Nobody can write perfect code. No matter how good our code is there's always something a little off, or that we didn't account for. What he's saying is we should prevent any use that we didn't intend.
If you're writing a PHP script, toss in a regex to catch anything not matching exactly what we know the PHP script will use. We want cid to be a number and op to be some text. Look for it and match it. And exclude anything that isn't exactly how it should be used. Rather than allow people to toss in any number of crazy stuff like UNION commands to feed into the SQL. Trying to figure out every wrong way to use a piece of software is the real impossible "head in the cloud" idea. Knowing every correct way should be trivial. Just code it in, and stop everything that doesn't fit that pattern.
Here and there it's right, and a single line or two can stop pretty much anything bad. It's just a bit of work to isolate all the good things it does. But this is far easier than finding the bad stuff after the fact.
You know, with todays technology it shouldn't be too hard to build in some "force feedback". You'd be a hit with the ladies as well. Hell it would be a great pickup line.
You wave to her in a bar. Your hand suddenly starts vibrating at a few thousand rpm. Don't even have to say a word.
Sure anybody could give a backrub, but how many people could give a backrub at several thousand rpm.
Actually strickly speaking you have to be killed off before you can breed as often as you would have had you not died. Or somehow by your death make your children less fit, such as doing worse because they were raised without a father/mother.
Just because you had a kid, doesn't mean the genetic disorder doesn't select against you.
The statement is pretty stupid. I mean sure we aren't evolving great spearmakers or hunters, because the focus of society has shifted. So long as people can die of genetic diseases or knock up multiple women because they are 'cute' or still alive (whereas other potential mates died)... evolution doesn't stop.
But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution.
As noted in the above post, evolution works when there are more favorable genes to be found. I would note that it's also true about negative selection on bad genes (although it's really the same thing). The gene for hemophilia is decreasing in frequency, because people with the gene die (also a large number got HIV in 80s). Whenever a genetic disease kills a person, that's evolution.
Our society doesn't favor it.
Our society doesn't favor crime, rape, murder, ect. And it doesn't have any effect. Favor by society doesn't stop things from happening. "The US congress repealed the law of gravity."
If the common man's opinion is as worthwhile as you say (we agree there) then why do we defer to authorities?
The authorities on the evolutionary side are biologists. The authorities on the other side are not.
And if we can each judge for ourselves, why is my opinion less than yours?
Oddly because you made the wrong choice. Opinions don't need to match reality. But, if mine fits the data better it's more scientifically valid. You could be of the opinion that the CIA is after you to give your brain to aliens. And although, we each judge for ourselves, your opinion would be lesser, than mine of paranoid schizophrenia.
Authority by majority is politics, not science.
True, but all the biologists say evolution is the correct theory. And they are the practicing science. Whereas it's mostly politics that favor creationism.
The problem is that the Theory of Evolution is that it is so engrained, that all evidence must be filtered through that lens.
This is a common creationist claim, and other than suggesting that the information is filtered it's mostly correct. Evolution is such that anything that doesn't fit the theory could be a telltail sign of something larger at work that hasn't been thought of. It's not that there is some scientific cabal filtering information. It's just that if you find something that doesn't fit, it's important, just as dropping something and having it fall up.
Sure there is a lot of evidence for evolution. There is also evidence for creation...
This is a fairly common claim, it's not true in the least. There is no evidence for creationism at all. Not one shread. A few school districts that were required to add creationism hit this stitch when they couldn't find any facts about it.
Are there any theories since Newton that have not been discarded or modified after a few hundred years?
Newton underwent a major refinement by Einstein, and Darwin's original idea (other than the core idea) has been replaced with neo-darwinistic theory.
... the Paluxy River Fossils (dinosaur and human footprints side-by-side, not fossils really)...
They are just elongated dinosaur prints with carved out toes. And not large human footprints. And by large, I would mean 1000 pound, 20 foot tall, 2 feet long.
Everybody knows that all of the fossils and footprints were placed there by the flying spaghetti monster anyhow.
Simply because the evolutionists and the creationists don't "prove" anything doesn't mean they are parallel. The fact is the evolutionists spend their time gathering large amounts of evidence and making and evidencing theories about evolution. Whereas the creationists sit around misunderstanding biology, geology, physics (2nd law thermodynamics), anthropology, paleontology... ect.
Simply because, I'm not an evolutionary biologist (2nd year college biology, while getting my CS degree) doesn't mean I don't understand the theory. I think that it fits all the given data quite well. I don't go on fossil digs mind you, but I hardly sit on the sidelines cheering without so much as knowing the score.
This is where the FSM people come in. People here and there tend to say that creationists and evolutionists are even for some reason or another. They aren't. But, if you fail to grasp this, you can be touched by the Noodly Appendage. Surely a Flying Spaghetti Monster that can't prove anything either must be right up there with other creationists and evolutionists, right?
You have to take a look at my profile. Judge from my other posts what my political leanings are. Then depending on how close they fit with your own, mod the post on this thread up or down accordingly.
Therefore, "gags" like this are actually more damaging.
No. It's not. It's actually a fairly prudent argument. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a good parallel as a lot of people's idea of religion. Making up stupid arguments against evolution is a lot like making up stupid arguments that the world is flat. There's really not much left to disprove, in a lot of these places. If people wanted prudent arguments they could just ask. But, as even the most prudent arguments have been ignored... Welcome our new Noodly Overlord.
Just because having God compared to a Flying Spaghetti Monster annoys people, doesn't mean that it's not effective. And certainly it's not damaging because it "strengthens resolve". I've listened to creationists speak. They would be hard pressed to get any more resolve. If religious parallels actually were not effective, we wouldn't know what you're talking about. Keep in mind that Bobby Henderson only became a Prophet of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism back in June. And, it's already bigger than most cults (perhaps some divine noodly force is nudging it). In short, it doesn't really matter how strong a person's resolve is, if they are wrong they are still wrong.
So, drawing fun parallels is a great way to get your point across. And I have to admit the FSP people are way funnier than the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhhnbs) people. And much more on the ball with Pascal's Wager. The IPU people gave nobody a reason to play the system. The FSM people have had it revealed to them that Heaven (for believers of Pastafarianism) contains a stripper factory and a beer volcano.
A lot of members of the Flat Earth Society are just evolutionists poking some fun at people defending religious doctrine, by defending an even more obsurd one. Which, I have to admit is a pretty good gag.
Everybody loves dead people. I mean, think back to the Reagan death party. You'd think the man singlehandedly beat every Commie to death with the Americian flag. Rather than betraying the country (Iran-Contra) and creating a huge national debt (I hate the national debt).
How about Dolphinese? Research shows that they seem to be able to scout and transfer information from one individual to his/her pod. If there's some grammar it would be pretty good nut to crack.
The problem is even if you know the pokerbot overvalues KJo it's still not going to come up that often. And the rest of the play is going to be solid. Over the long run it would be hard to beat a bot, even if the code isn't minorly flawed. Also, what if the bots are sharing information. That is such a huge advantage it would overwhelm any small amount of negative expectation play.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody can write perfect code. No matter how good our code is there's always something a little off, or that we didn't account for. What he's saying is we should prevent any use that we didn't intend.
If you're writing a PHP script, toss in a regex to catch anything not matching exactly what we know the PHP script will use. We want cid to be a number and op to be some text. Look for it and match it. And exclude anything that isn't exactly how it should be used. Rather than allow people to toss in any number of crazy stuff like UNION commands to feed into the SQL. Trying to figure out every wrong way to use a piece of software is the real impossible "head in the cloud" idea. Knowing every correct way should be trivial. Just code it in, and stop everything that doesn't fit that pattern.
Here and there it's right, and a single line or two can stop pretty much anything bad. It's just a bit of work to isolate all the good things it does. But this is far easier than finding the bad stuff after the fact.
Nah. You know when you're feeling a woman's breasts and they feel like bags of sand... That is so hot.
I thought it was nudge-nudge-wink-winky enough.
Backrub is code. I have a reputation to uphold. Wait, no I don't. You see you place the vibrating hand in...
You know, with todays technology it shouldn't be too hard to build in some "force feedback". You'd be a hit with the ladies as well. Hell it would be a great pickup line.
You wave to her in a bar.
Your hand suddenly starts vibrating at a few thousand rpm. Don't even have to say a word.
Sure anybody could give a backrub, but how many people could give a backrub at several thousand rpm.
But, how about those's fathers who's sons chops off their (the fathers) own fake hand again? Does it have a warranty?
Actually strickly speaking you have to be killed off before you can breed as often as you would have had you not died. Or somehow by your death make your children less fit, such as doing worse because they were raised without a father/mother.
Just because you had a kid, doesn't mean the genetic disorder doesn't select against you.
>>This article is about the brain though...
Oh, because the brain evolves independently from the rest of our bodies, and it's evolution has stopped. Thank you Dr. Miss-the-point
>>Invalid argument or you misunderstood my sentence, please try again.
Correct your sentence. I had to take a stab at it, because it didn't make any sense.
The statement is pretty stupid. I mean sure we aren't evolving great spearmakers or hunters, because the focus of society has shifted. So long as people can die of genetic diseases or knock up multiple women because they are 'cute' or still alive (whereas other potential mates died)... evolution doesn't stop.
But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution.
As noted in the above post, evolution works when there are more favorable genes to be found. I would note that it's also true about negative selection on bad genes (although it's really the same thing). The gene for hemophilia is decreasing in frequency, because people with the gene die (also a large number got HIV in 80s). Whenever a genetic disease kills a person, that's evolution.
Our society doesn't favor it.
Our society doesn't favor crime, rape, murder, ect. And it doesn't have any effect. Favor by society doesn't stop things from happening. "The US congress repealed the law of gravity."
If the common man's opinion is as worthwhile as you say (we agree there) then why do we defer to authorities?
... the Paluxy River Fossils (dinosaur and human footprints side-by-side, not fossils really)...
The authorities on the evolutionary side are biologists. The authorities on the other side are not.
And if we can each judge for ourselves, why is my opinion less than yours?
Oddly because you made the wrong choice. Opinions don't need to match reality. But, if mine fits the data better it's more scientifically valid. You could be of the opinion that the CIA is after you to give your brain to aliens. And although, we each judge for ourselves, your opinion would be lesser, than mine of paranoid schizophrenia.
Authority by majority is politics, not science.
True, but all the biologists say evolution is the correct theory. And they are the practicing science. Whereas it's mostly politics that favor creationism.
The problem is that the Theory of Evolution is that it is so engrained, that all evidence must be filtered through that lens.
This is a common creationist claim, and other than suggesting that the information is filtered it's mostly correct. Evolution is such that anything that doesn't fit the theory could be a telltail sign of something larger at work that hasn't been thought of. It's not that there is some scientific cabal filtering information. It's just that if you find something that doesn't fit, it's important, just as dropping something and having it fall up.
Sure there is a lot of evidence for evolution. There is also evidence for creation...
This is a fairly common claim, it's not true in the least. There is no evidence for creationism at all. Not one shread. A few school districts that were required to add creationism hit this stitch when they couldn't find any facts about it.
Are there any theories since Newton that have not been discarded or modified after a few hundred years?
Newton underwent a major refinement by Einstein, and Darwin's original idea (other than the core idea) has been replaced with neo-darwinistic theory.
They are just elongated dinosaur prints with carved out toes. And not large human footprints. And by large, I would mean 1000 pound, 20 foot tall, 2 feet long.
Everybody knows that all of the fossils and footprints were placed there by the flying spaghetti monster anyhow.
Simply because the evolutionists and the creationists don't "prove" anything doesn't mean they are parallel. The fact is the evolutionists spend their time gathering large amounts of evidence and making and evidencing theories about evolution. Whereas the creationists sit around misunderstanding biology, geology, physics (2nd law thermodynamics), anthropology, paleontology... ect.
Simply because, I'm not an evolutionary biologist (2nd year college biology, while getting my CS degree) doesn't mean I don't understand the theory. I think that it fits all the given data quite well. I don't go on fossil digs mind you, but I hardly sit on the sidelines cheering without so much as knowing the score.
This is where the FSM people come in. People here and there tend to say that creationists and evolutionists are even for some reason or another. They aren't. But, if you fail to grasp this, you can be touched by the Noodly Appendage. Surely a Flying Spaghetti Monster that can't prove anything either must be right up there with other creationists and evolutionists, right?
You have to take a look at my profile. Judge from my other posts what my political leanings are. Then depending on how close they fit with your own, mod the post on this thread up or down accordingly.
Duh.
Is this your first week with mod points, or what?
First it's going to "damage" the cause by "strengthening resolve"? Now it's just an internet fad?
And, I never mentioned myself.
Therefore, "gags" like this are actually more damaging.
No. It's not. It's actually a fairly prudent argument. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a good parallel as a lot of people's idea of religion. Making up stupid arguments against evolution is a lot like making up stupid arguments that the world is flat. There's really not much left to disprove, in a lot of these places. If people wanted prudent arguments they could just ask. But, as even the most prudent arguments have been ignored... Welcome our new Noodly Overlord.
Just because having God compared to a Flying Spaghetti Monster annoys people, doesn't mean that it's not effective. And certainly it's not damaging because it "strengthens resolve". I've listened to creationists speak. They would be hard pressed to get any more resolve. If religious parallels actually were not effective, we wouldn't know what you're talking about. Keep in mind that Bobby Henderson only became a Prophet of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism back in June. And, it's already bigger than most cults (perhaps some divine noodly force is nudging it). In short, it doesn't really matter how strong a person's resolve is, if they are wrong they are still wrong.
So, drawing fun parallels is a great way to get your point across. And I have to admit the FSP people are way funnier than the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhhnbs) people. And much more on the ball with Pascal's Wager. The IPU people gave nobody a reason to play the system. The FSM people have had it revealed to them that Heaven (for believers of Pastafarianism) contains a stripper factory and a beer volcano.
RAmen.
A lot of members of the Flat Earth Society are just evolutionists poking some fun at people defending religious doctrine, by defending an even more obsurd one. Which, I have to admit is a pretty good gag.
No really, stars tend to get really close the great cosmic bug zapper. And Kablooie!
Everybody loves dead people. I mean, think back to the Reagan death party. You'd think the man singlehandedly beat every Commie to death with the Americian flag. Rather than betraying the country (Iran-Contra) and creating a huge national debt (I hate the national debt).
Klingon has simple grammar.
How about Dolphinese? Research shows that they seem to be able to scout and transfer information from one individual to his/her pod. If there's some grammar it would be pretty good nut to crack.
The problem is even if you know the pokerbot overvalues KJo it's still not going to come up that often. And the rest of the play is going to be solid. Over the long run it would be hard to beat a bot, even if the code isn't minorly flawed. Also, what if the bots are sharing information. That is such a huge advantage it would overwhelm any small amount of negative expectation play.
The fifth 25% will be bad at math.
Nah, we will just have to burrow into the planet like the Martians did, wait, you didn't hear that from me.
SCO said they owned it. Are you accusing this outstanding company of lying in a prior brief? Oh... carry on.
If by "f" you mean fifth, yeah.
You know it's bad when the first post is redundant.
Buy some acne cream.