But you don't have to count through all of them. Only until you get to outlook, which is a very long way from the end of the list.
Now if you want to get EVERY useful program from that set which could exist - then you'll have to test every number in the list, and that would take forever even for this reduced subset. But for just finding one of them - you only have to count until you find that ONE.
Even so the moment you put that upper bound on it you make it possible to use faster algorythms than counting to do the finding with - you could optimize it by using a better data type than a list for example, and using fuzzy logic to search the numbers for patterns you would expect to find in something that's useful (like the string representation of the word "email") to narrow down the search space further.
It would still not be nearly as efficient as doing it the programming way - but that's not the point, the point is merely that it's theoretically possible to do - as proof that programming is still fundamentally mathematics. Just very, very efficient mathematics that make use of quite a bit of intuition that's hard to replicate in generator algorythms.
Actually - they very much DO give a fuck. They want their elite positions protected and enhanced, and the best way to do that is to suppress everybody else.
The problem is that you're wrong about what social security IS - it's not an investment, nor was it ever MEANT to be one. It's paying back a DEBT.
For you to be an economically active adult, a huge amount of money was spent by society (not just your parents). The people who were economically active when you were a child spent a large chunk of their taxes on you. They provided you with public schools, you got police protection and libraries and all the other services citizens get despite not paying any taxes yet etc. etc. etc. - the list is endless.
Now that the generation which paid for you to be able to be an earning adult are no longer capable of earning, you owe it to them to take care of them in their dotage. Part of your earnings go to pay back that expense by taking care of them in turn, another part gets spent on the NEXT generation - like it was spent on you.
THAT is what social security is - it's the system by which you as a currently economically active adult are supporting the generation that supported you BEFORE you were one, after they can no longer be ones. And the next generation is meant to support you in turn when your time comes. There are problems with social security but it's not the theory of it, it's the management and they mostly stem from managers who made the same mistake that you did.
There is strong evidence that the lead ban had a direct causal impact on lowering the crime rate post-1990. But it couldn't have been a factor in 1930 since the lead pollution levels at that time was still ridiculously low. The single biggest contributor: tetra-ethyl-lead (as was used in gasoline) wasn't even invented yet.
I had a colleague circa 1999 who wrote a neural net in Javascript. And keep in mind when I say javascript I don't mean the JS of today, I mean JS as it was in 1999 - generally considered useless for anything more than onmouseover image rolls. Why ? To see if he could. It did work though I think his net had only 16 nodes.
>developers have deluded themselves in to thinking it's more in-line with mathematics or engineering
Except of course that it IS mathematics. Indeed if engineering is the application of scientific knowledge to the solving of practical problems -then programming is the engineering of the science of mathematics.
From the point of view of a computer every program is just one big number. You can reproduce any and all programs that have or ever could be written by simply counting in binary for long enough.
Yes, count long enough and check the results at every count and eventually you will have a number that, if executed, is microsoft outlook.
That is, however, a rather inefficient way to find useful numbers - to get to outlook THAT way would take centuries even on the fastest computers we have. So what is programming ? It's a sophisticated way to take shortcuts, to find useful numbers without counting through ever possible number (most of which are not useful at all - i.e. if you dump it as a binary to a file it wouldn't run). That sophistication of figuring out what the program should do first (i.e. defining what the number should be useful for) and then counting in large chunks (i.e. writing components that help satisfy that over-all design goal) is a form of engineering. It's a highly creative form of engineering and it is very much an artform too. Art and engineering are generally much more closely related than we usually think: just consider the Eiffel Tower, or ask any sculpture about the constraints the laws of physics place on his designs and choice of materials. Programming, at least at it's current stage of knowledge, is still at a point where the line is extremely blurred and techniques from both art and engineering can be very valuable.
Over time we may find that it becomes more the one or the other, depending on what produces the best results the most efficiently - but I wouldn't trust any wager on which way it would ultimately go. I will say it would never be just one or the other, by it's very nature it will always have at least some elements of both.
Well they are the source of quotes like "If you cut taxes on the poor they just spend it on food and shelter" and "When last did a poor person give you a job ?"
Basically - they think they are smarter than the real economists who came up with the theory. Economists who are generally horrified by the way republicans "apply" it.
>Why not? The byproducts are very small in volume, and quite well protected/contained.
For now... or rather "not really". Quothing XKCD: "Spent fuel from nuclear reactors is highly radioactive. Water is good for both radiation shielding and cooling, so fuel is stored at the bottom of pools for a couple decades until itâ(TM)s inert enough to be moved into dry casks. We havenâ(TM)t really agreed on where to put those dry casks yet. One of these days we should probably figure that out."
>A candidate who has successfully opposed unions is a candidate who has successfully opposed entrenched power, and that should be a tremendous plus.
No it's the exact opposite of what America needs. What you desperately NEED is another Teddy Rooseveldt. You need a man who DEFENDS unions and goes to war against oligarchies and monopolies. Who actively promotes environmental protection and realizes that severe inequality WILL lead to revolution and so takes it upon himself to ensure the market is REALLY free, labour conditions are safe and paid fairly, and hold corporations to account.
The greatest irony of the 21st century is hearing people call Obama a liberal. He is centre-right at best. Now Rooseveldt, HE was a liberal worthy of the name.
>essentially you like politicians who agree with your political opinions.
Erm... yeah, that's sort of the whole POINT of having elections.
Now what I can tell you is there is no way the Reps can take the whitehouse again as long as they court the batcrap crazy and the religious right so exclusively. Their extreme partisan behaviour under Obama has done them NO favours and in presidential elections the liberals actually VOTE. The only way they can win now is if they can get a candidate who has broad appeal outside that narrow band. Somebody who can get the independents to vote for them. Even an old-school republican has a shot.
The trouble is that to get the nomination you need to win a bunch of elections where ONLY those religious right extremists vote and the teaparty has enormous influence. Mit learned last time round that going batshit crazy to win the nomination and then somehow getting back to the centre for the national election is REALLY hard.
If the reps want a shot at this - they need somebody who can appeal across the aisle, and that person needs to be able to convince the batcrap crazies to give her the nomination first. Trust me, it's going to be a very interesting 18 months ahead.
And of course the irony is that their ideology never actually works, but it does turn them into valuable useful idiots. The sincere ones among them want to cut things like crony-capitalism, regulatory capture and corporate welfare as well. But that NEVER happens, instead by using their support for "small government" big business simply gets to have government plunder all the actual services it provides, and social safety netts and hand over the results to MORE crony capitalism. I think the perfect example was Denver where the local government basically just took everybody's pensions because they "couldn't afford to pay them anymore" - but never cut a penny of their corporate welfare bill - which could have paid the pension liabilities ten times over !
Even their lord and saviour Ronald Reagan pulled of the scam perfectly. In theory the Laffer-curve based tax-cut concept is that you cut taxes for EVERYBODY, so EVERYBODY has more money, people spend it to buy things - and this means more business open (since there are customers to supply) so that means more jobs - and so even though you cut taxes very soon your revenues are higher than before. It ONLY works if you are AT the Laffer curve peak -any other time the tax cuts will simply mean less revenue, and the theory also demands that when you do it you cut ALL spending to the bone so you stay liquid until the increased revenue realizes, at which point you are supposed to end the austerity and use this higher revenue to fund bigger projects and MORE expansive social safety netts.
But you won't hear THAT from the politicians, they take a sound economic theory out of it's very narrow context and then apply it across the board - and what's worse, they only apply half of it. What DID Reagan do ? He cut taxes only on the rich, then he increased spending - a LOT - especially on the military, and cut the social safety nett. That's been the republican playbook ever since despite that fact that it never worked once in all that time. Well worked at what they said it would do - as a means of handing over poor and middle class folk's taxes to rich people it works brilliantly.
And the small government libertarians are the idiots who keep electing them because they promise to make government smaller and still haven't figured out the scam.
Palin, Bachman, Fiorina... she certainly fits the mould of the average republican female candidate: "I have a vagina and I'm not afraid to insert my head into the cavity right next to it !"
Mind you Appartheid was ALSO defended on the grounds of Calvinist Christianity - I should know, it was MY people who came up with that piece of stupid.
>race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonie
But this is a recent development - it was a major issue for them in the past. Slavery was defended on the grounds of Christianity, as was segregation. Indeed - I would go so far as to say the only REASON why it isn't a major issue with Christianity today is BECAUSE the civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate in the way most Christians 70years ago thought they were supposed to and the churches eventually adapted.
>There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.
Erm no they don't. As a bisexual person let me school you: I don't "choose a man sometimes" and "choose a woman" other times - at ALL times I'm attracted to men and at the same time to women. Who I choose to sleep with on this occasion is determined by availability, individual attraction and circumstance - but it's not a choice about WHAT I'm attracted to, I am ALWAYS attracted to BOTH. Bisexual is not something distinct from gay or straight - which are not THAT distinct from each other. Sexual orientation is a spectrum and nobody is entirely at EITHER end. The closer you are to the middle the more bisexual you will identify.
> That ability to change indicates a choice
No it doesn't, you have no evidence to back that up and the testimony of most people who make such changes do not support your assertion: the vast majority would say they were lying before that point, usually out of fear of oppression. Even if you could factor those out - the remaining few may not indicate a choice at all - you yourself gave one reason why not: hormone changes. Sexual orientation is a physical attribute of our bodies (including our brains) - like all other physical attributes it can change over time - but that doesn't constitute a "choice" anymore than you CHOOSE to have your hair turn gray or your scalp go bald when you get older.
Now imagine this little scenario: I own a dingleberryjuice bar in California, so I need a regular supply of dingleberries to squeeze for juice. I am currently getting these imported but I hear that a company in Indian is supplying them and might be cheaper, so I send one of my top quality assessors to Indiana to go look at their product and determine if it's suitable for our needs. He gets there on his business trip but he can't find anywhere to stay because every hotel is refusing him a room for being gay...
Interstate commerce just got fucked over by this law.
Now this scenario is interesting because if you replace "gay" with "black" you have EXACTLY the scenario that LBJ's administration sketched before the supreme court when the civil rights act was challenged on exactly the same grounds you are using to defend this.
And if it messes with interstate commerce - it's outside the scope of states rights and INSIDE the scope of federal law.
>But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.
Do you also think they have a right to refuse to serve you if you are black ? How about if you're Native American ? Maybe if you're Irish ? No, your freedom ends where other's freedom begins - and your right to hate gays ENDS where their right to shop at any business they choose to begins.
Slashdot Mirror
But you don't have to count through all of them. Only until you get to outlook, which is a very long way from the end of the list.
Now if you want to get EVERY useful program from that set which could exist - then you'll have to test every number in the list, and that would take forever even for this reduced subset.
But for just finding one of them - you only have to count until you find that ONE.
Even so the moment you put that upper bound on it you make it possible to use faster algorythms than counting to do the finding with - you could optimize it by using a better data type than a list for example, and using fuzzy logic to search the numbers for patterns you would expect to find in something that's useful (like the string representation of the word "email") to narrow down the search space further.
It would still not be nearly as efficient as doing it the programming way - but that's not the point, the point is merely that it's theoretically possible to do - as proof that programming is still fundamentally mathematics. Just very, very efficient mathematics that make use of quite a bit of intuition that's hard to replicate in generator algorythms.
http://politicalgates.blogspot...
Actually - they very much DO give a fuck. They want their elite positions protected and enhanced, and the best way to do that is to suppress everybody else.
The problem is that you're wrong about what social security IS - it's not an investment, nor was it ever MEANT to be one. It's paying back a DEBT.
For you to be an economically active adult, a huge amount of money was spent by society (not just your parents). The people who were economically active when you were a child spent a large chunk of their taxes on you. They provided you with public schools, you got police protection and libraries and all the other services citizens get despite not paying any taxes yet etc. etc. etc. - the list is endless.
Now that the generation which paid for you to be able to be an earning adult are no longer capable of earning, you owe it to them to take care of them in their dotage. Part of your earnings go to pay back that expense by taking care of them in turn, another part gets spent on the NEXT generation - like it was spent on you.
THAT is what social security is - it's the system by which you as a currently economically active adult are supporting the generation that supported you BEFORE you were one, after they can no longer be ones. And the next generation is meant to support you in turn when your time comes.
There are problems with social security but it's not the theory of it, it's the management and they mostly stem from managers who made the same mistake that you did.
There is strong evidence that the lead ban had a direct causal impact on lowering the crime rate post-1990.
But it couldn't have been a factor in 1930 since the lead pollution levels at that time was still ridiculously low. The single biggest contributor: tetra-ethyl-lead (as was used in gasoline) wasn't even invented yet.
I had a colleague circa 1999 who wrote a neural net in Javascript. And keep in mind when I say javascript I don't mean the JS of today, I mean JS as it was in 1999 - generally considered useless for anything more than onmouseover image rolls.
Why ? To see if he could. It did work though I think his net had only 16 nodes.
>developers have deluded themselves in to thinking it's more in-line with mathematics or engineering
Except of course that it IS mathematics. Indeed if engineering is the application of scientific knowledge to the solving of practical problems -then programming is the engineering of the science of mathematics.
From the point of view of a computer every program is just one big number. You can reproduce any and all programs that have or ever could be written by simply counting in binary for long enough.
Yes, count long enough and check the results at every count and eventually you will have a number that, if executed, is microsoft outlook.
That is, however, a rather inefficient way to find useful numbers - to get to outlook THAT way would take centuries even on the fastest computers we have.
So what is programming ? It's a sophisticated way to take shortcuts, to find useful numbers without counting through ever possible number (most of which are not useful at all - i.e. if you dump it as a binary to a file it wouldn't run).
That sophistication of figuring out what the program should do first (i.e. defining what the number should be useful for) and then counting in large chunks (i.e. writing components that help satisfy that over-all design goal) is a form of engineering.
It's a highly creative form of engineering and it is very much an artform too. Art and engineering are generally much more closely related than we usually think: just consider the Eiffel Tower, or ask any sculpture about the constraints the laws of physics place on his designs and choice of materials.
Programming, at least at it's current stage of knowledge, is still at a point where the line is extremely blurred and techniques from both art and engineering can be very valuable.
Over time we may find that it becomes more the one or the other, depending on what produces the best results the most efficiently - but I wouldn't trust any wager on which way it would ultimately go. I will say it would never be just one or the other, by it's very nature it will always have at least some elements of both.
I forgot about Maggie, she is indeed a perfect example of the species.
Well they are the source of quotes like
"If you cut taxes on the poor they just spend it on food and shelter" and "When last did a poor person give you a job ?"
Basically - they think they are smarter than the real economists who came up with the theory. Economists who are generally horrified by the way republicans "apply" it.
>Why not? The byproducts are very small in volume, and quite well protected/contained.
For now... or rather "not really".
Quothing XKCD:
"Spent fuel from nuclear reactors is highly radioactive. Water is good for both radiation shielding and cooling, so fuel is stored at the bottom of pools for a couple decades until itâ(TM)s inert enough to be moved into dry casks. We havenâ(TM)t really agreed on where to put those dry casks yet. One of these days we should probably figure that out."
A community organiser with a law degree mind you. Just like Lincoln actually...
>lest they reinforce that the right is nothing but misogyny incarnate.
If there weren't over 400 anti-choice laws passed by republican state legislatures JUST last year, then maybe that perception wouldn't be true.
>A candidate who has successfully opposed unions is a candidate who has successfully opposed entrenched power, and that should be a tremendous plus.
No it's the exact opposite of what America needs. What you desperately NEED is another Teddy Rooseveldt. You need a man who DEFENDS unions and goes to war against oligarchies and monopolies. Who actively promotes environmental protection and realizes that severe inequality WILL lead to revolution and so takes it upon himself to ensure the market is REALLY free, labour conditions are safe and paid fairly, and hold corporations to account.
The greatest irony of the 21st century is hearing people call Obama a liberal. He is centre-right at best. Now Rooseveldt, HE was a liberal worthy of the name.
>essentially you like politicians who agree with your political opinions.
Erm... yeah, that's sort of the whole POINT of having elections.
Now what I can tell you is there is no way the Reps can take the whitehouse again as long as they court the batcrap crazy and the religious right so exclusively. Their extreme partisan behaviour under Obama has done them NO favours and in presidential elections the liberals actually VOTE.
The only way they can win now is if they can get a candidate who has broad appeal outside that narrow band. Somebody who can get the independents to vote for them.
Even an old-school republican has a shot.
The trouble is that to get the nomination you need to win a bunch of elections where ONLY those religious right extremists vote and the teaparty has enormous influence.
Mit learned last time round that going batshit crazy to win the nomination and then somehow getting back to the centre for the national election is REALLY hard.
If the reps want a shot at this - they need somebody who can appeal across the aisle, and that person needs to be able to convince the batcrap crazies to give her the nomination first.
Trust me, it's going to be a very interesting 18 months ahead.
And of course the irony is that their ideology never actually works, but it does turn them into valuable useful idiots.
The sincere ones among them want to cut things like crony-capitalism, regulatory capture and corporate welfare as well.
But that NEVER happens, instead by using their support for "small government" big business simply gets to have government plunder all the actual services it provides, and social safety netts and hand over the results to MORE crony capitalism.
I think the perfect example was Denver where the local government basically just took everybody's pensions because they "couldn't afford to pay them anymore" - but never cut a penny of their corporate welfare bill - which could have paid the pension liabilities ten times over !
Even their lord and saviour Ronald Reagan pulled of the scam perfectly. In theory the Laffer-curve based tax-cut concept is that you cut taxes for EVERYBODY, so EVERYBODY has more money, people spend it to buy things - and this means more business open (since there are customers to supply) so that means more jobs - and so even though you cut taxes very soon your revenues are higher than before. It ONLY works if you are AT the Laffer curve peak -any other time the tax cuts will simply mean less revenue, and the theory also demands that when you do it you cut ALL spending to the bone so you stay liquid until the increased revenue realizes, at which point you are supposed to end the austerity and use this higher revenue to fund bigger projects and MORE expansive social safety netts.
But you won't hear THAT from the politicians, they take a sound economic theory out of it's very narrow context and then apply it across the board - and what's worse, they only apply half of it. What DID Reagan do ?
He cut taxes only on the rich, then he increased spending - a LOT - especially on the military, and cut the social safety nett.
That's been the republican playbook ever since despite that fact that it never worked once in all that time. Well worked at what they said it would do - as a means of handing over poor and middle class folk's taxes to rich people it works brilliantly.
And the small government libertarians are the idiots who keep electing them because they promise to make government smaller and still haven't figured out the scam.
Palin, Bachman, Fiorina... she certainly fits the mould of the average republican female candidate: "I have a vagina and I'm not afraid to insert my head into the cavity right next to it !"
No, no, wrong Jesus. I was talking about Ron Reagan, he is the son of god right?
As far as they're concerned Obama is a brown-skinned foreign socialist who gives away free healthcare.
I think they got him confused with Jesus...
>Your anecdotal fallacy of what an ideal work day provides nothing of value to the conversation
The country of France is an anecdotal ?
Mind you Appartheid was ALSO defended on the grounds of Calvinist Christianity - I should know, it was MY people who came up with that piece of stupid.
>race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonie
But this is a recent development - it was a major issue for them in the past. Slavery was defended on the grounds of Christianity, as was segregation.
Indeed - I would go so far as to say the only REASON why it isn't a major issue with Christianity today is BECAUSE the civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate in the way most Christians 70years ago thought they were supposed to and the churches eventually adapted.
>There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.
Erm no they don't. As a bisexual person let me school you: I don't "choose a man sometimes" and "choose a woman" other times - at ALL times I'm attracted to men and at the same time to women.
Who I choose to sleep with on this occasion is determined by availability, individual attraction and circumstance - but it's not a choice about WHAT I'm attracted to, I am ALWAYS attracted to BOTH.
Bisexual is not something distinct from gay or straight - which are not THAT distinct from each other. Sexual orientation is a spectrum and nobody is entirely at EITHER end. The closer you are to the middle the more bisexual you will identify.
> That ability to change indicates a choice
No it doesn't, you have no evidence to back that up and the testimony of most people who make such changes do not support your assertion: the vast majority would say they were lying before that point, usually out of fear of oppression.
Even if you could factor those out - the remaining few may not indicate a choice at all - you yourself gave one reason why not: hormone changes.
Sexual orientation is a physical attribute of our bodies (including our brains) - like all other physical attributes it can change over time - but that doesn't constitute a "choice" anymore than you CHOOSE to have your hair turn gray or your scalp go bald when you get older.
Now imagine this little scenario:
I own a dingleberryjuice bar in California, so I need a regular supply of dingleberries to squeeze for juice.
I am currently getting these imported but I hear that a company in Indian is supplying them and might be cheaper, so I send one of my top quality assessors to Indiana to go look at their product and determine if it's suitable for our needs.
He gets there on his business trip but he can't find anywhere to stay because every hotel is refusing him a room for being gay...
Interstate commerce just got fucked over by this law.
Now this scenario is interesting because if you replace "gay" with "black" you have EXACTLY the scenario that LBJ's administration sketched before the supreme court when the civil rights act was challenged on exactly the same grounds you are using to defend this.
And if it messes with interstate commerce - it's outside the scope of states rights and INSIDE the scope of federal law.
The US would of course have to block the road where it hits NYC to prevent trade with them... leading to a 13-thousand mile traffic jam ?
>But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.
Do you also think they have a right to refuse to serve you if you are black ? How about if you're Native American ? Maybe if you're Irish ?
No, your freedom ends where other's freedom begins - and your right to hate gays ENDS where their right to shop at any business they choose to begins.
Wait, who were you responding to ?
I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or being a butthurt libertarian ?
Sorry, maybe it's the lack of tone in text but I honestly can't tell which side of this you are on...