Before devaluating elementary education in such an ignorant way, you should stop and think about the people who developed such things as electricity, cars, or your computer. They had to build on the knowledge of their predecessors, and they had to work for it. And it probably was not so obvious to them why they should learn trigonometry at first.
Without trigonometry, my friend, you'd still be thinking the Earth is flat and we that we live in the center of the Universe.
Some of us are actually glad that we have progressed since cave men and do our best to further improve society. Education is the starting point.
In science, the best you can hope for is evidence for something, e.g. consistent facts.
The only existing proofs are those of mathematical theorems, and they're only connected to "reality" through the pseudo-isomorphisms our mind perceives between them, and the "real" world.
It is an abuse of language to say that scientists prove things.
I'm sorry, but it's probably because there are too many so-called 'programmers' like you that commercial software is so crappy in general.
What is this "...but there are 30 odd solutions to..." thing? I am sure there ARE 30 "odd ways" to lay bricks. I don't see how that justifies anything at all.
Also, complexity is no excuse for bugs. If things are abstracted correctly, there's no reason to get confused.
It is entirely possible to write very complex and completely correct software. And testing is not the key: tests can only show that things DON'T work. Ever heard of formal verification (possibly computer-assisted)? Note that I am not saying that it is a trivial task, but one should only release software of a complexity they are able to handle.
The problem with computer science is that people forget that it is fundamentally a mathematical science and the field has been infested by way too many people who start writing programs and suddenly think they know what they are doing.
What's wrong with using an OS 4 years after its release? I don't see why people think that everything that has to do with computers MUST ABSOLUTELY BE REPLACED EVERY 3 MONTHS. How about concentrating on making things correct instead of insisting on continually adding new 'features' to huge flawed code bases?
It's really sad that such an interesting (computer) science is completely misunderstood and misrepresented in the corporate world.
Quantum cryptography is provably unbreakable, i.e. it can be proven mathematically that it cannot be broken. For a reason similar to one-time pads. And as opposed to what most people think, quantum cryptography does NOT require a quantum computer to be implemented, and it already has been succesfully tested in practice. It's mostly an engineering problem (and political?) now to package it to make it widely accessible.
No way yourself. It wouldn't be a giant rock. It'd be the product of gravity acting on a cloud of dust ejected in space after the collision, much like Earth and the Sun were formed. Did you really think we thought a large object hit Earth, and ejected a perfectly spherical rock?
Slashdot Mirror
Before devaluating elementary education in such an ignorant way, you should stop and think about the people who developed such things as electricity, cars, or your computer. They had to build on the knowledge of their predecessors, and they had to work for it. And it probably was not so obvious to them why they should learn trigonometry at first.
Without trigonometry, my friend, you'd still be thinking the Earth is flat and we that we live in the center of the Universe.
Some of us are actually glad that we have progressed since cave men and do our best to further improve society. Education is the starting point.
gravity works, or gravity doesn't work; and if it doesn't work nobody's gonna believe it."
(I stole this from my venerable research supervisor.)
In science, the best you can hope for is evidence for something, e.g. consistent facts.
The only existing proofs are those of mathematical theorems, and they're only connected to "reality" through the pseudo-isomorphisms our mind perceives between them, and the "real" world.
It is an abuse of language to say that scientists prove things.
actually DOING it instead of saying...
I'm sorry, but it's probably because there are too many so-called 'programmers' like you that commercial software is so crappy in general.
What is this "...but there are 30 odd solutions to..." thing? I am sure there ARE 30 "odd ways" to lay bricks. I don't see how that justifies anything at all.
Also, complexity is no excuse for bugs. If things are abstracted correctly, there's no reason to get confused.
It is entirely possible to write very complex and completely correct software. And testing is not the key: tests can only show that things DON'T work. Ever heard of formal verification (possibly computer-assisted)? Note that I am not saying that it is a trivial task, but one should only release software of a complexity they are able to handle.
The problem with computer science is that people forget that it is fundamentally a mathematical science and the field has been infested by way too many people who start writing programs and suddenly think they know what they are doing.
What's wrong with using an OS 4 years after its release? I don't see why people think that everything that has to do with computers MUST ABSOLUTELY BE REPLACED EVERY 3 MONTHS. How about concentrating on making things correct instead of insisting on continually adding new 'features' to huge flawed code bases?
It's really sad that such an interesting (computer) science is completely misunderstood and misrepresented in the corporate world.
Quantum cryptography is provably unbreakable, i.e. it can be proven mathematically that it cannot be broken. For a reason similar to one-time pads. And as opposed to what most people think, quantum cryptography does NOT require a quantum computer to be implemented, and it already has been succesfully tested in practice. It's mostly an engineering problem (and political?) now to package it to make it widely accessible.
Read 'The Code Book' by Simon Singh.
No way yourself. It wouldn't be a giant rock. It'd be the product of gravity acting on a cloud of dust ejected in space after the collision, much like Earth and the Sun were formed. Did you really think we thought a large object hit Earth, and ejected a perfectly spherical rock?
Perhaps your insult should go to the actual author of those words.
Yeah, it sure changes the world.
Maybe michael wanted his name in the Most active stories, too :)