As a matter of fact 2048 bits can represent numbers up to 2^2048 ~= 3.23x10^616. By the Prime Number Theorem there is about 2.27x10^613 primes in that space. If each prime required 2048 bits to store, then storing all the 2048 bit primes requires more petabytes then you and I are likely to ever see.
(Jeez I hope I didn't do the math wrong. The most convenient calc I have available to me as I write this in the Windows calc)
I'm betting that the email address here is some poor liberal. Would a conservative really post AC then include an email address in an easily harvested form.
Not only that, but I'm sure that there's a slashdotter or two who has or is considering feeding this email address to a spammer.
My guess is that some unsuspecting liberal is getting spam for dinner tonight.
Yep, but it seems like a lot of people want to paint Zogby as a liberal pollster this time around. I think that's a little silly because he's been accurate in the past and, if my candidate was not doing well in a particular state, I'd want to know about it.
However, since Zogby differs from Strategic Vision and Gallup(which seems to be aversampling republicans), some want to call him liberal. I think in the end, everybody will call him right.
Looks like an informative site. However, it has a pretty dense presentation (which I actually kinda like) but was there something in particular that you wanted me to look at? Like maybe something about electoral-vote.com?
Total Crap. Polls are conducted over a period of time. The votemast firgure out the middle date and picks the poll that has the latest middle data. In the case of a tie, he chooses the poll with the shortest duration.
It doesn't matter if the latest poll is a Strategic Vision poll (thought to be republican-leaning) or a Zogby (who some think is democrat-leaning)
If you've been really watching the site, you'd notice that there have been wild swings from Kerry to Bush in the past.
Now, I think that this is just a crackpot attempt to discredit what has been a really good site (even if I did wish that he'd throw out Strategic Vission).
Yep, we were there at the same time. There was a QA guy that moved from the Lafayette office to the Chicago office about that time. Can't remember his name.
According to Barry Parshall, mdbs is(was) sueing a lot of its former customers. It's been a few years since we had that conversation though. They're operating out of a P.O. Box now.
All I can really say is that working for Kim Logan made me the programmer I am today. He taught me to know where all the bodies are burried. I can't tell you how many times I've bailed out other developers because I could debug optimized x86 code.
Dead on. The thing is that this sort of thinking is *BASIC* strategic thinking. Something I expect our president to either have down pat or surround himself with people that do.
However, this president is thinking with that "Bring it on!" mentality that maybe gratifying in the short term but hurts the US in the long term.
Kerry and Edwards don't want to cut and run. They say that they want a stable and democratic Iraq. They want to:
Internationalize, because others must share the burden;
Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;
Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and
Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.
I would think that someone who has been in Iraq and seen the price that we're paying would not only want a good outcome but want a president that wasn't going to waste the lives of soldiers because he told most of our allies to basically go f&%*^ themselves.
I think that a lot of the label of "flip-flopper" that Kerry's gotten is because his position on the Iraq war is that we were wrong to go but that, now we're there, we have to be effective and get Iraq stable and independent ASAP. That's not a position that's easy to convey in the soundbite media environment that he's dealing with.
Nope. You missed the point. Most financial aid is provided/guaranteed by the US governement. Many of our institution are funded by the federal and local governments.
Why is it better to give that money to an illegal immigrant than a US citizen?
Taking some points out of order, just to get the data in then the speculation.
The IBC itself does not publish citations for the sources of its study, and uses a method that has been proven to overestimate figures. I'm too lazy to make a link and even though the source is conservative, it explains the faults of the system: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp
The IBC does publish citations. Check out this. The column on the far right lists a source -- a three-letter code for the publication. Click on the header for definitions. However, I have doubts about the methodology at well.
The BBC also posted other data; unfortunately, they did it in a sidebar. The sources and estimates are:
Iraq Body Count: 13-15,000 Brookings Inst: 10-27,000 UK foreign secretary: >10,000 People's Kifah >37,000
How many of these "civilian" deaths are actually either terrorist or Saddam holdover fighters?
To be completely fair, I don't think it's possible for even the troops actually engaged in the fighting to know that for sure. However, the US and Iraqi governments keep assuring us that the insurgency is small. As compared to what, I want to know. As compared to population (about 25M), 10% would still be huge about 2.5M compared to our ~200K -- even 1% means that they have more people on their side in Iraq.
So let's make an assumption -- that they are telling us the truth. That the insurgency is small compared to the US force -- that seems fair to me. If it's not then we are, to use the most generous phrasing possible, being misled. So let's say that the insurgency is at 5% the strength of the US military presence in Iraq. That would be about 10K. I think this is a pretty darn large estimate, wouldn't you agree? See, I'm trying to allow "small" to be fairly large to be generous to the Administration. It also makes these back-of-the-napkin calculations turn out that we killed less innocents.
Just to put some limits on it, on the high end, if we killed more than about 75% of the insurgency, I think the casualty rate (currently about 2.8 soldier killed/day) among coalition forces would not be rising. So lets assume, again, that the Administration is telling us the truth and we're winning -- that we're right at the breaking point. Let's assume we've killed 75% of the insurgency. That means 7500 people. Again, I'm trying to be generous.
The Brookings Institute is considered "centrist" (they supported President Bush's Headstart changes among others). So, if we killed 7500 insurgents that means we killed between 2500 and 19500 innocent civilians. The middle of the range is 11,000. That's if *every* dead insurgent is being counted as a "civilian casualty". Just to be even more generous we'll say that the Brookings institute has error margins that are just too large, so we'll just lop off the top half of the range to be generous to the Administration.
The point of this little exercise isn't to get good numbers -- nobody thinks they have good numbers. The point is to look at what's being fed to us. It appears to me, that right now we feel like we have to kill between 2.5 and 11 innocent civilians for every US soldier that dies. Is that the mark of a well-run military campaign or is that the mark of tired, mismanaged soldiers who have had their tours extended too far?
No matter which way you think this analysis is wrong, it puts the Administration in an even more unfavorable light. If the insurgency is bigger, they lied. If we've killed less than 75% of the insurgents, we're probably not winning.
It's inescapable. Even if we're being told the truth, that the insurgency is small, that we are winning, and most of the "civilian casualties" are terrorists, then we're killing at least 2 and maybe as many as 11 innocent civilians to every soldier that dies. Seems pretty un-humanitarian to me.
I've been modded -1 Troll! Maybe -1 Crass (or may that should be "+1 Crass") but troll? This is really the image that Americans have in much of the world. I really do believe that the "war on Terror" has been subverted.
And, yes, I believe the George Bush to be of sub-par intelligence.
I think that -1 Troll is for gaping anuses not differences in opinions. Maybe someone will whack this mod in M2.
Where is exactly your source that you can state with such confidence that the 10,000 deaths are innocent people?
Well, the coalition has lost 1043.. Unless you consider the coalition to be "guilty". Oh, there's also the Iraqi's estimates here Nobody, not even the Brookings Institute thinks it's below 10,000.
What are you implying, that soldiers don't shoot at terrorists but they shoot at civilians? That there are no terrorists?
Nope, the BBC article specifies "ordinary civilians". I don't know what their definition or if it's even consistent between reporting agencies (my guess is it's not). However, we can say that a large number of innocent Iraqis have died at the hands of the coalition.
That tooth fairies are shooting at American soldiers and blowing themselves up in car bombs?
This is just hyperbole. Cut it out.
Are you also implying that Saddam's political and terror-inspired atrocities against civilians are interchangeable with a republican guard battalion finding itself at the business end of a daisy cutter during battle?
The BBC says civilians. So there is no overlap between the Republican Guard, who are by definition not civilians during major hostilities, that were blown up by daisy cutters and people killed after the official end of major hostilities.
Seriously, who moderates this pro-terrorist propagandist tripe as insightful?
I do. I have mod point right now. However, I have a weakness for trying to help people understand, so I'm trying to explain instead of just moderating this post.
Are Slashdot moderators gone so far off the deep end?
Nope, some of us just aren't as rock-solid about our own beliefs that we can't even investigate someone else's claims.
I really do hope that you reply. I have to say I'm somewhat confused as to how you could get so self-righteous without being right.
Pull your head out before you suffocate. The "War on Terror" has been subverted from a necessary and correct response and turned into a blank check for bankrupting the US, pursuing any war the administration pleases, alienating former allies, and generally living up to tobacco-chewing, SUV-driving, fake tit grabbing, neo-neanderthal image in the world. (BTW, a lot of people would have thrown in "gun-toting", but I like that part of our image.)
I'm all for having the balls to do something about terrorism but I'm not fond of a president that thinks and urinates with the same body part.
If the labor market prices were "fixed" in favor of corporations, you'd expect corporations to buy more labor at the artificially low cost. This would cause a shortage (as opposed to scarcity). (Think gasoline in the late 70's under the federal price controls).
That's clearly not the case as tech employment is still down.
So, let's make some assumptions. First, you are going to use a condom because of concern over STDs. She is going to be on the pill because she wants to finish her education.
Condoms, when used properly have about a 3% failure rate per year.
The pill has about a 1% failure rate per year.
I would guess that many sexually active college girls are will to have an abortion.
So 1% * 3% * 50% = 0.015%
Now this means roughly that you could fuck like bunnies for 100 years and have about a 1.5% chance of having a child. Or you could have 100% chance of years of sexual frustration.
So, my advice is this: experiment a little but be smart. Combine two good birth controlo options -- you end up with *REALLY* favorable stats. Learning to face up to calculated risks is part of growing up. I don't mean to belittle you at all. There a lot of people who should know better who don't and spend thier lives worried that they're going to get carjacked when it's more likely that they'll die in a household slip and fall.
BTW, I'm getting old. I don't regret *ANY* of the women that I shared sex with. I do regret a few that I didn't.
Very true. However, the orignal post said that IBM didn't have IP that we wanted. I guess it would be a 100% true statement if the orignal said "IBM has no IP that it hasn't already released that we want." I'm pretty convinced that IBM understands the open source comunity pretty deeply.
We wanted: IBM gave --- Jounaling File System: JFS Better SMP: RCU Good Java IDE: Eclipse WSDL Support: WSDL4J Faster Java Compiler: Jikes Java Scripting: BSF Java Database: Cloudscape
It seems like IBM had plenty of IP that we wanted. Frankly, it's not a big deal because they bought into OSS bigtime and realize that they make money of services and hardware.
So, a Spanish question. Is "mujer" a safe translation? I suppose it depends on the context if the male side was translated as "varón" then "mujer" would not be parallel.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for doing the conversion to universes -- I couldn't remember the number of particles in the universe. It's the night before my midterm.
:-)
Anyway, how about units of Library of Congresses?
There are a lot of them.
As a matter of fact 2048 bits can represent numbers up to 2^2048 ~= 3.23x10^616. By the Prime Number Theorem there is about 2.27x10^613 primes in that space. If each prime required 2048 bits to store, then storing all the 2048 bit primes requires more petabytes then you and I are likely to ever see.
(Jeez I hope I didn't do the math wrong. The most convenient calc I have available to me as I write this in the Windows calc)
I'm betting that the email address here is some poor liberal. Would a conservative really post AC then include an email address in an easily harvested form.
Not only that, but I'm sure that there's a slashdotter or two who has or is considering feeding this email address to a spammer.
My guess is that some unsuspecting liberal is getting spam for dinner tonight.
Yep, but it seems like a lot of people want to paint Zogby as a liberal pollster this time around. I think that's a little silly because he's been accurate in the past and, if my candidate was not doing well in a particular state, I'd want to know about it.
However, since Zogby differs from Strategic Vision and Gallup(which seems to be aversampling republicans), some want to call him liberal. I think in the end, everybody will call him right.
Looks like an informative site. However, it has a pretty dense presentation (which I actually kinda like) but was there something in particular that you wanted me to look at? Like maybe something about electoral-vote.com?
Total Crap. Polls are conducted over a period of time. The votemast firgure out the middle date and picks the poll that has the latest middle data. In the case of a tie, he chooses the poll with the shortest duration.
It doesn't matter if the latest poll is a Strategic Vision poll (thought to be republican-leaning) or a Zogby (who some think is democrat-leaning)
If you've been really watching the site, you'd notice that there have been wild swings from Kerry to Bush in the past.
Now, I think that this is just a crackpot attempt to discredit what has been a really good site (even if I did wish that he'd throw out Strategic Vission).
In the Line of Fire. Eastwood and Rene Russo. Don't ask me why I remember it's not like I have a secret thing for Rene or anything.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107206/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155267/
science fiction feet
Is that like "happy feet" or "dancing feet". I think you were looking for "feat". Time for some snide AC to go back to grade school.
there'll be no excuse at all for leaving the screen
....
Um. Social life, family, sex,
Yes, I do realize that I'm posting to slashdot.
I started in technical support working for Barry!!
Yep, we were there at the same time. There was a QA guy that moved from the Lafayette office to the Chicago office about that time. Can't remember his name.
According to Barry Parshall, mdbs is(was) sueing a lot of its former customers. It's been a few years since we had that conversation though. They're operating out of a P.O. Box now.
All I can really say is that working for Kim Logan made me the programmer I am today. He taught me to know where all the bodies are burried. I can't tell you how many times I've bailed out other developers because I could debug optimized x86 code.
Not on K-Man but on the network model database -- before it got the SQL front-end.
Wow -- that was something like 12 or 13 years ago. BTW, the people I worked with there were a great bunch of guys.
I would be interested to find out if there are any other mdbs alumni on slashdot.
Dead on. The thing is that this sort of thinking is *BASIC* strategic thinking. Something I expect our president to either have down pat or surround himself with people that do.
However, this president is thinking with that "Bring it on!" mentality that maybe gratifying in the short term but hurts the US in the long term.
I would think that someone who has been in Iraq and seen the price that we're paying would not only want a good outcome but want a president that wasn't going to waste the lives of soldiers because he told most of our allies to basically go f&%*^ themselves.
I think that a lot of the label of "flip-flopper" that Kerry's gotten is because his position on the Iraq war is that we were wrong to go but that, now we're there, we have to be effective and get Iraq stable and independent ASAP. That's not a position that's easy to convey in the soundbite media environment that he's dealing with.
Nope. You missed the point. Most financial aid is provided/guaranteed by the US governement. Many of our institution are funded by the federal and local governments.
Why is it better to give that money to an illegal immigrant than a US citizen?
Taking some points out of order, just to get the data in then the speculation.
c les/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp
The IBC itself does not publish citations for the sources of its study, and uses a method that has been proven to overestimate figures. I'm too lazy to make a link and even though the source is conservative, it explains the faults of the system: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti
The IBC does publish citations. Check out this. The column on the far right lists a source -- a three-letter code for the publication. Click on the header for definitions. However, I have doubts about the methodology at well.
The BBC also posted other data; unfortunately, they did it in a sidebar. The sources and estimates are:
Iraq Body Count: 13-15,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
How many of these "civilian" deaths are actually either terrorist or Saddam holdover fighters?
To be completely fair, I don't think it's possible for even the troops actually engaged in the fighting to know that for sure. However, the US and Iraqi governments keep assuring us that the insurgency is small. As compared to what, I want to know. As compared to population (about 25M), 10% would still be huge about 2.5M compared to our ~200K -- even 1% means that they have more people on their side in Iraq.
So let's make an assumption -- that they are telling us the truth. That the insurgency is small compared to the US force -- that seems fair to me. If it's not then we are, to use the most generous phrasing possible, being misled. So let's say that the insurgency is at 5% the strength of the US military presence in Iraq. That would be about 10K. I think this is a pretty darn large estimate, wouldn't you agree? See, I'm trying to allow "small" to be fairly large to be generous to the Administration. It also makes these back-of-the-napkin calculations turn out that we killed less innocents.
Just to put some limits on it, on the high end, if we killed more than about 75% of the insurgency, I think the casualty rate (currently about 2.8 soldier killed/day) among coalition forces would not be rising. So lets assume, again, that the Administration is telling us the truth and we're winning -- that we're right at the breaking point. Let's assume we've killed 75% of the insurgency. That means 7500 people. Again, I'm trying to be generous.
The Brookings Institute is considered "centrist" (they supported President Bush's Headstart changes among others). So, if we killed 7500 insurgents that means we killed between 2500 and 19500 innocent civilians. The middle of the range is 11,000. That's if *every* dead insurgent is being counted as a "civilian casualty". Just to be even more generous we'll say that the Brookings institute has error margins that are just too large, so we'll just lop off the top half of the range to be generous to the Administration.
The point of this little exercise isn't to get good numbers -- nobody thinks they have good numbers. The point is to look at what's being fed to us. It appears to me, that right now we feel like we have to kill between 2.5 and 11 innocent civilians for every US soldier that dies. Is that the mark of a well-run military campaign or is that the mark of tired, mismanaged soldiers who have had their tours extended too far?
No matter which way you think this analysis is wrong, it puts the Administration in an even more unfavorable light. If the insurgency is bigger, they lied. If we've killed less than 75% of the insurgents, we're probably not winning.
It's inescapable. Even if we're being told the truth, that the insurgency is small, that we are winning, and most of the "civilian casualties" are terrorists, then we're killing at least 2 and maybe as many as 11 innocent civilians to every soldier that dies. Seems pretty un-humanitarian to me.
I've been modded -1 Troll! Maybe -1 Crass (or may that should be "+1 Crass") but troll? This is really the image that Americans have in much of the world. I really do believe that the "war on Terror" has been subverted.
And, yes, I believe the George Bush to be of sub-par intelligence.
I think that -1 Troll is for gaping anuses not differences in opinions. Maybe someone will whack this mod in M2.
I love answering rhetorical questions.
Where is exactly your source that you can state with such confidence that the 10,000 deaths are innocent people?
Well, the coalition has lost 1043.. Unless you consider the coalition to be "guilty". Oh, there's also the Iraqi's estimates here Nobody, not even the Brookings Institute thinks it's below 10,000.
What are you implying, that soldiers don't shoot at terrorists but they shoot at civilians? That there are no terrorists?
Nope, the BBC article specifies "ordinary civilians". I don't know what their definition or if it's even consistent between reporting agencies (my guess is it's not). However, we can say that a large number of innocent Iraqis have died at the hands of the coalition.
That tooth fairies are shooting at American soldiers and blowing themselves up in car bombs?
This is just hyperbole. Cut it out.
Are you also implying that Saddam's political and terror-inspired atrocities against civilians are interchangeable with a republican guard battalion finding itself at the business end of a daisy cutter during battle?
The BBC says civilians. So there is no overlap between the Republican Guard, who are by definition not civilians during major hostilities, that were blown up by daisy cutters and people killed after the official end of major hostilities.
Seriously, who moderates this pro-terrorist propagandist tripe as insightful?
I do. I have mod point right now. However, I have a weakness for trying to help people understand, so I'm trying to explain instead of just moderating this post.
Are Slashdot moderators gone so far off the deep end?
Nope, some of us just aren't as rock-solid about our own beliefs that we can't even investigate someone else's claims.
I really do hope that you reply. I have to say I'm somewhat confused as to how you could get so self-righteous without being right.
Pull your head out before you suffocate. The "War on Terror" has been subverted from a necessary and correct response and turned into a blank check for bankrupting the US, pursuing any war the administration pleases, alienating former allies, and generally living up to tobacco-chewing, SUV-driving, fake tit grabbing, neo-neanderthal image in the world. (BTW, a lot of people would have thrown in "gun-toting", but I like that part of our image.)
I'm all for having the balls to do something about terrorism but I'm not fond of a president that thinks and urinates with the same body part.
Yeah, what the other guy said. Also, if you really need arbitrary precisions try GMP.
Just thought I would add something instead of just saying "neener"
If the labor market prices were "fixed" in favor of corporations, you'd expect corporations to buy more labor at the artificially low cost. This would cause a shortage (as opposed to scarcity). (Think gasoline in the late 70's under the federal price controls).
That's clearly not the case as tech employment is still down.
So, let's make some assumptions. First, you are going to use a condom because of concern over STDs. She is going to be on the pill because she wants to finish her education.
Condoms, when used properly have about a 3% failure rate per year.
The pill has about a 1% failure rate per year.
I would guess that many sexually active college girls are will to have an abortion.
So 1% * 3% * 50% = 0.015%
Now this means roughly that you could fuck like bunnies for 100 years and have about a 1.5% chance of having a child. Or you could have 100% chance of years of sexual frustration.
So, my advice is this: experiment a little but be smart. Combine two good birth controlo options -- you end up with *REALLY* favorable stats. Learning to face up to calculated risks is part of growing up. I don't mean to belittle you at all. There a lot of people who should know better who don't and spend thier lives worried that they're going to get carjacked when it's more likely that they'll die in a household slip and fall.
BTW, I'm getting old. I don't regret *ANY* of the women that I shared sex with. I do regret a few that I didn't.
Very true. However, the orignal post said that IBM didn't have IP that we wanted. I guess it would be a 100% true statement if the orignal said "IBM has no IP that it hasn't already released that we want." I'm pretty convinced that IBM understands the open source comunity pretty deeply.
So, a Spanish question. Is "mujer" a safe translation? I suppose it depends on the context if the male side was translated as "varón" then "mujer" would not be parallel.