Not only that, but the star couldn't have been *inside* a solar system. The star (and any orbiting planets, if there were any, and there's no way of knowing) WAS a solar system.
There may be a legitimate (well, sort of) reason for that. If Epson's technology is anything like HP's, you need Cyan to print Black. After a long conversation with HP tech support about why my printer was printing crappy black text even after I replaced the black cartridge, they told me to replace the color cartridge as well. That worked, and I asked for an explanation. They told me that they actually print a layer of cyan underneath the black to act as a sort of "primer" that helps the black ink stick to the paper. That's when I decided that when this HP printer dies, I will never buy another printer that bundles the colors in a single cartridge. You can nuke your color cartridge just by printing black text.
he supports the idea that we should try to guess if a criminal might hate his victim. Extra years in prison for Thought Crime makes sense to him.
It makes sense to me too. Not your inane characterization of hate crime legislation as "thought crime", obviously, but the idea that intent is relevant. It's always been relevant, and this is just one additional way that it's relevant. If you kill some guy because he's Jewish and you hate Jews, you're a much greater danger to the general population than you'd be if you killed him because he's banging your wife.
[...]controlled behind the scenes without any mechanism available to promote responsibility and accountability of the powers involved. [yada yada yada] And while I'm on the subject, am I the only one who absolutely detests the name Jimbo?
So, slash-coders, when's that "line-item moderation" feature going to be rolled out?
they have understood that their views cannot be defended through legitimate scientific inquiry, and can never be by definition.
They cannot? By definition?
I think their view (that human life is too complex to have evolved without the direct help of God) could, in principle, be defended scientifically. I just highly doubt that they'd be successful in the attempt. There are just three things they'd have to do:
1. Come up with a metric that defines, quantitatively, the level of complexity of any living organism. (Creationists, if you're listening, you can probably start by looking up entropy.)
2. Derive, from first principles, an upper bound on the level of complexity (as measured by the metric defined in step 1) of a living organism attainable by natural processes alone.
3. Demonstrate that humans possess a level of complexity, as defined in step one, that exceeds the level of complexity derived in step 2.
Once you think you're done that, it doesn't mean you won the game. It means you've successfully located the ball park. Then the game begins.
When you minimize, the working set size is reduced. This causes pages to be swapped out to the pagefile. When you maximize (or restore), the working set size is increased, meaning that the application is *allowed* to use more physical memory, but that doesn't mean it's going to immediately start loading back the same pages it swapped out. It's going to wait for page faults to compel it to do so. That is why #6 is lower than #2.
For those too young to know this, what made that skit side-splitting hilarious, rather than merely funny, is that the Jive Lady was played by Barbara Billingsley, who played June Cleaver on "Leave It To Beaver".
they may turn out to have a fondness for geometry, and decide to reshape our planet into a perfect sphere using quantum high energy death beams for purely aesthetic reasons.
On the bright side, WGS27 will be a lot easier to implement than WGS84.
A single PDA by itself is not universal, but the system comprised of 2 PDAs is universal, since each stack can represent one side of the Turing machine tape.
Pardon my ignorance; it's been a while since I've studied this stuff. But if 2 PDAs can be universal because each stack can represent one side of the Turing machine tape, cannot a single PDA be universal by emulating the pair with a suitably complex alphabet (e.g. the outer-product of the original alphabet with itself)? What have I neglected?
I didn't attack the messenger. I asked him to back up his highly provocative (though not necessarily untrue) claims.
without researching the message?
When one makes extraordinary allegations, the burden does not fall on one's reader to prove those assertions. I've looked over the five allegations in the GP post, and none of what you write backs up any of them. You do cite a couple of sources, but you don't specify which of the allegations they pertain to (e.g. Chatterjee). In fact, the only statement you make that directly pertains to one of the original allegations (running a non-transparent organization) is merely re-iterated in your last paragraph with no references given. You respond to the other allegations by making statements that are not equivalent to the original allegation. For example, you talk about how she instills in her subordinates the importance of suffering as a means for them to prove their devotion, but this is not the same as making a clinic intentionally painful for patients. And you talk about how an individual attributed the cure of her illness to God's hand, but this is not the same as convincing someone to fake a miracle. The bit about taking money from despotic regimes goes unaddressed in your reply. (Though, if she's been found to take a few bucks from Pol-Pot and buy some shoes for a few kids, I might be willing to cut her some slack.) The Catholic Church's stance on condom use is well known, and I agree that it's misguided, but let's not pretend that it was all her idea and that the past four popes have been telling her to lighten up on that.
You are I are going to have to agree to disagree, because you're wrong and I stand by everything I said.
I do, however, agree with two things you said:
"Ownership does not exist outside [...] the legal system". I'm leaving out the remark about enforcement because that conflates the right of ownership with the fact of possession. I believe I've covered this already.
"Intellectual propety" being equivalent to physical property is a nonsensical concept." Agreed. I believe intellectual property rights are more deserving of protection than physical property rights. One's intellectual property is entirely one's own creation, whereas nobody has manufactured the atoms of which their physical possessions are comprised, nor the land to which they hold title.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but the star couldn't have been *inside* a solar system. The star (and any orbiting planets, if there were any, and there's no way of knowing) WAS a solar system.
There may be a legitimate (well, sort of) reason for that. If Epson's technology is anything like HP's, you need Cyan to print Black. After a long conversation with HP tech support about why my printer was printing crappy black text even after I replaced the black cartridge, they told me to replace the color cartridge as well. That worked, and I asked for an explanation. They told me that they actually print a layer of cyan underneath the black to act as a sort of "primer" that helps the black ink stick to the paper. That's when I decided that when this HP printer dies, I will never buy another printer that bundles the colors in a single cartridge. You can nuke your color cartridge just by printing black text.
he supports the idea that we should try to guess if a criminal might hate his victim. Extra years in prison for Thought Crime makes sense to him.
It makes sense to me too. Not your inane characterization of hate crime legislation as "thought crime", obviously, but the idea that intent is relevant. It's always been relevant, and this is just one additional way that it's relevant. If you kill some guy because he's Jewish and you hate Jews, you're a much greater danger to the general population than you'd be if you killed him because he's banging your wife.
"Overstock.com" has had such fake stock outstanding for years,
Yeah, well at least they don't make no bones about it.
[...]controlled behind the scenes without any mechanism available to promote responsibility and accountability of the powers involved.
[yada yada yada]
And while I'm on the subject, am I the only one who absolutely detests the name Jimbo?
So, slash-coders, when's that "line-item moderation" feature going to be rolled out?
The ads don't appear if the PDF is printed.
Looks like I'll be "printing" my PDFs to PDF995 from now on.
they have understood that their views cannot be defended through legitimate scientific inquiry, and can never be by definition.
They cannot? By definition?
I think their view (that human life is too complex to have evolved without the direct help of God) could, in principle, be defended scientifically. I just highly doubt that they'd be successful in the attempt. There are just three things they'd have to do:
1. Come up with a metric that defines, quantitatively, the level of complexity of any living organism. (Creationists, if you're listening, you can probably start by looking up entropy.)
2. Derive, from first principles, an upper bound on the level of complexity (as measured by the metric defined in step 1) of a living organism attainable by natural processes alone.
3. Demonstrate that humans possess a level of complexity, as defined in step one, that exceeds the level of complexity derived in step 2.
Once you think you're done that, it doesn't mean you won the game. It means you've successfully located the ball park. Then the game begins.
But if they made all those changes and kept the attribution, it would be libel.
When you minimize, the working set size is reduced. This causes pages to be swapped out to the pagefile. When you maximize (or restore), the working set size is increased, meaning that the application is *allowed* to use more physical memory, but that doesn't mean it's going to immediately start loading back the same pages it swapped out. It's going to wait for page faults to compel it to do so. That is why #6 is lower than #2.
Communism (or socialism) works for ants, but humans are possessive animals
Or, as one of my favorite economists once said,
Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
Here.
Occam's razor applies very well to voting
No, it doesn't. Occam's Razor applies to explanations of observed phenomena, not to methods of doing something.
For those too young to know this, what made that skit side-splitting hilarious, rather than merely funny, is that the Jive Lady was played by Barbara Billingsley, who played June Cleaver on "Leave It To Beaver".
they may turn out to have a fondness for geometry, and decide to reshape our planet into a perfect sphere using quantum high energy death beams for purely aesthetic reasons.
On the bright side, WGS27 will be a lot easier to implement than WGS84.
Could *HAVE* seen.
Would *HAVE* been cool.
"Sheesh" indeed.
It's obvious to all of us that -f(x) does not mean the same thing as f(-x).
That's not odd.
A single PDA by itself is not universal, but the system comprised of 2 PDAs is universal, since each stack can represent one side of the Turing machine tape.
Pardon my ignorance; it's been a while since I've studied this stuff. But if 2 PDAs can be universal because each stack can represent one side of the Turing machine tape, cannot a single PDA be universal by emulating the pair with a suitably complex alphabet (e.g. the outer-product of the original alphabet with itself)? What have I neglected?
The first US telephone exchange opened in 1978.
Uh... What?
I suspect that what this software can predict is not so much like the weather as it is like the climate.
I had no idea that red blood cells (or any cells, for that matter) did not nave nuclei. Thanks.
'If you were to do a DNA test of my blood and one from my skin, they'd be different
Isn't this true of anyone who's had a transfusion?
Regarding the reason for greater inconvenience when the government runs security:
Why do you think this is?
Because the entity you complain to and the entity you pay your money to have no common ancestor in their chains of command.
Hmm, attacking the 'messenger'
I didn't attack the messenger. I asked him to back up his highly provocative (though not necessarily untrue) claims.
without researching the message?
When one makes extraordinary allegations, the burden does not fall on one's reader to prove those assertions. I've looked over the five allegations in the GP post, and none of what you write backs up any of them. You do cite a couple of sources, but you don't specify which of the allegations they pertain to (e.g. Chatterjee). In fact, the only statement you make that directly pertains to one of the original allegations (running a non-transparent organization) is merely re-iterated in your last paragraph with no references given. You respond to the other allegations by making statements that are not equivalent to the original allegation. For example, you talk about how she instills in her subordinates the importance of suffering as a means for them to prove their devotion, but this is not the same as making a clinic intentionally painful for patients. And you talk about how an individual attributed the cure of her illness to God's hand, but this is not the same as convincing someone to fake a miracle. The bit about taking money from despotic regimes goes unaddressed in your reply. (Though, if she's been found to take a few bucks from Pol-Pot and buy some shoes for a few kids, I might be willing to cut her some slack.) The Catholic Church's stance on condom use is well known, and I agree that it's misguided, but let's not pretend that it was all her idea and that the past four popes have been telling her to lighten up on that.
Ok, I'll bite. Which of those things were done by Mandela, and which were done by Mother Teresa? And please cite references.
You are I are going to have to agree to disagree, because you're wrong and I stand by everything I said.
I do, however, agree with two things you said:
"Ownership does not exist outside [...] the legal system". I'm leaving out the remark about enforcement because that conflates the right of ownership with the fact of possession. I believe I've covered this already.
"Intellectual propety" being equivalent to physical property is a nonsensical concept." Agreed. I believe intellectual property rights are more deserving of protection than physical property rights. One's intellectual property is entirely one's own creation, whereas nobody has manufactured the atoms of which their physical possessions are comprised, nor the land to which they hold title.