Except you hope that Haskell automatically memoizes the results
Please don't take this the wrong way, but please stop spreading your misinformation. One doesn't hope Haskell memoizes because it doesn't memoize functions. One requires that Haskell implement call-by-need. Overlapping but very different concepts. I'll assume it was an honest mistake but the difference makes the rest of your post nonsense.
Haskell is only being used by people that crunch numbers
Another point of dissagrement. If anything number crunchers (e.g. scientific computing in which I've done a fair bit of work) avoid Haskell (along with anything that is not Fortran, Matlab or C). Haskell finds favor more among "programing language" types who are interesting in writing their own language (Haskell is a phenominal language to wrong another language in) or in "elegant" ways to write compact solutions to traditionally verbose problems (e.g. merge sort in two "statements").
How can a bill be amended to address several unrelated things,
Think of a bill like a patch to source code. There is no way for the version control software to require that patches add only one feature. To enforce such a rule, you have to have peer review and a strong cultural commitment to that rule. Basically it has to be implemented as a soft rule rather than a hard rule.
Now US politicians all seem to think the end justifies the means. And usually the ends are very greedy ends (i.e. get reelected anyway possible). With that sort of attitude commitment to any sort of soft rule quickly goes out that window. Now tacking on these sorts of things makes it easier to get them passed (people who like the bill enough will pass it anyway) and makes it easier to get the bill passed (add a pork barrel project for a senator and now he'll vote for the bill). If *ahem* breaking *cough*... I mean stretching... the rule helps you or your allies get ahead and ends justify means, then of course you'll do it. On top of that because it's not a hard rule no one can concretely say you've broken any rules and it never gets punished.
It is bad but unfortunately quite common to see bills made up of a collection of unrelated compromises in order to get enough people to vote for it. What baffles me is that you say it doesn't happen in Europe (or at least not as much). Please, what is your secret to pulling that off?
Ah, but what is existence? Do numbers exist? Or are they ethereal abstractions? What of the mood of a room? Or nations? Or years?
Taken to the full reductionist extent, perhaps a cup does not exist, but only atoms that happen to form a particular cup-like shape? But then atoms wouldn't exist either, only leptons and quarks (we think).
(Disclaimer: I do not believe the position that this post might imply, but would be most interested in hearing a clear exposition on the topic.)
It probably depends on where you are. In most of the midwest US, a morning commute may be 10-20 miles (i.e. across town). However, around the major cities (i.e. anywhere within 50 miles of New York) the commuter road traffic probably follows a very different pattern. I am not familiar enough with New York traffic to say what that pattern is, but it is very different.
Sure it can navigate an empty road, but what about once there are other cars on it or pot holes or what if the bus service needs a temporary detour?
Cool from a technology perspective, but I doubt it will ever be applied to actual street driving. Most likely it will end up with some alternative use like controlling the office mail cart or something.
If free market is supposed to regulate everything,
why shouldn't it buy laws and police?
Capitalist economists don't say the free market should regulate everything. They say that in the absence of externalities with a rival, excludable good the free market will maximize both buyer and seller marginal value (i.e. maximizes efficiency). However many things are either non-rival or non-excludable or both. The textbook (literally) example of a non-excludable good is national defense. Police service is similar. And as to laws, well now you've added an externality and it's not even a rival good.
Any interventionism is supposed to harm the good effects expected from free market.
Capitalist economists don't say that either. The key is to notice that there are different forms of regulation/intervention. A "free" market is heavily regulated to make sure everyone plays by the rules, about the only things not regulated in a pure free market are whom, what, and for how much though even the whom and what may be regulated. (Think about how tightly the stock exchange is regulated.)
IF a theory can be disproved by an observation, then it is a theory.
I used to agree, but consider the theory "some sheep are black." Spotting a black sheep could prove the theory and until you find a black sheep, parsimony says you should presume the theory false, but there is no observation you could(*) make that would affirmatively disprove the theory.
Same goes for "there was once life on mars", "silicon based life is possible", "there is life on other planets", "kangaroos sometimes kill their young", and "the ivory-billed woodpecker is not extinct".
(*) You might be able to get some play from the idea that a theory only has to be disprovable in theory rather than practice (i.e. in theory you could check all the sheep in the world even if you couldn't in practice). However, I'm doubtful if that could work since in theory just about any theory is disprovable given a sufficiently advanced technology and sufficiently strange physical laws.
Why? Wouldn't it be easier to just put them in bookmark folders?
The self justifying/rationalizing answer is (1) so that when I close them, I don't have to also delete them and (2) I find hundreds of tabs easier to look through than hundreds of bookmarks (*) and with tab saver plugins they are (almost) just as safe.
But enough with the self justification. I think it really boils down to one cause, which has no good reason but exists still the same and I'm not planing on changing. I will bookmark a site when I intend to refer back to it at a later time. As such it requires a conscious effort and choice on my part. I end up leaving a tab open when it gets preempted by another mental task. Thus leaving the tab open is a more passive action that happens merely as a consequence of other actions.
A typical example of this happening is if I'm in the middle of reading a good article recently posted on slashdot. That article may have some interesting links that I want to read once I'm finished with the article, but I don't want to forget to read them so with a single middle click each I'll open each of them in a separate background tab as reminders to read them later. Next a colleague swings by to ask if I'm interested in lunch, so I lock my screen and go to lunch. Over lunch we get talking about some ideas that get me thinking so when I get back, I start franticly searching the web for related topics. This often involves a very wide multilevel branching search in which I may have open a dozen tabs on that topic at a time. Most of those are dead ends that I eventually close, but maybe three of them show promise and I need to dig through them some more, but now it's time for class so I lock my screen again and go to class and afterwards home. Next day my tab count is a few more than it was yesterday and the cycle repeats except maybe I review my old tabs to see what I need to finish... right after I read this nice story just posted to slashdot;-).
Basically, I end up treating tabs as my TODO list, while bookmarks are my reference list. This is not intentional, but it is the result.
(*) I keep my tab widths just barely wide enough to see the fav icon and with multirow tabs I can easily see a hundred tabs on the screen at the same time while a menu only gets around thirty. (So why not organize them into sub-folders you ask? Because I'm lazy and since these tabs are often so random there often would be no useful organization. But still mostly because I'm lazy.)
Out of interest, how do you rationalise something other than God creating life?
People and animals create new life every day. Since in the usual course of events God isn't sole creator but rather shares a co-creatorship with the parents, there is no a priori reason to suppose the same co-creatorship could not exist in other situations.
Disclaimer 1: There are a whole slew of controversies surrounding this topic. I have purposely avoided those in order to give you a straightforward answer without getting bogged down in ancillary topics that would generate more heat than light.
Disclaimer 2: I would probably disagree with the GP on a number of theological issues (e.g. divinely inspired vs infallible or whether it extends to translations, copies or only the original text), so I don't presume to speak for the GP or the GP's religion, denomination or theological school. I can only offer my reasonably well educated but possibly flawed understanding of one school of orthodox teaching from at least one Christian denomination that I am familiar with.
On page 48 (or 24 since the PDF has two document pages per PDF page) of http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit2008.pdf they recommend keeping a sequence of snapshots of the web pages reporting the raw results to detect any anomalies.
Now keeping snapshots of webpages to analyze how they change sounds exactly like what Archive.org was designed for. It would be nice if on the night of the election, Archive.org set their refresh (?) rate for those pages abnormally high. Then the data can be used by everyone and not just those who thought ahead of time to take the snapshots.
It wouldn't work. I'm sure any good layer knows plenty of legal means to set up subsidiaries, partners and other shell *ahem*... I mean "holding" companies, to dodge such a law.
(If it did work, I'm not sure whether I would agree or not. It has some interesting social consequences (both positive and negative) that leave me on the fence. But it wouldn't work, so oh well.)
The history of the bill of rights shows that (1) the inclusion of the bill of rights was a condition of ratification (See Massachusetts Compromise) and that (2) the debate over whether to include the bill of rights was not over whether those rights should be espoused but rather over whether those rights should be explicit or implicit (See Anti-federalism vs Federalism).
As you put it:
Now personally I don't have a problem with you believing any old nonsense you want to, but when it comes to filling reader's heads with this crap and forcing restrictions on one group in society over another, that's another thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you hope that Haskell automatically memoizes the results
Please don't take this the wrong way, but please stop spreading your misinformation. One doesn't hope Haskell memoizes because it doesn't memoize functions. One requires that Haskell implement call-by-need. Overlapping but very different concepts. I'll assume it was an honest mistake but the difference makes the rest of your post nonsense.
Haskell is only being used by people that crunch numbers
Another point of dissagrement. If anything number crunchers (e.g. scientific computing in which I've done a fair bit of work) avoid Haskell (along with anything that is not Fortran, Matlab or C). Haskell finds favor more among "programing language" types who are interesting in writing their own language (Haskell is a phenominal language to wrong another language in) or in "elegant" ways to write compact solutions to traditionally verbose problems (e.g. merge sort in two "statements").
Would you even get to court? It might be kind of hard to deliver the summons.
How can a bill be amended to address several unrelated things,
Think of a bill like a patch to source code. There is no way for the version control software to require that patches add only one feature. To enforce such a rule, you have to have peer review and a strong cultural commitment to that rule. Basically it has to be implemented as a soft rule rather than a hard rule.
Now US politicians all seem to think the end justifies the means. And usually the ends are very greedy ends (i.e. get reelected anyway possible). With that sort of attitude commitment to any sort of soft rule quickly goes out that window. Now tacking on these sorts of things makes it easier to get them passed (people who like the bill enough will pass it anyway) and makes it easier to get the bill passed (add a pork barrel project for a senator and now he'll vote for the bill). If *ahem* breaking *cough* ... I mean stretching ... the rule helps you or your allies get ahead and ends justify means, then of course you'll do it. On top of that because it's not a hard rule no one can concretely say you've broken any rules and it never gets punished.
It is bad but unfortunately quite common to see bills made up of a collection of unrelated compromises in order to get enough people to vote for it. What baffles me is that you say it doesn't happen in Europe (or at least not as much). Please, what is your secret to pulling that off?
what in the posters list of beliefs is NOT a part of Christianity?
Well, lets count:
imaginary
Christians say he's real.
man
God != Man
in the sky
Christians say God transcends physical position and thus can't be in the sky.
created the universe, Earth, and all life most especially people,
Unless he evolved them
in six days about 6000 years ago.
Only if that first day took a few billion years.
In 30 words he got five claims about what Christians believe wrong. That has to be a new trolling record.
(Disclaimer: He got these wrong not because what the Christians believe is right, but because he was wrong about what the Christians believe.)
Education doesn't do that. Intellectual integrity and character do. The three used to be correlated, now days it no longer seems they are.
Ah, but what is existence? Do numbers exist? Or are they ethereal abstractions? What of the mood of a room? Or nations? Or years?
Taken to the full reductionist extent, perhaps a cup does not exist, but only atoms that happen to form a particular cup-like shape? But then atoms wouldn't exist either, only leptons and quarks (we think).
(Disclaimer: I do not believe the position that this post might imply, but would be most interested in hearing a clear exposition on the topic.)
I'm taking Latin classes at the moment so I can finally avoid vulgar tongues entirely.
I speak Vulgar Latin you insensitive clod.
It probably depends on where you are. In most of the midwest US, a morning commute may be 10-20 miles (i.e. across town). However, around the major cities (i.e. anywhere within 50 miles of New York) the commuter road traffic probably follows a very different pattern. I am not familiar enough with New York traffic to say what that pattern is, but it is very different.
Sure it can navigate an empty road, but what about once there are other cars on it or pot holes or what if the bus service needs a temporary detour?
Cool from a technology perspective, but I doubt it will ever be applied to actual street driving. Most likely it will end up with some alternative use like controlling the office mail cart or something.
Probably the best analogy would be telemarketing calls to cellphones, where the user pays for a call that they don't want. Oh, wait - that's ILLEGAL.
How do telemarketing laws draw the line of what is telemarketing? Would something similar work for defining spam?
If free market is supposed to regulate everything, why shouldn't it buy laws and police?
Capitalist economists don't say the free market should regulate everything. They say that in the absence of externalities with a rival, excludable good the free market will maximize both buyer and seller marginal value (i.e. maximizes efficiency). However many things are either non-rival or non-excludable or both. The textbook (literally) example of a non-excludable good is national defense. Police service is similar. And as to laws, well now you've added an externality and it's not even a rival good.
Any interventionism is supposed to harm the good effects expected from free market.
Capitalist economists don't say that either. The key is to notice that there are different forms of regulation/intervention. A "free" market is heavily regulated to make sure everyone plays by the rules, about the only things not regulated in a pure free market are whom, what, and for how much though even the whom and what may be regulated. (Think about how tightly the stock exchange is regulated.)
hair color is easily changed, skin color isn't
I thought that's what makeup was invented for.
Easy answer: extremists on all sides of the debate.
And the moderates who get attacked because they get lumped in with the extremists.
IF a theory can be disproved by an observation, then it is a theory.
I used to agree, but consider the theory "some sheep are black." Spotting a black sheep could prove the theory and until you find a black sheep, parsimony says you should presume the theory false, but there is no observation you could(*) make that would affirmatively disprove the theory.
Same goes for "there was once life on mars", "silicon based life is possible", "there is life on other planets", "kangaroos sometimes kill their young", and "the ivory-billed woodpecker is not extinct".
(*) You might be able to get some play from the idea that a theory only has to be disprovable in theory rather than practice (i.e. in theory you could check all the sheep in the world even if you couldn't in practice). However, I'm doubtful if that could work since in theory just about any theory is disprovable given a sufficiently advanced technology and sufficiently strange physical laws.
Why? Wouldn't it be easier to just put them in bookmark folders?
The self justifying/rationalizing answer is (1) so that when I close them, I don't have to also delete them and (2) I find hundreds of tabs easier to look through than hundreds of bookmarks (*) and with tab saver plugins they are (almost) just as safe.
But enough with the self justification. I think it really boils down to one cause, which has no good reason but exists still the same and I'm not planing on changing. I will bookmark a site when I intend to refer back to it at a later time. As such it requires a conscious effort and choice on my part. I end up leaving a tab open when it gets preempted by another mental task. Thus leaving the tab open is a more passive action that happens merely as a consequence of other actions.
A typical example of this happening is if I'm in the middle of reading a good article recently posted on slashdot. That article may have some interesting links that I want to read once I'm finished with the article, but I don't want to forget to read them so with a single middle click each I'll open each of them in a separate background tab as reminders to read them later. Next a colleague swings by to ask if I'm interested in lunch, so I lock my screen and go to lunch. Over lunch we get talking about some ideas that get me thinking so when I get back, I start franticly searching the web for related topics. This often involves a very wide multilevel branching search in which I may have open a dozen tabs on that topic at a time. Most of those are dead ends that I eventually close, but maybe three of them show promise and I need to dig through them some more, but now it's time for class so I lock my screen again and go to class and afterwards home. Next day my tab count is a few more than it was yesterday and the cycle repeats except maybe I review my old tabs to see what I need to finish ... right after I read this nice story just posted to slashdot ;-).
Basically, I end up treating tabs as my TODO list, while bookmarks are my reference list. This is not intentional, but it is the result.
(*) I keep my tab widths just barely wide enough to see the fav icon and with multirow tabs I can easily see a hundred tabs on the screen at the same time while a menu only gets around thirty. (So why not organize them into sub-folders you ask? Because I'm lazy and since these tabs are often so random there often would be no useful organization. But still mostly because I'm lazy.)
I use bookmarks only for things I want to keep permanently, tabs are where I keep stuff I want to keep temporarily(*).
(*) Temporary may mean multiple months.
Out of interest, how do you rationalise something other than God creating life?
People and animals create new life every day. Since in the usual course of events God isn't sole creator but rather shares a co-creatorship with the parents, there is no a priori reason to suppose the same co-creatorship could not exist in other situations.
Disclaimer 1: There are a whole slew of controversies surrounding this topic. I have purposely avoided those in order to give you a straightforward answer without getting bogged down in ancillary topics that would generate more heat than light.
Disclaimer 2: I would probably disagree with the GP on a number of theological issues (e.g. divinely inspired vs infallible or whether it extends to translations, copies or only the original text), so I don't presume to speak for the GP or the GP's religion, denomination or theological school. I can only offer my reasonably well educated but possibly flawed understanding of one school of orthodox teaching from at least one Christian denomination that I am familiar with.
Different species. Even different philum (Sea-monkeys: Arthropoda; Water bears: Tardigrada).
On page 48 (or 24 since the PDF has two document pages per PDF page) of http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit2008.pdf they recommend keeping a sequence of snapshots of the web pages reporting the raw results to detect any anomalies.
Now keeping snapshots of webpages to analyze how they change sounds exactly like what Archive.org was designed for. It would be nice if on the night of the election, Archive.org set their refresh (?) rate for those pages abnormally high. Then the data can be used by everyone and not just those who thought ahead of time to take the snapshots.
It wouldn't work. I'm sure any good layer knows plenty of legal means to set up subsidiaries, partners and other shell *ahem* ... I mean "holding" companies, to dodge such a law.
(If it did work, I'm not sure whether I would agree or not. It has some interesting social consequences (both positive and negative) that leave me on the fence. But it wouldn't work, so oh well.)
That's when Anonymous discovered Vimeo.
Pardon my ignorance, but how is Vimeo going to be any better than YouTube? Doesn't the same DMCA still apply?
Except that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't just an individual.
He was the founder.
Funny, I didn't know refusing to worship, sacrifice to, or honor a god I don't be believe in was being a jerk.
FYI (b/c I know I had to look it up), 18 USC 1001 deals with fraud.
Sounds nice except that it is not true.
The history of the bill of rights shows that (1) the inclusion of the bill of rights was a condition of ratification (See Massachusetts Compromise) and that (2) the debate over whether to include the bill of rights was not over whether those rights should be espoused but rather over whether those rights should be explicit or implicit (See Anti-federalism vs Federalism).
As you put it:
Now personally I don't have a problem with you believing any old nonsense you want to, but when it comes to filling reader's heads with this crap and forcing restrictions on one group in society over another, that's another thing.