In the year 1, there hadn't been a full year yet, but it's still called 1.
Actually, you're right about this. After some research, I now see the error in my logic. The confusion lies in the difference between the ordinal and cardinal counting systems. Unlike most modern cardinal systems we use for measuring time and distance, which count by measuring a "quantity traveled" (i.e. they start at 0), the Gregorian calendar starts counting at 1. So 2001 is indeed the first year of the new millenium. Otherwise, my logic is sound. Oh well. At least I was only off by 1;)
I don't know who's going to read this 5 days later, but this is not true. When you're year old, which year is it now, counting from your birth? It's the second year. Thus when you are 2000, you begin the 2001st year, so you turn 2000 t the end of the 2000th year and it is now year 2001.
It is true, and you've just agreed with me (at least I think so; your grammar is somewhat confusing). Saying "I'm one year old" means you've completed one year of life. Period. It's pretty simple.
This also means you would currently be "traveling" through your second year of life. You're not actually 2 years old, but you're working on it. But like I said, the date we write down only indicates what time we've already traveled. So saying it's the year 2000, means 2000 years have happened and that you would currently be working through the 2001st year. Like I said, this is the same reason why we call this the 21st century even though we only write 2004.
In case you don't know why this is a question the reason is that there is no year 0. Thus the second decennium began year 11 and so forth which leads to the conclusion that the second milennium began year 2001.
Not quite. Think about this for a second. When you were born, you were 0 years old, going through your first year. When you became 1 that means you had completed your first year of life, and were now going through your second year. When you turned 10, you had covered 10 years of life. Consequentially, if you lived to turn 2000, you'd have covered 2000 years of life. Thus the proper year to celebrate the new millenium was indeed in 2000.
So yes, there can be a "zero" year, of sorts, although that's a crude way to conceptualize it. The point is that the year doesn't mark where your at, but what you've covered. This is the same reason we say we're in the 21st century even though the year is now in the 2000s.
Back in college I would have agreed. Now, after having looked for a job in CS or CE and finding nothing that doesn't require +5 years experience in Java, C#, VB, Ada, Oracle, DB2, Access, MSSQL, etc., I'm starting to doubt that logic. It's hard to put "wisdom" on a resume. Sure, companies want people who can think, but they also want people who know how to use REAL tools to get REAL results. Universities can teach their students all the "wisdom" they want, but if they don't know how to use common industry tools, then that's one more hurtle they'll have to overcome to become an attractive prospect for a company.
Of course, this doesn't really help the majority of open source Linux apps that can't or won't want to use a proprietary product created by a Microsoft Certified Partner.
What Linux really needs is an open source equivalent of InstallShield. There are numerous OS IS equivalents for Windows, such as Inno Setup (http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php) or the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System (http://nsis.sourceforge.net/). I can't fathom why a similar application is missing for Linux.
I've never really understood the practicality of software patents. With closed source, a patent holder usually can't check the code to see if the software is infringing. With open source, it might be easier to tell, but there's less likely to be revenue to collect "damages" from. Is there a point to software patents?
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this isn't exactly novel or complicated. Many undergrad engineering programs have a similar project. For instance, the University of Delaware (my school) assigned such a project as part of a sophomore level course in microprocessors. And that was two years ago.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't airports frequently confiscate "dangerous" items? However, I see your point. What I meant by "confiscate" was the option to let the theater hold the item while you're in the theater, or simply not use the theater at all. I hope we can agree that theaters should be allowed a reasonable amount of control over how people use their facilities.
And I agree with your objection over the severity of the punishment. Although I'm not particularly surprised by the Senate's action. After all, if the Department of Transportation had as many lobbying resources as the MPAA, you'd might actually see stiffer penalties for speeding.
Fair enough. By "confiscate" I meant the option to have them hold the item for the duration of your use of the theater. But you're right, baring your willful cooperation, they'd simply not allow you access to the theater, the same they'd do if you had "outside" food or drink or were carrying suspicious looking bags. Calling the police would only be an option of last resort, unless you've already managed to sneak in the camcorder.
Yeah, and they *could* confiscate your camcorder, which you'd have no valid use for in *their* theater in the first place. That would also be quite legal, even if it might drive the would-be "pankster" nuts. But here's a thought; how about trying to do the right thing inside of trying to irrationally defeat everyone's best intentions?
I couldn't find this info on the site, but does anyone know if this is a general release, or will it be restricted to art house theaters? I'm assuming the art houses, as most US movie goers aren't comfortable with animation involving mature contexts.
In order for the packbot to violate any of Asimovs laws, it has to willingly make that choice, that is, autonomously. IIRC, the packbot is designed to be essentially just an extension of a soldier on the battlefield, not a replacement for that soldier. The packbot itself does relatively little "thinking" of its own. It's essentially just a fancy remote-controlled car with a camera. What's more, the packbot is usually used for survelliance and is normally not outfitted with weapons.
You should be more concerned with the Airforce's development of the next generation of UAVs, which, unlike the packbot, are increasingly more autonomous *and* capable of combat.
I never said the "natural way" was better. In fact, I distinctly said modern medicine and technology are notably better in many ways. However, there's much in biology that we do not fully comprehend. Our bodies are the way they are for reasons as defined through evolution. Perhaps those reasons are no longer relavant (eg the appendix). The beauty of our intelligence is that it allows us to adapt much faster than natural processes.
That's a good point, but your analogy could be carried even further. Suppose you do all that preventative maintenance. Suppose your car has a lifespan of several decades. Despite your care, the world keeps on changing. The government issues new environmental laws. Technology improves creating newer safer cars. Sure, you could probably incrementally upgrade your car ever few years, but this could never compare with the efficiency of simply buying a new car. Sometimes starting from a clean slate is easier than trying to fix a flawed design.
And I think that's the point a lot of people miss. If it was beneficial for our species to be immortal, don't you think evolution would have found a way to do so? The human body is too complex to make wide sweeping changes at the peek of its maturity, thus the need for a "rebirth", a biological rebooting if you will.
Of course, you could argue that in our day and age, the problems solved through procreation can be solved just a well with modern technology and medicine. This may be true, but still, don't be so quick to discount what has taken several million years to unfold.
I'm a big fan of PHP, but is this really the best usage for this language?
This is a game, so ideally, some real-time graphical output would be nice. Yet isn't that not the nature of PHP? PHP's web-centric, so you're usually generating html. If I wanted to write a game that has to run continuously I'd write it in a general purpose programming language like python (or c++ if I was feeling masochistic;). Python has a simple syntax and a standard GUI library, along with scores of additional modules for graphics, sounds, and almost anything else you can think of. I don't want to sound like I'm evangelizing python, but is this contest really the best test of ones PHP skills?
You said: "To the Native Americans, the Europeans were more powerful "beyond their conception"" (emphasis in the original). You claimed that point.
Correct. Where I say "beyond their conception" I mean greater than their ability to comprehend, and thus perceived as a higher power.
So I picked three tribes who had early contact with Europeans and showed you some of the deities that these tribes had conceived. In each case, the tribes had conceived Gods more powerful than the Europeans turned out to be. Thus I refuted you.
Then you should re-read my posts, because you've refuted nothing. I'll say it once more, and only once. I claimed nothing about a "highest power". A being "beyond their conception" can be anything...well, beyond their conception, be it a European or rain goddess. It doesn't have to be greater than Michabo, or more influential than Boinayel to be considered a god.
Now you're falling back to a different position, that the Europeans were more powerful than the Native Americans. That's different from what you said before, and it's different from what my position has been all along: entities that are more powerful than anything I can conceive, not just more powerful than me.
You seem blinded to the fact that these are one in the same. A force more powerful than what you can conceive can include forces more powerful than you. Things more powerful than man, such as animals and forces of nature, have often been worshiped directly, as a god (e.g. crocodiles), or indirectly, as the byproduct of a god (e.g. lightning). However, being that I need to explain this trivial bit of logic implies that you are beyond the hope of reason.
The real issue is all about perspective. The logic you use to define an entity worthy of being considered a god, and the logic used by early Egyptians to worship crocodiles is exactly the same, only differing with perspective. That's been my point all along. If you've interpreted my message differently than the fault is yours and yours alone.
At this stage, you're either too prideful to acknowledge my point or hopelessly incapable of simple logic. Either way, further discussion is most likely pointless. Reply if you'd like. I'll give you the last word and shall continue no further.
It's not what you or I know about the Europeans that matters, but what was perceived by the Native Americans at the time. It's irrelavant that Europeans weren't considered as the "most powerful" gods. That wasn't my point. My point was that the power the Europeans possessed was perceived as conceivably greater than that of the natives themselves, thus equating Europeans to some level of god-hood.
I'm surprised your not getting this. To the Native Americans, the Europeans were more powerful "beyond their conception". Maybe not your conception, but that's why we call that an analogy. You shouldn't interpret analogies literally. To the Native Americans, omnipotence was navigating the seas and the use of novel weapons. To you, it's something else, but the premise is exactly the same. It doesn't matter what bar you set for omnipotence, it's still a bar. One man's God is another man's barbarian. What if someone from the future visited you and did "raise the dead or talk to spirits" (whatever that last one means)? You would be worshiping him as a God when, in fact, he is just from a more advanced age.
You don't have to speculate about my religion, because I already stated it in my first post on this subject. Apparently you haven't read that.
I wasn't speculating about your religion. I was commenting about the logic of your statement from the vantage point of most monotheistic religions. Sorry for the confusion. I too am an atheist.
I said: "The super-entity has limited power, but its limited power is larger than anything *I* can conceive."
You said: "Accepting a creature as your "God" just because it's more advanced than you is no less foolish or ill-fated than the native American's early worship of European settlers."
You're taking my words out of context. What you said, and what I was replying to was:
"However, I am comfortable accepting an entity that satisfies (2) as God."
You seem to be continually misinterpreting my original post. I'll try to clarify.
You stated a condition (2) where you would be "comfortable accepting an entity" as God. I noted the illogic of this condition, since this would warrant the Native American's worship of European settlers. European settlers had limited power. Yet from the Native American's perspective, European technology gave the illusion of a power far larger than anything the Native Americans possessed. I certainly hope we can at least agree that this worship was undeserved and ill-fated.
This is a delicate area of philosophy and it doesn't help for you to misread the previous articles, either accidentally or willfully.
It also doesn't help to misrepresent other people's words in a shallow attempt to reinforce your own argument.
The part you misread is where several posts describe a test for "any conceivable power" (which is a very high standard) and you misread that as "any being more powerful than you".
Actually, you misread my post. I was responding to your post (imagine that) where you state you'd be "comfortable accepting an entity that satisfies [having limited power that is larger than anything you could conceive] as God"
I consider this foolish, especially if you're a Christian or of some other religion that refutes any limitation in the power of their god. However, I'm assuming what you meant to say is that you'd not be able to distinquish between God (the real deal) and a super-powerful entity, and would therefore unknowingly worship a "false" god. (BTW, to get a nit out of the way, you misspelled Clarke).
My apologies to Mr. Clarke. The human race does have some literature on relationships with super-potent creatures. If I were confronted with one of these creatures, I would keep this literature in mind. Especially if the super-potent being isn't interested in having a conversation between equals.
I sure hope you're not referring to the Bible or other similar religious texts. I prefer the existence of my "super-potent" entities proven. You can't prep yourself for the arrival of every claimed super-entity. You'd never get anything done.
"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish." - Timothy Jones
Except in just about every 6th-grade-level math book, which tell the story of how Professor Kasner asked his 9-year-old nephew to come up with a word for a one followed by one hundred zeroes.
...because whenever a 6th grader writes a number with a HUNDRED zeros, they should know what to call it?
Not saying this lawsuit has any grounds, but the origins of "googol" are well known.
I disagree. Neither I nor most people I know have ever heard of Kasner, nor do we routinely use the term Googol. Perhaps we're not well read, but the point is millions of people use Google on a daily basis due in no part to Kasner.
I've not misread anything. What you just described is no more than a remarkably intelligent creature with an astounding grasp of science. And to a toddler, a magician can do equally miraculous things. Does that mean the magician is the child's god?
Perhaps you're comfortable with "worshiping" such a creature, but I'm not. I'd rather converse and exchange information (granted, what would I have to offer?). However, just because you believe something to be omnipotent or omniscience doesn't mean it necessarily deserves or desires your attention.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arther C. Clark
graphics through Tk. Meaning embedded strings in a completely different, interpreted programming language. With escaping hassles, because stuff like button names is right in the middle of the embedded control string.
You make some good points, but it should be noted that Python also has graphics through Tk, in the form of Tkinter, a Tk based GUI library. However, since the API is completely wrapped in Python, there's no similar hastle to what you've mentioned.
(1) The super-entity is omnipotent.
(2) The super-entity has limited power, but its limited power is larger than anything *I* can conceive.
However, I am comfortable accepting an entity that satisfies (2) as God.
That makes no sense.
If there's a being with limited power, then this implies the possibility of another being with a slightly greater power, and yet another being with still greater power, and so on. In which case, none of these entities can be "God" (at least by the Christian definition) because there'd always be something greater (or do you care if your God has a God?). Accepting a creature as your "God" just because it's more advanced than you is no less foolish or ill-fated than the native American's early worship of European settlers.
Slashdot Mirror
In the year 1, there hadn't been a full year yet, but it's still called 1.
;)
Actually, you're right about this. After some research, I now see the error in my logic. The confusion lies in the difference between the ordinal and cardinal counting systems. Unlike most modern cardinal systems we use for measuring time and distance, which count by measuring a "quantity traveled" (i.e. they start at 0), the Gregorian calendar starts counting at 1. So 2001 is indeed the first year of the new millenium. Otherwise, my logic is sound. Oh well. At least I was only off by 1
I don't know who's going to read this 5 days later, but this is not true. When you're year old, which year is it now, counting from your birth? It's the second year. Thus when you are 2000, you begin the 2001st year, so you turn 2000 t the end of the 2000th year and it is now year 2001.
It is true, and you've just agreed with me (at least I think so; your grammar is somewhat confusing). Saying "I'm one year old" means you've completed one year of life. Period. It's pretty simple.
This also means you would currently be "traveling" through your second year of life. You're not actually 2 years old, but you're working on it. But like I said, the date we write down only indicates what time we've already traveled. So saying it's the year 2000, means 2000 years have happened and that you would currently be working through the 2001st year. Like I said, this is the same reason why we call this the 21st century even though we only write 2004.
In case you don't know why this is a question the reason is that there is no year 0. Thus the second decennium began year 11 and so forth which leads to the conclusion that the second milennium began year 2001.
Not quite. Think about this for a second. When you were born, you were 0 years old, going through your first year. When you became 1 that means you had completed your first year of life, and were now going through your second year. When you turned 10, you had covered 10 years of life. Consequentially, if you lived to turn 2000, you'd have covered 2000 years of life. Thus the proper year to celebrate the new millenium was indeed in 2000.
So yes, there can be a "zero" year, of sorts, although that's a crude way to conceptualize it. The point is that the year doesn't mark where your at, but what you've covered. This is the same reason we say we're in the 21st century even though the year is now in the 2000s.
Back in college I would have agreed. Now, after having looked for a job in CS or CE and finding nothing that doesn't require +5 years experience in Java, C#, VB, Ada, Oracle, DB2, Access, MSSQL, etc., I'm starting to doubt that logic. It's hard to put "wisdom" on a resume. Sure, companies want people who can think, but they also want people who know how to use REAL tools to get REAL results. Universities can teach their students all the "wisdom" they want, but if they don't know how to use common industry tools, then that's one more hurtle they'll have to overcome to become an attractive prospect for a company.
Of course, this doesn't really help the majority of open source Linux apps that can't or won't want to use a proprietary product created by a Microsoft Certified Partner.
What Linux really needs is an open source equivalent of InstallShield. There are numerous OS IS equivalents for Windows, such as Inno Setup (http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php) or the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System (http://nsis.sourceforge.net/). I can't fathom why a similar application is missing for Linux.
I've never really understood the practicality of software patents. With closed source, a patent holder usually can't check the code to see if the software is infringing. With open source, it might be easier to tell, but there's less likely to be revenue to collect "damages" from. Is there a point to software patents?
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this isn't exactly novel or complicated. Many undergrad engineering programs have a similar project. For instance, the University of Delaware (my school) assigned such a project as part of a sophomore level course in microprocessors. And that was two years ago.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't airports frequently confiscate "dangerous" items? However, I see your point. What I meant by "confiscate" was the option to let the theater hold the item while you're in the theater, or simply not use the theater at all. I hope we can agree that theaters should be allowed a reasonable amount of control over how people use their facilities.
And I agree with your objection over the severity of the punishment. Although I'm not particularly surprised by the Senate's action. After all, if the Department of Transportation had as many lobbying resources as the MPAA, you'd might actually see stiffer penalties for speeding.
Fair enough. By "confiscate" I meant the option to have them hold the item for the duration of your use of the theater. But you're right, baring your willful cooperation, they'd simply not allow you access to the theater, the same they'd do if you had "outside" food or drink or were carrying suspicious looking bags. Calling the police would only be an option of last resort, unless you've already managed to sneak in the camcorder.
Yeah, and they *could* confiscate your camcorder, which you'd have no valid use for in *their* theater in the first place. That would also be quite legal, even if it might drive the would-be "pankster" nuts. But here's a thought; how about trying to do the right thing inside of trying to irrationally defeat everyone's best intentions?
I couldn't find this info on the site, but does anyone know if this is a general release, or will it be restricted to art house theaters? I'm assuming the art houses, as most US movie goers aren't comfortable with animation involving mature contexts.
In order for the packbot to violate any of Asimovs laws, it has to willingly make that choice, that is, autonomously. IIRC, the packbot is designed to be essentially just an extension of a soldier on the battlefield, not a replacement for that soldier. The packbot itself does relatively little "thinking" of its own. It's essentially just a fancy remote-controlled car with a camera. What's more, the packbot is usually used for survelliance and is normally not outfitted with weapons.
You should be more concerned with the Airforce's development of the next generation of UAVs, which, unlike the packbot, are increasingly more autonomous *and* capable of combat.
I never said the "natural way" was better. In fact, I distinctly said modern medicine and technology are notably better in many ways. However, there's much in biology that we do not fully comprehend. Our bodies are the way they are for reasons as defined through evolution. Perhaps those reasons are no longer relavant (eg the appendix). The beauty of our intelligence is that it allows us to adapt much faster than natural processes.
That's a good point, but your analogy could be carried even further. Suppose you do all that preventative maintenance. Suppose your car has a lifespan of several decades. Despite your care, the world keeps on changing. The government issues new environmental laws. Technology improves creating newer safer cars. Sure, you could probably incrementally upgrade your car ever few years, but this could never compare with the efficiency of simply buying a new car. Sometimes starting from a clean slate is easier than trying to fix a flawed design.
And I think that's the point a lot of people miss. If it was beneficial for our species to be immortal, don't you think evolution would have found a way to do so? The human body is too complex to make wide sweeping changes at the peek of its maturity, thus the need for a "rebirth", a biological rebooting if you will.
Of course, you could argue that in our day and age, the problems solved through procreation can be solved just a well with modern technology and medicine. This may be true, but still, don't be so quick to discount what has taken several million years to unfold.
I'm a big fan of PHP, but is this really the best usage for this language?
;). Python has a simple syntax and a standard GUI library, along with scores of additional modules for graphics, sounds, and almost anything else you can think of. I don't want to sound like I'm evangelizing python, but is this contest really the best test of ones PHP skills?
This is a game, so ideally, some real-time graphical output would be nice. Yet isn't that not the nature of PHP? PHP's web-centric, so you're usually generating html. If I wanted to write a game that has to run continuously I'd write it in a general purpose programming language like python (or c++ if I was feeling masochistic
Wrong again.
I've noticed that's all you're able to say.
You said: "To the Native Americans, the Europeans were more powerful "beyond their conception"" (emphasis in the original). You claimed that point.
Correct. Where I say "beyond their conception" I mean greater than their ability to comprehend, and thus perceived as a higher power.
So I picked three tribes who had early contact with Europeans and showed you some of the deities that these tribes had conceived. In each case, the tribes had conceived Gods more powerful than the Europeans turned out to be. Thus I refuted you.
Then you should re-read my posts, because you've refuted nothing. I'll say it once more, and only once. I claimed nothing about a "highest power". A being "beyond their conception" can be anything...well, beyond their conception, be it a European or rain goddess. It doesn't have to be greater than Michabo, or more influential than Boinayel to be considered a god.
Now you're falling back to a different position, that the Europeans were more powerful than the Native Americans. That's different from what you said before, and it's different from what my position has been all along: entities that are more powerful than anything I can conceive, not just more powerful than me.
You seem blinded to the fact that these are one in the same. A force more powerful than what you can conceive can include forces more powerful than you. Things more powerful than man, such as animals and forces of nature, have often been worshiped directly, as a god (e.g. crocodiles), or indirectly, as the byproduct of a god (e.g. lightning). However, being that I need to explain this trivial bit of logic implies that you are beyond the hope of reason.
The real issue is all about perspective. The logic you use to define an entity worthy of being considered a god, and the logic used by early Egyptians to worship crocodiles is exactly the same, only differing with perspective. That's been my point all along. If you've interpreted my message differently than the fault is yours and yours alone.
At this stage, you're either too prideful to acknowledge my point or hopelessly incapable of simple logic. Either way, further discussion is most likely pointless. Reply if you'd like. I'll give you the last word and shall continue no further.
It's not what you or I know about the Europeans that matters, but what was perceived by the Native Americans at the time. It's irrelavant that Europeans weren't considered as the "most powerful" gods. That wasn't my point. My point was that the power the Europeans possessed was perceived as conceivably greater than that of the natives themselves, thus equating Europeans to some level of god-hood.
I'm surprised your not getting this. To the Native Americans, the Europeans were more powerful "beyond their conception". Maybe not your conception, but that's why we call that an analogy. You shouldn't interpret analogies literally. To the Native Americans, omnipotence was navigating the seas and the use of novel weapons. To you, it's something else, but the premise is exactly the same. It doesn't matter what bar you set for omnipotence, it's still a bar. One man's God is another man's barbarian. What if someone from the future visited you and did "raise the dead or talk to spirits" (whatever that last one means)? You would be worshiping him as a God when, in fact, he is just from a more advanced age.
You don't have to speculate about my religion, because I already stated it in my first post on this subject. Apparently you haven't read that.
I wasn't speculating about your religion. I was commenting about the logic of your statement from the vantage point of most monotheistic religions. Sorry for the confusion. I too am an atheist.
I said: "The super-entity has limited power, but its limited power is larger than anything *I* can conceive."
You said: "Accepting a creature as your "God" just because it's more advanced than you is no less foolish or ill-fated than the native American's early worship of European settlers."
You're taking my words out of context. What you said, and what I was replying to was:
"However, I am comfortable accepting an entity that satisfies (2) as God."
You seem to be continually misinterpreting my original post. I'll try to clarify.
You stated a condition (2) where you would be "comfortable accepting an entity" as God. I noted the illogic of this condition, since this would warrant the Native American's worship of European settlers. European settlers had limited power. Yet from the Native American's perspective, European technology gave the illusion of a power far larger than anything the Native Americans possessed. I certainly hope we can at least agree that this worship was undeserved and ill-fated.
This is a delicate area of philosophy and it doesn't help for you to misread the previous articles, either accidentally or willfully.
It also doesn't help to misrepresent other people's words in a shallow attempt to reinforce your own argument.
The part you misread is where several posts describe a test for "any conceivable power" (which is a very high standard) and you misread that as "any being more powerful than you".
Actually, you misread my post. I was responding to your post (imagine that) where you state you'd be "comfortable accepting an entity that satisfies [having limited power that is larger than anything you could conceive] as God"
I consider this foolish, especially if you're a Christian or of some other religion that refutes any limitation in the power of their god. However, I'm assuming what you meant to say is that you'd not be able to distinquish between God (the real deal) and a super-powerful entity, and would therefore unknowingly worship a "false" god.
(BTW, to get a nit out of the way, you misspelled Clarke).
My apologies to Mr. Clarke.
The human race does have some literature on relationships with super-potent creatures. If I were confronted with one of these creatures, I would keep this literature in mind. Especially if the super-potent being isn't interested in having a conversation between equals.
I sure hope you're not referring to the Bible or other similar religious texts. I prefer the existence of my "super-potent" entities proven. You can't prep yourself for the arrival of every claimed super-entity. You'd never get anything done.
"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish." - Timothy Jones
Except in just about every 6th-grade-level math book, which tell the story of how Professor Kasner asked his 9-year-old nephew to come up with a word for a one followed by one hundred zeroes.
...because whenever a 6th grader writes a number with a HUNDRED zeros, they should know what to call it?
Not saying this lawsuit has any grounds, but the origins of "googol" are well known.
I disagree. Neither I nor most people I know have ever heard of Kasner, nor do we routinely use the term Googol. Perhaps we're not well read, but the point is millions of people use Google on a daily basis due in no part to Kasner.
I've not misread anything. What you just described is no more than a remarkably intelligent creature with an astounding grasp of science. And to a toddler, a magician can do equally miraculous things. Does that mean the magician is the child's god?
Perhaps you're comfortable with "worshiping" such a creature, but I'm not. I'd rather converse and exchange information (granted, what would I have to offer?). However, just because you believe something to be omnipotent or omniscience doesn't mean it necessarily deserves or desires your attention.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arther C. Clark
graphics through Tk. Meaning embedded strings in a completely different, interpreted programming language. With escaping hassles, because stuff like button names is right in the middle of the embedded control string.
You make some good points, but it should be noted that Python also has graphics through Tk, in the form of Tkinter, a Tk based GUI library. However, since the API is completely wrapped in Python, there's no similar hastle to what you've mentioned.
(1) The super-entity is omnipotent.
(2) The super-entity has limited power, but its limited power is larger than anything *I* can conceive.
However, I am comfortable accepting an entity that satisfies (2) as God.
That makes no sense.
If there's a being with limited power, then this implies the possibility of another being with a slightly greater power, and yet another being with still greater power, and so on. In which case, none of these entities can be "God" (at least by the Christian definition) because there'd always be something greater (or do you care if your God has a God?). Accepting a creature as your "God" just because it's more advanced than you is no less foolish or ill-fated than the native American's early worship of European settlers.
And get beaten senselessly by the first Klingon I run across because it translated "hello" into "your family has no honor!"?
No thank you.