No you can't. Well, with the normal way of doing things anyway.
Sure if you find a customer willing to pay orders of magnitude more than usual, to agree to a mathematical definition of the working software, and you manage to convince all the hardware makers whose hardware it will run on, all the other software writers whose OS and libraries and compilers it will use to do the same. Then you could produce bug-free software.
However, no one wants to spend billions of dollars when they could pay someone else thousands for something that mostly works but has a few bugs.
Especially since it's perfectly possible for your proof that your sotware is correct has a bug in it.
And she does't necessarily live in a echo chamber, it seems unlikely you'd use that word when talking to an HP Board member after all. Doesn't mean you refuse to hear criticism or negative information. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates didn't get any department reports with "Micro$oft" in the titles either.
And that's not their problem. Whomever did the distributing needs to provide the source code - it they don't have it or a written offer to pass along for it then they are the ones who violated the GPL.
Of course then it's a virus/whatever that distributes itself that falls apart rather fast.
That usual expected outcomes versus actual outcomes.
Obviously first year in students have no history of prior outcomes in order to base the statistical expected outcome on,so you'll need to pre-test or something.
The statistics will end up telling you how to weight things, maybe an increase in outcomes of 5 points (on some arbitrary scale) at the top end is equivanent to an increase in outcomes of 20 points in the middle, etc. Maybe the expected outcome at the top end is negative, and hence no improvement is actually great.
Of course you also have things like student's parents both die in a car crash that year and that's really why his performance dropped, etc. You either need to make sure the sample size is big enough to cover that (which might mean you can't do it yearly) or special case things (which means empoying those administration workers everybody wants to get rid of).
Sure you can keep moving the goal posts. Makes it pretty pointless though.
Creating an environment or "fair" competition is one way a nation can look after itself, so you can't just declare them opposites.
But I understand, you want the "you know me and can trust me" environment that punishes those not in the club even though human nature means it will enivitably become "I will give you $x if you can persuade your organisation to do y for me".
And yes countries which try to be run by laws that apply fairly also have human nature driving them towards corruption too - they just have a fighting chance to avoid it a little longer.
There are 15 rooms in my house (I'm counting the garage and two outside lights as rooms since we really care about lights). If I put a 100W light in each and left them on 24x7 I would use 100W * 24*365.25 = 877kWh.
The highest rate for my electricity (which is the summer one) is $0.187 so that gives a yearly cost of putting 100W bulbs in every socket, leaving them on 24x7, and paying the summer rate all year of $164.
$14 a month isn't "expensive", it's less than the sewer fee, it's a rounding error on the property taxes, etc.
Applying the rules equally to all is not being paranoid, or anti-social, or individualist.
What is fine in friendships is not fine in the legal and beauracratic realms. A judge allowing a friend to borrow his car when he wouldn't do so to a stranger is fine. The same judge giving a lesser penalty to a friend than he would a stranger in court is not fine. The mayor having his friend over for dinner when he wouldn't a stranger is fine. The mayor granting zoning changes to a friend that he wouldn't a stranger is not fine.
And I don't have a neoconservative definition of corruption - well I guess I don't really know what that would be in the first place. "corruption" = "prohibits fraud and plundering" certainly isn't the case though.
local businesses which were perceived as ethical would thrive, whereas people in it for a quick buck would be viewed with suspicion and would have regulations more stringently applied
Which is what we call corruption. Applying the rules differently to those not in the club so that they are relatively disadvantaged. Until they join the club anyway.
Do you really, seriously, truthfully believe that the Nanny State banning big sodas won't prevent soda addicts from... drum roll please... buying two of them?
That's not the aim, and hence that is irrelevant.
It's the people who see they can get 50% more soda for 10% more money or just say yes to the "do you want large" question without thinking. People tend to eat/drink the entire serving, even if they would be perfectly happy with half as much. So you end up with a bunch of fatties who wouldn't have been fat if that wasn't offered.
Of course that doesn't mean the government should step in and remove freedoms, but that's a different topic.
If in your fantasy world the company involved isn't already charging as much as the market will bear, sure.
In the real world they are already pricing at what they think gives the highest [number of sales] * [profit per sale]. Well unless they are trying to kill a competitor so they can jack prices later of course.
And even if they are some charitable company intentionally making less money in order to have lower prices then they are now less competive so a more ethical company can better compete.
if you refuse to cause the company any additional expenses for wrong doing, what do you propose? Throw a few secretaries in a volcano every time the CEO does something against the rules?
People move insitutions, that "John Smith" published with "Princeton University" as his affiliation 25 years ago will probably be enough to find out who it is, but it won't be trivial.
I suspect this is more useful for people trying to find well published people. You know a pharma company saying: "We want to find an oncologist who publishes a lot and gets cited a lot so we can convince them to do some trial work on our new drug and hence publish on it a lot. Find me the top 25 publishers on X in the last 10 years, and some of those brown paper bags filled with cash."
And what exactly would be different from the perspective of Chinese manufacturers if everything they exported to the US was instead taken by the Chinese Government who paid them in freshly printed yuans exactly what they currently get from their American buyers?
It's produce currency devaluation, but the Chinese government already does that to balance those the dollars being sold for yuan to pay for those exports currently - so that's quite possibly a wash.
They wouldn't have those dollars flowing in with which to import the raw materials - then again they'd have all the stuff they made with it so they can recycle (or just pretend to make things in the first place).
They're a much bigger drop than small claims actions though. Since most people don't bother with the small claims stuff.
Sure the money ends up going to the lawyers, and there's no real benefit to those harmed. There is some cost to the company involved though, which they'll avoid almost entirely without class actions and just keep it for themselves.
"Simplest" doesn't mean "shortest" or "easiest to understand". It means with the fewest assumptions and "magic" parts. And it only comes into play if the two things are indistinguishable to current experiment/evidence.
Classical physics is simpler than Relativity, for example. If they gave the same results in all cases we'd take classical. However, there are a bunch of experiments/observations for which relativity provides a result that better matches reality, hence Occam's Razor doesn't enter the picture.
Whereas Kepler's elliptical orbits are simpler than Ptolemy's epicycles. So even though the give the same results (in terms of where things will be at given a given date and time) you can use Occam's Razor to take Kepler's. Of course if you then sent a space ship up and found everything moving in epicycles around the Earth you'd no longer need Occam's razor since now you have different measureable results.
So it makes no sense to apply Occam's Razor to those two things since they aren't giving the same predictions/results and hence you don't need to decide based on simplicity; you can just see which ones makes the right predictions.
Also Occam's Razor is about reducing assumptions and unknown entiites. Most of the evolution text is factual (mutations exist, we see them in the lab; dandelions produce far more seeds than the environement can support, etc) which doesn't count as added complexity from the Occam's Razor perspective.
If you have to start adding things like "Satan planted all the fossils" then Occam's Razor comes into play.
Slashdot Mirror
No you can't. Well, with the normal way of doing things anyway.
Sure if you find a customer willing to pay orders of magnitude more than usual, to agree to a mathematical definition of the working software, and you manage to convince all the hardware makers whose hardware it will run on, all the other software writers whose OS and libraries and compilers it will use to do the same. Then you could produce bug-free software.
However, no one wants to spend billions of dollars when they could pay someone else thousands for something that mostly works but has a few bugs.
Especially since it's perfectly possible for your proof that your sotware is correct has a bug in it.
Except i's not a no true scotsman argument.
And she does't necessarily live in a echo chamber, it seems unlikely you'd use that word when talking to an HP Board member after all. Doesn't mean you refuse to hear criticism or negative information. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates didn't get any department reports with "Micro$oft" in the titles either.
And that's not their problem. Whomever did the distributing needs to provide the source code - it they don't have it or a written offer to pass along for it then they are the ones who violated the GPL.
Of course then it's a virus/whatever that distributes itself that falls apart rather fast.
then the US certainly for the best end of that deal.
And he claims it was an imposter looking just like him and using his phone.
All you need to a lot of fuel. Of course orbit is really the wrong term.
That usual expected outcomes versus actual outcomes.
Obviously first year in students have no history of prior outcomes in order to base the statistical expected outcome on,so you'll need to pre-test or something.
The statistics will end up telling you how to weight things, maybe an increase in outcomes of 5 points (on some arbitrary scale) at the top end is equivanent to an increase in outcomes of 20 points in the middle, etc. Maybe the expected outcome at the top end is negative, and hence no improvement is actually great.
Of course you also have things like student's parents both die in a car crash that year and that's really why his performance dropped, etc. You either need to make sure the sample size is big enough to cover that (which might mean you can't do it yearly) or special case things (which means empoying those administration workers everybody wants to get rid of).
Because it's impossible for more than one entity to benefit from something without them all conspiring to keep that something?
I didn't say that, but go ahead and make stuff up.
Yeah I missed the 15x.
So all the lights all the time with 100W bulbs adds less than 10% of the mortgage+taxes, or 56 minutes a day at mimimum wage.
Not quite as trivial, but still tiny compared to the running costs of the house.
Sure you can keep moving the goal posts. Makes it pretty pointless though.
Creating an environment or "fair" competition is one way a nation can look after itself, so you can't just declare them opposites.
But I understand, you want the "you know me and can trust me" environment that punishes those not in the club even though human nature means it will enivitably become "I will give you $x if you can persuade your organisation to do y for me".
And yes countries which try to be run by laws that apply fairly also have human nature driving them towards corruption too - they just have a fighting chance to avoid it a little longer.
Just how expensive is electricity where you are?
There are 15 rooms in my house (I'm counting the garage and two outside lights as rooms since we really care about lights). If I put a 100W light in each and left them on 24x7 I would use 100W * 24*365.25 = 877kWh.
The highest rate for my electricity (which is the summer one) is $0.187 so that gives a yearly cost of putting 100W bulbs in every socket, leaving them on 24x7, and paying the summer rate all year of $164.
$14 a month isn't "expensive", it's less than the sewer fee, it's a rounding error on the property taxes, etc.
Applying the rules equally to all is not being paranoid, or anti-social, or individualist.
What is fine in friendships is not fine in the legal and beauracratic realms. A judge allowing a friend to borrow his car when he wouldn't do so to a stranger is fine. The same judge giving a lesser penalty to a friend than he would a stranger in court is not fine. The mayor having his friend over for dinner when he wouldn't a stranger is fine. The mayor granting zoning changes to a friend that he wouldn't a stranger is not fine.
And I don't have a neoconservative definition of corruption - well I guess I don't really know what that would be in the first place. "corruption" = "prohibits fraud and plundering" certainly isn't the case though.
Which is what we call corruption. Applying the rules differently to those not in the club so that they are relatively disadvantaged. Until they join the club anyway.
I can't decide if that's a great joke, or a prime example.
That's not the aim, and hence that is irrelevant.
It's the people who see they can get 50% more soda for 10% more money or just say yes to the "do you want large" question without thinking. People tend to eat/drink the entire serving, even if they would be perfectly happy with half as much. So you end up with a bunch of fatties who wouldn't have been fat if that wasn't offered.
Of course that doesn't mean the government should step in and remove freedoms, but that's a different topic.
I don't see a claim that the Wii Shop Channel infringes on, which do you think it does?
If in your fantasy world the company involved isn't already charging as much as the market will bear, sure.
In the real world they are already pricing at what they think gives the highest [number of sales] * [profit per sale]. Well unless they are trying to kill a competitor so they can jack prices later of course.
And even if they are some charitable company intentionally making less money in order to have lower prices then they are now less competive so a more ethical company can better compete.
if you refuse to cause the company any additional expenses for wrong doing, what do you propose? Throw a few secretaries in a volcano every time the CEO does something against the rules?
People move insitutions, that "John Smith" published with "Princeton University" as his affiliation 25 years ago will probably be enough to find out who it is, but it won't be trivial.
I suspect this is more useful for people trying to find well published people. You know a pharma company saying: "We want to find an oncologist who publishes a lot and gets cited a lot so we can convince them to do some trial work on our new drug and hence publish on it a lot. Find me the top 25 publishers on X in the last 10 years, and some of those brown paper bags filled with cash."
And what exactly would be different from the perspective of Chinese manufacturers if everything they exported to the US was instead taken by the Chinese Government who paid them in freshly printed yuans exactly what they currently get from their American buyers?
It's produce currency devaluation, but the Chinese government already does that to balance those the dollars being sold for yuan to pay for those exports currently - so that's quite possibly a wash.
They wouldn't have those dollars flowing in with which to import the raw materials - then again they'd have all the stuff they made with it so they can recycle (or just pretend to make things in the first place).
Obviously if you have something called "hate speech" that is being limited you have taken away some rights to share opinions.
They're a much bigger drop than small claims actions though. Since most people don't bother with the small claims stuff.
Sure the money ends up going to the lawyers, and there's no real benefit to those harmed. There is some cost to the company involved though, which they'll avoid almost entirely without class actions and just keep it for themselves.
There are no other points of view.
"Simplest" doesn't mean "shortest" or "easiest to understand". It means with the fewest assumptions and "magic" parts. And it only comes into play if the two things are indistinguishable to current experiment/evidence.
Classical physics is simpler than Relativity, for example. If they gave the same results in all cases we'd take classical. However, there are a bunch of experiments/observations for which relativity provides a result that better matches reality, hence Occam's Razor doesn't enter the picture.
Whereas Kepler's elliptical orbits are simpler than Ptolemy's epicycles. So even though the give the same results (in terms of where things will be at given a given date and time) you can use Occam's Razor to take Kepler's. Of course if you then sent a space ship up and found everything moving in epicycles around the Earth you'd no longer need Occam's razor since now you have different measureable results.
So it makes no sense to apply Occam's Razor to those two things since they aren't giving the same predictions/results and hence you don't need to decide based on simplicity; you can just see which ones makes the right predictions.
Also Occam's Razor is about reducing assumptions and unknown entiites. Most of the evolution text is factual (mutations exist, we see them in the lab; dandelions produce far more seeds than the environement can support, etc) which doesn't count as added complexity from the Occam's Razor perspective.
If you have to start adding things like "Satan planted all the fossils" then Occam's Razor comes into play.
Because there aren't any rainforests outside the Amazon, right?