We have logical minimization algorithms already. EE's use them. Why hasn't anyone run them across Wolfram's functions? Why didn't Wolfram think to do so?
"Minimum number of symbols" is an interesting criteria. If you want to minimize each expression, you would have a wider set of logical operators: (p XOR q) is equivalent to (p OR q) AND (p NAND q), as well as (p OR q) AND NOT (p AND q). Using XOR instead of simply AND, OR, and NAND, or AND, OR, and NOT simplifies the expression to some extent. On the other hand, if you want to limit the set of logical operators, it would make more sense to limit your operators to NAND or NOR, since either one of those can construct all the others. (NOT p = p NAND p, p AND q = (p NAND q) NAND (p NAND q), etc.). Picking something in between (i.e. AND, NOT, and OR) seems arbitrary.
Clearly he's on a first name basis with Every One. This is good for him since as they say, you have to pretty much know Every One to get ahead in this world. On the other hand, when I ask who truly understands any complicated subject, the response is always "not Every One". Truly, like so many of our leaders, this Every One character is simply an influential dullard.
Except Fake Steve, in character, is supposed to be Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, and it makes no sense story-wise for Apple to sue Steve Jobs. Nor was it obvious he's "stepping into a new character", although that is one possible interpretation.
Ms. Clinton has always struck me as the kind of person who, if presented with a pistol and a note from English soccer midfielder Frank Lampard that stated if she killed the people on the attached list Abe Vigoda would denounce drunk driving. (I love madlibs!)
The difference is, the Gong Show was actually entertaining. Nowadays, bad TV shows take themselves so seriously that they're not even entertaining anymore.
" enhver burde ha likeverdig adgang å offentligheten beskjed : Åpen standarder bli tvangsmessig innen regjeringen. " regjeringen har bestemte det alle beskjed opp på regjeringen websites burde være anvendelig i fri luft formatter HTML PDF eller ODF. Med dette bestemmelse tidene når offentligheten dokumenter der hvor bare anvendelig inne Microsoft's Ord - formatter kommer å slutt. 'Everybody burde ha likeverdig adgang å offentligheten beskjed. Fra 2009 det borger ville være i stand til valgte hvilke programvare å bruk for at få innpass å offentligheten beskjed. Det regjeringen bestemmelse ville likeledes gjøre bedre konkurransen imellom leverandør av kontor søknadene sier DEN - minister Heidi Praktfull Røys. " denne er avgjørelsen av regjeringen : HTML burde være det primære formatter for forlagsartikkel av offentligheten beskjed på Sykehuslege. PDF (1.4 eller nyere , eller PDF / EN ISO 19005-1) er tvangsmessig når du ønske å gjemme originalen layout av en dokumentet. ODF ISO IEC 26300) må av sted anvendt når utgiveren dokumenter det er mente å bli forandret etter dataoverfører eg. blankett det er å bli fylte inne av brukeren. "- Norge Ministerium av Regjeringen Administrasjon og Forbedring " What!? How dare you! My mother is a saint!
Then cut the bullshit and link me to your faculty page at your university. (Except then I'd have no way of knowing it was really you, unless you posted something there. So until you do so, shenanigans are still in full effect.) BTW, using opaque, pseudo-philosophical language to argue your points is a common tactic of postmodernists. Clarify of expression is a virtue.
I am pretty sure we can assume the current pricing scheme is not fair, otherwise so many people would not be sharing these files. The reason p2p is so popular is that is where the market is right now, this is what the people want, like it or not that is the truth. Look at allofm3.com, they had a fair pricing scheme and look at the millions of people that flocked to "buy" music from them instead of copying it for free from p2p. iTunes is just on the border of being fair, hence people buy from them even when they could download the music for free.
I think there are some implicit fallacies there, especially since the costs of music production are completely uncompensated for under p2p and allofmp3.com schemes. Now there are schemes where artists and producers give music away or sell it at low or variable prices, depending on the music to increase demand for live shows and merchandise or something, but on the other hand the long-term viability of that idea hasn't been established yet. Furthermore, lots of people continue to buy CD's of their own free will. So really you've established nothing by that argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your reasoning here is really sketchy, with a lot of handwaving and leaving several obvious critiques open. And that your point is blatantly self-serving.
Right, the engine will stop if you let the clutch out, but on the other hand you actually have to press the accelerator (or have some height difference) to actually move it, whereas with an automatic you just take your foot off the brake.
I actually drive for a living, and someone asked me to move this van the other day. I had no idea where to start, because I've never driven an automatic. I don't suppose it'd take much to learn, but currently I'm as clueless in an automatic as an automatic driver is in a manual.
Hold the brake down. Start the engine. Let the brake up and it'll inch forward. Press on the gas to go faster. Press on the brake to stop. Bob's your uncle. (Automatics creep forward slightly when you don't touch any pedals at all, while a manual will either sit still or roll with gravity.)
Flying cars and driving cars may have epistemological equivalence (both = vehicle operation) but they are not ontologically equivalent. Example: hacking up a cooked turkey and brain surgery are both examples of (episteme) knife wielding, but they are not the same (ontologue) activities and have radically different social values and results.
Dude, you don't even know what "epistemology" and "ontology" even mean. And even if you did you have no good reason to use those words, so I must conclude you are deliberately misusing complicated words, expecting us not to know or understand what they really mean, and furthermore conjecturing that we will simply assume you have intellectually overpowered us and concede defeat without you having to actually make a convincing argument. I call shenanigans.
What's a "fair price"? You haven't defined anything here because you haven't told us what a "fair price" is. All we know is that people are liable to apply that criteria in self-serving ways: "music costs more than I want to pay, it's unfair".
I think you're missing the fact that the 1949 version was so widely deployed that once Chinese Democracy was actually delivered in 1996, only a very small userbase remained to adopt it.
I also want to add that I've been unfair to Wikipedia in seemingly changing the rules as they go. When you begin a huge project like this, you don't know how a mass of people will collaborate, so you have no idea what the rules should be. The rules come as the articles begin to settle into a general format, common problems are identified, and some sort of consensus can be reached.
There's a lot more to be said about that.
Your statement before about Jimbo Whales being more of a figurehead is something I agree with, although I still took his Mzoli's Meats article as a strong policy endorsement of inclusionism. I say this now to make the larger point that I think we need someone to be more than a figurehead, the "benevolent dictator" who can make absolute pronouncements and take the heat for it so the co-workers won't fight over who gets the cubical by the window. Right now, it sometimes feels like a committee decreed that all bathroom breaks must be between 10:00 - 10:15 and 3:00-3:15, and I'll have to attend 3 meetings a week from now on to get this changed. Of course, this is just my perception and there's 100 things wrong with the analogy(e.g. Notability standards aren't arbitrary). Anyway, these are just thoughts that have been going through my head as I wonder how I got caught up in all this insanity.
That's quite true, and perhaps some more guidance from above could have successfully prevented a lot of Wikipedia's problems. Unfortunately, it's grown to the point where Jimbo is too busy managing the Foundation and going on speaking tours that he can't possibly do that himself, and almost no one on Wikipedia is well-accepted enough that they can assume such a position, whether elected or appointed by Jimbo. And to some extent this is well-known--if you've ever seen Jimbo's talk page, he's constantly petitioned for assistance in everything, and admins are known to patrol it to try to take care of such issues themselves. On the other hand (and as we've seen on the Mzoli Meats article), there are some who take the community-run aspect of Wikipedia far enough to say even Jimbo's word shouldn't be taken at face value.
I'm sorry for my part in the flame war, too. And I really appreciate that you took the effort to work this out.
I appreciate the clarifications, and want to point out that I don't hold ill will against you at all for stating your opinions. The tone of our previous discussion led a certain way. While I can certainly flame and be flamed and take it in good sport, this is a subject that does merit serious and civil discussion.
I've heard, and am sympathetic to, the viewpoint that any well-referenced, properly formatted material should stay on Wikipedia unmolested. (The only subject not notable enough for Wikipedia is one that hasn't managed to gather any good references--I'm not on Wikipedia because no reliable source has written about me.) Certainly, Wikipedia is far more inclusionary than any other encyclopedia ever written, and I consider that a strength. On the other hand, I also think it trivializes the project when (for instance), we have more articles about Pokemon than about ancient Greece, and when we give more space to "the Pythagorean theorem in popular culture" than "proofs of the Pythagorean theorem". When it comes to things like trivia sections and "in popular culture" sections, where lists are created and appended by masses of users, I think it's even more of a problem--and usually with these lists, it's not an issue of someone's long hours of hard work being deleted so much as it is several people's 10-second contributions being deleted. Here I discuss some of the formatting issues that trivia lists entail:
If most of the information in that "trivia" section was refactored into prose there would be no problem with it being presented that way. I mean, imagine if the article on Pervez Musharraf had a trivia section with entries like: "A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf." Not very informative. The actual prose section reads as follows: "However, more recent surveys shows that Musharraf's popularity has further decreased. A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf. According to poll results, Bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. [92]. In an effort to boost his falling popularity ratings in an election year, Musharraf will be a regular guest star on a state-sponsored Q&A show titled From the President's House.[93] The show will be aired weekly on PTV and partly or wholly on some private channels." Much better.
It is much better, but it requires a lot of research and copywriting, and not enough effort on Wikipedia is expended on those compared to things like arguing about deletion or politicking. And the reason it's much better is because we've taken a discrete fact without context and drawn it into a wider context, connecting it to other information to foster greater understanding.
In the early days of Wikipedia (2002, 2003, sometime before I became active), Wikipedia articles had quotes in them, either about the subject or (in a biographical article) by the subject. People thought it was neat to have them, but they sort of cluttered up the main article. So they created a sister project, WikiQuote, and came up with neat little boxes that linked between Wikipedia entries and WikiQuote entries. I think a WikiTrivia project run the same way would be the best solution, combined with taking certain trivia entries and integrating them into prose sections where appropriate.
As to how page deletion is handled, I think it's fair to say we still disagree over who should have a say in that discussion. The fact remains, though, that a difference of opinion still exists and can't be dealt with other than by debating what should be deleted. And in the long run, I think the inclusionists are winning. You mentioned Chris Crocker in our previous discussion--I actually argued to keep a different article about the "don't tase me bro" incident, and that article was ultimately kept, just like the Crocker article. Likewise, we used to have a lot of dele
Let's set aside the alternate universe thing, since that fixes everything. Killing your own grandfather is only possible if you were born, but it's not possible to have been born if your grandfather died prior to your father's birth--you are breaking the causal chain of your own action. If your grandfather died at that point, you wouldn't be born and thus wouldn't have traveled back in time to kill him. If you're trying to tell me that you would be in the past anyway, without ever being born or going on a time traveling adventure, then we clearly have different ideas about causality. Being your own grandfather presents no such paradox by the way, it's just weird.
So, you didn't send anyone to die? Strange, your name, along with many others is on the check...I think it's safe to call you a "contributor".
I'm a net negative contributor to the federal treasury. If anything I've taken money away from the war. Now why don't you tell me who *you* think destroyed the WTC? Was it the Jewish neocon freemasons?
Slashdot Mirror
Why any particular fixed set?
Two issues:
Clearly he's on a first name basis with Every One. This is good for him since as they say, you have to pretty much know Every One to get ahead in this world. On the other hand, when I ask who truly understands any complicated subject, the response is always "not Every One". Truly, like so many of our leaders, this Every One character is simply an influential dullard.
Except Fake Steve, in character, is supposed to be Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, and it makes no sense story-wise for Apple to sue Steve Jobs. Nor was it obvious he's "stepping into a new character", although that is one possible interpretation.
Ms. Clinton has always struck me as the kind of person who, if presented with a pistol and a note from English soccer midfielder Frank Lampard that stated if she killed the people on the attached list Abe Vigoda would denounce drunk driving. (I love madlibs!)
...and likely much further, to the dawn of boasting and storytelling itself. Ryan FentonDenny Crane!
The difference is, the Gong Show was actually entertaining. Nowadays, bad TV shows take themselves so seriously that they're not even entertaining anymore.
Then cut the bullshit and link me to your faculty page at your university. (Except then I'd have no way of knowing it was really you, unless you posted something there. So until you do so, shenanigans are still in full effect.) BTW, using opaque, pseudo-philosophical language to argue your points is a common tactic of postmodernists. Clarify of expression is a virtue.
I think there are some implicit fallacies there, especially since the costs of music production are completely uncompensated for under p2p and allofmp3.com schemes. Now there are schemes where artists and producers give music away or sell it at low or variable prices, depending on the music to increase demand for live shows and merchandise or something, but on the other hand the long-term viability of that idea hasn't been established yet. Furthermore, lots of people continue to buy CD's of their own free will. So really you've established nothing by that argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your reasoning here is really sketchy, with a lot of handwaving and leaving several obvious critiques open. And that your point is blatantly self-serving.
Right, the engine will stop if you let the clutch out, but on the other hand you actually have to press the accelerator (or have some height difference) to actually move it, whereas with an automatic you just take your foot off the brake.
Some places in the US call them rotaries, some places call them roundabouts. "Traffic circle" is used as well, but not as often anymore.
Hold the brake down. Start the engine. Let the brake up and it'll inch forward. Press on the gas to go faster. Press on the brake to stop. Bob's your uncle. (Automatics creep forward slightly when you don't touch any pedals at all, while a manual will either sit still or roll with gravity.)
Dude, you don't even know what "epistemology" and "ontology" even mean. And even if you did you have no good reason to use those words, so I must conclude you are deliberately misusing complicated words, expecting us not to know or understand what they really mean, and furthermore conjecturing that we will simply assume you have intellectually overpowered us and concede defeat without you having to actually make a convincing argument. I call shenanigans.
You know, I fully support stripping drivers licenses away from idiots as it is. So your critique fails.
What's a "fair price"? You haven't defined anything here because you haven't told us what a "fair price" is. All we know is that people are liable to apply that criteria in self-serving ways: "music costs more than I want to pay, it's unfair".
I think you're missing the fact that the 1949 version was so widely deployed that once Chinese Democracy was actually delivered in 1996, only a very small userbase remained to adopt it.
As a philosophy/comp sci double major, I love the sig :)
There's a lot more to be said about that.
Your statement before about Jimbo Whales being more of a figurehead is something I agree with, although I still took his Mzoli's Meats article as a strong policy endorsement of inclusionism. I say this now to make the larger point that I think we need someone to be more than a figurehead, the "benevolent dictator" who can make absolute pronouncements and take the heat for it so the co-workers won't fight over who gets the cubical by the window. Right now, it sometimes feels like a committee decreed that all bathroom breaks must be between 10:00 - 10:15 and 3:00-3:15, and I'll have to attend 3 meetings a week from now on to get this changed. Of course, this is just my perception and there's 100 things wrong with the analogy(e.g. Notability standards aren't arbitrary). Anyway, these are just thoughts that have been going through my head as I wonder how I got caught up in all this insanity.That's quite true, and perhaps some more guidance from above could have successfully prevented a lot of Wikipedia's problems. Unfortunately, it's grown to the point where Jimbo is too busy managing the Foundation and going on speaking tours that he can't possibly do that himself, and almost no one on Wikipedia is well-accepted enough that they can assume such a position, whether elected or appointed by Jimbo. And to some extent this is well-known--if you've ever seen Jimbo's talk page, he's constantly petitioned for assistance in everything, and admins are known to patrol it to try to take care of such issues themselves. On the other hand (and as we've seen on the Mzoli Meats article), there are some who take the community-run aspect of Wikipedia far enough to say even Jimbo's word shouldn't be taken at face value.
I'm sorry for my part in the flame war, too. And I really appreciate that you took the effort to work this out.
I appreciate the clarifications, and want to point out that I don't hold ill will against you at all for stating your opinions. The tone of our previous discussion led a certain way. While I can certainly flame and be flamed and take it in good sport, this is a subject that does merit serious and civil discussion.
I've heard, and am sympathetic to, the viewpoint that any well-referenced, properly formatted material should stay on Wikipedia unmolested. (The only subject not notable enough for Wikipedia is one that hasn't managed to gather any good references--I'm not on Wikipedia because no reliable source has written about me.) Certainly, Wikipedia is far more inclusionary than any other encyclopedia ever written, and I consider that a strength. On the other hand, I also think it trivializes the project when (for instance), we have more articles about Pokemon than about ancient Greece, and when we give more space to "the Pythagorean theorem in popular culture" than "proofs of the Pythagorean theorem". When it comes to things like trivia sections and "in popular culture" sections, where lists are created and appended by masses of users, I think it's even more of a problem--and usually with these lists, it's not an issue of someone's long hours of hard work being deleted so much as it is several people's 10-second contributions being deleted. Here I discuss some of the formatting issues that trivia lists entail:
If most of the information in that "trivia" section was refactored into prose there would be no problem with it being presented that way. I mean, imagine if the article on Pervez Musharraf had a trivia section with entries like: "A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf." Not very informative. The actual prose section reads as follows: "However, more recent surveys shows that Musharraf's popularity has further decreased. A survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow shows that Osama Bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than Musharraf. According to poll results, Bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. [92]. In an effort to boost his falling popularity ratings in an election year, Musharraf will be a regular guest star on a state-sponsored Q&A show titled From the President's House.[93] The show will be aired weekly on PTV and partly or wholly on some private channels." Much better.
It is much better, but it requires a lot of research and copywriting, and not enough effort on Wikipedia is expended on those compared to things like arguing about deletion or politicking. And the reason it's much better is because we've taken a discrete fact without context and drawn it into a wider context, connecting it to other information to foster greater understanding.
In the early days of Wikipedia (2002, 2003, sometime before I became active), Wikipedia articles had quotes in them, either about the subject or (in a biographical article) by the subject. People thought it was neat to have them, but they sort of cluttered up the main article. So they created a sister project, WikiQuote, and came up with neat little boxes that linked between Wikipedia entries and WikiQuote entries. I think a WikiTrivia project run the same way would be the best solution, combined with taking certain trivia entries and integrating them into prose sections where appropriate.
As to how page deletion is handled, I think it's fair to say we still disagree over who should have a say in that discussion. The fact remains, though, that a difference of opinion still exists and can't be dealt with other than by debating what should be deleted. And in the long run, I think the inclusionists are winning. You mentioned Chris Crocker in our previous discussion--I actually argued to keep a different article about the "don't tase me bro" incident, and that article was ultimately kept, just like the Crocker article. Likewise, we used to have a lot of dele
Sure--that's why they didn't bother sticking around and occupying the country.
Let's set aside the alternate universe thing, since that fixes everything. Killing your own grandfather is only possible if you were born, but it's not possible to have been born if your grandfather died prior to your father's birth--you are breaking the causal chain of your own action. If your grandfather died at that point, you wouldn't be born and thus wouldn't have traveled back in time to kill him. If you're trying to tell me that you would be in the past anyway, without ever being born or going on a time traveling adventure, then we clearly have different ideas about causality. Being your own grandfather presents no such paradox by the way, it's just weird.
Then please leave this issues to those of us who do care, and get back on your meds.
I'm a net negative contributor to the federal treasury. If anything I've taken money away from the war. Now why don't you tell me who *you* think destroyed the WTC? Was it the Jewish neocon freemasons?
I didn't send anyone to die, you asshole. Go to hell.