yeah, make fun of him, i'm sure he's sitting in front of his computer right now reading slashdot... oh, wait - even al gore has better things to do than you or i...
i'm pretty sure one of them was (update.microsoft.com?) in the first wave of code red. i seem to recall that at least of of a load balanced server group was compromised there.
i think it's FreeBSD, which came with hotmail when they acquired the company that developed it. I've only heard this, and cannot confirm it in the least.
i've heard adobe is a german company. how does that fit into your argument? the us government, for better or worse, is handing out patents indiscriminantly. that means without regard to the origin of the company/individual applying. more US companies may be applying, but that's a completely different situation. anyway, IANAPC (patent clerk) - and i'm not european, so this doesn't matter to me. being in the US, the IP situation couldn't be much worse than it is right now.
chess is fundamentally computable, and although no computers are powerful enough to fully compute the value of the game of chess (proven to exist, although not known), a program which could do so would easy to implement.
okay, i can see how you're misunderstanding the problem. but from a game theoretical perspective, the analysis of both chess and poker are very similar.
the element of probability really does not change the nature of the problem very much. i suspect you have a bias against chess or for poker. that's fine, i certainly have a bias against poker (how do you call it a game of skill if you can lose to an untrained monkey while playing an optimal game? and that's really the only consequence of adding an element of chance into a game...)
anyway, if you want to talk about game theory, i suggest you check out 'fun and games' by binmore. it's a mid level undergrad - low level grad textbook, and pretty instructive (if a bit flippant).
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
i would assume from the common name of 'freedom of association', you are infering that your first amendment rights would be violated by being forced to license your work for fair market value.
however, looking at the text, you can see that you would have to interpret the wording pretty loosely to arrive at that conclusion. it merely prohibits Congress from making a law restricting your free association.
i'm sympathetic to you, but playing a little of devils' advocate.
i devise a vaccine that inexpensively and permanently inocculates against the HIV virus.
however, i am a god's wrath homophobe, and feel that by releasing this vaccine to the world, i would be acting counter to the scripture
This argument obviously wasn't destroyed 50 years ago, you found a point of view that you espoused that happens to be 50 years old. i disagree with you, and I'm sure there are quite a few people out there that are on my side. there are situations in which I believe individual rights are second to community rights. but then again, i'm not a libertarian.
that doesn't make me an idiot. and i would suggest you do some thinking as to what rand would think of IP as commodity. in my mind, an artist not selling his rights is different from the RIAA buying his rights and then refusing to resell them...
An Omega is computably enumerable because a systematic run of all programs will produce better and better approximations (without being able to compute its digits exactly), and random because it is incompressible [...]
i know there's a lot more to omega, which i have no theoretical background in. if you have this background, feel free to illuminate me (i'm serious. i study math, and have some background in advanced logic and computational theory). however, i've found many people w/o the said background latch onto the omega number concept without having more than a rudimentary understanding of the underlying theory, because it sounds cool to them. like chaos. hence my skepticism.
the government's going ahead with the prosecution, not adobe. write you congressman, senators, and bush. vote for the appropriate people in the next election.
hell, boycott adobe for all i care. it won't kill the DMCA or free sklyaov, or help anyone at all for that matter.
i oppose and will always oppose just about anything that begins with "we need to send a message to..."
almost invariably, it involves disproportionately punishing an individual to affect a change on a group. it is wrong in the case of the government's prosecution of Sklyarov, and it is wrong in continuing the boycott of Adobe. As hard as it is (and it's always hard to be taken advantage of on a matter of principle) to let up on Adobe, it would be hypocrisy not to.
I think the fact the corporations will greedily do whatever they can to their own advantage is a given
although it's somewhat counter-sentiment here, I think it is the government's job to protect people (and other corportations) from corporations which are doing damage to the social web, and to limit what they can do in order to prevent this damage from occuring.
I feel it's the really the fault of the government here for passing the DMCA. This is clearly a faulty law, and allows far too much abuse by copyright owners. Adobe is guilty of using the law to its full advantage (which disgusts me), but 99% of corporations wouldn't hesitate to do the exact same thing if they stood to benefit from it.
i just hope people will attack the root of the problem (aside from human greed) which is the DMCA. Adobe (or anyone else) cannot call on the government to enforce a non-existent law. and we still have the right to choose our representatives here in the US...
Show them that they will be punished by consumers with consciences for abusing their corporate power. Also, show them that good behavior is advantageous, and that you would buy their products if they conducted their business properly. unfortunately, I think there will be ample opportunity to fight this type of abusive behavior
Continuing effors against Adobe is only vindictive. It will only take away resources from getting Sklyarov out of prison, and reforming (killing) the DCMA. don't forget your priorities.
A number of posters have made the insipid insight that pi is not random.
It only appears in the wording of the original/. poster - the article itself takes pains to qualify their use of the word random:
"Numbers like pi are also thought to be "normal," which means that their digits are random in a certain statistical sense."
Thus, the authors of the article are well aware that a. that the digits of pi are not literally random - it has a constant value, and the individual digits of its infinite expansion will always be the same, and b. that pi is not random in the information theoretical sense, in that a program which gives you the next digit in pi does not need to be any longer than any of the multitude of algorithms for calculating pi (see liebnitz, ramanujan).
In fact, Bailey (the mathematician focused on in the article), does not even mention the word random. he is too busy trying to describe his work in which he is linking the BBP algorithm with a chaotic dynamics conjecture called "hypothesis a" which describes certain sequences (including those generated by the BBP algorithm).
random is just a convenient, if innacurate, way of saying that the probability of a given n-digit sequence appearing in pi (in base b) converges to 1/(b^n) the further out you look in the base-b expansion of pi.
stop saying how 'the digits of PI are not in fact random'. it's beating a dead horse, irrelevant, and worse than the constant drone of people correcting CmdrTaco's typos...
Slashdot Mirror
all good
i believe you're right about columbia, too.(probably a graduate course in 'sensible and moderate living').
yeah, make fun of him, i'm sure he's sitting in front of his computer right now reading slashdot... oh, wait - even al gore has better things to do than you or i...
name the subject you want help in. i will try to name some decent references. give examples, too, maybe.
horseshit.
that is a truly poor interpretation of goedel's theorem.
i'm pretty sure one of them was (update.microsoft.com?) in the first wave of code red. i seem to recall that at least of of a load balanced server group was compromised there.
i think it's FreeBSD, which came with hotmail when they acquired the company that developed it. I've only heard this, and cannot confirm it in the least.
i've heard adobe is a german company. how does that fit into your argument? the us government, for better or worse, is handing out patents indiscriminantly. that means without regard to the origin of the company/individual applying. more US companies may be applying, but that's a completely different situation. anyway, IANAPC (patent clerk) - and i'm not european, so this doesn't matter to me. being in the US, the IP situation couldn't be much worse than it is right now.
your argument is seriously, seriously lacking.
chess is fundamentally computable, and although no computers are powerful enough to fully compute the value of the game of chess (proven to exist, although not known), a program which could do so would easy to implement.
okay, i can see how you're misunderstanding the problem. but from a game theoretical perspective, the analysis of both chess and poker are very similar.
the element of probability really does not change the nature of the problem very much. i suspect you have a bias against chess or for poker. that's fine, i certainly have a bias against poker (how do you call it a game of skill if you can lose to an untrained monkey while playing an optimal game? and that's really the only consequence of adding an element of chance into a game...)
anyway, if you want to talk about game theory, i suggest you check out 'fun and games' by binmore. it's a mid level undergrad - low level grad textbook, and pretty instructive (if a bit flippant).
yeah, i think you're missing the point entirely. try the term 'altruism' at dictionary.com...
i'd normally be the one complaining about poorly worded and misrepresented math articles, but you did pretty well on that one.
much appreciated.
only if you're looking at it at work. then you lose all of your unsaved work when you cycle your computer...
that was your original question, though... did i miss something?
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
i would assume from the common name of 'freedom of association', you are infering that your first amendment rights would be violated by being forced to license your work for fair market value.
however, looking at the text, you can see that you would have to interpret the wording pretty loosely to arrive at that conclusion. it merely prohibits Congress from making a law restricting your free association.
i'm sympathetic to you, but playing a little of devils' advocate.
i remember something about the offspring and (maybe) the beastie boys releasing some material (before album debuts) online.
how about this:
i devise a vaccine that inexpensively and permanently inocculates against the HIV virus.
however, i am a god's wrath homophobe, and feel that by releasing this vaccine to the world, i would be acting counter to the scripture
This argument obviously wasn't destroyed 50 years ago, you found a point of view that you espoused that happens to be 50 years old. i disagree with you, and I'm sure there are quite a few people out there that are on my side. there are situations in which I believe individual rights are second to community rights. but then again, i'm not a libertarian.
that doesn't make me an idiot. and i would suggest you do some thinking as to what rand would think of IP as commodity. in my mind, an artist not selling his rights is different from the RIAA buying his rights and then refusing to resell them...
this not relevant to the story at hand in any form or fashion...
but i thought i'd just let you know that the official acronym for the Supreme Court is "SCOTUS" (supreme court of the US).
not that i'm an acronym fascist, but SCOTUS sounds cooler (and for some strange reason, dirtier) than USSC.
same article (which i have read, thank you):
An Omega is computably enumerable because a systematic run of all programs will produce better and better approximations (without being able to compute its digits exactly), and random because it is incompressible [...]
i know there's a lot more to omega, which i have no theoretical background in. if you have this background, feel free to illuminate me (i'm serious. i study math, and have some background in advanced logic and computational theory). however, i've found many people w/o the said background latch onto the omega number concept without having more than a rudimentary understanding of the underlying theory, because it sounds cool to them. like chaos. hence my skepticism.
the government's going ahead with the prosecution, not adobe. write you congressman, senators, and bush. vote for the appropriate people in the next election.
hell, boycott adobe for all i care. it won't kill the DMCA or free sklyaov, or help anyone at all for that matter.
i oppose and will always oppose just about anything that begins with "we need to send a message to..."
almost invariably, it involves disproportionately punishing an individual to affect a change on a group. it is wrong in the case of the government's prosecution of Sklyarov, and it is wrong in continuing the boycott of Adobe. As hard as it is (and it's always hard to be taken advantage of on a matter of principle) to let up on Adobe, it would be hypocrisy not to.
dude, i am just chagrined about how badly i misread your originally post.
i will write "didn't != did" 100 times on my white board in reparation.
what the hell are you talking about?
do you suggest a base-PI number system? because PI will have an infinite, normal expansion in any other base...
I think the fact the corporations will greedily do whatever they can to their own advantage is a given
although it's somewhat counter-sentiment here, I think it is the government's job to protect people (and other corportations) from corporations which are doing damage to the social web, and to limit what they can do in order to prevent this damage from occuring.
I feel it's the really the fault of the government here for passing the DMCA. This is clearly a faulty law, and allows far too much abuse by copyright owners. Adobe is guilty of using the law to its full advantage (which disgusts me), but 99% of corporations wouldn't hesitate to do the exact same thing if they stood to benefit from it.
i just hope people will attack the root of the problem (aside from human greed) which is the DMCA. Adobe (or anyone else) cannot call on the government to enforce a non-existent law. and we still have the right to choose our representatives here in the US...
why in the world would you want to do that?
Show them that they will be punished by consumers with consciences for abusing their corporate power. Also, show them that good behavior is advantageous, and that you would buy their products if they conducted their business properly. unfortunately, I think there will be ample opportunity to fight this type of abusive behavior
Continuing effors against Adobe is only vindictive. It will only take away resources from getting Sklyarov out of prison, and reforming (killing) the DCMA. don't forget your priorities.
A number of posters have made the insipid insight that pi is not random.
/. poster - the article itself takes pains to qualify their use of the word random:
It only appears in the wording of the original
"Numbers like pi are also thought to be "normal," which means that their digits are random in a certain statistical sense."
Thus, the authors of the article are well aware that a. that the digits of pi are not literally random - it has a constant value, and the individual digits of its infinite expansion will always be the same, and b. that pi is not random in the information theoretical sense, in that a program which gives you the next digit in pi does not need to be any longer than any of the multitude of algorithms for calculating pi (see liebnitz, ramanujan).
In fact, Bailey (the mathematician focused on in the article), does not even mention the word random. he is too busy trying to describe his work in which he is linking the BBP algorithm with a chaotic dynamics conjecture called "hypothesis a" which describes certain sequences (including those generated by the BBP algorithm).
random is just a convenient, if innacurate, way of saying that the probability of a given n-digit sequence appearing in pi (in base b) converges to 1/(b^n) the further out you look in the base-b expansion of pi.
stop saying how 'the digits of PI are not in fact random'. it's beating a dead horse, irrelevant, and worse than the constant drone of people correcting CmdrTaco's typos...