u'r right, as ggp might say.

We're way off in the weeds here, of course, but that's cool. I don't mind playing in the weeds.

What you've done there is analogous to Dear Leader's argument "it's Constitutional because it is not a tax and is a tax". You've tried to say "it can write the single value 00000001, which is eight values". Either that's one value or eight, pick one.

The definition of a Turing machine has requires very few capabilities. One of the very few things required by the definition of a Turing machine is that is has to be able to update memory one value at a time (block writes aren't good enough). That's the DEFINITION of a Turing machine - it's a machine that writes individual symbols to a strip of tape of other storage.

You've defined a language that can only update eight bits at a time, and additionally you've said it updates them only in certain patterns. That's not Turing complete.

If we want it to be Turing complete, we can interpret it as one value by saying that the LANGUAGE writes "1" and the HARD DRIVE happens to store that physically with eight molecules. The language would then be Turing complete since it's updating the single value "1". Fine. The language can write 1010101, 11111, 0000, 01010, or any other series since it's writing one value at a time. Perhaps the hard drive stores "10" physically as 1111111100000000, but the hard drive is going to read back what was written to it. Write a "1", get a "1" back. That's part of the definition of Turing complete because the storage in a turing complete system can be like a dumb piece of paper - it doesn't change what you write to it. Given that the tape doesn't change what's written to it, the language can write valid machine code and get valid machine code back.

You can't have it both ways. If "1" is one value, it can write "1", then write "0", in whatever pattern is needed to produce valid machine code. If it can only write the eight separate values 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 that's not a Turing machine.

Ps, it would certainly be EASIER to write Call of Duty in some languages than it would in others. It would be difficult to get it to run QUICKLY in some languages (actually that's true of all languages). It could be done, though, and that's point. The question isn't what CAN the language do, the question is what it's best suited for. Just because you CAN write a pixel shader in Perl doesn't mean you should.

If you sandbox Java in the browser, or sandbox a plugin written in C, it can't access DirectX either. The fact that people often choose to run a program in a sandbox doesn't mean anything about the language(s) the program is written in. Try writing a C compiler in C. It's not easy in any language. It's possible in any.

Just FYI, that's quite false. Einstein passed his Matura (high school graduation exam), then attended Swiss Federal Polytechnic in Zürich, where he got top grades in math and physics and earned his teaching degree. He did his PhD at University of Zürich. Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, was his adviser for his thesis "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions" Kleiner didn't need to advise Einstein much - his previous paper, "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" had already been published in the prestigious "Annalen der Physik" (Annals of Physics).

If an interpreter for language A can be written in language B, then B can therefore do everything A does, by running that interpreter. Do you have an example in mind of two languages that can do very different things?

I'm churning this over in my head to see if it sparks an idea that might actually be practical. My last major security-related software project was based on gender recognition, so this isn't too far off. Regarding my last project - captchas suck. People aren't much better than computers at recognizing squiggly letters. We are, however, REALLY good at spotting hot chicks.

This is an interesting point, which I'm going to veer slightly off topic with. All general purpose programming languages* can do _precisely_ the same things. All fit the requirements to be "Turing complete". ANY Turing complete language "A" can emulate any other Turing complete language "B", and therefore "A" can do the anything that "B" can do. Since "B" can also emulate "A", the two languages can do precisely the same things. (Church-Turing thesis). An interesting example of this is that JavaScript can do everything that CPU microcode can do, as shown at http://bellard.org/jslinux/ .

Therefore, the question is never "which language can do more", it's always "which language can do it most quickly, most securely, etc." C is often faster than Java for many operations. R is more convenient for statistics, PHP 5.3 makes security bugs less likely than PHP 4.0, but all of those languages can run the exact same programs.

Contrast HTML and XML, which being markup languages rather than general purpose programming languages, are not Turing complete. Standard regexs are also not Turing complete, though Perl's extended regexs very well may be.

Deuteronomy 22 talks about sex crimes. It doesn't say sex crimes are fine, it acknowledges that they exist. I acknowledge hat you exist, but clearly you are not fine, you are in need of serious help.

Further, 28-29 talk about an unmarried woman. Only really sick people would think "hmm, slept with an unmarried woman - she must have been a little kid, and that sounds great". Suck, sick bastard.

I understand your feeling on that. Practically, suing the million people who own chunks of Microsoft or Google might be difficult and expensive. If you had to attempt that, you might find yourself wishing you could just sue Microsoft rather than suing each person who is saving for their retirement. That is of course the "greedy people" who invest part of their paycheck - all responsible adults, who take responsibility for their own needs rather than spending everything they make and planning to demand that the next generation takes care if them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Current machines take an entire day or more to print something. It's not at all hard to believe that someone got it down to an hour for a 3" * 3" print. In fact, I'd be surprised if someone DIDN'T do that very soon.

Because he's claiming to have done something that I fully expected someone to do rather soon, I don't see any reason to think he's lying.

Hydroelectric is good, in the places where it makes sense such as Niagara Falls.

To provide for all of US energy needs would require 20,000 dams, each with the capacity of Hoover dam. Because Hoover was located in one of the best places possible, it flooded only 100 square miles. We' e already dammed most of the best spots, so new dams would be in less ideal places.

The 20,000 dams required would flood 80% of the continental US, so that's probably not a solution. There may be a few places remaining to add a little bit more hydro. However, we should keep in mind hydro is responsible for all of the catastrophic accidents that kill thousands of people. See for example Banqiao. Also, the MAIN reason to avoid fossil fuels is greenhouse gases, and hydro produces about the same amount of greenhouse gases, so it doesn't really help with the primary goal. International Rivers has some good information about that if you're interested.

Nuclear makes a lot of sense, with the one main drawback being a concern about safety. A worst-case nuclear accident could, in theory, kill a lot of people. On the other hand, hydro and coal actually DO kill thousands of people. Solar electric doesn't kill people, but it doesn't produce reliable electricity either, so it's only indirectly dangerous - wasting time and money playing with solar ensures that we remain stuck with coal.

The poppers which aren't regulated as regular firework, go for about 50 cents to $1 per box. I don't recall how many are in a box, maybe 25.

The better consumer fireworks are 2" shells and sell for about $18 for a box of six. 500 gram cakes are about $60. These are all Texas prices, near the import port at Houston. Hazmat shipping to other parts of the country may increase retail prices elsewhere.

Enthusiasts who spend $300 or more can pay 60% less by joining a group to buy at wholesale prices.

I'd think at least 99.99% of cases don't involve the suspect using their computer at all. One of the most common crimes is using a stolen checkbook or credit card, in a brick-and-mortar store. Thefts might be solved by looking at the store's security video, etc.

In the rare case where you're interested in an encrypted file, you can normally go around it. For example, if you wanted to prove child porn, the cached thumbnails that most image viewers create work just fine. Someone sending instant messages encrypted? Fine, the message log on their device is plaintext. Rarely do you need to crack the crypto.

N/m