John Cuthber

I'm not sure I believe what they say is their goal. I think it's probably a straightforward power grab. Sure, they are selling it as a religious "war" but they could hardly admit " We just want people to do what we tell them because we are megalomaniacs " Here's another perspective http://www.thenation.com/article/heres-what-a-man-who-studied-every-suicide-attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/

OK, so, since everyone was using the dictionary definitions of all the words involved, there was no way that anyone would bother to ask if there was a " proof that "all software has bugs?"" Which takes us back to square one again. Is it just me , or is there a sense of Deja vu here?

Not really, no. I think it's probably impossible, and certainly very difficult. Do you have any idea how dangerous silver fulminate is?

Even Homer nods. And I still think that the people at BOC who put the gas in the cylinders are more likely to be right than just about anyone else.

Since "cancer" isn't one disease, but hundreds, it's unlikely that any breakthrough will "cure cancer". And every successful drug signals the end or at least a serious reduction) of research inits on field.

"Software bug is defined to have a particular meaning, and there's no good reason to change it." OK, so it's the word for a computer malfunction literally caused by a bug. It is said to date back to the days of electromechanical computers where insects would get into the machinery because it was warm and then their physical presence would disrupt operation of the machine. In which case it's easy to keep bugs out of computing- you just need a mosquito net or fly spray. ​but actually, the usage of the word bug as an error predates that. So we are back to square one. It's trivially false that all software has bugs; and yet the question got asked

Possibly, but kids from one school know kids at other schools. Most people live in towns and are not isolated. The real issue is if those numbers are per year, rather than total.

Actually, that would mean that the speed should be reported as C-0.001m/s ± 0.0005 m/s

I know- that's why I said "long enough"

I am not sure if the figures in the OP "- 2.1% chance of measles infection - 0.025% chance of being hospitalized for measles (1.2% of those infected) - 0.0021% of encephalitis as a side effect of measles (0.1% of those infected)..." are per year or lifetime estimates. If it's per year (i.e. you have a 2.1% chance of getting measles in any year) then you need to figure in the fact that MMR is a one off event, but measles deaths are cumulative. Also, I' very suspicious of that 2.1% figure- it seems rather low to me. I know it's not the same thing but when there was an outbreak of Rubella when I was at school-,nearly everyone got it. Did measles really only infect about 1 in 50?

Wait long enough. Erosion will flatten the mountains and fill in the sub-sea valleys and the water will spread over what's left. This might take a while- probably longer than the expected life-time of the sun.

Would it be cheating to write a computer programme to do it for you?

Are you sure you didn't intend to type "no words mean what they mean"? Because that's the whole point of a semantic debate.

Chromium is shiny and has a high melting point. Carbon is black and has a very high melting point. Neither is very strong. What are you hoping to do?

Wait until night time. Go outside and look up. Is it dark? It is?; OK. Now consider how that state of affairs could be stable over a long period of time. It can't and that's part of the essence of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox So we know that the one thing the universe can't be is stationary. Now, if it were not expanding, and it wasn't stable, it would be contracting- and we would see evidence of that. We don't. So it's expanding.

Yes. And it's totally and trivially obvious that a programme can be written that has no bugs.* So the only way the question can make sense is if it's a matter of semantics. So, my post making a point about semantics wasn't nonsense- it's just that you didn't understand it. * END

Stop saying I'm not human. But it's obviously trivially true, so, if it's worth asking, it's a semantic issue. Incidentally, re. "as demonstrated by this little program, unless it's supposed to print something other than 'Hello' on the screen." Nope, it's supposed to write "HELLO" Would that be a bug or not?

"The fact that a computer only does what it's told isn't relevant. it is relevant to the point I was making; that it's not an issue of the computer's point of view (which you claimed it was) "The software produces the wrong result, so the bug is in the software. " and similarly The programmer produces the wrong software, so the bug is in the programmer. And the bug is in the programmer because... well, often it's a specification problem. Sometimes it's a programmer problem. And it still has nothing to do with the computer's point of view. . Any proof that "all software has bugs" was going to be a semantics issue anyway. 10 PRINT "HELLO" 20 END

They can't be. Light will travel through a vacuum; sounds won't. There are also other problems with what you have said.

As far as I can tell, the stars + stripes in the background of an American politician is more or less the "obligatory" set up. The confederate flag... is different. However there's something about patriotism- what's so damned special about t a country just because it happens to be the one I was born in or live in?

How? there are two parts to that. I presume you mean the latter "the computer does exactly what you tell it to." It's true from any perspective (the computer's, the software's or the programmer's) because a computer can't do anything other than follow what the s/w tells it. So the bug rests not in the software, but in the programmer. If, on the other hand, you were referring to the other clause of what I posted "Actually, no software has bugs" then I can assure you that you are simply wrong. that statement is from my perspective and I'm not a computer (or, if I am,, we all are and the whole discussion is moot) In any event your assertion that it's "nonsense" relates to a different view on the meaning of "bug" and as such isn't true from all points of view. I think you were wrong to make the blanket claim that it was "nonsense" without some sort of explanation. it's like claiming that someone who says there were driving at 50 MPH is talking "nonsense" because it's not true from the pov of someone passing them in another vehicle.

Since any such effect hasn't wiped out the human race, in spite of the activity being practically universal, it hardly matters if it's true or not.

I see that you are talking about the computer's perspective as if it was somehow important to my point. I, on the other hand, never mentioned it. Was that a deliberate attempt at a straw-man attack, or did you just not read your post and think it through? As I said, the problem does not lie with the software, but with the programmer. (Actually, since I sometimes get a computer to write code for me the programmer sometimes is software- but, if it fails, it's still my fault not the software's)