All of them followed the simple formula to disaster that all who falsely claim godhood fall into: power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Jesus had none of those failings, therefore he has nothing in common with those failings.
and yet the churches founded hin His name have in fact had all those problems. This is one of the reasons I'm suspicious of the religious drive, it has gone so terribly wrong so many times.
Fine, but where did that come from? There has to be an ultimate cause, a Creator.
no there doesn't, both you and me speculate in things that have always existed without creation.
The weakness of your argument from CS Lewis is that 2, a good man might be a lunatic, just a harmless one. He might still be good because of the things that make anyone good, separate from his wilder beliefs, like being helpful and honest and peaceful.
In my reading of the Bible God is not trying to scare me. He is trying to scare a few harder to motivate people, but in my case God is cool with how I live and how I face the facts of my own failings, and that's all he's trying to get these other Christians to do. I think God will allow me to worship him in heaven, if that really what he's after. But also. I do not think that God wants to be worshiped. Wanting to be worshiped is a mortal sin, of men who were Kings who would pretend to be gods or sons fo gods. God wouldn't have that weakness. God wants you to create, explore and build.
If you don't see the parallels between the RCC and the Hindu religions, it is likely because you haven't studied the rituals of the RCC. They use idols, images, icons, rosaries (which came from both Hindu and Buddhist origins), and are increasingly embracing New Age concepts (which are purely Hindu in origin).
from where I sit all Christianity looks pretty full of images, icons, and idols. But I don't deny the link, but of course, it goes both ways, the Zoroastrians migrated to india from the Mediteranean 1500 years before Christ. Some say the worlds major religious actually have a long history of cross influence. Rare but regular and culture shattering events of contact.
God is self-existent; He created our time-space continuum. So to ask questions about His origin is asking about things literally outside our universe. He created time; so He is not subject to it. Therefore He has not a beginning, since He is not subject to time.
There is no reason that the laws of physics cannot have this same exception granted to them. After all the phenomenon of time which we percieve is a result of those laws and constants, according to science, just as according to you it's as a result of God's Will. I find the laws of physics beautiful in their dimplicity and divine in their complexity, so to speak, and there I can imagine them being in place forever. The Big Bang, btw, is just a theory and even if true does not talk about an origin. Time is compressed in this idea, the explosion explains an expansion seen in the universe by which the further away you get, the faster things are travelling away from us, and this is especially interesting since we are seeing light that left those places long ago. Things were separating fast a long time ago, explain. So since the constants really could be different as far as one could imagine, maybe everytime a universe bangs, it get's it's own set? Maybe every single possible set of physical laws gets a chance, and some don't exist very long. Having said that, of course there are scientists trying to derive such answers, on the hope that such a finding is at the root of a unified theory that explains all the fields and forces known to science.
Warps our brains to try and encompass that idea, but as David Moore says "I'd rather have a big God and little problems than a small God and big problems".
actually, science has the record right now for most warping-around hardness with Quantum Mechanics which makes General Relativity seem practically intuitive. The thing is, they have probed certain system and the results are consistent, and seem to imply strange things no one can really grasp as making sense. But the evidence keeps you from giving up or thinking it doesn't matter. It's as if you can do to things at once, like get a heads and a tails on a single flip of a coin, and then the two worlds can interact, where it's heads and where it's tails, and when you look at the coin, it becomes one or the other. If you don't look at the coin, but take a photo to look at later, wierdness can ensue. See, I admit that makes no sense. So we keep trying to make sense by looking at the information. It's hard to wrap your head around, but there is data to wrap it around. By the way, the data I'm refering to is regarding the famous "double slit experiments".
The whole probability wave thing of QM is kind of strange, I think. The idea that time is relative now makes sense to me, but I don't think it was intuitive originally, it's just that nature is like that. You can learn how nature really works, and in the end you can make sense of it because nature does make sense, it defines sense making, because we've grown up around it, our senses and brains and chemistry, our survival is all wrapped around how it works, how can it not make sense --- it defines sensible.
I have no trouble with the idea there is a conscious God. I'm inclined to think such a god would merely be the Universe, that would be it
no naturalistic one put forth yet holds up to scientific scrutiny.
this should not be surpising. At one time there was no correct theory for everything. In fact, no final answer is really expected. I know few scientists that are worries of running out of stuff to learn. It looks like there is infinite information. Maybe not, but I think so.
Since a naturalistic explanation requires there be no driving force, no external organizing consciousness, the alternative is a purely stochastic process.
of course there is a driving force, and it does not have to be stochastic. That is not the only kind of process. Specifically the process of the creation of our solar systems (and the systems that preceded it, for stars have to explode to get heavy atoms such as earth has). This process is not stochastic, but rythmic, and consistent.
re:Roman Catholocism
no, I never learned that in any course... I don't really see why you say that. Overall, the distinctions between the Christian churches seem historical in nature, forks and splits and even mergers over quite a long period of time. Of course, there are reasons for those splits.
But Hinduism is really notable for it's open-ness, it's not uncommon for a Hindu family to have an image of Jesus on their Hindu alter, because their system is able to acknowledge new gods. The doesn't sound too Catholic. Also, the Catholic Church is quite different from continent to continent. The liberal catholic priests in the US are rare, and now, I don't know what, decimated. In other countries they emphasize different aspects of Christianity.
Your challenge is that I have no evidence of what? of what. of life being able to arise from nothing.
I don't believe that. I believe the universe itself IS living. I think spontaneous generation happens because the universe is full of energy that wants to be able to express itself, but also, I think that the universe is a quantum mechanical one and many of our experiences are cross sections of the total world, and our consciousness is in part this crossection.
You are really having to argue that life HAD to have a Creator. That's the real debate. So it doesn't matter if you think left handed chirality proves someone chose not to allow right handed chirality to prevail... no, it could be that it's a one in a gadillion chance to have the right molecules form that will replicate and when it does, guess what, it replicates and when you find one you know where it came from? So they are all the same. But I'm no scientist so I don't know that will be the reason, but it's one possible one. It's as likely as God creating it from any evidence of which I'm aware.
Because if everything needs a creator how did God get created?
well, I'm getting a little pompous about God-think. I'm an atheist, but with a life long interest in spirituality. I tend to like people with a strong spiritual sense, if they are catholic or wiccan or whatever, I just like that. I did bible study in high school (as an avowed atheist, from interest). I have accomodated and respected religious sensitivities. I'm getting older. I'm getting tired of talking to respecting the sensitivies to the point you can't call a spade a spade. I realize that when I'm talking about Santa Clause to a child, yes, I will respect their sensitivity and their position on the spectrum of Santa Clause belief. But if I run into an adult that believes, I don't have to be sensitive, I can say "he's only imaginary", and they can continue to believe.
But if you meant something else: yes, my point is just that nothing is totally known, and you cannot say what is impossible in nature because you are only thinking about an individual analysis that happened not to come up with an explantation.
It is not a matter of chemical equilibria. If you are right that it cannot explain the rise of life, that doesn't mean there IS no explanation. I'm an empiricist. There IS and explantation. There are competing explanations. A proof that the answer is not in chemical equilibria means only that the answer is not in chemical equilibria. It may be in quantum physics, or relativity, in physics we have not discovered, or it might be "God did it". Those are explanations to be compared, and disproving one eliminates one possibility. You would have it eliminate -all- -but- one (e.g. God). Logic doesn't work like that.
It's kind of like the old "the bumblebee can't fly" joke... if your explanation means an observed phenomenon is impossible... the problem is not with the world, the event is already proven possible.
I also find it funny you might rely on chemistry when if you want to go that route, from my point of view, God-as-described in Western Monotheism is logically incoherent. From omniscence and omnipotence to the strangeness of the whole play that God supposedly allowed to unfold in which he "tested" people when he "knew" the eventual result.
and still, in every one of those cases and in every case to come there is some corporate winner-loser complex sycophant that will tell you, "well, not this time."
Isn't it said now that insanity is doing the same thing again and again, getting the same result, and expecting a different result each time?
It has to be pointed out because so many people act like it's a "theory" that is still mere speculation.
They act like we are saying we are claiming this phenomenon is caused by lack of ethics... no, it's caused by the environment a monopolist finds themeselves in. It's one where there is no near term return on making improvements, and near-term is the only term these days. The ethics comes in when you break the law to get into the monopoly environment, but once there, legally or illegally, innovation slows.
It's simple, run a 1 mile race with others, you will do your best. Run a 1 mile race alone, you may walk a few laps. Hell, you are still going to win.
... when I'm at the next Wolfram Church meeting...:) seriously, I have read A New Kind of Science and fell in love with cellular automata back in the 80's as I fell in love with other recursive and feedback related phenomenon. But I havn't followed Wolfram closely, so I only know the hype.
Tell me, what about him being a genius. Is he?
(It's possible to be a genuis and also steal the work of others... basically if not all the good stuff is stolen) Wouldn't make him less of an ass if what you say is true, but I'm curious if you also would debunk his repuatation as something of a uniquely brilliant (if eccentric) mind.
what if our minds are quantum computers, then normal computers would never be able to match them, in all liklihood. There are a lot of unknown possibilities like that.
are merely programs that are arranged in a spacial grid such that they have neighbors.
The behavior of the program is limited the state of it's neighbors. Often these things are arranged in a grid of pixels, for example, and a cell might have the rule of being on if exactly half it's neighbors are on, and off otherwise. Or any rule you might think. They exhibit very interesting behavior.
Steven Wolfram, a young brilliant physicist and cosmologist that dropped out of science in the mid eightees, had made discoveries back then about interesting characteristics of cellular automata. He dropped out and continued his study, making a living selling the software he made for his own research needs, Mathematica. It's kind of a good geek legend like one on old.
Just last year he came out with the results of his work in "A New Kind of Science" which studies the patterns created by cellular phenomenon, and which includes admission that Worfram really believes the whole world comes down to cellular automata.
The idea that this theory would mean a computer could simulate people comes from the fact that cellular automata are easily simulated on a computer. Of course, that doesn't mean the computer could beat the human, it's running a simulation, one layer removed, it's like a VM, implimenting the machine all over again (as cellula automata) and then using it.
C and C++ inherently increase the risk of security problems because they don't check buffer bounds, so the program ends up with all of the security problems that would've existed in a buffer-safe langauge, plus buffer overflow vulnerabilities.
I want to know why the language should check for buffer bounds. I think a class system should do this. I think a class system knows (or can know) what the memory is for, or at least the pattern of it's usage, and these are assumptions you do not want to make at the language level.
Why is your argument to use a different language, when you could easily just adopt the policy of using a particular memory management strategy, in class you write or buy.
As far as being happy they found a buffer overflow, imagine how happy I was to find a memory leak in a java program! well, not too happy actually.
Is that is... the contest is which renders an 8-way box helpless? Java vs..NET?
I'm just trying to figure out what was so bad about C++ that some nice class systems wouldn't solve. And wondering if some such class system has yet to be written.
a lot of lintel servers are sold these days. There are other BIOSes that will work. It might balkanize things more, so that people can't turn a Windows computer into a linux computer later... but then, I doubt it will get that far. Phoenix has no reason to lose Lintel business.
and isn't it ironic that what made them insanely rich (working in an open bizarre environment) just isn't good enough for them now? As if they think, "you know where we blew it? we never came out with our own version of the Lisa."
is that Phoenix won't be the top BIOS maker if they try to make it so that intel machines will boot only windows.
So, in fact, I predict that isn't the real goal.
Phoenix has been making a lot of noise about updating the BIOS... spruce it up, it makes sense to be able to talk to the BIOS which is there all the time, it makes sense to have a smarter BIOS for grids and redundant system and in general.
I'm not debunking the paranoia, however, I think we ought to keep our eyes peeled. But there is enough lintel business right now that such a BIOS would be a dead end.
except the complete machine state is not all stored in regular memory... some is stored in the hardware... that is, hardware has to be re-inited... this is a hard to do in general, though when you ahve a system that is working this way, it seems easy... but that's just because it's working.
I was having lunch with a PhD and an intern that had been working for him. This PhD works in a very advanced area of engineering optics.
We were asking this question about information on the internet, my position was that there really was all the information you could want, if you have the skills to separate the crap from the good stuff... but sometimes even that is done for you by doing searches on.edu if appropriate (e.g. good medical statistics, descriptions, etc, at harvard.edu and ucsf.edu).
The PhD said sure, but not really, the really latest and more hard hitting stuff was not on the net. The intern pointed out that HIS papers were all on the net, and all the paper of his colleagues were on the net... in fact, there are not that many books since it's a somewhat esoteric specialty (although it's involves billions of dollars and national security). He had to say, "good point".
I'm an info junke and just old enough to have had to feed my craving with libraries. It doesn't matter what it is... you want to know the life cycle of lice (don't ask)... or you want to know more about some obscure musician (Syd Barret)... well in the old days you would hunt for years for books, you would get lousy information and no way to know it was lousy.
Now it's the internet. The internet will even help you find what book to get when you do need a classic reference. There really his no question to small, or BIG.
Of course, you do need the love of info because there is a lot of sifting to be done to get the good stuff from.com,.net,.org.
>The only way to get around this is to claim that all GPLed code has really been put in the public domain (against the specific written intent of the copyright holders).
I cannot point you directly to the quotes, but this is exactly what they mean by the GPL not standing up. It is bizarre. And it seems based on the common fallacy of thinking that once you have the code you are in the clear... the idea that it's not illegal to possess copyrighted material, just to recieve it. Somehow, they think they can invalidate the GPL in the sense that there are no possible monetary damages. I.e. the damages of violating the GPL have no monetary value and therefore are nothing to worry about.
It may be true about the monetary damages (but I doubt it... there are other ways to set value to the code, e.g. you can use SCOs $1400/CPU figure. ) Anyway, even if that's true it's clear that you would be enjoined from using the GPLed code... you might not get a penny, but at the very least the user would have to stop using the code.
Now a lost of IANAL types makes this mistake, and quite a few lawyers will argue it for a fee, but there is no way it will come down like that in court.
>Sad. I always thought of learning as something that makes you human (as opposed to insects? viruses?), not rich or job-secure.
NOT rich. learning something makes you not rich, not job-secure.
No. This isn't naive, which I first thought, but it is misquided. Learning something does make you human, that is to say, it justified having a brain about 90% too big by general mamillian concensus, but it's primary purpose, the thing that brain exists to enable, is learning to make you job-secure, and basically that is rich.
Make yourself special
Making himself special is the granparent poster's problem. He figured out the things his employers needed, they upgraded their system and didn't upgrade him. It's about education. When you know a technical niche, it's much more general that you think, other products use the same few principles, actual fundamentals enter in slowly. You can apply the principles of one machine to another with great success, but it's dangerous to do on the clock. People need to be educated between jobs to help them map their skills... they are not students of the cultural trends so it's best for the culture to ensure people learn the next thing.
Slashdot Mirror
All of them followed the simple formula to disaster that all who falsely claim godhood fall into: power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Jesus had none of those failings, therefore he has nothing in common with those failings.
and yet the churches founded hin His name have in fact had all those problems. This is one of the reasons I'm suspicious of the religious drive, it has gone so terribly wrong so many times.
Fine, but where did that come from? There has to be an ultimate cause, a Creator.
no there doesn't, both you and me speculate in things that have always existed without creation.
The weakness of your argument from CS Lewis is that 2, a good man might be a lunatic, just a harmless one. He might still be good because of the things that make anyone good, separate from his wilder beliefs, like being helpful and honest and peaceful.
In my reading of the Bible God is not trying to scare me. He is trying to scare a few harder to motivate people, but in my case God is cool with how I live and how I face the facts of my own failings, and that's all he's trying to get these other Christians to do. I think God will allow me to worship him in heaven, if that really what he's after. But also. I do not think that God wants to be worshiped. Wanting to be worshiped is a mortal sin, of men who were Kings who would pretend to be gods or sons fo gods. God wouldn't have that weakness. God wants you to create, explore and build.
... he catches the disease in a McDonalds... big $$$ for the estate!
If you don't see the parallels between the RCC and the Hindu religions, it is likely because you haven't studied the rituals of the RCC. They use idols, images, icons, rosaries (which came from both Hindu and Buddhist origins), and are increasingly embracing New Age concepts (which are purely Hindu in origin).
from where I sit all Christianity looks pretty full of images, icons, and idols. But I don't deny the link, but of course, it goes both ways, the Zoroastrians migrated to india from the Mediteranean 1500 years before Christ. Some say the worlds major religious actually have a long history of cross influence. Rare but regular and culture shattering events of contact.
God is self-existent; He created our time-space continuum. So to ask questions about His origin is asking about things literally outside our universe. He created time; so He is not subject to it. Therefore He has not a beginning, since He is not subject to time.
There is no reason that the laws of physics cannot have this same exception granted to them. After all the phenomenon of time which we percieve is a result of those laws and constants, according to science, just as according to you it's as a result of God's Will. I find the laws of physics beautiful in their dimplicity and divine in their complexity, so to speak, and there I can imagine them being in place forever. The Big Bang, btw, is just a theory and even if true does not talk about an origin. Time is compressed in this idea, the explosion explains an expansion seen in the universe by which the further away you get, the faster things are travelling away from us, and this is especially interesting since we are seeing light that left those places long ago. Things were separating fast a long time ago, explain. So since the constants really could be different as far as one could imagine, maybe everytime a universe bangs, it get's it's own set? Maybe every single possible set of physical laws gets a chance, and some don't exist very long. Having said that, of course there are scientists trying to derive such answers, on the hope that such a finding is at the root of a unified theory that explains all the fields and forces known to science.
Warps our brains to try and encompass that idea, but as David Moore says "I'd rather have a big God and little problems than a small God and big problems".
actually, science has the record right now for most warping-around hardness with Quantum Mechanics which makes General Relativity seem practically intuitive. The thing is, they have probed certain system and the results are consistent, and seem to imply strange things no one can really grasp as making sense. But the evidence keeps you from giving up or thinking it doesn't matter. It's as if you can do to things at once, like get a heads and a tails on a single flip of a coin, and then the two worlds can interact, where it's heads and where it's tails, and when you look at the coin, it becomes one or the other. If you don't look at the coin, but take a photo to look at later, wierdness can ensue. See, I admit that makes no sense. So we keep trying to make sense by looking at the information. It's hard to wrap your head around, but there is data to wrap it around. By the way, the data I'm refering to is regarding the famous "double slit experiments".
The whole probability wave thing of QM is kind of strange, I think. The idea that time is relative now makes sense to me, but I don't think it was intuitive originally, it's just that nature is like that. You can learn how nature really works, and in the end you can make sense of it because nature does make sense, it defines sense making, because we've grown up around it, our senses and brains and chemistry, our survival is all wrapped around how it works, how can it not make sense --- it defines sensible.
I have no trouble with the idea there is a conscious God. I'm inclined to think such a god would merely be the Universe, that would be it
no naturalistic one put forth yet holds up to scientific scrutiny.
this should not be surpising. At one time there was no correct theory for everything. In fact, no final answer is really expected. I know few scientists that are worries of running out of stuff to learn. It looks like there is infinite information. Maybe not, but I think so.
Since a naturalistic explanation requires there be no driving force, no external organizing consciousness, the alternative is a purely stochastic process.
of course there is a driving force, and it does not have to be stochastic. That is not the only kind of process. Specifically the process of the creation of our solar systems (and the systems that preceded it, for stars have to explode to get heavy atoms such as earth has). This process is not stochastic, but rythmic, and consistent.
re:Roman Catholocism
no, I never learned that in any course... I don't really see why you say that. Overall, the distinctions between the Christian churches seem historical in nature, forks and splits and even mergers over quite a long period of time. Of course, there are reasons for those splits.
But Hinduism is really notable for it's open-ness, it's not uncommon for a Hindu family to have an image of Jesus on their Hindu alter, because their system is able to acknowledge new gods. The doesn't sound too Catholic. Also, the Catholic Church is quite different from continent to continent. The liberal catholic priests in the US are rare, and now, I don't know what, decimated. In other countries they emphasize different aspects of Christianity.
Your challenge is that I have no evidence of what? of what. of life being able to arise from nothing.
I don't believe that. I believe the universe itself IS living. I think spontaneous generation happens because the universe is full of energy that wants to be able to express itself, but also, I think that the universe is a quantum mechanical one and many of our experiences are cross sections of the total world, and our consciousness is in part this crossection.
You are really having to argue that life HAD to have a Creator. That's the real debate. So it doesn't matter if you think left handed chirality proves someone chose not to allow right handed chirality to prevail... no, it could be that it's a one in a gadillion chance to have the right molecules form that will replicate and when it does, guess what, it replicates and when you find one you know where it came from? So they are all the same. But I'm no scientist so I don't know that will be the reason, but it's one possible one. It's as likely as God creating it from any evidence of which I'm aware.
Because if everything needs a creator how did God get created?
fyi, you forgot an s. btw, thanks for the laugh.
well, I'm getting a little pompous about God-think. I'm an atheist, but with a life long interest in spirituality. I tend to like people with a strong spiritual sense, if they are catholic or wiccan or whatever, I just like that. I did bible study in high school (as an avowed atheist, from interest). I have accomodated and respected religious sensitivities. I'm getting older. I'm getting tired of talking to respecting the sensitivies to the point you can't call a spade a spade. I realize that when I'm talking about Santa Clause to a child, yes, I will respect their sensitivity and their position on the spectrum of Santa Clause belief. But if I run into an adult that believes, I don't have to be sensitive, I can say "he's only imaginary", and they can continue to believe.
But if you meant something else: yes, my point is just that nothing is totally known, and you cannot say what is impossible in nature because you are only thinking about an individual analysis that happened not to come up with an explantation.
It is not a matter of chemical equilibria. If you are right that it cannot explain the rise of life, that doesn't mean there IS no explanation. I'm an empiricist. There IS and explantation. There are competing explanations. A proof that the answer is not in chemical equilibria means only that the answer is not in chemical equilibria. It may be in quantum physics, or relativity, in physics we have not discovered, or it might be "God did it". Those are explanations to be compared, and disproving one eliminates one possibility. You would have it eliminate -all- -but- one (e.g. God). Logic doesn't work like that.
It's kind of like the old "the bumblebee can't fly" joke... if your explanation means an observed phenomenon is impossible... the problem is not with the world, the event is already proven possible.
I also find it funny you might rely on chemistry when if you want to go that route, from my point of view, God-as-described in Western Monotheism is logically incoherent. From omniscence and omnipotence to the strangeness of the whole play that God supposedly allowed to unfold in which he "tested" people when he "knew" the eventual result.
Sort of an excercise in anticlimax.
if you really learn a lot you will learn that you don't know what's impossible in the naturalistic environment until you completely understand it.
No: "God made it" doesn't count as personal understanding, but if you want to give me God's number, it does mean that He Knows.
these four words also happen to be the most concise and abridged version of "The Last 2000 Years of History".
and still, in every one of those cases and in every case to come there is some corporate winner-loser complex sycophant that will tell you, "well, not this time."
Isn't it said now that insanity is doing the same thing again and again, getting the same result, and expecting a different result each time?
It has to be pointed out because so many people act like it's a "theory" that is still mere speculation.
They act like we are saying we are claiming this phenomenon is caused by lack of ethics... no, it's caused by the environment a monopolist finds themeselves in. It's one where there is no near term return on making improvements, and near-term is the only term these days. The ethics comes in when you break the law to get into the monopoly environment, but once there, legally or illegally, innovation slows.
It's simple, run a 1 mile race with others, you will do your best. Run a 1 mile race alone, you may walk a few laps. Hell, you are still going to win.
... when I'm at the next Wolfram Church meeting... :) seriously, I have read A New Kind of Science and fell in love with cellular automata back in the 80's as I fell in love with other recursive and feedback related phenomenon. But I havn't followed Wolfram closely, so I only know the hype.
Tell me, what about him being a genius. Is he?
(It's possible to be a genuis and also steal the work of others... basically if not all the good stuff is stolen) Wouldn't make him less of an ass if what you say is true, but I'm curious if you also would debunk his repuatation as something of a uniquely brilliant (if eccentric) mind.
???
what if our minds are quantum computers, then normal computers would never be able to match them, in all liklihood. There are a lot of unknown possibilities like that.
are merely programs that are arranged in a spacial grid such that they have neighbors.
The behavior of the program is limited the state of it's neighbors. Often these things are arranged in a grid of pixels, for example, and a cell might have the rule of being on if exactly half it's neighbors are on, and off otherwise. Or any rule you might think. They exhibit very interesting behavior.
Steven Wolfram, a young brilliant physicist and cosmologist that dropped out of science in the mid eightees, had made discoveries back then about interesting characteristics of cellular automata. He dropped out and continued his study, making a living selling the software he made for his own research needs, Mathematica. It's kind of a good geek legend like one on old.
Just last year he came out with the results of his work in "A New Kind of Science" which studies the patterns created by cellular phenomenon, and which includes admission that Worfram really believes the whole world comes down to cellular automata.
The idea that this theory would mean a computer could simulate people comes from the fact that cellular automata are easily simulated on a computer. Of course, that doesn't mean the computer could beat the human, it's running a simulation, one layer removed, it's like a VM, implimenting the machine all over again (as cellula automata) and then using it.
C and C++ inherently increase the risk of security problems because they don't check buffer bounds, so the program ends up with all of the security problems that would've existed in a buffer-safe langauge, plus buffer overflow vulnerabilities.
I want to know why the language should check for buffer bounds. I think a class system should do this. I think a class system knows (or can know) what the memory is for, or at least the pattern of it's usage, and these are assumptions you do not want to make at the language level.
Why is your argument to use a different language, when you could easily just adopt the policy of using a particular memory management strategy, in class you write or buy.
As far as being happy they found a buffer overflow, imagine how happy I was to find a memory leak in a java program! well, not too happy actually.
Is that is... the contest is which renders an 8-way box helpless? Java vs. .NET?
I'm just trying to figure out what was so bad about C++ that some nice class systems wouldn't solve. And wondering if some such class system has yet to be written.
the hard part will be the special effects.
a lot of lintel servers are sold these days. There are other BIOSes that will work. It might balkanize things more, so that people can't turn a Windows computer into a linux computer later... but then, I doubt it will get that far. Phoenix has no reason to lose Lintel business.
and isn't it ironic that what made them insanely rich (working in an open bizarre environment) just isn't good enough for them now? As if they think, "you know where we blew it? we never came out with our own version of the Lisa."
is that Phoenix won't be the top BIOS maker if they try to make it so that intel machines will boot only windows.
So, in fact, I predict that isn't the real goal.
Phoenix has been making a lot of noise about updating the BIOS... spruce it up, it makes sense to be able to talk to the BIOS which is there all the time, it makes sense to have a smarter BIOS for grids and redundant system and in general.
I'm not debunking the paranoia, however, I think we ought to keep our eyes peeled. But there is enough lintel business right now that such a BIOS would be a dead end.
except the complete machine state is not all stored in regular memory... some is stored in the hardware... that is, hardware has to be re-inited... this is a hard to do in general, though when you ahve a system that is working this way, it seems easy... but that's just because it's working.
I was having lunch with a PhD and an intern that had been working for him. This PhD works in a very advanced area of engineering optics.
.edu if appropriate (e.g. good medical statistics, descriptions, etc, at harvard.edu and ucsf.edu).
... or you want to know more about some obscure musician (Syd Barret)... well in the old days you would hunt for years for books, you would get lousy information and no way to know it was lousy.
.com, .net, .org.
We were asking this question about information on the internet, my position was that there really was all the information you could want, if you have the skills to separate the crap from the good stuff... but sometimes even that is done for you by doing searches on
The PhD said sure, but not really, the really latest and more hard hitting stuff was not on the net. The intern pointed out that HIS papers were all on the net, and all the paper of his colleagues were on the net... in fact, there are not that many books since it's a somewhat esoteric specialty (although it's involves billions of dollars and national security). He had to say, "good point".
I'm an info junke and just old enough to have had to feed my craving with libraries. It doesn't matter what it is... you want to know the life cycle of lice (don't ask)
Now it's the internet. The internet will even help you find what book to get when you do need a classic reference. There really his no question to small, or BIG.
Of course, you do need the love of info because there is a lot of sifting to be done to get the good stuff from
>The only way to get around this is to claim that all GPLed code has really been put in the public domain (against the specific written intent of the copyright holders).
I cannot point you directly to the quotes, but this is exactly what they mean by the GPL not standing up. It is bizarre. And it seems based on the common fallacy of thinking that once you have the code you are in the clear... the idea that it's not illegal to possess copyrighted material, just to recieve it. Somehow, they think they can invalidate the GPL in the sense that there are no possible monetary damages. I.e. the damages of violating the GPL have no monetary value and therefore are nothing to worry about.
It may be true about the monetary damages (but I doubt it... there are other ways to set value to the code, e.g. you can use SCOs $1400/CPU figure. ) Anyway, even if that's true it's clear that you would be enjoined from using the GPLed code... you might not get a penny, but at the very least the user would have to stop using the code.
Now a lost of IANAL types makes this mistake, and quite a few lawyers will argue it for a fee, but there is no way it will come down like that in court.
no doubt, a big mixed bag... but you can't rule blaming someone else out! It might actually be their fault.
but that's not too helpful
>Sad. I always thought of learning as something that makes you human (as opposed to insects? viruses?), not rich or job-secure.
NOT rich. learning something makes you not rich, not job-secure.
No. This isn't naive, which I first thought, but it is misquided. Learning something does make you human, that is to say, it justified having a brain about 90% too big by general mamillian concensus, but it's primary purpose, the thing that brain exists to enable, is learning to make you job-secure, and basically that is rich.
Make yourself special
Making himself special is the granparent poster's problem. He figured out the things his employers needed, they upgraded their system and didn't upgrade him. It's about education. When you know a technical niche, it's much more general that you think, other products use the same few principles, actual fundamentals enter in slowly. You can apply the principles of one machine to another with great success, but it's dangerous to do on the clock. People need to be educated between jobs to help them map their skills... they are not students of the cultural trends so it's best for the culture to ensure people learn the next thing.
It's not all new by a long shot.