I was about to buy four e-books today, but I saw that the difference in price between the paper copy and the e-book was really small, so in the end I didn't pay a cent. Of course I know there are other costs besides printing and distribution, and of course corporations are here to make money. I just dislike that, instead of being provided a cheaper product due to lower costs and expect to pay extra for the paper edition, I have to pay almost the same for both and know they raise the marginal profit a lot (I guess we can agree this is greed).
Now, this wouldn't happen in a perfect market, as competition penalises greed, low quality (Deming's definition) and inefficiency. But, with a few big players dominating the market, collusion is to be expected and indeed happened.
She committed a harm, and, in the commission of that harm, the other person died. That's murder almost everywhere.
Sorry, no. Almost everywhere, murder means there's an intent to kill. That's the case with street brawling, for example: if someone dies from a beating and the opponent didn't use weapons, or had proffesional combat training, the sentence will be much shorter.
I always wonder if it's because these new parents from late Generation-X/early Generation-Y have enjoyed the benefits of vaccination and become complacent...
Either way, it's comforting to know the stereotype is false.
What do we have here? An off-topic comment about something you said a while ago, in another comment. People don't change often, do they?:) Ah, well, I'll bite.
First, don't worry if it's mind boggling to you: nobody is perfect.
Timoschenko proved about a century ago that you only need mathematics to describe a machine, not even a picture is required. So machines, like cryptographic processes, are one level of abstraction away from pure mathematics (not kidding you here). Yet, somehow they are patentable. How does that evidence fit into your theory?
Either patents should not exist (which is not your thesis at all) or a different test on patentability is necessary (certainly not "It uses a lot of algebra"). How about we solve the apparent contradiction with this statement: cryptography has a strong base on mathematics, but it's not *just* mathematics. If there's a patent, maybe it would be something on the lines of "Process for secure transmission of messages over an insecure carrier. Step 1: Grab a numeric representation of the message. Step 2: obtain through the insecure channel, e.g. using Diffie-Hellman's method, these values. Step 3 to N-1: Perform these operations. Step N: Send it through the insecure line.". It's just a level of abstraction away from just operations, true, but it's the same with everything else.
Slavoj Zizek said once that there's an element of hypocrisy in charity and philanthropy, e.g. Soros fixes with the right hand what he breaks with the left one, and that the rational thing to do is to put together a system (taxation, for instance) in which philanthropy would be unnecessary. This scheme is what I'm familiar with, and so far it works.
But, the really incriminating evidence would be if there were emails showing that Symantec has been sponsoring or encouraging virus writers in some way. And I'm certain if Anonymous had that kind of evidence that it would be out in the open by now. So that means they don't. And maybe Symantec isn't as much of a sleaze bag company as I expected them to be.
Do you really think that conspiracy is plausible? Just consider how much money there is to make by writing malware and, suddenly, Symantec doesn't have to get its hands dirty to have a running business.
Really? I don't doubt your info., but I flew from Buenos Aires to Dallas/Fort Worth and back, and they didn't have controls *that* stringent. In fact, I was only irradiated/groped in domestic flights. Go figure:-/.
Your proposition has been dealt with long ago by ethicists and epistemologists.
Consider the case of R&D for military applications. Frame your argument around the knowledge on how to build effective atomic bombs, for example. Think of arguments for and against publication, including whether publication hinders or promotes progress. Consider whether knowledge is ultimately morals-agnostic or is always permeated with the researcher's moral code at some point.
tl;dr : knowledge isn't always a positive thing. But were to draw the line is always debatable.
These people are an official panel of the US Department of Health. From Wikipedia:
It is tasked with recommending policies on such questions as how to prevent published research in biotechnology from aiding terrorism, without slowing scientific progress.
Just in case you've never heard of them (I know I haven't).
It amazes me how this kind of post gets an instantaneous +5 Insightful in/. , but if you replace Linux distros with, say, movies or games, you get downmodded into oblivion....
If you have to ask, maybe it's you. *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*
Re:What does the hell does NP Hard mean?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 2
Ron Fagin (a heavyweight in this topic) once told me about this in layman's terms. Can't remember precisely, but this is more or less what he said:
I assume you know Sudoku. Solving a Sudoku game from the clues has a certain difficulty (complexity). Compare it with just verifying that a Sudoku with all its squares filled is a valid solution. You can see that verifying a solution is much faster than finding one! In general, we can accept that verifying is faster than solving... but even though it's intuitive, no one has proven it:).
He left out what he meant about complexity, though...
The best video lectures I've seen are the ones from Sandel, and they actually were recordings from his lectures. I also enjoyed those MIT videos that were live recordings. The way AI Class was structured around sound bites made the whole chapter disconnected at times.
But maybe this is comparing apples to oranges, so I considered Khan Academy instead. His videos are usually longer and I don't get as distracted or feel the pace is slow. Everything looks more integrated.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, cocaine addiction has been shown to lower marijuana abuse.
They prefer coke abuse?
I thought it was a narcissist thing. You know, like in Bad Religion's "State of the Union".
Remember, the first word in USA is 'us'.
That may well be the case but, as TFA says, they colluded.
Why?
People tend to dislike greed.
I was about to buy four e-books today, but I saw that the difference in price between the paper copy and the e-book was really small, so in the end I didn't pay a cent. Of course I know there are other costs besides printing and distribution, and of course corporations are here to make money. I just dislike that, instead of being provided a cheaper product due to lower costs and expect to pay extra for the paper edition, I have to pay almost the same for both and know they raise the marginal profit a lot (I guess we can agree this is greed).
Now, this wouldn't happen in a perfect market, as competition penalises greed, low quality (Deming's definition) and inefficiency. But, with a few big players dominating the market, collusion is to be expected and indeed happened.
It's exactly the same thing in Argentina.
She committed a harm, and, in the commission of that harm, the other person died. That's murder almost everywhere.
Sorry, no. Almost everywhere, murder means there's an intent to kill. That's the case with street brawling, for example: if someone dies from a beating and the opponent didn't use weapons, or had proffesional combat training, the sentence will be much shorter.
I always wonder if it's because these new parents from late Generation-X/early Generation-Y have enjoyed the benefits of vaccination and become complacent...
Either way, it's comforting to know the stereotype is false.
What do we have here? An off-topic comment about something you said a while ago, in another comment. People don't change often, do they? :) Ah, well, I'll bite.
First, don't worry if it's mind boggling to you: nobody is perfect.
Timoschenko proved about a century ago that you only need mathematics to describe a machine, not even a picture is required. So machines, like cryptographic processes, are one level of abstraction away from pure mathematics (not kidding you here). Yet, somehow they are patentable. How does that evidence fit into your theory?
Either patents should not exist (which is not your thesis at all) or a different test on patentability is necessary (certainly not "It uses a lot of algebra"). How about we solve the apparent contradiction with this statement: cryptography has a strong base on mathematics, but it's not *just* mathematics. If there's a patent, maybe it would be something on the lines of "Process for secure transmission of messages over an insecure carrier. Step 1: Grab a numeric representation of the message. Step 2: obtain through the insecure channel, e.g. using Diffie-Hellman's method, these values. Step 3 to N-1: Perform these operations. Step N: Send it through the insecure line.". It's just a level of abstraction away from just operations, true, but it's the same with everything else.
Agreed. I admit I was surprised to read this.
Slavoj Zizek said once that there's an element of hypocrisy in charity and philanthropy, e.g. Soros fixes with the right hand what he breaks with the left one, and that the rational thing to do is to put together a system (taxation, for instance) in which philanthropy would be unnecessary. This scheme is what I'm familiar with, and so far it works.
This is going to be incredibly insensitive torwards those lives that were lost...
If you are so sure, maybe you shouldn't say it. Right?
My 2: 17 may be a low number, but 3 is a much lower one, and you only needed to hear your engineers!
But, the really incriminating evidence would be if there were emails showing that Symantec has been sponsoring or encouraging virus writers in some way. And I'm certain if Anonymous had that kind of evidence that it would be out in the open by now. So that means they don't. And maybe Symantec isn't as much of a sleaze bag company as I expected them to be.
Do you really think that conspiracy is plausible? Just consider how much money there is to make by writing malware and, suddenly, Symantec doesn't have to get its hands dirty to have a running business.
Really? I don't doubt your info., but I flew from Buenos Aires to Dallas/Fort Worth and back, and they didn't have controls *that* stringent. In fact, I was only irradiated/groped in domestic flights. Go figure :-/ .
It's the hardest, but only on Metal Hero.
Your proposition has been dealt with long ago by ethicists and epistemologists.
Consider the case of R&D for military applications. Frame your argument around the knowledge on how to build effective atomic bombs, for example. Think of arguments for and against publication, including whether publication hinders or promotes progress. Consider whether knowledge is ultimately morals-agnostic or is always permeated with the researcher's moral code at some point.
tl;dr : knowledge isn't always a positive thing. But were to draw the line is always debatable.
These people are an official panel of the US Department of Health. From Wikipedia:
It is tasked with recommending policies on such questions as how to prevent published research in biotechnology from aiding terrorism, without slowing scientific progress.
Just in case you've never heard of them (I know I haven't).
It amazes me how this kind of post gets an instantaneous +5 Insightful in /. , but if you replace Linux distros with, say, movies or games, you get downmodded into oblivion....
Cognitive dissonance, I guess...
If you have to ask, maybe it's you. *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*
Ron Fagin (a heavyweight in this topic) once told me about this in layman's terms. Can't remember precisely, but this is more or less what he said:
I assume you know Sudoku. Solving a Sudoku game from the clues has a certain difficulty (complexity). Compare it with just verifying that a Sudoku with all its squares filled is a valid solution. You can see that verifying a solution is much faster than finding one! In general, we can accept that verifying is faster than solving... but even though it's intuitive, no one has proven it :) .
He left out what he meant about complexity, though...
Check this post. IANAL.
I thought you were joking, and followed along.
I agree with you, of course, and would add that providing a transcript also makes it easier to translate to other languages.
Why not just force every citizen to post a continuous blog of their every activity at every moment of every day for all time?
That way, we could all rest assured that our safety is being protected.
Just to optimise space, we should limit such posts to 140 characters... Why 140? Dunno, sounds nice, I guess...
Blindingly impossible, I would say.
Your comment wasn't sexist at all... not
I finally understand the "Woosh" idiom! Thank you multimediavt!
I don't know. I agree more with GP.
The best video lectures I've seen are the ones from Sandel, and they actually were recordings from his lectures. I also enjoyed those MIT videos that were live recordings. The way AI Class was structured around sound bites made the whole chapter disconnected at times.
But maybe this is comparing apples to oranges, so I considered Khan Academy instead. His videos are usually longer and I don't get as distracted or feel the pace is slow. Everything looks more integrated.
But maybe it's just a matter of taste...