Children and women subjected to commercial sexual exploitation:
-> 100,000 in the Philippines 400,000 in India 100,000 in Taiwan 200,000 in Thailand 244,000-325,000 in the United States 100,000 in Brazil 35,000 in West Africa 175,000 in Eastern & Central Europe
That's not bad a score for a country with a population around 80 million, is it? (Thailand is much worse btw)
If you call child abuse "culture" that's great, but some people happen to disagree...
(check also http://www.childprotection.org.ph/monthlyfeatures/ archives/ )
So now for your little multiple choice thing:
I guess I'm "B", and you're playing along just fine.
You just record & play back whatever they say. You could even use sox or something to fiddle with speed, noise, whatever, to make it sound less perfect.
Asking people to spell words or to complete an easy password cycle (like "Who's the current president of the USA?" or "Knock, knock?", etc. etc.) would be a lot thougher to beat. Thougher to implement too.
Why do you think Linux has a greater marketshare than arguably better systems like MacOSX, BeOS, or QNX? It's not the price because BeOS didn't get any attention even when they made it cost-free. It's not the applications because MacOSX has many more. It's not the variety of supported platforms because the majority of Linux users use x86.
Bullshit. BeoS i.e. got the price right but not the apps, MacOSX got the apps right but not the price. It's the combination of those things which makes Linux stand out. Your logic it utterly, utterly flawed...
The GG*P (heh) claimed "It's just CS!" and said regexps were *theoretically* unfit to parse regexps...
I just went on and on and on to show that albeit impractical, cumbersome (and probably stupid), *theoretically* regexps can parse all XML data files you can throw at them...
I know, but I thought you'd get that with a finite number of elements, you can't nest them infinitely... (I'm counting tags as "elements" here, a bit sloppy I admit).
My point was that in *practical* XML you simply don't have stuff like [a][a][a][a]......[/a][/a][/a][/a].
As long as you want to parse a FINITE number of terms, you can do that with regexps.
If your example string with parentheses is the ONLY one you want to parse, I can do that (in sed/perl-like syntax) like this:
\(a+b\*5-\(3\*\(7-4\)\)\)
If you want to parse all algebraic terms like in your example with a length less than 5 (!) you can start with this...
(\w|\d\) \((\w|\d\)\)
(to get 9 and (0) and (a) i.e.)
and
\((\w|\d) [+*-\] (\w|\d)\)
to get (9+b),(a*b) etc.. etc..
I know, it's gonna be a LONG list, but since the number of possibilities is limited, it's not infinite! (and obviously, I can't use * on the parentheses!)
A problem arises you want to be able to parse a string of arbitrary length with an arbitrary number of parentheses. That's of course impossible for reasons you stated.:-)
But IN PRACTICE, the number of possibilities in your XML file is NOT arbitrary, it is fixed and predictable, so you can use regexps.
> so they are in fact just a subset of XML and not > able to parse XML completely.
Which means "not everything which is theoraticly possible in XML".
And since *practicly* all XML has a finite number of elements and everything which has a finite number of possibilities can be modelled by regexps just as well; regexp are perfectly capable of parsing XML.
It's not gonna be pretty, but theoraticly possible with all practical XML. That's just computer science. Deal with it.
This is the story submitter, and I must appologise for causing this much confusion. I read the blurb on the mplayer homepage and thought it would be interesting for you/. people. Skimmed the mailinglist a bit and wrote a little something on what I thought was the most "newsworthy" part of the flame war.
As it turns out, the issue is much more complicated than I made it look, and instead of entertaining the/. crowd with a insightful view on OS politics I did nothing but confuse matters more.
If I were an editor on this website, I would have refused my submission.
I'd like to apologise not only to the/. crowd, but also to the debian and mplayer developers whom this concerns.
Sorry again,
Protonman.
ps. Licence/License? I don't really care, I'm not a native speaker.:-P
And the proof of a GoL TM is exactly a prediction. I might be wrong, but a mathematical "prediction" of the existence of a GoL TM seems to me far more likely than the accidental discovery of one (gosh! It's a Turing machine! Who'ould've thunk it!).
So, as proven by the proof of the existence of a GoL TM;-), you can predict the existence of one from the basic-level rules. *You* just can't.
Animals developed two eyes - or eye clusters, in the case of insects -- to allow stereovision and thus depth perception.
You're wrong. Just because 2 eyes are used for stereovision, doesn't mean they were "developed" only for stereovision.
It's evolution baby, things don't get developed for a purpose, things appear and happen to have one or more purposes, and the useful/better (in the evolutionary sense) things stay...
> but perhaps you think it gave a different > impression?
Obviously;-). But I think my impression was justified:
We think here that we've got two parties and one's conservative and one's liberal.
"Look, I vote for the most conservative party in Holland and they're way to the left of your Democrats."
Which sounds like the democrats aren't liberal, or even center-right. But I could be wrong of course.
But I thought the argument was to be synonymous with "I vote for the most right-wing party in Holland, and they're way to the left of your Democrats".
My point is that comparing convervative parties is silly, because their programs depend greatly on the current situation in a country, more so than with socialists or muslim fundamtalists or whatever.
But if you agree, all is well of course and I probably made a fool of myself;-).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's about the same logic my dad uses when I beat him.
"But I told you how to play! So once again, I beat myself!"
From:
/ archives/ )
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/01pr97.htm
(yes, this is from UNICEF)
Children and women subjected to commercial sexual exploitation:
-> 100,000 in the Philippines
400,000 in India
100,000 in Taiwan
200,000 in Thailand
244,000-325,000 in the United States
100,000 in Brazil
35,000 in West Africa
175,000 in Eastern & Central Europe
That's not bad a score for a country with a population around 80 million, is it? (Thailand is much worse btw)
If you call child abuse "culture" that's great, but some people happen to disagree...
(check also http://www.childprotection.org.ph/monthlyfeatures
So now for your little multiple choice thing:
I guess I'm "B", and you're playing along just fine.
the kind that you'd usually see corporate executives or businessmen using.
Yeah, but philippino kids suck corporate dick.
many of the "higher" programs (oracle, architect, seraph, merovingian etc.) "hang out" in the matrix? why?
Easily defeated.
You just record & play back whatever they say. You could even use sox or something to fiddle with speed, noise, whatever, to make it sound less perfect.
Asking people to spell words or to complete an easy password cycle (like "Who's the current president of the USA?" or "Knock, knock?", etc. etc.) would be a lot thougher to beat. Thougher to implement too.
Why do you think Linux has a greater marketshare than arguably better systems like MacOSX, BeOS, or QNX? It's not the price because BeOS didn't get any attention even when they made it cost-free. It's not the applications because MacOSX has many more. It's not the variety of supported platforms because the majority of Linux users use x86.
Bullshit. BeoS i.e. got the price right but not the apps, MacOSX got the apps right but not the price. It's the combination of those things which makes Linux stand out. Your logic it utterly, utterly flawed...
neh... can do that in prolog already.
Thanks :-)
Hit me. Name them. All 30.
Of course not. I never said I was a developer!
The GG*P (heh) claimed "It's just CS!" and said regexps were *theoretically* unfit to parse regexps...
I just went on and on and on to show that albeit impractical, cumbersome (and probably stupid), *theoretically* regexps can parse all XML data files you can throw at them...
Crap. All my 'nt went away.
You *KNOW* how I'm gonna answer here don't you? :-D
;-)
Yes, it IS like enumerating all possible XML files, but that should stop a scientist, right?
I know, but I thought you'd get that with a finite number of elements, you can't nest them infinitely... (I'm counting tags as "elements" here, a bit sloppy I admit).
...[/a][/a][/a][/a].
:-)
:-)
My point was that in *practical* XML you simply don't have stuff like [a][a][a][a]...
As long as you want to parse a FINITE number of terms, you can do that with regexps.
If your example string with parentheses is the ONLY one you want to parse, I can do that (in sed/perl-like syntax) like this:
\(a+b\*5-\(3\*\(7-4\)\)\)
If you want to parse all algebraic terms like in your example with a length less than 5 (!) you can start with this...
(\w|\d\)
\((\w|\d\)\)
(to get 9 and (0) and (a) i.e.)
and
\((\w|\d) [+*-\] (\w|\d)\)
to get (9+b),(a*b) etc.. etc..
I know, it's gonna be a LONG list, but since the number of possibilities is limited, it's not infinite! (and obviously, I can't use * on the parentheses!)
A problem arises you want to be able to parse a string of arbitrary length with an arbitrary number of parentheses. That's of course impossible for reasons you stated.
But IN PRACTICE, the number of possibilities in your XML file is NOT arbitrary, it is fixed and predictable, so you can use regexps.
I'm nitpicking, I know, but it still is CS.
> so they are in fact just a subset of XML and not
> able to parse XML completely.
Which means "not everything which is theoraticly possible in XML".
And since *practicly* all XML has a finite number of elements and everything which has a finite number of possibilities can be modelled by regexps just as well; regexp are perfectly capable of parsing XML.
It's not gonna be pretty, but theoraticly possible with all practical XML. That's just computer science. Deal with it.
Visiting http://www.whitehouse.com has such beautiful excuses...
> Their mailing list is worth its weight in gold.
That doesn't sound too great, you know.
It can't have you, and eat your cake.
That almost sounds like a proverb.
1 repetition
2 repetition
3 repetition
4 repetition
5 repetition
6 repetition
7 repetition
8 repetition
9 repetition
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: That's an awful long string of letters there.
Dude! With math like this you can proof sending your data on lots of cds with the friggin' PONY EXPRESS is the fastest internet connection possible...
PonyExpress -> (sending 100 cds) 64000 / 1 Month = 25,28 KB/Sec!
I believe the original poster (and the proposers) meant it looked like
DeMoCRAcy.
Hi all,
/. people. Skimmed the mailinglist a bit and wrote a little something on what I thought was the most "newsworthy" part of the flame war.
/. crowd with a insightful view on OS politics I did nothing but confuse matters more.
/. crowd, but also to the debian and mplayer developers whom this concerns.
:-P
This is the story submitter, and I must appologise for causing this much confusion. I read the blurb on the mplayer homepage and thought it would be interesting for you
As it turns out, the issue is much more complicated than I made it look, and instead of entertaining the
If I were an editor on this website, I would have refused my submission.
I'd like to apologise not only to the
Sorry again,
Protonman.
ps. Licence/License? I don't really care, I'm not a native speaker.
Uhm. It doesn't have to be easy.
;-), you can predict the existence of one from the basic-level rules. *You* just can't.
And the proof of a GoL TM is exactly a prediction. I might be wrong, but a mathematical "prediction" of the existence of a GoL TM seems to me far more likely than the accidental discovery of one (gosh! It's a Turing machine! Who'ould've thunk it!).
So, as proven by the proof of the existence of a GoL TM
50000th article! I mean, first post!
Shoutout to my homies & my parents!
Animals developed two eyes - or eye clusters, in the case of insects -- to allow stereovision and thus depth perception.
You're wrong. Just because 2 eyes are used for stereovision, doesn't mean they were "developed" only for stereovision.
It's evolution baby, things don't get developed for a purpose, things appear and happen to have one or more purposes, and the useful/better (in the evolutionary sense) things stay...
> but perhaps you think it gave a different
;-). But I think my impression was justified:
;-).
> impression?
Obviously
We think here that we've got two parties and one's conservative and one's liberal.
"Look, I vote for the most conservative party in Holland and they're way to the left of your Democrats."
Which sounds like the democrats aren't liberal, or even center-right. But I could be wrong of course.
But I thought the argument was to be synonymous with "I vote for the most right-wing party in Holland, and they're way to the left of your Democrats".
My point is that comparing convervative parties is silly, because their programs depend greatly on the current situation in a country, more so than with socialists or muslim fundamtalists or whatever.
But if you agree, all is well of course and I probably made a fool of myself