But, for him to be karma whoring, there'd also have to be a significant number of slashdotters who don't know (which is quite the unlikely case). So, either he didn't know; or he over-estimated the number of slashdotters who don't know.
Also-- the Milky Way is obviously not perfectly circular and so computing its circumference with the formula involving PI and radius would be incorrect. That's a big clue IMO of the author's intended imprecision.
There have been numerous episodes where they attempt feat X in a very particular way, fail, and then say X cannot possibly ever be done under any other particulars. How anybody *could* think that is science is beyond me.
I think both of you are missing the fact that it's the Cell processor and not necessarily the graphics card which is the draw here. One master core; lots of slave cores. Surely a joy to program highly-parallel applications on.
Of course, the graphics card can be utilized with OpenCL (but I rather suspect that is mere icing on the cake).
The problem is that his popularization often involves a lot of glossing over finer points and interpreting such course data with bogus philosophical assumptions.
But OLE hasn't really hit another generation because everything is so unstable. Imagine the next generation of applications that have data embedded from dozens of devices and hundreds of websites.
If the data is coming from more than one host, then you're in the realm of DCOM (not OLE). OLE has not 'hit another generation' because it is a mature technology that does essentially all it needs to (it's merely being maintained).
DCOM is not all the rage anymore because it has been replaced by better technologies such as.NET Remoting, Web Services, WCF, etc.
SE may not usually involve continuous math, but it certainly does help to understand it when you get into higher-order programming (and I would argue that programming should always be of the higher-order variety--code should be as succinct as possible as a service to your readers [including your future self]).
I turn sensitivity all the way up on XBOX. To move quickly, just give a swift but forceful burst and then scale it back to near-origin for the final adjustments. I agree though, it would be nicer still if games would implement momentum scrolling (essentially allowing for quicker bursts and fewer final adjustments [which would perhaps require a lower sensitivity setting than players are accustomed to]).
That sounds reasonable. Although market makers are not perfect and neither would the proposed high-speed non-profit inefficiency eliminator be. So, we would still have multiple layers of opportunities for arbitrage and people (and their machines) engaging in it. The only question would be where to draw the boundary of each layer.
I also like the idea of a tiered tax scheme (proposed elsewhere) to encourage the holding of securities for longer lengths of time.
They do provide liquidity and what essentially amounts to inertia (or a process of stabilization--excluding cascading failures of course). It's not hard to imagine that the market would fluctuate more in the absence of these micro-arbitrations.
Also, in the case of derivatives, there's always someone looking to buy or sell almost anything for many [legitimate] reasons [given their extant position] (and these traders make the long-tail market for such people).
Disputes could merely indicate some internal conflict within Anonymous. So, as Anonymous membership grows, it essentially becomes a microcosm of society itself!
I do think the overwhelming majority of those in there are in fact enemy combatants. If there happens to be a few innocents, I am sure that the facts will come to light in time and they will be released. Just which court to you suppose they ought to face trial in since they are not American citizens and their crimes were not committed on American soil? It would seem to be a waste of resources to clog up the American justice system (which is already overloaded) with such cases.
I didn't see him put forth any Turing analogue. He only claimed that following a very specific set of instructions established by someone else is not intelligence (i.e., it is *not* a valid Turing test) [and he's right].
Slashdot Mirror
But, for him to be karma whoring, there'd also have to be a significant number of slashdotters who don't know (which is quite the unlikely case). So, either he didn't know; or he over-estimated the number of slashdotters who don't know.
He has a lower slashdot ID than you though. Fail!
Why so visceral a response? Do the implications of the evidence for intelligent design bother you that much? Emotional reactions are rarely rational.
Hey, if you're gonna woosh me, woosh my parent too. I was merely adding to his point.
Nor is it a perfect ellipse.
Also-- the Milky Way is obviously not perfectly circular and so computing its circumference with the formula involving PI and radius would be incorrect. That's a big clue IMO of the author's intended imprecision.
There have been numerous episodes where they attempt feat X in a very particular way, fail, and then say X cannot possibly ever be done under any other particulars. How anybody *could* think that is science is beyond me.
I think both of you are missing the fact that it's the Cell processor and not necessarily the graphics card which is the draw here. One master core; lots of slave cores. Surely a joy to program highly-parallel applications on.
Of course, the graphics card can be utilized with OpenCL (but I rather suspect that is mere icing on the cake).
Clojure *is* LISP; which is precisely why we *don't* need Scala and Mirah.
The problem is that his popularization often involves a lot of glossing over finer points and interpreting such course data with bogus philosophical assumptions.
But OLE hasn't really hit another generation because everything is so unstable. Imagine the next generation of applications that have data embedded from dozens of devices and hundreds of websites.
If the data is coming from more than one host, then you're in the realm of DCOM (not OLE). OLE has not 'hit another generation' because it is a mature technology that does essentially all it needs to (it's merely being maintained).
.NET Remoting, Web Services, WCF, etc.
DCOM is not all the rage anymore because it has been replaced by better technologies such as
Actually, you can. Just compare outputs--they're both being rendered to the same bit depth and resolution screen (and fuzzy matching is your friend).
Extant Sub-Awareness Theory
SE may not usually involve continuous math, but it certainly does help to understand it when you get into higher-order programming (and I would argue that programming should always be of the higher-order variety--code should be as succinct as possible as a service to your readers [including your future self]).
I turn sensitivity all the way up on XBOX. To move quickly, just give a swift but forceful burst and then scale it back to near-origin for the final adjustments. I agree though, it would be nicer still if games would implement momentum scrolling (essentially allowing for quicker bursts and fewer final adjustments [which would perhaps require a lower sensitivity setting than players are accustomed to]).
All Cretans are liars.
That sounds reasonable. Although market makers are not perfect and neither would the proposed high-speed non-profit inefficiency eliminator be. So, we would still have multiple layers of opportunities for arbitrage and people (and their machines) engaging in it. The only question would be where to draw the boundary of each layer.
I also like the idea of a tiered tax scheme (proposed elsewhere) to encourage the holding of securities for longer lengths of time.
It's more like price stabilization, i.e., the automated removal of price inaccuracies (or market inefficiencies).
They do provide liquidity and what essentially amounts to inertia (or a process of stabilization--excluding cascading failures of course). It's not hard to imagine that the market would fluctuate more in the absence of these micro-arbitrations.
Also, in the case of derivatives, there's always someone looking to buy or sell almost anything for many [legitimate] reasons [given their extant position] (and these traders make the long-tail market for such people).
Center of mass *or* center of volume; but, yea, that's the way I am seeing it too.
Disputes could merely indicate some internal conflict within Anonymous. So, as Anonymous membership grows, it essentially becomes a microcosm of society itself!
I do think the overwhelming majority of those in there are in fact enemy combatants. If there happens to be a few innocents, I am sure that the facts will come to light in time and they will be released. Just which court to you suppose they ought to face trial in since they are not American citizens and their crimes were not committed on American soil? It would seem to be a waste of resources to clog up the American justice system (which is already overloaded) with such cases.
I've seen plenty of guys with missing fingers just from setting off firecrackers
Dude, really?!? I've seen exactly zero such instances. What kinds of circles do you run in?
I didn't see him put forth any Turing analogue. He only claimed that following a very specific set of instructions established by someone else is not intelligence (i.e., it is *not* a valid Turing test) [and he's right].
Those 'ideals' you speak of do not apply to 'enemy combatants'. Why is it so hard for some people to understand the nature of war?