I suspect that you are right, but I wouldn't use the word "knockoff". Freedb was more like a replacement of cddb, for when cddb was sold out from under the community that built it.
Another advantage of the endoscope is that it doesn't have to go all the way through. It could be bad for patients who have narrowed bowels, cobblestoning, or fistulae--the pill could easily become stuck.
The appeals court said it would let the lower court decide how much, if any, of escrow funds should go to Amado....
Morrison & Foerster said it is hoping that the federal court will award Amado further damages for continuing infringement, out of an escrow account that now has more than $65 million in it.
"We are hopeful that the District Court will now award Mr. Amado substantial monies from that escrow account when the matter is returned to the court."
My guess is that their statistics undercount the "Chinese traditional religion" and overcount "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist"
You may be right. If you look at the pie chart on the link, it says that the "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" slice includes some people who are "theistic" but non-religious, and it makes a point to mention that it also counts people who answered "none" when questioned about their religious preference. That makes it sound like whoever did the survey thought that some people might give an answer of "none" when they really do practice some religion. It's easy to see that happening under an oppressive regime.
Anyway, it definitely looks like something was overcounted. The page referenced was updated in August 2005, the total number of people counted is about 6.6677 billion people, and according to wikipedia, the 2005 world population was 6.45 billion.
Sure you can measure it and determine any change, but that doesn't tell you what caused that change. The unfortunate thing about climatology is that we can't do any simple experiments to test the individual factors to determine which are really important.
However, today even verifying a proof is very hard
While that's true of some proofs, it's certainly not true of all of them, or even most of them. Every year, hundreds of mathematics journals collectively publish thousands of new proofs. Some are more difficult to verify than others, but they are all verifiable (or falsifiable in the case of published errors).
the time may be near when no one on earth will be able to handle the complexity of this task anymore
I doubt we'll ever see that happen. Of course as a mathematical field matures, the number of accessible problems will approach zero and we're left with only the very difficult problems. However, new fields arise and give us a host of new problems to explore.
Look through the assignments. They include exercises involving number-theoretic foundations of cryptography, breaking classical cryptosystems (Vigenere ciphers), differential cryptanalysis, and other stuff.
It wouldn't count steps like a pedometer, rather it would use dead reckoning to determine its position. Since the accellerometer would output the accelleration of the computer, this output could be numerically integrated to get velocity and then again to get distance travelled.
Suppose that this community set about collating and putting in context all of the material related to those problems that exists in the **research level** literature and **expounding** it in an extremely clear way....
That's an excellent idea, and I can see how that this could be an incredible tool for researchers. Ideally, whenever someone has a paper published, they would put a statement of the results into such a wiki. (Ideally the proof would also be included, but copyrights might cause some problems there.) Each lemma or theorem would then have its own database item, with a field telling the publication that contains the result.
A tool like this could serve much the same purpose as MathSciNet, but I think it would be more useful since the database items would be individual lemmas and theorems, which would make it easier to find an intermediate result that didn't make it into a paper's abstract. It would probably make sense for there to be separate wikis for different subdisciplines.
That's a good point. I use this in spreadsheets to average grades, so all the numbers I deal with are nonnegative. I've never considered how this function would work for negative numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
We get to witness a supernova up close? This could be a problem.
Beware of any tags that contain the string "Execute Order 66"
So far, how many iPod killers has the iPod killed?
I had a VIC-20 too. For you, I should change my sig to
POKE 36878,0 POKE 36879,0
Maybe I should just change it to "Shoot me for knowing this."
I suspect that you are right, but I wouldn't use the word "knockoff". Freedb was more like a replacement of cddb, for when cddb was sold out from under the community that built it.
Wow. I didn't expect that.
Another advantage of the endoscope is that it doesn't have to go all the way through. It could be bad for patients who have narrowed bowels, cobblestoning, or fistulae--the pill could easily become stuck.
The summay isn't accurate. FTA:
...
The appeals court said it would let the lower court decide how much, if any, of escrow funds should go to Amado.
Morrison & Foerster said it is hoping that the federal court will award Amado further damages for continuing infringement, out of an escrow account that now has more than $65 million in it.
"We are hopeful that the District Court will now award Mr. Amado substantial monies from that escrow account when the matter is returned to the court."
My guess is that their statistics undercount the "Chinese traditional religion" and overcount "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist"
You may be right. If you look at the pie chart on the link, it says that the "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" slice includes some people who are "theistic" but non-religious, and it makes a point to mention that it also counts people who answered "none" when questioned about their religious preference. That makes it sound like whoever did the survey thought that some people might give an answer of "none" when they really do practice some religion. It's easy to see that happening under an oppressive regime.
Anyway, it definitely looks like something was overcounted. The page referenced was updated in August 2005, the total number of people counted is about 6.6677 billion people, and according to wikipedia, the 2005 world population was 6.45 billion.
Sure you can measure it and determine any change, but that doesn't tell you what caused that change. The unfortunate thing about climatology is that we can't do any simple experiments to test the individual factors to determine which are really important.
However, today even verifying a proof is very hard
While that's true of some proofs, it's certainly not true of all of them, or even most of them. Every year, hundreds of mathematics journals collectively publish thousands of new proofs. Some are more difficult to verify than others, but they are all verifiable (or falsifiable in the case of published errors).
the time may be near when no one on earth will be able to handle the complexity of this task anymore
I doubt we'll ever see that happen. Of course as a mathematical field matures, the number of accessible problems will approach zero and we're left with only the very difficult problems. However, new fields arise and give us a host of new problems to explore.
Kuratowski's Theorem!
Look through the assignments. They include exercises involving number-theoretic foundations of cryptography, breaking classical cryptosystems (Vigenere ciphers), differential cryptanalysis, and other stuff.
Doh!
Next time I'll read the article.
Another great online crypto resource is the Handbook of Applied Cryptography. The full text is available for download.
It wouldn't count steps like a pedometer, rather it would use dead reckoning to determine its position. Since the accellerometer would output the accelleration of the computer, this output could be numerically integrated to get velocity and then again to get distance travelled.
POKE 36879,8
:)
And I thought my sig was old school.
It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times!
:)
I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't count as Shakespeare.
Suppose that this community set about collating and putting in context all of the material related to those problems that exists in the **research level** literature and **expounding** it in an extremely clear way. ...
That's an excellent idea, and I can see how that this could be an incredible tool for researchers. Ideally, whenever someone has a paper published, they would put a statement of the results into such a wiki. (Ideally the proof would also be included, but copyrights might cause some problems there.) Each lemma or theorem would then have its own database item, with a field telling the publication that contains the result.
A tool like this could serve much the same purpose as MathSciNet, but I think it would be more useful since the database items would be individual lemmas and theorems, which would make it easier to find an intermediate result that didn't make it into a paper's abstract. It would probably make sense for there to be separate wikis for different subdisciplines.
That effects kids
Dude, that's not where kids come from.
I might be completely wrong, but I thought that a Commodore floppy drive cable the same as a MIDI cable. Or maybe they just look similar.
That's what you asked for last week.
Nope. Here's an interesting article on that subject.
http://www.lowendmac.com/misc/01/0618.html
How is this flamebait?
That's a good point. I use this in spreadsheets to average grades, so all the numbers I deal with are nonnegative. I've never considered how this function would work for negative numbers.