Well I feel so enlightened now. Thanks for explaining that.

"Where did you learn to sabotage chips like that?"
"I learned it from watching you!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage

It does seem pointless to me to use a computer to create a proof,

I believe the poster you're responding to meant something different.

Say you have some complicated ("chaotic", maybe) formula which determines the behavior of a system. Say just to make it easy the system is a single particle moving under various influences. Now say you know where it is now (it's a big particle like a planet or something, so ignore Heisenberg and such) and you want to know where it will be 500 seconds later. Many systems currently require iterating through all 500 steps or other time intensive tasks in order to find that answer due to only having approximate methods with which to solve the system. An analytic solution as the OP was using it would be more like a function where you plug in 500 and get your answer. If you plugged in 500 Billion, you'd find that answer in more or less the same amount of time as for 500.

So computers can potentially make taking the wetware time to find an analytic solution to an equation (system of differential equations, optimization problem etc.) less valuable in some of the meanings of the word, if in practical applications you can get say 10 decimal places closer to the answer than you need in microseconds.

Computers proving theorems is a different thing. The Four Color Problem is the most common example of that I'm aware of. I think it's cool that people managed to do that, but it's unsatisfying in that it doesn't really add much in the way of understanding. Some theorems people have come up with are similarly unsatisfying.
Existence theorems which demonstrate that a certain thing must exist in some given circumstances yet provide no clue whatsoever as to how to actually find it would fit. Also, brute force methods in general (which is what the four color proof is, only done via computer to save time) tend to leave mathematicians satisfied that the given fact is true yet still looking for a more elegant solution that provides greater understanding.
Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is fundamentally different in that it did (eventually) provide a huge degree of insight showing unsuspected ties between disparate branches of mathematics. Technically, Wiles didn't prove Fermat's Last Theorem, he proved the Taniyama Shimura conjecture (demonstrating a deep relationship between elliptic curves and modular forms) which someone else had proven would imply FLT if true.

It's the porn talking to the video games. I'm just eavesdropping.

That is an easy stance to take when you are not the Pakistanis. That excuse would never hold up in a court here. Not to mention that, before his extrajudicial killing, Mr Bin Laden had never been convicted of anything in a court of law.

Never mind all of the victims of this doctor, who had their DNA taken by his fake clinics. Whether breaking the law was the right thing to do or not doesn't absolve them of those infractions.

Funny the stance these people can take towards law and human rights when its convinent to do so. They wouldn't take the same stance if I just decided something was worth breaking their laws for.

This entire war mentality is counterproductive, and regressive, and allows people to make excuses for abusing whoever they wish. I say prosecute him, and turn over the CIA agents involved for thier conspiracy.

If it was worth abusing people to do, then its worth facing the punishment for having done it too.

what makes you think I don't understand? I understand full well, I just don't agree, and see what he did as something that deserves punishment, no matter why he did it, or who he did it for.

Well I didn't state how much probablity I like.... but nothing is every certain unless you witnessed it (and even then, eye witness testimony is quite unreliable). Generally, I keep a pretty high standard. Hell I was even arguing that Zimmerman guy should be let go because there is no way to know what really happened.

However, the nice thing about vigilante justice over state justice is that the state steals my money and claims to do it in my name. So when they fuck up, or malicously prosecute someone who did nothing wrong (like the aforementioned businessmen and indoor farmers) they do it with my money, and in my name. I really strongly dislike that.

I get the mentality. However, in doing so he abused the trust of the community by using his position as Doctor and broke patient confidentiality. He should spend the rest of his days behind bars for that alone.

Besides that.... working for "us" is fine, but Pakistan is not us, and Pakistan has good reason to punish spies. Even those who work for us. Thats really my point....whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Meh I don't see much difference between vigilante "justice" and regular "justice"...its all just excuses to use violence against people.

Now, when "jusitce" is used against people who probably did something really bad, like murder, or rape...then I have no problem with it, and even cheer its application.

I don't like it much in the abstract though, I certainly don't cheer it, and do have a problem with it when its used against people who grow plants and sell things to consenting adults with no fraud involved. In fact, then i consider it a crime against humanity, and wish someone would apply some "justice" back to the perpetrators.

Yup. Underscoring this.... I was listening to Hillary and Panetta yesterday talking about this Doctor in Pakistan. The guy has been arrested for "Working for a foriegn intelligence agency". A crime which could get you life in prison or even death if you were caught doing it here.

They, of course, want their informant released. Never mind that he broke the trust of Doctor Patient priviledge for untold numbers of people by setting up fake vaccination clinics to sample DNA (which, if done here would have gotten his license taken away and gotten him slapped with serious violations of the law), never mind that he is a Pakistani national who essentially became a spie for a foeign government....

nope...somehow they don't understand why this guy is in prison.... even though they would hang him if he was an American and did the same things here.

I don't see whats so hard to understand. The law is great, as long as its convinent to the people in power. The rule of law apparently isn't supposed to apply to them or their sycophants.