I am fairly certain that Wiles's proof is not the same as Fermat's as some of the concepts used to prove it were not around in Fermat's time.
Given that it took Wiles years to prove it, and several mathematical techniques that were unknown until the 1960s (eliptic curves), I think you can be more than fairly certain.
I do not, however, know if this proof could have been the one given by Fermat.
We'll have to wait for the proof, but I seriously doubt it.
In my mind the most likely case was that Fermat thought he had a proof but was mistaken; it's happened to countless mathematicians since.
Are you telling me that these serious users will ditch their whole platform, sell off their equipment at rip off prices, just because Adobe doesn't support their favourite brand's file format?
They probably won't ditch it, but if there's a film photographer looking to make the move to digital, or someone looking to enter the field, it very well could be enough to sway their opinion away from Nikon.
I may get a DSLR sometime over summer. I was considering between the Nikon D70 and the Canon Rebel XT, but this debacle is probably enough to push me to the Canon side unless Nikon has something substantial to make up for it. (The push comes from a combination of the actual issue and a couple comparisons I've read between Nikon and Canon cameras in the area of their JPEG conversions. I've seen a few comments that the JPEGs that Canon cameras come up with are a lot nicer than Nikon's.)
Not only DVD Jon, but the Adobe e-book case and the BNetD case (which is currently standing in favor of Blizzard while it's under appeal) come to mind.
WMA works well a lot of the time if you ignore the problems with it being a propriatary format. Comedy Central has some streaming clips of, say, the Daily Show that work quite nicely.
No, it doesn't mean that, unless Nikon specifically prohibits their libraries to be used with open source programs. And even then such a clause might be unenforcable.
The author could release the rest of the rest of the program under the BSD license. Or the Apache license. Or the LGPL. Or the GPL with an exemption that allows it to be compiled with the Nikon library. Or even the GPL without an exemption, though that would be rather bastardish of the author. These are all open source licenses that the remainder of the program could be licensed under.
Actually, if you read the original article in Spectrum, you'll see that a lot of it was simulated: in particular critical lifeboat procedures (including the important power-the-CSM-from-the-LM-through-the-umbilicals bit) were developed after an Apollo 10 sim where three fuel cells were failed at almost the same point that they did on 13.
I'll add to this another example:
In the movie the over-dramatized manual burn is proceeded by Tom Hanks figuring out that they can use the Earth's terminator as a reference point they would be able to burn, an idea that fully escaped Houston.
In real life, the whole (or at least most of the) procedure was tested during Apollo 8, which, coincidentally, Lovell was also on. When 13 was faced with that problem, Mission Control called up the procedure to 13, and Lovell responeded with something like "hey, that sounds like what we did on Apollo 8", and Mission Control responded "we were wondering if you would recognize that."
The movie is pretty accurate if you ignore the things that are pretty much obviously dramatized (VERY accurate by Hollywood standards), but you should still read up on what happened, for things that are both changed and left out of the movie. I can't speak to the quality of the Spectrum article because I haven't read it (sorry!), but I strongly recommend Lovell's book. Depending on when it was printed and whether you have paperback or hardcover, it might be titled either Lost Moon or Apollo 13; in either case, it served as the basis for the movie.
Because, for example, Newton's laws can be learned in third grade. And they are right 99.999% of the time. Special relativity requires a hefty background of math to understand.
This is a bit extreme, but the fact is that what you learn is still helpful even though it may be "wrong" from a precise standard.
In fact, the situations are so similar that I can't see how you could think otherwise.
Because if the font were separated from the document you'd get a message saying "font such-and-so isn't present" and it'd default to some font that is present. If you lose one of the libraries distributed with a program, it stops working.
Here's my line of thinking here.
1. Suppose I create a document that doesn't embed the font. Does that make the document GPL? I don't see how it could, or any document using a copyrighted font wouldn't be distributable.
2. Suppose I create a document that DOESN'T use GPL'd font X at all. I then zip up font X with my document and distribute it. Does this make the document GPL? No, because this is clearly just aggregation.
3. What happens if I include a pointer in a document using font X saying where you can download the font, so that the reader can get it and install it, and see it as it was meant? I still don't see how the GPL+copyright law could be interpreted as requiring the document to be put into GPL.
4. What happens if I zip up the font with my document (with source), but it's still just the font you can download and the document that uses the font but doesn't embed it. In light of items #1-#3 above, I don't see how this could be illegal.
5. You now directly embed the font in the document. What is the distinction from #4 above?
If embedded fonts force the document to be GPL'd, where does the line get drawn? Between 3 and 4? Between 4 and 5? What's the distinction?
Or how 'bout Apollo 13 (formerly called Lost Moon, which is a much more interesting title) by Jim Lovell, who was the Apollo 13 commander. Different focus than Kranz's book (which I also recommend), on mostly the one flight rather than the whole space program. You get to see which parts of the movie are right (most of it), which parts of the movie actually happened but at a different time or only slightly different mannner (such as Lovell's "you know that trip to Acapulco we had planned" bit, which actually happened before Apollo 8, not 13), and which parts are mostly or all made up. You also get to find out stuff that was omitted from the move (the PC+2 burn... find out what that was).
I don't know which of these WP5.1 will do because I don't happen to have an installation sitting around, but here are some ideas. Probably a couple were supported, but I doubt most were, let alone all:
- Multiple versions saved in one document - Track changes (which you'll still notice they are improving BTW; from 2000 to 2002 the deleted text marker became much less obtrusive and is much nicer) - Master documents - Outline view - OLE embedding, for instance Microsoft Equation - Floats - Pictures (IIRC WP5.1 was console based, at least the version we had, so I don't know what it had in this area) - Styles instead of just font specifications
Now, I usually use LaTeX for anything substantial, but these are all features I have used on at least a couple occasions, and often many.
50 years ago, a movie couldn't show a a black man and white woman kissing. The government censors would cut the scene out. You couldn't show two men kissing-- religious fanatics in the government would have you thrown in jail.
The government never had this much control over movies. Film censorship was done to get by the production code, which was instituted by the studios themselves and was theoretically voluntary. You'd lose most of your audience if your film wasn't approved as most theatres would refuse to screen it, but you wouldn't be thrown in jail for it. Even during WWII when the industry submitted its films for review by the gov't, such censorship was voluntary.
And to your point I'd also like to add mention of the Alien and Sedition acts of the 1790s, the Espionage act of WWI, and the WWII Japanese internment camps.
You know, if you're gonna correct someone, be sure to get it right. (Like me; right now I'm going to Google "libel" to be 100% positive I spelled it right.)
Not true. When this article was posted to Fark a couple days ago, someone quoted IIRC the US Treasury dept's web page that said explicitly that they do not have to accept anything. (I don't have the link because Fark's database crashed and the last couple days' of data was lost.)
The signs that you see at convienience stores that they don't accept anything above $20s are perfectly fine.
Places can also refuse, say, payments in a ton of pennies.
No, cops do not need a warrant to just respond. However cops do need more than just one witnesses hearsay to make an arrest. Cops need a little more proof to arrest someone.
We'll get to this statement in a moment in general, but in this case, they had more. They had the bills. With smearing ink. Whether this is probably cause is probably debatable (and them locking him up is absurd), but it's a lot more than just a hunch and a lot more than not knowing that $2 bills exist.
I would be really scared if cops in the USA were allowed to just arrest people on just the "testimony" of one person. Please don't tell me this has happened any where!
They are allowed to. You can get warrants based off of one person's statement. I don't know the situations under which this statement must be obtained though. Remember that filing a false report or interfering with an investigation are crimes, so if you falsely accuse someone you can go to jail.
I imagine sociology isn't that much different--at least, it wasn't in Poli Sci when I was in college. First, you have to learn a bunch of basic facts and rules and concepts, and demonstrate that you have a know them. You should be able to talk about them, define them, and answer questions about them. Anybody who's being creative in a freshman sociology class is ahead of the game.
There's a huge gap though between grading an essay -- written in natural language -- and a math assignment where you could just check each equality to see if it holds then if the answer is right.
Even with the latter, I think there would still need to be quite a bit of heuristics developed to try to tell if, for instance, the steps are simple enough to consider the person to have showed all their work. And if you resort to natural language to explain your steps (in a proof for instance) you've suddenly transformed your program into something thing is no longer "trivial" by an means.
"Now, you can do some crunching to save some space, but I've not run into any software yet that will let you keep your DVD menus and special features intact when you crunch the video using xvid or similar)"
Not to mention 5.1 sound (maybe not for TV shows, but modern movies, yeah). Unless someone knows something I don't...
Slashdot Mirror
No, they just shot each other instead.
I am fairly certain that Wiles's proof is not the same as Fermat's as some of the concepts used to prove it were not around in Fermat's time.
Given that it took Wiles years to prove it, and several mathematical techniques that were unknown until the 1960s (eliptic curves), I think you can be more than fairly certain.
I do not, however, know if this proof could have been the one given by Fermat.
We'll have to wait for the proof, but I seriously doubt it.
In my mind the most likely case was that Fermat thought he had a proof but was mistaken; it's happened to countless mathematicians since.
Are you telling me that these serious users will ditch their whole platform, sell off their equipment at rip off prices, just because Adobe doesn't support their favourite brand's file format?
They probably won't ditch it, but if there's a film photographer looking to make the move to digital, or someone looking to enter the field, it very well could be enough to sway their opinion away from Nikon.
I may get a DSLR sometime over summer. I was considering between the Nikon D70 and the Canon Rebel XT, but this debacle is probably enough to push me to the Canon side unless Nikon has something substantial to make up for it. (The push comes from a combination of the actual issue and a couple comparisons I've read between Nikon and Canon cameras in the area of their JPEG conversions. I've seen a few comments that the JPEGs that Canon cameras come up with are a lot nicer than Nikon's.)
*Sigh*
Even the transformation from RAW to a format with lossless compression is a lossy conversion. See, for instance, here, here, and here.
Not only DVD Jon, but the Adobe e-book case and the BNetD case (which is currently standing in favor of Blizzard while it's under appeal) come to mind.
WMA works well a lot of the time if you ignore the problems with it being a propriatary format. Comedy Central has some streaming clips of, say, the Daily Show that work quite nicely.
So I would suggest to my fellow geeks to do what you can when you can and take articles such as these with no more than a grain of salt.
Good idea; too much sodium is bad for you.
No, it doesn't mean that, unless Nikon specifically prohibits their libraries to be used with open source programs. And even then such a clause might be unenforcable.
The author could release the rest of the rest of the program under the BSD license. Or the Apache license. Or the LGPL. Or the GPL with an exemption that allows it to be compiled with the Nikon library. Or even the GPL without an exemption, though that would be rather bastardish of the author. These are all open source licenses that the remainder of the program could be licensed under.
See above, for instance here , here, and here, for why.
How did this get mod'd up?
Which doesn't mean that they wouldn't try, or even suceed.
See Blizzard v. bNetd. The currently standing ruling is that bNetd is in violation of the DMCA; an appeal to the 8th Circuit Court is pending.
They won't provide an open source license to an open source project. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the program can't be open source.
No no, the artists are already decomposing.
(With apologies to Monty Python and their "Decomposing Composers")
Actually, if you read the original article in Spectrum, you'll see that a lot of it was simulated: in particular critical lifeboat procedures (including the important power-the-CSM-from-the-LM-through-the-umbilicals bit) were developed after an Apollo 10 sim where three fuel cells were failed at almost the same point that they did on 13.
I'll add to this another example:
In the movie the over-dramatized manual burn is proceeded by Tom Hanks figuring out that they can use the Earth's terminator as a reference point they would be able to burn, an idea that fully escaped Houston.
In real life, the whole (or at least most of the) procedure was tested during Apollo 8, which, coincidentally, Lovell was also on. When 13 was faced with that problem, Mission Control called up the procedure to 13, and Lovell responeded with something like "hey, that sounds like what we did on Apollo 8", and Mission Control responded "we were wondering if you would recognize that."
The movie is pretty accurate if you ignore the things that are pretty much obviously dramatized (VERY accurate by Hollywood standards), but you should still read up on what happened, for things that are both changed and left out of the movie. I can't speak to the quality of the Spectrum article because I haven't read it (sorry!), but I strongly recommend Lovell's book. Depending on when it was printed and whether you have paperback or hardcover, it might be titled either Lost Moon or Apollo 13; in either case, it served as the basis for the movie.
Because, for example, Newton's laws can be learned in third grade. And they are right 99.999% of the time. Special relativity requires a hefty background of math to understand.
This is a bit extreme, but the fact is that what you learn is still helpful even though it may be "wrong" from a precise standard.
In fact, the situations are so similar that I can't see how you could think otherwise.
Because if the font were separated from the document you'd get a message saying "font such-and-so isn't present" and it'd default to some font that is present. If you lose one of the libraries distributed with a program, it stops working.
Here's my line of thinking here.
1. Suppose I create a document that doesn't embed the font. Does that make the document GPL? I don't see how it could, or any document using a copyrighted font wouldn't be distributable.
2. Suppose I create a document that DOESN'T use GPL'd font X at all. I then zip up font X with my document and distribute it. Does this make the document GPL? No, because this is clearly just aggregation.
3. What happens if I include a pointer in a document using font X saying where you can download the font, so that the reader can get it and install it, and see it as it was meant? I still don't see how the GPL+copyright law could be interpreted as requiring the document to be put into GPL.
4. What happens if I zip up the font with my document (with source), but it's still just the font you can download and the document that uses the font but doesn't embed it. In light of items #1-#3 above, I don't see how this could be illegal.
5. You now directly embed the font in the document. What is the distinction from #4 above?
If embedded fonts force the document to be GPL'd, where does the line get drawn? Between 3 and 4? Between 4 and 5? What's the distinction?
Or how 'bout Apollo 13 (formerly called Lost Moon, which is a much more interesting title) by Jim Lovell, who was the Apollo 13 commander. Different focus than Kranz's book (which I also recommend), on mostly the one flight rather than the whole space program. You get to see which parts of the movie are right (most of it), which parts of the movie actually happened but at a different time or only slightly different mannner (such as Lovell's "you know that trip to Acapulco we had planned" bit, which actually happened before Apollo 8, not 13), and which parts are mostly or all made up. You also get to find out stuff that was omitted from the move (the PC+2 burn... find out what that was).
I don't know which of these WP5.1 will do because I don't happen to have an installation sitting around, but here are some ideas. Probably a couple were supported, but I doubt most were, let alone all:
- Multiple versions saved in one document
- Track changes (which you'll still notice they are improving BTW; from 2000 to 2002 the deleted text marker became much less obtrusive and is much nicer)
- Master documents
- Outline view
- OLE embedding, for instance Microsoft Equation
- Floats
- Pictures (IIRC WP5.1 was console based, at least the version we had, so I don't know what it had in this area)
- Styles instead of just font specifications
Now, I usually use LaTeX for anything substantial, but these are all features I have used on at least a couple occasions, and often many.
50 years ago, a movie couldn't show a a black man and white woman kissing. The government censors would cut the scene out. You couldn't show two men kissing-- religious fanatics in the government would have you thrown in jail.
The government never had this much control over movies. Film censorship was done to get by the production code, which was instituted by the studios themselves and was theoretically voluntary. You'd lose most of your audience if your film wasn't approved as most theatres would refuse to screen it, but you wouldn't be thrown in jail for it. Even during WWII when the industry submitted its films for review by the gov't, such censorship was voluntary.
And to your point I'd also like to add mention of the Alien and Sedition acts of the 1790s, the Espionage act of WWI, and the WWII Japanese internment camps.
Aparently beau is only in reference to a guy. Okay...
*slinks into a corner*
I agree with the people saying that you should turn it over regardless of whether you could be forced to.
Keep in mind not only the present but what would happen if a future potential beau gets wind of the story and thinks you're vindictive.
Liable for what?
You know, if you're gonna correct someone, be sure to get it right. (Like me; right now I'm going to Google "libel" to be 100% positive I spelled it right.)
Not true. When this article was posted to Fark a couple days ago, someone quoted IIRC the US Treasury dept's web page that said explicitly that they do not have to accept anything. (I don't have the link because Fark's database crashed and the last couple days' of data was lost.)
The signs that you see at convienience stores that they don't accept anything above $20s are perfectly fine.
Places can also refuse, say, payments in a ton of pennies.
No, cops do not need a warrant to just respond. However cops do need more than just one witnesses hearsay to make an arrest. Cops need a little more proof to arrest someone.
We'll get to this statement in a moment in general, but in this case, they had more. They had the bills. With smearing ink. Whether this is probably cause is probably debatable (and them locking him up is absurd), but it's a lot more than just a hunch and a lot more than not knowing that $2 bills exist.
I would be really scared if cops in the USA were allowed to just arrest people on just the "testimony" of one person. Please don't tell me this has happened any where!
They are allowed to. You can get warrants based off of one person's statement. I don't know the situations under which this statement must be obtained though. Remember that filing a false report or interfering with an investigation are crimes, so if you falsely accuse someone you can go to jail.
I imagine sociology isn't that much different--at least, it wasn't in Poli Sci when I was in college. First, you have to learn a bunch of basic facts and rules and concepts, and demonstrate that you have a know them. You should be able to talk about them, define them, and answer questions about them. Anybody who's being creative in a freshman sociology class is ahead of the game.
There's a huge gap though between grading an essay -- written in natural language -- and a math assignment where you could just check each equality to see if it holds then if the answer is right.
Even with the latter, I think there would still need to be quite a bit of heuristics developed to try to tell if, for instance, the steps are simple enough to consider the person to have showed all their work. And if you resort to natural language to explain your steps (in a proof for instance) you've suddenly transformed your program into something thing is no longer "trivial" by an means.
"Now, you can do some crunching to save some space, but I've not run into any software yet that will let you keep your DVD menus and special features intact when you crunch the video using xvid or similar)"
Not to mention 5.1 sound (maybe not for TV shows, but modern movies, yeah). Unless someone knows something I don't...