Scientific theories make predictions that are disprovable
I've always thought that this is a poor choice of words to explain scientific theories to the masses. How about just plain old "testable"?
Everyone knows what that means.
ID is not testable. Scientific theories are.
A company in Australia (http://www.cfcl.com.au/) (and a couple of others) are developing ceramic fuel cells.
Natural gas + O2 = electriicity + high temp waste heat that can heat your water.
Yep, I sure do. That's why I'll only choose cars with computer controlled ABS, and if I can get one, one with yaw sensors attached to the ABS and traction control system that is said to reduce the risk of serious injury in accidents by -45%-!
You can keep driving cars without computers if you like; i'll take the safe option.
If you count all the Soyuz craft, it amounts to about 60. The shuttle has flown a little more than 100 times. The Russians lost one Soyuz crew, the Americans two Shuttle crews.
So that's makes it 1 in 60 for Russian flights, and 1 in 55? for US flights? Doesn't that make the US system more dangerous?
The failure in 1971 was the result of faulty valves/system -and- the decision to not require spacesuits. I think they all have spacesuits on reentry now (see http://www.astronautix.com/details/soy51200.htm).
You can certainly say that since the space shuttle has been used, no Russian spacecraft has resulted in deaths (as far as I can tell), which is perhaps the more interesting statistic.
Long time! But that was when we didn't have computers, materials engineers, great theories on lots more things.
Look at how quickly planes advanced during WWII. There's another timeline that you could compare against.
Anyway most of this is irrelavent. You can make it safe right now simply by not using the shuttle, and by buying Russian rockets.
The shuttle may be "flawed" as you put it. Or maybe spaceflight is just dangerous? Do we really have reason to believe the next generation craft is going to be safer?
Yes it can be dangerous, just like airflight is dangerous. Airflight is a lot safer and spaceflight can be made similarly safe as well.
One solution is to simply use Russian rockets for people, and dumb cargo rockets for everything else.
A "punishment" that the Soviet Gulags used to use on the prisoners (slave labourers) was to strip them naked and tie them to a tree, and leave them for the mosquitoes.
very good exeption handling built into the language
The exception handling is ok, not great. You can pass information along with an exception - but only if it's a string!
It does mean that exceptions won't cause other exceptions due to running out of memory. Ada is designed for embedded systems, so this does matter.
Perhaps close to an example you seek is the Gnat Ada compiler system. It was initially funded by the US govt. as a subsetted educational GPL compiler.
The principal developers then spent a large slab of their own time making it fully featured, setting up a (successful) company to continue support.
How much time? I've been waiting over 4 years for this. When do you think is an appropriate time to stop waiting and start complaining?
Re:Why would you use this?
on
The New C Standard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You may view such things as shortcomings. I view them as power. Power that can be used for good or for ill.
Modern languages are all about protecting the programmer from having power. They limit the programmer, tying him or her down. This was done because so many programmers are idiots, true, but never forget that the problems modern languages were meant to solve are all people problems, not computer problems.
No, it was done because most programmers are people, and most people aren't 100% perfect robots that get everything right all the time. Have you never suffered from out out of bounds error in an array? Just specifying checks for this in a langauge -helps- you, not hinder you. The amount of work you don't have to do chasing down problems that pop up a long way away from the source of the problem is amazingly less, when the program tells you where it (you!) went wrong.
Languages that protect you don't have to be seen as the enemy.
The world is a globe, yet it's rendered here as a flat sheet. There are lots of better ways of modelling the world.
It'll be interesting to see how they handle the mapping of satellite imagery of high lattitude locations to that stretched out rubber sheet they are using.
I've been wondering of late where IBM could have ended up if they had helped Apple to gain significant market share by producing really good processors.
The PowerPC has so much potential, yet it seems the effort was never really invested to realise that potential.
I was thinking that Large Corporation with IPv6 addresses for all their computers, and IPv4 for talking to the outside, and tunnelling to their other offices be a Good Thing.
But then I thought about all their other IP devices such as printers etc. which wouldn't support IPv6.
The more internet enabled devices you get with embedded IPv4, the harder the shift to IPv6 gets.
A single counter example proves his argument. Nothing is 100% true in all cases.
Ah, so if we observe that nothing ever goes faster than light, and we see an example of something going faster than light, that strengthens the argument? We should believe it even more?
The original saying...
An exception that proves the rule
uses the old meaning of "proves" which means -tests-. In other words if the rule still holds, even under exceptional circumstances, it's a good rule.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always thought that this is a poor choice of words to explain scientific theories to the masses. How about just plain old "testable"? Everyone knows what that means.
ID is not testable. Scientific theories are.
A company in Australia (http://www.cfcl.com.au/) (and a couple of others) are developing ceramic fuel cells.
Natural gas + O2 = electriicity + high temp waste heat that can heat your water.
You can keep driving cars without computers if you like; i'll take the safe option.
Pity those same people you complained about called them "spell" (rather than "spelling") checkers.
Most people's knowledge of grammar is going down the toilet. I just accept that most people don't know what's wrong with...
I did that real quick.
and similar.
So that's makes it 1 in 60 for Russian flights, and 1 in 55? for US flights? Doesn't that make the US system more dangerous?
The failure in 1971 was the result of faulty valves/system -and- the decision to not require spacesuits. I think they all have spacesuits on reentry now (see http://www.astronautix.com/details/soy51200.htm).
You can certainly say that since the space shuttle has been used, no Russian spacecraft has resulted in deaths (as far as I can tell), which is perhaps the more interesting statistic.
Long time! But that was when we didn't have computers, materials engineers, great theories on lots more things.
Look at how quickly planes advanced during WWII. There's another timeline that you could compare against.
Anyway most of this is irrelavent. You can make it safe right now simply by not using the shuttle, and by buying Russian rockets.
Yes it can be dangerous, just like airflight is dangerous. Airflight is a lot safer and spaceflight can be made similarly safe as well.
One solution is to simply use Russian rockets for people, and dumb cargo rockets for everything else.
Most people died from this.
I think the example you wanted to give is "Light bulb" vs. "Laser".
I hope they realise that you detonate explosives, not landmarks.
Nope, thought not.
The exception handling is ok, not great. You can pass information along with an exception - but only if it's a string!
It does mean that exceptions won't cause other exceptions due to running out of memory. Ada is designed for embedded systems, so this does matter.
are there. The cities have been recorded in varying detail. You can see http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-37.707889,145.1709 69&spn=0.005718,0.009397&t=k&hl=en my house, but if you go just a few kms south you'll see a lot of fuzzy stuff.
It's everything a toilet isn't.
Perhaps close to an example you seek is the Gnat Ada compiler system. It was initially funded by the US govt. as a subsetted educational GPL compiler.
The principal developers then spent a large slab of their own time making it fully featured, setting up a (successful) company to continue support.
How much time? I've been waiting over 4 years for this. When do you think is an appropriate time to stop waiting and start complaining?
Modern languages are all about protecting the programmer from having power. They limit the programmer, tying him or her down. This was done because so many programmers are idiots, true, but never forget that the problems modern languages were meant to solve are all people problems, not computer problems.
No, it was done because most programmers are people, and most people aren't 100% perfect robots that get everything right all the time. Have you never suffered from out out of bounds error in an array? Just specifying checks for this in a langauge -helps- you, not hinder you. The amount of work you don't have to do chasing down problems that pop up a long way away from the source of the problem is amazingly less, when the program tells you where it (you!) went wrong.
Languages that protect you don't have to be seen as the enemy.
That'll slow them down...
Day 1: Apple releases OSX for all x86 desktops
Day 2: Microsoft announce no new versions of Mac Office will ship
Day 3: There is no day 3.
It'll be interesting to see how they handle the mapping of satellite imagery of high lattitude locations to that stretched out rubber sheet they are using.
Yes, but they failed to explain what a GUI is, and I'm still wondering. Anyone know? :-)
The PowerPC has so much potential, yet it seems the effort was never really invested to realise that potential.
sigh.
But then I thought about all their other IP devices such as printers etc. which wouldn't support IPv6.
The more internet enabled devices you get with embedded IPv4, the harder the shift to IPv6 gets.
Ah, so if we observe that nothing ever goes faster than light, and we see an example of something going faster than light, that strengthens the argument? We should believe it even more?
The original saying...
An exception that proves the rule
uses the old meaning of "proves" which means -tests-. In other words if the rule still holds, even under exceptional circumstances, it's a good rule.
Does a single counter example invalidate his argument?
Go to a resturant? Pay 10% extra. Go to movie? Pay 10% extra. etc.