Has anyone ever investigated the bible for errors against when we now consider fact today?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (note there's a lot of far-fetched "errors" in there, but there's also a lot of true factual and logical contradictions)
Or do they keep editing them out in new revisions?
Not really, but (in Dutch at least) the newer translations tend to be somewhat friendlier in tone in the parts about women being submissive to men, etc.
Ah, the Novell eDirectory installer comes to mind... it just ignores (skips, without a warning) non-alphanumeric characters when setting passwords. Of course, the regular login prompt doesn't, so that's a lot of hair-pulling fun...
Yes. Yes, they really do make that kind of mistake. I've seen people make quiz-type webpages with just a client-side javascript that checked the answers (which were, of course, plain-text in the html source). Granted, that was not as important as PIN numbers, but a lot of mediocre programmers just don't step back to reflect on what they've written. As far as they're concerned, it works, and they don't even contemplate ways how malicious users might try to break it.
The quiz was for a job application where someone smart enough to look at the html source would be qualified enough for the job, but still.
Surely I can copy the text of GPLv2, just strike the clauses I don't like (like that silly "any later version" part), and distribute my code under that license?
In the case of a license dispute concerning the Linux kernel source code, FSF is not a party at all, and their interpretation of the license is irrelevant.
The law also takes into account whether or not the virtual victim is an authority figure, whether the victim is conscious of the abuse taking place, and whether the player of the game intends to inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering on the virtual victim.
So, killing a doped-out prostitute is ok, as long as I don't do it on purpose?
Yeah, that law is going to help.
If I don't see any commits from a coworker in a *week*, I'll start asking questions, let alone 3 months. Keeping important data only on a laptop, which can be dropped, stolen or lost, for longer than a day is just asking for trouble.
I'm hoping that it doesn't spread like trailers on DVDs is starting to. I bought a DVD recently and up came trailers for other DVDs the company marketing people thought I might like. Will definitely be keeping an eye out for which company releases the next film I might be tempted to buy. Same applies to the two-minute piracy warning - I paid for the DVD. I am NOT their target audience.
That pisses me off, too. I think it's part of a secret plot to make pirated dvds actually more attractive (ignoring the price) than the real thing. I'm not sure how the movie industry expects to profit from this though.
Wouldn't it be far cheaper for Microsoft to set up some sockpuppet companies that blatantly infringe on some Microsoft patents, and sue those companies to "give legitimacy to software patents"?
Seems unlikely that anyone, even Microsoft, is happy about losing $521M. That's an extremely risky investment if you ask me.
If you could please list those real problem areas, as opposed to the perceived or contrived, I'm sure someone in charge can make sure those are dealt with first.
But can you write a Turing Machine that can check whether itself will halt?
unix has a program that does just that: it's called "true".
That's the point I'm trying to make - we seem to be able to do that most of the time
Most of the time, yes. Just like I could refine my program to also detect certain cases with simple loops, and then even more complex constructs.
(and I would even go as far as postulate that humans can always tell when they are themselves caught in an infinite loop, although I am not able to prove this)
Until you (or anyone else) do, there is really nothing to discuss here.
You claim: "It can be shown however, that humans can solve it in certain cases, which is still more than Turing Machines can do". This claim is simply false: I have just demostrated that it's possible for a turing machine to solve it in certain cases.
Yes, at the moment humans are far better at this kind of operations than machines. But that's not what the discussion was about. It was about the theoretic possiblity for such a machine to exist.
we can catch ourselves going around in circles, a Turing Machine is incapable of doing that.
The heuristics we use to detect this have never been characterised, let alone proven to be complete, so this is no different than a turing machine being able to catch certain special cases.
I'll also concede the point that I cannot prove definitely that human brains are not Turing Machines. But I will point out that you cannot prove that it is one and I'll put forward that it is much more likely that our brains are not Turing Machines, given our introspection ability and the fact that even Quantum Computers are not Turing Machines (so we know that computation devices that are not TMs exist - why should our brain be one?).
I never claimed our brain is a turing machine, and indeed, I cannot proof it one way or the other. I just see no reason to believe it's not, based on your statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! Timecube should get equal time in physics classes!
Finally someone who understands.
Has anyone ever investigated the bible for errors against when we now consider fact today?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (note there's a lot of far-fetched "errors" in there, but there's also a lot of true factual and logical contradictions)
Or do they keep editing them out in new revisions?
Not really, but (in Dutch at least) the newer translations tend to be somewhat friendlier in tone in the parts about women being submissive to men, etc.
Profit is something every Dutch person understands.
Ah, the Novell eDirectory installer comes to mind... it just ignores (skips, without a warning) non-alphanumeric characters when setting passwords. Of course, the regular login prompt doesn't, so that's a lot of hair-pulling fun...
Yes. Yes, they really do make that kind of mistake. I've seen people make quiz-type webpages with just a client-side javascript that checked the answers (which were, of course, plain-text in the html source). Granted, that was not as important as PIN numbers, but a lot of mediocre programmers just don't step back to reflect on what they've written. As far as they're concerned, it works, and they don't even contemplate ways how malicious users might try to break it.
The quiz was for a job application where someone smart enough to look at the html source would be qualified enough for the job, but still.
How do you *own* a license?
Surely I can copy the text of GPLv2, just strike the clauses I don't like (like that silly "any
later version" part), and distribute my code under that license?
In the case of a license dispute concerning the Linux kernel source code, FSF is not a party at all, and their interpretation of the license is irrelevant.
The law also takes into account whether or not the virtual victim is an authority figure, whether the victim is conscious of the abuse taking place, and whether the player of the game intends to inflict severe mental or physical pain or suffering on the virtual victim. So, killing a doped-out prostitute is ok, as long as I don't do it on purpose? Yeah, that law is going to help.
If I don't see any commits from a coworker in a *week*, I'll start asking questions, let alone 3 months. Keeping important data only on a laptop, which can be dropped, stolen or lost, for longer than a day is just asking for trouble.
How do you propose to test new drugs then?
"Press Alt-F-X twice for the easter egg"
I'm sure you could have inserted a tail-recursion joke in there, too.
He didn't list it as a programming language, but as a computer language. Which it is.
pretty much regardless of how poorly implemented
What does that have to do with anything? Do bad locks make it less of a crime to break in to a house?
Not in base 10, they don't
Preferably in a prime base, instead of the unimaginative base 10
I'm hoping that it doesn't spread like trailers on DVDs is starting to. I bought a DVD recently and up came trailers for other DVDs the company marketing people thought I might like. Will definitely be keeping an eye out for which company releases the next film I might be tempted to buy. Same applies to the two-minute piracy warning - I paid for the DVD. I am NOT their target audience.
That pisses me off, too. I think it's part of a secret plot to make pirated dvds actually more attractive (ignoring the price) than the real thing. I'm not sure how the movie industry expects to profit from this though.
No, it shouldn't.
If you need to know the original language to understand the translation, why bother translating?
Actually, the translation *is* shabby, because it seems to be merely a search-replace action with a dictionary
You mean the guy at cern?
Yes, but this increases the price of Eolas by the same amount (plus whatever the shareholders think they can make by going after the other browsers)
Wouldn't it be far cheaper for Microsoft to set up some sockpuppet companies that blatantly infringe on some Microsoft patents, and sue those companies to "give legitimacy to software patents"?
Seems unlikely that anyone, even Microsoft, is happy about losing $521M. That's an extremely risky investment if you ask me.
If you could please list those real problem areas, as opposed to the perceived or contrived, I'm sure someone in charge can make sure those are dealt with first.
It seems that people aren't going to just say, "oh, Norton Anti-virus doesn't work anymore, I better run out and buy Microsoft Anti-virus."
They will if it comes preinstalled and they only have to pay for a subscription to the latest virus definitions.
It changed the future for those antimatter alien lifeforms that lived on the comet.
But can you write a Turing Machine that can check whether itself will halt?
unix has a program that does just that: it's called "true".
That's the point I'm trying to make - we seem to be able to do that most of the time
Most of the time, yes. Just like I could refine my program to also detect certain cases with simple loops, and then even more complex constructs.
(and I would even go as far as postulate that humans can always tell when they are themselves caught in an infinite loop, although I am not able to prove this)
Until you (or anyone else) do, there is really nothing to discuss here.
You claim: "It can be shown however, that humans can solve it in certain cases, which is still more than Turing Machines can do". This claim is simply false: I have just demostrated that it's possible for a turing machine to solve it in certain cases.
Yes, at the moment humans are far better at this kind of operations than machines. But that's not what the discussion was about. It was about the theoretic possiblity for such a machine to exist.
we can catch ourselves going around in circles, a Turing Machine is incapable of doing that.
The heuristics we use to detect this have never been characterised, let alone proven to be complete, so this is no different than a turing machine being able to catch certain special cases.
I'll also concede the point that I cannot prove definitely that human brains are not Turing Machines. But I will point out that you cannot prove that it is one and I'll put forward that it is much more likely that our brains are not Turing Machines, given our introspection ability and the fact that even Quantum Computers are not Turing Machines (so we know that computation devices that are not TMs exist - why should our brain be one?).
I never claimed our brain is a turing machine, and indeed, I cannot proof it one way or the other. I just see no reason to believe it's not, based on your statements.