PS3 Linux is a toy and isn't there for serious development. There are still some major hurtles for PS3 Linux to get over for this to be a viable venture. Hell, you even mention that it only has a 2D framebuffer. Another one is getting proper Sixaxis support. So, it certainly is not for the hobbyist developer. Only the hobbyist developer that likes to make retro games. Not to mention the fact that libspe, etc are all LGPL. So, you also have to be willing to accept that license for your game.
Sorry, but still not even close to "prime time." Not even worth a mention.
""" Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that the new Xbox Experience coming in November will included their Community Games initiative, which will allow amateur game developers to create and share games using the XNA development tools. """
This is the way to go. I mean, we know that Sony has release a couple API/dev tools/etc to University students. But, that really doesn't go far enough. Especially, when we consider that many of the people who get into the games industry aren't looking to go that way until it's "too late" to learn all the tools. When it comes to others using Sony's tools, there is a thousands of $'s fee and even then, you have to apply (including company and project information?!?!?) and could get rejected. Similarly for the Wiiware.
Making the tools available for free (for non-commercial use) will allow people to get a grip on what they'll be using in the industry (or something similar) should they decide to go that way. And at a very low entry cost as well.
I've always found it staggering at companies that don't distribute these tools. I mean, modding tools being released for games is assumed today (and if they don't its looked down upon). And those engines are where some real money is made. I really wish that the people making the consoles would loosen there death grip on the licensing just a little bit to allow the amateur game developer to give it a go. After all, what amateur game could really compete with a AAA title?
So, here's my suggestion to Sony and Nintendo. Release a "lite" version of your tools for download (Window/Mac). Then modify your console so that it can run this compiled code at least over a local network (or a downloadable title that does the same). That way, the normal console could become a "debug station" and a way to play it.
I'll bet you anything, that this would put the spotlight on some developers that wouldn't have otherwise had a chance. And them being successful, means that they'll either be giving you money for licensing to make more games, or joining a company and making them stronger for doing the same.
Your fallacy is that of a widespread use of encryption. You're letting your idealism get in the way of seeing the practical nature of the problem. I said it in my last post and you're ignoring it here... again.
For that matter, people's behaviour is not limited to there on-line behaviour i.e. if they are doing something suspicious on-line, there will be indications of that IRL. I'll also mention that the ability for your "net neighbours" to track you is moot to this discussion. Please try to keep red herrings to a minimum.
Also, even if HTTPS met widespread use (which it most certainly isn't and arguably won't) a torrent of data, profiling, etc can still be obtained *because people still know who's contacting who.* I'll also note that merely knowing the timing of what is typed gives away what is being typed to an exceedingly high accuracy (this was mentioned on/. a while back). So, SSH isn't safe.
When it comes to PGP, you're ignoring the fact that the UK (which is where we're talking about) has laws to obtain the keys. So, all that would have to be done is to store the emails when encryption is detected and have someone sent to obtain the keys. That is, until keys need to be registered in a national DB. Then that person will probably be arrested for not using approved keys.
As a last note, SSL and the tech that uses it, does NOT protect the data once it has arrived. So, even though the transmission might have been secure, the host wouldn't be. It is vulnerable to search and seizure. It is vulnerable to politics i.e. the UK could ask the US/Canada/etc for the data and present "evidence" to get it.
You're living in a dream world where encryption is a cure-all. Even Schneier would tell you that.
Yes, you can be suspicious of everyone. In fact, all they would have to do is something like what was used in East Germany (when there was one). Neighbours spying on neighbours. There are many other ways to get around any other technical restrictions as well. Please note that one can also use searching for randomness in a message to indicate that it is encrypted or not (this has been used successfully to find keys in memory btw). This processing could be off loaded onto the local switches and any (potentially) encrypted messages could be sent in for processing.
You're also assuming that a large percentage of people are going to be using encryption. As history has shown, this is an exceedingly naive assumption. People just don't do it, because it adds (an annoying) overhead for them and they haven't seen any detriment for not using it. So, the increase in technical requirements would be insignificantly higher.
So, practically speaking, it most certainly is technically feasible to do this. Also, because the bulk of this process can be automated (everything except getting the keys), the "slower and less useful" argument falls to pieces. And this makes that "impossible" comment rather a joke.
That is, until the very use of encryption is grounds for suspicion. The UK has been on this downward slope for some time now and as such, there is no reason to think that it'll end.
Although you're right that Admins of ISPs, etc do have the logs with this data in it, that data is _not_ centralised. Which is where/real/ problems start to crop up. Especially, when data-mining is getting to the point to be really *really* dangerous. And especially, with there Military (just last week I think) loosing a *tonne* of stuff. So, how much worse do you think that the non-military people will be?
This sort of thing just doesn't seem responsible no matter which angle you look at it. Not to mention that fact, that this sort of thing has a tendency to suffer from slippery slopes. And at least, I can't think of any program like this, even recently, that didn't slip down the slope. In fact, this program is one of those "down the slope."
The UK has laws that if they require your keys to read your mail, you either give up the keys, or go to jail. So, PGP isn't necessarily the best option for the people over there. It'll only make you safe until the government doesn't want that any more.
Actually, the conclusion is not supported by the reasoning. For those that don't like clicking links, Guido's reason is that there exists a patch the removed the GIL and replaced it with fine grain locks. This failed miserably. BUT, when one thinks about it, this implementation would certainly be doomed to fail for obvious reasons.
When one implements fine grain locks, every time something is accessed, it is locked accessed and released. Clearly, this will impact performance on even a single threaded application. Clearly, this impact will be more and more significant with an increasing number of threads. So, the only thing that can be said by Guido's reasoning is that:
That SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION failed to remove the GIL.
Now, if one put everything that's currently global into the specific interpreter, there would be no reason for locks and thus the performance wouldn't suffer. Then each thread could run independently without including (many) locks. Lua has the ability to do this. So, don't tell me that this is impossible WHEN ANOTHER LANGUAGE HAS ALREADY DONE IT.
That might seem wrong given that Python lists threading modules, but just look at Python's GIL to know what I mean. As in, no matter what you do, Python will still be running on one core. So, if you just want a performance boost because of a lot of I/O, then threads can get you there. Unfortunately, if you want to take advantage of a multi-core CPU with Python, Python's threads won't get you there. There has actually been a lot of discussion on this topic, but Guido just refuses to do it. The interpreter has no threads and the lib is not thread safe.
If you want to do multi-processing with Python, look at its subprocess module.
Yah, because only professionals should get to compete for cash, etc. For that matter, lets do away with all just lower level competition altogether. First to go, the Olympics.
DISCLAIMER: I liberated myself of M$ years ago. My machine tri-boots Linux, OpenBSD and OS X.
The problem with this term is that the Free (note the capitalization) software people think that Open-source means the [L]GPL or compatible license. On the other side, there are those that acknowledge that the [L]GPL is excessively restrictive i.e. I MUST publish my code under the [L]GPL as well (L depending on linkage). So, in the end, when we put these side-by-side, they are pretty much as restrictive as each other, just in different ways. Also, we note that this disagreement is due to the fuzzy term "open-source."
Point of fact, the only truly agreed on/parts/ of the definition are that people can see the code and play with it. Unfortunately, this battle ground is rot with opinions on the restrictions thereof and with many (most?) not respecting the opinions of others.
But, in the end, when it comes down to this M$ only site, who really cares? Because, when it comes down to it, if someone is going to write code that is explicitly linked to M$ libs/etc how portable will it really be? So, how useful will it be to others on other OS's anyway?
So, I say this: If they want there own sand box, let them have it. Because, the [L]GPL people have there's as well. And if we are going to treat everyone equally, then we can't complain when others create there own playhouses.
Grow up people. And stop trying to shove your opinions down others throats.
""" Its existence is unconvincingly denied in most videos, and in one it is confirmed but the developer insists that flamethrower gameplay is not ready to be shown to the public. He says this while a monitor behind him displays all kinds of in-game flamethrower carnage. """
It's nice to see that the self-ironic, etc humour that was in SG1 is alive and well among the staff that are developing the game. It gives me hope that this game will be a good one. Or at least go along some of the lines that the show did.
Re:480p Wii Sucks (mod parent up!)
on
HD Wii By 2011?
·
· Score: 1
I never said that it/only/ matters to the point that you're taking it. Sure, things will obviously be more pretty. But, the point is that it isn't necessary for the effect that Nintendo is going for. There is a difference between what you want, what would be nice, and what is necessary you know.
And that quicker can quickly become not quicker when the basic rules are too basic to make it feasible to enter the theorem/proof in a timely manner. Not to mention that the input will suffer from human error on entry. So, the proof might be correct, but the come out as incorrect if (really when) the theorem is incorrectly entered. And of course, vis versa. And lets be honest. When we have fairly high error rates on simple data entry (e.g. numbers), how much higher is that going to be when we have something as complicated as this?
I also wouldn't say that I define creativity different than most. More along the lines that I have knowledge about a topic that most don't understand. So, most will not appreciate what is meant by creativity in Mathematics when most people don't understand just how creative one has to be to do higher Mathematics. This is probably so because the vast majority of people have only heard of Analysis (IF they've heard of it) and have never seen what it really is (similarly for other fields in higher Maths).
Humans can admit mistakes, computers are only capable of following rules written by humans. So, when an error is found that results in an inconsistency, humans will follow the chain to find the error. Computers on the other hand aren't capable of doing this. It's called lack of creativity. Computers just don't have it.
Just because something is faster, does _not_ mean it's better. It just means that WHEN an error is produced, it'll do it a hell of a lot quicker. But, who will notice if no-one is checking the checker?
Also, this isn't some 2 + 2 nonsense. This is higher Mathematics. So, when someone write a paper with something along the lines of:
Taking (23), we proceed by partial fractions which results in:...
How exactly is that supposed to be easily translate/automated?
In all honesty, the only reason why I can think of that people so violently defend this flawed notion is a utterly complete misunderstanding of what Mathematics really is and how it is done. I mean, come on. Most of us work with/fix computers daily. Can we at least be honest and admit that trusting a program to do such a complicated creative thing is a bad idea? I mean, just look at the quality of software out there...
But, that's what peer review and paper retraction is for. I won't name names, but I know for a fact that papers are retracted when an error is found. Also, since everyone builds on everyone else's work, the errors have a tendency to be found (it's hard to hide inconsistencies when they become obvious). It might not happen instantly, but it will happen eventually. Hell, even axiomatic Mathematics itself is a *very* young idea.
There's the rub though, eh. The bugs that will *always* be in there... What will they do to the conclusions?
Blindly trusting machines to do this (or close to it), when in the end it's Math that is depended on to see whether buildings will stand during an earthquake, etc, is irresponsible.
""" yet in practise their proofs are often quite sloppy """
And the people who say this are the ones that don't understand that each and every word has profound meaning. As in, in some books, it's not uncommon for someone who's learning, to spend an hour or more on one page unwinding it. Also, though some wording still may/appear/ sloppy, even after that, in the end, that "sloppy" wording is nothing more than a few lines of rigorous Math. You can't write *everything* out. Especially in a journal. It would produce prohibitive amounts of pages.
From my Complex Analysis book (Marsden and Hoffman, 3rd ed.) an example would probably be Thm 1.5.4 (I believe it's that one - it's been a while and the papers with these "corrections" that I wrote and inserted at those points fell out and disappeared). In the proof, there is a step that is "hand waved" over. At the time, I asked the Prof, and all he said is, (paraphrase) "It's obvious. I don't know what to explain." Took me a bit, but the hand wave ended up being about 5 lines long and it probably should have been obvious. Here's to hitting dead brain cells (and/or being burned out).
At any rate, not so much sloppy. More along the lines that the people who know that they are talking about will just "see" those lines where they aught to be. And again, without that, the length of the papers in journals would be too wordy and long to be practical.
I could add on, "in the end." Would that satisfy your nit-picky-ness? Because, I've *never* heard of overconfident people not getting screwed by there overconfidence at some point (usually sooner rather than later).
Now, a question: What does this have to do with the topic at hand, or the point that I was making? How would this "sloppy" wording effect what I'm saying in any significant way?
How is it that you've missed my point even when I stated it? Are you trying to be obtuse for a purpose? Because, my reply indicated that I knew what you were talking about, but that YOU took what my obvious point what out of context. Would you care to actually contribute to the conversation? Or are you just going to continue to 'not get it'?
You're cherry picking your data i.e. simple arithmatic is _not_ what we're talking about. What we/are/ talking about is something that is exceedingly complicated and dynamic that requires creativity. And that is exactly the type of thing that computers are bad at. If you understood something about higher Mathematics you wouldn't be making such asinine statements.
Btw, I have both a Programming Diploma AND a Degree in Mathematics. I've also did research in a Physics department as a student which involved numerical analysis and have talked to several people regarding automated proof checkers/creators. The theory behind these things, never mind there practical implementations are *far* to immature to be practical. Not to mention that it is questionable if they are even feasible to create on a fundamental level.
Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Linux is a toy and isn't there for serious development. There are still some major hurtles for PS3 Linux to get over for this to be a viable venture. Hell, you even mention that it only has a 2D framebuffer. Another one is getting proper Sixaxis support. So, it certainly is not for the hobbyist developer. Only the hobbyist developer that likes to make retro games. Not to mention the fact that libspe, etc are all LGPL. So, you also have to be willing to accept that license for your game.
Sorry, but still not even close to "prime time." Not even worth a mention.
"""
Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that the new Xbox Experience coming in November will included their Community Games initiative, which will allow amateur game developers to create and share games using the XNA development tools.
"""
This is the way to go. I mean, we know that Sony has release a couple API/dev tools/etc to University students. But, that really doesn't go far enough. Especially, when we consider that many of the people who get into the games industry aren't looking to go that way until it's "too late" to learn all the tools. When it comes to others using Sony's tools, there is a thousands of $'s fee and even then, you have to apply (including company and project information?!?!?) and could get rejected. Similarly for the Wiiware.
Making the tools available for free (for non-commercial use) will allow people to get a grip on what they'll be using in the industry (or something similar) should they decide to go that way. And at a very low entry cost as well.
I've always found it staggering at companies that don't distribute these tools. I mean, modding tools being released for games is assumed today (and if they don't its looked down upon). And those engines are where some real money is made. I really wish that the people making the consoles would loosen there death grip on the licensing just a little bit to allow the amateur game developer to give it a go. After all, what amateur game could really compete with a AAA title?
So, here's my suggestion to Sony and Nintendo. Release a "lite" version of your tools for download (Window/Mac). Then modify your console so that it can run this compiled code at least over a local network (or a downloadable title that does the same). That way, the normal console could become a "debug station" and a way to play it.
I'll bet you anything, that this would put the spotlight on some developers that wouldn't have otherwise had a chance. And them being successful, means that they'll either be giving you money for licensing to make more games, or joining a company and making them stronger for doing the same.
See, it'll benefit your bottom line.
Your fallacy is that of a widespread use of encryption. You're letting your idealism get in the way of seeing the practical nature of the problem. I said it in my last post and you're ignoring it here... again.
For that matter, people's behaviour is not limited to there on-line behaviour i.e. if they are doing something suspicious on-line, there will be indications of that IRL. I'll also mention that the ability for your "net neighbours" to track you is moot to this discussion. Please try to keep red herrings to a minimum.
Also, even if HTTPS met widespread use (which it most certainly isn't and arguably won't) a torrent of data, profiling, etc can still be obtained *because people still know who's contacting who.* I'll also note that merely knowing the timing of what is typed gives away what is being typed to an exceedingly high accuracy (this was mentioned on /. a while back). So, SSH isn't safe.
When it comes to PGP, you're ignoring the fact that the UK (which is where we're talking about) has laws to obtain the keys. So, all that would have to be done is to store the emails when encryption is detected and have someone sent to obtain the keys. That is, until keys need to be registered in a national DB. Then that person will probably be arrested for not using approved keys.
As a last note, SSL and the tech that uses it, does NOT protect the data once it has arrived. So, even though the transmission might have been secure, the host wouldn't be. It is vulnerable to search and seizure. It is vulnerable to politics i.e. the UK could ask the US/Canada/etc for the data and present "evidence" to get it.
You're living in a dream world where encryption is a cure-all. Even Schneier would tell you that.
Yes, you can be suspicious of everyone. In fact, all they would have to do is something like what was used in East Germany (when there was one). Neighbours spying on neighbours. There are many other ways to get around any other technical restrictions as well. Please note that one can also use searching for randomness in a message to indicate that it is encrypted or not (this has been used successfully to find keys in memory btw). This processing could be off loaded onto the local switches and any (potentially) encrypted messages could be sent in for processing.
You're also assuming that a large percentage of people are going to be using encryption. As history has shown, this is an exceedingly naive assumption. People just don't do it, because it adds (an annoying) overhead for them and they haven't seen any detriment for not using it. So, the increase in technical requirements would be insignificantly higher.
So, practically speaking, it most certainly is technically feasible to do this. Also, because the bulk of this process can be automated (everything except getting the keys), the "slower and less useful" argument falls to pieces. And this makes that "impossible" comment rather a joke.
That is, until the very use of encryption is grounds for suspicion. The UK has been on this downward slope for some time now and as such, there is no reason to think that it'll end.
Improvement does _not_ equal safe.
Although you're right that Admins of ISPs, etc do have the logs with this data in it, that data is _not_ centralised. Which is where /real/ problems start to crop up. Especially, when data-mining is getting to the point to be really *really* dangerous. And especially, with there Military (just last week I think) loosing a *tonne* of stuff. So, how much worse do you think that the non-military people will be?
This sort of thing just doesn't seem responsible no matter which angle you look at it. Not to mention that fact, that this sort of thing has a tendency to suffer from slippery slopes. And at least, I can't think of any program like this, even recently, that didn't slip down the slope. In fact, this program is one of those "down the slope."
The UK has laws that if they require your keys to read your mail, you either give up the keys, or go to jail. So, PGP isn't necessarily the best option for the people over there. It'll only make you safe until the government doesn't want that any more.
Actually, the conclusion is not supported by the reasoning. For those that don't like clicking links, Guido's reason is that there exists a patch the removed the GIL and replaced it with fine grain locks. This failed miserably. BUT, when one thinks about it, this implementation would certainly be doomed to fail for obvious reasons.
When one implements fine grain locks, every time something is accessed, it is locked accessed and released. Clearly, this will impact performance on even a single threaded application. Clearly, this impact will be more and more significant with an increasing number of threads. So, the only thing that can be said by Guido's reasoning is that:
That SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION failed to remove the GIL.
Now, if one put everything that's currently global into the specific interpreter, there would be no reason for locks and thus the performance wouldn't suffer. Then each thread could run independently without including (many) locks. Lua has the ability to do this. So, don't tell me that this is impossible WHEN ANOTHER LANGUAGE HAS ALREADY DONE IT.
That might seem wrong given that Python lists threading modules, but just look at Python's GIL to know what I mean. As in, no matter what you do, Python will still be running on one core. So, if you just want a performance boost because of a lot of I/O, then threads can get you there. Unfortunately, if you want to take advantage of a multi-core CPU with Python, Python's threads won't get you there. There has actually been a lot of discussion on this topic, but Guido just refuses to do it. The interpreter has no threads and the lib is not thread safe.
If you want to do multi-processing with Python, look at its subprocess module.
Guido's blog post on the GIL:
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=214235
The FAQ entry on a (fallacious) reason why they won't remove it:
http://www.python.org/doc/faq/library/#can-t-we-get-rid-of-the-global-interpreter-lock
Yah, because only professionals should get to compete for cash, etc. For that matter, lets do away with all just lower level competition altogether. First to go, the Olympics.
Totally! Because, console gamers clearly have never played a game on a PC nor even owned one!
You're either joking or retarded. Which is it? I can't tell from what you wrote.
DISCLAIMER: I liberated myself of M$ years ago. My machine tri-boots Linux, OpenBSD and OS X.
The problem with this term is that the Free (note the capitalization) software people think that Open-source means the [L]GPL or compatible license. On the other side, there are those that acknowledge that the [L]GPL is excessively restrictive i.e. I MUST publish my code under the [L]GPL as well (L depending on linkage). So, in the end, when we put these side-by-side, they are pretty much as restrictive as each other, just in different ways. Also, we note that this disagreement is due to the fuzzy term "open-source."
Point of fact, the only truly agreed on /parts/ of the definition are that people can see the code and play with it. Unfortunately, this battle ground is rot with opinions on the restrictions thereof and with many (most?) not respecting the opinions of others.
But, in the end, when it comes down to this M$ only site, who really cares? Because, when it comes down to it, if someone is going to write code that is explicitly linked to M$ libs/etc how portable will it really be? So, how useful will it be to others on other OS's anyway?
So, I say this: If they want there own sand box, let them have it. Because, the [L]GPL people have there's as well. And if we are going to treat everyone equally, then we can't complain when others create there own playhouses.
Grow up people. And stop trying to shove your opinions down others throats.
"""
Its existence is unconvincingly denied in most videos, and in one it is confirmed but the developer insists that flamethrower gameplay is not ready to be shown to the public. He says this while a monitor behind him displays all kinds of in-game flamethrower carnage.
"""
It's nice to see that the self-ironic, etc humour that was in SG1 is alive and well among the staff that are developing the game. It gives me hope that this game will be a good one. Or at least go along some of the lines that the show did.
I never said that it /only/ matters to the point that you're taking it. Sure, things will obviously be more pretty. But, the point is that it isn't necessary for the effect that Nintendo is going for. There is a difference between what you want, what would be nice, and what is necessary you know.
Cherry pick your data much?
And that quicker can quickly become not quicker when the basic rules are too basic to make it feasible to enter the theorem/proof in a timely manner. Not to mention that the input will suffer from human error on entry. So, the proof might be correct, but the come out as incorrect if (really when) the theorem is incorrectly entered. And of course, vis versa. And lets be honest. When we have fairly high error rates on simple data entry (e.g. numbers), how much higher is that going to be when we have something as complicated as this?
I also wouldn't say that I define creativity different than most. More along the lines that I have knowledge about a topic that most don't understand. So, most will not appreciate what is meant by creativity in Mathematics when most people don't understand just how creative one has to be to do higher Mathematics. This is probably so because the vast majority of people have only heard of Analysis (IF they've heard of it) and have never seen what it really is (similarly for other fields in higher Maths).
Humans can admit mistakes, computers are only capable of following rules written by humans. So, when an error is found that results in an inconsistency, humans will follow the chain to find the error. Computers on the other hand aren't capable of doing this. It's called lack of creativity. Computers just don't have it.
Just because something is faster, does _not_ mean it's better. It just means that WHEN an error is produced, it'll do it a hell of a lot quicker. But, who will notice if no-one is checking the checker?
Also, this isn't some 2 + 2 nonsense. This is higher Mathematics. So, when someone write a paper with something along the lines of:
Taking (23), we proceed by partial fractions which results in: ...
How exactly is that supposed to be easily translate/automated?
In all honesty, the only reason why I can think of that people so violently defend this flawed notion is a utterly complete misunderstanding of what Mathematics really is and how it is done. I mean, come on. Most of us work with/fix computers daily. Can we at least be honest and admit that trusting a program to do such a complicated creative thing is a bad idea? I mean, just look at the quality of software out there...
But, that's what peer review and paper retraction is for. I won't name names, but I know for a fact that papers are retracted when an error is found. Also, since everyone builds on everyone else's work, the errors have a tendency to be found (it's hard to hide inconsistencies when they become obvious). It might not happen instantly, but it will happen eventually. Hell, even axiomatic Mathematics itself is a *very* young idea.
There's the rub though, eh. The bugs that will *always* be in there... What will they do to the conclusions?
Blindly trusting machines to do this (or close to it), when in the end it's Math that is depended on to see whether buildings will stand during an earthquake, etc, is irresponsible.
"""
yet in practise their proofs are often quite sloppy
"""
And the people who say this are the ones that don't understand that each and every word has profound meaning. As in, in some books, it's not uncommon for someone who's learning, to spend an hour or more on one page unwinding it. Also, though some wording still may /appear/ sloppy, even after that, in the end, that "sloppy" wording is nothing more than a few lines of rigorous Math. You can't write *everything* out. Especially in a journal. It would produce prohibitive amounts of pages.
From my Complex Analysis book (Marsden and Hoffman, 3rd ed.) an example would probably be Thm 1.5.4 (I believe it's that one - it's been a while and the papers with these "corrections" that I wrote and inserted at those points fell out and disappeared). In the proof, there is a step that is "hand waved" over. At the time, I asked the Prof, and all he said is, (paraphrase) "It's obvious. I don't know what to explain." Took me a bit, but the hand wave ended up being about 5 lines long and it probably should have been obvious. Here's to hitting dead brain cells (and/or being burned out).
At any rate, not so much sloppy. More along the lines that the people who know that they are talking about will just "see" those lines where they aught to be. And again, without that, the length of the papers in journals would be too wordy and long to be practical.
I could add on, "in the end." Would that satisfy your nit-picky-ness? Because, I've *never* heard of overconfident people not getting screwed by there overconfidence at some point (usually sooner rather than later).
Now, a question: What does this have to do with the topic at hand, or the point that I was making? How would this "sloppy" wording effect what I'm saying in any significant way?
How is it that you've missed my point even when I stated it? Are you trying to be obtuse for a purpose? Because, my reply indicated that I knew what you were talking about, but that YOU took what my obvious point what out of context. Would you care to actually contribute to the conversation? Or are you just going to continue to 'not get it'?
You're cherry picking your data i.e. simple arithmatic is _not_ what we're talking about. What we /are/ talking about is something that is exceedingly complicated and dynamic that requires creativity. And that is exactly the type of thing that computers are bad at. If you understood something about higher Mathematics you wouldn't be making such asinine statements.
Btw, I have both a Programming Diploma AND a Degree in Mathematics. I've also did research in a Physics department as a student which involved numerical analysis and have talked to several people regarding automated proof checkers/creators. The theory behind these things, never mind there practical implementations are *far* to immature to be practical. Not to mention that it is questionable if they are even feasible to create on a fundamental level.