Cell phones usually connect to multiple cell phone towers, so the signal 'stops' there, because it's also getting through in several other ways.
The devices, though particular types/brands may vary, only allow a connection to a single phone. Allowing for more connections -> more expensive hardware.
"A stingray works by mimicking a cellphone tower, getting a phone to connect to it and measuring signals from the phone. It lets the stingray operator "ping," or send a signal to, a phone and locate it as long as it is powered on, according to documents reviewed by the Journal."
Yes, it is transmitting. It is not a passive device which needs to be placed a real cell phone tower and can decode the signals, it is a device which mimics a cell phone tower and actively sends out signals.
Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
I don't usually even read your posts, but this one was particularly stupid. It nicely demonstrates troll-logic though, in that you reach the opposite conclusion of the original troll.
I'm one course away from graduating with a degree in Pure Math. I am now studying Computer Science.
I understand infinity and related concepts; not as well as most mathematicians, maybe, but I doubt you are anywhere close.
Do you know what aleph null is? What a power series is? Hyperreal numbers? Can you tell me, or prove to me, the difference in density between integers and rational numbers? Can you show the cardinality of two sets are equal?
No? Anyways . . .
No, near-infinite is the right term, although a pure mathematician would never have reason to use it, a computer scientist would.
If you would argue that near-infinite = infinite, you've missed the definition.
If you would argue that no number is near-infinite, then you've missed the definition as well, since near-infinite does not apply to any number you can name.
My proof that the Monkeys are in fact, a near-infinite time, is this:
Give me a single number of iterations, after which we can guarantee that your group of monkeys have written Shakespeare.
Here, nicely numbered and stuffs:
1) To guarantee that the monkeys type Shakespeare requires infinite time
2) Any group of monkeys will finish in a finite time
3) That finite time is unnameable; no matter what number you name, a group of monkeys can take longer to type Shakespeare. Because the upper limit is infinity, (see point 1), the number can always be larger.
4) So the monkeys represent a number that is finite, but with an upper limit at infinity, thus, near-infinity.
1 has an upper limit at 1, 10^100 has an upper limit at 10^100. An arbitrary number has an upper limit at itself.
TL;DR: Unless you care to name a number that is larger than any arbitrary number, and less than infinity, you're wrong.
(Also, I might have already had this typed up in the case that the AC replied. :troll:)
Pure Math doesn't care about the implementation, so you're still wrong there.
However, when something will have taken 'near-infinite time', it means that it is an achievable thing, but that there exists potential to never achieve it, whereas something that takes infinite time never will be achieved, even if the result reaches the desired result at infinity.
In this case, Mike is right for using 'near-infinite'. It does not take infinity for monkeys to write Shakespeare. To guarantee that every possible group of monkeys write Shakespeare, however, takes infinite time.
We are not looking to guarantee that monkeys can infallibly write Shakespeare in this case; We are looking to get monkeys to write Shakespeare. So 'near-infinite' is in fact, correct, since at some finite point in time, the monkeys, no matter which group of monkeys you pick, will have written all of Shakespeare.
For something to which 'near-infinite' does not apply, look at the series, Sigma(1/2^i, i=0, i++). (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 . . .).
At no point less than infinity, does that series equal 2.
Usually, your mike-bashing is pretty easy to understand, (sorry if I'm mixing you up with another AC), in that what you usually post, if read without context & without a clue, actually appears to bash mike.
However, I'm having a difficult time seeing here what you think/are saying Mike has not understood.
So . . . in 5.4 trillion passes, he'll be guaranteed to be done? (Actually, substantially less than that, if I think about it)
Wait, why did this take him so long? This is much less computationally expensive then, say, a rainbow table of 9 characters, and that was doable back in the early 80's.
Ah, right, randomness, he's repeating a lot of his work. Statistically then, it's still taking him a lot of time to even get this result. Makes me think his algorithm isn't very good . . .
Just a second, friend, someone just patented a time machine, so I'll just go and build one, and get back to you five minutes in the past, alright? I mean, they surely must've had a working prototype, so I should be able to do it too!
I own the patent on increasingly-meta jokes using patents as the subject matter.
Now, that'll be $431.22, due next thursday, (Sep 29th), 5:00p sharp, please be diligent in your licensing payments, sign here, here, and here . . . there we go! Pleasure to take your money from you!
The states and Canada do have 'hate speech' laws; The states mainly restricts those laws to allowing private entities, (mostly universities), to enforce speech codes, But in Canada, advocating the demise of an entire people, for example, can get you locked up for a long time if law enforcement so chooses. I don't know of any instance of that law actually being used, though.
On the post: Details Emerging On Stingray Technology, Allowing Feds To Locate People By Pretending To Be Cell Towers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big fat deal!
Depending on the cell phone tower/network, it may also just refuse the data because the timestamp is too far off.
On the post: Details Emerging On Stingray Technology, Allowing Feds To Locate People By Pretending To Be Cell Towers
Re: Re: Re: Big fat deal!
There would be one-sided echos, for one thing.
On the post: Details Emerging On Stingray Technology, Allowing Feds To Locate People By Pretending To Be Cell Towers
Re: Re: Re: FCC
The devices, though particular types/brands may vary, only allow a connection to a single phone. Allowing for more connections -> more expensive hardware.
On the post: Details Emerging On Stingray Technology, Allowing Feds To Locate People By Pretending To Be Cell Towers
Re: Re: FCC
Yes, it is transmitting. It is not a passive device which needs to be placed a real cell phone tower and can decode the signals, it is a device which mimics a cell phone tower and actively sends out signals.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
I'm one course away from graduating with a degree in Pure Math. I am now studying Computer Science.
I understand infinity and related concepts; not as well as most mathematicians, maybe, but I doubt you are anywhere close.
Do you know what aleph null is? What a power series is? Hyperreal numbers? Can you tell me, or prove to me, the difference in density between integers and rational numbers? Can you show the cardinality of two sets are equal?
No? Anyways . . .
No, near-infinite is the right term, although a pure mathematician would never have reason to use it, a computer scientist would.
If you would argue that near-infinite = infinite, you've missed the definition.
If you would argue that no number is near-infinite, then you've missed the definition as well, since near-infinite does not apply to any number you can name.
My proof that the Monkeys are in fact, a near-infinite time, is this:
Give me a single number of iterations, after which we can guarantee that your group of monkeys have written Shakespeare.
Here, nicely numbered and stuffs:
1) To guarantee that the monkeys type Shakespeare requires infinite time
2) Any group of monkeys will finish in a finite time
3) That finite time is unnameable; no matter what number you name, a group of monkeys can take longer to type Shakespeare. Because the upper limit is infinity, (see point 1), the number can always be larger.
4) So the monkeys represent a number that is finite, but with an upper limit at infinity, thus, near-infinity.
1 has an upper limit at 1, 10^100 has an upper limit at 10^100. An arbitrary number has an upper limit at itself.
TL;DR: Unless you care to name a number that is larger than any arbitrary number, and less than infinity, you're wrong.
(Also, I might have already had this typed up in the case that the AC replied. :troll:)
On the post: DirecTV Admits Almost No One Wants To Pay $30 To Watch A Movie At Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess I should be fair to you.
Pure Math doesn't care about the implementation, so you're still wrong there.
However, when something will have taken 'near-infinite time', it means that it is an achievable thing, but that there exists potential to never achieve it, whereas something that takes infinite time never will be achieved, even if the result reaches the desired result at infinity.
In this case, Mike is right for using 'near-infinite'. It does not take infinity for monkeys to write Shakespeare. To guarantee that every possible group of monkeys write Shakespeare, however, takes infinite time.
We are not looking to guarantee that monkeys can infallibly write Shakespeare in this case; We are looking to get monkeys to write Shakespeare. So 'near-infinite' is in fact, correct, since at some finite point in time, the monkeys, no matter which group of monkeys you pick, will have written all of Shakespeare.
For something to which 'near-infinite' does not apply, look at the series, Sigma(1/2^i, i=0, i++). (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 . . .).
At no point less than infinity, does that series equal 2.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any finite number is too far from infinity to consider "near".
So clearly, an infinite number is required to fill those criteria . . .
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re:
Actually, the link mentions that it was the inspiration for the program.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, if you care only that the odds -> 1 over infinite time, then the size of the sample doesn't matter.
Of course, if I assume he has any intelligence, it would be unfair to think he's missed the point that much.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re:
However, I'm having a difficult time seeing here what you think/are saying Mike has not understood.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Wait, why did this take him so long? This is much less computationally expensive then, say, a rainbow table of 9 characters, and that was doable back in the early 80's.
Ah, right, randomness, he's repeating a lot of his work. Statistically then, it's still taking him a lot of time to even get this result. Makes me think his algorithm isn't very good . . .
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just a second, friend, someone just patented a time machine, so I'll just go and build one, and get back to you five minutes in the past, alright? I mean, they surely must've had a working prototype, so I should be able to do it too!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, that'll be $431.22, due next thursday, (Sep 29th), 5:00p sharp, please be diligent in your licensing payments, sign here, here, and here . . . there we go! Pleasure to take your money from you!
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
(And I still might have that wrong)
On the post: John William Nelson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook Hosts 4% Of All Photos Ever Taken In History
Re: Re: Funny numbers.
(And using the word literally correctly, for once :P)
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Re: Re:
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fifth result down, on google:
http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/
Not as comprehensive as it claims, though.
On the post: There's No Such Thing As 'Natural' Search Results; Search Results Are Inherently Biased
Re: Re: Re: Re:
google: "Search engines"
Next >>