> I suggest you start out by reading any of the dozens of psych studies That's your problem right there: You are *reading* _instead_ of interacting with people; However your premise is correct: You can tell the truth to a person all day long, it doesn't mean they will accept it. The point is not to change them, but to _understand_ where they are coming from. BIG difference.
> And finally, understanding why someone rides w/o a helmet does not in any way mean they are "100% justified in their belief." My brother's father-in-law, and brother both drive without seat-belts.
Naturally both of them have been given tickets.
They both have had the judges toss their cases out due to it being unconstitutional. (First one was in New York State, the second in North Carolina.)
Likewise, if someone rides without a helmet and is harassed by the ignorant police, they could justify the law being unconstitutional, IF they FULLY understand the law. (I do not recommend they do this as most people do not understand the ramifications of this.)
Before you call someone naive you want to remember the adage: "Better to say silent then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
> People who operate on faith have no assumptions (in the scientifically useful meaning of the word), Uh, you DO realize _everyone_ has faith right?
Everyone has some domain where there knowledge is incomplete or idiotic. Judging a person doesn't help them to change.
IMHO it would be far more constructive asking HOW they got to that belief in the first place instead of criticizing their results. You start with their first assumptions, tracing the validity of the assertions, until you reach where logical error was. Telling them that their conclusion is invalid doesn't help them change, now does it?
i.e. Instead of pointing out how ignorant the Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic is, it would be better to get them to explain their definitions and beliefs. Then you see where the flaw is in their logic and provide counter-examples that show that there is an alternative definition that is more complete / wholesome / holistic.
> We should all respect Scientology or the Flat Earth Society? We should respect all people _irrespective_ of their belief, otherwise you look like an asshole. Of course you don't have to agree with those beliefs, but if you can't "agree to disagree" you just look like a childish jerk. How about setting the proper example instead? "I disagree because of X, Y, Z, etc."
Only by respecting their beliefs AND understanding the person, can someone be informed and respond in a polite intelligent way in the hope that they will embrace a more complete belief system.
I can _completely_ understand why someone would ride without a helmet. They are 100% justified in their belief. Does that I mean I would do it? I believe there are other reasons that are more important FOR ME. Telling someone is a moron for doing something you can't fathom doesn't help _you_ understand _why_ they would even come to that conclusion in the _first_ place.
> I believe he was referring to your belief that drive seek times are the bottle neck when compiling. Uh, you might actually want to try _benchmarking_ compile times on a large project sometime. I've worked with enough PS3 developers that switched over to using a Bulk / Build system where their compile times went from 45+ mins to 5+ mins to know that seek time + random read times are FAR slower then one seek + one sequential read. Since the _same_ amount of data is being read in both cases, that leaves seek time as the majority of the bottleneck ON THE SAME SYSTEM.
> using a Mickey Mouse OS like Windows, but the automatic caching in Linux leaves your source files in RAM after the first compile (as long as you've got enough memory). Agreed that using a better designed OS helps alleviates the weakness of slow hard drives, but sadly the majority of developers are on Windows.:-(
> A dedicated RAM drive would smoke an SSD BTW if seeks times are really holding you back. Of course it would. That is essentially just a memcpy() (in the best case.):-)
That is why I originally wrote "Of course there is no magic silver bullet but if you haven't given them a go, try it." and "YMMV."
The other option is to try a distributed build system; one popular software is IncrediBuild and I've seen enough developers again significantly reduce their compile time when a Bulk / Unity build wasn't feasible.
But what do I know; it is far easier to criticize someone and provide no alternatives such as I just did above.
The times quoted were: "The other two less commonly referenced seek measurements are track-to-track and full stroke. The track-to-track measurement is the time required to move from one track to an adjacent track. This is the shortest (fastest) possible seek time. In HDDs this is typically between 0.2 and 0.8 ms."
> Similarly, an Intel exec said a few weeks back that there's nothing technological holding Intel back from being able to scale down to where we see ARM's processors.
Yeah, we already had this discussion a few weeks ago...
Agreed this is trivial cable management. The submitter doesn't understand: "You keep using this word 'extreme.' I don't think it means what you think it means"
> First Apple is a hardware + software + user experience company.
FTFY. You don't buy an iPhone, iPad, iPod without an OS. You get a beautifully designed holistic package (albeit with the tradeoff of some vendor lock-in) that is easy for the average user to use.
Microsoft is a software company with shitty user experience. They don't understand _consistency_ nor polish in an UI.
Copying is the sincerest form of flattery. So let me get this straight: 18 years later someone figures out how his 1984 game works and he throws a hissy fit; Braben sounds like a dick. ( http://www.christianpinder.com/games/ )
Thank god for Linus' quote: "Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it;)"
> while an anathema to science, there are things that can be conjectured that simply cannot be experimentally verified, either for or against with definitive clarity
1. GÃdel's first incompleteness theorem proves that there are many statements that are true, but not provable.
2. You are assuming what can be verified. Just because _Science_ is unable to verify them does not mean there are no other ways to verify them.
However, if you can show coercion or violence please feel free to do so: * Kabbalah / Cabbalah * Nazirism * Wiccan * Druidism * Theosophism * Sikhs * Yoga
> He is encouraging others to reject religion and other supernatural beliefs that are made without good reasons
Oh please. Dawkins continues to shit on other people's belief. When he is able to respect a person _irrespective_ of their beliefs then maybe the rest of the world will pay attention to him.
First, right now he comes across as a pompous ass unable to acknowledge that *everyone* has faith. i.e. If you didn't faith in your beliefs you wouldn't have them!
Second, as a Mystic the problem is BOTH Atheism and Theism are based on ignorance. They have beliefs (or lack of them) yet they BOTH LACK KNOWLEDGE. While Dawkins is able to see the wisdom of Atheism and the ignorance of Theism, he is _also_ unable to see the weaknesses of Atheism and unable to see the wisdom of Theism. This is not his fault. All the major religions for the most part have crappy teachers not understanding the difference between religion and spirituality. i.e. "How terrible it will be for you experts in religious law! For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering" Unless a priest, rabbi, minister, etc, is able to explain what the Key of Knowledge is, sadly, they don't know jack about God, or the purpose of the Universe: HINT: It is ALL about relationships.
Third, Dawkins is ignorant of God because he keeps using another man's definition of "god" instead of his own. He is an arm chair theologian. You wouldn't go ask a non musician how to be the a great drummer; you would go find someone who IS a drummer to SHOW you.
Fourth, He is unable to reconcile the *paradox* "There is only one path; there are infinite paths." He doesn't understand that BOTH Atheism AND Theism are valid paths. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Fifth, Dawkins continues to ignore the evidence that Death is merely a shift in consciousness as the NDE proves.
(mean while they are chuckling inside while everybody is arguing over another man's definition of what "God" is "supposed" to be, yet feeling pity that no one else "gets it".)
Ugh, 6-bits / channel?! The first page mentions: "The U2412M is also an eIPS panel that is natively 6-bit but uses A-FRC to display 16.7 million colors."
(2^6)^3 = 64^3 = 262,144 colors. How the heck are they getting 16.7 million colors when the panel can only natively do 256K colors? Interpolating?
Just because YOU are stuck in 1972 doesn't mean the rest of us are. Extended comments past 80 chars keeps the clutter to a minimum.
Heck I even designed my programming font because the 'font leading' (the number of pixels rows of whitespace between rows) sucks for all the popular monospaced (non-proportional) ones (Proggy, Consolas, Lucida Console, Ultimate Apple II Font, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
forgot to add:
"Better to say silent and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
> I suggest you start out by reading any of the dozens of psych studies
That's your problem right there: You are *reading* _instead_ of interacting with people; However your premise is correct: You can tell the truth to a person all day long, it doesn't mean they will accept it. The point is not to change them, but to _understand_ where they are coming from. BIG difference.
> And finally, understanding why someone rides w/o a helmet does not in any way mean they are "100% justified in their belief."
My brother's father-in-law, and brother both drive without seat-belts.
Naturally both of them have been given tickets.
They both have had the judges toss their cases out due to it being unconstitutional. (First one was in New York State, the second in North Carolina.)
Likewise, if someone rides without a helmet and is harassed by the ignorant police, they could justify the law being unconstitutional, IF they FULLY understand the law. (I do not recommend they do this as most people do not understand the ramifications of this.)
Before you call someone naive you want to remember the adage: "Better to say silent then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
> People who operate on faith have no assumptions (in the scientifically useful meaning of the word),
Uh, you DO realize _everyone_ has faith right?
Sure.
Everyone has some domain where there knowledge is incomplete or idiotic. Judging a person doesn't help them to change.
IMHO it would be far more constructive asking HOW they got to that belief in the first place instead of criticizing their results. You start with their first assumptions, tracing the validity of the assertions, until you reach where logical error was. Telling them that their conclusion is invalid doesn't help them change, now does it?
i.e. Instead of pointing out how ignorant the Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic is, it would be better to get them to explain their definitions and beliefs. Then you see where the flaw is in their logic and provide counter-examples that show that there is an alternative definition that is more complete / wholesome / holistic.
> We should all respect Scientology or the Flat Earth Society?
We should respect all people _irrespective_ of their belief, otherwise you look like an asshole. Of course you don't have to agree with those beliefs, but if you can't "agree to disagree" you just look like a childish jerk. How about setting the proper example instead? "I disagree because of X, Y, Z, etc."
Only by respecting their beliefs AND understanding the person, can someone be informed and respond in a polite intelligent way in the hope that they will embrace a more complete belief system.
I can _completely_ understand why someone would ride without a helmet. They are 100% justified in their belief. Does that I mean I would do it? I believe there are other reasons that are more important FOR ME. Telling someone is a moron for doing something you can't fathom doesn't help _you_ understand _why_ they would even come to that conclusion in the _first_ place.
Hope this helps.
> I believe he was referring to your belief that drive seek times are the bottle neck when compiling.
Uh, you might actually want to try _benchmarking_ compile times on a large project sometime. I've worked with enough PS3 developers that switched over to using a Bulk / Build system where their compile times went from 45+ mins to 5+ mins to know that seek time + random read times are FAR slower then one seek + one sequential read. Since the _same_ amount of data is being read in both cases, that leaves seek time as the majority of the bottleneck ON THE SAME SYSTEM.
> using a Mickey Mouse OS like Windows, but the automatic caching in Linux leaves your source files in RAM after the first compile (as long as you've got enough memory). :-(
Agreed that using a better designed OS helps alleviates the weakness of slow hard drives, but sadly the majority of developers are on Windows.
> A dedicated RAM drive would smoke an SSD BTW if seeks times are really holding you back. :-)
Of course it would. That is essentially just a memcpy() (in the best case.)
That is why I originally wrote "Of course there is no magic silver bullet but if you haven't given them a go, try it." and "YMMV."
The other option is to try a distributed build system; one popular software is IncrediBuild and I've seen enough developers again significantly reduce their compile time when a Bulk / Unity build wasn't feasible.
But what do I know; it is far easier to criticize someone and provide no alternatives such as I just did above.
The times quoted were: "The other two less commonly referenced seek measurements are track-to-track and full stroke. The track-to-track measurement is the time required to move from one track to an adjacent track. This is the shortest (fastest) possible seek time. In HDDs this is typically between 0.2 and 0.8 ms."
Reading. You might want to try it sometime.
The OP is not a parent. Calling someone a troll without any evidence simply because they are extremely verbose makes you look like a fool.
You HAVE heard of the hosts blocking right??
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
Only a fool judges and disrespects other people's belief system(s).
> This guy clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_drive_performance_characteristics#Seek_time
Hard Drives: In HDDs this is typically between 0.2 and 0.8 ms
Typical SSDs will have a seek time between 0.08 and 0.16 ms.
Clearly I have no clue what I'm talking about where SSDs are up to 10 times faster then hard drives.
If your compiles are taking more then a few minutes you are doing it wrong.
You DO know about Bulk / Unity builds right?
http://buffered.io/posts/the-magic-of-unity-builds
Of course there is no magic silver bullet but if you haven't given them a go, try it.
Another option is to switch from hard drives to SSDs since that handles the bottleneck at its source: time spent seeking to a track.
YMMV
Oblg.
http://xkcd.com/303/
> Similarly, an Intel exec said a few weeks back that there's nothing technological holding Intel back from being able to scale down to where we see ARM's processors.
Yeah, we already had this discussion a few weeks ago ...
* http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/10/22/2129217/apple-arm-and-intel
->
* http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/10/21/apple-arm-and-intel/
> No, it's banning something because history has shown that corrupt political parties will abuse it if given half a chance.
Just like alcohol ...
oh wait.
Agreed this is trivial cable management. The submitter doesn't understand: "You keep using this word 'extreme.' I don't think it means what you think it means"
i.e.
http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/google-data-center-street-view-experience/
> Basically you have a laziness problem.
Agreed. I would also add an lack of organization / management problem to.
> First Apple is a hardware + software + user experience company.
FTFY. You don't buy an iPhone, iPad, iPod without an OS. You get a beautifully designed holistic package (albeit with the tradeoff of some vendor lock-in) that is easy for the average user to use.
Microsoft is a software company with shitty user experience. They don't understand _consistency_ nor polish in an UI.
Mod parent up +1 informative;
Copying is the sincerest form of flattery. So let me get this straight: 18 years later someone figures out how his 1984 game works and he throws a hissy fit; Braben sounds like a dick. ( http://www.christianpinder.com/games/ )
Thank god for Linus' quote: "Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)"
i.e.
http://www.gtoal.com/athome/tailgunner/java/elite/elite-the_new_kind-1.0/
So you are running another (open-source) OS because of politics?
Care to explain your logic please?
Note: I have a soft spot for OpenBSD as well, but use Linux, OSX, and Windows as necessary.
> while an anathema to science, there are things that can be conjectured that simply cannot be experimentally verified, either for or against with definitive clarity
1. GÃdel's first incompleteness theorem proves that there are many statements that are true, but not provable.
2. You are assuming what can be verified. Just because _Science_ is unable to verify them does not mean there are no other ways to verify them.
Tradition is always a matter of opinion.
Why are you viewing code in a terminal and not in a proper editor like vim, emacs, pico, nano, etc where you can toggle word-wrap ?
> name ONE that doesn't
Buddhism? No: http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/2158/monks_with_guns:_discovering_buddhist_violence/
However, if you can show coercion or violence please feel free to do so:
* Kabbalah / Cabbalah
* Nazirism
* Wiccan
* Druidism
* Theosophism
* Sikhs
* Yoga
> Atheism and Agnosticism are not generally considered mutually exclusive,
Correct there are orthogonal axis.
Atheist < - No Belief .... Has Belief - > Theist
Agnostic
^
| No Knowledge
|
| Has Knowledge
V
Gnostic/Mystic
Theist = Has Belief
Atheist = No Belief
Agnostic = No Knowledge
Gnostic/Mystic = Has Knowledge
Dawkins has no knowledge about god because he has failed to learn the _FIRST_ maxim. "Know Thyself!"
> He is encouraging others to reject religion and other supernatural beliefs that are made without good reasons
Oh please. Dawkins continues to shit on other people's belief. When he is able to respect a person _irrespective_ of their beliefs then maybe the rest of the world will pay attention to him.
First, right now he comes across as a pompous ass unable to acknowledge that *everyone* has faith. i.e. If you didn't faith in your beliefs you wouldn't have them!
Second, as a Mystic the problem is BOTH Atheism and Theism are based on ignorance. They have beliefs (or lack of them) yet they BOTH LACK KNOWLEDGE. While Dawkins is able to see the wisdom of Atheism and the ignorance of Theism, he is _also_ unable to see the weaknesses of Atheism and unable to see the wisdom of Theism. This is not his fault. All the major religions for the most part have crappy teachers not understanding the difference between religion and spirituality. i.e. "How terrible it will be for you experts in religious law! For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering " Unless a priest, rabbi, minister, etc, is able to explain what the Key of Knowledge is, sadly, they don't know jack about God, or the purpose of the Universe: HINT: It is ALL about relationships.
Third, Dawkins is ignorant of God because he keeps using another man's definition of "god" instead of his own. He is an arm chair theologian. You wouldn't go ask a non musician how to be the a great drummer; you would go find someone who IS a drummer to SHOW you.
Fourth, He is unable to reconcile the *paradox* "There is only one path; there are infinite paths." He doesn't understand that BOTH Atheism AND Theism are valid paths. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Fifth, Dawkins continues to ignore the evidence that Death is merely a shift in consciousness as the NDE proves.
* http://abcnews.go.com/Health/neuroscientist-sees-proof-heaven-week-long-coma/story?id=17555207#.UI0gU41lQf4
* http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Unless he is able to see BOTH the WISDOM _and_ IGNORANCE of Atheism he is deluded.
You missed the mystic / gnostic.
"Define god?"
(mean while they are chuckling inside while everybody is arguing over another man's definition of what "God" is "supposed" to be, yet feeling pity that no one else "gets it".)
You will want to start with Godel's Incompleteness Theorems:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_incompleteness_theorem
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
There will always be things unprovable (but knowable), hence infinite knowledge.
QED.
Thanks for the input lag link!
Ugh, 6-bits / channel?! The first page mentions: "The U2412M is also an eIPS panel that is natively 6-bit but uses A-FRC to display 16.7 million colors."
(2^6)^3 = 64^3 = 262,144 colors. How the heck are they getting 16.7 million colors when the panel can only natively do 256K colors? Interpolating?
I guess for gaming it would be "good enough" ...
Just because YOU are stuck in 1972 doesn't mean the rest of us are. Extended comments past 80 chars keeps the clutter to a minimum.
Heck I even designed my programming font because the 'font leading' (the number of pixels rows of whitespace between rows) sucks for all the popular monospaced (non-proportional) ones (Proggy, Consolas, Lucida Console, Ultimate Apple II Font, etc.)
Nice summary of the various pros/cons of gas, diesel, propane, natural gas, and bio-diesel !
Thanks!