It's always seemed to me that the number zero and the number infinity are incomplete. They almost need a coefficient to mean anything significant.
Take for example two very simple functions: f(x)=3x, and g(x)=2x. If you were to divide f(x) by g(x), you will almost always get 3/2. The only possible exception is for x=0, where it produces a 0 divided by a 0. You can work out this kind of thing with limits, and it will come to 3/2, but as far as the maths I've experienced admits, x cannot actually equal zero with that particular expression, only approach it. What you have done is taken two simple linear continuous functions, performed a very simple operation on them, and you produce a non-continuous function. It doesn't make sense.
You can multiply anything into zero and still get zero on the other end, but is it exactly the same? If I put zero into f(x) and g(x), they both produce zero, and when you divide, you seem to cancel out a common "absolute" zero out of the fraction, and you are left with 3/2. I think the problem of zero (and infinity) needs to be solved by symbolising "absolute zero" (or "absolute infinity") and simply applying coefficients (and working from there with more complex problems). Does anybody have any experience with/other half-baked theories about this kind of stuff?
I know exactly what you are referring to, and it is often true, but not in this circumstance. It's all about what you pour your effort into, and you getting the right circumstances for the effort to translate. Often you need some initial sacrifice (like not eating for a year or so, if you are desperately poor), the right situation (not the poor villages of Africa) and then putting that wealth into something useful (like setting up a business in reasonably built-up areas).
Let's face it. These people have no chance but for charity.
They deserve it, because the majority of poor people are poor because they don't understand how money works, and just fritter what they have away.
I hope you are mixing up the scale of these figures, otherwise I'd be forced to call you an idiot. When they say "Richest 2% Own Half of the World's Wealth", they mean the World including all those third-world countries. Yes, you know them. Those countries where millions of people have no chance of experiencing any significant wealth, let alone knowing how do deal with it. You're probably right though. They'd probably piss away wealth on food, clean water, or medicine, rather than sensibly investing it and watching it grow.
Probably not. They'd probably gravitate towards the free samples that they could squeeze out of their Daddy. Besides, there are enough people buying and pirating to show there is a lot of demand for their music. Why shouldn't the kids (being a not-quite-so-random selection of typical kids) like that music?
Besides, saying that the RIAA's music is trash is like me saying that all Indy music is crappy head-banging rock. It's a matter of taste (and ignorance).
The point is that abuse of power, unfair application of the legal system and the justice system is always newsworthy and always worth fighting against.
I think what the GP was thinking was a warped version of the ol' "choose your battles" rational. George Bush's particular instance of abuse of power is IMHO not worth fighting against. It is, after all, harmless. I would argue that this abuse of power is also harmless. In fact, I would argue that this is good news. We now have some nice leverage in the argument that the RIAA are unfairly punishing people.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has existed in public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing future existence, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is in fact supported by common law.
- Me, 2006
...if these LED flashy things interfere with reception? I mean, if they draw energy from surrounding radiation, surely that must dull the signal somewhat.
This is utter BS, and a plain simple statistics based profiler.
What's wrong with using statistics to make predictions? I mean, statistics can indicate that something is likely to happen. They may not be able to get 100% accuracy, but it could be helpful. How about we try it before we deride it, huh?
HD is only truly profound when you _go back_ to SD, and you ask yourself, how the hell did I deal with this shit for so long?
After (relatively) recently buying a beautiful 32" 720p LCD HDTV, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't the resolution of the content, but the TV itself. If only they could make a cheaper LCD SDTV that handles colours with some competence...
Why do people mod these comments up? How do these people see straight past all the good things about patents? I mean, it's kinda like abandoning your house because your TV is broken.
Patents don't tend to benefit the "little guys" because the "little guys" don't have the time or money to invent and to then market the invention. No matter how you change the system, switch it around, any system that rewards invention will definitely reward the "big guy" over the "little guy".
Firstly let me say that, between inventing, making music, and knowing the millionaire who invented the weave in ace bandages, you are completely out of my league:)
Secondly, I'm not a fan of the free market. It's certainly not a one size fits all ideology. Even when it fits, it has nasty side-effects. Sure we get cheap food and cheap clothes, but we also have sweat shops and less small business (both bad from my viewpoint). You also get anticompetitive behaviour, price fixing, etc which the system naturally rewards. You assume that everyone wants to play the free market game, but investors in inventions can easily get cold feet when they have no guarantee. No guarantee that they won't either drop out of the market, or be forced to rock bottom profit margins, where the elevated cost of initially producing the prototype will be slow to recoup. Or, possibly, we would see the supermarket effect, where the little guy who invents it gets out-priced by the big guy who had the resources to quickly reverse engineer it, and sell it at impossible profit margins. Tell me that that system doesn't reward the rich.
That's the assertion (assumption) that underlies the present system. Except in a few very large effort venues, I don't think you can show that it actually holds water.
Not me personally, but people would miss it if it went for the reasons above. I can also tell you that you can't disprove it either, even by asserting several high-profile examples. Just about anything has its flaws, but it doesn't mean that it's time to scrap the entire concept and move on. It simply needs a tune up. In the grandparent post, I mentioned what I don't like about the current system, and how it could be changed. How many of those debacles would have happened with my suggestions?
I would like to see everyone free to invent. I would like to see invention not the fulcrum that underlies profit; I would like to see people do things because it is the right thing to do. I would like to see them compete in the marketplace instead of the courtroom.
You would like a lot of things. No doubt they're admirable, but too idealistic and at times, impractical. Much like the whole free market principle. In practise, we need the law on our side in order to invest in anything major. Would you buy a car if it were legal for someone to hotwire and drive away in it? Would you just say "Damn, that's the third time this week. I guess I'm not worthy of owning a car"? Or would you feel some entitlement to it? Similarly with intellectual property, no-one but the hardened idealist would invest in it. Only the guy who thinks "Well, if I hide my car in the back alleys, lock it up really tight, install an immobiliser, then I suppose I would be OK" would go for it.
the idea was socially retarded, and society fixed it
For god sake. How many times do I have to tell you that the application is not important, the fact that it's protected by being a trade secret is important.
Those situations would fall under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, not Microsoft.
However, law enforcement don't have the resources to protect people against such crimes. Microsoft, if you think about it, is really in the best position to deal with those situations, like it or not.
I realise that Microsoft is far from trustworthy, but the problem of computer security needs to be solved. There needs to be an option like trusted computing for those who can't afford major computer problems.
I wouldn't call these people gullible so much as inconsistent. They hate wi-fi, but like radio. I think they should get up off their lazy asses, grab their pitchforks and their torches, and burn them! Burn them all!!!
Slashdot Mirror
It's always seemed to me that the number zero and the number infinity are incomplete. They almost need a coefficient to mean anything significant.
Take for example two very simple functions: f(x)=3x, and g(x)=2x. If you were to divide f(x) by g(x), you will almost always get 3/2. The only possible exception is for x=0, where it produces a 0 divided by a 0. You can work out this kind of thing with limits, and it will come to 3/2, but as far as the maths I've experienced admits, x cannot actually equal zero with that particular expression, only approach it. What you have done is taken two simple linear continuous functions, performed a very simple operation on them, and you produce a non-continuous function. It doesn't make sense.
You can multiply anything into zero and still get zero on the other end, but is it exactly the same? If I put zero into f(x) and g(x), they both produce zero, and when you divide, you seem to cancel out a common "absolute" zero out of the fraction, and you are left with 3/2. I think the problem of zero (and infinity) needs to be solved by symbolising "absolute zero" (or "absolute infinity") and simply applying coefficients (and working from there with more complex problems). Does anybody have any experience with/other half-baked theories about this kind of stuff?
i = +SQRT(-1) AND i = -SQRT(-1)
Therefore:
+SQRT(-1) = -SQRT(-1)
2*SQRT(-1) = 0
i = SQRT(-1) = 0
i = 0
There you go! Hawt dang, am I smart!
I know exactly what you are referring to, and it is often true, but not in this circumstance. It's all about what you pour your effort into, and you getting the right circumstances for the effort to translate. Often you need some initial sacrifice (like not eating for a year or so, if you are desperately poor), the right situation (not the poor villages of Africa) and then putting that wealth into something useful (like setting up a business in reasonably built-up areas).
Let's face it. These people have no chance but for charity.
Simple. Brilliant. Devastatingly inefficient.
Probably not. They'd probably gravitate towards the free samples that they could squeeze out of their Daddy. Besides, there are enough people buying and pirating to show there is a lot of demand for their music. Why shouldn't the kids (being a not-quite-so-random selection of typical kids) like that music?
Besides, saying that the RIAA's music is trash is like me saying that all Indy music is crappy head-banging rock. It's a matter of taste (and ignorance).
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has existed in public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing future existence, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is in fact supported by common law.
- Me, 2006
...if these LED flashy things interfere with reception? I mean, if they draw energy from surrounding radiation, surely that must dull the signal somewhat.
Hmm, yes. I agree. Not to mention the fact that Mr Coward here needs the karma. He does start at 0 after all.
Mind you, the Australian LCD TV marked SUCKS.
Why do people mod these comments up? How do these people see straight past all the good things about patents? I mean, it's kinda like abandoning your house because your TV is broken.
Patents don't tend to benefit the "little guys" because the "little guys" don't have the time or money to invent and to then market the invention. No matter how you change the system, switch it around, any system that rewards invention will definitely reward the "big guy" over the "little guy".
Dude, you have the least consistent taste in movies that I have ever seen.
Specifically, why did you call Brokeback Mountain "GAY CRAP", and not Capote? You obviously don't know the first thing about gay crap.
Secondly, I'm not a fan of the free market. It's certainly not a one size fits all ideology. Even when it fits, it has nasty side-effects. Sure we get cheap food and cheap clothes, but we also have sweat shops and less small business (both bad from my viewpoint). You also get anticompetitive behaviour, price fixing, etc which the system naturally rewards. You assume that everyone wants to play the free market game, but investors in inventions can easily get cold feet when they have no guarantee. No guarantee that they won't either drop out of the market, or be forced to rock bottom profit margins, where the elevated cost of initially producing the prototype will be slow to recoup. Or, possibly, we would see the supermarket effect, where the little guy who invents it gets out-priced by the big guy who had the resources to quickly reverse engineer it, and sell it at impossible profit margins. Tell me that that system doesn't reward the rich.
Not me personally, but people would miss it if it went for the reasons above. I can also tell you that you can't disprove it either, even by asserting several high-profile examples. Just about anything has its flaws, but it doesn't mean that it's time to scrap the entire concept and move on. It simply needs a tune up. In the grandparent post, I mentioned what I don't like about the current system, and how it could be changed. How many of those debacles would have happened with my suggestions?
You would like a lot of things. No doubt they're admirable, but too idealistic and at times, impractical. Much like the whole free market principle. In practise, we need the law on our side in order to invest in anything major. Would you buy a car if it were legal for someone to hotwire and drive away in it? Would you just say "Damn, that's the third time this week. I guess I'm not worthy of owning a car"? Or would you feel some entitlement to it? Similarly with intellectual property, no-one but the hardened idealist would invest in it. Only the guy who thinks "Well, if I hide my car in the back alleys, lock it up really tight, install an immobiliser, then I suppose I would be OK" would go for it.
For god sake. How many times do I have to tell you that the application is not important, the fact that it's protected by being a trade secret is important.
I knew that
I realise that Microsoft is far from trustworthy, but the problem of computer security needs to be solved. There needs to be an option like trusted computing for those who can't afford major computer problems.
I wouldn't call these people gullible so much as inconsistent. They hate wi-fi, but like radio. I think they should get up off their lazy asses, grab their pitchforks and their torches, and burn them! Burn them all!!!