bloodhound

http://osx86project.org/

looks like the official page. they have released some patches including one for the kernel so that you can make Rosetta to work with SSE2

I can't wait to try it out. I just need an external drive, or could do it on a network.

edit:when i meant it's free, i meant it's "free" wink wink nudge nudge. there seems to be two versions of image. one the hacked version for SSE2 and the original from the dev kit. There is also a fake from GNAA which loads of goatse and other similar images on boot.

Why would Microsoft ever do that? If they supported these things, their browser would look even better.

Sweet irony.

1)because it's free. (to download)

2)apple is expensive

3)run alongside your normal windows.

I researched ActiveX and read that Ebay requires it. That is a major web site.

Link to source, cos I don't believe you. I use ebay with FF all the time with no problems. Try Harder.

Omg Hi2u Guyz, Trolling Is Fun Amirite. Kekekekeke

Caps Lock Cruise Control For Cool.

edit: aw, it seems you cannot post in all caps.

Here is some weird stuff

I'll post more if I find them.

Why would you uninstall IE? There is no point. It won't cause any trouble with other browsers.

 

 

 

Just to remind you that IE was the first browser to support CSS:

 

 

 

 

 

How come nobody is pointing out the fact that IE had support for some things before the other browsers?

 

 

 

I am a web site developer and I can make a very nice looking site that works fine with IE. What exactly can you do with FireFox that you can't do with IE?

 

 

 

You made a post that just talked about Vista charging money about updates:

 

 

 

That was your entire post. It had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You never used it as an example to say anything about browsers. You just wanted to start another argument about operating systems.

 

 

 

I agree. Microsoft already said they will be making major security updates for IE7. So' date=' how can anyone say it will have the same security problems as IE6? Everyone that's used IE7 used a BETA version. It is incomplete and doesn't have all the security protection. That is why is has the same security holes as IE6. Of course, many security holes in IE6 can be fixed by downloading updates. If you have Windows, just install Service Pack 2.[/quote']

 

 

Sure IE was first to implement some stuff, but past is past, you wont move forward just by looking at the past. but that's like being a sore loser. you can't deny IE is lagging behind other browsers when it comes to support of standards at the moment.

 

If you wanna compare the inability of IE to render properly go to this site

http://www.yesy-fansubs.com/site/

with both firefox and IE, and look at the differences. Especially the pop ups on "info" and "download" which were done in css and whose support IE lacks.

 

for example you can create lovely drop down menus using purely css

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/horizdropdowns/

but then you will have to apply a fix to make sure it works in IE just cos it lacks support.

yes, but it's the first time people can get a native install of osX on their computers.

message board/irc/internet addiction is real and pretty serious. I have been for the past few months seriously addicted to IRC, so I am trying to cut down on that.

Now, how come everyone here seems to think it is ok for FireFox to get away with not being compatible with Active-X?

Most obviously being that Active-X is NOT a web standard. Could you tell me what exactly do you use Active-X for (except windows updates).

Exactly. Who cares about the standards when designing a web site? Web site designers only need to make sure that their visitors can see their web site. Just make sure that IE users can see your site. Then if someone can't see your site' date=' it is their responsibility to open IE because it should still be on their computer even after they install another browser.[/quote']

That kind of attitude isn't very helpful. Standards are there to discourage sloppy coding and encouraging productivity. You can do wonderful stuff in CSS, which would look absolutely ugly in IE which then requires a hack to make it look decent in IE, which is a big headache for web devs.

No. IE comes with Windows' date=' but it isn't part of Windows. You can also install IE on a MAC computer.[/quote']

I am pretty sure it is, I will see if I can dig up the links. Also there is no point talking about MAC's cos that's a completely different matter.

I'm sure that FireFox has more than three holes. There are just more people looking for holes in IE. The FireFox holes have yet to be discovered. Also' date=' Microsoft seems quick at releasing patches. I've never heard the news say there is a security hole in IE without saying there is a patch available.[/quote']

Or maybe that since firefox is open source, there are just more people devoted to finding holes in firefox and fixing them up. I lol'ed at "MS quick at releasing patches". Because you never heard the news doesn't mean they don't exist, there have been widespread reports/articles about corporates/personnel warning MS of holes and MS releasing a patch after 3 months only after the hole has been explioted and was deemed a significant security risk.

 

edit: don't take me as a ms-basher. I use windows myself.

So, if this person behind the intelligent design existed, then he must have been quite complex. But then he must have been intelligently designed by someone else, and that someoneelse was designed by someone else! oh snap, is there no end in sight.

There's gotta be an extension for FF that gives you skinning features.

you misunderstood me. my point was that i would like that feature IF i used IE. FF already has skins. plus you can edit the userchrome.js for advanced skinning.

The main problem with IE is that it's sorta part of Windows. Generally speaking it's not such a good idea to link something with so many holes to your OS. And yes Firefox has "some" issues, but nothing on the scale of IE. Having used IE, Firefox, Opera, I only go back to IE for my windows updates. Upto now I have encountered only ONE site which won't work with firefox.

On top of that add the many extensions which dramatically increase the productivity of web browsing/development, I don't see a reason to continue using IE. Oh yeah, many people ask what the big deal is about tabbed browsing. You can only understand it after you have tried it .

I have read that IE7 will NOT have tabbed browsing as the "demand" is not there. :\ load of bollocks, with that attitude there wouldn't be any progress in the world.

On the cosmetic side, it seems IE7 will not include skinning features. I personally like to apply a really slim, minimalistic theme so that I can maximise my browser workspace.

For those who have been out of loop, it seems you can now run osx on x86. From what I have read there are two ways of doing it.

no 1. You need at least a SSE2 capable CPU. If you have AMD64 which is capable of SSE3 then apparently you will get every functionality, but sse3 isn't necessary

check the following link for more instuctions

http://www.360hacker.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1108

screenshots:

no 2. is using VMWare, don't need sse2 google to find instructions.

Let us know if you have tried it and got it working. I might try it a bit later.

So yeah, was just thinking about this on a bus.

Suppose you have a bus length l and a suicide bomber intent to kill as many people as he/her can. Assume the position where the bomber sits/stands has pdf 1/l (inside the bus). Also take injury/death which has a strictly decreasing pdf symmetrical around the bomber (like the bell curve or something linear, does it matter?).

What is the safest place to be in the bus?[minimise the prob of death/injury] Does it even exist?

The solution is probably trivial or something, but I cannot think of an intuitive answer

tried ubutu for bleh... i will stick to windows for now. problem with linux is its so not noob friendly, it was probably not meant to be that way.

But yeah. wtf is with Vista. such a crappy name. the screenshots of longhorn looked quite good though. I hope vista is not just a cosmetic upgrade over xp.

my second year was horrible lol. too many bad module choices. absolutely flopped on one of the stats module which brough my average way down. and then I seem to get good marks in stuff I have no interest in and which i have no plans pursuing further. sucks.

erm yeah but my main question was wheter to start the sequence from a_0 or a_1, i guess if everyone is doing it from a_0, I should as well.

What's the convention nowdays? The reference book I am using (which is pretty old btw) goes [math]a_1+\cfrac{b_1}{a_2+\cfrac{b_2}{a_3+\cfrac{b_3}{a_4+\ldots}}}[/math]

While the online resources goes a_0,b_1,a_1,b_2...

Also which one is more conventional [math][a_1;a_2,a_3][/math] or [math][a_1,a_2,a_3][/math]

I know it doesnt matter, but I just wanna stick to the standards.

blah. you get two solutions in this example, which are intiutively +/- blah blah. generally when you take a nth root of a complex number it will spit out n values.

but its been so long i am not entirely sure ;_; maybe someone can reassure me.

My group/ring theory lecturer was going on about how big the proof classification of sim fin groups was as well. On the issue of "left wing proofs" there was an article in the "sci tech" section of The economist recently, for those who don't have a subscription, I will take a liberty of copy pasting from their online archive.

---------------------------

Proof and Beauty

Just what does it mean to prove something?

QUOD erat demonstrandum. These three words of Latin, meaning, “which was to be shown”, traditionally mark the end of a mathematical proof. And, for centuries, a proof was exactly that: showing something by breaking it down into readily agreed-upon steps. Proving something was a matter of convincing one's peers that it has indeed been shown—no more, and no less. The rhetorical flourish of a Latin epigram also has served to indicate that the notion of proof is well understood, and commonly agreed. But that notion is now in flux. The use of computers to prove mathematical theorems is forcing mathematicians to re-examine the foundations of their discipline.

Through much of the 20th century, questions of mathematical rigour were passed off to logicians and philosophers—working mathematicians have been, for the most part, content to work with an intuitive definition of proof.

This notion works when each step of a proof is transparent, and can be examined by all. Proof is then just a process of reducing one big, non-obvious step, to a bunch of small, obvious ones. However, if a computer is used to make this reduction, then the number of small, obvious steps can be in the hundreds of thousands—impractical even for the most diligent mathematician to check by hand. Critics of computer-aided proof claim that this impracticability means that such proofs are inherently flawed. However, its defenders point out that some theorems that many mathematicians consider to have been proved in the classical manner also have proofs which are so long as to be uncheckable.

The most famous case of this is something called the classification of finite simple groups. These are abstract objects with certain mathematical properties; the claim is that, over a 30-year span in a series of papers totalling some 15,000 pages, all possible such objects were enumerated. Though the mathematical consensus is that the classification (nicknamed the “enormous theorem”) is complete, there are sceptics who point out that the dispersed proof is essentially unverifiable.

What, then, does constitute a proof in the modern age? Two recent examples of how computers have been used to prove important mathematical results illustrate how the field is changing.

A colouring problem

The first is the “four colour theorem”, which is perhaps the mathematical theorem most likely to bedevil a toddler. It states that any planar map (that is to say, a flat one) can be coloured with at most four colours in a way that no two regions with the same colour share a border. It was first proposed in 1852 but, despite efforts by a century's worth of mathematicians, went unproven until 1976, when Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken, then of the University of Illinois, announced that they had proved the result. However, Dr Appel and Dr Haken used a computer to help them prove the result by examining about 10,000 cases. (Their proof also relied on a lot of old-fashioned gruntwork.)

A new proof, in a paper just written by Georges Gonthier, of Microsoft Research, in Cambridge, England, also uses a computer. Dr Gonthier used similar techniques to those of Dr Appel and Dr Haken in his proof. However, rather than have part of the proof done by hand, and part by computer, he has automated the entire proof, and done so in such a manner that it is a formal proof.

Formal proof is a notion developed in the early part of the 20th century by logicians such as Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege, along with mathematicians such as David Hilbert (who can fairly be described as the father of modern mathematics) and Nicolas Bourbaki, the pseudonym of a group of French mathematicians who sought to place all of mathematics on a rigorous footing. This effort was subtle, but its upshot can be described simply. It is to replace, in proofs, standard mathematical reasoning which, in essence, relies on hand-waving arguments (it should be obvious to everyone that B follows from A) with formal logic.

The benefit of formal logic is that it is pure syntax. At no point does proceeding from one step to the next require understanding, let alone mathematical intuition. It is merely a matter of applying an agreed-upon set of rules (for instance, that any thing is equal to itself, or that if something is true for all members of a set of objects, it is true for any one specific object) to a set of agreed-upon structures, such as sets of objects. Formal proofs, however, never gained a foothold in the mainstream mathematical community because they are tedious—they take many steps to prove something in cases in which a mathematician might just take one. To those who would use a computer, however, they have two virtues.

The first is that computers, with their tolerance for tedium, are particularly suited to writing the steps of a formal proof down. The second is that, by writing those steps down in what is called a “proof witness” instead of just announcing that a program had arrived at a true result, outsiders might gain greater confidence in a result derived from a computer.

As Dr Gonthier, and other supporters of the use of computers, point out, there is no reason to think that humans are less fallible than computers when doing long computations or proofs. Indeed, the opposite might be true.

The idea behind both proofs of the four colour theorem is to suppose that the theorem is violated—to assume, in other words, that there is some sort of map that requires five colours to fill in. The next step is to find the mathematically simplest versions of such maps. (What is meant by simplicity in this case is actually quite involved.) Dr Gonthier then showed that all these maps can, in fact, be re-coloured with only four colours, establishing the theorem by contradiction. The catch is that there are many such regions, which must be examined on a case-by-case basis; part of the mathematical difficulty lies in proving that the cases considered suffice to cover all possible maps, and part stems from proving that each individual case is indeed colourable with just four colours.

Dr Gonthier says he is going to submit his paper to a scientific journal in the next few weeks. But he would do well not to get his hopes up about getting his paper published anytime soon. A 1998 paper which proved another long-standing conjecture using a computer, by Thomas Hales, of the University of Pittsburgh, has only recently been accepted by the Annals of Mathematics, perhaps the field's most prestigious journal, and is scheduled to be published later this year.

The music of the spheres

Dr Hales proved Kepler's conjecture, which is that the most efficient way to pack spheres in a box is the way grocers usually pack oranges—in a so-called “face-centred cubic lattice”—the arrangement whereby each layer of oranges is shifted so that an orange touches four oranges in the layer below. Kepler posited the conjecture in 1611, and it had long resisted efforts at proof. Indeed, Hilbert made it one of his list of the 23 most difficult and fundamental questions in mathematics, in 1900. Dr Hales proved the conjecture by using a trick different in nature to Dr Gonthier's.

Rather than argue by contradiction, he reduced what was a problem about an infinite number of things (the Kepler conjecture considers an infinite number of spheres in an infinitely large space) to a statement about a finite, but very large, number of mathematical objects. He then used the computer to prove bounds about these objects, some of which, he says, can be thought of as sculptures made of cables and struts. Loosely speaking, he reduced the Kepler conjecture to a problem of considering whether, given a set of cables, which have no minimum length, but can only be stretched to a certain extent, and struts, which have a limit on how much they can be compressed, one can build a sculpture of a certain type. Dr Hales used a computer, as there were roughly 100,000 such structures that had to be considered in order to prove the Kepler conjecture.

Although the Annals will publish Dr Hales's paper, Peter Sarnak, an editor of the Annals, whose own work does not involve the use of computers, says that the paper will be accompanied by an unusual disclaimer, stating that the computer programs accompanying the paper have not undergone peer review. There is a simple reason for that, Dr Sarnak says—it is impossible to find peers who are willing to review the computer code. However, there is a flip-side to the disclaimer as well—Dr Sarnak says that the editors of the Annals expect to receive, and publish, more papers of this type—for things, he believes, will change over the next 20-50 years. Dr Sarnak points out that maths may become “a bit like experimental physics” where certain results are taken on trust, and independent duplication of experiments replaces examination of a colleague's paper.

Some of the movement towards that direction may be forestalled by efforts of Dr Gonthier's type to use computers to provide formal proofs and proof witnesses. It is possible that mathematicians will trust computer-based results more if they are backed up by transparent logical steps, rather than the arcane workings of computer code, which could more easily contain bugs that go undetected. Indeed, it is for this exact reason that Dr Hales is currently leading a collaborative project to provide a formal proof of the Kepler conjecture. In perhaps a more prosaic example of mathematics embracing technology, he is co-ordinating that effort using a blog called Flyspeck (the word, Dr Hales explains, means to examine closely).

Why should the non-mathematician care about things of this nature? The foremost reason is that mathematics is beautiful, even if it is, sadly, more inaccessible than other forms of art. The second is that it is useful, and that its utility depends in part on its certainty, and that that certainty cannot come without a notion of proof. Dr Gonthier, for instance, and his sponsors at Microsoft, hope that the techniques he and his colleagues have developed to formally prove mathematical theorems can be used to “prove” that a computer program is free of bugs—and that would certainly be a useful proposition in today's software society if it does, indeed, turn out to be true.

I asked my number theory lecturer and he said that only one person in our university "claims" to understand the proof, and he isn't entirely convinced about that.

it's pretty easy. there are public lists of open anonymous proxy servers. if you are using firefox then just go to tools-> options -> connection settings -> manual proxy. check the use for all protocols. and input the proxy ip and the port.

btw. i am going to spoil harry potter

[hide]

snape kills dumbledore

page606

[/hide]

maybe old news to you guys. the scanned page has been making rounds on the internet ages before the book was released. i dont read it so i dont care lol