I thought demonstrating something impossible is... impossible. After all, if it's impossible to do, what are you demonstrating? You can prove that something's impossible, but that's quite different.
Look it up some time, no apostle ever worshiped on Sunday
Please elucidate in light of Acts 20:7, assuming you agree that "breaking bread" in this context refers to the Lord's Supper, as it does often in scripture (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11) and not an ordinary meal. If you do not, I believe there are other suitable verses.
I agree with much of what you say. I am a Christian, but while I believe in the Bible's infallibility as originally inspired, I do not believe in the infallibility of my own interpretation of its complexities: therefore I do my best to not reject new information because I can't figure out how to reconcile it with what I believe.
Nitpick: All architectures I know of have the same bit order (please correct me if necessary). What you mean, I think, is little-endian versus big-endian (see http://www.cs.umass.edu/~verts/cs32/endian.html ), which is actually *byte* order.
What he means is, is it psychologically easy to switch between layouts. I have heard (but am too lazy to look up references to) people saying that it can be difficult, and that you absolutely cannot learn good Dvorak without entirely switching to it for as long as it takes to really learn it.
The article was vague, but I'm guessing that since you'd only have to update the parts of the display that changed, you wouldn't be consuming much energy at all in most cases. Naturally, full-motion video would act differently from a scribble, unless you're a very very good scribbler.
Why don't they just try to make USB 3.0 the end all be all of interfaces and have 1 type of port.
This would be nice (I dreamt up a spec draft for something like this a few years ago), but if such a thing were to exist, it wouldn't be USB at all. USB is a polled bus and is therefore very inefficient for many tasks. The ExpressCard would come much closer to being (if it is not outright) an interrupt-driven system bus, something USB will never be. Besides, you still want to have the whole (laptop-)body-cavity thing going so you can leave peripherals plugged in without breaking off your connectors every time you stow your bag. But then you get an internal and an external connection again, no?
I don't see everything merging into one very soon, at least not until everything goes optical fiber and connections can be made very simple yet very fast.
From what I could tell, one time the problem was that Gates had the wrong remote (he said this himself, and the demo worked fine when Shawn came on). So it was bad planning and execution, not necessarily bad hardware or software.
If we're talking about the same thing, that is.
Still embarrassing, yes, although Gates must be used to this by now.
Many people think of evil as the absence of God/goodness/virtue. Kind of like the negative image of God; the same way that cold doesn't really exist, but is a lack of heat (or temperature, which itself is a convenient wrapper concept for average kinetic energy), evil does not per se exist but as a lack of virtue.
That is not terribly satisfying to everybody, but it helps a bit. Even though cold does not "exist," too much of it can still kill you; even though evil does not "exist," it can still be have a very real effect on your life.
They could have used a private IP then. They're not routable. I think they just didn't check what they were doing.
Anyway, I think using an invalid question on a game that tests knowledge is worse than using a routable IP. Besides, there are lots of routable IPs that don't care, like 192.0.34.166 (example.com).
Right, it's for embedded apps, so it's not really to be compared to Postgresql, since it runs on an interpreted platform and is designed to be small instead of powerful. Postgresql is designed for feature-completeness; Cloudscape fills an entirely different need.
I think there is a huge market still untapped for open source DB's... especially RDBMS
Out of curiosity, what other kind of DB is out there that isn't an RDB(MS)? Edgar Codd's system has been working pretty well, and though there are other systems, I don't know that there's huge demand for them. You're not contradicting that, but I wonder what you were thinking of.
Yeah, but if you used Windows.Forms, or GDI+ to write the.NET program, it still can run only on Windows. It's similar to Microsoft's special extensions to Java that would run only on Windows -- pointless.
By now you can tell I'm an ASPCA-certified dead-horse-beater.
Let me just say that I agree with you there, that it is *scientifically* pointless to pursue such beliefs. My (rather obscure) original argument was that many people think that anything that is scientifically pointless is worthless in every way. With this I do not agree; it seems narrow-minded at best, and intolerant at worst. (Oh dear, I opened the tolerance can of worms. Woe is me.)
So it looks like I was arguing at cross-purposes to myself again. Whee.
I'm wondering, though, why just because something is impossible to disprove that it must be immediately dismissed. There's a saying I've heard that is related to if not the same as Godel's theorems that basically says that it's impossible to disprove the consistency of a system "from the inside" because of the very nature of the axioms that define it.
In other words, accepting axioms that define our universe makes some things impossible to disprove; in order to disprove them (prove the inconsistency of our universe) we would have to get "outside" of the universe we live in. Can we prove the Matrix doesn't exist?
OK, so that train of thought was rather muddled. The point I'm trying to make is that ideas which cannot be disproven are not to be dismissed so casually.
Plus, I think you're wrong about the particular examples of evidences against the Big Bang. The universe could be collapsing, getting ready for a Big Crunch, and still have had a Big Bang. If the background temperature wasn't right, the theory would be refined to accomodate the changes. I may be wrong about the disprovability of the Big Bang, but it seems to me that it would be, from our current standpoint, highly improbably that we would be able to disprove anything that happened so long ago, considering the gigantic number of variables involved.
While it certainly isn't a complete how-to on universe creation it is a testable theory in the sense it enables us to ask "What would we expect to see if early on there were a very hot, rapidly expanding universe?" and then go looking for evidence that matches it.
Rather important statement you make there, "go looking for evidence to support it." Obviously the scientific process requires a hypothesis to test against the evidence; the problem is that many people rather blindly accept only evidence that aligns with their predetermined beliefs, and also pretend that their statement of the hypothesis is the only reasonable one. See this response for a rather terse illustration. Do you think that there is really any difference between the scientific plausibility of the two similar hypotheses, considering that both the Big Bang and the existence of God are both entirely unprovable and impossible to disprove?
Pardon my blatant stupidity, but what's so "testable" about evolution? Or even observable, for that matter?
I know it's ever-so-much more complicated than this, but I dislike your supposed refutation of creationism as a scientific theory (it is not one, imho, but it doesn't need to be so to be plausible) by the *implication* that evolutionism is scientific. In other words, I say that "evolutionism" is not a scientific theory for the same reasons you listed. If you don't agree, please explain. If you do, I fail to see the thrust of your argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this way you would lose almost all of the benefit of multiple cores. At least, you would if you'd run an OS inside that VM/VPL, since not only would you have to have both a host and a guest OS (more licenses), but the guest would not be able to take full advantage of the hardware (by definition of the VM), which means more complexity with (be realistic) lower performance. Not running an OS inside this VM/VPL is silly, since it is then not a VM at all, and the VPL would be doing exactly what a normal OS does (shuffling threads), making its existence somewhat absurd. Bah. Leave that to marketing.
Although the valid point has been made elsewhere that it takes effort to make SMP-efficient apps, I think the multi-CPU licensing idea in many cases is crap because the OS should make it where the processes are running transparent to the application.
I think what you want is an new HAL paradigm that makes whatever massively-parallel Neumann machine we run to look like a single processor, and *function as one* (I know about mosix -- I mean with performance proportional to size). I agree that this could be a good idea. Maybe. In a decade.
I have a 4-way running RHL9 at work and since I pretty much totally de-personalize the thing after a month (install apt-rpm, custom kernel, remove redhat config tools, write own init.d scripts), it really doesn't make a difference what "version" of a distro I use. After all, I'm constantly updating it (this is obviously a totally alpha-level server), and the "version 9" really meant nothing to me to begin with. Except for the requirement of slight tinkering with Oracle 10g to install on it (only supports RHEL and UnitedLinux).
Incidentally, Oracle 10g's jvm does not play well with 2.6.0 and a preemptive kernel (on a server? what was I thinking?). There went my 103 days of uptime...
So I'm sticking to what I've got. Because it's Linux, it just works!
Where I work, the whole time-tracking system seems moderately insusceptible to shaving. Each employee fills out an online timesheet that states the hours worked as well as various details about the type of work. All records are stored on some super-duper intranet server and are retrievable and printable from any PC, including over VPN. Each week I sumbit my time to my immediate manager who approves it and submits it to Accounting. I've never had any comments about my timesheet except for a few times I forgot to submit it on time. I've also been told that overtime is OK. 'Course, that could have something to do with my being a low-paid intern...
Naturally, they tell us that the smart cards that let us into/out of the building don't and won't track our time.
Wait, now I don't feel so safe -- the printouts I make don't have any checksumming, so they could say I faked the contents.
Nooooo! Slashdot has made me lose faith in my job! And here I was working on weekends for free because I love my job so much!
Slashdot Mirror
Explain why 1 Corinthians 15:4 doesn't count as a mention, please.
Thanks!
Suddenly I realize you were just pasting from the site. Still very unclear.
I thought demonstrating something impossible is ... impossible. After all, if it's impossible to do, what are you demonstrating? You can prove that something's impossible, but that's quite different.
Please elucidate in light of Acts 20:7, assuming you agree that "breaking bread" in this context refers to the Lord's Supper, as it does often in scripture (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11) and not an ordinary meal. If you do not, I believe there are other suitable verses.
I agree with much of what you say. I am a Christian, but while I believe in the Bible's infallibility as originally inspired, I do not believe in the infallibility of my own interpretation of its complexities: therefore I do my best to not reject new information because I can't figure out how to reconcile it with what I believe.
Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Panalipse
Nitpick: All architectures I know of have the same bit order (please correct me if necessary). What you mean, I think, is little-endian versus big-endian (see http://www.cs.umass.edu/~verts/cs32/endian.html ), which is actually *byte* order.
...
Sorry, sorry, I'm leaving now
What he means is, is it psychologically easy to switch between layouts. I have heard (but am too lazy to look up references to) people saying that it can be difficult, and that you absolutely cannot learn good Dvorak without entirely switching to it for as long as it takes to really learn it.
http://gobase.org/studying/rules/?id=2&ln=uk
The article was vague, but I'm guessing that since you'd only have to update the parts of the display that changed, you wouldn't be consuming much energy at all in most cases. Naturally, full-motion video would act differently from a scribble, unless you're a very very good scribbler.
Why don't they just try to make USB 3.0 the end all be all of interfaces and have 1 type of port.
This would be nice (I dreamt up a spec draft for something like this a few years ago), but if such a thing were to exist, it wouldn't be USB at all. USB is a polled bus and is therefore very inefficient for many tasks. The ExpressCard would come much closer to being (if it is not outright) an interrupt-driven system bus, something USB will never be. Besides, you still want to have the whole (laptop-)body-cavity thing going so you can leave peripherals plugged in without breaking off your connectors every time you stow your bag. But then you get an internal and an external connection again, no?
I don't see everything merging into one very soon, at least not until everything goes optical fiber and connections can be made very simple yet very fast.
From what I could tell, one time the problem was that Gates had the wrong remote (he said this himself, and the demo worked fine when Shawn came on). So it was bad planning and execution, not necessarily bad hardware or software.
If we're talking about the same thing, that is.
Still embarrassing, yes, although Gates must be used to this by now.
Many people think of evil as the absence of God/goodness/virtue. Kind of like the negative image of God; the same way that cold doesn't really exist, but is a lack of heat (or temperature, which itself is a convenient wrapper concept for average kinetic energy), evil does not per se exist but as a lack of virtue.
That is not terribly satisfying to everybody, but it helps a bit. Even though cold does not "exist," too much of it can still kill you; even though evil does not "exist," it can still be have a very real effect on your life.
They could have used a private IP then. They're not routable. I think they just didn't check what they were doing.
Anyway, I think using an invalid question on a game that tests knowledge is worse than using a routable IP. Besides, there are lots of routable IPs that don't care, like 192.0.34.166 (example.com).
It's very handy for embedded apps....
Right, it's for embedded apps, so it's not really to be compared to Postgresql, since it runs on an interpreted platform and is designed to be small instead of powerful. Postgresql is designed for feature-completeness; Cloudscape fills an entirely different need.
I think there is a huge market still untapped for open source DB's... especially RDBMS
Out of curiosity, what other kind of DB is out there that isn't an RDB(MS)? Edgar Codd's system has been working pretty well, and though there are other systems, I don't know that there's huge demand for them. You're not contradicting that, but I wonder what you were thinking of.
Yeah, but if you used Windows.Forms, or GDI+ to write the .NET program, it still can run only on Windows. It's similar to Microsoft's special extensions to Java that would run only on Windows -- pointless.
By now you can tell I'm an ASPCA-certified dead-horse-beater.
Let me just say that I agree with you there, that it is *scientifically* pointless to pursue such beliefs. My (rather obscure) original argument was that many people think that anything that is scientifically pointless is worthless in every way. With this I do not agree; it seems narrow-minded at best, and intolerant at worst. (Oh dear, I opened the tolerance can of worms. Woe is me.)
So it looks like I was arguing at cross-purposes to myself again. Whee.
Thanks for playing. Have a nice eternity.
I'm wondering, though, why just because something is impossible to disprove that it must be immediately dismissed. There's a saying I've heard that is related to if not the same as Godel's theorems that basically says that it's impossible to disprove the consistency of a system "from the inside" because of the very nature of the axioms that define it.
In other words, accepting axioms that define our universe makes some things impossible to disprove; in order to disprove them (prove the inconsistency of our universe) we would have to get "outside" of the universe we live in. Can we prove the Matrix doesn't exist?
OK, so that train of thought was rather muddled. The point I'm trying to make is that ideas which cannot be disproven are not to be dismissed so casually.
Plus, I think you're wrong about the particular examples of evidences against the Big Bang. The universe could be collapsing, getting ready for a Big Crunch, and still have had a Big Bang. If the background temperature wasn't right, the theory would be refined to accomodate the changes. I may be wrong about the disprovability of the Big Bang, but it seems to me that it would be, from our current standpoint, highly improbably that we would be able to disprove anything that happened so long ago, considering the gigantic number of variables involved.
While it certainly isn't a complete how-to on universe creation it is a testable theory in the sense it enables us to ask "What would we expect to see if early on there were a very hot, rapidly expanding universe?" and then go looking for evidence that matches it.
Rather important statement you make there, "go looking for evidence to support it." Obviously the scientific process requires a hypothesis to test against the evidence; the problem is that many people rather blindly accept only evidence that aligns with their predetermined beliefs, and also pretend that their statement of the hypothesis is the only reasonable one. See this response for a rather terse illustration. Do you think that there is really any difference between the scientific plausibility of the two similar hypotheses, considering that both the Big Bang and the existence of God are both entirely unprovable and impossible to disprove?
Pardon my blatant stupidity, but what's so "testable" about evolution? Or even observable, for that matter?
I know it's ever-so-much more complicated than this, but I dislike your supposed refutation of creationism as a scientific theory (it is not one, imho, but it doesn't need to be so to be plausible) by the *implication* that evolutionism is scientific. In other words, I say that "evolutionism" is not a scientific theory for the same reasons you listed. If you don't agree, please explain. If you do, I fail to see the thrust of your argument.
why can't I classify it as work/misc in two clicks
gmail
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this way you would lose almost all of the benefit of multiple cores. At least, you would if you'd run an OS inside that VM/VPL, since not only would you have to have both a host and a guest OS (more licenses), but the guest would not be able to take full advantage of the hardware (by definition of the VM), which means more complexity with (be realistic) lower performance. Not running an OS inside this VM/VPL is silly, since it is then not a VM at all, and the VPL would be doing exactly what a normal OS does (shuffling threads), making its existence somewhat absurd. Bah. Leave that to marketing.
Although the valid point has been made elsewhere that it takes effort to make SMP-efficient apps, I think the multi-CPU licensing idea in many cases is crap because the OS should make it where the processes are running transparent to the application.
I think what you want is an new HAL paradigm that makes whatever massively-parallel Neumann machine we run to look like a single processor, and *function as one* (I know about mosix -- I mean with performance proportional to size). I agree that this could be a good idea. Maybe. In a decade.
I have a 4-way running RHL9 at work and since I pretty much totally de-personalize the thing after a month (install apt-rpm, custom kernel, remove redhat config tools, write own init.d scripts), it really doesn't make a difference what "version" of a distro I use. After all, I'm constantly updating it (this is obviously a totally alpha-level server), and the "version 9" really meant nothing to me to begin with. Except for the requirement of slight tinkering with Oracle 10g to install on it (only supports RHEL and UnitedLinux).
Incidentally, Oracle 10g's jvm does not play well with 2.6.0 and a preemptive kernel (on a server? what was I thinking?). There went my 103 days of uptime...
So I'm sticking to what I've got. Because it's Linux, it just works!
Better, flac -- it's a lossless compression I have found to be very useful, although most of my music collection is in MP3 already.
Side note, my music collection is on a RAID 5 -- on an AlphaServer 1000A 5/400! Nice machine, from the enterprise glory days of 64-bit...mid 90's...
Where I work, the whole time-tracking system seems moderately insusceptible to shaving. Each employee fills out an online timesheet that states the hours worked as well as various details about the type of work. All records are stored on some super-duper intranet server and are retrievable and printable from any PC, including over VPN. Each week I sumbit my time to my immediate manager who approves it and submits it to Accounting. I've never had any comments about my timesheet except for a few times I forgot to submit it on time. I've also been told that overtime is OK. 'Course, that could have something to do with my being a low-paid intern...
Naturally, they tell us that the smart cards that let us into/out of the building don't and won't track our time.
Wait, now I don't feel so safe -- the printouts I make don't have any checksumming, so they could say I faked the contents.
Nooooo! Slashdot has made me lose faith in my job! And here I was working on weekends for free because I love my job so much!
OK, now tell me how naive I am.