I've lived on a farm and my solution was a little different. I try to buy meat and eggs that are taken from animals that are reasonably treated and every once in a while I take the moral responsibility of going out myself and killing something to eat. I don't particularly enjoy hunting and I don't see it as a "sport" - it might be if it was you naked with a knife vs a bear but I don't see much sporting about you with a rifle vs an animal that has no way to even know what is going on.... but rather it's something people should do, and would benefit from doing, if they are going to eat meat. It wouldn't hurt people to have to grow a few fruits and vegetables and harvest them themselves either.
Not to mention that "The Matrix" human batteries would run afoul of the laws of thermodynamics - you simply could not make a human being generate more electrical energy than it takes to keep them alive.
I don't get the troll mod either. The GP is, however, wrong in thinking that other industries don't get to make such wild claims and have people believe them. Take, for example, the fast food industry. The claim they make is on all those billboards showing a delicious, luscious burger and fries. The reality is quite different. Or the politician industry whose members make incredible claims, which people seem to actually believe, and then deliver something quite different altogether. And of course there is the operating system industry....
Yes, well, you see the point was that accountants don't need to see the word MULTIPLY to understand it is multiplication. They can just as easily tell from a single symbol. Take a look at the kind of stuff accountants routinely have to read - trust me a single symbol for multiply isn't a problem for them, any more than it is to use a single symbol for ADD or for SUBTRACT. If you want to argue that "x" is better than "*" for that single symbol then go right ahead, but it isn't relevant to the point I was making.
btw I've seen more than a couple of keyboards with both a divide symbol and even keyboards that had both multiply and divide. As for "*" being "a typical programmer's idea" I don't think you understand who it is/was that decides on character sets, the representation of characters and what symbols printers and (back then) card punches would support but I'll give you a clue - it wasn't programmers.
Ok, since you are criticising the worthiness of the guy's post as an argument then I think it is fair to look at some of what you say.
In that post you provide one fact in one sentence, and it's nit-picky and deceptive. You then proceed to argue as though anyone who reads about the topic or your posts agrees with you. This is in stark contrast to the obvious evidence that the GP has read on the topic (the references provided), and the fact that you have about five people arguing against you.
"Nit-picky and deceptive" are value judgements, not arguments or facts. And the complaint has a whiff of the ad hominem about it, although strictly speaking it isn't ad hominem.
I don't think you can read evidence (unless you are a crime scene investigator). And the references provided all seem to be from one source which, by its name, might be suspected of not being entirely unbiased.
The number of people arguing against him has nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of his arguments. He may be right, he may be wrong, but whichever it is sure isn't a function of the number of people who agree or disagree with him.
That may have been part of the reason for the language, sponsored by the US DoD and initially specified by an Admiral btw, but I'm pretty sure that an accountant could have read a "*" just as easily as "MULTIPLY". I am surprised to find that new standards for COBOL continue to emerge so apparently COBOL programs still are being written today.
I think confidence in automation had already been pretty well established before then... at least the US Census and others had bought into it whole hog.
I don't think the point is whether or not someone would still start a project in it (that certainly wasn't my point) but that it was based on the same idea as the article summary mentions and was in fact successful if you use a metric for success based on the number of programs written in it. There almost certainly far more programs written in Cobol than in Fortran. And even though there may still be a lot of Fortran programming still going on in scientific/engineering circles, given the relatively tiny size of that programming community I bet there are still a competitive number of Cobol programs still running out there even though there may not be any more being developed.
Since I didn't make myself clear the very first time let me say - what is being proposed has been proposed before in the form of Cobol (old boss, new boss thing). Cobol may not have been successful at the goal of enabling non-programmers to turn out useful code but given its very widespread use in the real world it was certainly successful just as a programming language. So while the new idea may not be any more successful than Cobol in enabling non-programmers to generate useful software (but, hey it might!) it may still yield useful tools for the generation of software by actual programmers.
Yes but the idea/propaganda was the same... make it easier for "normal" people to make software. A goal that wasn't really achieved imho. Your comment is right but otoh given the amount of Cobol legacy code still around it is hard to classify it as a failure either.
Please see Bell's Theorem (from over forty years ago) and the experiments based on it for the reasoning as to why this is (at the very least) extremely unlikely.
I'm not sure what Bell's Inequality being around for 40 years has to do with anything unless you think the older a theory is the more likely it is to be correct. Anyway, it has been quite a long time since I've looked at any QM but last I did there was more than one loophole proposed for the problem of Bell's Inequality. The many worlds interpretation certainly avoids the problem. And if you don't insist on the hidden information being obtained from events that precede or coincide with the entanglement, ie. if the hidden information involves knowledge of future events, then it is not a problem - and personally I don't find random access to a temporal dimension any harder to believe in than the random access to one or more spatial dimensions, which is arguably what is implied by the wave collapse of one entangled particle instantly affecting and effecting the wave collapse of another entangled particle at a distance. Or if the local hidden variables can intercommunicate instantly with other hidden variables it also solves the problem.
Maybe the two aren't weldable... maybe there is just a more or less amorphous interface between the two. Frankly I'm still suspicious about the idea that there actually exists something, a thing to which we normally assign the name "time."
(Without looking at the Wikipedia article) It seems to me that the alternate explanation usually given for this is that there are hidden variables which encode the state information we see as entanglement so there is no communication after the particles separate. Each of the entangled particles just relies on local information that it carries with it and which was generated at the moment of entanglement.
I've been an ex smoker for quite a few years now and it is a bad habit. But I have to say your claim is unadulterated BS. I've built, rebuilt and modded my own machines for years while I was a heavy smoker and have NEVER seen anything like what you're claiming. I don't know why you would bother to invent something that is so obviously untrue but it is both amazing and depressing that people are so unquestioning as to accept it as "informative."
That one condition isn't going to work. The rich and powerful will always find some way to preserve their privacy. In fact they'll justify exemptions as being necessary because they are rich and powerful and so more likely to be targeted by "bad guys". No, you'll just lose your privacy.
I find the GIMP UI a little unusual but I haven't used it enough to be able to criticise fairly. One problem for me is that - and I haven't checked for a while so this may no longer be true; someone please correct me if I'm wrong - GIMP only edits 8 bits per channel. The RAW files from my camera are deeper than this - depending on the model most DSLRs have 10-14 bits/channel - to be able to edit you either need to be able to manipulate the RAW channels directly or use a utility or plugin to convert to something like 16 bits/channel TIFF and then edit and AFAIK GIMP won't edit 16 bits/channel.
Now people might say that the DSLR market is too small to be worth changing GIMP but DSLRs have gotten very cheap, are getting cheaper faster and also I think it will soon be common to see non-DSLR cameras wtih >8 bits channel if for no other reason than that the marketing guys will convince people they need it for their snapshots.
It probably won't even want to go dog-back riding - our cat doesn't. Actually given the weight of all those processors the dog is probably going to be happy about that.
Slashdot Mirror
I've lived on a farm and my solution was a little different. I try to buy meat and eggs that are taken from animals that are reasonably treated and every once in a while I take the moral responsibility of going out myself and killing something to eat. I don't particularly enjoy hunting and I don't see it as a "sport" - it might be if it was you naked with a knife vs a bear but I don't see much sporting about you with a rifle vs an animal that has no way to even know what is going on.... but rather it's something people should do, and would benefit from doing, if they are going to eat meat. It wouldn't hurt people to have to grow a few fruits and vegetables and harvest them themselves either.
And there'd be an unlimited supply of Soylent Green! I can see the advertising now "Soylent Green ISN'T people, it just tastes like it is!"
Not to mention that "The Matrix" human batteries would run afoul of the laws of thermodynamics - you simply could not make a human being generate more electrical energy than it takes to keep them alive.
I don't get the troll mod either. The GP is, however, wrong in thinking that other industries don't get to make such wild claims and have people believe them. Take, for example, the fast food industry. The claim they make is on all those billboards showing a delicious, luscious burger and fries. The reality is quite different. Or the politician industry whose members make incredible claims, which people seem to actually believe, and then deliver something quite different altogether. And of course there is the operating system industry....
Yes, well, you see the point was that accountants don't need to see the word MULTIPLY to understand it is multiplication. They can just as easily tell from a single symbol. Take a look at the kind of stuff accountants routinely have to read - trust me a single symbol for multiply isn't a problem for them, any more than it is to use a single symbol for ADD or for SUBTRACT. If you want to argue that "x" is better than "*" for that single symbol then go right ahead, but it isn't relevant to the point I was making.
btw I've seen more than a couple of keyboards with both a divide symbol and even keyboards that had both multiply and divide. As for "*" being "a typical programmer's idea" I don't think you understand who it is/was that decides on character sets, the representation of characters and what symbols printers and (back then) card punches would support but I'll give you a clue - it wasn't programmers.
What they're doing is siphoning off gravity and osmotic pressure, and THOSE are the vital resources that will be depleted instead.
Gravity is a vital resource we can deplete it? Ummmm, nope. See: physics.
Ok, since you are criticising the worthiness of the guy's post as an argument then I think it is fair to look at some of what you say.
In that post you provide one fact in one sentence, and it's nit-picky and deceptive. You then proceed to argue as though anyone who reads about the topic or your posts agrees with you. This is in stark contrast to the obvious evidence that the GP has read on the topic (the references provided), and the fact that you have about five people arguing against you.
That may have been part of the reason for the language, sponsored by the US DoD and initially specified by an Admiral btw, but I'm pretty sure that an accountant could have read a "*" just as easily as "MULTIPLY". I am surprised to find that new standards for COBOL continue to emerge so apparently COBOL programs still are being written today.
I think confidence in automation had already been pretty well established before then... at least the US Census and others had bought into it whole hog.
I don't think the point is whether or not someone would still start a project in it (that certainly wasn't my point) but that it was based on the same idea as the article summary mentions and was in fact successful if you use a metric for success based on the number of programs written in it. There almost certainly far more programs written in Cobol than in Fortran. And even though there may still be a lot of Fortran programming still going on in scientific/engineering circles, given the relatively tiny size of that programming community I bet there are still a competitive number of Cobol programs still running out there even though there may not be any more being developed.
Since I didn't make myself clear the very first time let me say - what is being proposed has been proposed before in the form of Cobol (old boss, new boss thing). Cobol may not have been successful at the goal of enabling non-programmers to turn out useful code but given its very widespread use in the real world it was certainly successful just as a programming language. So while the new idea may not be any more successful than Cobol in enabling non-programmers to generate useful software (but, hey it might!) it may still yield useful tools for the generation of software by actual programmers.
Yes but the idea/propaganda was the same... make it easier for "normal" people to make software. A goal that wasn't really achieved imho. Your comment is right but otoh given the amount of Cobol legacy code still around it is hard to classify it as a failure either.
COBOL is reborn!!!
In the 1990's our primary industry, fishing, collapsed as the stocks were not properly managed from a government and citizen perspective.
Not to mention from the perspective of the fish!
Awwww cmon I don't even get a single +1 Funny for that? Tsk, tsk.
and most importantly, WTF is WTF????
Please see Bell's Theorem (from over forty years ago) and the experiments based on it for the reasoning as to why this is (at the very least) extremely unlikely.
I'm not sure what Bell's Inequality being around for 40 years has to do with anything unless you think the older a theory is the more likely it is to be correct. Anyway, it has been quite a long time since I've looked at any QM but last I did there was more than one loophole proposed for the problem of Bell's Inequality. The many worlds interpretation certainly avoids the problem. And if you don't insist on the hidden information being obtained from events that precede or coincide with the entanglement, ie. if the hidden information involves knowledge of future events, then it is not a problem - and personally I don't find random access to a temporal dimension any harder to believe in than the random access to one or more spatial dimensions, which is arguably what is implied by the wave collapse of one entangled particle instantly affecting and effecting the wave collapse of another entangled particle at a distance. Or if the local hidden variables can intercommunicate instantly with other hidden variables it also solves the problem.
Maybe the two aren't weldable... maybe there is just a more or less amorphous interface between the two. Frankly I'm still suspicious about the idea that there actually exists something, a thing to which we normally assign the name "time."
(Without looking at the Wikipedia article) It seems to me that the alternate explanation usually given for this is that there are hidden variables which encode the state information we see as entanglement so there is no communication after the particles separate. Each of the entangled particles just relies on local information that it carries with it and which was generated at the moment of entanglement.
It was a pack a day, every day, right beside the macnine in a small room with no open windows and one door.
I've been an ex smoker for quite a few years now and it is a bad habit. But I have to say your claim is unadulterated BS. I've built, rebuilt and modded my own machines for years while I was a heavy smoker and have NEVER seen anything like what you're claiming. I don't know why you would bother to invent something that is so obviously untrue but it is both amazing and depressing that people are so unquestioning as to accept it as "informative."
That one condition isn't going to work. The rich and powerful will always find some way to preserve their privacy. In fact they'll justify exemptions as being necessary because they are rich and powerful and so more likely to be targeted by "bad guys". No, you'll just lose your privacy.
Well (please to take foot out of mouth if GIMP is not open source) why not fork a version of GIMP and change the name? Just the name, nothing else.
I find the GIMP UI a little unusual but I haven't used it enough to be able to criticise fairly. One problem for me is that - and I haven't checked for a while so this may no longer be true; someone please correct me if I'm wrong - GIMP only edits 8 bits per channel. The RAW files from my camera are deeper than this - depending on the model most DSLRs have 10-14 bits/channel - to be able to edit you either need to be able to manipulate the RAW channels directly or use a utility or plugin to convert to something like 16 bits/channel TIFF and then edit and AFAIK GIMP won't edit 16 bits/channel.
Now people might say that the DSLR market is too small to be worth changing GIMP but DSLRs have gotten very cheap, are getting cheaper faster and also I think it will soon be common to see non-DSLR cameras wtih >8 bits channel if for no other reason than that the marketing guys will convince people they need it for their snapshots.
Understanding how they work would be desirable however as my gf says "I don't have to understand how the drill works to make holes."
It probably won't even want to go dog-back riding - our cat doesn't. Actually given the weight of all those processors the dog is probably going to be happy about that.
And what the heck are thoroughbred sharks? What? Like a mongrel shark isn't good enough to carry a laser now? Damn discrimination everywhere.