What I got was that someone was attempting to use digital currency that would be completely insecure, because it was computationally nonintensive enough to be preminable. And I broke spell check's dictionary.
Maybe only tangentially related, but if we rejected Hobbes then maybe Tor wouldn't be needed... as much? We live under a government created under principles that Hobbes came up with and while others views of man were too optimistic, Hobbes view of Man in nature reflected his poor home life growing up and he had no sense of how families actually work. I have said that I will be family for anyone who will be family for me, and that simply does not fit into Hobbes' philosophy. The Hamiltonians played dirty when pushing for passage of the Constitution. The Federalist papers were filled with bully and con language. The Hamiltonians broke with tradition and made it so that passage was not of unanimous State decision. Hobbes had a radical hatred of violence. I feel that violence is a natural part of the human experience. The reservation of violence to the State interferes with the natural experience of violence by man. It should be tempered, but not removed entirely. Hobbes decision to make the Sovereign and not the Pope the decider of religion was not particularly novel and merely created many smaller Holy Roman Empires, when it came to religion. Religion should be the decision of individuals only. His ideas hampered discourse and the free flow of ideas by Balkanizing the world when it came to individuals. Hobbes was a Dr. Frankenstein, but worse, he had no idea what parts of Man he was even using to construct his so-called Artificial Man. He had little indication that the parts that make up Man were represented in whole in his Artificial Man. And in fact it is not. Hobbes had no sense of personal preference, When he said Man was the same, he meant that Man was the same in the same sense the Cybermen from Doctor Who were all the same. God bless you, God bless America, and God bless the World. And as Jim Sterling says, "Thank God for me."
It doesn't matter if they say "yes" or not, they still have to back it up. Maybe I should try to get one of them to give me more than the time of day but I expect they'll want me to take formal classes and shell out tons of money instead. I think I can counter any claim made with facts, however.
I've already shown you pseudocode on how natural language is actually processed in the same way as computer language, thus any apparently context that natural language has that programming languages doesn't is an illusion and asked you to explain what the correct processing for natural language in the human brain is if I am wrong, and if you can't do that, then I guess we are done here. Every time you create a new folder, file, or namespace, you create a new context. I'm sorry if you can neither see that or explain to me where I am wrong, but that is where we stand.
The Hamiltonians created conditions for as powerful a government as possible to interfere in people's lives. They've had plenty of time to refine it and now we've got the worst of the worst contending for a position that never should have existed in the first place. It's not too late to fix that and it's not too late to fix what should have been done with the internet and networking in general.
No, every function theat used that function does not fail because you had enough sense to put the oruginal version in a separate library file. Human language is the same way. Both are contextual, just in computer languages you are more aware of managing the context, which ironocally led you to the conclusion that there is no context. C++ actually deals with managing the context by mangling names.
Here's some pseudo code:
main
{{
using namespacewherecoloreoutinemeanswhatituusuallydoes
colorroutine
}
{
using namespacewherecoloreoutinemeansdosql
colorroutine
}}
Natural language is no different only the decision to use different namespaces are made some distance from the time the token/word actually gets used
{
if witholdman then
{
using namespacebadmeansbad
saybad
}
elseif withfriends then
{
using namespacebadmeansgood
saybad
}
That is how natural language is processed in the brain. Explain how you think it really works if you have an alternate explanation.
Hiw am I stealing her effect when the whole point of my pists is puurely an exercise in whimsy. Except maybe a little bit about Slashdot's interface being rotten. About that, I was serious. And despite the composing flaws of the post I was referring to, I think I made a few good points and it wouldn't hurt to read it.
When you create new code for a function, you tell the computer to rerun the compiler and linker and with natural language you do effectively the same thing.
No, in natural languages when the meaning changes it is the exact same thing
you have just taken a label with a preexisting meaning (function) and just created a new word that's a homonym. It only actually changes in the exact same sense that the function appeared to change because I wrote a new function using the same label.
Curse you, Slashdot, and your wily ways! you told me I had to wait to post again and between you and my browser ate my original message, so I typed it again, and you actually posted the first version.
Wait... I am on my phone and its limited space and the Slashdot mobile site conspired to lead me to believe that an earlier post of mine was the summary, which apparently my brain skimmed without telling me.
Wait... I am on my phone and the limited space tricked me into mistaking an earlier post of mine for the summary, which apparently my brain skimmed without telling me. Physician, heal thyself!
When I tried ot VR and found myself clumsily going over the cords I knew I had to wait for something like this. Also inserting reality should ne done wilth cameras and not via clear lenses like Google Glass. Maybe it is clearer in the article, but the summary does not make clear which this implements. Also, I don't know how Microsoft implements HoloLens. Sorry for sounding like boasting about my ignorance and laziness, but it might be a waste of time to look futher until it really matters. After all, isn't that the reason Slashdotters are in the habit of not reading the articles? But I digress.
Getting rid of the room mounted sensors is also a must. A viable system must pick up cues from the preexisting environment and let me maneuver anywhere there is space. Also, the system should be able to adjust to my vision prescription. It should be able to not only take the place of my glasses but ensure the best possible clarity.
I keep interpreting.things different from the way you mean. You say something is ineffective and instead of providing evidence, you speak from your own anecdotal experience, and then instead of describing that experience, you decide that the fact you have had an experience similar to the criteria it should suffice, without any detail to explain why yor experience meets the criteria. You say both "I disagree with the apparent implication that they can be taught similarly." and I have had experience doing it." Those two sentences appear to contradict each other.
Then we are so far apart from an agreement on what not just that equation but how math relates to the world in general.
You say that formal language cannot have connotation, but code can have side effects, so how is this different from having connotation? A routine can be arranged to have as many different meanings as the parameters passed to it allows. Also, fundamental means something different to me apparently, than it does to you. I find I now have some ability to elaborate. There is no underlying reason why concepts utilized in one domain cannot be used in the other. When you gave the recursion example, you thought it was the example that proved the rule, while I thought that it showed that recursion could be applied in both domains.
No, everything in a formal language cannot be taken at face value. I can shove anything I want into myverycleverfunction.
Now that some things have been gone over that step beyond the boundaries a little bit, I say that the reason that the truth of the system cannot be defined is that it does not exist. The system has no truth or falsity to it. I believe a similar concept was attempted to be made when Jesus originally said that there is none good but God, that Man is neither intrinsically good or evil but that the determination comes from without.
It's merely that I don't know how to get any function to do those things. No matter what you called one, once you know how to do it with a routine named one thing, you generally know how to do it with whatever you want to name the routine. Taking a step back, I do know how to write a routine called strtolower() to write a text file, but I think I've demonstrated that is beside the point and that the real issue is that if I were to use the words you used it would mean something completely different and as a result, I have no idea what you are talking about so the only way for this conversation to go forward is for you to use words in a way that I don't have a completely different understanding for. The worst part of it is that neither of us is wrong in their understanding of the choice of words meaning as they apply to their own domain, only when comparing to the other person's domain, and I really do want to understand more about your domain!
I found them not to be headache inducing but their sense of where you are in the world, specifically where the controllers are can be way off. I pointed a controller at a ship and fired and the shot did not go where I expected it to. Besides the controls are so primitive that using a current gen two-joystick controller is better.
So let me be the first to call you idiot after the fact. Somebody already pointed out that they has been used that way for longer than most people realize and English is the most changing in its family. So get salty all you want. (Salty apparently has come to mean anything from angry to petulant and then some, for those curious, though someone is free to be more specific than this explanation.)
My opinion is that the only "viable" choice is to ignore all this for the most part and commit to working on a replacement for the Hamiltonian government foisted upon us. The Hamiltonians cheated like crazy to foist their government upon us from getting a rule that the Constitution be passed not unanimously as important pieces of legislation before it, to bullying and con language in The Federalist Papers.
Slashdot Mirror
What I got was that someone was attempting to use digital currency that would be completely insecure, because it was computationally nonintensive enough to be preminable. And I broke spell check's dictionary.
I'm sorry, w6'r6 all out of (sold out)s. Could I int6r6st you in a bar6ly us6d 6?
Maybe only tangentially related, but if we rejected Hobbes then maybe Tor wouldn't be needed... as much?
We live under a government created under principles that Hobbes came up with and while others views of man were too optimistic, Hobbes view of Man in nature reflected his poor home life growing up and he had no sense of how families actually work. I have said that I will be family for anyone who will be family for me, and that simply does not fit into Hobbes' philosophy. The Hamiltonians played dirty when pushing for passage of the Constitution. The Federalist papers were filled with bully and con language. The Hamiltonians broke with tradition and made it so that passage was not of unanimous State decision. Hobbes had a radical hatred of violence. I feel that violence is a natural part of the human experience. The reservation of violence to the State interferes with the natural experience of violence by man. It should be tempered, but not removed entirely. Hobbes decision to make the Sovereign and not the Pope the decider of religion was not particularly novel and merely created many smaller Holy Roman Empires, when it came to religion. Religion should be the decision of individuals only. His ideas hampered discourse and the free flow of ideas by Balkanizing the world when it came to individuals. Hobbes was a Dr. Frankenstein, but worse, he had no idea what parts of Man he was even using to construct his so-called Artificial Man. He had little indication that the parts that make up Man were represented in whole in his Artificial Man. And in fact it is not. Hobbes had no sense of personal preference, When he said Man was the same, he meant that Man was the same in the same sense the Cybermen from Doctor Who were all the same. God bless you, God bless America, and God bless the World. And as Jim Sterling says, "Thank God for me."
Which classics?
It doesn't matter if they say "yes" or not, they still have to back it up. Maybe I should try to get one of them to give me more than the time of day but I expect they'll want me to take formal classes and shell out tons of money instead. I think I can counter any claim made with facts, however.
I've already shown you pseudocode on how natural language is actually processed in the same way as computer language, thus any apparently context that natural language has that programming languages doesn't is an illusion and asked you to explain what the correct processing for natural language in the human brain is if I am wrong, and if you can't do that, then I guess we are done here. Every time you create a new folder, file, or namespace, you create a new context. I'm sorry if you can neither see that or explain to me where I am wrong, but that is where we stand.
The Hamiltonians created conditions for as powerful a government as possible to interfere in people's lives. They've had plenty of time to refine it and now we've got the worst of the worst contending for a position that never should have existed in the first place. It's not too late to fix that and it's not too late to fix what should have been done with the internet and networking in general.
No, every function theat used that function does not fail because you had enough sense to put the oruginal version in a separate library file. Human language is the same way. Both are contextual, just in computer languages you are more aware of managing the context, which ironocally led you to the conclusion that there is no context. C++ actually deals with managing the context by mangling names. Here's some pseudo code:
main
{{
using namespacewherecoloreoutinemeanswhatituusuallydoes
colorroutine
}
{
using namespacewherecoloreoutinemeansdosql
colorroutine
}}
Natural language is no different only the decision to use different namespaces are made some distance from the time the token/word actually gets used
{
if witholdman then
{
using namespacebadmeansbad
saybad
}
elseif withfriends then
{
using namespacebadmeansgood
saybad
}
That is how natural language is processed in the brain. Explain how you think it really works if you have an alternate explanation.
Hiw am I stealing her effect when the whole point of my pists is puurely an exercise in whimsy. Except maybe a little bit about Slashdot's interface being rotten. About that, I was serious. And despite the composing flaws of the post I was referring to, I think I made a few good points and it wouldn't hurt to read it.
When you create new code for a function, you tell the computer to rerun the compiler and linker and with natural language you do effectively the same thing.
No, in natural languages when the meaning changes it is the exact same thing you have just taken a label with a preexisting meaning (function) and just created a new word that's a homonym. It only actually changes in the exact same sense that the function appeared to change because I wrote a new function using the same label.
Curse you, Slashdot, and your wily ways! you told me I had to wait to post again and between you and my browser ate my original message, so I typed it again, and you actually posted the first version.
Wait... I am on my phone and its limited space and the Slashdot mobile site conspired to lead me to believe that an earlier post of mine was the summary, which apparently my brain skimmed without telling me.
Wait... I am on my phone and the limited space tricked me into mistaking an earlier post of mine for the summary, which apparently my brain skimmed without telling me. Physician, heal thyself!
But don't you just love ot VR? So much better than just plain ordinary VR!
When I tried ot VR and found myself clumsily going over the cords I knew I had to wait for something like this. Also inserting reality should ne done wilth cameras and not via clear lenses like Google Glass. Maybe it is clearer in the article, but the summary does not make clear which this implements. Also, I don't know how Microsoft implements HoloLens.
Sorry for sounding like boasting about my ignorance and laziness, but it might be a waste of time to look futher until it really matters. After all, isn't that the reason Slashdotters are in the habit of not reading the articles? But I digress.
Getting rid of the room mounted sensors is also a must. A viable system must pick up cues from the preexisting environment and let me maneuver anywhere there is space. Also, the system should be able to adjust to my vision prescription. It should be able to not only take the place of my glasses but ensure the best possible clarity.
I keep interpreting.things different from the way you mean. You say something is ineffective and instead of providing evidence, you speak from your own anecdotal experience, and then instead of describing that experience, you decide that the fact you have had an experience similar to the criteria it should suffice, without any detail to explain why yor experience meets the criteria.
You say both "I disagree with the apparent implication that they can be taught similarly." and I have had experience doing it." Those two sentences appear to contradict each other.
Then we are so far apart from an agreement on what not just that equation but how math relates to the world in general.
You say that formal language cannot have connotation, but code can have side effects, so how is this different from having connotation? A routine can be arranged to have as many different meanings as the parameters passed to it allows.
Also, fundamental means something different to me apparently, than it does to you. I find I now have some ability to elaborate. There is no underlying reason why concepts utilized in one domain cannot be used in the other. When you gave the recursion example, you thought it was the example that proved the rule, while I thought that it showed that recursion could be applied in both domains.
No, everything in a formal language cannot be taken at face value. I can shove anything I want into myverycleverfunction.
Now that some things have been gone over that step beyond the boundaries a little bit, I say that the reason that the truth of the system cannot be defined is that it does not exist. The system has no truth or falsity to it. I believe a similar concept was attempted to be made when Jesus originally said that there is none good but God, that Man is neither intrinsically good or evil but that the determination comes from without.
It's merely that I don't know how to get any function to do those things. No matter what you called one, once you know how to do it with a routine named one thing, you generally know how to do it with whatever you want to name the routine. Taking a step back, I do know how to write a routine called strtolower() to write a text file, but I think I've demonstrated that is beside the point and that the real issue is that if I were to use the words you used it would mean something completely different and as a result, I have no idea what you are talking about so the only way for this conversation to go forward is for you to use words in a way that I don't have a completely different understanding for. The worst part of it is that neither of us is wrong in their understanding of the choice of words meaning as they apply to their own domain, only when comparing to the other person's domain, and I really do want to understand more about your domain!
I found them not to be headache inducing but their sense of where you are in the world, specifically where the controllers are can be way off. I pointed a controller at a ship and fired and the shot did not go where I expected it to. Besides the controls are so primitive that using a current gen two-joystick controller is better.
So let me be the first to call you idiot after the fact. Somebody already pointed out that they has been used that way for longer than most people realize and English is the most changing in its family. So get salty all you want. (Salty apparently has come to mean anything from angry to petulant and then some, for those curious, though someone is free to be more specific than this explanation.)
I was about to argue that 2-wire isn't ethernet, but if the layer 2 protocol is the same, it's irrelevant.
Yeah it's sad when people don't know the power of the one true cord. Wake up, sheeples!
Really? Because I think everyone except you really loves it when they can bring the to the market faster than ever before.
I always love it when I can bring the to the market quicker than ever before!
My opinion is that the only "viable" choice is to ignore all this for the most part and commit to working on a replacement for the Hamiltonian government foisted upon us. The Hamiltonians cheated like crazy to foist their government upon us from getting a rule that the Constitution be passed not unanimously as important pieces of legislation before it, to bullying and con language in The Federalist Papers.