TFS is wrong. From TFA, it'll be 90 times as powerful as it was right after the first service mission (which fixed it to work as originally designed), and 60% more powerful than it was right after the most recent service mission.
I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think the real deal is as follows:
The proof of Arrow's theorem depends on the inputs being restricted to strict rankings. There are certain sets of such inputs for which no outcome simultaneously satisfies all the conditions that Arrow's theorem is interested in. And if no such outcome exists, then obviously no method can produce such an outcome.
However, in each set like this, at least one of the voters would gain an advantage if they had the option of ranking two or more candidates equally. If that option is opened up, and every voter who would gain such an advantage changes their input accordingly, then the modified set of inputs does have an outcome that simultaneously satisfies all the aforementioned conditions.
(Obviously, this assumes that all voters are perfect logicians, which is about as accurate in practice as a physicist assuming that all voters are perfect spheres. But at least it's a starting point.)
If you know about the Jargon File, then you will now understand why you were wrong, and that's fine. If you don't know about it, then turn in your geek card now, go to chroot jail, go directly to chroot jail, do not pass sudo, do not collect 200 bogomips.
Damn, beat me to it! I knew the author briefly in college, and he was way ahead of me on geek points even back then, running a Solaris server out of his dorm room. Of course, he learned to keep the volume turned down after we logged in and sent something to/dev/audio at some ungodly hour of the night...
As I understand it, it's basically an abstract-logic equivalent of a Perl golf exercise.
Given three Boolean variables (p,q,r), there are 2 possible values (T,F) per variable, thus 2^3 = 8 possible values for the combined set:
T,T,T
T,T,F
T,F,T
T,F,F
F,T,T
F,T,F
F,F,T
F,F,F
Now consider functions f(p,q,r) whose output is a Boolean variable. Each such function can be completely described by what output it produces for each of the 8 combinations listed above, e.g.
f(T,T,T) = F
f(T,T,F) = F
f(T,F,T) = F
f(T,F,F) = F
f(F,T,T) = F
f(F,T,F) = F
f(F,F,T) = T
f(F,F,F) = F
There are multiple ways to describe the above function, but they're all equivalent to each other because they all give the same results. Thus, there are exactly 2^8 = 256 distinct functions of this sort.
Wolfram published a list of descriptions for all 256 of these functions, attempting to use the minimum number of symbols (p,q,r,not,and,or) in each case. Georgiadis pointed out that he could have done better in 44 cases. For instance, Wolfram labeled the function given above as Rule 2, and gave the intuitive 7-symbol representation
They could have mounted it at a vertex. The slight increase in imaging probably wouldn't be worth the extra height and structural support you'd need, but at least you'd be able to say "this one goes to 12!"
But more importantly, he's assuming that cell phone viruses are somehow new with this phone, and that they will somehow cause problems for a corporate network, and that the way to deal with it is anti-virus.
This is wrong on all counts. Cell phone (and mobile) viruses are not new, though they've never been widespread. They generally don't jump to desktop machines -- the corporate network should be safe. And generally, no one's stupid enough to run anti-virus software on Linux, and very few on the Mac -- even on Windows, the usefulness of anti-virus is questionable.
Things might change if this platform becomes ubiquitous. I'm not saying it's likely, mind you, and anyway the same arguments could be applied to the iPhone SDK (once the bad guys yoink themselves a copy of those dev tools).
Update: I've read through the comments and most people seem to think I'm saying something I wasn't trying to say. That's my fault for writing sloppy. I don't think that Google's mobile operating system is a security problem because it's open source. I think that the phones that use it could become a security threat because if Google succeeds there are going to be a lot of applications for this phone and individuals are going to be able to download whichever ones they want to use. As this happens bad guys are going to start targeting these people with their own code, much the way they target PC users today.
The fact of the matter is that while most companies have anti-virus and anti-malware software on PCs, they don't do much of anything to secure phones. The point that I obviously didn't succeed at making originally is that if Google achieves its vision companies will realize that they have this weakness, and not knowing how to address it — companies would need to buy all sorts of security software and put in place all sorts of policies — their first instinct will be to ban the phones. Employees will get upset because, again if Google achieves its vision, these phones will be pretty darn cool and a pretty helpful business tool. Hence the conflict that I think it will cause. It has nothing to do with open source or Google per se, and everything to do with companies not being prepared for the phone as a dominant computing platform.
Here's a link. And where does HR 1955 reference this? Nowhere does it contain the exact text "hate crime" or "245". There may well be some conceptual link, but I'm not going to spend my own copious free time hunting it down.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't much appreciate you putting words in my mouth.
(Oh yeah, I'm sure I'll get a few interesting responses to this one...)
TFS is wrong. From TFA, it'll be 90 times as powerful as it was right after the first service mission (which fixed it to work as originally designed), and 60% more powerful than it was right after the most recent service mission.
I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think the real deal is as follows:
The proof of Arrow's theorem depends on the inputs being restricted to strict rankings. There are certain sets of such inputs for which no outcome simultaneously satisfies all the conditions that Arrow's theorem is interested in. And if no such outcome exists, then obviously no method can produce such an outcome.
However, in each set like this, at least one of the voters would gain an advantage if they had the option of ranking two or more candidates equally. If that option is opened up, and every voter who would gain such an advantage changes their input accordingly, then the modified set of inputs does have an outcome that simultaneously satisfies all the aforementioned conditions.
(Obviously, this assumes that all voters are perfect logicians, which is about as accurate in practice as a physicist assuming that all voters are perfect spheres. But at least it's a starting point.)
Why, yes. Yes, it is.
Jargon File - Crippleware
If you know about the Jargon File, then you will now understand why you were wrong, and that's fine. If you don't know about it, then turn in your geek card now, go to chroot jail, go directly to chroot jail, do not pass sudo, do not collect 200 bogomips.
Damn, beat me to it! I knew the author briefly in college, and he was way ahead of me on geek points even back then, running a Solaris server out of his dorm room. Of course, he learned to keep the volume turned down after we logged in and sent something to /dev/audio at some ungodly hour of the night...
Call me when they break the $200 barrier.
Been watching the Brawndo ads, have we?
And I wish they'd matched Unix on that one, too (where "-" is for options). I suppose this was less clear in 1981, though.
Other places in the country don't have Garrison Keillor hanging out there and radiating win throughout their corner of the industry.
As I understand it, it's basically an abstract-logic equivalent of a Perl golf exercise.
Given three Boolean variables (p,q,r), there are 2 possible values (T,F) per variable, thus 2^3 = 8 possible values for the combined set:
Now consider functions f(p,q,r) whose output is a Boolean variable. Each such function can be completely described by what output it produces for each of the 8 combinations listed above, e.g.
There are multiple ways to describe the above function, but they're all equivalent to each other because they all give the same results. Thus, there are exactly 2^8 = 256 distinct functions of this sort.
Wolfram published a list of descriptions for all 256 of these functions, attempting to use the minimum number of symbols (p,q,r,not,and,or) in each case. Georgiadis pointed out that he could have done better in 44 cases. For instance, Wolfram labeled the function given above as Rule 2, and gave the intuitive 7-symbol representation
f(p,q,r) = (not p) and (not q) and r
while Georgiadis gave a 6-symbol representation
f(p,q,r) = r and not (p or q)
Someone is way ahead of you on that one, pal.
While we're on that particular snowclone, Griffith Observatory has the Cafe at the End of the Universe.
True, but is it relevant here? The first article doesn't mention it that I can find, the second one has evidently been taken down.
In case this isn't a troll, here is the obligatory Wikipedia link.
They could have mounted it at a vertex. The slight increase in imaging probably wouldn't be worth the extra height and structural support you'd need, but at least you'd be able to say "this one goes to 12!"
Translation: "I still don't understand that labels are effectively virtual folders." Congratulations on blowing a hole in your own credibility there.
Things might change if this platform becomes ubiquitous. I'm not saying it's likely, mind you, and anyway the same arguments could be applied to the iPhone SDK (once the bad guys yoink themselves a copy of those dev tools).
Probably not. Sounds too much like a plastic tray you'd see next to the cash register at Fry's - "give a byte, take a byte"...
The problem is that you can't say "gibibyte" without sounding like a fucking tool. :)
Here's a link. And where does HR 1955 reference this? Nowhere does it contain the exact text "hate crime" or "245". There may well be some conceptual link, but I'm not going to spend my own copious free time hunting it down.
DON'T DATE ROBOTS!
(Brought to you by the Space Pope.)
Do they have paragraph breaks in Japan?