stianan

Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less.

You cannot reasonably claim to know this. Of course, your parent comment cannot know that "no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience" either, as long as he only has access to his own subjective experience.

It's a theorem that starts off with some assumptions, and gives you some implications. It does not say anything as general as "some things are unknowable in mathematics".

I appreciate your point, but I think invoking Gödel's incompletness theorems in this context is taking them far out of their scope.

Is that article written by Mochizuki? Can you make sense of it?

You're absolutely right. In my native language, the relative key is called the parallel key. Sorry for causing confusion.

So, to clarify, I'm not claiming there is a III in the original key, I'm referring to the III chord of the relative major key.

Right, the key III is the parallel major. I'm shifting the base of the notation for this passage. When I say III ends the build up, I mean III in the parallel major key, i.e. V(7) in the original key.

Your build up progression is exactly the same as mine, only I interpret it as based on the major key III. I agree we're not talking about modulation in the usual sense, but I think it makes sense to think of it as a key change. It reminds my ears of the common IV-V-vi progression, only with a suprising major VI.

I think I have to a disagree with your analysis. The verse is in a minor key judging by the looping riff. This is interrupted once in a while by a iv-v-i cadence, and then the verse continues. Then the build-up, which happens in the parallel key III: IV-V-VI-VI IV-V-III-III-III and then back to the minor key for the chorus.

It would be interesting to read the proof that de Jong's function has an attractor. Do you know where I could find it?

So an attractor is the image of a recursively defined function?

Could someone explain what an attractor is? I looked it up on Wikipedia, but I don't understand how these shapes benefit from the definition given there.

My impression is that it has to do with the perceived commerciality of the entity doing/facilitating the copying.

Out of curiosity, are you unlikely to use the code because it's C++ or because it comes from Facebook?

Perhaps they use some kind of right-to-left fastcall convention. Or maybe they are just unconventional, putting "this" at the end of the parameter list, hence ending up in different registers or the stack depending on the number of arguments?

I don't immediately see why it would be putting arbitrary data in front of the vtable unless it's done by a person. Do you have any ideas?

The inconsistent placement of the "this" argument in function calls seems to support this being C. The vtable moving around would indicate that each class layout is hand-written, though.

At 28:35 he says: "This is a 100% match with what you see here. The most telling evidence are the missing dots here and here. These are your missing dots".

Which dots is he referring to? There are two prominent missing dots on the computer screen, but they are not present in his Stuxnet model.

I don't understand how warping the extra dimension will make particles appear to move faster.

Is it possible that it is everything else that is moving linearly along a fifth dimension, thus slowing us down, and these neutrinos were moving cleanly through space-time?

I really don't appreciate the argument that "it doesn't matter what the constant is". Of course it doesn't matter if you are only interested in the result of a calculation, but like you say, it does matter when you're trying to understand what the formulas express.

I find it surprising that this article, and many mathematicians asked to comment in the media, pull out the area formula as their prime counter-example, seemingly forgetting that using pi is only obscuring the mechanics behind it.

I get your point. However, this isn't a fix, it is, according to the article, a volunerability that allows "remote execution of malicious code". People who know WebGL better than I do would probably know more about what specific exploits it facilitates.

Could this have anything to do with VUPEN's recent Chrome exploit?

Why bother removing it when it will always be available elsewhere? I honestly don't understand.

How come they have so much content then? Is it because the copyright holders can't send them sufficiently detailed take-down notices fast enough?

I'd argue that it's a good thing to use an algorithm that is efficient in and of itself. (And perhaps a language which invites the use of such an algorithm.)

Not only is it not proper quicksort, it's very memory inefficient.

Right you are, good sir. Right you are.

wladimir: Up-sample/filter/down-sample is the standard way of doing it, and any other way will just be an optimization of that transformation.

I don't understand why getting anti-aliasing right is so hard. Just render text a few times bigger, use some kind of low-pass filter (box filter will do) and down-sample it. It's what every graphics program does. That would put an end to using Photoshop or Flash for headlines just to make them look decent.

Why is text aliased and ugly in Firefox 4?

Wow! How did you figure out all the letter arrangements?