"GM researchers have unveiled a new American truck that can run at 7 mp/g, which is less than Toyota's anything. GM's truck can also keep itself balanced when running over people, as shown in the video."
Why does conflict have to be based on control of territory? I am sure there will come a time (if it isn't here already) when a country will consider economic competition to be the real battleground. Now imagine the economic (not to mention other) damage caused by hitting a major city (New York, London, Tokyo, etc.) with an EMP weapon. Add in panic about radiation, further attacks, etc. and the result would be devestating.
If they want a heated debate then going for closely related groups is always best. Far more vitriol and animosity between groups who have only minor differences than groups with almost nothing in common.
In all areas of science, the default position is "I don't know". Scientists do not default to saying "there is no way to make fusion reactors work" simply because they haven't found one. We do not default to "there is no unification of the natural forces", or "P != NP", or any other negative hypothesis where evidence is lacking. We call them "open problems".
When mankind does try to default to a negative proposition, he often comes off looking a bit silly. ("There is no way for a heavier-than-air machine to fly.")
The only reason atheists claim "no is the default" on the issue of a God is that they personally find "Yes" distasteful. It's a matter of faith. (Or, more cynically, rhetoric. I suppose I shouldn't assume candor.)
You are confusing things when you try to claim the same behaviour for "all areas of science". The key areas I would like to highlight (but not the only ones) are: phenomenon and hypothesis.
You are right that people look silly when they claim phenomenon cannot happen (e.g. Poisson's spot, spooky action at a distance, heavier-than-air flight). However these are all phenomenon, a scientist should default to "I don't know if it can happen", although it is fair to be skeptical.
By contrast when it comes to hypothesis then the default is to assume the hypothesis is wrong and find a way to prove as much. (Usually phrased as if it was right how would I disprove it.) If we assumed every hypothesis was correct until proved wrong we would have many conflicting views of how things worked and no way to choose between them. (This is where the falsifiability of a hypothesis is so important to science.)
To return to religion, the phenomenon of a particular god (or gods) is often unknowable due to their definition. However, the religion or hypothesis around them should be treated with (I would say extreme) skepticism. It so happens that many a hypothesis is falsifiable.
Back to atheism, the difference tends to come down to (as nicely mentioned above) agnostic versus gnostic atheism. The former being scientific in spirit, while the latter is a matter of faith. Note that this is a general approach, gnostic tools are not required to show contradiction in many religions.
As for the aside on the damage religion does to society, I think you (in general, not parent) need to distinguish between religion and organised religion. The former is a personal position that is usually a matter of philosophy with limited impact on society. The latter is a major problem that needs to be addressed.
LaTeX: it has everything that you are looking for and can be easily compiled to ps, dvi, pdf, and (I am told but haven't used) html. It even plays nicely with version control, bibliography management (BiBTeX), etc.
As a bonus you can run it on linux via command line.
I've seen a lot of people with similar approaches to your "highly-educated coder" and the problem is with their philosophy not education. When they have a fixed way that everything must be forced to fit then any problem that is not perfectly matched is struggle. Typically these manifest in fanatically sticking to a single language/design pattern/architecture/OS/etc. regardless of what the goal is.
By contrast the best (to work with and teach) are those who are adaptable and willing to learn. People who are willing to pick the best tool for the task, even if it means learning how to use the tool from scratch.
Funny you should say that here, you are aware that many significant results and definitions in computer science are based on unary arithmetic? If you want to know more I strongly suggest looking at definitions of computability, turing completeness, recursion/computation, the halting problem, etc.
Imagine your (parents') house has a small electrical fire threatening to burn it down. The fire brigade will licence you a fire extinguisher for twice the cost of the house. Your options are:
- a house with a small scorched area and be bankrupted
- live in a burnt out foundation with your savings
Sounds like a great solution to making "green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?"
My car is garaged at home and garaged at work. Assuming I never drive anywhere else, the police would have to break into one of those private properties to put any device on my car... or do it while I am driving between home and work.
Just because a car is always parked in a garage on private property, does not mean it is always the same garage on the same property.
I was able to reach Wikileaks when the story was posted on the Sydney Morning Herald, but not since. Probably been slashdotted... by everyone who reads the news in Australia.:P
I would have to say the best language is dependent on other factors involved. Consider the goals of both the teaching institution and the type of graduate they wish to produce. I'll describe three different approaches to education I have come accross and why each would use a different language paradigm.
Example 1: Alpha
Alpha is a university that has a strong focus on research and academic qualities over industry practice. Their approach to programming is that it is a part of computer science and they are interested in teaching computer science. Their courses focus on mathematics, logic and languages with a heavy emphasis on theory. In this scenario I would suggest a functional programming language to begin with - it matches the mathematics and theory quite nicely.
Example 2: Beta
Beta is also a university, however the emphasis is on creating industry ready graduates. The university has taken a conscious decision to focus on skills over theory and has no mathematics as part of their IT course. Their approach to programming is very mechanical and about understanding state. In this setting I would suggest a procedural language that is heavy on state, maybe C, C++ although OO languages are also options.
Example 3: Gamma
Gamma is a tertiary education institute that creates certified graduates with specific skills. Their approach to programming is to create a programmer who can jump into a team right away and start working. They have no real interest in underlaying programming theory at all, they want to tick a box on an application form or resume. They typical run a language specific course on the language used by the industry and so would likely teach OO languages such as Java.
I would not claim any of there are a "better" or worse approach to learning your friend programming language. IMHO the universities (Alpha and Beta) should produce better programmers in the long run as they go into more theory and detail, but any of the three is as good a starting point as the other - in the end a good student will learn despite the limitations of the institution.
Slashdot Mirror
Buy the people, representing the people
Fixed that for you.
rational phobia?
Phobias are unreasonable/irrational, that is what makes them a phobia.
Typical military project wasting money on building a specially "throwable" robot - every robot is throwable (once)!
Both, of course. a) for the nerds, b) for the technically inept.
Of course, then they would be declared illegal, and would be rounded up.
I dream of the day when the technically inept are rounded up!
The GM response:
"GM researchers have unveiled a new American truck that can run at 7 mp/g, which is less than Toyota's anything. GM's truck can also keep itself balanced when running over people, as shown in the video."
Why does conflict have to be based on control of territory? I am sure there will come a time (if it isn't here already) when a country will consider economic competition to be the real battleground. Now imagine the economic (not to mention other) damage caused by hitting a major city (New York, London, Tokyo, etc.) with an EMP weapon. Add in panic about radiation, further attacks, etc. and the result would be devestating.
If they want a heated debate then going for closely related groups is always best. Far more vitriol and animosity between groups who have only minor differences than groups with almost nothing in common.
So post your list and let the debate begin!
In all areas of science, the default position is "I don't know". Scientists do not default to saying "there is no way to make fusion reactors work" simply because they haven't found one. We do not default to "there is no unification of the natural forces", or "P != NP", or any other negative hypothesis where evidence is lacking. We call them "open problems".
When mankind does try to default to a negative proposition, he often comes off looking a bit silly. ("There is no way for a heavier-than-air machine to fly.")
The only reason atheists claim "no is the default" on the issue of a God is that they personally find "Yes" distasteful. It's a matter of faith. (Or, more cynically, rhetoric. I suppose I shouldn't assume candor.)
You are confusing things when you try to claim the same behaviour for "all areas of science". The key areas I would like to highlight (but not the only ones) are: phenomenon and hypothesis.
You are right that people look silly when they claim phenomenon cannot happen (e.g. Poisson's spot, spooky action at a distance, heavier-than-air flight). However these are all phenomenon, a scientist should default to "I don't know if it can happen", although it is fair to be skeptical.
By contrast when it comes to hypothesis then the default is to assume the hypothesis is wrong and find a way to prove as much. (Usually phrased as if it was right how would I disprove it.) If we assumed every hypothesis was correct until proved wrong we would have many conflicting views of how things worked and no way to choose between them. (This is where the falsifiability of a hypothesis is so important to science.)
To return to religion, the phenomenon of a particular god (or gods) is often unknowable due to their definition. However, the religion or hypothesis around them should be treated with (I would say extreme) skepticism. It so happens that many a hypothesis is falsifiable.
Back to atheism, the difference tends to come down to (as nicely mentioned above) agnostic versus gnostic atheism. The former being scientific in spirit, while the latter is a matter of faith. Note that this is a general approach, gnostic tools are not required to show contradiction in many religions.
As for the aside on the damage religion does to society, I think you (in general, not parent) need to distinguish between religion and organised religion. The former is a personal position that is usually a matter of philosophy with limited impact on society. The latter is a major problem that needs to be addressed.
If the Civilization series has taught me anything, it is that even a Warrior or Militia unit is sometimes a match for a Stealth Bomber.
omg lol! WTF? kthxbye!!~~!!~!~
I just set up a tiger park in my office - where do I apply for funding to look after the tigers?
A good (and amusing) summary can be found here.
[citation needed]
PhDs aren't granted for common sense.
LaTeX: it has everything that you are looking for and can be easily compiled to ps, dvi, pdf, and (I am told but haven't used) html. It even plays nicely with version control, bibliography management (BiBTeX), etc.
As a bonus you can run it on linux via command line.
I've seen a lot of people with similar approaches to your "highly-educated coder" and the problem is with their philosophy not education. When they have a fixed way that everything must be forced to fit then any problem that is not perfectly matched is struggle. Typically these manifest in fanatically sticking to a single language/design pattern/architecture/OS/etc. regardless of what the goal is.
By contrast the best (to work with and teach) are those who are adaptable and willing to learn. People who are willing to pick the best tool for the task, even if it means learning how to use the tool from scratch.
In Australia it means 20 year old cartoon characters... link
Funny you should say that here, you are aware that many significant results and definitions in computer science are based on unary arithmetic? If you want to know more I strongly suggest looking at definitions of computability, turing completeness, recursion/computation, the halting problem, etc.
Imagine your (parents') house has a small electrical fire threatening to burn it down. The fire brigade will licence you a fire extinguisher for twice the cost of the house. Your options are:
- a house with a small scorched area and be bankrupted
- live in a burnt out foundation with your savings
Sounds like a great solution to making "green power technology more profitable it's really not that bad is it?"
(Yes I am ignoring insurance etc.)
My car is garaged at home and garaged at work. Assuming I never drive anywhere else, the police would have to break into one of those private properties to put any device on my car... or do it while I am driving between home and work.
Just because a car is always parked in a garage on private property, does not mean it is always the same garage on the same property.
I was able to reach Wikileaks when the story was posted on the Sydney Morning Herald, but not since. Probably been slashdotted... by everyone who reads the news in Australia. :P
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
A laser child zapper?! Sign me up!
"If we have your fingerprint on file then we can be rule you out! After all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about!"
Never mind when the fingerprint database is hacked, or lost, or sold for advertising, or shared with another state...
I would have to say the best language is dependent on other factors involved. Consider the goals of both the teaching institution and the type of graduate they wish to produce. I'll describe three different approaches to education I have come accross and why each would use a different language paradigm.
Example 1: Alpha
Alpha is a university that has a strong focus on research and academic qualities over industry practice. Their approach to programming is that it is a part of computer science and they are interested in teaching computer science. Their courses focus on mathematics, logic and languages with a heavy emphasis on theory. In this scenario I would suggest a functional programming language to begin with - it matches the mathematics and theory quite nicely.
Example 2: Beta
Beta is also a university, however the emphasis is on creating industry ready graduates. The university has taken a conscious decision to focus on skills over theory and has no mathematics as part of their IT course. Their approach to programming is very mechanical and about understanding state. In this setting I would suggest a procedural language that is heavy on state, maybe C, C++ although OO languages are also options.
Example 3: Gamma
Gamma is a tertiary education institute that creates certified graduates with specific skills. Their approach to programming is to create a programmer who can jump into a team right away and start working. They have no real interest in underlaying programming theory at all, they want to tick a box on an application form or resume. They typical run a language specific course on the language used by the industry and so would likely teach OO languages such as Java.
I would not claim any of there are a "better" or worse approach to learning your friend programming language. IMHO the universities (Alpha and Beta) should produce better programmers in the long run as they go into more theory and detail, but any of the three is as good a starting point as the other - in the end a good student will learn despite the limitations of the institution.