I suppose the correlation between evolution denial and ignorance of the basic principles is not entirely an accident...
> Evolution insists on the acquisition of new information in the DNA of a species.
Actually, evolution deniers insist that evolution requires that, and then deny that it's possible. They have never supported either claim. (The only one to even make a serious effort, that I know of, is Lee Spetner. However, a quick googling will lead you to some analyses of the errors in his reasoning.)
> There is, in fact, precious little evidence for macroevolution at all.
Actually, you've got science altogether backwards. Theories exist because we have piles of evidence that demand an explanation. We don't start with a theory and go looking for evidence to support it.
> Most of the world's so-called evidence is still based on guesses and assumptions, many of which are changing every month. You simply don't hear about all of them.
Well, we'll surely hear about them if you'll take the trouble to post them. What are some of the guesses and assumptions that serve as the foundation for the theory of evolution and are changing every month?
> I think if you'll do some research with an open mind you'll find the basis for evolutionary theory is questionable. It is riddled with mistakes, conjecture, and circular reasoning.
Then you should easily be able to post, say, the ten most claring mistakes, conjectures, and circular reasonings, if only to dispel any suspicion that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
1. There is no extraterrestrial life, we are special and strange.
2. There is extraterrestrial life, but it does not posess a soul and therefore has no need of a redeemer.
3. There is extraterrestrial life, it posesses a soul but is not sinful and therefore has no need of a redeemer.
4. There is extraterrestrial life, it posesses a soul and has had a visitation from a reedemer.
5. There is extraterrestrial life, it posesses a soul, and we are expected to spread the message about our redeemer.
So... how do we tell whether they have souls or not?
> I know scientists that believe such a discovery would discredit religious beliefs... but many religious folks I know have absolutely no problem with life on other planets
Religion is compatible with any discovery - iff you want it to be.
> In my experience being honest about your mistakes and having the willingness to learn from them always pays off.
Yes, they'll just pull the lever that instantly drops your seat into the pool of piranhas, skipping those inconvenient steps where they would have to torture a confession out of you first.
Re: How can you simulate God in games?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 4, Funny
> Who'se AI programming could be considered good enough to simulate God?
Easy solution: just let one of the players be God, and give him arbitrary power to change the game state at will. You'll soon find all the other players giving him money and sucking up to whatever he wants.
> > This function allows an application to determine whether or not it is being debugged, so that it can modify its behavior.
> We call those heisenbugs and they are the bane of a programmer's existence. The whole damn point of a debugger is to replicate the same behavior as normal, not allow the program to choose to exhibit a different behavior.
if debugging
goto bugfreeimplementation
else
goto regularimplementation
> Wikipedia, from that standpoint, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from traditional, commercial journalism. Its authors have all the time in the world to get things right, check facts, correct bad wording, improve clarity. The quality of the entries is generally astounding. And if anything is wrong with an entry, we readers can become writers and correct it ourselves!
And for the most part it works, but unfortunately - just like with the rest of the internet - there are plenty of 45540135 who can't resist inserting their racism, nationalism, religionism, or other fanatic ideology into various articles. Also pseudoscientific kooks who like to set up camp on their favorite article and continually combat all attempts to correct it.
Use with caution, especially on exotic topics where there aren't enough experts to keep up with the kooks. If it's something you really want to be informed on, look at the page history to see whether it is a battleground. If it looks like one person is continually undoing everything ten others are trying to do, be wary of that person's edits.
> surely it's just a matter of time before someone writes a devastating linux virus?
Surely. But it's going to take rather more than one to make Linux look as bad as Windows does.
> i'm not bashing linux / mac / or even (*shock*) windows - but the attitude of "it's only windows users - i'm safe" really irriates me - it seems shortsighted to say the least
Statistically speaking, Linux and Mac users are much safer than Windows users.
> To me, a rather damning part of the whole statement was that the data would be available in December -- basically, "You can have the data, but not if you plan to use it to investigate the candidates' integrity for this election".
When people have holy wars over whether { should go on the same line or at the start of a new one, that should be a hint that the character really isn't all that important to program semantics.
At any rate, minimizing the number of keystrokes required to write a program should be fairly low on your list of what makes a good programming language, unless you're a hunt-and-peck typist. In general, readability is more important than writeability, if the program is going to have to be maintained.
Slashdot Mirror
> It's not even theory, it's a hypothesis.
I suppose the correlation between evolution denial and ignorance of the basic principles is not entirely an accident...
> Evolution insists on the acquisition of new information in the DNA of a species.
Actually, evolution deniers insist that evolution requires that, and then deny that it's possible. They have never supported either claim. (The only one to even make a serious effort, that I know of, is Lee Spetner. However, a quick googling will lead you to some analyses of the errors in his reasoning.)
> There is, in fact, precious little evidence for macroevolution at all.
Actually, you've got science altogether backwards. Theories exist because we have piles of evidence that demand an explanation. We don't start with a theory and go looking for evidence to support it.
> Most of the world's so-called evidence is still based on guesses and assumptions, many of which are changing every month. You simply don't hear about all of them.
Well, we'll surely hear about them if you'll take the trouble to post them. What are some of the guesses and assumptions that serve as the foundation for the theory of evolution and are changing every month?
> I think if you'll do some research with an open mind you'll find the basis for evolutionary theory is questionable. It is riddled with mistakes, conjecture, and circular reasoning.
Then you should easily be able to post, say, the ten most claring mistakes, conjectures, and circular reasonings, if only to dispel any suspicion that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
> I know scientists that believe such a discovery would discredit religious beliefs... but many religious folks I know have absolutely no problem with life on other planets
Religion is compatible with any discovery - iff you want it to be.
> Good planning would have had an abort procedure
Good planning means you wouldn't have gotten her knocked up to begin with.
> In my experience being honest about your mistakes and having the willingness to learn from them always pays off.
Yes, they'll just pull the lever that instantly drops your seat into the pool of piranhas, skipping those inconvenient steps where they would have to torture a confession out of you first.
> Who'se AI programming could be considered good enough to simulate God?
Easy solution: just let one of the players be God, and give him arbitrary power to change the game state at will. You'll soon find all the other players giving him money and sucking up to whatever he wants.
Pardon the cynicism, but there you have it.
> > This function allows an application to determine whether or not it is being debugged, so that it can modify its behavior.
> We call those heisenbugs and they are the bane of a programmer's existence. The whole damn point of a debugger is to replicate the same behavior as normal, not allow the program to choose to exhibit a different behavior.
> *winky provided for the sardonically challenged
I thought he(???) was provided for the heterosexually challenged.
> Them:"Lucas is updating X movie to show his true vision which couldn't be expressed at the time due to technical limitations." Us: "Please God no."
So, you won't be rushing out to buy Jar-Jar 3D?
> The Slashdot trolling phenomena [wikipedia.org]
Yeah, remember the good old days, when trolls had to figure it out without any help?
> > actually Wikipedia is busier than slashdot, according to Alexa.
> Wow - I did not know that. So in the future I should cry "Whohooo - let's Wiki slashdot"?
I think the verb is "wikipee".
> Wikipedia, from that standpoint, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from traditional, commercial journalism. Its authors have all the time in the world to get things right, check facts, correct bad wording, improve clarity. The quality of the entries is generally astounding. And if anything is wrong with an entry, we readers can become writers and correct it ourselves!
And for the most part it works, but unfortunately - just like with the rest of the internet - there are plenty of 45540135 who can't resist inserting their racism, nationalism, religionism, or other fanatic ideology into various articles. Also pseudoscientific kooks who like to set up camp on their favorite article and continually combat all attempts to correct it.
Use with caution, especially on exotic topics where there aren't enough experts to keep up with the kooks. If it's something you really want to be informed on, look at the page history to see whether it is a battleground. If it looks like one person is continually undoing everything ten others are trying to do, be wary of that person's edits.
> Leaking like swiss cheese? Did you perhaps mean to say "leaking like a sieve" or "full of holes like swiss cheese?"
You've obviously never been in a boat made of swiss cheese.
> They're just counting bug fixes.
Whereas it's the ones that aren't fixed that bite you in the ass.
97.2% of all whores are made up?
> windows - security through patches
> linux - security through smugness
Linux is patched quite frequently, actually.
> surely it's just a matter of time before someone writes a devastating linux virus?
Surely. But it's going to take rather more than one to make Linux look as bad as Windows does.
> i'm not bashing linux / mac / or even (*shock*) windows - but the attitude of "it's only windows users - i'm safe" really irriates me - it seems shortsighted to say the least
Statistically speaking, Linux and Mac users are much safer than Windows users.
> This would be the windows catastrophie of the week huh?
It's only Monday; let's wait a few days before deciding.
> At least Reno had the balls
Is there a mod for "poor choice of words"?
> To me, a rather damning part of the whole statement was that the data would be available in December -- basically, "You can have the data, but not if you plan to use it to investigate the candidates' integrity for this election".
Like he said, he didn't want to break the system.
> the hunt for oil is one of the main causes of international violence currently [...] isnt it time to look for better solutions?
Imagine a world where people invade Holland to take over their windmills...
Does anyone know at what point the resolution becomes finer than the human eye can perceive? Is this monitor there yet?
> But I hate 'BEGIN' 'END' where { and } will do.
And some hate {} where indentation will do...
When people have holy wars over whether { should go on the same line or at the start of a new one, that should be a hint that the character really isn't all that important to program semantics.
At any rate, minimizing the number of keystrokes required to write a program should be fairly low on your list of what makes a good programming language, unless you're a hunt-and-peck typist. In general, readability is more important than writeability, if the program is going to have to be maintained.
> Languages that don't have variable length strings make me choke.
Ada does support variable-length strings, as well as fixed-length and bounded-length strings.