Not quite. 2 + 2 approaches 6 for sufficiently large values of 2, not 5.
_
Aaron Toponce ( ) ASCII Ribbon Campaign
www.aarontoponce.org X www.asciiribbon.org
/ \
Dave Smith wrote:
> Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Next you'll be telling me that it
On 9/26/07, Alex Esplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/26/07, Levi Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > By show of hands, who believes that perpetual motion machines are not
> > impossible?
>
> Isn't the Solar System we live in a sort of perpetual motion machine?
> Now obviously something on t
Levi Pearson wrote:
Next you'll be telling me that it's not completely impossible for 2 +
2 to equal 5.
Well for sufficiently large values of 2...
--Dave
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
"Alex Esplin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Isn't the Solar System we live in a sort of perpetual motion machine?
> Now obviously something on this scale is currently impossible for us,
> but I would say that at least on some level, a perpetual motion
> machine exists, we just don't know how to d
On 9/26/07, Levi Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you telling me that perpetual motion machines are, in fact,
> possible? Because I'm aware of all that stuff you said (and you did
> say it well), but I still say perpetual motion machines are
> impossible, and I don't think I'm going to mis
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All numbers are arbitrary symbols we apply to represent quantity.
> Therefore if we discard convention and say instead that 2 is really a
> symbol meaning two and one half units of a given quantity then 2 + 2
> does in fact equal 5.
>
> I mean if we can say that
Just a brain teaser, but how does 50 + 50 = 52?
On 9/26/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No but I do enjoy playing devils advocate sometimes.
>
> So to continue the thought experiment...
>
> All numbers are arbitrary symbols we apply to represent quantity.
> Therefore if we discard conventio
No but I do enjoy playing devils advocate sometimes.
So to continue the thought experiment...
All numbers are arbitrary symbols we apply to represent quantity.
Therefore if we discard convention and say instead that 2 is really a
symbol meaning two and one half units of a given quantity then 2 +
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Same thing with computing.
> How much of computing science is going to become irrelevant should
> quantum computing take off? How many new laws are waiting to be
> discovered?
I think you just completely missed the part where we actually
understand what's com
I'm not saying they are either possible nor impossible.
I'm saying that given our current understanding, they appear to be impossible.
But I will take the patent office viewpoint on them. I'll believe in
them when I can see a working prototype complete with an explanation
of how it works.
http:/
"Joel Finlinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> WHAT!? Maybe if I had one of those time cubes I could understand a
> particle of the drivel.. Holy cow! Nick got it right! I'm
> getting dumber by the second!
YOU HAVE BEEN EDUCATED STUPID
;)
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http:
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then again the basic assumptions are really just best guess models to
> describe what we observe.
>
Are you telling me that perpetual motion machines are, in fact,
possible? Because I'm aware of all that stuff you said (and you did
say it well), but I still s
On 9/26/07, Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Levi Pearson wrote:
> >> e.g. http://www.timecube.com/
> >
> > Wow. I think I am actually dumber for merely opening that page.
>
> But it gets better! See him actually talk about
* Paul Seamons [Wed, 26 Sep 2007 at 09:12 -0600]
> > but it's a necessary foundation for
> > computing nonetheless.
>
> Hm. I find the word "computing" a little fuzzy here. I think there are
> plenty of use cases that show people who have gotten much done while
> computing without any CS
* Sasha Pachev [Wed, 26 Sep 2007 at 12:55 -0600]
> for (i = 0; i < 20; i++)
> {
> Client: I want feature X
> Me: I cannot get it done within a reasonable time.
> }
I want that cool feature that makes my MUA not break threads!
Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/*
PLUG:
Sterling Jacobson wrote:
Are you talking about the American Fork City FTTN Ethernet network?
The American Fork system is quite different from the Utopia/iProvo system.
It was the old Airswitch network and it shows it's age every time a storm comes
up. And it wasn't targeted at business so most
Ok I just checked it out.
Looks like it's fiber in some areas, but mostly coax i.e. Cable internet.
http://www.sfcn.org/sfcn/custserv/sfcn_faq.htm
My best guess would be fiber to the neighborhood and coax to the home.
On 9/26/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No he's talking about the Spanis
No he's talking about the Spanish Fork one, but I'm pretty sure thats
Ethernet too.
On 9/26/07, Sterling Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you talking about the American Fork City FTTN Ethernet network?
>
> The American Fork system is quite different from the Utopia/iProvo system.
> It was
Then again the basic assumptions are really just best guess models to
describe what we observe.
History is littered with the corpses of long dead assumptions that for
centuries no one thought to question. Then one day someone did
question each of them, and questioned them with just the right
ques
Are you talking about the American Fork City FTTN Ethernet network?
The American Fork system is quite different from the Utopia/iProvo system.
It was the old Airswitch network and it shows it's age every time a storm comes
up. And it wasn't targeted at business so most of the new business areas a
I was at a meeting of a state legislative committee and a state senator
from Spanish Fork said he had seen no advantages of fiber in American
Fork. So I have come to this list to find out if his assessment is
correct or what went wrong in Spanish Fork. Do you know of businesses
or people that
After a recent and related thread, I decided to find out if a local
ewaste disposal drop-off point was available in Utah. After some
digging, I found that a Colorado company has a quasi-local drop-off
point (relative to your location of course) that will take tvs, pcs,
printers, fax machines,
Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> e.g. http://www.timecube.com/
>
> Wow. I think I am actually dumber for merely opening that page.
But it gets better! See him actually talk about what it's all about:
http://www.bordergatewayprotocol.net/jon/media/v
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Levi Pearson wrote:
> e.g. http://www.timecube.com/
Wow. I think I am actually dumber for merely opening that page.
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
Brandon Stout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> History is full of examples when people accomplish what others deemed
> impossible. Certainly there are absolutes. I, for one, believe nobody
> will ever be able to make something out of nothing. However, new
> technology only comes about when someone
Levi Pearson wrote:
> Okay, so our theories about the physical world aren't perfectly
> refined yet. But wake me up when the laws of thermodynamics become
> invalid, then I might be willing to entertain this 'Scientists are
> always wrong when they say something is impossible' garbage.
History is
[Please forgive the x-post]
If any of you are seeking a job-change and/or you know someone who is,
I am immediately interviewing to fill five junior-to-mid-level Unix
admin positions in Orem. http://tinyurl.com/2om5nl
Get your geek on: Can you answer these questions from memory?
- What command
Paul Seamons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someday I'll get that CS degree - but there aren't many independent
> study classes (I've looked).
No, there sure aren't, which I think is a real shame. But there is a
great deal of information available to the autodidact. A while ago, I
promised a lis
> your personal success at MacGuyvering things is probably due to
> Computer Science stuff you picked up at school and through self-study.
I picked it up mostly from coming across inadequate tools. Someday I'll get
that CS degree - but there aren't many independent study classes (I've
looked).
On 24 Sep 2007, at 12:48, Merrill Oveson wrote:
I've got an old monitor and I'm tempted to toss it into my trash can.
But being a conscientious person, I know this is not
environmentally sound.
(Or is this ok?)
So how do I properly dispose of it? Where should I take it?
Are there fees?
H
On 9/26/07, Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I stand mistaken. It's called the C++ FAQ LITE, and this is the URL:
>
>http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
>
> Lots of good stuff there, like should you use the "this" pointer in a
> constructor? :)
>
>http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-
Paul Seamons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd say that goes double for the guys who built my house.
>
> But it isn't true for all builders. There are those with enough grasp of
> things to be able to make design decisions on their own. But even then they
> can't make major structural changes w
Derek Davis wrote:
Do you have a link to the super faq?
I stand mistaken. It's called the C++ FAQ LITE, and this is the URL:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
Lots of good stuff there, like should you use the "this" pointer in a
constructor? :)
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-
> The guys who build your house don't know much about mechanical
> engineering, either, but they're pretty good with nail guns and
> circular saws. Just don't ask them to make any major deviations from
> the plan they were given, though, or you could end up with structural
> problems.
I'd say tha
On 9/19/07, Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. You need to read a few entries in the C++ Super FAQ and a few pages
> from the beginning of Josuttis's book, The C++ Standard Library (which
> pages incidentally have nothing to do with the C++ Standard Library but
> cover basic C++ language fe
"Sasha Pachev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are lots and lots of businesses out there. Some need people who
> understand algorithms very well, others can get by with somebody who
> can generate a web page in a scripting language and create/implement
> algorithms of bubble-sort level difficu
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Many of Joel's articles are high quality, but this one is a rant. It's
true that bad customers don't know what they want, and you should avoid
business with bad customers altogether. Good customers, OTOH, know some
of what they want, and it's the developer's job to help th
"Sasha Pachev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my experience, the axioms are never completely true in the real
> world. I have had the following discussion with a client on a numerous
> occasions:
>
> for (i = 0; i < 20; i++)
> {
> Client: I want feature X
> Me: I cannot get it done within a r
Paul Seamons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hoisting theories to fact. These are the problems I am talking about. CS
> proofs are one thing, but theories are another entirely. History has many
> examples in all fields where great advances because theories were ignored
> (but more cases exist
> Our understanding of how computers work, on the other hand, is pretty
> solid. We designed them from scratch based on simple axioms. If your
>axioms are true in the real world, then your proofs reflect real-world
> truth as well. When we prove something uncomputable, we really know
>that you c
> It's no surprise that employers like ITA and Google, who work with
> massive, complex data sets, are interested in people with CS theory.
> And with hard drive and memory capacity going up, data sets are > only
> getting bigger.
There are lots and lots of businesses out there. Some need people w
Dave Smith wrote:
> Charles Curley wrote:
>> Customers?!? Customers don't know squat about good software. If they
>> did, they'd be writing the project themselves. Why would I ever want
>> to talk to them?
>>
>
> I agree 100%. From Joel Spolsky:
>
>Customers Don't Know What They Want. Stop
> You will never find a non-CS
> person, or anyone else, solving an problem deemed impossible by CS
> theory, because such problems are not computable.
Hoisting theories to fact. These are the problems I am talking about. CS
proofs are one thing, but theories are another entirely. History has
Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The Extreme Programming folks say that the solution to this is to get
> the customer in the room and involve them in the design process every
> step of the way, as a member of the development team. This is, I
> think, a bit too "extreme." It's as if my arc
Charles Curley wrote:
Customers?!? Customers don't know squat about good software. If they
did, they'd be writing the project themselves. Why would I ever want
to talk to them?
I agree 100%. From Joel Spolsky:
Customers Don't Know What They Want. Stop Expecting Customers to Know
What The
Charles Curley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Right. Now go find a short story by Issac Asimov titled "Not Final".
>
> This reminds me of something Sir Arthur C. Clarke observed: that when
> a distingushed scientist telly you something is possible he is almost
> certainly correct. But when he tell
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:26:02AM -0600, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Paul Seamons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Computer scientists are actually pretty picky about the words they use
> to describe the difficulty of problems. You will never find a non-CS
> person, or anyone else, solving an problem de
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:37:40PM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>
> The most important thing the methodologies address is how to build a
> strong relationship between customers and the software development
> organization. They emphasize communication. For example, an iteration
> is not complete
Barry Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like to think of myself as a computer scientist, and the one thing I
> remember from my algorithms class all those years ago is that even if
> finding the optimal solution requires exponential time, the algorithm
> that is provably within 80% of optima
Levi Pearson wrote:
Paul Seamons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Most of my thread spoke about programmers rather than computer
scientists. I'd argue in a similar vein that the Computer Science
discipline ill-prepares one to be a competent programmer. This
takes us to the "science vs craft" deb
On Wednesday 26 September 2007, Levi Pearson wrote:
> The point is, someone had to study the theory in order to design the
> procedure to be as safe and effective as possble. In reality, we make
> all surgeons do that kind of study. I certainly think that's a good
> thing, even though they might
On 25 Sep 2007, at 19:27, Steve wrote:
So I pose a question, for those of you who actually engineer software
for a living.
What is the reason for all of these other methodologies?
Do they truly have any major benefit, or are they as I suspect, more
of a hinderance than a help?
Finally, if you ha
Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The waterfall methodology was developed at IBM. IBM used it for all
> their projects, but in the end it proved costly and not adaptable.
> Today IBM generally encourages everyone to avoid it. Most of the new
> methodologies are a reaction to the flaw
Paul Seamons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Most of my thread spoke about programmers rather than computer
> scientists. I'd argue in a similar vein that the Computer Science
> discipline ill-prepares one to be a competent programmer. This
> takes us to the "science vs craft" debate. Knowing th
Steve wrote:
> I have seen companies that are using Agile, Scrum, XP, Waterfall,
> Feature Driven Development etc.
> In preparation for interviews I have been doing research on every
> development methodology I can find, trying to figure out what these
> are really all about.
Historically, the maj
> However, let it be no mistake that the worst
> competent programmers I've ever seen are all (very good) engineers.
I agree. Except for the competent part. Many of the engineers in my field of
study were terrible with anything computer related - even though computers
were essential to the de
56 matches
Mail list logo
