Alternatively you can make the language popular. Get GUILE into HTML5, and its popularity will rise.:-) (Or maybe the popularity of HTML5 will go down instead;-))
I live in the Central Valley, California. Every fall, the sky is smokey and smoggy because of all the burning of rice fields. Hundreds of square miles of rice fields produce a massive amount of food for the world, and the end result is rice stalks - too woody to be eaten by livestock, it takes more than a year to decompose, yet it's not woody enough to make a good building material, though numerous attempts have been made to concoct some sort of usable fiberboard out of it.
So we burn it. All that horrid, dreadful cellulose!
But wouldn't it make more sense to burn it at a place where you can use the energy thus released?
In other words, while ethanol from corn makes corn more expensive, this would not because it consumes the non-edible parts. Instead it would make growing corn more profitable.
However I guess the end result would be that they produce both ethanol from the corn and butanol from the remains, and then sell the mixture of both for fuel.
There's virtually no natural food in traditional food, either. Almost all meat is cooked, roasted, fried or otherwise treated. The same is true for a lot of plants. Most plants and animals we eat are not in their natural form anyway, but modified by centuries-long bioengineering (called breeding).
Or for those who prefer well-formed (and therefore unconditionally working) links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_%28short_story%29
Of course it doesn't help that Firefox displays ill-formed URLs in the URL bar... nor does it help that Slashdot automatically changes a valid URL into an invalid one if you don't explicitly prevent it from recognizing it as URL.
And I bet you are not qualified to call even one of the concepts you mention "bunk".
I don't need to be. It is widely know they all the concepts I mentioned are UNPROVEN THEORIES.
So you think that every unproven theory is bunk? In that case I want to inform you that I don't have a proof of the theory that your IQ is above 70. So I guess that theory, being unproven, is bunk, and therefore I'm safe in assuming that your IQ doesn't exceed 70.
Considering the bunk and completely unproved concepts that physics is using currently ie. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, String Theory, Supersymmetry and the Higgs Boson.
You are mixing together very different things here. For one, I don't think anyone is using string theory. And I bet you are not qualified to call even one of the concepts you mention "bunk".
Even IF there is a Higgs particle, the Higgs does NOT explain gravity.
I'm not a physicist nor do I know how to do the equations that they use. However, I've never understood the bent spacetime model as it makes little practical sense, though it may mathematically work at times.
I don't know what you consider as "making practical sense", but a theory which mathematically works (and GR doesn't work "at times", it works everywhere where we can test it) is considered correct.
I'm of the contention that gravity is not a force at all. I believe that the following makes more sense. I believe there is a combination of electromagnetic forces combined with atmospheric pressure that keeps us grounded. Fluid dynamics seems to be where that math might exist.
If gravity would need atmospheric pressure, there would have been major problems for the moon landing teams, as there's no atmosphere there. Also, you would have a hard time to explain how the sun attracts the planets. The only fluid in the solar system is the solar wind, and that goes away from the sun.
I'd be interested to hear what others, who do understand some of the math, would think of that proposal, keeping in mind that there seems to be a number of theories that have fallen short recently. One in particular is the speed of light constant being shown to not be limited by such a constant, another 'capped' belief that made little practical sense proven to be incomplete.
I think your proposal is disproved by the planets orbiting the sun, by the moon orbiting the earth, as well as by the moon landings (both manned and unmanned) and several interplanetary missions.
Also nobody has shown the speed of light not be limited (if you think of the Nimtz experiments, that one is just a misinterpretation of the experimental results).
Of course. You know, information is neg-entropy. So if entropic gravity is disproved, then obviously information gravity is proved. Now information comes from intelligence, therefore we have intelligent gravity, i.e. intelligent falling.
Yes I know what it also stands for, but when I read that through the first time I was imagining a woman getting money from a bank and was wondering what is wrong with some people.
I still wonder now though.
Well, if it's porn, that woman was probably naked, and you can imagine where the card was inserted...
Well, I'd type "apropos scan" instead. The word "apropos" is the equivalent to moving the mouse to the upper left corner (which isn't exactly something which you would have guessed anyway).
And I never said I'm against GUIs. Note that you can launch GUI programs from the command line. It's just the inconsistency of people constantly telling how bad/unintuitive the command line is, only to then praise the intuitiveness of a GUI feature which in essence is nothing but a command line.
Not possible. Even for sound they can only get destructive interference to reduce apparent volume, not create silence.
You will never have absolute silence on any frequency. Any device which relied on absolute silence would inevitably fail. Therefore the question is not whether you can completely remove the signal, but only whether you can reduce it enough that it will be considered noise by the receiving device.
It's obvious that a digital circuit won't be fast enough to significantly reduce the signal strength. However I have no idea how fast analog electronics may be (after all, reversing a wave form isn't that complicated; A receiving antenna, a simple amplifier and a sending antenna with opposite polarity should suffice, probably two such devices to cover both polarizations), therefore I don't know if it would be fast enough to give a significant reduction (the fact that you have GHz frequencies certainly gives very hard constraints).
But the problem is that you can't distinguish PDF from PDF/A before opening it. So you have to trust that a claimed PDF/A document really is PDF/A. Which is dangerous because PDF and PDF/A are opened with the same program.
I never claimed that such a format would end all security concerns. I even mentioned the possibility of exploiting buffer overflows myself. However it is a huge difference if attacks can only be done through bugs in the implementation, or if attacks could also happen due to an oversight in the specification, making even completely bug-free implementations vulnerable. For pure-content formats, one can be sure that the specification has no security problems (because it doesn't specify anything executed). Only the implementation vulnerabilities remain.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternatively you can make the language popular. Get GUILE into HTML5, and its popularity will rise. :-) ;-))
(Or maybe the popularity of HTML5 will go down instead
Well, it's possible to build cars which consume much less fuel than the average American car today ...
I live in the Central Valley, California. Every fall, the sky is smokey and smoggy because of all the burning of rice fields. Hundreds of square miles of rice fields produce a massive amount of food for the world, and the end result is rice stalks - too woody to be eaten by livestock, it takes more than a year to decompose, yet it's not woody enough to make a good building material, though numerous attempts have been made to concoct some sort of usable fiberboard out of it.
So we burn it. All that horrid, dreadful cellulose!
But wouldn't it make more sense to burn it at a place where you can use the energy thus released?
In other words, while ethanol from corn makes corn more expensive, this would not because it consumes the non-edible parts. Instead it would make growing corn more profitable.
However I guess the end result would be that they produce both ethanol from the corn and butanol from the remains, and then sell the mixture of both for fuel.
It is a problem for
(a) any software not doing the mapping
(b) any software identifying URLs in text (esp. to auto-link)
In my case, it's usually QuietUrl sending me to the wrong page.
what not a bsd or gnu derivative omg shades of PARC something new?
INFORMATIVE!!
From the Syllable home page:
Syllable Server is a small and efficient Linux operating system.
People still use keyboards?
It's still the best available method to enter text.
Well, start by defining free will. Before you do that, you'll not be able to tell if it is compatible or incompatible with anything.
There's virtually no natural food in traditional food, either. Almost all meat is cooked, roasted, fried or otherwise treated. The same is true for a lot of plants. Most plants and animals we eat are not in their natural form anyway, but modified by centuries-long bioengineering (called breeding).
Or for those who prefer well-formed (and therefore unconditionally working) links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_%28short_story%29
Of course it doesn't help that Firefox displays ill-formed URLs in the URL bar ... nor does it help that Slashdot automatically changes a valid URL into an invalid one if you don't explicitly prevent it from recognizing it as URL.
But midi-chlorians are utterly outdated. I want mp3-chlorians!
Phrases like "I have a Dream" and "I have seen the promised land" were said by other people long before 1963
Yeah, patenting the speech would not work well. :-)
But then he can sue reality for violating the copyright on his predictions. :-)
From the Oxford dictionaries:
all but
Here, the first definition applies.
I am a gravitational theorist.
I don't even understand what that title means, but it sounds very cool.
I think what you meant was "it sounds very attractive."
Only in theory.
And I bet you are not qualified to call even one of the concepts you mention "bunk".
I don't need to be. It is widely know they all the concepts I mentioned are UNPROVEN THEORIES.
So you think that every unproven theory is bunk? In that case I want to inform you that I don't have a proof of the theory that your IQ is above 70. So I guess that theory, being unproven, is bunk, and therefore I'm safe in assuming that your IQ doesn't exceed 70.
You are mixing together very different things here. For one, I don't think anyone is using string theory. And I bet you are not qualified to call even one of the concepts you mention "bunk".
As far as I know, nobody ever claimed it would.
I don't know what you consider as "making practical sense", but a theory which mathematically works (and GR doesn't work "at times", it works everywhere where we can test it) is considered correct.
If gravity would need atmospheric pressure, there would have been major problems for the moon landing teams, as there's no atmosphere there. Also, you would have a hard time to explain how the sun attracts the planets. The only fluid in the solar system is the solar wind, and that goes away from the sun.
I think your proposal is disproved by the planets orbiting the sun, by the moon orbiting the earth, as well as by the moon landings (both manned and unmanned) and several interplanetary missions.
Also nobody has shown the speed of light not be limited (if you think of the Nimtz experiments, that one is just a misinterpretation of the experimental results).
Of course. You know, information is neg-entropy. So if entropic gravity is disproved, then obviously information gravity is proved. Now information comes from intelligence, therefore we have intelligent gravity, i.e. intelligent falling.
... and ATM are the best.
I love Automated Teller Machines.
Yes I know what it also stands for, but when I read that through the first time I was imagining a woman getting money from a bank and was wondering what is wrong with some people.
I still wonder now though.
Well, if it's porn, that woman was probably naked, and you can imagine where the card was inserted ...
ATM = Asynchronous Transfer Mode. So I get ATM porn is if both get to the climax at different times? :-)
Well, I'd type "apropos scan" instead. The word "apropos" is the equivalent to moving the mouse to the upper left corner (which isn't exactly something which you would have guessed anyway).
And I never said I'm against GUIs. Note that you can launch GUI programs from the command line. It's just the inconsistency of people constantly telling how bad/unintuitive the command line is, only to then praise the intuitiveness of a GUI feature which in essence is nothing but a command line.
You will never have absolute silence on any frequency. Any device which relied on absolute silence would inevitably fail. Therefore the question is not whether you can completely remove the signal, but only whether you can reduce it enough that it will be considered noise by the receiving device.
It's obvious that a digital circuit won't be fast enough to significantly reduce the signal strength. However I have no idea how fast analog electronics may be (after all, reversing a wave form isn't that complicated; A receiving antenna, a simple amplifier and a sending antenna with opposite polarity should suffice, probably two such devices to cover both polarizations), therefore I don't know if it would be fast enough to give a significant reduction (the fact that you have GHz frequencies certainly gives very hard constraints).
But the problem is that you can't distinguish PDF from PDF/A before opening it. So you have to trust that a claimed PDF/A document really is PDF/A. Which is dangerous because PDF and PDF/A are opened with the same program.
I never claimed that such a format would end all security concerns. I even mentioned the possibility of exploiting buffer overflows myself.
However it is a huge difference if attacks can only be done through bugs in the implementation, or if attacks could also happen due to an oversight in the specification, making even completely bug-free implementations vulnerable. For pure-content formats, one can be sure that the specification has no security problems (because it doesn't specify anything executed). Only the implementation vulnerabilities remain.