Yes, but there is no reason to believe that their hints, or straight out telling, are correct/truthful.
Have you ever thought that you were demeaned because they thought that you were a man pretending to be a girl, or a girl looking for attention, in a place where her boobs do not give her a advantage. Not because these people are sexist. Sex does not exist on the internet, so sexism is impossible.
One quote I quite like: "If I can pontificate a bit, for your edification. One of the rules of the Internet is: "there are no girls on the Internet." This rule does not mean what you think it means. In real life, people like you merely for being a girl. They want to fuck you, so they pay attention to you and they pretend what you have to say is interesting, whether or not you are genuinely interesting, or that you are smart of clever, whether or not you are actually smart or clever. On the Internet, there is no chance to fuck you; this means the advantage of being a "girl" does not exist. You don't get a bonus to conversation just because someone wants to put their cock in you. When you make a post like "hurr durr, I'm a gurl," you are begging for attention. The only reason to post it is because you want your girl-advantage back, because you are too vapid or too stupid to do or say anything interesting without it. You are forgetting the rule "there are no girls on the Internet." The one way around this rule, the one way you can get your "girlness" back on the Internet, is to post your tits. This is, and should be, degrading for you, an admission that the only interesting thing about you is your naked body."
A girl on the Internet will be treated worse than she is used to, as everyone on the internet is treated like a white man, so it is no wonder they consider the Internet sexist. But everyone being treated identical is not sexism.
You would have a point with gamers, if anyone even knew who each other were. you cannot be sexist or racist towards "teabagger484", it is impossible. You cannot oppress women, or harass Africans, when sex and race do not even exist.
But Anarchists as a group are considered very sexist.
Any group who does not subscribe to the rhetoric, will be seen as sexist and racist.
This is why groups who are outsiders, and who have huge reasons to not care about who or what you are or how society says you should be treated are always considered the most racist and sexist.
The tech industry. Gamers, Online communities (they do not even know the race or gender of each other, yet they are "outrageously sexist and racist" places). Anarchists.
I disagree. His stories were mostly about how everyone whoever built a robot, in his fantasy world, was a really really bad programmer. And that QA, and any kind of pre-release testing was a completely unknown concept.
The object turns out to be a giant rune covered object that defies study, and oozes malignancy.
Soon all the engineers will start going crazy and killing each other, then a secret military organization will covertly retrieve "The Object", and a sole surviving member of the Engineering staff, thinking they can control and use it for military purposes.
Then in the sequel, "The Object 2: Revenge of The Object" the military lose control of The Object, and the sole survivor of the initial engineering staff has to come and save the Earth from destruction.
So if $1 billion is worth 3%, than that means: Facebook is apparently worth $34 Billion. $20 Billion of that being Enron's, I mean Mark's, personal fortune.
Convince one rube, you might make $50 bucks. Convince a thousand, you might make a living. Convince everyone, and you can make whatever you say that you do.
No that is how a analogue computer works. The analogue values are not represented by bits the signals are analogue.
Also "digit" is how you represent a decimal number, it does not imply the same computational signal type things, and cannot be used for analogue in any way.
And defining "bit" as a "basic[/fundamental/indivisible] unit of information in computing" is not far off.
I understand that, but "1 bit can be one of 10 different values" was more understandable in my opinion than "1 computational value can be one of 10 different values"
You did not give me the correct alternative because one does not really exist, as far as I know.
a single data point is a decent alternative. "Value" would work in some instances, but not if you are already using that word to mean something else in the very same sentence.
Bit is what we use to call a single burst of information in a computer now. And if non binary computers started to be more popular I would not be surprised if the definition of bit expanded to include them.
If you don't care for the exact value you can use a specific algorithmic approximation, that normally gives you many orders of magnitude less computation time.
Binary: 1 bit can be 2 values, and contains that absolute minimal amount of information possible (true or false). Decimal: 1 bit can be one of 10 different values, so five times more information is present in a single bit. So information is sent and computer far faster. Analogue: 1 bit can be an infinite amount of values, so an infinite amount more information can sent in a single bit. So information is sent and computed far far faster.
You are probably already using an algorithm that produces approximate results, add on top of that a computer that makes mistakes routinely in the name of speed. You would think that sometimes the stars would just align and you would get a result that is just completely wrong.
And this is why we have thousands and thousands of approximation algorithms. Computers do the work perfectly precisely, except when we are talking about decimal numbers, and if you do not need perfect precision you just program in an approximate algorithm.
I do not think you will ever do any better than picking the best mathematical algorithm for your problem, instead of just relying on lazy computers.
You could argue that that is what is wrong with OPP, but there is no argument you can make to make a programming language based on some other random world view.
You build a language based on programming theory and ideas of what will make the easiest and best language, but analogies to other unrelated theories
Specifically it looks like it might be a satire of the entirely serious Feminist programming Language discussion (http://m.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages).
"The idea came about while discussing normative and feminist subject object theory. I realized that object oriented programmed reifies normative subject object theory. This led me to wonder what a feminist programming language would look like, one that might allow you to create entanglements (Karen Barad Posthumanist Performativity)."
No, it is delivered to the end of your driveway, sometimes that is several miles away. If it was switched to the end of the block that would not be too bad for me at least, that is not too much further than just the end of the driveway anyway. And if it actually accepted parcels, like one posted commented, that would be way way better.
No one runs on the system you describe, it would be impossible. It wound be literally impossible to expect thousands of people, 10-20 minutes away, to drive into a one lane town, every day to pick up advertising flyers. That is not only improbably, and inconvenience, but literally impossible to pull off.
No, what we are both talking about is considering the distances involved and the time-scale Earth would of already been colonised thousands of times over, millions of years before humans ever evolved, if that was even remotely possible. there are many many many planets that would of been hospitable about 10 billion years ago, at like 20-40 year by travel at speeds we have already mastered. We could send probes/colonization ships to them theoretically with the tech we have right now. Given all we know, they should already be about 6 billions years more advanced than we are, and they just apparently never colonised any planets, were never interested to see if their immediate neighbours had life on them, etc. And a single civilization just did not ever do any of these things, but hundreds or thousands of different unique ones. Billions if we go a little further out.
Considering the time-scale, and the distances, even a single seed planet on a single galaxy could of easily colonised every single planet on every galaxy. Not having done so is like no animals, plants, insects or humans just ever making it over to the Americas. Just because, we just did not do it.
The only reasonable argument against this is that life on Earth has been evolving for around 9 billions years, and was seeded here by asteroids shortly after it became habitable. The idea being is that just now (give or take a few million year) advanced human like species are popping up all around the universe, and they all just started/will start soon/started not long ago exploring the galaxy.
I agree, I ran the Math, and basically considering the distances involved and the time-frame, I am fairly convinced we will never find aliens and never colonise space (to any significant degree).
Either space colonization is completely impractical, or all advanced civilizations quickly become extinct, or for some reason all decide to never leave their planet. Only one of these ideas really makes any sense, in my mind. I think your bounds are too small personally, I think something on the order of the next tens of thousands of years is more reasonable. Not that a few hundred is not plausible, but that 10K is plausible as well.
Slashdot Mirror
He said global elite. Globally just having indoor plumbing, and eating meat more than once a month is Elite status.
It is pretty hard ot hid billion dollar mansions, I am sure it is very easy to get lists for free.
It would be pretty inefficient to market post-rape products to everyone,
Yes, but there is no reason to believe that their hints, or straight out telling, are correct/truthful.
Have you ever thought that you were demeaned because they thought that you were a man pretending to be a girl, or a girl looking for attention, in a place where her boobs do not give her a advantage. Not because these people are sexist. Sex does not exist on the internet, so sexism is impossible.
One quote I quite like:
"If I can pontificate a bit, for your edification. One of the rules of the Internet is: "there are no girls on the Internet." This rule does not mean what you think it means. In real life, people like you merely for being a girl. They want to fuck you, so they pay attention to you and they pretend what you have to say is interesting, whether or not you are genuinely interesting, or that you are smart of clever, whether or not you are actually smart or clever. On the Internet, there is no chance to fuck you; this means the advantage of being a "girl" does not exist. You don't get a bonus to conversation just because someone wants to put their cock in you.
When you make a post like "hurr durr, I'm a gurl," you are begging for attention. The only reason to post it is because you want your girl-advantage back, because you are too vapid or too stupid to do or say anything interesting without it. You are forgetting the rule "there are no girls on the Internet." The one way around this rule, the one way you can get your "girlness" back on the Internet, is to post your tits. This is, and should be, degrading for you, an admission that the only interesting thing about you is your naked body."
A girl on the Internet will be treated worse than she is used to, as everyone on the internet is treated like a white man, so it is no wonder they consider the Internet sexist. But everyone being treated identical is not sexism.
You would have a point with gamers, if anyone even knew who each other were. you cannot be sexist or racist towards "teabagger484", it is impossible. You cannot oppress women, or harass Africans, when sex and race do not even exist.
But Anarchists as a group are considered very sexist.
Any group who does not subscribe to the rhetoric, will be seen as sexist and racist.
This is why groups who are outsiders, and who have huge reasons to not care about who or what you are or how society says you should be treated are always considered the most racist and sexist.
The tech industry.
Gamers, Online communities (they do not even know the race or gender of each other, yet they are "outrageously sexist and racist" places).
Anarchists.
Treating everyone the same is the new sexism.
This is why I do not use Ubuntu.
I disagree. His stories were mostly about how everyone whoever built a robot, in his fantasy world, was a really really bad programmer.
And that QA, and any kind of pre-release testing was a completely unknown concept.
The object turns out to be a giant rune covered object that defies study, and oozes malignancy.
Soon all the engineers will start going crazy and killing each other, then a secret military organization will covertly retrieve "The Object", and a sole surviving member of the Engineering staff, thinking they can control and use it for military purposes.
Then in the sequel, "The Object 2: Revenge of The Object" the military lose control of The Object, and the sole survivor of the initial engineering staff has to come and save the Earth from destruction.
Just buy yourself a 3D printer and print your own crappy guns.
So if $1 billion is worth 3%, than that means:
Facebook is apparently worth $34 Billion.
$20 Billion of that being Enron's, I mean Mark's, personal fortune.
Convince one rube, you might make $50 bucks.
Convince a thousand, you might make a living.
Convince everyone, and you can make whatever you say that you do.
No that is how a analogue computer works. The analogue values are not represented by bits the signals are analogue.
Also "digit" is how you represent a decimal number, it does not imply the same computational signal type things, and cannot be used for analogue in any way.
And defining "bit" as a "basic[/fundamental/indivisible] unit of information in computing" is not far off.
I understand that, but "1 bit can be one of 10 different values" was more understandable in my opinion than "1 computational value can be one of 10 different values"
You did not give me the correct alternative because one does not really exist, as far as I know.
a single data point is a decent alternative.
"Value" would work in some instances, but not if you are already using that word to mean something else in the very same sentence.
Bit is what we use to call a single burst of information in a computer now. And if non binary computers started to be more popular I would not be surprised if the definition of bit expanded to include them.
If you don't care for the exact value you can use a specific algorithmic approximation, that normally gives you many orders of magnitude less computation time.
Binary: 1 bit can be 2 values, and contains that absolute minimal amount of information possible (true or false).
Decimal: 1 bit can be one of 10 different values, so five times more information is present in a single bit. So information is sent and computer far faster.
Analogue: 1 bit can be an infinite amount of values, so an infinite amount more information can sent in a single bit. So information is sent and computed far far faster.
Since in an Analogue computer every bit now contains an infinite amount of information, instead of just one, I imagine it would be incredibly fast.
And since every decimal is already stored in approximate form, in a normal computer, I cannot imagine it being that different.
Seems like a totally impractical system.
You are probably already using an algorithm that produces approximate results, add on top of that a computer that makes mistakes routinely in the name of speed.
You would think that sometimes the stars would just align and you would get a result that is just completely wrong.
And this is why we have thousands and thousands of approximation algorithms. Computers do the work perfectly precisely, except when we are talking about decimal numbers, and if you do not need perfect precision you just program in an approximate algorithm.
I do not think you will ever do any better than picking the best mathematical algorithm for your problem, instead of just relying on lazy computers.
You could argue that that is what is wrong with OPP, but there is no argument you can make to make a programming language based on some other random world view.
You build a language based on programming theory and ideas of what will make the easiest and best language, but analogies to other unrelated theories
Specifically it looks like it might be a satire of the entirely serious Feminist programming Language discussion (http://m.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesinger/2013/11/26/feminism-and-programming-languages).
"The idea came about while discussing normative and feminist subject object theory. I realized that object oriented programmed reifies normative subject object theory. This led me to wonder what a feminist programming language would look like, one that might allow you to create entanglements (Karen Barad Posthumanist Performativity)."
No,
it is delivered to the end of your driveway, sometimes that is several miles away.
If it was switched to the end of the block that would not be too bad for me at least, that is not too much further than just the end of the driveway anyway.
And if it actually accepted parcels, like one posted commented, that would be way way better.
No one runs on the system you describe, it would be impossible. It wound be literally impossible to expect thousands of people, 10-20 minutes away, to drive into a one lane town, every day to pick up advertising flyers. That is not only improbably, and inconvenience, but literally impossible to pull off.
No, what we are both talking about is considering the distances involved and the time-scale Earth would of already been colonised thousands of times over, millions of years before humans ever evolved, if that was even remotely possible. there are many many many planets that would of been hospitable about 10 billion years ago, at like 20-40 year by travel at speeds we have already mastered. We could send probes/colonization ships to them theoretically with the tech we have right now. Given all we know, they should already be about 6 billions years more advanced than we are, and they just apparently never colonised any planets, were never interested to see if their immediate neighbours had life on them, etc. And a single civilization just did not ever do any of these things, but hundreds or thousands of different unique ones. Billions if we go a little further out.
Considering the time-scale, and the distances, even a single seed planet on a single galaxy could of easily colonised every single planet on every galaxy.
Not having done so is like no animals, plants, insects or humans just ever making it over to the Americas. Just because, we just did not do it.
The only reasonable argument against this is that life on Earth has been evolving for around 9 billions years, and was seeded here by asteroids shortly after it became habitable. The idea being is that just now (give or take a few million year) advanced human like species are popping up all around the universe, and they all just started/will start soon/started not long ago exploring the galaxy.
I agree, I ran the Math, and basically considering the distances involved and the time-frame, I am fairly convinced we will never find aliens and never colonise space (to any significant degree).
Either space colonization is completely impractical, or all advanced civilizations quickly become extinct, or for some reason all decide to never leave their planet.
Only one of these ideas really makes any sense, in my mind. I think your bounds are too small personally, I think something on the order of the next tens of thousands of years is more reasonable. Not that a few hundred is not plausible, but that 10K is plausible as well.
This needs to happen.
It has an email app, it is just not complete. It functions like an early alpha, about 50% feature complete.