(A) What forest? And I can't see any trees. Also, did you really mean to say that my cleverness is relevant? (B) But criminals nevertheless. Also, if we're speaking in terms of order, an illegal trip across country borders is typically orders of magnitude greater than an illegal trip across a street. Moreover, illegal immigration is on the order of tax evasion.
If true, I don't know, you are free to cite rates of incarceration and crimes and the demographics involved, simply being an illegal alien doesn't necessarily translate into being a criminal.
Actually, there's a funny thing about being an illegal alien. It's actually illegal to be in this country illegally, so 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.
Right. Leaving you back at square one, where you need software to filter your mail. Remind me what problem this solves? Oh right, people invested in Centmail, and the investors need their moneys back now.
Problem is this: if you blindly trust Centmail, then it'll be worth it for spammers to pay to send email. Don't believe it? Check your physical mailbox.
Right. So Isabelle is necessarily an incomplete theorem prover -- but is it consistent? Also, is it bug-free?
And more concretely... is the spec bug-free? It took us years of trusting the DNS spec before Kaminsky found that little bug in the spec and could have pwn'd the world.
Hmm, this problem is easier than people seem to think. We've seen pretty good results towards carbon transistors, etc. Hence, if the public dissents, we incinerate their brains, and build microchips out of them. I just don't see the trouble here.
Yes, you can copy the binary over to any other computer. It might be hard, but you can do it. It might not work there, but there's nothing in GPLv2 that says that binaries have to work anywhere you copy them -- that would be ridiculous -- am I to fear a lawsuit that the GPLv2 software I compiled for the PDP10 in my basement doesn't work on your iPhone? AFAIK, the AppStore doesn't put license restrictions on the software, and if anything, the AppStore is in violation of the GPL, and *not* the author.
To the contrary, Slashdot is a nerd-emphasized general forum. Therefore, the reader is expected to read, "People Emit Visible Light" and not think,
ZOMG, 'visible' means 'I can see it with my naked (har har he said naked) eye' but I've never seen a person emit visible light ZOMG slashd0t is wrongz0rz and my haed asplode!'.
Rather, the nerd is expected to think something along the lines of,
In my experience, humans do not emit visible light that I can see. What awesome tech did they use to detect visible light coming off of a human???
So today, we found out who's a nerd, and who's a nerd poser. Hint: nerd posers have trouble when language use deviates from the common or vernacular.
Oh no, it's not invisible light. It's visible. You just can't see it.
Compare this to the light emitted by stars. It's hugely bright... but from millions of light-years away, it might be too faint to see with the naked eye. Does the star emit visible light? I'd say yes.
Not really that difficult, really. The trick is to go in conspicuously. For the most part, the background checks only go back 7 years or so -- not that hard to keep clean for 7 years. That, or go medieval on their asses, and just pay a disaffected NSA agent.
Fact of the matter is, bicyclists pay for those roads, too. The law is, and should be on our side in this matter. Sometimes, it is necessary to ride 8 feet out from the curb -- 2 feet from the curb, you find puddles of broken glass, potholes, and storm drains that are dangerous to cyclists. Also, doors of parked cars frequently swing open as inattentive drivers step out of their vehicles. A rider is also more visible to cars turning into the lane, or crossing the street. Finally, sometimes, it's unsafe to pass -- if you pass a cyclist on a narrow road, and another car comes down the opposing lane, *smash* -- you might not get hurt much, but the cyclist could die. So yes, we ride 8 feet out from the curb when safety dictates. Some just occupy an entire lane because they believe that's their right -- and it certainly is, from a legal perspective, though I disagree with the practice, since it isn't really "sharing the road".
We have just as much of a right to be on the road as you do. Sidewalks are massively unsafe, and typically clogged with pedestrian traffic -- hah -- just like you, we don't want to wait. But if a cyclist rides on the sidewalk, they're invisible to cars until they cross the street, and *bam*. Similarly, they're silent and too close to corners, and pedestrians just don't see 'em coming. Moreover, I, and many other cyclists, ride at around 20-25mph on flats, and 35+ down hills -- for my entire commute, I keep up with traffic, and I ride on major roads. I eat mopeds for breakfast, and today I even beat a BMW in on my way to work. If I hit a pedestrian, it wouldn't just be profanity, there'd be a trip to the hospital.
I don't know where you got the idea that roads were built for cars. If you live in the Twin Cities, those roads were built for horses. They're maintained by taxpayer money -- and cyclists pay the same taxes you do. Moreover, they're helping the environment, and given that *most* of the cyclists you see aren't major jackasses like the outspoken minority that you're railing against, traffic is almost certainly better because of them. Yeah -- there are jackasses, and they're an embarrassment to the entire community. Don't buy into their bullshit, and don't be a jackass yourself: share the road.
As for bright flashing lights? Yeah -- we get hit by inattentive drivers, and (shock and surprise) we need to see in the dark, so we get big lights -- but I've never seen bike lights nearly as bright as I see on motorcycles (which flash too, these days) or the damned halogens on hummers and hondas.
Did you read that link, or just look at the picture? They voted to reduce possession to the lowest priority. Seattle did that too, but it wasn't put to vote -- the police chief who made that decision is now the drug czar. Who knows, maybe somebody in the administration is paying attention. But that link doesn't say anywhere on it that California voted to legalize, nor that Washington somehow shut them down.
No, you cad, this is not steampunk. Correlation is not causation: this is history. Steampunk is a fictional genre that romanticizes the period in history that this real machine came from. Moreover, the thing appears to be made of plastic -- I'm betting that if some steampunk fanboi built one of these today, they'd use a metric fuck-ton of brass, and it'd have pointless dials and knobs out the wazoo.
It's illegal to drive intoxicated; it's up to the cops to figure it out. What do they do now, if they pull somebody over for driving erratically, and they're high on some illegal substance? What does the legality of the intoxicant have anything to do with it? Not being able to police illegitimate users is no reason to outlaw it for everybody.
As many more will surely point out, the number of marijuana smokers will probably not change much. I assure you, there are people who drive stoned every day -- I even knew a pizza delivery guy (with a clean driving record!) who got high within minutes of waking up, and stayed high until he went to bed. That he had a clean driving record should not be taken as evidence that driving high is somehow safe, but that people do this a lot and still get away with it, even though the drug is illegal.
No, the mercury is in the CFL bulbs. Incandescents, so far as I know, don't contain significant amounts of mercury -- or at least, they shouldn't. And as another poster pointed out... bulbs break. Kids are clumsy, and break things. Lamp falls over, CFL breaks, mercury spills all over the carpet. Unless you call in a hazmat crew, it'll probably stay in your environment for a long time. Hence, enters your child's bloodstream.
Yes, but these incandescents contain nanoparticles which are going to reduce our world to grey goo! Fear! The certainty of yet another generation of children subjected to scientifically-proven mercury poisoning is much less scary than the possibility of the destruction of all life on earth!
Force-feedback shouldn't be hard -- it would be weak, of course, but the phone's got a vibrator in it, like any other cell phone. Not to mention the ridiculous drain on the battery.
What's amusing to me is that the previous article was more along the lines of "sure, it might be possible, but it'd be awfully unstable, so we'll never be able to use it." And now this article is saying, "hey! This must be possible because the big bang did it!"
Um. Yes. "The big bang" sounds very stable to me. I'm sure we'll be able to warp all over the place with your "big bang drive". Uhm, and safely, too.
However, I'm going to have to call BS on your claim of sub-linear time, since that would not even allow you to _touch_ every index in the array.
Correct you are! The trick is to only touch the indices that need to change (or at least, minimize the ones you do). Like I said -- if you know what your data looks like, you almost always win. In this case, we were working on the innards of a partition refinement algorithm -- not only were we sorting the integers {0,1,..,n} under a weighting (a function {0,1,..,n} -> {0,1,..,k}), but we also knew that almost all of the list is already correctly sorted; and precisely where we should look for unsorted bits (not X and Y, but "everything between X and Y" where X and Y are usually very close). Wikipedia has a great article about the algorithm we used: counting sort -- and in our case, n and k are usually very small compared to the size of the list.
Can Knuth do us all a favor, and apply this philosophy to TeX?
For the love of anything that claims, or even vaguely seems to be a god, no! Please, nobody disturb or distract Knuth until he gets volume 4 done. The man does have a limited life-span, you know. I'd rather see volume 7 than a new release of Tex.
Slashdot Mirror
(A) What forest? And I can't see any trees. Also, did you really mean to say that my cleverness is relevant?
(B) But criminals nevertheless. Also, if we're speaking in terms of order, an illegal trip across country borders is typically orders of magnitude greater than an illegal trip across a street. Moreover, illegal immigration is on the order of tax evasion.
If true, I don't know, you are free to cite rates of incarceration and crimes and the demographics involved, simply being an illegal alien doesn't necessarily translate into being a criminal.
Actually, there's a funny thing about being an illegal alien. It's actually illegal to be in this country illegally, so 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.
Right. Leaving you back at square one, where you need software to filter your mail. Remind me what problem this solves? Oh right, people invested in Centmail, and the investors need their moneys back now.
Not if they pay with a stolen credit card...
Problem is this: if you blindly trust Centmail, then it'll be worth it for spammers to pay to send email. Don't believe it? Check your physical mailbox.
Right. So Isabelle is necessarily an incomplete theorem prover -- but is it consistent? Also, is it bug-free?
And more concretely... is the spec bug-free? It took us years of trusting the DNS spec before Kaminsky found that little bug in the spec and could have pwn'd the world.
Hmm, this problem is easier than people seem to think. We've seen pretty good results towards carbon transistors, etc. Hence, if the public dissents, we incinerate their brains, and build microchips out of them. I just don't see the trouble here.
Yes, you can copy the binary over to any other computer. It might be hard, but you can do it. It might not work there, but there's nothing in GPLv2 that says that binaries have to work anywhere you copy them -- that would be ridiculous -- am I to fear a lawsuit that the GPLv2 software I compiled for the PDP10 in my basement doesn't work on your iPhone? AFAIK, the AppStore doesn't put license restrictions on the software, and if anything, the AppStore is in violation of the GPL, and *not* the author.
disclaimer: I don't have a basement, or a PDP10
To the contrary, Slashdot is a nerd-emphasized general forum. Therefore, the reader is expected to read, "People Emit Visible Light" and not think,
ZOMG, 'visible' means 'I can see it with my naked (har har he said naked) eye' but I've never seen a person emit visible light ZOMG slashd0t is wrongz0rz and my haed asplode!'.
Rather, the nerd is expected to think something along the lines of,
In my experience, humans do not emit visible light that I can see. What awesome tech did they use to detect visible light coming off of a human???
So today, we found out who's a nerd, and who's a nerd poser. Hint: nerd posers have trouble when language use deviates from the common or vernacular.
Oh no, it's not invisible light. It's visible. You just can't see it.
Compare this to the light emitted by stars. It's hugely bright... but from millions of light-years away, it might be too faint to see with the naked eye. Does the star emit visible light? I'd say yes.
But then, nobody else could use your credit card. P2P is all about sharing. Don't be a leech.
Not really that difficult, really. The trick is to go in conspicuously. For the most part, the background checks only go back 7 years or so -- not that hard to keep clean for 7 years. That, or go medieval on their asses, and just pay a disaffected NSA agent.
Fact of the matter is, bicyclists pay for those roads, too. The law is, and should be on our side in this matter. Sometimes, it is necessary to ride 8 feet out from the curb -- 2 feet from the curb, you find puddles of broken glass, potholes, and storm drains that are dangerous to cyclists. Also, doors of parked cars frequently swing open as inattentive drivers step out of their vehicles. A rider is also more visible to cars turning into the lane, or crossing the street. Finally, sometimes, it's unsafe to pass -- if you pass a cyclist on a narrow road, and another car comes down the opposing lane, *smash* -- you might not get hurt much, but the cyclist could die. So yes, we ride 8 feet out from the curb when safety dictates. Some just occupy an entire lane because they believe that's their right -- and it certainly is, from a legal perspective, though I disagree with the practice, since it isn't really "sharing the road".
We have just as much of a right to be on the road as you do. Sidewalks are massively unsafe, and typically clogged with pedestrian traffic -- hah -- just like you, we don't want to wait. But if a cyclist rides on the sidewalk, they're invisible to cars until they cross the street, and *bam*. Similarly, they're silent and too close to corners, and pedestrians just don't see 'em coming. Moreover, I, and many other cyclists, ride at around 20-25mph on flats, and 35+ down hills -- for my entire commute, I keep up with traffic, and I ride on major roads. I eat mopeds for breakfast, and today I even beat a BMW in on my way to work. If I hit a pedestrian, it wouldn't just be profanity, there'd be a trip to the hospital.
I don't know where you got the idea that roads were built for cars. If you live in the Twin Cities, those roads were built for horses. They're maintained by taxpayer money -- and cyclists pay the same taxes you do. Moreover, they're helping the environment, and given that *most* of the cyclists you see aren't major jackasses like the outspoken minority that you're railing against, traffic is almost certainly better because of them. Yeah -- there are jackasses, and they're an embarrassment to the entire community. Don't buy into their bullshit, and don't be a jackass yourself: share the road.
As for bright flashing lights? Yeah -- we get hit by inattentive drivers, and (shock and surprise) we need to see in the dark, so we get big lights -- but I've never seen bike lights nearly as bright as I see on motorcycles (which flash too, these days) or the damned halogens on hummers and hondas.
RTFA: super bright LEDs + lasers.
Did you read that link, or just look at the picture? They voted to reduce possession to the lowest priority. Seattle did that too, but it wasn't put to vote -- the police chief who made that decision is now the drug czar. Who knows, maybe somebody in the administration is paying attention. But that link doesn't say anywhere on it that California voted to legalize, nor that Washington somehow shut them down.
Daily.
No, you cad, this is not steampunk. Correlation is not causation: this is history. Steampunk is a fictional genre that romanticizes the period in history that this real machine came from. Moreover, the thing appears to be made of plastic -- I'm betting that if some steampunk fanboi built one of these today, they'd use a metric fuck-ton of brass, and it'd have pointless dials and knobs out the wazoo.
It's illegal to drive intoxicated; it's up to the cops to figure it out. What do they do now, if they pull somebody over for driving erratically, and they're high on some illegal substance? What does the legality of the intoxicant have anything to do with it? Not being able to police illegitimate users is no reason to outlaw it for everybody.
As many more will surely point out, the number of marijuana smokers will probably not change much. I assure you, there are people who drive stoned every day -- I even knew a pizza delivery guy (with a clean driving record!) who got high within minutes of waking up, and stayed high until he went to bed. That he had a clean driving record should not be taken as evidence that driving high is somehow safe, but that people do this a lot and still get away with it, even though the drug is illegal.
No, the mercury is in the CFL bulbs. Incandescents, so far as I know, don't contain significant amounts of mercury -- or at least, they shouldn't. And as another poster pointed out... bulbs break. Kids are clumsy, and break things. Lamp falls over, CFL breaks, mercury spills all over the carpet. Unless you call in a hazmat crew, it'll probably stay in your environment for a long time. Hence, enters your child's bloodstream.
Yes, but these incandescents contain nanoparticles which are going to reduce our world to grey goo! Fear! The certainty of yet another generation of children subjected to scientifically-proven mercury poisoning is much less scary than the possibility of the destruction of all life on earth!
Force-feedback shouldn't be hard -- it would be weak, of course, but the phone's got a vibrator in it, like any other cell phone. Not to mention the ridiculous drain on the battery.
What's amusing to me is that the previous article was more along the lines of "sure, it might be possible, but it'd be awfully unstable, so we'll never be able to use it." And now this article is saying, "hey! This must be possible because the big bang did it!"
Um. Yes. "The big bang" sounds very stable to me. I'm sure we'll be able to warp all over the place with your "big bang drive". Uhm, and safely, too.
Naw, here on Slashdot, we blame the victim -- trolls are simply misunderstood -- offended parties should be modded "intolerant".
However, I'm going to have to call BS on your claim of sub-linear time, since that would not even allow you to _touch_ every index in the array.
Correct you are! The trick is to only touch the indices that need to change (or at least, minimize the ones you do). Like I said -- if you know what your data looks like, you almost always win. In this case, we were working on the innards of a partition refinement algorithm -- not only were we sorting the integers {0,1,..,n} under a weighting (a function {0,1,..,n} -> {0,1,..,k}), but we also knew that almost all of the list is already correctly sorted; and precisely where we should look for unsorted bits (not X and Y, but "everything between X and Y" where X and Y are usually very close). Wikipedia has a great article about the algorithm we used: counting sort -- and in our case, n and k are usually very small compared to the size of the list.
Can Knuth do us all a favor, and apply this philosophy to TeX?
For the love of anything that claims, or even vaguely seems to be a god, no! Please, nobody disturb or distract Knuth until he gets volume 4 done. The man does have a limited life-span, you know. I'd rather see volume 7 than a new release of Tex.