The more cynical part of me wonders if the reason to terminate support for Firefox 2 is to simply force everyone to upgrade.
Of course it is. You don't even need to be cynical. What other reason makes sense? From their point of view supporting two versions takes more resources.
We found a bill on our credit card statement from some company.
No doubt this is Webloyalty. What they do is wave a "rebate" coupon of $10 or something in your face, but in the fine print they are actually subscribing you to some worthless "rewards" program for a monthly fee that they hope you won't notice. Pure scam company that partners with a lot of online sites like Classmates.
If there IS a class-action lawsuit against them, I want in on it. No joke.
Your definition is quite a stretch from the popular idea of a fictional device. Your definition covers stuff like propaganda, and that really isn't what is meant by "mind control".
Tell me, which exact branch of science deals with meaning and makes such statements?
Science has nothing to say about meanings and values.
If science existed in a vacuum, then that would be true. However, science interacts with our lives and we use it to ask "why?". It's cause and effect. You can show how evolution leads to certain behavior traits, like cheating. People dying in car accidents were considered "acts of God". Then they used science to improve the chances of surviving an accident. Everything we know about consciousness is tied to the physical brain.
So, when posed with the question: Why do these things happen? Is there life after death? Science plays a role in the answer. That's why religion has been constantly shrinking in the face of science. It has shrunk so much that people pretend science and religion don't overlap, but that's just revisionist history.
Yeah, I feel so sorry for Tom Cruise. Incredibly wealthy and good looking. For all the ridicule he gets, there are 10 times as many people to kiss his ass.
These two companies are about as far apart as you can expect any two massive tech companies to be. Name any other two massive tech companies that have less in common.
Before Apple started making the iPhone you could have said Nokia and Apple. Depending on why Apple hired this guy, I could very easily see them trying to ramp up an area that competes with IBM.
According to the article, Apple says they hired him to run their iPod and iPhone group, and before that he was "vice president of blade server development" at IBM. Sure, it's different, but then Apple could just be lying and working on making back-end devices, and hired this guy for exactly that reason. I'll let the courts figure it out.
Yes, that's right. It also means I can criticize your religion, government policy, or whatever else somebody in power mind find "offensive".
Please stop exporting "American Culture" to the rest of the world. A bunch of spear weilding African bushmen would have a higher level of civilization than you do.
I find this statement insulting and offensive. Please report to the nearest re-education camp.
So you're the one who is spreading bullshit by replacing strong claims with absolutist ones. Keep on attacking those straw men you have created.
The program will be full of bugs just like any other program.
This is meaningless. Not all software is created equal. Some software is rock solid. The size and complexity of the software matters. The construction and verification of the software matters. The more a particular piece of software is used the more dependable it is. You're just painting all software with a broad brush.
And even IF this process can be written into an algorithm, we are decades (at least) away from it.
The process of checking already has been turned into an algorithm. You can look at the list of significant theorems that have been proved in multiple systems.
And even then, there is still a significant human factor to overcome in data entry (disregarding the flawed program).
Yes, this will always be a source of errors, whether the computer is used or not. The point is to reduce the room for error. It is much easier to check a specification is correct than to human-verify every step of the process. The goal is to write in formal language what you intend to prove, and if that goal is written correctly, the rest can be computer verified, with help from the human to guide the proof.
If this "formalization" is to make any progress, what is needed is Pure Mathematicians, Theoretical Computer Scientists, and Logicians to get together. Not these hacks doing ridiculously pre-mature work.
Progress is being made and people from all fields are working together. That curmudgeons like you dismiss everything out of hand with shallow arguments doesn't change that.
I did read the AMS article. That is why I referenced it.
You used words and statements made in the physorg.com that weren't made in the AMS article -- where in fact opposite statements were made. You have never once quoted something from the article. You made shallow arguments that were addressed by the article which you professed to have read.
If you did read it, you didn't do it very carefully or with an open mind.
But, I'm really tired of explaining these things that are trivial to people that actually know something about real Maths to programmers.
[profound stupidity to think that the computer is infallible] I cited my reference. If you would care to click a link, you'd find it.
The Wiedijk article, "Formal Proof -- Getting Started", never says infallible. In fact, it starts with "ensuring a reliability that is orders of magnitude larger than if one had just used human minds." That doesn't mean infallible.
I think instead that you are talking about the physorg.com article, which doesn't even list an author. Even that one says "nearly infallible", but that article is just a popular press writeup anyways.
They are just putting in the exact same data as exists elsewhere (assuming there was no error on data entry) and running a human coded (i.e. flawed) program over it and calling that formalized mathematics i.e. formalized to them means "computer encoded".
The program is written once and is used many times to verify many proofs. The program uses a limited set of rules applied recursively to prove things back to axioms. So, the more the program is used, the more confidence is gained.
How exactly is that any more formally checked than a human going over it?
Formal mathematics is based on axioms and rules of logic that are mechanical in application. Human proofs don't go back to axioms. Humans often make mistakes that the computer would not have, because they do proofs in an ad hoc way -- not formal.
It isn't meant to replace humans, but instead be used by them.
You need to stop assuming and start reading. Again, I cited my reference. Go read it.
You need to start providing quotes that back up what you say. Especially when the article you cited says the opposite: "I do not mean that the computer should take steps that a mathematician would need to think about. Formalization of mathematics is about checking, and not about discovery."
I suspect, again, you are referring to the physorg.com article.
You should read the articles yourself -- the PDFs from the AMS, not the physorg.com one.
It is nothing but BS that the computer is better than human.
It's certainly better at performing repetitive tasks reliably.
Not to mention profound stupidity to think that the computer is infallible i.e. it is programmed by humans.
Where was that claimed in the article?
Because, formalization is good, right? Well, not if you read and really understand what it does, and infinitely more important, does NOT mean in this context.
What do you think formalization means? How is computer formalization different?
Point of fact, using computers does NOT take human minds out of the equation. It just hides them giving people the illusion of a more effective system.
Computer formalization is just a tool, like a calculator. It isn't meant to replace humans, but instead be used by them.
runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?
Oh please. Obama's campaign was often petty and personal too -- see his attacks on McCain's houses and the dirty ad linking McCain to Limbaugh. Obama's REAL platform is peddling "change" and "hope". You might watch the 1972 movie The Candidate.
I know this is just what some really hate hearing, but he reminds me of John Coffey from The Green Mile; he was this miracle given to us that by our greed and hate we would destroy for our own selfish, petty reasons.
Holy crap you really bought in. He's not a miracle worker. He's an intelligent, thoughtful politician. He's also a shrewd one and knows how to play the game. And he does NOT have all the answers. Nobody does.
I don't see much difference between a couple of hundred OpenID postings scattered across random blogs, news sites, and forums and several hundred postings to Slashdot under a single ID on a wide array of topics.
Where OpenID shines is when you don't want to bother registering to make a single comment to some site you may never visit again. If you want to use different OpenID accounts for sites you visit frequently you can.
You can have more than one OpenID. Sites can still allow anonymous posting.
Besides that, there's an even bigger id that most people are tied to and don't even think about -- their IP address. How much data flows through your ISP? Talk about single points of failure. People also tend to have one email address and don't use encryption.
If you are concerned about government-thwarting privacy then you have to take active measures to gain it. OpenID is no more of a problem than any of the other things I have mentioned. On the other hand, if you don't care about people tracking your blog postings -- or maybe you want an identity -- OpenID is great.
It's actually really difficult to figure out whether or not Zed Shaw is kidding. I'm talking about his blog in general, not just that post.
He provides links. Ignoring all the "I wanna be a net personality" crap, the content is easily verifiable.
You're confusing Ruby and Rails. Rails adds a lot of things, but a garbage collector isn't one of them.
Ok, but that's a technicality as Rails is built on Ruby. If Ruby has scaling problems then Rails does.
This particular problem has been solved pretty thoroughly. In fact, it was solved something like a year before it bit Zed, according to that rant.
No, according to the rant, somebody sent in a patch and it was ignored for a year, and when Zed finally made enough noise they fixed it. So it may be fixed now, but Rails definitely had some scaling problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is trademarked
Even better, so is Debian.
Freedom to give up your own freedom is not considered very important by most people.
It's the basis of contract law, which makes trade and our civilization possible.
The more cynical part of me wonders if the reason to terminate support for Firefox 2 is to simply force everyone to upgrade.
Of course it is. You don't even need to be cynical. What other reason makes sense? From their point of view supporting two versions takes more resources.
Fixed that for you.
One of the biggest asshole expressions on Slashdot.
Wikipedia goes over the arguments both for and against.
We found a bill on our credit card statement from some company.
No doubt this is Webloyalty. What they do is wave a "rebate" coupon of $10 or something in your face, but in the fine print they are actually subscribing you to some worthless "rewards" program for a monthly fee that they hope you won't notice. Pure scam company that partners with a lot of online sites like Classmates.
If there IS a class-action lawsuit against them, I want in on it. No joke.
http://www.google.com/search?q=webloyalty+class+action
Your definition is quite a stretch from the popular idea of a fictional device. Your definition covers stuff like propaganda, and that really isn't what is meant by "mind control".
It's no more delusional than going to church once a week, praying, and thanking God when things go right.
Tell me, which exact branch of science deals with meaning and makes such statements?
Science has nothing to say about meanings and values.
If science existed in a vacuum, then that would be true. However, science interacts with our lives and we use it to ask "why?". It's cause and effect. You can show how evolution leads to certain behavior traits, like cheating. People dying in car accidents were considered "acts of God". Then they used science to improve the chances of surviving an accident. Everything we know about consciousness is tied to the physical brain.
So, when posed with the question: Why do these things happen? Is there life after death? Science plays a role in the answer. That's why religion has been constantly shrinking in the face of science. It has shrunk so much that people pretend science and religion don't overlap, but that's just revisionist history.
Yeah, I feel so sorry for Tom Cruise. Incredibly wealthy and good looking. For all the ridicule he gets, there are 10 times as many people to kiss his ass.
I would call it either 'Graphica'
Sounds like the name of a movie with sinister overtones.
the damn thing is over 2000 pages long (that may be hyperbole...I haven't seen a written copy)
Indeed. I just downloaded a PDF version and it's 59 pages.
These two companies are about as far apart as you can expect any two massive tech companies to be. Name any other two massive tech companies that have less in common.
Before Apple started making the iPhone you could have said Nokia and Apple. Depending on why Apple hired this guy, I could very easily see them trying to ramp up an area that competes with IBM.
According to the article, Apple says they hired him to run their iPod and iPhone group, and before that he was "vice president of blade server development" at IBM. Sure, it's different, but then Apple could just be lying and working on making back-end devices, and hired this guy for exactly that reason. I'll let the courts figure it out.
The right to call me a jerk.
Yes, that's right. It also means I can criticize your religion, government policy, or whatever else somebody in power mind find "offensive".
Please stop exporting "American Culture" to the rest of the world. A bunch of spear weilding African bushmen would have a higher level of civilization than you do.
I find this statement insulting and offensive. Please report to the nearest re-education camp.
Free speech and debate is, and has always been, encouraged in Islam.
So, preaching that Islam is a religion based on a false prophet is ok then, right?
(Don't confuse free speech with random insults though, they're different.)
Bullshit. Being able to offend somebody is the hallmark of free speech.
Hyperbole. Look it up.
So you're the one who is spreading bullshit by replacing strong claims with absolutist ones. Keep on attacking those straw men you have created.
The program will be full of bugs just like any other program.
This is meaningless. Not all software is created equal. Some software is rock solid. The size and complexity of the software matters. The construction and verification of the software matters. The more a particular piece of software is used the more dependable it is. You're just painting all software with a broad brush.
And even IF this process can be written into an algorithm, we are decades (at least) away from it.
The process of checking already has been turned into an algorithm. You can look at the list of significant theorems that have been proved in multiple systems.
And even then, there is still a significant human factor to overcome in data entry (disregarding the flawed program).
Yes, this will always be a source of errors, whether the computer is used or not. The point is to reduce the room for error. It is much easier to check a specification is correct than to human-verify every step of the process. The goal is to write in formal language what you intend to prove, and if that goal is written correctly, the rest can be computer verified, with help from the human to guide the proof.
If this "formalization" is to make any progress, what is needed is Pure Mathematicians, Theoretical Computer Scientists, and Logicians to get together. Not these hacks doing ridiculously pre-mature work.
Progress is being made and people from all fields are working together. That curmudgeons like you dismiss everything out of hand with shallow arguments doesn't change that.
I did read the AMS article. That is why I referenced it.
You used words and statements made in the physorg.com that weren't made in the AMS article -- where in fact opposite statements were made. You have never once quoted something from the article. You made shallow arguments that were addressed by the article which you professed to have read.
If you did read it, you didn't do it very carefully or with an open mind.
But, I'm really tired of explaining these things that are trivial to people that actually know something about real Maths to programmers.
That's ok, the world will move on without you.
[profound stupidity to think that the computer is infallible] I cited my reference. If you would care to click a link, you'd find it.
The Wiedijk article, "Formal Proof -- Getting Started", never says infallible. In fact, it starts with "ensuring a reliability that is orders of magnitude larger than if one had just used human minds." That doesn't mean infallible.
I think instead that you are talking about the physorg.com article, which doesn't even list an author. Even that one says "nearly infallible", but that article is just a popular press writeup anyways.
They are just putting in the exact same data as exists elsewhere (assuming there was no error on data entry) and running a human coded (i.e. flawed) program over it and calling that formalized mathematics i.e. formalized to them means "computer encoded".
The program is written once and is used many times to verify many proofs. The program uses a limited set of rules applied recursively to prove things back to axioms. So, the more the program is used, the more confidence is gained.
How exactly is that any more formally checked than a human going over it?
Formal mathematics is based on axioms and rules of logic that are mechanical in application. Human proofs don't go back to axioms. Humans often make mistakes that the computer would not have, because they do proofs in an ad hoc way -- not formal.
It isn't meant to replace humans, but instead be used by them.
You need to stop assuming and start reading. Again, I cited my reference. Go read it.
You need to start providing quotes that back up what you say. Especially when the article you cited says the opposite: "I do not mean that the computer should take steps that a mathematician would need to think about. Formalization of mathematics is about checking, and not about discovery."
I suspect, again, you are referring to the physorg.com article.
You should read the articles yourself -- the PDFs from the AMS, not the physorg.com one.
But then again I'm racist for thinking any of this, right?
No, but you are a fascist for this:
All I said is that anyone who voted for him (or against him) simply because of his skin color needs to be deported.
I'm all for voting for policy and not skin color, but not for radical enforcement of your views.
It is nothing but BS that the computer is better than human.
It's certainly better at performing repetitive tasks reliably.
Not to mention profound stupidity to think that the computer is infallible i.e. it is programmed by humans.
Where was that claimed in the article?
Because, formalization is good, right? Well, not if you read and really understand what it does, and infinitely more important, does NOT mean in this context.
What do you think formalization means? How is computer formalization different?
Point of fact, using computers does NOT take human minds out of the equation. It just hides them giving people the illusion of a more effective system.
Computer formalization is just a tool, like a calculator. It isn't meant to replace humans, but instead be used by them.
runs a positive campaign based not on mudslinging and personal attacks, but on a REAL platform?
Oh please. Obama's campaign was often petty and personal too -- see his attacks on McCain's houses and the dirty ad linking McCain to Limbaugh. Obama's REAL platform is peddling "change" and "hope". You might watch the 1972 movie The Candidate.
I know this is just what some really hate hearing, but he reminds me of John Coffey from The Green Mile; he was this miracle given to us that by our greed and hate we would destroy for our own selfish, petty reasons.
Holy crap you really bought in. He's not a miracle worker. He's an intelligent, thoughtful politician. He's also a shrewd one and knows how to play the game. And he does NOT have all the answers. Nobody does.
Maybe you should know who you're talking to
He did say "Get over yourself", didn't he?
I don't see much difference between a couple of hundred OpenID postings scattered across random blogs, news sites, and forums and several hundred postings to Slashdot under a single ID on a wide array of topics.
Where OpenID shines is when you don't want to bother registering to make a single comment to some site you may never visit again. If you want to use different OpenID accounts for sites you visit frequently you can.
You can have more than one OpenID. Sites can still allow anonymous posting.
Besides that, there's an even bigger id that most people are tied to and don't even think about -- their IP address. How much data flows through your ISP? Talk about single points of failure. People also tend to have one email address and don't use encryption.
If you are concerned about government-thwarting privacy then you have to take active measures to gain it. OpenID is no more of a problem than any of the other things I have mentioned. On the other hand, if you don't care about people tracking your blog postings -- or maybe you want an identity -- OpenID is great.
It's actually really difficult to figure out whether or not Zed Shaw is kidding. I'm talking about his blog in general, not just that post.
He provides links. Ignoring all the "I wanna be a net personality" crap, the content is easily verifiable.
You're confusing Ruby and Rails. Rails adds a lot of things, but a garbage collector isn't one of them.
Ok, but that's a technicality as Rails is built on Ruby. If Ruby has scaling problems then Rails does.
This particular problem has been solved pretty thoroughly. In fact, it was solved something like a year before it bit Zed, according to that rant.
No, according to the rant, somebody sent in a patch and it was ignored for a year, and when Zed finally made enough noise they fixed it. So it may be fixed now, but Rails definitely had some scaling problems.