Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:BS detector went off and is overheating (Score 1) 309

Problem is that the log operator has an implied number in it (i.e. what base is the log of), so I'd say that's fraudulently introducing a number by just not writing it down. Ditto with sqrt() and similar operators that look like unary operators, but are actually binary+ operators that have missing operands implied.

Comment Re:BS detector went off and is overheating (Score 1) 309

Actually, looking at that, using sqrt(x) is cheating, as that's properly 24 - so you're actually getting a 2 pushed into the equation. If you're going to do that, why not just say you can use inc(x) or dec(x) and skip the whole nested log4(sqrt(x)) stuff? Really, if you're going to allow shortcut operators that have other numbers inside them, why not just allow one(x) defined as x-x+1, two(x) defined as x-x+2, etc. etc.?

If you limit yourself to actual unary operators, is it still as easy to find a similar arbitrary nested loop that will give any number with a single operand?

Comment Re:BS detector went off and is overheating (Score 2) 309

4^444 > 4^4^4^4

Hmmm... no. 4^4 = 256. 4^256 = 1.3407807929942597099574024998206e+154. So 4^that = too big to easily calculate.

It looks like my previous estimate of 4^4^4^4 got calculated as ((4^4)^4)^4, when it needs to be done as 4^(4^(4^4)) to give the correct biggest number with standard operators.

Comment Re:BS detector went off and is overheating (Score 1) 309

Which is fine, but does make the concept much less interesting to me. It's interesting from a pure math standpoint, but becomes rather stale rather quickly when it's simply an "infinite iterations = infinite amount of numbers" mathematical slog.

Much more interesting to me is how far you can go with only a basic set of operators, and no recursive nesting of operators inside each other.

Comment Re:BS detector went off and is overheating (Score 1) 309

Ah, so you're allowed to arbitrarily stack an infinite number of operators? Lame. In that case, you probably don't need this to be Four 4's, but can probably be four of any number except 0, 1, or 2. It also just turns this into more of a computational slog than a clever math trick.

Comment Re:BS detector went off and is overheating (Score 2) 309

Also, you can't actually get "any number" since you'll max out at a number when using the highest performing operator which I think would be the power operator, so the highest number you can make is 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 (i.e. 4^4^4^4). And you'll be unable to get most of the numbers on the way there since you run out of the 4's to use to fill in gaps.

My question would be, just how high can you get before you miss a whole number?

Comment Re: Good for them! (Score 1) 858

why in earth do you think this is positive? do you not realize that all this crap will be revisited upon "your side" the next time rolls are reversed? Are there laws being broken? no? then do your job or leave. Do you want insurrection?

"My side" is the one who is against politically motivated purges of government offices. I don't care which party tries to do this - this is unethical, and leads to something illegal, and should be resisted at all costs. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, if you try to do politically motivated purges through a whole department, you should be fought tooth and nail.

Comment Re: Good for them! (Score 1) 858

Then by your definition every President that has failed to enforce the immigration laws should have been impeached. Is that correct?

If by "failed to enforce" you mean "eliminated the agency responsible" then yes, that would be something that Congress could consider impeachable. Deciding on direction of focus, so long as it still maintains the Federal mandate of the ICE is within the President's power (via the Director of Homeland Security).

Now, more directly to your point: If you're trying to get in a dig against Obama here (like you can even pretend you aren't), then you'll be happy to know that under Obama the ICE has deported around 300,000 illegal aliens per year throughout his Presidency. The ICE even reached their all-time high numbers for deportations in 2013. He has deported about 25% more illegal immigrants than GWB did. It's estimated that Obama will have deported more people under his Presidency than every single President in the 20th century combined.

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 5, Insightful) 858

If you can prove that a company intentionally polluted knowing that the pollutants were harmful then by all means, have the EPA bring a lawsuit against them. But I don't believe in punishing everyone because of the possibility of misdeeds by some. I especially don't believe in it if no one realized the pollution was dangerous when the pollution was occurring, unless you could somehow prove that they intentionally didn't look into it or blocked that research.

Uh, this shit is PRECISELY what went on throughout the last century (and still continues to this day).

It has been proven countless times that companies will do blatantly illegal and harmful things, knowing full well how harmful they are as long as they believe their risk:benefit ratio is good enough. (See: Flint, Bhopal, Love Canal, Hinkley CA, etc. etc. etc.)

Oh, and as for the "if they knowingly use harmful pollutants use a lawsuit" is bullshit. The legal system is set up so that all they need to do is say they didn't know and they'll get off with a warning, or force the public into a long drawn-out civil legal battle that can take decades to decide. The point of all the EPA regulations is so that these companies can't claim that they "didn't know". These regulations are there so this shit doesn't have to turn into a decades long civil battle, with lots of "did they or didn't they know" going on.

Your argument is like saying that food safety regulations aren't needed, because restaurants will figure out if they make people sick on their own, and we can TOTALLY trust them to stop doing something that does, even if it costs them extra money, right?

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 1) 858

Once again, someone who confuses the concepts of legality and ethics.

Just because something is not illegal does not mean that thing is ethical. People in positions of government power are expected to adhere to ethics. If need be, that includes refusing to carry out a legal order if it is ethically odious. (Just ask Nixon's AG about that.)

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 4, Insightful) 858

So you're perfectly OK with unelected personnel refusing to perform perfectly legal tasks assigned to them by the legally elected leadership of the US government?

Personally, I hope he stops their paychecks. Bureaucrats don't get to anticipatorily refuse lawful instructions from their employer because he *might * do something they disagree with later.

Sure. And let's mandate that those people start wearing yellow stars on their clothing as part of a new dress code while we're at it. Dress codes aren't illegal, either. Next, we'll have all those people moved from their offices over into other offices on the other side of town. Nothing illegal about moving someone's office either, right? Something odious and unethical doesn't have to be illegal in order for refusal to be the right option.

If you don't think this is the first step of a purge, you're a complete fucking idiot. Those in charge know exactly what this is because they aren't complete fucking idiots. And when something so obviously unethical (and illegal) is coming down the line, the only ethical thing to do is refuse to comply with all the orders that will facilitate it. Just because each step along the way is legal does not mean you should blindly do it when you know exactly what the end result will be.

Comment Re:Good for them! (Score 5, Insightful) 858

That is what these agencies are supposed to do - they're not supposed to be partisan tools for the current ruing party; they're supposed to be an impartial apparatus that does a job mandated by Congress to the best of their abilities.

But they're currently partisan tools for the Obama administration. So you agree with replacing them?

Howso? When did Obama go through and hand-pick every single employee, checking if they had any beliefs that disagreed with his worldview? At various points in his Presidency different agencies said and did things that weren't in 100% support of what he wanted. But no purges ever happened.

Impartial does not mean "doesn't do what is asked of them". It means they do their job - and part of that includes doing what is asked of them by the President as long as it doesn't mean betraying their mandate . It also means not firing anyone simply for having differing opinions from the President - and especially not for conducting research that the President doesn't like when it's exactly what your department is mandated by Congress to do.

There is a world of difference between shaping legislation to lead agencies into doing what you want, and destroying the agency if it doesn't do exactly what you demand, ethics be damned.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.