My apologies... You obviously DO know what an asymptote is.:)
Seems that having majored in math seems to give one a critical and somewhat pedantic nature at times.
Obviously a geometrically increasing equation has inherently limited application to ANY real world problem, but as noted by others previously, such a geometric function does NOT have anything like an asymptote.:)
Maurer's algorithm prove's in a mathematical sense if a number is prime or not. It's not probablistic, it's definitive.
That's statement is very misleading. Given a supposed prime number, Maurer's algorithm can't prove's in a mathematical sense whether that number is prime or not. It's only an algorithm to generate primes, not one to determine primality.
That may have been a partially effect but I don't believe it can account for the tremendous speed of the initial drop and the total lack of recovery.
This extremely rapid drop was almost a year after the last split and was MUCH larger percentage wise than any other split normalization in their history, and it coincided with several press releases about the anti-trust proceedings.
Note that MSFT had been experiencing sustained geometric growth up until that point and have been experiencing an overall decline of stock value ever since.
You can see the difference and the entire lack of recovery graphically here.
There will come a time when Microsoft stock will at least, if not collapse, fall dramatically.
I agree with what you're saying but wanted to point out that this has already happened to some extent.
It sounds from many of the comments here that people still think that Microsoft's stocks are experiencing decent growth. Not true. Microsoft's stock prices were rising steadily for years with excellent return and regular stock splits. Then near the beginning of 2000 they plumited from about $120/share to around $60/share. Since that time, they've been hovering around $50 with no real growth over the last three years! People keep speculating that MSFT stock will recover, but so far, no signs of it.
No, That's not my argument at all. I'm not saying he's stupid. I'm saying that HE DID NOT SOLVE ANY PARADOXES. Can I be any more clear?
I'm sorry that you're having a comprehension problem but I'll try one last time:
The original poster, entrager, stated that "Credit must be given to Kip Thorne for coming up with this solution to the famous "Grandfather" paradox."
I stated that Kip Thorne did not give any solution to the famous "Grandfather" paradox. Instead, he claims the universe must be consistent in a cause-effect way, thus disalowing any paradoxes.
Please read the work of Kip Thorne if you don't believe me. His papers have been critisized for not giving rational behind those assumptions.
I did not intend to cast any dispersion on Kip himself since my initial dispariging remark was targeted at the other website's analysis of Kip's work, and entrager's analysis of it. I personally agree with Kip and his view of things, but I don't appreciate the misrepresentation of it.
I'm very skeptical of your version of the facts. Could you please post a reference for this 'attempted renegotiation'.
I've tried to keep up on this subject but I haven't ever seen this anywhere except in hearsay, and never with a reliable source. The closest thing I've found is the press release from Microsoft saying that "Sun stopped us from shipping our Java VM" and tried to make it sound as though Sun was stopping them from shipping ANY VM, which was clearly not the case at the time of the press release. Maybe you've been suckered by the MS spin doctors?
Your second sentence ("fine, we'll just take out our version as well.") isn't even plausible. "as well" as what? - It wasn't their desision to make - Microsoft were already ordered not to ship their bastardized version of the JVM.
It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
No, it was Microsoft's bastardization of their Java VM that caused them to stop shipping the Java VM.
Microsoft's platform dependent extensions to their Java VM were against their contract with Sun, and when Microsoft was barred from spreading their bastardization, they said they wouldn't include ANY version of the Java VM and tried to claim it was all Sun's fault for upholding their contract to keep Java platform neutral. Apparently a lot of people bought the claim hook, line and sinker.
Microsoft's press releases sounded like Sun was barring them from shipping Java, when it was only Microsoft's bastardized version that was being barred!
Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Compared to what??? I haven't seen such a clueless statement in a long time. Please go get yourself a book on Java's security model.
I was trying to point out that EITHER WAY SOMEONE KNOWS FOR SURE.
If it's a hoax, those who perpetrated it KNOW it was a hoax and aren't being closed minded about it.
If it wasn't a hoax, then the astronauts KNOW the landings were real and aren't being closed minded about it.
The Truth is out there... (sorry, I had to say it);)
That aside, you have to admit that the vast majority of the 'fake moon landing' claimes are pretty rediculous, and they're what really started this whole controversy. What amazes me is how many people can be suckered into such LAME and BLATANTLY erroneous claims as you find on any 'faked moon landings' site. Eg. "no stars" "shadows not totally dark" etc. If the people putting those sites together are too intellectually deprived to understand the explanation of those simple and OBVIOUS things, what hope do they have to tackle problems of advanced physics, thermodynamics and optics?
These kind of debates especially remind me of the bomb from "Dark Star" and it's conversation with the crew about 'phenomenology'. If you haven't seen this, or are unfamiliar with phenomenolgy you should check it out. If you have to go to that level though before you can believe in anything, then you probably won't survive long in the real world.;)
"IT only happened once,theres no absolute proof..."
Are you living in a cave? Once? There were SIX separate lunar landings with twelve astronauts who actually walked on the moon and another six who orbited, not to mention those pre-apollo astronauts who went to the moon but didn't land.
There IS absolute proof, but just because you choose not to believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Equipment (corner reflector arrays) left on the moon can be observed by anyone with a telescope and a strong enough laser.
It's hard for me to believe how many people can be suckered into such LAME and BLATANTLY erroneous claims as you find on any 'faked moon landings' site. Eg. "no stars" "shadows not totally dark" etc. If the people putting those sites together are too intellectually deprived to understand the explanation of those simple and OBVIOUS things, what hope do they have to tackle problems of advanced physics, thermodynamics and optics?
I was actually debating weather or not to susbtitute 'Ph.D. Physicists' for 'freshmen', but didn't see enough difference to bother with.;)
The point is that Kippyboy is INFERRING that the trajectories must be causally consistent without ANY logic or reasoning to back it up! Thus, he doesn't show ANY solutions to the paratox, but merely says in effect "Oh, that can't happen". That's why I said "Well, Duhhh!!!"... That's why they call it a PARADOX!
What I couldn't figure out is why you interpreted his work as a "solution" to the paradox, and that's what led to my 'mumbling' at the end about people not thinking for themselves, etc...:)
This situation actually has a fairly logical conclusion (believe it or not)....
NOT! The example you give is not confusing (except perhaps to you)... it's an entirely different situation and is CERTAINLY not a solution to the paradox! The sites you quoted don't provide any 'logical conclusions' and or solutions to the original given paradox either! They basically change the situation and don't deal at all with the paradox. They only talk about a way for the ball to 'interact' with itself without causing the paradox. They don't give any reason, let alone proof, that the paradox wouldn't/couldn't occur. Well, Duhh!!!! How stupid can you get?
Can't people think for themselves anymore!!??
#$%!&@ freshmen... trying to interpret the BS of other @!#$@!#$ freshmen!
Precisely why I was too afraid to go to the midnight showing. I'll wait a couple weeks until the scary people aren't going anymore.
The president of my company found a nice way around that problem... He bought out the entire stadium theater and gave tickets to all employees!;) The show was at 12:01am and before it opened, we had a trivia contest and LOTR prizes (book sets, rings, the expensive leather-bound single book, etc.) were distributed. He did mention that we couldn't call in sick though.;)
Oops...:) Maybe that was 35ms. Next time I'll try thinking a little before making a rediculous statement. My memory isn't what it used to be... or is it? Hmmm.... Can't remember.:)
I am trying to shoe-horn a webserver onto the floppy now.
I agree totally with your assessment of the current state of bloat. Ever try the QNX demo? They put an entire posix compliant unix distro including the shell, gui, web browser and a web server onto a single HD floppy.:)
My first computer was an Amiga... True pre-emptive multitasking, Multi-screen GUI, built in text-to-speech, etc. all on a single DD floppy! I fondly remember running the AmigaOS Workbench on one screen, Dpaint paint program on another screen and Pagestream desktop publishing software on another hi-res screen (each screen having many windows open) all simultaneously on a machine with 2MB of graphics memory and NO other ram. (For those not familiar with Amiga architecture, you could run programs in the graphics memory (CHIM RAM) and add additional memory (FAST RAM) if you wanted to expand your system.) The system was running at 14MHz and was ULTRA responsive at all times! Screen switching was INSTANTANEOUS! Amiga users know what I mean.;) If I remember correctly, the context switching time was about 35ns!
Anyway, it's sad when you have a machine with a chip that is litterally hundreds of times faster and you still don't get that responsiveness. It still boggles my mind to try to imagine a 1GHz Amiga with 1GB ram and a few gigs of HD.:)
The mass market thinks it is [an improvement on the original], and I am fine with that.
While I admit that "improvement" is a very subjective thing, the problem here is that you're implying that the mass market has read Kipling.:)
Personally, rather than Disney making an 'improvement', I would say that Disney has merely put it in a more popular format (and in general twisted and dumb-downed the content)... but maybe that's just me.:)
Whether that's an improvement or not is not decided by it's popularity in the market but by those who are familiar with BOTH works.
Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't thought of variable duty cycle as a means of intensity control, Althought it does make things worse bandwidth wise.
I also agree that this technology shouldn't be capable of producing paper-white images. At most it could do 30% reflectivity in my estimate.
Think about it. 256 subpixels would get you 65,536 combinations of flipped bits.
My math is fine. You're just assuming that all sub-pixels differ exponentially in intensity. : )
Their technology preview shows HOMOGENIOUS sub-pixels which would indeed require that you have 256 sub-pixels to generate 256 levels. That's because they all have the same SIGNIFICANCE. If 50% are on, it doesn't matter which particular ones. The final perceived intensity is strictly calculated as on_elements / total_elements.
To have an effect where you could get 2^elements intensity levels as you're expecting, you'd have to have elements that were different sizes (1 unit, 2 units, 4 units, etc,) to give binary SIGNIFICANCE to your sub-pixels, but if you did that, your driver currents, would vary based on that. Layout would probably be a recursive design 16x16 units. The size ratio between the most significant element and the least significant one for a 24 bit display would be 128 times.
Now, if you add up the area of all those different size sub pixels, guess how many units you have? (1 unit + 2 units + 4 units +... + 128 units) Well, what do you know! You get 255 units. The fact that you could turn them on/off in groups with only 8 bits of information should be obvious, but then the circuitry required to decode/drive these groups is another issue.
So, to clarify... YES, you can get the 256 intensity levels from 8 sub-pixels, but they'd have to be exponentially NON-HOMOGENIOUS.
The way their technology is presented on their web site and the total lack of information about intensity control makes be doubt they've come up with such a design. But I could be wrong of course.:)
Yes, I read all the info at their site before commenting, but you bother to think how MANY sub pixels would be required for what we consider a decent quality display?
Since these are DIGITAL subpixels, for 24 bit color, you'd need 256 sub-pixels just for the 'red' to mimic the 256 intensity levels per gun, and 768 sub-pixels in total PER PIXEL!
For 32 bit color (assuming 10 bits per gun), you'd need 1024 red sub-pixels, 1024 green sub-pixels and 1024 blue sub-pixels just to make ONE regular pixel.
Each pixel requiring 3072 subpixels does NOT sound too feasable to me.... at least not off the top of my head, but maybe that's just me. : )
Slashdot Mirror
Seems that having majored in math seems to give one a critical and somewhat pedantic nature at times.
Obviously a geometrically increasing equation has inherently limited application to ANY real world problem, but as noted by others previously, such a geometric function does NOT have anything like an asymptote. :)
Am I close? ;)
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need ROADS. ;)
This extremely rapid drop was almost a year after the last split and was MUCH larger percentage wise than any other split normalization in their history, and it coincided with several press releases about the anti-trust proceedings.
Note that MSFT had been experiencing sustained geometric growth up until that point and have been experiencing an overall decline of stock value ever since.
You can see the difference and the entire lack of recovery graphically here.
I agree with what you're saying but wanted to point out that this has already happened to some extent.
It sounds from many of the comments here that people still think that Microsoft's stocks are experiencing decent growth. Not true. Microsoft's stock prices were rising steadily for years with excellent return and regular stock splits. Then near the beginning of 2000 they plumited from about $120/share to around $60/share. Since that time, they've been hovering around $50 with no real growth over the last three years! People keep speculating that MSFT stock will recover, but so far, no signs of it.
Sorry. I was having a bad code day. ;)
I'm sorry that you're having a comprehension problem but I'll try one last time:
- The original poster, entrager, stated that "Credit must be given to Kip Thorne for coming up with this solution to the famous "Grandfather" paradox."
- I stated that Kip Thorne did not give any solution to the famous "Grandfather" paradox. Instead, he claims the universe must be consistent in a cause-effect way, thus disalowing any paradoxes.
Please read the work of Kip Thorne if you don't believe me. His papers have been critisized for not giving rational behind those assumptions. I did not intend to cast any dispersion on Kip himself since my initial dispariging remark was targeted at the other website's analysis of Kip's work, and entrager's analysis of it. I personally agree with Kip and his view of things, but I don't appreciate the misrepresentation of it.I've tried to keep up on this subject but I haven't ever seen this anywhere except in hearsay, and never with a reliable source. The closest thing I've found is the press release from Microsoft saying that "Sun stopped us from shipping our Java VM" and tried to make it sound as though Sun was stopping them from shipping ANY VM, which was clearly not the case at the time of the press release. Maybe you've been suckered by the MS spin doctors?
Your second sentence ("fine, we'll just take out our version as well.") isn't even plausible. "as well" as what? - It wasn't their desision to make - Microsoft were already ordered not to ship their bastardized version of the JVM.
No, it was Microsoft's bastardization of their Java VM that caused them to stop shipping the Java VM.
Microsoft's platform dependent extensions to their Java VM were against their contract with Sun, and when Microsoft was barred from spreading their bastardization, they said they wouldn't include ANY version of the Java VM and tried to claim it was all Sun's fault for upholding their contract to keep Java platform neutral. Apparently a lot of people bought the claim hook, line and sinker.
Microsoft's press releases sounded like Sun was barring them from shipping Java, when it was only Microsoft's bastardized version that was being barred!
Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Compared to what??? I haven't seen such a clueless statement in a long time. Please go get yourself a book on Java's security model.
I was trying to point out that EITHER WAY SOMEONE KNOWS FOR SURE.
If it's a hoax, those who perpetrated it KNOW it was a hoax and aren't being closed minded about it.
If it wasn't a hoax, then the astronauts KNOW the landings were real and aren't being closed minded about it.
The Truth is out there... (sorry, I had to say it) ;)
That aside, you have to admit that the vast majority of the 'fake moon landing' claimes are pretty rediculous, and they're what really started this whole controversy. What amazes me is how many people can be suckered into such LAME and BLATANTLY erroneous claims as you find on any 'faked moon landings' site. Eg. "no stars" "shadows not totally dark" etc. If the people putting those sites together are too intellectually deprived to understand the explanation of those simple and OBVIOUS things, what hope do they have to tackle problems of advanced physics, thermodynamics and optics?
These kind of debates especially remind me of the bomb from "Dark Star" and it's conversation with the crew about 'phenomenology'. If you haven't seen this, or are unfamiliar with phenomenolgy you should check it out. If you have to go to that level though before you can believe in anything, then you probably won't survive long in the real world. ;)
Are you living in a cave? Once? There were SIX separate lunar landings with twelve astronauts who actually walked on the moon and another six who orbited, not to mention those pre-apollo astronauts who went to the moon but didn't land.
There IS absolute proof, but just because you choose not to believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Equipment (corner reflector arrays) left on the moon can be observed by anyone with a telescope and a strong enough laser.
It's hard for me to believe how many people can be suckered into such LAME and BLATANTLY erroneous claims as you find on any 'faked moon landings' site. Eg. "no stars" "shadows not totally dark" etc. If the people putting those sites together are too intellectually deprived to understand the explanation of those simple and OBVIOUS things, what hope do they have to tackle problems of advanced physics, thermodynamics and optics?
You mean like all those close minded astronauts?
The point is that Kippyboy is INFERRING that the trajectories must be causally consistent without ANY logic or reasoning to back it up! Thus, he doesn't show ANY solutions to the paratox, but merely says in effect "Oh, that can't happen". That's why I said "Well, Duhhh!!!"... That's why they call it a PARADOX!
What I couldn't figure out is why you interpreted his work as a "solution" to the paradox, and that's what led to my 'mumbling' at the end about people not thinking for themselves, etc... :)
Do you understand what I'm saying yet?
NOT! The example you give is not confusing (except perhaps to you)... it's an entirely different situation and is CERTAINLY not a solution to the paradox! The sites you quoted don't provide any 'logical conclusions' and or solutions to the original given paradox either! They basically change the situation and don't deal at all with the paradox. They only talk about a way for the ball to 'interact' with itself without causing the paradox. They don't give any reason, let alone proof, that the paradox wouldn't/couldn't occur. Well, Duhh!!!! How stupid can you get?
Can't people think for themselves anymore!!??
#$%!&@ freshmen... trying to interpret the BS of other @!#$@!#$ freshmen!
The president of my company found a nice way around that problem... He bought out the entire stadium theater and gave tickets to all employees! ;) The show was at 12:01am and before it opened, we had a trivia contest and LOTR prizes (book sets, rings, the expensive leather-bound single book, etc.) were distributed. He did mention that we couldn't call in sick though. ;)
Oops... :) Maybe that was 35ms. Next time I'll try thinking a little before making a rediculous statement. My memory isn't what it used to be... or is it? Hmmm.... Can't remember. :)
I agree totally with your assessment of the current state of bloat. Ever try the QNX demo? They put an entire posix compliant unix distro including the shell, gui, web browser and a web server onto a single HD floppy. :)
My first computer was an Amiga ... True pre-emptive multitasking, Multi-screen GUI, built in text-to-speech, etc. all on a single DD floppy! I fondly remember running the AmigaOS Workbench on one screen, Dpaint paint program on another screen and Pagestream desktop publishing software on another hi-res screen (each screen having many windows open) all simultaneously on a machine with 2MB of graphics memory and NO other ram. (For those not familiar with Amiga architecture, you could run programs in the graphics memory (CHIM RAM) and add additional memory (FAST RAM) if you wanted to expand your system.) The system was running at 14MHz and was ULTRA responsive at all times! Screen switching was INSTANTANEOUS! Amiga users know what I mean. ;) If I remember correctly, the context switching time was about 35ns!
Anyway, it's sad when you have a machine with a chip that is litterally hundreds of times faster and you still don't get that responsiveness. It still boggles my mind to try to imagine a 1GHz Amiga with 1GB ram and a few gigs of HD. :)
or a more observant reader.
I assure you it's YOU who is more confused. :)
His point was something called IRONY. Look it up. If you still don't get it, re-read the many posts on this story that explain it.
While I admit that "improvement" is a very subjective thing, the problem here is that you're implying that the mass market has read Kipling. :)
Personally, rather than Disney making an 'improvement', I would say that Disney has merely put it in a more popular format (and in general twisted and dumb-downed the content)... but maybe that's just me. :)
Whether that's an improvement or not is not decided by it's popularity in the market but by those who are familiar with BOTH works.
I have an A3000 and toaster with 2 TBC cards but just Lightwave 2.0, so if you have an extra copy of Lightwave 5, you want to get rid of ... ;)
Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't thought of variable duty cycle as a means of intensity control, Althought it does make things worse bandwidth wise. I also agree that this technology shouldn't be capable of producing paper-white images. At most it could do 30% reflectivity in my estimate.
My math is fine. You're just assuming that all sub-pixels differ exponentially in intensity. : )
Their technology preview shows HOMOGENIOUS sub-pixels which would indeed require that you have 256 sub-pixels to generate 256 levels. That's because they all have the same SIGNIFICANCE. If 50% are on, it doesn't matter which particular ones. The final perceived intensity is strictly calculated as on_elements / total_elements.
To have an effect where you could get 2^elements intensity levels as you're expecting, you'd have to have elements that were different sizes (1 unit, 2 units, 4 units, etc,) to give binary SIGNIFICANCE to your sub-pixels, but if you did that, your driver currents, would vary based on that. Layout would probably be a recursive design 16x16 units. The size ratio between the most significant element and the least significant one for a 24 bit display would be 128 times.
Now, if you add up the area of all those different size sub pixels, guess how many units you have? (1 unit + 2 units + 4 units + ... + 128 units) Well, what do you know! You get 255 units. The fact that you could turn them on/off in groups with only 8 bits of information should be obvious, but then the circuitry required to decode/drive these groups is another issue.
So, to clarify... YES, you can get the 256 intensity levels from 8 sub-pixels, but they'd have to be exponentially NON-HOMOGENIOUS. The way their technology is presented on their web site and the total lack of information about intensity control makes be doubt they've come up with such a design. But I could be wrong of course. :)
Since these are DIGITAL subpixels, for 24 bit color, you'd need 256 sub-pixels just for the 'red' to mimic the 256 intensity levels per gun, and 768 sub-pixels in total PER PIXEL!
For 32 bit color (assuming 10 bits per gun), you'd need 1024 red sub-pixels, 1024 green sub-pixels and 1024 blue sub-pixels just to make ONE regular pixel.
Each pixel requiring 3072 subpixels does NOT sound too feasable to me. ... at least not off the top of my head, but maybe that's just me. : )