Perhaps you would like to read again what NP-complete means: being able to quickly check (read: in polynomial time) whether a solution is right or not by using a deterministic algorithm. Quantum computers are non-deterministic, and that's why they can be used to factor large integers. "Check all periods of r so a^r=1 (mod N) at the same time" certainly isn't deterministic.
The darned things would be like oracles, just ask them any super hard question, like how to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, and they'd just spit out the answer. The things would be like talking directly to God. Is that even remotely possible? I don't think so. Factoring numbers is just not as hard as any NP complete problem.
You might as well conclude that grass is purple, for all the sense that paragraph makes.
(B) by actually using the Services. In this case, you understand and agree that Google will treat your use of the Services as acceptance of the Terms from that point onwards.
Which makes no sense whatsoever, anyway: you need to read the ToS to know that just using the service is considered by Google an acceptance of the ToS.
I am not a mathematician either, but I think being able to provide a pattern that allows you to reach any given point in the graph would allow for faster switching at the nodes (once you reach certain speeds switching becomes the bottleneck). The problem isn't concerned with efficiency but reachability, anyway.
A script has tried to read private data
on
The Dirty Jobs of IT
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
That link is certainly weird. While loading, a script tried to "read private data from any window". Is Infoworld hacked or something?
In fact, it amounts to saying that "all the trolls are kept in the back room. Go talk to them if you like."
And that is censorship because when I get there they are gagged and hog-tied so they can say nothing. Just as they are forbidden to write in Slashdot. Just like having the magazines people don't ask about at the end of the store. Just like getting your letter to the editor be printed last. Remember that your right to say things doesn't mean it's my duty to listen.
You call this moderation method censorship because you don't seem to trust people's opinion on what you should or shouldn't read. I applaud that, and usually do the same, browsing at -1. But if I decide to trust the moderation system by ignoring some comments, I can do that too. As long as I'm able to keep reading what I want (usually everything) I can hardly complain about censorship, and hardly can the authors. And, of course, nobody restrains me or them to leave and post at some other website.
Oh, and my sarcasm doesn't make me right, but your flawed reasoning and analogies _do_ make you wrong.
Since the limit applies mainly to anonymous posts, there's an easy option: register. It's not like you are expected to fill real data in, anyway. And it's not a ban held forever, either. You can post again 24 hours later, IIRC.
No, that's preventing everyone else from seeing their opinions too.
<sarcasm>Of course it is, because there is no option to browse at -1, whether you are a registered user or not. I guess two clicks are too much work, and having to go to a public library to read a book censors the author because you don't get it sent home just because you think you want to read it right now.</sarcasm>
Preventing would require that those comments were unavailable (or with great difficulty). Two clicks doesn't cut it, for me.
It would be much more mature to simply ignore them.
Which is achieved by modding them down. If you really want to read them all, you can always read at -1 like I do. Even better: as a registered user, you can set your account to ignore (-1) Troll moderations.
Yes, because the land-of-freedom USA are supposed to be like Russia, China, etc. Congratulations on that Insightful vote, you didn't really deserve it. Oh, I don't belong to the USA and I don't like many of their current policies, but your point is quite senseless.
Interesting, I would expect the Earth and the Moon to revolve around a common center of mass which in turn revolves around the apotex you mention. I guess that the Moon orbiting the Earth is a myth, after all.
I simply pointed out that the lack of such daemon must be taken at faith, because it is impossible to prove, and not making such assumption makes it impossible to test any hypothesis; without the assumption, no matter what your instruments tell you, it can't disprove any hypothesis, since the daemon might have falsified the data.
There is no need to have any faith about that. I assume (as in "act as if") there is no daemon because I'm unable to prove its existence. Since the models developed under this assumption work quite well, why should I worry? If reality starts to act up, I may start to worry. For the time being, it looks like we are quite able to model and even predict successfully (so many double consonants there) some parts of reality.
science in general requires faith in your ability to perceive surrounding reality...and the rules of logic, neither of which can be proven.
And yet they work better than anything else we have found. And science doesn't actually require faith in your ability to perceive surrounding reality, since science hasn't been able, AFAIK, to prove there _is_ a reality around us. But it looks like some models we build to predict our apparent surroundings work better than others, so we use them. And, since they don't always work precisely, we try to build better models.
And yes, there might be "someone" altering the results, but I don't know. As long as the results fit the model, there's no reason to throw it away nor need to worry about some evil daemon playing tricks with our perceptions.
Then scientifically prove that there is something, rather than nothing with your senses being deluded.
I currently can't, so I don't believe everything around me is real. But I find it easier to act as if it was. Should I find definitive proof of the world being real, I'll try to make it known, don't worry;-)
Belief in God does not come about by deciding one day to hope that he exists, but by coming to see his existence through his effects on the world and others in it (and indeed the mere existence of both)
...because there is no other option than having a Creator.
Faith in God, is about trusting him, not about belief without proof. It is about trusting that when he wants you to do something that you find uneasy, or don't see the reason for, that he will never stop loving or looking after you, and there's no reason to fear what he is in control of.
Without talking about how you change from "belief" to "faith", I think you will find many that disagree with you, including a few Doctors of the Catholic church. I remember reading something like this: those that have the time to study the world, the Scriptures, etc., can learn that there is a God; faith does it for the rest. And yes, the original sentence is much better phrased, but in the end it still says the same.
Actually it doesn't. If we are going to be nitpicky, the only thing science requires is counter-proof for non-belief (and yes, I seem to have used a quite wrong expression on my earlier comment). That's why every scientific theory must be "falsable", i.e., it needs to have some way to be proven wrong. Evidence, as you otherwise point out, leads to increased reliability of the model it supports.
If you think you need to defend yourself..it's too late for you...
Oh, dear, so I'm damned if I do, and I'm damned if I don't. Thanks for knowing my own mind better than I do.
I don't need to defend myself. My thoughts may need defense, though, since they can't speak for themselves. For the time being, I find the people who consider that we are the probable cause of the current global warming usually more reliable than the people against. If, later, it looks like man didn't actually cause/accelerate global warming, I won't have any problem in acknowledging my errors. As you say, doing otherwise would be dishonest (and illogical, as Mr. Spock would say).
Oh, but I do, and I'm not the first one to do so. Remember the geometry axioms? They were "golden" until someone wondered "what if they changed?". But scientists won't consider reliable (just in case someone else worries about my use of the word "belief") a theory or model until it has been tested time and time again and still stands.
Oh, but strings theorists are _theorists_. They play with models that, until checked, are nothing more than models. Actually, most of current particle physics is just a model (they didn't call it the Standard Law, did they?;-)
Wrong; a creationist would say that it didn't, not necessarily that it can't.
Oh. And that creationist would rather add an ad-hoc creator rather than let it happen by chance. Occam would be proud. What was what he said... "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"? If you add a creator you'd better be sure it is necessary, otherwise you are adding chaff. But if a creator is necessary, then coincidences are not enough. How does that differ from what I said?
You miss the point. Faith isn't scientific. If having faith brings you joy and peace, congratulations. But don't try to bring it into science, for faith requires belief without proof, and science requires proof before belief. Taking the concept from Carl Sagan, faith is usually prejudice and science is postjudice.
Slashdot Mirror
But you won't know if it's alive or not until you look inside the box.
The darned things would be like oracles, just ask them any super hard question, like how to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, and they'd just spit out the answer. The things would be like talking directly to God. Is that even remotely possible? I don't think so. Factoring numbers is just not as hard as any NP complete problem.
You might as well conclude that grass is purple, for all the sense that paragraph makes.
Which makes no sense whatsoever, anyway: you need to read the ToS to know that just using the service is considered by Google an acceptance of the ToS.
I am not a mathematician either, but I think being able to provide a pattern that allows you to reach any given point in the graph would allow for faster switching at the nodes (once you reach certain speeds switching becomes the bottleneck). The problem isn't concerned with efficiency but reachability, anyway.
That link is certainly weird. While loading, a script tried to "read private data from any window". Is Infoworld hacked or something?
And that is censorship because when I get there they are gagged and hog-tied so they can say nothing. Just as they are forbidden to write in Slashdot. Just like having the magazines people don't ask about at the end of the store. Just like getting your letter to the editor be printed last. Remember that your right to say things doesn't mean it's my duty to listen.
You call this moderation method censorship because you don't seem to trust people's opinion on what you should or shouldn't read. I applaud that, and usually do the same, browsing at -1. But if I decide to trust the moderation system by ignoring some comments, I can do that too. As long as I'm able to keep reading what I want (usually everything) I can hardly complain about censorship, and hardly can the authors. And, of course, nobody restrains me or them to leave and post at some other website.
Oh, and my sarcasm doesn't make me right, but your flawed reasoning and analogies _do_ make you wrong.
Since the limit applies mainly to anonymous posts, there's an easy option: register. It's not like you are expected to fill real data in, anyway. And it's not a ban held forever, either. You can post again 24 hours later, IIRC.
<sarcasm>Of course it is, because there is no option to browse at -1, whether you are a registered user or not. I guess two clicks are too much work, and having to go to a public library to read a book censors the author because you don't get it sent home just because you think you want to read it right now.</sarcasm>
Preventing would require that those comments were unavailable (or with great difficulty). Two clicks doesn't cut it, for me.
Perhaps it makes one's soul sound like a horse.
Which is achieved by modding them down. If you really want to read them all, you can always read at -1 like I do. Even better: as a registered user, you can set your account to ignore (-1) Troll moderations.
The weather must be about to change at your location, because your mental joints are aching quite a bit. Brain arthritis, perhaps?
Yes, because the land-of-freedom USA are supposed to be like Russia, China, etc. Congratulations on that Insightful vote, you didn't really deserve it. Oh, I don't belong to the USA and I don't like many of their current policies, but your point is quite senseless.
Missing Objects office here. A humour sense unit has been found. Please come and check whether it is yours.
Interesting, I would expect the Earth and the Moon to revolve around a common center of mass which in turn revolves around the apotex you mention. I guess that the Moon orbiting the Earth is a myth, after all.
There is no need to have any faith about that. I assume (as in "act as if") there is no daemon because I'm unable to prove its existence. Since the models developed under this assumption work quite well, why should I worry? If reality starts to act up, I may start to worry. For the time being, it looks like we are quite able to model and even predict successfully (so many double consonants there) some parts of reality.
And yet they work better than anything else we have found. And science doesn't actually require faith in your ability to perceive surrounding reality, since science hasn't been able, AFAIK, to prove there _is_ a reality around us. But it looks like some models we build to predict our apparent surroundings work better than others, so we use them. And, since they don't always work precisely, we try to build better models.
And yes, there might be "someone" altering the results, but I don't know. As long as the results fit the model, there's no reason to throw it away nor need to worry about some evil daemon playing tricks with our perceptions.
I currently can't, so I don't believe everything around me is real. But I find it easier to act as if it was. Should I find definitive proof of the world being real, I'll try to make it known, don't worry ;-)
Faith in God, is about trusting him, not about belief without proof. It is about trusting that when he wants you to do something that you find uneasy, or don't see the reason for, that he will never stop loving or looking after you, and there's no reason to fear what he is in control of.
Without talking about how you change from "belief" to "faith", I think you will find many that disagree with you, including a few Doctors of the Catholic church. I remember reading something like this: those that have the time to study the world, the Scriptures, etc., can learn that there is a God; faith does it for the rest. And yes, the original sentence is much better phrased, but in the end it still says the same.
Actually it doesn't. If we are going to be nitpicky, the only thing science requires is counter-proof for non-belief (and yes, I seem to have used a quite wrong expression on my earlier comment). That's why every scientific theory must be "falsable", i.e., it needs to have some way to be proven wrong. Evidence, as you otherwise point out, leads to increased reliability of the model it supports.
Oh, dear, so I'm damned if I do, and I'm damned if I don't. Thanks for knowing my own mind better than I do.
I don't need to defend myself. My thoughts may need defense, though, since they can't speak for themselves. For the time being, I find the people who consider that we are the probable cause of the current global warming usually more reliable than the people against. If, later, it looks like man didn't actually cause/accelerate global warming, I won't have any problem in acknowledging my errors. As you say, doing otherwise would be dishonest (and illogical, as Mr. Spock would say).
Oh, but I do, and I'm not the first one to do so. Remember the geometry axioms? They were "golden" until someone wondered "what if they changed?". But scientists won't consider reliable (just in case someone else worries about my use of the word "belief") a theory or model until it has been tested time and time again and still stands.
Oh, but strings theorists are _theorists_. They play with models that, until checked, are nothing more than models. Actually, most of current particle physics is just a model (they didn't call it the Standard Law, did they? ;-)
Oh. And that creationist would rather add an ad-hoc creator rather than let it happen by chance. Occam would be proud. What was what he said... "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"? If you add a creator you'd better be sure it is necessary, otherwise you are adding chaff. But if a creator is necessary, then coincidences are not enough. How does that differ from what I said?
You miss the point. Faith isn't scientific. If having faith brings you joy and peace, congratulations. But don't try to bring it into science, for faith requires belief without proof, and science requires proof before belief. Taking the concept from Carl Sagan, faith is usually prejudice and science is postjudice.