Who knows what the public might demand if the information were available to hold governments at all levels accountable?
Probably the same things they've always demanded, but they'd have more success in achieving their demands. Sounds like a good idea if you ask me, but I'm not an elected official.
Do I need you to take me seriously here? Unlikely. Do you think I take you seriously here? Really?
Well if you neither intend to be taken seriously nor to take others seriously, what's the point of making a coherent argument, or even a coherent statement, let alone of engaging in discussion? You might was well have started out going "monkey monkey monkey typewriter monkey typewriter shakespeare complete monkey infinite shakespeare fred fred jones bob" and finished by piping your post from/dev/random. I began by assuming that, since you did not do so, but rather engaged yourself in discussing politics, you intended to be taken seriously.
There are plenty of other things to worry about, but they'd be completely project unrelated. Like, waking up in the middle of the night feeling your girlfriend tickling your leg, and then finding out it's a roach.:)
You think that's unrelated to being nerdy enough to work on this project?
...or are you just afraid of anything that uses the word "nuclear"?
Oh my GOD! I just heard there are "nuclear forces" in every atom in my body! Do you know how many atoms that is? It's like, a billion! Even worse, a million! Or a million billion! Do you know what that means? My body can blow up the ENTIRE WORLD! I'm a walking nuclear BOMB!
yeah, slashdot needs to stop posting this DIY crap...We need to get back to politics and rants about the RIAA!
Don't forget the MPAA. We need to include both so we can confuse Jack Valenti with Hilary Rosen. . . .
Holy shit, I think I just made a time warp back to the late '90s... . . .
DIY time warp! Coming soon to/. front page!
For example, are you going from O(n^2) to O(n log n), or is it only O(10n) to O(5n). Don't get me wrong, the latter can be useful, but the former would draw more attention from the research community. I assume you know Big-O notation and formal analysis of algorithms...
And I assume you don't. If you did, you'd know that O(10n) and O(5n) are both just O(n). I think what you meant to ask is something like: "are you going from O(n^2) to O(n log n), or is it only cutting the time in half while remaining O(n^2)?"
How does he know his algorithm is that novel if he never read the corresponding literature? Not everything is in textbooks....
This is a really good point. I recently tried to publish a new (or so I thought) economic theory and after reading three or four up-to-date books on the specific sub-topic I was writing on and dozens of papers, I still hadn't found any indication that my theory was not novel. But it wasn't. Luckily, I happened to have a classmate whose undergrad econ prof. had published basically the same theory and had mentioned it in class a time or two. It was a little-known, rarely-cited paper, but once I read it I knew my model was not at all novel, because this paper anticipated every aspect of my "new" theory. After this experience, one of my friends told me, "There are two types of ideas: Ones that somebody else had 5 years ago, and ones that are wrong." You need to do extensive lit review to know if your idea is in the former category.
IOW: it's actually a lottery. I've read a book on how to get your paper published. On the cover of that book there is an illustration of two dies. Now what does that tell you?
[link added]
That publishable papers are standardized entities made by a cookie-cutter or a mold to be identical to the ones that precede and follow them?
Oh, and be prepared for that professor, or the conference or journal you submit to, to promptly inform you that your idea is nothing new and that very smart people have either worked out this idea before you or have demonstrated conclusively why it doesn't work.
Which was what I was hoping for when I first came to a professor with a new idea, but instead what I received was all the exceptions off the top of the professor's head (which in reality are narrow corner cases that don't affect the general applicability of my theory)....so I went ahead and tried to write it up for publication on my own, but right when I was about to submit it, found my theory had been independently published by two different scholars several years prior. This was something one of the several profs I had gone to should have known, but apparently the theory is still little-known despite being ground-breaking (also, the field in question is econ, where supposed "scientists" cling very tightly to established theories). If two professionals in the field with PhDs couldn't get any attention for the same theory, it's a good thing I didn't have to go through all that work just to get even less attention.
if this is really just a math algorithm, you can't really patent it. If it is a software 'process', then you are good.
There's no actual difference between the two, but don't tell the patent office that. At least not until you've made a killing off your patent. Also, resist using the word "algorithm" to describe it, that might give the game away. You're not lying if you call it a "process" instead, for what is an algorithm but a mathematical process, anyway?
So you're trying to make yourself more credible by pointing out how closed-minded you are?
- credible? There is nothing on/. that makes you less 'credible' with the moderators etc. by pointing out you are a libertarian.
I'm not talking about the mods, I'm talking about your attempt to make your point. And I'm not talking about pointing out that you're libertarian, I'm talking about specifying a narrow band that you consistently vote in regardless of issues in a given election, shifts in the parties, et cetera. Think of it this way: If I came to you and tried to convince you of something by beginning with, "I never vote any way except Liberal," how seriously would you take what I have to say?
Canada doesn't have assassinations, we don't have terrorist acts, and we don't have any justification whatsoever for this much expense.
...yet.
Just wait 'til the terrorists find out the Canadian G20 summits have the lowest security spending (in the hypothetical world where they do it your way), then see what happens.
I am a conservative (from point of view of Canadian politics), I mean I never vote liberal or ndp or any other garbage, I vote libertarian or conservative and that's that.
So you're trying to make yourself more credible by pointing out how closed-minded you are?
Your argument is bullshit.
...and showing that your best argument is an ad hominem?
So SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
...and that you're egregiously immature even by/. standards?
Well, I think you've made your point.
No "Conservative" ever gets to talk about adscam ever again.
... So I think you're right; no Tory gets to complain about adscam or Liberal waste as the height of calumny. They've treated their term in office like it was a race to outspend and outlie the Liberals, and despite the difficulty of the goal, they've achieved it.
So what else is new? I live in the US, where conservative and liberal are not parties but ideological categories, but replace Tory with Republican and lower-case conservative and liberal, and your statement applies perfectly to our country going back thirty years or more.
There is a very big difference between "killing" someone and "murdering" someone, and few people seem to know the difference.
None of whom is you, apparently.
The difference? Murder is the/unlawful/ killing of someone.
No, murder "is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)." (Source, emphasis mine)
Murder is a type of unlawful killing, but not just any unlawful killing.
Boot note: The bible actually says "Thou shall not murder." Killing is actually just fine, you just have to do it lawfully. This is what allows religious nutters to take over planes and fly them in to buildings while simultaneously not considering their actions to be hypocritical.
Partly correct: "Based on an in depth analysis of the original Hebrew, Bible scholar Dr. Joel M. Hoffman concludes that "kill" is too broad but "murder" is too narrow to reflect tirtsah.[61] The Hebrew refers to all illegal killing, so it includes what is commonly called "murder" in English, but "manslaughter" as well. It did not refer to legal killing, such as in war or in sanctioned retribution." (Source)
If I fire a weapon to shoot an Apple off someones head and I miss and end up murdering them, despite how un-malicious my intent is, do I still have to pay for the crime?
By every definition of murder I know, you can't "end up" murdering someone. Murder implies malicious intent, and usually planning as well.
Lister: Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is [cosmic rays], isn't it? You lose your keys, it's [cosmic rays]. A [bit] falls off the [RAM], it's [cosmic rays]. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was [cosmic rays] as well.
Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?
Lister: Rimmer, [COSMIC RAYS] used our bog roll?
Rimmer: Just cause they're [cosmic rays] doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and [cosmic ray]-esque, like it comes out of the top of their [waveforms] or something.
The guy that posted this is a Ksplice developer...Then he goes on to explain that you don't even need to reboot your machine due to damn cosmic radiation. Or kernel updates. Because you have Ksplice.
Come on.
Hey, there have been weirder, more circuitous attempts to advertise on Slashdot.
I shouldn't have spent all my mod points yesterday. I guess my hardware knowledge is obsolete; I had no idea modern HDDs don't store individual bits anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody laughing at that owes me a dollar!
So in other words, nobody owes you a dollar.
You seems to have forgotten your sarcasm detector, sir. Here, have mine.
I have one, but it must be broken. Its indicator never turns off.
Around here, that's a sign it's in good working order.
I routinely sign petitions that, even if I disagree with the premise, I believe deserves a fair airing in public.
But do you sign them with the expectation that your signature remain a secret?
Who knows what the public might demand if the information were available to hold governments at all levels accountable?
Probably the same things they've always demanded, but they'd have more success in achieving their demands. Sounds like a good idea if you ask me, but I'm not an elected official.
Do I need you to take me seriously here? Unlikely. Do you think I take you seriously here? Really?
Well if you neither intend to be taken seriously nor to take others seriously, what's the point of making a coherent argument, or even a coherent statement, let alone of engaging in discussion? You might was well have started out going "monkey monkey monkey typewriter monkey typewriter shakespeare complete monkey infinite shakespeare fred fred jones bob" and finished by piping your post from /dev/random. I began by assuming that, since you did not do so, but rather engaged yourself in discussing politics, you intended to be taken seriously.
There are plenty of other things to worry about, but they'd be completely project unrelated. Like, waking up in the middle of the night feeling your girlfriend tickling your leg, and then finding out it's a roach. :)
You think that's unrelated to being nerdy enough to work on this project?
...or are you just afraid of anything that uses the word "nuclear"?
Oh my GOD! I just heard there are "nuclear forces" in every atom in my body! Do you know how many atoms that is? It's like, a billion! Even worse, a million! Or a million billion! Do you know what that means? My body can blow up the ENTIRE WORLD! I'm a walking nuclear BOMB!
yeah, slashdot needs to stop posting this DIY crap...We need to get back to politics and rants about the RIAA!
Don't forget the MPAA. We need to include both so we can confuse Jack Valenti with Hilary Rosen.
.
.
.
.
.
. /. front page!
Holy shit, I think I just made a time warp back to the late '90s...
DIY time warp! Coming soon to
For example, are you going from O(n^2) to O(n log n), or is it only O(10n) to O(5n). Don't get me wrong, the latter can be useful, but the former would draw more attention from the research community. I assume you know Big-O notation and formal analysis of algorithms...
And I assume you don't. If you did, you'd know that O(10n) and O(5n) are both just O(n). I think what you meant to ask is something like: "are you going from O(n^2) to O(n log n), or is it only cutting the time in half while remaining O(n^2)?"
Even worse:
How does he know his algorithm is that novel if he never read the corresponding literature? Not everything is in textbooks....
This is a really good point. I recently tried to publish a new (or so I thought) economic theory and after reading three or four up-to-date books on the specific sub-topic I was writing on and dozens of papers, I still hadn't found any indication that my theory was not novel. But it wasn't. Luckily, I happened to have a classmate whose undergrad econ prof. had published basically the same theory and had mentioned it in class a time or two. It was a little-known, rarely-cited paper, but once I read it I knew my model was not at all novel, because this paper anticipated every aspect of my "new" theory. After this experience, one of my friends told me, "There are two types of ideas: Ones that somebody else had 5 years ago, and ones that are wrong." You need to do extensive lit review to know if your idea is in the former category.
IOW: it's actually a lottery. I've read a book on how to get your paper published. On the cover of that book there is an illustration of two dies. Now what does that tell you?
[link added]
That publishable papers are standardized entities made by a cookie-cutter or a mold to be identical to the ones that precede and follow them?
Oh, and be prepared for that professor, or the conference or journal you submit to, to promptly inform you that your idea is nothing new and that very smart people have either worked out this idea before you or have demonstrated conclusively why it doesn't work.
Which was what I was hoping for when I first came to a professor with a new idea, but instead what I received was all the exceptions off the top of the professor's head (which in reality are narrow corner cases that don't affect the general applicability of my theory)....so I went ahead and tried to write it up for publication on my own, but right when I was about to submit it, found my theory had been independently published by two different scholars several years prior. This was something one of the several profs I had gone to should have known, but apparently the theory is still little-known despite being ground-breaking (also, the field in question is econ, where supposed "scientists" cling very tightly to established theories). If two professionals in the field with PhDs couldn't get any attention for the same theory, it's a good thing I didn't have to go through all that work just to get even less attention.
(Not a lawyer, but have gleaned legal knowledge by reading a lot of Slashdot comments by people who are also not lawyers. :P )
Brilliant!
if this is really just a math algorithm, you can't really patent it. If it is a software 'process', then you are good.
There's no actual difference between the two, but don't tell the patent office that. At least not until you've made a killing off your patent. Also, resist using the word "algorithm" to describe it, that might give the game away. You're not lying if you call it a "process" instead, for what is an algorithm but a mathematical process, anyway?
So you're trying to make yourself more credible by pointing out how closed-minded you are?
- credible? There is nothing on /. that makes you less 'credible' with the moderators etc. by pointing out you are a libertarian.
I'm not talking about the mods, I'm talking about your attempt to make your point. And I'm not talking about pointing out that you're libertarian, I'm talking about specifying a narrow band that you consistently vote in regardless of issues in a given election, shifts in the parties, et cetera. Think of it this way: If I came to you and tried to convince you of something by beginning with, "I never vote any way except Liberal," how seriously would you take what I have to say?
Canada doesn't have assassinations, we don't have terrorist acts, and we don't have any justification whatsoever for this much expense.
...yet.
Just wait 'til the terrorists find out the Canadian G20 summits have the lowest security spending (in the hypothetical world where they do it your way), then see what happens.
I am a conservative (from point of view of Canadian politics), I mean I never vote liberal or ndp or any other garbage, I vote libertarian or conservative and that's that.
So you're trying to make yourself more credible by pointing out how closed-minded you are?
Your argument is bullshit.
...and showing that your best argument is an ad hominem?
So SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
...and that you're egregiously immature even by /. standards?
Well, I think you've made your point.
No "Conservative" ever gets to talk about adscam ever again.
... So I think you're right; no Tory gets to complain about adscam or Liberal waste as the height of calumny. They've treated their term in office like it was a race to outspend and outlie the Liberals, and despite the difficulty of the goal, they've achieved it.
So what else is new? I live in the US, where conservative and liberal are not parties but ideological categories, but replace Tory with Republican and lower-case conservative and liberal, and your statement applies perfectly to our country going back thirty years or more.
There is a very big difference between "killing" someone and "murdering" someone, and few people seem to know the difference.
None of whom is you, apparently.
The difference? Murder is the /unlawful/ killing of someone.
No, murder "is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)." (Source, emphasis mine)
Murder is a type of unlawful killing, but not just any unlawful killing.
Boot note: The bible actually says "Thou shall not murder." Killing is actually just fine, you just have to do it lawfully. This is what allows religious nutters to take over planes and fly them in to buildings while simultaneously not considering their actions to be hypocritical.
Partly correct: "Based on an in depth analysis of the original Hebrew, Bible scholar Dr. Joel M. Hoffman concludes that "kill" is too broad but "murder" is too narrow to reflect tirtsah.[61] The Hebrew refers to all illegal killing, so it includes what is commonly called "murder" in English, but "manslaughter" as well. It did not refer to legal killing, such as in war or in sanctioned retribution." (Source)
If I fire a weapon to shoot an Apple off someones head and I miss and end up murdering them, despite how un-malicious my intent is, do I still have to pay for the crime?
By every definition of murder I know, you can't "end up" murdering someone. Murder implies malicious intent, and usually planning as well.
Lister: Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is [cosmic rays], isn't it? You lose your keys, it's [cosmic rays]. A [bit] falls off the [RAM], it's [cosmic rays]. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was [cosmic rays] as well.
Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?
Lister: Rimmer, [COSMIC RAYS] used our bog roll?
Rimmer: Just cause they're [cosmic rays] doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and [cosmic ray]-esque, like it comes out of the top of their [waveforms] or something.
The guy that posted this is a Ksplice developer...Then he goes on to explain that you don't even need to reboot your machine due to damn cosmic radiation. Or kernel updates. Because you have Ksplice.
Come on.
Hey, there have been weirder, more circuitous attempts to advertise on Slashdot.
Is "boku" some sort of retarded mangling of beaucoup?
Yes.
I'm putting tinfoil hats on all of my servers, right away!
Aluminum foil, man! Aluminum! Aluminum is for the cosmic rays. Tin is for the orbital mind control lasers!
I shouldn't have spent all my mod points yesterday. I guess my hardware knowledge is obsolete; I had no idea modern HDDs don't store individual bits anymore.