Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?
Phonies, all of them. They want to feel like they're changing the world, but without leaving the comfortable 6-digit salary and fancy coffee shops ecosystem. You don't see those people signing up to go fight ISIS or even flying to Texas to help people in need. They tweet and facebook that's the extent of their courage and commitment to social justice.
Fuck those imbeciles. Fuck Google. They're the canary letting us know that society is seriously sick.
I don't understand the fuss, I found not only one but TWO ways to figure out P=NP using Python. Doesn't even require numpy or a GPU and it works even with super big numbers.
#Solution 1:
for N in range(sys.maxsize):
P = 0
if P == N * P:
print("it works.")
#Solution 2:
for P in range(sys.maxsize):
N = 1
if P == N * P:
print("it works.")
And then you can fuck off because you're only trolling here anyway.
I'm defending a point of view that is not shared by a majority of users. This is not the same as trolling, and if one day you grow a pair and dare raise actual points instead of re-vomiting what others have said countless times before, you'll understand.
The easiest solution (short of recalling all the cards) is to create a "slow-countermeasure" so that it takes exactly 30.5 seconds per try, so that 0.5 x 10000 tries = 5000 minutes or 3.47 days. The second thing would be to put a time-activation lock on numbers tried by ip address, so the first 5 numbers take 30 seconds and every subsequent number adds a 30 second "please wait to try a new card"
Exponential backoff works like a charm for this. It doesn't annoy legitimate users who make mistakes, and it becomes increasingly costly for the nefarious ones
They're not idiots, they're a symptom that the credibility of the scientific community is not what it used to be. I don't think this is a matter of intelligence as much as it is a matter of social fragmentation.
It's always exhausting to discuss with aspies but you're clearly not a troll so let me summarize things for you.
The climate of political correctness in the USA has crossed an important threshold: people being fired publicly not for incompetence or malice, and not even for badmouthing their employer, but merely for voicing opinions internally about subjects that are not even relevant to the business.
This is similar, although not factually identical (yet) with what happened during the witch trials in Salem and the commie hunt under McCarthy. It's called mass hysteria.
The fact that there's better speeds and lower price can be explained by other considerations, such as having a much smaller area to cover and/or a higher population density. For instance, Texas alone is roughly twice the size of Japan but has 1/6 of its population. Montana is the same size as Germany, but its population is 80x smaller.
Unless you have data about the speed and price of internet before and after net neutrality was implemented in those countries that you do not name, it's probably best to dial down the insults.
someone who has proven they can learn and has the skills necessary to do so to a high standard
I don't think current college programs are a high standard, and the kind of entry-level people we get at work isn't going to convince me otherwise. At least in the IT field, I'd take someone with a vocational school diploma and a few months of experience in the Geek Squad over a CS idiot savant all day long.
And there's nothing wrong with importing people. The world is a big place, and being born somewhere else is not a crime. If it makes sense financially for both parties, it's called win-win.
it's just that right now they don't have to, so they don't.
Exactly. So either you accept the current mediocre service and high-five yourself for net neutrality, or you let the market do its job and you allow better options for people who don't mind paying for them. You can't have it both ways; it's your principles, not Comcast's, so it's your problem, not theirs.
The current school system teaches people about Earth not being flat (in most states). Additional funding would not improve that.
As for the "invisible sky daddy", the jury is still out on that one. Your belief isn't backed by science anymore than theirs. And both sides can sometimes show the same smugness in their conviction.
Once you're done talking about your math skills, can you point out the place in my post where I compare long-distance and local corporate networks? or where I talk about consumer networking equipment?
the point the poster made was that he "would rather actually fund education so more people would be qualified for work beyond being a meat-part in a machine", this has nothing to do with the value of an educated society or whatever other vague platitude you can come up with.
that's the usual academia bullshit; first try to claim it will improve work conditions, and when it's demonstrated that it's not the case, fall back on generic virtuous statements.
I don't know everything they stand for, in large part because the mainstream media is too busy crying wolf every 5 minutes and blowing things out of proportion for the sake of ratings and clicks instead of providing actual information, but yes, in my opinion destroying net neutrality is good for the tech industry because it will create an incentive for companies to build insanely fast pipelines to deliver their content faster to paying customers.
Have you ever had the chance to work on commercial high bandwidth / low latency networks? The kind that give you a lower latency between NYC and LA offices than the one you get between computers on your home LAN, and that allow you to combine SAN volumes from arrays located in Dallas, Chicago and Seattle? Internet could be that fast, but unless companies can make money with that, nobody will want to finance it.
the article is about poor people watching their ability to make an honest living evaporate and all you've done is insult them from a position of comically unjustified smugness.
No, YOU did that, with your condescending elitism putting education (and yourself by association) on a pedestal. Contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, there is no economical value in education beyond the point where someone can use it. There's already legions of people walking around with worthless college diplomas, and yet you're suggesting to take money out of people's pockets to create more of those. Bravo.
If the American population was illiterate and had no access to high school it would be a different discussion, but it's not the case so just shove your academia propaganda up your ass if there's room left in there. There's no education problem in America, there's just way too much corrupt bastards allowed to play god with money stolen from the citizens. Get rid of those and the system will get back on track.
the ideal situation is to have your own business and to hire absolutely nobody to do all the work
Except when the business involves "pimping out" your people.
Friend of mine currently has 26 employees working for various clients, and on the cheapest of his resources he makes $35 per hour, after payroll. And thanks to a clever group insurance setup they're essentially paying his premiums while getting far less benefits.
Roughly half the population has an IQ below average. Bleeding the other half to lower the cost of education for everyone is not going to help.
The real issue is not education, it's the fucking sorcerer's apprentices at the Fed who unleash their flawed models on real people. It's the meddlers in Washington who should focus on their real mandate (the army and the postal service). It's the common thieves in TSA uniforms that strangle the transportation industry with more impact than the terrorists.
China has nothing on the USA, except less imbeciles rolling the dice with public money. Get rid of the looters and you will see the great American business culture rise from the ashes.
Dude, don't tell people to think before they post, especially if you're going to miss their point entirely.
As it happens, the point here is that we're going to be stuck with terrible internet connections at vastly slower speed than they could because the companies that could make things better (like Google) are shackled by regulations that make the ISP business not enticing.
Unless we open the door to having two speeds for data delivery over internet, we're stuck with the slow one.
Telecom infrastructure is MASSIVELY profitable [..] Google fiber would have been a huge money maker 30 years from now
This is absurd. The kind of "massive profit" you're suggesting would mean that people in 1985 would have known exactly what kind of telecom infrastructure would be in use today. It's not even realistic to predict that wired connections will still be relevant in 5 years.
Your numbers don't add up unless the ISP can milk the cow.
Slashdot Mirror
Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?
Phonies, all of them. They want to feel like they're changing the world, but without leaving the comfortable 6-digit salary and fancy coffee shops ecosystem. You don't see those people signing up to go fight ISIS or even flying to Texas to help people in need. They tweet and facebook that's the extent of their courage and commitment to social justice.
Fuck those imbeciles. Fuck Google. They're the canary letting us know that society is seriously sick.
with 100M cores in a compute cluster I imagine this problem simplifies into a few months worth of cluster time...
It depends. Do the nodes in the cluster run systemd?
I don't understand the fuss, I found not only one but TWO ways to figure out P=NP using Python. Doesn't even require numpy or a GPU and it works even with super big numbers.
#Solution 1:
for N in range(sys.maxsize):
P = 0
if P == N * P:
print("it works.")
#Solution 2:
for P in range(sys.maxsize):
N = 1
if P == N * P:
print("it works.")
Python is so powerful.
And then you can fuck off because you're only trolling here anyway.
I'm defending a point of view that is not shared by a majority of users. This is not the same as trolling, and if one day you grow a pair and dare raise actual points instead of re-vomiting what others have said countless times before, you'll understand.
Yes you have beliefs. But you're just like a religious nut, you don't see them as "beliefs" but as "truths".
The easiest solution (short of recalling all the cards) is to create a "slow-countermeasure" so that it takes exactly 30.5 seconds per try, so that 0.5 x 10000 tries = 5000 minutes or 3.47 days. The second thing would be to put a time-activation lock on numbers tried by ip address, so the first 5 numbers take 30 seconds and every subsequent number adds a 30 second "please wait to try a new card"
Exponential backoff works like a charm for this. It doesn't annoy legitimate users who make mistakes, and it becomes increasingly costly for the nefarious ones
Fiber in the ground is a 100 year utility - nothing on the horizon is going to compete with it for capacity, reliability, or even long-term ROI.
And "640K of memory ought to be enough for anybody".
They're not idiots, they're a symptom that the credibility of the scientific community is not what it used to be. I don't think this is a matter of intelligence as much as it is a matter of social fragmentation.
It's always exhausting to discuss with aspies but you're clearly not a troll so let me summarize things for you.
The climate of political correctness in the USA has crossed an important threshold: people being fired publicly not for incompetence or malice, and not even for badmouthing their employer, but merely for voicing opinions internally about subjects that are not even relevant to the business.
This is similar, although not factually identical (yet) with what happened during the witch trials in Salem and the commie hunt under McCarthy. It's called mass hysteria.
You seem to be confused about the relevance of anti-net-neutrality arguments to conversations about public infrastructure is strange.
protip: don't accuse people of being confused if you can't manage to write a proper sentence
Begone, foul troll.. Or bot, or whatever ignorance of which you are created.
I can't help but notice that people who resort to name calling rarely have meaningful information to provide, other than "my way or fuck you".
The fact that there's better speeds and lower price can be explained by other considerations, such as having a much smaller area to cover and/or a higher population density. For instance, Texas alone is roughly twice the size of Japan but has 1/6 of its population. Montana is the same size as Germany, but its population is 80x smaller.
Unless you have data about the speed and price of internet before and after net neutrality was implemented in those countries that you do not name, it's probably best to dial down the insults.
someone who has proven they can learn and has the skills necessary to do so to a high standard
I don't think current college programs are a high standard, and the kind of entry-level people we get at work isn't going to convince me otherwise. At least in the IT field, I'd take someone with a vocational school diploma and a few months of experience in the Geek Squad over a CS idiot savant all day long.
And there's nothing wrong with importing people. The world is a big place, and being born somewhere else is not a crime. If it makes sense financially for both parties, it's called win-win.
It's amazing how often that particular line is cited, as if it means something.
It's even funnier during a meeting: "half the people in this room have an IQ higher than average, and you sir are not one of them!"
I suggest you try it.
it's just that right now they don't have to, so they don't.
Exactly. So either you accept the current mediocre service and high-five yourself for net neutrality, or you let the market do its job and you allow better options for people who don't mind paying for them. You can't have it both ways; it's your principles, not Comcast's, so it's your problem, not theirs.
The current school system teaches people about Earth not being flat (in most states). Additional funding would not improve that.
As for the "invisible sky daddy", the jury is still out on that one. Your belief isn't backed by science anymore than theirs. And both sides can sometimes show the same smugness in their conviction.
Once you're done talking about your math skills, can you point out the place in my post where I compare long-distance and local corporate networks? or where I talk about consumer networking equipment?
the point the poster made was that he "would rather actually fund education so more people would be qualified for work beyond being a meat-part in a machine", this has nothing to do with the value of an educated society or whatever other vague platitude you can come up with.
that's the usual academia bullshit; first try to claim it will improve work conditions, and when it's demonstrated that it's not the case, fall back on generic virtuous statements.
I don't know everything they stand for, in large part because the mainstream media is too busy crying wolf every 5 minutes and blowing things out of proportion for the sake of ratings and clicks instead of providing actual information, but yes, in my opinion destroying net neutrality is good for the tech industry because it will create an incentive for companies to build insanely fast pipelines to deliver their content faster to paying customers.
Have you ever had the chance to work on commercial high bandwidth / low latency networks? The kind that give you a lower latency between NYC and LA offices than the one you get between computers on your home LAN, and that allow you to combine SAN volumes from arrays located in Dallas, Chicago and Seattle? Internet could be that fast, but unless companies can make money with that, nobody will want to finance it.
the article is about poor people watching their ability to make an honest living evaporate and all you've done is insult them from a position of comically unjustified smugness.
No, YOU did that, with your condescending elitism putting education (and yourself by association) on a pedestal. Contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, there is no economical value in education beyond the point where someone can use it. There's already legions of people walking around with worthless college diplomas, and yet you're suggesting to take money out of people's pockets to create more of those. Bravo.
If the American population was illiterate and had no access to high school it would be a different discussion, but it's not the case so just shove your academia propaganda up your ass if there's room left in there. There's no education problem in America, there's just way too much corrupt bastards allowed to play god with money stolen from the citizens. Get rid of those and the system will get back on track.
the ideal situation is to have your own business and to hire absolutely nobody to do all the work
Except when the business involves "pimping out" your people.
Friend of mine currently has 26 employees working for various clients, and on the cheapest of his resources he makes $35 per hour, after payroll. And thanks to a clever group insurance setup they're essentially paying his premiums while getting far less benefits.
Roughly half the population has an IQ below average. Bleeding the other half to lower the cost of education for everyone is not going to help.
The real issue is not education, it's the fucking sorcerer's apprentices at the Fed who unleash their flawed models on real people. It's the meddlers in Washington who should focus on their real mandate (the army and the postal service). It's the common thieves in TSA uniforms that strangle the transportation industry with more impact than the terrorists.
China has nothing on the USA, except less imbeciles rolling the dice with public money. Get rid of the looters and you will see the great American business culture rise from the ashes.
Dude, don't tell people to think before they post, especially if you're going to miss their point entirely.
As it happens, the point here is that we're going to be stuck with terrible internet connections at vastly slower speed than they could because the companies that could make things better (like Google) are shackled by regulations that make the ISP business not enticing.
Unless we open the door to having two speeds for data delivery over internet, we're stuck with the slow one.
It's amazing to think that one day cancer could be a thing of the past, like smallpox.
Telecom infrastructure is MASSIVELY profitable [..] Google fiber would have been a huge money maker 30 years from now
This is absurd. The kind of "massive profit" you're suggesting would mean that people in 1985 would have known exactly what kind of telecom infrastructure would be in use today. It's not even realistic to predict that wired connections will still be relevant in 5 years.
Your numbers don't add up unless the ISP can milk the cow.