That is not true at all. Lazy evaluation is deterministic and sequential.
With Monadic programming in a purely lazy functional programming language like Haskell, you can place print statements in your code for debugging... though such a practice isn't even considered good in imperative programming, let alone functional programming.
Also, since languages like Haskell are pure, adding print statements into your code will most likely change the various types of functions. In other words, a function that returns an integer and a function that returns an integer and prints something - both such functions have different types in Haskell.
It is easy to debug functional programs, if you have a trace debugger, i.e. a debugger that shows the evaluation step by step and lets you skip evaluation of subexpressions.
Please give me an explicit example as to why lazy programs are difficult to debug.
Essentially, the best assumptions are the fewest and the ones which fit into our observations the best. A consistent, materialistic world makes more sense than a random, "ghosts-and-goblins" supernatural one.
Reductionism is a mind virus. Why are fewer assumptions better? Sounds like an assumption in and of itself. Without faith or assumptions or whatever... all you can really know is the Self. Solipsism is not considered to be very practical... hence the need for belief.
I think you are forgetting something though... C and C++ are the most powerful higher level languages that exist today... Why? Because with them... you can easily mess everything up!
That has to be the worst argument that I have ever heard as to "why C/C++ are the most powerful high level languages that exist today". Also, not to mention the fact that allowing you to mess stuff up has very little to do with few limits.
Wouldn't it be better to have a high level language that placed few limits on you, but also helped you write better code, i.e. let you do what you want but protect you from messing everything up?
The obvious answer is "yes" such a thing is better than a language that lets you mess stuff up. So please tell me again why you post is "insightful"?
IE 5.x is vunerable to the attack, and how many people do you think still use IE 5.x? Considering that most of these people also use either Outlook or some web mail, it isn't hard to attack them. A worm could be spread using email, by sending a small bitmap image in the email to the victim, the victim is hacked and starts propagating the worm by sending more emails.
The problem is that this worm doesn't require any human intervention, when Outlook is used, as emails are automatically previewed.
I recently purchased a TiVo and I must say that its remote is a POS. It doesn't properly work with my APEX TV, let alone support my other settop devices. Instead I bought the inexpensive ($18) URC 6131 universal remote, which supports my TV, VCR, TiVO, and Xbox! I highly recommend it to anyone that has too many damn remote controls and just wants one to control everything.
I sent him $20 about a year ago. He did a good job, kept the application's scope small so that he could optimize it for its intended task... and well, BitTorrent works very well for what it was made to do.
People need to embed BitTorrent technology into web browsers and web servers. Web sites should only use BitTorrent to serve files that are larger than 50MB.
Are my finger nail clippings or hair a human? They are "human finger nail clippings" and "human hair". I think you are the one that is playing the name game. Of course there is a point at which a human embryo becomes a human. Before that it is a bunch of cells like the cells that make up my finger nail clippings or my nose.
People have brain activity when they are asleep and they often have brain activity when in a coma or unconscious. There is a difference between a brain dead vegetable and a person in a coma.
I think it would be best to err on the side of life, so it would be best to consider "brain activity" to be nervous system activity. This way we are cautious to protect human life, while at the same time giving plenty of room for those who conceived (rape, accident, whatever) to abort.
Most people do not understand the science, nor do they understand anything other than what they were told to think by their religious dogma. What would they have to contribute to the debate? They most likely will never understand because they refuse to understand.
It ain't cell count. It is brain activity. A ball of 100 cells does not have brain activity, and therefore is not a living human.
A ball of 100 cells is just as much of a living human as are the separate sperm and egg used to create them. Would destroying those sperm and egg be murder? They have the potential for life.
Why is it so ridiculous to accept that sperm and eggs might just possibly be where it all starts?
"Brain activity" is my choice of demarcation, and I wish everyone else used it too. It would still give plenty of room for argument as very primitive forms of brain activity don't necessarily imply thought... they could just mean the thing's brain is telling the heart to beat or whatever.
So pro-lifers would still pull one way, while pro-choicers would pull the other... but at least they would both be arguing at a point closer to eachother and closer to an objective measurement.
Late term abortions freak me out, but stopping someone that is a couple months pregnant from getting an abortion and preventing embryo stem cell harvesting are another negative extreme.
Yes, there is room for ambiguity, but "brain activity" is a far better measurement than "when it is born" or "when it was conceived". At least we should argue at a demarcation point closer to where life begins.
How is it a living human if it does not have brain activity? I agree that abortion should not be used as the main means of birth control, but if it comes down to it and the embryo/fetus hasn't formed a brain yet... then it seems just as bad to destroy that as it is to destroy the separate egg and sperm used to create it, which is what you recommend. A brainless embryo, a brainless egg, a brainless sperm... none of them are human.
Ok, but after self reflection, I confirm my existence because I am aware of my self. I do not confirm my existence because I am white.
Also, as far as we know, and yes it is a "logical jump", thinking can be measured by measuring brain activity. So this seems like it is a far more objective measure of life/no-life than any other currently purposed measure.
The "when it is born" measure is obviously flawed because it is largely based on the location of one's body (inside vs outside the womb).
But the "when it was conceived" measure is also flawed as we could claim that sperm and eggs are living humans because they have the "potential" for life. So a menstrating women is committing manslaughter and so is a man, who lets a sperm go to waste. We could even go back further and say that the materials used to create a sperm have "potential" for life...
Slashdot Mirror
That is not true at all. Lazy evaluation is deterministic and sequential.
With Monadic programming in a purely lazy functional programming language like Haskell, you can place print statements in your code for debugging... though such a practice isn't even considered good in imperative programming, let alone functional programming.
Also, since languages like Haskell are pure, adding print statements into your code will most likely change the various types of functions. In other words, a function that returns an integer and a function that returns an integer and prints something - both such functions have different types in Haskell.
It is easy to debug functional programs, if you have a trace debugger, i.e. a debugger that shows the evaluation step by step and lets you skip evaluation of subexpressions.
Please give me an explicit example as to why lazy programs are difficult to debug.
Reductionism is a mind virus. Why are fewer assumptions better? Sounds like an assumption in and of itself. Without faith or assumptions or whatever... all you can really know is the Self. Solipsism is not considered to be very practical... hence the need for belief.
Well, by your reasoning with "1)", Gentoo never has any exploits because you can change all settings by modifying source code and recompiling.
If a = b, then (a-b) = 0, and so your "remove common factor" line is the one with the mistake.
In Texas, it is the only way to make new laws, but thats because the Texas constitution is broken. Supposedly it was designed to be broken.
I all too often see people using various macho "C++ is better because it is more manly" arguments as to the superiority of C++.
That has to be the worst argument that I have ever heard as to "why C/C++ are the most powerful high level languages that exist today". Also, not to mention the fact that allowing you to mess stuff up has very little to do with few limits.
Wouldn't it be better to have a high level language that placed few limits on you, but also helped you write better code, i.e. let you do what you want but protect you from messing everything up?
The obvious answer is "yes" such a thing is better than a language that lets you mess stuff up. So please tell me again why you post is "insightful"?
IE 5.x is vunerable to the attack, and how many people do you think still use IE 5.x? Considering that most of these people also use either Outlook or some web mail, it isn't hard to attack them. A worm could be spread using email, by sending a small bitmap image in the email to the victim, the victim is hacked and starts propagating the worm by sending more emails.
The problem is that this worm doesn't require any human intervention, when Outlook is used, as emails are automatically previewed.
I recently purchased a TiVo and I must say that its remote is a POS. It doesn't properly work with my APEX TV, let alone support my other settop devices. Instead I bought the inexpensive ($18) URC 6131 universal remote, which supports my TV, VCR, TiVO, and Xbox! I highly recommend it to anyone that has too many damn remote controls and just wants one to control everything.
Isn't science supposed to involve physical evidence and experimentation? Otherwise you are just playing with math.
I sent him $20 about a year ago. He did a good job, kept the application's scope small so that he could optimize it for its intended task... and well, BitTorrent works very well for what it was made to do.
People need to embed BitTorrent technology into web browsers and web servers. Web sites should only use BitTorrent to serve files that are larger than 50MB.
The genetic signature of my finger nail clippings is that of a human.
Are my finger nail clippings or hair a human? They are "human finger nail clippings" and "human hair". I think you are the one that is playing the name game. Of course there is a point at which a human embryo becomes a human. Before that it is a bunch of cells like the cells that make up my finger nail clippings or my nose.
You still haven't demonstrated how a brainless embryo is a living human being.
So if a born baby's mom doesn't want it, can she kill it or throw it in the trash bin? Currently woman that do this are thrown in jail.
A person in a coma is not necessarily without brain activity. The ones that have no brain activity are brain dead, which yes... we consider dead.
You can keep almost any living human tissue alive with enough scientists involved. Doesn't make that living tissue a living human.
People have brain activity when they are asleep and they often have brain activity when in a coma or unconscious. There is a difference between a brain dead vegetable and a person in a coma.
I think it would be best to err on the side of life, so it would be best to consider "brain activity" to be nervous system activity. This way we are cautious to protect human life, while at the same time giving plenty of room for those who conceived (rape, accident, whatever) to abort.
Most people do not understand the science, nor do they understand anything other than what they were told to think by their religious dogma. What would they have to contribute to the debate? They most likely will never understand because they refuse to understand.
I say we move on without them.
It ain't cell count. It is brain activity. A ball of 100 cells does not have brain activity, and therefore is not a living human.
A ball of 100 cells is just as much of a living human as are the separate sperm and egg used to create them. Would destroying those sperm and egg be murder? They have the potential for life.
Why is it so ridiculous to accept that sperm and eggs might just possibly be where it all starts?
I am all for research and cloning, but I don't think we should clone a person until we can do it without introducing defects into the clone.
What will we tell the cloned person? Sorry, we knew you would turn out all messed up, but we did it for our own good.
"Brain activity" is my choice of demarcation, and I wish everyone else used it too. It would still give plenty of room for argument as very primitive forms of brain activity don't necessarily imply thought... they could just mean the thing's brain is telling the heart to beat or whatever.
So pro-lifers would still pull one way, while pro-choicers would pull the other... but at least they would both be arguing at a point closer to eachother and closer to an objective measurement.
Late term abortions freak me out, but stopping someone that is a couple months pregnant from getting an abortion and preventing embryo stem cell harvesting are another negative extreme.
Yes, there is room for ambiguity, but "brain activity" is a far better measurement than "when it is born" or "when it was conceived". At least we should argue at a demarcation point closer to where life begins.
How is it a living human if it does not have brain activity? I agree that abortion should not be used as the main means of birth control, but if it comes down to it and the embryo/fetus hasn't formed a brain yet... then it seems just as bad to destroy that as it is to destroy the separate egg and sperm used to create it, which is what you recommend. A brainless embryo, a brainless egg, a brainless sperm... none of them are human.
Ok, but after self reflection, I confirm my existence because I am aware of my self. I do not confirm my existence because I am white.
Also, as far as we know, and yes it is a "logical jump", thinking can be measured by measuring brain activity. So this seems like it is a far more objective measure of life/no-life than any other currently purposed measure.
The "when it is born" measure is obviously flawed because it is largely based on the location of one's body (inside vs outside the womb).
But the "when it was conceived" measure is also flawed as we could claim that sperm and eggs are living humans because they have the "potential" for life. So a menstrating women is committing manslaughter and so is a man, who lets a sperm go to waste. We could even go back further and say that the materials used to create a sperm have "potential" for life...