So if several hundred physicists all conclude that the atomic weight of helium is 4.1 (it is actually 4.0026 as far as we can tell), we accept that, right?
Ok, no argument there... but does the fact that several hundred people (even if they are experts) all get the same answer necessarily mean that it is correct?
That is the difference between mathematics and science. Science is centered around observation. And while observation can be extremely accurate, it still contains some amount of inaccuracy.
Ok, so mathematics isn't perfect either... we have to start with basic assumptions. But once we set down some elementary rules everything that we conclude from there on is required to be logically correct. Certainly mathematicians have made mistakes over the years, but that is just the reason that we must criticize each other's work as severely as we are capable.
Ultimately, I believe this discussion returns to philosophy, especially that of modern and postmodern subjects. How do we really know anything? Do we even know that we exist? (Hey, thank Descartes for that question!)
Anyhow, I find myself tired of that whole debate. Maybe we should just stick to the motto, don't trust anyone (anything?), not even your motherboard.
This idea seems like it might work... but what happens when we have verified the comptuers answers up to our limit of ability? We will never know when the computer has pushed past its own limit.
An example on the simple level is that if you only assign a variable as an integer in C, then it is limited as to the accuracy of calculations your program can make with that specific variable. Whereas, if you use a double float, it is a far more useful variable. Yet, it still has its limits to where at some point it will round off a variable.
If we aren't sure at what point the computer has pushed its limits, then we have no way of knowing how much we can trust it!
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
What about 'unknown knowns?' That is to say, the things we should know, but we forgot somewhere along the way?
This was my initial thought as well. (Aren't you glad I read to be able to reply to your post instead of starting a thread of my own??)
Anyway, here's another thought: Is this increase in the number of alerts really representative of more viruses? Or is this company trying to look like it has "improved" or that it is doing better? The article says that there are a lot of variants... perhaps variants weren't issued their own warning in the past? It does seem pretty strange that the number of virus warnings held steady from 2001-2003 and then suddenly spiked in 2004. What major breakthrough has occurred since last year that makes it easier for virus programmers to communicate and share code???
So can I patent the number 7? It's a good number. Plus, how many people can really avoid using it? Sure, you could represent it in different ways... 4+3, 2+5, 1+6,.0001+6.9999.... but that would get old quickly. And just think about how many times it is used!!
Besides which, I'm pretty sure that nobody else has patented the number 7 yet.
What about the English language? Anybody have a patent on that? I can just see it:
"Excuse me Mr. Director... you can't direct this movie in English unless you pay me first."
This is starting to sound like a risk game wherein you allow it within the rules to create treaties (contracts) and then when it's right at that good moment, one of the players breaks all his treaties and takes everyone elses land (business).
If I remember correctly, (it's been a while since I've seen the movie) the "christ-figure" was not actually a religious leader, but was assumed to be a "christ" by to general populace.
I don't think this is really heretical, but rather an illustation of how easily people will believe anything religious teachers will tell them, and even some things they don't tell them!
I didn't realize this. Perhaps the writer of the article did not either. Thanks for the info!
Though this makes me wonder...are we hyping this story for no reason?? Seems then like Go might not have failed because of Microsoft. After all, what was M$ SUPPOSED to do? Help the competition?! This is business. You want the consumer to buy your product, not the other guys!
and yes, i might have changed my mind... but who knows, it may change back in the future!
There are plenty of products on the market that prove that consumers do not act logically. Why else would people pay hundreds of dollars for a stuffed animal (a.k.a. beanie baby)???
Or why do people trade most of their tax return in order to get credit to lease a car, that they will wind up paying wayyy more than what it is worth.
Heck, I don't even make logical economical decisions all the time. Besides which, this offers the opportunity to go out and see it in the theatre... a potential good time with all your friends.
anyway, point being... consumers aren't always logical.
"In late 1993, Go was sold to AT&T where it was ultimately merged into the company's portable computer subsidiary. In 1994 the phone company shut down the effort in portable computing. Three months later Microsoft canceled its PenWindows project"
As if this doesn't make it obvious what M$ was doing! They were only in the game to keep somebody else from innovating new technology. As soon as a potential competitor closed down, they stopped attempting to "provide a better solution for the customer." What a bunch of hooey!
But where did the water go? Did it just evaporate? I guess without an atmosphere to create rain and return the moisture back to the earth, it would just dissipate. So how did it get there in the first place?
I'm not an astronaut (obviously) and I don't know too too much about space, but it seems a little mysterious to say that water was there before but isn't now.
Before I get a puddle analogy, I'm thinking of large amounts of water, not just rain puddles.
This is definitely true...I enjoy playing games on my snes emulator. It takes me back to another time and place. Sometimes I even prefer to play a game of NBA jam or Troy Aikman football, or whatever have you than to play more current games. But you just cannot compare with the excitement of playing a new Battlefield of Ghost Recon, or an EA sports game ( my personal fav is NHL 200x). The features, the speed of the game.
That was my biggest complaint about when the sony playstation came out... it took so dang long for the games to load! This brings to my attention a sort of trend...seems like the game consoles are becoming more and more like pcs, minus the keyboards. Wasn't it big news when one of them got linux installed on it?
These game consoles aren't going to kill PCs, they are becoming PCs.
In 20 years this won't seem like enough memory. We'll hardly be able to fit a single small sized Micro$oft Super Duper Word (or whatever they'll think of to call it by then...) file on one.
It definitely does depend on the business. I work technical support for a DSL ISP. There are some issues (No synch, no route, intermittent sync, etc.) that could not be conducted online, because the customer cannot connect to the internet! Obviously it is convenient to get tech support online, but it will never completely replace telephone support. I hate having to call tech support centers...and I even work for one!
BTW, if you do find yourself speaking with a tech support rep and they have done a wonderful job answering your questions or dealing with their problem, consider asking for their supervisor to tell them what a good employee they are. This will only encourage better service in the future. Kinda like tipping a waiter/waitress.
I went there specifically for this reason, but unfortuneately nobody seems to want to sell me anything. Perhaps they have been flooded with/.'ers?
I used to be a salesman, it sucks. But it has got to be 10 times harder to size a customer up and communicate solely through text messages. Then again...the sales company usually give you the exact words they want you to say, so it could be as easy as cutting and pasting to speak with a customer.
Exactly...from what i understand, here is what happens:
The AFA (America Family Association) sends hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of letters to the FCC. From what I hear, they actually pay people to write multiple letters complaining about Howard Stern or Janet Jackson, or whatever else they can think of.
So the resulting effect is that the FCC is flooded with hundreds of thousands of letters, but NOT hundreds of thousands of people. That's like giving people as many votes as they want.
It's time to wake up and realize that a minority of people are upset, but they are acting like they are the majority!
That is one of the biggest problems with the FCC (nevermind that we question their ability to regulate speech): they are causing a big stir, but they do not have any clearly defined guidelines. There is literally no way of knowing what may be considered 'indecent.'
Here's a question though...where the funds from these proposed half a million dollar fines go to?
Here's the great thing about the FCC. They are swayed by the volume of complaints that arrive in their mailbox. Nevermind that many of them come from the same organization, or the same people week after week.
It isn't the counting that's the problem. And sure there are a hundred algorithm's out there to break down on human error...but let's be realistic, the people who count are volunteers. Somebody is going to make a mistake. I'm not saying that it will change an election...but then again, who knows?
I like the idea of people staying around and watching the volunteers counting the votes. That would certainly make me want to make sure that I didn't botch something up!
I can just see the poor volunteer that didn't quite get something right walking out the door to go home: "Hey guys...what are the baseball bats for?? I didn't bring my baseball glove..."
Slashdot Mirror
81 wpm adjusted (83 raw) with 97% accuracy.
but i used to do data entry, and quite frankly, if i were still doing data entry, I'd be embarrased by my low accuracy.
dah, well!
So if several hundred physicists all conclude that the atomic weight of helium is 4.1 (it is actually 4.0026 as far as we can tell), we accept that, right?
Ok, no argument there... but does the fact that several hundred people (even if they are experts) all get the same answer necessarily mean that it is correct?
That is the difference between mathematics and science. Science is centered around observation. And while observation can be extremely accurate, it still contains some amount of inaccuracy.
Ok, so mathematics isn't perfect either... we have to start with basic assumptions. But once we set down some elementary rules everything that we conclude from there on is required to be logically correct. Certainly mathematicians have made mistakes over the years, but that is just the reason that we must criticize each other's work as severely as we are capable.
Ultimately, I believe this discussion returns to philosophy, especially that of modern and postmodern subjects. How do we really know anything? Do we even know that we exist? (Hey, thank Descartes for that question!)
Anyhow, I find myself tired of that whole debate. Maybe we should just stick to the motto, don't trust anyone (anything?), not even your motherboard.
This idea seems like it might work... but what happens when we have verified the comptuers answers up to our limit of ability? We will never know when the computer has pushed past its own limit.
An example on the simple level is that if you only assign a variable as an integer in C, then it is limited as to the accuracy of calculations your program can make with that specific variable. Whereas, if you use a double float, it is a far more useful variable. Yet, it still has its limits to where at some point it will round off a variable.
If we aren't sure at what point the computer has pushed its limits, then we have no way of knowing how much we can trust it!
"For a famous example, it would provide a great deal of peace of mind if we could prove that P != NP."
Well, P == NP for N = 1.
That's the beauty of a counter example.
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
What about 'unknown knowns?' That is to say, the things we should know, but we forgot somewhere along the way?
This was my initial thought as well. (Aren't you glad I read to be able to reply to your post instead of starting a thread of my own??)
Anyway, here's another thought: Is this increase in the number of alerts really representative of more viruses? Or is this company trying to look like it has "improved" or that it is doing better? The article says that there are a lot of variants... perhaps variants weren't issued their own warning in the past? It does seem pretty strange that the number of virus warnings held steady from 2001-2003 and then suddenly spiked in 2004. What major breakthrough has occurred since last year that makes it easier for virus programmers to communicate and share code???
Just a thought.
So can I patent the number 7? It's a good number. Plus, how many people can really avoid using it? Sure, you could represent it in different ways... 4+3, 2+5, 1+6, .0001+6.9999....
but that would get old quickly. And just think about how many times it is used!!
Besides which, I'm pretty sure that nobody else has patented the number 7 yet.
What about the English language? Anybody have a patent on that? I can just see it:
"Excuse me Mr. Director... you can't direct this movie in English unless you pay me first."
Let's get real. This is completely silly.
This is starting to sound like a risk game wherein you allow it within the rules to create treaties (contracts) and then when it's right at that good moment, one of the players breaks all his treaties and takes everyone elses land (business).
That isn't cool. Not even one little bit.
If I remember correctly, (it's been a while since I've seen the movie) the "christ-figure" was not actually a religious leader, but was assumed to be a "christ" by to general populace.
I don't think this is really heretical, but rather an illustation of how easily people will believe anything religious teachers will tell them, and even some things they don't tell them!
I went to a baptist school...
I didn't realize this. Perhaps the writer of the article did not either. Thanks for the info!
Though this makes me wonder...are we hyping this story for no reason?? Seems then like Go might not have failed because of Microsoft. After all, what was M$ SUPPOSED to do? Help the competition?! This is business. You want the consumer to buy your product, not the other guys!
and yes, i might have changed my mind... but who knows, it may change back in the future!
There are plenty of products on the market that prove that consumers do not act logically. Why else would people pay hundreds of dollars for a stuffed animal (a.k.a. beanie baby)???
Or why do people trade most of their tax return in order to get credit to lease a car, that they will wind up paying wayyy more than what it is worth.
Heck, I don't even make logical economical decisions all the time. Besides which, this offers the opportunity to go out and see it in the theatre... a potential good time with all your friends.
anyway, point being... consumers aren't always logical.
"In late 1993, Go was sold to AT&T where it was ultimately merged into the company's portable computer subsidiary. In 1994 the phone company shut down the effort in portable computing. Three months later Microsoft canceled its PenWindows project"
As if this doesn't make it obvious what M$ was doing! They were only in the game to keep somebody else from innovating new technology. As soon as a potential competitor closed down, they stopped attempting to "provide a better solution for the customer." What a bunch of hooey!
thanks for the explanations guys...it makes a little bit more sense. I appreciate you taking time to answer my novice questions.
:-)
:-)
After all, I'm only a statistician!
"Heavier gasses -- CO2, for example -- require more energy to get up to escape velocity. They statistically hang around longer."
I just wonder if they fit a normal distribution!!
But where did the water go? Did it just evaporate? I guess without an atmosphere to create rain and return the moisture back to the earth, it would just dissipate. So how did it get there in the first place?
I'm not an astronaut (obviously) and I don't know too too much about space, but it seems a little mysterious to say that water was there before but isn't now.
Before I get a puddle analogy, I'm thinking of large amounts of water, not just rain puddles.
This is definitely true...I enjoy playing games on my snes emulator. It takes me back to another time and place. Sometimes I even prefer to play a game of NBA jam or Troy Aikman football, or whatever have you than to play more current games. But you just cannot compare with the excitement of playing a new Battlefield of Ghost Recon, or an EA sports game ( my personal fav is NHL 200x). The features, the speed of the game.
That was my biggest complaint about when the sony playstation came out... it took so dang long for the games to load! This brings to my attention a sort of trend...seems like the game consoles are becoming more and more like pcs, minus the keyboards. Wasn't it big news when one of them got linux installed on it?
These game consoles aren't going to kill PCs, they are becoming PCs.
In 20 years this won't seem like enough memory. We'll hardly be able to fit a single small sized Micro$oft Super Duper Word (or whatever they'll think of to call it by then...) file on one.
Three cheers for technology. Hip Hip Hooray!!!
It definitely does depend on the business. I work technical support for a DSL ISP. There are some issues (No synch, no route, intermittent sync, etc.) that could not be conducted online, because the customer cannot connect to the internet! Obviously it is convenient to get tech support online, but it will never completely replace telephone support. I hate having to call tech support centers...and I even work for one!
BTW, if you do find yourself speaking with a tech support rep and they have done a wonderful job answering your questions or dealing with their problem, consider asking for their supervisor to tell them what a good employee they are. This will only encourage better service in the future. Kinda like tipping a waiter/waitress.
I went there specifically for this reason, but unfortuneately nobody seems to want to sell me anything. Perhaps they have been flooded with /.'ers?
I used to be a salesman, it sucks. But it has got to be 10 times harder to size a customer up and communicate solely through text messages. Then again...the sales company usually give you the exact words they want you to say, so it could be as easy as cutting and pasting to speak with a customer.
Exactly...from what i understand, here is what happens:
The AFA (America Family Association) sends hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of letters to the FCC. From what I hear, they actually pay people to write multiple letters complaining about Howard Stern or Janet Jackson, or whatever else they can think of.
So the resulting effect is that the FCC is flooded with hundreds of thousands of letters, but NOT hundreds of thousands of people. That's like giving people as many votes as they want.
It's time to wake up and realize that a minority of people are upset, but they are acting like they are the majority!
That is one of the biggest problems with the FCC (nevermind that we question their ability to regulate speech): they are causing a big stir, but they do not have any clearly defined guidelines. There is literally no way of knowing what may be considered 'indecent.'
Here's a question though...where the funds from these proposed half a million dollar fines go to?
there are too many posts here to read them all.
Here's the great thing about the FCC. They are swayed by the volume of complaints that arrive in their mailbox. Nevermind that many of them come from the same organization, or the same people week after week.
It's worse that the e-voting issues!!
refer to posts further up the page. we had a nice little discussion about it, and somebody found the actual quotes of some of the laws.
:-)
are we sick or what?
The coins would certainly be "unfit for reissue" but the line "with *intent* to render...." is a little bit vague.
I'm sure these guys were making every effort to shrink the money without rendering them 'unfit for reissue.' So that makes it legit right?
(laugh its funny)
It isn't the counting that's the problem. And sure there are a hundred algorithm's out there to break down on human error...but let's be realistic, the people who count are volunteers. Somebody is going to make a mistake. I'm not saying that it will change an election...but then again, who knows? I like the idea of people staying around and watching the volunteers counting the votes. That would certainly make me want to make sure that I didn't botch something up! I can just see the poor volunteer that didn't quite get something right walking out the door to go home: "Hey guys...what are the baseball bats for?? I didn't bring my baseball glove..."
/. is double-plus good