didn't see any text in your message, but my tv turned on when I opened it

Shift+Ins, Ctrl+Ins, Shift+Del It's still painful using a keyboard where I can't use those shortcuts.

The real reason we don't have floppy drives?

Nope, that's a positive ID.

#12 Mail the captured feral cat to someone on eBay.

I've been the same way for years. Nice to hear I'm not alone.

Chris Maunder wrote:

I also wonder, on evenings like this, what percentage stop and spend a couple of hours to research and implement the best way of doing something, and what just go ahead and do it in half the time with double the pain?

I would guess that the number is < 1%. Possibly far less. How about those whose way of doing things is to always do things the "best" way? Ok, I'll guess .00001%. I might be too generous though.

No big deal, my language isn't on the list :-\

If I saw a page with 1 like, and a page with 1000 likes, I'm more likely to click like on the page with 1000.

Prize rescinded - there are now two hits.

I can plug my computer into it, right?

So, you've got a new programming language huh? And just how is that going to make my life better?? Oh, you have multiple paradigms? That's cool. That doesn't answer my question though...

Prove it. :java: (would've rather'd a popcorn smiley...)

No, I don't.

Pretty arrogant to apologize. I mean, if he didn't do it, someone else would have...

The number of answers it can respond with is very different from the number of questions that can be asked. To extend your analogy of qubits having personality, how many questions could you ask a person where they could only respond yes or no to? The ability to only receive yes/no responses makes the data received useful, because it means that it's verifiable, and consistend. Until qubits learn to lie that is :-D I can see it now... the day computers learned to lie. (maybe they already have?) I think that the data in one qubit is potentially infinite, although practically it's very large.

Right, and so my idea is to assign arbitrary numbers to those questions. You have 4 questions that can be asked, let's number them 0, 1, 2, 3.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

It's almost like the qubit is alive with a personality.

That'll make for some interesting discussions about the ethics of using computers :-D

Ok, how about turning two, three, etc... into abstract ideas. Label one question the result of "are you 1?" The next: "are you two?"... etc If we're allowed to ask multiple questions that give valid answers, then just label one question as "1", one question as "2", one question as "3", etc. That's what it sounds like to me. The ability to ask multiple questions seems like it gives us the ability to attach arbitrary numbers to those answers. Am I missing something?

So what I'm hearing is that the way to "store" more information in a qubit is to be able to ask it more questions? Such as: are you 0? are you 1? are you 2? ... are you 1000000000000000...? Neat stuff :)

With a stack, there is no "full". It's like a single-linked list. Each item points to the next, and carries with it the space required for doing so. If the stack is empty, and returns false, then that's up to you to handle in whatever way is appropriate. For myself, I wrote this to handle memory allocation (where I would manually allocate on false), or as a messaging system where false just meant there was no work to do and I would wait on a condition_variable.