I'd love to see an expert system that could take in some form of legal jargon, the details of a specific situation, and spit out an unambiguous application. Of course, then it could lead to all sorts of "hacking" the system. Imagine winning a court case because of an off-by-one error in a law, or a buffer overrun vulnerability in a contract that allowed for arbitrary code execution.
And I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone say they were "proud" to be 5'2" or 6'6". Nobody gets mocked for being 5'10" (at least in a predominantly Caucasian crowd - when I'm the only white guy in a crowd of Pilipino people, I get the occasional comment)
That's just a couple of anecdotes though. You might have just had a particularly inept fish. I propose trying it with say 1000 goldfish, to gauge consistency.
If you are doing any floating point calculations and assuming exact results, you're going to get yourself in trouble. The issue is that FSIN is less accurate than advertised, not that it's not 100% accurate.
Anyone who deals with floating point math very quickly learns about error accumulation and how to deal with it.
We'd obviously have to situate it off-world and use some sort of electromagnetic beam to send the generated energy to earth. Heck, given the amount of extra power generated, we could just send off the energy everywhere and there'd still be enough hitting the earth. We could then use devices here to convert that energy into electricity.
Which is exactly why powershell is great - you never have to parse things. Anytime I have to drop into sed/awk in Linux, it always feels like I'm fighting the system.
It helps that by default it won't run any script files. Once you enable that, it still won't run any remote code unless you enable that. And even then you can restrict it to only run signed code.
Yes, you can. Except instead of getting back text, which you then have to parse if you want to do anything with, you get back a stream of.NET objects which will be formatted into a text table if you do nothing with them, but also let you do things like this:
See Watson vs. United States for an example of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. This likely would have ended up completely differently in Canada.
The explanation I've heard for useless showy features (a la peacock) is that the ability to put resources into giant shiny feathers show that you have the ability to gather enough food to live, and have leftover energy to devote to impressing the ladies. It's not so much the particulars of what the feature is, but rather having resources (or money) to burn indicates that you're successful enough to be a good mate.
Resource handling. Lower-level languages require you to manually release any resource you acquire. Every piece of heap allocated memory needs to be freed. Every file you open needs to be manually closed. Every network connection, mutex, or handle needs to be released. It's feasible to do, since you don't have to worry about exceptions. But it does require an incredible fastidiousness to make sure that you always clean up after yourself.
When you get to the higher level languages, you get garbage collection which means never having to manually release memory again. But everything else is stuck being released manually. You can't do it reliably in regular code, since exceptions get in the way, so they introduce things like finally or using. But again, you're relying on the people using the class to remember to clean up every single time they use it.
In C++ you can rely on stack-unwinding to clean up after you. I haven't checked in a "delete" in over 10 years of C++ coding. Every C resource we use gets a wrapper class that automatically releases it when the object is destroyed. It's really the biggest thing I miss when working in other languages.
Out of genuine curiosity, can you point me to evidence showing the universe is non-deterministic? I'm not sure how one would go about making that kind of observation.
Fair enough, and judging by some of the other responses, you were justified in your interpretation. I guess I overestimate/.'s rationalism. To be clear, I don't attribute Parmenides with any great insight into the quantum nature of the universe, anymore than I think that Democritus had any clue about what we've come to call "atoms". That being said, the line of reasoning on "what is" vs. "what is not" does have some interesting things to think about if time is indeed an emergent phenomenon.
He obviously wasn't "right" in the sense of having anything useful to say about the world in any scientific sense - I would have thought that goes without saying. I just found the parallel amusing. You're reading a bit too much into an off-hand comment.
This sounds a lot like what he was saying 2500 years ago.
From Wikipedia:
In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion," he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful.
I've interviewed for a company that required you to write out a stack implementation in C++ from scratch during the interview. It's a great problem, since it's quite easy to define, nearly everyone knows what is required, but it's complicated enough that when coding by hand on paper, every entry-level programmer is going to make a mistake, and you can see how they think when you tell them there's a mistake. Even when they get it right, you get a lot of insight into their problem-solving style by listening to them defend the design.
If a right can be forfeit, then it's no longer a right - it's a privilege. In a democracy, the ability to vote has to be one of THE fundamental rights that can never be taken away. Otherwise, you end up with the situation the US currently sees where large chunks of people are disenfranchised, and the government loses its claim to be representative of its citizens.
Whether you firearm ownership is a fundamental right, a secondary right that must yield to other more fundamental rights in a conflict, or a privilege that the government has the ability to revoke, makes a big difference as to whether you feel that any level of gun control is acceptable.
Then why stop at harvesting organs? Why not use the dead as food? Why bother following a person's will, and just let the living do what they want with a person's estate?
Slashdot Mirror
All the "real programmers" do.
I'd love to see an expert system that could take in some form of legal jargon, the details of a specific situation, and spit out an unambiguous application. Of course, then it could lead to all sorts of "hacking" the system. Imagine winning a court case because of an off-by-one error in a law, or a buffer overrun vulnerability in a contract that allowed for arbitrary code execution.
He's 5th for the 1990s and 252nd overall.
And I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone say they were "proud" to be 5'2" or 6'6". Nobody gets mocked for being 5'10" (at least in a predominantly Caucasian crowd - when I'm the only white guy in a crowd of Pilipino people, I get the occasional comment)
That's just a couple of anecdotes though. You might have just had a particularly inept fish. I propose trying it with say 1000 goldfish, to gauge consistency.
Assuming of course that all land is equally suitable for farming... If you believe that, I have some tundra to sell you.
Anyone who deals with floating point math very quickly learns about error accumulation and how to deal with it.
We'd obviously have to situate it off-world and use some sort of electromagnetic beam to send the generated energy to earth. Heck, given the amount of extra power generated, we could just send off the energy everywhere and there'd still be enough hitting the earth. We could then use devices here to convert that energy into electricity.
Which is exactly why powershell is great - you never have to parse things. Anytime I have to drop into sed/awk in Linux, it always feels like I'm fighting the system.
ls | sort Length/code
It helps that by default it won't run any script files. Once you enable that, it still won't run any remote code unless you enable that. And even then you can restrict it to only run signed code.
ls | where { $_.Length -gt 5000 }
See Watson vs. United States for an example of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. This likely would have ended up completely differently in Canada.
I don't know if it was officially accepted, but I believe they added ' as a digit-group separator: 0b0010'1101'0011'0111'0101'1100
The explanation I've heard for useless showy features (a la peacock) is that the ability to put resources into giant shiny feathers show that you have the ability to gather enough food to live, and have leftover energy to devote to impressing the ladies. It's not so much the particulars of what the feature is, but rather having resources (or money) to burn indicates that you're successful enough to be a good mate.
Resource handling. Lower-level languages require you to manually release any resource you acquire. Every piece of heap allocated memory needs to be freed. Every file you open needs to be manually closed. Every network connection, mutex, or handle needs to be released. It's feasible to do, since you don't have to worry about exceptions. But it does require an incredible fastidiousness to make sure that you always clean up after yourself.
When you get to the higher level languages, you get garbage collection which means never having to manually release memory again. But everything else is stuck being released manually. You can't do it reliably in regular code, since exceptions get in the way, so they introduce things like finally or using. But again, you're relying on the people using the class to remember to clean up every single time they use it.
In C++ you can rely on stack-unwinding to clean up after you. I haven't checked in a "delete" in over 10 years of C++ coding. Every C resource we use gets a wrapper class that automatically releases it when the object is destroyed. It's really the biggest thing I miss when working in other languages.
Maybe our gadgets need to come with cat cradles.
Professor Norton Nimnul has already beaten you to it.
Out of genuine curiosity, can you point me to evidence showing the universe is non-deterministic? I'm not sure how one would go about making that kind of observation.
Fair enough, and judging by some of the other responses, you were justified in your interpretation. I guess I overestimate /.'s rationalism. To be clear, I don't attribute Parmenides with any great insight into the quantum nature of the universe, anymore than I think that Democritus had any clue about what we've come to call "atoms". That being said, the line of reasoning on "what is" vs. "what is not" does have some interesting things to think about if time is indeed an emergent phenomenon.
He obviously wasn't "right" in the sense of having anything useful to say about the world in any scientific sense - I would have thought that goes without saying. I just found the parallel amusing. You're reading a bit too much into an off-hand comment.
This sounds a lot like what he was saying 2500 years ago.
From Wikipedia:
In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion," he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful.
I've interviewed for a company that required you to write out a stack implementation in C++ from scratch during the interview. It's a great problem, since it's quite easy to define, nearly everyone knows what is required, but it's complicated enough that when coding by hand on paper, every entry-level programmer is going to make a mistake, and you can see how they think when you tell them there's a mistake. Even when they get it right, you get a lot of insight into their problem-solving style by listening to them defend the design.
The paper is real, but its value as currency is only due to a collective agreement to value it as such.
If a right can be forfeit, then it's no longer a right - it's a privilege. In a democracy, the ability to vote has to be one of THE fundamental rights that can never be taken away. Otherwise, you end up with the situation the US currently sees where large chunks of people are disenfranchised, and the government loses its claim to be representative of its citizens.
Whether you firearm ownership is a fundamental right, a secondary right that must yield to other more fundamental rights in a conflict, or a privilege that the government has the ability to revoke, makes a big difference as to whether you feel that any level of gun control is acceptable.
Then why stop at harvesting organs? Why not use the dead as food? Why bother following a person's will, and just let the living do what they want with a person's estate?