I cut my MUDding teeth on Valhalla, starting round about 1990 or so. Here's some more info about Valhalla, since George Reese's timeline isn't available any more at imaginary.com.
Valhalla was an awesome online environment. It beat the hell out of the BBSes of the time, and it kept getting better as more and more areas were added. I got all the rush of EQ from it 10 years before EQ ever happened, and I still get that same rush daily. Valhalla ceased to be in October 1997, but was reincarnated shortly thereafter (under new management) as Asgard's Honor. The admins and lib versions for Asgard have changed a bit from that link up there, but all the gameplay descriptions are still accurate, and a lot of the old Val players migrated to Asgard. I played on Val and now on Asgard as Silence.
Our web page is at ahonor.betterbox.net. We're currently in the process of updating it with all sorts of additional information. If you're looking for an online experience that isn't driven by profit but by having fun; where you can kill monsters, gain spells, chat with old friends and make new ones; and where you can talk directly with the people building the world, by all means stop in! Log in as 'guest', or create a character; either way, we'd love to have you check us out. I'm usually on every day, and I love to help out newbies.
Your tastes are your own. I think Spears' music is vapid and dull, but that's just my opinion. You've got yours, and you're entitled to it.
What is more concerning is the second half of your post, about what the music industry should do to better serve you. Making this kind of statement is like a lab chimp telling its captors, "give me more bananas, and I'll be happier during the anal probes". I believe you are what you do, and that belief makes the recording industry among the most evil people on the planet in my estimation. I won't compare them with terrorists, but collectively they have ruined countless people whose only crime is trying to give the world their music. Now that cheaper alternatives are available, and they don't have a monopoly on production, marketing, and distribution, they resort to persecuting and threatening upcoming artists with lawsuits and (even worse) new laws. I certainly won't tell them anything they can do to stay in business.
I don't buy their products (haven't since 1994), nor do I use a P2P network to obtain them illegally (haven't since 1996). I just go without. You can too. Instead of 1 CD, buy a few plants to spruce up the place. Instead of 5 CDs, buy some rollerblades. Instead of 10, visit some relatives (yes, plane tickets really are that cheap right now).
But above all else, remember that happiness can be had for free, so why are you paying for it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the proposed copyright bill allow XVID to DDoS Sigma Designs into utter submission? The Internet is, after all, a peer-to-peer file-trading network...
It may not be the best idea, but I believe it is a good one.
I want no one and no corp deciding what should be accessed across their backbones/routers/etc.
Let me point out a small flaw. If they own it, they can do whatever they want with it. You don't have to use any particular ISP. You can always go to another. What's that you say, there aren't any ISPs in your area that are morally safe? Well, you don't have to have internet access, do you? DO YOU? (If you do for work, and they pay for it, you shouldn't be putting pr0n and mp3z on it anyway.)
Hell, this will proubly be modded down to hell, but think about what this could do to all our freedoms....
I have, and that's precisely why I support it. This ISP should be free to do whatever it wants with its own hardware. Let me repeat for everyone who missed it the first time: Internet access is not a right. Until it is, you have no cause to complain that your "rights" are being taken away.
If you value freedom, and you see the Internet becoming closed, abandon the Internet. Create another network. Let the looters fight over the scraps of whatever value is left on the old 'net when the people producing that value are gone.
LSB is an attempt to standardize many aspects of a Linux distribution, such as binary (executable) file format, dynamic libraries, packages, and system initialization. They also standardize file system format, and the LSB 1.2 is FHS 2.2 compliant.
Alcatel management are perpetrating thought crimes against their employees. Their actions demonstrate the undeniable fact that they are evil, no better than the Church when it burned people at the stake 500 years ago in the process of executing other thought crimes. I urge in the strongest fashion that anyone reading this who works at Alcatel immediately quit, or you will burn slowly, like Evan, at the hands of an inquisition no less terrifying than that of history.
As to your critique of the book, that's your opinion. I agree with that critique, to some extent. Towards the end, it did get rather tiresome, although the ideas put forth in the last monologue were simply fleshing out the idea of the main point. Taken by itself, it would make a decent (but horribly dry) philosophy text. Rand wasn't trying to write a textbook, because she wanted a wider audience.
Thank goodness, a voice of reason in the wilderness! I was going to suggest that the ring be returned, as you did, but I didn't want some irate feminist to learn my home address and stone me. To me, marriage still is a financial transaction, but due to the increased standards of living these days, it may not be as important to the biological survival instincts of the bride that the groom present a dowry to the bride's father, a wedding ring to the bride, etc. I would hope that there could be more to marriage now than just survival, like perhaps an emotional attachment. Given the range of mating partners today's technology (like cars) has allowed us, I think that asking for love in a relationship is not unreasonable.
The problem with all your arguements is that the women hold all the cards. Men need/want to get laid and if they have to buy diamonds for this to happen, they *will* do it.
Heh, the problem with/your/ argument is that men can get laid any time they want, and it doesn't require diamonds. Sure, it can get expensive real quick, but I don't think women "hold all the cards" as you say. If you don't know where to go, I'll get you directions.:)
As has been pointed out elsehwhere in this very thread, gasoline, diamonds, honey, opium, and a whole bunch of other products all contribute to terrorism or cruel treatment of our fellow humans or various other badnesses in the world.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I heard you correctly. If you mean that the sale of these things contributes to terrorism, then you are mistaken. The sale itself is a simple transaction. The real root and cause of terrorism is the desires of evil men, and it is applying the proceeds of their sales towards their evil purposes which is the action of terrorism. Please don't shoot the messenger or confuse the issue.
[save your energy... cede her victory on this one, fight the good fight when she wants to know why you are "wasting" so much money on a cable modem/DSL, fast graphics cards, etc.]
Please don't. Sacrifice of the spirit leads to emotional despair, when you find after years of miserable marriage that the thing keeping you together was mutual sacrifice, not mutual respect.
YES!! Unless she told you no, then you ought to get one for her.
Please, do me the honor of explaining from whence this proclamation of law comes? If someone told you you "ought to wallop her in the head" because that's what every other drooling idiot was doing in their moments between being entertained by Brittany $pears, should you?
And as far as ethical considerations go, I don't consider buying anything legally to be unethical, regardless of from where it comes. I assume none of the responsibility for the actions of others, which is out of my control. I do not "allow" slave labor by buying sweatshop goods, nor do I "cause" it through direct action of mine. The moral dilemma resides solely with the owner of that sweatshop. It is vanity to believe that I can change the behavior of another person simply by inaction, by "not buying their goods". Furthermore, I will do nothing to help the condition of the workers beyond that which is beneficial to both of us. I would gladly hire each and every one of them myself, had I the product to make, but I don't give charity for its own sake. That way lies emotional bankruptcy.
I felt I had to reply. Apologies in advance, because I'm a hardass.
1. Even the most progressive feminist can sometimes be profoundly cliche'd when thinking about marriage. Our society teaches and reinforces strong ideas and imagery around weddings and marriage from a very early age -- heterosexual women are steeped in cultural tradition around marriage. It's hard to fight decades of "this is every girl's dream".
Yes, yes it is hard, but that doesn't mean the fight isn't worth making. I for one am sorry that the "progressive feminists" as you call them are still so materialistic. I would be much more happy if they would preach mutual love and respect, regardless of how big his wallet or his dick are. And I do think it's a shame society is so stereotyped. Cliches and stereotypes are easy excuses for not observing and thinking for yourself. (Yes, I know stereotypes have psychological protective value, but we're talking about marriage here, a situation in which we've gone way beyond casual contact.)
2. If she wants a diamond, get her a diamond. Don't make her spend the next 50 years of her life looking down at her hand and thinking, "Instead of a diamond ring, I got a symbol of his political and social stance."
I want a Lexus sport coupe. Get me one. Or 50 years from now, I'll be thinking, "all I got was a lousy Geo Metro".
Do I deserve a car, or ring, or anything else because we're getting married? Do I really deserve anything more than love, respect, and honesty? Have I somehow earned something more? What have I paid for it, what have I put into the relationship that demands more than what I'm already getting? I think the real question to be asking here is, "Why do I need this ring? What does it mean?" Think about that, and let me know what your answer is. (BTW, I don't consider spending money for its own sake a worthwhile reason. I consider it flamboyant, vain, and ultimately destructive.)
And frankly, if the love of my life got me a present based on her political stance, then considering the fact that I was planning on marrying this woman, and that I must already be happy with her views, I would be deeply honored.
3. If you don't want to support new diamond sales, consider estate jewelry. For a reasonable price, you can buy a ring that has a sense of history to it, that is a beautiful thing, and is less charged with the modern baggage. For that matter, an estate jewelry specialist can also help you make the choice. Talk to a pro! Explain you want something beautiful and unique, that you want to spend X dollars, etc.
If you decide to go down this road, then I applaud the creativity of this suggestion.
4. If you decide not to go with the diamond, give your bride-to-be *positive* language around your choice. Don't get her a different kind of ring because you don't like the social ramifications of diamond mining -- get her a different kind of ring because you don't feel a run-of-the mill diamond ring accurately reflects the special and unique qualities in her and in your relationship.
Positive language is important. But please don't tell me how to feel, or what I may like or dislike, or by what reasons I am allowed to act. No one has that right.
5. Don't use not getting a diamond as an excuse to skimp on the cost. Buying a 300.00 ring instead of a 3000.00 ring 'because diamonds are tainted with the blood of workers' says you were looking for an excuse to be cheap. It's not about the money, but it's not just the thought that counts, either.
When I buy something, I trade my money, the exchange for the fruits of my labor, for the fruits of someone else's. The amount I'm willing to pay depends on how much value I think I'm getting from the transaction. What value am I getting from this purchase?
Furthermore, I don't put a price-tag on emotions, since they are no one's to buy or sell. My love for any woman isn't worth $300, $3000, or $3,000,000. It's priceless, because it's mine, and mine alone. And if it's not the thought that counts, is it the money? Is it the prestige? If I spent the aforementioned $3,000,000 on a diamond ring, would the woman I gave it to love me any more than if I spent $300? If so, she's no one I'd want to marry.
6. Size *does* matter, but it cuts both ways. Dicks *and* diamonds can both be tooooo big.
That is a personal question which you and you alone have to answer. My own response to this question is "no". Let me explain.
Whenever I buy anything, I always ask the question "What value (emotional or material) am I getting for my money?" I have never found a suitable answer to that question. Here are some of the answers, and why I disagree with them:
"I'll stop nagging". Sorry, no dice here. I judge value by positives, by gains, not by lack of anything (nagging, etc). Anyone can tear down a building, but it takes a special man, an architect, to dream of building it in the first place. I give no heed to emotional vandals.
"Buy this ring or I won't love you". Still no. Love is an emotion that derives from mutual respect (as opposed to lust, which is somewhat quicker to come by). You can't buy love, you can only earn it. This line is a good indication she already doesn't love you, and she's just gold-digging.
"It will make me happy". Yeah, this is a tough one. Unfortunately, I live my life for myself, and I ask no man to go out of his way to help me. Similarly, I don't give my time and effort to others without some return consideration. You may call me cruel, but I hold the same moral and emotional standards and I do economic standards. Happiness is cheap (a walk on the beach, a trip to a rose garden), why should I spend two months' salary on something which can be had for free?
"All my friends have them". As a previous poster noted, you're not marrying her friends, and neither is she. If her friends judge worth by the number of things they possess, that's her problem, not yours. If her friends judge worth by intelligence, they already know she's got them beat, and they're just jealous.
My conclusion is that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about diamonds, and for that reason, they are not worth the having.
Hollywood is in deep trouble, and they know it. The only thing that could save them is the one thing they don't know how to do: face reality. They are so caught up in their own fantasy that they don't see the method of their salvation. All they need to do to survive is produce something that has value worthy of the money they want for it. They simply need to engage in honest trade, like anyone else who wants to make a living in America.
Unfortunately, they know that they can produce crap like MIB 2 and people will drool all over themselves to pay $10 to see it, because people in this country have given up using their minds. But what they keep ignoring, what they try so hard not to see, is the fact that there are more of us than them, and we choose to think. And what we think, rightly, is that they are stifling innovation with their laws and their lobbiests. They are fighting against progress, the virtue that made our country great in the first place.
The fact they don't want to face is that they are evil, and that their success means the complete and utter conversion of this country to babbling zombies. They are fighting to destroy our minds with their meaningless explosions and crass commercialization.
What am I going to do about it? The same thing I've done for the past 10 years: not see their movies. Or buy their CDs. I refuse to let my hard-earned dollars purchase the downfall of America. My advice to you is to make up your own mind, and do what you feel is right. Be an individual, the one thing they don't want you to be. But if you are looking for a specific action you can take, here it is: don't ever accept employ within the entertainment industry. If you have a job there now, quit. Deny them the use of your mind. That is the worst damage you could inflict. Without talented people, their industry, ANY industry, is doomed.
I would be honored to meet a man like Ben Franklin today. Franklin understood the value of the simple application of the human mind to solving practical problems, and I envy him that he was given the opportunity to exercise himself. Every day, I see the work of those who produce subverted by those that have nothing to offer, and I fear the day when I will feel unable to produce anything of value in their society, because it is, for the time being, my society as well. I take heart, however, knowing that they need me more than I need them, because when I work I create value, but they only seek to possess it. For those who sustain the world, my currency buys more than theirs. My hopes and prayers go out to everyone reading this who feels the same way as I do. May we find each other, and forge a better world.
From looking at the algo, I can't figure out what 'x' (or maybe it's a chi) is? Can someone help? I've looked it over, but couldn't find a definition of it. I'm also assuming that the 'if (r is prime)' line is a recursive call to itself? Also, how do we determine 'q' the 'largest prime factor of r-1' ? Another recursive call to get the factors? I must admit, I'm kind of lost by the algo, but it's still interesting.
OK, I'll address these points in order:
First off, 'x' doesn't matter. The loop at the bottom checks a congruence of two polynomials over two finite rings (if I'm reading it right, the first is generated by x^r-1 and the second by the input n). Simplistically, this amounts to grinding out the coefficients of the two polynomials and verifying that the difference of the polys equals zero, modulo the ring generator. The actual 'value of x' is never used.
Second, if you check the order statistic calculation, they're assuming worst-case on factoring 'r' (they apply order r^1/2 for that factorization). They then make an assumption that O(r^1/2) = O((log n)^3), or that O(r) = O((log n)^6), which seems rather suspect (as if they knew the answer ahead of time and plugged in a recursive value for it). Nevertheless, they do go to some length to show that such an r exists, and that it requires at most O((log n)^6) iterations of the first loop to find it.
As for 'q', I think again it is determined by brute-force factoring r-1. On the one hand, r is small; on the other hand, that doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to dealing with order statistics, which I think is also a little suspect.
Note that this algorithm takes O((log n)^12). For this to actually be faster than, say, factoring n directly, and assuming a multiplicative factor of 1 in the order statistic, n has to be at least 3*10^22, or roughly 75 bits long. This algorithm is probably very ineffective at factoring small integers.
Actually, the thought of having a Democracy in this country scares the hell out of me, because most people are idiots. I'm all in favor of our current Republic.
The general public are not idiots, just normal people, and normal people don't understand technology.
Normally, people are afraid of things they don't understand, and are willing to believe just about anything to assuage that fear.
Normal people are willing to trust authority figures, even if you aren't.
Conclusion:
You stand a great chance of spreading anti-BS FUD by proclaiming yourself the Grand Poobah of Internet Security, and ranting to anyone who will listen about how the evil hackers are already working for / in cahoots with the government to destroy your lives and steal your Wonder Bread.
I betcha most of the people reading/. could make a pretty believable case based on this argument (and probably have a good time, too).
OK all you free market weenies you weren't even born when Ma Bell made you pay for every phone extention in your own house. They metered the voltage on the line and if they detected a drop the operator broke into your call and told you you were breaking the law and needed to pay for the extra extensions.
What's my point? Look for answers close to home. Keeping your head in the clouds can be fun, but not always productive. Rather than trying to find solutions to the effects of overpopulation, one should try to find solutions to the causes of overpopulation.
Don't complain. It's Larry's language. He can do whatever the hell he wants to do, and still call it perl. If he wants to add support for punching monkeys to it, it's still perl. If you don't like it, make up your own language. Same goes for Linus, if he wants to make the Linux kernel panic every time the clock rolls over to midnight for full BSOD-compatibility, that's his right.
The reason that perl is successful is because it's useful. Only time will tell if people think perl6 is useful. If they do, they'll use it; if not, they'll stick to perl5.
Ob regex troll: I think the new regex handling kicks major ass. The new regexes have been promoted to true first-class variables, cleaning up a lot of messy syntactical issues. In addition, everyone who says it's not backwards compatible, well you're right. That's because the current regex libraries SUCK in comparison to the features offered by perl6. That's right, they SUCK, and it would be impossible to be backwards compatible with all the new (useful) features that have been added. If you don't believe the new syntax useful, try backtracking a 100,000 character repetitive string only to discover that the 15th matched number is too large or too small. Now think <{... }>.
Without even "listening", one would get the impression (from his liner notes) that his work either draws from Cage, or is co-authored by him. This goes beyond copyright - for instance, even if Mickey Mouse became public domain, no one using should ever be allowed to pretend to be either Disney or to be authorized by Disney (without their permission).
IA(Also)NAL, but there are a couple of points to be made. First, if Mickey Mouse becomes public domain, that means that Disney no longer owns it. Period, end of story, both in spirit and letter of law (as I understand it). If someone then draws a MM cartoon, that's good for them. If they claim to be Disney, that's fraud, and punishable to be sure, but it no longer has anything to do with copyright. For example, if I claimed to be Thomas Jefferson, and went around suing people for printing the Constitution in textbooks, I'd have a helluva time trying to convince a judge I had a copyright case, even if I really were Jefferson.
Which brings me to my second comment, whether or not Mr Batt should get in trouble. Unless Cage (or, rather, his estate) explicitly gave up copyright priveledges, one particular recording of nothing belongs to Mr Cage. If Mr Batt can prove that his silence was obtained from a different source, then, as nothing was copied, a sane judge would have to find the copyright isn't applicable. On the other hand, if it can be shown that Mr Batt does make a claim to be associated with Mr Cage when he isn't (and you'd need more than attribution to have association), he might stand a change of being convicted of fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Valhalla was an awesome online environment. It beat the hell out of the BBSes of the time, and it kept getting better as more and more areas were added. I got all the rush of EQ from it 10 years before EQ ever happened, and I still get that same rush daily. Valhalla ceased to be in October 1997, but was reincarnated shortly thereafter (under new management) as Asgard's Honor. The admins and lib versions for Asgard have changed a bit from that link up there, but all the gameplay descriptions are still accurate, and a lot of the old Val players migrated to Asgard. I played on Val and now on Asgard as Silence.
Our web page is at ahonor.betterbox.net. We're currently in the process of updating it with all sorts of additional information. If you're looking for an online experience that isn't driven by profit but by having fun; where you can kill monsters, gain spells, chat with old friends and make new ones; and where you can talk directly with the people building the world, by all means stop in! Log in as 'guest', or create a character; either way, we'd love to have you check us out. I'm usually on every day, and I love to help out newbies.
-- Silence
What is more concerning is the second half of your post, about what the music industry should do to better serve you. Making this kind of statement is like a lab chimp telling its captors, "give me more bananas, and I'll be happier during the anal probes". I believe you are what you do, and that belief makes the recording industry among the most evil people on the planet in my estimation. I won't compare them with terrorists, but collectively they have ruined countless people whose only crime is trying to give the world their music. Now that cheaper alternatives are available, and they don't have a monopoly on production, marketing, and distribution, they resort to persecuting and threatening upcoming artists with lawsuits and (even worse) new laws. I certainly won't tell them anything they can do to stay in business.
I don't buy their products (haven't since 1994), nor do I use a P2P network to obtain them illegally (haven't since 1996). I just go without. You can too. Instead of 1 CD, buy a few plants to spruce up the place. Instead of 5 CDs, buy some rollerblades. Instead of 10, visit some relatives (yes, plane tickets really are that cheap right now).
But above all else, remember that happiness can be had for free, so why are you paying for it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the proposed copyright bill allow XVID to DDoS Sigma Designs into utter submission? The Internet is, after all, a peer-to-peer file-trading network...
If you value freedom, and you see the Internet becoming closed, abandon the Internet. Create another network. Let the looters fight over the scraps of whatever value is left on the old 'net when the people producing that value are gone.
LSB is an attempt to standardize many aspects of a Linux distribution, such as binary (executable) file format, dynamic libraries, packages, and system initialization. They also standardize file system format, and the LSB 1.2 is FHS 2.2 compliant.
Alcatel management are perpetrating thought crimes against their employees. Their actions demonstrate the undeniable fact that they are evil, no better than the Church when it burned people at the stake 500 years ago in the process of executing other thought crimes. I urge in the strongest fashion that anyone reading this who works at Alcatel immediately quit, or you will burn slowly, like Evan, at the hands of an inquisition no less terrifying than that of history.
As to your critique of the book, that's your opinion. I agree with that critique, to some extent. Towards the end, it did get rather tiresome, although the ideas put forth in the last monologue were simply fleshing out the idea of the main point. Taken by itself, it would make a decent (but horribly dry) philosophy text. Rand wasn't trying to write a textbook, because she wanted a wider audience.
Thank goodness, a voice of reason in the wilderness! I was going to suggest that the ring be returned, as you did, but I didn't want some irate feminist to learn my home address and stone me. To me, marriage still is a financial transaction, but due to the increased standards of living these days, it may not be as important to the biological survival instincts of the bride that the groom present a dowry to the bride's father, a wedding ring to the bride, etc. I would hope that there could be more to marriage now than just survival, like perhaps an emotional attachment. Given the range of mating partners today's technology (like cars) has allowed us, I think that asking for love in a relationship is not unreasonable.
And as far as ethical considerations go, I don't consider buying anything legally to be unethical, regardless of from where it comes. I assume none of the responsibility for the actions of others, which is out of my control. I do not "allow" slave labor by buying sweatshop goods, nor do I "cause" it through direct action of mine. The moral dilemma resides solely with the owner of that sweatshop. It is vanity to believe that I can change the behavior of another person simply by inaction, by "not buying their goods". Furthermore, I will do nothing to help the condition of the workers beyond that which is beneficial to both of us. I would gladly hire each and every one of them myself, had I the product to make, but I don't give charity for its own sake. That way lies emotional bankruptcy.
Do I deserve a car, or ring, or anything else because we're getting married? Do I really deserve anything more than love, respect, and honesty? Have I somehow earned something more? What have I paid for it, what have I put into the relationship that demands more than what I'm already getting? I think the real question to be asking here is, "Why do I need this ring? What does it mean?" Think about that, and let me know what your answer is. (BTW, I don't consider spending money for its own sake a worthwhile reason. I consider it flamboyant, vain, and ultimately destructive.)
And frankly, if the love of my life got me a present based on her political stance, then considering the fact that I was planning on marrying this woman, and that I must already be happy with her views, I would be deeply honored.
If you decide to go down this road, then I applaud the creativity of this suggestion. Positive language is important. But please don't tell me how to feel, or what I may like or dislike, or by what reasons I am allowed to act. No one has that right. When I buy something, I trade my money, the exchange for the fruits of my labor, for the fruits of someone else's. The amount I'm willing to pay depends on how much value I think I'm getting from the transaction. What value am I getting from this purchase?Furthermore, I don't put a price-tag on emotions, since they are no one's to buy or sell. My love for any woman isn't worth $300, $3000, or $3,000,000. It's priceless, because it's mine, and mine alone. And if it's not the thought that counts, is it the money? Is it the prestige? If I spent the aforementioned $3,000,000 on a diamond ring, would the woman I gave it to love me any more than if I spent $300? If so, she's no one I'd want to marry.
Agreed, on both counts.Whenever I buy anything, I always ask the question "What value (emotional or material) am I getting for my money?" I have never found a suitable answer to that question. Here are some of the answers, and why I disagree with them:
- "I'll stop nagging". Sorry, no dice here. I judge value by positives, by gains, not by lack of anything (nagging, etc). Anyone can tear down a building, but it takes a special man, an architect, to dream of building it in the first place. I give no heed to emotional vandals.
- "Buy this ring or I won't love you". Still no. Love is an emotion that derives from mutual respect (as opposed to lust, which is somewhat quicker to come by). You can't buy love, you can only earn it. This line is a good indication she already doesn't love you, and she's just gold-digging.
- "It will make me happy". Yeah, this is a tough one. Unfortunately, I live my life for myself, and I ask no man to go out of his way to help me. Similarly, I don't give my time and effort to others without some return consideration. You may call me cruel, but I hold the same moral and emotional standards and I do economic standards. Happiness is cheap (a walk on the beach, a trip to a rose garden), why should I spend two months' salary on something which can be had for free?
- "All my friends have them". As a previous poster noted, you're not marrying her friends, and neither is she. If her friends judge worth by the number of things they possess, that's her problem, not yours. If her friends judge worth by intelligence, they already know she's got them beat, and they're just jealous.
My conclusion is that there is nothing intrinsically valuable about diamonds, and for that reason, they are not worth the having.Unfortunately, they know that they can produce crap like MIB 2 and people will drool all over themselves to pay $10 to see it, because people in this country have given up using their minds. But what they keep ignoring, what they try so hard not to see, is the fact that there are more of us than them, and we choose to think. And what we think, rightly, is that they are stifling innovation with their laws and their lobbiests. They are fighting against progress, the virtue that made our country great in the first place.
The fact they don't want to face is that they are evil, and that their success means the complete and utter conversion of this country to babbling zombies. They are fighting to destroy our minds with their meaningless explosions and crass commercialization.
What am I going to do about it? The same thing I've done for the past 10 years: not see their movies. Or buy their CDs. I refuse to let my hard-earned dollars purchase the downfall of America. My advice to you is to make up your own mind, and do what you feel is right. Be an individual, the one thing they don't want you to be. But if you are looking for a specific action you can take, here it is: don't ever accept employ within the entertainment industry. If you have a job there now, quit. Deny them the use of your mind. That is the worst damage you could inflict. Without talented people, their industry, ANY industry, is doomed.
Read Atlas Shrugged, and vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.
First off, 'x' doesn't matter. The loop at the bottom checks a congruence of two polynomials over two finite rings (if I'm reading it right, the first is generated by x^r-1 and the second by the input n). Simplistically, this amounts to grinding out the coefficients of the two polynomials and verifying that the difference of the polys equals zero, modulo the ring generator. The actual 'value of x' is never used.
Second, if you check the order statistic calculation, they're assuming worst-case on factoring 'r' (they apply order r^1/2 for that factorization). They then make an assumption that O(r^1/2) = O((log n)^3), or that O(r) = O((log n)^6), which seems rather suspect (as if they knew the answer ahead of time and plugged in a recursive value for it). Nevertheless, they do go to some length to show that such an r exists, and that it requires at most O((log n)^6) iterations of the first loop to find it.
As for 'q', I think again it is determined by brute-force factoring r-1. On the one hand, r is small; on the other hand, that doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to dealing with order statistics, which I think is also a little suspect.
Note that this algorithm takes O((log n)^12). For this to actually be faster than, say, factoring n directly, and assuming a multiplicative factor of 1 in the order statistic, n has to be at least 3*10^22, or roughly 75 bits long. This algorithm is probably very ineffective at factoring small integers.
Actually, the thought of having a Democracy in this country scares the hell out of me, because most people are idiots. I'm all in favor of our current Republic.
Premises:
- The general public are not idiots, just normal people, and normal people don't understand technology.
- Normally, people are afraid of things they don't understand, and are willing to believe just about anything to assuage that fear.
- Normal people are willing to trust authority figures, even if you aren't.
Conclusion:- You stand a great chance of spreading anti-BS FUD by proclaiming yourself the Grand Poobah of Internet Security, and ranting to anyone who will listen about how the evil hackers are already working for / in cahoots with the government to destroy your lives and steal your Wonder Bread.
I betcha most of the people readingThe reason that perl is successful is because it's useful. Only time will tell if people think perl6 is useful. If they do, they'll use it; if not, they'll stick to perl5.
Ob regex troll: I think the new regex handling kicks major ass. The new regexes have been promoted to true first-class variables, cleaning up a lot of messy syntactical issues. In addition, everyone who says it's not backwards compatible, well you're right. That's because the current regex libraries SUCK in comparison to the features offered by perl6. That's right, they SUCK, and it would be impossible to be backwards compatible with all the new (useful) features that have been added. If you don't believe the new syntax useful, try backtracking a 100,000 character repetitive string only to discover that the 15th matched number is too large or too small. Now think <{ ... }>.
Just so no one is confused, that's Microsoft's XDR, not the real XDR.
Which brings me to my second comment, whether or not Mr Batt should get in trouble. Unless Cage (or, rather, his estate) explicitly gave up copyright priveledges, one particular recording of nothing belongs to Mr Cage. If Mr Batt can prove that his silence was obtained from a different source, then, as nothing was copied, a sane judge would have to find the copyright isn't applicable. On the other hand, if it can be shown that Mr Batt does make a claim to be associated with Mr Cage when he isn't (and you'd need more than attribution to have association), he might stand a change of being convicted of fraud.