skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You aren't undestanding the proof well; the proof isn't flawed. The best way to see it is to read it on a math book with full symbols and so on. Then you can see that there is no flaw, as every step follows from the previous one and that there is no philosophical reasoning about it, only maths.

I think the problem with how you are understanding it is that you think that your enumeration is finite at any time. That's not true.

Let's suppose we are only wanting to enumerate numbers between 0 and 1. So, you have to enumerate them like this:

0 -> some real

1 -> some real

...

n -> some real

for all naturals, so that you have infinite reals in your enumeration scheme. Now, you build your new real number, let's call it R. R is such that its Nth digit after the point is different than the Nth digit after the point of the Nth number. Let's suppose our procedure goes like this:

0 -> 0.1

1 -> 0.11111

2 -> 0.0001

3 -> 0.10101010101010....

4 -> 0.111011

What is R? R is a real number. It has a well-defined value for every one of its digits, so why wouldn't it be a real number? So we have, a real number between 0 and 1, and an infinite enumeration of reals.

Let's see the value of R:

0 -> 0.1

1 -> 0.11111

2 -> 0.0001

3 -> 0.10101010101010....

4 -> 0.111011

so R is:

0.00110 and so on.

Is R 0.00110? R has more digits, is more like 0.00110abcdefg with abcdefg being some more digits we should calculate. R has infinite digits, not only those, and we could calculate all of them by a finite procedure, so we aren't doing anything magical here. What those digits' value is we don't mind, as you'll see.

What we mind about is this: R is different to the first number. How can we know? Because by construction, the first digit of R is different from the first digit of the first number. Now, let's see if R is in our countable set. If R was in our countable set, R would be in a place, for example in the position M of the enumeration. Now, in the position M of the enumeration we have the Mth number, and by construction, the Mth number is different to the R number, as they have at least a digit that is different between them (and we can even say: the Mth digit is different between them).

So, how could R be in the enumeration scheme if we can't place it at any M? Now, that's why we have an absurd here, and that's why every enumeration scheme for reals will be incomplete.

I wish this solves your doubts about it. Please only focus on the mathematical demonstration, we aren't saying nothing about countability, infinities, or very large numbers excepting when we have to.
I am tired of hearing "we need more decency and trust, it was just the greed of a few people that got us into this mess". I'd prefer transparency to trust, because then we could actually see if somebody is behaving badly, and decide to distrust that somebody.

Apart from that, it was everybody's greed that is to blame, not just a few bad bosses. If you put your savings into an investment you don't understand, because you have been promised high interests, you and your greed are to blame.

Also, there is the possibility that things simply went wrong. Shit happens. Why does there always have to be a scapegoat?

What the state should do is prevent fraud, that would probably be sufficient.
I agree. I wouldn't consider Twitter or Facebook or craigslist innovative. They are really simple technologies (ignoring the software scaling challenges) that have been marketed extremely effectively.

They all are dependent much more on the innovation of others (the cell companies, ISPs, open source software). I haven't heard of many technologies developed at Facebook or Twitter that are being used by NASA or other traditional giants, while I have heard of the converse.
This article is of particular importance to Sarlaccs.
Exactly. I can think of scores of mediocre startups that took too much money and failed, but I can't think of any great startups that failed because they didn't take enough money.
Apple stock plunging, Google stock diving, Yahoo stock melting
They are less radio active than fission reactors and you can export them to country's you don't want to have nukes. It's like the argument to build wind farms vs coal power plants.

PS: I want fusion because long term they make for better spaceships but that's just me.

Edit: Breeder reactors unlike "normal" power plants can also blow up with about the same force as the same amount weight of TNT where fission power plants can't.
> Age/Experience doesn't really translate into significantly more money unless you're looking to move up the management chain.

I'm actually looking at salaried positions that will pay close to what I'm at now and have me one or two notches up the food chain. Wages have stagnated for now at least.
"Obnoxious Hipster Startups Must Die" (re: Xobni)
Ok this is a link to a swedish television-program.

My translation:

Monsantos world
The multinational corporation Monsanto is world-leading in genetically manipulated food and are quietly taking patents
on a large part of the worlds crops. But what are the risks of genetically manipulated food and what do the scientists say?
Should we also home-school our children, keep our money under our mattress, grow our own food, give ourselves medical exams? There are companies/service providers out there who we outsource those things to because we don't have the time or the expertise. Seriously people have been using web-based email for over a decade. I've yet to hear of any doomsday failures but I do know I've had a couple hard drive failures during that time span.
Hmm, I guess most developers never read documentations/guidelines, etc. And they continue to type in lines of code until compilers/interpreters spit out error messages....
Or you can read it as: "We can't build it today so it's not useful today."

Which is not the same thing as "Based on the known laws of physics this will never work."
Impressive rebuttal. There's been too much meta-commenting going on lately.

[/irony]
> For it to be object code, it would have to be compiled from something.

Nope. In fact, object code doesn't even have to be assembled from something.

It just has to be made available to an execution engine.

And yes, folks modify object code.

And, even if there was some source somewhere else, that doesn't imply that the meaning isn't in the object code. (Meaning can be in multiple places.)
Development Tools I Use & Recommend
The folks who didn't get into the fancy stuff, such as Wells Fargo and many of the regionals, are doing quite well.
As others have said, VMWare is virtualization and Zones is not. Solaris Zones provides a high degree of isolation that is sufficient for the vast majority of cases that Xen is being used for, with virtually ZERO runtime overhead, simple and fast configuration, and streamlined maintenence. If you need more isolation than Zones offers then you probably have to skip Xen and go with a fully virtualized solution like VMware or similar. The cost of that extra isolation is a notable increase in runtime overhead, setup effort, and maintenance cost.
If You Could Track Anything, What Would You Track?
There's really no reason to use Solaris on the desktop. It is even worse than Linux is.
$700bn Bailout is shot down by House of Rep Vote (205-228), US stock market plummets
Evolving predator drones
RE: x86 support for Solaris: How recent was your experience?

Re: CentOS: I agree, I am considering "upgrading" from CentOS 5.2 to RHEL 5.2 to get support for some servers. If CentOS didn't exist then I wouldn't probably went with Debian or Ubuntu on those servers when I set them up, and then I'd be looking to get support from Canonical.
The Blue Screen of Nonsense
Don't you just plug in the audio and a big speaker system? You could choose the engine to imitate and make any noise you want. (sure I've read that in an article somewhere, though can't find the link!)
House Rejects Bailout For US Financial Markets
Experts in specific areas develop blindness to problems in certain areas of their solution. Usually the framework they use to approach the problems makes certain simplifying assumptions, and these assumptions become their blind spots. These frameworks solve the hard problems they are designed to solve, so the biggest remaining problems remain hidden under these assumptions.

Examples:

Economists assume rationality. Java developers don't notice all the boilerplate. Lisp developers don't notice the brackets). Stallman doesn't notice all the sysadmin burden.
Actually, the two points made by the article (body language and agreeing with opponent) have been gone over hundreds of times in dozens of blogs starting about a minute after the debate. I love Ebert - he's a treasure - but in this case he's saying nothing new, and the post isn't "evidence of [any] interesting new phenomenon".
Don't Quit Your Day Job to Start Something New
Cloud computing conundrum causing confusion
Erlang: Getting Started with EUnit
Scripting Attacks Plague Even the Web’s Largest Sites
PopGist: Yahoo Search Results in Context
OTOH, PCs worked before they were connected to the Net. People self-administered their computers for a long time; was it an anomaly?
There are other examples of this. Some are entirely deliberate. The ISO-9660 volume structure was deliberately designed to allow it to coexist with other file systems present on the same disk, for instance.
Interesting and new to me, I admit that this is my fault for not paying very close attention to US politics. BTW, I would be delighted if we applied that standard to all posts about the iPhone/iPod Touch app store :-)

BTW, I upmodded you for reminding me of a very useful test for submit-worthiness.
True. I'm mostly talking about the unbelievable amount of money that exists purely as debt, thanks to the investment banks and central banking in general. A return to more conservative banking is all I really expect... but not without some major casualties.
In about twelve seconds from a standing start, my 350Z will get me to "lose your license" speeds. Even if I had an automatic transmission, I would still never be able to get the "most" out of the car without taking it to the track. Anyway, I agree that manual transmissions are outdated and sequential shift should be standard equipment on sports cars. Motorcycles have had clutchless shifting forever, why not cars?

OTOH, I live out in the country and about 5 miles of my commute is on winding gravel roads. Turn off Traction Control and I have a blast without ever exceeding the speed limit!
I take it you aren't a homeowner, then?
Even by politics standards, this article is pretty bad. It's completely disingenuous.

Ebert starts with "I do not like you, John McCain. My feeling has nothing to do with issues..." and then goes on to complain about some irrelevant body-language point. Are we really supposed to believe that Roger Ebert, after (presumably) months of supporting Obama and (I'm guessing here) years of supporting Democrats, would suddenly have decided he didn't like Obama if it had been Obama who was not-looking at John McCain instead of John McCain who was not-looking at Obama?

Throw all this in with an ever-so-subtle playing of the race card (Roger Ebert is a great film critic and fully understands the implications of the otherwise-irrelevant "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" reference) and you've got some irresponsibly bad insinuation.
I should hope so, but I'm too jaded to assume so anymore.
I've thought some about what it would take to set up a system for failed startups so that customers could be assured that their data / services don't disappear when a company goes bust -- something similar to the Free Qt Foundation that KDE has setup with Trolltech:

http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

I think that's a difficult problem for software-as-a-service to overcome.
One risk is in reduction of biodiversity.
Indian cottonfarmers are left with no option but buying modified seed.
To grow modified plants farmers must use more pesticides.Plants are genetically modified to resist the toxic "Roundup" .
I'm interested in hearing from other people working on other things that aim to be "The Next Wordpress"?

Habari doesn't seem to be significantly different from WordPress as far as end-users can tell or care. It doeesn't have anything equivalent to Wordpress.com. It isn't clear why a hosting provider recommend and preinstall Habari instead of WordPress for its customers.

I think something could come along and dethrone WordPress-- just as WordPress dethroned Moveable Type--but I don't think Habari's approach of marketing itself as technically superior is going to do much to pursuade the majority of WordPress users. The video on the Habari website shows how easy it os to configure Habari after you have downloaded and (halfway) installed it. However, it is still much, much harder to install Habari than it is to sign up for WordPress.com or use hosting providers' one-click WordPress installs. Askimet, Gravatar, and Intense Debate are (or will) be seemlessly integrated into WordPress, whereas every other blogging system will require extra steps to get those popular (almost essential) features working.
I don't see a problem with cloud computing, as long as the software that runs the cloud is Free. That way, when my provider dies, I can easily host it myself or get another provider.
Motorcycles have had clutchless shifting forever

There is a motorcycle model with clutchless shifting?
You won't need to - your deposit will just eventually be with Citi.
Dow Just Crashed. Historical Moment
How many people had computers then? And Today? Also, it was a way safer environment.
When I was at the last Ubuntu Developer Sprint I was at first a bit surprised that there weren't more prominent OSS people around. Comparatively, Canonical doesn't employ a lot of core developers for OSS projects.

I got the feeling that it was a mix of: that not being part of their core strategy and them being honestly hard to hire. Most core OSS developers aren't out looking for jobs.
There is nothing wrong with centralized models, it is when there is a center that is not open source. Anything that is programmable (multiple times, not write once mediums) should be ran on open source software. The electrical utilities are immorally not sharing the source code that controls them.
Dow Crashes. Down 400 points in 10 minutes.
... right, but the point of the top post is that we should be looking for "the source"... Maybe that wasn't formulated properly.

The point comes down to science vs engineering, induction vs building from parts. Biologists are already building models (model != programming language!). Models are the holy grail. They are just damn hard to get right.
Slightly related article regarding the "Community Reinvestment Act":
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_financial_mess_ho...
Experiense indeed! ;)
yes, a home OWNER, as in i hold no mortgage. i have zero debt. i have cash to buy distressed assets. i just wish people would stop trying to "save" things.
Should we also home-school our children, keep our money under our mattress, grow our own food, give ourselves medical exams?

Hmm, my family does all of the above as a supplement of commercial/public versions all the time. (In the case of home-schooling, we plan to once our child arrives.)
and the dollar surges! (re: biggest dollar gains in 15 years)
Out of boredom and curiosity I just started overlaying everything I know about birds and flight. Everything from it's bone structure to the aerodynamics of flight feathers etc. I blacked out and by the time I was aware again we 10 - 15 minutes had gone by.

I do the same thing on a regular basis, and I think the same "blacking out" thing happens to me (unless you literally blacked out), but I wouldn't really describe it as blacking out. It's more like day-dreaming - I end up in a mental state where there's nothing but what I'm looking at / thinking about. Very "visually" vivid, but hard to describe, and when I come out of it some amount of time has passed (5 to 15 minutes), and I'll have no clue what happened in my surroundings during that time.
Private Rockets
Another saying I liked in that same vein is: "An engineer is an unordinary person who can do for one dollar what any ordinary person can do for two dollars."
good! lawmakers on the radio today were saying 90% of their callers were against it. this is a victory for the stingy saver who doesn't obsess over vacation homes and luxury cars. every THING is about to go on sale, and the prudent will have their day.

taxpayers who pay their bills and live wisely don't need credit, they live on cash. these people should not be punished for the greed of everyone else on wall st and main st
this is a victory for the stingy saver who doesn't obsess over vacation homes and luxury cars.

Unfortunately, 90% of America isn't described in the above sentence.
I once looked at taking out hosting with the bizarrely-named GoDaddy when setting up a site. I was put right off by their CEO's prominent appearances on the homepage and elsewhere. Perhaps if the giant, misogynistic tit spent less time feeding his predilection for "GoDaddy Girls" and making lengthy videos pontificating on "what it takes to be one", he might have more time to spend making sure his company isn't a complete shambles. And his ear-ring looks daft.
That is exactly how things are. I think the author was basically saying that sometimes it weighs more heavily on his mind than others. (It certainly does for me)
greenspan

that is where it all starts

artificially low interest rates feel good in the beginning, its like everyone has free money

the pain can never be avoided

the austrian economists have written about the dangers of expanding the economy through credit creation for nearly a century
That black roadster is a black swan. 1) We've been duped into thinking the technology was not practical, 2) The only reason it's not massively disruptive is its price, and 3) Years from now new drivers will find what we have to do to maintain our current rolling crap completely ridiculous.
Ehh... once again someone going on about "hackernews worthiness" of some article. When it comes to politics, humor, or anything that doesn't scream Tech. from or relating to the media, I would take their remarks with a grain salt.

Most telling is how so often these individuals remain silent when various other more respected members of the hackernews community post similar supposedly off-topic posts as well.

So what if Ebert is saying something that has been spammed over another over a number of other blogs? Do you have any idea how many "successful" and "on-topic" posts fit that bill? Give shoving your ideologies down various posters' throats a rest.
I don't see a problem with applications in the cloud not giving source, as long as the data is portable and there are still desktop equivalents.

Gmail going down for good isn't gonna affect me much if I have my email backed up locally and desktop clients still exist.
This assumes that there is a simple, coherent way to describe life - the source code. There doesn't have to be such a description. Maybe we were just lucky with physics and the ability to describe the universe with simple equations (until we got to quantum mechanics and relativity theory and things became messy again). With genomics, things can very well stay messy: after all, life evolved at DNA level.
OK, I will expand on my original comment to give you a better idea of my perspective.

Zones are a useful tool because they provide the needed amount of separation (for me anyways) without a lot of overhead. They are portable to whatever the Solaris kernel is ported to (x86, x64, SPARC, and there is a PPC port being worked on).

A zone with /usr, /opt, etc. mounted read-only in the zone, is more secure (assuming no security holes to bypass the read-only property) than a non-zone Solaris system, yet it works exactly the same way. I can compile something in the global (root) zone and when installed under /usr it is available in every zone, and if there is a security hole that involves writing to e.g. /usr/bin/ping , it will fail.

Note that the kernel only loads one copy of each library, no matter how many programs reference or use it; this saves RAM compared to e.g. VMWare, and may reduce disk accesses if you have short lived processes as the library may already be loaded and resolved by the link editor.

You could duplicate this, of course, under any OS with a combination of NFS read-only mounts (loopback or over ethernet) and jails, although the administration overhead would be higher.

My reference to XVM (Sun's customized Xen) was to point out that if you don't like zones, you can still use "full" virtualization from Sun; it is not an either/or choice.
Where can we see how they voted?

I want to keep an eye on those 205 SOBs
Ron Paul Voted No To Bailout Package
What about those who are young and hacker-ish that have not had the chance to save (I mean compared to someone that has been working for 20 years)? Times might get a little tough.
A banker's job is packaging risk, which they did.

> It may also be a fair statement that the institutions did not know the value of what they were buying because of the way they were packaged.

Are you suggesting that banks lied or that the buyers assumed that the risk was acceptable? If the latter, why shouldn't they take the loss? After all, they were willing to take the gain.

The bailout is occurring under different assumptions - we're insisting on looking under the hood more.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
Gartner: Cloud Computing Causing Confusion
The energy density ... is far higher (theoretically) with fusion than with fission.

Is that true by volume of fuel? By weight, the energy density is only 4 times as high (D-T) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_density_i...). By volume, the density of uranium/thorium might very well be typically higher, since uranium/thorium is a heavy-metal, and therefore notably dense.

For convenient fuel storage, the deuterium and tritium might be temporarily be converted to water. I'm not going to do the math right now, but I think it would be interesting to see how that compares volumetrically to uranium/thorium energy density.

.

The ... potential output is far higher

Please clarify.

.

At current rates of use, uranium fuels will last about 1000 years.

There are more than 40 trillion tons of uranium in the earth's crust (mostly in the continents, and mostly near the surface of those continents):

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution

The world currently uses ~60,000 tons per year of uranium. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

~60,000 tons/year / 60x breeder-factor / 2.5x thermal-efficiency improvement = 400 tons/year fuel use. 40 trillion tons of uranium / 400 tons used/year = .1 trillion years of uranium.

Thorium is available in the crust at some 4 times the ubiquity of uranium = .4 trillion years of thorium.

Adding the uranium and thorium together gives us .5 trillion years of fission fuel.

.

How did you come up with 1000 years? Even limiting ourselves to the mere 9 billion tons of uranium/thorium present in seawater would provide 20 million years worth of fuel. ...And that supply is constantly being replenished by rivers, and by the seabed (the uranium/thorium suspended in the oceans is in equilibrium with that on the seabed -- if some is taken out, it is creates disequilibrium that can be relieved by the seabed uranium/thorium dissolving into the seawater).
Official Google Mac Blog: Introducing Top Draw
Everybody's Free (To Learn a Powerful Editor)
House Votes Down Rescue Plan - TheStreet.com
Gee, I'm glad I'm not in that business...

Oh wait.

On the other hand. The time to buy is coming soon.
You can't downmod articles, can you?
What if Google's mission extended to public records?
http://rondam.blogspot.com/2008/09/ive-never-been-so-happy-t...