the state of the machine created by the program no longer matches the state the new program would create.
And also, you are looking at a special case, and making "it work" does not cover all cases, just the one you are working with, with it's specific inputs.
But go ahead and do it... it's just that that's the problem.
Basically, people that shotgun (not what you are saying nec.) and are happy when "it works" usually have not made it work, they have just seen it work. If this is OK probably depends on the complexity and variance of the input information.
btw... when it says to me "Geek"... is it saying you are a geek, or is that what I am for compiling someone's sig (thank god it wasn't a virus!)...
of course, if I were truly geekorific I would have simply read it and the word Geek would have appeared in my head.
btw, I actually understand people prefering printf over dbx... line oriented debuggers are tedious and you can usually get away with printf-style. But using a graphical debugger is really only tedious if you hate the code and don't want to become familiar with it!
And of course... tedious is not always a bad word, people should be familiar with whatever debugger they have available as there are some things you will only catch with a debugger.
twill be astounding to see the first quantum computers solve these problems in seconds.
Yes, you can see, I've bought the promises... I mean, look how far they have gotten so far... quantum computing is in the future. No doubt at that point you don't bother writing algorythms, you breed them.
>Well, not quite... Most licenses are terminal, if you use the code, you cannot distribute your derivative work.
You just need permission from the owner. The conditions are stated in advance, a private party will negotiate personal terms.
>They are not viral because they cannot propagate.
Of course they propogate. They are all over. Resellers, OEMs. Within a biological metaphor piracy is also an actual means of propogation fitting your definition of it.
first off, to not pose: I'm a software engineer, not an Astronomer, though my statement of what was "considered less likely" is based on what I've been recently told by astonomers I work with.
This was an interesting read, though as I said, it was found just through a google search.
I admit it's all speculation and half of it I don't claim to actually understand to the level of making a good argument.
But think of a couple things. One, it's not about perfect instruments, it's about instruments that are good enough to see what you are looking for. If I have ten marbles in a dish, but it weighs as much as twenty... I know I should see the extra marbles if they are ordinary marbles. We are not talking about a little bit of missing mass, we are talking about a huge bit of missing mass.
Another, it's about what you do see. For example, there cannot be a diffuse gas in the galaxies to cause this effect because (a) it would not have enough mass and (b) you could see absorption lines of the gas.
It's not like we are looking for something small, remember... we're looking for something big! Something with a lot of mass that for some reason doesn't or can't glow.
And of course I agree that relatively exotic dark matter cannot be the only source of dark matter, some is just undetected baryonic matter. The rub is that it doesn't seem there could be enough of that to account for all the dark matter, a significan portion looks to be something exotic or at least non-baryonic.
odd to me because you are saying that this placebo worked very well. Why would that be. Why is the confidence in aluminum high enough for it to work, and if these people are crazy, why would they suddenly stop hearing the voices or noticing their symptoms?
Dark matter must either be some strange particle, or must be a change in the laws of gravatation (the latter is considered not likely).
Cool baryonic matter not emitting much light has been eliminated from the possibility of accounting for all the "missing mass". A more promising idea is something non-baryonic but massive, like a massive neutrino. Well, more actually than just one of those.
For more information try google "non-baryonic dark.matter" or "baryonic dark.matter".
It's amazing really, astronomy is still at the forefront of physics here on earth, when they figure out what dark matter is and can reproduce that here on earth, it's likely to be one of the biggest things in physics (for a while).
(1) I agree with your implicit point about ESR... he sucks live maggots through a hose, surely, to offer immature comments as "analysis".
(2) I don't think the equine is dead yet, the equine is Microsoft, right, and they are hardly breaking a sweat, and if they are, it's from their own girth and not from "the beating" that they have yet to recieve.
Can't they just track them with the chip they've implanted in their brain that shocks them whenever they think unkind thoughts about their elected officials?
----
a: "excuse me, why do you want a GPS in every vehicle in the state which is directly monitored by the government?"
b: "um... eh, heh heh, well... um to track... eh, Road Usage... that's it! And think of the children." (--- I think a there is a pacific coast congressman that just might want to know where the fsck his wife drives off to at 11pm every thursday! but just a guess.)
>And product activation sucks but so does having perhaps the most pirated piece of software in the world so you really can't blame them.
I disagree. It rocks. And if you don't agree show me a software product so popular that it was this widely pirated that did not also make tons of cash. Quake is another example. And as for MS, they are on my side of the argument and in the age when they had competition they always had the weakest copy protection.
>People will find any excuse to rag on Microsoft. News flash: it's 2002, not 1992. Microsoft-bashing is getting a little old.
roflmao. I see, so the longer we complain about putting up with them, the more we should just shut up an put up with them? No, you give in.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it... why have you not encapsulated the irritating little thing so it's decided once?!
Not a flame. Maybe an example of the sort of thing you are talking about.
>Get inside the game, then start picking it apart.
the odd thing is they didn't decide to do that in 1995. They could own linux now. It may be too late now.
the state of the machine created by the program no longer matches the state the new program would create.
And also, you are looking at a special case, and making "it work" does not cover all cases, just the one you are working with, with it's specific inputs.
But go ahead and do it... it's just that that's the problem.
Basically, people that shotgun (not what you are saying nec.) and are happy when "it works" usually have not made it work, they have just seen it work. If this is OK probably depends on the complexity and variance of the input information.
concept nazi comment:
that's speeling nazi you are thinking of, not grammar nazi of.
In soviet russia Rubber Duck talks to YOU!
sig related comment... that IS the topic... cause... I just said so!
>(i ?i-4?100:65:10)
that's sick! which I mean as a compliment.
btw... when it says to me "Geek"... is it saying you are a geek, or is that what I am for compiling someone's sig (thank god it wasn't a virus!)...
of course, if I were truly geekorific I would have simply read it and the word Geek would have appeared in my head.
btw, I actually understand people prefering printf over dbx... line oriented debuggers are tedious and you can usually get away with printf-style. But using a graphical debugger is really only tedious if you hate the code and don't want to become familiar with it!
And of course... tedious is not always a bad word, people should be familiar with whatever debugger they have available as there are some things you will only catch with a debugger.
twill be astounding to see the first quantum computers solve these problems in seconds.
Yes, you can see, I've bought the promises... I mean, look how far they have gotten so far... quantum computing is in the future. No doubt at that point you don't bother writing algorythms, you breed them.
>Well, not quite... Most licenses are terminal, if you use the code, you cannot distribute your derivative work.
You just need permission from the owner. The conditions are stated in advance, a private party will negotiate personal terms.
>They are not viral because they cannot propagate.
Of course they propogate. They are all over. Resellers, OEMs. Within a biological metaphor piracy is also an actual means of propogation fitting your definition of it.
roflmao.
... fine, but then ALL licenses are viral, because that's how using licensed software is! The license goes with it!
just curious... what's the exactly right number of times to get high on hashish? I thought you might know.
no no no!
it's, in old sofiet russia, your children clone YOU!
aahh, much better.
first off, to not pose: I'm a software engineer, not an Astronomer, though my statement of what was "considered less likely" is based on what I've been recently told by astonomers I work with.
This was an interesting read, though as I said, it was found just through a google search.
I admit it's all speculation and half of it I don't claim to actually understand to the level of making a good argument.
But think of a couple things. One, it's not about perfect instruments, it's about instruments that are good enough to see what you are looking for. If I have ten marbles in a dish, but it weighs as much as twenty... I know I should see the extra marbles if they are ordinary marbles. We are not talking about a little bit of missing mass, we are talking about a huge bit of missing mass.
Another, it's about what you do see. For example, there cannot be a diffuse gas in the galaxies to cause this effect because (a) it would not have enough mass and (b) you could see absorption lines of the gas.
It's not like we are looking for something small, remember... we're looking for something big! Something with a lot of mass that for some reason doesn't or can't glow.
And of course I agree that relatively exotic dark matter cannot be the only source of dark matter, some is just undetected baryonic matter. The rub is that it doesn't seem there could be enough of that to account for all the dark matter, a significan portion looks to be something exotic or at least non-baryonic.
odd to me because you are saying that this placebo worked very well. Why would that be. Why is the confidence in aluminum high enough for it to work, and if these people are crazy, why would they suddenly stop hearing the voices or noticing their symptoms?
Maybe they should be wearing aluminum hats.
Dark matter must either be some strange particle, or must be a change in the laws of gravatation (the latter is considered not likely).
Cool baryonic matter not emitting much light has been eliminated from the possibility of accounting for all the "missing mass". A more promising idea is something non-baryonic but massive, like a massive neutrino. Well, more actually than just one of those.
For more information try google "non-baryonic dark.matter" or "baryonic dark.matter".
It's amazing really, astronomy is still at the forefront of physics here on earth, when they figure out what dark matter is and can reproduce that here on earth, it's likely to be one of the biggest things in physics (for a while).
oh, it was meant as an insult?!
I am so confused I don't know what to do.
(1) I agree with your implicit point about ESR... he sucks live maggots through a hose, surely, to offer immature comments as "analysis".
(2) I don't think the equine is dead yet, the equine is Microsoft, right, and they are hardly breaking a sweat, and if they are, it's from their own girth and not from "the beating" that they have yet to recieve.
(3) tangozone.com is down.
maybe if his comments were less inane! Or less sarcastic.
Can't they just track them with the chip they've implanted in their brain that shocks them whenever they think unkind thoughts about their elected officials?
----
a: "excuse me, why do you want a GPS in every vehicle in the state which is directly monitored by the government?"
b: "um... eh, heh heh, well... um to track... eh, Road Usage... that's it! And think of the children." (--- I think a there is a pacific coast congressman that just might want to know where the fsck his wife drives off to at 11pm every thursday! but just a guess.)
holy hell, I never thought of that! Heinlein would have known that implication. I'm not kidding. Did Heinlein intend this double meaning?
um, in Soviet Russia, IT fails YOU!!!
>And product activation sucks but so does having perhaps the most pirated piece of software in the world so you really can't blame them.
I disagree. It rocks. And if you don't agree show me a software product so popular that it was this widely pirated that did not also make tons of cash. Quake is another example. And as for MS, they are on my side of the argument and in the age when they had competition they always had the weakest copy protection.
>People will find any excuse to rag on Microsoft. News flash: it's 2002, not 1992. Microsoft-bashing is getting a little old.
roflmao. I see, so the longer we complain about putting up with them, the more we should just shut up an put up with them? No, you give in.
would you like a little Nuclear War with that sir?
As a New American I'm forced to ask you the following questions:
(1) why do you hate america so much? that is, what is it that you despise about freedom?
(2) if other countries are so great, why is America the only democracy in the world?
(3) how do YOU know what's going on in American society... are you some sort of SPY!?!?!?!
Have a nice day.
PS: satire+cynicism+sarcasm
it means: "please be quiet".
... and the amazing thing was that this dribbling fool also knows more than you about quantum mechanics, genetics, chemistry, and everything else!