If you really want to go by the movie, it's technically love. I guess most slashdoters, being linux-using, slightly unattractive über-geeks with little education in literature might have missed that because the mindnuming hotness of Ms. Jovovich's body was standing in the way.
I'm not running windows at the moment, but I remember downloading Office 2007 a couple of weeks ago on another computer, and it sure as hell could export pdf. Maybe it's changed, I don't know, but it used to be able to do it anyway.
Can I just say that your sig is remarkably apt in that post. If you'd eliminated the -- I wouldn't have thought twice about it being part of the message.
You are taking the quotes completely out of context, Torvalds wrote that minix was brain-dead, not him. It's hyperbole, not a personal attack. Tanenbaum obviously made the grade comment in jest. The actual quote is
You would not get a high grade for such a design:-)
including smiley, and then later
Writing a new OS only for the386 in 1991 gets you your second 'F' for this term. But if you do real well on the final exam, you can still pass the course.
He was trying to be light and funny, Tanenbaum isn't an idiot. He knew linux was a solid OS, he just disagreed with how it was made, the philosophies behind it. Ohh, and by the way, this is how Torvalds responded:
Well, I probably won't get too good grades even without you: I had an argument (completely unrelated - not even pertaining to OS's) with the person here at the university that teaches OS design. I wonder when I'll learn:)
Yeah, they really seem to hate eachothers guts.
Just to ram my point home, this is how Torvalds ended his first message
PS. I apologise for sometimes sounding too harsh: minix is nice enough if you have nothing else. Amoeba might be nice if you have 5-10 spare 386's lying around, but I certainly don't. I don't usually get into flames, but I'm touchy when it comes to linux:)
Two smart people having a debate. They have different philosophies, true, but they do have respect for eachother. Torvalds even says in Just for Fun that one of the major inspirations for Linux was Tanenbaums work.
Dude, if you are going to bring out the "have you even read..."-argument, make sure that YOU actually have read it. Otherwise, there is a big chance that you will look stupid, and no one wants that.
This is indeed true. Both Torvalds and Tanenbaum are adults, they are grown up enough to realise that even if you disagree with someone on some issues doesn't mean he's an idiot. That's far to rare in modern discourse.
My thoughts exactly! They didn't even mention The Art of Computer Programming when asked what their favorite books on computer programming was (although I smiled when Torvalds said "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation" by Andy Tanenbaum). With the possible exception of Gödel, Escher, Bach (which isn't really about computers anyway), it has to be the greatest work on algorithms and programming ever written.
Yes, the axiom of choice would be the Z. Who was it that said that great quote, "The axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle is obviously false, and who the hell knows about Zorn's lemma!"?
(the joke being, all three of those things are mathematically equivalent, if you accept the axiom of choice, you accept the other two).
It should probably pointed out for all people that hasn't studied advanced mathematics that ZFC is Zermelo-Frankel set theory, the most common way to define the foundation of mathematics. See article for some axiomatic set theory fun!
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the incompleteness theorem. The incompletness theorem states that in a powerful axiomatic system, there are statements that are true, yet they cannot be proven using the system. That is, it is possible for there to be a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem, but we cannot prove that it is polynomial-time. Conversely, it could be true that there is infact no such algorithm (ie NP != P), but we cannot prove this fact, even though it is still true. Pick up Gödel, Escher, Bach next time you pass through a bookstore, it's really quite awesome.
However, is it probable that that P vs NP is undecidable? No, it is not. P vs NP is very likely not undeciable, we just haven't been able to decide it yet;) That doesn't mean it's not impossible.
Lastly, why do you think algorithms are any different from abstract mathematics? Just because algorithms have an actual use in the real world doesn't mean that it is fundmentally different from pure mathematics. Fundamentally, they are the same thing, it's just that in our feeble human minds they seem different. But they aren't, they're part of the same abstract logical universe.
Well, there's more people than just Tara that dies on Buffy (even though that one hurt the most! I love Tara!). In the second season, Angel goes evil, kills Jenny Calendar, then goes to hell (though he does come back after a few episodes). In the third season, Angel, Wesley and Cordelia leaves for another show (where Cordelia dies a few years later). In the fourth season Oz goes bonkers and goes away (enter Tara), in the fifth season, Buffy and Dawn's mom dies (in the episode The Body, the best episode of Buffy), and then in the season finale Buffy herself dies! In the sixth season, Tara dies and Willow go evil and starts to skin people. In the seventh season, well.... Jonathan dies. Not a major character, but he has stuck around from season 1. Then in the last episode, Anya and Spike kicks the bucket (although Spike return in Angel).
My point? It is indeed vintage Joss to kill off characters
Umm, no it doesn't. 0.5 is 1/2, just like 0.50 or 0.500. It only contains 1 decimal place. Think of the number 7. You could call that number 07.0, but that doesn't make it any less correct to just call it 7
Sorry, you're wrong. What you are saying has not been proven about pi, infact it is not proven whether all numerals appear an infinite number ot times in the decimal expansion of pi. It could be the case that the number 9 only appears a couple of billion times or so, no one knows. Don't go assuming things you're not sure of.
The thing that's different is that his show and Crossfire has two fundamental purposes. His show is only meant to entertain, nothing else. If it does provide decent commentary, that's great, but it is first and foremost entertainment. Crossfire is different, the point of that show is debate, a show you watched to be informed, to hear opinions, to help guide you in important issues. Using the argument that if Jon Stewart can't critize Crossfire unless he starts verbally abusing his guests is moronic. It's not what his show is.
The fantastic thing that you keep forgetting is that Stewart actually does a better job informing the public about all sides of an issue than Crossfire ever did. Crossfire was an utter catastrophe, and Jon Stewart called them on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, slashdot is so geeky we actually quantify humor.
Amen, brother! :)
If you really want to go by the movie, it's technically love. I guess most slashdoters, being linux-using, slightly unattractive über-geeks with little education in literature might have missed that because the mindnuming hotness of Ms. Jovovich's body was standing in the way.
Hey, I've got 62 GiBs of just crappy tv-shows, downloaded from bittorrent.
I gots to have my Buffy!
Power corrupts. Powerpoint corrupts absolutely.
Exactly! Euclid didn't even use a base-10 positional number system, what the hell does he have to do with anything?
I'm not running windows at the moment, but I remember downloading Office 2007 a couple of weeks ago on another computer, and it sure as hell could export pdf. Maybe it's changed, I don't know, but it used to be able to do it anyway.
Can I just say that your sig is remarkably apt in that post. If you'd eliminated the -- I wouldn't have thought twice about it being part of the message.
Very interesting, I did not know that. Mods, pay attention!
Does google check every video before it goes up? I seriously doubt it, so what's whith the wait?
Office 2007 exports to PDF just fine. Check your facts
You are taking the quotes completely out of context, Torvalds wrote that minix was brain-dead, not him. It's hyperbole, not a personal attack. Tanenbaum obviously made the grade comment in jest. The actual quote is
including smiley, and then later
He was trying to be light and funny, Tanenbaum isn't an idiot. He knew linux was a solid OS, he just disagreed with how it was made, the philosophies behind it. Ohh, and by the way, this is how Torvalds responded:
Yeah, they really seem to hate eachothers guts.
Just to ram my point home, this is how Torvalds ended his first message
Two smart people having a debate. They have different philosophies, true, but they do have respect for eachother. Torvalds even says in Just for Fun that one of the major inspirations for Linux was Tanenbaums work.
Dude, if you are going to bring out the "have you even read..."-argument, make sure that YOU actually have read it. Otherwise, there is a big chance that you will look stupid, and no one wants that.
This is indeed true. Both Torvalds and Tanenbaum are adults, they are grown up enough to realise that even if you disagree with someone on some issues doesn't mean he's an idiot. That's far to rare in modern discourse.
My thoughts exactly! They didn't even mention The Art of Computer Programming when asked what their favorite books on computer programming was (although I smiled when Torvalds said "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation" by Andy Tanenbaum). With the possible exception of Gödel, Escher, Bach (which isn't really about computers anyway), it has to be the greatest work on algorithms and programming ever written.
Hey, Donald Knuth has been dead since 2003 and he's still writing books!
While I agree with most of what you say. but did google really buy the spreadsheet program? I'm pretty sure they developed that in-house.
Yes, the axiom of choice would be the Z. Who was it that said that great quote, "The axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle is obviously false, and who the hell knows about Zorn's lemma!"?
(the joke being, all three of those things are mathematically equivalent, if you accept the axiom of choice, you accept the other two).
That should be Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Apologies to Fraenkel.
It should probably pointed out for all people that hasn't studied advanced mathematics that ZFC is Zermelo-Frankel set theory, the most common way to define the foundation of mathematics. See article for some axiomatic set theory fun!
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the incompleteness theorem. The incompletness theorem states that in a powerful axiomatic system, there are statements that are true, yet they cannot be proven using the system. That is, it is possible for there to be a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem, but we cannot prove that it is polynomial-time. Conversely, it could be true that there is infact no such algorithm (ie NP != P), but we cannot prove this fact, even though it is still true. Pick up Gödel, Escher, Bach next time you pass through a bookstore, it's really quite awesome.
However, is it probable that that P vs NP is undecidable? No, it is not. P vs NP is very likely not undeciable, we just haven't been able to decide it yet ;) That doesn't mean it's not impossible.
Lastly, why do you think algorithms are any different from abstract mathematics? Just because algorithms have an actual use in the real world doesn't mean that it is fundmentally different from pure mathematics. Fundamentally, they are the same thing, it's just that in our feeble human minds they seem different. But they aren't, they're part of the same abstract logical universe.
Well, there's more people than just Tara that dies on Buffy (even though that one hurt the most! I love Tara!). In the second season, Angel goes evil, kills Jenny Calendar, then goes to hell (though he does come back after a few episodes). In the third season, Angel, Wesley and Cordelia leaves for another show (where Cordelia dies a few years later). In the fourth season Oz goes bonkers and goes away (enter Tara), in the fifth season, Buffy and Dawn's mom dies (in the episode The Body, the best episode of Buffy), and then in the season finale Buffy herself dies! In the sixth season, Tara dies and Willow go evil and starts to skin people. In the seventh season, well.... Jonathan dies. Not a major character, but he has stuck around from season 1. Then in the last episode, Anya and Spike kicks the bucket (although Spike return in Angel).
My point? It is indeed vintage Joss to kill off characters
Umm, no it doesn't. 0.5 is 1/2, just like 0.50 or 0.500. It only contains 1 decimal place. Think of the number 7. You could call that number 07.0, but that doesn't make it any less correct to just call it 7
Sorry, you're wrong. What you are saying has not been proven about pi, infact it is not proven whether all numerals appear an infinite number ot times in the decimal expansion of pi. It could be the case that the number 9 only appears a couple of billion times or so, no one knows. Don't go assuming things you're not sure of.
Hell, you could run WOPR in eleven characters of APL, if you really wanted.
The thing that's different is that his show and Crossfire has two fundamental purposes. His show is only meant to entertain, nothing else. If it does provide decent commentary, that's great, but it is first and foremost entertainment. Crossfire is different, the point of that show is debate, a show you watched to be informed, to hear opinions, to help guide you in important issues. Using the argument that if Jon Stewart can't critize Crossfire unless he starts verbally abusing his guests is moronic. It's not what his show is.
The fantastic thing that you keep forgetting is that Stewart actually does a better job informing the public about all sides of an issue than Crossfire ever did. Crossfire was an utter catastrophe, and Jon Stewart called them on it.
Yeah, I actually meant to write decrease. Sorry 'bout that :P