Ben Banana

Javascript syntax? I never knew it had syntax. I thought it was loafpinch named after another loafpinch which was marketed to impress those who were interested in yet another (pseudo) loafpinch which was created to impress those who used a somewhat decent programming language.

If you want to be as close to the processor as you can be, then start writing assembly (x86 probably, for you) which is what the C/C++ is actually compiled into. Don't really do that

 

Why ?

Music!

Wow. The moderators here are quite passionate.

 

 

Absolutely. A good strategy is to start by writing the tests and then write the function to be tested. This is a good way to make sure that the specification (you do have a specification, right? ) is complete and consistent. Or, in the (sadly more realistic) case that you don't have a spec, that you understand what you are trying to do.

No. If you don't have the care for your program to not reflect your anxiety then unit testing is not absolutely imperative for developing software. There is no good fucking strategy. Most strategies are coool and interesting and clever and respectable. Specification? What the fuck?

I hate people who learn how to program from 'university.' Pretentious fucks

If you care about what you're doing passionately, advice is not necessary for you to complete your job.

I found this somewhat exciting.

 

http://flint.cs.yale.edu/flint/publications/smc.html

 

I'm not well acquainted with Coq -- and I never intend to be -- but this paper is exciting nevertheless due to its moderately landmark-sized accomplishments.

 

Cool!

 

Hope you enjoy looking over it.

I can't find anywhere to hide from sour ludicrosity. I have a pretty rotten attitude around here because a focused and small constituency of this community is top-notch while the rest is just as trashed as everywhere else -- this is not reasonable behavior, but it is the simple truth behind my behavior. Isn't there a better place to hide?

Learn C first.

C++ and Java are not too similar.Learn C first. Do some crazy shit with it before you go anywhere else. Learn about C++'s polymorphism and template features to satisfy your curiousity -- then turn away, run as fast as you can and never look back.

Thank you.

Since the article is clearly written and well structured and you have, I presume, actually read it, then I am at a loss to know what you are asking that is not already contained within the article.

It seems unrealistic. We'll always have soap (it removes bacteria, doesn't kill it), refridgeration, boiling water, alchohol, Ultraviolet sanitization, microwaves (yep, radiation in general) and most importantly: biological engineering and accelerated evolution. So, we're to blame for "anti-biotic resistant" bacteria. I'm sure we can also be to blame for evolving better "anti-biotics" if we tried. That seems very vague, anyway. Doesn't she mean anti-bacterial rather than generic anti-microbiotics? It seems she must only be talking about antibacterial medicine, because I'm strongly doubting the idea of bacteria that is so well-evolved, it can never be destroyed. The details "An organism that rejects every kind of antibiotic" seem pretty ambiguous to me. Besides that, this article seems to have the same speculative manicness of the classic paranoic super-epidemic news headline. "It lacks substance."

 

It seems reasonable to be skeptical. I'm aware there's extreme habitatual bacteria that can survive immense heat and radiation, but I'm quite sure we (humans) haven't driven them to evolve that way.

 

Does anyone know of better sources regarding this? I couldn't find any, which is the reason I was perplexed.

What?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/end-abx/

 

“Post-antibiotic era” is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot these days, most of the time without people stopping to consider what it might really mean.

What is she talking about? I've never heard the phrase. When I searched for it the top result I found was also from Wired.com

What do you make of this? Also, New Zealand. Something about New Zealand. Yeah...

Is it possible to define asininity? There are no limits.

Stop being useful! Everyone here is a useless sack of wine.

Just imagine!

Nice try at trolling me, sociopath.

Is magenta. Don't try to make this topic useful by trying to discuss qualia. Just hit the -1 button. (I'm serious, this isn't sarcasm)

I think Obama care is indeed a terrible idea. Nevertheless, your argument is very weak. Are you just being blatant?

 

We all know that those in government are better than the rest of us. Right?

This is hideous sarcasm. Be serious about this issue if you actually believe it.

although defining 0⁰=1 allows some formulas to be expressed simply (Knuth 1992; Knuth 1997, p. 57).

 

As my point elaborated above. It also demonstrates a serious issue from an incompleteness aspect.

Yeah, 11 / 16 is around 69%

Indeed. Study the concept of indexicality. I will argue that:

 

AND does not produce the boolean table:

 

AND(false, false) = false
AND(false, true) = false

AND(true, false) = false

AND(true, true) = true

But rather, the concept of 'AND' has been identified congruential to this function and the function has been labeled so.

In a bit adder, do you really think the names of the "logical" gates imply anything meaningful about the nature of addition? That's very naive. I suggest that these names, such as AND, OR, XOR etc, in the context of a bit adder's "logic diagram" are merely congruences to the primitive functions of addition.

 

Edit:
Again, the implications of this suggest to discuss incompleteness rather than the concept of nothing.

0^0=1.

 

Exponentiation is a function.

For one, it's always been obvious to me that nothing is a virtual noun. Its meaning is effective when suspended in a metaphysical way. It encapsulates several concepts, such as void, zero, invalidity, vanity, incapacity etc. For example: 5 + 0 = 5. A much better example: No thing. Ha! It's like, semantics... It is pretty much just a class of indexical units, or in other words, a generic term for the constituents of this class of meaning. These units are important when a system is not malleable enough to simply replace ineffective parts. In quantitization, the number zero is a consistent symbol of an incomplete system.

The more interesting question is about incompleteness.

Is Realism true?

Is Socialism true?

Is Jeffery McJiggens Sr. true?

Are socks true?


^
Strainful truth-value application. i.e. invalid questions. It's oxymoronic nonsense to apply truth values to nouns. We are capable of operating in a tacit mode, e.g. "Is the Hebrew Bible true?" may be translated to: "Are the historical accounts (stories) of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, including its directly conveyed claims, factual and correct?"

because nouns are often associated with logically malleable units.

Be careful.

*bump*

To clarify. This topic fits in the subject of scientific philosophy. At least from my understanding, the "scientific method" clearly appears useless in most steps of scientific practice. It embodies ideal, rather than effective practice. I need help -- perhaps even mere anecdotes -- to understand the reality of science.

What effect is philosophy meant to have?

 

Any usefully intellectual effects, in contrast to questions which have a flimsy basis or no effect at all.

 

i.e. Counter examples to effective philosophy:

 

How much knowledge is too much?

How many more things on Earth do we not know about?

Real Beauty

Do you need to be selfish to be successful?

Conciousness surviving the destruction of the brain?

Give me a ratio, from your perspective, measuring effective philosophy to just plain-stupid:

 

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. d:

Edit
My answer...

5 : 11

Tip: 5 + 11 = 16 total, for those who are lazy (;

What if I become a crackpot?

 

Edit: Crackpot as in... crazy and rediculous.

I guess I'm sort of fanatic about fundamental computer science -- as well its philosophical tangents -- such as the meaning of computation in humanity's context and sometimes including technology in general. Over the years I have held onto deep and seemingly novel concepts, even while trying to merely grasp them myself. My eccentric views only continue to solidify and narrow. As excited as I can be to share my own ideas and thoughts, I'm not ready (prepared or even conclusive) to convey them for others' judgement. This topic applies to science as a whole. Our matter of philosophy today is: As an earnest, committed and ambitious participant in a particular field of common human thought, how can I trust myself, my work and my ambitions? Do I need to? How can I effectively self-reflect on my work, including its robustness, acceptability and sensibility? Is that possible? Oh the anxiety!

Cheers and stuff.

- Me