he BEGINS by defining: (infinity) = 1/0 and (-infinity) = -1/0
And that's already wrong.
How on earth can you say it's wrong? It's a definition. If I define my cat's name as Poppy then her name is Poppy, by definition. If the prof., in his own system of arithmetic, defines infinity = 1/0 and -infinity = -1/0 then that is what they are in his system of arithmetic. You might claim it's inconsistent with another system of arithmetic, or that it's useless, or that it's incompatible with other axioms of the system, but it simply cannot be 'wrong'.
Dividing by zero is not a "problem". It's just IMPOSSIBLE due to the way we structure our species' math. If you want to restructure our math as we know it (which he basically does by inventing his own false reality, so to speak), then you're not solving any problems. You're just being clever, and designing another system.. which has been done hundreds of times.
He's not invented a false reality, he's developed a new, more complete, system of arithmetic. Mathematics is not the study of reality.
As to not solving any problems: It makes things which were previously impossible to calculate possible to calculate. It solves the problem that previous systems of arithmetic either failed to define the result of divide by zero at all, or failed to define it in a useful and rigorous fashion. Whether you think the problem it solves was serious or the solution is a good one is a different matter.
If I can't even open my friends' documents then what am I - as a manager to do?
I don't know where you got your MBA, but the low-hanging fruit is there to be picked - in simple terms, you need to synergize new communications opportunities by leveraging existing facilities. Incentivize your staff to maximally capitalize on the benefits of an approach which unifies the output of global arboreal facilities, exsting team-member dexterity and some pens.
Am I the only person who had to Stop Reading the Book Review half-way through because of Capitalisation Overload? There Are other ways to emphasise or to indicate a "phrase from the book" which are much Less Annoying Than Doing This.
I think something distractingly ugly can have a negative impact, but there seems to be an awful lot of effort expended on going far beyond non-distracting and deep into making it 'pretty' (for the individual's definition of 'pretty'). I don't really get it, which I know puts me in a minority. I do mostly use a Mac though, which is unobtrusive enough for me and I suppose fairly pretty to look at anyway - annoyingly so in some respects. I'd prefer ugly square window gadgets to pretty round (and thus smaller, harder to hit) ones. Still, the chrome is generally pretty narrow and non-distracting in OS X, more so than in XP - the chrome in XP I find distracting at times, though perhaps that's because I so rarely use XP. If I ever get an XP box I might even consider desaturating that blue a little. Having the option is always good.
The GPL grants certain allowances of redistribution. It's something like "I'm going to let you download this. I have a copyright on it, though, so you can only give it to others if you follow these rules. If you don't follow these rules, you can't give it to others."
It's not under the GPL. It's under the Artistic License. IANAL, but the argument seems to be that the right to recognition is not protected by copyright and as the license waives all the rights copyright does confer without expectation of compensation there has been no infringement. From TFMTD:
It is even clearer that Jacobsen's unjust enrichment claim is preempted by the Copyright
law. The Ninth Circuit has held that unjust enrichment claims are equivalent to claims for
copyright infringement and thus preempted because such a claim lacks an extra element, namely
the bilateral expectation of compensation.
The GPL expects 'balateral compensation' (reciprocal sharing of source code), so even if they lose this case I don't think the decision would apply to the GPL. It probably would apply to BSD though. My guess at the counter-argument would be that recognition constitutes compensation. Again, IANAL.
For example, if someone created a project under GPL and they were the sole contributor or had all contributors assign their rights to them as the main contributor to the project, that person could at any time take their source and walk away announcing that any future source they would write would not be GPL'ed. Say that someone decided to continue the GPL'ed code, that person would not have any right to include any source written by the original author after they revoked the license in their GPL'ed project. It would be copyright infringement if they did.
Only if exactly zero people had received copies of that code, in which case it really wouldn't be much of a loss. You couldn't force them to give you a copy, but they couldn't stop anyone who already had a copy from excercising the rights the GPL confers - including redistribution and modification. That is the whole point of the the GPL - once you have it, you can modify and redistribute it.
They're certainly restricting the creativity of people who want to legally do things like put OSX on a tablet PC.
Putting OS X on a tablet PC or any non-Apple hardware was and always has been against the terms of the license for OS X and thus illegal. The only thing they are stopping you doing is hacking the kernel to make it run on non-Apple hardware - something you could previously write and release the code to do, but you have never legally been able to actually test that code by running OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple would find it hard to prove in a court of law that someone actually tested their hack, so this is merely another way of enforcing exactly the same OS X license restrictions.
Let me get this straight. You were in Europe, land of free health care, and you went to a black market doctor ANYWAY?
It's not free for foreigners (well, strictly for non-Europeans as although health servies in different countries are separate but there are agreements in place between most European countires so we're all effectivley 'insured' throughout most of Europe) and it's not entirely free in most countries anyway. There's often some small charge, though those on state benefits are typically exempt. Lands of heavily subsidised healthcare for the citizens is more like it.
This needs to be a civil offense, not a criminal offense. When it's a criminal offense, we have these types of problems: vague-ness. Leave it to civil courts and have the victim sue the offender for so much money it's going to financially ruin the attacker.
So you mean only the rich would get justice? Erm, yeah. That sounds like a great idea for lawyers and criminals, but not for anybody else. Before you say, no-win-no-fee is no substitute for the rule of law. That only works for clear-cut cases with a high probability of success. If it's not clear cut you have to be able to and prepared to pay the full costs of litigation or you don't get justice.
Before you flame me for not citing sources, RTFA; or, at least, RTFS, that's all I read and I picked up on the fact that it was stated that PlaysForSure devices would not play Zune music, while it was never stated that the Zune would not play PlaysForSure content.
It must have taken you twice as long to be totally wrong as it would have for you to have RTFA. If you had RTFA and got to the third paragraph before you tiny brain overflowed, you have read this: "But in a move that could alienate some customers, MSN-bought tracks will not be compatible with the new gadget."
And no, I didn't RTFA, I see no reason to,[...]
Here's a reason to RTFA: You might look alightly less like a complete and utter fucking moron.
Sit down with your folks and go and find vulnerabilities in random PCs on the net. Find whatever the black-hat tool du jour is, test it out to find whatever options give impressive looking results and then show them how easy it is. Show them the black-hat websites, tools and forums. I'm not suggesting you actually compromise someone else's machine or do anything illegal, just that you get close enough to doing it to demonstrate how it happens. When they see how easy it is for the bad guy, they might get a more realistic view of the threat.
If you missed the suggestion that there was no room at the inn because it was Christmas, did my claiming Nazareth built a conference centre in 14 AD not give you tiny clue that I may not have been being entirely serious?
WTF is a "tax" going to accomplish, other than fattening the pockets of politicians, complicating our unbelievably complicated beuracracy even more, and making the poor even poorer?
It might make the cost of power more representative of its true cost. All those power stations are fucking the environment at a rapid rate. It's going cost some serious cash to deal with the consequences. We're going to have to pay some time soon and higher energy taxes would both reduce consumption and put the greatest cost burden on those contributing the most to the problem.
I know the begining of your post was in jest. But All Saint's Day, and All Soul's Day which is Oct. 30, are way there are to disrupt the pagan holiday of All Hallow's Eve not the other way around. Much like the placement of Christmas around the Winter Solstice festival.
Christmas is on December 25th because that's when Jesus was born, dumbass. Why the hell else do you think his folks couldn't find room at the inn? Everybody knows Nazareth didn't have a conference centre till 14 AD.
I love changing the clocks. I want more, more, more! Instead of all that '2am on the first Sunday of April' crap, we should put the clocks back two hours at 4am every day. And put them forward again at 2pm.
Easy mistake, "resolving a problem" to "made a fuckload of cash for babysitting a mainframe".
Right on dude! I don't even know why they bother babysitting those mainframes running ancient code. Just re-write it all in Ruby. I could have done it in a couple of days. It's not like those mainframes store any really important data, like your bank balance or... Hang on!
Time doesn't change on the same dates year after year.
The dates may change each year, but the rules used to pick the dates haven't changed for a long time. It's those rules which are hard-coded into devices and they're changing them. Specifically, they're changing 'first Sunday in April' to 'second Sunday in March' and 'last Sunday in October' to 'first Sunday in November'.
Why on earth would you need to be actively switching between 25 different things? Are you that good at multitasking?
You don't use 25 windows in day? A week?
Don't fool yourself: you're just not closing things that you don't need.
You use Windows, right? One day, you might get to use a decent OS (any of the other ones) with some heirarchy to its window management. Then you might realise that there is no point closing the applications you're not using right at that minute, or even that day or week, because when you're not using them they don't get in the way of what you are doing. In the next few days I will use all of the 28 windows I have open right now. When I next feel like working on my electronics project my datasheets will be open at the right pages, the schematic and PCB will be loaded up and displaying the right stuff, my editor will have all the source code files for the MCU loaded up and there will be a terminal window cd-ed to the right directory. Why on earth would I want to open all those applications again, then open the files again, then find the right bits of those files, when I can just leave them there, patiently waiting for me to return to that task?
Organize!
I bought a computer to do that kind of orgainzation for me. I much prefer getting useful stuff done to pissing about repeatedly opening and closing the same windows, applications and files.
5 days between restarts? Yeesh, I'm glad I don't pay this guy's electricity bills. Call me crazy, but I shut my machine down when I'm not using it (mostly because the awesome fan power would keep me awake).
Have you never heard of sleep/suspend or hibernate? Even Windows can run for weeks without breaking a sweat these days. You can also buy quiet computers, or mod your own to make it quieter. If the fan noise is enough to keep you awake at night it's enough to harm your concentration when you're coding / gaming / looking at porn.
Buy more RAM, use sleep/suspend, be happy.
on
How Many Windows?
·
· Score: 1
Why restart your Mac every five days? It's not Windows 95 you know.
My Mac currently has 28 open windows, from 14 different applications. 7 tabs in Firefox. Uptime is 23 days. This is typical. It sleeps when I'm not using it; I once worked out the trade-off point was about 8-12 hours of sleep = one bootup, in terms of energy consumption. It gets restarted every couple of months when there's an OS update that requires it. I don't close an application unless I only use it rarely and it's a bit of a memory hog (like Photoshop).
I find working this way is highly efficient. I can go from sleeping machine to working in any of my regular applications in under five seconds. When it's awake, any regular application is a quick Cmd-Tab (if my hands are on the keyboard) or click (Dock or Exposaaaay) away.
I worked pretty much the same way when my main desktop machine was a Windows 2000 box, though suspend never worked properly, so I used Hibernate and had a slightly longer delay first-thing. I also sometimes used that box for games and would close applications to free resources and maximise fps.
Slashdot Mirror
How on earth can you say it's wrong? It's a definition. If I define my cat's name as Poppy then her name is Poppy, by definition. If the prof., in his own system of arithmetic, defines infinity = 1/0 and -infinity = -1/0 then that is what they are in his system of arithmetic. You might claim it's inconsistent with another system of arithmetic, or that it's useless, or that it's incompatible with other axioms of the system, but it simply cannot be 'wrong'.
He's not invented a false reality, he's developed a new, more complete, system of arithmetic. Mathematics is not the study of reality.
As to not solving any problems: It makes things which were previously impossible to calculate possible to calculate. It solves the problem that previous systems of arithmetic either failed to define the result of divide by zero at all, or failed to define it in a useful and rigorous fashion. Whether you think the problem it solves was serious or the solution is a good one is a different matter.
I don't know where you got your MBA, but the low-hanging fruit is there to be picked - in simple terms, you need to synergize new communications opportunities by leveraging existing facilities. Incentivize your staff to maximally capitalize on the benefits of an approach which unifies the output of global arboreal facilities, exsting team-member dexterity and some pens.
Courtney Cox is, what, ugly?
Oh my god, you're right!
Am I the only person who had to Stop Reading the Book Review half-way through because of Capitalisation Overload? There Are other ways to emphasise or to indicate a "phrase from the book" which are much Less Annoying Than Doing This.
Do you really think Microsoft won't have designed SMB2 around whatever patents they think they could best use to make interoperability impossible?
I think something distractingly ugly can have a negative impact, but there seems to be an awful lot of effort expended on going far beyond non-distracting and deep into making it 'pretty' (for the individual's definition of 'pretty'). I don't really get it, which I know puts me in a minority. I do mostly use a Mac though, which is unobtrusive enough for me and I suppose fairly pretty to look at anyway - annoyingly so in some respects. I'd prefer ugly square window gadgets to pretty round (and thus smaller, harder to hit) ones. Still, the chrome is generally pretty narrow and non-distracting in OS X, more so than in XP - the chrome in XP I find distracting at times, though perhaps that's because I so rarely use XP. If I ever get an XP box I might even consider desaturating that blue a little. Having the option is always good.
I use my computer 80+ hours a week too. But mostly, I'm looking at what's in the windows, not what's around the edges of them.
It's not under the GPL. It's under the Artistic License. IANAL, but the argument seems to be that the right to recognition is not protected by copyright and as the license waives all the rights copyright does confer without expectation of compensation there has been no infringement. From TFMTD:
It is even clearer that Jacobsen's unjust enrichment claim is preempted by the Copyright law. The Ninth Circuit has held that unjust enrichment claims are equivalent to claims for copyright infringement and thus preempted because such a claim lacks an extra element, namely the bilateral expectation of compensation.
The GPL expects 'balateral compensation' (reciprocal sharing of source code), so even if they lose this case I don't think the decision would apply to the GPL. It probably would apply to BSD though. My guess at the counter-argument would be that recognition constitutes compensation. Again, IANAL.
Only if exactly zero people had received copies of that code, in which case it really wouldn't be much of a loss. You couldn't force them to give you a copy, but they couldn't stop anyone who already had a copy from excercising the rights the GPL confers - including redistribution and modification. That is the whole point of the the GPL - once you have it, you can modify and redistribute it.
Putting OS X on a tablet PC or any non-Apple hardware was and always has been against the terms of the license for OS X and thus illegal. The only thing they are stopping you doing is hacking the kernel to make it run on non-Apple hardware - something you could previously write and release the code to do, but you have never legally been able to actually test that code by running OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple would find it hard to prove in a court of law that someone actually tested their hack, so this is merely another way of enforcing exactly the same OS X license restrictions.
It's not free for foreigners (well, strictly for non-Europeans as although health servies in different countries are separate but there are agreements in place between most European countires so we're all effectivley 'insured' throughout most of Europe) and it's not entirely free in most countries anyway. There's often some small charge, though those on state benefits are typically exempt. Lands of heavily subsidised healthcare for the citizens is more like it.
So you mean only the rich would get justice? Erm, yeah. That sounds like a great idea for lawyers and criminals, but not for anybody else. Before you say, no-win-no-fee is no substitute for the rule of law. That only works for clear-cut cases with a high probability of success. If it's not clear cut you have to be able to and prepared to pay the full costs of litigation or you don't get justice.
It must have taken you twice as long to be totally wrong as it would have for you to have RTFA. If you had RTFA and got to the third paragraph before you tiny brain overflowed, you have read this: "But in a move that could alienate some customers, MSN-bought tracks will not be compatible with the new gadget."
Here's a reason to RTFA: You might look alightly less like a complete and utter fucking moron.
Sit down with your folks and go and find vulnerabilities in random PCs on the net. Find whatever the black-hat tool du jour is, test it out to find whatever options give impressive looking results and then show them how easy it is. Show them the black-hat websites, tools and forums. I'm not suggesting you actually compromise someone else's machine or do anything illegal, just that you get close enough to doing it to demonstrate how it happens. When they see how easy it is for the bad guy, they might get a more realistic view of the threat.
What's that wooshing sound?
If you missed the suggestion that there was no room at the inn because it was Christmas, did my claiming Nazareth built a conference centre in 14 AD not give you tiny clue that I may not have been being entirely serious?
It might make the cost of power more representative of its true cost. All those power stations are fucking the environment at a rapid rate. It's going cost some serious cash to deal with the consequences. We're going to have to pay some time soon and higher energy taxes would both reduce consumption and put the greatest cost burden on those contributing the most to the problem.
Christmas is on December 25th because that's when Jesus was born, dumbass. Why the hell else do you think his folks couldn't find room at the inn? Everybody knows Nazareth didn't have a conference centre till 14 AD.
I love changing the clocks. I want more, more, more! Instead of all that '2am on the first Sunday of April' crap, we should put the clocks back two hours at 4am every day. And put them forward again at 2pm.
Right on dude! I don't even know why they bother babysitting those mainframes running ancient code. Just re-write it all in Ruby. I could have done it in a couple of days. It's not like those mainframes store any really important data, like your bank balance or... Hang on!
The dates may change each year, but the rules used to pick the dates haven't changed for a long time. It's those rules which are hard-coded into devices and they're changing them. Specifically, they're changing 'first Sunday in April' to 'second Sunday in March' and 'last Sunday in October' to 'first Sunday in November'.
You don't use 25 windows in day? A week?
You use Windows, right? One day, you might get to use a decent OS (any of the other ones) with some heirarchy to its window management. Then you might realise that there is no point closing the applications you're not using right at that minute, or even that day or week, because when you're not using them they don't get in the way of what you are doing. In the next few days I will use all of the 28 windows I have open right now. When I next feel like working on my electronics project my datasheets will be open at the right pages, the schematic and PCB will be loaded up and displaying the right stuff, my editor will have all the source code files for the MCU loaded up and there will be a terminal window cd-ed to the right directory. Why on earth would I want to open all those applications again, then open the files again, then find the right bits of those files, when I can just leave them there, patiently waiting for me to return to that task?
I bought a computer to do that kind of orgainzation for me. I much prefer getting useful stuff done to pissing about repeatedly opening and closing the same windows, applications and files.
Have you never heard of sleep/suspend or hibernate? Even Windows can run for weeks without breaking a sweat these days. You can also buy quiet computers, or mod your own to make it quieter. If the fan noise is enough to keep you awake at night it's enough to harm your concentration when you're coding / gaming / looking at porn.
Why restart your Mac every five days? It's not Windows 95 you know.
My Mac currently has 28 open windows, from 14 different applications. 7 tabs in Firefox. Uptime is 23 days. This is typical. It sleeps when I'm not using it; I once worked out the trade-off point was about 8-12 hours of sleep = one bootup, in terms of energy consumption. It gets restarted every couple of months when there's an OS update that requires it. I don't close an application unless I only use it rarely and it's a bit of a memory hog (like Photoshop).
I find working this way is highly efficient. I can go from sleeping machine to working in any of my regular applications in under five seconds. When it's awake, any regular application is a quick Cmd-Tab (if my hands are on the keyboard) or click (Dock or Exposaaaay) away.
I worked pretty much the same way when my main desktop machine was a Windows 2000 box, though suspend never worked properly, so I used Hibernate and had a slightly longer delay first-thing. I also sometimes used that box for games and would close applications to free resources and maximise fps.