This is the idea: let x=the list of all incoming messages. Let f be a function that takes a message and the last result, and produces a result, that is some actions and a state. Now, the code for a client is foldr1 f x. Of course, the fun is in programming the function f, but that is why an infinite lazy list is awesome. You don't have to manually make the code for waiting for the next message etc, all that boring stuff no useful person wants to write anyway.
This example is extremely simplified of course, but it's the general idea. I have an IRC bot that operates basically on that principle. It is an infinite loop of taking the next message and using it. Since it is lazy, it doesn't keep looping super fast, it only evaluates the next message as soon as it exists (i.e. when the bot gets a message from the server)
You have conceded that there is an isomorphism between "universe" and "god", at least presently. You conjecture that science/"universe" => how to make a robot, and religion/"god"=> should i build a robot?, but somehow science/"universe" =/> should I build a robot?
Obviously, since robots and science exist today, and there is, as you say, an equality between "universe" and "god" in the present tense, there should be a way for science to answer "should i build a robot?" It turns out, there is. Building a robot is super cool. The idea activates the pleasure chemical transmitters in my brain. This can be confirmed empirically. Therefore, yes, we should build a robots.
In a non-stupid summary, you are presenting a false dichotomy.
I don't agree with you, but I have enjoyed the different opinions in this thread:) I'd just like to say for posterity that my "retard" comment etc were intentionally inflammatory:P
Wrong. Compulsory education at the primary level is a basic human right, as defined by the U.N. States set their own laws as to what qualifies as "education". If you think teaching creationism is education, I have some horse shit you can fill your cars tank up with, you can call it gas. And, for that matter, my classification of the society I want to live in just so happens to be the one derived from law. So, it is you that can find somewhere else to live, thank you very much.
Well, let's see...
Slashdot comments are not spread out over 20 ad-infested pages with one or two paragraphs on each page.
Slashdot comments often contain much more detailed analysis than TFA, especially since some journalists feel qualified to write about things they know nothing about and can't seem to be bothered to fact check.
Slashdot comments are never slashdotted.
So, I'm gonna say no.
I can remember reading in the papers that Paris Hilton blah blah blah blah Moral of the story: The papers are crap, especially at science. Your local small town newspaper != a science journal. Try looking at some of them, you can get back issues.
Why exactly would a self integrity test be bad? It works like this:
1) You click the button to put the computer to sleep. It stops doing stuff.
2) A program scans the RAM, making a hash of what is in it (this is the *only* thing running, and ignores its own allocated RAM. Also, maybe it would only hash the important OS stuff?)
3) It writes the hash to disk (er, I guess now it would be ok to write it to RAM instead)
4) Computer is shut down
5) Computer is started up. Before the OS in general starts, the verification module pulls the hash, rehashes the RAM and compares. Different? Then do something (warn the user, unrecoverable error etc)
6)...
7) Profit
There are 4 possible scenarios. 1) The RAM and key were not corrupted, everything goes fine (presumably the likely case.) 2) The RAM was corrupted, but the key wasn't (This is the other "hopeful" case.) 3) The RAM was not corrupted, but the key was, giving a false-positive (a whoopsies) 4)Both were corrupted, with two subcases: i) They now match, which would be *bad* possibly (the odds make this 100% negligble with a proper hashing function.) ii) They don't match, causing the same result as 1) which is desirable.
I fail to see how self verification would be bad. I assume you were thinking of case 4i, which is a non-issue.
"Zero is a number" could I guess be taken as not true, and a new set of theorems derived from that fact (well, "zero" and "number" are just words, it's more the spirit of the thing but it sounds like you know that, with the 0! = 1 bit... but anyway thats the idea of how non-euclidean geometry comes about - negating the parallel postulate (because it is either true or it ain't, those are the two possibilities) creates different maths.) In math you can just pick your axioms and see what happens. It's an unrelated fact that we like axioms that create theorems that we perceive to fit the real world. "God did it" as an axiom doesn't let you derive much. Zero being a number/its concept I guess could be argued, personally I would find that argument boring, but I think scientifically speaking it is less risky to make that assumption than something as complicated as God.
Also, yes, successor(x) can be any one-to-one function. The axiom that you refer to in your last sentance is number 4, "Two numbers of which the successors are equal are themselves equal." That would not be true with rand (), unless you were using a crappy pseudo-random generator, with an infinite domain and range... in which case it could hardly be called random, could it?:P
Utter bullshit. Newtonian physics? The three laws. Relativity? The speed of light is constant to all observers. Quantum theory? Occam was wrong (just kidding, you get the idea though.) Not to mention they inherit all related mathematical axioms.
Uh... you are comparing "Zero is a number" etc to "God exists"... axioms in Math and Science are "small". How does God exist? What are the scope of his powers? What is the density, length and colour of his beard? Does he have noodly appendages? Probably the most "controversial" axioms in Math (in the sense that they may not be self evident) are:
1. The parallel postulate (f a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.)
2. The axiom of choice (Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.)
In both cases, both axioms have been assumed both true and false to create their own sets of theorems (E.g. Euclidean geometry, which everyone knows (well..) vs. Non-euclidean geometry which is used in relativity etc... these differ on wether or not the parallel postulate is accepted)
You should also consider spending a bit of cash on a good multimeter, which isn't necessary but HIGHLY recommended for troubleshooting or reverse engineering.
Better yet, get this: http://www.pololu.com/catalog/product/322 Good soldering practice, works as well as any other similarily spec'd one. (the probe things are kind of cheap though) Comes with some solder and lots of extra wire IIRC. Easy to do, just follow the steps.
Twilight Princess is just Ocarina done up for the next generation. It's like the special edition star wars. Sure, it is obviously a sequel, has a different story and different temples etc, but it is a spirtual remake. If you played Ocarina as a kid, you will be smiling ear to ear when you revisit places like Zoras Domain. It really is OOT with awesome graphics (no, it's not GoW - it's not the texture sizes polygon counts and shaders that matter - it's the art of it, the scale. It looks like a real world and is big. Oblivion got the big part, but it doesn't look as good as TP by a long shot - it is bland and boring.)
The original bits in TP are awesome as well. I want to warn you that the story development... stops for a bit... part way through the game. Nintendo doesn't have enough balls to one-up OOT, so they crippled it a bit.
Basically, TP exists because of OOT, it is basically a tribute to it.
Actually, no it doesn't.
The kernel is part MACH part Apple, none of which is GPL.
The low level userspace stuff is BSD.
Everything else is mainly Apple.
The questionable bit is WebKit, which I believe is LGPL, and either way the code for it is released by Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the idea: let x=the list of all incoming messages. Let f be a function that takes a message and the last result, and produces a result, that is some actions and a state. Now, the code for a client is foldr1 f x. Of course, the fun is in programming the function f, but that is why an infinite lazy list is awesome. You don't have to manually make the code for waiting for the next message etc, all that boring stuff no useful person wants to write anyway.
This example is extremely simplified of course, but it's the general idea. I have an IRC bot that operates basically on that principle. It is an infinite loop of taking the next message and using it. Since it is lazy, it doesn't keep looping super fast, it only evaluates the next message as soon as it exists (i.e. when the bot gets a message from the server)
"whether it was an anonymous provocateur"
/b/ on 4chan.
You obviously do not get it. When they say "Anonymous" they mean literally anonymous. Visit
You have conceded that there is an isomorphism between "universe" and "god", at least presently. You conjecture that science/"universe" => how to make a robot, and religion/"god"=> should i build a robot?, but somehow science/"universe" =/> should I build a robot?
Obviously, since robots and science exist today, and there is, as you say, an equality between "universe" and "god" in the present tense, there should be a way for science to answer "should i build a robot?" It turns out, there is.
Building a robot is super cool. The idea activates the pleasure chemical transmitters in my brain. This can be confirmed empirically. Therefore, yes, we should build a robots.
In a non-stupid summary, you are presenting a false dichotomy.
I don't agree with you, but I have enjoyed the different opinions in this thread :) :P
I'd just like to say for posterity that my "retard" comment etc were intentionally inflammatory
Wrong. Compulsory education at the primary level is a basic human right, as defined by the U.N.
States set their own laws as to what qualifies as "education". If you think teaching creationism is education, I have some horse shit you can fill your cars tank up with, you can call it gas.
And, for that matter, my classification of the society I want to live in just so happens to be the one derived from law. So, it is you that can find somewhere else to live, thank you very much.
Science isn't about personal belief. You can't debate between a scientific theory and mythology. One is testable and one is a story.
I have a right to live in a society of non-retards. Therefore not teaching your children science violates my freedom.
Well, let's see... Slashdot comments are not spread out over 20 ad-infested pages with one or two paragraphs on each page. Slashdot comments often contain much more detailed analysis than TFA, especially since some journalists feel qualified to write about things they know nothing about and can't seem to be bothered to fact check. Slashdot comments are never slashdotted. So, I'm gonna say no.
iPhone owners have a proven track record of paying for things. Just sayin'.
I can remember reading in the papers that Paris Hilton blah blah blah blah
Moral of the story: The papers are crap, especially at science. Your local small town newspaper != a science journal. Try looking at some of them, you can get back issues.
Why exactly would a self integrity test be bad? It works like this: ...
1) You click the button to put the computer to sleep. It stops doing stuff.
2) A program scans the RAM, making a hash of what is in it (this is the *only* thing running, and ignores its own allocated RAM. Also, maybe it would only hash the important OS stuff?)
3) It writes the hash to disk (er, I guess now it would be ok to write it to RAM instead)
4) Computer is shut down
5) Computer is started up. Before the OS in general starts, the verification module pulls the hash, rehashes the RAM and compares. Different? Then do something (warn the user, unrecoverable error etc)
6)
7) Profit
There are 4 possible scenarios.
1) The RAM and key were not corrupted, everything goes fine (presumably the likely case.)
2) The RAM was corrupted, but the key wasn't (This is the other "hopeful" case.)
3) The RAM was not corrupted, but the key was, giving a false-positive (a whoopsies)
4)Both were corrupted, with two subcases:
i) They now match, which would be *bad* possibly (the odds make this 100% negligble with a proper hashing function.)
ii) They don't match, causing the same result as 1) which is desirable.
I fail to see how self verification would be bad. I assume you were thinking of case 4i, which is a non-issue.
Computer Science C Math
That C is an inclusion sign.
"Zero is a number" could I guess be taken as not true, and a new set of theorems derived from that fact (well, "zero" and "number" are just words, it's more the spirit of the thing but it sounds like you know that, with the 0! = 1 bit... but anyway thats the idea of how non-euclidean geometry comes about - negating the parallel postulate (because it is either true or it ain't, those are the two possibilities) creates different maths.) In math you can just pick your axioms and see what happens. It's an unrelated fact that we like axioms that create theorems that we perceive to fit the real world. "God did it" as an axiom doesn't let you derive much. Zero being a number/its concept I guess could be argued, personally I would find that argument boring, but I think scientifically speaking it is less risky to make that assumption than something as complicated as God.
:P
Also, yes, successor(x) can be any one-to-one function. The axiom that you refer to in your last sentance is number 4, "Two numbers of which the successors are equal are themselves equal." That would not be true with rand (), unless you were using a crappy pseudo-random generator, with an infinite domain and range... in which case it could hardly be called random, could it?
Utter bullshit. Newtonian physics? The three laws. Relativity? The speed of light is constant to all observers. Quantum theory? Occam was wrong (just kidding, you get the idea though.)
Not to mention they inherit all related mathematical axioms.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanosAxioms.html
Uh... you are comparing "Zero is a number" etc to "God exists"... axioms in Math and Science are "small". How does God exist? What are the scope of his powers? What is the density, length and colour of his beard? Does he have noodly appendages? Probably the most "controversial" axioms in Math (in the sense that they may not be self evident) are:
1. The parallel postulate (f a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.)
2. The axiom of choice (Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.)
In both cases, both axioms have been assumed both true and false to create their own sets of theorems (E.g. Euclidean geometry, which everyone knows (well..) vs. Non-euclidean geometry which is used in relativity etc... these differ on wether or not the parallel postulate is accepted)
Calling God an axiom is a losing argument.
You should also consider spending a bit of cash on a good multimeter, which isn't necessary but HIGHLY recommended for troubleshooting or reverse engineering.
Better yet, get this: http://www.pololu.com/catalog/product/322
Good soldering practice, works as well as any other similarily spec'd one. (the probe things are kind of cheap though) Comes with some solder and lots of extra wire IIRC. Easy to do, just follow the steps.
Put it back where they found the fuel?
I don't know the actual numbers and am too lazy to look, but is Plutonium (the waste) way more radioactive then the fuel (Uranium)?
6.
Wow, angry much?
Richard Feynmans report was pushed into the appendicies of the full report. Personally, I don't think it is dry, but to each his own.
A good start would be Richard Feynmans report on the challenger disaster (should be easy to get online.) He was no simple simon.
1. It's not a fork of the BSD kernel you tool, it's Mach + I/O Kit, with the BSD userland 2. OS X != Darwin
What the hell? OOT looked way better than any other game on any other system, especially when you counted the scale of that game (it was huge.)
Twilight Princess is just Ocarina done up for the next generation. It's like the special edition star wars. Sure, it is obviously a sequel, has a different story and different temples etc, but it is a spirtual remake. If you played Ocarina as a kid, you will be smiling ear to ear when you revisit places like Zoras Domain. It really is OOT with awesome graphics (no, it's not GoW - it's not the texture sizes polygon counts and shaders that matter - it's the art of it, the scale. It looks like a real world and is big. Oblivion got the big part, but it doesn't look as good as TP by a long shot - it is bland and boring.) The original bits in TP are awesome as well. I want to warn you that the story development... stops for a bit... part way through the game. Nintendo doesn't have enough balls to one-up OOT, so they crippled it a bit. Basically, TP exists because of OOT, it is basically a tribute to it.
Actually, no it doesn't. The kernel is part MACH part Apple, none of which is GPL. The low level userspace stuff is BSD. Everything else is mainly Apple. The questionable bit is WebKit, which I believe is LGPL, and either way the code for it is released by Apple.
You have the best sig ever.