Indexing works by picking a small slice of the data you have (as a list of hashes), and changing it into a much smaller table mapping the data onto a group of records matching it. The index is smaller and conforms to a certain strict standard, so it's very fast to brute force. Then as you get the list of indices, you brute force them, and this way you get the record.
This works well if you can create such a slice - a piece of data you will match against. It becomes increasingly unwieldy if there are many ways to match a data - multiple columns mean multiple indices. And then if you remove columns entirely, making records just long strings, and start matching random words in the record, index becomes useless - hashes become bigger than chunks of data they match against, indexing all possible combinations of words you can match against results in index bigger than the database, and generally... bummer. Index doesn't work well against freestyle data searchable in random form.
Imagine a database with its main column being VARCHAR(255) and using about full length of it, then search using a lot of LIKE and AND, picking various short pieces out of that column, and the database being terabytes big. Try to invent a way to index it.
Yep, but you must skip pretty large sections of bible, treating them like 'poetic metaphor' (or fluff) to accept evolution.
Creationists aren't defined as 'activists' nor as those who believe 'some, or all was first created by God'. They are defined as those who believe many (most? all?) things were created as they are now, with little or no change inbetween, or at least that their current shape was encoded, preprogrammed in their original forms (e.g. genes of an early ape already held complete plans of human brain).
This negates evolution as a change resulting from reaction to random changes of the environment, because the form is meant to be predetermined.
These are church-church issues. I doubt resolving them would help against the rabid kind of creationists in any way. The catholic church is on a quite decent stance with the secular side of the world, including science. I don't see how the protestant issues affect it.
Sorry, I read the bible. Genesis doesn't just say that in th beginning things happens. It specifies what happened in some pretty deep (and quite stupid) detail.
The problem is both science and the Bible are ridden with errors, but while science struggles to eliminate the errors, Bible struggles to silence whoever points them out. "Is not meant to be interpreted literally" is not an excuse, because there is no key to interpreting it and as result it can be interpreted in completely arbitrary way, no limits. Meaning it holds no informational content. It carries a few self-protecting memes that prevent arguing with any chosen interpretation. If you know how, you can use it to prove your point, whatever it is, interpreting it to your liking and possibly controlling others. If you don't, you'll find just one of many interpretations and believe it's your truth. And claiming "It doesn't say God snapped his fingers and poof there is somebody that looks and things just like you." requires some pretty deep twisting of the content of Bible (aka interpretation) because it says just that.
I will never get a final proof, a final truth. But with Science I will be getting in the right direction. With religion I will just run in circles.
And if you choose to leave Ockham's Razor behind, and to "believe A happens because of B because God intended it that way" while all you know is that A happens because of B, feel free to do so. No harm, just a little waste. But if you want to invade my personal space trying to convince me that A happens because of C because God says so, then GTFO. You're harmful.
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities
I'm talking about this kind of creationism. And no, it's not a minority if they were fighting teaching theory of evolution in schools with quite a bit of success. We don't know what sparked the Big Bang, and that many believe it was God, but I assure you they don't meet the definition of Creationist.
To assume all species of animals were created at once, and never changed since then is to deny mutablity of DNA, obviously false. DNA is mutable and no intelligent person will deny it.
Allowing mutablity automatically allows evolution, at least to certain degree - good mutations provide advantage against bad mutations, it would be illogical to assume otherwise.
And from there it's a downhill ride, as you struggle to defend every single point of every concept you believe -could- have been a result of engineering, and could not result from evolution. You lose point after point as immediate chain links between simple and advanced organs are presented, as there's nowhere to put 'intelligent design' in. Until you arrive upon the final point, first self-replicating strain of DNA in existence. And you'll never have a proof in either direction.
Yes, it gets very black-and-white once logic kicks in, because either (a) you outright deny all the scientific facts in favor of evolution, confirmed by experiments repeated over and over, or (b) you accept some of them and then creeping doubt and pieces of the puzzle falling into place make you follow the string of logical conclusions right to the end. There's no other point inbetween other than (c) staying uninformed and proclaiming your opinion in total ignorance of 'general knowledge', 'out of the game', and neither (a) nor (c) are a thing wise people do. You play by the rules of science, you can't pick pieces you like and leave out the rest. You keep yourself informed, you don't spew out your ideas without listening to others. That's what being wise is. You can't say someone is intelligent if they don't see logical flaws in their arguments or don't try to take the whole image into consideration.
Either have it ship directly to you (which costs much more than bulk shipping to bulk stores) or ship to Amazon who then ships it to you (so the difference whether they have a warehouse or not is moot, shipping twice occurs.)
. In fact, I'm sure there are a lot of people who are much more intelligent than you are, who much more thoroughly understand evolutionary theory than you do, and who are much more generally enlightened and educated than you, but who still hold religious views which might properly be called "creationist" views.
Fortunately, no.
There are many intelligent, smart, wise people who believe in God. Thing is, for them faith always gives up to reason, never in opposite direction. You believe in things you don't know, you aren't certain. If science explains something, you adapt your faith to accept the fact, you don't deny it to keep that part of faith running.
You may believe that the first string of DNA that created the first living cell was created by an intelligent being. Thing is there's a lot of ways to mix bases of DNA code, just like slamming on the keyboard randomly, but getting a working self-replicating program by slamming on the keyboard randomly, well, that's a lot of slamming and what is more likely, that it happened randomly, or that it was created? We can't estimate the chance of random creation of such a string within several orders of magnitude, so it leaves room for faith: it might have been created this way. If you look at the amazing properties of electromagnetic waves, how simple rules create such amazing results, you think 'How could such rules come to be? Why is electromagnetism the way it is, so possiblity-rich and yet so simple in its essence?' and you think it would take quite a wise mind to invent such a thing... if it could be invented. Again, room for faith, never certainty, but elements of unknown.
But if you hear bones of dinosaurs were dug into the ground some 4000 years ago to confuse us, sorry. No matter how much you believe in God, with a bit of criticism, you say "bullshit".
Actually, John Paul II settled most of these. He apologized for the Inquisition, he (at last) admitted Galileo was right, and the church was wrong, and generally straightened out many of the past evils. He remained adamant about anticonception and abortion though.
Thing is, as a head of catholic church, he has little/no power over different protestant groups and these are the strongest supporters of creationism. Still, in Europe, most of predominantly protestant countries are very secular and interest in religion there is quite small, while about all strongly religious countries (Ireland, Spain, Poland, some scandinavian countries) are either catholic or orthodox (and orthodox church still follows the Pope... mostly) so the ground for creationism is very infertile.
So rephrase your question "was there anything significantly better than BioShock last year?"
I'd say "Portal" but Portal is rated together with the rest of the bundle, Orange Box, and while the rest is pretty cool, it isn't nearly as good and lowers Portal's score.
none that would have any significant political influence.
There is still a bunch of uneducated people 'right on the bottom', but nobody at least somewhat educated, somewhat influential, somewhat famous takes creationism seriously.
There was this project on/. with 'photon tracking' image generation. It emulated behavior of separate photons, their route and properties from the light source to the camera. The image got a nice effect of rainbow in a prism, realistic reflection in a mirror-like sphere, filtering the light through colorful glass etc. The problem was that creation of the image employed thousands of computers and months of work, and was still rather 'grainy', like high-sensitivity film. Meaning given enough computational power you'd get 100% accurate, perfectly made images, but we're far behind the 'enough' of the computational power yet.
I think they factored the shipping fee into the list price.
TANSTAAFL, shipping costs money, no miracles here, especially that Amazon is not a mailing company, so it's not like they could ship it on their own, and they are no charity to donate the service completely free of charge.
The customer gets to pay for the shipping, that's one thing that is certain. Now which part of the price the shipping comes from is the question. Amazon could discount a $8 book by $2, then add $2 of their real costs for shipping and the customer pays $8 for the service - but that would be illegal. So they sell the book at $8, no discount, and add 'free shipping', which nets the customer $8 and suddenly is legal? Maybe by some very twisted lawyer logic, but not by common sense. $2 less of what you pay for the service is still the same $2 for you as a customer, no matter if it goes off the base price or off shipping fee.
There is the special olympics where handicapped people compete. It takes place very soon after the 'normal' olympics, on the same objects, same routes etc.
It's an estabilished fact for now that in the marathon run of that special olympics, there are no running winners - handicapped in wheelchairs are allowed alongside the runners and they regularly occupy the first places, no exceptions. They get times better than marathon winners of the 'normal' olympic games. This situation has perpetuated for many years now and there are voices saying that 'runners are disadvantaged' and 'something should be done' but AFAIK the idea of integration, these who could walk competing together with these bound to wheelchairs, wins.
The problem is that the scientific community is usually OK with the idea. They know the limits and the problems best, and know how far they can move ahead without doing something that would make them avoid looking in the mirror.
It's the "unwashed masses" that protest most - people with no clue, no understanding, loaded with prejudices and unwilling to learn - and they can be a serious roadblock. After all, a vote of a scientist is worth the same as a vote of a redneck, but there's 1000 rednecks for each scientist, so let's follow the voice of the majority!
Only if most people are OK with given idea, the lawmakers are willing to give green light to the scientists to progress.
The discs are non-compilant for a good reason reason - they aim at being environment-friendly - thin means less material used, bendable means won't break as it would being thinner and not bendable.
OTOH The Apple's drives are non-compilant for no good reason whatsoever.
Therefore you disable it or restrict access. You don't litigate everyone who accesses it.
Say, instead of using a bank, I leave all my money as cash right by my trashcan on the street, and then sue everyone and accuse them of thievery for taking it.
Slashdot Mirror
Indexing works by picking a small slice of the data you have (as a list of hashes), and changing it into a much smaller table mapping the data onto a group of records matching it. The index is smaller and conforms to a certain strict standard, so it's very fast to brute force. Then as you get the list of indices, you brute force them, and this way you get the record.
This works well if you can create such a slice - a piece of data you will match against. It becomes increasingly unwieldy if there are many ways to match a data - multiple columns mean multiple indices. And then if you remove columns entirely, making records just long strings, and start matching random words in the record, index becomes useless - hashes become bigger than chunks of data they match against, indexing all possible combinations of words you can match against results in index bigger than the database, and generally... bummer. Index doesn't work well against freestyle data searchable in random form.
Imagine a database with its main column being VARCHAR(255) and using about full length of it, then search using a lot of LIKE and AND, picking various short pieces out of that column, and the database being terabytes big. Try to invent a way to index it.
Yep, but you must skip pretty large sections of bible, treating them like 'poetic metaphor' (or fluff) to accept evolution.
Creationists aren't defined as 'activists' nor as those who believe 'some, or all was first created by God'. They are defined as those who believe many (most? all?) things were created as they are now, with little or no change inbetween, or at least that their current shape was encoded, preprogrammed in their original forms (e.g. genes of an early ape already held complete plans of human brain).
This negates evolution as a change resulting from reaction to random changes of the environment, because the form is meant to be predetermined.
These are church-church issues. I doubt resolving them would help against the rabid kind of creationists in any way. The catholic church is on a quite decent stance with the secular side of the world, including science. I don't see how the protestant issues affect it.
Sorry, I read the bible. Genesis doesn't just say that in th beginning things happens. It specifies what happened in some pretty deep (and quite stupid) detail.
The problem is both science and the Bible are ridden with errors, but while science struggles to eliminate the errors, Bible struggles to silence whoever points them out. "Is not meant to be interpreted literally" is not an excuse, because there is no key to interpreting it and as result it can be interpreted in completely arbitrary way, no limits. Meaning it holds no informational content. It carries a few self-protecting memes that prevent arguing with any chosen interpretation. If you know how, you can use it to prove your point, whatever it is, interpreting it to your liking and possibly controlling others. If you don't, you'll find just one of many interpretations and believe it's your truth. And claiming "It doesn't say God snapped his fingers and poof there is somebody that looks and things just like you." requires some pretty deep twisting of the content of Bible (aka interpretation) because it says just that.
I will never get a final proof, a final truth. But with Science I will be getting in the right direction. With religion I will just run in circles.
And if you choose to leave Ockham's Razor behind, and to "believe A happens because of B because God intended it that way" while all you know is that A happens because of B, feel free to do so. No harm, just a little waste. But if you want to invade my personal space trying to convince me that A happens because of C because God says so, then GTFO. You're harmful.
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities
I'm talking about this kind of creationism. And no, it's not a minority if they were fighting teaching theory of evolution in schools with quite a bit of success. We don't know what sparked the Big Bang, and that many believe it was God, but I assure you they don't meet the definition of Creationist.
To assume all species of animals were created at once, and never changed since then is to deny mutablity of DNA, obviously false. DNA is mutable and no intelligent person will deny it.
Allowing mutablity automatically allows evolution, at least to certain degree - good mutations provide advantage against bad mutations, it would be illogical to assume otherwise.
And from there it's a downhill ride, as you struggle to defend every single point of every concept you believe -could- have been a result of engineering, and could not result from evolution. You lose point after point as immediate chain links between simple and advanced organs are presented, as there's nowhere to put 'intelligent design' in. Until you arrive upon the final point, first self-replicating strain of DNA in existence. And you'll never have a proof in either direction.
Yes, it gets very black-and-white once logic kicks in, because either (a) you outright deny all the scientific facts in favor of evolution, confirmed by experiments repeated over and over, or (b) you accept some of them and then creeping doubt and pieces of the puzzle falling into place make you follow the string of logical conclusions right to the end. There's no other point inbetween other than (c) staying uninformed and proclaiming your opinion in total ignorance of 'general knowledge', 'out of the game', and neither (a) nor (c) are a thing wise people do. You play by the rules of science, you can't pick pieces you like and leave out the rest. You keep yourself informed, you don't spew out your ideas without listening to others. That's what being wise is. You can't say someone is intelligent if they don't see logical flaws in their arguments or don't try to take the whole image into consideration.
Either have it ship directly to you (which costs much more than bulk shipping to bulk stores) or ship to Amazon who then ships it to you (so the difference whether they have a warehouse or not is moot, shipping twice occurs.)
. In fact, I'm sure there are a lot of people who are much more intelligent than you are, who much more thoroughly understand evolutionary theory than you do, and who are much more generally enlightened and educated than you, but who still hold religious views which might properly be called "creationist" views.
Fortunately, no.
There are many intelligent, smart, wise people who believe in God. Thing is, for them faith always gives up to reason, never in opposite direction. You believe in things you don't know, you aren't certain. If science explains something, you adapt your faith to accept the fact, you don't deny it to keep that part of faith running.
You may believe that the first string of DNA that created the first living cell was created by an intelligent being. Thing is there's a lot of ways to mix bases of DNA code, just like slamming on the keyboard randomly, but getting a working self-replicating program by slamming on the keyboard randomly, well, that's a lot of slamming and what is more likely, that it happened randomly, or that it was created? We can't estimate the chance of random creation of such a string within several orders of magnitude, so it leaves room for faith: it might have been created this way. If you look at the amazing properties of electromagnetic waves, how simple rules create such amazing results, you think 'How could such rules come to be? Why is electromagnetism the way it is, so possiblity-rich and yet so simple in its essence?' and you think it would take quite a wise mind to invent such a thing... if it could be invented. Again, room for faith, never certainty, but elements of unknown.
But if you hear bones of dinosaurs were dug into the ground some 4000 years ago to confuse us, sorry. No matter how much you believe in God, with a bit of criticism, you say "bullshit".
Actually, John Paul II settled most of these. He apologized for the Inquisition, he (at last) admitted Galileo was right, and the church was wrong, and generally straightened out many of the past evils. He remained adamant about anticonception and abortion though.
Thing is, as a head of catholic church, he has little/no power over different protestant groups and these are the strongest supporters of creationism. Still, in Europe, most of predominantly protestant countries are very secular and interest in religion there is quite small, while about all strongly religious countries (Ireland, Spain, Poland, some scandinavian countries) are either catholic or orthodox (and orthodox church still follows the Pope... mostly) so the ground for creationism is very infertile.
Thing is, these are yearly awards.
So rephrase your question "was there anything significantly better than BioShock last year?"
I'd say "Portal" but Portal is rated together with the rest of the bundle, Orange Box, and while the rest is pretty cool, it isn't nearly as good and lowers Portal's score.
none that would have any significant political influence.
There is still a bunch of uneducated people 'right on the bottom', but nobody at least somewhat educated, somewhat influential, somewhat famous takes creationism seriously.
Amazon had to pay for the shipping to its own stores too (although less than brick and mortar bookstores). Only ship-in, no ship-out.
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/04/0715256&tid=
There was this project on /. with 'photon tracking' image generation. It emulated behavior of separate photons, their route and properties from the light source to the camera. The image got a nice effect of rainbow in a prism, realistic reflection in a mirror-like sphere, filtering the light through colorful glass etc. The problem was that creation of the image employed thousands of computers and months of work, and was still rather 'grainy', like high-sensitivity film. Meaning given enough computational power you'd get 100% accurate, perfectly made images, but we're far behind the 'enough' of the computational power yet.
The little problem is that power usage scales almost linearly with the number of cores, and so does the price to a degree.
2010 sounds realistic for a top-shelf equipment for the few chosen. 2020 looks more like consumer-grade electronics.
I think they factored the shipping fee into the list price.
TANSTAAFL, shipping costs money, no miracles here, especially that Amazon is not a mailing company, so it's not like they could ship it on their own, and they are no charity to donate the service completely free of charge.
The customer gets to pay for the shipping, that's one thing that is certain. Now which part of the price the shipping comes from is the question. Amazon could discount a $8 book by $2, then add $2 of their real costs for shipping and the customer pays $8 for the service - but that would be illegal. So they sell the book at $8, no discount, and add 'free shipping', which nets the customer $8 and suddenly is legal? Maybe by some very twisted lawyer logic, but not by common sense. $2 less of what you pay for the service is still the same $2 for you as a customer, no matter if it goes off the base price or off shipping fee.
There is the special olympics where handicapped people compete. It takes place very soon after the 'normal' olympics, on the same objects, same routes etc.
It's an estabilished fact for now that in the marathon run of that special olympics, there are no running winners - handicapped in wheelchairs are allowed alongside the runners and they regularly occupy the first places, no exceptions. They get times better than marathon winners of the 'normal' olympic games. This situation has perpetuated for many years now and there are voices saying that 'runners are disadvantaged' and 'something should be done' but AFAIK the idea of integration, these who could walk competing together with these bound to wheelchairs, wins.
But there's a whole bunch of slot-loading drives that are compilant.
The problem is that the scientific community is usually OK with the idea. They know the limits and the problems best, and know how far they can move ahead without doing something that would make them avoid looking in the mirror.
It's the "unwashed masses" that protest most - people with no clue, no understanding, loaded with prejudices and unwilling to learn - and they can be a serious roadblock. After all, a vote of a scientist is worth the same as a vote of a redneck, but there's 1000 rednecks for each scientist, so let's follow the voice of the majority!
Only if most people are OK with given idea, the lawmakers are willing to give green light to the scientists to progress.
The discs are non-compilant for a good reason reason - they aim at being environment-friendly - thin means less material used, bendable means won't break as it would being thinner and not bendable.
OTOH The Apple's drives are non-compilant for no good reason whatsoever.
And I want my $699 back!
If you watched the video you'd see the projector displays the image on top of your hands and they drop shadows on the surface.
Therefore you disable it or restrict access. You don't litigate everyone who accesses it.
Say, instead of using a bank, I leave all my money as cash right by my trashcan on the street, and then sue everyone and accuse them of thievery for taking it.
proof plz
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/01/darkest_material_ever.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890
Here's an article with a photo, please.