Examples of this [builtin commands] include 'echo', 'printf', 'pwd', 'kill', 'test' and 'time'.
What kind of bash are ou using? echo, printf, pwd, kill and test aren't builtin.
if [[ abcfoobarbletch =~ 'foo(bar)bl(.*)' ]]; then echo tjo; fi
Doesn't work in my bash.
I think it's a little pigheaded of them to insist that their rules have to apply to everyone else as well.
Like those who said that GPL is like cancer and uncostitutional? Pigheaded are on both sides.:(
My main point is that the GPL is more restrictive than other licences, and hence we can't use GPL code.
I think that the restrictiveness(?) of a license depends on the point of view. Someone who wants to sell the software sees GPL more restricitve, someone who wants to use, study or doesn't have money the software sees a proprietary license more restrictive. And also proprietary licenses are mostly compatible with themselves, GPL-like are mostly compatible with themselves, and few are compatible with almost all license (BSD, LGPL).
And I also think that FreeSoftware, means that the software is free, not those who want to sell it, close it or make it proprietary. Depending on your aim you can like or dislike GPL, like any other thing.
Actually the Vatican is starting to acknowledge Evolution. "La civiltà cattolica", a jesuitic journal, "censored"/"approved" by the Vatican, recently (april 2nd) issued an article pro evolution. Here is the summary:
L'ORIGINE DELL'UOMO. Evoluzione e creazione - Giuseppe De Rosa S.I.
L'articolo rileva che l'apparizione dell'uomo sulla Terra è avvenuta lentamente e per successive modificazioni. Quindi l'ominizzazione è avvenuta per evoluzione, che può considerarsi oggi non più una semplice ipotesi, ma una vera e propria teoria, anche se taluni aspetti di essa restano ancora oscuri. Di questo processo evolutivo, l'articolo presenta le linee essenziali, mostrando che con l'Homo sapiens sapiens si è certamente raggiunta la soglia umana: egli, infatti, pensa, progetta il futuro, parla, ha senso artistico e religioso. Ma il raggiungimento della soglia umana è stato reso possibile dall'infusione, da parte di Dio creatore, dell'anima umana in una materia disposta a riceverla. L'azione di Dio però non sopprime la contingenza, il fortuito e il caso, ma nella sua provvidenza li dirige al fine.
It is more or less saying that evolution is a fact, but it's God that drove evolution to man and gave him the soul.
I think that creationism is going to be like the the Ptolemaic system: defunct. The Vatican is going to accept evolution (if you can read italian). The "La civiltà cattolica" is a journal written by jesuites(?) and approved by the Vatican. In this article they say that the "theory" of evolution now can be treated as a fact, although it has still some dark points. They say that God came along only to give the soul.
So, where proof above depends on anything but mechanically verifiable string manipulations?
I think that one of the remarks made is that
there could be bugs (overflow, compiler bug,...) in the program that does string manipulation, and for complex proofs it is too hard to find them.
Regardless of how big the universe started out, if it only started 4000 years ago and there are objects more than 4000 light years away then we shouldn't see them: the light would not have had time to reach us.
But God could also have created the light that we now perceive as reaching us from an object more than 4000 lightyears away.
There is no limit on faith.
its pretty damn clear to a child (over the age of 11 anyway) whether they are filesharing illegally or not.
I think that there are many parents that don't have even the slightest idea that downloading songs or movies from the internet could be illegal. I know some and they don't believe me when I tell them.
Hmmm, actually there's a lot of science and engineering that goes into military spending.
I agree. But I think that most of the increased military budget isn't going into research or something technological, but in bullets, explosives, oil and so on.
Seems to me any true scientist should always be watching for observations that don't fit the known theory, as they are indicators of a nedd for further refinement.
Sadly, scientists, like most people, are more interested in being right, and tend to look for confirming evidence, sometimes to the detriment of their conclusions.
It seems to me that you are confused about science. It works exactly like you say. Some scientist looks for observation that don't fit the theory, refine it or make up another, then try an experiment to confirm the new theory.
It can happen that some scientist is so convinced of his theory to reject evidence, but that it's how the world works. I could say that IT people should make life easier, not create some obscure software that crashes, get virus, delete data at random, etc. and then they blame the user.
But your analogy is completely wrong. People do want the stuff.
I think that some analogies are right:
Can I get a job as a professional scribe, doing nothing but copying bibles by hand[...]people that got laid of in the automotive industry because of robotics [...] hard working people just barely making a living planting crops
People still want to read the bible, drive cars and eat.
It's just the conclusion that is false.
Richard: Pssst... don't quote me, but I'll tell you what to do - just turn over that system back to Dell, get your money back, and call me on my home line... I'll get you a brand=new hand-configured Linux system right away...
Reading your post I noticed that they wrote:
We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
But they meant:
We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the duty of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
I think we should uniformate the unit: why mix decimal and binary measure? Take the 256 MB: 256 is decimal, Mega for most technical people is in binary(2^20). We should use only decimal or only binary.
I propose a new unit, based on the logarithm (base2) and call it binabyte(BB): 256Mb = 2^8 * 2^20 B = 2^28 B =: 28 binabyte.
I think it can be handy: if you double the size, just add a binabyte. 2*256MB = 2*28 binabyte = 29 binabyte.
1. The standard when dealing in bytes has always been powers of two. Just because mega- or kilo- means something else in some other context doesn't make megabyte as base-10 "standard."
I think that because mega- and kilo- mean 10^3 and 10^6 in anything except when dealing with bytes, it's the bytes that should change. Why mix base2 and base10 numbers?
64KB: 64(base10) KB(base2) - to me doesn't seem intelligent/easy.
What happens when you add two mesure? 941KB + 619KB = 1560KB = 1.52MB. It's a nonsense.
I propose a new logarithmic measure like deciBell and pH: something like binabyte: 64KB = 2^6 * 2^10B = 2^16B = 16 bynabyte.
Doubling a value means just adding one: 16 binabyte * 2 = 17 binabyte.
> You always test every possibility in a proof.
Ok. Maybe my wording wasn't right (english isn't my first language). Sure a proof covers all the possibilities, but in many cases only few are really checked. A good example of that is induction (check with n=1, then n->n+1).
>Just think of an algorithm as a very compact notation.
The difference that I see between algorithms and proofs, although many algorithm are beautiful and elegant, is that most algorithms have to be run or there must be a proof that the correct result is given.
In my opinion what's not beautiful is that maybe there is a simpler and faster (and maybe more general) way than bruteforce and you are overlooking it only because you have the computational power.
I don't have any specific number in mind. It's brute force when you test every possibility.
Well, in practice I think I would say that it's still brute force if the ratio between tested possibilities and possibilties is high (don't ask me how high is high) and the reduction is obvious (simmetricity etc.).
The difference is not between computer aided and just human. It's between bruteforce and "not bruteforce". Bruteforce means trying all the possibility, while "not bruteforce" means finding some structure and/or similarities and use them to reduce the cases you need to really prove.
Examples (not good but understandable):
Calculate a multpilication using only the addition (123*324=123+123+123+123+...+123) or knowing already that 3*4=12, 2*4=8, 1*4=4, 3*2=6, 2*2=4, 1*2=2, 3*3=9, 2*3=6 and 1*3=3.
Try to bruteforce the fact that every integer can be factored out in prime number.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that it is Darwin's theory. In this technological world, those who don't understand technology will be purged.
You could say that GPL has more restrictions, but BSD is more "restrictable", meaning that you can add other restrictions.
What kind of bash are ou using? echo, printf, pwd, kill and test aren't builtin.
if [[ abcfoobarbletch =~ 'foo(bar)bl(.*)' ]]; then echo tjo; fi
Doesn't work in my bash.
Like those who said that GPL is like cancer and uncostitutional? Pigheaded are on both sides.:(
My main point is that the GPL is more restrictive than other licences, and hence we can't use GPL code.
I think that the restrictiveness(?) of a license depends on the point of view. Someone who wants to sell the software sees GPL more restricitve, someone who wants to use, study or doesn't have money the software sees a proprietary license more restrictive. And also proprietary licenses are mostly compatible with themselves, GPL-like are mostly compatible with themselves, and few are compatible with almost all license (BSD, LGPL).
And I also think that FreeSoftware, means that the software is free, not those who want to sell it, close it or make it proprietary. Depending on your aim you can like or dislike GPL, like any other thing.
I think that creationism is going to be like the the Ptolemaic system: defunct. The Vatican is going to accept evolution (if you can read italian). The "La civiltà cattolica" is a journal written by jesuites(?) and approved by the Vatican. In this article they say that the "theory" of evolution now can be treated as a fact, although it has still some dark points. They say that God came along only to give the soul.
I think that one of the remarks made is that there could be bugs (overflow, compiler bug, ...) in the program that does string manipulation, and for complex proofs it is too hard to find them.
But God could also have created the light that we now perceive as reaching us from an object more than 4000 lightyears away.
There is no limit on faith.
I think that there are many parents that don't have even the slightest idea that downloading songs or movies from the internet could be illegal.
I know some and they don't believe me when I tell them.
Why mathematics can't be patented?
I'm not his friend but have the same exact setup.
I agree. But I think that most of the increased military budget isn't going into research or something technological, but in bullets, explosives, oil and so on.
That's only my thought, don't have any numbers.
Sadly, scientists, like most people, are more interested in being right, and tend to look for confirming evidence, sometimes to the detriment of their conclusions.
It seems to me that you are confused about science. It works exactly like you say. Some scientist looks for observation that don't fit the theory, refine it or make up another, then try an experiment to confirm the new theory.
It can happen that some scientist is so convinced of his theory to reject evidence, but that it's how the world works. I could say that IT people should make life easier, not create some obscure software that crashes, get virus, delete data at random, etc. and then they blame the user.
I think that some analogies are right:
Can I get a job as a professional scribe, doing nothing but copying bibles by hand[...]people that got laid of in the automotive industry because of robotics [...] hard working people just barely making a living planting crops
People still want to read the bible, drive cars and eat.
It's just the conclusion that is false.
You're not the true Richard: it's GNU/Linux.
Ok, then GPL isn't free.
You don't actually address my point that although the GPL'd code may be valuable, it may not be as valuable as my entire source base.
Then pay form some other equivalent proprietary library/function that lets your source closed. I don't see any issue.
Reading your post I noticed that they wrote:
We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
But they meant:
We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the duty of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work.
Cogito ergo sum.
I propose a new unit, based on the logarithm (base2) and call it binabyte(BB): 256Mb = 2^8 * 2^20 B = 2^28 B =: 28 binabyte.
I think it can be handy: if you double the size, just add a binabyte. 2*256MB = 2*28 binabyte = 29 binabyte.
And sure then 1MB wil mean 10^6 Byte.
Real men just concatenate their files line by line, don't they?
Yeah, real real man use cat.
1. The standard when dealing in bytes has always been powers of two. Just because mega- or kilo- means something else in some other context doesn't make megabyte as base-10 "standard."
I think that because mega- and kilo- mean 10^3 and 10^6 in anything except when dealing with bytes, it's the bytes that should change. Why mix base2 and base10 numbers?
64KB: 64(base10) KB(base2) - to me doesn't seem intelligent/easy.
What happens when you add two mesure? 941KB + 619KB = 1560KB = 1.52MB. It's a nonsense.
I propose a new logarithmic measure like deciBell and pH: something like binabyte: 64KB = 2^6 * 2^10B = 2^16B = 16 bynabyte.
Doubling a value means just adding one: 16 binabyte * 2 = 17 binabyte.
Ok. Maybe my wording wasn't right (english isn't my first language). Sure a proof covers all the possibilities, but in many cases only few are really checked. A good example of that is induction (check with n=1, then n->n+1).
>Just think of an algorithm as a very compact notation.
The difference that I see between algorithms and proofs, although many algorithm are beautiful and elegant, is that most algorithms have to be run or there must be a proof that the correct result is given.
In my opinion what's not beautiful is that maybe there is a simpler and faster (and maybe more general) way than bruteforce and you are overlooking it only because you have the computational power.
I don't have any specific number in mind. It's brute force when you test every possibility.
Well, in practice I think I would say that it's still brute force if the ratio between tested possibilities and possibilties is high (don't ask me how high is high) and the reduction is obvious (simmetricity etc.).
Examples (not good but understandable):
Finally we will have the first real superhero. But my favourite is still spiderman.