Let's apply some lateral thinking (per deBono) - what the uninformed call "thinking outside of the box".
In essence: "Remove your assumptions and the answer will become clear."
So what are you assuming? 1) he typed both of them in quick succession? (no copy|paste?) 2) he got early access to post his review 2a) via a subscription; 2b) certain types of postings; e.g. longer things such as reviews might be privileged to post earlier.
Now...if we remove those assumptions, what do yo think the solution(s) is|are? (there could be more than one)
But you are changing the rules:
Match, cake of soap. What you are doing is no longer a match or a cake of soap. That would be "a cake of soap treated with liquid nitrogen". Were someone to ask you how you did it and you said, "Just a match and a cake of soap." what you are proposing would be lying by omission.
I gave up on this a long time ago when the plot lines were about as firm as a wet piece of toilet paper. I can only imagine how much they'll charge for DVDs and how soon it'll be on in syndication.
At least it was better than DS9. That was enough to make even hardcore fans swear off Star Trek altogether.
This story is extremely similar to one posted within the previous 6-7 weeks. Someone's fallen asleep at the wheel.
They aren't using the patent to protect innovation. They're using it to cut Linux off from MS Office. Within MS Office, you write files to disc in XML format. You use OpenOffice to read it make changes, etc. but you can't go back to MS Office - and that's what they want to happen: start making interchanges between MS software and Linux a one way ticket. This isn't such a big deal for smaller groups ready to flip the switch over the weekend, but if you're talking about several hundred (or thousand) users, you're not going to have some on MS Office and others on OpenOffice when they can't share the files.
I've posted this message several times before (other usernames if someone decides to see if I did) and I'm certain others have at least hinted at it. You can cross the bridge to OpenOffice but you'll have to burn the bridge behind you.
Microsoft did this intentionally and most people didn't notice it at the time.
Here's another article talking about Microsoft's Office patents:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/23 23237&tid=155
Here's a quick test of the new standard to verify whether it can be cracked or not.
Good luck and may the best man|woman win!
a9;ERT.d0 07! @WQ#6 689 asdf8 @(*&@(*^@ dfj#))(JZZNS
What you're saying seems to make sense on the surface. Sit down with the decision makers of a few newspapers - again, not the big boys - and you'll find out they are worried enough certain parts of their bodies pucker & unpucker on a regular basis about their ability to stay in business over the long haul.
There are a bunch of companies making good money out of creating templates to create online news systems and training the staff but hosting on their own servers with a good cut of the advertising. A lot of of them do good work - they're formerly newspaper (only) paper who came up through the ranks, are newspaper people first and foremost, and want to see online newspapers succeed.
And once again, the biggest danger are the people who can't code or code to scale their way out of a paper bag. People seem to think because they like doing it and they can kind of get things to work they are good at it. If you had a room full of people and said, "all of those who consider themselves to be good coders, go to this side. The rest of you go to the other side." Which side do you think would be empty?
the moral of the story? You don't have to be good, just good enough."
(yes, that's my quote so remember where you heard it)
(this is a truism for the technology industry in general)
Not every source will do so unless they want $$$ for people to read their online material. Some are doing that right now. see: Wall Street Journal. Sure, there's a free story here & there, but they want to restrict content to subscribers.
Papers which have less than the WSJ's stature pretty much know they are leaping from shrinking pond to shrinking pond. Paid readership is dropping....fast. And they don't have a solution. They know they have to have an online presence in order to compete against everyone else who knows they need to be online. And if they aren't online, most people aren't going to follow that newspaper.
The bottom line is those (readers) who are online will read online - in many cases moreso than hardcopy; especially if it's free. Those who aren't wired aren't in a number big enough to keep the paper in business across the long haul.
I have a silly question:
what are "photo's"? (see main/. story)
I knew Erdos first-hand - spent a brief time while I was in high school - studying with him at Indiana University (Bloomington, Indiana) in the late 70s and with Douglas Hofstadter at roughly the same time.
Several years later, I was at a math conference (as premed) and he walked up to me and started talking about some of the things I'd proposed. The profs I was with almost wet their pants just because I knew him, let alone that he knew me or had interest in things I'd discussed with him years ago (in high school)
I suppose Evariste Galois was just some guy who flunked his entrance exams and was killed in a duel when he was 20? What would you have to say about Paul Erdos?
(snicker)
You're putting Linus in the same crowd as Einstein and claiming Ramanujan is "some grad student"?
Keep'em coming. I needed a good laugh. We'll see how long it takes for my ribs to hurt. You have a long way to go to top the time in college when we crumbled Gaines Burger dog food and put it into the salad bar, but with some work and a good mentor, you too, might be funny.
...for "The Genesis Machine" (James P. Hogan) to become a movie. The BIAC (Biological Interactive Computer) play directly into this.
Besides, it's a good book. And it's use of promoting iconoclasm (and winning) isn't bad, either.
As least permit those of us who have been around since the stone ages to continue to use what it was when we learned it to be: LISP. The same goes for PERL, APL, REXX, SNOBOL, BASIC, and COBOL.
This doesn't excuse those who make unfamiliar words upper() because they don't know what it means and presume it's an acronym (see: SCUD missles in the Gulf War - it's "scud").
I'm not sure which is worse, however: upper() or overusing the apostrophe to make everything plural or possessive: "PC's for sale" (why not "PCs for sale"?) "I like apple's and banana's". "who's is that?".
Lest those who think punctuation and spelling are not a big deal, research has been shown a lack of proficiency in these areas are a sign of disorganization - those who are capable of these skills tend to be more organized in their thinking.
I'd settle for better spelling and punctuation and overlook those who can't get i.e. and e.g. straight.
The problem with saying "math" is everyone seems to think math==math. There's real math and pure math. Real math is the stuff you can apply to the real world - frequently, engineering types of things - calculus, diff eq, etc. (IMO) Pure math, the stuff which ordinarily doesn't have an immediate application to the real world; e.g. algebra. Unfortunately, most people hear "algebra" and think: 2x+4y=7, 3x+2y=8, what are 'x' and 'y'? Basically, what they had in junior high and high school.
Not abstract algebra - along with group theory, the works of Evariste Galois, etc.
I've talked with friends over the twenty+ years since I escaped the asylum and some have related stories (without knowing each other) some math professors have looked at their students, the types of courses they take, and tried to see how it fits with something as simple as the types of paper they use. The real math people tend to use lined paper, the pure math people tend to use either tightly ruled graph paper (that has seemed to pop up from some people with European backgrounds for some reason) or unlined|plain paper. (I tend to keep a ream of white paper and either a 0.3mm Pentel pencil or a box of ultrafine Sharpies handy)
I had a friend in college who used to say, "The power is in the algebra." And once one has exposure to the correct types of algebra and computer projects resulting from it, the truth becomes evident.
If you've read anything by Edward deBono - you're familiar with lateral thinking[1]. A gross oversimplification is to look at problem-solving this way: "remove all of your assumptions and the answer will become clear". When you work within the real math world, you are bound and encumbered by all sorts of rules & regulations as to how things have to work - all of those assumptions. Once you get away from the real and into the pure, you'll find the rules are the things you create at will and can remove those you don't want to deal with. You'll find the best problem solvers - and we'll use the computer problems because that's what most of the people here deal with - are those who break away from brute force and into the elegant[2]. Turn things sideways, twist them, turn them, do with them what you want - removing the assumption(s) you have to do things in a particular way. "...waitaminute...who says we have to ?" "what if we ?" (the eureka! moment).
I think the tech industry (and educational system) has a problem in not understanding the difference(s) between the two and how powerful [pure] math can be - when it's the correct math - and where it plays a vital role in Computer Science in general - as opposed to Computer Programming, which is what many people have studied with "Computer Science" on their diploma. Translating formulae into programming statements is where FORTRAN (Formula Translation) came from. I'd hope the science of computing is a bit more fun than making code isomorphic to math equations. I'd suggest anyone working on a degree who sees "math" as an emphasis (or requirement), again, "calculus" or some other form of real math, either take a pure math course or find out if you can substitute one in lieu of one of the regular courses.
I remember a quote along the lines of, "mathematics is the royalty of sciences and abstract algebra is the queen of mathematics".
[1] This is what people are attempting to say when you hear "think outside of the box". As a rule, those who use that phrase cannot perform it.;)
[2] "Make things simple, not simpler." -Erasmus "From simplicity arises elegance." -me, eons ago.
No kidding. I'm sitting on ca. 150 invitations across three accounts. I've found a few people who are pretty knowledgeable but cast doubt because they've never heard of Gmail and I've tossed invites their way, but they haven't registered.
I finally set up an email address for people to post requests: gmail@70bang.com
Before long, everything we have in our households which involves a form of communication will run through a common pipe and a major dependency will present itself. One well-placed "accident"...and...I think it's obvious.
The only self-protection (powerwise) is fuel cells capable of supporting your house[1]. But that only presents an opportunity to prevent a blackout in your house. (and prevent a brownout because you can flush your toilet) Does that mean you can't communicate? (seriously) - would the fact you have some form of power prevent you from sending any type of signal across the same lines?
[1] My vision is instead of keeping just one at your house is to avoid a single cutthroat dependency is to create a minigrid with a handful of your neighbors. If you or your neighbors have a fuel cell power outage, you can stay afloat until repairs can be made.
Old email is what's been used against them in court.
If you get tired of Gmail's 1G limit, go to HRiders.com: 1T limit with a 500M attachment limit.
___________________
Windows Server 2003 Compute Cluster Edition:
You can buy a blow-up doll and use her at the intended size. But you can't just keep pumping air into her and expect to get a working, bigger blow-up doll unless she was designed to achieve those proportions.
"for those of you who have heard of but never seen a clusterf%ck, keep your eyes open. The herd size is about to grow very fast."
...and...
"has anyone considered what crossbreeding a clusterf%ck and a zombie[1] will look like?"
It makes one wonder how this fits into Nathan Myrhvold's statement on the cover of MIT's Technology Review "You can't out develop Microsoft but you can out invent them."
(How can this be considered development?)
Think of it this way:
You can buy a blow-up doll and use her at the intended size. But you can't just keep pumping air into her and expect to get a working, bigger blow-up doll unless she was pre-arranged to achieve those dimensions.
Slashdot Mirror
...is my birthday - do you think I'm going to be an April Fool with that story?
Let's apply some lateral thinking (per deBono) - what the uninformed call "thinking outside of the box".
In essence: "Remove your assumptions and the answer will become clear."
So what are you assuming? 1) he typed both of them in quick succession? (no copy|paste?) 2) he got early access to post his review 2a) via a subscription; 2b) certain types of postings; e.g. longer things such as reviews might be privileged to post earlier.
Now...if we remove those assumptions, what do yo think the solution(s) is|are? (there could be more than one)
But you are changing the rules: Match, cake of soap. What you are doing is no longer a match or a cake of soap. That would be "a cake of soap treated with liquid nitrogen". Were someone to ask you how you did it and you said, "Just a match and a cake of soap." what you are proposing would be lying by omission.
Yeah, but it's the OSI...the OSI!
Remember the Six Million Dollar Man? Oscar Goldman ran the OSI.
If he sanctioned this, would that be good enough? I mean, hey, he was a righteous dude.
Hell freezing over? I think it would be someone figured out how to light a match on a cake of soap.
I gave up on this a long time ago when the plot lines were about as firm as a wet piece of toilet paper. I can only imagine how much they'll charge for DVDs and how soon it'll be on in syndication.
At least it was better than DS9. That was enough to make even hardcore fans swear off Star Trek altogether.
This story is extremely similar to one posted within the previous 6-7 weeks. Someone's fallen asleep at the wheel. They aren't using the patent to protect innovation. They're using it to cut Linux off from MS Office. Within MS Office, you write files to disc in XML format. You use OpenOffice to read it make changes, etc. but you can't go back to MS Office - and that's what they want to happen: start making interchanges between MS software and Linux a one way ticket. This isn't such a big deal for smaller groups ready to flip the switch over the weekend, but if you're talking about several hundred (or thousand) users, you're not going to have some on MS Office and others on OpenOffice when they can't share the files.
3 23237&tid=155
I've posted this message several times before (other usernames if someone decides to see if I did) and I'm certain others have at least hinted at it. You can cross the bridge to OpenOffice but you'll have to burn the bridge behind you.
Microsoft did this intentionally and most people didn't notice it at the time.
Here's another article talking about Microsoft's Office patents: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/2
Here's a quick test of the new standard to verify whether it can be cracked or not. Good luck and may the best man|woman win! a9;ERT.d0 07! @WQ#6 689 asdf8 @(*&@(*^@ dfj#))(JZZNS
What you're saying seems to make sense on the surface. Sit down with the decision makers of a few newspapers - again, not the big boys - and you'll find out they are worried enough certain parts of their bodies pucker & unpucker on a regular basis about their ability to stay in business over the long haul.
There are a bunch of companies making good money out of creating templates to create online news systems and training the staff but hosting on their own servers with a good cut of the advertising. A lot of of them do good work - they're formerly newspaper (only) paper who came up through the ranks, are newspaper people first and foremost, and want to see online newspapers succeed.
And once again, the biggest danger are the people who can't code or code to scale their way out of a paper bag. People seem to think because they like doing it and they can kind of get things to work they are good at it. If you had a room full of people and said, "all of those who consider themselves to be good coders, go to this side. The rest of you go to the other side." Which side do you think would be empty?
the moral of the story?
You don't have to be good, just good enough."
(yes, that's my quote so remember where you heard it)
(this is a truism for the technology industry in general)
Not every source will do so unless they want $$$ for people to read their online material. Some are doing that right now. see: Wall Street Journal. Sure, there's a free story here & there, but they want to restrict content to subscribers.
/. story)
Papers which have less than the WSJ's stature pretty much know they are leaping from shrinking pond to shrinking pond. Paid readership is dropping....fast. And they don't have a solution. They know they have to have an online presence in order to compete against everyone else who knows they need to be online. And if they aren't online, most people aren't going to follow that newspaper.
The bottom line is those (readers) who are online will read online - in many cases moreso than hardcopy; especially if it's free. Those who aren't wired aren't in a number big enough to keep the paper in business across the long haul.
I have a silly question:
what are "photo's"? (see main
I knew Erdos first-hand - spent a brief time while I was in high school - studying with him at Indiana University (Bloomington, Indiana) in the late 70s and with Douglas Hofstadter at roughly the same time.
Several years later, I was at a math conference (as premed) and he walked up to me and started talking about some of the things I'd proposed. The profs I was with almost wet their pants just because I knew him, let alone that he knew me or had interest in things I'd discussed with him years ago (in high school)
I suppose Evariste Galois was just some guy who flunked his entrance exams and was killed in a duel when he was 20? What would you have to say about Paul Erdos?
(snicker)
You're putting Linus in the same crowd as Einstein and claiming Ramanujan is "some grad student"?
Keep'em coming. I needed a good laugh. We'll see how long it takes for my ribs to hurt. You have a long way to go to top the time in college when we crumbled Gaines Burger dog food and put it into the salad bar, but with some work and a good mentor, you too, might be funny.
Wait, I almost forgot. Are you trolling?
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
It hasn't been that long ago since outsourcing meant "someone not on the staff"; i.e. a "software whore" aka a contractor.
But as claimed last week, "math is overemphasized" in the tech industry.
choke. cough. gasp.
Srinivasa Ramanujan was more than "...the Indian math guy..." mentioned in the precis.
Could someone quit approving stories submitted by uninformed junior high school students?
If you can't innovate, copy someone else's ideas; you'll save yourself R&D, market search for user feedback, etc.
With that logic, everyone and their brother will be creating knock-offs of offline games and expect to be bought out by the owners.
Instead of Monopoly, I think I'll create Oligopoly, or add some political overtones and call it Plutocracy.
How long do you think you'd hold out in court with a product called "Video Basic" or "Visually Basic"?
...for "The Genesis Machine" (James P. Hogan) to become a movie. The BIAC (Biological Interactive Computer) play directly into this.
Besides, it's a good book. And it's use of promoting iconoclasm (and winning) isn't bad, either.
As least permit those of us who have been around since the stone ages to continue to use what it was when we learned it to be: LISP. The same goes for PERL, APL, REXX, SNOBOL, BASIC, and COBOL.
This doesn't excuse those who make unfamiliar words upper() because they don't know what it means and presume it's an acronym (see: SCUD missles in the Gulf War - it's "scud").
I'm not sure which is worse, however: upper() or overusing the apostrophe to make everything plural or possessive: "PC's for sale" (why not "PCs for sale"?) "I like apple's and banana's". "who's is that?".
Lest those who think punctuation and spelling are not a big deal, research has been shown a lack of proficiency in these areas are a sign of disorganization - those who are capable of these skills tend to be more organized in their thinking.
I'd settle for better spelling and punctuation and overlook those who can't get i.e. and e.g. straight.
Got a picture of her and her phone number?
The problem with saying "math" is everyone seems to think math==math. There's real math and pure math.
Real math is the stuff you can apply to the real world - frequently, engineering types of things - calculus, diff eq, etc. (IMO) Pure math, the stuff which ordinarily doesn't have an immediate application to the real world; e.g. algebra. Unfortunately, most people hear "algebra" and think: 2x+4y=7, 3x+2y=8, what are 'x' and 'y'? Basically, what they had in junior high and high school.
Not abstract algebra - along with group theory, the works of Evariste Galois, etc.
I've talked with friends over the twenty+ years since I escaped the asylum and some have related stories (without knowing each other) some math professors have looked at their students, the types of courses they take, and tried to see how it fits with something as simple as the types of paper they use. The real math people tend to use lined paper, the pure math people tend to use either tightly ruled graph paper (that has seemed to pop up from some people with European backgrounds for some reason) or unlined|plain paper. (I tend to keep a ream of white paper and either a 0.3mm Pentel pencil or a box of ultrafine Sharpies handy)
I had a friend in college who used to say, "The power is in the algebra." And once one has exposure to the correct types of algebra and computer projects resulting from it, the truth becomes evident.
If you've read anything by Edward deBono - you're familiar with lateral thinking[1]. A gross oversimplification is to look at problem-solving this way: "remove all of your assumptions and the answer will become clear". When you work within the real math world, you are bound and encumbered by all sorts of rules & regulations as to how things have to work - all of those assumptions. Once you get away from the real and into the pure, you'll find the rules are the things you create at will and can remove those you don't want to deal with. You'll find the best problem solvers - and we'll use the computer problems because that's what most of the people here deal with - are those who break away from brute force and into the elegant[2]. Turn things sideways, twist them, turn them, do with them what you want - removing the assumption(s) you have to do things in a particular way. "...waitaminute...who says we have to ?" "what if we ?" (the eureka! moment).
I think the tech industry (and educational system) has a problem in not understanding the difference(s) between the two and how powerful [pure] math can be - when it's the correct math - and where it plays a vital role in Computer Science in general - as opposed to Computer Programming, which is what many people have studied with "Computer Science" on their diploma. Translating formulae into programming statements is where FORTRAN (Formula Translation) came from. I'd hope the science of computing is a bit more fun than making code isomorphic to math equations. I'd suggest anyone working on a degree who sees "math" as an emphasis (or requirement), again, "calculus" or some other form of real math, either take a pure math course or find out if you can substitute one in lieu of one of the regular courses.
I remember a quote along the lines of, "mathematics is the royalty of sciences and abstract algebra is the queen of mathematics".
[1] This is what people are attempting to say when you hear "think outside of the box". As a rule, those who use that phrase cannot perform it.
[2] "Make things simple, not simpler." -Erasmus
"From simplicity arises elegance." -me, eons ago.
No kidding. I'm sitting on ca. 150 invitations across three accounts. I've found a few people who are pretty knowledgeable but cast doubt because they've never heard of Gmail and I've tossed invites their way, but they haven't registered. I finally set up an email address for people to post requests: gmail@70bang.com
No troll! It's true. I do not troll on /.
Can the morons who modded me explain to me out what I said is trolling?
I knew you could.
Just one more thing to run down the same pipe.
Before long, everything we have in our households which involves a form of communication will run through a common pipe and a major dependency will present itself. One well-placed "accident"...and...I think it's obvious.
The only self-protection (powerwise) is fuel cells capable of supporting your house[1]. But that only presents an opportunity to prevent a blackout in your house. (and prevent a brownout because you can flush your toilet) Does that mean you can't communicate? (seriously) - would the fact you have some form of power prevent you from sending any type of signal across the same lines?
[1] My vision is instead of keeping just one at your house is to avoid a single cutthroat dependency is to create a minigrid with a handful of your neighbors. If you or your neighbors have a fuel cell power outage, you can stay afloat until repairs can be made.
Yeah, right.
Old email is what's been used against them in court.
If you get tired of Gmail's 1G limit, go to HRiders.com: 1T limit with a 500M attachment limit.
___________________
Windows Server 2003 Compute Cluster Edition:
You can buy a blow-up doll and use her at the intended size. But you can't just keep pumping air into her and expect to get a working, bigger blow-up doll unless she was designed to achieve those proportions.
see my description about an inflatible doll a couple of comments above. it's a clear example of why Windows can't scale.
or as I posted elsewhere today....
...and...
"for those of you who have heard of but never seen a clusterf%ck, keep your eyes open. The herd size is about to grow very fast."
"has anyone considered what crossbreeding a clusterf%ck and a zombie[1] will look like?"
It makes one wonder how this fits into Nathan Myrhvold's statement on the cover of MIT's Technology Review "You can't out develop Microsoft but you can out invent them."
(How can this be considered development?)
Think of it this way:
You can buy a blow-up doll and use her at the intended size. But you can't just keep pumping air into her and expect to get a working, bigger blow-up doll unless she was pre-arranged to achieve those dimensions.