Because I am an evangelical according to any census of denominations (Baptist), but I don't protest in front of abortion clinics, and I don't protest at soldiers' funerals, and I don't think evolution is either evil or wrong, and I didn't boycott Disney, and I don't like Jerry Falwell, and I don't try to interfere with what is taught at universities. Neither do most other Baptists I know. There are a lot (but a minority) of Baptists who do these things, and get in the news (because they are controversial and offensive to some people), and give the rest of Baptists a bad name. I've seen these things from the inside, and I can tell you as an eyewitness that the evangelical stereotype (Fundamentalist) doesn't even hold (like most stereotypes) for most evangelicals.
Quite aside from your assertions of bloc voting and immense political power (which are partly right, but not completely), your original assertion was that most American Christians took the Genesis story literally, which is quite plainly wrong. Don't try to dodge around and change to a safer subject.
You can't do that if you're talking to Americans, which most of us on Slashdot are. Here, most Christians believe the literal story of Genesis. What the pope says is irrelevant, since most Christians in America believe Catholicism to be a false and non-Christian religion.
You were either badly misinformed, or lying through your teeth and trying to bait flames here.
To be fair, though, most non-Christians would pretty quickly find some way to dismiss the whole thing as a hoax, too... It really wouldn't change the beliefs of very many people at all.
when you're trying to do something non-traditional (which should be all the time in experimental physics!).
There fixed it for you.
My experience with LabView (used it once for a little undergrad acoustics experiment) was that it didn't do things quite the way I expected from its presentation. The whole block diagram data flow model thing made me think that everything was going to run in parallel. In reality, it did not, so real-time processing just wasn't quite the same thing as building a circuit that did what it looked like LabView was going to do. Of course, this isn't a very strong complaint, and somebody who used it often would quickly learn exactly what it did and did not do and how.
My own offering: In high energy experiment, we use primarily ROOT (root.cern.ch), which is a horrible, bloated, feeping creature, but gets the job done. Replacing or rewriting it would be too much effort, so everyone just limps along and pretends there isn't an elephant in the room. I can't say I want to recommend using it, but I do recommend using it anyway. At least it is FOSS, so you can in principle fix it if you want.
You can't send quantum information faster than light either. You can cause change to propagate faster than light, but no actual information is conveyed by that change. It is a subtle, but important, distinction.
Well, the mod system is there for a reason. If we had to spend time writing well thought out replies to every post that we ever came across that we disagreed with in any particular, then we would become vulnerable to random people who would post hackneyed old strawmen, just to see everyone on/. squirm. Oh right, we already have a name for such people, and they are called trolls. We don't in general respond to a post that we think is a troll because it is a complete waste of time.
The mod system is intended to be both a reward system and a noise filter. It is not perfect however, and sometimes legitimate posts get filtered out, and poor posts get rewarded. If you don't like it, or think that you can do better, then GTFO and create your own site. I'm content with the current false positive rate.
I believe a fairly large number of people have in fact successfully done this. How is it that slashdot seems to have forgotten?
Granted, it was not, IIRC, a box retail purchase, but a refund for the OEM copy of windows that came with their eg Dell. Just google windows EULA refund.
If everyone agreed not to punch people in the nose, then "A"narchy would work just fine. That is, if everyone's choice of exactly how to resolve a conflict of rights were the same every time, then Anarchy would work just fine. However, in general, different people will claim that conflicts of rights should be resolved in different ways.
For example, some people might be extremely annoyed by people who swing fists right to the end of their noses and then stop, because that is a startling thing to have happen to one. So those people would prefer that the conflict of rights be resolved with a much greater restriction on the right of the arm-swinger, in order to protect their right not to be prevented from doing X by threat of startlement.
Since not everybody is going to agree on how to resolve these conflicts, but we've still got to resolve them in a consistent manner across at least a geographical region, you will very quickly wind up having groups of people who meet to form a consensus of how to resolve them (legislatures), and further agree to withhold some benefit from or cause some harm to those who do not follow the consensus (executive and judiciary). That is, governments in miniature will tend to form spontaneously.
This is actually a pretty decent analogy for the software case. If everybody agreed on some particular way to restrict certain rights in favor of others (everybody use the GPL, or everybody use the BSD license, etc), then none of these things would be a problem. You wouldn't have hardware and proprietary software failing to work with GPL software because it'd be the only game in town. The restrictions of the GPL simply wouldn't come into play at all.
Yeah, a couple days or so per 365 day year. Maybe 1% is a tiny bit high, but it's pretty darn close. You act like you're attacking the GP's post, but the only things you say that are relevant as a reply actually support it instead.
Just like IBM went out of business overnight when the personal computer was legalized... Oh right. Monopolies can still exist, and still be extremely nasty in hanging on to their monopoly status, even when what they are selling is completely legal.
I'll give it a shot. Say we have a system of equations: x+y = 7, and x-y=15. From that we can determine the values of x and y; the many statements: x=5, x=18, x=56.532, etc etc etc are all either true or false. In fact, exactly one of them is true. But, the statements z=15, z=-600, z=3.4, etc etc etc are all neither true nor false with our givens. They are "undecidable".
So we've done some derivation using the rules of arithmetic with some equations as given, and found that there are arithmetic statements we can think about that our givens say absolutely nothing about (the statements about z). The notion of undecidability that they are talking about refers to taking some logical statements as given and doing some derivations using the rules of logic. There are some logical statements that you could think about, however esoteric they might be, about which your givens (your axioms) say absolutely nothing. These are undecidable.
Now, without having read their paper, I could be barking up the wrong tree here, but I expect they've found that you can make a correspondence between quantum mechanics and logic (such a correspondence is well known), such that they can take some axioms (givens), and put a quantum system into a particular state that corresponds to those axioms. Furthermore, measuring some particular property of the system corresponds to doing some derivations according to the rules of logic, and so if you get a definite result from your measurement, then your axioms do tell you whether or not the statement in question is true or false: it is decidable. On the other hand, if you get a different result every time you do the measurement, then the statement is not decidable.
Agree. You describe how things should (or rather shouldn't) be, but unfortunately, I don't think that that is an accurate description of reality. In reality, standing up for oneself as a president carries some nasty consequences (that it shouldn't, in a perfect world), which a line item veto, albeit unneeded in a perfect world, would remedy.
Line-item vetos are dumb anyway. If that's what you want, then just encourage the President to veto the whole thing, all the time, until Congress gives him a version without the line items! You don't need a special new power for it; you just need the President to grow a pair!
Sometimes that can be political suicide, unfortunately.
"President So-and-so vetoed Bill 1234, which saved fuzzy puppies from being viciously slaughtered by evil laughing dudes with chainsaws. How could you vote him into any public office in the future? He has no heart! Please, people of America, conveniently ignore the fact that Bill 1234 also allocated 100 billion dollars for the entire legislature to go to Amsterdam for a year long vacation in the red light district."
Do you think President So-and-so would get reelected after that? I kinda doubt it.
Well yes, I know this. I am a particle physicist working on CDF after all. Although I'd disagree with your claim of international rivalry/jealousy. I just don't see it in the field. Maybe among the politicians or something, but not really among the scientists. (and it should be year and a half, tops, since 2008 is almost over already) But what on Earth did this post have to do with my post? What exactly are you replying to?
They kept this pretty quiet up to now, not the kind of information policy I would expect from CERN.
Ummmm, perhaps scientists don't like to make statements that they aren't reasonably sure of? If there were still some disagreement or doubt about this timetable, I would fully expect them to keep it internal, and would be disappointed if they made a public statement prematurely. It's not like this timetable is exactly time critical today or anything...
Ok, so we just need an exception for "didn't know I was going to die just yet, and hadn't managed to give away as much of my wealth as I wanted to," and one for "knew when I was going to die, approximately (eg doctor said you have six months to live), but didn't find out soon enough to give away as much of my wealth as I wanted while still staying under the maximum untaxed gift amount." Then everyone will fall under these exceptions and we can do away with the whole stupid idea. Even if there were a way to do the exceptions so that some people would still be taxed, this wouldn't solve the purported problem of money dynasties, because rich money-grubbing bastards would still pass their wealth off to their now rich, money-grubbing kids. They'd just do so a few years earlier.
Right, and when 30-year old Mom and Dad are killed by a drunk driver while coming home from the annual Christmas party, of course the government should take 90% of the money that they have, instead of it going to fund their two kids' housing, care, food, education etc, just because they didn't have the foresight to know exactly when they would die so that they could give all their money away first. Dumkopf.
That sounds like exactly the kind of business "ethics" that got the economy into the sort of state it is in now. Perhaps if businesspeople had a little bit more concern for real ethics and a very small bit less for greed (which, let's face it, is really what you are advocating), we'd all be a bit better off. You would probably say that you are in favor of enlightened self interest, but what you describe is almost certainly short-sighted and naive self-interest instead.
Oh wait, I recognize your user name now... Dangit,/me, don't feed the trolls!
Slashdot Mirror
Quite aside from your assertions of bloc voting and immense political power (which are partly right, but not completely), your original assertion was that most American Christians took the Genesis story literally, which is quite plainly wrong. Don't try to dodge around and change to a safer subject.
You can't do that if you're talking to Americans, which most of us on Slashdot are. Here, most Christians believe the literal story of Genesis. What the pope says is irrelevant, since most Christians in America believe Catholicism to be a false and non-Christian religion.
You were either badly misinformed, or lying through your teeth and trying to bait flames here.
Steve: Bill? Finish the sentence, Bill. Aw crap, he's locked up again. Gotta reboot.
Ever heard the phrase "vocal minority"? I'd also disagree that most American Christians are Fundamentalists or take verbal inerrancy.
To be fair, though, most non-Christians would pretty quickly find some way to dismiss the whole thing as a hoax, too... It really wouldn't change the beliefs of very many people at all.
when you're trying to do something non-traditional (which should be all the time in experimental physics!).
There fixed it for you.
My experience with LabView (used it once for a little undergrad acoustics experiment) was that it didn't do things quite the way I expected from its presentation. The whole block diagram data flow model thing made me think that everything was going to run in parallel. In reality, it did not, so real-time processing just wasn't quite the same thing as building a circuit that did what it looked like LabView was going to do. Of course, this isn't a very strong complaint, and somebody who used it often would quickly learn exactly what it did and did not do and how.
My own offering: In high energy experiment, we use primarily ROOT (root.cern.ch), which is a horrible, bloated, feeping creature, but gets the job done. Replacing or rewriting it would be too much effort, so everyone just limps along and pretends there isn't an elephant in the room. I can't say I want to recommend using it, but I do recommend using it anyway. At least it is FOSS, so you can in principle fix it if you want.
You can't send quantum information faster than light either. You can cause change to propagate faster than light, but no actual information is conveyed by that change. It is a subtle, but important, distinction.
So section off a bit of your memory as a ramdisk, and put the swap file there. Still going to be better than the SATA bottleneck.
Well, the mod system is there for a reason. If we had to spend time writing well thought out replies to every post that we ever came across that we disagreed with in any particular, then we would become vulnerable to random people who would post hackneyed old strawmen, just to see everyone on /. squirm. Oh right, we already have a name for such people, and they are called trolls. We don't in general respond to a post that we think is a troll because it is a complete waste of time.
The mod system is intended to be both a reward system and a noise filter. It is not perfect however, and sometimes legitimate posts get filtered out, and poor posts get rewarded. If you don't like it, or think that you can do better, then GTFO and create your own site. I'm content with the current false positive rate.
I believe a fairly large number of people have in fact successfully done this. How is it that slashdot seems to have forgotten?
Granted, it was not, IIRC, a box retail purchase, but a refund for the OEM copy of windows that came with their eg Dell. Just google windows EULA refund.
"More similar" is such a fascinating phrase.
A colleague of my wife (a linguist) studies these sorts of phrases.
You might find the e2 node about getting your FBI records useful, as was posted above.
For example, some people might be extremely annoyed by people who swing fists right to the end of their noses and then stop, because that is a startling thing to have happen to one. So those people would prefer that the conflict of rights be resolved with a much greater restriction on the right of the arm-swinger, in order to protect their right not to be prevented from doing X by threat of startlement.
Since not everybody is going to agree on how to resolve these conflicts, but we've still got to resolve them in a consistent manner across at least a geographical region, you will very quickly wind up having groups of people who meet to form a consensus of how to resolve them (legislatures), and further agree to withhold some benefit from or cause some harm to those who do not follow the consensus (executive and judiciary). That is, governments in miniature will tend to form spontaneously.
This is actually a pretty decent analogy for the software case. If everybody agreed on some particular way to restrict certain rights in favor of others (everybody use the GPL, or everybody use the BSD license, etc), then none of these things would be a problem. You wouldn't have hardware and proprietary software failing to work with GPL software because it'd be the only game in town. The restrictions of the GPL simply wouldn't come into play at all.
Yeah, a couple days or so per 365 day year. Maybe 1% is a tiny bit high, but it's pretty darn close. You act like you're attacking the GP's post, but the only things you say that are relevant as a reply actually support it instead.
Which OOP do you mean?
There will always be a number less than 1, but greater than the number less than 1 you just saw.
Rule 36 doesn't imply that fuckedupness is unbounded above. Go make another tinfoil suit; they're about to get through this one!
Just like IBM went out of business overnight when the personal computer was legalized... Oh right. Monopolies can still exist, and still be extremely nasty in hanging on to their monopoly status, even when what they are selling is completely legal.
Even that still says nothing of consequence about the infection vectors. But it is certainly useful, so thanks.
I'll give it a shot. Say we have a system of equations: x+y = 7, and x-y=15. From that we can determine the values of x and y; the many statements: x=5, x=18, x=56.532, etc etc etc are all either true or false. In fact, exactly one of them is true. But, the statements z=15, z=-600, z=3.4, etc etc etc are all neither true nor false with our givens. They are "undecidable".
So we've done some derivation using the rules of arithmetic with some equations as given, and found that there are arithmetic statements we can think about that our givens say absolutely nothing about (the statements about z). The notion of undecidability that they are talking about refers to taking some logical statements as given and doing some derivations using the rules of logic. There are some logical statements that you could think about, however esoteric they might be, about which your givens (your axioms) say absolutely nothing. These are undecidable.
Now, without having read their paper, I could be barking up the wrong tree here, but I expect they've found that you can make a correspondence between quantum mechanics and logic (such a correspondence is well known), such that they can take some axioms (givens), and put a quantum system into a particular state that corresponds to those axioms. Furthermore, measuring some particular property of the system corresponds to doing some derivations according to the rules of logic, and so if you get a definite result from your measurement, then your axioms do tell you whether or not the statement in question is true or false: it is decidable. On the other hand, if you get a different result every time you do the measurement, then the statement is not decidable.
Agree. You describe how things should (or rather shouldn't) be, but unfortunately, I don't think that that is an accurate description of reality. In reality, standing up for oneself as a president carries some nasty consequences (that it shouldn't, in a perfect world), which a line item veto, albeit unneeded in a perfect world, would remedy.
Line-item vetos are dumb anyway. If that's what you want, then just encourage the President to veto the whole thing, all the time, until Congress gives him a version without the line items! You don't need a special new power for it; you just need the President to grow a pair!
Sometimes that can be political suicide, unfortunately.
"President So-and-so vetoed Bill 1234, which saved fuzzy puppies from being viciously slaughtered by evil laughing dudes with chainsaws. How could you vote him into any public office in the future? He has no heart! Please, people of America, conveniently ignore the fact that Bill 1234 also allocated 100 billion dollars for the entire legislature to go to Amsterdam for a year long vacation in the red light district."
Do you think President So-and-so would get reelected after that? I kinda doubt it.
Well yes, I know this. I am a particle physicist working on CDF after all. Although I'd disagree with your claim of international rivalry/jealousy. I just don't see it in the field. Maybe among the politicians or something, but not really among the scientists. (and it should be year and a half, tops, since 2008 is almost over already) But what on Earth did this post have to do with my post? What exactly are you replying to?
They kept this pretty quiet up to now, not the kind of information policy I would expect from CERN.
Ummmm, perhaps scientists don't like to make statements that they aren't reasonably sure of? If there were still some disagreement or doubt about this timetable, I would fully expect them to keep it internal, and would be disappointed if they made a public statement prematurely. It's not like this timetable is exactly time critical today or anything...
Ok, so we just need an exception for "didn't know I was going to die just yet, and hadn't managed to give away as much of my wealth as I wanted to," and one for "knew when I was going to die, approximately (eg doctor said you have six months to live), but didn't find out soon enough to give away as much of my wealth as I wanted while still staying under the maximum untaxed gift amount." Then everyone will fall under these exceptions and we can do away with the whole stupid idea. Even if there were a way to do the exceptions so that some people would still be taxed, this wouldn't solve the purported problem of money dynasties, because rich money-grubbing bastards would still pass their wealth off to their now rich, money-grubbing kids. They'd just do so a few years earlier.
Right, and when 30-year old Mom and Dad are killed by a drunk driver while coming home from the annual Christmas party, of course the government should take 90% of the money that they have, instead of it going to fund their two kids' housing, care, food, education etc, just because they didn't have the foresight to know exactly when they would die so that they could give all their money away first. Dumkopf.
That sounds like exactly the kind of business "ethics" that got the economy into the sort of state it is in now. Perhaps if businesspeople had a little bit more concern for real ethics and a very small bit less for greed (which, let's face it, is really what you are advocating), we'd all be a bit better off. You would probably say that you are in favor of enlightened self interest, but what you describe is almost certainly short-sighted and naive self-interest instead.
/me, don't feed the trolls!
Oh wait, I recognize your user name now... Dangit,