Ballmer is somewhat legendary for such enthusiasm at internal meetings. If you think the way he looks at the beginning of a talk is something, you should see him at the end. He looks like he's run a marathon and he's usually lost his voice.
A welcome change from the bullshitters of the world
Man, some of you guys are as automatic as a jack in the box. Give you the right stimulus, get the exact response.
For those of you over 17,
I'm going to tell you a story I heard in a movie. A little boy grows up hating his stern father because he punishes him, while he is very close to his mother because she protects him. He grows up and moves out. Later, when he's about 25, his mother dies unexpectedly at around 50. At her funeral, he's silent. His father continues to remain estranged to him but lives to an old age, and dies at 75 when the man is now 50. As he's standing at his father's graveside, he finds himself sobbing uncontrollably.
The point is that when his mother died, it was unfortunate. But, when the father died, the man, who hated his father so much, now no longer had the hate to keep him going.
The movie was a movie about how Nazis and Jews. It reminds me very much about how some of you act. Please be more interesting. [Saint Stephen]
I knew I was spouting utter nonsense, but you seem to be amplifying what I seem to be noticed / worried about, that we may hit these sci-fi "limits of the universe" *way* soon than way-way-way-way in the future at the rate we're going. We're in the early part of the hockey stick WRT exponential growth of computing power. The way things are going, by the time your children are old people we'd have to be GOD-LIKE if computers double every couple years. That's the "wow" thing -- how different things must be just a bit further out on the hockey stick. [Saint Stephen]
Both you, and the fellow who mentioned that I could just multiply 1.1*ULONG_MAX, are in different ways pointing out that this particular problem is really O(1). I'm not current on the quantum computing literature, but it sounds like quantum computing makes the further bold claim that *any and all* problems that have ever been or ever will be are theoretically O(1).
Let's get from here to there.
First, why do we have to be stuck with stupid binary after all these years? Surely we can make the "wires" sensitive enough to recognize more than two electrical states. Lots more computing power in the same "physical space."
Back at the turn of the century Goethe showed that non-trivial systems are not automatic, which ultimately is why we futz around with non-perfectly optimizing compilers that can't recognize that this problem is a single multiplication. A colleague was telling me about NP-completness, and how with the lambda calculus (don't know much about it) we can verify completeness of a system (but what about consistency)? In other words, you can generate every possible truth, but you can't prove it doesn't generate falsehoods. Sounds like the problem you'd have with quantum computing: you'd still have to be able to recognize the "correct" result from all possible correct and incorrect results in the answer set.
Here's some pure bogusness, but what do you think:
I wrote a C++ program which initializes a double to 1.1; then adds 1.1 to it 4 billion times (ULONG_MAX).
On my PIII 500 mhz laptop (circa 1998-99) sometime, this program runs in 30 seconds.
On my new P4 1.7 ghz, it runs in 12 seconds.
I didn't check, but I think Plank time is about 10-47 seconds. Assuming the time it takes to execute one of these 4 billion steps, and if it continues to cut in half every three years, we'll hit planck time in about 100 years.
In other words, there is a fundamental limit on how quickly we can know one single fact (planck time), and our children will hit that by the end of their lifetimes.
We either need a 50% reduction in the population of this planet or we need about 4 more planets to grow onto. This dumb shit we think of to fill the boring time while piled up six deep amongst each other all the time is just sucking up useful time. [Saint Stephen]
Yeah but shit man. When I was in school 1989-1993 and messing around with my school shell account, and the sun boxes, GNU was around -- but everybody kept it in perspective! It was like "here's this neat free code and isn't interesting" but people didn't call down God and country talking about how revolutionary and right and good he was. So you've got to ask yourself: why speak more loudly now? Everything's got a motive. Let's face it: people like to go into a crowded room and shout "fire" cause people will pay attention to them when they otherwise wouldn't. The GNU "free software" stuff as it is practiced in reality is INCOMPATIBLE with providing others with continued employement and a way to put their kids through college, which is what "coveting money" means to most of us. And the social aspects of it, it's interesting to keep in mind but it's just pollyanish to say it's the central tenet of your existence.
Nietzche says "beware the wise man when he becomes dogmatic." and that's what OSS software has become -- pure dogma, not backed by reason anymore. Just saving face so you can hang on to those cherished beliefs a bit longer while meanwhile the world around you changes. It's just like all other "big ideas" that have to form themselves into a group of like-minded thinkers: you have to keep dragging on into lunacy. (Gun nuts, pro- and anti- abortionists, most religions, &c.) Just don't know when to hush up.
I never cease to find amazing the fact that we have the power of six billion minds and a whole fucking planet with which to just kick ass all over the place, and the best thing a great portion of us can think to do is to figure out how to sell sugard watered to each other better.
TV has pointed out one uniquely true thing: our minds can be shaped shaped shaped easily and repeatably. But, I still think that people would spend their time on more noble and worthwhile pursuits if only somene would SUGGEST to them what to do. Solution: just mix in a little algebra with each mention of N'Sync; all they need is to realize the power of their own brains to break out of these stupid chains...
Now just admit that the total cost of ownership of Linux on the server is ridiculously too high because you're more interested in twiddling settings than you are in solving business problems, and you're half way home.
This just *screams* out for some outside-the-box thinking.
First, let's all agree on some not-necessarily-human-friendly universal description of what things are (incorporating D&B #s or whatever), something that you and only you can and should have and that computers and people can use when they must refer to precisely you across arbitrary contexts.
For everyday usage, let's build computers that "do the right stuff". For instance, if I type http://coke the machine should present me with visual images of a can of soda and a lump of coal, the default selected by the current context. (Was I previously searching for minerals? Was I previously searching for entertainment or food?)
Everybody in the world will ultimately come up with their own personal names for a few things, and other things will come together "by convention", just like real life!
Wouldn't it be significantly easier for spooks to form a small software front company and sell custom software to the desired target that would contain bugs? The larger the organization, the more chance of leaks!
Druid Calendar == 28-days x 13 months
on
13 Month Calendar?
·
· Score: 1
This has so been done. All the stinking "wiccans" I know follow this. 28-days is the period of the cycles of the moon and also a woman's estruous cycle.
How about using Tolkien's calendar of 12 months of 30 days, with five no-month days? I'd totally dig that.
Correct. I don't believe in this statement either, but I asked it to point out that we all very much practice a belief in objective reality everyday. Otherwise, we'd all be rampant solpsists!
Slashdot Mirror
Shit, I forgot to even invoke Godwin's Law on you. You automatically lose, which means your point is total bullshit! :-)
Ballmer is somewhat legendary for such enthusiasm at internal meetings. If you think the way he looks at the beginning of a talk is something, you should see him at the end. He looks like he's run a marathon and he's usually lost his voice.
A welcome change from the bullshitters of the world
The more native code you use in the frameworks the less trusted the code will be, and less portable.
It is possible to write "real code" in C#.
[Saint Stephen]
Man, some of you guys are as automatic as a jack in the box. Give you the right stimulus, get the exact response.
For those of you over 17,
I'm going to tell you a story I heard in a movie. A little boy grows up hating his stern father because he punishes him, while he is very close to his mother because she protects him. He grows up and moves out. Later, when he's about 25, his mother dies unexpectedly at around 50. At her funeral, he's silent. His father continues to remain estranged to him but lives to an old age, and dies at 75 when the man is now 50. As he's standing at his father's graveside, he finds himself sobbing uncontrollably.
The point is that when his mother died, it was unfortunate. But, when the father died, the man, who hated his father so much, now no longer had the hate to keep him going.
The movie was a movie about how Nazis and Jews. It reminds me very much about how some of you act. Please be more interesting.
[Saint Stephen]
I knew I was spouting utter nonsense, but you seem to be amplifying what I seem to be noticed / worried about, that we may hit these sci-fi "limits of the universe" *way* soon than way-way-way-way in the future at the rate we're going. We're in the early part of the hockey stick WRT exponential growth of computing power. The way things are going, by the time your children are old people we'd have to be GOD-LIKE if computers double every couple years. That's the "wow" thing -- how different things must be just a bit further out on the hockey stick.
[Saint Stephen]
they still have to communicate with one another
[Saint Stephen]
Both you, and the fellow who mentioned that I could just multiply 1.1*ULONG_MAX, are in different ways pointing out that this particular problem is really O(1). I'm not current on the quantum computing literature, but it sounds like quantum computing makes the further bold claim that *any and all* problems that have ever been or ever will be are theoretically O(1).
Let's get from here to there.
First, why do we have to be stuck with stupid binary after all these years? Surely we can make the "wires" sensitive enough to recognize more than two electrical states. Lots more computing power in the same "physical space."
Back at the turn of the century Goethe showed that non-trivial systems are not automatic, which ultimately is why we futz around with non-perfectly optimizing compilers that can't recognize that this problem is a single multiplication. A colleague was telling me about NP-completness, and how with the lambda calculus (don't know much about it) we can verify completeness of a system (but what about consistency)? In other words, you can generate every possible truth, but you can't prove it doesn't generate falsehoods. Sounds like the problem you'd have with quantum computing: you'd still have to be able to recognize the "correct" result from all possible correct and incorrect results in the answer set.
Flame on!
[Saint Stephen]
immaterial to my point
[Saint Stephen]
Here's some pure bogusness, but what do you think:
I wrote a C++ program which initializes a double to 1.1; then adds 1.1 to it 4 billion times (ULONG_MAX).
On my PIII 500 mhz laptop (circa 1998-99) sometime, this program runs in 30 seconds.
On my new P4 1.7 ghz, it runs in 12 seconds.
I didn't check, but I think Plank time is about 10-47 seconds. Assuming the time it takes to execute one of these 4 billion steps, and if it continues to cut in half every three years, we'll hit planck time in about 100 years.
In other words, there is a fundamental limit on how quickly we can know one single fact (planck time), and our children will hit that by the end of their lifetimes.
What then?
[Saint Stephen]
We either need a 50% reduction in the population of this planet or we need about 4 more planets to grow onto. This dumb shit we think of to fill the boring time while piled up six deep amongst each other all the time is just sucking up useful time.
[Saint Stephen]
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?UR L=/code/sample.asp?url=/MSDN-FILES/027/001/652/msd ncompositedoc.xml
Go download the SmartTag SDK and write your own DLL, and then you too can make people go whereever and whenever you wish.
Instead of bitching like a little girl all the time, why don't you get with the program?
[Saint Stephen]
Yeah but shit man. When I was in school 1989-1993 and messing around with my school shell account, and the sun boxes, GNU was around -- but everybody kept it in perspective! It was like "here's this neat free code and isn't interesting" but people didn't call down God and country talking about how revolutionary and right and good he was. So you've got to ask yourself: why speak more loudly now? Everything's got a motive. Let's face it: people like to go into a crowded room and shout "fire" cause people will pay attention to them when they otherwise wouldn't. The GNU "free software" stuff as it is practiced in reality is INCOMPATIBLE with providing others with continued employement and a way to put their kids through college, which is what "coveting money" means to most of us. And the social aspects of it, it's interesting to keep in mind but it's just pollyanish to say it's the central tenet of your existence.
Nietzche says "beware the wise man when he becomes dogmatic." and that's what OSS software has become -- pure dogma, not backed by reason anymore. Just saving face so you can hang on to those cherished beliefs a bit longer while meanwhile the world around you changes. It's just like all other "big ideas" that have to form themselves into a group of like-minded thinkers: you have to keep dragging on into lunacy. (Gun nuts, pro- and anti- abortionists, most religions, &c.) Just don't know when to hush up.
I never cease to find amazing the fact that we have the power of six billion minds and a whole fucking planet with which to just kick ass all over the place, and the best thing a great portion of us can think to do is to figure out how to sell sugard watered to each other better.
TV has pointed out one uniquely true thing: our minds can be shaped shaped shaped easily and repeatably. But, I still think that people would spend their time on more noble and worthwhile pursuits if only somene would SUGGEST to them what to do. Solution: just mix in a little algebra with each mention of N'Sync; all they need is to realize the power of their own brains to break out of these stupid chains...
Now just admit that the total cost of ownership of Linux on the server is ridiculously too high because you're more interested in twiddling settings than you are in solving business problems, and you're half way home.
The price per transaction is more than twice as high. Sure, you can pay a billion dollars and get great perf. Good ol' cheap Linux :-)
nobody owes you nothing!
working too hard means one thing: you let yourself get worked to death.
it means precisely "dick" to the planet.
get up and dust yourself off and maybe don't make the same mistake next time
This just *screams* out for some outside-the-box thinking.
First, let's all agree on some not-necessarily-human-friendly universal description of what things are (incorporating D&B #s or whatever), something that you and only you can and should have and that computers and people can use when they must refer to precisely you across arbitrary contexts.
For everyday usage, let's build computers that "do the right stuff". For instance, if I type http://coke the machine should present me with visual images of a can of soda and a lump of coal, the default selected by the current context. (Was I previously searching for minerals? Was I previously searching for entertainment or food?)
Everybody in the world will ultimately come up with their own personal names for a few things, and other things will come together "by convention", just like real life!
Y'reckon?
woo hoo 8 whole megs a second
I notice a lot of the proofs "define" the class 2 as the class 1 combined up twice.
What people don't realize is that you have to be able to count to agree whether or not the proof is correct, once you run out of fingers and toes!
Wouldn't it be significantly easier for spooks to form a small software front company and sell custom software to the desired target that would contain bugs? The larger the organization, the more chance of leaks!
This has so been done. All the stinking "wiccans" I know follow this. 28-days is the period of the cycles of the moon and also a woman's estruous cycle.
How about using Tolkien's calendar of 12 months of 30 days, with five no-month days? I'd totally dig that.
Earlier than this.
Correct. I don't believe in this statement either, but I asked it to point out that we all very much practice a belief in objective reality everyday. Otherwise, we'd all be rampant solpsists!
OK. I define my model of the world as the world in which no perception of the world informs me of anything at all.
What would be your reason for not believing me?