- Mac Users are better looking - Mac Users are more attractive to whichever sex they prefer - Mac Users live longer - Mac Users are better humans - Mac Users will rule
WTF are these guys doing with this thing? They use it like a toy. Nothing of value has come of it that I've read about. I know research takes time, but they're just data collecting. What distinguishes this collider from any other collider in the world?
for one thing the increased luminosity
What do they get from building this machine that they wouldn't from another one?
increased luminosity, jobs, data to publish
I know this one is bigger... Does that mean more resolution?
just bigger, the particles are more tired when they hit each other so the collapse more easily, as we all know collapsing particles means more *science*
You got it all wrong. The idea was to offer free iXXX to Osama & friends and then use the new iCatchYou app to finish them off. Now the cat's out of the bag and they have to go back to the drawing board.
*** NEWS *** Exciting development, IE drops windows support. Bill Gates announced that IE11 will only support Ubuntu. "It was a hard decision to make but we feel confident that we are doing all windows customers a favor." Reactions from Ubuntu users are mixed but mostly utterly desinterested. More details in the news at 10.
profit. Replacing old reactors too 'early' reduces profits. The same way that improving security is more expensive than hoping for heroes when you need them.
I admire these guys especially since I suspect that they may well be aware that some of there sacrifices were only made necessary by the bastards in management.
Just like the Tokaimura incident a few years back and some 100km to the south which was clearly the managements fault (workers were not told that it may be less than ideal to transport radioactive liquids in buckets).
Should I get used to the fact that Slashdot headlines are often misleading? Is this done on purpose or is just out of pure ignorance?
You are mistaken. The headlines exactly represent what the respective submitter / editor understands. This may sometimes cause misleadinging headlines for esoteric topics like Qt.
There is a school which believes that Slashdot is ruled by believers in the ancient american god mammon. They are said to sacrifice journalistic integrity/accuracy thrice a week in the belief that controversy increases the numbers of click-on-aders formerly known as readers. But this explanation is very far fetched I think.
Where would the BSD distros fit into this? Or how about OpenSolarinux (sic)?
Not being linux, they don't.
Damn it. I tried to come up with a good name for an Debian/GNU/kOpenSolaris distribution and all I get is a damned "sic"? Also, what about Debian/GNU/kFreeBSD?
The Guido Speedo swimsuit issue was quite popular in the python community in the late 90s. Reissuing it may be possible. (There may be too much white space around the bellys though).
The blog post is not really horribly flawed it is simply completely clueless.
"And, actually, I think the benefits to humanity would be enormous. The most likely immediate effects would be in improvements in computing/operating system efficiency. fast computers for less money and/or less energy consumption would be a huge benefit. From that alone many other benefits will flow in terms of information availability and universality."
One of the technical highlights:
"These problems can also be solved (computed) in polynomial time – ie a finite time – and they can also be computed by a Turing machine (a simple model of a computer) and so an algorithmic solution exists. It is just that one cannot tell what that algorithm is."
I believe it is likely that some abandoned AI-program wrote that blog post.
1) Math is not science. 2) Everyone with some brains (Zombies etc) knows this is false but as Goedel showed there is no margin big enough to contain a proof of the falsehood of your statement.
To summarize: 1) scientific theory = wild guess which may or may not be true but should be decidable by observation (add your favorite finiteness assumptions here e.g. half-life of protons)
2) mathematical theory = a beautiful work of art (= a bunch of axioms) which may be formalized in some boring (usually finitary) system which then allows you to 'formally' prove (or fail to prove) various statements such as NP=P
Hence after this lucid exposition I proved that you gave us a statement in a theory (complexity theory) while the adults here are discussing a scientific theory = wild guess with some connection to reality
I'd say it is pretty obvious. Hasn't your experience with Laptops told you anything? The older the electron gets the lower its charge. Once we get all the current electrons replaced by new iElectrons (TM) all should be well again.
Do you mean that you have a simple proof that the number of '0' digits in the decimal expansion of PI is unbounded. Please post it if your margin is big enough.
If you are not going to read the article why bother posting? You have no knowledge of the facts, so stop masturbating in public.
Moron.
Am I correct in assuming that those which do have knowledge of the facts, are permitted to masturbate in public? If this is indeed the case please tell which facts I am required to have knowledge of. My interest is of course purely academic.
>I must admit I didn't know of any way to speak of convergence without the notion of a >metric. How is that possible? >>For even more general topological spaces you need the concept of a net
>More general than what? And do you mean we need the "net" to replace the sequence? If you >say so I'll believe you. However, one must still be able to define a sequence (a function >from "the set of all natural numbers" to "the topological space in question"), since it >doesn't really require much of the space, right?
WRONG. For most spaces considered by general topologists, convergence induced by sequences is not sufficient to describe the topology.
Nets are essentially images of directed sets (for any two elements there exists an element larger than both). Sequences are images of the natural numbers which are linearly ordered and therefore directed. To describe general convergence countable directed sets are not enough. You cannot bound the size of the directed sets you need. Think of the set X of all ordinals below a given ordinal alpha in the topology induced by the order. To show that X converges to alpha you need nets of cardinality |alpha|.
An alternative to nets are filters (nonempty upward closed sets of subsets of the space which are closed under intersections, for example, the set of all neighborhoods of a point). They have the advantage that they could also be used for locales (also called pointless spaces or pointfree spaces (the PC version of pointless spaces)).
If you understand those you are allowed to study topos theory from a topological point of view. Of course by then noone will be interested in you research.
- A frustrated mathematician
(We need more maths on Slashdot!) Yes then we can have filters vs nets flamewars.
Slashdot Mirror
Further details from the report (funded by Apple)
- Mac Users are better looking
- Mac Users are more attractive to whichever sex they prefer
- Mac Users live longer
- Mac Users are better humans
- Mac Users will rule
WTF are these guys doing with this thing? They use it like a toy. Nothing of value has come of it that I've read about. I know research takes time, but they're just data collecting. What distinguishes this collider from any other collider in the world?
for one thing the increased luminosity
What do they get from building this machine that they wouldn't from another one?
increased luminosity, jobs, data to publish
I know this one is bigger... Does that mean more resolution?
just bigger, the particles are more tired when they hit each other so the collapse more easily,
as we all know collapsing particles means more *science*
Was the extra resolution necessary?
yes, probably, perhaps, uhh ...
You got it all wrong. The idea was to offer free iXXX to Osama & friends and then use the new iCatchYou app to finish them off. Now the cat's out of the bag and they have to go back to the drawing board.
*** NEWS ***
Exciting development, IE drops windows support. Bill Gates announced that IE11 will only support Ubuntu.
"It was a hard decision to make but we feel confident that we are doing all windows customers a favor."
Reactions from Ubuntu users are mixed but mostly utterly desinterested. More details in the news at 10.
So what would be the right way?
profit. Replacing old reactors too 'early' reduces profits. The same way that improving
security is more expensive than hoping for heroes when you need them.
I admire these guys especially since I suspect that they may well be aware that some of
there sacrifices were only made necessary by the bastards in management.
Just like the Tokaimura incident a few years back and some 100km to the south which
was clearly the managements fault (workers were not told that it may be less than ideal
to transport radioactive liquids in buckets).
It was scheduled to be taken offline this month.
Should I get used to the fact that Slashdot headlines are often misleading? Is this done on purpose or is just out of pure ignorance?
You are mistaken. The headlines exactly represent what the respective submitter / editor understands.
This may sometimes cause misleadinging headlines for esoteric topics like Qt.
There is a school which believes that Slashdot is ruled by believers in the ancient american god mammon.
They are said to sacrifice journalistic integrity/accuracy thrice a week in the belief that controversy increases
the numbers of click-on-aders formerly known as readers. But this explanation is very far fetched I think.
The discussion here once again suggests the slashdot reciprocity law.
I * N = const
where I is the importance I of a topic and N the number of comments
There is a small minority which believes the correct statements is
I * N^x = const where x is somewhere between 36.462159607207902 and 42
Until today I favoured the first version. Today I switched.
wmii has this feature for a long time already.
Not being linux, they don't.
Damn it. I tried to come up with a good name for an Debian/GNU/kOpenSolaris distribution and all I get is a damned "sic"? Also, what about Debian/GNU/kFreeBSD?
Where would the BSD distros fit into this? Or how about OpenSolarinux?
The Guido Speedo swimsuit issue was quite popular in the python community
in the late 90s. Reissuing it may be possible. (There may be too much white
space around the bellys though).
The blog post is not really horribly flawed it is simply completely clueless.
"And, actually, I think the benefits to humanity would be enormous. The most likely immediate effects would be in improvements in computing/operating system efficiency. fast computers for less money and/or less energy consumption would be a huge benefit. From that alone many other benefits will flow in terms of information availability and universality."
One of the technical highlights:
"These problems can also be solved (computed) in polynomial time – ie a finite time – and they can also be computed by a Turing machine (a simple model of a computer) and so an algorithmic solution exists. It is just that one cannot tell what that algorithm is."
I believe it is likely that some abandoned AI-program wrote that blog post.
1) Math is not science.
2) Everyone with some brains (Zombies etc) knows this is false but as Goedel showed there is no margin big enough to contain a proof of the falsehood of your statement.
To summarize:
1) scientific theory = wild guess which may or may not be true but should be decidable by observation (add your favorite finiteness assumptions here e.g. half-life of protons)
2) mathematical theory = a beautiful work of art (= a bunch of axioms) which may be formalized in some boring (usually finitary) system which then allows you to 'formally' prove (or fail to prove) various statements such as NP=P
Hence after this lucid exposition I proved that you gave us a statement in a theory (complexity theory) while the adults here are discussing a scientific theory = wild guess with some connection to reality
>>> "Bible 2: Holier Than Thou".
At least use "Bible 2.0". Me thinks you are not a manager material.
I'd say it is pretty obvious. Hasn't your experience with
Laptops told you anything? The older the electron gets the
lower its charge. Once we get all the current electrons
replaced by new iElectrons (TM) all should be well again.
Do you mean that you have a simple proof that the number of '0' digits
in the decimal expansion of PI is unbounded. Please post it if your
margin is big enough.
I am disappointed. I expected this topic a few hours earlier.
Am I correct in assuming that those which do have knowledge of the facts, are permitted to masturbate in
public? If this is indeed the case please tell which facts I am required to have knowledge of. My interest
is of course purely academic.
>I must admit I didn't know of any way to speak of convergence without the notion of a >metric. How is that possible?
>>For even more general topological spaces you need the concept of a net
>More general than what? And do you mean we need the "net" to replace the sequence? If you >say so I'll believe you. However, one must still be able to define a sequence (a function >from "the set of all natural numbers" to "the topological space in question"), since it >doesn't really require much of the space, right?
WRONG. For most spaces considered by general topologists, convergence induced by sequences
is not sufficient to describe the topology.
Nets are essentially images of directed sets (for any two elements there exists an element larger than both). Sequences are images of the natural numbers which are linearly ordered and therefore directed. To describe general convergence countable directed sets are not enough. You cannot bound the size of the directed sets you need. Think of the set X of all ordinals below a given ordinal alpha in the topology induced by the order. To show that X converges to alpha you need nets of cardinality |alpha|.
An alternative to nets are filters (nonempty upward closed sets of subsets of the space which are closed under intersections, for example, the set of all neighborhoods of a point). They have the advantage that they could also be used for locales (also called pointless spaces or pointfree spaces (the PC version of pointless spaces)).
If you understand those you are allowed to study topos theory from a topological point of
view. Of course by then noone will be interested in you research.
- A frustrated mathematician
(We need more maths on Slashdot!)
Yes then we can have filters vs nets flamewars.
Thanks guys. I had already given up on /. /.kind.
But this article culminating in Be+Ar- restored my faith
in
I would like to nominate the parent for the
MOST-LETHAL-COMMENT-OF-THE-YEAR AWARD.
It ruined my laptop and my lungs.
that's why I am using python rather than ruby or perl
Not bad. But I think the logo is also a no-no in the US.
It would be dreadful if kids could see the first E penetrating the second.
see also
sledit, v. To careLesly stuble.