Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | omra's commentslogin

I don't think it's meant to play chess, it's just to show chess positions (see the example page: http://chessboardjs.com/examples).

It is in a similar vein to this: http://andrewphoy.github.io/chess-replayer/. (Which is more full-featured.)


Apple Corps v Apple Computer. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer


I expect it will still exist, after all, there is both AskUbuntu.SE and ubuntuforums.com. It might start seeing less activity though.


Check out the status reports to the Apache Board of Directors (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/):

(05/11)

      No changes. Stdcxx continues to be dormant. There was a flurry of emails
      on the stdcxx-dev list suggesting continued interest from the same two
      parties (ARM and Sun) but no new work.
---

The Attic is where retired Apache projects go.

(02/2012)

      A vote to move stdcxx to the Attic failed. The majority of stdcxx
      contributors voted in favor of continuing to maintain the project.
      Several inactive committers stepped up to help with the project.
---

I do not think that this was a surprise. Regular status reports stopped completely after February 2012. It's also notable that Chris Bergström was proposed for the new chair position, see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201306.m...


Seems to have been telegraphed since at least November 2010: http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2010-11.txt


https://github.com/joelthelion/autojump

(It's like a smart version of cd.)


Indeed, it is autojump. :)


I agree that an off-by-one error is not a huge deal in most cases, but cryptography is one of those places where you cannot get it wrong. The programmers, or a employee well-versed in cryptography, should have ran a Chi-Squared test immediately on the random data to make sure it was random. (That is the first thing I would try, and I only have a working knowledge of statistics and cryptography.)

Cryptography is unforgiving, and when your code could seriously endanger someone else, you have to be constantly vigilant.


The URL in the location bar seems to update with the steps you've done (here's one showing the first construction: http://www.sciencevsmagic.net/geo/#0A1.1L0.1A0.3L0.3L1). Undo/Redo can then give an animation like appearance.


You can actually press reset and then redo, redo, redo to replay construction without having to undo first.


No notable mathematician has considered one prime since the early 20th century (of course, I'm oversimplifying, see [1] for more information).

[1]: https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL15/Caldwell1/cald5.h...


You are oversimplifying more than you know.

In a number theory course around 1990, I remember reading papers from the 60s which would explicitly note whether the counts of primes that they were using were starting from 1 or 2. You can define them as not notable mathematicians, but working mathematicians in number theory still had not completely standardized 50 years ago.

Now for more fun, sit down with a group of mathematicians and ask whether they consider 0 to be a natural number. :-)

(The answer you get will vary by field. But none will consider it a particularly important question.)


cperciva answered this according to the modern algebraic understanding in response to the parent. 1 is definitely not prime when you more fully categorize the elements of sets by their algebraic properties: the existence of units is a less singular phenomenon in other algebraic structures.


Yes. More abstractly, prime numbers are those that generate prime ideals. This is a definition which generalizes to much more complex algebraic structures.

However the last vestiges of the question about what definition was most natural didn't get settled until surprisingly recently.


Oh, sorry for being presumptuous then. I'm not aware of the recent history.



Diminishing returns: The amount of mine-able bitcoins decreases overtime, as well as the amount of reward decreasing as the hashing power of the network increases. Assuming the price of Bitcoins does not increase accordingly, the amount of money gained will go down.

Bitcoin Collapse: If Bitcoins collapse, you now have a bunch of worthless miners. Compare this to a quick sell it and done.

God forbid you gain a significant amount of network control, because you have a problem. Miners will probably begin to reject your transactions for the sanity of the network, because you could double-spend, and virtually create infinite bitcoins.

Also, how is setting up a business like this trivial? I imagine that a huge part of it (initial investment, buying power, and maintaining all these devices) could be problematic, although I could be wrong.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: