This proposition falls into the "not even wrong" category. Why? -- because to write down the word "factorisation" begs the question: in what ring (ie, algebraic context)? Absolutely, 2 is irreducible in the integers. But not in the Gaussian integers:
Context is everything. And in the absence of meaningful context, assume the most simple meaning of factorisation is intended, i.e. decomposition into plain vanilla positive real integers.
Not specifying context is by itself not necessarily an error. It's just sloppy writing, and makes the proof harder to read (the reader has to figure out what exactly is meant). Not specifying context only becomes an error if you start mixing to contradictory meanings. For example, if in your "factorization of 2 problem", you start two lines of reasoning, one in which you limit yourself to integers, and one in which you allow complex numbers.
A smart reader (and who also has lots of time on his hands...) may check out the proof by trying out the various possible contexts. Either he finds one context where the whole proof makes sense, or he does indeed find an incorrect mixing ("on page 10, the authors work in the algebraic context of simple integers, while on page 15 they work in the context of Gaussian integers"). Of course, the problem here is that the thing is so sloppily written, with so many underspecified contexts that nobody is really willing to invest any time debugging it...
It *does* wipe out your current line of reasoning, but the resulting equation, 0=0, is valid.
That's what I meant. The final equation that they obtain would be correct, but if the multiplication with 0 happened inadvertantly, then the authors might incorrectly conclude that the first equation, which they set out to proove, also holds.
The question is this, if someone said that they bought a computer that runs windows, what do you think they meant?
I think, this would mean that it run Microsoft Windows. However, if he said that it runs Lindows, I would think he meant it run Lindow. Easy, isn't it? (D'oh...)
The difference is that Linux is not a generic word, whereas windows is. I have windows in my house, my car, etc, and they have nothing to do with Microsoft.
codex.lu is a product of Codex Productions' Internet Department
site optimized for and tested under microsoft internet explorer 6.x
site edited with microsoft notepad.
They won't be able to collect the one million dollar reward offered by the american Clay Mathematics Institute until one year after publication. This is to allow other mathematicians time to check the result, and verify its correctness.
And, what if the standard of refutation? Is it enough to claim "oh, this proof is all just handwaving", or "this proof is worthless, it uses a physicists approach", or does any detractor need to precisely pinpoint where the error is "on page 13, where they get from equation 63 to 64, they effectively multiply both sides with zero"?
Indeed, it appears that most mathematicians don't take the proof seriously, which also means that nobody is taking the time to check it through... Thus ironically, our hoaxters may be able to collect... which will turn out very embarrassing to the contest board, if 5 years from now some bored math student goes through it line by line, trying out all possible interpretations, and does find the error(s)...
The logic is almost exactly the opposite of what you espouse. With only one data point, you take that datum as the tentative norm rather than discarding it as an outlier.
True enough. However, this only applies if the observer and the observed are distinct from each other (such as drawing colored balls from a hat). When the observer observes himself (or when he observes a phenomenon that is a pre-requisite for his own existence), the rules are different.
For example, if the observer draws one ball from the hat, and it's white, it is indeed a reasonable assumption (from that single datapoint...) to think that all balls are white.
However, if the observer plays russian roulette, and survives, it is not a reasonable assumption for him to think that all chambers are empty. Think about it: there is only one possible observation that the observer can make (because in the other case he would not longer be around to conclude anything at all...). Thus, if there is only one possible observable outcome, the observation doesn't supply any information at all, hence no conclusion can be drawn that couldn't already be drawn before the experiment.
Or for a less dangerous experiment: just stand in front of a mirror. Now watch your eyes. Notice anything strange?
Yes, your eyes appear to always look straight at the mirror. It's almost as if eyes were sth magical when looked at using a mirror. The explanation of the phenomenon is easy: in reality your eyes do stray from their observed position, however while they do so you obviously don't notice (because at that time you're looking at something else...), hence the only observations that you can make are those were you look straight at the mirror. You get a distorted view from reality, because all differing observations are automatically discarded due to the way the experiment is set up...
For all we know, life could be an extremely unlikely occurrance, but for obvious reasons we aren't able to observe the dud cases (a complete universe with not even one occurrance of life)
Or said more prosaically: if life did not exist, we wouldn't be around to discuss it.
Yeah, but then, why was my Y key still working? (this would allow me to reply yes to rm -r/) And the H key was still working too! And the B as well. And did I already say: unlike for the other guy's laptop, on mine the T was still fully functional!
Except that it was the 'f' key, and also the star (*).
Strangely enough, the u, the c, the k, the spacebar, the y, the o and the u were still working...
I let the sucker dry out for the whole day, using a space heater turned on to low. That evening, I turned it on to find that nothing was wrong. All the condensation under the screen cover is gone, and I haven't had any problems playing MP3s since.
That reminds me of what happened to the Windows laptop of a friend of mine. He had a knack of using it in the tub... Of course, one day he accidentally let it go, and with a big bzzzzt, fizzzzz, the screen went black.
We turned it upside down, the used the hairdryer on it, and after an hour, it worked again. And the amazing part is that Windows hasn't crashed on it since then!
Better yet not use a credit card, and let these incompetent fucks fix their business or loose money.
So you don't use a credit card. Then an identity thief just applies for one in your name. All is fine until you need to borrow money to buy a house, or until you apply for a job that does a background check. Even without credit cards, identity theft can hurt you.
Oh, but what if I need to borrow money to buy groceries ?
And what about if I need to borrow money to buy a fucking car? Or a house? Or any other more reasonable example that groceries?
The credit agency system also affects people which don't use credit cards. And then there are those occasions where you simply cannot do without a credit card (renting a car, certain online purchases, purchasing petrol after hours,...)
So what do you think I found when I pulled my 3 agency report? A $1,400+ dollar Pacific Bell phone bill in collections, that went to CarHunting.Com Inc (they can't sue me for slander, the FBI is still trying to track the owner down for defrauding creditors and employees).
That should teach you turning them in to the BSA. Disgruntled ex-employers can be nasty too!
Of course memory is leaked between apps, even in Unix,
Yes, of course memory is "leaked" between apps... Else you'd have to buy new DIMM's every couple of days because you used up all memory. What I actually meant was the contents of said memory, not the memory itself. Everybody understood that, except you. But I probably have just been trolled...
Not necessarily -- it is feasible that process A has allocated some pages of physical memory and then A stops running. Process B then allocates some memory and is given those same physical pages.
Feasible, but obviously not desirable if process A values its privacy...
Unless I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how virtual memory systems work, there is no guarantee that those pages get cleared.
The OS explicitely sets those pages to zero before handing them to another process. That's the whole point...
While it is correct that malloc does not guarantee that the memory will be cleared (even on Unix, it will contain random junk), it is still unacceptable that the OS leaks data from one application to the next. In Unix, if you find junk in a malloc'ed segment, it can only come from the application itself (previously allocated, used, and then freed memory), never from another app.
Just think about the privacy implication of such cross-application leaks on a multi-user system. Rather than relying on a broken word processor, an attacker could write a program that intentionnally malloc'ed large chunks of memory, and then went searching through them for interesting data of his fellow users...
1) BSA did not impersonate anyone or show any signs of pretending to be a government agency.
BSA did impersonate the owners of OpenOffice. And BSA likes to portray themselves as an organisation that has para-governmental rights (such as forcefully searching companies' premises).
2) They did not say that anything was wrong with the files, they only said that they owened them.
They said it was wrong to have the files on the ftp server...
They should have avoided writing a script that might accidentally perjure them. Just remove the following line:
BSA represents that the information in this notification is accurate and states, under penalty of perjury, that it is authorized to act in this matter on behalf of the copyright owners listed above.
Slashdot Mirror
... and make the thing into an excellent spy tool!
(n/t)
Memory sticks. Especially the new ones that have builtin DRM, and that are incompatible with current equipment.
This proposition falls into the "not even wrong" category. Why? -- because to write down the word "factorisation" begs the question: in what ring (ie, algebraic context)? Absolutely, 2 is irreducible in the integers. But not in the Gaussian integers:
Context is everything. And in the absence of meaningful context, assume the most simple meaning of factorisation is intended, i.e. decomposition into plain vanilla positive real integers.
Not specifying context is by itself not necessarily an error. It's just sloppy writing, and makes the proof harder to read (the reader has to figure out what exactly is meant). Not specifying context only becomes an error if you start mixing to contradictory meanings. For example, if in your "factorization of 2 problem", you start two lines of reasoning, one in which you limit yourself to integers, and one in which you allow complex numbers.
A smart reader (and who also has lots of time on his hands...) may check out the proof by trying out the various possible contexts. Either he finds one context where the whole proof makes sense, or he does indeed find an incorrect mixing ("on page 10, the authors work in the algebraic context of simple integers, while on page 15 they work in the context of Gaussian integers"). Of course, the problem here is that the thing is so sloppily written, with so many underspecified contexts that nobody is really willing to invest any time debugging it...
That's what I meant. The final equation that they obtain would be correct, but if the multiplication with 0 happened inadvertantly, then the authors might incorrectly conclude that the first equation, which they set out to proove, also holds.
I think, this would mean that it run Microsoft Windows. However, if he said that it runs Lindows, I would think he meant it run Lindow. Easy, isn't it? (D'oh...)
Yeah, whatever... And this is moderated as Informative ?!?
The difference is that Linux is not a generic word, whereas windows is. I have windows in my house, my car, etc, and they have nothing to do with Microsoft.
And, what if the standard of refutation? Is it enough to claim "oh, this proof is all just handwaving", or "this proof is worthless, it uses a physicists approach", or does any detractor need to precisely pinpoint where the error is "on page 13, where they get from equation 63 to 64, they effectively multiply both sides with zero"?
Indeed, it appears that most mathematicians don't take the proof seriously, which also means that nobody is taking the time to check it through... Thus ironically, our hoaxters may be able to collect... which will turn out very embarrassing to the contest board, if 5 years from now some bored math student goes through it line by line, trying out all possible interpretations, and does find the error(s)...
True enough. However, this only applies if the observer and the observed are distinct from each other (such as drawing colored balls from a hat). When the observer observes himself (or when he observes a phenomenon that is a pre-requisite for his own existence), the rules are different.
For example, if the observer draws one ball from the hat, and it's white, it is indeed a reasonable assumption (from that single datapoint...) to think that all balls are white.
However, if the observer plays russian roulette, and survives, it is not a reasonable assumption for him to think that all chambers are empty. Think about it: there is only one possible observation that the observer can make (because in the other case he would not longer be around to conclude anything at all...). Thus, if there is only one possible observable outcome, the observation doesn't supply any information at all, hence no conclusion can be drawn that couldn't already be drawn before the experiment.
Or for a less dangerous experiment: just stand in front of a mirror. Now watch your eyes. Notice anything strange?
Yes, your eyes appear to always look straight at the mirror. It's almost as if eyes were sth magical when looked at using a mirror. The explanation of the phenomenon is easy: in reality your eyes do stray from their observed position, however while they do so you obviously don't notice (because at that time you're looking at something else...), hence the only observations that you can make are those were you look straight at the mirror. You get a distorted view from reality, because all differing observations are automatically discarded due to the way the experiment is set up...
For all we know, life could be an extremely unlikely occurrance, but for obvious reasons we aren't able to observe the dud cases (a complete universe with not even one occurrance of life)
Or said more prosaically: if life did not exist, we wouldn't be around to discuss it.
Have a nice day!
Except that it was the 'f' key, and also the star (*). Strangely enough, the u, the c, the k, the spacebar, the y, the o and the u were still working...
That reminds me of what happened to the Windows laptop of a friend of mine. He had a knack of using it in the tub... Of course, one day he accidentally let it go, and with a big bzzzzt, fizzzzz, the screen went black.
We turned it upside down, the used the hairdryer on it, and after an hour, it worked again. And the amazing part is that Windows hasn't crashed on it since then!
Yet another example of how Explorer can ruin your computing experience!
So you don't use a credit card. Then an identity thief just applies for one in your name. All is fine until you need to borrow money to buy a house, or until you apply for a job that does a background check. Even without credit cards, identity theft can hurt you.
And what about if I need to borrow money to buy a fucking car? Or a house? Or any other more reasonable example that groceries?
The credit agency system also affects people which don't use credit cards. And then there are those occasions where you simply cannot do without a credit card (renting a car, certain online purchases, purchasing petrol after hours, ...)
Accenture? (formerly known as Andersen Consulting)
That should teach you turning them in to the BSA. Disgruntled ex-employers can be nasty too!
Yes, of course memory is "leaked" between apps... Else you'd have to buy new DIMM's every couple of days because you used up all memory. What I actually meant was the contents of said memory, not the memory itself. Everybody understood that, except you. But I probably have just been trolled...
Feasible, but obviously not desirable if process A values its privacy...
Unless I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how virtual memory systems work, there is no guarantee that those pages get cleared.
The OS explicitely sets those pages to zero before handing them to another process. That's the whole point...
Just think about the privacy implication of such cross-application leaks on a multi-user system. Rather than relying on a broken word processor, an attacker could write a program that intentionnally malloc'ed large chunks of memory, and then went searching through them for interesting data of his fellow users...
BSA did impersonate the owners of OpenOffice. And BSA likes to portray themselves as an organisation that has para-governmental rights (such as forcefully searching companies' premises).
2) They did not say that anything was wrong with the files, they only said that they owened them.
They said it was wrong to have the files on the ftp server...
3) You're a dufus.
Thanks. Same to you!
They should have avoided writing a script that might accidentally perjure them. Just remove the following line:
Do so! Lawyers would love those perjury claims! There are jail terms on perjury, aren't there?