Errr... no, you are mistaken. Spinoza's God is a pantheistic God. (Meaning God and the universe are the same thing). I also read that Einstein wanted to combine the pantheism of Spinsoza with atheism. Not sure how that could be possible but hey, I'm no Einstein.
The hypothesis is that reaction is an expression of knowing. Prove it wrong.
That's a very strange hypothesis you have there. All reaction is an expression of knowing? As in consciously knowing? If so, that thinking is so far out of the mainstream I'd say the burden of proof rests on you.
As for me, the only reactions of the universe that are "an expression of knowing" are those performed consciously by conscious individuals. A very tiny subset of nature, indeed.
Is it possible for you to know everything? (Theoretically, maybe, but empirically over ten thousand years--no)--> I don't believe it's possible theoretically or empirically. No matter how much time passes.
Is it possible for anyone to know everything? (Theoretically, maybe, but empirically over ten thousand years--no) -->See above
If something exists then nothing cannot be everything. -->Is this sequence of words supposed to mean somthing?
If nobody knows everything then what knows everything? -->Why is it necessary that something has to know everything? Why can't nature just act?
Please read up on the subject before dismissing the foreskin as an "insignificant fold of skin". Ignorance is forgivable. But arrogantly displaying your ignorance as some kind of insight is not.
You don't necessarily have to experience both cut and uncut do know which is better. Instead we can easily deduce which is better by the fact that the foreskin contains about 10,000 nerve endings. Nerve endings for sensation. (This is why the first push for circumcision in the US was to prevent excessive masturbation). So if you, like me, have been circumcised that means we have never felt sex as it could have been, and never will. And because of ignorance spread by people like yourself, we were never given a choice in the matter either.
Fine, but you're still wrong about the running time of Shor's algorithm. It looks like you're saying it can factor numbers in O(b) time where b is the number of bits of the number we are factoring. Actually it factors the number in O(b^3) time. The running time is polynomial, not linear. See here.
That quote doesn't come from any Wikipedia article I'm aware of, but from a quote further up in the thread from "radtea". If you look here it states many times that Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect.
Errrr... that's what the Wikipedia article on Einstein already says. The Nobel prize was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. Am I missing something?
Well, the history of C and C++ use over decades is that many developers don't possess those particular 2 brain cells, as buffer/array overrun problems are widespread.
I'd much rather buffer overrun exploits be taken care of through the CPU and the OS using the NX bit. If it was used, most attempts to execute code with a buffer overrun would instead result in crashing the program, as should happen. This is acheived without the overhead from Java which you refuse to admit exists.
You haven't actually given any reason why the Java approach should be disadvantageous - you have simply presented a series of facts.
Construction overhead from an object that could have simply been a block of memory. Clean-up of objects that happens at unpredictable times, necessitating more complicated and less clean code with convoluted finally blocks. I'd much much rather have a language where I can deduce exactly when clean-up events happen and when. Let me worry about how to make my programs safe without a language forcing my code to be cluttered because it wants to "help".
This isn't easily implied by my list of facts?
The Java approach is unquestionably safer.
The same programmer who cannot make your program safe in C/C++ is the exact same person who would attempt to use null references in Java or introduce memory leaks by failing to call close() methods for objects that need it or leave other objects with references to them long after they are needed.
And garbage collection can be extremely efficient - just as efficient as manual memory management, even on real-time systems.
Bullshit. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There is definitely a place for Java. But to say that there is no longer a place for C/C++ is just a result of willful ignorance.
The best page I ever saw describing what near c travel would be like is The Relativistic Rocket. It details what would happen if one were to travel for extended periods of time in a ship with constant acceleration. (Preferrably at 1g).
It provides equations giving the velocity and distance travelled by the ship in terms of time as viewed from where the rocket was launched and within the rocket itself. That and the explanations are definitely worth a read.
OK, so in your example variable array is a full-fledged object. As such, in this language, the program tracks the number of references to the object to know when this count goes to zero. Once this happens, a separate garbage-collection thread will run at some time we cannot predict to clean up the space this object is taking up. (As an aside, this is why finally clauses are needed in Java but not C++. In C++ the time at which objects are destroyed are well-defined, so we can use destructors to do necessary clean up precisely when we're leaving a try block.)
Compare this to the C/C++ equivalent. There array is simply a block of memory. This memory is cleaned up precisely after we exit the block in which it was defined. Since it takes approximately 2 brain cells to know that the quantity we check in the for loop is the same as the number of elements we define array as having, there is no need to have any built-in bounds checking in the language in the first place.
I fail to see any big advantage with Java in this case. Quite the opposite.
I'm glad they used reasoned discussion in this case. They used an entirely different tactic when the writer of Too Much Coffee Man dared make a spoof of their logo.
Let's be honest: quantum theory just isn't exactly understood as well as simple mechanics. I'm not arguing that quantum behavior isn't probabilistic, just that it seems a bit hasty to claim that it must be so patently different when it's just not understood all that well.
...at least that's the impression I've always been left with when the discussion came up in class. I understand my camp is currently on the losing side of the debate, though. Am I missing something?
Yes, I believe the viewpoint you're expressing is referred to as there being "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics. (In other words, the mechanical inner-workings of the quantum world are actually deterministic, but because of the limitations of measurement we see unpredictability).
This viewpoint has been largely discredited. Otherwise it's just too hard to explain things like particles being observed teleporting through objects they otherwise couldn't have, or single particles combining to create interference patterns as if they are waves going through two openings at once until an observation is used to force the issue. It's best to say that quantum particles exist as a combination of possible locations except at times when the proper "observation" is made.
True randomness doesn't help the cause of free will anyways. Why should a person being at the mercy of random events be any more free than one at the mercy of determined ones? (Saying that it takes a consciousness for an observation is plain bunk as well.) The real question is whether the choices of an individual come from beyond the individual or within him.
just the sort of people who believe most-strongly in the nonsense that is all deistic belief (whether Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, atheist, or any other belief in the existence/non-existence of a god).
Buddhism is non-theistic. To a Buddhist, the existence/non-existence of any god or gods is completely irrelevant.
Ummm... how is endianness going to affect the calculation at all? A 64 bit architecture should royally screw up the calculation, but given when the code was written a 32 bit architecture would be a perfectly reasonable assumption.
If I wanted to be picky, I'd harp on the magic number or at least add a comment at the top saying it used Newton-Raphson iteration. As far as the bit fiddling goes, anyone who does 3D programming in C will instantly recognize what it does.
The problem is that one can argue that corporations are the most powerful type of collection of human beings today (including governments). If this is the case, then it is only rational that they be more tightly controlled and watched since their wrongdoings can do more damage than any other organization.
They drive around with Jesus fish on their extra large Escalade SUV, and have other christian sayings on their cars, yet tailgate you so close you can see them flipping out. when you get over they go by screaming profanity at you...
Yeah I noticed that too. Whenever there's some dick tailgating behind me chances are good that they'll have some Born Again insignia or We Support Our Troops magnets.
With the Born Agains, I guess they are just too focused on their eternal reward in heaven to give a fuck about some plain day-to-day courtesy on Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
No it isn't. This and other myths are debunked here.
Errr... no, you are mistaken. Spinoza's God is a pantheistic God. (Meaning God and the universe are the same thing). I also read that Einstein wanted to combine the pantheism of Spinsoza with atheism. Not sure how that could be possible but hey, I'm no Einstein.
That's a very strange hypothesis you have there. All reaction is an expression of knowing? As in consciously knowing? If so, that thinking is so far out of the mainstream I'd say the burden of proof rests on you.
As for me, the only reactions of the universe that are "an expression of knowing" are those performed consciously by conscious individuals. A very tiny subset of nature, indeed.
reacting != knowing
Well I'm a Pantheist myself. But I don't feel nature "knows" everything.
Do you know anyone who knows everything?--> No
Is it possible for you to know everything? (Theoretically, maybe, but empirically over ten thousand years--no)--> I don't believe it's possible theoretically or empirically. No matter how much time passes.
Is it possible for anyone to know everything? (Theoretically, maybe, but empirically over ten thousand years--no) -->See above
If something exists then nothing cannot be everything. -->Is this sequence of words supposed to mean somthing?
If nobody knows everything then what knows everything? -->Why is it necessary that something has to know everything? Why can't nature just act?
Please read up on the subject before dismissing the foreskin as an "insignificant fold of skin". Ignorance is forgivable. But arrogantly displaying your ignorance as some kind of insight is not.
You don't necessarily have to experience both cut and uncut do know which is better. Instead we can easily deduce which is better by the fact that the foreskin contains about 10,000 nerve endings. Nerve endings for sensation. (This is why the first push for circumcision in the US was to prevent excessive masturbation). So if you, like me, have been circumcised that means we have never felt sex as it could have been, and never will. And because of ignorance spread by people like yourself, we were never given a choice in the matter either.
Fine, but you're still wrong about the running time of Shor's algorithm. It looks like you're saying it can factor numbers in O(b) time where b is the number of bits of the number we are factoring. Actually it factors the number in O(b^3) time. The running time is polynomial, not linear. See here.
That quote doesn't come from any Wikipedia article I'm aware of, but from a quote further up in the thread from "radtea". If you look here it states many times that Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect.
Errrr... that's what the Wikipedia article on Einstein already says. The Nobel prize was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. Am I missing something?
But it also may be that poverty encourages obesity as fast food is both cheap and fattening. I'm not sure about the lack of exercise bit though.
Actually, leeches do have legitimate medical uses.
I'd much rather buffer overrun exploits be taken care of through the CPU and the OS using the NX bit. If it was used, most attempts to execute code with a buffer overrun would instead result in crashing the program, as should happen. This is acheived without the overhead from Java which you refuse to admit exists.
You haven't actually given any reason why the Java approach should be disadvantageous - you have simply presented a series of facts.
Construction overhead from an object that could have simply been a block of memory. Clean-up of objects that happens at unpredictable times, necessitating more complicated and less clean code with convoluted finally blocks. I'd much much rather have a language where I can deduce exactly when clean-up events happen and when. Let me worry about how to make my programs safe without a language forcing my code to be cluttered because it wants to "help".
This isn't easily implied by my list of facts?
The Java approach is unquestionably safer.
The same programmer who cannot make your program safe in C/C++ is the exact same person who would attempt to use null references in Java or introduce memory leaks by failing to call close() methods for objects that need it or leave other objects with references to them long after they are needed.
And garbage collection can be extremely efficient - just as efficient as manual memory management, even on real-time systems.
Bullshit. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There is definitely a place for Java. But to say that there is no longer a place for C/C++ is just a result of willful ignorance.
It provides equations giving the velocity and distance travelled by the ship in terms of time as viewed from where the rocket was launched and within the rocket itself. That and the explanations are definitely worth a read.
Compare this to the C/C++ equivalent. There array is simply a block of memory. This memory is cleaned up precisely after we exit the block in which it was defined. Since it takes approximately 2 brain cells to know that the quantity we check in the for loop is the same as the number of elements we define array as having, there is no need to have any built-in bounds checking in the language in the first place.
I fail to see any big advantage with Java in this case. Quite the opposite.
And that's the problem these days. Too many babies using C/C++.
For more information, go here.
Yes, I believe the viewpoint you're expressing is referred to as there being "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics. (In other words, the mechanical inner-workings of the quantum world are actually deterministic, but because of the limitations of measurement we see unpredictability).
This viewpoint has been largely discredited. Otherwise it's just too hard to explain things like particles being observed teleporting through objects they otherwise couldn't have, or single particles combining to create interference patterns as if they are waves going through two openings at once until an observation is used to force the issue. It's best to say that quantum particles exist as a combination of possible locations except at times when the proper "observation" is made.
True randomness doesn't help the cause of free will anyways. Why should a person being at the mercy of random events be any more free than one at the mercy of determined ones? (Saying that it takes a consciousness for an observation is plain bunk as well.) The real question is whether the choices of an individual come from beyond the individual or within him.
Buddhism is non-theistic. To a Buddhist, the existence/non-existence of any god or gods is completely irrelevant.
OK cool. I was wondering about this after I wrote my post.
Thanks!
Ummm... how is endianness going to affect the calculation at all? A 64 bit architecture should royally screw up the calculation, but given when the code was written a 32 bit architecture would be a perfectly reasonable assumption.
If I wanted to be picky, I'd harp on the magic number or at least add a comment at the top saying it used Newton-Raphson iteration. As far as the bit fiddling goes, anyone who does 3D programming in C will instantly recognize what it does.
The problem is that one can argue that corporations are the most powerful type of collection of human beings today (including governments). If this is the case, then it is only rational that they be more tightly controlled and watched since their wrongdoings can do more damage than any other organization.
Yeah I noticed that too. Whenever there's some dick tailgating behind me chances are good that they'll have some Born Again insignia or We Support Our Troops magnets.
With the Born Agains, I guess they are just too focused on their eternal reward in heaven to give a fuck about some plain day-to-day courtesy on Earth.
OK, so I missed the whole "six word" thing. But it's still damn cool.
Below is a fairly famous short short story I heard a few times. It gives me chills every time I think about it...
"In the room was the last person on Earth. Suddenly, there was a knock at the door."