As someone with SCJP and SCWCD certs, I agree:). Many times at work I've used the knowledge gained from studying for the certifications. I know some people can pick up a technical book and read it from cover to cover just for the knowledge it contains, but unfortunately I am not one of them. I need something like the certification examinations to force me to study, otherwise I just end up using the books as on-demand references for "how should I do this particular thing" which usually leaves gaping wholes in knowledge of the technology.
Date date = getInvoiceDate(); String output = ""+amt;
And yet, I still don't see the problem with this code. Did you mean to type "date" instead of "amt"?
Considering the certification is for J2EE 1.3.1, you know the one with the awful EJB 2.0 spec, J2EE is the right term. On the other hand, this certification would only be useful for maintaining legacy systems.
For some of the developers who's games were nominated for the finals, this was a dream come true. Now the best they can hope out of the situation is to make a statement by withdrawing...
Even if it was a "shooting fish in a barrel" type game with no challenge, where you just kill random people, it shouldn't be barred from the competition. Of course no one would want to play it because the game would just plain suck, so it probably wouldn't be nominated. Then again, from everything I've heard, SCRPG is not any fun to play either.
Wasn't there some theory that the speed of light used to be different from what it is now? And out of curiosity, what is supposed to happen to light in vacuum that's inside the event horizon of a blackhole? Does it just go around in circles until it manages to hit the singularity?
3. Causality holds.
IIRC according to quantum theory, causality doesn't exist at small enough scales.
It must predict the observed facts such as time dilation, length contraction and in particular the relativity of simultaneity which is the subject of the current discussion.
I know that time dialation has been observed, but when have we observed the relativity of simultaneity? How could that be observed?
Newton's "laws" had been experimentally verified innumerable times and been put to quite a few practical uses. Who's to say another theory won't come along and supplant relativity?
I've always wondered about that. With the plain old double-slit experiment, if you start measuring the right property of the photon (or whatever other particle you're using), the interference pattern stops as soon as the measured photons start reaching the screen, right? I know there have been experiments where a second stream of entangled photons are shot off in a different direction, and if you start measuring photons in the first stream, you stop the interference pattern in the second stream as well. So say you set up the experiment in this way:
Entangled photons are emitted from point A to points B and C. At point B, we have a measuring device. At point C is a double slit, with a screen behind it. As long as the measuring device is off at point B, an interference pattern is observed at point C. As soon as the measuring device is turned on at B, the photons hitting the screen at point C stop forming the pattern. Now obviously an interference pattern is all about probability, so it would take quite a few photons to not follow the pattern before you can say that the chances of the measuring device being off are statistically insignificant. Still, if points B and C are a light year apart, and equidistant from point A, it would take a lot less than a year for someone at C to notice that the device has been turned on at B. And if point B is farther away.... communication through time?
Anyway, I'm sure there's something wrong with my experiment, but what it is? Could someone more knowledgeble in the matter enlighten me?
But if "God" is supposed to be understood in terms of something beyond the universe - which is, by definition, the sum of all that exists, which by my above argument must be entirely "natural", "material", observable phenomena - then that "God" necessarily does not exist, for the very concept is utter nonsense
In the half century (or perhaps longer), the term "universe" has lost its original definition. Now, not just sci-fi writers but even many physicists are talking of "multiple universes." So given these new terms, someone who claims of existence outside the universe, could merely mean outside our universe, but still withing the multiverse (or metaverse, or whatever you wanna call the whole infinite set of realities.)
Maybe it will continue after your death, but considering the fact that the universe is merely a figment of my imagination, I predict that my death will have a greater impact.
Quite often the lawyers are only the "weapons" in these cases. It's the clients that need to be sued. Of course there are plenty of cases where the lawyers are the instigators of the BS (looking at you, Jack Thompson)....
That's a good point. We're looking for a civilization X light years away that was at pretty much exactly our technological level X years ago. The only thing that could extend the window is if they continue beaming high power radio waves into space for the sole person of indicating their existence to aliens.....
I subscribe to PCGamer. It makes for good reading during TV commercials (that's right, I don't have tivo or any other dvr system), and in the bathroom. Currently I'm 7 issues behind on my reading though. Probably need more fiber in my diet.
So as long as this current trend continues, expect to see future games depicting Arabs overthrowing our government, a game depicting WW2 where the Nazis win and the Holocaust never occured, and so on and so forth.
Big deal, it's just games. There are plenty good ol' American games where you fight government forces. Hell, even Half-Life has you killing "the good guys who are just following orders."
Something like wikipedia will definitely be needed for people attempting to create true AI. The best part is that it can be easily gotten on CD (or is it DVD?), so the computer with the AI can be completely isolated from the outside world. You know, to avoid the Skynet scenario.
You know, a lot of folks have commented on attacking the other side by torture, murder etc. These folks are forgetting a fundamental fact - the moment you start doing these things, you become like them. There is no difference between us and them if we resorted to the same methods that they do. And that is why it is wrong.
Nice "fundamental fact." So fining someone $100 for breaking the speed limit makes us no different than robbers, and sending someone to prison makes us no different from kidnappers?
Personally, I'm against torture and capital punishment, but only because our great justice system has a habit of convicting innocent people. Hell, in these times we tend to bypass the justice system and go straight to torture on hearsay "evidence".... However, I'll be the first to say that some people do deserve to be tortured and killed, and it's only the false positives that keep me from supporting this practice.
I think this would be more similar to a GTA mod/clone where you are a specific real-life serial killer, and your victims are the real-life cops and hookers killed by that guy.
Please tell me how I can test if you are self aware?
Like I said, there is not real test for another person's self-awareness.
Your assertion that because people seem like you, and you know you are self aware means that other people are self aware is not really a useful statement because you have not defined how similar they must be in order to be considered self aware (I could find similarities between you and a lamp, but I am not going to make assumptions based on that).
I didn't say I "know", I said I "assume", as you seem to be aware of judging by your next statement. As for similarities, I'm not going to go into biology or anatomy here, but human beings tend more similar to each other than they are to most lamps. Of course, for all I know they don't exist....
And you are making a pretty huge assumption that similarity of one type means similarity of another, and that differences of one type exclude similarity of another.
Your assertion that I am making a pretty huge assumption is not really a useful statement because you have not defined how big an assumption must be in order to be considered pretty huge.
So we are right back to the status of having no good test for self awareness (nor even a good definition of it).
We don't even have any good test for the existence of anything outside of our minds. At some point you just have to decide what, in general, you consider to be by far the most likely state things, and go with that unless and until you're presented with a reason you consider good enough to change your mind. I happen to believe that it is beyond reasonable (to me) doubt that other people (and most animals) are self aware, but there would always be reasonable doubt in my mind regarding the self-awareness of any AI, especially an AI programmed or commanded to explicitly mimic self-awareness.
You're right, the phrase itself only applies to existence. I only meant that I know I am aware because I am aware of thinking. Sort of "I am aware therefore I am aware".
Ask yourself if you have a clear-cut, foolproof, unambiguous way to determine if any random person on the street is sentient.Ask yourself if you have a clear-cut, foolproof, unambiguous way to determine if any random person on the street is sentient.
I don't have clear-cut, foolproof, unambiguous way to determine that I'm not God. I do, however, consider it rather unlikely. What's your point?
Slashdot Mirror
As someone with SCJP and SCWCD certs, I agree :). Many times at work I've used the knowledge gained from studying for the certifications. I know some people can pick up a technical book and read it from cover to cover just for the knowledge it contains, but unfortunately I am not one of them. I need something like the certification examinations to force me to study, otherwise I just end up using the books as on-demand references for "how should I do this particular thing" which usually leaves gaping wholes in knowledge of the technology.
Date date = getInvoiceDate();
String output = ""+amt;
And yet, I still don't see the problem with this code. Did you mean to type "date" instead of "amt"?
Considering the certification is for J2EE 1.3.1, you know the one with the awful EJB 2.0 spec, J2EE is the right term. On the other hand, this certification would only be useful for maintaining legacy systems.
For some of the developers who's games were nominated for the finals, this was a dream come true. Now the best they can hope out of the situation is to make a statement by withdrawing...
Even if it was a "shooting fish in a barrel" type game with no challenge, where you just kill random people, it shouldn't be barred from the competition. Of course no one would want to play it because the game would just plain suck, so it probably wouldn't be nominated. Then again, from everything I've heard, SCRPG is not any fun to play either.
1. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant.
Wasn't there some theory that the speed of light used to be different from what it is now? And out of curiosity, what is supposed to happen to light in vacuum that's inside the event horizon of a blackhole? Does it just go around in circles until it manages to hit the singularity?
3. Causality holds.
IIRC according to quantum theory, causality doesn't exist at small enough scales.
It must predict the observed facts such as time dilation, length contraction and in particular the relativity of simultaneity which is the subject of the current discussion.
I know that time dialation has been observed, but when have we observed the relativity of simultaneity? How could that be observed?
Newton's "laws" had been experimentally verified innumerable times and been put to quite a few practical uses. Who's to say another theory won't come along and supplant relativity?
I've always wondered about that. With the plain old double-slit experiment, if you start measuring the right property of the photon (or whatever other particle you're using), the interference pattern stops as soon as the measured photons start reaching the screen, right? I know there have been experiments where a second stream of entangled photons are shot off in a different direction, and if you start measuring photons in the first stream, you stop the interference pattern in the second stream as well. So say you set up the experiment in this way:
Entangled photons are emitted from point A to points B and C. At point B, we have a measuring device. At point C is a double slit, with a screen behind it. As long as the measuring device is off at point B, an interference pattern is observed at point C. As soon as the measuring device is turned on at B, the photons hitting the screen at point C stop forming the pattern. Now obviously an interference pattern is all about probability, so it would take quite a few photons to not follow the pattern before you can say that the chances of the measuring device being off are statistically insignificant. Still, if points B and C are a light year apart, and equidistant from point A, it would take a lot less than a year for someone at C to notice that the device has been turned on at B. And if point B is farther away.... communication through time?
Anyway, I'm sure there's something wrong with my experiment, but what it is? Could someone more knowledgeble in the matter enlighten me?
But if "God" is supposed to be understood in terms of something beyond the universe - which is, by definition, the sum of all that exists, which by my above argument must be entirely "natural", "material", observable phenomena - then that "God" necessarily does not exist, for the very concept is utter nonsense
In the half century (or perhaps longer), the term "universe" has lost its original definition. Now, not just sci-fi writers but even many physicists are talking of "multiple universes." So given these new terms, someone who claims of existence outside the universe, could merely mean outside our universe, but still withing the multiverse (or metaverse, or whatever you wanna call the whole infinite set of realities.)
No, Atheism is a religion in exaclty the same way that refusing to ever have a hobby is a hobby!
Maybe it will continue after your death, but considering the fact that the universe is merely a figment of my imagination, I predict that my death will have a greater impact.
Hehe, hadn't heard of this before, so looked it up. Pretty amusing case, thanks for bringing it up!
Quite often the lawyers are only the "weapons" in these cases. It's the clients that need to be sued. Of course there are plenty of cases where the lawyers are the instigators of the BS (looking at you, Jack Thompson)....
That's a good point. We're looking for a civilization X light years away that was at pretty much exactly our technological level X years ago. The only thing that could extend the window is if they continue beaming high power radio waves into space for the sole person of indicating their existence to aliens.....
define "few". I don't know anyone who's been ticketed for going 6 or less miles over the speed limit.
I subscribe to PCGamer. It makes for good reading during TV commercials (that's right, I don't have tivo or any other dvr system), and in the bathroom. Currently I'm 7 issues behind on my reading though. Probably need more fiber in my diet.
So as long as this current trend continues, expect to see future games depicting Arabs overthrowing our government, a game depicting WW2 where the Nazis win and the Holocaust never occured, and so on and so forth.
Big deal, it's just games. There are plenty good ol' American games where you fight government forces. Hell, even Half-Life has you killing "the good guys who are just following orders."
Something like wikipedia will definitely be needed for people attempting to create true AI. The best part is that it can be easily gotten on CD (or is it DVD?), so the computer with the AI can be completely isolated from the outside world. You know, to avoid the Skynet scenario.
You know, a lot of folks have commented on attacking the other side by torture, murder etc. These folks are forgetting a fundamental fact - the moment you start doing these things, you become like them. There is no difference between us and them if we resorted to the same methods that they do. And that is why it is wrong.
Nice "fundamental fact." So fining someone $100 for breaking the speed limit makes us no different than robbers, and sending someone to prison makes us no different from kidnappers?
Personally, I'm against torture and capital punishment, but only because our great justice system has a habit of convicting innocent people. Hell, in these times we tend to bypass the justice system and go straight to torture on hearsay "evidence".... However, I'll be the first to say that some people do deserve to be tortured and killed, and it's only the false positives that keep me from supporting this practice.
I think this would be more similar to a GTA mod/clone where you are a specific real-life serial killer, and your victims are the real-life cops and hookers killed by that guy.
We should have made more explicit where it apparently contravenes the laws of nature
Reminded me of this little classic.
Wait a second, I thought ions were supposed to short out electronics!
Please tell me how I can test if you are self aware?
Like I said, there is not real test for another person's self-awareness.
Your assertion that because people seem like you, and you know you are self aware means that other people are self aware is not really a useful statement because you have not defined how similar they must be in order to be considered self aware (I could find similarities between you and a lamp, but I am not going to make assumptions based on that).
I didn't say I "know", I said I "assume", as you seem to be aware of judging by your next statement. As for similarities, I'm not going to go into biology or anatomy here, but human beings tend more similar to each other than they are to most lamps. Of course, for all I know they don't exist....
And you are making a pretty huge assumption that similarity of one type means similarity of another, and that differences of one type exclude similarity of another.
Your assertion that I am making a pretty huge assumption is not really a useful statement because you have not defined how big an assumption must be in order to be considered pretty huge.
So we are right back to the status of having no good test for self awareness (nor even a good definition of it).
We don't even have any good test for the existence of anything outside of our minds. At some point you just have to decide what, in general, you consider to be by far the most likely state things, and go with that unless and until you're presented with a reason you consider good enough to change your mind. I happen to believe that it is beyond reasonable (to me) doubt that other people (and most animals) are self aware, but there would always be reasonable doubt in my mind regarding the self-awareness of any AI, especially an AI programmed or commanded to explicitly mimic self-awareness.
You're right, the phrase itself only applies to existence. I only meant that I know I am aware because I am aware of thinking. Sort of "I am aware therefore I am aware".
Ask yourself if you have a clear-cut, foolproof, unambiguous way to determine if any random person on the street is sentient.Ask yourself if you have a clear-cut, foolproof, unambiguous way to determine if any random person on the street is sentient.
I don't have clear-cut, foolproof, unambiguous way to determine that I'm not God. I do, however, consider it rather unlikely. What's your point?