are about truth, ideas that work, and doing things without governmental controls, but the private sector instead. Liberals have one facade they portray to grab the whiny-hearts, the undecided, the people who know no history, and those with hate to spare. It's a big tent, the Democrat party...tree huggers, herbalists, hippies, union thugs, foreign spies, and bigots. There's just one idea: making people victims. When they're victims, they election on "we'll get those republicans, this time!" and they never do.
And you were doing so well. You actually had me agreeing with you until this. But you're just another divisive, partisan fucktard. Oh well.
How is the beam manipulated? doesn't it cause an explosion if it touches normal particles?
The energy of any such explosion would have to COME FROM somewhere. You aren't getting out any more than you put in. If you're causing megaton-sized explosions, that means you're using megaton-sized energy to create the positron beam. This is nowhere near that.
Currently, there are approximately 25 universities across the United States with active nuclear reactors on campus
You know, when you've read as many science fiction books as I have, this shit is a liiiitle creepy.
Reed College here in Portland has one. It never seems to be mentioned in the news, ever. I assume they are not actively using it. I've actually been inside the main reactor chamber once. Obviously it was not turned on. Very cool, fascinating, and scary at the same time.
Ahh, Reed College. There used to be a bong chained to the floor in the student union there. You could toke it up, but Don't Steal That Bong.
Are you sure the question was asked stupidly? Or was it perhaps answered rudely (and maybe incorrectly)?
I don't see how the answer was rude, given that I didn't SUPPLY an answer. It just seemed a good opportunity to bust out one of my favorite quotes. A hard drive that actually "runs Linux" would be awesome, though.
Back to the point, if it doesn't work in Linux, it soon will. That's just the way of it.
Slashdot Mirror
But your example has 8 reds and 5 blacks. The other example had 13 blacks. As far as the probability of any particular SEQUENCE, yes, these probabilities are the same. But there are MANY possibilities where there were 8 reds and 5 blacks, but only ONE possibility with all 13 being black. So the two situations, if you look at it purely in terms of how many reds and blacks were hit, are very different.
Or to put it another way, the chances of getting 13 blacks in a row are 1/48^13. The chances of getting 8 reds and 5 blacks, in SOME order, is far higher than that.
No such thing as 'base 1.'
In your overly strict mathematical-terminological prison, maybe. Here in the real world, "Base 1" is pretty easy to define: 1 = 1, 2 = 11, 3 = 111, 4 = 1111, 5 = 11111, 6 = 111111, etc. In other words, Base 1 is good old "tick marks."
Even more useless is base 0, where each unique integer gets it's own unique name. 1 = Bob, 2 = Janet, 3 = Teddy, 4 = Albert, 5 = Trish, 6 = Don. You have to simply memorize that Bob + Janet = Teddy, Trish - Albert = Bob, etc.
Freedom is not an excuse. And no one needs an excuse for minding his own business driving along a road endangering no one. I could say you are the "excuse-maker", excusing the government's overreach for fund-raising through speeding fines and allowing folks to arbitrarily control the lives of their neighbors. But that's not really productive.
I'm not debating that the enforcement of speeding laws is largely revenue-driven. It pisses me off, too. But I don't see how a system based on the idea that "You are punished only if you hurt someone" is workable. By that time, it's too late -- somebody has already been hurt. How is punishment at that point going to "un-hurt" the person?
Our society is filled with mostly reasonable restrictions on our activities so that we all gain a certain amount of safety. I don't see how speeding laws are any different than any other law in that regard. Do you hate all laws or just the ones you regularly break?
Except that most supercomputers on the Top 500 list aren't defined as such because of their raw memory, or MFLOPS, etc... Supercomputers are different from the average PC/iPhone/whatever consumer device not quantatively - but qualatively. Not of degree, but of kind.
Which makes the appellation "supercomputer" even LESS appropriate for this device, wouldn't you say?
Throwing things on the floor go much faster than 9.8 m/s^2.
No it doesn't, at least once the object leaves your hand. Then it's back under the influence of good old gravity, at 9.8 m/s^2, regardless of how fast you may have thrown it.
He's got a pretty bizarre definition of "supercomputer." I've always understood supercomputers to be the fastest, craziest computers currently available. Obviously, this changes over time. I propose that a hand-held computer BY DEFINITION cannot be a "supercomputer." It may be a very, very fast computer. But take thousands of such hand-held "supercomputers" and slap them together, that's a REAL supercomputer. Just like it's always been.
In 1980, many of our desktop machines would have been considered "supercomputers" on the basis of their speed and memory capacities. But supercomputers THEY AIN'T, at least not in 2007.
A supercomputer is, and probably always will be, a physically large, hot-running machine in the basement of a research lab somewhere.
That's equivalent to a 1 gram mass traveling at about 1.8 meters per second. Depending on the hardness of such an object, you'd probably say "Ouch" if it hit you in the eye. Now imagine all that energy packed into a SINGLE SUBATOMIC PARTICLE. Yeah. That's a lot of energy.
He should be arrested for reckless or dangerous driving.
And when you read the text of such laws... What do they say? They sure as hell refer to excessive speed, among other things. What, are we not allowed to use the phrase "He was going too fast?" Are we not allowed to name the specific number that indicates his speed?
You seem to be agreeing that people who drive dangerously fast should go to jail. You seem to have some hang-up over what exact law would cause that to happen. Get over it.
You were minding your own business and endangering no one. "Freedom" is a fundamental right.
Blah blah blah, at this point insert the usual argument that we don't own the road and therefore can't expect to be allowed to do whatever the fuck we please when driving on it. You're another excuse-maker.
Speed limits on highways are about raising fund by ticketing people for profit -- nothing else.
Maybe, maybe not. But what about the jackass who puts my life in danger on the highway? Are you saying the laws are not about that? At all?
I've driven 120 miles per hour on a deserted stretch of straight-as-an-arrow country road where nobody was around. It was fun, reasonably safe, and also illegal. I'm not particularly fussed up by the fact that I COULD have received a ticket for doing it. I'm not going to sit around claiming that driving that fast is some kind of fundamental right, though.
Stop trying to control everyone. We don't need your help. No one wants to get in a car crash. We are all competent adults and must be assumed to know how to drive. We can judge speed, traffic, weather, road conditions and available light to choose our own speed.
God, how I wish it were true. Let me propose a compromise, tell me what you think of it. Everyone on the highway can drive however the hell they want to. As fast or as slow as they want. The one single condition is this: if you threaten my life by your driving habits, I get to shoot you. I can pull a weapon out right there on the road and KILL you.
I'm not trying to be facetious, sarcastic, or anything. I'm dead serious. Yes, by all means, let people drive however they want. But give me the right to defend myself on the road against psychotics.
If that doesn't sound reasonable to you, maybe you should rethink the idea of speed limits a little bit. There is an enormous difference between driving 100 MPH down a quiet country road in the middle of the night, and blowing by me on the wrong side of the road going 60 in the middle of heavy traffic. If it were up to me, this is how it would work: you do that, you die. By my hand.
It's illegal for them to not make a profit
That's irrelevant. They could make money selling pizzas on the street corner, so why aren't they doing it? True, the first responsibility of a corporation is to its stock-holders. That doesn't mean they have to do any possible thing to make a buck.
Nice ploy; pretend to be Republican or Conservative.
You're right -- I'm not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat, a conservative, a liberal, or anything else. I'm a CITIZEN who has opinions on issues, opinions formulated based on my personal perceptions of reality. You on the other hand prefer to avoid actual thought by aligning yourself with a political abstraction. I suppose you can fly through the polls in 10 minutes flat. You seem to be the one who wants to avoid facts.
As for Limbaugh, I have no idea if he's fat or even what the guy looks like. What the hell does it matter if the guy is fat? I just know that, based on a few things I've heard him say, he's an inflammatory jackass.
Interesting - but couldn't this be a correlation != causation issue?
Jesus people, do we have to trot that crap out every time an interesting correlation is observed? Correlation doesn't imply causation but it hints that such a causation MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. Or it could hint that there is a HIDDEN VARIABLE somewhere which links the two measurements. In other words, the first step to FINDING causative relationships is discovering THE CORRELATIONS.
Should we just GIVE UP looking for patterns in our world just because not every pattern is meaningful?
The "correlation is not causation" argument is only appropriate when a researcher has EXPLICITLY claimed that the correlation must imply a causative relationship. Otherwise it's just sticking your head in the sand.
The liberal mind is so interesting; capable of much technical knowledge, yet devoid of self-control and wisdom; the programming runs deep. Calling me a 'Fucktard' doesn't promote your insistance, win the argument, or do anything but embarrass yourself.
The idiot mind is more interesting. You actually think I'm a "liberal" just because I dislike your partisan shit-slinging. You've gone wrong in the first 10 seconds of the "debate." I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 8 years.
Your logic is basically, "I'm a Republican, he doesn't like me, therefore he must be a liberal Democrat." You have the IQ of a nematode. I don't like you because you seem to group each one of the hundreds of millions in this country into one of two groups, not because you are a Republican, not even because you want to defend that idiot Limbaugh. Like I said, you were on a good course until you decided to slip into partisan shit-slinging. You also define yourself in terms of which class of people you despise. Only a complete moron thinks like that.
Remember that issuance of a bad patent isn't the end of the world. The patent system was designed to be fault-tolerant. If Amazon wants to sue on the basis of their bad patent, they'll face difficulties in court, not to mention in the court of public opinion.
Surely Amazon also knows this, so why the hell would they spend money on lawyers to get a bogus patent? What is the point?
Amazon, you are a bunch of stupid fucks. Your business is ONLINE SHOPPING. You are not a technology company no matter how much you wish you were. Is raking in billions of dollars not good enough for you? You need to resort to suing the little guy for a couple grand at a time? You are a bunch of fucking slime balls.
Please firebomb your nearest patent office.
Just make sure Albert Einstein isn't down in the basement. Then again, if Albert Einstein still worked at the patent office... I mean, imagine it!
(Yeah, I know he wasn't working at the US Patent Office.)
Having said that, is it innovative? I certainly never thought of doing it before I saw others do it.
Not having thought of it doesn't make it non-obvious. There are an infinite number of obvious things in the universe, but the human brain can only conceive of a finite number of them.
When I first saw it I thought to myself "Huh, that's pretty nifty, I wonder how they did it?"
I am also amazed at the ability of Bill Gates to get himself out of bed in the morning. I wonder how he does it?
Thank you for again proving my point: switch to profanity and claim defeat.
Defeat? You are the -- what's the term again... fucktard -- who has framed this as an "us vs. them" debate. You presume a battle where none exists. At least, none EXISTED until you chose to diverge from rational discourse and switch to partisan buffoonery. I don't really care if you claim to be a Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, at this point. You are simply a fucktard.
Precisely. I'm having a debate, you're having a name-calling session. Rarely is the open-mindedness and enlightenment so, so....."progressive".
You're not debating, you're identifying all Democrats as idiots. I could just as easily say the same about all Republicans, but I won't, because such a generalization is untrue and pointless. I made a specific statement about YOU. YOU sir, are a fucktard.
Conservatives are about truth, ideas that work, and doing things without governmental controls, but the private sector instead. Liberals have one facade they portray to grab the whiny-hearts, the undecided, the people who know no history, and those with hate to spare. It's a big tent, the Democrat party...tree huggers, herbalists, hippies, union thugs, foreign spies, and bigots. There's just one idea: making people victims. When they're victims, they election on "we'll get those republicans, this time!" and they never do.
And you were doing so well. You actually had me agreeing with you until this. But you're just another divisive, partisan fucktard. Oh well.Because of a leak that no longer works there? It could happen to any company, and it is unpreventable except with extremely draconian measures.
How is the beam manipulated? doesn't it cause an explosion if it touches normal particles?
The energy of any such explosion would have to COME FROM somewhere. You aren't getting out any more than you put in. If you're causing megaton-sized explosions, that means you're using megaton-sized energy to create the positron beam. This is nowhere near that.
Currently, there are approximately 25 universities across the United States with active nuclear reactors on campus You know, when you've read as many science fiction books as I have, this shit is a liiiitle creepy.
Reed College here in Portland has one. It never seems to be mentioned in the news, ever. I assume they are not actively using it. I've actually been inside the main reactor chamber once. Obviously it was not turned on. Very cool, fascinating, and scary at the same time.
Ahh, Reed College. There used to be a bong chained to the floor in the student union there. You could toke it up, but Don't Steal That Bong.
On the other hand, NEGATIVE thinking will cause you brain to detonate with the force of a nuclear warhead. Probably better not to think at all...
Are you sure the question was asked stupidly? Or was it perhaps answered rudely (and maybe incorrectly)?
I don't see how the answer was rude, given that I didn't SUPPLY an answer. It just seemed a good opportunity to bust out one of my favorite quotes. A hard drive that actually "runs Linux" would be awesome, though.
Back to the point, if it doesn't work in Linux, it soon will. That's just the way of it.