... and this bug.. is it not time we started acting like engineers and started building software in a way where we can show it is correct. Well enjoy paying $200k per copy of MS Office, personally I'll take some bugs instead.
As an industry, we really need to start growing up and using the tools the mathematicians have provided us, just as other engineers do in other disciplines, to show our programs actually work as advertised. Last I checked mathematicians can't even say if my program will finish running much less if it will work as advertised.
If they have a super computer so far ahead of everything in existence that they can decrypt modern encryption (see that "enter password" part of the original poster's comment?) than I don't think they'd have much need for the IP on the laptop.
That depends on what you mean by AI, we have a lot of algorithms that do interesting things. Doing something exactly like a human does them is not exactly . I can for example code a program that will beat almost any human in Othello or Checkers while using up a fraction of the computing power.
Human brains have the computing power of a modern supercomputer and possibly a lot more of it, optimized for some specific applications such as data parsing/pattern matching. AI has had to for the past 40 years create solutions that are more efficient than the ones used by humans.
The point of language is to convey useful information, in many situations it doesn't matter what the source is but only what the source is for a short period of time.
But if you intend to use a device for longer than the initial charge, you can't honestly call the battery a power source. Yet one could call electricity the power source beyond the initial charge. Of course anyone who isn't an idiot would quickly realize that is the case thus battery works equally well.
No, what people refer to depends on the context and conversation. It is quite common to use the last link in the chain, when someone says something is electricity powered or electricity is the power source they don't care if it comes from a coal power plant, a wind one or a nuclear one. Sometimes they don't even care if it's a batter or a wall outlet that proved the electricity. On the other hand someone who is talking about large scale policies cares only about the original source.
Actually, the POWER comes from the chemicals used to create the battery or is supplied in the form of electricity when the battery is charged. Yet we call the battery the power source. Now let's go look at a battery, we can't say either the chemicals or the electricity are the power source because those came from another power source themselves. Fossil fuels for example came from decomposing organic matter which in turn gained its energy from the sun or geothermal sources. Yet the sun itself didn't gain its energy from nothing, it's simply releasing energy stored previously in molecules of various substances.
So in other words the only power source you acknowledge is the big bang?
Saying you are using Hydrogen as a power source makes as much sense as saying I am using a rock as a power source.
Put the rock on the ground and watch it power something....you might want to get some food first since it will be a long wait.
Now pick up the rock and throw it at something...say a certain Rakishi and we will watch said rock make chunky salsa...
The rock itself is only a storage medium for the power NOT the source. So what is the source? It can't be the person throwing it because they only converting storage energy in food. The food in turn came from animals that in turn ate plants which in turn used solar energy. That solar energy is from fusion which in turn is only the releasing of energy stored inside of molecules.
Same with hydrogen. If you add energy to it you can later take it out but WHERE does the ernergy come from in the first place? Hydrogen IS the energy storage medium and you put energy into it by MAKING it. It's no different from fossil fuels in that respect and specifically that it can be burned easily to produce energy. If you want to be pedantic you can say that it's the hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen which are the power source (the later is usually ignored since it's so common).
Everything we use is only an energy storage medium since all the energy originally came from the creation on the universe, period. Last I checked we don't create energy from nothing so all we're doing is moving it around. Since then it's been transferred through multitudes of medium which in most applications we don't give a damn about.
We only care about the last link in the chain or rather the one that makes sense in the conversation at hand. A radio controlled car uses a battery as the power source. A car uses fossil fuels as the power source. A train may use electricity as the power source. Another train may use diesel as the power source, we ignore that it converts it to electricity first it power an electric engine.
Very true...it always bugs me when people start talking about using Hydrogen as a power source... I take it you're not a big fan of batteries either then as that's pretty much what hydrogen as a power source is.
It was never public domain so it cannot revert to. GPLed code is STILL owned by the person who wrote it, that person can do anything they want with it (make in non GPL, etc.). They are allowing other people to use it via the GPL which is only enforceable because the original author still owns full copyright.
No, his poitn is that unless your app is horribly horribly designed testing an UI option should not require you to redo every single other test ever done for the app. Consider the implication of what the original poster said as to how convoluted and badly coded he assumes all application are. It's an application that he was involved in that I would never ever want to touch.
Re:Why would you need more than one point?
on
Disillusioned With IT?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah because kids in a household with with constant arguments, unhappiness, bickering, yelling and threats of divorce grow up to be such mentally stable people. That's not even counting what sort of downright horrid role model you must be for them, god knows what a kid who thinks life is nothing but a perpetual string of misery will do.
Humans are human, we are not machines and assuming you are a machine generally ends very badly for everyone involved.
You don't need to be limited by the velocity near Earth, such a probe could I believe drop as close to the sun as it wants to before accelerating back out.
It would seem to me that a researcher using a wiki could easily get lost in the endless back and forth bickering and sniping on the wiki. Why would there be much or any? A wiki != wikipedia.
The research would be constantly diverted off topic, and and results obtained could never really be claimed as one's own. Wikis work well when half the participants don't have the intelligence and social skills of a retarded goldfish.
Patent miners would arrived soon after any idea was discussed and you would have a hard time convincing a patent judge that a wiki which anyone can modify constitutes prior art. Why exactly? Wikis have history and if thats no less reliable than most other ways of storing information. Actually since it's in the public view and likely has many copies it's a better way of claiming prior art than most other methods. A bunch of old files on a floppy in the back of a drawer aren't going to beat it.
I think we're finally beginning to see the retirement of some of the meat in the seat for the really, really, really dangerous stuff. You can have a $120 million dollar fighter with $3-5 million dollars worth of pilot take out a target, or $3 million dollar drone hit the same target. Even the government can do that math. We have those already, they're called cruise missiles. They don't help much when the enemy is dropping bombs on your from their own planes. Problem with drones is that they'll likely be chewed to pieces by the enemy fighter planes.
1) In the US a 100 years is a long time, in the UK a 100 miles is a long way. London to Manchester is 200 miles, the grandparent was talking about trips of almost 2000 miles. The US is absurdly large and absurdly sparse. There are very few routes between large cities that are less than 200 miles and most of those are essentially local for most purposes. NYC to Washington, DC is one and there is 2 hour 45 minute train between them.
For example an express train from SF to LA, a distance of almost 400 miles, was stalled to death because every city in between wanted to get a stop. Let me add a comparison based on the SF-LA route so you get the idea of how fast a train would have to be. Based on your UK example it'd take such a train let's say 4 hours to get there with likely a couple stops in each city. Right now you can go between them in 2 hours by airplane including 30 minutes for check-in if you're traveling light which most people probably are doing (couple day stay on business so no need for check-in luggage). Spending 4 hours traveling for an 8 hour stay is barely passable however spending 8 hours for it is not so much.
There are multiple airports in each area with plenty of facilities near them so you can get quite close to your destination. The public transportation systems are generally abysmal so you'd be renting a car or taking a cab either way if you need to go far.
2) Depends on the use of the train, in the US it is common for business travelers to go somewhere for just a day or two. In that case you can bring only a carry-on which means you can be there 30 minutes early and not have to spend any time getting your luggage. If you need more gear you can pay extra and take more bags with you.
If I have trouble paying the bills then I'll just make sure the bills are smaller next month. I make sure I have enough savings so I have plenty of time to adjust to any bumps in the road.
Well that's mostly imho an issue with the horrid sardine can philosophy of airplane seating. The few times I got to fly first class (actual international first class, not the crap that passes for it on domestic flights) I felt infinitely better upon landing than I usually do.
With all the security bullshit and stops, And somehow you assume a train that goes through a dozen large cities will magically not stop in any of them.
flying from, say, San Diego to St. Louis takes 8-10 hours. No idea what horrid flight schedules you use but a quick looks shows that 5 hours flight time + 2 hours for getting early to airport is trivial to find. You can also pay a premium and get a nonstop flight that takes 3.5 hours. You'd likely need to get there somewhat early for trains as well.
Considering how much baggage you could bring on a train, it would be worth it for a lot of trips. It's very rare that I fill up even one suitcase when I'm flying, pain in the backside to lug any more than that around.
Walking is not a inalienable right as you think of it. You can be arrested for walking on my property, the courts can keep you from walking within x feet of me, the courts can put you in jail (thus keeping you from walking outside) and so on. So even if you have a right to walk that does not mean that it is an unlimited right to walk anywhere, in other words a right to walk is not a right to jaywalk. No one is stopping you from walking, they're simply stopping you from walking in certain places. I simply pointed out that if you wish to do certain actions that have certain consequences then those consequences should fall on your shoulders.
Sure and as a result jaywalking isn't enforced strongly in NYC anymore. Then again 56% is far from a large majority and NYC likely has the largest percentage of jaywalkers in the US. It's quite plausible that in most other places, especially more driver friendly cities, the majority swings the other way.
Everyone jaywalks. You said yourself that you jaywalk. There isn't anyone under the age of 15 who hasn't jaywalked. That most people have done it does not mean that most people oppose making it illegal. I for example don't. Likewise making something illegal does not mean it will always be prosecuted and exceptions can be put into the law itself.
If you think laws against jaywalking are not unjust then you are, quite simply, a fascist. No that's what you think, I simply find the trade-off worth it. Given how such laws exist in most of the US and how they are enforced in many place it seems most people agree with me. If they didn't agree then like in NYC (where the opposition only had a small majority) any effort to prosecute jaywalkers would very quickly be killed.
End of discussion. Go away now. In other words you can't find any actual evidence to back up your point so you're running away? I at least managed to find a survey to back up your point which is apparently more than you're able to do. Likewise I can point to the failed attempt to enforce jaywalking in NYC as an example of what happens in a place where the majority supports jaywalking.
Since you started this debate it does fall on you to cite your sources, please I'm waiting.
If you pay attention on driving tests and driver training you'll find you're taught to drive at a safe speed to match your visibility, if you are driving down a busy street where people could walk out from behind a car you should be driving slow enough that you can stop. So in other words no one should ever drive over 15mph anywhere, even on highways in your perfect world? After all people have run across highways, expressways and other very large streets. You can never tell if a given pedestrian is going to run across or not so by your logic you can never go quickly in case one decides to run across.
Or do you mean you can react, hit the brake and stop in under 5 feet while going 45mph, legally?
The fact is if everyone was driving to the laws and level of training given in the majority of countries there should actually be no excuse to ever hit anyone no matter what the circumstances. Interesting, so in your view drivers have to bear 100 % responsibility but pedestrians are 100%blameless no matter how idiotic of a jaywalking they try to perform?
Hopefully you or your family will be hit by someone breaking the speed limit one day, then we can tell you it's all okay because that's exactly what you were advocating people be allowed to do. No, I'm not.
"Hey pedestrian, you just jaywalked, here's a $200 fine, and if I catch you again it's off to jail!" "You're fucking kidding me right copper? Here's what I think of your ticket." [rip] [rip] Well then you won't mind if I shoot you dead right? After all since most murders would claim being prosecuted for murder is wrong by your logic murders should be perfectly legal.
Like I said, in NYC a proper survey found that a large amount of people have no trouble with fines for jaywalking. They probably have this amazing thing called self-control with which they're able to stop jaywalking, or never do it to begin with, if it becomes illegal. They're also able to realize that the extra time they spend walking is more than offset by the lesser time they spend driving.
And if I need to explain this to you then frankly I doubt that you ever get out of your car. I lived in NYC for most of my life, then moved to the Bay Area. See I did this amazing thing when I moved to an area that fines jaywalking: I stopped jaywalking. I don't need to save those extra 20 seconds, I don't need to risk getting hit by a car and I don't need to risk getting a ticket. I also didn't have a car till a year ago or so since I didn't need it till then. The one thing I love about driving in the Bay Area versus NYC is that you don't have to constantly watch out for idiots jumping in front of my car (the drivers are the idiotic ones here but that's a different topic).
Well I'm a driver and I fully support anti-jaywalking laws, your point being. The only time I jaywalk is on small streets with no traffic at all but even then it's not like I'd be bothered much if I couldn't.
Even in NYC, the city with probably the most jaywalkers and flattened jaywalkers in the US, only 56% of people opposed stricter enforcement of jaywalking laws. I'm sure most places can easily get that extra 8% that's needed for the majority of people to support such laws (or enforcement of said laws).
Slashdot Mirror
... and this bug.. is it not time we started acting like engineers and started building software in a way where we can show it is correct. Well enjoy paying $200k per copy of MS Office, personally I'll take some bugs instead. As an industry, we really need to start growing up and using the tools the mathematicians have provided us, just as other engineers do in other disciplines, to show our programs actually work as advertised. Last I checked mathematicians can't even say if my program will finish running much less if it will work as advertised.If they have a super computer so far ahead of everything in existence that they can decrypt modern encryption (see that "enter password" part of the original poster's comment?) than I don't think they'd have much need for the IP on the laptop.
That depends on what you mean by AI, we have a lot of algorithms that do interesting things. Doing something exactly like a human does them is not exactly . I can for example code a program that will beat almost any human in Othello or Checkers while using up a fraction of the computing power.
Human brains have the computing power of a modern supercomputer and possibly a lot more of it, optimized for some specific applications such as data parsing/pattern matching. AI has had to for the past 40 years create solutions that are more efficient than the ones used by humans.
No, what people refer to depends on the context and conversation. It is quite common to use the last link in the chain, when someone says something is electricity powered or electricity is the power source they don't care if it comes from a coal power plant, a wind one or a nuclear one. Sometimes they don't even care if it's a batter or a wall outlet that proved the electricity. On the other hand someone who is talking about large scale policies cares only about the original source.
So in other words the only power source you acknowledge is the big bang? Saying you are using Hydrogen as a power source makes as much sense as saying I am using a rock as a power source.
Put the rock on the ground and watch it power something....you might want to get some food first since it will be a long wait.
Now pick up the rock and throw it at something...say a certain Rakishi and we will watch said rock make chunky salsa...
The rock itself is only a storage medium for the power NOT the source. So what is the source? It can't be the person throwing it because they only converting storage energy in food. The food in turn came from animals that in turn ate plants which in turn used solar energy. That solar energy is from fusion which in turn is only the releasing of energy stored inside of molecules. Same with hydrogen. If you add energy to it you can later take it out but WHERE does the ernergy come from in the first place? Hydrogen IS the energy storage medium and you put energy into it by MAKING it. It's no different from fossil fuels in that respect and specifically that it can be burned easily to produce energy. If you want to be pedantic you can say that it's the hydrogen and atmospheric oxygen which are the power source (the later is usually ignored since it's so common).
Everything we use is only an energy storage medium since all the energy originally came from the creation on the universe, period. Last I checked we don't create energy from nothing so all we're doing is moving it around. Since then it's been transferred through multitudes of medium which in most applications we don't give a damn about.
We only care about the last link in the chain or rather the one that makes sense in the conversation at hand. A radio controlled car uses a battery as the power source. A car uses fossil fuels as the power source. A train may use electricity as the power source. Another train may use diesel as the power source, we ignore that it converts it to electricity first it power an electric engine.
Eastern Europe is likely declining because of immigration, specifically immigration into western Europe from Eastern Europe.
It was never public domain so it cannot revert to. GPLed code is STILL owned by the person who wrote it, that person can do anything they want with it (make in non GPL, etc.). They are allowing other people to use it via the GPL which is only enforceable because the original author still owns full copyright.
So that's now Bioshock, Mass Effect and Spore. I wonder how many more will get added onto that list in the future.
No, his poitn is that unless your app is horribly horribly designed testing an UI option should not require you to redo every single other test ever done for the app. Consider the implication of what the original poster said as to how convoluted and badly coded he assumes all application are. It's an application that he was involved in that I would never ever want to touch.
Yeah because kids in a household with with constant arguments, unhappiness, bickering, yelling and threats of divorce grow up to be such mentally stable people. That's not even counting what sort of downright horrid role model you must be for them, god knows what a kid who thinks life is nothing but a perpetual string of misery will do.
Humans are human, we are not machines and assuming you are a machine generally ends very badly for everyone involved.
You don't need to be limited by the velocity near Earth, such a probe could I believe drop as close to the sun as it wants to before accelerating back out.
1) In the US a 100 years is a long time, in the UK a 100 miles is a long way. London to Manchester is 200 miles, the grandparent was talking about trips of almost 2000 miles. The US is absurdly large and absurdly sparse. There are very few routes between large cities that are less than 200 miles and most of those are essentially local for most purposes. NYC to Washington, DC is one and there is 2 hour 45 minute train between them.
For example an express train from SF to LA, a distance of almost 400 miles, was stalled to death because every city in between wanted to get a stop. Let me add a comparison based on the SF-LA route so you get the idea of how fast a train would have to be. Based on your UK example it'd take such a train let's say 4 hours to get there with likely a couple stops in each city. Right now you can go between them in 2 hours by airplane including 30 minutes for check-in if you're traveling light which most people probably are doing (couple day stay on business so no need for check-in luggage). Spending 4 hours traveling for an 8 hour stay is barely passable however spending 8 hours for it is not so much.
There are multiple airports in each area with plenty of facilities near them so you can get quite close to your destination. The public transportation systems are generally abysmal so you'd be renting a car or taking a cab either way if you need to go far.
2) Depends on the use of the train, in the US it is common for business travelers to go somewhere for just a day or two. In that case you can bring only a carry-on which means you can be there 30 minutes early and not have to spend any time getting your luggage. If you need more gear you can pay extra and take more bags with you.
If I have trouble paying the bills then I'll just make sure the bills are smaller next month. I make sure I have enough savings so I have plenty of time to adjust to any bumps in the road.
Well that's mostly imho an issue with the horrid sardine can philosophy of airplane seating. The few times I got to fly first class (actual international first class, not the crap that passes for it on domestic flights) I felt infinitely better upon landing than I usually do.
Walking is not a inalienable right as you think of it. You can be arrested for walking on my property, the courts can keep you from walking within x feet of me, the courts can put you in jail (thus keeping you from walking outside) and so on. So even if you have a right to walk that does not mean that it is an unlimited right to walk anywhere, in other words a right to walk is not a right to jaywalk. No one is stopping you from walking, they're simply stopping you from walking in certain places. I simply pointed out that if you wish to do certain actions that have certain consequences then those consequences should fall on your shoulders.
Sure and as a result jaywalking isn't enforced strongly in NYC anymore. Then again 56% is far from a large majority and NYC likely has the largest percentage of jaywalkers in the US. It's quite plausible that in most other places, especially more driver friendly cities, the majority swings the other way.
Since you started this debate it does fall on you to cite your sources, please I'm waiting.
Or do you mean you can react, hit the brake and stop in under 5 feet while going 45mph, legally? The fact is if everyone was driving to the laws and level of training given in the majority of countries there should actually be no excuse to ever hit anyone no matter what the circumstances. Interesting, so in your view drivers have to bear 100 % responsibility but pedestrians are 100%blameless no matter how idiotic of a jaywalking they try to perform? Hopefully you or your family will be hit by someone breaking the speed limit one day, then we can tell you it's all okay because that's exactly what you were advocating people be allowed to do. No, I'm not.
"Hey pedestrian, you just jaywalked, here's a $200 fine, and if I catch you again it's off to jail!"
"You're fucking kidding me right copper? Here's what I think of your ticket." [rip] [rip] Well then you won't mind if I shoot you dead right? After all since most murders would claim being prosecuted for murder is wrong by your logic murders should be perfectly legal.
Like I said, in NYC a proper survey found that a large amount of people have no trouble with fines for jaywalking. They probably have this amazing thing called self-control with which they're able to stop jaywalking, or never do it to begin with, if it becomes illegal. They're also able to realize that the extra time they spend walking is more than offset by the lesser time they spend driving. And if I need to explain this to you then frankly I doubt that you ever get out of your car. I lived in NYC for most of my life, then moved to the Bay Area. See I did this amazing thing when I moved to an area that fines jaywalking: I stopped jaywalking. I don't need to save those extra 20 seconds, I don't need to risk getting hit by a car and I don't need to risk getting a ticket. I also didn't have a car till a year ago or so since I didn't need it till then. The one thing I love about driving in the Bay Area versus NYC is that you don't have to constantly watch out for idiots jumping in front of my car (the drivers are the idiotic ones here but that's a different topic).
Well I'm a driver and I fully support anti-jaywalking laws, your point being. The only time I jaywalk is on small streets with no traffic at all but even then it's not like I'd be bothered much if I couldn't.
Even in NYC, the city with probably the most jaywalkers and flattened jaywalkers in the US, only 56% of people opposed stricter enforcement of jaywalking laws. I'm sure most places can easily get that extra 8% that's needed for the majority of people to support such laws (or enforcement of said laws).