Ideas are patented, but actual research is still hidden until it's profitable. Even then the research is not 100% made public. Compare this to the RFC style progression of research in which people had no reservations about participating.
Indeed. Back in the day Science and math was shared freely through notes and letters among intellectuals. The scientists of that era actually achieved their potentials for the most part.
In our time, we have much better ways to communicate, yet our abilities are stifled far below maximum potential because of what appears to be petty reasons
Gaming is one of the last things keeping people from switching to Linux entirely. Once the Linux gaming scene picks up steam (pun intended), "those in the know" will have no reason to retain an installation of Windows. The increase in user base will spur further development in the areas of Linux that are inferior to Windows at the moment.
I think you and I agree. My point is there's a lot of people out there who consider coding to be what you listed - basic app development/high level API calls. That's all fine and good, but that's far from what we consider to be a fully trained computer scientist.
I hope you're being sarcastic, because your parent post isn't. Regular exercise has been shown to be important for many mental functions. Sitting around coding all day will probably make your brain duller than engaging in sports will.
This is somewhat of a sad reminder of the position CS departments are in. You are employed as a coder. Great. A significant percentage of CS grads are "coders" as well, but coding doesn't require more than an intro or two's worth of classes and a bit of experience to teach. The bigger portion of computer science goes into more advanced topics - networking, software engineering, UI, graphics, graph theory, algorithms, compilers, NLP, etc. - that you wouldn't really need for coding, but the knowledge of which is required to really understand what a computer is and does, why it does it, and how you can better use it.
Can someone explain this to me? Google doesn't seem to help much. What does it refer to and what physical properties are involved in its occurrence? Thanks
Were you refuting my statement or adding justification to your original estimate?
I agree with your conclusion that building a table is not the correct way to go about this, but if you're going to explain the reason why not, you should be more accurate
Your second estimate is also inaccurate in that it is smaller than the domain size. There are primes greater than 2^384 that are factors of composites less than 2^768.
The difference between the two estimates, though, is only a factor of about 2^16, so basically the true size of the domain is somewhere between 2^752 and 2^768. Neither of those figures are conducive to storage, so yes, your conclusion is correct.
P.S. Your discussion of storage size also clouds the issue needlessly;-)
Not exactly true, though the conclusion is almost correct. The problem is that the domain is not 2^768 large. Not all numbers 768 bits long are products of two primes.
Part of the startup time problem is that there's no multi-tasking. The app has to write all the stateful information to primary storage and then later load it on startup to give the appearance that it's multi-tasked. I bet if Apple allowed multitasking, many apps would load significantly faster (not that I advocate that, because the battery drains quickly enough as it is).
The iPhone camera is actually very decent. Although no DSLR, sometimes I rather take pictures with the phone than my normal point and shoot even when I'm carrying it. So if the capabilities of the camera were enhanced I would absolutely notice and appreciate it.
Hopefully nothing in the spirit of this law ever gets passed, but to entertain the question, port blocking has been obsolete for some times now. It's a huge annoyance, but there are always ways to get around it.
I am aware of the difference. I don't dispute that, though I do think the media here heavily exaggerates the extent of the difference.
I probably wasn't clear - I'm saying your claim is thin, not that your argument or rhetoric at arriving at the conclusion is weak. I'm saying that egocentricism is not hugely detrimental, which is what you are claiming (right?). Your claim is that national criticism is sometimes beneficial so disallowing such sentiments in public in favor of the greater harmony might not be the most beneficial policy. The "thinness" I'm getting at is that this is very removed from reality. It could just as well be true that the apparent harmony of society is more beneficial. You see how the degree of importance of your claim is pretty small?
Most people use the civil liberties perspective to argue against censorship. That claim I buy. Yours I don't.
Also: you seem to think the minds in China are somehow completely brainwashed and incapable of higher thinking. Egocentric thinking is only one aspect of critical thinking. How does limiting it in this one small way somehow break the mind as a whole?
Don't you think that's a weak claim? Prioritizing critical introspection is certainly nice, but not always necessary. The fact of the matter is, it hasn't been needed to a high degree so far. Their government isn't as rigid or unyielding as we might be led to believe; it will adapt when it makes sense to.
In addition, the philistines in America are every bit as egocentric as their analogues in China. And the literati in China are every bit as introspective as their analogues here, though the public face of the nation is not as accepting of that when the introspection threatens safety and order.
The final point: you are throwing around the blanket phrase "critical thinking". You appear to be confounding it with non-egocentric thinking. Though this doesn't weaken your argument, I think this point exposes the "thin-ness" of your claim.
Historically who hasn't been primarily concerned with their own welfare more than the welfare of others? Only the top few spots have the luxury of worrying about others. Before humans were the top of the food chain, we didn't care at all about animal rights. This is hardly a valid criticism - whatever nation has sufficiently taken care of itself will spread their attention wider.
You've actually made some pretty loaded comments. Let's first ignore your assumptions about Chinese youth being made brainless by their media based on what you see in your media.
From my understanding, your main point is that China will need to have more open and engaging policies in order to sustain itself in the global economic and political arena. Though this sounds good in theory, you haven't provided any evidence why this should be true. All prior experience suggests they are doing fine and are rising to the challenge of managing policies in a non-open spirit. Economically the size of the population has proven to be a major growth factor; there's no indications of that approaching a limit yet (not just for China).
It's easy to be dismissive, but it's much more useful to employ some of the critical thinking you touted.
The following comment I'm going to make as someone who's had no experience dealing with publishers or publishing books. But anyway my theory is that to achieve what the author wanted to achieve, he doesn't actually have to offer the free ebook. There's other ways to do it.
There's a couple of reasons people would want an ebook:
They want a reference copy to easily, digitally search through
They don't like wasting paper / don't want to pay for full printed copy
Reference copy is easily distributed along with the printed copy (you pay for the book you get access online). And publishers can offer a separate, cheaper price point for just the ebook.
There's a couple of reasons readers might buy the printed copy after having a free ebooks:
They were reading the free copy to get a feel for what the book is to decide whether to buy the actual work.
They want a hard copy to read in their hands rather than on some kind of screen.
If they wanted just a summary, the ebook doesn't have to be a complete copy. It could be like what amazon or google offers, which is a preview of the style of writing, the depth of content, and the table of contents. For most people this should give a sufficient idea whether they want the full book or not.
If they wanted a hard copy, they should just buy that to begin with instead of downloading an ebook and then buying the hard copy. This overlaps with one of my reasons above.
So in conclusion, a similar outcome can be achieved by:
Offering different packages - $30 hard copy, $15 digital copy, or $40 hard + digital copy.
Allowing previews of the book siilar in style to Amazon's preview or Google Books preview.
with concerns about security and service outages, such as those suffered by Gmail in recent months
They better be able to offer guarantees stronger than Google's. I'm not sure what Gmail's Premier outage guarantees are, but for a new-comer to offer better would be surprising.
Also, $36 vs $50. $14 a year difference hardly justifies any potential UI frustration or maturity of product problems this may have.
It's a really fun game to play using their formats but without official sanctions. Because then, it's free as long as you have a venue. Also sometimes you like to play T1 without thousands of dollars on hand. Well, proxies are really handy for that, as long as your friends are fine with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideas are patented, but actual research is still hidden until it's profitable. Even then the research is not 100% made public. Compare this to the RFC style progression of research in which people had no reservations about participating.
In those cases the reasons are all personal, whereas now the hiding and protecting of research seems codified into our society.
Indeed. Back in the day Science and math was shared freely through notes and letters among intellectuals. The scientists of that era actually achieved their potentials for the most part.
In our time, we have much better ways to communicate, yet our abilities are stifled far below maximum potential because of what appears to be petty reasons
You know people stopped caring about privacy when even spies put their details on Facebook.
Gaming is one of the last things keeping people from switching to Linux entirely. Once the Linux gaming scene picks up steam (pun intended), "those in the know" will have no reason to retain an installation of Windows. The increase in user base will spur further development in the areas of Linux that are inferior to Windows at the moment.
I think you and I agree. My point is there's a lot of people out there who consider coding to be what you listed - basic app development/high level API calls. That's all fine and good, but that's far from what we consider to be a fully trained computer scientist.
I hope you're being sarcastic, because your parent post isn't. Regular exercise has been shown to be important for many mental functions. Sitting around coding all day will probably make your brain duller than engaging in sports will.
This is somewhat of a sad reminder of the position CS departments are in. You are employed as a coder. Great. A significant percentage of CS grads are "coders" as well, but coding doesn't require more than an intro or two's worth of classes and a bit of experience to teach. The bigger portion of computer science goes into more advanced topics - networking, software engineering, UI, graphics, graph theory, algorithms, compilers, NLP, etc. - that you wouldn't really need for coding, but the knowledge of which is required to really understand what a computer is and does, why it does it, and how you can better use it.
countless corrections later... it's a she, not a he.
You missed his point. He is relating the Google defense in this story to a potential Windows defense in theory.
Can someone explain this to me? Google doesn't seem to help much. What does it refer to and what physical properties are involved in its occurrence? Thanks
Were you refuting my statement or adding justification to your original estimate?
I agree with your conclusion that building a table is not the correct way to go about this, but if you're going to explain the reason why not, you should be more accurate
Your second estimate is also inaccurate in that it is smaller than the domain size. There are primes greater than 2^384 that are factors of composites less than 2^768.
The difference between the two estimates, though, is only a factor of about 2^16, so basically the true size of the domain is somewhere between 2^752 and 2^768. Neither of those figures are conducive to storage, so yes, your conclusion is correct.
P.S. Your discussion of storage size also clouds the issue needlessly ;-)
Not exactly true, though the conclusion is almost correct. The problem is that the domain is not 2^768 large. Not all numbers 768 bits long are products of two primes.
Just a couple of points:
50-fold?
None of the major five browsers include ad blocker.
Hopefully nothing in the spirit of this law ever gets passed, but to entertain the question, port blocking has been obsolete for some times now. It's a huge annoyance, but there are always ways to get around it.
I am aware of the difference. I don't dispute that, though I do think the media here heavily exaggerates the extent of the difference.
I probably wasn't clear - I'm saying your claim is thin, not that your argument or rhetoric at arriving at the conclusion is weak. I'm saying that egocentricism is not hugely detrimental, which is what you are claiming (right?). Your claim is that national criticism is sometimes beneficial so disallowing such sentiments in public in favor of the greater harmony might not be the most beneficial policy. The "thinness" I'm getting at is that this is very removed from reality. It could just as well be true that the apparent harmony of society is more beneficial. You see how the degree of importance of your claim is pretty small?
Most people use the civil liberties perspective to argue against censorship. That claim I buy. Yours I don't.
Also: you seem to think the minds in China are somehow completely brainwashed and incapable of higher thinking. Egocentric thinking is only one aspect of critical thinking. How does limiting it in this one small way somehow break the mind as a whole?
Don't you think that's a weak claim? Prioritizing critical introspection is certainly nice, but not always necessary. The fact of the matter is, it hasn't been needed to a high degree so far. Their government isn't as rigid or unyielding as we might be led to believe; it will adapt when it makes sense to.
In addition, the philistines in America are every bit as egocentric as their analogues in China. And the literati in China are every bit as introspective as their analogues here, though the public face of the nation is not as accepting of that when the introspection threatens safety and order.
The final point: you are throwing around the blanket phrase "critical thinking". You appear to be confounding it with non-egocentric thinking. Though this doesn't weaken your argument, I think this point exposes the "thin-ness" of your claim.
Historically who hasn't been primarily concerned with their own welfare more than the welfare of others? Only the top few spots have the luxury of worrying about others. Before humans were the top of the food chain, we didn't care at all about animal rights. This is hardly a valid criticism - whatever nation has sufficiently taken care of itself will spread their attention wider.
You've actually made some pretty loaded comments. Let's first ignore your assumptions about Chinese youth being made brainless by their media based on what you see in your media.
From my understanding, your main point is that China will need to have more open and engaging policies in order to sustain itself in the global economic and political arena. Though this sounds good in theory, you haven't provided any evidence why this should be true. All prior experience suggests they are doing fine and are rising to the challenge of managing policies in a non-open spirit. Economically the size of the population has proven to be a major growth factor; there's no indications of that approaching a limit yet (not just for China).
It's easy to be dismissive, but it's much more useful to employ some of the critical thinking you touted.
The following comment I'm going to make as someone who's had no experience dealing with publishers or publishing books. But anyway my theory is that to achieve what the author wanted to achieve, he doesn't actually have to offer the free ebook. There's other ways to do it.
There's a couple of reasons people would want an ebook:
Reference copy is easily distributed along with the printed copy (you pay for the book you get access online). And publishers can offer a separate, cheaper price point for just the ebook.
There's a couple of reasons readers might buy the printed copy after having a free ebooks:
If they wanted just a summary, the ebook doesn't have to be a complete copy. It could be like what amazon or google offers, which is a preview of the style of writing, the depth of content, and the table of contents. For most people this should give a sufficient idea whether they want the full book or not.
If they wanted a hard copy, they should just buy that to begin with instead of downloading an ebook and then buying the hard copy. This overlaps with one of my reasons above.
So in conclusion, a similar outcome can be achieved by:
with concerns about security and service outages, such as those suffered by Gmail in recent months
They better be able to offer guarantees stronger than Google's. I'm not sure what Gmail's Premier outage guarantees are, but for a new-comer to offer better would be surprising.
Also, $36 vs $50. $14 a year difference hardly justifies any potential UI frustration or maturity of product problems this may have.
I'm not buying your product with money. I'm only letting you pawn if off on me. Give me my money back. Term's up!
It's a really fun game to play using their formats but without official sanctions. Because then, it's free as long as you have a venue. Also sometimes you like to play T1 without thousands of dollars on hand. Well, proxies are really handy for that, as long as your friends are fine with it.