cobol can't find bug
cobol integration cloud services
cobol migration java
cobol migration java -aarp

*ducks*

Nice link. But how can one deny the beauty of this new language?

Example: Hello world
stack overflow java hello world

Example: Print Fibonacci numbers
python generate fibonacci numbers
python how to print a list

Example: Normalize a vector to length 1
c++ callback function fill array with values
c++ array out of bounds error
c++ how to install boost
c++ smart pointer initialize array with zeros
c++ normalize multidimensional vector
c++ how to install gsl
c++ convert array to gsl vector
c++ how to end function and return value
c++ how to compile to a shared library

That brings up a great idea for a new language. It could have the syntax of any language that you want to start with, but the compiler ensures that copied code Just Works(tm). Or even better, you don't even have to copy the code, you just need to type the google terms that result in the appropriate SO question as the first hit.

That's exactly the point. If, based upon my observations of your response to stimuli (a simple discussion), I come to the conclusion that you have a mind, then you have a mind. There is no "deeper" sense of something called "your understanding" that I could ever possibly have access to. And that's how it works for artificial intelligences - if, based on my observations, it appears to have a mind, then it has a mind. The ggp concerns about whether it really "understands" is a meaningless question.

Note that it ends up that we are talking about a Turing test here. Genius, that.

The problem with this argument is Wittgenstein's beetle. I can't even be sure that you are sentient, aware, and able to understand; all I can do is observe your actions and if those actions seem to be consistent with you having what we typically label as a "mind," then I pretty much accept that you have a mind.

We are currently very far away from having machines that can perform general actions consistent with having a mind, except in very artificial and controlled situations (e.g. a chess game, the Jeopardy! game show), but I would hardly say that it will never happen. And if it does, then how can you be sure it doesn't understand things, at least in the same way that I assume that you understand things? If the actions of the machine are the same as the actions of a person (who I believe does understand things), then why wouldn't I say there is a beetle in the box?

What kind of competition are you talking about? A canonical pseudorandom number generator like the WELL family can't be predicted based on the number of draws that you will see in any application that currently uses dice. Unless the settings are poorly chosen, a few hundred or a few thousand draws won't allow you to have any predictive power for the next roll. Further, a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator like Blum Blum Shub is resistant to pretty much any analytics for prediction.

Anyways it is a lot easier to test the randomness of software based pseudorandom number generators than it is to test dice, so whatever battery of tests you would have run on your die to test its fairness you can run on the generator and get the same level of confidence.

There are certainly some applications for real random numbers (mostly to seed pseudorandom generators to get the most bang for your buck from the necessarily limited supply of entropy that you can harvest), but it's not dice rolling based competitions.

Oh yes I forgot to mention the need to secure access to natural resources. The growing economic power that I was thinking of was China, who gets into kinetic operations once access to petroleum is threatened.

Yes, but WWI was caused by many factors, including a network of western alliances, a rapid advance in communication technologies and globalization, a multiethnic region where nobody seemed to be able to get along, a rising industrial and economic power challenging the existing hegemon, and the last straw, Russia coming to the aid of a long time ally amidst a campaign of terrorist acts.

Fortunately that sounds nothing like the world today!

Please excuse the karma whoring but you did ask: Gregor Mendel was a monk who did pioneering experiments on heredity. Although it seems obvious in retrospect, even after Darwin first published the theory of natural selection it wasn't until it was put together with Mendel's work that evolutionary theory as we understand it today came about.

Except that the Constitution is quite clear that Americans have certain rights with respect to Arms, backed up by hundreds of years of case law supporting those rights, but it is silent about the question of rights to use ciphers and codes. So when talking about laws they are very different things entirely.

Or ask a 7 year old kid from Montreal.

If we did that using some hypothetical future technology, it is possible that those beings would not be "human" under our current definition of the species.

Yes there is an RA. From TFA:

It is generally thought that the group isomorphism problem is easier than the graph isomorphism problem. If that is the case (and I don't recall whether it is proven or just believed), then based on this result, group isomorphisms are probably in P. This would seem to be a problem for cryptographic applications that rely on the discrete log problem such as Diffie Hellman and elliptic curve, but I would love to hear from someone working in cryptography to explain why that would not be the case.

Although I can imagine a case where this would be a problem. What if Microsoft did tie together some sort of timeline with the EULA? For example, they might have offered free unlimited storage only if you agreed to use OneDrive unencrypted and as your only backup solution for 2 years (maybe so they could see all your stuff), or if you agree to take automatic updates for 2 years (so when they add the bing toolbar you have to take it). In that case, they shouldn't be able to unilaterally say, "we don't want to give unlimited storage anymore, so we are stopping that, and you don't need to do what you agreed to do (even if you still want to fulfill your side)."

But AFAIK, the actual agreement doesn't have anything like that, and is more like a month-to-month rental agreement with the option for either side to stop using or providing the service whenever they want.