Then backup civilization becomes more powerful because all the best people were sent on the colonizing mission. For this reason, the extra-terrestrial society advances way beyond the earth bound one and they conclude that they are the superior society. They send back their battleships to colonize and "help" the backwards Earth. War erupts. Charges of terrestrial terrorism are made. And they blow us up to prevent terrorists from leaving the earth.
This scenario has been played out in countless scifi tomes. Just imagine the "so-called" illegal aliens crossing into the US but on a bigger scale.
I guess since this is slashdot, people assume that they will be part of the superior society.
It also probably means that Fermat was mistaken in thinking that he had a proof. Also "purity" is a matter of religion. Proof is proof, computer aided or not.
I have no problem with them coming up with the next big thing. But They could at least have left us with something -USABLE- before going off for another 10 more years developing the next big thing.
And don't say that that's not the point. It is. The Gnu Tools (gcc, bash, etc. )wouldn't be as relevant if right before they became usable, they decided to go off and work on the next big thing.
Not really true. People where I come from (Philippines) can not make use of iTunes. Yet everybody from teenagers to yuppies has an iPod.
So yes, iTunes adds incredible value to the iPod. But the critical mass is such that people will buy the iPod anyway even if they can't buy anything off iTunes.
I agree with most of what you said. 10 years of testing is invaluable.
But a rewrite of the kernel doesn't mean that the old kernel will be junked. It could be forked and we all could have both kernels to run on.:) Maybe I'm just being naive though.
Casinos use statistics and probability for support and they seem to be doing rather well.
Re:Here's a classic: about marriages and divorce
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 1
It may just be lack of caffeine but bear with me here....
Statement A: In the US, 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce.
Statement B: In the US, the annual divorce rate is 1/2 the annual wedding rate.
They may be different but in the long run, doesn't statement B eventually approximate statement A? Especially if the wedding rate is assumed to be increasing.
It is a way of lying to investors. You have to expense them. You may not agree on the basis, but hard to argue against having to expense options. If you don't, the value is taken out of shareholder value because the number of stocks have increased and the total value has remained the same.
First of all, there's no so thing as a "perfect" film or a "perfect" interpretation of a book/play. The original may have been well made, but why does that mean that nobody else is allowed their go at it? How would remaking it now ruin the original?
Maybe you don't feel it needs to be remade but obviously Tim Burton feels differently.
It's like saying Laurence Olivier's Hamlet was perfectly excellent and there's no reason it should be remade. Therefore, people should stop doing Hamlet (or any other Shakespeare play for that matter).
Of course experience is always key. That's like saying "I would rather be good-looking than ugly."
But let me ask you this. If you had a chance to attend Stanford and work with Knuth, would you do it? Or perhaps work with Lessig? Maybe work with a Pulitzer prize winner? Nobel prize winner? Fields medal winner? Would you say no?
There is no Right answer to this question. But given that all things are equal (and they never, ever are), I would probably go to a big name school that had the intangibles I mentioned above. It's not always about the degree. It's not always about the name. It's not always about the money and job. You nailed it, it's the experience.
In fact, expensing stock options wil in fact hurt the fat cats more than Joe Blow. And here's why. In most places, the senior executives get options that are orders of magnitude cheaper than the ones given to the rank and file. For example, the regular stock option will cost Joe Blow $1 to exercise, the CEO will get one that costs $0.01 to exercise. Get the picture?
This whole thing about it showing up in the bottom line is true. The only problem is -WHERE- it comes from. If not expensed, it comes out of equity. If it is expensed, then it comes out of operating expenses (duh) like -ALL OTHER- compensation (salary, benefits, etc.).
NOW, do you see why it makes sense to expense stock options?
and another thing, Joe Sixpack does not get the long-term capital gain -UNLESS- you exercise and hold for at least a year. Which as many veterans of the dot com bust will tell you is very risky. Just ask how many of them paid huge AMT on stock that are now only worth pennies to the dollar.
And if more people subscribed to true atheism, we could talk more about the soccer game and quit killing each other over mosks, synagogues, churches and the almighty Sacred Cow!
Indeed. Killing each other over oil seems like a more civilized alternative.
Exploring with remote probes is useless if we never go there.
That's just patently false.
Your position smacks of navel gazing while us zealots at least want to go do something and develop the technology needed to put people in space and on other worlds and keep them there. Having useless, unpractical astronomy and "just for knowledge, not for use" exploration grouped in with real progress is an insult, not an insight.
My. I seem to have hit a sore spot.
You still haven't addressed the fact that every "pro" for manned exploration is in fact a "pro" for unmanned exploration. And unmanned is cheaper and safer by orders of magnitude.
I've had this discussion recently with a co-worker. And my impression that the only reason people can come up with for putting a man back on the Moon and sending men to Mars is one of two things:
Becase the human race should "explore."
Because it will make everybody else feel better.
What about scientific progress you say? Well, as it has been pointed out many many times, we can explore the Solar System in a cheaper fashion by sending unmanned probes.
This whole "we need to explore like Columbus and Magellan" bit really smacks of religious zealotry. IMHO of course.
I agree with what you said. I belive the Open Source model can be of great help to mathematical proofs that use computers.
It should be standard for any proof that uses a computer to:
Give the source.
Specify the exact configuration of everything from the compiler to the OS.
Specify the computer hardware used.
(Obviously copying from your list.;) This allows people to verify / disprove your results. For example, they can take your source and compile it on a different architecture and verify the results.
I'm pretty ignorant on the matter (using computers for mathematical proofs) but there are some things I can think of that can help mathematicians accept the use of computers.
Have a stripped down version of an OS designed to be used for mathematical proofs. (Imagine Linux without all the eyecandy, drivers, etc. Just the OS and the compiler and a shell. Ok, maybe X too.;)
Standardize on a programming language (or two.) A standard language which is designed for proofs will make verification easier.
the latter is really the only acceptable way to prove anything seriously. sometimes when you are reworking an already- done proof to illustrate a point, other mathematicians will allow a bit of latitude when it comes to cutting corners, but for a proof as far-reaching as the one in the article, i would only be interested in a "rigorous" proof, that is, one that started with the foundational tenets of mathematics and combined those to form and prove other postulates, etc. very much a form of abstraction, not unlike large development projects.
I don't know about that. Do you mean that every proof should start out with the Axiom of Choice? Do you mean we can't use theorems which already have been proven? I kind of like in to reusable code. Theorems are reusable code. If you use them in your proof to prove something new, it's a Good Thing.
And what's the basis of this morality you speak of? Is it following only the laws that you find convenient and ignoring the ones you don't like? Aren't a lot of Americans calling for legislation to prevent outsourcing?
People speak of morality as if everyone is on the same page about what is moral and what's not.
Yes I call it 128 too. And the Mass Pike not I90.
Not everyone knows that Rt128 == I95. Especially people who don't live in MA. I was being polite.
And it's great if the commuter rail gets to where you want to. But more often than not, you'll need a car to get to where you want to outside of 128. Try getting to Hopkinton using the Commuter Rail. And the T is one of the worst train systems I've been on.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a reason it's called the Hindu-Arabic number system.....m 2217/han.htm
http://scitsc.wlv.ac.uk/university/scit/modules/m
This scenario has been played out in countless scifi tomes. Just imagine the "so-called" illegal aliens crossing into the US but on a bigger scale.
I guess since this is slashdot, people assume that they will be part of the superior society.
It also probably means that Fermat was mistaken in thinking that he had a proof. Also "purity" is a matter of religion. Proof is proof, computer aided or not.
And don't say that that's not the point. It is. The Gnu Tools (gcc, bash, etc. )wouldn't be as relevant if right before they became usable, they decided to go off and work on the next big thing.
So yes, iTunes adds incredible value to the iPod. But the critical mass is such that people will buy the iPod anyway even if they can't buy anything off iTunes.
But a rewrite of the kernel doesn't mean that the old kernel will be junked. It could be forked and we all could have both kernels to run on. :) Maybe I'm just being naive though.
Casinos use statistics and probability for support and they seem to be doing rather well.
It may just be lack of caffeine but bear with me here....
Statement A: In the US, 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce.
Statement B: In the US, the annual divorce rate is 1/2 the annual wedding rate.
They may be different but in the long run, doesn't statement B eventually approximate statement A? Especially if the wedding rate is assumed to be increasing.
It is a way of lying to investors. You have to expense them. You may not agree on the basis, but hard to argue against having to expense options. If you don't, the value is taken out of shareholder value because the number of stocks have increased and the total value has remained the same.
First of all, there's no so thing as a "perfect" film or a "perfect" interpretation of a book/play. The original may have been well made, but why does that mean that nobody else is allowed their go at it? How would remaking it now ruin the original?
Maybe you don't feel it needs to be remade but obviously Tim Burton feels differently.
It's like saying Laurence Olivier's Hamlet was perfectly excellent and there's no reason it should be remade. Therefore, people should stop doing Hamlet (or any other Shakespeare play for that matter).
Of course experience is always key. That's like saying "I would rather be good-looking than ugly."
But let me ask you this. If you had a chance to attend Stanford and work with Knuth, would you do it? Or perhaps work with Lessig? Maybe work with a Pulitzer prize winner? Nobel prize winner? Fields medal winner? Would you say no?
There is no Right answer to this question. But given that all things are equal (and they never, ever are), I would probably go to a big name school that had the intangibles I mentioned above. It's not always about the degree. It's not always about the name. It's not always about the money and job. You nailed it, it's the experience.
In fact, expensing stock options wil in fact hurt the fat cats more than Joe Blow. And here's why. In most places, the senior executives get options that are orders of magnitude cheaper than the ones given to the rank and file. For example, the regular stock option will cost Joe Blow $1 to exercise, the CEO will get one that costs $0.01 to exercise. Get the picture?
This whole thing about it showing up in the bottom line is true. The only problem is -WHERE- it comes from. If not expensed, it comes out of equity. If it is expensed, then it comes out of operating expenses (duh) like -ALL OTHER- compensation (salary, benefits, etc.).
NOW, do you see why it makes sense to expense stock options?
and another thing, Joe Sixpack does not get the long-term capital gain -UNLESS- you exercise and hold for at least a year. Which as many veterans of the dot com bust will tell you is very risky. Just ask how many of them paid huge AMT on stock that are now only worth pennies to the dollar.
No. They didn't steal my childhood. How the heck would that be possible for them? But Lucas ruined a perfectly good movie.
Indeed. Killing each other over oil seems like a more civilized alternative.
That's just plain racist. And the webpage you linked to is racist.
And the perfect solution is: ignore it. Unless it's really in your face (ie. loud), just ignore it. People can't seem to be able to do this.
You mean how like the US engages in a lot of foreign policy just to make the US richer without regard for the foreign working class?
That's just patently false.
Your position smacks of navel gazing while us zealots at least want to go do something and develop the technology needed to put people in space and on other worlds and keep them there. Having useless, unpractical astronomy and "just for knowledge, not for use" exploration grouped in with real progress is an insult, not an insight.
My. I seem to have hit a sore spot.
You still haven't addressed the fact that every "pro" for manned exploration is in fact a "pro" for unmanned exploration. And unmanned is cheaper and safer by orders of magnitude.
Ad hominem attacks are not valid responses.
...Face Off? That probably was an expensive Hollywood blockbuster, but it was pretty good. Well, what I mean was I like it.
What about scientific progress you say? Well, as it has been pointed out many many times, we can explore the Solar System in a cheaper fashion by sending unmanned probes.
This whole "we need to explore like Columbus and Magellan" bit really smacks of religious zealotry. IMHO of course.
It should be standard for any proof that uses a computer to:
(Obviously copying from your list. ;) This allows people to verify / disprove your results. For example, they can take your source and compile it on a different architecture and verify the results.
I'm pretty ignorant on the matter (using computers for mathematical proofs) but there are some things I can think of that can help mathematicians accept the use of computers.
I don't know about that. Do you mean that every proof should start out with the Axiom of Choice? Do you mean we can't use theorems which already have been proven? I kind of like in to reusable code. Theorems are reusable code. If you use them in your proof to prove something new, it's a Good Thing.
Amen. When jobs were being outsourced to Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, there wasn't all this hype.
And what's the basis of this morality you speak of? Is it following only the laws that you find convenient and ignoring the ones you don't like? Aren't a lot of Americans calling for legislation to prevent outsourcing?
People speak of morality as if everyone is on the same page about what is moral and what's not.
And it's great if the commuter rail gets to where you want to. But more often than not, you'll need a car to get to where you want to outside of 128. Try getting to Hopkinton using the Commuter Rail. And the T is one of the worst train systems I've been on.