In a weird twisted way kinda reminds me of Police Quest adventure games. Except you can go and shoot anyone you want, and the game is a far bigger sandbox than Police Quest ever was.
Personally, I would love to see this merge between the sandbox nature of GTA and the adventure gaming style of PQ or KQ or any of the series. That would be way way way too fun. (IMHO)
Man that is the funniest thing ever... That would be great if they just kept on going.
(One time a friend of mine has his MSN linked to Eliza, and someone had a full length convo with it... further proving that the Turing test is more a test of the stupidity of users then the intelligence of the computer.:-P )
If there is anyone out there like me who was curious about what the pokemon that looks like Uri Geller was, here's a link to the pic of "kadabra" the character he claimed imitated him.
"Slashdot is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea, who are also their own judges--massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it, and are willing to pat eachother on the back for it when it does happen."
Saying that cable modems are 50% higher on average is meaningless if they are using a really bad measurement of average, or if the data is really skewed.
Whether you want it or not, stories (including the ones seen in movies) do convey some point of view, if not a message. When you read/view/hear them, it become part of your own reality (except maybe for the ones that you'll reject for whatever reason) that could be called culture.
Very true, but you have to realize that they will be exposed to these influences whether or not you want them to be. Children are exposed to sexuality, and violence, unless you lock them up in the house everynight and don't let them go to public school or meet friends outside the house. The thing that parents must do is not hide them from it, but rather try to put it in a context that is helpful and useful for their future use.
Trying to hide something from someone almost never works, and when it involved children it just gives them more initiative and desire to go out and learn more about it. (The rebel attitude of teenagers.) The important thing is not for the parents to put blinders on their children, but rather for parents to help their children understand what they are seeing, and guide them towards adopting these "parts of their own reality" in a useful and good way. (where useful and good is defined by the ethical morales of the parent.)
The funny thing is that it works in such a subtle way (if you're not aware of it) that having this kind of discussion in a Matrix thread seems quite appropriate.
Very true, and the funny thing about having a parent teach morales rather than hide their children is that it has a tremendously larger influence on their life in the long run.
Don't try to hide things from your children, and don't lie to your children because you think it will protect them. Be honest, straightforward, and guide them through these things which for better or worse are part of our world.
Firstly, the Poincare Conjecture states that every compact 3-dimensional manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere. So we're dealing with manifolds, not just any 3-dimensional figures. This means that every point of the figure is completely surrounded by a small region which looks like 3-space. In particular, any manifold is open. We also want our manifold to be compact (not just closed, inaccurate claims on Mathworld notwithstanding), which here means closed and bounded. Note further that closed does not imply bounded.
I do thank you for being more technical for the readers who want it. I was trying to be less technical (and therefore using as simple of terminology as I possibly could to make it easier for most of slashdot to understand.)
I am well aware that it must be a compact space.
Yes, I also know that closed does not imply bounded. Rather closed only means that all limit points exist within the space, while bounded is completely different. Again, I sacrificed accuracy for simplicity to try to make it easier for people not in university math to comprehend.
(a) A closed ball in 3-dimensions. This is what most laymen would consider a "sphere". It consists of all points in 3-space at a distance of less than or equal to 1 from the origin. It is simply connected, closed, bounded, but not open, hence not a manifold.
Correct, again, I was sacrificing accuracy for simplicity. In hindsight, it may have been better for me to specifically discuss this simpler version of this. Yet, hindsight is 20/20.
(b) 3-space itself. This is a closed manifold, but not bounded, hence not compact.
Naturally, because 3-space is infinite, yet contains all limit points.
Marvin seems to have misunderstood what a 3-sphere is. By "sphere", mathematicians generally mean the surface, not the inside. So a 3-sphere is the set of points in 4-space at a distance of exactly 1 from the origin. It is not the same thing as a closed 3-dimensional ball.
Again, I probably should've been more specific and dealt specifically with the simpler version of this problem, and just then given a minor technical transfer to this version.
Oh, and Smale and Freedman's proofs of the Poincare Conjectue in higher dimensions were not easy. In fact, they both won Fields Medals for their efforts.
True, but it is still interesting that this proof in this dimension is so incredibly difficult. Like a joke I heard once from a math professor:
"A professor was showing his students a problem related to complex analysis. He wrote a theorem on the board and said, 'I am not going to prove this, because this is trivial.'
One of his students put up their hand and said, 'Are you sure?'
The professor stopped, looked at the theorem, sat down at the desk in the classroom, wrote down 10 pages of proof, let the class go, went back to his office, worked for a week on the problem, and came to the class the following week with the proof.
'Yes, it is trivial.' The professor said."
I am not putting down Smale and Freedman's proofs. They are excellent pieces of mathematical work. I am just saying that in this dimension, the proof has been found to be so incredibly elusive, that it is fascinating to me. Even though, the other proofs were difficult and well thought out, this proof still hasn't been found. That alone makes this interesting to me.
I will apologize though for stating they were easy proofs. (A bad habit I have picked up regarding mathematics.)
But regarding my accuracy. Perhaps I should put a quick disclaimer before hand in the future and note that I purposefully remove the rigor and accuracy to these "dumbing down" of mathematics to make it easier to understand.
As well, I should probably proofread what I type in before hand as well. (I made some typos that read really wrong.) Yet, since this is slashdot, and not a peer-reviewed journal, I usually don't care and just post it hoping that more peo
basically all the poincare conjecture says is that if you have a 3 dimensional figure which is closed (therefore, it it bounded (doesn't go off to infinity in either direction), and doesn't have any "holes" in it (like a donut)) then you can take every point and map it to a point in an equivalent sphere without losing continuity (therefore, everypoint will have the same "neighbourhood" of points as it had in the initial shape.)
ie. You can map a cube into a sphere, or a dodecahedron, or a weird globlike thing that doesn't fold back on itself, or a whole piece of paper (without holes), or a pencil, or a lot of different figures.
As well, this conjecture also handles figures with holes in them (like donuts), and maps them all to simpler figures.
It's a very simple concept, but has been incredibly hard to prove, and what makes this conjecture even more frustrating is the fact that 1 and 2-dimensional forms of this conjecture were incredibly easy to prove, as well as 4 and up have been solved, and were reasonably easy as well. Yet for some reason the 3 dimensional version does not lend itself easily to a simple proof.
Everyone generally believes this is true, but no one has been able to prove or disprove it.
If proven, this is an important aspect of topology, because then we can map all n-dimensional figures to a simpler form (like a sphere) and know that the continuity and general structure of the figure will remain the same.
You are thinking of the Riemann hypothesis. This one is the Poincare conjecture. They are completely different aspects of they Clay Mathematics Institute "competition".
There was an article in 2600 about 4 issues ago that had complete details on this system I believe, and how to hack into it.
If I can remember which issue it was I'll post it here. If anyone else remembers, feel free to remind me. I remember though it basically showed how with no effort the system can be cracked.
** To avoid DMCA lawsuits, etc. I did not write this article or am involved with it's creation whatsoever. **
to delay the communications by the amount of time that the distance between the ship and earth would be simulated to be.
I know it would be frustrating as hell to the people on the outside to do that (when they know they don't have to.) But it could have significant effects psychologically to have the astronauts able to communicate with earth, but only incredibly slowly. If they had a mechanical problem that they needed to msg home for help on how to fix for example, they'd have to wait many minutes before they got the info.
As well, learning more about how to handle the delay will lead to more efficient, better written requests and reports since the "astronauts" wouldn't be able to chat in realtime with earth. It would be almost like a return to the days of communicating with the pony express.
A big mistake in the interpretation of many of the posters here is the fact that they are assuming that this code release is Open Source.
It is not.
It is Shared Source, which means that all of the licensing loopholes, etc that Microsoft used before still exist. They are just willing to give you the code as well as the binaries for the software that you sell.
They haven't gone anywhere near as far as GPLing their License. They just reduced the shared source cost from more than 0 to 0. Which allows companies to change their software and pay MS for the fact that they start with their software.
Actually, I was told that if you grind up all your money and mix it with some salt, anywhere you pour that, bad guys will stay away... Really, it'll keep all the bad guys away.
okay so, if it has nothing that was invented 20+ years ago.
no keyboards, mouse's, GUI's, parallel ports, serial ports, PS2 ports, computer speaker, floppy disk drives, modems, ethernet cards, UNIX (sorry linux buddies... I use linux so this would be devastating for me.), DOS or DOS legacy apps (therefore no Win9X, Win 3.1), UNIX legacy apps, internet (It was created before 20 years ago), tape drives, CRT computer monitors, IDE, SCSI, ISA, ADA, C,...
and probably more. (feel free to add to the list.)
Wow.. that would be a very impressive machine. I would love to see the interface for it.
I receive so much spam to one e-mail address that it effectively makes that address useless.
Yet, I have to spend everyday sifting through the spam to make sure that an important e-mail wasn't sent to that address.
I would love to have a place to e-mail these spams to that could handle it, at this point it should be considered legally harassment considering the fact that I have spent 30+ min a day going through it all.
As well, I receive what I can only call virus starters from one person all the time. Someone trying to mask their address sends me their new e-mail virus every few days. Too bad it's useless since I am using Linux.
The Baynesian filter on Mozilla helps a bit, but I still have to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
If anyone knows of a way to get back/stop them or a place I could send these e-mail and they can just automatically handle them. It would be appreciated. I used to use spamcop, but I just don't have the time to go through that web page for every single one, and there is no way I am going to pay for it considering it hasn't lessened the amount of spam I receive.
I am getting desperate to do something since I am received 100+ a day (yesterday I got 167 spams alone, and that's a Sunday.) Yet, I cannot do anything about it. If anyone can help in anyway, please let me know.
Re:what about disney stuff then...?
on
Review: Cowboy Bebop
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually, being an anime fan, and actually having read a good number of those "bad" reviews. I think there is an incredible bias here.
A majority of the reviewers who say that hte show is bad are right on the button why the movie isn't great. They don't even bring up the animation, other than to praise how well it is done. No, rather, most of them comment on the sheer episodicness of the movie, and the lack of what they considered a coherent plotline.
As well, I could understand a few of them being really confused because they don't really understand the "cowboy bebop" universe.
There was one reviewer who said it was "Just a Cartoon" and even then he was just pointing out that the plot, the storyline, etc. were just not that good. It's very similar to another review saying that a movie is "Just another movie", this Cowboy Bebop movie is "Just another cartoon". He's not attacking you, or your absolute love of anime, he's just saying that he wasn't thrilled, excited or stunned by this movie.
Accept that people don't like thing you do, and that they have perfectly legitimate reasons to. Not everyone who doesn't like the movie is 'against it', and I can say a majority of the ones who did say the movie was not that great had perfectly legitimate reasons to say so.
IANAL, but you know I think this'll be a very valid argument in the courtcase, because the RIAA is not only forced to show that he stole music, but since they are asking for the maximum amount for hte music he hs, they should have to prove that every song he owns is RIAA copywritten material. Which would be costly for them, as they'd have to give pages and pages and pages of documented proof.
But, I guess if they want to lose millions to prove a point.
Well, actually, if you sued a googolplex of money, they'd either be forced to write it in exponential notation, or use more atoms than exist in the entire universe to write all the zeros.
A googolplex is 10^(10^100)
which means it has 10^100 zeros after it.
There are less than 10^75 particles in the known universe. So, unfortunately that court document wouldn't be just ten pages of 0's, it would be bigger than anything constructable in the known universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about the hate crimes legislation?
IE. I cannot go and beat up a black or a native american just because they are black or native americans.
or are you talking about some other law?
In a weird twisted way kinda reminds me of Police Quest adventure games. Except you can go and shoot anyone you want, and the game is a far bigger sandbox than Police Quest ever was.
Personally, I would love to see this merge between the sandbox nature of GTA and the adventure gaming style of PQ or KQ or any of the series. That would be way way way too fun. (IMHO)
rotflmao!
:-P )
Man that is the funniest thing ever... That would be great if they just kept on going.
(One time a friend of mine has his MSN linked to Eliza, and someone had a full length convo with it... further proving that the Turing test is more a test of the stupidity of users then the intelligence of the computer.
Great stuff man!
If there is anyone out there like me who was curious about what the pokemon that looks like Uri Geller was, here's a link to the pic of "kadabra" the character he claimed imitated him.
"Slashdot is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea, who are also their own judges--massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it, and are willing to pat eachother on the back for it when it does happen."
-A.C. 2003
yep, we have pretty much the same thing in Canada.
I would've contacted a lawyer the minute they refused to let me return my software if I was them.
Saying that cable modems are 50% higher on average is meaningless if they are using a really bad measurement of average, or if the data is really skewed.
Does anyone know what average they are using?
Whether you want it or not, stories (including the ones seen in movies) do convey some point of view, if not a message. When you read/view/hear them, it become part of your own reality (except maybe for the ones that you'll reject for whatever reason) that could be called culture.
Very true, but you have to realize that they will be exposed to these influences whether or not you want them to be. Children are exposed to sexuality, and violence, unless you lock them up in the house everynight and don't let them go to public school or meet friends outside the house. The thing that parents must do is not hide them from it, but rather try to put it in a context that is helpful and useful for their future use.
Trying to hide something from someone almost never works, and when it involved children it just gives them more initiative and desire to go out and learn more about it. (The rebel attitude of teenagers.) The important thing is not for the parents to put blinders on their children, but rather for parents to help their children understand what they are seeing, and guide them towards adopting these "parts of their own reality" in a useful and good way. (where useful and good is defined by the ethical morales of the parent.)
The funny thing is that it works in such a subtle way (if you're not aware of it) that having this kind of discussion in a Matrix thread seems quite appropriate.
Very true, and the funny thing about having a parent teach morales rather than hide their children is that it has a tremendously larger influence on their life in the long run.
Don't try to hide things from your children, and don't lie to your children because you think it will protect them. Be honest, straightforward, and guide them through these things which for better or worse are part of our world.
This is IMHO of course.
Firstly, the Poincare Conjecture states that every compact 3-dimensional manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere. So we're dealing with manifolds, not just any 3-dimensional figures. This means that every point of the figure is completely surrounded by a small region which looks like 3-space. In particular, any manifold is open. We also want our manifold to be compact (not just closed, inaccurate claims on Mathworld notwithstanding), which here means closed and bounded. Note further that closed does not imply bounded.
I do thank you for being more technical for the readers who want it. I was trying to be less technical (and therefore using as simple of terminology as I possibly could to make it easier for most of slashdot to understand.)
I am well aware that it must be a compact space.
Yes, I also know that closed does not imply bounded. Rather closed only means that all limit points exist within the space, while bounded is completely different. Again, I sacrificed accuracy for simplicity to try to make it easier for people not in university math to comprehend.
(a) A closed ball in 3-dimensions. This is what most laymen would consider a "sphere". It consists of all points in 3-space at a distance of less than or equal to 1 from the origin. It is simply connected, closed, bounded, but not open, hence not a manifold.
Correct, again, I was sacrificing accuracy for simplicity. In hindsight, it may have been better for me to specifically discuss this simpler version of this. Yet, hindsight is 20/20.
(b) 3-space itself. This is a closed manifold, but not bounded, hence not compact.
Naturally, because 3-space is infinite, yet contains all limit points.
Marvin seems to have misunderstood what a 3-sphere is. By "sphere", mathematicians generally mean the surface, not the inside. So a 3-sphere is the set of points in 4-space at a distance of exactly 1 from the origin. It is not the same thing as a closed 3-dimensional ball.
Again, I probably should've been more specific and dealt specifically with the simpler version of this problem, and just then given a minor technical transfer to this version.
Oh, and Smale and Freedman's proofs of the Poincare Conjectue in higher dimensions were not easy. In fact, they both won Fields Medals for their efforts.
True, but it is still interesting that this proof in this dimension is so incredibly difficult. Like a joke I heard once from a math professor:
"A professor was showing his students a problem related to complex analysis. He wrote a theorem on the board and said, 'I am not going to prove this, because this is trivial.'
One of his students put up their hand and said, 'Are you sure?'
The professor stopped, looked at the theorem, sat down at the desk in the classroom, wrote down 10 pages of proof, let the class go, went back to his office, worked for a week on the problem, and came to the class the following week with the proof.
'Yes, it is trivial.' The professor said."
I am not putting down Smale and Freedman's proofs. They are excellent pieces of mathematical work. I am just saying that in this dimension, the proof has been found to be so incredibly elusive, that it is fascinating to me. Even though, the other proofs were difficult and well thought out, this proof still hasn't been found. That alone makes this interesting to me.
I will apologize though for stating they were easy proofs. (A bad habit I have picked up regarding mathematics.)
But regarding my accuracy. Perhaps I should put a quick disclaimer before hand in the future and note that I purposefully remove the rigor and accuracy to these "dumbing down" of mathematics to make it easier to understand.
As well, I should probably proofread what I type in before hand as well. (I made some typos that read really wrong.) Yet, since this is slashdot, and not a peer-reviewed journal, I usually don't care and just post it hoping that more peo
translation to make it easier.
basically all the poincare conjecture says is that if you have a 3 dimensional figure which is closed (therefore, it it bounded (doesn't go off to infinity in either direction), and doesn't have any "holes" in it (like a donut)) then you can take every point and map it to a point in an equivalent sphere without losing continuity (therefore, everypoint will have the same "neighbourhood" of points as it had in the initial shape.)
ie. You can map a cube into a sphere, or a dodecahedron, or a weird globlike thing that doesn't fold back on itself, or a whole piece of paper (without holes), or a pencil, or a lot of different figures.
As well, this conjecture also handles figures with holes in them (like donuts), and maps them all to simpler figures.
It's a very simple concept, but has been incredibly hard to prove, and what makes this conjecture even more frustrating is the fact that 1 and 2-dimensional forms of this conjecture were incredibly easy to prove, as well as 4 and up have been solved, and were reasonably easy as well. Yet for some reason the 3 dimensional version does not lend itself easily to a simple proof.
Everyone generally believes this is true, but no one has been able to prove or disprove it.
If proven, this is an important aspect of topology, because then we can map all n-dimensional figures to a simpler form (like a sphere) and know that the continuity and general structure of the figure will remain the same.
You are thinking of the Riemann hypothesis. This one is the Poincare conjecture. They are completely different aspects of they Clay Mathematics Institute "competition".
They need the computer playing the Mp3 song "Tiny Bubbles."
*singing* Bubbles... Tiny Bubbles... make me happy...
There was an article in 2600 about 4 issues ago that had complete details on this system I believe, and how to hack into it.
If I can remember which issue it was I'll post it here. If anyone else remembers, feel free to remind me. I remember though it basically showed how with no effort the system can be cracked.
** To avoid DMCA lawsuits, etc. I did not write this article or am involved with it's creation whatsoever. **
No need to be offensive.
Since I RTFA, I know that they didn't mention communication delays very much.
I actually was just thinking that it would be an interesting aspect to study. Especially from the Psychological and Sociological aspects.
As well, it would just be interesting, since modern people are very used to quick communication.
to delay the communications by the amount of time that the distance between the ship and earth would be simulated to be.
I know it would be frustrating as hell to the people on the outside to do that (when they know they don't have to.) But it could have significant effects psychologically to have the astronauts able to communicate with earth, but only incredibly slowly. If they had a mechanical problem that they needed to msg home for help on how to fix for example, they'd have to wait many minutes before they got the info.
As well, learning more about how to handle the delay will lead to more efficient, better written requests and reports since the "astronauts" wouldn't be able to chat in realtime with earth. It would be almost like a return to the days of communicating with the pony express.
If the Universal execs gain the upper hand in the merger/takeover:
Rip... Mix... Burn... Sue...
If Apple execs gain the upper hand in the merger/takeover:
Buy... Rip... Mix... Burn...
A big mistake in the interpretation of many of the posters here is the fact that they are assuming that this code release is Open Source.
It is not.
It is Shared Source, which means that all of the licensing loopholes, etc that Microsoft used before still exist. They are just willing to give you the code as well as the binaries for the software that you sell.
They haven't gone anywhere near as far as GPLing their License. They just reduced the shared source cost from more than 0 to 0. Which allows companies to change their software and pay MS for the fact that they start with their software.
Actually, I was told that if you grind up all your money and mix it with some salt, anywhere you pour that, bad guys will stay away... Really, it'll keep all the bad guys away.
Defence Budgets
okay so, if it has nothing that was invented 20+ years ago.
...
no keyboards, mouse's, GUI's, parallel ports, serial ports, PS2 ports, computer speaker, floppy disk drives, modems, ethernet cards, UNIX (sorry linux buddies... I use linux so this would be devastating for me.), DOS or DOS legacy apps (therefore no Win9X, Win 3.1), UNIX legacy apps, internet (It was created before 20 years ago), tape drives, CRT computer monitors, IDE, SCSI, ISA, ADA, C,
and probably more. (feel free to add to the list.)
Wow.. that would be a very impressive machine. I would love to see the interface for it.
I receive so much spam to one e-mail address that it effectively makes that address useless.
Yet, I have to spend everyday sifting through the spam to make sure that an important e-mail wasn't sent to that address.
I would love to have a place to e-mail these spams to that could handle it, at this point it should be considered legally harassment considering the fact that I have spent 30+ min a day going through it all.
As well, I receive what I can only call virus starters from one person all the time. Someone trying to mask their address sends me their new e-mail virus every few days. Too bad it's useless since I am using Linux.
The Baynesian filter on Mozilla helps a bit, but I still have to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
If anyone knows of a way to get back/stop them or a place I could send these e-mail and they can just automatically handle them. It would be appreciated. I used to use spamcop, but I just don't have the time to go through that web page for every single one, and there is no way I am going to pay for it considering it hasn't lessened the amount of spam I receive.
I am getting desperate to do something since I am received 100+ a day (yesterday I got 167 spams alone, and that's a Sunday.) Yet, I cannot do anything about it. If anyone can help in anyway, please let me know.
Actually, being an anime fan, and actually having read a good number of those "bad" reviews. I think there is an incredible bias here.
A majority of the reviewers who say that hte show is bad are right on the button why the movie isn't great. They don't even bring up the animation, other than to praise how well it is done. No, rather, most of them comment on the sheer episodicness of the movie, and the lack of what they considered a coherent plotline.
As well, I could understand a few of them being really confused because they don't really understand the "cowboy bebop" universe.
There was one reviewer who said it was "Just a Cartoon" and even then he was just pointing out that the plot, the storyline, etc. were just not that good. It's very similar to another review saying that a movie is "Just another movie", this Cowboy Bebop movie is "Just another cartoon". He's not attacking you, or your absolute love of anime, he's just saying that he wasn't thrilled, excited or stunned by this movie.
Accept that people don't like thing you do, and that they have perfectly legitimate reasons to. Not everyone who doesn't like the movie is 'against it', and I can say a majority of the ones who did say the movie was not that great had perfectly legitimate reasons to say so.
IANAL, but you know I think this'll be a very valid argument in the courtcase, because the RIAA is not only forced to show that he stole music, but since they are asking for the maximum amount for hte music he hs, they should have to prove that every song he owns is RIAA copywritten material. Which would be costly for them, as they'd have to give pages and pages and pages of documented proof.
But, I guess if they want to lose millions to prove a point.
Well, actually, if you sued a googolplex of money, they'd either be forced to write it in exponential notation, or use more atoms than exist in the entire universe to write all the zeros.
A googolplex is
10^(10^100)
which means it has 10^100 zeros after it.
There are less than 10^75 particles in the known universe. So, unfortunately that court document wouldn't be just ten pages of 0's, it would be bigger than anything constructable in the known universe.
On the other hand. if you sued a googol.
10^100.
That's writeable on about 10 pages.
Just some thoughts from a geeky mathie. ^_^
Riiiiiighhhht.... Am I on Candid Camera? No really, why do you want me to do all these weird things?
French fries is entirely appropriate, when you consider the fact that the cooking term "French" means to cut into thin long strips.
So Frenched Fries, or French fries are exactly what they are called.
They have nothing to do with French people whatsoever. So, yes, it is jingoism.