The "Big-O of one" must be the goatse guy, I dunno about the rest...
Seriously (the big O and little o notation, I recall them) it is interesting, but they are not trying to compete with office/openoffice where a mail merge of a few dozen of records takes seconds (an eternity, for multighz multicore machines), and nobody really cares.
The son is 1/1, not 1/3. If i got a cube and a one dimensional way to sense it, i'll sense it as a segment. That segment is not 1/3 of the cube, it IS the cube.
Unless people say that the cube "is split" into his 6 faces, and I never witnessed such use, the verb split can't be applied to the trinity, even if it's apparent the GGP was referring to it indeed. The problem is that one can mock a misrepresentation or a simplification is something a real atheist should never attempt. Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
> If you're a christian, you believe that "God" is an asexually-reproducing...
The concept of sexuality is not necessarily defined in the dimension of a possibly existing god. Whatever your conclusions are, you have to start assuming to reach them: welcome to the wonderful world of believers.
And, strategically such a move should have been done later. 1 get some FB fodder 2 some anonymous douche will harass people eventually 3 ??? 4 overreact and kill all anonymous accounts. "we had no other choice blah blah"
You're looking at an irrelevant aspect, virtual vs physical.
If the patent office awards someone the invention of the hammer or the double linked list, the problems are exactly the same: prior art, banal invention that somebody else would eventually have come up with. The virtuality of the object is not relevant there.
The physical object has an advantage in providing boundaries for useful patenting when it's required to make and submit a working prototype, that's a tangential issue.
> That sounds quite daft. First of all, isn't the whole point of having a VM running applications instead of native approach if not to achieve ease of interoperability?
Maybe they optimized dalvik at the expense of portability. That is bad from a technical point of view since abstraction from the underlying hardware would also provide better security other than portability, but from a marketing point of view honeycomb is just an iteration that must become obsolete in a few year to keep suck.. ehm consumers buying new models, so ties to the hardware details are sadly not an issue.
Bad analogy. Your existing local installation can perform many useful tasks with local speed, and easier security/privacy. A power line is useful, but relying on it when you have reasonably easy to operate solar panels already on your roof is a bit silly.
I'd have replaced the photo with a png with "quarantined, please msg ---- to have your crappy photo back online" printed on it, but this probably explains why I am not in charge of FB.
they should have not removed the old content but quarantined it, so users who request their photos back can have it. I barely read TFS but if KDE used the same API key so that the user doesn't need to get its own, they have made a rather banal mistake.
Anyway, the problem is Facebook, Google, et al. are not at your service, they build stuff upon you. You agree to that for short term convenience? It makes sense, just don't expect anything more durable. We are shifting from closed source software to open software on closed networks, and we'll end up with the same problems.
Even worse, there could be no 12 years old hackers so your hand would be instead controlled by a corporation that rooted our PCs without telling anything just because they don't like you to possibly violate their rights. That is, ethically speaking, a just below average corporation:D
In general this tech will likely end up with getting a genre of dystopic literature on its own: self inflicted deaths or torture for better cover up of the culprits and stuff like that.
actually one more dimension ought to decrease the possibility of collisions. I see no reason why most of the travel could not be on autopilot on one way routes. I'd trade a no asphalt world for a reasonably low risk of getting a flying car crashing in from the roof.
I didn't write logic is arbitrary, I said "arbitrarily applied to".... Nobody questions that logic systems are correctly built on some axioms, like I didn't say that a metaphorical function body has bugs. I said that you can't call a function where it is not defined. All human concepts are not necessarily defined in a trascendent plane, or not in the same way. "God is evil", "god is good", "god IS", are all potentially invalid phrases, which we accept making assumptions on the concept of god, for all trascendent gods.
I agree on the problem of translation, but that makes harder to draw any definitive conclusion from scriptures which is the same problem of the application of logic.
About hell, as a believer or a skeptic, nobody can determine what it means, so I agree that a just and loving god has higher standards than humans, yet I cannot logically rule out anything. I do not say that to scare people, and myself do not fear a possibly present infinitely just judge.
About Einstein formula: that was exactly my point, i took out parts that suited me and declared the rest worthless.
About logic, be careful or it becomes "faith". Logic is the product of abstractions our brains compute, instinctually first and consciously later, which are able to predict how things become. Everything works fine because the metaphorical functions are used in their scope.
Just program a cellular automata world with ternary logic, or implementing wishes (a cell can acquire a particular state if some entity "desires it" for whatever implementation of desire), and see how this world's binary logic is utterly worhtless there. If you are able to create abstractions with a different underlying logic, than the logic outside this world is not necessarily compatible with ours. (Note also the cellular automata world exists with a different logic only as an abstraction, physically it is implemented with binary logic on a pc).
To make it simpler, in a world where macroscopic things are, and are not, at the same time, binary logic would be an academic exercise with little worth. The world does not obey logic, it is logic that is modeled after the world. Math being the language of a god is already a problem in the field of religions.
Other problem. The predictive power of logic depends on the definition of time. No time, no prediction power, every arbitrary logic system that we conceive has an equally worthless predictive power. That makes the "who created god" and evolution vs creationism and "destiny vs freedom" arguments very silly.
In the same system of belief you have a god sending people to hell, and a god declared loving and just. You might find the combination unreasonable, and refuse to believe, it's ok. Could be a fake so clever that instead of trying to adhere to human logic to become acceptable, it completely derails from it.
If you go on to say such combination doesn't make sense, I can point out that logic applied to the divine dimension is exactly like function called outside its scope, so you should say "it doesnt make sense under the assumption that the logic system we developed can be applied arbitrarily to the god object and dimension". That is, you switch a system of belief for another one. Still ok.
But, if on the same scriptures that say a god did this and that, it's written that that god is just and loving, you simply can't come to the opposite conclusion by considering only the parts that suit your argument. Either take all or refuse all. If not, then Einstein is wrong because, E!=mc.
If you say justice must consider individual guilt, then it's ok for me, but I don't see much usefulness in the term collective responsibility as an abstraction.
> A benevolent God would not allow wholesale extinction of the Human race.
Depends, some gods are infinitely just, and that extinction, as a direct consequence of the freedom of some evil men, could be compatible, especially for those religions with an afterlife.
Man is the purpose of creation, but probably not because of him belonging to homo sapiens.
As for the collective guilt, they burnt Jews and they are throwing phosphor at Arabs because of concepts like that, responsibility is always personal.
> It implies that there is no benevolent God watching over us. It implies that we are collectively guilty of the bind we are in.
So, technological advancements give a small percentage of power hungry sociopaths (that disobey the rules set by most religions) a chance of ruining everybody else's lives, and the fault is ours and of the hypothetical gods they disobey? Wow if you're not a lawyer, study to become one.
> The proper reaction is to say: oh, we'll prepare for the worst case, then.
Proper reaction is proper. Pity that it happens for CO emissions only, not for everything else. Radioactivity, sythetic substances, radio waves and stuff, drugs, are simply released on the population. Pretty strange, unless you don the tinfoil hat and declare: all innovations which reduce the freedom of the common man, are implemented. Carbon tax reduces income, pollutants make you dependent on therapies. Other theories welcome.
Falling over sideways because of the impact of the plane is unfeasible, but nobody said that. Personally I find very difficult to achieve the required symmetry for the collapse you talk about. I'd see the first floors collapsing, then one side or one angle collapses earlier than the rest so the building leans to one side, with even more mass distributed there, so the leaning should increase. But this, as the simulation, mine is speculation. One should set a scale model on fire (with slimmer supporting structure to account for the difference in dimensions) and see if, and how, it collapses.
Anyway 911, IF it's an inside job, is a too messy job. Why having people wonder how big a fire is needed to have a building collapse, or why those betting on a collapse of airline stocks have been paid instead of being waterboard... er... investigated or a thousand other questions when you can get some nuclear waste from the mafia and kill a million people with a single agent? someone wants to evaluate how we are likely to question the official story, or fill the media with speculation on 911 instead of war stories?
The tactics of the eu far left benefited the other side, in case you didn't notice. Ditto for the neonazis. People get pissed when you blow them up, no matter what your political reasons are.
Are we positive we want to delegate all to the browser?
- web apps are easy to deploy. - web apps can't match efficiency of native apps (it doesn't matter when you have a multicore desktop, it matters when your smartphone has way less autonomy than it could. - web apps everywhere means they will have to be secured (compared with web 1.0 with standard ports for every protocol and a multitude of client/server software vs. port 80 and a handful of browsers) - web apps can be seamlessly upgraded (even when user doesn't want to, though)
- native apps are hard to deploy (a free OS with package management, look at debian or experiments like nixos, solves this problem) - FOSS native apps can be owned by the user.
Anyway, this is just a trend. Games will still be native, and people will hold onto their office suites, and some html5 features reduce the dependency from the network (local storage) which is good.
The absence of punctuation exists for a reason, too. It's usually called "the boss is approaching".
Google does not allow spidering of its own indexed stuff. Which makes a lot of sense, as they collected it, it's theirs. For the very same reason they should not spider what is behind a login prompt, no matter what the TFA says. I'm not saying they are doing it, but if they did, that would be terribly hypocrite.
FB and Google over our data are like hyena and leopard over a carcass.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is sound but this is the 2010s, you're supposed to sell a 0.01c app for that, instead.
The "Big-O of one" must be the goatse guy, I dunno about the rest...
Seriously (the big O and little o notation, I recall them) it is interesting, but they are not trying to compete with office/openoffice where a mail merge of a few dozen of records takes seconds (an eternity, for multighz multicore machines), and nobody really cares.
The son is 1/1, not 1/3. If i got a cube and a one dimensional way to sense it, i'll sense it as a segment. That segment is not 1/3 of the cube, it IS the cube.
Unless people say that the cube "is split" into his 6 faces, and I never witnessed such use, the verb split can't be applied to the trinity, even if it's apparent the GGP was referring to it indeed. The problem is that one can mock a misrepresentation or a simplification is something a real atheist should never attempt. Especially when it's sufficient to say "I don't believe".
> If you're a christian, you believe that "God" is an asexually-reproducing...
The concept of sexuality is not necessarily defined in the dimension of a possibly existing god. Whatever your conclusions are, you have to start assuming to reach them: welcome to the wonderful world of believers.
And, strategically such a move should have been done later.
1 get some FB fodder
2 some anonymous douche will harass people eventually
3 ???
4 overreact and kill all anonymous accounts. "we had no other choice blah blah"
You're looking at an irrelevant aspect, virtual vs physical.
If the patent office awards someone the invention of the hammer or the double linked list, the problems are exactly the same: prior art, banal invention that somebody else would eventually have come up with. The virtuality of the object is not relevant there.
The physical object has an advantage in providing boundaries for useful patenting when it's required to make and submit a working prototype, that's a tangential issue.
> That sounds quite daft. First of all, isn't the whole point of having a VM running applications instead of native approach if not to achieve ease of interoperability?
Maybe they optimized dalvik at the expense of portability. That is bad from a technical point of view since abstraction from the underlying hardware would also provide better security other than portability, but from a marketing point of view honeycomb is just an iteration that must become obsolete in a few year to keep suck.. ehm consumers buying new models, so ties to the hardware details are sadly not an issue.
Bad analogy. Your existing local installation can perform many useful tasks with local speed, and easier security/privacy. A power line is useful, but relying on it when you have reasonably easy to operate solar panels already on your roof is a bit silly.
I'd have replaced the photo with a png with "quarantined, please msg ---- to have your crappy photo back online" printed on it, but this probably explains why I am not in charge of FB.
they should have not removed the old content but quarantined it, so users who request their photos back can have it.
I barely read TFS but if KDE used the same API key so that the user doesn't need to get its own, they have made a rather banal mistake.
Anyway, the problem is Facebook, Google, et al. are not at your service, they build stuff upon you. You agree to that for short term convenience? It makes sense, just don't expect anything more durable. We are shifting from closed source software to open software on closed networks, and we'll end up with the same problems.
Even worse, there could be no 12 years old hackers so your hand would be instead controlled by a corporation that rooted our PCs without telling anything just because they don't like you to possibly violate their rights. That is, ethically speaking, a just below average corporation :D
In general this tech will likely end up with getting a genre of dystopic literature on its own: self inflicted deaths or torture for better cover up of the culprits and stuff like that.
like this:
WOOOSH
actually one more dimension ought to decrease the possibility of collisions. I see no reason why most of the travel could not be on autopilot on one way routes. I'd trade a no asphalt world for a reasonably low risk of getting a flying car crashing in from the roof.
I didn't write logic is arbitrary, I said "arbitrarily applied to" ....
Nobody questions that logic systems are correctly built on some axioms, like I didn't say that a metaphorical function body has bugs. I said that you can't call a function where it is not defined. All human concepts are not necessarily defined in a trascendent plane, or not in the same way. "God is evil", "god is good", "god IS", are all potentially invalid phrases, which we accept making assumptions on the concept of god, for all trascendent gods.
I agree on the problem of translation, but that makes harder to draw any definitive conclusion from scriptures which is the same problem of the application of logic.
About hell, as a believer or a skeptic, nobody can determine what it means, so I agree that a just and loving god has higher standards than humans, yet I cannot logically rule out anything. I do not say that to scare people, and myself do not fear a possibly present infinitely just judge.
About Einstein formula: that was exactly my point, i took out parts that suited me and declared the rest worthless.
About logic, be careful or it becomes "faith". Logic is the product of abstractions our brains compute, instinctually first and consciously later, which are able to predict how things become. Everything works fine because the metaphorical functions are used in their scope.
Just program a cellular automata world with ternary logic, or implementing wishes (a cell can acquire a particular state if some entity "desires it" for whatever implementation of desire), and see how this world's binary logic is utterly worhtless there. If you are able to create abstractions with a different underlying logic, than the logic outside this world is not necessarily compatible with ours. (Note also the cellular automata world exists with a different logic only as an abstraction, physically it is implemented with binary logic on a pc).
To make it simpler, in a world where macroscopic things are, and are not, at the same time, binary logic would be an academic exercise with little worth. The world does not obey logic, it is logic that is modeled after the world. Math being the language of a god is already a problem in the field of religions.
Other problem. The predictive power of logic depends on the definition of time. No time, no prediction power, every arbitrary logic system that we conceive has an equally worthless predictive power. That makes the "who created god" and evolution vs creationism and "destiny vs freedom" arguments very silly.
Now you're thinking with portals :_D
firebug works here. FF5 on debian sid. Blue cats theme and noscript work too, and all my lolcat links are correctly preserved, for the record.
In the same system of belief you have a god sending people to hell, and a god declared loving and just.
You might find the combination unreasonable, and refuse to believe, it's ok. Could be a fake so clever that instead of trying to adhere to human logic to become acceptable, it completely derails from it.
If you go on to say such combination doesn't make sense, I can point out that logic applied to the divine dimension is exactly like function called outside its scope, so you should say "it doesnt make sense under the assumption that the logic system we developed can be applied arbitrarily to the god object and dimension". That is, you switch a system of belief for another one. Still ok.
But, if on the same scriptures that say a god did this and that, it's written that that god is just and loving, you simply can't come to the opposite conclusion by considering only the parts that suit your argument. Either take all or refuse all. If not, then Einstein is wrong because, E!=mc.
If you say justice must consider individual guilt, then it's ok for me, but I don't see much usefulness in the term collective responsibility as an abstraction.
> A benevolent God would not allow wholesale extinction of the Human race.
Depends, some gods are infinitely just, and that extinction, as a direct consequence of the freedom of some evil men, could be compatible, especially for those religions with an afterlife.
Man is the purpose of creation, but probably not because of him belonging to homo sapiens.
As for the collective guilt, they burnt Jews and they are throwing phosphor at Arabs because of concepts like that, responsibility is always personal.
> There are no defensible use cases for private usage of guns.
Except all the cases where criminals or crazy persons succeeded in killing/maiming their victims, no matter if the issue involved possessions.
> It implies that there is no benevolent God watching over us. It implies that we are collectively guilty of the bind we are in.
So, technological advancements give a small percentage of power hungry sociopaths (that disobey the rules set by most religions) a chance of ruining everybody else's lives, and the fault is ours and of the hypothetical gods they disobey? Wow if you're not a lawyer, study to become one.
> The proper reaction is to say: oh, we'll prepare for the worst case, then.
Proper reaction is proper.
Pity that it happens for CO emissions only, not for everything else. Radioactivity, sythetic substances, radio waves and stuff, drugs, are simply released on the population. Pretty strange, unless you don the tinfoil hat and declare: all innovations which reduce the freedom of the common man, are implemented. Carbon tax reduces income, pollutants make you dependent on therapies. Other theories welcome.
Falling over sideways because of the impact of the plane is unfeasible, but nobody said that.
Personally I find very difficult to achieve the required symmetry for the collapse you talk about. I'd see the first floors collapsing, then one side or one angle collapses earlier than the rest so the building leans to one side, with even more mass distributed there, so the leaning should increase. But this, as the simulation, mine is speculation. One should set a scale model on fire (with slimmer supporting structure to account for the difference in dimensions) and see if, and how, it collapses.
Anyway 911, IF it's an inside job, is a too messy job. Why having people wonder how big a fire is needed to have a building collapse, or why those betting on a collapse of airline stocks have been paid instead of being waterboard... er... investigated or a thousand other questions when you can get some nuclear waste from the mafia and kill a million people with a single agent? someone wants to evaluate how we are likely to question the official story, or fill the media with speculation on 911 instead of war stories?
The tactics of the eu far left benefited the other side, in case you didn't notice. Ditto for the neonazis. People get pissed when you blow them up, no matter what your political reasons are.
Are we positive we want to delegate all to the browser?
- web apps are easy to deploy.
- web apps can't match efficiency of native apps (it doesn't matter when you have a multicore desktop, it matters when your smartphone has way less autonomy than it could.
- web apps everywhere means they will have to be secured (compared with web 1.0 with standard ports for every protocol and a multitude of client/server software vs. port 80 and a handful of browsers)
- web apps can be seamlessly upgraded (even when user doesn't want to, though)
- native apps are hard to deploy (a free OS with package management, look at debian or experiments like nixos, solves this problem)
- FOSS native apps can be owned by the user.
Anyway, this is just a trend. Games will still be native, and people will hold onto their office suites, and some html5 features reduce the dependency from the network (local storage) which is good.
Coming from the framework formerly known as .NET...
The absence of punctuation exists for a reason, too. It's usually called "the boss is approaching".
Google does not allow spidering of its own indexed stuff. Which makes a lot of sense, as they collected it, it's theirs. For the very same reason they should not spider what is behind a login prompt, no matter what the TFA says. I'm not saying they are doing it, but if they did, that would be terribly hypocrite.
FB and Google over our data are like hyena and leopard over a carcass.