Cheap GPUs render strong passwords useless

[loinburger]

Because there's only one right answer.

Depends on which system of logic you're using, which implies that there is no empirically "best" system of logic.

[Ben Kenobi]

2. GUTs do not address gravity and conflict with relativity

What an empiricist would say is that we simply do not have the data at present to make the determination between one or the other. What we do know is that both theories have problems.

The goal is to make a theory that works for everything that fixes the problems. It would be akin to the argument about stellar parallaxes and the distances to stars. We don't know how far away they are until our instruments get the precision to detect the parallaxes, until then there are many competing theories.

[Ben Kenobi]

Depends on which system of logic you're using, which implies that there is no empirically "best" system of logic.

I'm surprised you are making this point and not the other one. Definition of a logical system is that it is self consistant, which is part of what's included in the definition of empiricism. Sure you can make the argument that there are other systems that are better than empiricism, but for the sake of argument, some things get bundled along with it.

[notyoueither]

He's currently managing a team, across three continents and two planets, that is writing a programme that can auto-respond with pwnage. It will increase his productivity 327% (or thereabouts, the maths guys aren't available to explain it to him), giving him plenty of time to not write his own code.

Heh.

[notyoueither]

And yet, completely irrelevant to whether or not it's a good practice for developers to follow.

As an added layer of security it is a good thing. People can then be coached on how to make it less obvious and much more difficult to spoof.

[loinburger]

I'm surprised you are making this point and not the other one. Definition of a logical system is that it is self consistant, which is part of what's included in the definition of empiricism. Sure you can make the argument that there are other systems that are better than empiricism, but for the sake of argument, some things get bundled along with it.

Classical logic is not equivalent to empiricism - you can't take my statement that there are other logical systems besides classical logic as a statement that empiricism is flawed or needs to be tossed or whatever. 3-valued logic is consistent. 4-valued logic is consistent. First order logic is consistent. Which is the best system of logic?

[Ben Kenobi]

No.

You just said I wasn't good enough to make the cut before I said that here. Obviously I told you that earlier.

You are not a teacher. You are a faithful Catholic babysitter.

Good thing you aren't in sales. Alienating a large customer base isn't really the best thing to do.

You lie so much it's hard to keep your stories straight.

So it's impossible for me to do both? Teach for them and tutor whenever a client comes around? Apparently in Asherworld this is how it works. I don't do nearly as much now, but I have done some here.

[Asher]

You just said I wasn't good enough to make the cut before I said that here. Obviously I told you that earlier.

You never have. I was stating the obvious. You're not smart enough for a science degree.

Good thing you aren't in sales. Alienating a large customer base isn't really the best thing to do.

You are not a large customer. You're not even large.

So it's impossible for me to do both? Teach for them and tutor whenever a client comes around? Apparently in Asherworld this is how it works. I don't do nearly as much now, but I have done some here.

That's not what you ever implied. If that's your definition, I am also a phenomenally successful businessman in my own right. Hooray for dilution.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As an added layer of security it is a good thing. People can then be coached on how to make it less obvious and much more difficult to spoof.

*sigh*

[Ben Kenobi]

Classical logic is not equivalent to empiricism - you can't take my statement that there are other logical systems besides classical logic as a statement that empiricism is flawed or needs to be tossed or whatever. 3-valued logic is consistent. 4-valued logic is consistent. Predicate logic is consistent. Which is the best system of logic?

That's like asking whether euclidean geometry is more or less empirical than non-euclidean geometry. They both are empirical because in the situations where they can be proven, they are correct. I can draw it out and prove geometry principles and I can do the same with non-euclidean geometry, but they apply to the situations where they are appropriate.

The same is true for all self-consistent logical systems. They are all empirical because they are self-consistent. One is not 'better' than the other, because they are all empirical.

[loinburger]

That's like asking whether euclidean geometry is more or less empirical than non-euclidean geometry. They both are empirical because in the situations where they can be proven, they are correct. I can draw it out and prove geometry principles and I can do the same with non-euclidean geometry, but they apply to the situations where they are appropriate.

The same is true for all self-consistent logical systems. They are all empirical because they are self-consistent. One is not 'better' than the other, because they are all empirical.

So if it's not a requirement that something can be declared to be the "best" in order for it to be empirical, why does the lack of a "best" way to program suddenly turn computer science into an art? There is no empirically "best" way to program, but there are empirically "better" ways to program, just as there is no empirically "best" logic but there are still empirically "better" logics.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not what you ever implied. If that's your definition, I am also a phenomenally successful businessman in my own right. Hooray for dilution.

Uh, this seems not to square with this.

You're not smart enough for a science degree.

If you were so perceptive then clearly you would have been perceptive here. You really don't know much about me asher, but if you want to go and pretend you do, then please go ahead.

My advisor wanted me to stay in the program and we had a long discussion about it before I decided to leave. He was a very good man and disappointed. Yes, I did leave to do history, and the dean of the department had been trying to recruit me for awhile since I did history with him as an elective. I wanted to go where I felt I was making the best use of my talents and I sincerely believed that my talents were better there than in physics and astronomy where I was struggling.

Would I make the same choice today knowing what I do now? I'm not sure I would have. Do I regret my two years in the program? No. Much of who I am today is because I went and accepted the challenge. It has paid, and continues to pay dividends down the line.

[Ben Kenobi]

Loin:

It's not as systematic as euclidean geometry. There are many ways to solve the same problem, and how you go about and do it you can go very different routes and end up in the same place.

The art is in the structure. This is what Asher was talking about when he says that math majors code in one way, etc. They take the structures and their way of thinking into the programming.

[loinburger]

It's not as systematic as euclidean geometry. There are many ways to solve the same problem, and how you go about and do it you can go very different routes and end up in the same place.

So your definition of "art" is "anything less codified than euclidean geometry"?

[Ben Kenobi]

My definition of art is more, "anything that isn't empirical".