Ok done -- now I've got a youtube, slashdot, and 18 other tabs open. I don't have a scrolling issue, I don't have a freezing issue. Maybe you Flash needs updating? What's going on with your memory & cpu usage when this happens?
Yes, my name really is there, but I don't feel shame, in part because my contributions that resulted in my name being there occurred mostly in the '90s...
Initially I avoided chrome because my add-ons weren't available for it. Now they are. I tried again, and I just can't accept that I'm not allowed to have separate search and URL fields. Secondly, I make good use of the search plugins, and while Chrome supports them, switching between them is a pain in the ass. Maybe there are chrome plugins that I'm unaware of to address these two issues of mine...
However, people frequently state that they choose chrome over firefox despite chrome's limitations, because chrome is faster and less buggy. I don't see it or feel it. Maybe my hardware is better, maybe I'm not doing the things that expose bugs, but I basically can't see these advantages, which may indeed be real...
Disclaimer: my real name(tm) is in the firefox about:credits...
To answer your question, yes, it is philosophical in nature. However several posters here have been attempting to attribute to me a "desire for determinism". I have no such thing, and randomness has never bothered me conceptually. I think most people (especially non-scientists) fully embrace randomness. I am simply not convinced it truly exists. I am willing to be proven wrong, and to me, inherently random phenomena would make things a *LOT* easier...
Actually I wasn't arguing anything at all -- I was stating a belief.
And relevance is in the eye of the beholder, I for one (and probably most physicists) would love to know whether or not the underlying system is deterministic...
As to your semantics, maybe the phrase should be "relatively random" (meaning hierarchically relative, not "somewhat/slightly random")...
Not really, the universe may indeed possess truly inherently random phenomena -- my *belief* may be wrong--that is why it is a "belief"... However, we have words for many concepts that provably do not exist, yet the words still have value...
Our current understanding is based upon theories over currently available observations. Again, I am not making a "claim", I am expressing a "belief". And I would argue that assuming there can't be an underlying cause for what we currently are observing is itself just empty speculation...
As a card-carrying atheist I don't believe in a space-genie either. When things one generally holds to be true are not currently provable with the knowledge one (we as humanity) has, that does not make them invalid nor meaningless. Nor does it require a space-genie. One is free to hold beliefs, and even to actively pursue their validation or invalidation. Einstein did this, in this very realm we are discussing. As I posted in another part of this thread, science has frequently believed "this is as deep as it goes!" only to be proven incorrect later on. I for one am not arrogant enough to believe that there cannot be some underlying deterministic cause for the phenomena we currently recognize as "random". And I would not respect the scientist who holds otherwise--but I would respect the scientist that believes there can exist phenomena without underlying deterministic cause.
That's the point though--just because we don't have an explanation doesn't make it random--it may be apparently random, but that irks me in the same way that people drop off the "known-" or "observable-" in front of "universe".
Also "securely random" implies an application for which these "apparently random" numbers are "good enough"...
Slashdot Mirror
Are you simply trying to be jerk or is this just your general method of discourse?
Consider that I, in fact, am running FF on Win as I type, yet I still don't have this problem...
Ok done -- now I've got a youtube, slashdot, and 18 other tabs open. I don't have a scrolling issue, I don't have a freezing issue. Maybe you Flash needs updating? What's going on with your memory & cpu usage when this happens?
Yes, my name really is there, but I don't feel shame, in part because my contributions that resulted in my name being there occurred mostly in the '90s...
My IBM 360 punch card computer isn't broken either, why fix it?
Aha -- maybe it's an issue only under Windows...
Initially I avoided chrome because my add-ons weren't available for it. Now they are. I tried again, and I just can't accept that I'm not allowed to have separate search and URL fields. Secondly, I make good use of the search plugins, and while Chrome supports them, switching between them is a pain in the ass. Maybe there are chrome plugins that I'm unaware of to address these two issues of mine...
However, people frequently state that they choose chrome over firefox despite chrome's limitations, because chrome is faster and less buggy. I don't see it or feel it. Maybe my hardware is better, maybe I'm not doing the things that expose bugs, but I basically can't see these advantages, which may indeed be real...
Disclaimer: my real name(tm) is in the firefox about:credits...
If I were a female I'd rather have a raptor be the father of my child, than Jeff Goldblum...
Like we wouldn't have evolved at all in the presence of dinosaurs?
Will they be mango-flavoured?
To answer your question, yes, it is philosophical in nature. However several posters here have been attempting to attribute to me a "desire for determinism". I have no such thing, and randomness has never bothered me conceptually. I think most people (especially non-scientists) fully embrace randomness. I am simply not convinced it truly exists. I am willing to be proven wrong, and to me, inherently random phenomena would make things a *LOT* easier...
Actually I wasn't arguing anything at all -- I was stating a belief.
And relevance is in the eye of the beholder, I for one (and probably most physicists) would love to know whether or not the underlying system is deterministic...
As to your semantics, maybe the phrase should be "relatively random" (meaning hierarchically relative, not "somewhat/slightly random")...
Not really, the universe may indeed possess truly inherently random phenomena -- my *belief* may be wrong--that is why it is a "belief"... However, we have words for many concepts that provably do not exist, yet the words still have value...
Our current understanding is based upon theories over currently available observations. Again, I am not making a "claim", I am expressing a "belief". And I would argue that assuming there can't be an underlying cause for what we currently are observing is itself just empty speculation...
As a card-carrying atheist I don't believe in a space-genie either. When things one generally holds to be true are not currently provable with the knowledge one (we as humanity) has, that does not make them invalid nor meaningless. Nor does it require a space-genie. One is free to hold beliefs, and even to actively pursue their validation or invalidation. Einstein did this, in this very realm we are discussing. As I posted in another part of this thread, science has frequently believed "this is as deep as it goes!" only to be proven incorrect later on. I for one am not arrogant enough to believe that there cannot be some underlying deterministic cause for the phenomena we currently recognize as "random". And I would not respect the scientist who holds otherwise--but I would respect the scientist that believes there can exist phenomena without underlying deterministic cause.
I would argue that quantum physics is the embodiment of exactly the opposite belief to that which I hold...
> You can believe what you want, but it doesn't change the way the Universe works.
Fine by me -- let me know when you have complete and total understanding of the entire universe...
Time and time again scientists have stated "this is as deep as it goes!" only to be proven incorrect later on...
Indeed, and that's why I described it as a "belief" of mine, and not a fact.
Yeah, well I got my own problems with this "reality" thing you speak of...
I knew you were going to post that...
That's the point though--just because we don't have an explanation doesn't make it random--it may be apparently random, but that irks me in the same way that people drop off the "known-" or "observable-" in front of "universe".
Also "securely random" implies an application for which these "apparently random" numbers are "good enough"...
I don't believe such a thing can possibly exist.
Maybe HP shouldn't act fraudulently in signing contracts?
I think more than I remember...
That's the phrase that bothers me...
The old internet way used to be silence, but alas, progress!
Au contraire, mon frÃre!
These electric cars are MUCH MORE EFFICIENT at taking your money upfront!