I use PSN.net. Their actual lines and speed are excellent. Their tech support level 1 is worse than anything I've seen, and that's when you actually get through to them.
Oh, and Detroit is down for two weeks until Oct. 3.
A few of us got it at work. Scanning in the same UPC with two different CATs, shows that the first number is a unique identifier. Same on every scan, but different for every CAT. If Radio Shack is taking down names and addresses (as they always do on every purchase) and scanning in the bar code of the CAT, then they are obviously tracking you.
Using it for the catalogs, and taking you to their website with their software is actually an awesome idea, and I think it will help them. I just am a bit queezy when they start tracking you too.
Domain names are supposed to make it easier, but in essence they're three steps away:
[company/person]-->[ip address]-->[domain name]
Look at a phone book; People are only two steps away:
[company/person]--> phone number
It may be a bit confusing at first, but if there was a directory for ip addresses, we wouldn't have all these issues.
The idea of a domain name was that it is easier to remember. Obviously, this then allows people to skip looking up an ip address in a phone book. However, there are so many domains, and all these disputes, that it just isn't worth it. There already are laws about company names, and they should just use those here.
Wouldn't it be nice to do a whois based on a company name rather than trying to guess their domain name?
There only problem is that ip addresses can change quickly. But if Domain Name servers can keep up, so can another scheme.
So, there's goes Nvidia, trying to throw the Linux community a bone again. Well this time I'm not biting.
I have an Nvidia card, which I bought when I heard they were going with open source, then they seesawed around until they are now here. I've had it with them.
I'm putting together a Windows box for someone. That person is going to get my video card whilst I get one that while it may not be supported by the company, the company doesn't give false statements about future plans.
Sheesh! I have an nVidia as well. I bought it with X in mind, and now I am very dissapointed. If anyone does get their money back on this, tell me. At least with a voodoo I could've played all those games.
I'm actually looking at a 6350c. It, together with the transparency adapter, costs just over 500, from a Pricewatch quote that I just checked.
Another thing on my mind, is playing with images. I'm going to have to seriously try TheGimp, but, being I have never relaly tried it in the past, I wonder if it will scale up to PSP or Photoshop. (I'm assuming it does; I have just never tried it for more than a few minutes.)
From http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html The Gregorian calendar is thus based on a cycle of 400 years, which comprises 146097 days. Since 146097 is evenly divisible by 7, the Gregorian civil calendar exactly repeats after 400 years. Dividing 146097 by 400 yields an average length of 365.2425 days per calendar year, which is a close approximation to the length of the tropical year. Comparison with Equation 1.1-1 reveals that the Gregorian calendar accumulates an error of one day in about 2500 years. Although various adjustments to the leap-year system have been proposed, none has been instituted.
I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but I was always wondering if this would work.
Get a really, really large hard drive.
Map every possible combination of the chess board. That means every square a pawn, until every possible combination is saved as its own matrix.
Eliminate every impossible board, that is impossible because of by pieces or color. I.E. more than 9 queens or two bishops on the same colors while all eight pawns are still there.
Evaluate each matrix and record it's possible:
children via legal moves.
parents that can get here via legal moves
if the parent is the first board or if it is trusted I.E. it has the marking being connected to a parent or the first board.
Remove all boards that do not have trusted parents.
Step one may be relatively easy, in that once a matrix is designed, it just needs to be filled with every possibility.
Step two can be part of 1 or 3.
I wanted to try this for tic-tac-toe, which could then be extended to a board larger than 3x3.
I don't understand why anyone cares that much. Linux is not a no name anymore. The fact that people go crazy whenever it is mentioned just means that they think it hasn't.
Someone probably asked MS about it. It is easier to write a page on it then to explain it over and over.
On another note, according to the man page, cfdisk is better. Besides, is is probably easier to use for a windows user.
OK, so let's have a VCR record the commercials. How many peple actually watch the commercials? Would it be safe to say that the overwhelming majority fast-forwards through the commercials? If that is the case, then what is the difference between fast forwarding and skipping them?
Who decided on this idiotic notion that all people were created equal? Equal in rights yes, equal in constitution, no. Of these two, the former is more important, yet the belief in the latter allows self-proclaimed experts to trample on people's rights.
It bothers me greatly to read that someone has a "disorder". What is a disorder anyway? That people don't conform to some social standard? If the whole world had social anxiety disorder, would the whole world be crazy? Would the few that were not be considered to have disorders?
If someone were to knock their head against the wall all day long, or cause bodily injury to themselves, then I could understand an argument to the effect that they may have some disorder that should be addressed. Otherwise, just behavioral actions define a person, not their sanity.
Whomever would propose such an idea, is probably either so insecure that they must make others conform to their actions, or is so arrogant as to think that they can define a person on a whim.
Anyway, when did interaction become a requirement for proof? Are you saying that you cannot prove that a god must exist? That only that a god who actually interacts exists?
Before going further, you must define what a god is. What you can prove is that something outside the physical world exists, and I would call that existence a god.
If I were to witness a miracle, it would not prove that god exists, it would tell me that I don't know everything there is to know about reality (which is true).
If you were to witness a miracle, and not know that is what a miracle, then I could understand your point. However, if you saw a miracle, and knew it was a miracle, wouldn't that knowledge in and of itself proof your belief? Obviously, you meant that a miracle would not prove anything because you would not understand it as a miracle. But then, that statement carries no weight, and you mentioned it for no reason.
You then say that it would tell you that you don't understand enough about reality. That you don't understand enough is obvious, that is why you would be thinking about it. But to say that you don't understand enough about reality, means that you have a predispostion to believe that everything can be explained without a god. Seeing that you have an analytical mind, you would certainly agree that you cannot prove that a god does not exist. With that in mind, I do not understand your comment that everything must have an explanation that you just don't know.
I disagree that you cannot prove that there is a god in the world. I believe that I can prove it. It does border, however, on what your understanding of time is. If you have a better forum I'd be happy to spar it out with you.
I was refering to the first two statements that quoted. I apologize if I was unclear.
Here thay are again:
Occam's razor says, basically, to never explain a phenomena with another phenomena for which you also have no explanation. That is what is meant by "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities."
The "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities." is what I disagree with. If it truly is uneccesary, then the statement is obvious. Otherwise, it only makes sense when it is common sense. Or at least that is how I understood your original explanation.
I have only seen the rule applied twice. And both time I disgreed wholeheartedly with the application. One was in an essay against Creationism. Instead of bring proofs, he called it uneccesary. The other time was too long ago for me to remember the specifics. I just remember his basic statement going something like, "We now have to possibilities. Since possibility A is already used, we apply Occam's Razor and rid Reason B". It was being used as a proof. And that it surely was not.
The original poster said "3. NEVER, EVER add more entities than is needed to explain a phenomina, completely. Even if you're a physicist." You can certainly add more than are needed. Unless what you already have sufficiently explains it. If you are still looking for and answer, a predisposition to use what you already have will lead to false judgement.
Occam's razor says, basically, to never explain a phenomena with another phenomena for which you also have no explanation. That is what is meant by "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities."
OK, we're getting somewehre. But what do those two statements have to do with each other? The first sentence makes sense. The second however, may sometimes be an outcome, yet it certainly should not be mentioned as part of the rule.
That was an oversimplified example. Since the second explains the phenomina, the third has only extras. The first however, you left unexplained, and therefore could not be addressed.
Let me explain.
Imagine an apple fell on your head. Theory A is that the Earth as a mass created some force which acted on the apple. Theory B suggests that the direction in which the apple grew and the force with which the wind was blowing cause it to happen.
Theory B suggest that both the apple and the wind, two elements, affected it. Theory A says that the Earth did it. Without knowing of gravity, I would easily choose Theory B. It simply makes more sense.
Using less rather than more is nice, but only when what is already there can sufficiently prove other things. However, if you can explain two phenomina with either one thing or two, using two seems like a better answer.
An example. Imagine an apple fell on your head, and it bounce back up and reattached itself to the tree. Sir Isaac Newton has come and gone and we all understand gravity. The falling of the apple is explained. Would it then make more sense to say another force bounced it back up and attached it to the tree, or shall we try to attribute that to gravity as well?
Basically, I don't see how Occan's Razor says anything different than common sense.
Do you really believe that this exists? Has anything ever been proven or at all practiced? Don't you think that if people traveled back in time that we would know about it? That is no proof, but I may believe that more than any other thing I've heard on the subject.
I believe that time is a measurement, plain and simple. It is the measurement of movement. Just like meters measure distance and grams measure weight. Time is just a mesurement.
If meters were non-existant then the whole world would be zero dimentional; if the grams were non-existant then the whole world would have no weight; if time did not exist then the whole world would not be able to move, it would exist anywhere and everywhere all at the same time.
I will attempt to explain. Take a step. Now you are elsewhere. Were you not here before? Are you there now? Of course not. Remove the time aspect, now you can no longer be in one area or another. Because if you move there was a difference in where you were which could only be reconciled with a time difference. In fact, you do not need to actually move, just the ability to move alone would be a proof that time exists. Therefore, if time did exists, you, and everyone for that matter, would have to be everywhere at once. No thought, movement, or anything could exist, because that would mean that time existed.
Well, time would seem to exist. But, IMNSHO (In My Not-So-Humble Opinion), as a measurement, that's it.
Even to someone who thinks that time travel was possible, I would tell them that time always moves forward. It must. Even when you travel back in time, your existance would still move forward. You are still experiencing more time that you did before the travel. So I never could understand the argument, "I'll fix it and then I'll never actually go back to fix it becuase it was already fixed, etc...". You were there, and you did something, and your timeline is still moving forward, so what you did will always exist. That would means that the same event would happen twice in your timeline. (The only problem is, this in itself would meant that time is a measures, and the theory would therefore disqualify itself.)
NEVER, EVER add more entities than is needed to explain a phenomina, completely. Even if you're a physicist.
Occum's Razor? I never understood it, let alone believed in it. To not say that another entity is needed is indeed the greater discovery, and therefore the course that needs more proof.
Stealing comprises of two separate actions. One person must lose something, and another must gain.
Let me explain:
If the owner loses but nobody gains, then the person has caused the loss.
If the owner loses and somebody gains, then the person has stolen.
If the owner does not lose and nobody gains, then nothing has happened.
If the owner does not lose, and somebody gains, the he has been lucky to have gained.
This only attains to physical property. Why? Because you cannot lose what is intangible!
If I probe your brain and get ideas from you, then case four applies. If I later cause you to forget it, then case one applies. They cannot be merged since they are separate actions.
If I copy software, the owner has lost nothing. The same bits that were there, are still there! It is case number four. You may say that I have caused loss to the owner in that I will not buy it later. Firstly, this is a moral argument. You cannot steal something that isn't here yet! And even if you do consider it stealing, that can only be if I will buy it in the future. If I will not, then even now there is no loss. If given to someone else causes him not to buy it, then at most I am an accomplice.
Let me mention another point.
What if I come up with the same idea as you. Without ever hearing of you or your idea? I create this fantastic piece of software, and later find that you have been selling it for the past decade. In fact, they are identical down to the very last bit. Had I seen your software without creating it myself, I would have bought it. Now that I created it I will not buy it. Have I stolen or caused you a loss? Obviously not.
Patent and Copyright laws are not there to replace, or even expand, the meaning of stealing. They are there to help protect innovation. For without it, the prevalent thought is, that few people would ever spend time and money creating something that they will never see gains on. In fact, if it takes a great deal of time, they may have to work otherwise in order to survive.
There are three concerns that are presented here: stealing, morality, and laws. all of which are separate entities.
Slashdot Mirror
I use PSN.net. Their actual lines and speed are excellent. Their tech support level 1 is worse than anything I've seen, and that's when you actually get through to them. Oh, and Detroit is down for two weeks until Oct. 3.
----------------
Complimetary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor
----------------
A few of us got it at work. Scanning in the same UPC with two different CATs, shows that the first number is a unique identifier. Same on every scan, but different for every CAT. If Radio Shack is taking down names and addresses (as they always do on every purchase) and scanning in the bar code of the CAT, then they are obviously tracking you.
Using it for the catalogs, and taking you to their website with their software is actually an awesome idea, and I think it will help them. I just am a bit queezy when they start tracking you too.
----------------
Domain names are supposed to make it easier, but in essence they're three steps away:
[company/person]-->[ip address]-->[domain name]
Look at a phone book; People are only two steps away:
[company/person]--> phone number
It may be a bit confusing at first, but if there was a directory for ip addresses, we wouldn't have all these issues.
The idea of a domain name was that it is easier to remember. Obviously, this then allows people to skip looking up an ip address in a phone book. However, there are so many domains, and all these disputes, that it just isn't worth it. There already are laws about company names, and they should just use those here.
Wouldn't it be nice to do a whois based on a company name rather than trying to guess their domain name?
There only problem is that ip addresses can change quickly. But if Domain Name servers can keep up, so can another scheme.
----------------
I have an Nvidia card, which I bought when I heard they were going with open source, then they seesawed around until they are now here. I've had it with them.
I'm putting together a Windows box for someone. That person is going to get my video card whilst I get one that while it may not be supported by the company, the company doesn't give false statements about future plans.
----------------
Sheesh! I have an nVidia as well. I bought it with X in mind, and now I am very dissapointed. If anyone does get their money back on this, tell me. At least with a voodoo I could've played all those games.
----------------
If there are so many alphabets, maybe they all map to the same letters, but should be translated one after the other.
What are the frequencies in each alphabet?
----------------
Kewl.
I'm actually looking at a 6350c. It, together with the transparency adapter, costs just over 500, from a Pricewatch quote that I just checked.
Another thing on my mind, is playing with images. I'm going to have to seriously try TheGimp, but, being I have never relaly tried it in the past, I wonder if it will scale up to PSP or Photoshop. (I'm assuming it does; I have just never tried it for more than a few minutes.)
----------------
From http://astro.nmsu.edu/~lhuber/leaphist.html The Gregorian calendar is thus based on a cycle of 400 years, which comprises 146097 days. Since 146097 is evenly divisible by 7, the Gregorian civil calendar exactly repeats after 400 years. Dividing 146097 by 400 yields an average length of 365.2425 days per calendar year, which is a close approximation to the length of the tropical year. Comparison with Equation 1.1-1 reveals that the Gregorian calendar accumulates an error of one day in about 2500 years. Although various adjustments to the leap-year system have been proposed, none has been instituted.
----------------
My Y2k resolution?
Ask me in 48 years. But for now 1024x768 will do.
----------------
I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but I was always wondering if this would work.
Get a really, really large hard drive.
Step one may be relatively easy, in that once a matrix is designed, it just needs to be filled with every possibility.
Step two can be part of 1 or 3.
I wanted to try this for tic-tac-toe, which could then be extended to a board larger than 3x3.
----------------
:-)
----------------
I don't understand why anyone cares that much. Linux is not a no name anymore. The fact that people go crazy whenever it is mentioned just means that they think it hasn't.
Someone probably asked MS about it. It is easier to write a page on it then to explain it over and over.
On another note, according to the man page, cfdisk is better. Besides, is is probably easier to use for a windows user.
----------------
OK, so let's have a VCR record the commercials. How many peple actually watch the commercials? Would it be safe to say that the overwhelming majority fast-forwards through the commercials? If that is the case, then what is the difference between fast forwarding and skipping them?
----------------
Who decided on this idiotic notion that all people were created equal? Equal in rights yes, equal in constitution, no. Of these two, the former is more important, yet the belief in the latter allows self-proclaimed experts to trample on people's rights.
It bothers me greatly to read that someone has a "disorder". What is a disorder anyway? That people don't conform to some social standard? If the whole world had social anxiety disorder, would the whole world be crazy? Would the few that were not be considered to have disorders?
If someone were to knock their head against the wall all day long, or cause bodily injury to themselves, then I could understand an argument to the effect that they may have some disorder that should be addressed. Otherwise, just behavioral actions define a person, not their sanity.
Whomever would propose such an idea, is probably either so insecure that they must make others conform to their actions, or is so arrogant as to think that they can define a person on a whim.
----------------
Bunk.
I don't think that I can prove it? ;-)
Anyway, when did interaction become a requirement for proof? Are you saying that you cannot prove that a god must exist? That only that a god who actually interacts exists?
Before going further, you must define what a god is. What you can prove is that something outside the physical world exists, and I would call that existence a god.
If I were to witness a miracle, it would not prove that god exists, it would tell me that I don't know everything there is to know about reality (which is true).
If you were to witness a miracle, and not know that is what a miracle, then I could understand your point. However, if you saw a miracle, and knew it was a miracle, wouldn't that knowledge in and of itself proof your belief? Obviously, you meant that a miracle would not prove anything because you would not understand it as a miracle. But then, that statement carries no weight, and you mentioned it for no reason.
You then say that it would tell you that you don't understand enough about reality. That you don't understand enough is obvious, that is why you would be thinking about it. But to say that you don't understand enough about reality, means that you have a predispostion to believe that everything can be explained without a god. Seeing that you have an analytical mind, you would certainly agree that you cannot prove that a god does not exist. With that in mind, I do not understand your comment that everything must have an explanation that you just don't know.
OK, I understand your point.
I disagree that you cannot prove that there is a god in the world. I believe that I can prove it. It does border, however, on what your understanding of time is. If you have a better forum I'd be happy to spar it out with you.
http://rs.internic.net/cgi- bin/whois/whois?slashdot.org which is redirected to http://www.network solutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?slashdot.org seems to give out the information that it always had.
Just the other day I used it to find out that y0k.com through y11k.com are all taken. :-)
I was refering to the first two statements that quoted. I apologize if I was unclear.
Here thay are again:
Occam's razor says, basically, to never explain a phenomena with another phenomena for which you also have no explanation. That is what is meant by "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities."
The "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities." is what I disagree with. If it truly is uneccesary, then the statement is obvious. Otherwise, it only makes sense when it is common sense. Or at least that is how I understood your original explanation.
I have only seen the rule applied twice. And both time I disgreed wholeheartedly with the application. One was in an essay against Creationism. Instead of bring proofs, he called it uneccesary. The other time was too long ago for me to remember the specifics. I just remember his basic statement going something like, "We now have to possibilities. Since possibility A is already used, we apply Occam's Razor and rid Reason B". It was being used as a proof. And that it surely was not.
The original poster said "3. NEVER, EVER add more entities than is needed to explain a phenomina, completely. Even if you're a physicist." You can certainly add more than are needed. Unless what you already have sufficiently explains it. If you are still looking for and answer, a predisposition to use what you already have will lead to false judgement.
Occam's razor says, basically, to never explain a phenomena with another phenomena for which you also have no explanation. That is what is meant by "Don't unnecessarily multiply entities."
OK, we're getting somewehre. But what do those two statements have to do with each other? The first sentence makes sense. The second however, may sometimes be an outcome, yet it certainly should not be mentioned as part of the rule.
That was an oversimplified example. Since the second explains the phenomina, the third has only extras. The first however, you left unexplained, and therefore could not be addressed.
Let me explain.
Imagine an apple fell on your head. Theory A is that the Earth as a mass created some force which acted on the apple. Theory B suggests that the direction in which the apple grew and the force with which the wind was blowing cause it to happen.
Theory B suggest that both the apple and the wind, two elements, affected it. Theory A says that the Earth did it. Without knowing of gravity, I would easily choose Theory B. It simply makes more sense.
Using less rather than more is nice, but only when what is already there can sufficiently prove other things. However, if you can explain two phenomina with either one thing or two, using two seems like a better answer.
An example. Imagine an apple fell on your head, and it bounce back up and reattached itself to the tree. Sir Isaac Newton has come and gone and we all understand gravity. The falling of the apple is explained. Would it then make more sense to say another force bounced it back up and attached it to the tree, or shall we try to attribute that to gravity as well?
Basically, I don't see how Occan's Razor says anything different than common sense.
Do you really believe that this exists? Has anything ever been proven or at all practiced? Don't you think that if people traveled back in time that we would know about it? That is no proof, but I may believe that more than any other thing I've heard on the subject.
I believe that time is a measurement, plain and simple. It is the measurement of movement. Just like meters measure distance and grams measure weight. Time is just a mesurement.
If meters were non-existant then the whole world would be zero dimentional; if the grams were non-existant then the whole world would have no weight; if time did not exist then the whole world would not be able to move, it would exist anywhere and everywhere all at the same time.
I will attempt to explain. Take a step. Now you are elsewhere. Were you not here before? Are you there now? Of course not. Remove the time aspect, now you can no longer be in one area or another. Because if you move there was a difference in where you were which could only be reconciled with a time difference. In fact, you do not need to actually move, just the ability to move alone would be a proof that time exists. Therefore, if time did exists, you, and everyone for that matter, would have to be everywhere at once. No thought, movement, or anything could exist, because that would mean that time existed.
Well, time would seem to exist. But, IMNSHO (In My Not-So-Humble Opinion), as a measurement, that's it.
Even to someone who thinks that time travel was possible, I would tell them that time always moves forward. It must. Even when you travel back in time, your existance would still move forward. You are still experiencing more time that you did before the travel. So I never could understand the argument, "I'll fix it and then I'll never actually go back to fix it becuase it was already fixed, etc...". You were there, and you did something, and your timeline is still moving forward, so what you did will always exist. That would means that the same event would happen twice in your timeline. (The only problem is, this in itself would meant that time is a measures, and the theory would therefore disqualify itself.)
NEVER, EVER add more entities than is needed to explain a phenomina, completely. Even if you're a physicist.
Occum's Razor? I never understood it, let alone believed in it. To not say that another entity is needed is indeed the greater discovery, and therefore the course that needs more proof.
It says that it is not the earliest book, just the earliest dated book.
When was the ealiest book, approximately?
Stealing comprises of two separate actions. One person must lose something, and another must gain.
Let me explain:
This only attains to physical property. Why? Because you cannot lose what is intangible!
If I probe your brain and get ideas from you, then case four applies. If I later cause you to forget it, then case one applies. They cannot be merged since they are separate actions.
If I copy software, the owner has lost nothing. The same bits that were there, are still there! It is case number four. You may say that I have caused loss to the owner in that I will not buy it later. Firstly, this is a moral argument. You cannot steal something that isn't here yet! And even if you do consider it stealing, that can only be if I will buy it in the future. If I will not, then even now there is no loss. If given to someone else causes him not to buy it, then at most I am an accomplice.Let me mention another point.
What if I come up with the same idea as you. Without ever hearing of you or your idea? I create this fantastic piece of software, and later find that you have been selling it for the past decade. In fact, they are identical down to the very last bit. Had I seen your software without creating it myself, I would have bought it. Now that I created it I will not buy it. Have I stolen or caused you a loss? Obviously not.
Patent and Copyright laws are not there to replace, or even expand, the meaning of stealing. They are there to help protect innovation. For without it, the prevalent thought is, that few people would ever spend time and money creating something that they will never see gains on. In fact, if it takes a great deal of time, they may have to work otherwise in order to survive.
There are three concerns that are presented here: stealing, morality, and laws. all of which are separate entities.