No, because the blocks being stored on the various hard drives could very well be used with another URL to reconstruct a totally different file to the one in the URL you lost.
LEO was actually used to calculate and print the income tax tables for the British Inland Revenue in 1955 - the task was completed overnight, as opposed to taking several weeks if done manually.
Not only did Lyons build the first industrial computer, they even had a bureau service running as soon as the machine was ready to take on the extra work.
As a matter of fact, Lyons sent Oliver Standingford and Raymond Thompson over to the US in the summer of 1947, to meet with Herman Goldstine at Princeton - it was Goldstine who recommended that they visit Professor Hartree (Wilkes' boss) at Cambridge.
There's a damn fine history of the LEO computers, written with input from Caminer himself: A Computer Called Leo, by Georgina Ferry.
I just dug out my copy to get all the names right:o)
We've already got them in the UK - I saw a poster for Oreos the other day.
.
There was a fine sketch on 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' many years ago, which in this context sums it up: Rowan Atkinson was talking at the Tory Party Conference about Asian immigration, and the punchline was -
I like curry, but we've got the recipie now, OK?
Substitute Oreos for curry in the above, and you've got my feelings on US impositions on our culture.
OK - you're more up to date with the jargon than I am.
In that case, I'm probably closer to your philosphy than you'd think - I'm an extreme skeptic where the scientific method is concerned, and have never found a reason to believe in gods or faries.
I just find it more plausible to believe that the huge variety of things that happen in the 'objective reality' are actually due to that 'reality' actually existing, rather than them being due to some process that I myself have generated.
They've got their right to live their life as they wish, but when they start to impose their idiocy on their children, that's where the boundary is crossed.
Won't somebody think of the children?
I take your point, and I thought I had read your comment pretty carefully - I respect the right of everyone to disagree with me, but don't agree that I have to respect their views when they do so if I think their views are stupid or harmful.
If you think that's high-handed, then fair enough - we'll agree to differ and I'll take my arrogant path through life with nary a thought for my fellow man.
I've done enough thinking to be an epistemic solipsist, which is about as far as a rationalist position can go.
About as far, or about as far out?
My understanding (25 years out of date, I admit) is that epistemic solipsicm implies that there is one true source of knowledge, and that it is written down.
Now that to me sounds like a fancy description of 'Christian fundie'.
My position, simply stated, is that to posit an objective reality outside of myself is simpler than to imagine that I, myself have created the reality that I see (which is the natural and minimalistic conclusion from solipsism) - it requires far less capability from my mind, which I know from experience to be fallible.
But the study that you have put in (me too - both martial arts and sport) allows your conscious mind to delegate the action of blocking, punching, hitting the ball, whatever to a learned reflex - your mind spots a pattern of attack, or a backhand pass down the line - it matters not - it is all delegated to the learned behaviour, with only minor input from the senses.
I prefer to think of it thus: you are the sum of your experiences, and in a fight / tennis match, you draw on the sum of what you are, without needing the intervention of the conscious mind.
I never view a fight or a tennis match as a series of decisions - it's a state of mind that I find quite relaxing, and it's all down to practice.
Sometime just before the Cambrian explosion, a mass extinction event occurred, leaving the existing life forms a) stressed, and b) in ecological niches they didn't previously occupy.
The opportunities for genetic diversification were endless!
The life forms that survived the previous extinction were able (through reduced competition) to diversify in a manner that would previously have been impossible through lack of fitness, and mutations that would previously have faded out became common.
Where's the complexity in that?
Life just is (once it happens), and environment and self-replication takes care of the rest.
Sorry, no place for your Flying Spaghetti Monster here, please move along.
(Occam's Razor would seem to favour solipsism -- no reality is fewer entities than one reality -- but science is selective in the way it applies Occam's razor).
But solipsism creates more questions than the acceptance of an observable reality does, so Occam's Razor does not apply in this case.
You may have read a few books, but you appear to have done precious little thinking.
2. The organism to be tested must have gotten its C-14 from the atmosphere
3. The sample has remained chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement.
4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the organism lived.
1. Doh - I'd never have guessed that.
2. Bullshit - the organism can get its C14 from any other organism living at the same time that it consumes (or do you think that we customarily consume coal in order to confuse future scientists?)
3. In terms of carbon exchange, anything buried can be treated as effectively isolated - anaerobic bacteria only recycle the carbon they consume, FFS.
4. We've now got pretty good data for that from ice cores, etc - at least up to the reasonable limits for accuracy in carbon dating.
You appear to be one of those people who have crossed the line from (reasonably educated and numerate) religion to lunacy. Congratulations.
It's gaining ground in the UK, mainly because of that imbecile that we had as Prime Minister for 10 years.
His obsession with semi-privatising schools (and his self-professed Christianity) has led to a number of schools being founded with a combination of government and fundamentalist Christian funding, and the fundies have control over the resulting schools and their curricula.
How the fuck did you get modded insightful for that steaming pile of crap?
Radio-carbon dating is less accurate than using a random-number generator. It relies on far too many assumptions.
Any evidence for that stupid assertion? The decay of any one atom is random, I'll admit, but once you have a sample of sufficient size (hint - the sufficient size is of the order of micrograms), the average decay rate is known precisely.
And what about "There are other dating methods that are more likely to be close to the truth"? What truth is that? That the earth is 6,000 years old and was made by some creator in 7 days?
Bullshit, all bullshit.
You're a fucking retard and I hope to hell you never get a position of responsibility - you should be disqualified from ever breeding.
So let's assume that the Bible is utterly false. What facts can you derive? Oops! None, really. If it was "one or the other", knowing the Bible was false would imply that "science" was true.
No - what your argument actually implies is that the Bible is irrelevant to any discussion of science.
I think you meant to reply to the parent comment to mine (pesky 'Reply to this' buttons all over the screen), but in my case both I and Josh's mum can understand and cope with his behaviours (he's also physically and learning disabled, which adds to the mix), and take no heed of what other people think.
There's a long continuum of autistic ability, and I'd seriously doubt from your prose that you are severely autistic - more mild Aspergers.
I wonder if the effect varies with the age of the subject?
I'd hazard a guess that us oldies would need longer between guesses than the young 'uns, since we're more likely to remember the previous guesses than a rap-music listening, zero attention span teen.
That is, the effect of increased accuracy should fall off with age.
Amen to that - I'm looking forward to taking my severely autistic stepson out to the Brooklands Double Twelve this Sunday, and will be taking the utmost pleasure from seeing him enjoy himself among all the old racing cars.
The behavioural problems we can cope with, but he's physically handicapped as well, so in residential care.
But every Sunday, come rain or shine, it's Josh's day.
It's interesting to me that you think that you're less smart than a bunch of snake oil salesmen and bunco booth operators, which I suspect make up the majority of those likely to be involved in this conference.
But if you want to keep putting yourself down, feel free.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because the blocks being stored on the various hard drives could very well be used with another URL to reconstruct a totally different file to the one in the URL you lost.
One of the above statements is redundant - I'm not sure which :o)
Not only did Lyons build the first industrial computer, they even had a bureau service running as soon as the machine was ready to take on the extra work.
There's a damn fine history of the LEO computers, written with input from Caminer himself: A Computer Called Leo, by Georgina Ferry.
I just dug out my copy to get all the names right :o)
.
There was a fine sketch on 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' many years ago, which in this context sums it up: Rowan Atkinson was talking at the Tory Party Conference about Asian immigration, and the punchline was -
I like curry, but we've got the recipie now, OK?
Substitute Oreos for curry in the above, and you've got my feelings on US impositions on our culture.
In that case, I'm probably closer to your philosphy than you'd think - I'm an extreme skeptic where the scientific method is concerned, and have never found a reason to believe in gods or faries.
I just find it more plausible to believe that the huge variety of things that happen in the 'objective reality' are actually due to that 'reality' actually existing, rather than them being due to some process that I myself have generated.
Won't somebody think of the children?
I take your point, and I thought I had read your comment pretty carefully - I respect the right of everyone to disagree with me, but don't agree that I have to respect their views when they do so if I think their views are stupid or harmful.
If you think that's high-handed, then fair enough - we'll agree to differ and I'll take my arrogant path through life with nary a thought for my fellow man.
About as far, or about as far out?
My understanding (25 years out of date, I admit) is that epistemic solipsicm implies that there is one true source of knowledge, and that it is written down.
Now that to me sounds like a fancy description of 'Christian fundie'.
My position, simply stated, is that to posit an objective reality outside of myself is simpler than to imagine that I, myself have created the reality that I see (which is the natural and minimalistic conclusion from solipsism) - it requires far less capability from my mind, which I know from experience to be fallible.
I prefer to think of it thus: you are the sum of your experiences, and in a fight / tennis match, you draw on the sum of what you are, without needing the intervention of the conscious mind.
I never view a fight or a tennis match as a series of decisions - it's a state of mind that I find quite relaxing, and it's all down to practice.
On the first occasion, the idiot that drove into the back of me (I was stopped) was drunk, on the second, the woman was on the mobile.
To me (and I'm not a 'hanging around' sort of driver), phone use is as bad as drink driving.
I'd rather that they not naturally select themselves and their germ line out of existence on my rear bumper, thankyou :o)
Where I come from, respect has to be earned - it's not something that you automatically give to any nutjob that expects it.
When you prove yourself worthy of respect, I'll respect you - but if you want respect, please earn it by not espousing idiocracy.
+5 Funny ;o)
Sometime just before the Cambrian explosion, a mass extinction event occurred, leaving the existing life forms a) stressed, and b) in ecological niches they didn't previously occupy.
The opportunities for genetic diversification were endless!
The life forms that survived the previous extinction were able (through reduced competition) to diversify in a manner that would previously have been impossible through lack of fitness, and mutations that would previously have faded out became common.
Where's the complexity in that?
Life just is (once it happens), and environment and self-replication takes care of the rest.
Sorry, no place for your Flying Spaghetti Monster here, please move along.
But solipsism creates more questions than the acceptance of an observable reality does, so Occam's Razor does not apply in this case.
You may have read a few books, but you appear to have done precious little thinking.
"I'm not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles."
1. Doh - I'd never have guessed that.
2. Bullshit - the organism can get its C14 from any other organism living at the same time that it consumes (or do you think that we customarily consume coal in order to confuse future scientists?)
3. In terms of carbon exchange, anything buried can be treated as effectively isolated - anaerobic bacteria only recycle the carbon they consume, FFS.
4. We've now got pretty good data for that from ice cores, etc - at least up to the reasonable limits for accuracy in carbon dating.
You appear to be one of those people who have crossed the line from (reasonably educated and numerate) religion to lunacy. Congratulations.
His obsession with semi-privatising schools (and his self-professed Christianity) has led to a number of schools being founded with a combination of government and fundamentalist Christian funding, and the fundies have control over the resulting schools and their curricula.
Any evidence for that stupid assertion? The decay of any one atom is random, I'll admit, but once you have a sample of sufficient size (hint - the sufficient size is of the order of micrograms), the average decay rate is known precisely.
And what about "There are other dating methods that are more likely to be close to the truth" ? What truth is that? That the earth is 6,000 years old and was made by some creator in 7 days?
Bullshit, all bullshit.
You're a fucking retard and I hope to hell you never get a position of responsibility - you should be disqualified from ever breeding.
No - what your argument actually implies is that the Bible is irrelevant to any discussion of science.
There's a long continuum of autistic ability, and I'd seriously doubt from your prose that you are severely autistic - more mild Aspergers.
Whatever - have a good life and be healthy.
I'd hazard a guess that us oldies would need longer between guesses than the young 'uns, since we're more likely to remember the previous guesses than a rap-music listening, zero attention span teen.
That is, the effect of increased accuracy should fall off with age.
Amen to that - I'm looking forward to taking my severely autistic stepson out to the Brooklands Double Twelve this Sunday, and will be taking the utmost pleasure from seeing him enjoy himself among all the old racing cars.
The behavioural problems we can cope with, but he's physically handicapped as well, so in residential care.
But every Sunday, come rain or shine, it's Josh's day.
But if you want to keep putting yourself down, feel free.
Is he related to Dorian?
I wish!
Appropriate song to mention on the day that Mugabe steals power for the umpteenth time, though :o)