While true, this *does* fall squarely within the purpose of the EFF. But perhaps the people asking for this should join, so they can ask as members rather than just as outraged victims.
The thing is, while this is clearly within the area that the EFF was formed to address, almost none of their membership is strongly affected. And they don't have enough clout to address every abuse, so it's reasonable that they should pay most attention to those issues that most directly affect their members. And this is a request that they support those who are supporting one of their major opponents.
FWIW, I *am* a member, but I'd be more interested in seeing them address abuses of the RIAA/MPAA, even though I never acquire recordings or movies anymore. And I'd be even more interested in seeing them do what they could to ensure the freedom of APIs. Something I took for granted until those bastards at Oracle convinced or bribed a judge to say they could be copyright. Idiocy or corruption? It's hard to tell. My guess tends to be corruption, but I acknowledge that it *is* only a guess.
This seems a reasonable place to mention that there's nothing remarkable about a Python shell. There have been Ruby and Scheme shells for years, perhaps decades.
It *IS* a bit unusual that it's cross-platform, but somehow the summary didn't emphasize that.
Perhaps not the kernel, but it does claim to run the init system, and it *must* interact with the kernel. To suspect systemd in this case may be slightly paranoid, but it's not being unreasonably so.
Depression is not a disease, it's a syndrome: A collection of diseases (possibly unidentified) that share the same symptoms.
When I was depressed the root cause was social isolation. Of course, the depression made it harder to deal with the social isolation, but after a decade or so I managed. This doesn't encourage me to recommend my approaches to other people.
As businesses become more automated, the cost of entry rises. This increases the power of those with lots of expendable wealth at the cost of those with little expendable wealth. There are also other reasons, but that is one of the current major drivers, has been getting worse rapidly, and is going to continue to get worse until each business has only one employee, the manager...who may or may not be the owner.
Centralized government is, indeed, a big problem, but it's not the only problem.
Perhaps he can. It's not unknown for commodity prices to be vastly different in different parts of even one state, so I'm certain it differs more within the country.
FWIW, a couple of decades ago beef in (parts of) northern California was about half the price that it was in the SanFrancisco-Oakland SMSA. This was based on personal observation, not any official statistics, so there may well have been even more local fluctuation, and there's no guarantee that it continued over a long period of time, but I was told that "it's always around that price around here".
That said, it's also true that lots of people do post garbage, so he may have been talking through his hat, and I haven't priced beef recently, so I don't recall. (When I did I was looking at "grass-fed" in any case, so my prices wouldn't be representative.)
OK, that's a good reason. Other reasonable suspects are the increased prevalence of fructose or trans-fat consumption, which also happened during that time period, and which can be expected to have a "slow fuse", so stopping them doesn't cause a quick change in results. There are probable other reasonable causes. Probably, e.g., even laborers are having less physical exercise.
So there's lots of plausible reasons. This study just doesn't isolate one of them as most important.
Sorry. That's what high school teachers teach you math proof means. And they don't notice the inherent contradiction when they find errors in the proofs that you hand in...but it's there, and blatant when you stop to think about it. More experienced people will make fewer errors, but people aren't infallible. That's reserved for the Pope, and even there only on matters of (current?) doctrine.
That's actually soluble. Space is full of raw materials, and for some of the a Lunar catapult would work.
Going from a bunch of lumps of rock to finished industrial materials, however, is a big job, so he's not talking about any small project. He's talking about an industrial combine larger than the auto industry. I'm sure that it could be made to work, once you got it built and debugged, but the building and debugging is not a small or simple job.
I'm rather sure this could be extremely profitable in the long run, but the long run is likely to be a minimum of several decades, and it's going to be extremely expensive during the first half of that period.
Or you could take a more gradual approach. Which I presume is what he has in mind. He talks about "Industrial Zones", and I'm presuming he means orbital volumes that are zoned for industrial operations. The zoning could be nearly free. The problem is preventing industrial garbage from escaping from those volumes. And it's a serious problem. It's probably a very good idea to set this up now, as it's going to require lots of international agreements unless you want to go into solar orbit rather than Earth orbit.
Sorry, but that's not true. Microsoft is *A* villain. There are plenty of others. In fact, just about every group is a villain in some area. Apple is notorious for binding users to its hardware, and has been since the Apple ][ variable density disk drives. Google slurps up user information. Red Hat pushes systemd. Etc.
There are plenty of villains to go around. Microsoft is just an unusually wide spectrum villain. But they used to sell good keyboards.
An article linked above addressed that point. It appears they have 5 days to GET a Facebook account and page and like the apartment's page. (The reference was a lawyer[?] saying this was an unfair requirement.)
If I believed you were telling the truth, I'd say you probably shouldn't have posted that.
OTOH, presuming your post was accurate, there is the question (which you appropriately declined to mention) of what he was representing them for (i.e., why they needed a lawyer).
So this could well be accurate. And if so, probably should be dropped without further comment (unless you're asking for some kind of evidence).
YOU DON'T KNOW WHO MADE WHICH Anonymous Coward POST!
My first reaction was that it was some troll pretending to be management. It's just a guess, and it could be wrong, but it could also be right. (Tenants are more likely to actually post because there's more of them, and because some of them would be quite angry. But you still can't be sure about any individual post.)
That's what proof has always meant. It's never meant absolute certainty...except that people want to think that that's what it means. (This is one of the inherent biases that is shared by [almost?] all people.)
The think that's changed about the nature of proof in the last 2000 years is that people are more willing to accept that there may be blind spots in their thinking. I attribute this to a combination of more people living in cities, and fast communication across distances. People today get exposed to a lot more divergent opinions while they are growing up (and solidifying their beliefs) than they used to, so they're a bit more flexible, on the average.
What you need to realize is that proofs by humans will also have "bugs". This is why it's important to have multiple independent proofs, if possible, and failing that to have multiple reviewers. But multiple reviewers have been known to overlook the same mistake.
Mathematicians hate the concept, but the foundations of math are not secure. They depend on what humans find convincing evidence. To an extent reproducing the proofs via computer strengthens the proofs, as that reduces the inherent bias. (Everyone has bias in the way they think, and some biases are shared by everyone. Often the only way to discover them is to show that accepting them would cause a more fundamental problem.)
Computers, by using boolean logic, reduce the number of basic assumptions, and therefore are, in principle, more accurate. But they are programmed by humans, who have sloppy thought processes and inherent biases. And sometimes the error correcting codes don't, so there's also hardware errors.
The only really convincing proofs are those that have multiple independent proofs which use different foundational principles.
However, the longer the proof, the more likely it will have an undetected error. This is true no matter whether it's proven by a human or by a computer. There are lots of ways that proofs can be partially checked, but checking for "of course" assumptions is extremely difficult. (Validating the steps of the proof doesn't help if the proof doesn't really prove what you intend it to prove. And that's happened. A notorious example is Euclidean Geometry's parallel postulate [though to be fair Euclid wasn't happy with needing the postulate, and kept trying to find a proof of it]. But it took roughly 2000 years to show that it wasn't really a part of basic geometry, because everyone just presumed it was included.)
IIRC, the paper I was talking about was by someone from Japan, so probably not that one. If not, I'm not really surprised that there's more than one. (OTOH, he says an earlier version of that proof had been checked by a group of mathematicians, so unless that happened since I heard about it, it's definitely another proof.)
Unfortunately (in this case) I'm a programmer, not a Number Theory mathematician, so the details of what the proof was about, even in general terms, didn't stick in my memory.
That's not even true of many traditional proofs. Some traditional (i.e., by humans) are long enough to require weeks to months of study, as well as years to produce.
This is more extreme in that nobody can reasonably go over that much proof, no matter how dedicated they are, but in principle it could be done by overlapping teams of people. It won't be, because people don't doubt it sufficiently. Various people will look at various parts of the proof. But it *could* be done.
There's one math proof that's been published for over a year (forget what it's about, or how much over). It's by one mathematician, not by a computer, but it was developed over a decade or so, and he developed some eccentric tools that aren't widely understood, so verifying the proof requires significant work, and hasn't been done. Will it be done? Is it as trustworthy as a proof by a computer that also hasn't been gone over in detail by lots of (other) mathematicians?
The problem isn't just computers, it's a degree of complexity beyond what most professional mathematicians are prepared to deal with. And it's showing up in several places around the edges of various fields.
Sorry. SOME of the Founding Fathers would be appalled and ashamed. Others would think it was a dandy idea. Check out the Alien and Sedition acts, and when they were passed.
WE are the people who should be appalled and ashamed.
Treason is rather specifically defined in the Constitution. This is not treason. Malfeasance, yes, and violation of their oath of office, etc., but not treason.
Slashdot Mirror
While true, this *does* fall squarely within the purpose of the EFF. But perhaps the people asking for this should join, so they can ask as members rather than just as outraged victims.
The thing is, while this is clearly within the area that the EFF was formed to address, almost none of their membership is strongly affected. And they don't have enough clout to address every abuse, so it's reasonable that they should pay most attention to those issues that most directly affect their members. And this is a request that they support those who are supporting one of their major opponents.
FWIW, I *am* a member, but I'd be more interested in seeing them address abuses of the RIAA/MPAA, even though I never acquire recordings or movies anymore. And I'd be even more interested in seeing them do what they could to ensure the freedom of APIs. Something I took for granted until those bastards at Oracle convinced or bribed a judge to say they could be copyright. Idiocy or corruption? It's hard to tell. My guess tends to be corruption, but I acknowledge that it *is* only a guess.
This seems a reasonable place to mention that there's nothing remarkable about a Python shell. There have been Ruby and Scheme shells for years, perhaps decades.
It *IS* a bit unusual that it's cross-platform, but somehow the summary didn't emphasize that.
Perhaps not the kernel, but it does claim to run the init system, and it *must* interact with the kernel. To suspect systemd in this case may be slightly paranoid, but it's not being unreasonably so.
Religious prejudice is not racism. It may well be bigotry (though that's not guaranteed) but it's not racism.
10 years ago, probably.
20 years ago, maybe.
But just because the language continues to work with the old code, don't presume that the libraries will.
Depression is not a disease, it's a syndrome: A collection of diseases (possibly unidentified) that share the same symptoms.
When I was depressed the root cause was social isolation. Of course, the depression made it harder to deal with the social isolation, but after a decade or so I managed. This doesn't encourage me to recommend my approaches to other people.
As businesses become more automated, the cost of entry rises. This increases the power of those with lots of expendable wealth at the cost of those with little expendable wealth. There are also other reasons, but that is one of the current major drivers, has been getting worse rapidly, and is going to continue to get worse until each business has only one employee, the manager...who may or may not be the owner.
Centralized government is, indeed, a big problem, but it's not the only problem.
You must live next to my brother!
Perhaps he can. It's not unknown for commodity prices to be vastly different in different parts of even one state, so I'm certain it differs more within the country.
FWIW, a couple of decades ago beef in (parts of) northern California was about half the price that it was in the SanFrancisco-Oakland SMSA. This was based on personal observation, not any official statistics, so there may well have been even more local fluctuation, and there's no guarantee that it continued over a long period of time, but I was told that "it's always around that price around here".
That said, it's also true that lots of people do post garbage, so he may have been talking through his hat, and I haven't priced beef recently, so I don't recall. (When I did I was looking at "grass-fed" in any case, so my prices wouldn't be representative.)
OK, that's a good reason. Other reasonable suspects are the increased prevalence of fructose or trans-fat consumption, which also happened during that time period, and which can be expected to have a "slow fuse", so stopping them doesn't cause a quick change in results. There are probable other reasonable causes. Probably, e.g., even laborers are having less physical exercise.
So there's lots of plausible reasons. This study just doesn't isolate one of them as most important.
Sorry. That's what high school teachers teach you math proof means. And they don't notice the inherent contradiction when they find errors in the proofs that you hand in...but it's there, and blatant when you stop to think about it. More experienced people will make fewer errors, but people aren't infallible. That's reserved for the Pope, and even there only on matters of (current?) doctrine.
That's actually soluble. Space is full of raw materials, and for some of the a Lunar catapult would work.
Going from a bunch of lumps of rock to finished industrial materials, however, is a big job, so he's not talking about any small project. He's talking about an industrial combine larger than the auto industry. I'm sure that it could be made to work, once you got it built and debugged, but the building and debugging is not a small or simple job.
I'm rather sure this could be extremely profitable in the long run, but the long run is likely to be a minimum of several decades, and it's going to be extremely expensive during the first half of that period.
Or you could take a more gradual approach. Which I presume is what he has in mind. He talks about "Industrial Zones", and I'm presuming he means orbital volumes that are zoned for industrial operations. The zoning could be nearly free. The problem is preventing industrial garbage from escaping from those volumes. And it's a serious problem. It's probably a very good idea to set this up now, as it's going to require lots of international agreements unless you want to go into solar orbit rather than Earth orbit.
I'd like to say "that's Greek to me", but I know it's Latin...Virgil if I recall correctly.
Sorry, but that's not true. Microsoft is *A* villain. There are plenty of others. In fact, just about every group is a villain in some area. Apple is notorious for binding users to its hardware, and has been since the Apple ][ variable density disk drives. Google slurps up user information. Red Hat pushes systemd. Etc.
There are plenty of villains to go around. Microsoft is just an unusually wide spectrum villain. But they used to sell good keyboards.
A part the the altered terms was that you couldn't post anything negative about them to social media.
An article linked above addressed that point. It appears they have 5 days to GET a Facebook account and page and like the apartment's page. (The reference was a lawyer[?] saying this was an unfair requirement.)
If I believed you were telling the truth, I'd say you probably shouldn't have posted that.
OTOH, presuming your post was accurate, there is the question (which you appropriately declined to mention) of what he was representing them for (i.e., why they needed a lawyer).
So this could well be accurate. And if so, probably should be dropped without further comment (unless you're asking for some kind of evidence).
I think Joe is a text editor, but LaTex??? That's sort of a clumsy word processor of layout editor, not a text editor.
I assume you were jesting, but just in case:
YOU DON'T KNOW WHO MADE WHICH Anonymous Coward POST!
My first reaction was that it was some troll pretending to be management. It's just a guess, and it could be wrong, but it could also be right. (Tenants are more likely to actually post because there's more of them, and because some of them would be quite angry. But you still can't be sure about any individual post.)
That's what proof has always meant. It's never meant absolute certainty...except that people want to think that that's what it means. (This is one of the inherent biases that is shared by [almost?] all people.)
The think that's changed about the nature of proof in the last 2000 years is that people are more willing to accept that there may be blind spots in their thinking. I attribute this to a combination of more people living in cities, and fast communication across distances. People today get exposed to a lot more divergent opinions while they are growing up (and solidifying their beliefs) than they used to, so they're a bit more flexible, on the average.
What you need to realize is that proofs by humans will also have "bugs". This is why it's important to have multiple independent proofs, if possible, and failing that to have multiple reviewers. But multiple reviewers have been known to overlook the same mistake.
Mathematicians hate the concept, but the foundations of math are not secure. They depend on what humans find convincing evidence. To an extent reproducing the proofs via computer strengthens the proofs, as that reduces the inherent bias. (Everyone has bias in the way they think, and some biases are shared by everyone. Often the only way to discover them is to show that accepting them would cause a more fundamental problem.)
Computers, by using boolean logic, reduce the number of basic assumptions, and therefore are, in principle, more accurate. But they are programmed by humans, who have sloppy thought processes and inherent biases. And sometimes the error correcting codes don't, so there's also hardware errors.
The only really convincing proofs are those that have multiple independent proofs which use different foundational principles.
However, the longer the proof, the more likely it will have an undetected error. This is true no matter whether it's proven by a human or by a computer. There are lots of ways that proofs can be partially checked, but checking for "of course" assumptions is extremely difficult. (Validating the steps of the proof doesn't help if the proof doesn't really prove what you intend it to prove. And that's happened. A notorious example is Euclidean Geometry's parallel postulate [though to be fair Euclid wasn't happy with needing the postulate, and kept trying to find a proof of it]. But it took roughly 2000 years to show that it wasn't really a part of basic geometry, because everyone just presumed it was included.)
IIRC, the paper I was talking about was by someone from Japan, so probably not that one. If not, I'm not really surprised that there's more than one. (OTOH, he says an earlier version of that proof had been checked by a group of mathematicians, so unless that happened since I heard about it, it's definitely another proof.)
Unfortunately (in this case) I'm a programmer, not a Number Theory mathematician, so the details of what the proof was about, even in general terms, didn't stick in my memory.
That's not even true of many traditional proofs. Some traditional (i.e., by humans) are long enough to require weeks to months of study, as well as years to produce.
This is more extreme in that nobody can reasonably go over that much proof, no matter how dedicated they are, but in principle it could be done by overlapping teams of people. It won't be, because people don't doubt it sufficiently. Various people will look at various parts of the proof. But it *could* be done.
There's one math proof that's been published for over a year (forget what it's about, or how much over). It's by one mathematician, not by a computer, but it was developed over a decade or so, and he developed some eccentric tools that aren't widely understood, so verifying the proof requires significant work, and hasn't been done. Will it be done? Is it as trustworthy as a proof by a computer that also hasn't been gone over in detail by lots of (other) mathematicians?
The problem isn't just computers, it's a degree of complexity beyond what most professional mathematicians are prepared to deal with. And it's showing up in several places around the edges of various fields.
Sorry. SOME of the Founding Fathers would be appalled and ashamed. Others would think it was a dandy idea. Check out the Alien and Sedition acts, and when they were passed.
WE are the people who should be appalled and ashamed.
Treason is rather specifically defined in the Constitution. This is not treason. Malfeasance, yes, and violation of their oath of office, etc., but not treason.