There's a good argument to be made, however, that you can't throw major transitions like that into the economy too frequently, otherwise no one will be able to adjust quickly enough - and everything WILL truly fall apart.
There's also a good argument to be made that, if you throw too many major transitions like that into the economy, you end up with socialism in the long run.
(Cartoon history of the universe I and II. These got me through me freshman year history courses. Lots of interesting little tidbits. Did you know the Egyptians used crocidile dung as birth control?)
I think you're taking my comments completely wrong.
What I was saying is, that at the time the book was written, the the children of Israel, who had been in slavery for quite a long time, were not in a state to receive the entire, unadulterated truth. They had forgotten their roots. They had been worshipping other gods. They had largely forgotten how to write in the language they spoke. They needed milk, not meat.
They got the milk, as they needed. If you need divine proof of this, you can study some of what the Messiah himself said. Paul has some great things to say about it as well.
That should answer the substance of your tirade. Now on to your specifics:
1) I never said they were "illiterate natives." In fact, I do understand that Moses himself was quite educated, both in Egypt and by his father-in-law, Jethro.
2) I believe that all truth is consistent with itself. If substantiated findings contradict a certain interpretation, of course I'm going to look for viable alternatives. (That being said, I want you to understand that I most definitely do not give any weight to macroevolution.)
3) I did not call the Jews and their tradition stupid.
First, I ought to say that I go along with the "day as a timespan" crowd.
It should be remembered that the book of Genesis was revealed through Moses to a group of people who were not ready for a higher law. They were also still in a slave mindset, and generally illiterate.
Everything gets simplified in that case. How could you tell a person like that about - for example - how God set all the elements together and oversaw the development of the Earth over the course of billions of years, possibly nudging it every once in a while but knowing what the final outcome would be simply from knowing the beginning of it?
Seven days is a lot easier to digest, especially if you need to teach about the Sabbath at the same time. It's not necessarily incorrect, either. Even if the context does indicate actual days, it wouldn't be the first time that poetic license was taken, or even a simple metaphor was used to convey extra meaning. (A very long time to us = one day to God.) Isaiah did that kind of stuff all the time.
Try base 196. It works in that: 10 + 01 = 11! Wow!
You can do that to every number in at least one base. What definitely would be interesting is to find some number it only works for in its own base. Or to find some special properties of numbers that are defined by what bases it works in, how many steps it takes in each base...
In any case - and I'm sure you've heard this a lot - it doesn't matter that there's no apparent useful application. Stop being so practical.
Let me guess: you didn't take her out to dinner, because you knew that if you did that (which you undoubtedly would), she would never go out with you again.
If you change something, your change will cause changes to propagate outwards. That rate is called the group velocity. This is the rate at which changes propagate, and cannot exceed the speed of light (thanks to Einstein).
Stupid Einstein. Why couldn't he just leave it alone?
...at least not for me. I can code on paper, but I really don't like to. At least, I can code if what I'm supposed to be coding is short.
The deal is that I just don't code from line one to line 5000 sequentially. I define the overall structure and then fill things in - and that's at every level (class, method, loop, conditional).
When I was making exams for an assembly language class I taught once upon a time, I opted out of having them write much code. (A few lines is fine, I think.) If there was any serious amount of code involved, I was asking them to trace through it and give me the result, or I was giving it to them and asking them to incorporate something short in it, or the other way around. That's a better use for the static medium (paper), IMNSHO.
I'm not sure if you're acting like a moron for the sake of a joke (I do that myself a lot:)) - but just in case you aren't:
It's for programming vertex and pixel shaders. Up until now, all you had was this nearly-evil assembly code to program them with.
It's not as if they've discovered something new, because they haven't. It's that they've applied it to an area that will give more people access to the new cards' powerful new features - which would otherwise go underused because so many people shy away from assembly of any kind.
I was skeptical myself until I saw how they've put it together. I can't wait until I have enough dough to buy one of these cards now...
Cheat protection has all the same problems as copy protection, and is just as difficult to get working.
To recap a bit from other discussions: Let's say we have Alice and Bob that want to communicate securely. Say Alice is the content provider, and Bob is the consumer.
There are a number of ways for Alice to get content to Bob without Charlie being able to modify it. They could use private communication in close proximity in either Alice or Bob's location, use a previously-agreed-upon secret key, use public-key encryption, have a trusted third party validate the end result, etc., etc., etc.
Here's the problem with both copy protection and cheat-proofing: BOB IS CHARLIE.
Throws a wrench in the works, doesn't it?
To illustrate cheat-proofing problems: Alice (the game server now) needs to be sure that Bob (the game client) is unaltered, pure, or whatever you want to call it. Bob needs to send some bit of information without Charlie altering it. But BOB IS STILL CHARLIE. Argh!
Also, in the case of a client checking itself, Alice, Bob, and Charlie are ALL the SAME ENTITY. Rather sticky, no?
With a solution like this, I see a lot of the "good" players being quite some distance from most webs. I've been accused of cheating quite a few times online, just from being able to aim well and having a few games in a row "in the groove."
Re:Perl's had it's day - It's become like COBOL
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 2
Maybe you could try this instead, and though I don't know the Regex library you're talking about I'll bet it would work just fine:
String s = "howdy partner";
if ( new Regex("/howdy/").match(s) ) { System.out.println("yay!\n" }
Seems okay to me. By the way, your little trick with the execution path after the "if" all in one line in Perl but not Java was pretty transparent.
Re:Okay, if I had a chance to interview Carmack
on
E3 Doom III Preview
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'll answer this one for him, though he'll probably log on, slap me one, and answer it himself:
Would you consider writing the client and server game logic modules in a multiplayer oriented game in a different language from each other?
One of the ways to make an online game consistent despite latency is client-side prediction. For simplicity in prediction, a lot of the code is shared between the client and server games. (Check out the BG_ functions in the bg_*.c/h files in the Quake III game source for an example.) Having those written in separate languages would preclude code sharing, creating a big maintenance headache.
Besides, why would you ever want to do that? I can't think of one good reason for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you both forget that Osama's entire family has disowned him.
Gotta love guilt by association.
So...what do I set MessageBackColor to if I want the Paisley screen of death? Or streaming video?
;)
Oh well, nice attempt.
That's :) what :) smileys :) are :) for. ;)
Oh! So THAT's why everything seemed so close-up after I bought my Radeon.
Thanks!
There's a good argument to be made, however, that you can't throw major transitions like that into the economy too frequently, otherwise no one will be able to adjust quickly enough - and everything WILL truly fall apart.
There's also a good argument to be made that, if you throw too many major transitions like that into the economy, you end up with socialism in the long run.
(Cartoon history of the universe I and II. These got me through me freshman year history courses. Lots of interesting little tidbits. Did you know the Egyptians used crocidile dung as birth control?)
And there was a...cartoon about this?
I'm not sure I want to see that one.
What? No INTERCAL??
Heathens.
I think you're taking my comments completely wrong.
What I was saying is, that at the time the book was written, the the children of Israel, who had been in slavery for quite a long time, were not in a state to receive the entire, unadulterated truth. They had forgotten their roots. They had been worshipping other gods. They had largely forgotten how to write in the language they spoke. They needed milk, not meat.
They got the milk, as they needed. If you need divine proof of this, you can study some of what the Messiah himself said. Paul has some great things to say about it as well.
That should answer the substance of your tirade. Now on to your specifics:
1) I never said they were "illiterate natives." In fact, I do understand that Moses himself was quite educated, both in Egypt and by his father-in-law, Jethro.
2) I believe that all truth is consistent with itself. If substantiated findings contradict a certain interpretation, of course I'm going to look for viable alternatives. (That being said, I want you to understand that I most definitely do not give any weight to macroevolution.)
3) I did not call the Jews and their tradition stupid.
First, I ought to say that I go along with the "day as a timespan" crowd.
It should be remembered that the book of Genesis was revealed through Moses to a group of people who were not ready for a higher law. They were also still in a slave mindset, and generally illiterate.
Everything gets simplified in that case. How could you tell a person like that about - for example - how God set all the elements together and oversaw the development of the Earth over the course of billions of years, possibly nudging it every once in a while but knowing what the final outcome would be simply from knowing the beginning of it?
Seven days is a lot easier to digest, especially if you need to teach about the Sabbath at the same time. It's not necessarily incorrect, either. Even if the context does indicate actual days, it wouldn't be the first time that poetic license was taken, or even a simple metaphor was used to convey extra meaning. (A very long time to us = one day to God.) Isaiah did that kind of stuff all the time.
Yep. You'll need that much to run emacs on the same system as anything else.
Wow. This could turn into an "emacs vs. vi" flame war. Who knew?
Try base 196. It works in that: 10 + 01 = 11! Wow!
You can do that to every number in at least one base. What definitely would be interesting is to find some number it only works for in its own base. Or to find some special properties of numbers that are defined by what bases it works in, how many steps it takes in each base...
In any case - and I'm sure you've heard this a lot - it doesn't matter that there's no apparent useful application. Stop being so practical.
Let me guess: you didn't take her out to dinner, because you knew that if you did that (which you undoubtedly would), she would never go out with you again.
I don't think Naked Romping Hobbits would have done too well, even if they [i]did[/i] behave themselves.
If you change something, your change will cause changes to propagate outwards. That rate is called the group velocity. This is the rate at which changes propagate, and cannot exceed the speed of light (thanks to Einstein).
Stupid Einstein. Why couldn't he just leave it alone?
...at least not for me. I can code on paper, but I really don't like to. At least, I can code if what I'm supposed to be coding is short.
The deal is that I just don't code from line one to line 5000 sequentially. I define the overall structure and then fill things in - and that's at every level (class, method, loop, conditional).
When I was making exams for an assembly language class I taught once upon a time, I opted out of having them write much code. (A few lines is fine, I think.) If there was any serious amount of code involved, I was asking them to trace through it and give me the result, or I was giving it to them and asking them to incorporate something short in it, or the other way around. That's a better use for the static medium (paper), IMNSHO.
I'm not sure if you're acting like a moron for the sake of a joke (I do that myself a lot :)) - but just in case you aren't:
It's for programming vertex and pixel shaders. Up until now, all you had was this nearly-evil assembly code to program them with.
It's not as if they've discovered something new, because they haven't. It's that they've applied it to an area that will give more people access to the new cards' powerful new features - which would otherwise go underused because so many people shy away from assembly of any kind.
I was skeptical myself until I saw how they've put it together. I can't wait until I have enough dough to buy one of these cards now...
Cheat protection has all the same problems as copy protection, and is just as difficult to get working.
To recap a bit from other discussions: Let's say we have Alice and Bob that want to communicate securely. Say Alice is the content provider, and Bob is the consumer.
There are a number of ways for Alice to get content to Bob without Charlie being able to modify it. They could use private communication in close proximity in either Alice or Bob's location, use a previously-agreed-upon secret key, use public-key encryption, have a trusted third party validate the end result, etc., etc., etc.
Here's the problem with both copy protection and cheat-proofing: BOB IS CHARLIE.
Throws a wrench in the works, doesn't it?
To illustrate cheat-proofing problems: Alice (the game server now) needs to be sure that Bob (the game client) is unaltered, pure, or whatever you want to call it. Bob needs to send some bit of information without Charlie altering it. But BOB IS STILL CHARLIE. Argh!
Also, in the case of a client checking itself, Alice, Bob, and Charlie are ALL the SAME ENTITY. Rather sticky, no?
With a solution like this, I see a lot of the "good" players being quite some distance from most webs. I've been accused of cheating quite a few times online, just from being able to aim well and having a few games in a row "in the groove."
Maybe you could try this instead, and though I don't know the Regex library you're talking about I'll bet it would work just fine:
String s = "howdy partner";
if ( new Regex("/howdy/").match(s) ) { System.out.println("yay!\n" }
Seems okay to me. By the way, your little trick with the execution path after the "if" all in one line in Perl but not Java was pretty transparent.
I'll answer this one for him, though he'll probably log on, slap me one, and answer it himself:
Would you consider writing the client and server game logic modules in a multiplayer oriented game in a different language from each other?
One of the ways to make an online game consistent despite latency is client-side prediction. For simplicity in prediction, a lot of the code is shared between the client and server games. (Check out the BG_ functions in the bg_*.c/h files in the Quake III game source for an example.) Having those written in separate languages would preclude code sharing, creating a big maintenance headache.
Besides, why would you ever want to do that? I can't think of one good reason for it.
Wow, this is a great response. Mod this UP!
</irony>
The ACLU said the first four weeks of testing at the Palm Beach airport showed the technology was "less accurate than a coin toss."
Now, a coin toss generally turns up the null hypothesis (completely random). So it's worse than completely random?
I've got an easy solution, then. All they have to do is reverse the answers and they'll be MORE accurate than a coin toss!
I want one like this:
<suckage>XML</suckage>
Dishwasher.
What? Would I lie to you?
No, that would be "Spider-Strength." With a hyphen. Duh.