"When people measure time, they start from zero. Go ahead, ask anyone how many years old a newborn baby is."
This is a flawed analogy./Age/ is absolute. A newborn baby is 0 years old until he reaches 12 months of age. At that point we will say the baby is 1 year old, HOWEVER, we will not say that it has completed its 0th year. We will say that it has completed its 1st year. So we/do/ count from 1, not 0.
Enumerate your fingers for example. You have ten of them regardless of whether you use 1 or 0 as the origin.
Yes, I am more afraid of the luddites and opportunists than the actual technical problems. I'm more afraid of crackpots who think it's the end of the world running around than anything else. This movie was in such bad taste. It's just going to get people all frenzied and hysterical over nothing. It is so blatently fud and hype.
"OMIGOD these sandwiches are not Y2K compliant! For the love of gawd call the CDC"
Here is my impression of the GPL/BSD license issue:
Both parties want code to be "free" (liberated), and both believe their license does that. Both believe the other license is more restrictive than theirs because it fails to be "free" in a way theirs does.
The GPL seems to advocate End User/Consumer "freedom". The goal: Get the source code to the people. GPL cannot discriminate corporations, and like anybody else they must give access to any modifications they distribute.
The BSD/also/ wants to be free. The goal: Give the source code to anybody. Corporations are just as much consumers as end users, and they can use the source however they want, including integrating it in a product of which they will not open the source.
However, the GPL sees that BSD does not strive for its goal because corporations may then choose to NOT redistribute that source, and that the end users may never get access to the customized corporation code. BSD sees that GPL, by not allowing corporations to incorporate and withold GPLed source, is/more/ restrictive, in that it isn't then giving to "everybody".
There are two stratas of consumers then: the end user, and the corporation. Each license tries to get their stuff to the most people, but the distribution accross these stratas are just different.
Well, that's my blurry impression of it anyway. If I'm innaccurate in some way it's not because I'm a troll...It seems to me that both licenses want to do "good", however there are differing approaches to the end result of "good".
"Given that Pascal is essentially a dead language, and C based languages (including C++, Java and to a lesser extent Perl) pretty much rule the software development world."
Uggh?! Pascal a dead language? When perhaps pure procedural Pascal. But Borland's best selling product by a large margin for quite a while has been Delphi, which is based on Object Pascal - sort of like C++ is to C. I have to say, that of the object oriented languages I've seen, Object Pascal has to be one of the nicest. Java approaches pure-OO which can admittedly be annoying. C++ is simply a bastard (well, it's a hybrid), so, like a mut, is ugly but can do the job. Pascal, whose adoption, or lack thereof, could be considered both a deficit and a boon, has matured at a much slower measured pace. I'd have to say Object Pascal is a lovely language which is suited for many purposes. It tends to avoid pointers without pulling a hood over your eyes like Java, which I find nice...as long as you're not doing something explicitly involving pointers (which can still be done, but with more keystrokes). Since its following have been few and probably loyal, it hasn't been bastardized six was from sunday (the first time I ever used that phrase I swear) when any group wanted to add some feature.
One of the nice, and unique (well, maybe something I don't know has it), features of Object Pascal, is properties. Properties are member fields which are implicitly assigned accessors according to access rights keywords. This allows one to handle member fields transparently without having to explicitly call all sorts of accessors:
And lets both thank god that the censors and zealots haven't won yet in their battle to prevent us from being able to decide what WE want or do not want our own children to see or do.
/Furthermore/ simULATORs attempt to simulate reality. If you are a huey pilot in vietnam you are/going/ to have a gruff cigar-smoking sergeant , gritty conditions, curse words, enmity, despair, resentment, etc. If you/simulate/ war, don't be surprised that it is not pretty. Want do these people expect? Classical music and flowers?
"Instead of whining about it, why not ask other/.ers to perhaps help you answer it!"
And HOW do you want me to "ask other/.ers"??? Should I CALL them on the PHONE? Maybe I should FAX them...hey, I know what, why don't I/post my question again in the discussion area/!
Small world - info travels fast
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 2
I just got this in my mailbox like 10 minutes ago from my coworker...and it shows up on slashdot...
I thought the uncertainty in quantum mechanics was simply a matter of measurement. We can't measure that small. So we make up theoretical models, like partical/wave duality. It is just a model to describe reality. If the model is not consistent with reality it has to be reassessed. What if the wierd disappearances and "lost" or "gained" energy were simply because the particles (or whatever) were moving in an invisible dimension in and out of "view" of our measurements?
"Since we don't have any 1d objects, we can't test those, but if a 2d object casts a 2d shadow, and a 3d object casts a 2d shadow, wouldn't it follow that the 4d object would also cast a 2d shadow?"
Yes I'd assume that a 4d object would cast many 3d shadows which in turn could cast many 2d shadows. Shadows are just a projection (think map) of a higher level object on a lower level object. Just like we can change a light source to cause a 3d object to cast a different 2d shadow, I believe Xd objects can cast many X-Nd shadows.
A circle would cast a shadow of a line, and a line would cast a shadow of a point. Try this by holding up a piece of construction paper circle or line parallel to the sun or something...the shadow that will be cast will be a line for the circle, and a really short line for the line (since I can't ask you to cut the construction paper in an infinitely thin strip).
Just think of it as a "profile". The "profile" (looking sideways) of a sphere is a circle, a circle a line, and a line a point.
"Thank you for informing me about "macro" evolution . I'll have to check with my biology/genetics geek for a further explaination;)"
I did check, and it turns out there is substantial proof for macro evolution. According to Evolutionary Biology by Futuyma (sp?), there were two lines of thought. Both lines of thought acknowledged the/existence/ of evolutionary biology. One line of thought made a qualitative distinction between "macro" evolution, or "speciation", and "micro" evolution, variations/within/ a species. Supposedly speciation was caused by some phenomenon other than cumulative "micro"-evolutions, e.g. mutations, or electromagnetic radiation. This line of thinking was eventually discredited. The other, persistent line of thought said that "macro" evolution was merely an accumulation of "micro"-evolutions - that there was in fact, no difference in cause between speciation and variations within a species. This is taught in advanced college biology courses...certainly it is founded enough to maintain the teaching of evolution in general. Just one piece of evidence for this is a certain species of fly which has, under observation, changed environments and evolved into a different species incapable of breeding with the former. Once this breeding barrier is passed the new species only breeds with itself and breaks off.
So I'd have to say that, while under the assumption that "macro" evolution was unproven your arguments seemed sound, I have to disagree with you now. There is no reason evolution should not be taught, and no reason arbitrary and possibly conflicting alternatives need be taught alongside it.
Well I'm scared because I don't know if that is sarcasm or not. I guess I'm an idealist. I like to/design/ systems. Coding is just what you have to do to make your design concrete. A lot of people don't think this way. They think the code is the end, not the means. And hence you get nasty messy complex weak broken sorry ass systems and you need more people to support them than if you actually designed it correctly the first time. Sometimes I have to work on a project and I have to hold myself back from slapping everybody and starting from the ground up...I just have to grit my teeth and get my hands dirty so I can fix the a symptom of a much larger problem. Computing is truly going to hell if the above was/not/ satire...
Um, actually it is not a "wild theory". Topology is a long standing field of mathematics with a wealth of research. We have already concluded that our universe has more than just three dimensions, and that it is hyperbolically curved. Topology, and manifolds have been around for a long time and I am/surprised/ that anyone is actually/surprised/ by this. I thought a multidimensional universe was cool when I read about it way back in 1995.
Topology is very interesting. You can think of further dimension as "casting a shadow" to lower dimensions. For instance....the shadow of a sphere is 3d is a circle in 2d. The shadow of a 4dSphere is thus a 3d sphere in 3 dimensions. Quite a while ago (1996?) I read an article in a scientific journal in which a dance of the honeybee corresponded directly to a "shadow" of the Flag Manifold. The article suggested that there were interactions on the quark level that effected our 3d world, and hence the bee gets its dance.
I read an awesome book on the field of topology but I forget the title now. What they were explaining and attempting to describe on paper no less, what really mind-expanding for me. To think...all these weird things we can't quite reconcile with each other may just be because of a greater scheme outside our perception...that we are just the shadow of an even greater and more complicated play. That when things mysteriously "disappear" and "reappear" at the quantum level, that it could possibly be because they are "shifting" in a dimension we can't percieve. A good way to think about extra dimensions is to give them names of other continuims...like "color"....e.g. This particle is at location (1,2,1,red). Very interesting stuff. I have to find that book again...amazing diagrams of 4th and xth dimensional objects.
But this won't help id, or anybody else who follows the hybrid CD, or download-executable scheme. The effect of something like this would be "breaking in" the retailers for pure Linux and Mac boxed games companies, like Loki I guess. The only people this benefits are those that don't have hybrid/cross-platform/download-executable options.
"Well I don't know what "macro" evolution is, but why do you think evolution is less factual than any other of the sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.)?"
You explained this in your other post so ignore this one.
Slashdot Mirror
And hackers live in a minibus, run MacOS, subscribe to AOL and consort with other clueless, lame, AOL user/"hackers".
"When people measure time, they start from zero. Go ahead, ask anyone how many years old a newborn baby is."
/Age/ is absolute. A newborn baby is 0 years old until he reaches 12 months of age. At that point we will say the baby is 1 year old, HOWEVER, we will not say that it has completed its 0th year. We will say that it has completed its 1st year. So we /do/ count from 1, not 0.
This is a flawed analogy.
Enumerate your fingers for example. You have ten of them regardless of whether you use 1 or 0 as the origin.
Yes, I am more afraid of the luddites and opportunists than the actual technical problems. I'm more afraid of crackpots who think it's the end of the world running around than anything else. This movie was in such bad taste. It's just going to get people all frenzied and hysterical over nothing. It is so blatently fud and hype.
"OMIGOD these sandwiches are not Y2K compliant! For the love of gawd call the CDC"
Here is my impression of the GPL/BSD license issue:
/also/ wants to be free. The goal: Give the source code to anybody. Corporations are just as much consumers as end users, and they can use the source however they want, including integrating it in a product of which they will not open the source.
/more/ restrictive, in that it isn't then giving to "everybody".
Both parties want code to be "free" (liberated), and both believe their license does that. Both believe the other license is more restrictive than theirs because it fails to be "free" in a way theirs does.
The GPL seems to advocate End User/Consumer "freedom". The goal: Get the source code to the people. GPL cannot discriminate corporations, and like anybody else they must give access to any modifications they distribute.
The BSD
However, the GPL sees that BSD does not strive for its goal because corporations may then choose to NOT redistribute that source, and that the end users may never get access to the customized corporation code. BSD sees that GPL, by not allowing corporations to incorporate and withold GPLed source, is
There are two stratas of consumers then: the end user, and the corporation. Each license tries to get their stuff to the most people, but the distribution accross these stratas are just different.
Well, that's my blurry impression of it anyway. If I'm innaccurate in some way it's not because I'm a troll...It seems to me that both licenses want to do "good", however there are differing approaches to the end result of "good".
"Given that Pascal is essentially a dead language, and C based languages (including C++, Java and to a lesser extent Perl) pretty much rule the software development world."
Uggh?! Pascal a dead language? When perhaps pure procedural Pascal. But Borland's best selling product by a large margin for quite a while has been Delphi, which is based on Object Pascal - sort of like C++ is to C. I have to say, that of the object oriented languages I've seen, Object Pascal has to be one of the nicest. Java approaches pure-OO which can admittedly be annoying. C++ is simply a bastard (well, it's a hybrid), so, like a mut, is ugly but can do the job. Pascal, whose adoption, or lack thereof, could be considered both a deficit and a boon, has matured at a much slower measured pace. I'd have to say Object Pascal is a lovely language which is suited for many purposes. It tends to avoid pointers without pulling a hood over your eyes like Java, which I find nice...as long as you're not doing something explicitly involving pointers (which can still be done, but with more keystrokes). Since its following have been few and probably loyal, it hasn't been bastardized six was from sunday (the first time I ever used that phrase I swear) when any group wanted to add some feature.
One of the nice, and unique (well, maybe something I don't know has it), features of Object Pascal, is properties. Properties are member fields which are implicitly assigned accessors according to access rights keywords. This allows one to handle member fields transparently without having to explicitly call all sorts of accessors:
Object Pascal:
{ calls setter implicitly }
aclass.memberfield = foo
{ calls getter implicitly }
dosomething(aclass.memberfield)
C++:
aclass->setSomeMemberFIeld(foo)
dosomething(aclass.getSomeMemberField())
This also allows things like read-only or write-only fields.
And lets both thank god that the censors and zealots haven't won yet in their battle to prevent us from being able to decide what WE want or do not want our own children to see or do.
/Furthermore/ simULATORs attempt to simulate reality. If you are a huey pilot in vietnam you are /going/ to have a gruff cigar-smoking sergeant , gritty conditions, curse words, enmity, despair, resentment, etc. If you /simulate/ war, don't be surprised that it is not pretty. Want do these people expect? Classical music and flowers?
"prime is a number that is divisible only by two numbers, 1 and the number itself."
Isn't 1 prime though...it is devisible by 1 and the number itself (1). These just happen to be the same number. According to Mirriam Webster, though:
"any integer other than 0 or ± 1 that is not divisible without remainder by any other integers except ± 1 and ± the integer itself"
1 would be prime unless they made the special provision so that by definition it isn't.
Ok AC:
/.ers to perhaps help you answer it!"
/.ers"??? Should I CALL them on the PHONE? Maybe I should FAX them...hey, I know what, why don't I /post my question again in the discussion area/!
"Instead of whining about it, why not ask other
And HOW do you want me to "ask other
I just got this in my mailbox like 10 minutes ago from my coworker...and it shows up on slashdot...
I thought the uncertainty in quantum mechanics was simply a matter of measurement. We can't measure that small. So we make up theoretical models, like partical/wave duality. It is just a model to describe reality. If the model is not consistent with reality it has to be reassessed. What if the wierd disappearances and "lost" or "gained" energy were simply because the particles (or whatever) were moving in an invisible dimension in and out of "view" of our measurements?
"Since we don't have any 1d objects, we can't test those, but if a 2d object casts a 2d shadow, and a 3d object casts a 2d shadow, wouldn't it follow that the 4d object would also cast a 2d shadow?"
Yes I'd assume that a 4d object would cast many 3d shadows which in turn could cast many 2d shadows. Shadows are just a projection (think map) of a higher level object on a lower level object. Just like we can change a light source to cause a 3d object to cast a different 2d shadow, I believe Xd objects can cast many X-Nd shadows.
A circle would cast a shadow of a line, and a line would cast a shadow of a point. Try this by holding up a piece of construction paper circle or line parallel to the sun or something...the shadow that will be cast will be a line for the circle, and a really short line for the line (since I can't ask you to cut the construction paper in an infinitely thin strip).
Just think of it as a "profile". The "profile" (looking sideways) of a sphere is a circle, a circle a line, and a line a point.
WTF?! I don't know what Amazon is suggesting for you, but when I click my link (and the same one you provide) i get:
The Shape of Space : How to Visualize Surfaces and Three-Dimensional Manifolds
(Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol 96)
/existence/ of evolutionary biology.
=
/existence/ of "macro" evolution
"Thank you for informing me about "macro" evolution . I'll have to check with my biology/genetics geek for a further explaination ;)"
/existence/ of evolutionary biology. One line of thought made a qualitative distinction between "macro" evolution, or "speciation", and "micro" evolution, variations /within/ a species. Supposedly speciation was caused by some phenomenon other than cumulative "micro"-evolutions, e.g. mutations, or electromagnetic radiation. This line of thinking was eventually discredited. The other, persistent line of thought said that "macro" evolution was merely an accumulation of "micro"-evolutions - that there was in fact, no difference in cause between speciation and variations within a species. This is taught in advanced college biology courses...certainly it is founded enough to maintain the teaching of evolution in general. Just one piece of evidence for this is a certain species of fly which has, under observation, changed environments and evolved into a different species incapable of breeding with the former. Once this breeding barrier is passed the new species only breeds with itself and breaks off.
I did check, and it turns out there is substantial proof for macro evolution. According to Evolutionary Biology by Futuyma (sp?), there were two lines of thought. Both lines of thought acknowledged the
So I'd have to say that, while under the assumption that "macro" evolution was unproven your arguments seemed sound, I have to disagree with you now. There is no reason evolution should not be taught, and no reason arbitrary and possibly conflicting alternatives need be taught alongside it.
I stand corrected. I read the article but only skimmed the preprint.
My question was rated 5 (insightful) and I really hoped it was selected.
Well I'm scared because I don't know if that is sarcasm or not. I guess I'm an idealist. I like to /design/ systems. Coding is just what you have to do to make your design concrete. A lot of people don't think this way. They think the code is the end, not the means. And hence you get nasty messy complex weak broken sorry ass systems and you need more people to support them than if you actually designed it correctly the first time. Sometimes I have to work on a project and I have to hold myself back from slapping everybody and starting from the ground up...I just have to grit my teeth and get my hands dirty so I can fix the a symptom of a much larger problem. Computing is truly going to hell if the above was /not/ satire...
Um, it's manifold not manYfold. A manifold is another term for dimension or "membrane". E.g. Our universe is a manifold of X dimensions.
Um, actually it is not a "wild theory". Topology is a long standing field of mathematics with a wealth of research. We have already concluded that our universe has more than just three dimensions, and that it is hyperbolically curved. Topology, and manifolds have been around for a long time and I am /surprised/ that anyone is actually /surprised/ by this. I thought a multidimensional universe was cool when I read about it way back in 1995.
I think the book I read might have been:
7 X/qid=943023771/sr=1-122/102-5569579-46784 25
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/08247743
Topology is very interesting. You can think of further dimension as "casting a shadow" to lower dimensions. For instance....the shadow of a sphere is 3d is a circle in 2d. The shadow of a 4dSphere is thus a 3d sphere in 3 dimensions. Quite a while ago (1996?) I read an article in a scientific journal in which a dance of the honeybee corresponded directly to a "shadow" of the Flag Manifold. The article suggested that there were interactions on the quark level that effected our 3d world, and hence the bee gets its dance.
h tml
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/honey.
I read an awesome book on the field of topology but I forget the title now. What they were explaining and attempting to describe on paper no less, what really mind-expanding for me. To think...all these weird things we can't quite reconcile with each other may just be because of a greater scheme outside our perception...that we are just the shadow of an even greater and more complicated play. That when things mysteriously "disappear" and "reappear" at the quantum level, that it could possibly be because they are "shifting" in a dimension we can't percieve. A good way to think about extra dimensions is to give them names of other continuims...like "color"....e.g. This particle is at location (1,2,1,red). Very interesting stuff. I have to find that book again...amazing diagrams of 4th and xth dimensional objects.
But this won't help id, or anybody else who follows the hybrid CD, or download-executable scheme. The effect of something like this would be "breaking in" the retailers for pure Linux and Mac boxed games companies, like Loki I guess. The only people this benefits are those that don't have hybrid/cross-platform/download-executable options.
"Well I don't know what "macro" evolution is, but why do you think evolution is less factual than any other of the sciences (physics, chemistry,
etc.)?"
You explained this in your other post so ignore this one.