Hrm. That's true. I always forget that we don't have infinite memory.:P Though I still think it's intractable (i.e. not in P) to actually prove this, since as far as I can tell you'd have to check every possible state as was posted way back up the thread. But that's just arguing semantics. I concede defeat.:P
How easy it is to implement something that can be implemented in different languages isn't the issue. I'm trying to make the point that it is nearly impossible to release flawless code, because due to its complexity, bugs will creep in somewhere. Furthermore, since it is so complex, it takes a very long time for a dedicated team within a company to exhaustively and manually test every situation--the only way, through testing, to guarantee that code is correct. Since, due to the lack of computing power of turing machines, we cannot develop algorithms to test for complete correctness, it becomes infeasible to release completely bug-free code.
Now, yes it is still the humans who are at fault, and I'm sure that higher-level languages will minimize bugs. But, humans are humans, and they still make mistakes. So, my above argument that it is infeasible to release completely bug-free code still applies.
Well, if you think it is practical to ignore the theory behind computers, go and write a program that automates testing for infinite loops. It must catch all of them. Keep in mind that this only tests for infinite loops, nothing else, so it shouldn't be too complicated in your high-level languages of choice.
>= 1/6 of the world's population has malaria? I find that seriously unlikely. Even in the poorer nations, I doubt the proportion is that high. Though if you can provide some sources I'd be a lot less skeptical.
My question is: if we can't understand that portion of it, how is one to say whether we can understand his processes, as in Intelligent Design? Furthermore, there is nothing, which I can see, that is stopping us from going further and claiming that there is no way of understanding anything that the all-powerful being does--including what he says; that is, the bible should be impossible to understand. But if that is the case, then how can we understand that it is impossible to understand, since the impossibility of understanding was set down in the bible in the first place...
Ugh. I don't understand this stuff. Would anyone mind enlightening me/solving this apparent paradox?
You missed his point. His hypothetical situation included him having a contact within a government agency that would be willing to get the information for him.
It seems to me that vegetation on the south pole provides evidence to the contary; that is, it shows that the earth is older than 6K years. We know that the south pole is very cold now. We also know that the earth goes through stages which cause it to warm up or cool off. If our current stage is that of the earth being cold, and we find vegetation on the south pole, then perhaps we had a warm stage in the past that caused the south pole to warm to temperatures hospitible to vegetation. But wait! It's really cold in the south pole! It sure must have taken a long time to get to its current state. And there is the key: processes on earth such as glaciation, techtonics, and global temperature, take a long time to happen.
So, we have this: the antarctic is cold now, and used to be warm. The magnitude of the rate of change of average temperature in the antarctic is pretty close to 0. Consequently, the time interval between now and when it was last warm must be pretty large... I don't have any concrete numbers, but I'm pretty sure that if you look at them, you will find that it will be much longer than 6000 years ago.
And, really, this is a moot point. The south pole being warm then does not preclude the age of the earth being greater.
How about the gun registry (Yeah, that was Cretien, but still the Liberals)? That seems like a pretty cushy cash sink... Not to mention the fact that the guy is now planning on banning handguns (which are already pretty much completely illegal) if he gets re-elected. I can't even begin to imagine how much more money will be wasted in the administrative bloat that will come about because of this.
Interestingly enough, if you look at his comment from the story about MIT wireless, he's talking about extroverts... And then he goes and posts an article about introverts/extroverts. Coincidence? No idea. Does it really mean anything if it's not? Probably not, but odd, nonetheless.
The reason it's such a large issue on/. is because the IDers are masquerading the belief as a theory. It is not science, as you said, and should not be taught as such. However, if you read some of the posts, some slashdotters obviously believe it to be valid science...
Of course bandwidth isn't free. We are paying for our internet connection. But, how is using it for VOIP any different than using it for reading/.? Basically it all comes down to SBC wanting to be paid twice.
Actually, you missed the entire point of what I said. What does it mean to have the same "basic" building blocks? What if we found a species that, say, just used A and C? You'd fall back to "well, though some use G and T, they all use the basic building blocks of A and C." And if the bases were all different for every species, you'd be saying "well, they all have carbon".
This is a non-issue--yet another straw-man argument. So what if we found such a species, and we said taht about it? That does not rule out us finding a species with different basic building blocks. Show me that the statement "All organisms will have the same basic DNA building blocks" is a tautology, or can be trivially made into one, and I'll agree with you that it's falsifiable.
Ummm. What about oil used for heating? For industry? For Electricity? I'm pretty sure that uses much more oil than transportation. Or, at least, it's significant enough that there won't be a 1-to-1 correspondance between percentage decreases of fuel consumption in cars to the total used.
Slashdot Mirror
Hrm. That's true. I always forget that we don't have infinite memory. :P Though I still think it's intractable (i.e. not in P) to actually prove this, since as far as I can tell you'd have to check every possible state as was posted way back up the thread. But that's just arguing semantics. I concede defeat. :P
Well, if you mean that turing-completeness can't give rise to bugs, then yes. However, it still impacts our ability to detect bugs.
How easy it is to implement something that can be implemented in different languages isn't the issue. I'm trying to make the point that it is nearly impossible to release flawless code, because due to its complexity, bugs will creep in somewhere. Furthermore, since it is so complex, it takes a very long time for a dedicated team within a company to exhaustively and manually test every situation--the only way, through testing, to guarantee that code is correct. Since, due to the lack of computing power of turing machines, we cannot develop algorithms to test for complete correctness, it becomes infeasible to release completely bug-free code. Now, yes it is still the humans who are at fault, and I'm sure that higher-level languages will minimize bugs. But, humans are humans, and they still make mistakes. So, my above argument that it is infeasible to release completely bug-free code still applies.
Well, if you think it is practical to ignore the theory behind computers, go and write a program that automates testing for infinite loops. It must catch all of them. Keep in mind that this only tests for infinite loops, nothing else, so it shouldn't be too complicated in your high-level languages of choice.
The Authoritative Page is by far a better source than wikipedia.
Wow. Thanks. That's definitely eye-opening. I guess I probably should have looked it up myself.
>= 1/6 of the world's population has malaria? I find that seriously unlikely. Even in the poorer nations, I doubt the proportion is that high. Though if you can provide some sources I'd be a lot less skeptical.
If there is a bug (i.e. potential buffer overflow) in the player, then it is possible for somebody to taylor an image/movie/music file to exploit it.
And what if China became dependent on us? Then they couldn't go to war with us either. Is this a bad thing?
Day of the Tentacle!? I sure hope that wasn't developed in Japan.
My question is: if we can't understand that portion of it, how is one to say whether we can understand his processes, as in Intelligent Design? Furthermore, there is nothing, which I can see, that is stopping us from going further and claiming that there is no way of understanding anything that the all-powerful being does--including what he says; that is, the bible should be impossible to understand. But if that is the case, then how can we understand that it is impossible to understand, since the impossibility of understanding was set down in the bible in the first place...
Ugh. I don't understand this stuff. Would anyone mind enlightening me/solving this apparent paradox?
You missed his point. His hypothetical situation included him having a contact within a government agency that would be willing to get the information for him.
Good point. Everyone loses out when the telcos loose their monopolistic schemes!
I think you forgot to read a few lines later where he insuinated that windows is just as bad.
It seems to me that vegetation on the south pole provides evidence to the contary; that is, it shows that the earth is older than 6K years. We know that the south pole is very cold now. We also know that the earth goes through stages which cause it to warm up or cool off. If our current stage is that of the earth being cold, and we find vegetation on the south pole, then perhaps we had a warm stage in the past that caused the south pole to warm to temperatures hospitible to vegetation. But wait! It's really cold in the south pole! It sure must have taken a long time to get to its current state. And there is the key: processes on earth such as glaciation, techtonics, and global temperature, take a long time to happen.
So, we have this: the antarctic is cold now, and used to be warm. The magnitude of the rate of change of average temperature in the antarctic is pretty close to 0. Consequently, the time interval between now and when it was last warm must be pretty large... I don't have any concrete numbers, but I'm pretty sure that if you look at them, you will find that it will be much longer than 6000 years ago.
And, really, this is a moot point. The south pole being warm then does not preclude the age of the earth being greater.
Don't vote for a politician who takes advice from his dead mother and dog.
How about the gun registry (Yeah, that was Cretien, but still the Liberals)? That seems like a pretty cushy cash sink... Not to mention the fact that the guy is now planning on banning handguns (which are already pretty much completely illegal) if he gets re-elected. I can't even begin to imagine how much more money will be wasted in the administrative bloat that will come about because of this.
Interestingly enough, if you look at his comment from the story about MIT wireless, he's talking about extroverts... And then he goes and posts an article about introverts/extroverts. Coincidence? No idea. Does it really mean anything if it's not? Probably not, but odd, nonetheless.
I think 3001: The Final Odyssey does as well.
The reason it's such a large issue on /. is because the IDers are masquerading the belief as a theory. It is not science, as you said, and should not be taught as such. However, if you read some of the posts, some slashdotters obviously believe it to be valid science...
Then why did he punish Adam and Eve when they found out that they could mate?
Of course bandwidth isn't free. We are paying for our internet connection. But, how is using it for VOIP any different than using it for reading /.? Basically it all comes down to SBC wanting to be paid twice.
Ummm. What about oil used for heating? For industry? For Electricity? I'm pretty sure that uses much more oil than transportation. Or, at least, it's significant enough that there won't be a 1-to-1 correspondance between percentage decreases of fuel consumption in cars to the total used.
I'm pretty sure it's used in Quebec. But, then again, I think it might have always been.