Well, death maybe, but not taxes. There are tribes of people living in the middle of nowhere with plates in their lips who have never paid any taxes and probably never will.
The scariest part of the article, however, is when a spokesman for iBackup, an Internet-based backup company, disclaims,'We do not provide a 100 percent guarantee that the backup will take place' of customers' data being stored with them for a fee."
Duh. There are no 100% guarantees of anything in life. The only significance of any "guarantee" is the recourse the company gives you (e.g. your money back) if they fail to live up to it.There's no guarantee that your in-house backup system won't eat your data. There's no guarantee your brand new car won't explode. There's no guarantee that FedEx will absolutely, positively, not lose your package, let alone get it there overnight.
How is it circular logic? Given: A certain positive percentage of primes differ by two. There are known twin primes, so the percentage of primes that are twin primes is not zero. If there are a finite number of twin primes then the percentage of primes that are twin primes approaches zero, but that is not strictly equivilent to zero.
If one accepts your "way out" of the circular reasoning charge, i.e. that a finite number of primes doesn't result in a percentage equal to zero, then the conclusion that this percentage times an infinite number of integers implies an infinite number of twin primes becomes a non-sequitur. So, it's either circular, or a non-sequitur.
To make an analogy, your reasoning is similar to the following:
Theorem: There are an infinite number of positive integers less than ten. Proof: There are known positive integers less than ten, so the percentage of positive integers that are less than ten is not zero. This non-zero percentage multiplied by the infinite number of positive integers yields an infinite number. Thus there are an infinite number of positive integers less than ten.
I know every one said "2" but "2" is true (it is a truism).
Wrong. Declaring Step 2 to be self-evident is simply unjustified hand-waving. Furthermore, it's committing the fallacy of begging the question, as the premise indirectly claims that the conclusion is true.
What you call grilling we call frying. What we call grilling is placing meat on a rack of parallel metal bars about a half inch apart, suspended over an open flame. You really call that frying?
You mean to tell me that Brits don't use the word "broil"? Ok, so who's the American culinary marketing genius who came up with the term "London Broil"?
As a 48 yo grandmother, I am offended that technical incompetance is equated with being a grandparent. I don't think anyone would have said "so simple even my grandfather could implement."
You just contradicted yourself. Make up your mind: are you offended because the remark makes assumptions about grandparents, or because it was sexist?
I used to be able to tell when someone was fingering me. My.plan was a named pipe fed by a shell script. The script would netstat looking for fingerd connections, rsh to the source host, "ps -aux" for finger processes, and send me the results. I'd then send email to the person, asking "why are you fingering me?".
I run Win2K, and I never use suspend-to-RAM. The reason is that the CPU actually halts and does not start up again unless the user takes some explicit action. This makes it impossible to set up scheduled tasks (like backups that I run every day) to wake up the system from sleep mode.
Funny, but that's not entirely unlike a non-deterministic algorithm. Just get rid of the loop. When quantum-computing becomes commonplace, this may become the way sorting is actually done.
You are most definitely right, CS is all math. When it comes down to it, all a computer can do is manipulate numbers
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. It's like saying that sociology is all physics, because the only thing the atoms comprising a population of people can do is obey physical laws.
Again, I see people asserting this, but not justifying it. It looks to me like he does understand both sides, and is simply of the opinion that it's impractical to forfeit copy-protection measures simply to accomodate a tiny minority. Specifically, what technological consequence of his position does he not understand, as opposed to you simply not agreeing with?
I keep seeing people say this, but I don't get it. I read the interview, and it seems to me that he was neither clueless nor unreasonable. He was surprised to find out how simple the decryption code is, but he's not clueless about his position. His position was basically that it isn't immoral for you to watch DVDs on Linux, but it's wrong to circumvent an encryption without a license for the decryption software, since if you do it for benign reasons, anyone else can do it for copyright infringement. Now, you may disagree with him, but in what way is he clueless about his own position? The only cluelessness I saw was on the part of the interviewer who didn't know about the Linspire licensed DVD playback software.
Thanks. I'm not familiar with the commercials or "Monster Garage". Are you talking about a caricature of the infamous 19th century Old West bandit (which is what I was referring to), or is there some real guy who also happens to be named Jesse James who hosts this show and is on the commercials? Thanks, and I apologize for my ignorance.
Compiling and debugging code just isn't fun enough, so I like to compile and debug my word processing documents as well. Nothing's more fun that compiling your paper and embarking on an easter-egg hunt for errors like this:
Underfull \hbox (badness 10000) detected at line 19
The software blocks anything that's copyrighted, whether you already own the song in another format or not.
And in other news, airport security will confiscate your knives before you board, whether you were planning on hijacking the airplane or not.
Just because you own the song in another format doesn't mean it isn't illegal for the person you're downloading from to distribute a copy of the song to you. And even if that were not the case, how do you propose that it distinguish between people who already own it and people who don't?
Slashdot Mirror
Customer: I'll have a chocolate shake, Don Henley's Greatest Hits, and, ummmm, The Eagles Greatest Hits to go, please.
McD: You want Frey's with that?
Well, death maybe, but not taxes. There are tribes of people living in the middle of nowhere with plates in their lips who have never paid any taxes and probably never will.
The scariest part of the article, however, is when a spokesman for iBackup, an Internet-based backup company, disclaims,'We do not provide a 100 percent guarantee that the backup will take place' of customers' data being stored with them for a fee."
Duh. There are no 100% guarantees of anything in life. The only significance of any "guarantee" is the recourse the company gives you (e.g. your money back) if they fail to live up to it.There's no guarantee that your in-house backup system won't eat your data. There's no guarantee your brand new car won't explode. There's no guarantee that FedEx will absolutely, positively, not lose your package, let alone get it there overnight.
How is it circular logic?
Given: A certain positive percentage of primes differ by two. There are known twin primes, so the percentage of primes that are twin primes is not zero. If there are a finite number of twin primes then the percentage of primes that are twin primes approaches zero, but that is not strictly equivilent to zero.
If one accepts your "way out" of the circular reasoning charge, i.e. that a finite number of primes doesn't result in a percentage equal to zero, then the conclusion that this percentage times an infinite number of integers implies an infinite number of twin primes becomes a non-sequitur. So, it's either circular, or a non-sequitur.
To make an analogy, your reasoning is similar to the following:
Theorem: There are an infinite number of positive integers less than ten.
Proof: There are known positive integers less than ten, so the percentage of positive integers that are less than ten is not zero. This non-zero percentage multiplied by the infinite number of positive integers yields an infinite number. Thus there are an infinite number of positive integers less than ten.
See the problem?
I know every one said "2" but "2" is true (it is a truism).
Wrong. Declaring Step 2 to be self-evident is simply unjustified hand-waving. Furthermore, it's committing the fallacy of begging the question, as the premise indirectly claims that the conclusion is true.
What you call grilling we call frying.
What we call grilling is placing meat on a rack of parallel metal bars about a half inch apart, suspended over an open flame. You really call that frying?
Spammer gets jail time! (Oh, BTW, it was for identity theft.) That's like saying "Parking violator gets life in prison!". Stupid.
You mean to tell me that Brits don't use the word "broil"? Ok, so who's the American culinary marketing genius who came up with the term "London Broil"?
Yoda needed cane to walk and then doing double back flip, mctwists while fighting.
There's nothing unrealistic about this. That scene resembled Ozzy Osbourne before, during, and after a performance.
As a 48 yo grandmother, I am offended that technical incompetance is equated with being a grandparent. I don't think anyone would have said "so simple even my grandfather could implement."
You just contradicted yourself. Make up your mind: are you offended because the remark makes assumptions about grandparents, or because it was sexist?
I used to be able to tell when someone was fingering me. My .plan was a named pipe fed by a shell script. The script would netstat looking for fingerd connections, rsh to the source host, "ps -aux" for finger processes, and send me the results. I'd then send email to the person, asking "why are you fingering me?".
I run Win2K, and I never use suspend-to-RAM. The reason is that the CPU actually halts and does not start up again unless the user takes some explicit action. This makes it impossible to set up scheduled tasks (like backups that I run every day) to wake up the system from sleep mode.
Funny, but that's not entirely unlike a non-deterministic algorithm. Just get rid of the loop. When quantum-computing becomes commonplace, this may become the way sorting is actually done.
Every Darwinist knows how to solve this. Let only the best programmers reproduce
Every mathematician knows you can't solve an over-constrained system of equations.
Were they C++ programs, or 20 year old shell scripts?
You are most definitely right, CS is all math. When it comes down to it, all a computer can do is manipulate numbers
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. It's like saying that sociology is all physics, because the only thing the atoms comprising a population of people can do is obey physical laws.
Again, I see people asserting this, but not justifying it. It looks to me like he does understand both sides, and is simply of the opinion that it's impractical to forfeit copy-protection measures simply to accomodate a tiny minority. Specifically, what technological consequence of his position does he not understand, as opposed to you simply not agreeing with?
JV: [...]I want to try to find out the point you make on why are there no Linux licensed players.[...]
CLUELESS!
Um, so he's clueless because, taking the clueless interviewer to his word, he didn't realize something THAT WASN'T TRUE TO BEGIN WITH?
JV: But you're trying to set your own standards.
---
CLUELESS AND WRONG
Non-sequitur, and unjustified (respectively).
I keep seeing people say this, but I don't get it. I read the interview, and it seems to me that he was neither clueless nor unreasonable. He was surprised to find out how simple the decryption code is, but he's not clueless about his position. His position was basically that it isn't immoral for you to watch DVDs on Linux, but it's wrong to circumvent an encryption without a license for the decryption software, since if you do it for benign reasons, anyone else can do it for copyright infringement. Now, you may disagree with him, but in what way is he clueless about his own position? The only cluelessness I saw was on the part of the interviewer who didn't know about the Linspire licensed DVD playback software.
Can you even define consciousness?
Or, more to the point, can you even define the size of consciousness?
Thanks. I'm not familiar with the commercials or "Monster Garage". Are you talking about a caricature of the infamous 19th century Old West bandit (which is what I was referring to), or is there some real guy who also happens to be named Jesse James who hosts this show and is on the commercials? Thanks, and I apologize for my ignorance.
Ventura? Jackson? James? Helms? Who are you talking about?
The software blocks anything that's copyrighted, whether you already own the song in another format or not.
And in other news, airport security will confiscate your knives before you board, whether you were planning on hijacking the airplane or not.
Just because you own the song in another format doesn't mean it isn't illegal for the person you're downloading from to distribute a copy of the song to you. And even if that were not the case, how do you propose that it distinguish between people who already own it and people who don't?
Really though, is counting to two that difficult?
No, but keeping track of the precise spot on the road where the other guy was when you started counting, can be difficult.