Because, you don't understand how _true_ market works. It can be actually proven that for any finite number of companies, the price in equilibrium is the same as monopolistic price. So called "free market" is only a case where there is an infinite number of companies, which is of course never true in the real world. This can also be confirmed by empirical data and experimental results.
If you want references, look up Steve Keen (author of Debunking Economics) and his theory of firm.
I don't understand why threads are useful, except if you have multiple processors (and then, I don't see why you would need more threads than how many processors you have). OK, maybe for GUI, it is useful if the work of the program and the GUI are handled by separate threads. It always seemed to me that, on single processor, it is easier and faster to do the work required in sequential fashion than to use multiple threads (for online applications, you would split the work into time-bounded atomic operations, so one long transaction won't block the others from finishing).
I would argue, by analogy, that it should be done, ie. the computer participating in a botnet should be patched.
Consider this example: You find that someone robbed your neighbor's apartment (who is on vacation), and left the door opened and broken. Should you fix the neighbor's door, or leave them open for anyone to enter?
The correct answer is: You should fix the door, but with the permission of the police. Therefore, I think, the computers should be patched, but with the approval of legal enforcement (if it's in the your country, patching computer in other country should be supervised by their legal enforcement).
The hard part in mathematics are not theorems and proofs; the hard part are elegant (or useful) theorems and proofs. You can generate as many theorems and proofs you want using automated computer (they are, after, recursively enumerable). But then you won't recognize the really interesting ones.
The point is, the really interesting theorems (and proofs) require good definitions. And the definitions are invented. Consider for example the progress that was made by replacing Riemann's integral by Lebesgue's integral (which is just a different definition of the same concept), or using distributions instead of real functions (again, different definition of similar concept). There are also many examples where good definition simplified existing proof considerably. And don't me even let to start on algorithms... Thus the main progress in mathematics is done by good definitions more than anything else.
So mathematics, as a usable science (as opposed just to a bunch of tautologies valid within a given axiomatics), is invented, not discovered.
P.S. When I realized this I also realized that the school of formalism in mathematics is missing the most interesting part.
We have hunger, diseases, war... and all these people want to do is to get everybody to stop eating animals. Exactly! I applaud them for that. I like meat very much myself, but do you realize how much more energy is needed to produce meat than to produce grain and vegetables? Synthetic meat is a perfect solution. It can be much more ecological. So while their motives may be strange, it's very good thing to do and it actually can reduce hunger and war.
Exactly! I came to the similar conclusion (but theoretically, without computing the probabilities), when a friend, also a student of mathematics, came to me with similar idea. We then checked the bookmakers' odds and they all have this property (inverses add up to more than 1). There is nothing more to add to your post really, except maybe that bookmakers can also add any amount of uncertainty (coming from the statistical model of the data) into their odds (by making it more than one by higher or lesser margin), so they are completely immune to any loss.
It's sad that most people don't realize that bookmarking is like roulette - you will lose on average no matter how good (statistical) information about the winner you have.
Depends on your objective. Generally, arms races preserve the status quo, which, in this instance, is exactly what they're trying to do. The question is, what is the status quo? Is it the filtered or the unfiltered internet?
Not exactly embedded recommendation, but I have recently purchased Xilinx Spartan starter kit - FPGA board (150$). I wanted to learn some VHDL, and so far I am happy with it (although the learning curve is pretty steep, if you have never done anything hardware related, but can be done if you are determined enough I think). You even get a small processor core (Picoblaze) with it for free. You can also download the Webpack ISE (the synthesis tool for their FPGA) for free from Xilinx and try it out (although it's a bit useless without the board). It is as close to actual hardware as you can get without soldering. For me it was more fun to program VHDL than just plain assembly.
I am Czech and in fact, in the Czech republic, the situation is quite similar to Denmark (and the rest of EU). Many films are sponsored by government or public Czech TV (even the very commercially successful ones), and we also have blank media tax.
I think you underestimate the Chinese. They have literally millions of smart people. And reverse engineering software is much easier than reverse engineering hardware. Just FYI - I from Czech Republic, and currently work as a developer for one American company, and people here in the development center are just smart as Americans are. Chinese will catch up in software in 5-10 years, if that haven't already happened (it may not be so visible, because they ignore English and work in Chinese - which has much larger potential user base).
I admit, I have downloaded many albums I haven't bought, some of which I enjoy, some of which I did not. In the round about way, I end up buying more albums because of my downloading, but thats just rationalizing what I know is really going on, I'm stealing in a convenient way. I don't take a moral high ground, but I also don't lie to myself, and I'm not naive enough to think that an entire industry can exist if no one actually ponied up the cash. You have chosen your morals wrong, IMHO. I'll give you an analogy - if you come to a shop and they give you a taste of some food for free, or give you a free package of food, do you consider it immoral to take it? I don't think so. So why you consider it immoral to download a CD just to check it out, if you say you buy it if you really like it?
The problem is, we don't know which one the last email will be. Of course, one of them will be last, but since we don't know that in advance, that would mean writing another email which would sum up the results of discussion.
This is not true. While you can deduce a linear ordering from the ratings, you lose important information, which may be used when you aggregate the voting data. So it may happen than two sets of votes will give exactly same orderings, but different results when computed under rated voting. So you cannot convert the vote counting process to purely ordering one, and the Arrow's theorem assumption cannot be satisfied.
I don't believe we are in simulation. Simulations are often simplified to be able to get to interesting results quickly and to save money (resources). If *they* would design our universe for scientific purposes, they would made it much smaller for such simple physical laws. If the design would be for entertainment purposes, they would fake it in certain points, which would appear to us as inconsistent physical laws. But the laws of physics are consistent and the universe is vast, so they are either very irrational, or we are not in simulation. Just look at any simulation we do, either for science or entertainment, and you will see it's very different from our universe in the above sense.
We don't need to filter stupidity. That's easy. Both Slashdot and Wikipedia systems (albeit very different ones) do it very well. We need to filter misinformation, omissions, lies and logical fallacies instead. That's the hard part; because these often appear quite logical.
Apart from subway, we also have tram and bus lines, which cover every other areas. Sure the population density is bigger than in american suburbs, but my point is, it's american choice to live in the suburbs. You have to pay for that privilige in the higher costs of the infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, you don't understand how _true_ market works. It can be actually proven that for any finite number of companies, the price in equilibrium is the same as monopolistic price. So called "free market" is only a case where there is an infinite number of companies, which is of course never true in the real world. This can also be confirmed by empirical data and experimental results.
If you want references, look up Steve Keen (author of Debunking Economics) and his theory of firm.
..with a powerful EM blast!!!
I don't understand why threads are useful, except if you have multiple processors (and then, I don't see why you would need more threads than how many processors you have). OK, maybe for GUI, it is useful if the work of the program and the GUI are handled by separate threads. It always seemed to me that, on single processor, it is easier and faster to do the work required in sequential fashion than to use multiple threads (for online applications, you would split the work into time-bounded atomic operations, so one long transaction won't block the others from finishing).
Won't work. They don't infringe any patent on democracy, as far as I know. Maybe if you patented fascism, that could work..
I would argue, by analogy, that it should be done, ie. the computer participating in a botnet should be patched.
Consider this example: You find that someone robbed your neighbor's apartment (who is on vacation), and left the door opened and broken. Should you fix the neighbor's door, or leave them open for anyone to enter?
The correct answer is: You should fix the door, but with the permission of the police. Therefore, I think, the computers should be patched, but with the approval of legal enforcement (if it's in the your country, patching computer in other country should be supervised by their legal enforcement).
The hard part in mathematics are not theorems and proofs; the hard part are elegant (or useful) theorems and proofs. You can generate as many theorems and proofs you want using automated computer (they are, after, recursively enumerable). But then you won't recognize the really interesting ones.
The point is, the really interesting theorems (and proofs) require good definitions. And the definitions are invented. Consider for example the progress that was made by replacing Riemann's integral by Lebesgue's integral (which is just a different definition of the same concept), or using distributions instead of real functions (again, different definition of similar concept). There are also many examples where good definition simplified existing proof considerably. And don't me even let to start on algorithms... Thus the main progress in mathematics is done by good definitions more than anything else.
So mathematics, as a usable science (as opposed just to a bunch of tautologies valid within a given axiomatics), is invented, not discovered.
P.S. When I realized this I also realized that the school of formalism in mathematics is missing the most interesting part.
Exactly! I came to the similar conclusion (but theoretically, without computing the probabilities), when a friend, also a student of mathematics, came to me with similar idea. We then checked the bookmakers' odds and they all have this property (inverses add up to more than 1). There is nothing more to add to your post really, except maybe that bookmakers can also add any amount of uncertainty (coming from the statistical model of the data) into their odds (by making it more than one by higher or lesser margin), so they are completely immune to any loss.
It's sad that most people don't realize that bookmarking is like roulette - you will lose on average no matter how good (statistical) information about the winner you have.
So either post a link or shut up. Just talking about "bias" doesn't help at all.
And the point? Did you find it funny?
Not exactly embedded recommendation, but I have recently purchased Xilinx Spartan starter kit - FPGA board (150$). I wanted to learn some VHDL, and so far I am happy with it (although the learning curve is pretty steep, if you have never done anything hardware related, but can be done if you are determined enough I think). You even get a small processor core (Picoblaze) with it for free. You can also download the Webpack ISE (the synthesis tool for their FPGA) for free from Xilinx and try it out (although it's a bit useless without the board). It is as close to actual hardware as you can get without soldering. For me it was more fun to program VHDL than just plain assembly.
I am Czech and in fact, in the Czech republic, the situation is quite similar to Denmark (and the rest of EU). Many films are sponsored by government or public Czech TV (even the very commercially successful ones), and we also have blank media tax.
I think you underestimate the Chinese. They have literally millions of smart people. And reverse engineering software is much easier than reverse engineering hardware. Just FYI - I from Czech Republic, and currently work as a developer for one American company, and people here in the development center are just smart as Americans are. Chinese will catch up in software in 5-10 years, if that haven't already happened (it may not be so visible, because they ignore English and work in Chinese - which has much larger potential user base).
It's offtopic, but does anyone know what happened with Swiss version of DMCA? Was it voted down by people or not?
The problem is, we don't know which one the last email will be. Of course, one of them will be last, but since we don't know that in advance, that would mean writing another email which would sum up the results of discussion.
Maybe you should dynamically link them with a "standard library" child.
This is not true. While you can deduce a linear ordering from the ratings, you lose important information, which may be used when you aggregate the voting data. So it may happen than two sets of votes will give exactly same orderings, but different results when computed under rated voting. So you cannot convert the vote counting process to purely ordering one, and the Arrow's theorem assumption cannot be satisfied.
I don't believe we are in simulation. Simulations are often simplified to be able to get to interesting results quickly and to save money (resources). If *they* would design our universe for scientific purposes, they would made it much smaller for such simple physical laws. If the design would be for entertainment purposes, they would fake it in certain points, which would appear to us as inconsistent physical laws. But the laws of physics are consistent and the universe is vast, so they are either very irrational, or we are not in simulation. Just look at any simulation we do, either for science or entertainment, and you will see it's very different from our universe in the above sense.
Commercial firms tend to use older technologies; in open source, the situation is different. In average Linux distribution for example, there is probably more Python code than Perl code. Also, these two links may be helpful:
http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/perl.do
http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/python.do
Genus Gibbon, species Gutsy Gibbon.
We don't need to filter stupidity. That's easy. Both Slashdot and Wikipedia systems (albeit very different ones) do it very well. We need to filter misinformation, omissions, lies and logical fallacies instead. That's the hard part; because these often appear quite logical.
You are rolling back your living standard yourselves - by living so spread-out. Everything has its cost.
Apart from subway, we also have tram and bus lines, which cover every other areas. Sure the population density is bigger than in american suburbs, but my point is, it's american choice to live in the suburbs. You have to pay for that privilige in the higher costs of the infrastructure.