Encryption discussions have to take place in a "computing" domain, where a prime only exists if it has been computed to be prime by at least one computer somewhere in the world, and where the prime number can fit on a distribution medium.
Arguing that there are as many Mersenne primes as regular primes is only possible in a theoretical domain in which countably infinite sets can be said to exist.
I don't know much about Quartz vs. PDF, but it is clear you are missing an important metaphysical point.
DATA != REPRESENTATION
Simple example: the digits "42" are not a number. They are a textual representation of a number, which is an abstract concept. A number has certain properties which the textual representation does not. I can add and subtract numbers, but I can't add and subtract text.
A "PDF" file is a representation of an image using various bytes, starting with "%PDF-1.3". Another representation of that image is a mathematical idealization with certain properties. The bytes that a Mac stores in memory to process the image is yet another representation, the bytes that travel to the video card are yet another, and the glowing pixels on your screen are yet another. Finally, the light from these pixels stimulates the optical cortex in your brain.
When you are looking at the screen of your Mac, is your brain using Quartz?
The idea being expressed is that in any scientific report, the reader has to trust the integrity of the researcher to properly evaluate the possible pitfalls that could cause his study to be inaccurate.
The reason we invariably have to trust the researcher is because we have only the text to go on. Unless every reader goes to great expense to reproduce a study, we can't know if the described experiment leads to the described results.
When a researcher accepts money from a sponsor which has a commercial interest in the outcome, it throws great doubt on the trustworthiness of the researcher.
In calculating a probability for a study to be true, one has to consider various outcomes. The less trustworthy the researcher, the more likely the experimental situation was adjusted or biased to show an outcome favorable to the sponsor, and the less likely, therefore, it is to reflect the true state of the world.
In analyzing the world, we will give less weight to statements less likely to be true.
There are laws against libel and slander. There are laws regulating commercial advertising. There are laws restricting what food and drug makers can print on their packaging. There are laws restricting what publically-traded companies can print in their annual reports. There are laws against disclosing classified information in print. There are laws against publishing aerial or satellite imagery of sensitive areas. There are laws restricting child pornography.
"Freedom of the press" is limited to what the courts ultimately define those words to mean. If your definition is different, it ain't the law. Perhaps it *should* be, but it ain't.
oh, and for Spanish speakers, from your link again
Frente a la recrudescente politica de la administracion Bush encaminada a aislar y aplastar a la RPDC, ya hemos retirado sin vacilacion del Tratado de No Proliferacion de Armas Nucleares y fabricamos armas nucleares con fines auto-defensivos. Nuestras armas nucleares siempre serviran para la fuerza de detencion nuclear auto-defensiva.
"Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem."
The issue I was referring to is that all people heard on the news at the time was "xxx millirems of radioactivity" when few people could judge whether that was a lot or not much. Quite a few people decided to get the hell out of town.
Sometimes I don't know why I bother, but the only way plutonium is truly deadly is as a finely-ground powder which could be inhaled. I believe it is also pyrophoric, so machining it is dangerous.
Radiothermal sources have been involved in exploding rockets and inadvertent reentries. What happened with modern RTG designs is that they fell, undamaged, into the ocean, and in fact, have even been recovered and successfully recycled.
Point me to *one* person who has died as a result of plutonium exposure from any of the many plutonium-based power systems launched into space.
He's saying that he wants drivers that don't crash, but microkernels that allow crashing drivers to "just be restarted" lead to a permissive atmosphere, in which driver writers don't care if their drivers crash or not.
His contention is that in a situation where a crashing driver kills everything, driver writers are much more careful, and crashing drivers are not accepted by users.
Some of the instability with the old applications may be related to the transition from a Motorola 68k-like processor to the ARM-based processor in the Zire. Some applications didn't coexist with the emulation environment that well.
These are something akin to quoting the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit in a discussion about bicycles.
Fundamental "engineering" considerations on the level of "well, we build things using atoms" already means you are far from reaching any kind of quantum-field-theory based limit on information density or computation speed. Real engineering considerations on the level of "we build things using transistors" are yet another few orders of magnitude, which this kind of crossbar with molecular latch can perhaps decrease.
I am getting so tired of everyone thinking the G5 is just a magic wand to make things fast.
The whole reason the G5 is fast is because it supports a fast memory subsystem for dual processors; on the desktop, this requires a big heat-generating memory controller, fast memory, and high-bandwidth memory busses.
Do you people not notice the difference between the 1.25 GHz front-side bus on a desktop G5 and the 167 MHz memory busses for the laptops?
There is no point in putting a G5 into a laptop if you use the same memory architecture that supports a G4. It will perform about the same as the G4.
Well, as long as you don't get your facts from right-wing religious sites, it looks like the fetus-eating rumor was based on *one* performance artist claiming something provocative.
Which you use to libel a billion people. Way to go!
Slashdot Mirror
You are arguing about a different domain.
Encryption discussions have to take place in a "computing" domain, where a prime only exists if it has been computed to be prime by at least one computer somewhere in the world, and where the prime number can fit on a distribution medium.
Arguing that there are as many Mersenne primes as regular primes is only possible in a theoretical domain in which countably infinite sets can be said to exist.
You are very confused.
Limited liability refers to the liability of the owners (i.e. stockholders) of a corporation, not the corporation itself.
Actually, it was Chevron that had a tanker named after her. And they changed the name. But thanks for playing.
I don't know much about Quartz vs. PDF, but it is clear you are missing an important metaphysical point.
DATA != REPRESENTATION
Simple example: the digits "42" are not a number. They are a textual representation of a number, which is an abstract concept. A number has certain properties which the textual representation does not. I can add and subtract numbers, but I can't add and subtract text.
A "PDF" file is a representation of an image using various bytes, starting with "%PDF-1.3". Another representation of that image is a mathematical idealization with certain properties. The bytes that a Mac stores in memory to process the image is yet another representation, the bytes that travel to the video card are yet another, and the glowing pixels on your screen are yet another. Finally, the light from these pixels stimulates the optical cortex in your brain.
When you are looking at the screen of your Mac, is your brain using Quartz?
"Shoot the messenger" is not a logical fallacy.
The idea being expressed is that in any scientific report, the reader has to trust the integrity of the researcher to properly evaluate the possible pitfalls that could cause his study to be inaccurate.
The reason we invariably have to trust the researcher is because we have only the text to go on. Unless every reader goes to great expense to reproduce a study, we can't know if the described experiment leads to the described results.
When a researcher accepts money from a sponsor which has a commercial interest in the outcome, it throws great doubt on the trustworthiness of the researcher.
In calculating a probability for a study to be true, one has to consider various outcomes. The less trustworthy the researcher, the more likely the experimental situation was adjusted or biased to show an outcome favorable to the sponsor, and the less likely, therefore, it is to reflect the true state of the world.
In analyzing the world, we will give less weight to statements less likely to be true.
Freedom of the press is not "absolute."
There are laws against libel and slander. There are laws regulating commercial advertising. There are laws restricting what food and drug makers can print on their packaging. There are laws restricting what publically-traded companies can print in their annual reports. There are laws against disclosing classified information in print. There are laws against publishing aerial or satellite imagery of sensitive areas. There are laws restricting child pornography.
"Freedom of the press" is limited to what the courts ultimately define those words to mean. If your definition is different, it ain't the law. Perhaps it *should* be, but it ain't.
Geez, the bridge is in Brooklyn.
Do your due diligence, for Pete's sake, willya?
oh, and for Spanish speakers, from your link again
Frente a la recrudescente politica de la administracion Bush encaminada a aislar y aplastar a la RPDC, ya hemos retirado sin vacilacion del Tratado de No Proliferacion de Armas Nucleares y fabricamos armas nucleares con fines auto-defensivos.
Nuestras armas nucleares siempre serviran para la fuerza de detencion nuclear auto-defensiva.
from your link
We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the NPT and have manufactured nukes for self-defence
The term "jerk" is too specific; it is usually the *time* derivative of acceleration.
What you are talking about is a *spatial* gradient of *force* or *pressure* which would be represented by a *stress*.
You forgot the OS/2 fiasco, where IBM hired MS to help develop OS/2, while they were simultaneously working on Windows.
To quote from the NRC link
"Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem."
The issue I was referring to is that all people heard on the news at the time was "xxx millirems of radioactivity" when few people could judge whether that was a lot or not much. Quite a few people decided to get the hell out of town.
Sometimes I don't know why I bother, but the only way plutonium is truly deadly is as a finely-ground powder which could be inhaled. I believe it is also pyrophoric, so machining it is dangerous.
Radiothermal sources have been involved in exploding rockets and inadvertent reentries. What happened with modern RTG designs is that they fell, undamaged, into the ocean, and in fact, have even been recovered and successfully recycled.
Point me to *one* person who has died as a result of plutonium exposure from any of the many plutonium-based power systems launched into space.
Did those three years include 1979?
I guess not. Unless you understood what a millirem is.
Can someone explain to me how to interpret the screenshot as a successful execution of anything?
It looks like a spew of debugging messages, with a few blobs of # symbols.
Are those blobs supposed to be part of the banner output? I don't get it.
He's saying that he wants drivers that don't crash, but microkernels that allow crashing drivers to "just be restarted" lead to a permissive atmosphere, in which driver writers don't care if their drivers crash or not.
His contention is that in a situation where a crashing driver kills everything, driver writers are much more careful, and crashing drivers are not accepted by users.
Some of the instability with the old applications may be related to the transition from a Motorola 68k-like processor to the ARM-based processor in the Zire. Some applications didn't coexist with the emulation environment that well.
Headset, man, headset.
Then you can also walk down the street looking like you are talking to yourself.
I find the inside of my Tungsten E flip-cover is a great place to stick a Post-it when I need to take it with me.
:-)
Best of both worlds
These are something akin to quoting the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit in a discussion about bicycles.
Fundamental "engineering" considerations on the level of "well, we build things using atoms" already means you are far from reaching any kind of quantum-field-theory based limit on information density or computation speed. Real engineering considerations on the level of "we build things using transistors" are yet another few orders of magnitude, which this kind of crossbar with molecular latch can perhaps decrease.
Or easy to learn and multicultural, like World English?
You are at least the second person to claim he wrote a BASIC compiler.
1) It was an INTERPRETER
2) He had Paul Allen's help
Now, he apparently DID write
Donkey, a lame driving game distributed with MS-DOS.
I am getting so tired of everyone thinking the G5 is just a magic wand to make things fast.
The whole reason the G5 is fast is because it supports a fast memory subsystem for dual processors; on the desktop, this requires a big heat-generating memory controller, fast memory, and high-bandwidth memory busses.
Do you people not notice the difference between the 1.25 GHz front-side bus on a desktop G5 and the 167 MHz memory busses for the laptops?
There is no point in putting a G5 into a laptop if you use the same memory architecture that supports a G4. It will perform about the same as the G4.
Well, as long as you don't get your facts from right-wing religious sites, it looks like the fetus-eating rumor was based on *one* performance artist claiming something provocative.
Which you use to libel a billion people. Way to go!
"Most Favored Nation" is just a diplomatic term meaning something like "Normal Trade Relations."
Meaning that tariffs on the country's goods are equal to the lowest="most favored" terms of any other trading partner.
Nothing about it expresses special treatment.