Actually, it was an unexpected response as a consequence of the mission planners asking him to keep a secret from the rest of the crew, something his programming was unequipped to deal with (this is explicitly explained in the book... which, BTW, is basically essential to actually understanding the movie).
If you were using them for the lower parts of your DNS, now you've got to "rename" every device in the house.
Then suck it up and do it. The alternative is you have to remember a bunch of new IP addresses. The problem remains.
"Buy a domain name" you say?
Actually, I didn't say that, but nice strawman.:)
If your lightbulb is on a different subnet from the lightswitch,
And why oh why would they be on a different subnet to being with? Sounds like bad network engineering to me.
how will they discover eachother?
With a discovery protocol. You've heard of UPnP, right? Same basic idea. And in that case, neither the light bulb nor the switch need a DNS record, as they autodiscover (unless you want to address it directly for some reason).
For example, what happens in a state of emergency where many of the population can't receive a complete digital signal as disaster is bearing down on them?
If they can receive an analog signal, why can't they receive a digital one? I mean, the converters cost, what, $50? And for those that really don't want to drop the cash, there's still this other medium they could use: radio.
Second, what becomes of the electronic waste that will be generated when TVs lacking the capability of being upgraded (especially portable sets) are suddenly trashed at the same time?
Or they could just buy a digital decoder box and move on with their lives (although you're right about portable sets being a problem). And for those that do get thrown out, either they recycle or they go in the landfill (where, in all probability, they would've ended up, eventually, anyway).
Finally, there's the question of the intent behind this transition.
To free up spectrum so it isn't being wasted on analog television, and thus can be used for more interesting applications. And as a bonusm the government gets to auction it off for a nice little windfall.
Yes, believe it or not, there's an explanation that *doesn't* require you to tighten up your tinfoil hat.
Uhh... exactly. So what? Do you have trouble remember the address to your house? How does adding one more qualifier (the specific device) make that more difficult?
Or you could use this other nifty thing: a DNS entry.
Seriously, if you're in the position to need to reference things by IP address, then you should be capable of handling a hex-encoded IPv6 address. Otherwise, DNS is your friend.
'fraid not. As another poster above pointed out, imagine you have galaxies A, B, and C. A and B are some distance X light years away from each other (say, 13.7 billion light years, the radius of the observable universe). B and C are the same distance from each other. The gravitational interaction takes X years to travel from A -> B. Then the information about the interaction takes X years to travel from B -> C. But at the same time, C should be experiencing the gravitational forces from A, since that takes 2X years (the distance from A -> B and B -> C). In other words, by the time C observes the gravitational force of A interacting with B, C's observable universe has expanded to include A.
Modifying gravity doesn't appear to consistently explain all the gravitational behavior we observe.
In fact, it actually *can't*. Once again, I cite the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025 results. As this researcher put it, "Nevertheless, the most straightforward interpretation is that there is indeed unseen mass.", and "It does add something new, and that is that whatever that mass is, it is not collisional." Incidentally, his position is that CDM is still not the answer, and that the real solution is a combination of MOND plus some sort of non-interacting mass (eg, WIMPs). But given whatever is there is a) invisible, and b) collisionless, that proves that there's *something* out there that qualifies as dark matter, even if you're unwilling to believe that it is the sole explanation for the missing mass problem.
In summary: for those of you complaining that dark matter resembles aether: you're wrong. It exists. It's existence has been demonstrated in real results. No one credible is denying this fact any longer.
I have a 27" TV in my livingroom. I sit between 8-11 feet away from it (depending on where I sit my ass down). There's no way in hell I'd *ever* notice the difference between SD and HD at those viewing angles. That's the simple reality. So unless I plan to get a 50" TV, or move my couch, HD just ain't worth it. And the fact is, that's true for most people. Basically, unless you have a mid-range home theatre system, HD simply isn't worth the trouble (and it's a lot of trouble).
Re:I got modded flame-bait last time I said this
on
Bad Signs For Blu-ray
·
· Score: 1
Why would we buy a CD?
Because you don't have to rewind them. And you get instant seek time. And they don't wear out over time. And to top it off, they sound a lot better.
Sound familiar? Because it should. These are the exact same reasons people switched from VHS -> DVD.
Now, do you have a similarly compelling list to justify the transition from DVD -> BR? Because I sure as hell don't.
We also have a government that passed laws like the Community Reinvestment Act (and others) that effectively required banks to make loans to riskier borrowers.
There was no law on the books that forced banks to give out the kind of shit loans they were giving out. Show me one law, one piece of legislation, that required interest-only, negative amortization, or punitive ARM loans, and I'll be incredibly shocked.
The banks new full well what they were doing, and they were fully consenting partners in the real estate circle jerk.
Problem is the government decided to deregulate the secondary mortgage market. Had they not done that, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Without consequences, where's the incentive for individuals and businesses to play by the rules?
Problem: there are not fucking rules. Fundamentally, that's the issue. Had the government not deregulated, we wouldn't be here today. Put the blame where the blame is due: squarely on the head of Alan Greenspan and his lackeys.
whether not bailing out the banks would "torpedo the whole economy
It would. Don't bail out the banks and suddenly huge numbers of institutions would become insolvent. The credit crunch and subsequent economic decline would be truly devastating. The fact you don't realize this just demonstrates that you're not sufficiently educated to have an opinion on the topic.
Ahhh, but the government *mandated* that the banks had to make mortgages available to low-income people
The government didn't mandate the banks give out interesting-only, or worse, negative amortization loans to people. Or mislead people into ARMs that, after adjustment, they couldn't afford.
There's blame to go around everywhere. The government didn't sufficiently regulate the secondary mortgage market. The banks gave out bad loans. And the people took them. That's the reality.
No one wants to talk about why these people were even eligible in the first place
Uhh, because the banks were making money hand over fist by issuing those loans and then reselling them on the secondary mortgage market. Sorry bud, the banks got into that deal with their eyes *wide* open. They new exactly what they were doing, they just *didn't care*.
The reason this shit keeps happening is because the government keeps stepping in and removing the consequences of peoples' decisions
No, the reason this "keeps happening" is because the fucking government opts to take a hands off approach to the market, and it goes running off a cliff. And I don't for one second believe they did it because they figured the government would bail them out. No... I think they did it because they were so blinded by greed that they didn't want to believe their house of cards would fall down.
Seriously, if you sign a mortgage and don't understand what you're signing, you're a fucking idiot
Unless the bank lies or otherwise misleads you into taking a mortgage you can't afford, and convinces you that house prices will never decline so it's no big deal anyway.
Again, there's blame to go around everywhere. You irrational (frankly borderline racist) hatred toward minority homeowners doesn't change that fact.
But history has shown that threat of foreclosure just isn't a good enough deterrent for lots of people.
No kidding. If your house is under water, and your equity is complete wiped out, what reason do you have to hold on to the home? Answer: zero, zilch, none. In fact, it makes absolutely *no financial sense* to stay in a deal like that, particularly if you're younger, as long term, even with the damage that a bankruptcy can do to one's credit rating, it's still cheaper to send jingle mail and move on.
And fundamentally this is the problem. Banks gave out mortgages on terms that meant people had no equity in the homes. Interest-only loans? *Negative amortization*? Seriously?? It makes no sense if your goal is to keep people in their properties. But that wasn't the goal. The goal was to put one more card on the stack and see if the whole thing'll keep standing.
Absolutely. The idea that election boundaries are under the control of the people in power is so hilariously stupid it's hard to believe. Why on earth doesn't the US have something akin to Elections Canada? Move the power to determine things like election boundaries (and, IMHO, campaign finance... but I'm a "money is NOT speech" kind of guy... what can I say, I'm a crazy "socialist":) into a transparent, non-partisan body, and I guarantee you it'll eliminate all sorts of problems with the US electoral system.
'course, AFAICT, this would require an amendment to the constitution, and something tells me we're more likely to see pigs fly than to see something like that pass.
Or the cable burns up on reentry and a puff of carbon dust manages to reach the ground.
Honestly, every time space elevators come up, some knob like yourself brings up the "extinction level event" BS, even though it's been pointed out time and time again that it just wouldn't happen that way. So, are you actively ignoring people? Do you not believe them? HIBT?
Heh, touche.:) Although, I would contend that, given an SQL expression and a table of data, an individual will still understand the results of that statement by performing the operations procedurally. 'course, that could be my own shortsightedness creeping through.
My example was meant to show how non programmers would think of the definition of a data type,
Interesting, I didn't see that example as defining a data type. I saw it as selecting a subset of data from a larger set. Furthermore, I don't think of declaring or defining data types as computing... in my mind, computing is the act of taking inputs, performing operations, and generating outputs. Data types are merely decorations in order to perform those tasks.
But, again, I may be betraying my own ignorance, here. It certainly seems like Ocaml, Haskell, and other languages, take datatypes to a level with which I am unfamiliar.
If you're talking about "one's everyday life", you can't include programming, because in the real world people don't do programming.
I disagree. Right now I can show you an everyday example of imperative "programming". Just go to your cupboard and pull out a cookbook. Okay, now open up your school math textbook and see how it explains to factor a quadratic equation. These things are examples of "computing" in real world... they are algorithms for completing some task.
So how 'bout a functional example where people "compute" (ie, take inputs, perform some operations, and generate outputs) in a functional sense?
The average everyday human being don't do programming, bud.
That's kinda the point.:) My original supposition was this: the human mind is better suited to thinking procedurally because that's what we encounter in everyday life.
Yes, you can train a programmer to think functionally (just like you can teach a right-handed person to use their left). But I contend that it's not immediately natural or intuitive because the human mind is accustomed to thinking procedurally. And this is why functional languages have taken a back seat to procedural ones... in the end, procedural programming is simply more intuitive.
As for definitions, as I've said elsewhere, people aren't used to defining computation in terms of definitions (which harks back to my original supposition). Find me a real world, non-computing example where people encounter a functional/declarative model, and I'll be surprised.
As for Monads, fundamentally, I think my problem is that I insist on understanding *how* and *why* mechanisms in a language work. I'm not happy just using Monads in order to activate side-effects in a pure functional language. I insist on understanding how Monads work, and why they work. Problem is, *that* isn't so easy to explain, at least in my experience (though, the fact that monads were invented by mathematicians and computing researchers probably doesn't help... far too many explanations go into the computational and algebraic theory behind monads, which I couldn't give a crap about).
You'd be hard pressed to find someone thinking of the age groups in their country using a "for..next" model.
Are you sure? When I examine an SQL statement, I specifically think about it in terms of how the data is processed. In my head, I imagine the database going through the My_Country table and pulling entries that match the select clause, then grouping them accordingly.
In short, just because the statement is declarative, doesn't mean people, in general, don't think of it in terms of a procedural, step-wise process. *You* might not, but I bet if you took a survey of 1000 programmers, a large number of them would examine SQL expressions in procedural terms.
Meanwhile, I said "normal, everyday situation", not "normal, DBA situation".:) My original point was that the human mind is strongly biased toward thinking of algorithms in an imperative mindset, and that functional thinking is atypical. Oddly, no one yet has provided an actual *real world* example of functional/declarative computation in one's everyday life. Until that example is provided, I think my point still stands: functional programming is not analogous to anything in typical human experience, and so it takes specific training and effort to think in such a model.
Well, to me, it is, although I'm obviously biased. Still, it's important to note that terseness doesn't equate to intuitiveness. Yeah, the Haskell version is shorter, but just looking at the code, I haven't a clue how it works. Worst case with the imperative version, I can take a list and walk through each step of the algorithm in order to understand what's happening. Not so with the Haskell implementation (again, at least in my mind, although it's clear it's firmly locked in the imperative world).
but we'd weather it, just like we weathered eight years of Bush.
You mean you'd have another economic meltdown, and meanwhile your constitutional rights would further be stripped away? Sounds like something to be scared of to me...
Right, so that fits with my understanding. Given an operation F, you pass in some state, the operation is performed, and the output is a modified state (eg, the cursor is moved to the next line, etc). So the state is the monad? And in the case of Haskell, where is the state? Is it implicit? Explicit, and I just didn't notice it?
Incidentally, I still don't think this is terribly intuitive... I've just spent a lot of time trying to "get" it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it was an unexpected response as a consequence of the mission planners asking him to keep a secret from the rest of the crew, something his programming was unequipped to deal with (this is explicitly explained in the book... which, BTW, is basically essential to actually understanding the movie).
But, yeah, still a bug. :)
If you were using them for the lower parts of your DNS, now you've got to "rename" every device in the house.
Then suck it up and do it. The alternative is you have to remember a bunch of new IP addresses. The problem remains.
"Buy a domain name" you say?
Actually, I didn't say that, but nice strawman. :)
If your lightbulb is on a different subnet from the lightswitch,
And why oh why would they be on a different subnet to being with? Sounds like bad network engineering to me.
how will they discover eachother?
With a discovery protocol. You've heard of UPnP, right? Same basic idea. And in that case, neither the light bulb nor the switch need a DNS record, as they autodiscover (unless you want to address it directly for some reason).
For example, what happens in a state of emergency where many of the population can't receive a complete digital signal as disaster is bearing down on them?
If they can receive an analog signal, why can't they receive a digital one? I mean, the converters cost, what, $50? And for those that really don't want to drop the cash, there's still this other medium they could use: radio.
Second, what becomes of the electronic waste that will be generated when TVs lacking the capability of being upgraded (especially portable sets) are suddenly trashed at the same time?
Or they could just buy a digital decoder box and move on with their lives (although you're right about portable sets being a problem). And for those that do get thrown out, either they recycle or they go in the landfill (where, in all probability, they would've ended up, eventually, anyway).
Finally, there's the question of the intent behind this transition.
To free up spectrum so it isn't being wasted on analog television, and thus can be used for more interesting applications. And as a bonusm the government gets to auction it off for a nice little windfall.
Yes, believe it or not, there's an explanation that *doesn't* require you to tighten up your tinfoil hat.
be--ltweeter.livingroom.myhouse.mycity.mystate.myisp.com
Uhh... exactly. So what? Do you have trouble remember the address to your house? How does adding one more qualifier (the specific device) make that more difficult?
False dichotomy. Did it occur to you that manufacturers could do *both*?
Or you could use this other nifty thing: a DNS entry.
Seriously, if you're in the position to need to reference things by IP address, then you should be capable of handling a hex-encoded IPv6 address. Otherwise, DNS is your friend.
Wow, talk about epic quoting fail. Oh well, you get the idea. :)
Dark matter is a pretty reasonable hypothesis, my main objection is that in the 90-some years since it's inception
No matter how many times you say that, you're still wrong.
'fraid not. As another poster above pointed out, imagine you have galaxies A, B, and C. A and B are some distance X light years away from each other (say, 13.7 billion light years, the radius of the observable universe). B and C are the same distance from each other. The gravitational interaction takes X years to travel from A -> B. Then the information about the interaction takes X years to travel from B -> C. But at the same time, C should be experiencing the gravitational forces from A, since that takes 2X years (the distance from A -> B and B -> C). In other words, by the time C observes the gravitational force of A interacting with B, C's observable universe has expanded to include A.
Modifying gravity doesn't appear to consistently explain all the gravitational behavior we observe.
In fact, it actually *can't*. Once again, I cite the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025 results. As this researcher put it, "Nevertheless, the most straightforward interpretation is that there is indeed unseen mass.", and "It does add something new, and that is that whatever that mass is, it is not collisional." Incidentally, his position is that CDM is still not the answer, and that the real solution is a combination of MOND plus some sort of non-interacting mass (eg, WIMPs). But given whatever is there is a) invisible, and b) collisionless, that proves that there's *something* out there that qualifies as dark matter, even if you're unwilling to believe that it is the sole explanation for the missing mass problem.
In summary: for those of you complaining that dark matter resembles aether: you're wrong. It exists. It's existence has been demonstrated in real results. No one credible is denying this fact any longer.
Crisp, clean, sharp. Amazing.
If your TV is huge or you sit really close to it.
I have a 27" TV in my livingroom. I sit between 8-11 feet away from it (depending on where I sit my ass down). There's no way in hell I'd *ever* notice the difference between SD and HD at those viewing angles. That's the simple reality. So unless I plan to get a 50" TV, or move my couch, HD just ain't worth it. And the fact is, that's true for most people. Basically, unless you have a mid-range home theatre system, HD simply isn't worth the trouble (and it's a lot of trouble).
Why would we buy a CD?
Because you don't have to rewind them. And you get instant seek time. And they don't wear out over time. And to top it off, they sound a lot better.
Sound familiar? Because it should. These are the exact same reasons people switched from VHS -> DVD.
Now, do you have a similarly compelling list to justify the transition from DVD -> BR? Because I sure as hell don't.
I wanted so very badly to like that movie, but no, couldn't do it. It's not like I have taste
Au contraire. It's *exactly* like you have no taste.
We also have a government that passed laws like the Community Reinvestment Act (and others) that effectively required banks to make loans to riskier borrowers.
There was no law on the books that forced banks to give out the kind of shit loans they were giving out. Show me one law, one piece of legislation, that required interest-only, negative amortization, or punitive ARM loans, and I'll be incredibly shocked.
The banks new full well what they were doing, and they were fully consenting partners in the real estate circle jerk.
Problem is the government decided to deregulate the secondary mortgage market. Had they not done that, we wouldn't be where we are today.
Without consequences, where's the incentive for individuals and businesses to play by the rules?
Problem: there are not fucking rules. Fundamentally, that's the issue. Had the government not deregulated, we wouldn't be here today. Put the blame where the blame is due: squarely on the head of Alan Greenspan and his lackeys.
whether not bailing out the banks would "torpedo the whole economy
It would. Don't bail out the banks and suddenly huge numbers of institutions would become insolvent. The credit crunch and subsequent economic decline would be truly devastating. The fact you don't realize this just demonstrates that you're not sufficiently educated to have an opinion on the topic.
Ahhh, but the government *mandated* that the banks had to make mortgages available to low-income people
The government didn't mandate the banks give out interesting-only, or worse, negative amortization loans to people. Or mislead people into ARMs that, after adjustment, they couldn't afford.
There's blame to go around everywhere. The government didn't sufficiently regulate the secondary mortgage market. The banks gave out bad loans. And the people took them. That's the reality.
No one wants to talk about why these people were even eligible in the first place
Uhh, because the banks were making money hand over fist by issuing those loans and then reselling them on the secondary mortgage market. Sorry bud, the banks got into that deal with their eyes *wide* open. They new exactly what they were doing, they just *didn't care*.
The reason this shit keeps happening is because the government keeps stepping in and removing the consequences of peoples' decisions
No, the reason this "keeps happening" is because the fucking government opts to take a hands off approach to the market, and it goes running off a cliff. And I don't for one second believe they did it because they figured the government would bail them out. No... I think they did it because they were so blinded by greed that they didn't want to believe their house of cards would fall down.
Seriously, if you sign a mortgage and don't understand what you're signing, you're a fucking idiot
Unless the bank lies or otherwise misleads you into taking a mortgage you can't afford, and convinces you that house prices will never decline so it's no big deal anyway.
Again, there's blame to go around everywhere. You irrational (frankly borderline racist) hatred toward minority homeowners doesn't change that fact.
But history has shown that threat of foreclosure just isn't a good enough deterrent for lots of people.
No kidding. If your house is under water, and your equity is complete wiped out, what reason do you have to hold on to the home? Answer: zero, zilch, none. In fact, it makes absolutely *no financial sense* to stay in a deal like that, particularly if you're younger, as long term, even with the damage that a bankruptcy can do to one's credit rating, it's still cheaper to send jingle mail and move on.
And fundamentally this is the problem. Banks gave out mortgages on terms that meant people had no equity in the homes. Interest-only loans? *Negative amortization*? Seriously?? It makes no sense if your goal is to keep people in their properties. But that wasn't the goal. The goal was to put one more card on the stack and see if the whole thing'll keep standing.
Absolutely. The idea that election boundaries are under the control of the people in power is so hilariously stupid it's hard to believe. Why on earth doesn't the US have something akin to Elections Canada? Move the power to determine things like election boundaries (and, IMHO, campaign finance... but I'm a "money is NOT speech" kind of guy... what can I say, I'm a crazy "socialist" :) into a transparent, non-partisan body, and I guarantee you it'll eliminate all sorts of problems with the US electoral system.
'course, AFAICT, this would require an amendment to the constitution, and something tells me we're more likely to see pigs fly than to see something like that pass.
Or the cable burns up on reentry and a puff of carbon dust manages to reach the ground.
Honestly, every time space elevators come up, some knob like yourself brings up the "extinction level event" BS, even though it's been pointed out time and time again that it just wouldn't happen that way. So, are you actively ignoring people? Do you not believe them? HIBT?
That's because you're a programmer.
Heh, touche. :) Although, I would contend that, given an SQL expression and a table of data, an individual will still understand the results of that statement by performing the operations procedurally. 'course, that could be my own shortsightedness creeping through.
My example was meant to show how non programmers would think of the definition of a data type,
Interesting, I didn't see that example as defining a data type. I saw it as selecting a subset of data from a larger set. Furthermore, I don't think of declaring or defining data types as computing... in my mind, computing is the act of taking inputs, performing operations, and generating outputs. Data types are merely decorations in order to perform those tasks.
But, again, I may be betraying my own ignorance, here. It certainly seems like Ocaml, Haskell, and other languages, take datatypes to a level with which I am unfamiliar.
If you're talking about "one's everyday life", you can't include programming, because in the real world people don't do programming.
I disagree. Right now I can show you an everyday example of imperative "programming". Just go to your cupboard and pull out a cookbook. Okay, now open up your school math textbook and see how it explains to factor a quadratic equation. These things are examples of "computing" in real world... they are algorithms for completing some task.
So how 'bout a functional example where people "compute" (ie, take inputs, perform some operations, and generate outputs) in a functional sense?
The average everyday human being don't do programming, bud.
That's kinda the point. :) My original supposition was this: the human mind is better suited to thinking procedurally because that's what we encounter in everyday life.
Yes, you can train a programmer to think functionally (just like you can teach a right-handed person to use their left). But I contend that it's not immediately natural or intuitive because the human mind is accustomed to thinking procedurally. And this is why functional languages have taken a back seat to procedural ones... in the end, procedural programming is simply more intuitive.
As for definitions, as I've said elsewhere, people aren't used to defining computation in terms of definitions (which harks back to my original supposition). Find me a real world, non-computing example where people encounter a functional/declarative model, and I'll be surprised.
As for Monads, fundamentally, I think my problem is that I insist on understanding *how* and *why* mechanisms in a language work. I'm not happy just using Monads in order to activate side-effects in a pure functional language. I insist on understanding how Monads work, and why they work. Problem is, *that* isn't so easy to explain, at least in my experience (though, the fact that monads were invented by mathematicians and computing researchers probably doesn't help... far too many explanations go into the computational and algebraic theory behind monads, which I couldn't give a crap about).
You'd be hard pressed to find someone thinking of the age groups in their country using a "for..next" model.
Are you sure? When I examine an SQL statement, I specifically think about it in terms of how the data is processed. In my head, I imagine the database going through the My_Country table and pulling entries that match the select clause, then grouping them accordingly.
In short, just because the statement is declarative, doesn't mean people, in general, don't think of it in terms of a procedural, step-wise process. *You* might not, but I bet if you took a survey of 1000 programmers, a large number of them would examine SQL expressions in procedural terms.
Meanwhile, I said "normal, everyday situation", not "normal, DBA situation". :) My original point was that the human mind is strongly biased toward thinking of algorithms in an imperative mindset, and that functional thinking is atypical. Oddly, no one yet has provided an actual *real world* example of functional/declarative computation in one's everyday life. Until that example is provided, I think my point still stands: functional programming is not analogous to anything in typical human experience, and so it takes specific training and effort to think in such a model.
Well, to me, it is, although I'm obviously biased. Still, it's important to note that terseness doesn't equate to intuitiveness. Yeah, the Haskell version is shorter, but just looking at the code, I haven't a clue how it works. Worst case with the imperative version, I can take a list and walk through each step of the algorithm in order to understand what's happening. Not so with the Haskell implementation (again, at least in my mind, although it's clear it's firmly locked in the imperative world).
but we'd weather it, just like we weathered eight years of Bush.
You mean you'd have another economic meltdown, and meanwhile your constitutional rights would further be stripped away? Sounds like something to be scared of to me...
Right, so that fits with my understanding. Given an operation F, you pass in some state, the operation is performed, and the output is a modified state (eg, the cursor is moved to the next line, etc). So the state is the monad? And in the case of Haskell, where is the state? Is it implicit? Explicit, and I just didn't notice it?
Incidentally, I still don't think this is terribly intuitive... I've just spent a lot of time trying to "get" it. :)