So, if this sort of logic continues...
by fragging someone in UT or Quake I could get charged with homicide? Why is there even a discussion about this. Being a jerk != being a criminal.
I know this isn't the first application of this technology, Shell Oil used to use something like this for their programmers, but the device was considerably bigger than a credit card.
Anyone care to guess how they are going to power this? External power source at the reader? Rechargeable cards?
actually, when I was in school, this happened. AP level classes got one additional point for the GPA calculation, so that a B in AP CalII was worth the same as an A in "regular" AlgII. Definitely leveled the playing field a bit.
this is what happens when you artificially, (thru legislation) create a Defenseless Victim Zone. or, as they are sometimes called, Gun Free Zones. there will most likely be a bunch of post-facto firearms legislation after this to make everybody feel better.
Remember kids, you should give up your rights because FEELING safer is more important.
To anyone who has lost someone important, I know that nothing I can say makes it hurt less. My thoughts are with you.
"There is a perception of gifted and talented students as being into classical music and spending a lot of time reading. I think that is an inaccurate stereotype."
Am I the only bright kid that listens to BOTH? From a purely music theory/ architecture approach, the two are a lot more similar than most people realize. Anyone else feel the same?
I agree wholeheartedly. On my favorite pair of hiking boots, there is printed a motto: (of the now defunct OneSport) "Technology applied for the sake of those that wish to escape it."
To me, that is the whole point. Why hike out to the wilderness only to chain yourself down with all the digital leashes that are on you 24/7 back in the Real World?
That said, there are a few tech items that are useful, like a rugged GPS unit. Just remember to bring a compass for when the batteries run out! You won't need the laptop and I can almost guarantee you unfortunate things will happen to it if you bring it along. Nature has a way of ruining things that aren't waterproof:)
Let's not also forget about the advantages for dating. Say there is maybe 1% of the available female population my age that I am attracted to, and probably an even smaller percentage of those for whom the feeling is mutual. I stand a significantly better chance of meeting someone and hitting it off in a town full of thousands of people my age than in some tiny hamlet.
Dude, this is/.
Why the hell would anyone care about the availability of gf's? /said in good humor //agrees with poster
As one such person, (one who has been hired to work in a small town away from any large metropolitan areas.) I have to say it's pretty nice. At first I was worried that the change in lifestyle from a big metroplex (DFW) to East Bumblefuck, TX would suck, but it's turned out to be a lot nicer than I thought. More relaxed pace of life, less pollution, etc. Yeah, I took a lower salary to do it, but I've found you can live pretty cheaply out here... you can live like a king for a grand a month. (nice apartment/rent house, utilities, fast internet, the rest of my bills, and food) Plus it's kinda nice to see something besides concrete during the drive to work. Definitely not as horrible as some/.ers are making it out to be. Nearly all of my fellow coders are competent and pleasant to work with. No stupid rednecks here, just like-minded people who enjoy life away from the booming metrop. and all the headaches it brings.
ok, I dislike the RIAA as much as the next guy/gal, but citing their draconian business tactics as a violation of the 1st Amendment is just ridiculous.
The 1st Amendment guarantees "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The RIAA is NOT preventing you from recording an album/ standing on a street corner playing/ buying your own advertising and distributing it yourself. The freedom of musical expression, as you put it, does not guarantee you a huge record deal or easy access to a mainstream market. Just the ability to play/ sing whatever you want. It never says anything about having anyone listen to it.
I feel compelled to say that this is utterly wrong.
A scout is a lot of things. Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. But not "aware of copyright laws."
I don't recall the Scout Oath containing anything about being a corporate shill for the recording industry; merely promising to do your duty to my God, my country, my community, and myself.
This is absurd.
I tend to think of it as more an issue of intended use, rather than size. This is the ultimate iteration of the iMac... the Console Computer. Now it just LOOKS more like a console.
I remember the first iMac. When I looked at the side of the box, there were 3 steps listed for setup:
step 1) take iMac out of the box.
step 2) plug in power and keyboard.
step 3) there is no step 3.
this is just the next logical step. A small, unobtrusive computer that anyone can set up and use. As to the poster above saying he/she dislikes the inability to open this and modify it... that's the point. Like a console, it is intended to be "perfect" from the factory and never need modification.
Just plug it in and turn it on.
Do any of your readers report being aroused by the Fruit Fucker? Has anyone written in about the delightfully erotic noises it makes when assaulting fruits?
I ask because a... uh... friend of mine is like this, and he... uh... is curious is anyone else is similarly afflicted... I mean affected.
I am guessing that it will just become (even more) popular to wire older obdI ECU's in. (This is already done by some performance enthusiasts who want to overcome some of obdII's limitations.)
I would have to agree that the average Mac user might well be more literate than a Windows enthusiast, but I cannot condone the erroneous assumption that verbal skill alone denotes inferior/ superior intelligence.
A comment was made previously concerning the relative wealth of the two groups, but I think the heart of the matter lies in area of education rather than expense. To put it bluntly, Mac users are generally more aesthetically minded and likely to take more liberal arts classes. The hardcore *nix devotee or Windows programmer seems more likely to focus more exclusively on C.S./ math/ engineering classes. I have found this to be true in my own life. So it seems fairly obvious that statistical analysis of text typed by the two groups would have a wide disparity in vocabulary. One group took Advanced English Lit. while the other group was slaving away in Data Structures. Naturally the Arts devotee will speak or write in a more erudite fashion than the Geek next door. Does that make him/ her smarter? Not necessarily.
In a somewhat-unrelated vein, does anyone think that the penchant of so-called "script-kiddies" to use x86 hardware, whether Windows or *nix might be contributing to this? It seems likely to me.
As a personal disclaimer, I will add that I use and own computers of both platforms. Neither of them has been perfect, and neither or them is useful all of the time. They are both just tools. Sometimes one is more suited to a particular task than the other, but I can't say there is any sort of obvious advantage of one over the other. Perhaps enthusiasts on both sides of the fence would be happier if they reached a similar conclusion.
that's the line my employers have taken, so when I have to live at the office for 80-85 hours over 7 days, it is my own fault. which is fine. but almost never have I found that I can take the time off early. why? not that I have a load of work all the time, sometimes we get ahead and can relax a bit, but that the brass up top thinks it "looks bad" so the same developer that pulled an 80 hr week will get griped at for "unprofessionalism" the following week when he skives off friday at lunchtime and doesn't come back. anyone else experience this?
I never said it was the "be all end all." I agree the the best defensive tool is the one between your ears, but that doesn't mean it should be the ONLY tool at your disposal. To answer your question, no, I have not ever had to draw it, and I go to bed every night praying I never need to.
Back when I was younger and not allowed to carry, I was assaulted by a guy with a gun. All of a sudden the 5 years of karate I had taken (at the time I thought that was enough for self defense) become instantly useless. After that, I vowed that when I was old enough I would become licensed and train until I was proficient in the use of a handgun, since it is the only good defense against another gun.
As to what I would do if someone had a gun on me, I was taught in a tactical handgun class to toss my wallet to the guy and while he's picking it up, draw my weapon and shoot him until he stops moving. The reasoning behind this is that once you give him your wallet, he might shoot you anyway to eliminate a witness. (I might add that I live in a high crime zone and this may not be the case other places.) I'd rather not do any of this, however, and so I do what I can to avoid it... travel in groups, stay in well lit areas, not carry anything of value if I can help it, etc.
You raise some good questions, and like many good questions, there aren't always good answers. But with some luck, I'll hopefully die an old man and never know the answers to those kinds of questions.
In addition to the expensive company laptop, there's always a loaded P99 with 15 rounds of 9mm Hyrdashock +P on my person. Best theft deterrent I know of.
well yes, even if you don't write it down. you still need the reference. like i said, it's a lot more lax if it's not some new groundbreaking thing. but if you are doing somethign new and want to be taken seriously in the mathematical community, you had betten not take ANYthing for granted or the prof (review board, whatever) will blow you off and tell you that the proof isn't rigorous. *shrugs* all the redundancy isn't necessarily good, that's just the way it goes.
as a graduate in the fields of mathematics, i spent a large portion of my five undergraduate years doing proofs. there are a great many ways to prove things, sometimes applicable sometimes not. (e.g. using inductive proofs for numeric theorems is all well and good but completely useless for any sort of ring-theory or spatial proofs)
there are also several levels of depth for proofs, ranging from "i've found a counter example so i can write the whole thing off as garbage" to "i have exhaustively and rigorously proved this starting with the basic axioms of number theory and worked my way on up"
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.
the problem arises when one (or several) humans have to be able to objectively check the whole thing. to use my prior example of a large development project, no one developer at microsoft understand the whole of windows. it's too big for a single human to understand. each developer knows what he needs to do to complete his part, and so on and so forth.
traditionally, for proofs, a single mathematician (or a small group) would hammer out the whole proof, so the level of complexity remained at a human-understandable level. (even if tedious) my concern, as a mathematician, with using an automated solution would be the rapidly growing order of complexity needed to properly back up increasingly complex proofs. as stated in the article, it's like trying to proofread a phonebook. (only, you must also consider that for every element of the proof (a particular listing) there are several branching layers of complexity (fundamental, underlying proofs many layers deep) underneath. this gets more complicated in an exponential fashion) obviously this approach will only remain human-checkable for relatively small problems. (programmers: think of some horrible nondeterministic- polynomial problem like the "traveling salesman" problem. systems, like humans, are a finite resource, but if you increase the size of the problem, the complexity will quickly grow far beyond your ability to compute. large proofs suffer from the same difficulties, if not quite as concrete and pronounced as NP algorithms)
in closing, i would have to agree that proofs, no matter the effort and computing time put into them, really should not be viewed as being as rigorous as those provable "by hand" and human- understandable, even if the computer has arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, because we have no way of KNOWING if the computer has built up the proof correctly, except that it says it has.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly hope so. According to some very reliable sources, all cyborgs will look and be able to fight like Van Damme, and who doesn't want that?
So, if this sort of logic continues... by fragging someone in UT or Quake I could get charged with homicide? Why is there even a discussion about this. Being a jerk != being a criminal.
I know this isn't the first application of this technology, Shell Oil used to use something like this for their programmers, but the device was considerably bigger than a credit card. Anyone care to guess how they are going to power this? External power source at the reader? Rechargeable cards?
hear hear! mod parent up.
actually, when I was in school, this happened. AP level classes got one additional point for the GPA calculation, so that a B in AP CalII was worth the same as an A in "regular" AlgII. Definitely leveled the playing field a bit.
this is what happens when you artificially, (thru legislation) create a Defenseless Victim Zone. or, as they are sometimes called, Gun Free Zones. there will most likely be a bunch of post-facto firearms legislation after this to make everybody feel better.
Remember kids, you should give up your rights because FEELING safer is more important.
To anyone who has lost someone important, I know that nothing I can say makes it hurt less. My thoughts are with you.
from tfa:
"There is a perception of gifted and talented students as being into classical music and spending a lot of time reading. I think that is an inaccurate stereotype."
Am I the only bright kid that listens to BOTH? From a purely music theory/ architecture approach, the two are a lot more similar than most people realize. Anyone else feel the same?
I agree wholeheartedly. On my favorite pair of hiking boots, there is printed a motto: (of the now defunct OneSport) "Technology applied for the sake of those that wish to escape it."
:)
To me, that is the whole point. Why hike out to the wilderness only to chain yourself down with all the digital leashes that are on you 24/7 back in the Real World?
That said, there are a few tech items that are useful, like a rugged GPS unit. Just remember to bring a compass for when the batteries run out! You won't need the laptop and I can almost guarantee you unfortunate things will happen to it if you bring it along. Nature has a way of ruining things that aren't waterproof
Dude, this is /.
/said in good humor
//agrees with poster
Why the hell would anyone care about the availability of gf's?
As one such person, (one who has been hired to work in a small town away from any large metropolitan areas.) I have to say it's pretty nice. At first I was worried that the change in lifestyle from a big metroplex (DFW) to East Bumblefuck, TX would suck, but it's turned out to be a lot nicer than I thought. More relaxed pace of life, less pollution, etc. Yeah, I took a lower salary to do it, but I've found you can live pretty cheaply out here... you can live like a king for a grand a month. (nice apartment/rent house, utilities, fast internet, the rest of my bills, and food) Plus it's kinda nice to see something besides concrete during the drive to work. Definitely not as horrible as some /.ers are making it out to be. Nearly all of my fellow coders are competent and pleasant to work with. No stupid rednecks here, just like-minded people who enjoy life away from the booming metrop. and all the headaches it brings.
so then... would that make you the Bastard Coder From Hell?
ok, I dislike the RIAA as much as the next guy/gal, but citing their draconian business tactics as a violation of the 1st Amendment is just ridiculous. The 1st Amendment guarantees "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The RIAA is NOT preventing you from recording an album/ standing on a street corner playing/ buying your own advertising and distributing it yourself. The freedom of musical expression, as you put it, does not guarantee you a huge record deal or easy access to a mainstream market. Just the ability to play/ sing whatever you want. It never says anything about having anyone listen to it.
I feel compelled to say that this is utterly wrong. A scout is a lot of things. Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. But not "aware of copyright laws." I don't recall the Scout Oath containing anything about being a corporate shill for the recording industry; merely promising to do your duty to my God, my country, my community, and myself. This is absurd.
I think it's a damn good idea. If only more companies would utilize talented guys (or girls) like Jon, think of what could be accomplished.
I tend to think of it as more an issue of intended use, rather than size. This is the ultimate iteration of the iMac... the Console Computer. Now it just LOOKS more like a console. I remember the first iMac. When I looked at the side of the box, there were 3 steps listed for setup: step 1) take iMac out of the box. step 2) plug in power and keyboard. step 3) there is no step 3. this is just the next logical step. A small, unobtrusive computer that anyone can set up and use. As to the poster above saying he/she dislikes the inability to open this and modify it... that's the point. Like a console, it is intended to be "perfect" from the factory and never need modification. Just plug it in and turn it on.
Do any of your readers report being aroused by the Fruit Fucker? Has anyone written in about the delightfully erotic noises it makes when assaulting fruits? I ask because a... uh... friend of mine is like this, and he... uh... is curious is anyone else is similarly afflicted... I mean affected.
You know it's gonna be bad when the windshield turns blue all of a sudden...
I am guessing that it will just become (even more) popular to wire older obdI ECU's in. (This is already done by some performance enthusiasts who want to overcome some of obdII's limitations.)
A comment was made previously concerning the relative wealth of the two groups, but I think the heart of the matter lies in area of education rather than expense. To put it bluntly, Mac users are generally more aesthetically minded and likely to take more liberal arts classes. The hardcore *nix devotee or Windows programmer seems more likely to focus more exclusively on C.S./ math/ engineering classes. I have found this to be true in my own life. So it seems fairly obvious that statistical analysis of text typed by the two groups would have a wide disparity in vocabulary. One group took Advanced English Lit. while the other group was slaving away in Data Structures. Naturally the Arts devotee will speak or write in a more erudite fashion than the Geek next door. Does that make him/ her smarter? Not necessarily.
In a somewhat-unrelated vein, does anyone think that the penchant of so-called "script-kiddies" to use x86 hardware, whether Windows or *nix might be contributing to this? It seems likely to me.
As a personal disclaimer, I will add that I use and own computers of both platforms. Neither of them has been perfect, and neither or them is useful all of the time. They are both just tools. Sometimes one is more suited to a particular task than the other, but I can't say there is any sort of obvious advantage of one over the other. Perhaps enthusiasts on both sides of the fence would be happier if they reached a similar conclusion.
that's the line my employers have taken, so when I have to live at the office for 80-85 hours over 7 days, it is my own fault. which is fine. but almost never have I found that I can take the time off early. why? not that I have a load of work all the time, sometimes we get ahead and can relax a bit, but that the brass up top thinks it "looks bad" so the same developer that pulled an 80 hr week will get griped at for "unprofessionalism" the following week when he skives off friday at lunchtime and doesn't come back. anyone else experience this?
I never said it was the "be all end all." I agree the the best defensive tool is the one between your ears, but that doesn't mean it should be the ONLY tool at your disposal. To answer your question, no, I have not ever had to draw it, and I go to bed every night praying I never need to.
Back when I was younger and not allowed to carry, I was assaulted by a guy with a gun. All of a sudden the 5 years of karate I had taken (at the time I thought that was enough for self defense) become instantly useless. After that, I vowed that when I was old enough I would become licensed and train until I was proficient in the use of a handgun, since it is the only good defense against another gun.
As to what I would do if someone had a gun on me, I was taught in a tactical handgun class to toss my wallet to the guy and while he's picking it up, draw my weapon and shoot him until he stops moving. The reasoning behind this is that once you give him your wallet, he might shoot you anyway to eliminate a witness. (I might add that I live in a high crime zone and this may not be the case other places.) I'd rather not do any of this, however, and so I do what I can to avoid it... travel in groups, stay in well lit areas, not carry anything of value if I can help it, etc.
You raise some good questions, and like many good questions, there aren't always good answers. But with some luck, I'll hopefully die an old man and never know the answers to those kinds of questions.
In addition to the expensive company laptop, there's always a loaded P99 with 15 rounds of 9mm Hyrdashock +P on my person. Best theft deterrent I know of.
well yes, even if you don't write it down. you still need the reference. like i said, it's a lot more lax if it's not some new groundbreaking thing. but if you are doing somethign new and want to be taken seriously in the mathematical community, you had betten not take ANYthing for granted or the prof (review board, whatever) will blow you off and tell you that the proof isn't rigorous. *shrugs* all the redundancy isn't necessarily good, that's just the way it goes.
as a graduate in the fields of mathematics, i spent a large portion of my five undergraduate years doing proofs. there are a great many ways to prove things, sometimes applicable sometimes not. (e.g. using inductive proofs for numeric theorems is all well and good but completely useless for any sort of ring-theory or spatial proofs)
there are also several levels of depth for proofs, ranging from "i've found a counter example so i can write the whole thing off as garbage" to "i have exhaustively and rigorously proved this starting with the basic axioms of number theory and worked my way on up"
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.
the problem arises when one (or several) humans have to be able to objectively check the whole thing. to use my prior example of a large development project, no one developer at microsoft understand the whole of windows. it's too big for a single human to understand. each developer knows what he needs to do to complete his part, and so on and so forth.
traditionally, for proofs, a single mathematician (or a small group) would hammer out the whole proof, so the level of complexity remained at a human-understandable level. (even if tedious) my concern, as a mathematician, with using an automated solution would be the rapidly growing order of complexity needed to properly back up increasingly complex proofs. as stated in the article, it's like trying to proofread a phonebook. (only, you must also consider that for every element of the proof (a particular listing) there are several branching layers of complexity (fundamental, underlying proofs many layers deep) underneath. this gets more complicated in an exponential fashion) obviously this approach will only remain human-checkable for relatively small problems. (programmers: think of some horrible nondeterministic- polynomial problem like the "traveling salesman" problem. systems, like humans, are a finite resource, but if you increase the size of the problem, the complexity will quickly grow far beyond your ability to compute. large proofs suffer from the same difficulties, if not quite as concrete and pronounced as NP algorithms)
in closing, i would have to agree that proofs, no matter the effort and computing time put into them, really should not be viewed as being as rigorous as those provable "by hand" and human- understandable, even if the computer has arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, because we have no way of KNOWING if the computer has built up the proof correctly, except that it says it has.
We license from a corporation called NCR.