If isoHunt turned off access via U.S. IP address blocks, it would theoretically no longer be in violation of U.S. law - only potentially Canadian law (which Fung states he is not violating...).
Isn't it the USERS in the US who are violating US law?
Anyway, it'll all be moot in the next couple of decades, as it gets to the point where software-generated 3d movies and pro-quality music will be able to be generated by anyone in their own home with consumer-grade hardware and software.
We're already seeing self-publishing getting a toe-hold in the literary and music worlds, and it's freaking out the old school. When everyone can generate content, who needs the content rent-seekers?
Intellectual differences and vigorous, no-holds-barred discussion shouldn't prevent people from wishing each other the best in the upcoming year. I might disagree with you on almost everything, and find a lot of what you believe to be offensive (and I'm sure you are thinking the same wrt my posts:-), but I still wish you the best for the holidays, and a happy new year.
Take care.
BTW, you're invited to participate in the current contest, same as anyone else, including entering and the judging at the end. You can take the opportunity to slag my 2 entries there all you want. It might be fun:-)
Your refusal to address the points I made wrt religion co-opting marriage, the occurrence of same-sex behaviour being documented as natural in hundreds of different species, and the flaws in logic wrt natural selection, etc., show that you are one of the willfully blind. Your grasping at straws like the debunked shroud of turin, and your claims that a dozen people willfully dying somehow establish the "truthiness" of christianity in the face of counter-examples where hundreds, thousands, and more have died for causes that are obviously false, shows that you're truly one of the willfully blind.
You have yet to propose an experiment that proves god's existence. You make all sorts of entirely false (and provably false) claims about marriage being "natural", etc. Anyone who thinks that the jews were around when marriage first came into being (as you implied) is both a slacker when it comes to history, and actively engaging in revisionist history There is no justification for such a lie. None. Nada. Zip.
Just like there's no justification in claiming that there's some "logic" behind the process of natural selection that would "naturally" prohibit same-sex relationships. This is obviously easily disproved - look around - they're here - evolution didn't use "logic" to "weed them out." By your argument, evolution must have some "logic" to them being here, so it MUST be natural.
So stop with the lies. Don't christians who knowingly lie commit a sin? Your "evolution" argument is demonstrably a lie. What does that make you?
Logic dictates that evolution wouldn't allow for it to be genetic
Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution doesn't exercise any form of "logic". According to your "logic" argument, we should all be disease-free. No colds or anything else. Additionally, it's been proven that genetics enters into to. Same as with such other actions, such as altruism, which was formerly thought to be purely social.
You misunderstood me. I was speaking about natural basis for marriage, not a prerequisite for it. Its primary purpose was the above mentioned. There is no such basis, since no such purpose can ever be achieved in a homosexual union. This is why it doesn't even resemble marriage.
There is no such thing as a "natural" marriage. Marriage is a purely human invention. Also, you fail to address my point about infertile couples - they can never procreate, and in times past, various churches have declared their marriages null if you possessed enough power or $$$ (cf. Henry 8). And what about families that adopt? Additionally, procreation isn't limited to opposite-sex couples. Any lesbian couple with a net connection can get a turkey baster. Further, recent studies showed that same-sex couples who make it through the adoption process actually provide a better, more stable, home environment than opposite-sex couples. That's why my government now actively encourages same-sex couples to adopt.
It does, but kids are generally better of in a family with both father and mother. Not divorced, not abandoned, not with a single parent. A union of man and a woman which is not legalized resembles marriage and is probably acceptable for the development of kids, unlike homosexual unions which doesn't and isn't
Typical tunnel vision. The majority of children in my province are now born to common-law couples - and common-law couples now outlast married couples in terms of the length of the relationship. In other words, if you want a stable family unit, marriage isn't the way to do it. Additionally, we outlawed the concept of "illegitimacy" of children - there's no longer any such thing. All children are legitimate. To avoid even the possibility of discrimination, we also outlawed the practice of women taking their husbands' last name when they get married. This way, you can't tell if the kids were adopted, or from another relationship, just by looking at the last names.
If society chooses to (and we have), it can get rid of the problems religion causes in peoples' lives, such as heaping shame on kids for being "illegitimate." Shame on the church for pushing that concept for centuries, and on religious people for buying into it in ANY shape, manner, or form.
>Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism.
Yes, it did. Well, depends on what you regard as Judaism.
There were no jews around 30,000 years ago.
There are documentaries on youtube that explain why the shroud is inexplicable (ie miraculous). I reckon you have looked it up at least, so thank you for checking out my references.
There is NO proof whatsoever that the shroud ever came into contact with Jesus. Even if it were from the same era, that doesn't prove anything, any more than a claim that a cup from that same era is the holy grail or other such nonsense. It's also not "inexplicable" unless you choose it to be so, same as conspiracy theorists who want to believe we never landed on the moon.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, but I'll give it a shot: A man testifies he was friends with Christ, and saw miracles He preformed, and then goes to preach it and dies a martyr death for it. Now imagine eleven of such people. And I'm not even talking now about all those who haven't saw Jesus in the flesh.
The performance of applications in C often degrade over time as they are maintained, and whether or not it gets fixed is often a management issue.
Mod +++++ VERY TRUE
Worst is when they just want it NOW, and "you can fix it later." We all know tomorrow never comes. Then a year down the road someone else looks at it and goes "what an idiot!"
That's why I'll stick my email in the @blame section, along with a "This sicks. Email me if you want this done right."
They don't seem to understand that an extra 15 minutes of "thinking time" before writing a line of code always more than pays for itself.
Why do you say that? It's documented as quite natural behaviour in many mammals, not just humans.
marriage is a union with a distinct purpose of procreation
Says you. You would deny marriage to couples who can't procreate? That means that once a woman hits menopause, they're no suddenly longer married? Or that a couple who are infertile can't get married? That makes you quite the little social Hitler (oh, wait, the current Pope already has prior art on that).
it builds society
Really? So people having kids in a stable union outside of marriage *doesn't* build society? Or is it just that it doesn't build *your* society... nice to know you still maintain that kids "born out of wedlock" are just illegitimate little bastards.
his is why it's - according to natural law - defined as union of the opposite sexes
"Natural law" - what animals do in nature - says you're wrong. There are plenty of counter-examples IN NATURE! It's only you and your ilk who choose to ignore what is before your very eyes.
If you'd like a homosexual union, you'd have to look outside the above mentioned institution of marriage.
Why? The church does NOT have any special *right* to decide what a marriage is. Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism. It is what *we* the people choose to define it. If you don't like that, tough. Humans were deciding these things LONG before the "christian" god ever put in an appearance, and humans have the exclusive right to decide what laws they choose to live under.
The shroud of Turin is quite convincing when considered objectively
There is no proof that Jesus was the one in the shroud, never mind that the dating of the shroud is inconclusive, AND that it is certainly not proof that Jesus was in any way divine.
the witnesses and quick rise of the new religion (which usually takes a lot to build)
Bullcrap. Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moronism, Christian Science all how that people will check their brains at the door and latch onto the latest craze.
If you want to question the eyewitnesses, consider they died for the cause.
People do crazy things all the time. Look at how many willfully followed the nazis.
what does the double slit experiment have to do with disproving causality
The presence of an observer AFTER the photon has passed through the slits but BEFORE it hits the receptor influences whether you get a diffraction pattern. In other words, a later observation affects whether the particle previously interfered with itself. Causality is broken. But that's okay - our conventional model of causality has been under attack for quite a while.
The uncaused cause needs to be... without a cause
Or we can dispose of the need for a cause entirely, by accepting that our cause-effect model is an inaccurate description of the universe, and only seems to be what it is because we insist on an "arrow-of-time" that is invariant and unidirectional. The two-slit experiment with the post-slit observation kills that.
I'm sorry, but now you're just making stuff up. Your previous arguments were weak, but now you begin to offer none for your claims.
The exceptional behaviour of the two-slit experiment breaking conventional causality is sufficient to show that we do not require a "prime mover" or "creator". This being the case, positing one, where there is NO proof for its' existence, and which would break other currently-observed rules of this particular universe, doesn't make sense. It's just superstition.
You could probably find a php-related domain name that's a zombie. It only took me a minute, using random names and whois from a terminal window, to find out that phprocks.com is currently expired and shows as being in the 30-day redemption period (but even that has passed), and will probably become available over the next week once they update the status. It's also about to pass through pending-delete phase, since it expired Nov 7th, 2009. It qualifies for the contest, since it shows up in the wayback machine.
Don't bother using a "domain-name-sniping" service... just wait until it goes back into the pool (it won't show up in a whois search) and grab it. BTW, you'd be at least the 3rd owner, since the current owner sniped it the previous time it expired.
1 Cor. 13 is one of the greatest prose works in history of humanity (no wonder since it's inspired by Holy Spirit), and to its greatness testify many non-Christians. Believe me, the saint didn't want to pat himself on the back (projection comes to mind, sry), but rather diminish the the great, even miraculous works in favor of "simple" Love which is the goal.
I'm not familiar of the song "Lord, it's hard to be humble", but the title doesn't suggest (at least to me) "I am humble, I rock", but rather "I'm not, sorry, and give me strength".
That being said, I was talking about what should be a real Christian motivation to do good, which you fail to address (if that was your intent).
Here, let me fix that for you:
1 Cor. 13 is one of the most self-laudatory pieces of crap ever written in human history, where Paul attempts to show that he is SO good because now he "does everything out of love for Jebus." Again, this is not doing good because it is the right thing to do, any more than giving your kids presents for the holidays because you love them is necessarily "the right thing to do."
Motivation: Christian motivation is always unclean - it's based on being "subservient to gods word." In other words, it is based on abdicating personal responsibility for coming up with ones own ethics, and any consequences thereof.
A good example of this is the religious intolerance to same-sex marriage. This intolerance isn't based on love, but on a perversion of what love means - "I love Jebus and Gawd says these people is sinners!" Real love, or even just plain decency, would be to look objectively at the whole issue. The only conclusion that such an objective analysis can conclude is that there is no ethical reason for someone to try to interfere with two people's rights to marry based on their sex, same as it would be wrong to do so based on skin colour.
Then again, Jesus was one of the worst offenders when it came to espousing intolerance. Matt.10:34ff "Think not I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." What an ass-hole. That's not love or an example of self-sacrifice, but of "I saved you, you now owe me, so if it comes down to your own kids and me, remember that!" Then again, what can we expect from someone who, as God, commanded Abraham to murder his own kid. Compared to him, the Beatles rock. God and Jesus promote war between individuals and nations, the Beatles promoted peace. God and Jesus say "worship me or else", the Beatles say "Hope you like our music."
It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"
And how is keeping this knowledge away from people a "good thing?" We teach our own kids what is good and what is bad so that they'll do good. We all hate the parent whose fat little brat is continually throwing temper tantrums to get their way because the parent would rather just give them the candy bar than take the time to say no, and back it up with action. In your "Eden", there was no such possibility of moral or ethical growth. And you want to go back to that?
in fact, greatest thinkers were Christian.
Nope. The greatest thinkers were lost in history - the ones who invented agriculture, animal husbandry, language, fire, clothing, tools, written or drawn depictions of reality as stand-ins for the actual objects themselves, simple counting, etc.
You're also discounting all the people in the pre-christian era, like this guy who figured out that the earth orbited the sun long before Copernicus, and worked out the distances between the sun, moon, and
That's okay - wait until a dupe is posted... though you won't be able to claim uber coder status, since you won't be able to say "Hmm. I think I've seen something like this before."
Unless you try with "Slashdotted! Hmm. I think I've seen something like this before" FTW.
I'm not disagreeing that people use libraries, or even the same libraries. Just that some situations, it doesn't make sense to do like everyone else does. That's why we have a gajillion different programming languages, different hardware, different operating systems...:-)
I have no real beef against php - I use it myself. My real beef is with people who think that php (or java) is only "a bit" slower than c. Or who think xml is a godsend and every problem that can't be solved by xml can be solved by adding MORE xml (bet you've run into at least one boss who thinks that). Then you get the guy from marketing opening up HIS yap about how "we'll just do it in xml". Like that will solve the problem somehow. Even though he's never seen raw xml in his life - except when he accidently opens it up in his web browser and goes "WTF is wrong here?"
Like the time the boss asked for a database dump in xml so he could "import it into his spreadsheat." "Look, here's the link, just click on it and it'll generate a.csv file in real time which you can open no problem." "I want it in xml." "Too bad. You're getting it in csv." "Why don't you do what I tell you for once?" "I do, when you tell me to do something that makes sense. This doesn't. Trust me on this, I'm watching your back for you."
By the way, in your sample app were you parsing that XML with actual PHP code or the XML functions built into the language or available as modules? If it was the former then your benchmarks are worthless as you clearly don't have a clue about how to use PHP.
Neither - strictly in c - much quicker. No php code (or any scripting language) is used in the custom server.
Regarding the glue code, do you honestly think the tiny amount of code required to dump the string into the XML parser is going to make a noticeable difference when compared to the amount of processing required to parse an XML document?
You write custom XML parsers every time you parse a different doc schema? Wow.
If I know exactly what the format is, and what data I'm looking for, it's WAY quicker to treat it like a stream of tokens, parsing out tokens, and when you find the beginning of one that interests you, save a pointer to 1 byte past the end, continue tokenizing until you find the close, and grab the data between the saved pointer and the beginning of the end token.
You can recurse this if you have enclosed tags.
Why would I want to waste my time doing more? (aside from the fact that xmlreallysucksbadly.
I'm not saying it's as fast as hand written C just pointing out that a large part of what you wrote is rubbish in the typical production environment.
You can't have it both ways. Also, Facebook - which is the example in the article - is not "the typical production environment." So tell us, how is your snide little remark anything but rubbish?
Also, APC isn't "that" much faster. 4x is nowhere near 10-100x.
typically they're extremely cache and DB intensive if they're written right
No. The less you have to hit the database, the better. Slashdot is a good example - people who are logged in are only 1/3 of all page views, but require 2/3 of the boxes.
I believe it because specialised code always wins out over generic code, at the cost of maintainability. It's no different from the PHP vs C++ tradeoff mentioned in TFA. PHP loses you a lot of performance while gaining a lot of "R" in your RAD.
And that's the crux of the matter. Not "which is better." I slag the STL because I don't like it, but so what. If it floats peoples boats, who cares. It's ALL about trade-offs. At bottom, the article was about the tradeoff between dev time and run time. When you're running something as big as facebook, the tradeoff calculus is different. They would certainly benefit by moving some of the more stable stuff from php to c - or even c++ and the stl, if that works for them.
People who think that php is "almost as fast as c" need to rethink their position.
And yes, reference counting, weak references, etc. Blech!
I know which I'd rather listen to. And the Beatles never paid out over a billion dollars to settle over priests molesting kids. And the Beatles never said "either you believe in me or my old man will kick your sorry butt." And the Beatles are open to everyone. I'm sure if we took a few minutes, we could come up with a Top 10 list for why the Beatles are better than Jesus.
There is no such thing as a soul. What you see is what you got. The "soul", like all "supernatural metaphysics", is just bullshit.
1 Cor. 13 is self-congratulatory garbage, the type of stuff someone writes when they want to pat themselves on the back for being good without it looking like they're doing it - try listening to the song "Oh lord, it's hard to be humble!"
People are free to hold religious beliefs... doesn't mean that those beliefs have any relationship to reality, no matter how much you want otherwise.
[X] No proof of the existence of god.
[X] No proof of the existence of a soul.
[X] No proof of the existence of a spirit (holy or otherwise).
[X] No proof of the existence of jesus being the son of god or god the son.
[X] No proof of the existence of sin.
[X] No proof of any final judgment.
[X] No proof of the existence of heaven.
[X] No proof of the existence of hell.
No thanks, I'll keep my current life. It might not be perfect according to your standards, but it doesn't have to be. There's nobody to judge me except fellow humans (and my dogs, but they worship me like I'm god).
Besides, if god did exist, I'd have to root for the devil anyway - I always go for the underdog. And besides, what the FUCK was so wrong about giving people knowledge? Think of it - your "god", if he existed, likes his followers dumb and ignorant and powerless (because knowledge is power). But christians choose to live by "ignorance is bliss." Willfully dumb as a bag of nails with no hammer around to pound some sense into them. Good one!
There's an easier way to be "free of sin" than to follow christianity. Reject the whole concept. The only person who can keep you "under god's thumb" is you.
Christianity is just another in a long line of scams. You've been scammed. The question is, are you so heavily invested into it psychologically that you're not willing to be intellectually honest and look at it critically? Or are you going to continue because "OMG if I admit I've been scammed my life is a waste!"
All library objects are safe to use in a multithreaded program as long as each thread carefully locks out access by any other thread while it uses any object visible to another thread, i.e., treat library objects like any other shared resource. In general, this requirement includes both read and write access to objects; unless otherwise documented as safe, do not assume that two threads may access a shared standard library object at the same time.
All I'm saying is that the STL is not thread-safe, especially when writing server software - which isn't only what I'm writing about, but what the original article is writing about. The STL is also slower - benchmarks prove it. The STL adds complexity, which means more code to debug when something goes haywire. And finally, debugging a multi-threaded app is already a pain to begin with.
Look, TR1 has some interesting features. It just doesn't have a place in what I was doing, and probably won't in at least the near future. Maybe one day I'll find a need for it, or it will makes something simpler - then I'll use it. (but you have to admit the syntax is visually fugly).
I'm not saying that it was a "necessary evil" to write disk drive code in assembler - I did it to compare the speed with c because I could. Not many people were into assembler even then. I did the same for video access, and of course c was also slower. That's to be expected. Borland products were pretty nice back then. Turbo Assembler, Turbo C, Borland C++. You bought those not just for the compiler and tools, but because the manuals were darned well written (and sometimes funny. The documentation for the sound function was one such case:
/* Emits a 7-Hz tone for 10 seconds. True story: 7 Hz is the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull cavity. This was determined empirically in Australia, where a new factory generating 7-Hz tones was located too close to a chicken ranch: When the factory started up, all the chickens died. Your PC may not be able to emit a 7-Hz tone. */
lock-free algorithms are HARD to get right:-) Depends on the data, the use you're going to make of it, whether it can be a bit dirty (and you can reliably detect that it's dirty), etc.
Locking is something you can go crazy by thinking too much about it... but it's also fascinating.
How does the process grab the data and return the results? Distributed memcached? Some kind of queue system?
Each request is encapsulated in a c struct that includes the handle to the socket, the thread id, pointer to the query, pointer to the return data buffer, the type of request (so we know what modules to run to process the buffer), etc. The front-end process can be a plain ordinary web server like apache, in which case it can communicate over a separate socket set at runtime. For example, apache gets the request, stupid slow script requests a connection to the c server on port 12345 (not the real port) - the c server and apache negotiate a new connection on another port, and the server goes back to listening on the original port, while one of the c server threads (there's a pool at startup) gets handed the data. When all the modules in the server (they're all loaded at startup - don't want any delays or screw-ups, but they CAN be dynamically loaded if needed) have finished, the result is sent back to the apache child thread again by tcp over the same port.
In other words, a conventional server design, but customized to the application at hand, which allows for well over 10x the performance of a php solution. Of course, there's no reason (except laziness) that apache can't be replaced with an identical server for incoming requests, intercept those that the c server can handle with no other intervention, and pass the rest along to a more traditional web server. That's something facebook should look at. This would allow them to gradually, seamlessly, retire servers while increasing workload.
Or for those parts running on the same machine, use something other than tcp (we actually looked at writing a kernel module to handle most of it, which would have been strange|neat. I played around with it for a bit, but "get this one finished first"...:-)
Garbage collectors are comparatively expensive at runtime.
"But let's run with it for a second. In PHP, I don't even have to count this part. In places where I do miscount, the interpreter will probably yell at me."... and you pay a heavy price for that. Interpreters are SLOW. All that extra checking is also slow.
As for php memory leaks, you could have just searched. Here's one. http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=37929 Every server child process instance would leak 21 meg. The first time, so if you had 100 children, you could leak 2 gig.
php is a dog. I still use it, but I'm aware that it's a dog and that there ARE better ways - just that it's always a trade-off between development resources and run resources. For apps running like facebook, it's probably cost-effective to slowly switch pieces from php to c that are going to be more-or-less static.
And guess what - it would still be slower, because of the glue code which is run from the interpreter. Also, since we know what data we want, no need to parse it "the right way" - lots of short-cut opportunities. You don't get that with a generic solution.
Atheism means there is no possibility of the existence of god. None, nada, absolute zero. The "supernatural" is a crock.
Any believe that says there "might or might not be a god" is agnosticism. Agnostics (look up the origin of the term) simply say there is no way of knowing for sure either way. Hence the hedging of bets with weasel words.
The third state is theism - certainty in the existence of one or more gods. An "almost certainly there is a god" is not a theist - that's also an agnostic, because they admit to not knowing for certain.
To say "almost certainly no god" is also agnosticism, not atheism. You'll never see an atheist such as myself use such phrasing, except to mock it.
Is it still "agnosticism" if one concludes from sampling the effectiveness of prayers asking for divine intervention that there is a six or even nine sigma limit on the possible existence of an interventionist supernatural being, with the attendant belief that that essentially precludes the physical relevance of the hypothesized being, even if it does not categorically disprove the existence of it once and for all?
Yes, that's agnosticism - it claims that there is a certain uncertainty as to whether god exists or not.
That is, is can one describe the use of "almost surely no god" as a statement of atheism, or is it simply "hardcore agnosticism"? Does it really matter? Dawkins uses "almost certainly no god" quite often. His background in zoology, ecology and population genetics involves quite a lot of statistics.
Agnosticism.
The "Atheist Bus Campaign" calls itself atheist, yet its signs generally say: "There's probably no god". Are they really agnostic? Does it matter?
The sign is agnostic.
Also, what's the difference between an agnostic who does admit the possiblity of a god or a godless universe (without committing to either, perhaps due to insufficient evidence) and an agnostic who insists that one must include both possibilities because it is not (logically, or perhaps physically) possible to preclude the godful condition?
Nothing - they're both nervous about the final outcome:-)
What's the difference between the second type of agnostic ("it is not possible to preclude the godful condition") and an atheists who accepts that in the long-term absence of any three, four, five or even six sigma events that are most easily explained by the existence of a supernatural being, that there is no god?
Both are agnostics - the so-called "atheist" you posit would accept the existence of god under certain events. A true atheist would, upon being presented with seemingly incontrovertible evidence of the existence of god, say "You've been fooled. There is no god. Now go review your evidence and find your error." A true atheist, upon being visited by a "being" or "presence" that claims to be god, would say "fuck you, liar" and spit in its' eye. It's only a "god" if you believe it is... same as cavemen would probably think we are gods. Fortunately, we're at the point where we can bootstrap ourselves to the realization that god doesn't exist, only stuff that we haven't worked out the science... there is no "supernatural", no "magick", just stuff that, given enough resources, we can duplicate. Would that make us gods, worthy of being worshiped? Of course not.
And why would ANY god need to be worshiped.. or even want to be worshiped? It's degrading to both parties. What a fucked-up concept.
And what if Judas had refused to betray him? No martyrdom there. In other words, Judas and Satan were doing gods' work, obedient to god's will. Is it just to punish someone who does gods' will?
Fortunately, the bible's a crock so it dosn't really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it the USERS in the US who are violating US law?
Anyway, it'll all be moot in the next couple of decades, as it gets to the point where software-generated 3d movies and pro-quality music will be able to be generated by anyone in their own home with consumer-grade hardware and software.
We're already seeing self-publishing getting a toe-hold in the literary and music worlds, and it's freaking out the old school. When everyone can generate content, who needs the content rent-seekers?
Intellectual differences and vigorous, no-holds-barred discussion shouldn't prevent people from wishing each other the best in the upcoming year. I might disagree with you on almost everything, and find a lot of what you believe to be offensive (and I'm sure you are thinking the same wrt my posts :-), but I still wish you the best for the holidays, and a happy new year.
Take care.
BTW, you're invited to participate in the current contest, same as anyone else, including entering and the judging at the end. You can take the opportunity to slag my 2 entries there all you want. It might be fun :-)
Your refusal to address the points I made wrt religion co-opting marriage, the occurrence of same-sex behaviour being documented as natural in hundreds of different species, and the flaws in logic wrt natural selection, etc., show that you are one of the willfully blind. Your grasping at straws like the debunked shroud of turin, and your claims that a dozen people willfully dying somehow establish the "truthiness" of christianity in the face of counter-examples where hundreds, thousands, and more have died for causes that are obviously false, shows that you're truly one of the willfully blind.
You have yet to propose an experiment that proves god's existence. You make all sorts of entirely false (and provably false) claims about marriage being "natural", etc. Anyone who thinks that the jews were around when marriage first came into being (as you implied) is both a slacker when it comes to history, and actively engaging in revisionist history There is no justification for such a lie. None. Nada. Zip.
Just like there's no justification in claiming that there's some "logic" behind the process of natural selection that would "naturally" prohibit same-sex relationships. This is obviously easily disproved - look around - they're here - evolution didn't use "logic" to "weed them out." By your argument, evolution must have some "logic" to them being here, so it MUST be natural.
So stop with the lies. Don't christians who knowingly lie commit a sin? Your "evolution" argument is demonstrably a lie. What does that make you?
Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution doesn't exercise any form of "logic". According to your "logic" argument, we should all be disease-free. No colds or anything else. Additionally, it's been proven that genetics enters into to. Same as with such other actions, such as altruism, which was formerly thought to be purely social.
There is no such thing as a "natural" marriage. Marriage is a purely human invention. Also, you fail to address my point about infertile couples - they can never procreate, and in times past, various churches have declared their marriages null if you possessed enough power or $$$ (cf. Henry 8). And what about families that adopt? Additionally, procreation isn't limited to opposite-sex couples. Any lesbian couple with a net connection can get a turkey baster. Further, recent studies showed that same-sex couples who make it through the adoption process actually provide a better, more stable, home environment than opposite-sex couples. That's why my government now actively encourages same-sex couples to adopt.
Typical tunnel vision. The majority of children in my province are now born to common-law couples - and common-law couples now outlast married couples in terms of the length of the relationship. In other words, if you want a stable family unit, marriage isn't the way to do it. Additionally, we outlawed the concept of "illegitimacy" of children - there's no longer any such thing. All children are legitimate. To avoid even the possibility of discrimination, we also outlawed the practice of women taking their husbands' last name when they get married. This way, you can't tell if the kids were adopted, or from another relationship, just by looking at the last names.
If society chooses to (and we have), it can get rid of the problems religion causes in peoples' lives, such as heaping shame on kids for being "illegitimate." Shame on the church for pushing that concept for centuries, and on religious people for buying into it in ANY shape, manner, or form.
There were no jews around 30,000 years ago.
There is NO proof whatsoever that the shroud ever came into contact with Jesus. Even if it were from the same era, that doesn't prove anything, any more than a claim that a cup from that same era is the holy grail or other such nonsense. It's also not "inexplicable" unless you choose it to be so, same as conspiracy theorists who want to believe we never landed on the moon.
Mod +++++ VERY TRUE
Worst is when they just want it NOW, and "you can fix it later." We all know tomorrow never comes. Then a year down the road someone else looks at it and goes "what an idiot!"
That's why I'll stick my email in the @blame section, along with a "This sicks. Email me if you want this done right."
They don't seem to understand that an extra 15 minutes of "thinking time" before writing a line of code always more than pays for itself.
Why do you say that? It's documented as quite natural behaviour in many mammals, not just humans.
Says you. You would deny marriage to couples who can't procreate? That means that once a woman hits menopause, they're no suddenly longer married? Or that a couple who are infertile can't get married? That makes you quite the little social Hitler (oh, wait, the current Pope already has prior art on that).
Really? So people having kids in a stable union outside of marriage *doesn't* build society? Or is it just that it doesn't build *your* society ... nice to know you still maintain that kids "born out of wedlock" are just illegitimate little bastards.
"Natural law" - what animals do in nature - says you're wrong. There are plenty of counter-examples IN NATURE! It's only you and your ilk who choose to ignore what is before your very eyes.
Why? The church does NOT have any special *right* to decide what a marriage is. Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism. It is what *we* the people choose to define it. If you don't like that, tough. Humans were deciding these things LONG before the "christian" god ever put in an appearance, and humans have the exclusive right to decide what laws they choose to live under.
There is no proof that Jesus was the one in the shroud, never mind that the dating of the shroud is inconclusive, AND that it is certainly not proof that Jesus was in any way divine.
Bullcrap. Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moronism, Christian Science all how that people will check their brains at the door and latch onto the latest craze.
People do crazy things all the time. Look at how many willfully followed the nazis.
The presence of an observer AFTER the photon has passed through the slits but BEFORE it hits the receptor influences whether you get a diffraction pattern. In other words, a later observation affects whether the particle previously interfered with itself. Causality is broken. But that's okay - our conventional model of causality has been under attack for quite a while.
Or we can dispose of the need for a cause entirely, by accepting that our cause-effect model is an inaccurate description of the universe, and only seems to be what it is because we insist on an "arrow-of-time" that is invariant and unidirectional. The two-slit experiment with the post-slit observation kills that.
The exceptional behaviour of the two-slit experiment breaking conventional causality is sufficient to show that we do not require a "prime mover" or "creator". This being the case, positing one, where there is NO proof for its' existence, and which would break other currently-observed rules of this particular universe, doesn't make sense. It's just superstition.
So, are you going to play the current contest?
You could probably find a php-related domain name that's a zombie. It only took me a minute, using random names and whois from a terminal window, to find out that phprocks.com is currently expired and shows as being in the 30-day redemption period (but even that has passed), and will probably become available over the next week once they update the status. It's also about to pass through pending-delete phase, since it expired Nov 7th, 2009. It qualifies for the contest, since it shows up in the wayback machine.
Don't bother using a "domain-name-sniping" service ... just wait until it goes back into the pool (it won't show up in a whois search) and grab it. BTW, you'd be at least the 3rd owner, since the current owner sniped it the previous time it expired.
Here, let me fix that for you:
1 Cor. 13 is one of the most self-laudatory pieces of crap ever written in human history, where Paul attempts to show that he is SO good because now he "does everything out of love for Jebus." Again, this is not doing good because it is the right thing to do, any more than giving your kids presents for the holidays because you love them is necessarily "the right thing to do."
And "Lord, I'm trying to be humble" is NOT what you think ...
Motivation: Christian motivation is always unclean - it's based on being "subservient to gods word." In other words, it is based on abdicating personal responsibility for coming up with ones own ethics, and any consequences thereof.
A good example of this is the religious intolerance to same-sex marriage. This intolerance isn't based on love, but on a perversion of what love means - "I love Jebus and Gawd says these people is sinners!" Real love, or even just plain decency, would be to look objectively at the whole issue. The only conclusion that such an objective analysis can conclude is that there is no ethical reason for someone to try to interfere with two people's rights to marry based on their sex, same as it would be wrong to do so based on skin colour.
Then again, Jesus was one of the worst offenders when it came to espousing intolerance. Matt.10:34ff "Think not I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." What an ass-hole. That's not love or an example of self-sacrifice, but of "I saved you, you now owe me, so if it comes down to your own kids and me, remember that!" Then again, what can we expect from someone who, as God, commanded Abraham to murder his own kid. Compared to him, the Beatles rock. God and Jesus promote war between individuals and nations, the Beatles promoted peace. God and Jesus say "worship me or else", the Beatles say "Hope you like our music."
And how is keeping this knowledge away from people a "good thing?" We teach our own kids what is good and what is bad so that they'll do good. We all hate the parent whose fat little brat is continually throwing temper tantrums to get their way because the parent would rather just give them the candy bar than take the time to say no, and back it up with action. In your "Eden", there was no such possibility of moral or ethical growth. And you want to go back to that?
Nope. The greatest thinkers were lost in history - the ones who invented agriculture, animal husbandry, language, fire, clothing, tools, written or drawn depictions of reality as stand-ins for the actual objects themselves, simple counting, etc.
You're also discounting all the people in the pre-christian era, like this guy who figured out that the earth orbited the sun long before Copernicus, and worked out the distances between the sun, moon, and
That's okay - wait until a dupe is posted ... though you won't be able to claim uber coder status, since you won't be able to say "Hmm. I think I've seen something like this before."
Unless you try with "Slashdotted! Hmm. I think I've seen something like this before" FTW.
I'm not disagreeing that people use libraries, or even the same libraries. Just that some situations, it doesn't make sense to do like everyone else does. That's why we have a gajillion different programming languages, different hardware, different operating systems ... :-)
Hey, it's all good :-)
I have no real beef against php - I use it myself. My real beef is with people who think that php (or java) is only "a bit" slower than c. Or who think xml is a godsend and every problem that can't be solved by xml can be solved by adding MORE xml (bet you've run into at least one boss who thinks that). Then you get the guy from marketing opening up HIS yap about how "we'll just do it in xml". Like that will solve the problem somehow. Even though he's never seen raw xml in his life - except when he accidently opens it up in his web browser and goes "WTF is wrong here?"
Like the time the boss asked for a database dump in xml so he could "import it into his spreadsheat." "Look, here's the link, just click on it and it'll generate a .csv file in real time which you can open no problem." "I want it in xml." "Too bad. You're getting it in csv." "Why don't you do what I tell you for once?" "I do, when you tell me to do something that makes sense. This doesn't. Trust me on this, I'm watching your back for you."
Neither - strictly in c - much quicker. No php code (or any scripting language) is used in the custom server.
If I know exactly what the format is, and what data I'm looking for, it's WAY quicker to treat it like a stream of tokens, parsing out tokens, and when you find the beginning of one that interests you, save a pointer to 1 byte past the end, continue tokenizing until you find the close, and grab the data between the saved pointer and the beginning of the end token.
You can recurse this if you have enclosed tags.
Why would I want to waste my time doing more? (aside from the fact that xml really sucks badly.
You can't have it both ways. Also, Facebook - which is the example in the article - is not "the typical production environment." So tell us, how is your snide little remark anything but rubbish?
Also, APC isn't "that" much faster. 4x is nowhere near 10-100x.
No. The less you have to hit the database, the better. Slashdot is a good example - people who are logged in are only 1/3 of all page views, but require 2/3 of the boxes.
Also, caches like static content the best.
And that's the crux of the matter. Not "which is better." I slag the STL because I don't like it, but so what. If it floats peoples boats, who cares. It's ALL about trade-offs. At bottom, the article was about the tradeoff between dev time and run time. When you're running something as big as facebook, the tradeoff calculus is different. They would certainly benefit by moving some of the more stable stuff from php to c - or even c++ and the stl, if that works for them.
People who think that php is "almost as fast as c" need to rethink their position.
And yes, reference counting, weak references, etc. Blech!
And better too ...
I know which I'd rather listen to. And the Beatles never paid out over a billion dollars to settle over priests molesting kids. And the Beatles never said "either you believe in me or my old man will kick your sorry butt." And the Beatles are open to everyone. I'm sure if we took a few minutes, we could come up with a Top 10 list for why the Beatles are better than Jesus.
There is no such thing as a soul. What you see is what you got. The "soul", like all "supernatural metaphysics", is just bullshit.
1 Cor. 13 is self-congratulatory garbage, the type of stuff someone writes when they want to pat themselves on the back for being good without it looking like they're doing it - try listening to the song "Oh lord, it's hard to be humble!"
People are free to hold religious beliefs ... doesn't mean that those beliefs have any relationship to reality, no matter how much you want otherwise.
[X] No proof of the existence of god.
[X] No proof of the existence of a soul.
[X] No proof of the existence of a spirit (holy or otherwise).
[X] No proof of the existence of jesus being the son of god or god the son.
[X] No proof of the existence of sin.
[X] No proof of any final judgment.
[X] No proof of the existence of heaven.
[X] No proof of the existence of hell.
No thanks, I'll keep my current life. It might not be perfect according to your standards, but it doesn't have to be. There's nobody to judge me except fellow humans (and my dogs, but they worship me like I'm god).
Besides, if god did exist, I'd have to root for the devil anyway - I always go for the underdog. And besides, what the FUCK was so wrong about giving people knowledge? Think of it - your "god", if he existed, likes his followers dumb and ignorant and powerless (because knowledge is power). But christians choose to live by "ignorance is bliss." Willfully dumb as a bag of nails with no hammer around to pound some sense into them. Good one!
There's an easier way to be "free of sin" than to follow christianity. Reject the whole concept. The only person who can keep you "under god's thumb" is you.
Christianity is just another in a long line of scams. You've been scammed. The question is, are you so heavily invested into it psychologically that you're not willing to be intellectually honest and look at it critically? Or are you going to continue because "OMG if I admit I've been scammed my life is a waste!"
Have a nice day.
All I'm saying is that the STL is not thread-safe, especially when writing server software - which isn't only what I'm writing about, but what the original article is writing about. The STL is also slower - benchmarks prove it. The STL adds complexity, which means more code to debug when something goes haywire. And finally, debugging a multi-threaded app is already a pain to begin with.
Look, TR1 has some interesting features. It just doesn't have a place in what I was doing, and probably won't in at least the near future. Maybe one day I'll find a need for it, or it will makes something simpler - then I'll use it. (but you have to admit the syntax is visually fugly).
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/38319614101
Found in Turbo C version 2.0 Reference Guide:
A classic.
lock-free algorithms are HARD to get right :-) Depends on the data, the use you're going to make of it, whether it can be a bit dirty (and you can reliably detect that it's dirty), etc.
Locking is something you can go crazy by thinking too much about it ... but it's also fascinating.
Each request is encapsulated in a c struct that includes the handle to the socket, the thread id, pointer to the query, pointer to the return data buffer, the type of request (so we know what modules to run to process the buffer), etc. The front-end process can be a plain ordinary web server like apache, in which case it can communicate over a separate socket set at runtime. For example, apache gets the request, stupid slow script requests a connection to the c server on port 12345 (not the real port) - the c server and apache negotiate a new connection on another port, and the server goes back to listening on the original port, while one of the c server threads (there's a pool at startup) gets handed the data. When all the modules in the server (they're all loaded at startup - don't want any delays or screw-ups, but they CAN be dynamically loaded if needed) have finished, the result is sent back to the apache child thread again by tcp over the same port.
In other words, a conventional server design, but customized to the application at hand, which allows for well over 10x the performance of a php solution. Of course, there's no reason (except laziness) that apache can't be replaced with an identical server for incoming requests, intercept those that the c server can handle with no other intervention, and pass the rest along to a more traditional web server. That's something facebook should look at. This would allow them to gradually, seamlessly, retire servers while increasing workload.
Or for those parts running on the same machine, use something other than tcp (we actually looked at writing a kernel module to handle most of it, which would have been strange|neat. I played around with it for a bit, but "get this one finished first" ... :-)
some quick points :-)
php is a dog. I still use it, but I'm aware that it's a dog and that there ARE better ways - just that it's always a trade-off between development resources and run resources. For apps running like facebook, it's probably cost-effective to slowly switch pieces from php to c that are going to be more-or-less static.
And guess what - it would still be slower, because of the glue code which is run from the interpreter. Also, since we know what data we want, no need to parse it "the right way" - lots of short-cut opportunities. You don't get that with a generic solution.
Atheism means there is no possibility of the existence of god. None, nada, absolute zero. The "supernatural" is a crock.
Any believe that says there "might or might not be a god" is agnosticism. Agnostics (look up the origin of the term) simply say there is no way of knowing for sure either way. Hence the hedging of bets with weasel words.
The third state is theism - certainty in the existence of one or more gods. An "almost certainly there is a god" is not a theist - that's also an agnostic, because they admit to not knowing for certain. To say "almost certainly no god" is also agnosticism, not atheism. You'll never see an atheist such as myself use such phrasing, except to mock it.
Yes, that's agnosticism - it claims that there is a certain uncertainty as to whether god exists or not.
Agnosticism.
The sign is agnostic.
Nothing - they're both nervous about the final outcome :-)
Both are agnostics - the so-called "atheist" you posit would accept the existence of god under certain events. A true atheist would, upon being presented with seemingly incontrovertible evidence of the existence of god, say "You've been fooled. There is no god. Now go review your evidence and find your error." A true atheist, upon being visited by a "being" or "presence" that claims to be god, would say "fuck you, liar" and spit in its' eye. It's only a "god" if you believe it is ... same as cavemen would probably think we are gods. Fortunately, we're at the point where we can bootstrap ourselves to the realization that god doesn't exist, only stuff that we haven't worked out the science ... there is no "supernatural", no "magick", just stuff that, given enough resources, we can duplicate. Would that make us gods, worthy of being worshiped? Of course not.
And why would ANY god need to be worshiped .. or even want to be worshiped? It's degrading to both parties. What a fucked-up concept.
Fortunately, the bible's a crock so it dosn't really matter.