plus the formula is flawed in my field of expertise and needs a bit of fine tuning to be accurate for variable photon flux on the same angles.
In the best case, what you're saying is something along the lines of, "multiplication is flawed, because in relativistic physics, F=mA needs a bit of fine tuning". In the vastly more likely case, you're full of shit, and every mathematician (and physicist) reading this is laughing at you.
Mathematics is not merely computation or abstract manipulation of symbols. It is a way of thinking that not only fosters an understanding of the importance of logical reasoning, but also the necessity to substantiate and quantify one's empirical observations.
True, but the kind of math you're talking about, the kind that involves more critical thinking than rote computation, is pretty much absent until *well* beyond the required level. With the possible exception of plane geometry in high school, most students won't see a proof until linear algebra. I can see an argument for swapping out precalculus and calculus for a general proof-writing course. Probably fewer than 1% of people will ever need the quadratic formula for anything other than schoolwork, but everyone could benefit from knowing what a proof is and how to write a correct one.
Manifolds don't "live in" any space. Yes, a 3-sphere can be imbedded in R^4 (or R^5 or R^n for any n>3), but for its definition, the 3-sphere does not refer to any ambient space whatsoever. Our world might very well be a 3-sphere...if it were large enough, we'd never know the difference, just like the good old ant-on-a-basketball.
I dunno... maybe I "am" xenophobic or racist, or whatever. Intellectually, I don't think that people from other cultures are "bad" - but I'm also kind of sentimental about the small town homogeneous culture I grew up in.:\
"I don't think other people are bad, I just don't want them anywhere near me unless they act just like I want them to."
The first thing anyone should be taught about collage level research is that an encyclopedia is not a primary source but it's an excellent starting point to find primary sources.
Barely, remotely similar, yes, but not at all less secure. To begin with, that was a master password into other people's stuff, whereas in this case I have full control over my own password management. And I don't know if they come right out and say it in the instructions, but the idea is that you don't use the name of a celebrity and/or recent internet meme as your "strong master password".
It's no less secure than using OpenID or similar to access many different sites.
Yeah, you're right, but you've missed the point. The reason we have "strong password" conditions is to prevent the most common ways of generating really weak passwords. Given that, as you so correctly pointed out, there's no way to ensure that a password is strong in Kolmogorov's sense, such a standard should clearly be interpreted as a "best practice for discouraging the use of weak passwords".
Utilities (such as the Password Hasher addon for Firefox) neatly sidestep the "catastrophic data loss" problem by using a hashing function to combine the single strong master password with the site's domain name (or other key you choose) to create a different, strong password for every account.
Lots of sites with mandatory periodic password changes won't let you pick a password that is "too similar" to a previous one. Do you run into that problem?
It just occurred to me...if they do that, does it imply that they're storing the passwords in plaintext, or is there another way to judge when passwords are similar? That is, does a sufficiently one-way function (a hash) necessarily discard information about similarity?
I wish someone (ISO? NIST? DOHS?) would establish an honest-to-god STANDARD for what makes a strong password. For instance, >=8 characters, at least one each of upper, lower, numeric, other.
Why? Because I use a fantastic Firefox addon called Password Hasher (and there are other good ones for the same purpose), which uses a hashing algorithm to combine the site's domain name with my own personal master password to create a different, secure password for every account, while only forcing me to remember one nice, strong password.
The problem is, different sites require different kinds of passwords, to the point where NO combination of settings for length and content of the generated password can work for every site. PH does a good job of remembering the individual sites' settings on my own computer, but it gets a lot less convenient when I'm on someone else's.
Although novel and clever, your argument doesn't actually apply to this situation. Unlike unicorns and leprechauns, we actually do have life here, lots of it, and furthermore there are believed to be billions of places in the universe very similar to here.
Instead of seeing ourselves as separate from everything around us, this view allows us to recognize that we are embedded in a fractal feedback dynamic that intrinsically connects all things via the medium of a vacuum structure of infinite potential. This research has far reaching implications in a variety of fields including theoretical and applied physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry, sociology, psychology, archaeology, anthropology,
You need to go to a tech school for that stuff. Computer science is way (way) closer to math than programming. Which is why you were supposed to learn calculus.
You're confusing computer science with software development. What's that Dijkstra quote? "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." Computer science is way (way) closer to mathematics than it is to software development. That's why you were supposed to learn calculus.
If all you wanted was to learn to write code, you should have done a vocational program.
I would expect that you'd need permission not only from the instructor but from every other student in the classroom if you want to record video. There are already plenty of students who aren't comfortable speaking up in class--imagine how much worse it would be for them knowing they're being recorded.
You're right, but the situation only becomes less favorable at relativistic speeds. The GP's lower bound on required energy is not invalid, just a little loose.
Are you suggesting there are other, better, possibly cheaper ways to exponentially increase processing power over time, and that Intel has chosen to stick with increasing the transistor number solely to avoid falling under Moore's curve?
That sounds stupid. So I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Mathematics is one way of applied philosophy, but philosophy is not limited to numbers
You think mathematics is "limited to numbers"?
plus the formula is flawed in my field of expertise and needs a bit of fine tuning to be accurate for variable photon flux on the same angles.
In the best case, what you're saying is something along the lines of, "multiplication is flawed, because in relativistic physics, F=mA needs a bit of fine tuning". In the vastly more likely case, you're full of shit, and every mathematician (and physicist) reading this is laughing at you.
There is--it's called "physics", or possibly "engineering math I".
True, but the kind of math you're talking about, the kind that involves more critical thinking than rote computation, is pretty much absent until *well* beyond the required level. With the possible exception of plane geometry in high school, most students won't see a proof until linear algebra. I can see an argument for swapping out precalculus and calculus for a general proof-writing course. Probably fewer than 1% of people will ever need the quadratic formula for anything other than schoolwork, but everyone could benefit from knowing what a proof is and how to write a correct one.
Okay, you fixed "loosing", but that sentence is still an atrocity.
First, visualize an n-sphere for n=2. Then let n go to infinity.
Manifolds don't "live in" any space. Yes, a 3-sphere can be imbedded in R^4 (or R^5 or R^n for any n>3), but for its definition, the 3-sphere does not refer to any ambient space whatsoever. Our world might very well be a 3-sphere...if it were large enough, we'd never know the difference, just like the good old ant-on-a-basketball.
I dunno ... maybe I "am" xenophobic or racist, or whatever. Intellectually, I don't think that people from other cultures are "bad" - but I'm also kind of sentimental about the small town homogeneous culture I grew up in. :\
"I don't think other people are bad, I just don't want them anywhere near me unless they act just like I want them to."
Yes, you are a racist xenophobe.
The first thing anyone should be taught about collage level research is that an encyclopedia is not a primary source but it's an excellent starting point to find primary sources.
Most appropriate typo ever .
Not to mention, does that comparison mean anything to anyone else? I've never stood in front of the LHC personally and don't know anyone who has.
Talk to this guy.
Barely, remotely similar, yes, but not at all less secure. To begin with, that was a master password into other people's stuff, whereas in this case I have full control over my own password management. And I don't know if they come right out and say it in the instructions, but the idea is that you don't use the name of a celebrity and/or recent internet meme as your "strong master password".
It's no less secure than using OpenID or similar to access many different sites.
Yeah, you're right, but you've missed the point. The reason we have "strong password" conditions is to prevent the most common ways of generating really weak passwords. Given that, as you so correctly pointed out, there's no way to ensure that a password is strong in Kolmogorov's sense, such a standard should clearly be interpreted as a "best practice for discouraging the use of weak passwords".
Better now?
Utilities (such as the Password Hasher addon for Firefox) neatly sidestep the "catastrophic data loss" problem by using a hashing function to combine the single strong master password with the site's domain name (or other key you choose) to create a different, strong password for every account.
Lots of sites with mandatory periodic password changes won't let you pick a password that is "too similar" to a previous one. Do you run into that problem?
It just occurred to me...if they do that, does it imply that they're storing the passwords in plaintext, or is there another way to judge when passwords are similar? That is, does a sufficiently one-way function (a hash) necessarily discard information about similarity?
I wish someone (ISO? NIST? DOHS?) would establish an honest-to-god STANDARD for what makes a strong password. For instance, >=8 characters, at least one each of upper, lower, numeric, other.
Why? Because I use a fantastic Firefox addon called Password Hasher (and there are other good ones for the same purpose), which uses a hashing algorithm to combine the site's domain name with my own personal master password to create a different, secure password for every account, while only forcing me to remember one nice, strong password.
The problem is, different sites require different kinds of passwords, to the point where NO combination of settings for length and content of the generated password can work for every site. PH does a good job of remembering the individual sites' settings on my own computer, but it gets a lot less convenient when I'm on someone else's.
Although novel and clever, your argument doesn't actually apply to this situation. Unlike unicorns and leprechauns, we actually do have life here, lots of it, and furthermore there are believed to be billions of places in the universe very similar to here.
"Tutorial"? No. The only "tutorial" for this kind of thing is a degree in the field.
Instead of seeing ourselves as separate from everything around us, this view allows us to recognize that we are embedded in a fractal feedback dynamic that intrinsically connects all things via the medium of a vacuum structure of infinite potential. This research has far reaching implications in a variety of fields including theoretical and applied physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry, sociology, psychology, archaeology, anthropology,
My bullshit detector just asplode.
You didn't google this even a little, did you?
You need to go to a tech school for that stuff. Computer science is way (way) closer to math than programming. Which is why you were supposed to learn calculus.
You're confusing computer science with software development. What's that Dijkstra quote? "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." Computer science is way (way) closer to mathematics than it is to software development. That's why you were supposed to learn calculus.
If all you wanted was to learn to write code, you should have done a vocational program.
I would expect that you'd need permission not only from the instructor but from every other student in the classroom if you want to record video. There are already plenty of students who aren't comfortable speaking up in class--imagine how much worse it would be for them knowing they're being recorded.
Anyone know if it renders math, then? That would be very important to me.
You're right, but the situation only becomes less favorable at relativistic speeds. The GP's lower bound on required energy is not invalid, just a little loose.
Are you suggesting there are other, better, possibly cheaper ways to exponentially increase processing power over time, and that Intel has chosen to stick with increasing the transistor number solely to avoid falling under Moore's curve?
That sounds stupid. So I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying.