Nuclear decay? The point isn't that randomness is free will, the point is that randomness will introduce differences in the two systems, and thus that divergence is inevitable.
both copies can't be in the same place so they will be affected differently by their environment.
The OP took care of that objection by suggesting that we have an exact copy of the entire universe as well - my doppelgÃnger and I can occupy the same state, as we have two such states.
As it happens I tend to agree with you, I think with a system that large and complex divergence is inevitable.
Re:it's the libraries and frameworks
on
ECMAScript 4.0 Is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This environment could even be emulated in Silverlight, allowing things to run without any install on Windows.
Doesn't the CLR (as part of the.Net Framework) ship with Windows as of Vista?
I'd mod parent down, but I'd rather explain why I disagree.
Good. Moderating a post down simply because you disagree with it is an abuse of the moderation system - you may notice that there are no "-1, Wrong" or "-1, I Disagree" options.
I think you're mixing up 7x10^22 and 7e22 there; the Moon's mass most certainly is not 7e1022 kg. Estimates for the mass of the observable universe, for example, are around 2e52 kg.
That said I agree with your point - this will have an utterly negligible affect on the orbital dynamics of the Moon.
Thirded. I was also looking for the "never show me this rubbish again" checkbox for idle and couldn't find it. My first thought on seeing this announcement was that hopefully now that it's official* they'll have provided one at last.
* Now it's official? What, the front page stories from idle *weren't* official?
Unless it's a means of encouraging people to subscribe. Actually, that seems pretty compelling, now I think about it - if you don't subscribe you have to see kdawson and idle stories on the front page, if you do you can block them.
If it comes to that I'm a developer; Java mainly, but I know enough JavaScript to use Greasemonkey to solve it that way.
Well, call me a feckless young git (though I'll laugh if you do, I'm 33) but while I most definitely want to see content, I want the areas around that content to be aesthetically pleasing. I spend a lot of time staring at a monitor each day, I'd like at least part of the display to be pretty.
Of course aesthetics are very individual; a few years ago I used Window Maker, and I've used FVWM2 as well (when the alternative was TWM).
Well that's your preference; mine is to improve the looks of the desktop as well as its usability. Why? Because most days I'm sat in front of a computer for 10+ hours, and I damn well want it to *look* nice. In fact, I don't spend half as much time interacting with the desktop as I do viewing it while I interact with other pieces of software...
So yes, usability is of course important, but don't write off eye candy. As others have pointed out, looks is a large factor in OS X's popularity. Ease of use is a factor too of course, but you can't see that when choosing between the Macbook Pro and the Vaio in PC World...
I've not had that, though I have managed to ruin a lead and one of the ports on my desktop; I had something plugged in and caught the lead as I walked past. The plug ripped out of the port, leaving that internal bit in the port.
I believe that firewire is peer to peer, while USB is master/slave. In theory that means that you can connect any two firewire-capable devices and have them talk to each other, which is not possible with USB (you need a hub). I've never actually tried that though, and so cannot personally confirm it.
Yes, and this is nothing like that. That was apparently creating additional information that simply wasn't in the original photo. This is using a whole bunch of photos of the same scene, taken at different times, angles, etc to automatically build up a 3d model. Nothing is being enhanced, you're "merely" being shown the most appropriate, pre-existing photo based on your location and view direction in the generated 3D model.
Damn cool tech, but not the same as that used in Blade Runner (or CSI, or any other "enhance this photo to make that illegible squiggle that's beyond the resolution of the photo readable" plot device)
Well the tech demo is using photos taken by arbitrary people. While it could be used to similar effect on your own photo collection (if you take enough photos from enough positions), the real power would seem to be when it's used on a large collection of user-submitted photos, or if its fed the contents of Flickr, etc.
If you go through as many rounds as it takes to give you confidence that the bugs are all gone, then it might reduce the total number of rounds required. Whether or not that saves more than the additional testing and development effort costs is impossible to generalise, I think.
On the other hand if your QA plan calls for a fixed number of rounds of QA (unless you find a show-stopper in the final round, of course) then by adding more platforms you are multiplying the QA effort - assuming you QA all platforms properly, of course.
There's also always the possibility that you'll find a bug on one platform that simply never occurs on your main platform, of course.
Re:Maybe C/++ might be unnecessary...
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. My degree is in physics, and fortran (and especially doing exactly this type of numerical simulation with it) was part of the curriculum in the first and second year.
The year I graduated, however, they dumped fortran and switched to C. I'm sure that was nothing to do with decommissioning most of the DEC Alphas and switching to PCs running NT though...
But if those robots where sentient would it change the moral argument.
Assuming that that was meant to be a question (and you forgot the question mark) rather than a statement (in which case it should have been "it would" rather than "would it"), the answer is that yes, of course it would.
Now a more pertinent question is "would people in general recognise that the machines were truly sentient and thus should have the same rights that they themselves would expect?". I suspect that most people would not.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Shine that same light through another material (e.g. water, air, etc) and the speed will change - in fact for a given set of conditions the speed of light in a given material is a constant. Change those conditions (increase the temperature and/or pressure say) and the speed of light may well change too.
I know you're being humorous, but you do realise that he changed his mind because he was copying the previous guy's answers and realised that he was wrong on that one?
The guy's a Brit (or at least it's a UK company), and we don't have a "fair use" clause in our copyright law. We do have a similar concept, so I doubt that he's going to be sued any time soon, but never forget that while slashdot may be US-centric, not all stories are actually about the US.
Personally, given the choice between paying once and putting up with more-or-less intrusive DRM, or paying a monthly fee for as long as I wish to play the game, I'll take the former.
And that was when they still said Blair would serve a full third term, not the current administration who have no legitimate mandate whatsoever.
Unfortunately that's the way it works here in the UK - we elect the party, the party selects a leader, that person is the Prime Minister. Voting for a given person to be PM is understandable, but not the correct thing to do given that the party could potentially remove them at any time if they decide they dislike them.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear decay? The point isn't that randomness is free will, the point is that randomness will introduce differences in the two systems, and thus that divergence is inevitable.
both copies can't be in the same place so they will be affected differently by their environment.
The OP took care of that objection by suggesting that we have an exact copy of the entire universe as well - my doppelgÃnger and I can occupy the same state, as we have two such states.
As it happens I tend to agree with you, I think with a system that large and complex divergence is inevitable.
This environment could even be emulated in Silverlight, allowing things to run without any install on Windows.
Doesn't the CLR (as part of the .Net Framework) ship with Windows as of Vista?
I'd mod parent down, but I'd rather explain why I disagree.
Good. Moderating a post down simply because you disagree with it is an abuse of the moderation system - you may notice that there are no "-1, Wrong" or "-1, I Disagree" options.
The mass of the moon is ~ 7e1022 kg
I think you're mixing up 7x10^22 and 7e22 there; the Moon's mass most certainly is not 7e1022 kg. Estimates for the mass of the observable universe, for example, are around 2e52 kg.
That said I agree with your point - this will have an utterly negligible affect on the orbital dynamics of the Moon.
No it doesn't, but it does mean that it shouldn't be taught as a scientific theory in science class.
ID is not scientific. Teach it RE if you want, but keep it out of the science curriculum.
Very diplomatic; I note that that's neither a "yes you're right" or a "no you're wrong".
Thirded. I was also looking for the "never show me this rubbish again" checkbox for idle and couldn't find it. My first thought on seeing this announcement was that hopefully now that it's official* they'll have provided one at last.
* Now it's official? What, the front page stories from idle *weren't* official?
Unless it's a means of encouraging people to subscribe. Actually, that seems pretty compelling, now I think about it - if you don't subscribe you have to see kdawson and idle stories on the front page, if you do you can block them.
If it comes to that I'm a developer; Java mainly, but I know enough JavaScript to use Greasemonkey to solve it that way.
So how does my kernel, written and compiled in say August 2008, support the brand-new, just-released graphics card I buy in March 2009?
Are you saying that I should upgrade my entire kernel to gain support for new hardware? How is that not worse than installing a driver for it?
Well, call me a feckless young git (though I'll laugh if you do, I'm 33) but while I most definitely want to see content, I want the areas around that content to be aesthetically pleasing. I spend a lot of time staring at a monitor each day, I'd like at least part of the display to be pretty.
Of course aesthetics are very individual; a few years ago I used Window Maker, and I've used FVWM2 as well (when the alternative was TWM).
Well that's your preference; mine is to improve the looks of the desktop as well as its usability. Why? Because most days I'm sat in front of a computer for 10+ hours, and I damn well want it to *look* nice. In fact, I don't spend half as much time interacting with the desktop as I do viewing it while I interact with other pieces of software...
So yes, usability is of course important, but don't write off eye candy. As others have pointed out, looks is a large factor in OS X's popularity. Ease of use is a factor too of course, but you can't see that when choosing between the Macbook Pro and the Vaio in PC World...
Here you go, the BBC's Royal Charter under which it operates.
I've not had that, though I have managed to ruin a lead and one of the ports on my desktop; I had something plugged in and caught the lead as I walked past. The plug ripped out of the port, leaving that internal bit in the port.
Oh well, I had plenty of other leads and ports...
I believe that firewire is peer to peer, while USB is master/slave. In theory that means that you can connect any two firewire-capable devices and have them talk to each other, which is not possible with USB (you need a hub). I've never actually tried that though, and so cannot personally confirm it.
Well some of us have been here so very nearly as long as he has, relatively speaking at least, that the difference makes no practical difference.
I can't believe I'm arguing that I've been here almost as long as AC has, based on our respective UIDs... why yes, I am bored at the moment!
Yes, and this is nothing like that. That was apparently creating additional information that simply wasn't in the original photo. This is using a whole bunch of photos of the same scene, taken at different times, angles, etc to automatically build up a 3d model. Nothing is being enhanced, you're "merely" being shown the most appropriate, pre-existing photo based on your location and view direction in the generated 3D model.
Damn cool tech, but not the same as that used in Blade Runner (or CSI, or any other "enhance this photo to make that illegible squiggle that's beyond the resolution of the photo readable" plot device)
Well the tech demo is using photos taken by arbitrary people. While it could be used to similar effect on your own photo collection (if you take enough photos from enough positions), the real power would seem to be when it's used on a large collection of user-submitted photos, or if its fed the contents of Flickr, etc.
It really depends on how you do your QA.
If you go through as many rounds as it takes to give you confidence that the bugs are all gone, then it might reduce the total number of rounds required. Whether or not that saves more than the additional testing and development effort costs is impossible to generalise, I think.
On the other hand if your QA plan calls for a fixed number of rounds of QA (unless you find a show-stopper in the final round, of course) then by adding more platforms you are multiplying the QA effort - assuming you QA all platforms properly, of course.
There's also always the possibility that you'll find a bug on one platform that simply never occurs on your main platform, of course.
Indeed. My degree is in physics, and fortran (and especially doing exactly this type of numerical simulation with it) was part of the curriculum in the first and second year.
The year I graduated, however, they dumped fortran and switched to C. I'm sure that was nothing to do with decommissioning most of the DEC Alphas and switching to PCs running NT though...
But if those robots where sentient would it change the moral argument.
Assuming that that was meant to be a question (and you forgot the question mark) rather than a statement (in which case it should have been "it would" rather than "would it"), the answer is that yes, of course it would.
Now a more pertinent question is "would people in general recognise that the machines were truly sentient and thus should have the same rights that they themselves would expect?". I suspect that most people would not.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Shine that same light through another material (e.g. water, air, etc) and the speed will change - in fact for a given set of conditions the speed of light in a given material is a constant. Change those conditions (increase the temperature and/or pressure say) and the speed of light may well change too.
I know you're being humorous, but you do realise that he changed his mind because he was copying the previous guy's answers and realised that he was wrong on that one?
The guy's a Brit (or at least it's a UK company), and we don't have a "fair use" clause in our copyright law. We do have a similar concept, so I doubt that he's going to be sued any time soon, but never forget that while slashdot may be US-centric, not all stories are actually about the US.
Personally, given the choice between paying once and putting up with more-or-less intrusive DRM, or paying a monthly fee for as long as I wish to play the game, I'll take the former.
And that was when they still said Blair would serve a full third term, not the current administration who have no legitimate mandate whatsoever.
Unfortunately that's the way it works here in the UK - we elect the party, the party selects a leader, that person is the Prime Minister. Voting for a given person to be PM is understandable, but not the correct thing to do given that the party could potentially remove them at any time if they decide they dislike them.