They're pretty boring aren't they. You'd have to be a pretty sad fucker to think that they're worthy of making headline news on anything other than a specialist security web site. Bye bye/.
People repeatedly demonstrate that Java is as fast as C. They do this for the same reason that members of religious groups keep having to tell themselves that their prefered creator of the universe is better than anyone else's: because the moment they stop reminding themselves they'll realise it's in direct contradiction to reality. Write some CPU intensive code in C and Java yourself and report back. And don't just write some silly benchmark that tests out a tiny part of the optimizer. Write some well rounded code that does a mixture of different things.
...that a text editor doesn't? When doing C++ development I've found an IDE useful for managing things like options for multiple build types and automating the complation and linking process. Additionally C++ IDEs are useful because a bundle of source files might go into a single executable so it makes sense to organize source code in such a way that you can see, for each built executable, what files went into it. What aspects of Python require an IDE?
Which is why we need more holding companies, not less. The barrier to getting a good idea from your head to a workable product is still very high so countless people have good ideas that never see the light of day. The more avenues we have for allowing people to air those ideas the better. In addition, holding companies serve another purpose - they allow people to manage risk. Different people are happy with different levels of risk. If you don't mind high risk you may be prepared to go it alone and try to set up a company yourself based on your idea. If you're highly risk averse then you'll simply work for an employer and accept maybe a small bonus check (if you're lucky) for your patentable idea. And if you fall somewhere in the middle you may be able to sell your idea to someone else for less profit but allow them to carry the risk. That's the whole point of capitalism: whatever your utility function and whatever your assessment of risk there's bound to be someone out there to cater to your needs, and if not, there's a business opportunity for you.
I figure when someone comes up with a theory that settles things like decoherence, I'll hear about it and learn what I have to learn in order to understand the results.
No you won't.
I'm not going to bother with physics until then; there's too little payoff.
Let me get this straight: even though you aren't interested in physics enough to learn about it you will be if some of the foundational issues with QM are sorted out. Even though there are mountains of good physics out there it'll take something like figuring out the details of decoherence to make that mountain big enough for you? And...you're not going to actively look for such information but instead you're just going to sit back and wait until you "hear about it" (even though quantum mechanics, while two generations old now, is only now geting reported significantly in the popular press).
Meanwhile, based on the few observations you have made you're going to make statements about Einstein and other physicists.
Do you have anything more to say? This is as funny as listening to Ricky Gervais's podcasts!
Which is in keeping with my observations of physicists
Who are the physicists that you have observed? And where did you observe them?
Firstly - most physicists have at some point been deeply troubled by QM (what's QT?). Of those: some come to accept it and some come to deal with it. Those who accept it get on with using physics and come to do good work. Of those who don't: some end up doing work in the foundations of QM. No small fraction do this - every year hundreds, if not thousands of papers get published on the subject. But there's no point everyone working in this field.
And there are many who think that philosophically the problems have all been solved and the macro/micro divide is a result of decoherence. They see the issues as being about working out the details rather than a big philosophical "why?". Again, many papers and several books are published on this subject every year.
There is no shortage of "philosopher-type[s]" physicists (and philosophers who know QM) - though few are as smart as Einstiein". Your implication is that people haven't solved these problems for lack of trying. The truth is, the problems are hard, and I suspect youy haven't made much effort to find out who really is trying.
The story isn't misreporting - but you're clearly a victim of earlier misreporting. Creating pairs of entangled particles is easy and has been carried out many times in the lab. It's not in any way a big deal - the normal state for pairs of particles that have interacted is to be entangled. The experiment is interesting because of the type of entangling. But none of this is relevant to your main point - there is no known scheme to exploit entanging to obtain FTL communication and few physicists think there is any connection between entanglement and FTL communication.
Do they teach nothing more than that in other places around the world?
That's just a stereotype picked up from TV. The stuff about Australia that's taught in schools in the rest of the world is quite different. In fact, just for reference I'm putting the entire history of Australia that's taught in the US in the remainder of this comment:
Faster computers, hard drives with higher capacities and faster networks. Batteries that last (slightly) longer. New releases of Linux. New patches for Windows. Several new rounds of iPods. Google release more software. Security holes in Windows and Internet Explorer. And new web protocols will be announced.
Much overrated as an equation. c is just a constant (and in sensible units c=1) so all it really says is that E=constant*m. This is hardly the stuff of mathematical wet dreams, even if the fact that it's true does have some interest for physicists.
Check out Bernar Venet. The web site is a bit crap, a flash plugin or something. But click on 'paintings' and explore. Make sure you find the commutative diagrams the size of a house.
I has a lot of the atractive OO features and still it lets you get as close to the machine as you'd like. For example you can drop into C and do your own memory management for parts of the code where you are allocating and deallocating lots memory. You can also code in assembly if you feel the performance gain is necessary.
All of this misses the point. C++ allows you to write code that is similarly at a fairly high level of abstraction and yet that performs as well as C. There's no need to use silly coding styles where you use one approach for fast code and another approach for code whose performance you care less about. In fact, many of the ways of getting good performance out of C++ require you to use relatively high level techniques.
...Pixar are being pushed to use Objective C++ and have plans to rewrite their tools using it. I also hear that the developers are pretty unhappy about it - partly because of the potential drop in performance that it might bring for much of the type of code Pixar write.
Engaging in any kind of rationale debate with them simply plays into their hands
Think about your audience. They fall into 3 types and you have a different effect on each.
Those who are confident of the correctness of evolution. Your comments may entertain them.
Those who are confident of the incorrectness of evolution. Your comments will just serve as more demonstration that supporters of evolution are the spawn of Satan etc. This probably doesn't bother you but their replies may entertain you.
The group that matter - those who can be swayed one way or the other. They see arguments repeated by creationists without well argued rebuttal. Eventually they will wonder about the lack of rebuttal and end up creationists.
So you have to weigh up the importance to you of entertaining like minded people, entertaining yourself, and actually making a difference.
Simply because by their own standards they achieve better than others?
You answer your own question.
How would they feel if groups of people who say excelled at spiritual aspects of life, which apparently are beyond the reach of so many of these people, and simply stated that the realization of intelligent design was the top epiphany of 2005?
I'd ask "why are these people, who excel at the spiritual aspects of life, getting so involved in biology?"
If you're going to argue with these guys it helps if you can take the moral high ground. It doesn't serve your cause when you say things like
Go back to Kansas and take last years flu vaccine, and go pray to whatever straw man is up there in the sky.
where you use the term "straw man" in the very same sentence that you essentially argue against a straw man. There isn't much content to Creationism and ID so how hard can it be to keep track of the fact that supporters of these theories have been talking about "micro-evolution" for decades. Jokes about last year's flu vaccines are as stupid as comments about the spontaneous formation of human genomes from amino acid soup.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Really? Any idea?
A human's entire DNA unwound extend 185 billion kilometers
No it's not. The total length of the DNA in a human is probably less than a thousandth of this. The total length of unique DNA is probably of the order of a few meters in length, the rest is copies.
A simple protien must have at least 100 amino acids bonded together
have to? There is no law of biology that says anything of the sort. A protein is merely a long sequence of peptides by definition. A shorter sequence is called a peptide. Peptides, polypeptides and proteins can all serve different biological functions.
The probability of the formation of a simple protien comes out to 1 in 1.28x10^175.
Do you understand probability theory at all? Tell me, what is the probability of a 2 peptide sequence spontaneously forming in front of my eyes right now? Unless you have some kind of mathematical model, even a crude one, you can't assign probabilities in a meaningful way.
You seem like someone who is out of their depth using words like "protien" (sic) and "donded" (sic). Maybe you should come back and post again when you've learned something about the subject.
No explanation
has yet been demonstrated of how the initial
chemical constituents formed to produce a
DNA/RNA based life form.
That's pretty disingenuous, to start off talking about human genomes and then slip to "DNA/RNA based life form". I expect that the earliest DNA based life had much shorter genomes than humans. I expect you already knew that but chose to talk about the human genome anyway as if it just appeared whole from nowhere.
If these
"building blocks" spontaneorsly (sic) construct
meaningful strands of DNA
I'm not sure anyone claims fully working organisms appeared spontaneously from so-called building blocks. And "meaningful" isn't really what we're talking about. Today we can assign a meaning to DNA strands based on their interpretation as codons. But early on strands of RNA or DNA didn't have to work the same way. It is known that RNA can act directly as a catalyst in chemical reactions. I find it plausible that some early combination of compounds could by chance serve to catalyze their own synthesis and once this has happened I'd expect to start seeing competition and natural selection between different autocatalytic sets leading to the formation of more complex autocatalytic sets, possibly involving RNA and DNA.
Slashdot Mirror
Not *alternate*.
This company fits the description 100%. I'd say the additional info here confirms it.
They're pretty boring aren't they. You'd have to be a pretty sad fucker to think that they're worthy of making headline news on anything other than a specialist security web site. Bye bye /.
People repeatedly demonstrate that Java is as fast as C. They do this for the same reason that members of religious groups keep having to tell themselves that their prefered creator of the universe is better than anyone else's: because the moment they stop reminding themselves they'll realise it's in direct contradiction to reality. Write some CPU intensive code in C and Java yourself and report back. And don't just write some silly benchmark that tests out a tiny part of the optimizer. Write some well rounded code that does a mixture of different things.
...that a text editor doesn't? When doing C++ development I've found an IDE useful for managing things like options for multiple build types and automating the complation and linking process. Additionally C++ IDEs are useful because a bundle of source files might go into a single executable so it makes sense to organize source code in such a way that you can see, for each built executable, what files went into it. What aspects of Python require an IDE?
It's not an interesting constant at all. If you define your units suitably then c=1.
Meanwhile, based on the few observations you have made you're going to make statements about Einstein and other physicists.
Do you have anything more to say? This is as funny as listening to Ricky Gervais's podcasts!
This isn't a thought experiment. RTFA next time.
Firstly - most physicists have at some point been deeply troubled by QM (what's QT?). Of those: some come to accept it and some come to deal with it. Those who accept it get on with using physics and come to do good work. Of those who don't: some end up doing work in the foundations of QM. No small fraction do this - every year hundreds, if not thousands of papers get published on the subject. But there's no point everyone working in this field.
And there are many who think that philosophically the problems have all been solved and the macro/micro divide is a result of decoherence. They see the issues as being about working out the details rather than a big philosophical "why?". Again, many papers and several books are published on this subject every year.
There is no shortage of "philosopher-type[s]" physicists (and philosophers who know QM) - though few are as smart as Einstiein". Your implication is that people haven't solved these problems for lack of trying. The truth is, the problems are hard, and I suspect youy haven't made much effort to find out who really is trying.
The story isn't misreporting - but you're clearly a victim of earlier misreporting. Creating pairs of entangled particles is easy and has been carried out many times in the lab. It's not in any way a big deal - the normal state for pairs of particles that have interacted is to be entangled. The experiment is interesting because of the type of entangling. But none of this is relevant to your main point - there is no known scheme to exploit entanging to obtain FTL communication and few physicists think there is any connection between entanglement and FTL communication.
Faster computers, hard drives with higher capacities and faster networks. Batteries that last (slightly) longer. New releases of Linux. New patches for Windows. Several new rounds of iPods. Google release more software. Security holes in Windows and Internet Explorer. And new web protocols will be announced.
Much overrated as an equation. c is just a constant (and in sensible units c=1) so all it really says is that E=constant*m. This is hardly the stuff of mathematical wet dreams, even if the fact that it's true does have some interest for physicists.
Check out Bernar Venet. The web site is a bit crap, a flash plugin or something. But click on 'paintings' and explore. Make sure you find the commutative diagrams the size of a house.
...Pixar are being pushed to use Objective C++ and have plans to rewrite their tools using it. I also hear that the developers are pretty unhappy about it - partly because of the potential drop in performance that it might bring for much of the type of code Pixar write.
What the head of the department thinks their staff think bears little relation to what they actually think.
- Those who are confident of the correctness of evolution. Your comments may entertain them.
- Those who are confident of the incorrectness of evolution. Your comments will just serve as more demonstration that supporters of evolution are the spawn of Satan etc. This probably doesn't bother you but their replies may entertain you.
- The group that matter - those who can be swayed one way or the other. They see arguments repeated by creationists without well argued rebuttal. Eventually they will wonder about the lack of rebuttal and end up creationists.
So you have to weigh up the importance to you of entertaining like minded people, entertaining yourself, and actually making a difference.You seem like someone who is out of their depth using words like "protien" (sic) and "donded" (sic). Maybe you should come back and post again when you've learned something about the subject.
Am I missing the joke?
You rule out 67% of the population right there.