> "When asked to name some of the sites that had complied, Gilbert answered, "I'm not going to share that information. It would be shooting a gift horse in the mouth."
Yeah, and all the lurkers send me supporting e-mail when I'm the only person taking one side in an argument on Usenet.
> Since the drug companies invest so much in research due to the potential profit, wouldn't reducing the potential profit reduce the incentives for research?
I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.
Hard to measure, but what is the tradeoff between increased speed and increased readability (which is a prerequisite for correctness and maintainability)? And if you can estimate that tradeoff, which is more important to the goals of your application?
As a side note, it is far more important to make sure you are using efficient algorithms and data structures than to make minor local optimizations. I've seen programmers use bizarre local optimization tricks in a module that ran in exponential time rather than log time.
> Suppose that, in a rather obviously impressive way, God descended from Heaven. Suppose he drops by your place and performs a few miracles. Maybe then he beams you down to Hell for a 5-minute tour, either Star Trek style or via the Earth just opening up for a moment...
> I believe in God and I also believe in life on other Planets. I think most will accept it without that much fuss and without too much modification to personal theological belief systems.
Even intelligent life on other planets shouldn't be too much problem; Gospel of John 10:16 will just be interpreted as prophetic:
> If evolution is a process requiring billions of years to occur and such exquisitely balanced conditions that life has never been created from raw materials in the lab, wouldn't finding life on other planets make evolution EVEN MORE improbable?
Pedantic note: other than the faulty logic, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
> Both creationism and intelligent design (aka aliens/other almost-godlike-but-not-quite-gods) should get major PR boosts over evolution if life is found on other planets.
Why? Do they actually predict it or something?
> I first heard this reasoning ~8 years ago. Take it or leave it.
> Isn't this what they've been telling us to look for for years now - the entire energy output of a galaxy caught and channelled for use by an intelligence that has spread throughout it's own galaxy?
Such spheres still have to radiate heat, or else the inside of the sphere would become as hot as the star. The Wikipedia article says it would show up as stars emitting radiation with the blackbody spectrum.
> When they're resorting to patenting what appear to me to be boolean operations with an object-oriented twist, that's a bad sign about what real plans the company doesn't have.
Yes, but think how useful it could be in their advertising campaign:
Slashdot Mirror
> "When asked to name some of the sites that had complied, Gilbert answered, "I'm not going to share that information. It would be shooting a gift horse in the mouth."
Yeah, and all the lurkers send me supporting e-mail when I'm the only person taking one side in an argument on Usenet.
> After all, won't somebody think of the children?
I think Michael Jackson has that covered.
I mean, "stinks".
The hamsters are going to sue for IP rights.
> I don't see how it would be assuming there's due process.
The US Constitution gives authority over patents to the US Congress, not to the states.
> Since the drug companies invest so much in research due to the potential profit, wouldn't reducing the potential profit reduce the incentives for research?
I don't know whether it's true or not, but critics claim that the drug companies spend 10x as much on advertising as they do on research.
Hard to measure, but what is the tradeoff between increased speed and increased readability (which is a prerequisite for correctness and maintainability)? And if you can estimate that tradeoff, which is more important to the goals of your application?
As a side note, it is far more important to make sure you are using efficient algorithms and data structures than to make minor local optimizations. I've seen programmers use bizarre local optimization tricks in a module that ran in exponential time rather than log time.
> Sorry to all the grammar nazis if I got my declensions wrong. I know even mistakes in Latin are unacceptable on Slashdot.
That would be NAZI GRAMMATICORUM (singular NAZUS GRAMMATICORUM).
> for what it's worth - I'm still not satisfied with the Big Bang, or the theory of evolution, despite the fact that I've rejected creationism.
In what sense are you not satisfied with them?
> Suppose that, in a rather obviously impressive way, God descended from Heaven. Suppose he drops by your place and performs a few miracles. Maybe then he beams you down to Hell for a 5-minute tour, either Star Trek style or via the Earth just opening up for a moment...
In such a case, I'd get back on my medications.
> I believe in God and I also believe in life on other Planets. I think most will accept it without that much fuss and without too much modification to personal theological belief systems.
Even intelligent life on other planets shouldn't be too much problem; Gospel of John 10:16 will just be interpreted as prophetic:
> If evolution is a process requiring billions of years to occur and such exquisitely balanced conditions that life has never been created from raw materials in the lab, wouldn't finding life on other planets make evolution EVEN MORE improbable?
Pedantic note: other than the faulty logic, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
> Both creationism and intelligent design (aka aliens/other almost-godlike-but-not-quite-gods) should get major PR boosts over evolution if life is found on other planets.
Why? Do they actually predict it or something?
> I first heard this reasoning ~8 years ago. Take it or leave it.
I'll leave it, thank you.
> Isn't this what they've been telling us to look for for years now - the entire energy output of a galaxy caught and channelled for use by an intelligence that has spread throughout it's own galaxy?
Such spheres still have to radiate heat, or else the inside of the sphere would become as hot as the star. The Wikipedia article says it would show up as stars emitting radiation with the blackbody spectrum.
> ark matter is just another word for "we have no idea"
I think you meant to say that you have no idea.
>
Nope, Goatse Galaxies have Goatse Stars
Shares for LenseCleaner Corp are sharply up in morning trading.
> When they're resorting to patenting what appear to me to be boolean operations with an object-oriented twist, that's a bad sign about what real plans the company doesn't have.
Yes, but think how useful it could be in their advertising campaign:
IsNot reliable
IsNot secure
IsNot a good idea
...
> But it is the same as "Not equal to" applied to the address of the variable [...] So, it's still a pretty trivial concept...
There's also single-operator prior art in the Scheme neq? operator.
(I don't know whether it's standard, but it is provided by some interpreters.)
> They neglected to say how the origional server went down "hard". Did someone hack it?
Wikipedia was hosting it...
> You know, the biggest problem with emulation nowadays is ego, and apparently the egos of the Ultracade creators got too big.
Well, at least we know they take the concept of "emulation" seriously.
> IF ONLY somebody could find some prior art to smack this down.
Found it!
> Uhhh, what the hell did you think "from the so-many-to-choose-from dept." referred to?
Good point. I almost never read those tags.
"The best thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from."
> So presumably 69 is Jenifer Lopez, and 303 is the goatse guy?
Nope, JL is 455 and gg is 4554013.
(I shudder to imagine how he visualizes multiplying them together.)