If people find it is too hard to drive to a polling station and vote, their vote is useless.
I'd rather have people have to drive, than just click. Perhaps they'd put effort in deciding who to vote for than.
2cent
But that's truly not a useful upper limit. That's saying exactly "If there are n numbers then there are n elements that could be prime" Totally useless, mathematically. If you have a smaller limit, such as Reimann postulated, it helps you determine the density of primes. There are actually much smaller limits on it all relating to Reimann, the Euler-Mascheroni constant, logarithms, and the like.
Look at it from a complexity theory point of view. You can say that an algorithm is all theta(n!) theta(n^7) theta(n^2). However, the O limit is most useful since it sets a useful upper and lower bound. An algoritm being O(n log n) is more useful than theta(n^2), since you know it will run faster.
Saying we have an upper limit is a bit silly, since having a better upper limit is much better.
Sorry, amazing what a Liter of Weizenbier and jet-lag will do to your linguistc skills. Obviously it does not put an upper limit on the total number of primes (which is of order omega, BTW. Alef 1 is reserved for the number of real numbers, assuming the axiom of choice is true. Since this axiom is undecideable, you get to pick which version of the great curse of set theory you use. So, yes, you can put a limit on the total number of primes, it just happens to be a Cantorian trans-finite number. Omega is the size of the set of all integers.) It puts a limit on p(n) where p(n) = number of primes less than n. Upper I know, and lower also, I think. Can't remember off hand about the lower limit. (Amazing what sleeping pills (perscription, I'm insomniac) and Weizenbier the night before will do for your thinking at 9 in the morning...)
Reimanns Hypothesis puts an upper limit on the number of primes. If you simply assume Reimann, which is a reasonable assumption, since at least the first 1.000.000 roots are on the line, you could then use that *assumption* to crack all encryption. Since algorithmists seem to be more apt at chicken-wire and duct taping things, someone would have allready done this. No one has constructed a proof or algorithm that says "If Reimann is true then we can factor primes in O(1) time", your statement is like totally, like, invalid.
Don't get your math from the Cryptonomicon, get a textbook.
I have a similar problem, actually. I can't remember anything before age 7 or 8 execept on rare occasion something will come back to me. I didn't have the best of childhoods so I want to forget some of it and I've wondered if people have similar problems. I even seem to forget later periods of my life. My memory seems spotty at best until about 16-17.
Intels/Microsofts suicide is going to come through Asia. Here is the scenario as I see it. M$ is going to try to push Palladium, along with Intel's secure initiatives, etc, etc. The American bullsh^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontent industry is going to back them all the way to protect their formerly very protected market. So then with the Dragon whatever chip and Linux, China is going to pump out machines that don't screw up if you change your video card, screw up your screen captures, require you to call if you re-install XP on your test system every GOD DAMN TIME, (Yes, I need to clone a HD, just haven't had time and keep shuffling machines around, and etc, etc...), and so on, as any secure initiative will do. So they will be producing these cheap, commodified PCs that will ship over here, therefore killing the American software industry. Yeah China.
The other alternative I see is Apple, who has been very successful at telling the content industry to bugger off, and is large enough to back it. They could become the competetor to Linux through all this mess.
I don't know why I'm posting on/. so much today. Hell, I guess the ideas whispered to me by my imaginary penguin have some merit. Just wish he'd stop nibbling on my toes.
Oooh, touchy are we!
Yes, it does concern sharing information. And guess what, you have no right to share *their* information. Never had it, and apparently never will. If you did, guess what, there'd be absolutely no reason to distribute it. This is called scarcity. It's what gives products their cost. Notice that air is free recently? Notice that gold isn't? That's because air isn't scarce, and gold is. If you could tell everyone about it, why wouldn't you just write your own damn manual? Duh. If they let you share it, then you can do whatever you want. So they made the manual scarce. If you don't like it, don't buy it and read the source. If you think it's worth $50 and then you can charge your clients to help configure their scripts, my GOD, you might make money TOO! Whoa, what a concept. Oh, wait, they can buy the manual too!
Welcome to the real world where people worry about eating and stuff. And you have to sign NDAs. Geez if you think these guys are bad, you should see some unnamed manufacturers of popular video cards. You know why they do the same, exact thing? Because in a highly competative market, if they give away secrets that give them a competitive advantage, they lose money. That's bad as far as they're concerned.
And if you can figure it out for yourself, why don't you just do that and then write an open source manual and help put these guys out of buisness if you don't like them? That's the flaw with their particular implementation of the pay-for-support buisness model. Let's see, you can figure it out for yourself, and have the information you can share, costing you labor (which is very expensive), or pay someone $50 and not worry about it, but gain the right to view their docs, leveraging their labor, saving you expensive labor. Oh wait, that's right, because it's hard work to figure this out and it's easier in a manual.
The question I have to ask myself is why the hell I am wasting time on this.
Figure it out on your own. Charge people to install it. Share the info, whatever, just stop bitching
This is perfectly legal also. In fact, publishers do this for books that haven't been released to the general public. HEY! Maybe so the knock-offs won't start *before* they hit the press. It's called an NDA. Remember Appendix H. Same thing. Not neccicarily good for developers, but it helped keep Intel in place.
There has to be a careful moderation of IP law and what many people call 'freedom' in a capitalist economy. If everyone is forced to give everything away for free, there is no innovation. You want to produce a free chip for me? I mean, giving them away it should be easy to finance a $2B fab line.
Gee you make it sound like making money is a bad thing.
And yes, expect to see more of this. And, in fact, see those projects that do that as the ones to survive.
But you don't have that *right* unless they give it to you. That's what a license is -- a transfer of *rights* unto you. You have no right to look at my source code, but if I license you to, then you have the right, and I won't have to procecute you for copyright violation/computer crime. Nice system.
What's bad for the health of an open source project is starvation. Dead programmers can't code.
Your clients just need to pay the license fee for the documentation, that's all. If you want a free lunch, go join welfare. If this project is really better, then *pay* for it.
As an example of how this stuff really irritates me, I wrote a driver for a piece of crap network card, and gave it away. I then get people demaning support, when I am a very, very busy person. One guy actually kept telling me very forcefully to implement a feature. Of course, no-one wanted to *PAY* for it, and I had a much more lucrative and important project I was working on. That left a bad taste in my mouth of OSS development. Why the hell should I give people my code so they feel entitled to support. Guess they didn't read the NO WARANTEE clause in the docs.
Also, if you feel this is antithetical to open source, I'll introduce you to a fundamental economic concept: competition. If you don't like it, write it yourself. Maybe someone will be living off government grants and then write something better, and give it all away. Then you can have your cake and eat it too. However, since they have something that you obviously like, and they need resources to survive, they have every right to close the documentation, and may, in fact, give them a competetive edge to make it better. The handmaiden of competition is experimentation.
Attitudes like this are actually *antithetical* to competition. You would like someone to make them give their docs away from what I gather from the gist of your article. That's not a free market, that's government interference. (in the wide sense of any governing agency, private or public)
Also, you don't give up any rights, that is the misnomer I want to point out. You GAIN rights by paying. You have no right to the docs. You pay $50, and BLAMMO! you can read the docs. You don't have the rights to disseminate the docs, but you can read them. So you don't lose any rights. You didn't have them in the first place!
Basically Eric Cartman had the best advice on life: Get to work, and stop your bitching!;-)
Sorry if this sounds strong. I had to deal with people with a real entitlement attitude for a year, so it hits a nerve
...giving up your hard earned *RIGHTS* is a bad joke. You have no right to the documentation. None whatsoever. The authors wrote it and can do with it what they wish. Print it out, roll it in duct tape and cram it up their candy ass, whatever. However, you have no right to do anything with it, because you didn't write it. The bill of rights has no clause saying "I can take other peoples work and give it to everyone I know".
The biggest problem with open source as I see it is an entitlement mentality that just because someone wrote something cool, I should be able to use it for free. Being a developer that owns my own company, I have found this amazing realization that I need food. It's really a good thing. And to get food, I need money. Therefore I exercise my rights under the laws of this country to charge people to use my hard work to make their lives easier, and send me money so I can eat dinner. It's really quite a convinent arragement that has worked for quite a while.
I find that these guys have struck on something ingeneous, and have actually been reading the reports on the practical problems of Open Source software in the marketplace. The biggest problem is support. You need to have a team of experts on staff to deal with it, because M$ won't come out and fix it for you. This is really expensive from a resource point of view, because you then have to cover the HR costs of these people even when they're sitting idle, because you will need them in a pinch. Dumb arrangement. Therefore charging for support is absolutely ingeneous, and is a great model, I think. INCLUDING the documentation. We happen to give away ours for free, and charge for licensing in commercial products. We are looking at a QT type dual-license model so that we can stay in buisness. For all their detractors, I want everyone to notice that they are still in buisness. And important point since if you're laying cable with a bunch of Mexicans, you find yourself too tired to program.
Software is inherently expensive to produce. Open source has been subsidised through tax dollars via the university system (student loans, grants, etc). Before you bitch about people having to pay for software, why don't you think about the fact that people who don't have crap to do with Linux, etc, had to pay for it's construction...
Oh, wait, never mind, the bill passed, "WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted decisively Tuesday to create a Homeland Security Department, delivering a triumph to President Bush (news - web sites) and setting the stage for the biggest government reshuffling in a half-century as a way to thwart and respond to terrorist attacks"
and a further quote from a friend "and setting the stage for the biggest government assfucking in a half-century as a way to declare total victory over the U.S. citizenry."
...the current provisions in the Homeland Security Act? There have only been three stories so far in the major media, (the one that caught my attention was this one (NYT, reg, etc...)), but the government is trying to construct a system that will make Echelon look like crap. All headed up by Admiral Poindexter, Ollie North's boss, and a convicted felon.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooh, moderate this guy up. It's a question I definately want to see the answer to.
And how do you accidentally add a filesystem anyway?
If people find it is too hard to drive to a polling station and vote, their vote is useless. I'd rather have people have to drive, than just click. Perhaps they'd put effort in deciding who to vote for than. 2cent
Isn't it a little late to be going for a mod on this board?
;-)
(BTW, don't give up your day job...
But that's truly not a useful upper limit. That's saying exactly "If there are n numbers then there are n elements that could be prime" Totally useless, mathematically. If you have a smaller limit, such as Reimann postulated, it helps you determine the density of primes. There are actually much smaller limits on it all relating to Reimann, the Euler-Mascheroni constant, logarithms, and the like. Look at it from a complexity theory point of view. You can say that an algorithm is all theta(n!) theta(n^7) theta(n^2). However, the O limit is most useful since it sets a useful upper and lower bound. An algoritm being O(n log n) is more useful than theta(n^2), since you know it will run faster. Saying we have an upper limit is a bit silly, since having a better upper limit is much better.
Sorry, amazing what a Liter of Weizenbier and jet-lag will do to your linguistc skills. Obviously it does not put an upper limit on the total number of primes (which is of order omega, BTW. Alef 1 is reserved for the number of real numbers, assuming the axiom of choice is true. Since this axiom is undecideable, you get to pick which version of the great curse of set theory you use. So, yes, you can put a limit on the total number of primes, it just happens to be a Cantorian trans-finite number. Omega is the size of the set of all integers.) It puts a limit on p(n) where p(n) = number of primes less than n. Upper I know, and lower also, I think. Can't remember off hand about the lower limit. (Amazing what sleeping pills (perscription, I'm insomniac) and Weizenbier the night before will do for your thinking at 9 in the morning...)
DOHT! Sorry, typing on a public terminal with an alternate keyboard. One is bound to make mistakes... ößÄ (supposed to be :-) )
Reimanns Hypothesis puts an upper limit on the number of primes. If you simply assume Reimann, which is a reasonable assumption, since at least the first 1.000.000 roots are on the line, you could then use that *assumption* to crack all encryption. Since algorithmists seem to be more apt at chicken-wire and duct taping things, someone would have allready done this. No one has constructed a proof or algorithm that says "If Reimann is true then we can factor primes in O(1) time", your statement is like totally, like, invalid.
Don't get your math from the Cryptonomicon, get a textbook.
Last I heard, it was around 1.000.000 roots, just as an addendum. I haven't really kept up with it, but that comes to mind as being fairly recent.
Yet somehow the HSA wasn't important enough to put as a headline.
Intels/Microsofts suicide is going to come through Asia. Here is the scenario as I see it. M$ is going to try to push Palladium, along with Intel's secure initiatives, etc, etc. The American bullsh^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontent industry is going to back them all the way to protect their formerly very protected market. So then with the Dragon whatever chip and Linux, China is going to pump out machines that don't screw up if you change your video card, screw up your screen captures, require you to call if you re-install XP on your test system every GOD DAMN TIME, (Yes, I need to clone a HD, just haven't had time and keep shuffling machines around, and etc, etc...), and so on, as any secure initiative will do. So they will be producing these cheap, commodified PCs that will ship over here, therefore killing the American software industry. Yeah China. The other alternative I see is Apple, who has been very successful at telling the content industry to bugger off, and is large enough to back it. They could become the competetor to Linux through all this mess. I don't know why I'm posting on /. so much today. Hell, I guess the ideas whispered to me by my imaginary penguin have some merit. Just wish he'd stop nibbling on my toes.
Welcome to the real world where people worry about eating and stuff. And you have to sign NDAs. Geez if you think these guys are bad, you should see some unnamed manufacturers of popular video cards. You know why they do the same, exact thing? Because in a highly competative market, if they give away secrets that give them a competitive advantage, they lose money. That's bad as far as they're concerned.
And if you can figure it out for yourself, why don't you just do that and then write an open source manual and help put these guys out of buisness if you don't like them? That's the flaw with their particular implementation of the pay-for-support buisness model. Let's see, you can figure it out for yourself, and have the information you can share, costing you labor (which is very expensive), or pay someone $50 and not worry about it, but gain the right to view their docs, leveraging their labor, saving you expensive labor. Oh wait, that's right, because it's hard work to figure this out and it's easier in a manual.
The question I have to ask myself is why the hell I am wasting time on this.
Figure it out on your own. Charge people to install it. Share the info, whatever, just stop bitching
There has to be a careful moderation of IP law and what many people call 'freedom' in a capitalist economy. If everyone is forced to give everything away for free, there is no innovation. You want to produce a free chip for me? I mean, giving them away it should be easy to finance a $2B fab line.
Gee you make it sound like making money is a bad thing. And yes, expect to see more of this. And, in fact, see those projects that do that as the ones to survive.
What's bad for the health of an open source project is starvation. Dead programmers can't code.
Your clients just need to pay the license fee for the documentation, that's all. If you want a free lunch, go join welfare. If this project is really better, then *pay* for it.
As an example of how this stuff really irritates me, I wrote a driver for a piece of crap network card, and gave it away. I then get people demaning support, when I am a very, very busy person. One guy actually kept telling me very forcefully to implement a feature. Of course, no-one wanted to *PAY* for it, and I had a much more lucrative and important project I was working on. That left a bad taste in my mouth of OSS development. Why the hell should I give people my code so they feel entitled to support. Guess they didn't read the NO WARANTEE clause in the docs.
Also, if you feel this is antithetical to open source, I'll introduce you to a fundamental economic concept: competition. If you don't like it, write it yourself. Maybe someone will be living off government grants and then write something better, and give it all away. Then you can have your cake and eat it too. However, since they have something that you obviously like, and they need resources to survive, they have every right to close the documentation, and may, in fact, give them a competetive edge to make it better. The handmaiden of competition is experimentation.
Attitudes like this are actually *antithetical* to competition. You would like someone to make them give their docs away from what I gather from the gist of your article. That's not a free market, that's government interference. (in the wide sense of any governing agency, private or public)
Also, you don't give up any rights, that is the misnomer I want to point out. You GAIN rights by paying. You have no right to the docs. You pay $50, and BLAMMO! you can read the docs. You don't have the rights to disseminate the docs, but you can read them. So you don't lose any rights. You didn't have them in the first place!
Basically Eric Cartman had the best advice on life: Get to work, and stop your bitching! ;-)
The biggest problem with open source as I see it is an entitlement mentality that just because someone wrote something cool, I should be able to use it for free. Being a developer that owns my own company, I have found this amazing realization that I need food. It's really a good thing. And to get food, I need money. Therefore I exercise my rights under the laws of this country to charge people to use my hard work to make their lives easier, and send me money so I can eat dinner. It's really quite a convinent arragement that has worked for quite a while.
I find that these guys have struck on something ingeneous, and have actually been reading the reports on the practical problems of Open Source software in the marketplace. The biggest problem is support. You need to have a team of experts on staff to deal with it, because M$ won't come out and fix it for you. This is really expensive from a resource point of view, because you then have to cover the HR costs of these people even when they're sitting idle, because you will need them in a pinch. Dumb arrangement. Therefore charging for support is absolutely ingeneous, and is a great model, I think. INCLUDING the documentation. We happen to give away ours for free, and charge for licensing in commercial products. We are looking at a QT type dual-license model so that we can stay in buisness. For all their detractors, I want everyone to notice that they are still in buisness. And important point since if you're laying cable with a bunch of Mexicans, you find yourself too tired to program.
Software is inherently expensive to produce. Open source has been subsidised through tax dollars via the university system (student loans, grants, etc). Before you bitch about people having to pay for software, why don't you think about the fact that people who don't have crap to do with Linux, etc, had to pay for it's construction...
and a further quote from a friend "and setting the stage for the biggest government assfucking in a half-century as a way to declare total victory over the U.S. citizenry."
There are some more links on my page
This is expected to pass TODAY, so call your Senator and URGE them not to vote for the bill.
Yes, because you release a gas. The antennuation is a pain tho'...