1) a = b
2) a^2 = ab
3) a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
4) (a - b)(a + b) = (a - b)b
5) a + b = b
6) 2b = b
7) 2 = 1
The problem with this is that to go from step 4 to step 5 you need to divide by zero. If you had a step 4.5 in there, it would look like this:
(a-b)(a+b) = (a-b)b
---------- ------
(a-b) (a-b)
Penrose wrote a series of books (3 last I counted) which basically made the same claim: because humans have a special insight into Mathematics which computers provably do not, computers cannot be intelligent and computation is not an appropriate model for a theory of intelligence.
Well, if human mathematicians are basically wandering around the landscape digging up theorems at random, that sort of blows Penrose out of the water, doesn't it? It would mean that the special "human insight" into Mathematics was essentially a large sequence of random discoveries.
Potatoes then. You can ferment anything with sugar in it to get alcohol. You could probably ferment a possum if you ran out of juice miles from an alcohol station.
Toilet cleaner (with HCl) and aluminum foil work well too.
I'd like to see alcohol become a widely used fuel. The corn gets carbons from the air, so when it is burned, the carbons go back to the air. It would solve a big problem with CO2.
What would you rather have? A tank of hydrogen in a 1/2 inch thick steel bottle, or a tank of gasoline (with just as much energy) in a tank made of *plastic*?
Great sig. In the good old days, this sig would cause many fights. It seems that some stupid terminal programs would see this in people's sigs and proceed to reset the modem for a redial. It was a pretty good prank.
You misunderstand my points and bring up a few distractions
-your motor example
1) A motor and spin.
2) A motor can't do anything else.
-camera
My camera doesn't have a computer in it. Adding computers to a camera doesn't make it functionally better. The function is to image a scene, with a print as the end product.
-computer isn't that great for drawing/modelling
1) Show me the standalone word processor that is better than a PC at drawing.
2) Show me the standalone computerized drawing pen that is better at word processing than a PC
3) Sure the computer isn't the best at every task, but it's damn adequate at trillions of them, and that equals power.
And another point that I didn't bring up before: The engineers who claim that specializing the computer into single use devices will improve it are trivially wrong.
A computer can simulate *any* tool that exists. The only difference between the computer and the real world is that 1 to many ratio of form to function. If the engineers claim that a change of form will improve the computer, it is easy to show that the net result is a lot more forms, but no additional functions.
So what their argument boil down to is simple human factors. They want to make computers easy to use by making them work just like objects we already know.
So in the end we agree. Why do artists need computers to draw with? They don't. My point is that a computerized pencil won't change that, unless that computerized pencil is integrated into a device with quintillions of possible states: a PC.
>Targets of the critics' scorn included convoluted
> commands such as the common "Alt-Control-Delete"
> sequence used to close a program or perform an
> emergency shutdown
So the engineers are getting all concerned about human factors? I guess I wasn't aware that they had traded in their pocket protectors and slide rules.
the engineers have bought into the myth of the dying PC. Horsepucky. The PC is here with us forever, and as time goes on more and more things will be integrated into it.
Distributed systems are a nice thing in principle, but some problems can be broken up only so far. And then when it comes down to it, nobody wants to buy a specialized piece of a computer when they can get their generalized computer to work.
Look at the history of tools. First there were separate tools, each one doing a single or small number of jobs. Even a Swiss Army Knife was limited to about as many tasks as it had specialized attachments.
People like to poo poo the computer as being "just another tool". But the computer is far far different than any other tool that came before. The computer has the ability to be an INFINITE (or at least huge enough that you won't exhaust the possibilities in the lifetime of the universe) number of tools.
The engineers are being engineers. Who can blame them? They like single purpose tools. Heck, we like single purpose tools too, and that's why we generally embrace the UNIX philosophy of making a program do one thing, and do it well.
But the difference is that our specialization is in the software, and the specialization they are proposing is in the hardware. If I want a single purpose tool, I don't need a computer to get that.
If you think about it, who has gotten in trouble because of cameras. Our neighbors?
Or was it people like that Dick Morris who was photographed with a prostitue, or people like the LAPD beating up Rodney King?
The people in power have a great deal to fear from cameras. When I am caught on tape picking my nose, everyone says "Who is that geek picking his nose?" When the Mayor is caught on tape picking his nose, people say "I'm not voting for a nosepicker."
If you know about electric cars, then you know that with the constant torque and an opportunity to store and dump enormous amounts of power in a short amount of time, it's far easier to build a fast electric car than it is to build a fast gasoline car.
Since you can put a motor on each wheel too, you can have an AWD dragster without a big transmission weight penalty.
Oh no, that can't possibly be correct. I have it from a very reliable source at Microsoft that a great feature of proprietary code is that you can trust the company to not put easter eggs and other backdoors into the software. They run code reviews there, because as they like to say "many eyes make all bugs NOT DEEP". So to think that something as large as a flight simulator would escape their watchful eyes is just... humerous.
>i) Companies, and more importantly consumers,
> won't always be able to know what their risks
> are because this law allows for terms of
> contract which can only be read after the
> product has been purchased
None of the software that I use at home or at work was purchased.
>ii) Backdoors and timebombs in software will be
I doubt Linus will put a backdoor into my software. It is possible, but he has been trustworthy in the pas.
>another way of looking at it is a pharmacutical
>law which places the burden of certification of
> drugs on the consumer
Now this is straining your credibility as an upright anonymous coward very far. Can you imagine the uproar when my grandma and yours are asked to set up a little drug certification laboratory in their kitchens? What congresscritter or judge is going to say "Look granny, you make some might tasty cookies in your kitchen. Are you telling the court that you can't certify an itty bitty little pill in that kitchen of yours?" Somehow, I find it hard to think that would happen.
>Put snidely, if you're serious about this, you're
> on crack.
Why is this legislation so terrible? Companies need to examine their legal obligations to determine their risk. If the risk of having your software stop working is too great a risk, then don't take it. Find alternatives.
Slews of Microsoft shops will suddenly see the reason why proprietary software sucks.
Moderators: if you think this is a troll, you're on crack. I'm serious about this.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! Stop all that Bangor! I sleeping here!
1) a = b
2) a^2 = ab
3) a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
4) (a - b)(a + b) = (a - b)b
5) a + b = b
6) 2b = b
7) 2 = 1
The problem with this is that to go from step 4 to step 5 you need to divide by zero. If you had a step 4.5 in there, it would look like this:
(a-b)(a+b) = (a-b)b
---------- ------
(a-b) (a-b)
a-b = 0
Penrose wrote a series of books (3 last I counted) which basically made the same claim: because humans have a special insight into Mathematics which computers provably do not, computers cannot be intelligent and computation is not an appropriate model for a theory of intelligence.
Well, if human mathematicians are basically wandering around the landscape digging up theorems at random, that sort of blows Penrose out of the water, doesn't it? It would mean that the special "human insight" into Mathematics was essentially a large sequence of random discoveries.
Potatoes then. You can ferment anything with sugar in it to get alcohol. You could probably ferment a possum if you ran out of juice miles from an alcohol station.
The rusted metal gas tank is also mighty thin. Especially in Pintos.
Green toungues do that to you. Just be happy he's typing drunk and not driving drunk.
Toilet cleaner (with HCl) and aluminum foil work well too.
I'd like to see alcohol become a widely used fuel. The corn gets carbons from the air, so when it is burned, the carbons go back to the air. It would solve a big problem with CO2.
What would you rather have? A tank of hydrogen in a 1/2 inch thick steel bottle, or a tank of gasoline (with just as much energy) in a tank made of *plastic*?
I'll take the hydrogen.
>NO CARRIER
Great sig. In the good old days, this sig would cause many fights. It seems that some stupid terminal programs would see this in people's sigs and proceed to reset the modem for a redial. It was a pretty good prank.
You're the one trying to make the point. You need to make it to my satisfaction.
And, learn the definition of an open mind, please.
My camera was built in 1964, so I'm sure. It can do everything that any modern camera can.
You misunderstand my points and bring up a few distractions
-your motor example
1) A motor and spin.
2) A motor can't do anything else.
-camera
My camera doesn't have a computer in it. Adding computers to a camera doesn't make it functionally better. The function is to image a scene, with a print as the end product.
-computer isn't that great for drawing/modelling
1) Show me the standalone word processor that is better than a PC at drawing.
2) Show me the standalone computerized drawing pen that is better at word processing than a PC
3) Sure the computer isn't the best at every task, but it's damn adequate at trillions of them, and that equals power.
And another point that I didn't bring up before: The engineers who claim that specializing the computer into single use devices will improve it are trivially wrong.
A computer can simulate *any* tool that exists. The only difference between the computer and the real world is that 1 to many ratio of form to function. If the engineers claim that a change of form will improve the computer, it is easy to show that the net result is a lot more forms, but no additional functions.
So what their argument boil down to is simple human factors. They want to make computers easy to use by making them work just like objects we already know.
So in the end we agree. Why do artists need computers to draw with? They don't. My point is that a computerized pencil won't change that, unless that computerized pencil is integrated into a device with quintillions of possible states: a PC.
>Targets of the critics' scorn included convoluted
> commands such as the common "Alt-Control-Delete"
> sequence used to close a program or perform an
> emergency shutdown
So the engineers are getting all concerned about human factors? I guess I wasn't aware that they had traded in their pocket protectors and slide rules.
the engineers have bought into the myth of the dying PC. Horsepucky. The PC is here with us forever, and as time goes on more and more things will be integrated into it.
Distributed systems are a nice thing in principle, but some problems can be broken up only so far. And then when it comes down to it, nobody wants to buy a specialized piece of a computer when they can get their generalized computer to work.
Look at the history of tools. First there were separate tools, each one doing a single or small number of jobs. Even a Swiss Army Knife was limited to about as many tasks as it had specialized attachments.
People like to poo poo the computer as being "just another tool". But the computer is far far different than any other tool that came before. The computer has the ability to be an INFINITE (or at least huge enough that you won't exhaust the possibilities in the lifetime of the universe) number of tools.
The engineers are being engineers. Who can blame them? They like single purpose tools. Heck, we like single purpose tools too, and that's why we generally embrace the UNIX philosophy of making a program do one thing, and do it well.
But the difference is that our specialization is in the software, and the specialization they are proposing is in the hardware. If I want a single purpose tool, I don't need a computer to get that.
>infectious sense of fun.
Don't all porn actresses have an infection from their sense of fun?
From the 1st paragraph:
"the thinnest, infinitely expandable handheld computer"
"organizer with endless expansion possibilities."
Cool! Can I turn it into a pony?
Thanks for the comments.
If you think about it, who has gotten in trouble because of cameras. Our neighbors?
Or was it people like that Dick Morris who was photographed with a prostitue, or people like the LAPD beating up Rodney King?
The people in power have a great deal to fear from cameras. When I am caught on tape picking my nose, everyone says "Who is that geek picking his nose?" When the Mayor is caught on tape picking his nose, people say "I'm not voting for a nosepicker."
DAMN! I thought they were bad when OS/9 was announced. They're still selling OS/2. Sheesh!
What you say????
If you know about electric cars, then you know that with the constant torque and an opportunity to store and dump enormous amounts of power in a short amount of time, it's far easier to build a fast electric car than it is to build a fast gasoline car.
Since you can put a motor on each wheel too, you can have an AWD dragster without a big transmission weight penalty.
Oh no, that can't possibly be correct. I have it from a very reliable source at Microsoft that a great feature of proprietary code is that you can trust the company to not put easter eggs and other backdoors into the software. They run code reviews there, because as they like to say "many eyes make all bugs NOT DEEP". So to think that something as large as a flight simulator would escape their watchful eyes is just ... humerous.
Mr. Hannon. I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record.
>i) Companies, and more importantly consumers,
> won't always be able to know what their risks
> are because this law allows for terms of
> contract which can only be read after the
> product has been purchased
None of the software that I use at home or at work was purchased.
>ii) Backdoors and timebombs in software will be
I doubt Linus will put a backdoor into my software. It is possible, but he has been trustworthy in the pas.
>another way of looking at it is a pharmacutical
>law which places the burden of certification of
> drugs on the consumer
Now this is straining your credibility as an upright anonymous coward very far. Can you imagine the uproar when my grandma and yours are asked to set up a little drug certification laboratory in their kitchens? What congresscritter or judge is going to say "Look granny, you make some might tasty cookies in your kitchen. Are you telling the court that you can't certify an itty bitty little pill in that kitchen of yours?" Somehow, I find it hard to think that would happen.
>Put snidely, if you're serious about this, you're
> on crack.
You say that like it's a bad thing!
Why is this legislation so terrible? Companies need to examine their legal obligations to determine their risk. If the risk of having your software stop working is too great a risk, then don't take it. Find alternatives.
Slews of Microsoft shops will suddenly see the reason why proprietary software sucks.
Moderators: if you think this is a troll, you're on crack. I'm serious about this.
You're right. It should be +1 funny.