I find it pretty hard to believe that we are that close to reaching the 'edge' of the universe. What will these materialists do when we discover a galaxy that is further away in light years than the universe is old? Either they will have to adjust the value for the age of the universe (as they normally do) or they will have to accept that the current method for determining age is flawed (i.e., that the universe appears older than it actually is).
I think your parent was suggesting that the smoothing algorithm could take into account more than one frame at a time (hence no flickering or chattering).
You obviously do not understand the idea. I was merely suggesting the standard private/public key signing algorithm (RSA) with the bits of interest being graphically representable as something which looks like a hand-written signature to the human eye.
Well, technically speaking, it's no different than the 'digital signing' which the public/private key system now guarantees. And, the math behind that is solid. If there's a legal problem with it, the legals need to catch up to the techies.
Umm, I don't know about your organization but at mine we do perf measurements and there are perf specificiations which must be met as much as any of the other specs.
Why not write an algorithm that 'humanizes' a pre-saved signature? It could even be randomized/humanized (i.e., pixels pushed around) in such a way (i.e., by a private key) as to be verifiable by a public key (a la digital signing). So, given the randomized sig, a copy of the original sig, and a public key, one could verify if the randomized sig is valid.
Two thoughts-- 1) The incompleteness theorem will definitely prevent physics and every other science from being 'complete'. and 2) even if it did not, what does a complete knowledge of physics say about metaphysical questions? In other words-- there are simply some questions that materialism will never answer (even without bringing the Incompleteness theorem into it).
Perhaps scientists would be well served to, instead of stating "X is true", to rather state that "X appears to be true given the empirical evidence we currently have with Y% degree of certainty"?
The 'get the people wasting my time...' filter should have been applied to the resumes. Presumably, the ones remaining (i.e., the ones called in for a face-to-face interview) at least have a B.S.
That's a pretty low bar to entry. Define 'linked list'. Really? If you ask a question such as that, you must either suspect that the entire resume is faked (assuming that there is at least a degree on it) or be pretty brain dead yourself. I wouldn't want to work for someone that paranoid or dumb.
New properties emerge which are the result of an effect known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
I see neither these properties emerging as a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle nor the 'effectiveness' of this mere principle.
I rather think that the properties exist independent of any principle and we label our discovery of such as a principle [and both the properties and the principle (albeit an artificial construct) lie outside our observation of such].
I agree. I read a lot of code and if the quality is such that you'd want to keep it, comments are only needed when something is non-obvious (e.g., when equations or data from an external source are encoded).
all together now, "evolution doesn't have a goal, so there's no way to say which entity is more and which less evolved".
So, you're saying that there is no selector mechanism (i.e., there is no 'natural selection'). Without such a mechanism there can be no evolution. Without a 'goal' there can be no basis for 'selection'. I think you should re-think that.
C is [for all intents and purposes] a proper subset of C++. Knowledge of C does not imply knowledge of C++ (specifically its polymorphism, templates/meta-templates, etc).
So, which is it? Was AT&T's network more or less reliable than Verizon's? And, is this really about reliability (or rather bandwidth)? I imagine reliability tests would be as painful as the coverage tests which you opted out of.
A boycott can only be effective if the entity being boycotted has a real risk of losing customers. It would be much better if that 11% decline were permanent. What message are they really sending by returning to the game the following day?
They don't claim it for all cases. Of course, there are adversarial cases for every approach. But, section 3.3 of this page claims that most programs are shorter by a factor of 2 to 10. Higher-order programming is just more tight (and ultimately maintainable)--that much is undeniable (and when programs are written correctly in o-o/imperative languages [i.e., when they are well-factored] they start to approach the functional style). It is much better in my opinion to go straight to FP and not rely on such crutches to try to get you there [especially when even in best case, you can only approach it--worst case is much worse!]. [And, btw, I do the functional style of programming in C++ and there's a lot more syntax around such than with a language like F# or Haskell. It's much better to just go with a language which was built with FP as the emphasis].
And, I'd be curious to see how you think that user interfaces or calling other programs are problems for functional languages though. I think the difference in conciseness from one program to the next has more to do with its factorability.
Maybe it is a functional language. They make the same claim. The extra few characters for English syntax are far outweighed by the structural gains. [Of course, I know this isn't true as even most o-o/imperative programmers don't really understand the functional model of computing].
Slashdot Mirror
They should be pretty darn near doing both already. Chances are the diameter/age of the universe is at least twice the currently observed value.
I find it pretty hard to believe that we are that close to reaching the 'edge' of the universe. What will these materialists do when we discover a galaxy that is further away in light years than the universe is old? Either they will have to adjust the value for the age of the universe (as they normally do) or they will have to accept that the current method for determining age is flawed (i.e., that the universe appears older than it actually is).
I think your parent was suggesting that the smoothing algorithm could take into account more than one frame at a time (hence no flickering or chattering).
You obviously do not understand the idea. I was merely suggesting the standard private/public key signing algorithm (RSA) with the bits of interest being graphically representable as something which looks like a hand-written signature to the human eye.
Well, technically speaking, it's no different than the 'digital signing' which the public/private key system now guarantees. And, the math behind that is solid. If there's a legal problem with it, the legals need to catch up to the techies.
Umm, I don't know about your organization but at mine we do perf measurements and there are perf specificiations which must be met as much as any of the other specs.
Why not write an algorithm that 'humanizes' a pre-saved signature? It could even be randomized/humanized (i.e., pixels pushed around) in such a way (i.e., by a private key) as to be verifiable by a public key (a la digital signing). So, given the randomized sig, a copy of the original sig, and a public key, one could verify if the randomized sig is valid.
Two thoughts-- 1) The incompleteness theorem will definitely prevent physics and every other science from being 'complete'. and 2) even if it did not, what does a complete knowledge of physics say about metaphysical questions? In other words-- there are simply some questions that materialism will never answer (even without bringing the Incompleteness theorem into it).
Perhaps scientists would be well served to, instead of stating "X is true", to rather state that "X appears to be true given the empirical evidence we currently have with Y% degree of certainty"?
And, I think you fail to consider that most places have at least one if not two or three phone screens for such purposes.
The 'get the people wasting my time ...' filter should have been applied to the resumes. Presumably, the ones remaining (i.e., the ones called in for a face-to-face interview) at least have a B.S.
That's a pretty low bar to entry. Define 'linked list'. Really? If you ask a question such as that, you must either suspect that the entire resume is faked (assuming that there is at least a degree on it) or be pretty brain dead yourself. I wouldn't want to work for someone that paranoid or dumb.
You should have more faith in the power of science and evolution.
New properties emerge which are the result of an effect known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
I see neither these properties emerging as a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle nor the 'effectiveness' of this mere principle.
I rather think that the properties exist independent of any principle and we label our discovery of such as a principle [and both the properties and the principle (albeit an artificial construct) lie outside our observation of such].
I agree. I read a lot of code and if the quality is such that you'd want to keep it, comments are only needed when something is non-obvious (e.g., when equations or data from an external source are encoded).
all together now, "evolution doesn't have a goal, so there's no way to say which entity is more and which less evolved".
So, you're saying that there is no selector mechanism (i.e., there is no 'natural selection'). Without such a mechanism there can be no evolution. Without a 'goal' there can be no basis for 'selection'. I think you should re-think that.
C is [for all intents and purposes] a proper subset of C++. Knowledge of C does not imply knowledge of C++ (specifically its polymorphism, templates/meta-templates, etc).
Actually, Acetaminophen is what I normally call it (and would perhaps be a more neutral word than either Paracetamol or Tylenol).
So, which is it? Was AT&T's network more or less reliable than Verizon's? And, is this really about reliability (or rather bandwidth)? I imagine reliability tests would be as painful as the coverage tests which you opted out of.
A boycott can only be effective if the entity being boycotted has a real risk of losing customers. It would be much better if that 11% decline were permanent. What message are they really sending by returning to the game the following day?
Actually, no, it was Jesus of Nazareth.
Actually, whether or not it is a goto depends entirely upon the preceding and/or succeeding instructions.
I think that was his point.
They don't claim it for all cases. Of course, there are adversarial cases for every approach. But, section 3.3 of this page claims that most programs are shorter by a factor of 2 to 10. Higher-order programming is just more tight (and ultimately maintainable)--that much is undeniable (and when programs are written correctly in o-o/imperative languages [i.e., when they are well-factored] they start to approach the functional style). It is much better in my opinion to go straight to FP and not rely on such crutches to try to get you there [especially when even in best case, you can only approach it--worst case is much worse!]. [And, btw, I do the functional style of programming in C++ and there's a lot more syntax around such than with a language like F# or Haskell. It's much better to just go with a language which was built with FP as the emphasis].
And, I'd be curious to see how you think that user interfaces or calling other programs are problems for functional languages though. I think the difference in conciseness from one program to the next has more to do with its factorability.
Maybe it is a functional language. They make the same claim. The extra few characters for English syntax are far outweighed by the structural gains. [Of course, I know this isn't true as even most o-o/imperative programmers don't really understand the functional model of computing].