luckily, sysadmins do not undertake the hippocratic oath, so they are under no obligation to help users. Besides, a sacrificial lamb `long-term' planning. It gets things to stick into ppls heads
There is another story about at The Age website. A funny quote was from the premier of NSW, saying "Sydneysiders had to put up with such disruptions... if the city was to keep its reputation as a hot filmmaking destination." Funny, I thought that cities were for living in and business, etc, etc, not for rich-ass movie companies to play with. But again, we have dumb politicians bowing down to the almighty dollar. Hey, this just confirms in my mind that sydney is willing to prostitute itself out to feed an overwhelming addiction (but I'm from melbourne, so I spose I would say that)
But at the end of the day, I reckon them filming it is just a publicity stunt - that way they'll at least the entire population of sydney to watch the movie ("see, honey - that's where I work"), buy the DVD, get the action figure doll. Sure, it'd prolly b cheaper to do it all on the computer, but u can't buy people's sentimentality.
that would depend on the persistence of the data. if quantum events down on that level start screwing with the punch holes after a while, and u gradually lose tiny bits (pun intended) of data after a while, then it won't replace optical data storage
So feeding it facts? whose facts? only a tiny subset of what we `know' could be called `facts,' such as mathematics etc, and that is only factual because we've created it (made the rules). Everything else we `know' is in some way subjective. (well, that's what I reckon anyway). OK, u could stick with feeding cyc reasonably un-controversial things like definitions and humans have two arms and two legs, but before long u start getting into stuff which is subjective, and u need this coz otherwise the amount of data will be very limited. The winner writes the history books. If it was just one person feeding in the data, cyc would probably inherit that persons leanings and prejudices, but when u've got many, well, either there will be contradictions, or u r able to get a totally objective opinion for once.
Japan's new prime minister is, in fact, interested in developing nukes. He could just be saying that to stir shit up (he's a confrontationalist), but basically it seems he's worried about China. Oh, yeah, they're not allowed to develop them coz of treaties. When did treaties ever get in the way of the military? Hmmm. lets see, they did wonders for the US national missile defense system.
This must be the first time in history an american has considered importing something from australia because its cheaper. What, with our banana-republic currency status, we usually ask friends going to the US to bring back hi-tech goodies.
Note - all the major governments and corporations (who tend to own the former) are into the idea of globalisation, until it comes to giving the benefits of it to the populations.
This is just an excuse for spying on the US public (gee I'm glad I live in oztraya where similar legislation won't b passed for another couple of weeks). Serious terrorists use encryption, and hide their tracks. They have fake names. I'm not suggesting they can't be caught, but not that easily. The main thing the USA PATRIOT act will do will deter wannabe luser terrorists (the script-kiddies of the terrorist world), and depressed high schools from blowing things up. For a little while at least.
I won't get started about nuclear power stuff, but u talk about banning instructions of how to commit crimes. Crimes where? believe it or not, different countries have different laws. Alcohol is illegal in some Arab states; does that mean we should prohibit all home-brew websites? Free-speech is virtually a crime in China; so free speech activist sites should be banned. And even so, who is to say which laws are just? The Nazis made laws, ppl who broke them were severely punished; u reckon everyone should have blindly observed those laws just because they were laws?
Sorry, u cannot (logically nor practically) censor the web.
Dunno how it is in the US, but in Australia, the teachers are so few and far between that this is often not possible, and if it is, u often get told to go and read the text book.
If students can learn from themselves, then hell, why not. Unis are about learning, not specifically restricted to learning from lecturers and text-books.
They are obviously preparing the students for a life in the corporate computing world; how long b4 u have to sign confidentiality agreements for doing assignments at uni? Doesn't seem as tho they like the concept of open-source.
Bluetooth is also a channel-hog; it uses a _lot_ of the available channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum, and jumps around between them like nothing else. Good luck trying to run bluetooth and 802.11b in the same room.
In mathematics, mistakes are usually picked up quickly. Once something is proven, it usually stays proven (in maths). The only thing it relies on are the underlying axioms, which rarely change in mathematics.
However, it is provable that any formal system (maths, logic, etc) cannot be both coherent and consistent (see Godel or Turing). So u get a necessary paradox underlying any formal system, including mathematics, so its all bullshit anyway.
Which is why I'm a fan of absurdist logic. All successful arguments must contain a contradiction/paradox somewhere. Politicians are followers of this; they have acquired the fine skill of disguising this contradiction (much like the proof of 5=4 elsewhere in this discussion).
I'm not suggesting the general proof is not valid, nor am I questioning induction (and, indeed, I find induction quite elegant), but I can't consider a general proof which consists of 5 completely different proofs for different ranges of numbers to be elegant. its the same kinda thing as writing a whole bunch of if-then-elseif-elseif... statements as opposed to a one-line-of-code general statement.
seems rather an inelegant way to make a general proof; general proof for n>=5, the seperate proofs for n=1, n=2, n=3 and n=4. Does this new proof just do n=3, or is it a _nice_ general proof?
Slashdot Mirror
luckily, sysadmins do not undertake the hippocratic oath, so they are under no obligation to help users. Besides, a sacrificial lamb `long-term' planning. It gets things to stick into ppls heads
But at the end of the day, I reckon them filming it is just a publicity stunt - that way they'll at least the entire population of sydney to watch the movie ("see, honey - that's where I work"), buy the DVD, get the action figure doll. Sure, it'd prolly b cheaper to do it all on the computer, but u can't buy people's sentimentality.
that would depend on the persistence of the data. if quantum events down on that level start screwing with the punch holes after a while, and u gradually lose tiny bits (pun intended) of data after a while, then it won't replace optical data storage
wouldn't that be a Microsoft Windows XPloDer?
had u read the article, u might have found that Cyc itself asked if it was human.
So feeding it facts? whose facts? only a tiny subset of what we `know' could be called `facts,' such as mathematics etc, and that is only factual because we've created it (made the rules). Everything else we `know' is in some way subjective. (well, that's what I reckon anyway). OK, u could stick with feeding cyc reasonably un-controversial things like definitions and humans have two arms and two legs, but before long u start getting into stuff which is subjective, and u need this coz otherwise the amount of data will be very limited. The winner writes the history books. If it was just one person feeding in the data, cyc would probably inherit that persons leanings and prejudices, but when u've got many, well, either there will be contradictions, or u r able to get a totally objective opinion for once.
... then install jabber; that way u get all IM services, not just AIM.
depends how fast that clock's going. It'd be pretty deadly when it hits ur head at 0.5c
just hook up the computer to the internet with a NT/IIS webserver, and voila, within a few hours it should b hacked.
AFAIK, the itanium processor is essentially a RISC architecture.
Certainly not anyone I know who owns a mac
Japan's new prime minister is, in fact, interested in developing nukes. He could just be saying that to stir shit up (he's a confrontationalist), but basically it seems he's worried about China. Oh, yeah, they're not allowed to develop them coz of treaties. When did treaties ever get in the way of the military? Hmmm. lets see, they did wonders for the US national missile defense system.
This must be the first time in history an american has considered importing something from australia because its cheaper. What, with our banana-republic currency status, we usually ask friends going to the US to bring back hi-tech goodies.
Note - all the major governments and corporations (who tend to own the former) are into the idea of globalisation, until it comes to giving the benefits of it to the populations.
This is just an excuse for spying on the US public (gee I'm glad I live in oztraya where similar legislation won't b passed for another couple of weeks). Serious terrorists use encryption, and hide their tracks. They have fake names. I'm not suggesting they can't be caught, but not that easily. The main thing the USA PATRIOT act will do will deter wannabe luser terrorists (the script-kiddies of the terrorist world), and depressed high schools from blowing things up. For a little while at least.
Only two things in life are certain:
death and spyware.
Geez, ud think they might just invest a little R&D into the hurd and have an even more scalable OS.
I won't get started about nuclear power stuff, but u talk about banning instructions of how to commit crimes. Crimes where? believe it or not, different countries have different laws. Alcohol is illegal in some Arab states; does that mean we should prohibit all home-brew websites? Free-speech is virtually a crime in China; so free speech activist sites should be banned. And even so, who is to say which laws are just? The Nazis made laws, ppl who broke them were severely punished; u reckon everyone should have blindly observed those laws just because they were laws?
Sorry, u cannot (logically nor practically) censor the web.
Dunno how it is in the US, but in Australia, the teachers are so few and far between that this is often not possible, and if it is, u often get told to go and read the text book. If students can learn from themselves, then hell, why not. Unis are about learning, not specifically restricted to learning from lecturers and text-books.
They are obviously preparing the students for a life in the corporate computing world; how long b4 u have to sign confidentiality agreements for doing assignments at uni? Doesn't seem as tho they like the concept of open-source.
Bluetooth is also a channel-hog; it uses a _lot_ of the available channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum, and jumps around between them like nothing else. Good luck trying to run bluetooth and 802.11b in the same room.
In mathematics, mistakes are usually picked up quickly. Once something is proven, it usually stays proven (in maths). The only thing it relies on are the underlying axioms, which rarely change in mathematics.
However, it is provable that any formal system (maths, logic, etc) cannot be both coherent and consistent (see Godel or Turing). So u get a necessary paradox underlying any formal system, including mathematics, so its all bullshit anyway.
Which is why I'm a fan of absurdist logic. All successful arguments must contain a contradiction/paradox somewhere. Politicians are followers of this; they have acquired the fine skill of disguising this contradiction (much like the proof of 5=4 elsewhere in this discussion).
I'm not suggesting the general proof is not valid, nor am I questioning induction (and, indeed, I find induction quite elegant), but I can't consider a general proof which consists of 5 completely different proofs for different ranges of numbers to be elegant. its the same kinda thing as writing a whole bunch of if-then-elseif-elseif... statements as opposed to a one-line-of-code general statement.
seems rather an inelegant way to make a general proof; general proof for n>=5, the seperate proofs for n=1, n=2, n=3 and n=4. Does this new proof just do n=3, or is it a _nice_ general proof?
The Poincaré Conjecture proved, and microsoft ads on slashdot