Oops! The summary line should of course have read:
Summary: The only significant difference is the length of the character sequence starting right after the first "e" and ending right before the following "r".
They all follow the pattern The.*re?. Indeed, already the first wildcard pattern match is sufficient to distinguish between all three strings. Indeed, it can be observed that in all three cases the total number of characters is odd, so it's easy to derive which ones have the final optional e, and which one doesn't. Moreover, even the length of the first wildcard pattern is sufficient to deternine the string ("There": 0, "Their": 1, "They're": 2). The wildcard sequence can also be more closely specified by observing that the first character, when present, is always a letter, and the second one, when present, is always the apostrophe. Moreover, the letter, when present, is always an i or an y. Also, it is an y exactly if it is followed by an apostrophe. Those rules, which are fulfilled for all three words (and therefore describe their commonalities and not their differences), allow to derive the whole word just from the length of the first wildcard sequence. That wildcard sequence consists of the sequence of letters after the first "e", and up to, but not including the following "r".
Summary: The only significant difference is the length of the character sequence starting right after the first "e" and the following "r".
If computers suddenly vanished, not only your bitcoins would vanish, but also the money on your bank account, which consists also of nothing but bits stored on a hard disk. You don't really think the bank holds cash for your stored amount, do you?
No, BitCoins are not backed by valuable goods (there's no guarantee from anyone that you'll get this or that amount of this or that valuable good for it). It's just that they are traded for valuable goods (that is, there are people willing to give you valuable goods for them — or money in other currencies for which other people will give you valuable goods —, and therefore people will only give them to you for valuable goods — or other currencies —, too). In that respect they are no better than the usual fiat currencies.
If about half of the studies showed a positive effect, then it is hardly a proof that there is no effect. It may not be sufficient to show that it has an effect, but it's a clear hint that it might have. To make better statements one would have to have a closer look at the studies in question, because not every study has the same quality. In the extreme case, all of the studies showing a positive effect might be flawed, while those showing no effect might be sound (in which case, the claim that there's no positive effect would be justified). In the opposite extreme case, all the studies showing no effect are flawed, and all the studies showing an effect are fine (in which case the effect would be proven). But even if no single of the studies is flawed, the different studies most likely have different significance levels which have to be used to weight those studies. A highly significant result is more important than less significant results.
Whom to ask? Well, at first, the authors of the study, because they should know best what they wrote. Then, some well-published researchers who already demonstrated that they know their shit.
A doctor is specialized in practising medicine. I'd also not go to an experimental physicist to let me explain anything non-basic about a physics theory, or to a theoretical physicist for an explanation of the finer points of an experiment (or to an engineer for both; he would, however, be the one to ask about the details of some engine, or about engineering practice). Which doesn't mean that there are none of them who could give a good answer. But unless you've got independent evidence that you would, you better ask those who are doing exactly what your question is about.
The "small subset" was meant to apply to the scientists (you know, those people who actually do science). the parenthetical remark about the "believers" in science was, well, parenthetical; nothing in the non-parenthetical text refers to that.
And BTW, it is completely wrong that most (or even a non-negligible minority of) Catholics say "judge and murder all the unbelievers" (this was different at certain times in history, but you used the present time, not the past time in your claim).
But then, this is a completely different situation anyway. The active members of religion practice it, even though they may not correctly understand it. Therefore it makes sense to use their actions to define what the religion is in practice. But the "unwashed masses" don't practice science, even if they use (or misuse) it as argument. Only the scientists practice science, therefore only the actions of the scientists are relevant in determining what science is.
Well, science does require some axioms which cannot be objective tested, but they seem to be the minimum possible set: that logic works, that our senses mostly work, and that what we can observe is representative of the whole.
None of those can be disproven, but then without them you can't reason about the world under any system at all.
Actually, the third one is not an axiom but a working hypothesis. And it certainly can be disproven, by extending our abilities to observe, and use those to observe previously unobservable things. Indeed, that already happened, and it already showed that what we had observed previously (objects moving along well-defined paths, for example) was hardly representative of the whole (namely it's not representative for any object for whose description we need quantum mechanics). Currently the most common working hypothesis is that in principle everything is described by quantum mechanics, but that working hypothesis is not as universally held as the working hypothesis of classical physics. And deviations from that hypothesis are actively sought for (and up to now, have all supported quantum mechanics).
An evolutionist is so in love with his religion that he will easily ignore the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to claim that every living thing made itself out of nothing. Not just impossible, but never will be possible.
Obviously you have no clue what evolution theory says (and doesn't say).
Here's a hint: In evolution, living beings don't come from nothing, but from their parents.
Where the very first living being(s) came from is an interesting question in itself, but outside the scope of evolution. Evolution is about how the living beings changed over the generations.
To be fair, science is effectively a belief system, in the same way that Catholicism is effectively violent and/or judgmental (Jesus says don't do that, but Catholics say "JUDGE AND MURDER ALL THE UNBELIEVERS!!"). People have taken not simply that there is some rational thinking and a process of exploration; but that everything that offends the senses and bears no proof is immediately "superstitious yahoo" territory. This leads to several forms of hilarity.
That is wrong. Some(!) scientists (and more people who are "believers" in science but don't actually understand it, nor do any of it themselves) have such a believe system, and some of them (incorrectly) claim that science proves that believe system. Meanwhile most scientists know quite well that anything which cannot be tested is simply outside the realms of science, and indeed there are even many scientists who believe in god. Actually, the Jesuit order does science (and I'm not speaking of theology, I'm speaking about hard science like physics), and I would say there's little doubt that as catholic order they are certainly very religious and in no way consider e.g. the resurrection of Jesus a "superstitious yahoo", even though it's clearly something you cannot proof.
But of course, as everywhere you hear a lot of the vocal minority and little of the large mass of scientists who just do their work.
Yes, virtualization is by far the biggest change. The improved h/w utilization is great.
How does adding a virtual machine (and another OS copy) in between the OS and the server program improve hardware utilization (unless you're a hosting company that has to give access to several unrelated entities while protecting them from each other, of course)?
I mean, it certainly improves flexibility. But I don't see how it improves hardware utilization.
We were discussing memory chips (on your initiative, after I've argued that from the processor's view the memory cannot be seen as an array due to the memory holes). Memory chips don't have an idea about the processor's inner working. That from the processor's view the addresses indeed are numbers I never denied (read up the previous discussion again).
Well, when Obama came, he was treated as if he were the Messiah. Well, he turned out to be just a naughty guy. So what to do with your strong emotional investment? Well, turn it into its opposite: Now Obama clearly is the fallen angel, also known as devil. For the simple reason that he's not the Messiah.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops! The summary line should of course have read:
Summary: The only significant difference is the length of the character sequence starting right after the first "e" and ending right before the following "r".
Please review the difference between:
There
Their
They're
OK, here's my analysis:
They all follow the pattern The.*re?. Indeed, already the first wildcard pattern match is sufficient to distinguish between all three strings. Indeed, it can be observed that in all three cases the total number of characters is odd, so it's easy to derive which ones have the final optional e, and which one doesn't. Moreover, even the length of the first wildcard pattern is sufficient to deternine the string ("There": 0, "Their": 1, "They're": 2). The wildcard sequence can also be more closely specified by observing that the first character, when present, is always a letter, and the second one, when present, is always the apostrophe. Moreover, the letter, when present, is always an i or an y. Also, it is an y exactly if it is followed by an apostrophe. Those rules, which are fulfilled for all three words (and therefore describe their commonalities and not their differences), allow to derive the whole word just from the length of the first wildcard sequence. That wildcard sequence consists of the sequence of letters after the first "e", and up to, but not including the following "r".
Summary: The only significant difference is the length of the character sequence starting right after the first "e" and the following "r".
SCNR
Even if all bank notes would suddenly vanish, the vast majority of the dollars would still be there. Sitting as a number on a bank's hard disk.
Copper is a significantly better conductor than gold.
It would certainly not be the first case of valuable data being lost due to a missing or not working backup strategy.
If computers suddenly vanished, not only your bitcoins would vanish, but also the money on your bank account, which consists also of nothing but bits stored on a hard disk. You don't really think the bank holds cash for your stored amount, do you?
if comment.first() { comment.append(" LOL, epic fail :-) "); } else ( Flame flame = new Flame(); flame.invokeGodwinsLaw(); }
You have a syntax error after the "else", it should be "{" rather than "(".
Also, you might want to consider randomly choosing between invokeGodwinsLaw and invokeRule34
I hereby invoke rule 34 on Godwin's law.
No, BitCoins are not backed by valuable goods (there's no guarantee from anyone that you'll get this or that amount of this or that valuable good for it). It's just that they are traded for valuable goods (that is, there are people willing to give you valuable goods for them — or money in other currencies for which other people will give you valuable goods —, and therefore people will only give them to you for valuable goods — or other currencies —, too). In that respect they are no better than the usual fiat currencies.
What stops you from installing several servers on the same machine without a virtualization layer in between?
If about half of the studies showed a positive effect, then it is hardly a proof that there is no effect. It may not be sufficient to show that it has an effect, but it's a clear hint that it might have. To make better statements one would have to have a closer look at the studies in question, because not every study has the same quality. In the extreme case, all of the studies showing a positive effect might be flawed, while those showing no effect might be sound (in which case, the claim that there's no positive effect would be justified). In the opposite extreme case, all the studies showing no effect are flawed, and all the studies showing an effect are fine (in which case the effect would be proven). But even if no single of the studies is flawed, the different studies most likely have different significance levels which have to be used to weight those studies. A highly significant result is more important than less significant results.
Whom to ask? Well, at first, the authors of the study, because they should know best what they wrote. Then, some well-published researchers who already demonstrated that they know their shit.
A doctor is specialized in practising medicine. I'd also not go to an experimental physicist to let me explain anything non-basic about a physics theory, or to a theoretical physicist for an explanation of the finer points of an experiment (or to an engineer for both; he would, however, be the one to ask about the details of some engine, or about engineering practice). Which doesn't mean that there are none of them who could give a good answer. But unless you've got independent evidence that you would, you better ask those who are doing exactly what your question is about.
The "small subset" was meant to apply to the scientists (you know, those people who actually do science). the parenthetical remark about the "believers" in science was, well, parenthetical; nothing in the non-parenthetical text refers to that.
And BTW, it is completely wrong that most (or even a non-negligible minority of) Catholics say "judge and murder all the unbelievers" (this was different at certain times in history, but you used the present time, not the past time in your claim).
But then, this is a completely different situation anyway. The active members of religion practice it, even though they may not correctly understand it. Therefore it makes sense to use their actions to define what the religion is in practice. But the "unwashed masses" don't practice science, even if they use (or misuse) it as argument. Only the scientists practice science, therefore only the actions of the scientists are relevant in determining what science is.
Well, science does require some axioms which cannot be objective tested, but they seem to be the minimum possible set: that logic works, that our senses mostly work, and that what we can observe is representative of the whole.
None of those can be disproven, but then without them you can't reason about the world under any system at all.
Actually, the third one is not an axiom but a working hypothesis. And it certainly can be disproven, by extending our abilities to observe, and use those to observe previously unobservable things. Indeed, that already happened, and it already showed that what we had observed previously (objects moving along well-defined paths, for example) was hardly representative of the whole (namely it's not representative for any object for whose description we need quantum mechanics). Currently the most common working hypothesis is that in principle everything is described by quantum mechanics, but that working hypothesis is not as universally held as the working hypothesis of classical physics. And deviations from that hypothesis are actively sought for (and up to now, have all supported quantum mechanics).
But you do have a point for the first two points.
Of course, by same argument She also does exist, at the same time.
Which proves that god is quantum.
It also explains why we cannot observe him. If we could observe him, his wave function would collapse, and he might turn out dead. ;-)
And evolution theory doesn't claim it. What was your point again?
Obviously you have no clue what evolution theory says (and doesn't say).
Here's a hint: In evolution, living beings don't come from nothing, but from their parents.
Where the very first living being(s) came from is an interesting question in itself, but outside the scope of evolution. Evolution is about how the living beings changed over the generations.
I wonder what is NSFW in this video.
I think you mean speciation. Specifications would be what an intelligent designer would write if he were part of a development team. ;-)
That is wrong. Some(!) scientists (and more people who are "believers" in science but don't actually understand it, nor do any of it themselves) have such a believe system, and some of them (incorrectly) claim that science proves that believe system. Meanwhile most scientists know quite well that anything which cannot be tested is simply outside the realms of science, and indeed there are even many scientists who believe in god. Actually, the Jesuit order does science (and I'm not speaking of theology, I'm speaking about hard science like physics), and I would say there's little doubt that as catholic order they are certainly very religious and in no way consider e.g. the resurrection of Jesus a "superstitious yahoo", even though it's clearly something you cannot proof.
But of course, as everywhere you hear a lot of the vocal minority and little of the large mass of scientists who just do their work.
And unintelligent design.
You are contradicting yourself:
Scientific thought: Something which is to be objectively tested on reality and thrown away if it doesn't fit.
World view that cannot be proven or disproven: Something which cannot be objectively tested on reality, by definition.
Mr. Jobs' apples were not hard to find. Indeed, he made sure that everyone knew where to get them.
sure you can.
as long as you steal the electricity.
What if you produce the electricity yourself (e.g. solar panels)?
How does adding a virtual machine (and another OS copy) in between the OS and the server program improve hardware utilization (unless you're a hosting company that has to give access to several unrelated entities while protecting them from each other, of course)?
I mean, it certainly improves flexibility. But I don't see how it improves hardware utilization.
We were discussing memory chips (on your initiative, after I've argued that from the processor's view the memory cannot be seen as an array due to the memory holes). Memory chips don't have an idea about the processor's inner working. That from the processor's view the addresses indeed are numbers I never denied (read up the previous discussion again).
Well, when Obama came, he was treated as if he were the Messiah. Well, he turned out to be just a naughty guy. So what to do with your strong emotional investment? Well, turn it into its opposite: Now Obama clearly is the fallen angel, also known as devil. For the simple reason that he's not the Messiah.