I think you came pretty close to what I meant - that it seems contradictory at first ('do not kill,' then 'conquer in my name' all over the place) - until you really try to reconcile the differences, and then they fit together on some crazy level.
Interpretation is definitely necessary - 1 Cor 9:9 comes to mind first. Then there's the whole deel about parables, etc... Also, for example, with the account of creation, I'm pretty sure (and this is pretty necessary for reconciling it with science) that the Hebrew word translated into 'day' actually means something more like 'an amount of time' and was commonly used for 'day', and is translated into day because it makes a lot more sense at first glance, is accepted already, and is prettier. Also, until the last few hundred years, people like the hittites and a few others were considered fiction - and then they got found - that says something about accuracy and being literal.
Personally, I think relativity's... out there. I mean, I have some really weird thoughts, but man... Nothing like walking along, thinking about what the consequences of a maximum speed would be, in a time where it's generally accepted that there isn't one. Schroedinger's equation is pretty out there too - of course, it seems pretty normal given his cat. But anyway, it's late and I'm sleep-deprived! A particular wave, and 0.8c!
A clarification that popped out to me a few seconds after I finished proofreading: I define evidence to be something that directly results from experiment, can be reproduced by controlling certain conditions, and that those conditions are related to the experiment. (That's just off the top of my head - there's probably a ton of room for detail, but you get the idea)
And I'm sure the thought that you can't re-do the big bang in a lab will enter your mind, and you're right - I think it's a pretty good chance that's how God did it, but I have no solid evidence of it. It's just the most reasonable thing that's out there, and I'm not qualified to come up with my own theory.
I think you're really off. Actually, I know so. There's no evidence (to an observer biased against it) that a supreme being exists.
A supreme being would probably not be something coming or going - that would mean that there's something before them, even if it were just a point in time - and at that point, it would no longer be in control of everything at that point in time, and thus would no longer be supreme. So basically, a supreme being just is.
If a supreme being does exist, it's a pretty easy argument that he made the universe in a reasonable way (instead of just like 'poof! look here - instantaneously there is now a universe, galaxies, solar systems revolving around large masses, and there are these beings on this one planet...') - in a manner in which everything would be predictable and suitable for living beings (which he desired for whatever reason to create - either a really simple reason or complex beyond comprehension) - and the simplest and most reasonable way to do so (and which we could understand) would probably be general physical laws - gravitation, existence of mass and its properties, charge, forces, etc.
It's not uncommon to run into people who say that God created the universe and haven't bothered to think that if it's true, it should just logically work.
I am a Christian, and am in physics right now. Show me something that proves (without having to have a bias - something like a proof or extremely solid evidence) that there is no God and that the bible somehow is without contradiction on a very well-thought-out level, and I'll throw away my faith, just like that. However, I've seen God work through prayer and constant 'accidents' and chance - the fact that I'm alive is due to several separate accidents, all of which drove me to a deepened belief in God.
Deuteronomy 4:35: "You have been shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God, and besides Him there is no other."
That would apply a lot more if open-source didn't exist. For example, I've done some hacking on Bind in the past, and still have the modified binaries, but have long since lost the sources, so there's no easy way to see what a clean version would look like - without the steganographic data. It would also be pretty simple to apply this to development snapshots.
That page puts it at about 0.1396 rad/s, or 1.3333 rev/min - in its fast-turning mode. Of course, that doesn't take into account acceleration and deceleration, which is probably pretty significant. So I'd expect it to hit at least 0.2 rad/s. Which is probably pretty quick for a big cubicle-like thing.
We actually use w pretty often here in my program, since approximating for h bar lets you use 10^-34. Just use w = 2 pi f if you need to convert. There's also some funky reason that my professor talked about at one point last fall, but I didn't find it significant enough at the time to take note of;-)
I think similar arguments can be made about slavery - from certain points of view, it's not immoral in its essence. It's just having people that you have power over and provide for in return for their labor.
However, the reason slavery was officially abolished all over the place is that slavery allows for much evil to be done: beatings, rape, starvation, excessive punishment, inhospitable conditions, and general not-cool use of power.
The same things apply to genetic research and such: It is not inherently evil, but it can be used for great evil.
And on the whole bible thing, I think it's important to realize that 'christians' and the church tend to be completely self-serving and couldn't care less what it says a lot of the time. See the crusades, spanish inquisition, etc. They go straight against it. It also doesn't really say anything about whether genetic research is bad or not; however, it does lay some ground rules in how the people of God (the real ones, I mean - the nominal ones don't really care unless it supports what they want) should live.
For example, Philemon and several other spots give a pretty good idea of how slaves and their masters should act in light of being God's people: not with harshness and over-rulling force, but instead being gentle but firm, allowing others to live as they wish but still showing by their lives and the joy in them that there's a better way, acting with reason and being intentional about what's going on - not wandering aimlessly (using the brains God put in their heads), and earning their food themselves. Of course, that kind of stuff is just to serve as a guide to how to live as a man/woman of God; it isn't the road to salvation (which is too far offtopic for this thread):-)
Anyway since it was so successful I'm implementing a solution to automate offsite backups using sftp/ssh and encrypting our backups daily.
Try using rsync and cron - rsync can tunnel through ssh and is pretty nifty as far as saving bandwidth goes (in case you're over a not-that-quick link, since you're talking a full windows installation).
Now that we're getting to the point where encryption is fairly viable (though the infrastructure may be a bit lacking, depending on your view of it), SPAM has a great opportunity to hide itself - by encryption. For example, say your ISP has the greatest ever spam filters installed. If the spammer just uses encryption of any reasonable form (but still gives you a way to see it - maybe sending the key in a different file, posing as someone you should know), they cannot be stopped by any kind of filter, with the exception of explicitly blocking domains and IP addresses/blocks.
At one point several years ago I think I did - everything I needed to do was well-defined in my head, and I didn't hit any points where I had to stop and think, and I ended up banging out about 500 lines in about an hour and a half (and this was before I figured out that whitespace can sometimes be a good thing)
In normal circumstances, however, I have too many context switches (during debugging or working on different chunks of code simultaneously - needing a small function, switching over to a different terminal to implement it in a different place, coming back, etc)
Re:My one-and-only shot at live action role-playin
on
Virtual Sword Fighting
·
· Score: 1
Hahaha! That was you!!! (Isn't it great to know that there's always someone more watching you?):-) Have a nice day!
Recently I've had some random ideas just floating around in my head, and I figure I might as well post them:
Several weeks ago I was introduced to the idea that, when not taught a language, small children will tend to invent their own; also, there are underlying grammars to the human brain's functionality (basic patterns that come up in all languages, etc) - which suggests that there is a basic set of rules and grammars which are 'pre-programmed' into humans, and allow us to use complex language to describe or inquire about situations, events, and ideas.
Are there any efforts currently under progress to implement such a grammar in AI? For example, hardcoding in the ideas that there are things - objects - which have properties, can be modified within a given set of bounds (defined on a per-object basis), and react in certain manners to one's actions (for examples, a block has sides, it can have a color, it can be picked up, melted, broken under sufficient force, etc)
Basically, this basic built-in knowledge of something underlying all things that we understand would give us grounds to make other things which can act and react in given situations, and would allow computers to learn on their own (ie 'This looks like an object - it has sides - it is red - it can be picked up') through curiosity.
So basically, are there any inroads being made into this area?
Thanks!
Re:Uh, none of these comments are about the story
on
Perl 5.8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
It's like arguing which pop band is better than another.
They're boy bands, and n'sync can take backstreet any day of the week, for your information. (so THERE!)
Anyway, seriously, this is very true - it really doesn't matter what language one uses - there are generally two different classes of coders:
Clean: Know how to use the aspects of the language given to make comments where needed, how to keep things from becoming too bloated, how to split up different parts of a project (parsing, output, calculations, etc), and generally just putting a sane amount of effort to keeping things clean, consistent, and documented (from a coder's point of view)
Unclean: Tend to require a certain language to write aesthetically pleasing code - depend on certain aspects of languages to keep things from becoming overly complex, have 5000-line scripts which would be far better organized in a different fashion (generally just not splitting different chunks of the project apart), and a general belief that documentation isn't necessary to explain why things were done in a certain manner
From experience, documentation isn't so important about how things were done (this tends to be on the obvious side with most even lightly-experienced programmers; others, including many kernel hackers follow it like a religion), but it is often very important on the side of why things are this way. Generally just giving a reader the basic idea of how things flow around helps a lot- it's often useful for optimizing/bugfixing and keeps people from having to sit around for a month on a mailing list before getting to work on stuff themselves, as is often the case in open source - and many give up by this point (myself included, several times).
Some examples of my development from the ugly-coder to the clean-coder can be found in the releases of my dynamic DNS service (http://www.todd.cx - may or may not work, depending on where you are in the world, but Google's cache should have a fair amount of it)... For the most recent, just contact me personally (it's a very significant amount cleaner than the last posted release; my e-mail is on the website)
Also, all you other python-guys should definitely note this: Python doesn't make you code cleanly. See my older sources, if you don't believe me. It can, however, be done quite elegantly (as can any other language out there), when done right (get my latest release from me to check that side out)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's right. It's a freakin' SHEEP.
Whatever you're on, can I have some?
I'm just asking, because I'm not sure if you made it clear enough, but... You aren't a little on the bitter side, are you? ;-)
Yeah, it's not like there's an RFC for that or anything.
Wouldn't know majesty if it hit him in the face...
I was trying to convince this guy that I *really am* the real slim shady.
Seriously, I am!
I think you came pretty close to what I meant - that it seems contradictory at first ('do not kill,' then 'conquer in my name' all over the place) - until you really try to reconcile the differences, and then they fit together on some crazy level.
Interpretation is definitely necessary - 1 Cor 9:9 comes to mind first. Then there's the whole deel about parables, etc... Also, for example, with the account of creation, I'm pretty sure (and this is pretty necessary for reconciling it with science) that the Hebrew word translated into 'day' actually means something more like 'an amount of time' and was commonly used for 'day', and is translated into day because it makes a lot more sense at first glance, is accepted already, and is prettier. Also, until the last few hundred years, people like the hittites and a few others were considered fiction - and then they got found - that says something about accuracy and being literal.
Personally, I think relativity's... out there. I mean, I have some really weird thoughts, but man... Nothing like walking along, thinking about what the consequences of a maximum speed would be, in a time where it's generally accepted that there isn't one. Schroedinger's equation is pretty out there too - of course, it seems pretty normal given his cat. But anyway, it's late and I'm sleep-deprived! A particular wave, and 0.8c!
A clarification that popped out to me a few seconds after I finished proofreading: I define evidence to be something that directly results from experiment, can be reproduced by controlling certain conditions, and that those conditions are related to the experiment. (That's just off the top of my head - there's probably a ton of room for detail, but you get the idea)
And I'm sure the thought that you can't re-do the big bang in a lab will enter your mind, and you're right - I think it's a pretty good chance that's how God did it, but I have no solid evidence of it. It's just the most reasonable thing that's out there, and I'm not qualified to come up with my own theory.
I think you're really off. Actually, I know so. There's no evidence (to an observer biased against it) that a supreme being exists.
A supreme being would probably not be something coming or going - that would mean that there's something before them, even if it were just a point in time - and at that point, it would no longer be in control of everything at that point in time, and thus would no longer be supreme. So basically, a supreme being just is.
If a supreme being does exist, it's a pretty easy argument that he made the universe in a reasonable way (instead of just like 'poof! look here - instantaneously there is now a universe, galaxies, solar systems revolving around large masses, and there are these beings on this one planet...') - in a manner in which everything would be predictable and suitable for living beings (which he desired for whatever reason to create - either a really simple reason or complex beyond comprehension) - and the simplest and most reasonable way to do so (and which we could understand) would probably be general physical laws - gravitation, existence of mass and its properties, charge, forces, etc.
It's not uncommon to run into people who say that God created the universe and haven't bothered to think that if it's true, it should just logically work.
I am a Christian, and am in physics right now. Show me something that proves (without having to have a bias - something like a proof or extremely solid evidence) that there is no God and that the bible somehow is without contradiction on a very well-thought-out level, and I'll throw away my faith, just like that. However, I've seen God work through prayer and constant 'accidents' and chance - the fact that I'm alive is due to several separate accidents, all of which drove me to a deepened belief in God.
Deuteronomy 4:35: "You have been shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God, and besides Him there is no other."
Prove me wrong, I dare you.
Shut up, you gimp.
(No, I don't really mean that, but it has to be said!)
That would apply a lot more if open-source didn't exist. For example, I've done some hacking on Bind in the past, and still have the modified binaries, but have long since lost the sources, so there's no easy way to see what a clean version would look like - without the steganographic data. It would also be pretty simple to apply this to development snapshots.
You fool, this is only one of my minions. You shall suffer much before the day is through.
I don't know, I've never met Satan
You say you haven't met me yet? That's kind of funny. Well, regardless, I distinctly remember you.
Have a nice day.
That page puts it at about 0.1396 rad/s, or 1.3333 rev/min - in its fast-turning mode. Of course, that doesn't take into account acceleration and deceleration, which is probably pretty significant. So I'd expect it to hit at least 0.2 rad/s. Which is probably pretty quick for a big cubicle-like thing.
We actually use w pretty often here in my program, since approximating for h bar lets you use 10^-34. Just use w = 2 pi f if you need to convert. There's also some funky reason that my professor talked about at one point last fall, but I didn't find it significant enough at the time to take note of ;-)
I think similar arguments can be made about slavery - from certain points of view, it's not immoral in its essence. It's just having people that you have power over and provide for in return for their labor.
:-)
However, the reason slavery was officially abolished all over the place is that slavery allows for much evil to be done: beatings, rape, starvation, excessive punishment, inhospitable conditions, and general not-cool use of power.
The same things apply to genetic research and such: It is not inherently evil, but it can be used for great evil.
And on the whole bible thing, I think it's important to realize that 'christians' and the church tend to be completely self-serving and couldn't care less what it says a lot of the time. See the crusades, spanish inquisition, etc. They go straight against it. It also doesn't really say anything about whether genetic research is bad or not; however, it does lay some ground rules in how the people of God (the real ones, I mean - the nominal ones don't really care unless it supports what they want) should live.
For example, Philemon and several other spots give a pretty good idea of how slaves and their masters should act in light of being God's people: not with harshness and over-rulling force, but instead being gentle but firm, allowing others to live as they wish but still showing by their lives and the joy in them that there's a better way, acting with reason and being intentional about what's going on - not wandering aimlessly (using the brains God put in their heads), and earning their food themselves. Of course, that kind of stuff is just to serve as a guide to how to live as a man/woman of God; it isn't the road to salvation (which is too far offtopic for this thread)
The average what? (I'm kind of confused here, help me out!)
I best cut down on the wine I think...
But what would getting rid of windows apps help with?
Ohhh, wait a second....
Anyway since it was so successful I'm implementing a solution to automate offsite backups using sftp/ssh and encrypting our backups daily.
Try using rsync and cron - rsync can tunnel through ssh and is pretty nifty as far as saving bandwidth goes (in case you're over a not-that-quick link, since you're talking a full windows installation).
I'd like to quote someone from teh vegetarian poll a few weeks ago:
"I didn't spend millions of years climbing to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables!"
Now that we're getting to the point where encryption is fairly viable (though the infrastructure may be a bit lacking, depending on your view of it), SPAM has a great opportunity to hide itself - by encryption. For example, say your ISP has the greatest ever spam filters installed. If the spammer just uses encryption of any reasonable form (but still gives you a way to see it - maybe sending the key in a different file, posing as someone you should know), they cannot be stopped by any kind of filter, with the exception of explicitly blocking domains and IP addresses/blocks.
It goes both ways.
At one point several years ago I think I did - everything I needed to do was well-defined in my head, and I didn't hit any points where I had to stop and think, and I ended up banging out about 500 lines in about an hour and a half (and this was before I figured out that whitespace can sometimes be a good thing)
In normal circumstances, however, I have too many context switches (during debugging or working on different chunks of code simultaneously - needing a small function, switching over to a different terminal to implement it in a different place, coming back, etc)
Hahaha! That was you!!! (Isn't it great to know that there's always someone more watching you?) :-) Have a nice day!
Recently I've had some random ideas just floating around in my head, and I figure I might as well post them:
Several weeks ago I was introduced to the idea that, when not taught a language, small children will tend to invent their own; also, there are underlying grammars to the human brain's functionality (basic patterns that come up in all languages, etc) - which suggests that there is a basic set of rules and grammars which are 'pre-programmed' into humans, and allow us to use complex language to describe or inquire about situations, events, and ideas.
Are there any efforts currently under progress to implement such a grammar in AI? For example, hardcoding in the ideas that there are things - objects - which have properties, can be modified within a given set of bounds (defined on a per-object basis), and react in certain manners to one's actions (for examples, a block has sides, it can have a color, it can be picked up, melted, broken under sufficient force, etc)
Basically, this basic built-in knowledge of something underlying all things that we understand would give us grounds to make other things which can act and react in given situations, and would allow computers to learn on their own (ie 'This looks like an object - it has sides - it is red - it can be picked up') through curiosity.
So basically, are there any inroads being made into this area?
Thanks!
It's like arguing which pop band is better than another.
They're boy bands, and n'sync can take backstreet any day of the week, for your information. (so THERE!)
Anyway, seriously, this is very true - it really doesn't matter what language one uses - there are generally two different classes of coders:
Clean: Know how to use the aspects of the language given to make comments where needed, how to keep things from becoming too bloated, how to split up different parts of a project (parsing, output, calculations, etc), and generally just putting a sane amount of effort to keeping things clean, consistent, and documented (from a coder's point of view)
Unclean: Tend to require a certain language to write aesthetically pleasing code - depend on certain aspects of languages to keep things from becoming overly complex, have 5000-line scripts which would be far better organized in a different fashion (generally just not splitting different chunks of the project apart), and a general belief that documentation isn't necessary to explain why things were done in a certain manner
From experience, documentation isn't so important about how things were done (this tends to be on the obvious side with most even lightly-experienced programmers; others, including many kernel hackers follow it like a religion), but it is often very important on the side of why things are this way. Generally just giving a reader the basic idea of how things flow around helps a lot- it's often useful for optimizing/bugfixing and keeps people from having to sit around for a month on a mailing list before getting to work on stuff themselves, as is often the case in open source - and many give up by this point (myself included, several times).
Some examples of my development from the ugly-coder to the clean-coder can be found in the releases of my dynamic DNS service (http://www.todd.cx - may or may not work, depending on where you are in the world, but Google's cache should have a fair amount of it)... For the most recent, just contact me personally (it's a very significant amount cleaner than the last posted release; my e-mail is on the website)
Also, all you other python-guys should definitely note this: Python doesn't make you code cleanly. See my older sources, if you don't believe me. It can, however, be done quite elegantly (as can any other language out there), when done right (get my latest release from me to check that side out)
So, in other words, it's about half the size of germany's ego?
(Makes good use of running spikes and sprints for his life)
Otherwise you're going to have bad luck in love for 7 years.
I remember that... But they keep saying it's them and not me, so that can't be it at all.