All it means is that software will just shift to a more meta-like programming language. There will be certain aspects that can change, but the overall design will still be made by a human. It will just be a little more "fuzzy".
No, the halting theory only says that it is impossible to find out for all algorithms whether they halt or not. The halting problem probably applies to us humans as well. It doesn't mean that most software can't be written by a machine, just not all software.
Even if gun safety is taught, that still won't stop morons picking up guns and shooting them. There will always be morons, and guns need to be kept out of the hands of morons - hence the need for tighter gun control.
But you're missing the point. If the Universe is in a quantum state, and there are many `futures' possible, then God wouldn't make such a claim. He would say something like:
"A universe exists of approximately the size of the one you inhabit now, with an increase in time of roughly 31 seconds, where the probabililty of you raising your left hand is 41.37% (to two decimal places), ignoring the current effects of my interference, and 0.23% (to two decimal places) when the effect of my interference is apparent once I finish my words."
If God exists, he would be the ultimate Scientist - and so probably quite appalled at the creationist theories.
"What?! I make the Universe in such a beautiful, magnificent, and wonderfully controlled way; everything running perfectly to plan over billions of years, each partcle a loving masterpiece of art fused with mathematics and science, and these bozos dare to say I just _waved a hand_ and it appeared in a few days?! No-one appreciates all the hard work I put into this Universe! They think it comes easy - well, have you ever tried creating a Universe? Eh? It's damned hard work, let me tell you! Plans, art, long lingerings considering the very essense of a bullfrog's croak! The beauty of the Grand Unified Theory of Everything!
"Humph... Looks like *some* people are in desperate need of some lightning bolts up the ass! *Sigh* - ah well, at least those bigots are starting to die out. Well done that species there! We'll make a utopia out of you humans yet... now, how are the Phleebazoids doing on Betelguise...?"
How could the company hope to succeed...
on
ArsDigita Shut Down
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Hell, LucasArts didn't just steal the bandwagon from Sierra, they when back and reversed over the body of Sierra, over and over again, just to make sure!
As I'm doing a course in it now at University, I'll agree with you about how much of a pain it is to program. But there are simple ways in SML at least to iterate, even though such methods may look recursive. Or perhaps I'm getting confused. I never professed to actually getting to know SML that well:)
No self respecting h4x0r would use Corel Linux, but that's still (more or less) the same OS as Debian. Linux can be both customised for newbies, and for the more l337 elements of society.
Yep, 10 minutes to work out how all that closed source MS ping software works, and then to run it in DOS, instead of the infinitely more flexible Bash (or tcsh, or whatever) shell.
I think it was the "Stuff that matters" bit which prevented them from putting it up right away. If you want security alerts, then there are plenty of other sites which will do that, but I'd hardly count this as "News".
Doesn't AOL have a contract with IE to provide there browser? This was agreed upon/before/ AOL bought netscape, so until the contract is up, AOL/have/ to use IE as their browser.
So you're trying to get a *reasonable* reply from this guy? Good luck in your quest but I doubt you'll have much luck.
(Going off on a tangent for a moment...)
As for God, there seems no more evidence for the existance of him than not. I try to remain as open-minded as I can manage. So God may/may not exist, and it seems foolish to me to adhere to any rules that it is debatable whether they are true - especially when there are lots of other, conflicting rules.
Am I eternally damned if I mock God? Or if I eat pork? Or if I don't cover myself below my waist? Or if I don't follow a certain religious zealot? I can't decide. Therefore objeying any religious verse just because it's there is impossible for me - obey one and I'll have to obey them all, just to be fair.
What I do follow is what I believe is right. Whether this carries any more or less weight than anything else is irrelevant to me; it is what seems right to me. Altruism is generally what I believe is right; people helping others. Logically the only reason I can offer for this being right is that the opposite tends to bring ruin and poverty.
Just my own philosophy in life. (Which I'd be happy to change if someone can convince me their way is better. Not wanting to bait anyone, that's just the way I feel.)
The major problem when using the net is the so-called information overload. Filters and software to cut down the signal to noise ratio, far from discouraging socialisation, can only help it. While such technologies could be used to block out social messages - it seems very unlikely to me!
Email too is a double-edged sword. Here at University I doubt I would keep up as much conversation with my family back home if I didn't have email. While some people may visit less because of email, in some cases it only helps people to stay in touch. While writing a letter is quite a lot of trouble, an email can be rattled off with hardly any trouble at all.
Furthermore, look at the exponential rise in chatting software. Sure people are using IM more, but why do you think that is? People like talking to other people. While the shift to talking online may not be the most healthy social trend, that hardly means people are getting less social, only that the medium is changing. Is a person alone if they regularly chat to hundreds of people online and send daily emails to everyone they want to keep in touch with?
That said, I agree that real life offers a much better deal. Going out with friends to the cinema or just a drink at the local bar is often far more fun that chatting away online. As with all things, a balance should be struck. Just because we have new ways to interact doesn't mean the old ways are any less relevant.
As for the idea of online turf disappearing... um excuse me? Katz, what are you on? There are hundreds of places where you can get a free homepages, hundreds of places like slashdot were you can interact and have customised user pages. Too expensive?! Ridiculous! Hostile? Maybe - but popularity is often judged on how good a service's community is - just look at slashdot:)
I suggest the Jon takes a good look at what the average online teenager does today. Many are very social indeed - the most popular places on the net are ones which have a community. What website is complete/without/ a user forum these days? Sites like Neopets, h2g2, Slashdot (if we ignore all the trolls and other idiots that crop up), rely solely on the community of the net.
Sites, online games, and whatever else connected with the net you can think of, that/don't/ have a friendly community will fade from the net as fast as they appear. Humans are social animals, and as much as new technologies may inhibit that, Humanity will always want to talk.
Slashdot Mirror
Fat people sleep more then? :)
All it means is that software will just shift to a more meta-like programming language. There will be certain aspects that can change, but the overall design will still be made by a human. It will just be a little more "fuzzy".
You're assuming those laws will still be in place at that time.
No, the halting theory only says that it is impossible to find out for all algorithms whether they halt or not. The halting problem probably applies to us humans as well. It doesn't mean that most software can't be written by a machine, just not all software.
Hasn't anyone heard of mirrors?
Even if gun safety is taught, that still won't stop morons picking up guns and shooting them. There will always be morons, and guns need to be kept out of the hands of morons - hence the need for tighter gun control.
But you're missing the point. If the Universe is in a quantum state, and there are many `futures' possible, then God wouldn't make such a claim. He would say something like:
"A universe exists of approximately the size of the one you inhabit now, with an increase in time of roughly 31 seconds, where the probabililty of you raising your left hand is 41.37% (to two decimal places), ignoring the current effects of my interference, and 0.23% (to two decimal places) when the effect of my interference is apparent once I finish my words."
If God exists, he would be the ultimate Scientist - and so probably quite appalled at the creationist theories.
"What?! I make the Universe in such a beautiful, magnificent, and wonderfully controlled way; everything running perfectly to plan over billions of years, each partcle a loving masterpiece of art fused with mathematics and science, and these bozos dare to say I just _waved a hand_ and it appeared in a few days?! No-one appreciates all the hard work I put into this Universe! They think it comes easy - well, have you ever tried creating a Universe? Eh? It's damned hard work, let me tell you! Plans, art, long lingerings considering the very essense of a bullfrog's croak! The beauty of the Grand Unified Theory of Everything!
"Humph... Looks like *some* people are in desperate need of some lightning bolts up the ass! *Sigh* - ah well, at least those bigots are starting to die out. Well done that species there! We'll make a utopia out of you humans yet... now, how are the Phleebazoids doing on Betelguise...?"
...When it had a name like ArsDigita?
Hell, LucasArts didn't just steal the bandwagon from Sierra, they when back and reversed over the body of Sierra, over and over again, just to make sure!
As I'm doing a course in it now at University, I'll agree with you about how much of a pain it is to program. But there are simple ways in SML at least to iterate, even though such methods may look recursive. Or perhaps I'm getting confused. I never professed to actually getting to know SML that well :)
Still, Occam's Razor may be false in this case.
Sounds like a Microsoft programmer.
"As simple as e^pi"? Surely you mean "As simple as e^(pi*i)"?
No self respecting h4x0r would use Corel Linux, but that's still (more or less) the same OS as Debian. Linux can be both customised for newbies, and for the more l337 elements of society.
Must make adjustments to my spam filter now as well :)
Yep, 10 minutes to work out how all that closed source MS ping software works, and then to run it in DOS, instead of the infinitely more flexible Bash (or tcsh, or whatever) shell.
56,343 on life support? Must be all that stress induced heart-attacks from the using latest Windows version ;)
Good for ASCII Art ;)
I think it was the "Stuff that matters" bit which prevented them from putting it up right away. If you want security alerts, then there are plenty of other sites which will do that, but I'd hardly count this as "News".
And they thought Divx ;) was going to be a problem...
Unfortunately I couldn't read any further of your comment as I was helpless with laughter ;)
< Hordes of Jar Jar binks instead of Nazis
Well, it makes sense. Let's look at the advantages:
Doesn't AOL have a contract with IE to provide there browser? This was agreed upon /before/ AOL bought netscape, so until the contract is up, AOL /have/ to use IE as their browser.
So you're trying to get a *reasonable* reply from this guy? Good luck in your quest but I doubt you'll have much luck.
(Going off on a tangent for a moment...)
As for God, there seems no more evidence for the existance of him than not. I try to remain as open-minded as I can manage. So God may/may not exist, and it seems foolish to me to adhere to any rules that it is debatable whether they are true - especially when there are lots of other, conflicting rules.
Am I eternally damned if I mock God? Or if I eat pork? Or if I don't cover myself below my waist? Or if I don't follow a certain religious zealot? I can't decide. Therefore objeying any religious verse just because it's there is impossible for me - obey one and I'll have to obey them all, just to be fair.
What I do follow is what I believe is right. Whether this carries any more or less weight than anything else is irrelevant to me; it is what seems right to me. Altruism is generally what I believe is right; people helping others. Logically the only reason I can offer for this being right is that the opposite tends to bring ruin and poverty.
Just my own philosophy in life. (Which I'd be happy to change if someone can convince me their way is better. Not wanting to bait anyone, that's just the way I feel.)
The major problem when using the net is the so-called information overload. Filters and software to cut down the signal to noise ratio, far from discouraging socialisation, can only help it. While such technologies could be used to block out social messages - it seems very unlikely to me!
:)
/without/ a user forum these days? Sites like Neopets, h2g2, Slashdot (if we ignore all the trolls and other idiots that crop up), rely solely on the community of the net.
/don't/ have a friendly community will fade from the net as fast as they appear. Humans are social animals, and as much as new technologies may inhibit that, Humanity will always want to talk.
Email too is a double-edged sword. Here at University I doubt I would keep up as much conversation with my family back home if I didn't have email. While some people may visit less because of email, in some cases it only helps people to stay in touch. While writing a letter is quite a lot of trouble, an email can be rattled off with hardly any trouble at all.
Furthermore, look at the exponential rise in chatting software. Sure people are using IM more, but why do you think that is? People like talking to other people. While the shift to talking online may not be the most healthy social trend, that hardly means people are getting less social, only that the medium is changing. Is a person alone if they regularly chat to hundreds of people online and send daily emails to everyone they want to keep in touch with?
That said, I agree that real life offers a much better deal. Going out with friends to the cinema or just a drink at the local bar is often far more fun that chatting away online. As with all things, a balance should be struck. Just because we have new ways to interact doesn't mean the old ways are any less relevant.
As for the idea of online turf disappearing... um excuse me? Katz, what are you on? There are hundreds of places where you can get a free homepages, hundreds of places like slashdot were you can interact and have customised user pages. Too expensive?! Ridiculous! Hostile? Maybe - but popularity is often judged on how good a service's community is - just look at slashdot
I suggest the Jon takes a good look at what the average online teenager does today. Many are very social indeed - the most popular places on the net are ones which have a community. What website is complete
Sites, online games, and whatever else connected with the net you can think of, that