I really don't care. I can rewrite the most recent program, and I don't nead the earlier programs. Besides, who'd do that anyway - who hates me enough?
I had no password this year in Computer Science. My programs were subconsciously obfuscated enough that none would be insane enough to steal my code and pass it as his own, and I didn't care if the other students looked in there (the teacher can open my home directory anyway). It made it a few milliseconds faster to log in.
My strongest password is a l33t-ized version of a former password (two words in plain English...well, not English, a proper noun from a French novel). It contains about half numbers and symbols, enough that I don't think it'll be cracked too easily.
He is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer," I think we knew that already.
but nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people, And this gives him credentials how? "Converse" does not necessarily mean "understand". And why the "many" qualifier? I would hope (language problems barred) that he would be able to converse with all people, intelligent or not.
and is accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world. That shows real credibility for writing a report on kernel authoring. Fancy hotels let him in.
Why did he allow this to be printed? If anything, it discredits him by showing a lack of good reasons for his credibility.
While I'm at it, from the front page, emphasis mine:
Experts from Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds I thought he didn't get to talk to Linus, no matter if he tried or not?
agree: a. they are much smarter than AdTI's Kenneth Brown, He allows himself to be called not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That shows a lack of even a blade. Besides, why can't he go write his own kernel and sell it commercially? And they're experts; they're smarter in the field than non-experts.
b. IBM is good, Microsoft is evil, Appeal to distaste of moral absolutes. I think we can all, including Mr. Brown, agree that Microsoft has been convicted of anticompetitive practices and campaigns against Linux, and IBM supports Linux and is therefore good for Linux. Anyway, how is this against Ken Brown...unless Microsoft in fact supports AdTI?
and c. Brown's theory of how Linux was probably written is dead wrong. I for one cannot see how if Torvalds, Tanenbaum, and everyone else involved, who are "experts", claim one story of Linux's evolution, Ken Brown, an outsider, can have a "theory" of a "probabl[e]" story be correct.
(Dog bites man.) Ad hominem. FLOSS is not a mad dog. And we didn't do anything to provoke Brown. More like man sees innocent friendly stray puppy that's playing with kids (while he charges for kids to play with his own puppy) and attacks the former, and puppy tries to defend itself.
Brown says their accounts are hopelessly shifting and contradictory -- not only against the historical record, but in recent weeks. Uh...I thought he said experts "agree" earlier. How can the accounts then be contradictory?
(Man bites back.) Is he admitting rabies or something? That's not exactly how I'd go about managing a rabid dog.
$0, which is sufficient when compared to the money lost when they're (threatened to be) sued for libel by classifying Claria as spyware. Gator's complained about that before.
Not Microsoft in particular, just business sense over altruistic morality.
'Meanwhile, average users are no longer tech savvy.' Which is to say that they at one point were?
The point the author is making there is, as you say, that computers are more accessible to the general public now. Consider books like "DOS for Dummies" or even "C++ for Dummies" - the standard for dumminess was apparently higher. Like most new technologies, the computer was only available to/used by those with enough of an interest to become technically literate on their own.
and the Internet began to define personal computing.
Not so much the Internet as the WWW. The old university and government network took some amount of knowledge to use.
As the saying goes, "The Internet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals."
The error is that in d(x+...+x)/dx (I assume you meant dx, not dt) you treat x as both a variable (of differentiation) and a constant. If you did this on the left side, d(x^2)/dx = x dx/dx = x = 1+...+1. No error that way, really.
Could you use packets continually circulated around the Internet as literal "swap"? Make a large number of small packets distributed via different paths, so each router only holds a couple kB or so. Make routing tables that say those packet (addressed to 127.0.0.254 or something else dumb) is to be circulated continually, and when you need it again update the routing tables to route it "through" (to) your own computer.
It would take no space from your drive, and it's theoretically infinite (has the whole Internet ever run out of memory before?).
Don't the editors them selves read Slashdot...hm, I can see why not. Vicious circle. The more dupes posted, the less they're inclined to read articles, and the more dupes they approve.
Anyway, the article is a "proof of the twin-prime conjecture". It was the slashdot editors that added the infinite number of twin primes.
No, the twin prime conjecture is that there are infinitely many twin primes, and the title was lifted directly from the paper. Are we now blaming the editors for correctness?
Your ad hominem raises an important point. There're two ways to be useful to te species. One is to produce more lives. The other is to make others' lives somehow better so others can produce more lives. I choose the latter.
Because as numbers get higher, there are a lot more numbers below that can be factors, and thus the frequency of prime numbers decreases. E.g., between 1-10 we have 5 prime numbers, but between 1000-1030 there are only 4. This amusing animation that generates prime numbers demonstrates that prime numbers are more rare as you approach infinity (i.e., the program's "prime density" drops).
Thus it would make sense that the probability of having a twin prime would drop. The question is if it drops to zero or not.
It can be demonstrated that there are infinite primes, though, by saying that if there were a finite set of primes, you can get a new number by multiplying all the known primes and adding one. This number divided by any of the known primes always gives a remainder of one. Thus it has no prime factors, and is prime. We would then tend to believe there are infinite twin primes, but this is not so easily proven.
Of course, the obligatory standard defense goes something like it's about as useful as E=mc^2. Terribly useless for the average Joe, terribly useful for some upcoming unknown technological application, or a math/science discovery that depends on this proof that paves the way for said application.
Yes, you can say something like, no company incorporated in the State of California that provides e-mail services and attaches advertising to the bottom of all e-mail sent via said services based on the context of the e-mail may...
But then the crime would be (intent to) kill or harm in addition to writing the virus. Maybe a punishment of execution and a million-dollar fine or something.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't care. I can rewrite the most recent program, and I don't nead the earlier programs. Besides, who'd do that anyway - who hates me enough?
Not like any true first post has been modded up for guessing correctly...
A wild yet probably accurate guess, considering the number of failed first posts. (ok, downmod me now)
I had no password this year in Computer Science. My programs were subconsciously obfuscated enough that none would be insane enough to steal my code and pass it as his own, and I didn't care if the other students looked in there (the teacher can open my home directory anyway). It made it a few milliseconds faster to log in.
My strongest password is a l33t-ized version of a former password (two words in plain English...well, not English, a proper noun from a French novel). It contains about half numbers and symbols, enough that I don't think it'll be cracked too easily.
Don't forget to mix upper- and lowercase.
From the bottom of the article:
He is reportedly "not the sharpest knife in the drawer,"
I think we knew that already.
but nevertheless is able to converse with many intelligent people,
And this gives him credentials how? "Converse" does not necessarily mean "understand". And why the "many" qualifier? I would hope (language problems barred) that he would be able to converse with all people, intelligent or not.
and is accepted at fine restaurants and hotels around the world.
That shows real credibility for writing a report on kernel authoring. Fancy hotels let him in.
Why did he allow this to be printed? If anything, it discredits him by showing a lack of good reasons for his credibility.
While I'm at it, from the front page, emphasis mine:
Experts from Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds
I thought he didn't get to talk to Linus, no matter if he tried or not?
agree: a. they are much smarter than AdTI's Kenneth Brown,
He allows himself to be called not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That shows a lack of even a blade. Besides, why can't he go write his own kernel and sell it commercially? And they're experts; they're smarter in the field than non-experts.
b. IBM is good, Microsoft is evil,
Appeal to distaste of moral absolutes. I think we can all, including Mr. Brown, agree that Microsoft has been convicted of anticompetitive practices and campaigns against Linux, and IBM supports Linux and is therefore good for Linux. Anyway, how is this against Ken Brown...unless Microsoft in fact supports AdTI?
and c. Brown's theory of how Linux was probably written is dead wrong.
I for one cannot see how if Torvalds, Tanenbaum, and everyone else involved, who are "experts", claim one story of Linux's evolution, Ken Brown, an outsider, can have a "theory" of a "probabl[e]" story be correct.
(Dog bites man.)
Ad hominem. FLOSS is not a mad dog. And we didn't do anything to provoke Brown. More like man sees innocent friendly stray puppy that's playing with kids (while he charges for kids to play with his own puppy) and attacks the former, and puppy tries to defend itself.
Brown says their accounts are hopelessly shifting and contradictory -- not only against the historical record, but in recent weeks.
Uh...I thought he said experts "agree" earlier. How can the accounts then be contradictory?
(Man bites back.)
Is he admitting rabies or something? That's not exactly how I'd go about managing a rabid dog.
The sad thing is it's the same exploit.
$0, which is sufficient when compared to the money lost when they're (threatened to be) sued for libel by classifying Claria as spyware. Gator's complained about that before.
Not Microsoft in particular, just business sense over altruistic morality.
And yet it's a Russian word popularized in the Soviet era. It's a meaning-neutral word with a non-neutral connotation.
'Meanwhile, average users are no longer tech savvy.' Which is to say that they at one point were?
The point the author is making there is, as you say, that computers are more accessible to the general public now. Consider books like "DOS for Dummies" or even "C++ for Dummies" - the standard for dumminess was apparently higher. Like most new technologies, the computer was only available to/used by those with enough of an interest to become technically literate on their own.
and the Internet began to define personal computing.
Not so much the Internet as the WWW. The old university and government network took some amount of knowledge to use.
As the saying goes, "The Internet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals."
The error is that in d(x+...+x)/dx (I assume you meant dx, not dt) you treat x as both a variable (of differentiation) and a constant. If you did this on the left side, d(x^2)/dx = x dx/dx = x = 1+...+1. No error that way, really.
*cough*excellentkarma*cough*karmabonus*cough*metam oderator*cough*moderatesoften*cough*
your comment is a dupe as well, sir.
The irony was intentional.
Speaking of using the Internet as swap....
Could you use packets continually circulated around the Internet as literal "swap"? Make a large number of small packets distributed via different paths, so each router only holds a couple kB or so. Make routing tables that say those packet (addressed to 127.0.0.254 or something else dumb) is to be circulated continually, and when you need it again update the routing tables to route it "through" (to) your own computer.
It would take no space from your drive, and it's theoretically infinite (has the whole Internet ever run out of memory before?).
Dupe.
Don't the editors them selves read Slashdot...hm, I can see why not. Vicious circle. The more dupes posted, the less they're inclined to read articles, and the more dupes they approve.
Anyway, the article is a "proof of the twin-prime conjecture". It was the slashdot editors that added the infinite number of twin primes.
No, the twin prime conjecture is that there are infinitely many twin primes, and the title was lifted directly from the paper. Are we now blaming the editors for correctness?
In either case, there's still another prime that you didn't count.
Which is exactly where the real proof fits. The rest of the "proof" is just assumptions that aren't even stated in the conjecture.
Do I care?
Your ad hominem raises an important point. There're two ways to be useful to te species. One is to produce more lives. The other is to make others' lives somehow better so others can produce more lives. I choose the latter.
And Slashdot attention they got.
Because as numbers get higher, there are a lot more numbers below that can be factors, and thus the frequency of prime numbers decreases. E.g., between 1-10 we have 5 prime numbers, but between 1000-1030 there are only 4. This amusing animation that generates prime numbers demonstrates that prime numbers are more rare as you approach infinity (i.e., the program's "prime density" drops).
Thus it would make sense that the probability of having a twin prime would drop. The question is if it drops to zero or not.
It can be demonstrated that there are infinite primes, though, by saying that if there were a finite set of primes, you can get a new number by multiplying all the known primes and adding one. This number divided by any of the known primes always gives a remainder of one. Thus it has no prime factors, and is prime. We would then tend to believe there are infinite twin primes, but this is not so easily proven.
Of course, the obligatory standard defense goes something like it's about as useful as E=mc^2. Terribly useless for the average Joe, terribly useful for some upcoming unknown technological application, or a math/science discovery that depends on this proof that paves the way for said application.
Repeat after me: LOOP-HOLE.
No, you can't say, Google, Inc. may not...
Yes, you can say something like, no company incorporated in the State of California that provides e-mail services and attaches advertising to the bottom of all e-mail sent via said services based on the context of the e-mail may...
Not quite. Trained by Cold War America, Osama bin Laden pwned the Soviet Union.
But then the crime would be (intent to) kill or harm in addition to writing the virus. Maybe a punishment of execution and a million-dollar fine or something.