The free software from myheritage does not compare to what is being done by several private companies associated with/funded by law enforcement or the military.
I was at the X-Prize event and saw Pixel (and Texel) fly. Whatever the previous instabilities were, at the event this weekend the craft flew really well. The main problem was that they could not see the landing pad because of the dust being stirred up by the engines (welcome to New Mexico!) and so landed partly off the pad. But the horizontal part of the flight looked rock-solid.
It figures that this innovation is going to be used to further extend the lifespan of code that probably should be junked. Not referring to your code, specifically. But I've seen enough icky Fortran code whose only justification for continued existence was "too complex to rewrite". I suspect some of the authors had that in mind when they wrote it in the first place. Surprise! - in at least one case, re-writing one of these codes in a saner and simpler way doubled or tripled its performance.
It's sick to assert that all of these things are necessary for our society to function. You may be able to get away with dong them from time to time, but if lying, cheating and stealing become the norm rather than the exception our society ceases to function as such.
The way the system is implemented is wack. For instance, why would a loose gas cap EVER equate to a "Check Engine" light? A mechanic I trust explained that the emission control system, including the catchall indicator, is largely mandated by federal rules. A car mfg. could provide additional instrumentation in addition to what is required, but the result is likely to be both expensive and confusing to the average user. I have to admin, though, that as a one-time embedded system designer, it is difficult for me to accept this. The mechanic claims that the light may come on only after the car was started and run several times after the cap was loosened, since the system doesn't sense the cap's condition directly, but only dependent conditions such as oxygen level or fuel pressure. So put in an interlock switch on the gas cap so if the cap is not installed correctly when the car is running, you get a separate yellow indicator in the dash? Of course the interlock switch itself can't be present in the gas cap/fill tube area due to spark hazards, so there would have to be a plastic linkage to a switch located a safe distance away... complications proliferate.
That's not a good example of how this substance would be used as a coolant. Liquids absorb the most energy per degree of temperature increase at their boiling point. I've seen demos like those mentioned as long ago as 1985 - there was even one in a print ad in Time (?) magazine. In those cases the "substance" was a CFC.
It might be that the President, as do other elected officials, sees Washington DC as a place which isolates them from reality rather than connects them to it.
Personally, I can't stand the man. His interview technique is to interrupt the guest whenever they are about to make a point or say anything interesting, he is embarrasingly sexist, and his self-promotion is to cringe for.
I got tired of looking for the obivous answer so here it is with my apologies if it's already posted: Turn off preview pane in Outlook/OE. Then enjoy the best email client out there - no need to use a crippled program like Eudora.
Caff will improve (up to a point) chronic unproductivity caused by attention-deficit-related problems and exacerbate chronic unproductivity caused by low blood sugar and/or fatigue. What it will do for CU due to poor work habits or Peter Principle side-effects is unclear.
It seems evident that unproductivity can be a very complex problem, with multiple underlying causes which may operate in parallel (i.e. a person dominated by "inner greed" may also have chronically low blood sugar, which in turn may be due to genetic predisposition or diet; or a person with ADD may also be depressed). Bad work habits, poor posture, and unreasonable demands placed on a person of limited intellect and physique (as we all are) are among other factors not discussed in depth in this fascinating thread.
It seems that there could be an entire multidisciplinary medical degree offered in this field; a degree, of course, which few sufferers of this disorder, syndrome or whatever it is could be expected to obtain (although looking at the practical skills of several doctors of my acquaintance gives a glimmer of hope. BTW, AFAIK IANAD.)
In hopes of adding a shred of content to this aimless rant, let me just say that there does seem to be a positive correlation with age and Chronically Unproductive Syndrome, i.e. persons of ages 13-25 seem to be more likely to be sufferers than those outside of that age range. Perhaps this is related to the concept of discipline, or rather lack thereof, as one component of CUS. Let me advance a trial definition of this concept: something which can be developed over time, through a combination of logical analysis, trial and error, and hard work, which results in one's being able to attain one's goals in spite of adverse circumstances. Not an easy thing to obtain, and rarely obtained without help. But one of incalculable value.
That was really well put. I agree with your four postulates and your estimation of their significance.
I think I may have been less clear than I could have. By "uniquely convincing", I meant compared to other existing religous explanations of ultimate origins.
If the entity proposed existed, and communicated with humanity, it seems reasonable that the result would be something like the Old Testament. Especially considering the nature of the God described there. (I realize the potential for circular reasoning here.)
Reading Genesis 1 (I suggest in a modern translation such as NIV), it really is a pretty clear and rational account of creation, both from a modern worldview and compared to other ancient creation myths. Not a science text, but then it was written so it would be accessible to everyone. One thing that bothers me about techno-paganism and some other worldviews featured in this discussion is their elitism.
Neither of these elements are entirely bad, but also are neither, as stated, entirely Christian. For reasons too elaborate to state here (I'd be glad to continue offline via email) I think it is risky to put too much weight to doctrines except in forms explicitly stated in the Bible. And in the Biblical text itself, the idea of heaven is a lot more complex than stated in your post, and the idea of hell a lot vaguer; while original sin is not really a biblical concept at all, although the concept of a "fallen" human nature is.
But I feel I should also remind you that reality does not depend on my evaluation of its suitability.
More intelligent than the guy that created everything?
More emotionally mature than the one who was willing to die to save humanity?
Better sense of humour than the guy that created the platypus?
More "impressive" than God?
Really? The guy who created the universe - including your own soul - the one who knows you completely and truly - the one who chooses whether most of your life (the part that starts in 30-50 years from now) will be spent in delight or misery - shows up and you go "so what?"?. I don't think so...
One point that I hear a lot in Christian circles is that if God is the (ultimate) source of all that is good, then we should not expect godly behavior from people who do not accept him as God. So getting told off by someone you just tried to "proselytize" is expected, if they don't accept the message you are bearing.
On the other hand, it does neither the church nor the unbeliever any good to preach in an obnoxious or abusive way. It is one thing to be persecuted because people are afraid that many will believe what you are saying. It is another to be persecuted because you are picking on people who don't want to hear it.
There are a lot of posts here which congratulate ourselves on how intelligent we are and some of those posit that maybe that's why programmers are so mystical as a class.
I think that this is chauvinistic thinking; other professions may require as much or more intelligence. I think that maybe serious programming requires a unique kind of intelligence, but not necessarily a great amount of it. This theory is supported, but not proven, by the content of many of the posts on this topic (excluding this one, of course:] )
Right on, brother. I certainly ran the gamut in high school and college and for a while thereafter. And I didn't see God on a mountain or anything, but as time went on I became convinced.
And I don't think that I'm particularly scared of dying, either. In fact, less so at 40+ than I was at 20.
The guarantee of freedom of religious expression in Western societies today has been an important reason why those societies are in many ways less oppressive than others present and past. So I'm all for it. But that does not mean that everyone's personal belief system is valid or right. In fact, it is precisely because people come up with ridiculous, self-centered and harmful belief systems when left to themselves that religious freedom is necessary.
Atheistic materialism ultimately can't explain anything, because it can't account for its own existence (Gödel's theorem). To account for existence, we resort to the supernatural. But that doesn't mean that everyone's opinion about the supernatural is right. Sure, killing off those who disagree with my viewpoint probably is not a good approach to resolving things, but if there is a "real reality", then only one version of how it came to be can be correct.
So now for a brief commercial: isn't the Biblical account of creation uniquely rational and uniquely similar to present-day scientific theory on how and when things came to be? (You do have to be flexible on what the Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis means there.)
OK, here's one (Christian developer, former OSS writer).
The basic idea of Christianity is to try to be like Christ.
This means I write the best code I can, don't overcharge for it, "go the extra mile" in fixing bugs or doing those last-minute tweaks the customer didn't think of during spec or design review, and don't put my business ahead of treating people like human beings (God made us all, he must have had SOME reason).
(....)
OK, now I've got the asbestos suit on:
It seems that the most hateful comments in newsgroups and other forums come from people who are hostile to Christianity or to religion in general. A dangerous generalization, not based on supportable research.
Anyway, if the hateful bigot is an untrue stereotype of the Christian, then what's left: honesty, diligence, patience, and other Biblical virtues, all of which seem useful traits for someone developing something which most developers will not comprehend in depth but will depend upon for their own livelihood anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The free software from myheritage does not compare to what is being done by several private companies associated with/funded by law enforcement or the military.
I was at the X-Prize event and saw Pixel (and Texel) fly. Whatever the previous instabilities were, at the event this weekend the craft flew really well. The main problem was that they could not see the landing pad because of the dust being stirred up by the engines (welcome to New Mexico!) and so landed partly off the pad. But the horizontal part of the flight looked rock-solid.
It figures that this innovation is going to be used to further extend the lifespan of code that probably should be junked. Not referring to your code, specifically. But I've seen enough icky Fortran code whose only justification for continued existence was "too complex to rewrite". I suspect some of the authors had that in mind when they wrote it in the first place. Surprise! - in at least one case, re-writing one of these codes in a saner and simpler way doubled or tripled its performance.
It's sick to assert that all of these things are necessary for our society to function. You may be able to get away with dong them from time to time, but if lying, cheating and stealing become the norm rather than the exception our society ceases to function as such.
Even "two meters" would be a big rat, Luke.
The way the system is implemented is wack. For instance, why would a loose gas cap EVER equate to a "Check Engine" light? A mechanic I trust explained that the emission control system, including the catchall indicator, is largely mandated by federal rules. A car mfg. could provide additional instrumentation in addition to what is required, but the result is likely to be both expensive and confusing to the average user. I have to admin, though, that as a one-time embedded system designer, it is difficult for me to accept this. The mechanic claims that the light may come on only after the car was started and run several times after the cap was loosened, since the system doesn't sense the cap's condition directly, but only dependent conditions such as oxygen level or fuel pressure. So put in an interlock switch on the gas cap so if the cap is not installed correctly when the car is running, you get a separate yellow indicator in the dash? Of course the interlock switch itself can't be present in the gas cap/fill tube area due to spark hazards, so there would have to be a plastic linkage to a switch located a safe distance away... complications proliferate.
"I'M Sparcatus!"
A good Japanese friend of mine says his favorite web site is Engrish.com and that many Japanese share his opinion.
That's not a good example of how this substance would be used as a coolant.
Liquids absorb the most energy per degree of temperature increase at their boiling point.
I've seen demos like those mentioned as long ago as 1985 - there was even one in a print ad in Time (?) magazine. In those cases the "substance" was a CFC.
It might be that the President, as do other elected officials, sees Washington DC as a place which isolates them from reality rather than connects them to it.
Because the links are bogus - they point to porno shots
Personally, I can't stand the man. His interview technique is to interrupt the guest whenever they are about to make a point or say anything interesting, he is embarrasingly sexist, and his self-promotion is to cringe for.
I got tired of looking for the obivous answer so here it is with my apologies if it's already posted: Turn off preview pane in Outlook/OE. Then enjoy the best email client out there - no need to use a crippled program like Eudora.
Caff will improve (up to a point) chronic unproductivity caused by attention-deficit-related problems and exacerbate chronic unproductivity caused by low blood sugar and/or fatigue. What it will do for CU due to poor work habits or Peter Principle side-effects is unclear.
It seems evident that unproductivity can be a very complex problem, with multiple underlying causes which may operate in parallel (i.e. a person dominated by "inner greed" may also have chronically low blood sugar, which in turn may be due to genetic predisposition or diet; or a person with ADD may also be depressed). Bad work habits, poor posture, and unreasonable demands placed on a person of limited intellect and physique (as we all are) are among other factors not discussed in depth in this fascinating thread. It seems that there could be an entire multidisciplinary medical degree offered in this field; a degree, of course, which few sufferers of this disorder, syndrome or whatever it is could be expected to obtain (although looking at the practical skills of several doctors of my acquaintance gives a glimmer of hope. BTW, AFAIK IANAD.) In hopes of adding a shred of content to this aimless rant, let me just say that there does seem to be a positive correlation with age and Chronically Unproductive Syndrome, i.e. persons of ages 13-25 seem to be more likely to be sufferers than those outside of that age range. Perhaps this is related to the concept of discipline, or rather lack thereof, as one component of CUS. Let me advance a trial definition of this concept: something which can be developed over time, through a combination of logical analysis, trial and error, and hard work, which results in one's being able to attain one's goals in spite of adverse circumstances. Not an easy thing to obtain, and rarely obtained without help. But one of incalculable value.
That was really well put. I agree with your four postulates and your estimation of their significance. I think I may have been less clear than I could have. By "uniquely convincing", I meant compared to other existing religous explanations of ultimate origins. If the entity proposed existed, and communicated with humanity, it seems reasonable that the result would be something like the Old Testament. Especially considering the nature of the God described there. (I realize the potential for circular reasoning here.) Reading Genesis 1 (I suggest in a modern translation such as NIV), it really is a pretty clear and rational account of creation, both from a modern worldview and compared to other ancient creation myths. Not a science text, but then it was written so it would be accessible to everyone. One thing that bothers me about techno-paganism and some other worldviews featured in this discussion is their elitism.
Neither of these elements are entirely bad, but also are neither, as stated, entirely Christian. For reasons too elaborate to state here (I'd be glad to continue offline via email) I think it is risky to put too much weight to doctrines except in forms explicitly stated in the Bible. And in the Biblical text itself, the idea of heaven is a lot more complex than stated in your post, and the idea of hell a lot vaguer; while original sin is not really a biblical concept at all, although the concept of a "fallen" human nature is.
But I feel I should also remind you that reality does not depend on my evaluation of its suitability.
More intelligent than the guy that created everything? More emotionally mature than the one who was willing to die to save humanity? Better sense of humour than the guy that created the platypus? More "impressive" than God?
Ask as if you really want to know, perhaps someone will try to explain it so you can understand.
Really? The guy who created the universe - including your own soul - the one who knows you completely and truly - the one who chooses whether most of your life (the part that starts in 30-50 years from now) will be spent in delight or misery - shows up and you go "so what?"?. I don't think so...
One point that I hear a lot in Christian circles is that if God is the (ultimate) source of all that is good, then we should not expect godly behavior from people who do not accept him as God. So getting told off by someone you just tried to "proselytize" is expected, if they don't accept the message you are bearing.
On the other hand, it does neither the church nor the unbeliever any good to preach in an obnoxious or abusive way. It is one thing to be persecuted because people are afraid that many will believe what you are saying. It is another to be persecuted because you are picking on people who don't want to hear it.
There are a lot of posts here which congratulate ourselves on how intelligent we are and some of those posit that maybe that's why programmers are so mystical as a class. :] )
I think that this is chauvinistic thinking; other professions may require as much or more intelligence. I think that maybe serious programming requires a unique kind of intelligence, but not necessarily a great amount of it. This theory is supported, but not proven, by the content of many of the posts on this topic (excluding this one, of course
Right on, brother. I certainly ran the gamut in high school and college and for a while thereafter. And I didn't see God on a mountain or anything, but as time went on I became convinced. And I don't think that I'm particularly scared of dying, either. In fact, less so at 40+ than I was at 20.
The guarantee of freedom of religious expression in Western societies today has been an important reason why those societies are in many ways less oppressive than others present and past. So I'm all for it. But that does not mean that everyone's personal belief system is valid or right. In fact, it is precisely because people come up with ridiculous, self-centered and harmful belief systems when left to themselves that religious freedom is necessary.
Atheistic materialism ultimately can't explain anything, because it can't account for its own existence (Gödel's theorem). To account for existence, we resort to the supernatural. But that doesn't mean that everyone's opinion about the supernatural is right. Sure, killing off those who disagree with my viewpoint probably is not a good approach to resolving things, but if there is a "real reality", then only one version of how it came to be can be correct. So now for a brief commercial: isn't the Biblical account of creation uniquely rational and uniquely similar to present-day scientific theory on how and when things came to be? (You do have to be flexible on what the Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis means there.)
I like your poll idea - pretty funny. Especially like the Cowboy Nihilist (Lat. nihil, nothing) category.
OK, here's one (Christian developer, former OSS writer). The basic idea of Christianity is to try to be like Christ. This means I write the best code I can, don't overcharge for it, "go the extra mile" in fixing bugs or doing those last-minute tweaks the customer didn't think of during spec or design review, and don't put my business ahead of treating people like human beings (God made us all, he must have had SOME reason). (....) OK, now I've got the asbestos suit on: It seems that the most hateful comments in newsgroups and other forums come from people who are hostile to Christianity or to religion in general. A dangerous generalization, not based on supportable research. Anyway, if the hateful bigot is an untrue stereotype of the Christian, then what's left: honesty, diligence, patience, and other Biblical virtues, all of which seem useful traits for someone developing something which most developers will not comprehend in depth but will depend upon for their own livelihood anyway.