And I wonder, why I haven't patented the method of representing arbitrary large numbers with a fixed range of symbols in such a manner that common arithmetic operations (such as adding, subtracting, multiplication and division) can be performed in a efficient manner (polynomial to the log of the value).
The picture that they show one the site, and which I have seen being used before, is totally out of proportions. There is really no way we could ever defend us against an objects the size of a thousand kilometers. Even some moons around some of the planets are smaller. It is very unlikely that Earth will be hit with a object of that size in the coming million years.
However, people are unaware of the effects that even a much smaller object could have on our economy, depending on where it hits.
Re:Is it really contained?
on
SARS Contained
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you. Especially, if you compare the SARS graph with that of other countries. China is the country where the number of infected cases dropped the fastest in the whole world, even faster than in Hong Kong and Canada. Either they reported too many SARS cases earlier on, or they are reporting too few cases now. Honestly, it would not surprise me if in half a year the Chinese government has to acknowledge that they had been playing down the numbers.
I accidently moderated the parent post down, when I wanted to moderate it up. Probably caused by the fact that the mouse wheel changes the selection if the focus is on the control. And Slashdot doesn't give you the ability to correct your mistakes. Why is there not a moderate button behind each selection control???
If you want to have something more powerful than regexprs, and still have it as an interpretter, you might have a look at an interpretting parser that I wrote: IParse.
Look here for a collection of Signature programs that could serve as inspiration.
Black holes must be flat dishes
on
Non-Spherical Stars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you extend this idea to very fast spinning black holes, you end up with the idea of a spinning disk which "radius" in one direction is maybe only a few percent of the radius in the other directions.
I think that the poster only wanted to illustrate that Jesus too taught us not to dwell on the past or to worry about the future, but to live here and now, and not to cling to eartly things that pass away anyway. In that sense his teachings are inaccordance with Buddism.
I was born as a Roman Catholics, but now I am going to a protestant church. Most RC do not worship saints, but it happens that people "bow" or "kneel" before statues, and that images, statues or even objects are considered special and treated in a special way. According to the Ten Commandments, that is worship of idols, even if those bowing before image/statues deny that they are worshiping. I do have pictures on the wall, but I do not bow before them or treat them in any special manner (as being "holy" objects). Most piano players do not bow for their bust of Beethoven. Some adolescents in a sense do worship their idols, but usually not in the way of bowing before them.
Many protestants believe that any form of treating object in a special way, is linked to demon worship. And that is why the second commandment is given. Some protestants believe that RC in it's current state has more simalarities with Babylonian idolarity then with original christianity.
And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit.;)
Christianity has the concept of grace. The Karma rule says you always have to pay back for you evil deeds. According to Christianity everyone deserves infinite pain after death. Once you accept Christ as your saviour, all your sins (past, present, and futhurs) are covered with His blood and no longer are a reason for infinite pain. There still will be judgement though.
Interesting you give those links to the dictionary. Looking at the Thesaurus entries for "worship" and "reverence", I have to conclude that they are very close. I also have a problem with the many statues in the Roman Catholic church. They too say that they are merely symbols, yet there are many protetants who believe that if you bow for a statue it means worship. If it are really the thoughts that matter, than we can forget about the idea. I also do not have statues of great mathematisians and computer scientists in my room, while at the same time, I use their ideas. Worship is far likely to occur if there are no statues. Good reasons to not have them in the first place. Maybe that is also the reason for my dislike of statues, knowing that some people will see them as objects of worship.
Buddism seems interesting to me, but why always those budda statues and strange ideas about reincarnation. If you follow the "Buddism" with the article, you arrive at a page which starts with: "Buddhism is a tradition that focuses on personal spiritual development. Buddhists strive for a deep insight into the true nature of life and do not worship gods or deities." right besides a picture of golden budda statues. No worship of gods and deities indeed, but worship of budda.
It seems to me that the movies with the nicest special effects are also the most expensive ones. Special effects are getting better, but only slowly cheaper.
The great problem with OOP is that it is both used in a declarative sense and as an implementation method.
What we really need is a separation of concerns. A combination of declarative languages (possibly
visual as well) and language for specifying how to implement the declared functionality. This should be a language like the imperative languages we use now to implement programs, but a transformation language.
We do declarative language for each aspect of an application, not only restricted to the data model, but also including the Model/View/Command and the user-interface.
Declarative languages are great for programming tasks that are primarily about computation, i.e. seeking information in order to produce an answer to a question. But not all programming tasks are about that.
That says more about the lack of declarative languages than about them not being useful.
User-interfaces and the model/view/command could also be specified in a declarative way.
If this were true, why is it the case that science developed greatly in the Christian world (that has now been become secular) and not in the Buddhistic world? IMHO, the reasons is that Buddhism has a cyclic world view, e.g. no real progress is possible, whereas Christianity believes that there is progress. There is this believe in a better world to come.
This assumes that space time is quantified. Recent discoveries that light over long distances does not show up this property might imply that there are many more (if not infinite) possible positions. Thus blowing the whole argument to pieces.
C++ is only here because it produces fast code. It is far from perfect. In the past week, I have been moving around code between compilations units, wrestling with include statements all the time. It still is based on preprocessing with respect to separating declaration and implementation of classes. And the silly fact that you cannot use a class before it is fully defined. You call that perfect!!
Hard coding, storing (meta)data in a database, embedded scripting engines, virtual machines and code generations, are all techniques (each with their own pros and cons) for implementing functionality in an execution environment.
Most programming is still done in low-level programming languages. IMHO, we really need systems/languages in which we can transform high-level specifications into executable code. This kind of tools would allow you to select any of the above techniques based on what suits you best.
If now you want to switch between techniques, it simply means you have to start all over again. And I feel that is what the IT industry has been doing in the past twenty years.
Instead of being engineers we are still craftsman, each of us working in their own workshop.
I don't see what is so special about the idea of separating metadata from the rest of the code. I think this is what experienced programmers often do. (I also think that the authors have not really understood XP, as it is not a style of programming, but a style of working in the first place.)
Having to think about what to put in "code" and what to put in "metadata" is really deciding what should be "compiled" and what should be "interpretted". The are two reasons why code should be compiled. Firstly, because compiling is factors faster than interpretting. Secondly, it is still one of the best ways of protecting ones investments (in the Closed Source) development model.
I think most of the effort in programming still lies in performance. Many people will deny this, but I think that they simply blind to the fact how much we do because of all the tricks we use to give computers a reasonable speed. Many programmers aren't even aware of the memory piramid and its impact on how programs and operating systems work.
If the patent would be granted that would be the end of online advertizing, as it is unlikely that anybody can still make some profit if they have to pay royalties for each advertisement. But that would also be the end of many free services.
Slashdot Mirror
And I wonder, why I haven't patented the method of representing arbitrary large numbers with a fixed range of symbols in such a manner that common arithmetic operations (such as adding, subtracting, multiplication and division) can be performed in a efficient manner (polynomial to the log of the value).
However, people are unaware of the effects that even a much smaller object could have on our economy, depending on where it hits.
I agree with you. Especially, if you compare the SARS graph with that of other countries. China is the country where the number of infected cases dropped the fastest in the whole world, even faster than in Hong Kong and Canada. Either they reported too many SARS cases earlier on, or they are reporting too few cases now. Honestly, it would not surprise me if in half a year the Chinese government has to acknowledge that they had been playing down the numbers.
I accidently moderated the parent post down, when I wanted to moderate it up. Probably caused by the fact that the mouse wheel changes the selection if the focus is on the control. And Slashdot doesn't give you the ability to correct your mistakes. Why is there not a moderate button behind each selection control???
For this you might need an interpretting parser, such as IParse.
If you want to have something more powerful than regexprs, and still have it as an interpretter, you might have a look at an interpretting parser that I wrote: IParse.
The correct link is: http://home.planet.nl/~faase009/Signindex.html.
Look here for a collection of Signature programs that could serve as inspiration.
If you extend this idea to very fast spinning black holes, you end up with the idea of a spinning disk which "radius" in one direction is
maybe only a few percent of the radius in the other directions.
I think that the poster only wanted to illustrate that Jesus too taught us not to dwell on the past or to worry about the future, but to live here and now, and not to cling to eartly things that pass away anyway. In that sense his teachings are inaccordance with Buddism.
I was born as a Roman Catholics, but now I am going to a protestant church. Most RC do not worship saints, but it happens that people "bow" or "kneel" before statues, and that images, statues or even objects are considered special and treated in a special way. According to the Ten Commandments, that is worship of idols, even if those bowing before image/statues deny that they are worshiping. I do have pictures on the wall, but I do not bow before them or treat them in any special manner (as being "holy" objects). Most piano players do not bow for their bust of Beethoven. Some adolescents in a sense do worship their idols, but usually not in the way of bowing before them. Many protestants believe that any form of treating object in a special way, is linked to demon worship. And that is why the second commandment is given. Some protestants believe that RC in it's current state has more simalarities with Babylonian idolarity then with original christianity.
And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit. ;)
Christianity has the concept of grace. The Karma rule says you always have to pay back for you evil deeds. According to Christianity everyone deserves infinite pain after death. Once you accept Christ as your saviour, all your sins (past, present, and futhurs) are covered with His blood and no longer are a reason for infinite pain. There still will be judgement though.
Interesting you give those links to the dictionary. Looking at the Thesaurus entries for "worship" and "reverence", I have to conclude that they are very close. I also have a problem with the many statues in the Roman Catholic church. They too say that they are merely symbols, yet there are many protetants who believe that if you bow for a statue it means worship. If it are really the thoughts that matter, than we can forget about the idea. I also do not have statues of great mathematisians and computer scientists in my room, while at the same time, I use their ideas. Worship is far likely to occur if there are no statues. Good reasons to not have them in the first place. Maybe that is also the reason for my dislike of statues, knowing that some people will see them as objects of worship.
Buddism seems interesting to me, but why always those budda statues and strange ideas about reincarnation. If you follow the "Buddism" with the article, you arrive at a page which starts with: "Buddhism is a tradition that focuses on personal spiritual development. Buddhists strive for a deep insight into the true nature of life and do not worship gods or deities." right besides a picture of golden budda statues. No worship of gods and deities indeed, but worship of budda.
It seems to me that the movies with the nicest special effects are also the most expensive ones. Special effects are getting better, but only slowly cheaper.
What we really need is a separation of concerns. A combination of declarative languages (possibly visual as well) and language for specifying how to implement the declared functionality. This should be a language like the imperative languages we use now to implement programs, but a transformation language.
We do declarative language for each aspect of an application, not only restricted to the data model, but also including the Model/View/Command and the user-interface.
That says more about the lack of declarative languages than about them not being useful.
User-interfaces and the model/view/command could also be specified in a declarative way.
If this were true, why is it the case that science developed greatly in the Christian world (that has now been become secular) and not in the Buddhistic world? IMHO, the reasons is that Buddhism has a cyclic world view, e.g. no real progress is possible, whereas Christianity believes that there is progress. There is this believe in a better world to come.
This assumes that space time is quantified. Recent discoveries that light over long distances does not show up this property might imply that there are many more (if not infinite) possible positions. Thus blowing the whole argument to pieces.
C++ is only here because it produces fast code. It is far from perfect. In the past week, I have been moving around code between compilations units, wrestling with include statements all the time. It still is based on preprocessing with respect to separating declaration and implementation of classes. And the silly fact that you cannot use a class before it is fully defined. You call that perfect!!
The above is a Brainf*** program. If you want to know what it says use BF online.
Is already possible for web pages. See http://geourl.org/
Most programming is still done in low-level programming languages. IMHO, we really need systems/languages in which we can transform high-level specifications into executable code. This kind of tools would allow you to select any of the above techniques based on what suits you best.
If now you want to switch between techniques, it simply means you have to start all over again. And I feel that is what the IT industry has been doing in the past twenty years.
Instead of being engineers we are still craftsman, each of us working in their own workshop.
I don't see what is so special about the idea of separating metadata from the rest of the code. I think this is what experienced programmers often do. (I also think that the authors have not really understood XP, as it is not a style of programming, but a style of working in the first place.) Having to think about what to put in "code" and what to put in "metadata" is really deciding what should be "compiled" and what should be "interpretted". The are two reasons why code should be compiled. Firstly, because compiling is factors faster than interpretting. Secondly, it is still one of the best ways of protecting ones investments (in the Closed Source) development model. I think most of the effort in programming still lies in performance. Many people will deny this, but I think that they simply blind to the fact how much we do because of all the tricks we use to give computers a reasonable speed. Many programmers aren't even aware of the memory piramid and its impact on how programs and operating systems work.
If the patent would be granted that would be the end of online advertizing, as it is unlikely that anybody can still make some profit if they have to pay royalties for each advertisement. But that would also be the end of many free services.