"Unless we're going to pass laws against every conceivable behaviour which might cause someone to drive dangerously..."
No, just the most common, most dangerous ones.
"...the overwhelming majority of those who are on the phone don't almost hit you..."
I don't care. If some fraction of the drivers who could be safe enough while talking on the phone get prevented from doing so because that's the only way to prevent the fraction who become dangerous from doing it, so be it. People don't need to drive as much as they do or yak on the phone as much as they do, and they certainly don't need to do both at once.
Really, my point is that I think talking on the cell phone makes one a less attentive, more dangerous driver by a much greater degree than most people realize. Most people think they are perfectly safe while talking on the phone, even when they are not. People who are very careful not to drive drunk don't think twice about driving while on the phone, despite studies (this isn't the first) saying it's at least as dangerous. A huge percentage of these people wouldn't do it if it was illegal, even if it was just a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. I guess I have less problem than you engaging in this sort of safety-oriented social engineering. I certainly agree the severe punishments should be for those who are most directly dangerous. The only punishment I'd advocate for cell-phone using drivers is just enough of a fine to make them think twice about doing it.
Well, that's when I'm feeling reasonable. Other days I advocate massive fines for arranging your life such that you have to drive every day, and the right of cyclists to kick big dents in SUVs on general principle:)
Well, you correctly identified that my problem was with the mods, but now I've got a complaint with you, as you are not as clueless as I gave you credit for:)
NH, where this took place, is even one of the 12 all-party consent states, but this wasn't a phone conversation, so that's still completely irrelevant.
Section 2510 is just definitions leading into stuff about electronic and aural communications, but I'll take your word for it that that's about to ban unauthorized recording of those auraul communications in some circumstances (meaning it's not video & audio that's the problem, but audio period). However, that very definition includes the ususal reasonable-expectation-of-not-being-recorded stuff. The incident in question took place on someones front porch, with a sign saying "You are being recorded".
Well, let's say I'm driving along at the speed limit, staying in my lane, not doing anything obviously reckless, but closing my eyes intermittently, just to see how long I can do it without having strayed to far in my lane. Pretending for a moment that there would be any way to enforce it, should we wait until something unexpected comes up while my eyes are closed, and I plow into a busload of Nuns or whatever, or do we just declare closing your eyes while driving reckless in and of itself?
What if talking on a phone makes you a more dangerous driver even if you don't weave all over the place? What if it doesn't make any discernable difference in your driving until you need to notice and procees the fact that that's a bike lane crossing the right turn lane you are about to pull into, so you need to look over and see if there is a cyclist there that you are merging into at high speed? This is not hypothetical, it happens to me about once a week. These drivers are not doing anything out of the ordinary; they are "perfectly safe" right up until the moment they would run me over if I weren't more attentive than them. Public policy ought to be based on real scientific data, but my own anecdotal impression is that this behaviour is overwhelmingly exhibited by cell phone users.
Based on my personal experience, and what scientific evidence I've heard of, I think driving while talking on a cell phone is reckless in and of itself.
"..if there are a group of people who can drive safely while on the phone..." I'm not convinced there is such a group. There is certainly a large group who think they can, but are wrong. Surveys consistently show that almost everyone thinks that they are an excellent driver, but that the average driver isn't. Heck, I think that, I'm sure you think that. Which is why we should not rely on drivers own opinions on whether they are safe, but on valid experimental studies. Which seem to indicate that talking on a cellphone while driving is reckless driving.
"As for the distraction argument, talking to someone who is in the car is a distraction, as is listening to the radio."
And the available evidence indicates they are not nearly as much of a distraction as talking on a cellphone.
"And my argument was based on the principal that the law should punish those who actually do something wrong, not do something that might lead to doing something wrong. This is why I vote libertarian."
If I decide I'd like to drive 90 miles per hour down the sidewalk with my eyes closed, the law shouldn't stop me until I actually plow into a crowd, killing dozens? Sorry, but I'm going to go with it being a question of where you draw the line. Some activities recklessly endanger others to such a degree that they ought to be banned pre-emptively. The question is whether driving while using a cell phone is in that category.
You think no, and despite your outraged denials, I still get the impression it's because you mistakenly think the imparement they are reporting couldn't possibly impact you, just like drunk drivers do. I think yes, but I'll freely admit I'm biased because I seldom use a cell phone, and almost never drive. But every damn driver who almost runs me over on my bike is yacking away. I'm sure they all think they are perfectly safe drivers, because I'm paying enough attention to not let them hit me, so they never realize they would have.
Anyway, while this study seems to support me and not you, it's obviously still debateable. But the "Libertarian" principle of letting people do whatever they want then only punishing the ones who get unlucky when it's too late and they've killed people is just stupid.
No, it isn't. The chances of a police raid taking all your equiptment because you run an open network are... Well, it's kind of hard to say, since I don't know of a single example of it ever happening to compare against the vast number of open APs out there. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend there is actually some chance of it. The chances are certainly far less than your chances of being killed in a car wreck driving across town. So when your buddy asks for a ride, do you say "No way, that's dangerous!"?
Gee, you're right! Better not help anyone, because they might be bad! It starts with running an open network, but next thing you know you'll be helping an old lady cross the street, and she could be a terrorist! Don't you know it's dangerous to go around being nice? Stay locked in you home being afraid, it's safer.
Better be careful, and don't be nice to strangers, or some completely improbable bad thing might occur! Be afraid! Be afraid!
I can pick up 5-6 access points from my house. All are locked down except for one named "BeMyGuest"; I've used it a few times when my connection has been down, and when I figured out who's it was, I invited them to my barbecue. So I hereby counter your hypothetical, not very logical threat of an FBI raid, with the actual, already realized threat of: Free Beer.
You don't get booted, you just get ignored if you ignore the minimum bid increment the auctioneer specifies. If he says, "I've got $100, looking for $110" and you shout "$101!" you'll probably get a polite reminder the first time, and sure, maybe you'll get booted, just as if you were shouting any other irrelevant thing.
But if you make a valid bid, nobody will care that you are bidding at the last second. They'll take your bid and then give eveyone else a chance to respond to it, because "the last second" in a real auction isn't the end of an arbitrary time limit, it's just the time when the auctioneer decides everyone has had a chance to bid higher if they want. There is no advantage to you in waiting to bid at a real auction, while there is on ebay.
Before proposing fixes to ebay's problem, be sure you understand what the problem is. It isn't "sniping", but the fact that sniping is rational. The problem is the bidders who bid some amount, then contiually come back to up their "maximum" when they are outbid.
They've filed for a patent, but not so much as brought a product to market. How is it "becoming obligatory"?
I'd think the obvious use would be to keep others from firing your gun. Potentially. As it stands, all it seems it would do is keep other guns from firing your ammo. Control measures would need to be built into the gun to provide anything further that could interfere with your ability to kill people as easily as possible.
If you draw more current than your local electric grid can provide, they'll cut you off, no question. But barring technical limitations, your agreement with the electric company undoubtably involves paying based on the amount of power you use.
You can certainly get bandwidth under an agreement where you pay based on how much you use (with a hefty minimum) and you can do whatever you want with that bandwidth. But that's not the sort of agreement you made, is it? You picked one where you pay a (presumably lower) fixed rate, and you agree to their TOS.
Bandwidth isn't any different; your agreement with the provider is. Don't be pissed, just don't make agreements you aren't willing to live with.
The point of an auction for the seller, presumably, is to get the best price. The excitement of the fast pace might get people to irrationally bid higher than they intended, which would be good for the seller. So part of the point of an auction might be encouraging that particular sort of irrationality. But the point is certainly not to encourage just any irrationality.
The irrationality I speak of, of incrementally nudging up your "max" on ebay results in:
-not winning auctions where you'd be willing to pay the most
-lower prices for the seller
-wasting everyones time, because now they have to be there when the auction ends
It's not good for the buyer doing it, the seller, the auction house, or rational buyers who don't want to snipe. It's just a flaw.
If you are the only one willing to pay more than $30, you'll get it for $31 under the live, in person system or the current ebay system. Or any system I would consider reasonable.
The "problem" with the e-bay system isn't that it isn't as good as the in person system, but that it isn't better in ways that it could be.
The problem, in my opinion, isn't snipers, but the bidders who act irationally, and thus make sniping rational. If I am willing to pay $50, and you are only willing to pay $30, I should get it for $31; that works fine. The problem comes in when you act irrationally, putting in a "maximum" of $10, then continually checking back and upping it only when you're outbid until you get to your actual maximum, or run out of time. If you do this, it makes sense for me to wait and bid at the last second so you won't have the chance to put in you rreal maximum; while I might be willing to pay $31, or even $50, I'd still prefer to pay $11. Some people on ebay bid in the irrational way I've described, so "sniping" makes sense. This bugs me, because I think it would be nice if the system were designed so there was no advantage to me siting there at the exact moment the auction ends.
Sounds like we're describing the same thing - the auctioneer specifies the increment by saying something like "I've got 100, looking for 110..." and you raise your hand or you don't. Sure, he can vary the increment on the fly, but that's a minor refinement. The other poster was implying the reason you don't have "sniping" at real auctions was because they would throw you out if you sat at the back and said "100 dollars and 10 cents" at the last second. I was pointing out that that while they ignore your bid and reiterate that they are "looking for $110", the "at the last minute part won't be the problem. You can make legitimate bids after they say "going once" all day long, and they will gladly take your money.
Actually, at a real auction, a new bid extends the time limit. The auctioneer specifies the minimum increment (as does ebay), but you certainly don't get booted for meeting it. You make a new bid, and then everyone gets a chance to bid more, that's the point.
"How about super-symmetry? How about the graviton?"
How about them? What objectively measurable fact do these imply that is different than what is implied by other theories?
If scientists have yet to come up with a way to test a testable prediction of string theory, that's no problem. If scientists have yet to come up with a testable prediction, that's a problem.
The argument is that string theory does not make a specific prediction we can hope to someday test; that while it fits very nicely with lots of stuff we already know, it doesn't tell us anything new, and therefore, while it may be interseting Math, it is not Physics.
"The flaw once again is the assumption that it will never be testable"
No one who ought to be listened to is assuming anything. They are sugesting that it is logically impossible to test it.
I tried to draw a distinction above between theories that we don't know how to test now, and ones where we know it is logically impossible to test them. Not knowing how to test it is a condition that may change. Knowing it cannot logically be tested will not.
Falsifiability and testability are the same thing. Scientific theories must be testable. They must make predictions about the world which if they turn out to be wrong, suggest that the theory is wrong. It's fine if we don't know how to test the predictions today; in that case we don't know if the theory is right or wrong, but it's still a reasonable theory.
But if there are no predicitions; if no test we do or evidence we collect will undermine the therory no matter how it comes out, then it is not a theory at all. Hence the indictment in the books title: "Not even wrong."
I'm not sure why you think these requirements are optional.
"It may currently not be testable, but that doesn't say that it will never be testable"
As I understand it, critics suggest that string theory itself says it will never be testable. A scientist worth their salt should not deride a theory simply because testing it is infeasable or inconvenient. If I have a theory, and the only way I can come up with to test it requires an aparatus the size of the milky way galaxy, then we may hope somone comes up with a better way to test it, and it is still a perfectly fine theory. On the other hand, if I have a "theory" that it is logically impossible to test in any universe where the milky way galaxy exists, I've got nothing; and my "theory" should rightly be bashed for not being science.
The suggestion is that string theory, by it's nature, cannot make testable predicitons about our universe. If that is so, it is not science, and should be done away with. Whether that's so, I have no idea.
When I open a browser, it's pretty unlikely the first thing I'm going to do is type in an address. Sometimes I'm going to pick a bookmark, but most of the time, I'm going to type into the first input on my home page (a Google Search), which is where IE lands my cursor.
Do you really type in entire addresses from memory most of the time? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it seems odd to then be concerned about one additional keystroke on top of the 10-20 you're making already.
Indeed, VB.net and C# have very similar features and capabilities, and if there are big performance differences between them, it's because the authors of one of the compilers screwed up.
But the other posters were arguing that their performance and capabilities should be identical because they both compile to MSIL, and in fact that any language that does so would have equal performance and capabilities. Which is just silly; hence my silly IRock.net example. For a less silly example, Managed C++ certainly has different capabilities than VB.net or C#.
VB.net and C# produce very similar performance, because they are very similar to begin with. Not because their existing compilers target the same virtual machine.
Under the x86 achitecture, the x86 instruction set is the ultimate arbitrator of what can and cannot be done. Clearly, anything you can do in C++ you can do in x86, and anything you can do in BASIC you can do in x86. But that doesn't mean anything you can do in C++ can be done in x86. The logic doesn't get any better because you substitute C#, VB.net and CLR. In either case, two higher-level languages both compile into code the same lower-level language. In both cases, the two higher level languages have different subsets of the lower level languages capabilities; the higher level languages have different cpabilities.
I could write a new.net language tommorow called IRock.net It would compile to CLR, but it would only have one instruction (ROCK!) that on compilation becomes the CLR code to print "2Short Rocks!" to standard out. Clearly, IRock.net would not have the same capabilities as C# or VB.net, even though all three compile to CLR. Because C# and VB.net are capable of producing CLR code that IRock.net is not. Just as C# is capable of producing CLR code that VB.net is not and VB.net is presumably capable of producing CLR code that C# is not.
Well, Yes. Consider that by your logic, all languages everywhere should be equal:
With any particular processor, the language used becomes a mere choice of syntax. All languages are boiled down to machine code and are on a level playing field. Whatever language you write in, it's all just food for the processors instruction set.
C++ and BASIC both get reduced to x86 machine code before running on my machine. This does not mean you can do anything in BASIC that you can do in C++. There are things you can do in C++ that produce x86 code that can not be produced by BASIC. Similarly, there are things you can do in C# that produce CLR code that can not be produced by VB.net, and vice-versa.
FWIW, compiling code to a lower level machine independent language was not invented by Sun. BCPL was being compiled to O-code in the late 60s. There may be earlier examples, there are certainly several dozen between there and Java.
"So if you think you can do something more memory efficient in C# than in VB.NET - well, no."
Well, yes. All code in any language whatsoever becomes machine code before it runs on the processor, and I can certainly do things more memory efficiently in some languages than others, so it's at least theoretically possible. C# and VB.NET code both become the same variety of intermediate binary code before being translated to machine code, but that doesn't mean anything you can do in one can be done in the other.
As for this converter, and what it means for Python, I've no real idea. But it certainly doesn't mean you can now do anything in Python you could do in C++.
"believe the Bible literally...read it poetically where it is obviously intended to be poetic"
Sigh. I don't care a bit what you beleive, but I cannot stand people who don't know what "literally" means. Hint: "poetically" in this usage is a synonym of "figuratively", which is the oposite of "literally"
Slashdot Mirror
"Unless we're going to pass laws against every conceivable behaviour which might cause someone to drive dangerously..."
:)
No, just the most common, most dangerous ones.
"...the overwhelming majority of those who are on the phone don't almost hit you..."
I don't care. If some fraction of the drivers who could be safe enough while talking on the phone get prevented from doing so because that's the only way to prevent the fraction who become dangerous from doing it, so be it. People don't need to drive as much as they do or yak on the phone as much as they do, and they certainly don't need to do both at once.
Really, my point is that I think talking on the cell phone makes one a less attentive, more dangerous driver by a much greater degree than most people realize. Most people think they are perfectly safe while talking on the phone, even when they are not. People who are very careful not to drive drunk don't think twice about driving while on the phone, despite studies (this isn't the first) saying it's at least as dangerous. A huge percentage of these people wouldn't do it if it was illegal, even if it was just a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor. I guess I have less problem than you engaging in this sort of safety-oriented social engineering. I certainly agree the severe punishments should be for those who are most directly dangerous. The only punishment I'd advocate for cell-phone using drivers is just enough of a fine to make them think twice about doing it.
Well, that's when I'm feeling reasonable. Other days I advocate massive fines for arranging your life such that you have to drive every day, and the right of cyclists to kick big dents in SUVs on general principle
Well, you correctly identified that my problem was with the mods, but now I've got a complaint with you, as you are not as clueless as I gave you credit for :)
NH, where this took place, is even one of the 12 all-party consent states, but this wasn't a phone conversation, so that's still completely irrelevant.
Section 2510 is just definitions leading into stuff about electronic and aural communications, but I'll take your word for it that that's about to ban unauthorized recording of those auraul communications in some circumstances (meaning it's not video & audio that's the problem, but audio period). However, that very definition includes the ususal reasonable-expectation-of-not-being-recorded stuff. The incident in question took place on someones front porch, with a sign saying "You are being recorded".
Well, let's say I'm driving along at the speed limit, staying in my lane, not doing anything obviously reckless, but closing my eyes intermittently, just to see how long I can do it without having strayed to far in my lane. Pretending for a moment that there would be any way to enforce it, should we wait until something unexpected comes up while my eyes are closed, and I plow into a busload of Nuns or whatever, or do we just declare closing your eyes while driving reckless in and of itself?
What if talking on a phone makes you a more dangerous driver even if you don't weave all over the place? What if it doesn't make any discernable difference in your driving until you need to notice and procees the fact that that's a bike lane crossing the right turn lane you are about to pull into, so you need to look over and see if there is a cyclist there that you are merging into at high speed? This is not hypothetical, it happens to me about once a week. These drivers are not doing anything out of the ordinary; they are "perfectly safe" right up until the moment they would run me over if I weren't more attentive than them. Public policy ought to be based on real scientific data, but my own anecdotal impression is that this behaviour is overwhelmingly exhibited by cell phone users.
Based on my personal experience, and what scientific evidence I've heard of, I think driving while talking on a cell phone is reckless in and of itself.
"..if there are a group of people who can drive safely while on the phone..."
I'm not convinced there is such a group. There is certainly a large group who think they can, but are wrong. Surveys consistently show that almost everyone thinks that they are an excellent driver, but that the average driver isn't. Heck, I think that, I'm sure you think that. Which is why we should not rely on drivers own opinions on whether they are safe, but on valid experimental studies. Which seem to indicate that talking on a cellphone while driving is reckless driving.
"As for the distraction argument, talking to someone who is in the car is a distraction, as is listening to the radio."
And the available evidence indicates they are not nearly as much of a distraction as talking on a cellphone.
"And my argument was based on the principal that the law should punish those who actually do something wrong, not do something that might lead to doing something wrong. This is why I vote libertarian."
If I decide I'd like to drive 90 miles per hour down the sidewalk with my eyes closed, the law shouldn't stop me until I actually plow into a crowd, killing dozens? Sorry, but I'm going to go with it being a question of where you draw the line. Some activities recklessly endanger others to such a degree that they ought to be banned pre-emptively. The question is whether driving while using a cell phone is in that category.
You think no, and despite your outraged denials, I still get the impression it's because you mistakenly think the imparement they are reporting couldn't possibly impact you, just like drunk drivers do. I think yes, but I'll freely admit I'm biased because I seldom use a cell phone, and almost never drive. But every damn driver who almost runs me over on my bike is yacking away. I'm sure they all think they are perfectly safe drivers, because I'm paying enough attention to not let them hit me, so they never realize they would have.
Anyway, while this study seems to support me and not you, it's obviously still debateable. But the "Libertarian" principle of letting people do whatever they want then only punishing the ones who get unlucky when it's too late and they've killed people is just stupid.
"But the point the person warning made is valid"
No, it isn't. The chances of a police raid taking all your equiptment because you run an open network are... Well, it's kind of hard to say, since I don't know of a single example of it ever happening to compare against the vast number of open APs out there. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend there is actually some chance of it. The chances are certainly far less than your chances of being killed in a car wreck driving across town. So when your buddy asks for a ride, do you say "No way, that's dangerous!"?
Gee, you're right! Better not help anyone, because they might be bad! It starts with running an open network, but next thing you know you'll be helping an old lady cross the street, and she could be a terrorist! Don't you know it's dangerous to go around being nice? Stay locked in you home being afraid, it's safer.
Better be careful, and don't be nice to strangers, or some completely improbable bad thing might occur! Be afraid! Be afraid!
I can pick up 5-6 access points from my house. All are locked down except for one named "BeMyGuest"; I've used it a few times when my connection has been down, and when I figured out who's it was, I invited them to my barbecue. So I hereby counter your hypothetical, not very logical threat of an FBI raid, with the actual, already realized threat of: Free Beer.
Informative? Come on mods. "A wrong thing I heard from some guy, and a couple more I just made up" is not informative.
He's wrong about recording a telephone conversation (permission of one party is sufficient), and it has nothing to do with the case at hand anyway.
I've never heard the "video and audio" one, but I have heard that if you swallow pop rocks, then drink a coke, you'll like, die!
You don't get booted, you just get ignored if you ignore the minimum bid increment the auctioneer specifies. If he says, "I've got $100, looking for $110" and you shout "$101!" you'll probably get a polite reminder the first time, and sure, maybe you'll get booted, just as if you were shouting any other irrelevant thing.
But if you make a valid bid, nobody will care that you are bidding at the last second. They'll take your bid and then give eveyone else a chance to respond to it, because "the last second" in a real auction isn't the end of an arbitrary time limit, it's just the time when the auctioneer decides everyone has had a chance to bid higher if they want. There is no advantage to you in waiting to bid at a real auction, while there is on ebay.
Before proposing fixes to ebay's problem, be sure you understand what the problem is. It isn't "sniping", but the fact that sniping is rational. The problem is the bidders who bid some amount, then contiually come back to up their "maximum" when they are outbid.
They've filed for a patent, but not so much as brought a product to market. How is it "becoming obligatory"?
I'd think the obvious use would be to keep others from firing your gun. Potentially. As it stands, all it seems it would do is keep other guns from firing your ammo. Control measures would need to be built into the gun to provide anything further that could interfere with your ability to kill people as easily as possible.
If you draw more current than your local electric grid can provide, they'll cut you off, no question. But barring technical limitations, your agreement with the electric company undoubtably involves paying based on the amount of power you use.
You can certainly get bandwidth under an agreement where you pay based on how much you use (with a hefty minimum) and you can do whatever you want with that bandwidth. But that's not the sort of agreement you made, is it? You picked one where you pay a (presumably lower) fixed rate, and you agree to their TOS.
Bandwidth isn't any different; your agreement with the provider is. Don't be pissed, just don't make agreements you aren't willing to live with.
The point of an auction for the seller, presumably, is to get the best price. The excitement of the fast pace might get people to irrationally bid higher than they intended, which would be good for the seller. So part of the point of an auction might be encouraging that particular sort of irrationality. But the point is certainly not to encourage just any irrationality.
The irrationality I speak of, of incrementally nudging up your "max" on ebay results in:
-not winning auctions where you'd be willing to pay the most
-lower prices for the seller
-wasting everyones time, because now they have to be there when the auction ends
It's not good for the buyer doing it, the seller, the auction house, or rational buyers who don't want to snipe. It's just a flaw.
If you are the only one willing to pay more than $30, you'll get it for $31 under the live, in person system or the current ebay system. Or any system I would consider reasonable.
The "problem" with the e-bay system isn't that it isn't as good as the in person system, but that it isn't better in ways that it could be.
The problem, in my opinion, isn't snipers, but the bidders who act irationally, and thus make sniping rational. If I am willing to pay $50, and you are only willing to pay $30, I should get it for $31; that works fine. The problem comes in when you act irrationally, putting in a "maximum" of $10, then continually checking back and upping it only when you're outbid until you get to your actual maximum, or run out of time. If you do this, it makes sense for me to wait and bid at the last second so you won't have the chance to put in you rreal maximum; while I might be willing to pay $31, or even $50, I'd still prefer to pay $11. Some people on ebay bid in the irrational way I've described, so "sniping" makes sense. This bugs me, because I think it would be nice if the system were designed so there was no advantage to me siting there at the exact moment the auction ends.
Sounds like we're describing the same thing - the auctioneer specifies the increment by saying something like "I've got 100, looking for 110..." and you raise your hand or you don't. Sure, he can vary the increment on the fly, but that's a minor refinement.
The other poster was implying the reason you don't have "sniping" at real auctions was because they would throw you out if you sat at the back and said "100 dollars and 10 cents" at the last second. I was pointing out that that while they ignore your bid and reiterate that they are "looking for $110", the "at the last minute part won't be the problem. You can make legitimate bids after they say "going once" all day long, and they will gladly take your money.
Actually, at a real auction, a new bid extends the time limit. The auctioneer specifies the minimum increment (as does ebay), but you certainly don't get booted for meeting it. You make a new bid, and then everyone gets a chance to bid more, that's the point.
"How about super-symmetry? How about the graviton?"
How about them? What objectively measurable fact do these imply that is different than what is implied by other theories?
If scientists have yet to come up with a way to test a testable prediction of string theory, that's no problem. If scientists have yet to come up with a testable prediction, that's a problem.
The argument is that string theory does not make a specific prediction we can hope to someday test; that while it fits very nicely with lots of stuff we already know, it doesn't tell us anything new, and therefore, while it may be interseting Math, it is not Physics.
"The flaw once again is the assumption that it will never be testable"
No one who ought to be listened to is assuming anything. They are sugesting that it is logically impossible to test it.
I tried to draw a distinction above between theories that we don't know how to test now, and ones where we know it is logically impossible to test them. Not knowing how to test it is a condition that may change. Knowing it cannot logically be tested will not.
Falsifiability and testability are the same thing. Scientific theories must be testable. They must make predictions about the world which if they turn out to be wrong, suggest that the theory is wrong. It's fine if we don't know how to test the predictions today; in that case we don't know if the theory is right or wrong, but it's still a reasonable theory.
But if there are no predicitions; if no test we do or evidence we collect will undermine the therory no matter how it comes out, then it is not a theory at all. Hence the indictment in the books title: "Not even wrong."
I'm not sure why you think these requirements are optional.
"It may currently not be testable, but that doesn't say that it will never be testable"
As I understand it, critics suggest that string theory itself says it will never be testable. A scientist worth their salt should not deride a theory simply because testing it is infeasable or inconvenient. If I have a theory, and the only way I can come up with to test it requires an aparatus the size of the milky way galaxy, then we may hope somone comes up with a better way to test it, and it is still a perfectly fine theory. On the other hand, if I have a "theory" that it is logically impossible to test in any universe where the milky way galaxy exists, I've got nothing; and my "theory" should rightly be bashed for not being science.
The suggestion is that string theory, by it's nature, cannot make testable predicitons about our universe. If that is so, it is not science, and should be done away with. Whether that's so, I have no idea.
When I open a browser, it's pretty unlikely the first thing I'm going to do is type in an address. Sometimes I'm going to pick a bookmark, but most of the time, I'm going to type into the first input on my home page (a Google Search), which is where IE lands my cursor.
Do you really type in entire addresses from memory most of the time? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it seems odd to then be concerned about one additional keystroke on top of the 10-20 you're making already.
Because Liters per 100 Km is how fuel consumption is typically quoted outside the US.
But why this team would express their efficiency as anything but "1337!", I cannot imagine.
Indeed, VB.net and C# have very similar features and capabilities, and if there are big performance differences between them, it's because the authors of one of the compilers screwed up.
But the other posters were arguing that their performance and capabilities should be identical because they both compile to MSIL, and in fact that any language that does so would have equal performance and capabilities. Which is just silly; hence my silly IRock.net example. For a less silly example, Managed C++ certainly has different capabilities than VB.net or C#.
VB.net and C# produce very similar performance, because they are very similar to begin with. Not because their existing compilers target the same virtual machine.
Under the x86 achitecture, the x86 instruction set is the ultimate arbitrator of what can and cannot be done. Clearly, anything you can do in C++ you can do in x86, and anything you can do in BASIC you can do in x86. But that doesn't mean anything you can do in C++ can be done in x86. The logic doesn't get any better because you substitute C#, VB.net and CLR. In either case, two higher-level languages both compile into code the same lower-level language. In both cases, the two higher level languages have different subsets of the lower level languages capabilities; the higher level languages have different cpabilities.
.net language tommorow called IRock.net It would compile to CLR, but it would only have one instruction (ROCK!) that on compilation becomes the CLR code to print "2Short Rocks!" to standard out. Clearly, IRock.net would not have the same capabilities as C# or VB.net, even though all three compile to CLR. Because C# and VB.net are capable of producing CLR code that IRock.net is not. Just as C# is capable of producing CLR code that VB.net is not and VB.net is presumably capable of producing CLR code that C# is not.
I could write a new
Well, Yes. Consider that by your logic, all languages everywhere should be equal:
With any particular processor, the language used becomes a mere choice of syntax. All languages are boiled down to machine code and are on a level playing field. Whatever language you write in, it's all just food for the processors instruction set.
C++ and BASIC both get reduced to x86 machine code before running on my machine. This does not mean you can do anything in BASIC that you can do in C++. There are things you can do in C++ that produce x86 code that can not be produced by BASIC. Similarly, there are things you can do in C# that produce CLR code that can not be produced by VB.net, and vice-versa.
FWIW, compiling code to a lower level machine independent language was not invented by Sun. BCPL was being compiled to O-code in the late 60s. There may be earlier examples, there are certainly several dozen between there and Java.
"So if you think you can do something more memory efficient in C# than in VB.NET - well, no."
Well, yes. All code in any language whatsoever becomes machine code before it runs on the processor, and I can certainly do things more memory efficiently in some languages than others, so it's at least theoretically possible. C# and VB.NET code both become the same variety of intermediate binary code before being translated to machine code, but that doesn't mean anything you can do in one can be done in the other.
As for this converter, and what it means for Python, I've no real idea. But it certainly doesn't mean you can now do anything in Python you could do in C++.
"believe the Bible literally...read it poetically where it is obviously intended to be poetic"
Sigh. I don't care a bit what you beleive, but I cannot stand people who don't know what "literally" means. Hint: "poetically" in this usage is a synonym of "figuratively", which is the oposite of "literally"