Re:Yeah, but that's not what we need.
on
Python-to-C++ Compiler
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not quite true. Analogy:
Would you also like to translate a text from Arabic to English by passing through 3 or 4 languages in between?
In this analogy the problem would probably be accuracy, in the case you presented it would be performance being lost due to layers of conversion. Some high level optimizations are inevitably lost (unless the C++ compiler has some sort of strong AI).
test.pl - known good working copy TEST.PL - testing copy, under current development Test.pl - testing copy 1 rev back tEst.pl - testing copy 2 revs back
This just shows that one can expect everything from a Perl programmer...
OK, here it is - if god is omnipotent, can he make a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it? Contradiction detected, initial hypothesis is wrong. QED.
In fact, even in Europe (eastern europe, Turkey, etc; and I suspect most if not all of the major western european) you have torture occuring.
We had torture in Portugal... More than 30 years ago, before the dictatorial regime was torn down. And we had death penalty - until 1976 (the last execution happened in 1849 according to this page).
... for you US taxpayers that your taxmoney is being used on initiatives started by the influence of weapon industry lobbyists instead of being used for your own good.
And 16 MBps is pretty slow as well. Not that it matters, since as many people have pointed out, that memory isn't supposed to be read by the cell processor anyway.
Are there documented cases of the Inq lying, or being deceitful? Of overly shoddy journalism?
Yes - this article. As many other posts have explained already, the speed of reading from that memory is not important and could even be 0 MB/s. Reading from graphic memory is not something usually done; on PC's it's also a slow operation.
Re:Non-U.S.'ers not safe either
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
By your logic, a review of a movie would also be a derivative work.
Your post was quite good, but the last paragraph is contradictory with the rest.
A good mathematical proof is as self-contained as possible; that's probably an utopia, but a proof of Fermat's last theorem which is just that line you mentioned does no good whatsoever to anyone reading it. If a proof is self-contained (or almost), someone who reads it and understands it can then safely say that he/she understands WHY the theorem is true. Otherwise, he may well be relying on someone else's mistakes (adding more stuff on top of what is already there, as you said).
The really good advances come if what you said on the first part of your post happens - someone coming up with a new fundamentally different way of seeing concepts and problems, which makes it easier for someone to fully understand them.
I think he just proved that NOT ALL the statements in a mathematical system are provable. He didn't prove that it is impossible to prove ALL the statements.
This leads us to the answer to another pressing problem in mathematics - Why Do We Care?
Often, mathematical advances have no use in the time when they are discovered but later prove to be valuable, either inside mathematics or not.
For example, who could foresee that non-euclidean geometries would be used by Einstein in his theories? Einstein's theories are quite useful today (GPS comes to mind). QED
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about "inventing a God in man's image"...
Not quite true. Analogy:
Would you also like to translate a text from Arabic to English by passing through 3 or 4 languages in between?
In this analogy the problem would probably be accuracy, in the case you presented it would be performance being lost due to layers of conversion. Some high level optimizations are inevitably lost (unless the C++ compiler has some sort of strong AI).
This just shows that one can expect everything from a Perl programmer...
God Exists.
There, now I'd like to be proven wrong
OK, here it is - if god is omnipotent, can he make a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it? Contradiction detected, initial hypothesis is wrong. QED.
Are you sure of your claims?
But it's still missing the "jokebait" tag...
I wonder if you would have the nerve to say that if it happened to your country or city. Or to your family.
We had torture in Portugal... More than 30 years ago, before the dictatorial regime was torn down. And we had death penalty - until 1976 (the last execution happened in 1849 according to this page).
Gosh, please have your nuclear weapons if you have to but please stop using middle-endian for dates
... for you US taxpayers that your taxmoney is being used on initiatives started by the influence of weapon industry lobbyists instead of being used for your own good.
Yeah, I had heard about it :)
It could be anything (even 0) since it doesn't matter. No-one wants to read from graphical memory anyway, even more in the cell processor.
16Mbps would be pretty slow!
And 16 MBps is pretty slow as well. Not that it matters, since as many people have pointed out, that memory isn't supposed to be read by the cell processor anyway.
Yes - this article. As many other posts have explained already, the speed of reading from that memory is not important and could even be 0 MB/s. Reading from graphic memory is not something usually done; on PC's it's also a slow operation.
By your logic, a review of a movie would also be a derivative work.
What, this one??
OK, case closed then. Another "fantastic" slashdot article, it seems...
Well, there could be ANOTHER device reading from it (with a different reading speed). I'm trying to understand if that's the case here.
Even better - it starts with "linux" and ends with "linux".
If you had RTFA you would get the grandparent's post.
Your post was quite good, but the last paragraph is contradictory with the rest.
A good mathematical proof is as self-contained as possible; that's probably an utopia, but a proof of Fermat's last theorem which is just that line you mentioned does no good whatsoever to anyone reading it. If a proof is self-contained (or almost), someone who reads it and understands it can then safely say that he/she understands WHY the theorem is true. Otherwise, he may well be relying on someone else's mistakes (adding more stuff on top of what is already there, as you said).
The really good advances come if what you said on the first part of your post happens - someone coming up with a new fundamentally different way of seeing concepts and problems, which makes it easier for someone to fully understand them.
I think he just proved that NOT ALL the statements in a mathematical system are provable. He didn't prove that it is impossible to prove ALL the statements.
I'm asking what made it front page news.
Because it's a well known mathematical problem, it's even one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems!
This leads us to the answer to another pressing problem in mathematics - Why Do We Care?
Often, mathematical advances have no use in the time when they are discovered but later prove to be valuable, either inside mathematics or not.
For example, who could foresee that non-euclidean geometries would be used by Einstein in his theories? Einstein's theories are quite useful today (GPS comes to mind). QED
Heh - that's all you are to us, too:
http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm
Actually that page contains links to the names and death reasons of soldiers...