Actual, real-world programs do more than "implement algorithms". Turing-completeness is completely irrelevant in pretty much every single practical programming situation.
It does. That is why dark matter is the leading theory at the moment. It is the simplest one, with the least additional elements, that can actually explain all available observations.
There are plenty of simpler theories that can't, though, if you prefer things that are known to be wrong.
It is technically possible but practically impossible, for two reasons: One, it is very hard to get even backwards-compatible extensions approved for addition to PNG. See the failure of APNG for an example. Two, such a change would not really be backwards-compatible, and the files would be named "png" but would not actually open in any current PNG reader. There would thus be very little advantage of adding this to PNG rather than creating a new format.
PNG is quite old and tired at this point. Both BPG and other newly proposed formats such as WebP have lossless modes which easily beat PNG at compression.
And it's far better to make the code visible to all then to wait for the exploit to be found in the usual ways while everyone was in the dark about it.
That is quite a strong claim to make without providing evidence to back it up.
Intelligence, as a very baseline requirements, should be adaptable.
Pretty much every single AI implementation is designed specifically for a given task. It can not adapt itself, without outside help, to a problem outside its initial scope.
It's not that the flash is low grade, it's that it just plain doesn't exist, and the card will just discard data after a while. What flash there is in there probably works, but is useless.
The price is the dead giveaway that it is a fake. Flash memory does cost money, and it is sold at minimal margins. One fifth of the price means less than one fifth of the memory, every time.
The card will pretend to be as big as they claim, and it will silently just lose your data.
The difference in gravity is negligible. The lack of drag does help, but you don't need to go quite that high for that. At 7 miles you're past most of the atmosphere already.
"Microgravity" is irrelevant in this context, it just means the ship is falling. Sure, it's a little bit easier from 68 miles than from 7 miles, but again, that's just the altitude, which is already the easier part. It does nothing to help you gain orbital velocity.
And, rocket engines have not developed that much in 30 years. We are still stuck with the weight-to-energy limitations of chemical reactions.
"Suborbital" is a very different concept from "low earth orbit".
"Suborbital" means you don't have enough speed to stay in orbit. Getting to the required altitude is the easy part of getting into orbit. Once you're there you need to stay there, which takes far more energy to achieve.
SpaceShipTwo is strictly suborbital, as is apparently ASM-135.
Sending up balloons very, very rarely causes people to die, you know. That was kind of the issue here. That what SC2 is doing is not worth dying for, not that it's not worthwhile at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, if they want to maintain their own fork that nobody uses, they can do that.
If it's MIT licensed it's probably a bit too open for him.
Can you name a person who has been scared to go to a police station because he downloaded an mp3 at some point?
Who is not insane?
There is simply no way this is actually a good faith attempt to benefit the citizenry here. None.
Well I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced! I'm glad you didn't try to cloud the issue by any kind of pesky evidence or anything!
Actual, real-world programs do more than "implement algorithms". Turing-completeness is completely irrelevant in pretty much every single practical programming situation.
Yes, MS is well known for suing students running VB.NET on Mono.
At least in the crazy universe inside your head.
Summary:
1) I hate Javascript.
2) asm.js is bad because I say so.
3) I hate Mozilla.
Number of factual statements about asm.js or its problems: Zero.
It does. That is why dark matter is the leading theory at the moment. It is the simplest one, with the least additional elements, that can actually explain all available observations.
There are plenty of simpler theories that can't, though, if you prefer things that are known to be wrong.
It is technically possible but practically impossible, for two reasons: One, it is very hard to get even backwards-compatible extensions approved for addition to PNG. See the failure of APNG for an example. Two, such a change would not really be backwards-compatible, and the files would be named "png" but would not actually open in any current PNG reader. There would thus be very little advantage of adding this to PNG rather than creating a new format.
PNG is quite old and tired at this point. Both BPG and other newly proposed formats such as WebP have lossless modes which easily beat PNG at compression.
WebP has lossy and lossless modes, just to clarify, and is actually a good candidate to replace JPEG, PNG and even GIF, as it also has animation.
Did you actually try doing that? Because IIS is doing quite well on that score, last I checked.
And it's far better to make the code visible to all then to wait for the exploit to be found in the usual ways while everyone was in the dark about it.
That is quite a strong claim to make without providing evidence to back it up.
Do cite your examples, then, and argue why they are equivalent.
Intelligence, as a very baseline requirements, should be adaptable.
Pretty much every single AI implementation is designed specifically for a given task. It can not adapt itself, without outside help, to a problem outside its initial scope.
That is not intelligence.
It's not that the flash is low grade, it's that it just plain doesn't exist, and the card will just discard data after a while. What flash there is in there probably works, but is useless.
The price is the dead giveaway that it is a fake. Flash memory does cost money, and it is sold at minimal margins. One fifth of the price means less than one fifth of the memory, every time.
The card will pretend to be as big as they claim, and it will silently just lose your data.
Remind me again who has lost their right to hold opinions here?
The difference in gravity is negligible. The lack of drag does help, but you don't need to go quite that high for that. At 7 miles you're past most of the atmosphere already.
"Microgravity" is irrelevant in this context, it just means the ship is falling. Sure, it's a little bit easier from 68 miles than from 7 miles, but again, that's just the altitude, which is already the easier part. It does nothing to help you gain orbital velocity.
And, rocket engines have not developed that much in 30 years. We are still stuck with the weight-to-energy limitations of chemical reactions.
"Suborbital" is a very different concept from "low earth orbit".
"Suborbital" means you don't have enough speed to stay in orbit. Getting to the required altitude is the easy part of getting into orbit. Once you're there you need to stay there, which takes far more energy to achieve.
SpaceShipTwo is strictly suborbital, as is apparently ASM-135.
Sending up balloons very, very rarely causes people to die, you know. That was kind of the issue here. That what SC2 is doing is not worth dying for, not that it's not worthwhile at all.
Sure, there are some niche scientific uses for suborbital flights. But that is still isn't the same as managing orbital flight.
The ASM-135 was also suborbital, you'll note.
No, what I am saying is that if the Wright brothers started today, nobody would think they were doing useful work.
I seem to be arguing with a child. My mistake.