Sorry, but I still don't see how this would be faster than insertion sort in this case. With bubble sort you first go through all n elements to bubble up the largest of them. If it's sorted you go through them all and nothing is moved. Then do the same for n-1 elements, then n-2, etc. until you're done.
With insertion sort you insert the 2nd element into a list of 1. It's already sorted, so nothing happens. Move to the 3rd element to insert into the list of 2. 2nd element is already less than 3 so, again, nothing to do. And so on until you do nothing starting at the nth element. Bubble sort version has n^2 steps (times some constant) when it's already sorted. Insertion has just n times constant.
Sorting something that has been sorted previously and is most likely still sorted? Best choice.
Errrr... no. Insertion sort would kill it in this case. The only case I've heard of where bubble sort is preferrable would be when random access to sorting elements is an issue.
But bubble sort is a horrendous sorting algorithm with no practical applications. You do not, under any circumstances, need to know it. Seriously, a first-timer making up their own sorting algorithm tends to rediscover selection sort, and that's better than bubble sort.
It is possible to get news from multiple sources. BBC. Jerusalem Post. Al Jazeera. RT. And others.
But aren't they all biased? Yes, they are. Just like CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.
Well CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are (apart from their biases) pretty light-weight, sensationalized sources of news. (And really, MSNBC and Fox News are the ones that are unapologetically biased).
BBC is good, Al Jazeera can be good, though I've seen some sesationalized stuff from them as well. RT is just Russia's propaganda network. Utter crap.
Well first of all, the word "cuck" is nothing more than modern code for "nigg3r-lover"*. It would be more honest if you used that term instead. No idea how sense that makes though. Anyone who criticizes Trump must be a nigg3r-lover? Seeing African-Americans as equal human beings is a no-no again? No clue.
I wasn't meaning this as a criticism for Trump anyhow. My only point is people who are in, or soon to acquire, a great deal of power have no right to say they are anti-establishment. I would hate to see this phrase used for Trump and his fellow Republicans during their reign. Because then they'd be making excuses whenever their choices were harmful for the country saying, "It wasn't us, it was that durn establishment!" Nigg3r please.
Judging by Trump's appointments full of people who are mostly unqualified or downright offensive, and continued tweets that indicate every criticism of him is taken personally - it doesn't look good. (I swear he thinks the most brilliant person he ever talked to is the last individual who happened to compliment him - LOL). The only good I saw was nominating James Mattis to Secretary of Defense. I also liked the fact that he talked to the leader of Taiwan, although most foreign affairs experts say this is a big no-no.
* Apparently the lameness filter is flagging the N-word, otherwise that's what I would have used. Goddammit.
That's horrible. Why anyone would judge someone talking bout "the mass importation of semi-retarded 3rd worlders for cheap labor for the corps" as stupid is beyond me. Clearly your are the voice of level-headed insight and reason...
I think you no longer have the right to call yourself "anti-establishment" when your man is about to be POTUS and his party will have majorities in the House and Senate.
Buffer/stack overflows, type mismatches, null pointer errors and numerous other classes of programming bug that are ridiculously common in C code should all have died out years ago, and the reasons for C's continued popularity have very little to do with its technical merit.
Yup, I think you're right. Keeping an answer which matches the number with the least significant digits is used when multiplication and division, giving us the 97. (Technically speaking the 9/5 has infinite significant digits since it comes from the defined boiling and freezing points of water at STP in degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius).
For addition the rules is to round to least precise number being added. Both 97 and 32 are precise to the "ones" place, and so the answer is 129. Just like you and the AC stated. My bad.:(
I thought it was more like 130. The 54 gives you two significant digits, so if you round 129.2 to another number with two significant digits it goes to 130 F. Unless I'm missing something.
But there are many events that happened beforehand that go into the formation of a particular brain, none of which (obviously) the brain had any say in. So is free will a simple quantifiable quality you can isolate within the brain?
Sciences like neuroscience are great at answering many mysteries we come up with. The question of free will is not one of these.
Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are merely midpoints of indecision where someone has committed fully to neither view. A true agnostic still remains someone who is not willing to commit in either direction, that doesn't change.
I'm not sure what you mean by "committed" here. Just because an atheist or theist holds a belief that the existence of a god cannot be known for sure (agnostic) doesn't mean they're only partially an atheist or theist. They're still fully in their categories, just a difference of degree.
For example, I believe in the theory of evolution. In any reasonable way I can imagine, I am "committed" in my belief. But as with all a posteriori claims I recognize that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt, and if sufficient evidence were somehow to come up to contest it (however unlikely that might be) I would change my view. This doesn't make me a weak believer in the theory evolution, just rational.
"Agnosticism is a statement that something (the existence of a god or gods) cannot be known. It says nothing, however, about one believes."
Except that is in itself a belief.
Right. Except that belief is regarding whether or not the existence of any god or gods can be proven. It is not necessarily regarding whether or not someone actually believes in the existence of said gods.
You're working under the common misconception that someone is not an Atheist unless that person believes they can prove no gods exist. This is simply not the case. Look up the definition. All it entails is that someone has no belief in the existence of any gods. That's it. Full stop. A person who believes they have proof that no gods exist may have a stronger form of atheism, but anyone who does not believe in any gods is still classified as an atheist.
Imagine that is not the case. Someone can make a claim that whenever I leave my apartment blue fairies break in, have a party, and leave it just like it was when I left so that I don't notice. We can come up with a word on whether I believe that. I'll say, "Yup, that's me, I don't believe it". So then someone retorts, "but can you prove it?" I'd have to say, obviously not since the claim (like many claims about gods) is metaphysical and cannot be disproved. "Ah ha! So I guess you're not that really, then are you?"
This is just one silly example. There are infinite metaphysical claims possible. Must we put footnotes on them all? What makes the concepts of gods so special that we need to parse useless hairs for those claims and not others?
The only reason people insist that atheists must have some proof that god exists to be true atheists is because a) they don't like atheism and feel the need to make someone admit they don't know everything or b) they're put off by obnoxious anti-theists (another category that falls fully under the atheist umbrella) and don't want to be associated with them. But all they're really doing is needlessly muddying the waters for simple concepts.
Agnosticism is a statement that something (the existence of a god or gods) cannot be known. It says nothing, however, about one believes.
It is possible to be an agnostic atheist (I cannot prove that no gods exists, but since there is no evidence I find it silly to believe so) or an agnostic theist (even though I cannot prove god exists, I choose to believe so through faith).
Saying an agnostic is someone that has no view whether or not gods exists is a common misconception. Refer to a philosophical text for information that your dictionary must lack.
I have no earthly clue what "euphoric constipation" might be, but I can't stop laughing about it nonetheless. Sounds like it would be a great name for a rock band.
Well the last animal of the article is able to survive in just about any environment, so there's one at least that is more hardy in any conceivable way than humans.
But our dependence on infrastructure does make us frail. One way you can look at it is to say "look at all we can build to thrive in so many places." The other is "look at all the crap we have to build to thrive in so many places." If you don't need all the infrastructure in the first place, you don't have to fret about some unforeseen collapse in it to take out vast swaths of your population. And when you include all living things instead of just animals there is no way we can compete with prokaryotes like bacteria and (especially) archaea when it comes to survivability and quick adaptation. Those suckers were the first lifeforms on the planet, and they'll be the last ones existing before it goes boom.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but I still don't see how this would be faster than insertion sort in this case. With bubble sort you first go through all n elements to bubble up the largest of them. If it's sorted you go through them all and nothing is moved. Then do the same for n-1 elements, then n-2, etc. until you're done.
With insertion sort you insert the 2nd element into a list of 1. It's already sorted, so nothing happens. Move to the 3rd element to insert into the list of 2. 2nd element is already less than 3 so, again, nothing to do. And so on until you do nothing starting at the nth element. Bubble sort version has n^2 steps (times some constant) when it's already sorted. Insertion has just n times constant.
Errrr... no. Insertion sort would kill it in this case. The only case I've heard of where bubble sort is preferrable would be when random access to sorting elements is an issue.
But bubble sort is a horrendous sorting algorithm with no practical applications. You do not, under any circumstances, need to know it. Seriously, a first-timer making up their own sorting algorithm tends to rediscover selection sort, and that's better than bubble sort.
Time to purge.
Well CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are (apart from their biases) pretty light-weight, sensationalized sources of news. (And really, MSNBC and Fox News are the ones that are unapologetically biased).
BBC is good, Al Jazeera can be good, though I've seen some sesationalized stuff from them as well. RT is just Russia's propaganda network. Utter crap.
I hope this was meant to be funny.
Well first of all, the word "cuck" is nothing more than modern code for "nigg3r-lover"*. It would be more honest if you used that term instead. No idea how sense that makes though. Anyone who criticizes Trump must be a nigg3r-lover? Seeing African-Americans as equal human beings is a no-no again? No clue.
I wasn't meaning this as a criticism for Trump anyhow. My only point is people who are in, or soon to acquire, a great deal of power have no right to say they are anti-establishment. I would hate to see this phrase used for Trump and his fellow Republicans during their reign. Because then they'd be making excuses whenever their choices were harmful for the country saying, "It wasn't us, it was that durn establishment!" Nigg3r please.
Judging by Trump's appointments full of people who are mostly unqualified or downright offensive, and continued tweets that indicate every criticism of him is taken personally - it doesn't look good. (I swear he thinks the most brilliant person he ever talked to is the last individual who happened to compliment him - LOL). The only good I saw was nominating James Mattis to Secretary of Defense. I also liked the fact that he talked to the leader of Taiwan, although most foreign affairs experts say this is a big no-no.
* Apparently the lameness filter is flagging the N-word, otherwise that's what I would have used. Goddammit.
That's horrible. Why anyone would judge someone talking bout "the mass importation of semi-retarded 3rd worlders for cheap labor for the corps" as stupid is beyond me. Clearly your are the voice of level-headed insight and reason...
I think you no longer have the right to call yourself "anti-establishment" when your man is about to be POTUS and his party will have majorities in the House and Senate.
Have you told them this?
Gallows humor.
Given the way he's been acted in the past when losing that's not something to be so sure about.
Yeah, don't be so sure.
I think you have something there. Trump is too stupid to be evil.
Yeah - if an ex sends a video of her having sex to make you jealous, sharing it with the world at large is pretty much the ultimate F U response.
"So do you want to see just how not jealous I am?" *click*
In many situations (the interesting ones, in my opinion) there is more to the strengths of C than just maturity and ubiquity.
Ain't that the truth. They spend all of their money on whine.
Yup, I think you're right. Keeping an answer which matches the number with the least significant digits is used when multiplication and division, giving us the 97. (Technically speaking the 9/5 has infinite significant digits since it comes from the defined boiling and freezing points of water at STP in degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius).
For addition the rules is to round to least precise number being added. Both 97 and 32 are precise to the "ones" place, and so the answer is 129. Just like you and the AC stated. My bad. :(
I thought it was more like 130. The 54 gives you two significant digits, so if you round 129.2 to another number with two significant digits it goes to 130 F. Unless I'm missing something.
But there are many events that happened beforehand that go into the formation of a particular brain, none of which (obviously) the brain had any say in. So is free will a simple quantifiable quality you can isolate within the brain?
Sciences like neuroscience are great at answering many mysteries we come up with. The question of free will is not one of these.
I'm not sure what you mean by "committed" here. Just because an atheist or theist holds a belief that the existence of a god cannot be known for sure (agnostic) doesn't mean they're only partially an atheist or theist. They're still fully in their categories, just a difference of degree.
For example, I believe in the theory of evolution. In any reasonable way I can imagine, I am "committed" in my belief. But as with all a posteriori claims I recognize that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt, and if sufficient evidence were somehow to come up to contest it (however unlikely that might be) I would change my view. This doesn't make me a weak believer in the theory evolution, just rational.
Right. Except that belief is regarding whether or not the existence of any god or gods can be proven. It is not necessarily regarding whether or not someone actually believes in the existence of said gods.
You're working under the common misconception that someone is not an Atheist unless that person believes they can prove no gods exist. This is simply not the case. Look up the definition. All it entails is that someone has no belief in the existence of any gods. That's it. Full stop. A person who believes they have proof that no gods exist may have a stronger form of atheism, but anyone who does not believe in any gods is still classified as an atheist.
Imagine that is not the case. Someone can make a claim that whenever I leave my apartment blue fairies break in, have a party, and leave it just like it was when I left so that I don't notice. We can come up with a word on whether I believe that. I'll say, "Yup, that's me, I don't believe it". So then someone retorts, "but can you prove it?" I'd have to say, obviously not since the claim (like many claims about gods) is metaphysical and cannot be disproved. "Ah ha! So I guess you're not that really, then are you?"
This is just one silly example. There are infinite metaphysical claims possible. Must we put footnotes on them all? What makes the concepts of gods so special that we need to parse useless hairs for those claims and not others?
The only reason people insist that atheists must have some proof that god exists to be true atheists is because a) they don't like atheism and feel the need to make someone admit they don't know everything or b) they're put off by obnoxious anti-theists (another category that falls fully under the atheist umbrella) and don't want to be associated with them. But all they're really doing is needlessly muddying the waters for simple concepts.
Agnosticism is a statement that something (the existence of a god or gods) cannot be known. It says nothing, however, about one believes.
It is possible to be an agnostic atheist (I cannot prove that no gods exists, but since there is no evidence I find it silly to believe so) or an agnostic theist (even though I cannot prove god exists, I choose to believe so through faith).
Saying an agnostic is someone that has no view whether or not gods exists is a common misconception. Refer to a philosophical text for information that your dictionary must lack.
I have no earthly clue what "euphoric constipation" might be, but I can't stop laughing about it nonetheless. Sounds like it would be a great name for a rock band.
Well the last animal of the article is able to survive in just about any environment, so there's one at least that is more hardy in any conceivable way than humans.
But our dependence on infrastructure does make us frail. One way you can look at it is to say "look at all we can build to thrive in so many places." The other is "look at all the crap we have to build to thrive in so many places." If you don't need all the infrastructure in the first place, you don't have to fret about some unforeseen collapse in it to take out vast swaths of your population. And when you include all living things instead of just animals there is no way we can compete with prokaryotes like bacteria and (especially) archaea when it comes to survivability and quick adaptation. Those suckers were the first lifeforms on the planet, and they'll be the last ones existing before it goes boom.