I'll second that. Unix people using gdb or dbx are capable of scripting out full debugging sessions, doing amazing things with it.
Windows debuggers are pretty much limited to looking at variables, setting breakpoints, stepping into a function, or stepping over a statement. Good luck with that environment. I think it's a good match for the super-powerful DOS command line shell.
Your tests require applying the context of your humanity to something superhuman.
The tests are not in any way specific to a "superhuman". The claims are clear. A god is supposed to have certain abilities. Either the god has the abilities or he doesn't. The tests make that quite clear.
There *are* valid tests within the human context that provide credibility to the claims of Christ. There are no such claims or evidence to back the tooth fairy.
Ahhhh, but I have excellent evidence of the tooth fairy. The teeth disappeared, and dollars appeared in their place. My parents have denied any involvement, and they are certainly trustworthy. If the tooth fairy gives me a dollar for a single tooth, imagine what the tooth fairy will do for me when I die! Oh sweet heavenly toothfairy reward! The claims that I have seen "in the human context" are far far weaker than the tooth fairy evidence.
So what you're really saying is that there is no evidence that would be sufficient. Which brings you to the table with a bias that at least equals religious intensity.
That's completely and absolutely wrong. I have told you exactly what evidence is sufficient. It's not a bias at all. Do you know about the burden of proof? Are you in effect admitting that whatever god you appeal to is incapable of providing evidence that would satisfy critics? What a pathetic god...
Do you admit that you are not open minded to the possibility that God exists?
I am absolutely open minded. Once again, I must tell you to go back to your dictionary and look up some words. I can hardly fault you though, quite a lot of people whose thinking is non-rigorous don't have an understand of the concept of an open mind.
1) Closed mind - This is a person who will NOT accept a theory, despite having been given sufficient evidence. This person will typically say "I see your evidence, but I'm not even going to consider anything you say."
2) Open mind - This person is a skeptic. He will not believe anything out of hand, but will demand evidence. When the evidence is presented and the open minded person has no objections that are not addressed by the evidence, then he will be forced to believe.
(I fall into this category. I do not know about any gods. I have heard about what gods are supposed to be capable of, and if that capacity was demonstrated to me, I would have no choice but to believe that god exists. Worshipping him would require further testing to determine if that god is worthy of worship. Suppose that god is sadistic and tempermental - that god wouldn't be worthy of worship.)
3) Unguarded - many religious people fall into this category (but not all!) They believe without questioning, and when confronted with a nonbeliever that has throught things through completely, accuse him of being intellectually dishonest and closed minded. Their mantra is "believe in god. Why? Because. That's as intellectual as we get."
So, I repeat. I'm open. Show me, and I'll have absolutely no choice but to believe.
I was doing all that on my TI-99/4A, (minus the part where it actually displays on the screen.) It was just like getting in the car and imagining what it would be like to actually go somewhere.
Direct observation and testing through repeatable experiment. The properties of god are well conjectured, and must be testable. I presume this would require the full cooperation of said deity. In other words, direct and full answers only - no symbolism or evasion would be allowed.
1) omnipotence - this would require a source of power. Where is it? If it is extradimensional or "outside" the universe, then we'll require access to it for complete testing.
2) omnipresence - once again, we'd need a complete test of this, and the ability to replicate it in the lab. If god shows us how it's done, we should be able to do it too, especially if we have access to the power source from item #1
3) omniscience - full documentation is required, along with a very convincing explanation of how the deity gets around the boundaries of what is knowable, and what cannot be known. We must have access to the method for determining truth (for example, an algorithm that the deity would use for solving the halting problem). As a bonus, a nice short solution to Fermat's Last Theorem would be good to see.
That takes care of the "lord of the universe" part. To prove that he is Jesus, I would have to use what I learned in the testing of points #1, #2, and #3 above to collect DNA samples from the original Jesus, and compare them to the supposed deity standing in front of me. That would just about do it, I think.
Remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Without evidence the tooth fairy looks just as good as Jesus to any rational person.
Why do you stop at god? If the rule is that moral authority is imposed by a higher authority, then that should hold for god as well.
My point is that the human experience is far broader than mere reason. It is unreasonable to try to boil the human experience down to logic and facts alone.
Then how is it possible to decide between gods. Worship Jeezus, or worship the tooth fairy. Each one has equal support.
My rationale for believing that Jesus is Lord of the universe is based on the evidence that he has provided.
I have equal evidence for the tooth fairy. It's not intellectually dishonest, in fact, it's the only honest position available to me. Without evidence, I can't say much about god at all.
Your argument is changing the subject. The first statement talked about morality requiring a higher authority, meaning that god cannot be moral. The explanations given for that are merely unbased handwaving. That's what's irrational.
Please look up to meaning of rational. It's not quantification, it's providing a reason. If you have no reason to believe in one mythos (Jesus) then why is it you don't believe in another mythos (the kool-aid will help you get to the comet where the aliens are)?
OK, I'll explain it to you. If I were your boss, I'd put this reprimand down in your permanent record.
You started jumping all over me without knowing the basic facts. In effect, what you did was hear the first sentence spoken in a meeting and then proceed to tell all your coworkers how idiotic they are.
So, since you're so smart, can you tell me
1) what the platform was 2) wat the dataset was 3) what the transformations were 4) what optimizations were tried on the Java side 5) what the JDK version was 6) what the network parameters were 7) what the database connectivity software was
Uh oh, you spoke without knowing a DAMN THING! That makes you an idiot.
For the problem at hand, the C++ tools available really were that much better than the shitty Java tools available.
As I said in the very first post I put there, there are things that Java is adequate for. This just didn't happen to be one of them. Live with it.
I've met vast numbers of people who are Java programmers who don't have a clue about programming, yet they still get paid for it.
I repeat once again: splitting files and such was the trivial part of the task. It's the other things that had to be done that were the killer. If you simply read what I wrote, then you'd have avoided embarassing yourself.
150 megs? Those aren't huge. I was working with files that were gigabytes in size, doing complex transformations. I was using StringBuffer for everything.
So, obviously you were doing some trivial problem that Java could deliver passable performance on.
A CAT scan won't hurt it a bit. They just don't need to do it because it's obvious that the fossil hasn't been constructed out of two unrelated fossils.
It's a bit hasty to pass judgement on a tiny little web image, don't you think?
Missing links are only sought (or feared) by creationists, because it is only they that bring up the red herring of gaps in the fossil record where one might expect to see intermediate forms. So, the fact that this article got any press at all is probably because it would sell some newspapers, not because it's particularly interesting scientifically.
I wrote a real-world app that was too slow in Java, but fast enough in C++. It worked against gigantic flat files, tore them apart, then put them back together again into a relational database.
My benchmarks showed that the Java program would require 12 years to complete the job. I rewrote the program in C++ and the time dropped to 12 hours.
So, yes, I think Java is slow for some tasks. As you say, those tight loops seem to be something that Java isn't good for.
I've written software for many industries (travel, automotive, data warehousing, internet retail, banking, small business, etc.) and the wealthiest companies are the ones with the most Byzantine rules. Taco should be raking in the money soon.
Question for you: if I poured a bucket if liquid N2 all over an open notebook, would it cause the paper to wrinkle up like a bucket of water would? I'm guessing that it wouldn't smear ink, but I could be wrong. Have you ever tried it?
Our wonderful tools cannot keep up at all. Time to make it illegal so that individuals can bring suits against spammers for damages. A law that lets a small claims court judge make a decision without having to think helps greatly.
That's not moving at the speed of government, it's more like unleasing hordes of disgruntled citizens
How is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to keep you spam free?
Same way that my fax machine is spam free. And if someone sends me spam as a fax, I can carry out my bloodthirsty vicious vendetta against them in a court of law.
They don't seem to understand that legal spam is the same thing as
1) legally allowing anyone to let their dogs shit anywhere, anytime 2) revoking all trespassing laws 3) allowing anybody to put anything into a mailbox. What if I decided that all my neighbors needed to have a pound of rotten chicken in their mailbox?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll second that. Unix people using gdb or dbx are capable of scripting out full debugging sessions, doing amazing things with it.
Windows debuggers are pretty much limited to looking at variables, setting breakpoints, stepping into a function, or stepping over a statement. Good luck with that environment. I think it's a good match for the super-powerful DOS command line shell.
Your tests require applying the context of your humanity to something superhuman.
The tests are not in any way specific to a "superhuman". The claims are clear. A god is supposed to have certain abilities. Either the god has the abilities or he doesn't. The tests make that quite clear.
There *are* valid tests within the human context that provide credibility to the claims of Christ. There are no such claims or evidence to back the tooth fairy.
Ahhhh, but I have excellent evidence of the tooth fairy. The teeth disappeared, and dollars appeared in their place. My parents have denied any involvement, and they are certainly trustworthy. If the tooth fairy gives me a dollar for a single tooth, imagine what the tooth fairy will do for me when I die! Oh sweet heavenly toothfairy reward! The claims that I have seen "in the human context" are far far weaker than the tooth fairy evidence.
So what you're really saying is that there is no evidence that would be sufficient. Which brings you to the table with a bias that at least equals religious intensity.
That's completely and absolutely wrong. I have told you exactly what evidence is sufficient. It's not a bias at all. Do you know about the burden of proof? Are you in effect admitting that whatever god you appeal to is incapable of providing evidence that would satisfy critics? What a pathetic god...
Do you admit that you are not open minded to the possibility that God exists?
I am absolutely open minded. Once again, I must tell you to go back to your dictionary and look up some words. I can hardly fault you though, quite a lot of people whose thinking is non-rigorous don't have an understand of the concept of an open mind.
1) Closed mind - This is a person who will NOT accept a theory, despite having been given sufficient evidence. This person will typically say "I see your evidence, but I'm not even going to consider anything you say."
2) Open mind - This person is a skeptic. He will not believe anything out of hand, but will demand evidence. When the evidence is presented and the open minded person has no objections that are not addressed by the evidence, then he will be forced to believe.
(I fall into this category. I do not know about any gods. I have heard about what gods are supposed to be capable of, and if that capacity was demonstrated to me, I would have no choice but to believe that god exists. Worshipping him would require further testing to determine if that god is worthy of worship. Suppose that god is sadistic and tempermental - that god wouldn't be worthy of worship.)
3) Unguarded - many religious people fall into this category (but not all!) They believe without questioning, and when confronted with a nonbeliever that has throught things through completely, accuse him of being intellectually dishonest and closed minded. Their mantra is "believe in god. Why? Because. That's as intellectual as we get."
So, I repeat. I'm open. Show me, and I'll have absolutely no choice but to believe.
It's the same stuff, except they move a lot faster, like a Charlie Chaplin film. (shot at 18 fps, shown at 24 fps).
I was doing all that on my TI-99/4A, (minus the part where it actually displays on the screen.) It was just like getting in the car and imagining what it would be like to actually go somewhere.
Direct observation and testing through repeatable experiment. The properties of god are well conjectured, and must be testable. I presume this would require the full cooperation of said deity. In other words, direct and full answers only - no symbolism or evasion would be allowed.
1) omnipotence - this would require a source of power. Where is it? If it is extradimensional or "outside" the universe, then we'll require access to it for complete testing.
2) omnipresence - once again, we'd need a complete test of this, and the ability to replicate it in the lab. If god shows us how it's done, we should be able to do it too, especially if we have access to the power source from item #1
3) omniscience - full documentation is required, along with a very convincing explanation of how the deity gets around the boundaries of what is knowable, and what cannot be known. We must have access to the method for determining truth (for example, an algorithm that the deity would use for solving the halting problem). As a bonus, a nice short solution to Fermat's Last Theorem would be good to see.
That takes care of the "lord of the universe" part. To prove that he is Jesus, I would have to use what I learned in the testing of points #1, #2, and #3 above to collect DNA samples from the original Jesus, and compare them to the supposed deity standing in front of me. That would just about do it, I think.
Remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Without evidence the tooth fairy looks just as good as Jesus to any rational person.
Why do you stop at god? If the rule is that moral authority is imposed by a higher authority, then that should hold for god as well.
My point is that the human experience is far broader than mere reason. It is unreasonable to try to boil the human experience down to logic and facts alone.
Then how is it possible to decide between gods. Worship Jeezus, or worship the tooth fairy. Each one has equal support.
My rationale for believing that Jesus is Lord of the universe is based on the evidence that he has provided.
I have equal evidence for the tooth fairy. It's not intellectually dishonest, in fact, it's the only honest position available to me. Without evidence, I can't say much about god at all.
Your argument is changing the subject. The first statement talked about morality requiring a higher authority, meaning that god cannot be moral. The explanations given for that are merely unbased handwaving. That's what's irrational.
Please look up to meaning of rational. It's not quantification, it's providing a reason. If you have no reason to believe in one mythos (Jesus) then why is it you don't believe in another mythos (the kool-aid will help you get to the comet where the aliens are)?
OK, I'll explain it to you. If I were your boss, I'd put this reprimand down in your permanent record.
You started jumping all over me without knowing the basic facts. In effect, what you did was hear the first sentence spoken in a meeting and then proceed to tell all your coworkers how idiotic they are.
So, since you're so smart, can you tell me
1) what the platform was
2) wat the dataset was
3) what the transformations were
4) what optimizations were tried on the Java side
5) what the JDK version was
6) what the network parameters were
7) what the database connectivity software was
Uh oh, you spoke without knowing a DAMN THING! That makes you an idiot.
For the problem at hand, the C++ tools available really were that much better than the shitty Java tools available.
As I said in the very first post I put there, there are things that Java is adequate for. This just didn't happen to be one of them. Live with it.
You're right, I don't like your answer. It is completely and utterly irrational.
I've met vast numbers of people who are Java programmers who don't have a clue about programming, yet they still get paid for it.
I repeat once again: splitting files and such was the trivial part of the task. It's the other things that had to be done that were the killer. If you simply read what I wrote, then you'd have avoided embarassing yourself.
150 megs? Those aren't huge. I was working with files that were gigabytes in size, doing complex transformations. I was using StringBuffer for everything.
So, obviously you were doing some trivial problem that Java could deliver passable performance on.
The person I replied to said that a higher power is required to define morality. Who defines morality for god?
A CAT scan won't hurt it a bit. They just don't need to do it because it's obvious that the fossil hasn't been constructed out of two unrelated fossils.
It's a bit hasty to pass judgement on a tiny little web image, don't you think?
Missing links are only sought (or feared) by creationists, because it is only they that bring up the red herring of gaps in the fossil record where one might expect to see intermediate forms. So, the fact that this article got any press at all is probably because it would sell some newspapers, not because it's particularly interesting scientifically.
Actually, it caused me to read it to the end.
I only read your comment because I expected it to be extremely stupid. It turned out to be a helpful writing lesson instead. Thanks!
I wrote a real-world app that was too slow in Java, but fast enough in C++. It worked against gigantic flat files, tore them apart, then put them back together again into a relational database.
My benchmarks showed that the Java program would require 12 years to complete the job. I rewrote the program in C++ and the time dropped to 12 hours.
So, yes, I think Java is slow for some tasks. As you say, those tight loops seem to be something that Java isn't good for.
I've written software for many industries (travel, automotive, data warehousing, internet retail, banking, small business, etc.) and the wealthiest companies are the ones with the most Byzantine rules. Taco should be raking in the money soon.
Question for you: if I poured a bucket if liquid N2 all over an open notebook, would it cause the paper to wrinkle up like a bucket of water would?
I'm guessing that it wouldn't smear ink, but I could be wrong. Have you ever tried it?
Second world? You mean they are still aligned with the USSR? Even after the USSR is gone? Amazing!
The only terms that still have meaning are first world, and third world: the haves and the have nots.
Our wonderful tools cannot keep up at all. Time to make it illegal so that individuals can bring suits against spammers for damages. A law that lets a small claims court judge make a decision without having to think helps greatly.
That's not moving at the speed of government, it's more like unleasing hordes of disgruntled citizens
So, what you're saying is that god cannot be moral? I'll agree with that.
How is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to keep you spam free?
Same way that my fax machine is spam free. And if someone sends me spam as a fax, I can carry out my bloodthirsty vicious vendetta against them in a court of law.
They don't seem to understand that legal spam is the same thing as
1) legally allowing anyone to let their dogs shit anywhere, anytime
2) revoking all trespassing laws
3) allowing anybody to put anything into a mailbox. What if I decided that all my neighbors needed to have a pound of rotten chicken in their mailbox?
Janeway, I think you've broken the temporal prime directive -- again.
Perhaps he was talking about a can of gasoline? That's a lot of potential energy in 5 pounds of liquid.