Unless there is money being paid for accessing the systems
What, you mean like bank fees?
or there is an existing policy/agreement in place that says the system owners will not mess with passwords
What, you mean like the legislative requirement that banks give depositors access to their funds?
The people that own the systems have the right to do what they wish with them.
No, they don't. They doubly don't if it means banking customers' financial services are interrupted.
Does your phone company, who own the systems that your phone calls go through, have the right to let their operators listen in on your conversations and interject with witty remarks every now and then?
The reason NASA didn't bother with AV is because there's no pressure on their IT department. In a normal office, the IT department usually gets screamed at when computers don't work. But in space, nobody can hear you scream.
I will and I have. The benefit is that I now have NO wall warts or AC chargers, and I can travel with all my devices using either a USB to USB-MiniA or USB to USB-MiniB connector.
That's a phone, camera, MP3 player, GPS tracking token and wireless mouse all sharing two very small and light cables, whereas previously I'd need a whole nuther bag for the charging silliness.
We, as consumers, need to get more people behind this.
So it seems Google has their own astroturfing team. Now we know what all those PhDs do when they're not sitting on exercise balls, eating sushi and being "creative".
"The idea is that it's a deliberately stress-testing distribution designed to be 100% Free and to cause any hardware which isn't Free to fail."
What, you mean like Debian? Seriously, Debian, an all-free OS is added to by the Ubuntu team, who put in binary stuff to "fill it out". Then, the FSF take Ubuntu and take all the binary stuff out to make it all-free.
After thinking about this some more, I find that the animations in the article are not at all four dimensional, as the so called "fourth" dimension they are representing exists in the same physical space as the third.
This breaks the dimensional relationship. Imagine, if you will, a single point with no dimensions. Then extrapolate that into a line to get one dimension, imagine that line them extrapolating perpendicular to the line to form a square, and then imagine that square extruding into a cube. So far, no physical overlap has occurred. The fourth dimention as represented in these videos, does nothing but add more "balls and sticks", which is not adding another dimension, it's simply adding detail to the existing dimension.
Likewise, those 2D imaginings of a 3D object are not visualizations of a 3D object in 2d, they are the visualization of a changing 2D object, with the simulated third dimension being time.
In other words, the method that they have used does not actually visualize a fourth dimension in any mathematical or logical sense, they are really just optical illusions. Personally, my method of visualization that I described in my previous post is far superior, and more accurate from a logical and mathematical point of view, as it truly does represent a 1:M maping of every dimensional unit in the (n-1) dimensional space.
P.S., I've always wanted to start a sentence with "Imagine, if you will...".
I "visualize" four dimensions and more often, when programming and setting up multi-dimensional arrays of more than three dimensions.
All one has to do is acknowledge that adding a dimension simply adds a range of points that map to every single point in the (n-1) dimensional range. So, the easiest way to visualize a four dimensional cube is to simply imagine multiple identical cubes, side by side, for as many as the range has been specified. Five dimensions is a flat square arrangement, six is a cube arranged array of cubes, and so on. This way, an infinite number of dimensions can be visualized. Perhaps the term "mental addressing" is more appropriate a name for this mental method.
The limit is, of course, this only works directly for finite and discrete arrays. I find it can be extrapolated to use non-discrete spectra, but describing the way that works in my head will not be possible using this clumsy tool we call "language".
I fully agree that there should be no positive light cast on people who are, in the process of filling their own pockets, incidentally trickling benefits down to the people below them.
Brownie points should be given to people who actively try to help others, and perhaps bring themselves a benefit as a side effect. Those are the people who won't turn around and screw the third world the moment it is deemed more profitable.
Flamebait is unfair on this post. It is validly pointing out that the GP calls MS a monopoly while excusing Intel. There are far more viable alternatives to MS products than there are to Intel. Intel at the moment, only has AMD, which only challenges it in its server space. AMD is not a realistic competitor, as things stand, in the laptop space.
MS on the other hand is embattled even in the desktop space, its traditional area of total hegemonic dominance.
If you develop your webpages to comply with relevant web standards and do things such as validating against the markup you're using, validating your CSS and checking your JS with JSLint, if some browser were to break their support for those standards then there's no reason that your web page would be the only one. In fact, given that you seem to be measuring the usefulness of a toolkit by how likely users are to blame your site or the browser, any browser that broke standards would be loudly blamed by everyone, and would cease to render many more pages than only those that use Silverlight.
What I'm trying to say is that closed, proprietary toolkits that provide some semblance of stability are not an appropriate or effective substitute for the proper adherence to relevant standards and practices.
If you, as a developer, are unable to code in a standards compliant cross browser way, then turning to Microsoft just highlights your inability to handle the flexibility that comes with not having a company dictating your development methods to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Great idea! I love how you've obviously thought about how to prevent such a system being abused or gamed.
Oh wait, no you haven't.
Put another way, mathematics is to physics, as masturbation is to sex.
What, you mean like bank fees?
What, you mean like the legislative requirement that banks give depositors access to their funds?
No, they don't. They doubly don't if it means banking customers' financial services are interrupted.
Does your phone company, who own the systems that your phone calls go through, have the right to let their operators listen in on your conversations and interject with witty remarks every now and then?
Oh, and before you mention it, the ISS doesn't count.
Because last time I checked, none of the private charities in my area had homeless shelters in orbit.
The reason NASA didn't bother with AV is because there's no pressure on their IT department. In a normal office, the IT department usually gets screamed at when computers don't work. But in space, nobody can hear you scream.
I will and I have. The benefit is that I now have NO wall warts or AC chargers, and I can travel with all my devices using either a USB to USB-MiniA or USB to USB-MiniB connector.
That's a phone, camera, MP3 player, GPS tracking token and wireless mouse all sharing two very small and light cables, whereas previously I'd need a whole nuther bag for the charging silliness.
We, as consumers, need to get more people behind this.
I think it's more a case of your humor not having any sense of moderation.
Flamebait?
So it seems Google has their own astroturfing team. Now we know what all those PhDs do when they're not sitting on exercise balls, eating sushi and being "creative".
Alternatively, use Tor.
Yea, how dare they downgrade something from "exists" to "doesn't exist".
I mean, seriously, I've a good mind to go there and tell them: I don't exist, you insensitive clods!
Yea! I spoke to someone from one of these previous civilizations and he warned me about the LHC. He spoke to me and said something like this:
"You'll be sooooweeeeee!"
That convinced me that the LHC is a bad idea. I don't know what sowee feels, like, but I sure as hell don't want to find out!
"The idea is that it's a deliberately stress-testing distribution designed to be 100% Free and to cause any hardware which isn't Free to fail."
What, you mean like Debian? Seriously, Debian, an all-free OS is added to by the Ubuntu team, who put in binary stuff to "fill it out". Then, the FSF take Ubuntu and take all the binary stuff out to make it all-free.
Am I the only one seeing the stupidity here?
After thinking about this some more, I find that the animations in the article are not at all four dimensional, as the so called "fourth" dimension they are representing exists in the same physical space as the third.
This breaks the dimensional relationship. Imagine, if you will, a single point with no dimensions. Then extrapolate that into a line to get one dimension, imagine that line them extrapolating perpendicular to the line to form a square, and then imagine that square extruding into a cube. So far, no physical overlap has occurred. The fourth dimention as represented in these videos, does nothing but add more "balls and sticks", which is not adding another dimension, it's simply adding detail to the existing dimension.
Likewise, those 2D imaginings of a 3D object are not visualizations of a 3D object in 2d, they are the visualization of a changing 2D object, with the simulated third dimension being time.
In other words, the method that they have used does not actually visualize a fourth dimension in any mathematical or logical sense, they are really just optical illusions. Personally, my method of visualization that I described in my previous post is far superior, and more accurate from a logical and mathematical point of view, as it truly does represent a 1:M maping of every dimensional unit in the (n-1) dimensional space.
P.S., I've always wanted to start a sentence with "Imagine, if you will...".
I really don't see how it's a fist in the face of creationists, even though I'm most certainly not one myself.
Personally, if I have a gripe with the (lack of) logic in an opponent's argument, I don't respond with logicless statements of my own.
I "visualize" four dimensions and more often, when programming and setting up multi-dimensional arrays of more than three dimensions.
All one has to do is acknowledge that adding a dimension simply adds a range of points that map to every single point in the (n-1) dimensional range. So, the easiest way to visualize a four dimensional cube is to simply imagine multiple identical cubes, side by side, for as many as the range has been specified. Five dimensions is a flat square arrangement, six is a cube arranged array of cubes, and so on. This way, an infinite number of dimensions can be visualized. Perhaps the term "mental addressing" is more appropriate a name for this mental method.
The limit is, of course, this only works directly for finite and discrete arrays. I find it can be extrapolated to use non-discrete spectra, but describing the way that works in my head will not be possible using this clumsy tool we call "language".
He's talking about a video link, so "steaming" surely is the word he's looking for.
Yea, however certainly not as intensive as his English classes.
Mods: This is not a troll.
I fully agree that there should be no positive light cast on people who are, in the process of filling their own pockets, incidentally trickling benefits down to the people below them.
Brownie points should be given to people who actively try to help others, and perhaps bring themselves a benefit as a side effect. Those are the people who won't turn around and screw the third world the moment it is deemed more profitable.
*cough*
Nike.
*cough*
7 or 8 years ago? The US Federal Reserve has been around a lot longer than that, I think.
Flamebait is unfair on this post. It is validly pointing out that the GP calls MS a monopoly while excusing Intel. There are far more viable alternatives to MS products than there are to Intel. Intel at the moment, only has AMD, which only challenges it in its server space. AMD is not a realistic competitor, as things stand, in the laptop space.
MS on the other hand is embattled even in the desktop space, its traditional area of total hegemonic dominance.
Was that NP hard?
Was that so hard?
Solution 1: x = 1
Solution 2: x = -1
Solution 3: x = BUFFER OVERFLOW
%#$%#%#%#%##%%$$
Totally. Not. True.
If you develop your webpages to comply with relevant web standards and do things such as validating against the markup you're using, validating your CSS and checking your JS with JSLint, if some browser were to break their support for those standards then there's no reason that your web page would be the only one. In fact, given that you seem to be measuring the usefulness of a toolkit by how likely users are to blame your site or the browser, any browser that broke standards would be loudly blamed by everyone, and would cease to render many more pages than only those that use Silverlight.
What I'm trying to say is that closed, proprietary toolkits that provide some semblance of stability are not an appropriate or effective substitute for the proper adherence to relevant standards and practices.
If you, as a developer, are unable to code in a standards compliant cross browser way, then turning to Microsoft just highlights your inability to handle the flexibility that comes with not having a company dictating your development methods to you.
And of course, the government would never violate your constitutional rights.