That doesn't mean it's not random. A rounded square wave (day+night+cycle) multiplied by a random "overcastness" variable is a random result that still has the underlying characteristic of the rounded square wave in the long run.
Those responsible for breaking the law should be the ones dealing with the consequences. A corporation may be legally culpable but I don't accept that it's the sensible target for this sort of crime, except as a last resort.
He's not arguing that we should let it go because it affects the innocent. The argument is that we should try to target the guilty more precisely.
For that matter, I haven't seen any credible evidence Infosys benefitted anywhere near than $35 million dollars *for this particular thing the court case is about*.
The specific case where you literally wrote exactly that snippet is warnable and is obviously incorrect, and I agree that case could be a warning, but that doesn't lead to your general conclusion at all since it's just a trivial case.
That null-check could be inlined code, or code in a macro, both of which can also appear in contexts which truly need the null check. In neither case was the if (!tun) in the original source code, so first off it's hard to even emit a sensible warning, and secondly there's no good reason to believe that case is wrong. You're just using a general purpose function that validates its inputs.
That effectively means you either have function inlining (or the good parts of link-time-code-generation), or you cannot use any functions that do input validation.
If tun is NULL, behaviour program-wide is undefined. If program behaviour is undefined, then all optimizations are valid. Since the optimization is valid under the tun != NULL case and under the tun == NULL case, the optimization is valid.
What error could the compiler possibly throw? If you want it to throw on a null-check after proving that a pointer is non-null, consider, what if "if (!tun)" appears in an inlined function or a macro which in general has to check for null but does not have to in this particular case?
To pile on, what if the compiler is inlining? A null-check might be truly necessary in one place, and "unnecessary" (in the sense that there's already been a dereference) in another. A sane optimizing compiler cannot just issue a warning for that.
When you're sick, in pain, or dying, you are not in a reasonable position to negotiate. The only cases where it's reasonable to expect you to be a rational, informed actor are cosmetic or preventative care. And preventative care is not a rational thing to keep out of the plan when it's usually cheaper on average than emergency care.
You can verify these things yourself with GCC (the paper sites GCC as producing this code) and examining the output assembly code. I haven't compiled the specific example in the MIT paper but I remember a similar output from GCC. This is indeed valid in a conforming compiler, and while this specific case is relatively "obviously" dangerous there's a bunch of things that generally do speed up code that can cause subtle dangers in an almost-correct codebase.
But note that a precondition for this specific example being dangerous is that you have to go out of your way to map page 0, which I would suggest you *also* should not do barring extreme circumstances.
I think traffic tickets is basically an unfortunate necessity in the first place, and won't be sorry to see that go, even if it has to be made up for in a more conventional tax like eg. a tiny extra bump in income tax or sales tax or whatever.
That's about the stupidest possible argument. You might as well say "self-driving cars will obviously designed to self-destruct randomly and eviscerate children".
This is one of the most obvious possible issues, and the non-car one has loads of exceptions and optimisations built in (traffic rules for ambulance and police sirens, provisions for police escort of non-emergency vehicles in an emergency situation, in many places the ambulances can adjust the traffic light timings, etc. etc.). It's absurd to think that this will be forgotten.
I think some people assume speed limit observance doesn't vary from place to place, let alone worldwide.
Most places I've been to, people exceed the speed limit by a fair degree, even in the rightmost lanes, provided weather conditions aren't extreme. During my driving test I had to observe the limit and it was comical how much I was being passed. But I've been to ones where non-passing-lanes tend to stick pretty close to the speed limit and it was odd.
If there are verifiably no non-self-driving cars or pedestrians on the road, and self-driving cars are made safer, then the self-driving the speed limits can safely be *much* higher *and* traffic can be automatically routed to give people with emergencies a clear path straight to the hospital. People cheating can be treated the same way as people faking police sirens, and are at least as detectable.
Let's just take it as given that nobody is surprised.
Doesn't that make suspending data with the US *more* urgent? They are having high-profile leaks of this information! You don't share private information with people who can't keep it private.
For all the flak Microsoft gets for their app store apps, that UI seems much more conducive to a controller + Kinect interface than the mouse & keyboard desktop was. I don't know why anybody would want that, unless they were plugging a mouse and keyboard into their xbox.
It wants an oversupply of employees in "computing occupations"
Oh come on. Extend this thinking to its logical conclusion and you'll realise we should have schools actively work against education in all fields to keep up salaries in all fields.
When the options you are presented with are which day of the week you get beaten on you are not really being presented with a option.
It's more like "would you rather be beaten daily or weekly? BTW if you try to choose some other option it's tantamount to choosing daily".
It's not unreasonable to say "weekly" in that case.
It's not like the poly or kinky people are going to do any better under the Republicans, so Obama being better for gays *is* substantially better in terms of reducing government intrustion into personal sex lives. If you're not gay, don't know any gay people, and have no empathy at all, then maybe it's a toss-up. But otherwise you need to show that Obama balances the things he's better at than the things he's worse at for it to really be "do you want to be beaten on Tuesdays or Thursdays?"
The thing to push for is a reform of the election system so that a vote for neither of the two main parties is actually meaningful. It has occurred elsewhere.
In that sense, your vote doesn't matter no matter who you vote for. The chances of your vote, personally, swinging the election is infinitesimal.
Once you've decided to vote at all, shouldn't you vote for who you want to win?
I'm speaking abstractly. Personally, I would have* voted Obama because I agree that holy shit, I'd so much rather deal with Obama than any of the opposition, moreso than I'd want a proper representative than Obama. But I think one priority should be reforming the election system to try to represent more than 2 viewpoints on some issues and 1 viewpoint on other issues. You can't have a perfect election system (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox), but you can do better. Lots of Western democracies have more than 2 parties with significant influence, even if 2 tend to dominate.
I don't really see the "dense" argument. If it were less dense, it wouldn't take the volume of a house to represent a day's worth of effort. It would take the same volume, which would have less mass (unless you somehow link it to your "scarcity" point).
I agree with all the others. Except I don't think understandment or cognitate are words.
Where he's wrong in that post is primarily in the term "obviously", and secondarily in the justification for it that he thinks is so obvious (if you don't want to backtrace his posts, it's basically a variant of the argument from first cause, where in his case the "first cause" is some macroscopic entropy-reducing phenomenon being applied to a previous iteration of the Universe which had substantially higher entropy, and this process presumably repeats ad infinitum throughout an infinite history of the Universe).
To have a lower entropy state, you must have gotten there somehow.
Unproven assertion. The underlying assumptions are twofold:
1. That there is a point of minimum entropy, or a finite set of such points which all have an equally minimal entropy. -- This has reasonably good evidence, but is hard to prove. 2. History must extend beyond the point of minimum entropy. By history, we mean that a "time" must exist "prior" to this state, where the Universe was in a different state, and it must not simply be looping through equivalent minimum entropy states. -- The only support I see for this is argument from incredulity
Saying that people are declaring "magic" is just you being a dick. You are claiming some knowledge of perpetual motion that you cannot justify, you just pulling saying "magic" over and over in these threads. And you're claiming it's obvious, when it is no such thing.
I'll try to make a valid dichotomy (or trichotomy or n-chotomy, whatever it takes). One of the following must be true:
1. There was a "beginning" of some sorts, meaning a point of absolute minimum entropy for all time before which there was no previous state of higher entropy 2. There was no beginning, and the Universe "recycles" entropy in some sense (equivalently, Thermodynamics' Second Law is not absolute). 3. There was no beginning and no recycling, but the state of maximum entropy is unreachable -- it's either not finite, or in our asymptotic approach to the finite limit it's infinitely divisible. Eg. (as a fanciful example, not trying to be realistic) every black hole creates another Universe that may have lesser beginning entropy but also subdivides that entropy more finely so it contains a Universe of essentially the same complexity as the "parent" Universe for all intents and purposes.
For what it's worth, I actually am leaning toward the same conclusion you came to (option 2), but there's no way to justify it in the hardcore way you're justifying it, even as you wax poetic about how heat death is too strong a statement. I also suspect that #2 comes from random chance and is not harnessable. These are not things that I can support strongly -- what I can support strongly is that we don't have any good observational evidence that your suspicion is correct and the 2nd law is incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean it's not random. A rounded square wave (day+night+cycle) multiplied by a random "overcastness" variable is a random result that still has the underlying characteristic of the rounded square wave in the long run.
I expect his fuel costs will remain less than yours, but it has to be asked: what is the electrical cost to his electric car?
Those responsible for breaking the law should be the ones dealing with the consequences. A corporation may be legally culpable but I don't accept that it's the sensible target for this sort of crime, except as a last resort.
He's not arguing that we should let it go because it affects the innocent. The argument is that we should try to target the guilty more precisely.
For that matter, I haven't seen any credible evidence Infosys benefitted anywhere near than $35 million dollars *for this particular thing the court case is about*.
The specific case where you literally wrote exactly that snippet is warnable and is obviously incorrect, and I agree that case could be a warning, but that doesn't lead to your general conclusion at all since it's just a trivial case.
That null-check could be inlined code, or code in a macro, both of which can also appear in contexts which truly need the null check. In neither case was the if (!tun) in the original source code, so first off it's hard to even emit a sensible warning, and secondly there's no good reason to believe that case is wrong. You're just using a general purpose function that validates its inputs.
That effectively means you either have function inlining (or the good parts of link-time-code-generation), or you cannot use any functions that do input validation.
If tun is NULL, behaviour program-wide is undefined. If program behaviour is undefined, then all optimizations are valid. Since the optimization is valid under the tun != NULL case and under the tun == NULL case, the optimization is valid.
What error could the compiler possibly throw? If you want it to throw on a null-check after proving that a pointer is non-null, consider, what if "if (!tun)" appears in an inlined function or a macro which in general has to check for null but does not have to in this particular case?
To pile on, what if the compiler is inlining? A null-check might be truly necessary in one place, and "unnecessary" (in the sense that there's already been a dereference) in another. A sane optimizing compiler cannot just issue a warning for that.
When you're sick, in pain, or dying, you are not in a reasonable position to negotiate. The only cases where it's reasonable to expect you to be a rational, informed actor are cosmetic or preventative care. And preventative care is not a rational thing to keep out of the plan when it's usually cheaper on average than emergency care.
You can verify these things yourself with GCC (the paper sites GCC as producing this code) and examining the output assembly code. I haven't compiled the specific example in the MIT paper but I remember a similar output from GCC. This is indeed valid in a conforming compiler, and while this specific case is relatively "obviously" dangerous there's a bunch of things that generally do speed up code that can cause subtle dangers in an almost-correct codebase.
But note that a precondition for this specific example being dangerous is that you have to go out of your way to map page 0, which I would suggest you *also* should not do barring extreme circumstances.
Being able to detect snakes easily for avoidance parleys very well into being able to detect snakes for food.
It said nothing about our brains. It talked about macaque brains in captive-born animals that had *never in their lives seen a snake*.
I think traffic tickets is basically an unfortunate necessity in the first place, and won't be sorry to see that go, even if it has to be made up for in a more conventional tax like eg. a tiny extra bump in income tax or sales tax or whatever.
Yes, it 'could.' It won't be.
That's about the stupidest possible argument. You might as well say "self-driving cars will obviously designed to self-destruct randomly and eviscerate children".
This is one of the most obvious possible issues, and the non-car one has loads of exceptions and optimisations built in (traffic rules for ambulance and police sirens, provisions for police escort of non-emergency vehicles in an emergency situation, in many places the ambulances can adjust the traffic light timings, etc. etc.). It's absurd to think that this will be forgotten.
I think some people assume speed limit observance doesn't vary from place to place, let alone worldwide.
Most places I've been to, people exceed the speed limit by a fair degree, even in the rightmost lanes, provided weather conditions aren't extreme. During my driving test I had to observe the limit and it was comical how much I was being passed. But I've been to ones where non-passing-lanes tend to stick pretty close to the speed limit and it was odd.
If there are verifiably no non-self-driving cars or pedestrians on the road, and self-driving cars are made safer, then the self-driving the speed limits can safely be *much* higher *and* traffic can be automatically routed to give people with emergencies a clear path straight to the hospital. People cheating can be treated the same way as people faking police sirens, and are at least as detectable.
No, he didn't. His point was that people will buy a console for one game. It was not specific to any particular console.
Let's just take it as given that nobody is surprised.
Doesn't that make suspending data with the US *more* urgent? They are having high-profile leaks of this information! You don't share private information with people who can't keep it private.
There's a Kinect there. That seems to lend itself to touch based UI.
For all the flak Microsoft gets for their app store apps, that UI seems much more conducive to a controller + Kinect interface than the mouse & keyboard desktop was. I don't know why anybody would want that, unless they were plugging a mouse and keyboard into their xbox.
It wants an oversupply of employees in "computing occupations"
Oh come on. Extend this thinking to its logical conclusion and you'll realise we should have schools actively work against education in all fields to keep up salaries in all fields.
When the options you are presented with are which day of the week you get beaten on you are not really being presented with a option.
It's more like "would you rather be beaten daily or weekly? BTW if you try to choose some other option it's tantamount to choosing daily".
It's not unreasonable to say "weekly" in that case.
It's not like the poly or kinky people are going to do any better under the Republicans, so Obama being better for gays *is* substantially better in terms of reducing government intrustion into personal sex lives. If you're not gay, don't know any gay people, and have no empathy at all, then maybe it's a toss-up. But otherwise you need to show that Obama balances the things he's better at than the things he's worse at for it to really be "do you want to be beaten on Tuesdays or Thursdays?"
The thing to push for is a reform of the election system so that a vote for neither of the two main parties is actually meaningful. It has occurred elsewhere.
In that sense, your vote doesn't matter no matter who you vote for. The chances of your vote, personally, swinging the election is infinitesimal.
Once you've decided to vote at all, shouldn't you vote for who you want to win?
I'm speaking abstractly. Personally, I would have* voted Obama because I agree that holy shit, I'd so much rather deal with Obama than any of the opposition, moreso than I'd want a proper representative than Obama. But I think one priority should be reforming the election system to try to represent more than 2 viewpoints on some issues and 1 viewpoint on other issues. You can't have a perfect election system (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox), but you can do better. Lots of Western democracies have more than 2 parties with significant influence, even if 2 tend to dominate.
*not an American
Oracle and Google are headquartered in California, as are some of newer entrants listed. Doesn't that have higher taxes than Massachusetts?
This site suggests so: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/28/state-taxes-states-highest-lowest/1654071/. Granted those are all-up numbers and not industry-specific.
I don't really see the "dense" argument. If it were less dense, it wouldn't take the volume of a house to represent a day's worth of effort. It would take the same volume, which would have less mass (unless you somehow link it to your "scarcity" point).
I agree with all the others. Except I don't think understandment or cognitate are words.
Where he's wrong in that post is primarily in the term "obviously", and secondarily in the justification for it that he thinks is so obvious (if you don't want to backtrace his posts, it's basically a variant of the argument from first cause, where in his case the "first cause" is some macroscopic entropy-reducing phenomenon being applied to a previous iteration of the Universe which had substantially higher entropy, and this process presumably repeats ad infinitum throughout an infinite history of the Universe).
To have a lower entropy state, you must have gotten there somehow.
Unproven assertion. The underlying assumptions are twofold:
1. That there is a point of minimum entropy, or a finite set of such points which all have an equally minimal entropy.
-- This has reasonably good evidence, but is hard to prove.
2. History must extend beyond the point of minimum entropy. By history, we mean that a "time" must exist "prior" to this state, where the Universe was in a different state, and it must not simply be looping through equivalent minimum entropy states.
-- The only support I see for this is argument from incredulity
Saying that people are declaring "magic" is just you being a dick. You are claiming some knowledge of perpetual motion that you cannot justify, you just pulling saying "magic" over and over in these threads. And you're claiming it's obvious, when it is no such thing.
I'll try to make a valid dichotomy (or trichotomy or n-chotomy, whatever it takes). One of the following must be true:
1. There was a "beginning" of some sorts, meaning a point of absolute minimum entropy for all time before which there was no previous state of higher entropy
2. There was no beginning, and the Universe "recycles" entropy in some sense (equivalently, Thermodynamics' Second Law is not absolute).
3. There was no beginning and no recycling, but the state of maximum entropy is unreachable -- it's either not finite, or in our asymptotic approach to the finite limit it's infinitely divisible. Eg. (as a fanciful example, not trying to be realistic) every black hole creates another Universe that may have lesser beginning entropy but also subdivides that entropy more finely so it contains a Universe of essentially the same complexity as the "parent" Universe for all intents and purposes.
For what it's worth, I actually am leaning toward the same conclusion you came to (option 2), but there's no way to justify it in the hardcore way you're justifying it, even as you wax poetic about how heat death is too strong a statement. I also suspect that #2 comes from random chance and is not harnessable. These are not things that I can support strongly -- what I can support strongly is that we don't have any good observational evidence that your suspicion is correct and the 2nd law is incorrect.