Attempting to support your claim of, "the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity," by linking to an article on increasing birthrates among racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. should meet, I think, any objective definition of the term "racist". The definition of "scum" may be left as an excercise to the reader.
You can call me every name in the book; in fact, here's a book with lots of different names in it:
You're welcome to spend the next 20 years learning every name in that book and calling me every one of them.
But when you're finished, 20 years from now, it won't have altered the underlying truth of my message, nor will it have altered the future you will be inhabiting.
Unless you die of some rare form of cancer, or get run over by a truck, or get struck by lightning, you WILL live to experience the horrible, catastrophic, apocalyptic consequences of dysgenic fertility.
PS: If you want to make the future a slighty less awful place to visit [much less be imprisoned in], then seek out the smartest girl you know [and if you haven't met her yet, then get off your lazy ass and go find her], and make as many babies with her as is humanly possible.
Look, you might very well be able to convince yourself to adopt definitions of "racist" and "scum" which are perfectly applicable to me.
But none of your ad hominem will change the underlying tautology of the matter:
Very soon, the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity, will come to dwarf all other socio-political phenomena.
By the way, "very soon" will be within then next 15 years or so: Sometime around 2020, just about 50% of all young adults in the United States will be functionally mentally retarded.
For instance, we're already at the point where more than 50% of all adults [not just young adults, but all adults] in Los Angeles are illiterate [SOURCE].
Because, that's what your typical voter is concerned about because that's what they understand and what's been hyped in the media.
The keyword here is YOUR.
Whose voters are these, anyway?
Well, the summary of the article gives it away:
This year's democrat-controlled Congress largely ignored technological issues in favor of social problems, CNet notes in another 2007 retrospective.
I don't think most high-IQ leftist intellectuals [e.g. your typical university professors] yet realize quite how profoundly stupid the typical Democrat voter has become.
Frankly, there are vast armies of Democrat voting blocks which are, for all intents and purposes, mentally retarded.
By the way, this question - namely, the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity - will very soon come to dwarf all other socio-political phenomena.
If you want to get an excellent preview of the general day-to-day rhythm & tenor of the remainder of your life, then rent Idiocracy: If smart people don't start making more babies, and start making them soon, then we are all doomed.
my current major language (Igor pro) will use all the cores automatically, and how many languages do multithread this way? Matlab(?), Octave(?)
LabVIEW, by its very nature [which is graphical - based on "G" - the "Graphical" programming language] is kinda/sorta topologically self-threading: If a piece of LabVIEW code sits off in its own connected component, then [more or less] it gets its own thread.
Of course, all your ".h" & ".c" [or ".cc"] files [& their innards] might very well break down into little distinct connected components which are ripe for running their own threads, it's just that you can't - unless you're some sort of a super genius - you can't readily visualize all those connected components as they exist in your code.
Now you and your colleagues could try to anticipate the connected components a priori, during the "planning" phase: You could draw huge pictures on the dry-erase board, and everyone could yell and scream at each other about the topological structure which the code should ultimately embody, and then everyone would have to promise - Scout's Honor! - that they would stick to the blueprint [which they might very well resent as having been shoved down their throats by some pointed-headed suit who didn't have any clue what he was talking about] - but the beauty of LabVIEW is that THE CODE IS THE BLUEPRINT [which I think is a point that Jack Reeves used to make].
There's actually a Slashdotter, MOBE2001, who maintains a blog called Rebel Science News, who's got some pretty interesting ideas here - he seems to be leaning towards a graphical approach to this [realizing that the fundamental nature of the problem tends to be topological, rather than anything which we (YET!) would recognize as semantic], but his program is very, very ambitious [if I had a couple of spare lifetimes, I must just throw one in that general direction].
Another line of thought which everyone should keep an eye on is the discipline of Petri nets - it's kinduva big graphical/topological approach to state machines, which [if someone were to put the necessary elbow grease into it] might prove to be very useful in squeezing the most bang for the buck out of these massively-multicore CPU's.
"We have forensic software that shows multiple levels of deletions. It shows thought processes. We can learn far more than from just a document alone," said [Scott] Sorrels. "E-mails have taken over the world."
Can this be done in real time?
Every time I try to use a piece of file recovery software these days, the estimated time for scanning will be on the order of 8 or 10 hours, and that's with rather small disks [no more than about 20GB NTFS, with no more than 10's of thousands of files].
So invariably, I just say, "Aw, to heck with it," and shut the thing down after a couple of minutes.
I've heard that some of the big disks [500GB, 1TB, etc] can take hours and hours just to format - so it seems like running file recovery software on them would take literally days at a time.
Which is not to say that it can't be done, but wow - it would have to be something really important to devote that amount of time just to recreating the file nodes [not to mention trying to recreate the file itself after you had recovered all of the deleted nodes].
Most slashdotters are probably aware that Morena Baccarin showed up on Stargate SG1, and that Jewel Staite is the new doctor on Stargate Atlantis, and some might even be aware that Summer Glau did a stint on CBS's The Unit, but the one who really caught my eye was Christina Hendricks, as the ne'er do well called "Saffron":
So if you liked her work on Firefly, then you might be interested to learn that she's now got a gig as "Joan Holloway", the head of the secretarial pool, on AMC's "Mad Men":
How long until the first page of TI's latest chip spec gets inserted with an ad while downloading?
If they're gonna imbed advertising in the Virtual Machine [like the PDF* reader, or, God forbid, the Java/CLR/VMware VM's], then how long before some wiseass says, "Hey, let's embed the advertising stream in the silicon?"
[*I read somewhere that - while PostScript is Turing-complete - PDF is not Turing-complete.]
FIRST: I got into this discussion because the hypocrisy of it infuriates me so much. These hypocrites want tens of thousands of dollars of compiled code for free, and, beyond that, billions of dollars of source code for free - yet they won't post their LaTeX's or their PDF's for free [choosing instead to have Springer Verlag, Wiley, Elsevier, et al, demand $150+ per copy], they won't give away their journals for free, they won't open their libraries for free [demanding instead that you pony up $40,000 to $50,000 in tuition, fees, room, and board before you can get an ID card that will offer admittance to the library], they won't open up their student lectures for free [see ID card, as above], they won't open up their conferences for free [try sneaking into a conference lecture hall without an ID badge], etc etc etc.
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight - I think that people should be free to give away their intellectual property gratis, but I also think that people should be free to demand payment for their intellectual property, in the form of cold, hard cash.
On the other hand, if these hypocrites really want to put their moneys where their mouths are, then they can take their multi-billion dollar endowments [Princeton or Harvard could EASILY do this], and purchase these [relatively] puny little companies, like Mathworks, Wolfram, National Instruments, etc, and, once they own the source code, they can simply give it away for free.
In fact, their endowments are so monstrous these days that they could easily afford to pay the salaries of the coding staffs of these [relatively puny little] companies to continue updating, refining, and perfecting the source code from now until the end of time.
SECOND: Now this is not something which drew me into this discussion, but it's an important point which needs to be made, namely: It is not necessarily the case that "free source code" always implies better, less error-prone code.
As an introduction, let me start with a few ugly, little-known facts about "mathematics", as it actually exists in the real world:
1) Most published "mathematics" doesn't even qualify as false - rather, it's just gibberish, plain and simple. If a person with a sufficiently high IQ, a sufficiently meticulous personality, sufficient time on his hands, and sufficient sleep at night [leading to sufficent energy in the daytime] - if such a person were to examine the average published "mathematics" paper, then he would quickly come to realize that the words in the paper didn't even coalesce into logically well-formed statements.
2) Within the subset of published "mathematics" which isn't outright gibberish, most stated "results" are false: If a person with a sufficiently high IQ [and personality/time/sleep/etc] were to examine the average non-gibberish "mathematics" paper [after it had passed muster with Kurt Gödel & Alan Turing's gibberish-detecting filter, to ensure that it wasn't gibberish in the first place], then, pretty early on, he would come to realize that there were intractable errors in the paper, and he'd throw his hands up in despair and move on to some more productive use of his time.
3) Within the tiny subset of all published "mathematics" papers which aren't gibberish, and which contain assertions which are actually true, and which contain "proofs" of those assertions which aren't riddled with intractable errors, it is still exceedingly unlikely that a dis-interested third party [with sufficiently high IQ and personality/time/sleep/etc] will ever come along and verify that the paper is correct in the first place.
Only a tiny, tiny fraction of all "results" in mathematics these days ever draw the attention of the right people, in sufficiently high quantities, for a consensus to emerge [among the right people] that the result is actually true and ought to be added to the canon.
As an example, consider the "proof" of
Who the hell is modding this as a Troll?
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
WTF?
The Princeton Libraries are NOT FREE!!!
Mathematicians make mistakes, too.
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
As pointed out in the editorial, software developers make mistakes, and this is true regardless of whether that developer is a proprietary software vendor, or a free/open source software project.
Goro Shimura used to say that 50% of all published "mathematics" was rank nonsense.
Personally, I think he was being generous - I'd guess the figure is more like 95%. Maybe even 99%.
Heck, I'll bet there are even some mistakes somewhere in Higgins on Sampling Theory:
It's just a crying shame that I have to pony up almost $500 for the honor of discovering them.
Princeton Libraries are NOT FREE.
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The books in the Princeton Library are free, thanks to the generousity of far-seeing individuals who realised that their money was better spent on a library than a new yacht.
One other thing: The libraries at Princeton are most decidedly NOT free:
To gain admittance, you need to pony up $33,000 in tuition and $11,000 in room and board.
Each year.
I'm not the hypocrite here.
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
They, at least, saw the benefit of sharing knowledge with everyone, regardless of their means. I can only hope that, somewhere in that misanthropic little husk you call a heart, you will some day find room for a similar spirit of openness and sharing.
I'm not the hypocrite asking for "free" software, you little turd.
If these jackasses want $5000 worth of "free" software from the likes of MathWorks, Wolfram, National Instruments, and SAS [not to mention billions of dollars in source code], then I want $5000 worth of "free" books from Springer-Verlag, Wiley, Elsevier, and all the rest of them.
And, while you're at it, you can throw in "free" subscriptions to all of my favorite journals.
In fact, come to think of it, I'm gonna demand to go to all of the conferences for "free".
Libraries are NOT FREE.
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: -1, Troll
You can read Sylow's Theorem and its proof in Huppert's book in the
library.
Someone had to purchase a copy of the book and place it in the library.
Someone [Andrew Carnegie?] had to pay to build the library in the first place, and someone else has to pay to perform maintenance on the library to make sure that the roof doesn't leak and the walls don't crack and the floor doesn't sag.
Someone has to pay to heat the library in the winter, and to cool the library in the summer.
Someone has to pay to hire the librarian, and her support staff, and her computer systems.
The book only seems "free" to these cancerous leeches because they aren't the ones whose tax dollars are being stolen to subsidize their little Shangri-La paradises.
[And that's assuming you can even find the book in the library at all - in my experience, if the book is halfway decent, then either it's been checked out by a professor for the next six months, or else it was stolen by a student years ago and will never be replaced. All of which you will discover AFTER you walk a mile to get to the library, because the administration - in their infinite wisdom - forgot to provide any parking spaces anywhere near the library.]
If they really want mathematics to be "free", then they can post the LaTeX's & the PDF's of these books on the internet for anyone to download, and they can pay for the server disk space & bandwidth THEMSELVES.
In the meantime, they can take their marxist hypocrisy and shove it right up their good-for-nothing, lazy, worthless asses.
Math is "Free", MY LILY-WHITE ASS.
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
In mathematics information is passed on free of charge and everything is laid open for checking.'
I'm not going to disagree with the "laid open" part, but the "free of charge" nonsense is just typical marxist university professor hypocrisy.
Princeton, which has the finest mathematics department in the world [or at least had the finest mathematics department in the world, before Harold Shapiro & Shirley Tilghman decided they wanted to turn the
I mean, the only "innovation" here is that one company is making the CPU, chipset and graphics card. You know, like Intel have been for years. But AMD make one where the graphics card is targeted at gamers. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
Soon ATI/AMD will be releasing a new high-end GPU series, called Stream, as a competitor to nVidia's Quadro FX series.
Traditionally, ATI supported only 24-bit floating point numbers on their consumer-grade GPU's [whereas nVidia & Matrox supported 32-bits on their consumer-grade GPU's], but Stream will support 64-bit floating point numbers, which, in combination with the AMD hypertransport bus, has the potential to produce a signal-processing workstation which might very well find itself on the DOD "Banned-For-Export" list.
When I first read this article, my immediate thought was that if they needed a mission critical kernel and/or mission critical hardware infrastructure to power the thing, then they could probably purchase OpenVMS and/or Nonstop Himalaya for pennies on the dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's a measure best reflected by Baysean Data, and they don't have enough time to test them.
What's Bayesian Data? [And yes, I am too lazy to Google it.]
Did you mean Monte Carlo?
Or maybe Latin Squares?
Attempting to support your claim of, "the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity," by linking to an article on increasing birthrates among racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. should meet, I think, any objective definition of the term "racist". The definition of "scum" may be left as an excercise to the reader.
You can call me every name in the book; in fact, here's a book with lots of different names in it:
You're welcome to spend the next 20 years learning every name in that book and calling me every one of them.
But when you're finished, 20 years from now, it won't have altered the underlying truth of my message, nor will it have altered the future you will be inhabiting.
Unless you die of some rare form of cancer, or get run over by a truck, or get struck by lightning, you WILL live to experience the horrible, catastrophic, apocalyptic consequences of dysgenic fertility.
And you will look back upon these as having been the Good Ol' Days.
PS: If you want to make the future a slighty less awful place to visit [much less be imprisoned in], then seek out the smartest girl you know [and if you haven't met her yet, then get off your lazy ass and go find her], and make as many babies with her as is humanly possible.
You're racist scum.
Look, you might very well be able to convince yourself to adopt definitions of "racist" and "scum" which are perfectly applicable to me.
But none of your ad hominem will change the underlying tautology of the matter:
By the way, "very soon" will be within then next 15 years or so: Sometime around 2020, just about 50% of all young adults in the United States will be functionally mentally retarded.
For instance, we're already at the point where more than 50% of all adults [not just young adults, but all adults] in Los Angeles are illiterate [SOURCE].
can claim prior art
The Ukrainians' background music was Mason Williams's Classical Gas:
I wonder if they have to pay these things called "royalties" in the Ukraine?
Because, that's what your typical voter is concerned about because that's what they understand and what's been hyped in the media.
The keyword here is YOUR.
Whose voters are these, anyway?
Well, the summary of the article gives it away:
I don't think most high-IQ leftist intellectuals [e.g. your typical university professors] yet realize quite how profoundly stupid the typical Democrat voter has become.
Frankly, there are vast armies of Democrat voting blocks which are, for all intents and purposes, mentally retarded.
By the way, this question - namely, the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity - will very soon come to dwarf all other socio-political phenomena.
If you want to get an excellent preview of the general day-to-day rhythm & tenor of the remainder of your life, then rent Idiocracy: If smart people don't start making more babies, and start making them soon, then we are all doomed.
my current major language (Igor pro) will use all the cores automatically, and how many languages do multithread this way? Matlab(?), Octave(?)
LabVIEW, by its very nature [which is graphical - based on "G" - the "Graphical" programming language] is kinda/sorta topologically self-threading: If a piece of LabVIEW code sits off in its own connected component, then [more or less] it gets its own thread.
Of course, all your ".h" & ".c" [or ".cc"] files [& their innards] might very well break down into little distinct connected components which are ripe for running their own threads, it's just that you can't - unless you're some sort of a super genius - you can't readily visualize all those connected components as they exist in your code.
Now you and your colleagues could try to anticipate the connected components a priori, during the "planning" phase: You could draw huge pictures on the dry-erase board, and everyone could yell and scream at each other about the topological structure which the code should ultimately embody, and then everyone would have to promise - Scout's Honor! - that they would stick to the blueprint [which they might very well resent as having been shoved down their throats by some pointed-headed suit who didn't have any clue what he was talking about] - but the beauty of LabVIEW is that THE CODE IS THE BLUEPRINT [which I think is a point that Jack Reeves used to make].
There's actually a Slashdotter, MOBE2001, who maintains a blog called Rebel Science News, who's got some pretty interesting ideas here - he seems to be leaning towards a graphical approach to this [realizing that the fundamental nature of the problem tends to be topological, rather than anything which we (YET!) would recognize as semantic], but his program is very, very ambitious [if I had a couple of spare lifetimes, I must just throw one in that general direction].
Another line of thought which everyone should keep an eye on is the discipline of Petri nets - it's kinduva big graphical/topological approach to state machines, which [if someone were to put the necessary elbow grease into it] might prove to be very useful in squeezing the most bang for the buck out of these massively-multicore CPU's.
Is this a spillover from Reaganomics?
What in the world are you talking about?
Do you even know who Ronald Reagan was?
Some of you left-wing kooks are absolutely pathological in your addiction to political fantasies.
PS: If you want to know how "politics" really works, then watch Showtime's Brotherhood.
And no, it's not a show about the GOP.
"We have forensic software that shows multiple levels of deletions. It shows thought processes. We can learn far more than from just a document alone," said [Scott] Sorrels. "E-mails have taken over the world."
Can this be done in real time?
Every time I try to use a piece of file recovery software these days, the estimated time for scanning will be on the order of 8 or 10 hours, and that's with rather small disks [no more than about 20GB NTFS, with no more than 10's of thousands of files].
So invariably, I just say, "Aw, to heck with it," and shut the thing down after a couple of minutes.
I've heard that some of the big disks [500GB, 1TB, etc] can take hours and hours just to format - so it seems like running file recovery software on them would take literally days at a time.
Which is not to say that it can't be done, but wow - it would have to be something really important to devote that amount of time just to recreating the file nodes [not to mention trying to recreate the file itself after you had recovered all of the deleted nodes].
Most slashdotters are probably aware that Morena Baccarin showed up on Stargate SG1, and that Jewel Staite is the new doctor on Stargate Atlantis, and some might even be aware that Summer Glau did a stint on CBS's The Unit, but the one who really caught my eye was Christina Hendricks, as the ne'er do well called "Saffron":
http://www.entil2001.com/series/firefly/season1dvd/ff1-6p2.jpg
So if you liked her work on Firefly, then you might be interested to learn that she's now got a gig as "Joan Holloway", the head of the secretarial pool, on AMC's "Mad Men":
http://weblogs.variety.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/31/joan.jpg
Let's just say that she's everything you remember from Firefly and then some.
Hubba. Hubba.
End Program - Adobe Acrobat
Ending Program... Please wait.
End Program - Adobe Acrobat
This program is not responding.
AcroRd32.exe: The only program in the known universe which can thwart a "kill" signal from both user logoff and system shutdown.
PS: Parent is heavy favorite for "Post of the Year" honors.
How long until the first page of TI's latest chip spec gets inserted with an ad while downloading?
If they're gonna imbed advertising in the Virtual Machine [like the PDF* reader, or, God forbid, the Java/CLR/VMware VM's], then how long before some wiseass says, "Hey, let's embed the advertising stream in the silicon?"
[*I read somewhere that - while PostScript is Turing-complete - PDF is not Turing-complete.]
Two points.
FIRST: I got into this discussion because the hypocrisy of it infuriates me so much. These hypocrites want tens of thousands of dollars of compiled code for free, and, beyond that, billions of dollars of source code for free - yet they won't post their LaTeX's or their PDF's for free [choosing instead to have Springer Verlag, Wiley, Elsevier, et al, demand $150+ per copy], they won't give away their journals for free, they won't open their libraries for free [demanding instead that you pony up $40,000 to $50,000 in tuition, fees, room, and board before you can get an ID card that will offer admittance to the library], they won't open up their student lectures for free [see ID card, as above], they won't open up their conferences for free [try sneaking into a conference lecture hall without an ID badge], etc etc etc.
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight - I think that people should be free to give away their intellectual property gratis, but I also think that people should be free to demand payment for their intellectual property, in the form of cold, hard cash.
On the other hand, if these hypocrites really want to put their moneys where their mouths are, then they can take their multi-billion dollar endowments [Princeton or Harvard could EASILY do this], and purchase these [relatively] puny little companies, like Mathworks, Wolfram, National Instruments, etc, and, once they own the source code, they can simply give it away for free.
In fact, their endowments are so monstrous these days that they could easily afford to pay the salaries of the coding staffs of these [relatively puny little] companies to continue updating, refining, and perfecting the source code from now until the end of time.
SECOND: Now this is not something which drew me into this discussion, but it's an important point which needs to be made, namely: It is not necessarily the case that "free source code" always implies better, less error-prone code.
As an introduction, let me start with a few ugly, little-known facts about "mathematics", as it actually exists in the real world:
1) Most published "mathematics" doesn't even qualify as false - rather, it's just gibberish, plain and simple. If a person with a sufficiently high IQ, a sufficiently meticulous personality, sufficient time on his hands, and sufficient sleep at night [leading to sufficent energy in the daytime] - if such a person were to examine the average published "mathematics" paper, then he would quickly come to realize that the words in the paper didn't even coalesce into logically well-formed statements.
2) Within the subset of published "mathematics" which isn't outright gibberish, most stated "results" are false: If a person with a sufficiently high IQ [and personality/time/sleep/etc] were to examine the average non-gibberish "mathematics" paper [after it had passed muster with Kurt Gödel & Alan Turing's gibberish-detecting filter, to ensure that it wasn't gibberish in the first place], then, pretty early on, he would come to realize that there were intractable errors in the paper, and he'd throw his hands up in despair and move on to some more productive use of his time.
3) Within the tiny subset of all published "mathematics" papers which aren't gibberish, and which contain assertions which are actually true, and which contain "proofs" of those assertions which aren't riddled with intractable errors, it is still exceedingly unlikely that a dis-interested third party [with sufficiently high IQ and personality/time/sleep/etc] will ever come along and verify that the paper is correct in the first place.
Only a tiny, tiny fraction of all "results" in mathematics these days ever draw the attention of the right people, in sufficiently high quantities, for a consensus to emerge [among the right people] that the result is actually true and ought to be added to the canon.
As an example, consider the "proof" of
WTF?
The Princeton Libraries are NOT FREE!!!
As pointed out in the editorial, software developers make mistakes, and this is true regardless of whether that developer is a proprietary software vendor, or a free/open source software project.
Goro Shimura used to say that 50% of all published "mathematics" was rank nonsense.
Personally, I think he was being generous - I'd guess the figure is more like 95%. Maybe even 99%.
Heck, I'll bet there are even some mistakes somewhere in Higgins on Sampling Theory:
Volume I; $171.60
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198596995/
Volume II; $264.00
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198534965/
It's just a crying shame that I have to pony up almost $500 for the honor of discovering them.
The books in the Princeton Library are free, thanks to the generousity of far-seeing individuals who realised that their money was better spent on a library than a new yacht.
One other thing: The libraries at Princeton are most decidedly NOT free:
http://library.princeton.edu/about/access-firestone.php
http://library.princeton.edu/about/access-branch.php
To gain admittance, you need to pony up $33,000 in tuition and $11,000 in room and board.
Each year.
They, at least, saw the benefit of sharing knowledge with everyone, regardless of their means. I can only hope that, somewhere in that misanthropic little husk you call a heart, you will some day find room for a similar spirit of openness and sharing.
I'm not the hypocrite asking for "free" software, you little turd.
If these jackasses want $5000 worth of "free" software from the likes of MathWorks, Wolfram, National Instruments, and SAS [not to mention billions of dollars in source code], then I want $5000 worth of "free" books from Springer-Verlag, Wiley, Elsevier, and all the rest of them.
And, while you're at it, you can throw in "free" subscriptions to all of my favorite journals.
In fact, come to think of it, I'm gonna demand to go to all of the conferences for "free".
You can read Sylow's Theorem and its proof in Huppert's book in the library.
Someone had to purchase a copy of the book and place it in the library.
Someone [Andrew Carnegie?] had to pay to build the library in the first place, and someone else has to pay to perform maintenance on the library to make sure that the roof doesn't leak and the walls don't crack and the floor doesn't sag.
Someone has to pay to heat the library in the winter, and to cool the library in the summer.
Someone has to pay to hire the librarian, and her support staff, and her computer systems.
The book only seems "free" to these cancerous leeches because they aren't the ones whose tax dollars are being stolen to subsidize their little Shangri-La paradises.
[And that's assuming you can even find the book in the library at all - in my experience, if the book is halfway decent, then either it's been checked out by a professor for the next six months, or else it was stolen by a student years ago and will never be replaced. All of which you will discover AFTER you walk a mile to get to the library, because the administration - in their infinite wisdom - forgot to provide any parking spaces anywhere near the library.]
If they really want mathematics to be "free", then they can post the LaTeX's & the PDF's of these books on the internet for anyone to download, and they can pay for the server disk space & bandwidth THEMSELVES.
In the meantime, they can take their marxist hypocrisy and shove it right up their good-for-nothing, lazy, worthless asses.
I'm not going to disagree with the "laid open" part, but the "free of charge" nonsense is just typical marxist university professor hypocrisy.
Let's price some math texts:
Or try a few titles which might be a little more familiar to Slashdotters:
Princeton, which has the finest mathematics department in the world [or at least had the finest mathematics department in the world, before Harold Shapiro & Shirley Tilghman decided they wanted to turn the
I mean, the only "innovation" here is that one company is making the CPU, chipset and graphics card. You know, like Intel have been for years. But AMD make one where the graphics card is targeted at gamers. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
Soon ATI/AMD will be releasing a new high-end GPU series, called Stream, as a competitor to nVidia's Quadro FX series.
Traditionally, ATI supported only 24-bit floating point numbers on their consumer-grade GPU's [whereas nVidia & Matrox supported 32-bits on their consumer-grade GPU's], but Stream will support 64-bit floating point numbers, which, in combination with the AMD hypertransport bus, has the potential to produce a signal-processing workstation which might very well find itself on the DOD "Banned-For-Export" list.
Well, maybe not on
I would hesitate to look at Gene Simmons for any kind of intelligent statement on anything.
Okay, admittedly, Shannon Tweed is only his "common law" wife, but she was the queen of the B-movies, back in the 1990's.
Her magnum opus, A Woman Scorned, is one of the epic B-movies of our era.
Check it out some time.
From what I can tell, Centaur was originally an Austin, TX, company, and was sold to VIA in 1999.
Did they have their original fabs in Austin?
If so, do any of their fabs remain in Austin?
I did a little googling & wikipedia-ing, and couldn't figure out where Centaur has their manufacturing facilities.
Austin, TX?
Taiwan?
Communist China?
Don't tase me, bro!
Seriously, though, this sounds like something out of a really bad Hollywood B-Movie.
I didn't know you could do stuff like this in real life.
When I first read this article, my immediate thought was that if they needed a mission critical kernel and/or mission critical hardware infrastructure to power the thing, then they could probably purchase OpenVMS and/or Nonstop Himalaya for pennies on the dollar.
Or go ahead and purchase QNX from Harman-Kardon.