I wouldn't be so happy about this if I were you. If this trend continues, it's only a matter of time until open source artists like you get branded as "just another bunch of pirates" by big media and subsequently the government.
I think you're confusing algebra with elementary algebra. FYI, algebra provides sufficient tools for building a Turing-complete programming language and also any program written in any Turing-complete language can be expressed in terms of algebra.
I'm not sure, but I think that's why they call the medium a "programming language". It isn't devoid of math or logic -- far from it -- but it isn't the same thing, either, and a person good at real mathematics can easily suck at programming or vice versa.
Math itself is a language. Programming languages are just some of its many dialects.
So are idiots in america viewing this as a freedom of speech issue.
What is it then if not a freedom of speech issue? The only effective way to fight idiocy is to drag it to broad daylight and humiliate it publicly. If you can't criticize others because you might hurt their feelings, they'll never find out there's something wrong. Yes, the movie is retarded and offensive, but you're free to just ignore it or you can respond with another movie that's even more retarded and offensive to the other side.
As long as there are huge masses of people who are willing to kill over a retarded movie, this kind of retarded movies will need to be made. I know it sucks to be caught in the crossfire between two camps of retards but the alternative to a little disgust is to stay sorrounded by retards forever.
I'm geeky enough to read slashdot, and even I don't understand the real use-case of "decentralized social networking".
May I suggest you watch episode 2 of Your Face is a Saxophone? Mark Zuckerberg makes an appearance and shows a very real use case for decentralized social networking.
Current OSs offer very little in the way of actually restricting applications. If you execute an application from a third party, it can do quite literally what it wants. Even Open Source doesn't help much as you have no time to audit it all. At best it might not have root rights, but that still doesn't stop it from searching through your personal photo collection, your credit card info, your mail and all that stuff.
Ever heard of AppArmor? It comes with a nice little tool which lets you interactively decide which files and directories will the software be allowed to access.
AFAIK nobody is preventing you from making your own computer that will run any program you want. Nobody is preventing you from designing your own microprocessors and any other component for which you can do computation. Nobody is preventing you from writing the software to do whatever computation you want.
Actually, it's already a criminal offence to run some programs (DRM crackers etc.). I say we'll see the first attempt to seriously enforce laws against running certain kinds of offline software (as opposed to online software like filesharing tools) by 2020.
Pretty big part of the sea ecosystem can exist without any plants because many species of phytoplankton are not plants. It's also known that first multicelled organisms developed in late Precambrian but the oldest known fossils of plants come from much later in Cambrian. Plants are not the only autotrophic organisms out there.
Food had to exist, what does "favorite food" has to do with anything? Food has to exist before humans, period. It doesn't matter what the food is. I can't tell if you're trolling, or really that stupid.
I'm not trolling, just pointing out a flaw in reasoning. There are many species which are dependent on single source of food (eg. koalas). But it's perfectly reasonable that these species originally ate something different and then adapted for whatever reason to eating exclusively whatever they eat now.
Logically it makes sense that the things that are lower on the food chain have to come before the things that will eat them. If somebody made a story where humans were created before their food or land they live on were created, people would scratch their heads.
It happens to line up with science, because what do you know, plants had to have existed before animals because there would have been no other way for animals to sustain themselves otherwise, just like the storytellers thousands of years ago hypothesized.
So you say that Americans evolved *AFTER* somebody else invented french fries and hamburgers? FYI, any living organism that moves can also change their favorite food.
Drink four liters of water each day, and you will probably die.
Nah, 4 liters a day is not a problem unless you drink it all at once. Granted, it's not particularly healthy but it won't harm you that much. On the other hand, if you need to drink that much water without doing some heavy physical activity or staying in very hot locations, you should definitely go see a doctor because it might be a sign of diabetes. Still, drinking too much salt-free water all at once can really kill you because it will upset the balance of electrolytes in your body.
I'll see your stratospheric warming and raise you a missing tropospheric hot spot.
What missing tropospheric hot spot? Upper troposphere temperatures in tropical regions are withing tolerance of the hot spot prediction. Perhaps a little close to the lower bound but still within tolerance.
Likewise absence of significant warming in last 15 years,
You've got to be kidding me. Do you even understand what that sentence means? Statistical significance says nothing about how big the value is. It says whether or not you have enough data to use the value as a valid argument.
It's a hilariously distant leap of logic. Real scientists will try to correlate power output, fuel burned, soot and CO2 and methane and water vapor in the atmosphere, etc with their heat-trapping and heat-reflecting effects, and show a model that then predicts weather pattern changes based on these things. If that model holds, global warming due to such factors; if it doesn't, then global warming is possibly real (look, it's getting hotter) but the idea of it being caused by human meddling with the atmospheric composition is a myth. That's how science works: we see these things, hypothesize these effects, then point at the changes and say this is what will happen... it happens, we're right; if not, we try again.
That in mind, global warming science is a lot of double-think bullshit. The scientists can't get the model to work quite right, and keep changing it. We're learning new things all the time, and refining our understanding of all this stuff... but while we don't understand it and are continuously wrong in our predictions, we swear that we see proof about some fuzzy concept in front of us. That's not science, it's religion. Cult of global warming.
Interesting. How do you explain stratospheric cooling which has been directly observed in the past few decades then? Note that stratospheric cooling is inconsistent with any natural cause of global warming.
What does a heat wave (consecutive days over 100F)
Since when does "many consecutive days over 100F" qualify as a valid definition of "heat wave"? There are places on this planet where 100F means "fucking cold" during summer. According to the article about Marble Bar "heat wave", Marble Bar is one of them.
Say goodbye to job-based globalised economy. Say hello to self-sufficient city communities. Being unemployed is not a problem when you don't need money.
a capitalist wants a marketplace of equals competing (which is only maintained by health regulations)
No. Capitalist is a player on the market. All players on the market (well, maybe except for a few idealists who are on their way to a nasty collision with reality) want to win. And to win means to destroy the market for everybody else. You can't seriously believe that any average capitalist would willingly give up big unfair advantage for the sake of fair competition?
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be so happy about this if I were you. If this trend continues, it's only a matter of time until open source artists like you get branded as "just another bunch of pirates" by big media and subsequently the government.
Programming isn't algebra, it is metaphor.
I think you're confusing algebra with elementary algebra. FYI, algebra provides sufficient tools for building a Turing-complete programming language and also any program written in any Turing-complete language can be expressed in terms of algebra.
I'm not sure, but I think that's why they call the medium a "programming language". It isn't devoid of math or logic -- far from it -- but it isn't the same thing, either, and a person good at real mathematics can easily suck at programming or vice versa.
Math itself is a language. Programming languages are just some of its many dialects.
So are idiots in america viewing this as a freedom of speech issue.
What is it then if not a freedom of speech issue? The only effective way to fight idiocy is to drag it to broad daylight and humiliate it publicly. If you can't criticize others because you might hurt their feelings, they'll never find out there's something wrong. Yes, the movie is retarded and offensive, but you're free to just ignore it or you can respond with another movie that's even more retarded and offensive to the other side.
As long as there are huge masses of people who are willing to kill over a retarded movie, this kind of retarded movies will need to be made. I know it sucks to be caught in the crossfire between two camps of retards but the alternative to a little disgust is to stay sorrounded by retards forever.
Exactly. Microsoft's success isn't due to any kind of product superiority. It's all about market inertia and snowball effect.
But then you'll miss the first appearance of Mark Zuckerberg in the episode and a whole lot of fun on top.
I'm geeky enough to read slashdot, and even I don't understand the real use-case of "decentralized social networking".
May I suggest you watch episode 2 of Your Face is a Saxophone? Mark Zuckerberg makes an appearance and shows a very real use case for decentralized social networking.
What compiler decoration? AppArmor plugs into the kernel and hooks directly into filesystem syscalls. No special support of/from compilers is needed.
Current OSs offer very little in the way of actually restricting applications. If you execute an application from a third party, it can do quite literally what it wants. Even Open Source doesn't help much as you have no time to audit it all. At best it might not have root rights, but that still doesn't stop it from searching through your personal photo collection, your credit card info, your mail and all that stuff.
Ever heard of AppArmor? It comes with a nice little tool which lets you interactively decide which files and directories will the software be allowed to access.
AFAIK nobody is preventing you from making your own computer that will run any program you want. Nobody is preventing you from designing your own microprocessors and any other component for which you can do computation. Nobody is preventing you from writing the software to do whatever computation you want.
Actually, it's already a criminal offence to run some programs (DRM crackers etc.). I say we'll see the first attempt to seriously enforce laws against running certain kinds of offline software (as opposed to online software like filesharing tools) by 2020.
The easy solution is to not leave the content you've paid for tied to some account maintained by big corporations.
Pretty big part of the sea ecosystem can exist without any plants because many species of phytoplankton are not plants. It's also known that first multicelled organisms developed in late Precambrian but the oldest known fossils of plants come from much later in Cambrian. Plants are not the only autotrophic organisms out there.
Food had to exist, what does "favorite food" has to do with anything? Food has to exist before humans, period. It doesn't matter what the food is. I can't tell if you're trolling, or really that stupid.
I'm not trolling, just pointing out a flaw in reasoning. There are many species which are dependent on single source of food (eg. koalas). But it's perfectly reasonable that these species originally ate something different and then adapted for whatever reason to eating exclusively whatever they eat now.
Logically it makes sense that the things that are lower on the food chain have to come before the things that will eat them. If somebody made a story where humans were created before their food or land they live on were created, people would scratch their heads.
It happens to line up with science, because what do you know, plants had to have existed before animals because there would have been no other way for animals to sustain themselves otherwise, just like the storytellers thousands of years ago hypothesized.
So you say that Americans evolved *AFTER* somebody else invented french fries and hamburgers? FYI, any living organism that moves can also change their favorite food.
Drink four liters of water each day, and you will probably die.
Nah, 4 liters a day is not a problem unless you drink it all at once. Granted, it's not particularly healthy but it won't harm you that much. On the other hand, if you need to drink that much water without doing some heavy physical activity or staying in very hot locations, you should definitely go see a doctor because it might be a sign of diabetes. Still, drinking too much salt-free water all at once can really kill you because it will upset the balance of electrolytes in your body.
That's the definition from the referenced (WUWT) blog post,
Do I really need to point out that I read that blog post?
I'll see your stratospheric warming and raise you a missing tropospheric hot spot.
What missing tropospheric hot spot? Upper troposphere temperatures in tropical regions are withing tolerance of the hot spot prediction. Perhaps a little close to the lower bound but still within tolerance.
Likewise absence of significant warming in last 15 years,
You've got to be kidding me. Do you even understand what that sentence means? Statistical significance says nothing about how big the value is. It says whether or not you have enough data to use the value as a valid argument.
You're not getting the point.
Are you trying to imply global warming is nothing to worry about?
No.
It's a hilariously distant leap of logic. Real scientists will try to correlate power output, fuel burned, soot and CO2 and methane and water vapor in the atmosphere, etc with their heat-trapping and heat-reflecting effects, and show a model that then predicts weather pattern changes based on these things. If that model holds, global warming due to such factors; if it doesn't, then global warming is possibly real (look, it's getting hotter) but the idea of it being caused by human meddling with the atmospheric composition is a myth. That's how science works: we see these things, hypothesize these effects, then point at the changes and say this is what will happen... it happens, we're right; if not, we try again.
That in mind, global warming science is a lot of double-think bullshit. The scientists can't get the model to work quite right, and keep changing it. We're learning new things all the time, and refining our understanding of all this stuff... but while we don't understand it and are continuously wrong in our predictions, we swear that we see proof about some fuzzy concept in front of us. That's not science, it's religion. Cult of global warming.
Interesting. How do you explain stratospheric cooling which has been directly observed in the past few decades then? Note that stratospheric cooling is inconsistent with any natural cause of global warming.
What does a heat wave (consecutive days over 100F)
Since when does "many consecutive days over 100F" qualify as a valid definition of "heat wave"? There are places on this planet where 100F means "fucking cold" during summer. According to the article about Marble Bar "heat wave", Marble Bar is one of them.
However, just like with any other career, you don't get to decide the exact terms of the switch on your own.
What if there are no paying jobs that can't be done by machines? Because current trends seem to point to this being the case.
Depends. If those machines are so cheap that everybody can have one and keep it running all day long 365 days a year, it's not a problem.
Say goodbye to job-based globalised economy. Say hello to self-sufficient city communities. Being unemployed is not a problem when you don't need money.
a capitalist wants a marketplace of equals competing (which is only maintained by health regulations)
No. Capitalist is a player on the market. All players on the market (well, maybe except for a few idealists who are on their way to a nasty collision with reality) want to win. And to win means to destroy the market for everybody else. You can't seriously believe that any average capitalist would willingly give up big unfair advantage for the sake of fair competition?
removing the government and regulations just makes the large corporations become the de-facto government!
FTFY