|
Mark_Wallace wrote: by focussing on a single point (whilst ignoring all others) I had no idea you wanted me to proof your entire message. I took exception with something you said, called you out on it to discuss. Sorry I hurt your feelings. Not my intention. But this is clearly beyond something you can discuss. Good day.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, just as predicted. Pompous "I'm a stout fellow!" cr@p.
Textbook trolling, as always.
You should try reading a different book -- the Bible, maybe, as one of your trolling tools is to claim that you're a Christian.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Boy is he sensitive.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
He sure is. Simple conversations are too much for him.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Zo, herr RyanDev. How long have you felt ze need to talk to yourself, eh?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: How long have you felt ze need to talk to yourself, eh? Whenever it elevates the conversation.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Algorithms usually need thousands of examples to learn something. Researchers at Google DeepMind found a way around that. "Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?"
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! They've invented something new!
What should we call it?
Oh! I know!
Let's call it "fuzzy logic", "genetic algorithms", and "backpropagation"!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
How about "artificial stupidity"?
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's not yet possible: human stupidity is without any limits, hence getting close to it artificially will still take some time.
|
|
|
|
|
You've got a good point here, mate!
|
|
|
|
|
The White House today is announcing the launch of Code.gov, a website that shows off U.S. government open-source projects and offers relevant resources for government agencies. I thought the website for that was wikileaks.org?
|
|
|
|
|
We'll make our code open-source, just like our Secretary of State did with national confidential material via an unsecure open email server.
|
|
|
|
|
The Honeycomb SaaS platform lets engineers ask ad hoc questions in real time to cut outages and find bugs and performance issues. I'm sure it will be truly universally accepted, and will save so many people so much time
And definitely still be in business in 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there goes the worst bit of the quick answers portion of the site then..
Oh wait a minute - the service wont be free. :sighs: A man can dream though...
|
|
|
|
|
According to a new study 43 percent of app developers spend between 10 and 25 percent of their time debugging application errors discovered in production, rather than developing new features. Guilty as charged
Oh, hi @chris-maunder. For no reason whatsoever
|
|
|
|
|
If only there was some way we could pay someone to do this for us.
Oh The Insider News[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Certain scientific breakthroughs always seem to be a few years away. The first direct observation of a black hole has long fallen into this category. Whoops, left the lens cover on. Think anyone will notice?
|
|
|
|
|
I'll just send them a picture of my last car.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, they'll just make sh1t up and use photoshop to paint a picture, like astronomers always do.
But light does reflect from black holes. There's no way it couldn't. The only problem is that you wouldn't be able to tell where the black hole is that the light's reflecting off of*.
* But there's an extremely high possibility that black holes don't exist, anyway, so don't fret too much over it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a common misconception that light can't "get away" from a (theoretical) black hole.
As with any body, photons hitting a black hole's humongously fast-moving "atmosphere" at an angle will bounce off, and the only effect that the black hole's gravity will have is to skew the outward path of the light, so that the angle of reflection is nothing like the angle of incidence -- in fact, it's curved.
It's only light hitting head on and light generated by the black hole itself that would not be able to escape.
Of course, because the angles of reflection are curved, using reflected light to "see" where a a black hole is is pointless, because it's impossible to tell where it is unless you know:
0. The exact angles of incidence of the reflected light stream you are using
1. The nature of the "atmosphere" of the black hole -- which, again, can only be wildly guessed at
2. The precise gravity, spin, etc. of the black hole, and therefore the precise curvature of the particular stream of light you're using
3. How much reflective/absorptive cr@p is in the way
Saying "Hey! I'm picking up a few photons that I'm declaring to be from a black hole, and this is it's location!" would be totally idiotic, because it could be millions of parsecs from where it appears to be.
But, of course, that doesn't stop astronomers making such ridiculous declarations.
I will be very happy on the day that astronomy becomes a real science, where proper scientific principles are adhered to -- rather than an endless stream of wild, fanciful guesses being declared to be science.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I will be very happy on the day that astronomy becomes a real science All you have to do is wish upon a star and all your dreams will come true.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|