My favorite incarnation of that joke has the mathematician saying "THERE IS A SOLUTION!"
Try: "A solution exists." For the punchline to work best, use the math lingo as it would be used in a real proof. Also, since he was a theoretical mathematician, he didn't do "a lot of complicated math", he "looked at the fire, looked at the bucket of water [*1], concluded that 'a solution exists', and went back to sleep".
It's amazing to me that it's possible to know that there is a solution, but not know what it is. Kudos, math people:)
Heh -- when you put it that way, it does seem kinda weird, but it's really not that hard to explain how it works: the key is that the task of figuring out whether or not a solution exists for one problem can itself be taken as an entirely different problem, so if you just solve that one instead of the original one, there you are. And those "meta-problems" tend to be both much easier in terms of actual computation required and much more "interesting" [*2] in terms of conceptual effort required, which is why mathematicians prefer to focus on them. And yes, it works recursively (figuring out whether or not it's possible to determine whether or not a solution exists for a particular problem, and so on...)
[1] one of which, the GP forgot to mention, was conveniently in each room
But only ten of the forty-five countries with e-passports have signed up to the Public Key Directory (PKD) code system, and only five are using it. Britain is a member but will not use the directory before next year. Even then, the system will be fully secure only if every e-passport country has joined. [...] The International Civil Aviation Organisation said: "The PKD ensures that e-passports used at border control points . . . are genuine and unaltered. In effect it renders the passport fool-proof. However, all states issuing e-passports must join the PKD, otherwise that assurance cannot be given."
What's not quite clear is whether the states that aren't using the PKD "didn't bother with it" or "haven't implemented it yet" (key word being "yet").
Methinks it would be a little unfair to say "What a lame-ass security system! They haven't even turned it on yet, and it's already not working!"
(Of course, all discussion of the system's technical merits/flaws is independent of the political issue of whether or not it's even a good idea in the first place, i.e., the whole trading-liberty-for-security argument.)
If spying required a signed warrant for every single line monitored, it would already discourage a lot of otherwise unjustified spying. Actually, that requirement already exists.
Never said it would. [...] My only point here is that exponential growth never lasts forever. Okay. Granted, there "must" be some absolute theoretical upper bound on the amount of computing power that can be realized in a given amount of matter -- a maximum MIPS/Kg and/or MB/Kg.
But when that is stated in the context of an argument against Singularity, it sounds like you mean it as a challenge to the most basic premise of Singularity theory: the prospect of digital intelligence exceeding natural-human intelligence.
I don't claim to know what that theoretical limit on computing-power density might actually be. But I can offer an existence proof that the maximum computing power that can exist in an object the size of, say, a human skull is greater-than-or-equal-to the amount needed to support a human mind. (Do I need to spell out the proof, or can the details be left as an exercise for the reader?)
Functional languages are the true winners. They've been around for over half a decade. In another half decade people will still be writing code in some variant of Emacs Lisp and Java, etc. will be as forgotten as Fortran IV and Cobol is today. Half a DECADE?! Ye Gods, that's older than Facebook! Please, what other ancient lore can you share with us from the days before Web 2.0? [insert witty remark about old-timers with 5-digit/. uids here]
(Of course, if you meant to say "half a century" in both places, then I completely agree with the point about Lisp and functional languages in general. Also, while I'm not that much of an old-timer myself, I know there are those who would take issue with the claim of Fortran and Cobol being "forgotten".)
Linux isn't libertarian, although there are libertarians that use it. Linux isn't socialist, even though, there are socialists that use it. Linux isn't conservative, although, there are republicans that use it. I give up. Is it Democratic?
Not just laziness -- when Slashdot first implemented ids, I refused to create one for the first few months because at the time, one of the big political arguments going around was over the right to anonymity online. I didn't actually choose to make my own posts anonymous -- I always signed them with my real name and email address -- but I opposed on general principles the idea of forum sites requiring (or "pressuring") users to create accounts.
Eventually, it became clear that (a) Slashdot was going to continue allowing anonymous posts (albeit with the needlessly insulting "Coward" label, a mistake which I believe directly contributed to the growth and nastiness of the Slashdot trolling culture), (b) there were enough advantages to make creating an account worth it, and (c) the battle was lost anyway. Then, of course, people started noticing uids, and I've been kicking myself ever since. At least I made the first 5K.
The particle that transmits electromagnetic radiation either through light or EM field is the phonton. On first scan, I saw your "either" as "ether". Makes sense given the context. Now I just have to figure out what a "phonton" is.
An ant is strong because its muscles are small. Muscle strength increases with length, and decreases with volume (I think). Not quite: an ant is strong (for its body size) because its body size is small. Muscle size increases with cross-sectional area (because the strength per muscle fiber and the density of the fibers are (roughly) constant, so total strength =~ number of fibers =~ cross-sectional area), which is proportional to length squared. But the weight of the body, and of the similar-sized objects that it deals with, is proportional to volume, which is length cubed.
So if you were to shrink the size of your body, and of all the objects you interact with, by one-half linearly (keeping all the same proportions), your muscles would have one-quarter of their current strength, but your body would be one-eight of its current weight. So you'd be able to run, jump, and lift those also-proportionately-smaller objects as if you had twice your current strength.
I thought the line between biological and artificial was already blurred in Los Angles O.o Do we have to go into the whole "difference between Silicon Valley and Silicone Valley" thing again?
Slashdot Mirror
My martini is now complete! Oh, wait, still need the olive. Doh!
My favorite incarnation of that joke has the mathematician saying "THERE IS A SOLUTION!"
Try: "A solution exists." For the punchline to work best, use the math lingo as it would be used in a real proof. Also, since he was a theoretical mathematician, he didn't do "a lot of complicated math", he "looked at the fire, looked at the bucket of water [*1], concluded that 'a solution exists', and went back to sleep".
It's amazing to me that it's possible to know that there is a solution, but not know what it is. Kudos, math people :)
Heh -- when you put it that way, it does seem kinda weird, but it's really not that hard to explain how it works: the key is that the task of figuring out whether or not a solution exists for one problem can itself be taken as an entirely different problem, so if you just solve that one instead of the original one, there you are. And those "meta-problems" tend to be both much easier in terms of actual computation required and much more "interesting" [*2] in terms of conceptual effort required, which is why mathematicians prefer to focus on them. And yes, it works recursively (figuring out whether or not it's possible to determine whether or not a solution exists for a particular problem, and so on...)
[1] one of which, the GP forgot to mention, was conveniently in each room
[2] in math lingo, i.e., "harder" in normal terms
Aww, and here I thought I could finally retire my "sadonecrobestiality" tag. But yeah, you're right.
Right. From TFA:
But only ten of the forty-five countries with e-passports have signed up to the Public Key Directory (PKD) code system, and only five are using it. Britain is a member but will not use the directory before next year. Even then, the system will be fully secure only if every e-passport country has joined.
[...]
The International Civil Aviation Organisation said: "The PKD ensures that e-passports used at border control points . . . are genuine and unaltered. In effect it renders the passport fool-proof. However, all states issuing e-passports must join the PKD, otherwise that assurance cannot be given."
What's not quite clear is whether the states that aren't using the PKD "didn't bother with it" or "haven't implemented it yet" (key word being "yet").
Methinks it would be a little unfair to say "What a lame-ass security system! They haven't even turned it on yet, and it's already not working!"
(Of course, all discussion of the system's technical merits/flaws is independent of the political issue of whether or not it's even a good idea in the first place, i.e., the whole trading-liberty-for-security argument.)
Tin Foil [...] If it's good enough to stop the beams entering my head
That's just what They want you to think.
Of course not; it's spelled Canadia.
I though "Canuckistan" was pretty funny. And for their currency, "NuckBucks".
You must have missed this: Gas Prices Rise, Blood for Oil Conversion Foiled
But when that is stated in the context of an argument against Singularity, it sounds like you mean it as a challenge to the most basic premise of Singularity theory: the prospect of digital intelligence exceeding natural-human intelligence.
I don't claim to know what that theoretical limit on computing-power density might actually be. But I can offer an existence proof that the maximum computing power that can exist in an object the size of, say, a human skull is greater-than-or-equal-to the amount needed to support a human mind. (Do I need to spell out the proof, or can the details be left as an exercise for the reader?)
Comparing the number of digits instead of the number itself means we're already using a log-scale.
(Of course, if you meant to say "half a century" in both places, then I completely agree with the point about Lisp and functional languages in general. Also, while I'm not that much of an old-timer myself, I know there are those who would take issue with the claim of Fortran and Cobol being "forgotten".)
The sounds of scientific discovery:
Eureka!
Huh. That's funny.
Oh, crap!
Not just laziness -- when Slashdot first implemented ids, I refused to create one for the first few months because at the time, one of the big political arguments going around was over the right to anonymity online. I didn't actually choose to make my own posts anonymous -- I always signed them with my real name and email address -- but I opposed on general principles the idea of forum sites requiring (or "pressuring") users to create accounts.
Eventually, it became clear that (a) Slashdot was going to continue allowing anonymous posts (albeit with the needlessly insulting "Coward" label, a mistake which I believe directly contributed to the growth and nastiness of the Slashdot trolling culture), (b) there were enough advantages to make creating an account worth it, and (c) the battle was lost anyway. Then, of course, people started noticing uids, and I've been kicking myself ever since. At least I made the first 5K.
So if you were to shrink the size of your body, and of all the objects you interact with, by one-half linearly (keeping all the same proportions), your muscles would have one-quarter of their current strength, but your body would be one-eight of its current weight. So you'd be able to run, jump, and lift those also-proportionately-smaller objects as if you had twice your current strength.
$ man woman
no manual entry for woman
$
Dammit!
Oh. Okay, maybe you are one of us after all. It's hard to tell sometimes (admittedly, your sig was another hint). My bad.