Posts by Infarction

If you're looking for WM ideas and configs, try going to forums for various distros and see if they have a wallpaper/screenshot thread. The Gentoo forums does one each month (not everyone even runs Gentoo :P) but they're all very open about sharing configs and backgrounds. I'm pretty sure Ubuntu forums has one too.

Adding or die(mysql_error()) after a query is a poor way to back out. It would be better to call a function to handle the error than to simply kill the page (possibly even loading a separate error page and/or an automated error reporting system). Besides, do you want someone to see what table names, column names, etc.. you were using in your query?

using if(!validate($i)) $ret=false; makes the intent of the code obvious. Hackish code using lazy evaluation for an assignment is very poor style IMHO.

Also, the logical operators and and or are both logical, but have lower precedence than pretty much everything else (here is a list of operator precedences, only the comma is below these).

Yeah, well we live in a crazy world. ;)
I'm sure there are millions of people that think I'm absurd for believing in the Bible though. (As I have noticed here in this thread).

At least people can claim that the Bible is possibly true. They can't do that for a fictional piece such as the Da Vinci Code :P

I personally think the Da Vinci code is a complete load of rubbish.

Lots of things are a load of rubbish, but that doesn't mean they can't be thought provoking or philosophical.

I've darkened the color of the IT Water Cooler. Does it look shit-colored now though?

I'm not fond of the color, but I don't go to that part of the site anyways :P

Hopefully that will happen... hopefully...

Heh, having looked at a few people's rep now, I see the system is almost completely worthless. Oh well, t'was fun while it lasted.

Impeachment is just another way to make noise (it has little immediate effect). And coming at this point before elections, it's probably just a way to get his name out.

It's stupid and even if it happens it won't change anything.

It's just a case of lazy evaluation. if $ret is false, then $ret = $ret && foo() will never evaluate foo. The loop will execute 10 times, but the function call only as long as $ret is true.

They still look the same here.

other than the fact that you can see them under a microscope?

Existential quantification and universal quantification are different :icon_wink:

we got nutter here (closely linked to PETA, ALF, and other ecoterrorist groups) who go a step further. They want all animals to have the same "rights" as humans, a total ban on pet ownership (which they call slavery), everyone forcibly turned into a strict vegan (killing animals is murder in their book), etc.
What's worse, they've got 10 seats in parliament...

Wow :icon_eek: I hope they didn't get elected based on that as their platform...

Correct. While I agree it's absurd, they're about 99% identical, DNA-wise. :icon_biggrin:

How many other species are very similar DNA-wise? I never really took interest in that, but aren't a good bunch of things really pretty similar? Also, what is the average difference between humans? If we're identical to, say, 7 decimal points (99.99999%, don't you think 2 decimal points (99%) is quite removed? Again, I have very little idea of how similar DNAs are...

:icon_lol: that was pretty funny seeing how much went on in there...

I know I said I'd stop in this thread, but I can't help it :(

THEORY DOES EQUAL FACT. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Who are you to say that theory !=fact when hundreds of people with PHDs say otherwise?

hm...

the·o·ry –noun, plural -ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.

I point you to #1, 2, 6, and 7. Propositions, conjectures, speculations, and guesses. A standing theory is the "best guess" of how something works, not a proven truth.

I agree with the guy who thinks it's absurd. It is. Chimps are not humans.

I don't see it happening, at least not given the current status of each company. Microsoft is already pouring a ton of money into their search, and they are quickly improving their product. I can't see them gaining anything by integrating Yahoo's search. The benefit for Microsoft AFAICT would be in the other services Yahoo provides, which are very very widely used. Unfortunately for Microsoft, I don't think that buying out the services for the userbase is a good idea either.

Quite amusing, so see so many negative reps from so few people... :icon_lol:

Yeah, in that case the Wifi is not the bottleneck.... :P

Well, i was on 11mbps wifi (80211.b) at the time so maybe thats why

and i think you know who josh has on his death list ;)

For many of us, LAN speed isn't the bottleneck. You lucky bum :P
It even took a couple seconds to load in my school computer lab. Using PNG is a lot better in general though :icon_wink:

On the subject of the infraction, it's likely because of wishing death upon someone. While it is expressing an opinion, that's a dangerous one to be putting around. I'd agree with Ancient Dragon on that one, sorry.

I prefer to use Sun's, since they're the ones who created the language. I don't know how others compare, though.

That is basically agnosticism. Agnostics aren't against the idea of a god. They just think there is a lack of evidence..

Coincidentally, I am an agnostic. :)

How can something be scientific if it is not proven?

Your question insinuates that most of the details of scientific theory and research are non-scientific. However, ~s.o.s.~ has asked me to stop, so I won't argue it anymore.

> Until the thread is closed or I am specifcally told to stop, I will continue the discussion.

Infaction, please stop.. ;-)

Fine :P

My high school also used a 4 point GPA scale, with A = 4, B = 3, etc... It was really annoying that we'd get a letter grade, which would give us a integral value for the class; it didn't matter if you had a 81% or 89%, it would still be a 3. There was nothing extra for AP classes (some places apparently will make AP classes based on a 5 point scale and keep the rest out of 4 points).

Here at my university, we still use a 4 point scale, but it's given in partial amount; that is, if you get between a 3 and a 4, it could be a 3.3 or a 3.6, etc...

Until the thread is closed or I am specifcally told to stop, I will continue the discussion. I have tried (mostly successfully) to keep from injecting personal feelings into the argument, so I feel it is acceptable to continue.

Yes is absolutely is. Do you believe anything thats not proven? (except maybe God of course)

If I told you that I had some yogurt that made me invisible, would you believe me? No of course not!

Then why should I believe in the bible if 1) there is no evidence(none that you have shown me at least) and 2) it goes against the laws of physics.

I do believe in things that aren't proven - many of them scientific. I will also allow for the possibility of claims which cannot be definitively proven or disproven. I would not believe that yogurt would make you invisible but I would not vehemently claim that it was impossible. Of course, if you could provide evidence of it, I would accept it.

Are you going to respond my post?

Sure, but in the future, make it easier by not editing a previous post. When you've got your argument, then post it so that it doesn't get lost in material that's already been read :icon_wink:

Lets first make the following postulate:

Nothing exists until proven otherwise.

Therefore god does not exist (unless of course you think there is sufficient evidence)

Your postulate is not logical, merely whimsical. Lack of evidence is not sufficient to declare the non-existance of something.

I am going to show you logically that your arguments are flawed which you do not seem to realize.

I tremble in anticipation :icon_rolleyes:

<fume>Grr i really want to give bad rep but i cant : </fume>

to dave sinkula

This is why the bad rep was disabled. He's just making a valid argument, and not getting answers. And having to put up with a closed-minded person like joshSCH would make anyone a little upset.

Instead of refuting joshes comments (and I think there quite logical and well thought out) with insults and replies that have no intellectual value ot merit WHATSOEVER why don't refute it with logic?

When I read this, I honestly did LOL :D

I understand that it is quite hard to defend your position through deductive and inductive reason when you are religious but how about trying?

We've been giving counter-arguments to everything, then posing our own questions. None of which have been answered in a logical manner.

Give me ONE reason why god exists and I will refute it. Or give me more, I will refute them all.

God may exist because there is no concrete evidence otherwise. That's basic logic. Refute it.

As before, I'm only replying to parts that are worth replying to.

lol.. what? I was saying that we can pretty much copy 'god's power'. We can create life, and we can take it away..

We can create life... through natural processes. We have not yet cultivated a brand new life-form out of previously non-living material.

lol.. there goes that christian mindset again.. You are pretty much insulting all the rich and successful. The most powerful and intellectual people of this world do NOT believe in god. why? Are all these brilliant people wrong? No.. Perhaps you should at least open your mind to the possibilities.. but what am I saying? Your Christian..

You are not making sense (in reference to the last bit), and need to realize that wealth and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Don't tell me that you doubt the lunar landings... :icon_rolleyes:

I don't remember, my GPA made me go through the evaluation process. Different schools have different requirements though; my school (UW) had a higher requirement than my sister's school (WSU). That's largely determined by the demand to get admitted to the specific school. One problem with this system though is that it doesn't account for the actual classes taken. I had several AP and other challenging classes, but other students who had taken an easier load and did equally well on the SAT might have gotten a direct admit.

Idiotic logic my ass.. lol.. your the one who doesn't seem to understand. The laws of physics cannot be disobeyed. They are scientific laws! Nothing can defy gravity, not you, not me, and certainly not your 'god'. What about the Christian idea of an omnipotent god, but a world of free will. How the hell does that work? What about the fact that nothing in the Universe is truly infinite? Infinity doesn't exist and therefore nothing can live forever.

The Christian God doesn't defy the laws of physics; the concept of omnipotence doesn't fit into your view because you don't accept anything that isn't defined by your incomplete knowledge model. Furthermore, scientific laws, if broken, are also changed to reflect new data. We can't break them, but who's to say something else is also unable to? And since you've brought up gravity, lets discuss that. Why do we have gravity? What causes it? As far as I know, there is no scientific explanation. Or here's a question I've wondered about: if matter has mass, and matter is made up of massless particles (quarks), where does the mass come from?

I also see that you did not respond to my post about the most intellectual people being atheist or agnostic. I assume you have agreed.

No, I thought it was dumb enough that it didn't warrant a response.

lol.. I'm getting hustled here.. I like Daniweb, but I don't really like using my money.. I'm going to be paying off student loans for the rest of my life anyway..

I prefer to donate my time, it's just as good as gold! =)

A few bucks a month wont hurt you... unless you have serious credit issues... :P

In Washington, the larger public schools use an admissions index based on SAT scores and GPA to evaluate automatic admission. Don't know about smaller schools. Of course, if you get admitted to as school but it doesn't have a good program that fits your interest, then there's little reason to go there over a better program elsewhere.

Hmm.. except for the fact that science can actually explain why things happen.. For example, the Christians may say: "God created the sky! It is blue because that is the color that God chose." Hmm.. well, ok. That is not proof of anything, it is blind faith! On the other hand, science can actually explain what really happened. Science can prove through its infallible laws, well-studied theories, and years of experience/knowledge that the sky is part of our atmosphere that formed along with the planet. The sky is blue because of radiation reflected off the sun... (keep in mind that I am no scientist, so obviously a scientist could better explain these phenomena.) And the most important difference between science and religion is the fact that science can re-create and test its theories in a lab. Scientists can create a kind of model of our planet, and they can create the 'sky' themselves. Scientists can use God's 'power'. We can clone, and create life ourselves if we wanted to.

WTF? That's one of the biggest piles of crap you've piled on this discussion (or so I hope... I missed 30 pages of it). Christians don't say that the sky is blue because God chose the color; likely most of them would give the same answer you'd get from a random population sample of non-Christians. And while religion can't recreate miracles on a whim, that's implied by definition. Science, however, doesn't allow for something that can't be recreated; miracles, then, would …

The nuclear bomb has also been considered as a political move to prevent the Russians from invading Japan, both to show the power of the US and to end the war before the Russians had a chance to get involved on that side. That way the US was able to build Japan into the capitalist nation it has come to be, without worrying about Russian communism during the reconstruction. I've not researched the theory myself, but it does make a lot of sense given the following 30 years of the Cold War against communism.

A fraction short of 6'.

You're redirecting the output to a file called y, not into a variable $y. And do you need wc? You have the number of lines from using egrep -c.

You do need the quotes around it. There's no way around that - the shell will automatically break it up into separate parameters. Afterall, there's no way for the shell to know the difference between ./script "My House" Home someFile and ./script My "House Home" someFile without the quotes being there.

And sed -i would not change the result, just the behavior of the substitution (changing the file in place rather than printing the result).

>while(grade < 0.0 || grade > 4.0) Change to while( grade < 0.0 && grade > 4.0)

No, don't, it would always be false. A number can't be less than 0 and greater than 4. Instead, try moving your second line cin>>grad[i]; into the while loop. Right now it just outputs the warning message and loops, since grade never changes :icon_wink:

[edit:] And for future reference, please post code between [code] and [/code] tags, which will automatically number them and maintain indentation. Thanks :)

haha, I like how you just throw something in at the end thats on topic..

I wasn't begging for mod powers..? Is it only mods who are allowed in area 51? I just wanted to join the discussion..

Area 51 is for mods, admins, sponsors, etc.... The moderators then have their own forum.

Oh, good point. As of about 10 minutes before my post, although I hadn't been on the site for a few hours before that. But it's pretty zippy now :)

micheal jackson is gay, and shouldn't be allowed to live in the U.S...

I think the gay community would be offfended at that comparison :icon_evil: :icon_lol:

I believe so:
2005 GDP of California: $1.6 trillion
2005 GDP of Canada and Spain: $1.1 trillion
(Canada and Spain are ranked 8-9 depending on World Bank vs. International Monetary Fund)
* stats taken from Wikipedia

lol.. If you think any college student or soon-to-be college student has any extra money, then you must be on drugs =p

I scrounged some up, jbennet's saved up for it; you can too if you try hard enough.

Well, I can just see how area 51 is now.. All the mods and colleagues in there telling Dani to delete the games, give them superior power, etc.. lol. Perhaps there should be a neutral person, like me, in there making sure that every side is fairly represented =)

I assure you we're not all begging for mod powers etc... but don't you think that those who donate money or extensive time to the site should get a little something in return?

[edit:] on topic: I approve the new subforum (even though disapproving wouldn't change it now :P)

It does seem to be going a lot faster today

haha.. California is moving away from the U.S. mainland.. Which may be a good thing.. They can be their own little country out in the ocean by themselves! =p

Just like Hawaii. On a slightly more serious note, if such a thing were to happen, they'd be the 8th or so largest national economy.

As for science.. The purpose of science is to explain phenomena that occur. Science is not a bunch of cock-and-bull theories that people simply 'believe'. Every single scientific law has actually gone through rigorous tests.. And unlike religion, science has actually been proven true time and time again. Even scientific theories have gone through many tests.

I don't think you really know what you're talking about.. Science has been backed up and proven; Religion has not.

Every time science is disproven, we recreate the theories to fit the data to it. Things don't always work the way we think they do, and hence science is disproven time and time again. The difference is that science readily adapts to being disproven by changing what it considers to be the truth; that's part of it's nature. Religions, if one of their tenets is disproven, will also adapt in a similar manner, but the science-toters call foul when religions do it.