You buy the content of the DVD not the plastic its recorded on. It't not fair to the user to make them buy the content twice when the medium is destroyed.
Either provide free/very cheap ( like cost of medium) replacements for damaged Media or don't complain if customers make copies for safe keeping.
Since when did textures become video frames and vice-versa. I can't think of a scenario in which anybody would want to download *textures* from the GPU. If it would have been video frames, that would be another matter. If the benchmark actually measures *texture download* from the GPU then something is really wrong with this picture.
I think a lot has gone on behind the scenes before this lawsuit was filed. For example, I cannpt access this site. So definitely some ISPs have complied with the demands of the RIAA and those that are sued have been stuborn. I hope they stay stuborn and fight this insanity until 'one man stands'
Thats exactly my point. Probability comes close to reality only when we have complete information which is almost never the case. Now that you mentioned the die case. Can you be absolutely sure about the uniformity of the density of the material to say the die is not biased? If you *assume* that the die is unbiased then you still have a conditional probability distribution dependent on the premise that the die is unbiased.
I still maintain that probability is not a property of nature (like time, or mass, or energy) but a property of our state of knowlege about nature. If it is a property of nature, it should not depend on the amount of information we have about something. So Probability would not be useful for scientific data analysis in which we have to reason from incomplete information.
This is clearly not the case. If it were, we would have a "Probability Bibble" where we could just *look up* the probability of most events and it would be meaningless to be able to determine probabilities for phenomena which are not fully understood or for which we have only limited information.
Probability has nothing to do with the state of the world. It only has to do with the state of our knowledge about the world. If something has a probability of occuring of 0.5 a day or year ( that is an odds of 1) it means there is no evidence to support it either occuring or not occuring. Only evidence can sway the probability in one direction or another. This new evidence does not mean that the world has changed, it just means that we have learned more about the world so we have to adjust our beliefs about it.
I'm sick and tired of journalists making statements like: - One in ten women will develop breast cancer, and all the variations of "x in y... will..."
If you still think probability has anything to do with the state of the world at all then answer this:
Consider a person who has no information whatsoever about aviation history, what are the odds of a plane crashing in flight according to him? Now give him all the information -- aviation history. What is now the odds of a plane crashing in flight according to him? Assuming of course that he is reasoning as logically as we would expect any honest human to.
So you see that probability is just the state of our mind about something based on evidence, and not a projection of the state of the world.
Anybody who fails to see this, is committing what is normally called the "The mind projection fallacy".
and I compiled it with -03 and -march=i686 using gcc 3.1.1-CVS on my Mandrake Cooker Using a buggy compiler on a buggy distribution to compile gnome, and then going on to rant about the result like this, I'll say he/she has an agenda here which I dare not mention.
The Tux is such a cute friendly creature/character, I would really like to see a Disney cartoon series based on that. Maybe something based on the theme "First they ignored us, then they laughed at us, then they fought us, then we won"
Re:There is nothing wrong with RPMs. Only packager
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
"In any field the Establishment is not seeking the truth because it is composed of those who having found part of it yesterday believe that they are in possession of all of it today. Progress requires the introduction not just of new mathematics which is always tolerated by the Establishment but new conceptual ideas which are necessarily different from those held by the Establishment for if the ideas of the Establishment were suffcient to lead to further progress that progress would have been made. Therefore to anyone who has new ideas of a currently unconventional kind I want to give this advice in the strongest possible terms Do not allow yourself to be discouraged or deflected from your course by negative criticisms particularly those that were invented for the sole purpose of discouraging you unless they exhibit some clear and specific error of reasoning or conflict with experiment. Unless they can do this your critics are almost certainly wrong but to reply by trying to show exactly where and why they are wrong would be wasted effort which would not convince your critics and would only keep you from the far more important constructive things that you might have accomplished in the same time. Let others deal with them. If you allow your enemies to direct your work then they have won after all. Although the arguments of your critics are almost certainly wrong they will retain just enough plausibility in the minds of some to maintain a place for them in the realm of controversy that is just a fact of life that you must accept as the price of doing creative work. Take comfort in the historical record which shows that no creative person has ever been able to escape this the more fundamental the new idea the more bitter the controversy it will stir up. Newton, Darwin, Boltzmann, Pasteur, Einstein, Wegener were all embroiled in this. Newton wrote in 1676 - "I see a man must either resolve to put out nothing new or become a slave to defend it". Throughout his lifetime Alfred Wegener received nothing but attacks on his ideas yet he was right and today those ideas are the foundation of geophysics. We revere the names of James Clerk Maxwell and J Willard Gibbs yet their work was never fully appreciated in their lifetimes and even today it is still, like that of Darwin under attack by persons who after a Century have not yet comprehended their message."
Grossly false! Statistical likelihood does not determine wether an event will occur or not. It only says how often it may be expected to happen based on previous knowledge of the world around us. A stragelet may hit a human once in a gazillion years but should that individual be contented (pun intended) that it is a very unlikely event anyway?
What if I work for another company at the same time as studying at the university. Who owns the idea then if it is not related to either?
What type of slavery do we have now. Brain Slavery? Can companies let alone Universities actually own the thoughts of their students and employees? What is the use of a University then? What is capitalism up to this time?
Main Entry:
rain a: Water or liquid Methane falling in drops condensed from from vapour or Methane in the atmosphere b: the descent of this water or liquid Methane c: wateror liquid Methane that has fallen as rain
I was just watching the TITANIC and now I'm wondering what icebergs on Titan are made of.
All this talk about languages that matter and no mention of FORTRAN. Maybe it's FORTRAN that needs a facelift; and given that there a lot of investment in FORTRAN code in the scientific community we could as well have Internet FORTRAN
---
Just for the record
Life has a way of taking care of things. If we all become IT gurus, no one would be available to do the other things we all need to survive. Then those jobs would have high salaries and people'll be forced to go to college to fill them. We can't cheat natural forces! If we don't care about the consequences of what we do, we'll not survive ( we may survive for a while but we'll just be fooling ourselves).
Slashdot Mirror
You buy the content of the DVD not the plastic its recorded on. It't not fair to the user to make them buy the content twice when the medium is destroyed.
Either provide free/very cheap ( like cost of medium) replacements for damaged Media or don't complain if customers make copies for safe keeping.
Since when did textures become video frames and vice-versa. I can't think of a scenario in which anybody would want to download *textures* from the GPU. If it would have been video frames, that would be another matter. If the benchmark actually measures *texture download* from the GPU then something is really wrong with this picture.
I think a lot has gone on behind the scenes before this lawsuit was filed. For example, I cannpt access this site. So definitely some ISPs have complied with the demands of the RIAA and those that are sued have been stuborn. I hope they stay stuborn and fight this insanity until 'one man stands'
Thats exactly my point. Probability comes close to reality only when we have complete information which is almost never the case. Now that you mentioned the die case. Can you be absolutely sure about the uniformity of the density of the material to say the die is not biased? If you *assume* that the die is unbiased then you still have a conditional probability distribution dependent on the premise that the die is unbiased.
I still maintain that probability is not a property of nature (like time, or mass, or energy) but a property of our state of knowlege about nature. If it is a property of nature, it should not depend on the amount of information we have about something. So Probability would not be useful for scientific data analysis in which we have to reason from incomplete information.
This is clearly not the case. If it were, we would have a "Probability Bibble" where we could just *look up* the probability of most events and it would be meaningless to be able to determine probabilities for phenomena which are not fully understood or for which we have only limited information.
Probability has nothing to do with the state of the world. It only has to do with the state of our knowledge about the world. If something has a probability of occuring of 0.5 a day or year ( that is an odds of 1) it means there is no evidence to support it either occuring or not occuring. Only evidence can sway the probability in one direction or another. This new evidence does not mean that the world has changed, it just means that we have learned more about the world so we have to adjust our beliefs about it.
... will ..."
I'm sick and tired of journalists making statements like:
- One in ten women will develop breast cancer,
and all the variations of "x in y
If you still think probability has anything to do with the state of the world at all then answer this:
Consider a person who has no information whatsoever about aviation history, what are the odds of a plane crashing in flight according to him?
Now give him all the information -- aviation history. What is now the odds of a plane crashing in flight according to him?
Assuming of course that he is reasoning as logically as we would expect any honest human to.
So you see that probability is just the state of our mind about something based on evidence, and not a projection of the state of the world.
Anybody who fails to see this, is committing what is normally called the "The mind projection fallacy".
Have you heard of automount or autofs before?
Have you actually tried it, troll!?
Here you go at it's displayed in under 0.5 secs.
and I compiled it with -03 and -march=i686 using gcc 3.1.1-CVS on my Mandrake Cooker
Using a buggy compiler on a buggy distribution to compile gnome, and then going on to rant about the result like this, I'll say he/she has an agenda here which I dare not mention.
The Tux is such a cute friendly creature/character, I would really like to see a Disney cartoon series based on that. Maybe something based on the theme "First they ignored us, then they laughed at us, then they fought us, then we won"
Amen to that.
Let me answer this by this quote:
"In any field the Establishment is not seeking the truth because it is composed of those
who having found part of it yesterday believe that they are in possession of all of it today.
Progress requires the introduction not just of new mathematics which is always tolerated
by the Establishment but new conceptual ideas which are necessarily different from those
held by the Establishment for if the ideas of the Establishment were suffcient to lead to
further progress that progress would have been made.
Therefore to anyone who has new ideas of a currently unconventional kind I want to
give this advice in the strongest possible terms Do not allow yourself to be discouraged
or deflected from your course by negative criticisms particularly those that were invented
for the sole purpose of discouraging you unless they exhibit some clear and specific error
of reasoning or conflict with experiment. Unless they can do this your critics are almost
certainly wrong but to reply by trying to show exactly where and why they are wrong
would be wasted effort which would not convince your critics and would only keep you
from the far more important constructive things that you might have accomplished in the
same time. Let others deal with them. If you allow your enemies to direct your work then
they have won after all.
Although the arguments of your critics are almost certainly wrong they will retain
just enough plausibility in the minds of some to maintain a place for them in the realm of
controversy that is just a fact of life that you must accept as the price of doing creative
work. Take comfort in the historical record which shows that no creative person has ever
been able to escape this the more fundamental the new idea the more bitter the controversy
it will stir up. Newton, Darwin, Boltzmann, Pasteur, Einstein, Wegener were all embroiled
in this. Newton wrote in 1676 - "I see a man must either resolve to put out nothing new
or become a slave to defend it". Throughout his lifetime Alfred Wegener received nothing
but attacks on his ideas yet he was right and today those ideas are the foundation of
geophysics. We revere the names of James Clerk Maxwell and J Willard Gibbs yet their
work was never fully appreciated in their lifetimes and even today it is still, like that of
Darwin under attack by persons who after a Century have not yet comprehended their
message."
-- Edwin T. Jaynes
Grossly false!
Statistical likelihood does not determine wether an event will occur or not. It only says how often it may be expected to happen based on previous knowledge of the world around us. A stragelet may hit a human once in a gazillion years but should that individual be contented (pun intended) that it is a very unlikely event anyway?
What if I work for another company at the same time as studying at the university. Who owns the idea then if it is not related to either?
What type of slavery do we have now. Brain Slavery? Can companies let alone Universities actually own the thoughts of their students and employees? What is the use of a University then? What is capitalism up to this time?
The first tip I got when KDE2 started said:
KDE does not contain any GNU software that is licensed by the Free Software Foundation.
I'm I the only one that thinks, they didn't have to say this??
--------
You can bite the finger that fed you if it finds its self in your mouth again.
Main Entry: rain
a: Water or liquid Methane falling in drops condensed from from vapour or Methane in the atmosphere b: the descent of this water or liquid Methane c: wateror liquid Methane that has fallen as rain
I was just watching the TITANIC and now I'm wondering what icebergs on Titan are made of.
All this talk about languages that matter and no mention of FORTRAN. Maybe it's FORTRAN that needs a facelift; and given that there a lot of investment in FORTRAN code in the scientific community we could as well have Internet FORTRAN --- Just for the record
Life has a way of taking care of things. If we all become IT gurus, no one would be available to do the other things we all need to survive. Then those jobs would have high salaries and people'll be forced to go to college to fill them. We can't cheat natural forces! If we don't care about the consequences of what we do, we'll not survive ( we may survive for a while but we'll just be fooling ourselves).