okay so let me get this straight, trump cuts 9.2 billion dollars from the DOE's budget, wants credit for $200M that he didn't even fund - he's just saying that of the money already allocated to grants, this much should go to STEM.
Meanwhile, when obama was president, he proposed a 4 billion dollar inceare in DOE's budget to go specifically to CS education, but that didn't pass because of republicans.
So the net score is: Obama +4 billion (blocked by republicans), Trump -9.2 billion (republicans love it).
And he wants to sell this as him supporting STEM?!?
"Escape analysis and data flow analysis have existed for quite some time..."
Okay, well neither of these things are built in compile-time static analysis of memory allocation to prevent memory leaks efficiently. So I'm not sure why you mention them.
"Lisp allows for..."...yeah, I'm going to stop you right there.
I agreed with the poster up until the last part, where he suggested that the "massive view controller" problem was a misunderstanding of what constitutes a "view" and a "model". I'd ask poster if he understands what constitutes a "controller" in the MVC model. And from that I surmise that who ever told him he didn't know what he was talking about was probably correct, at least in that particular instance.
But that the poster didn't realize this, throws into doubt earlier things he said, which I agreed with up until I got to that sentence. It strikes me now that those perspectives might really have been the result of the posters "arrogance and ignorance" as the phrase goes. And furthermore that his claims of things being a solved problem for "20 to 50", while I agree this happens a lot, I think we might disagree on what the specific instances of this are.
I would say for instance that, while it didn't need to invent a new language to do it, "Rust" provides a good solution to dynamic memory allocation (namely, compile-time static analysis), that is different and in many ways better than garbage collection and automatic reference counting (ARC). While he might claim this problem was solved decades ago, it is just a fact that compile-time static analysis for dynamic memory allocation did not exist until recently, except in the form of "scope" as opposed to "lifetime", which, while similar, it is different from.
Now there will certainly be a great deal of rediscovery, of re-inventing wheels poorly (for instance i just found someone re-created the java "date object", but made the linux epoch (zero milliseconds) dependent on the time zone.), but it must be noted also that there still are a fair amount of new, interesting ideas.
I've often used "1" as a drop in when dividing by zero. also the logarithm of zero, i usually am working with information units, so it's plnp, and if p = 0, i just say that plnp = 0, and that's kind of like saying ln0 = 1.
i think mathematically infinity or negative infinity would make the most sense, unless its 0/0, in which case you'd apply l'hopital's rule. but i don't think the computers going to do that. another way is you could create another number system, that would run a tally of divides by zeros or multiplies by infinities, minus multiplies by zeros or divides by infinity. (and flipping the sign on negative infinity.)
definitely c ironically the most modern programming language of the bunch.
maybe some day apple will finally get with the times and use an existing popular modern object orientated programming language like c++ or java.
you know, shortcut the whole process f making a feature-incomplete idiosyncratic and verbose programming programing language with inconsistent syntax and skip ahead to what everyone else had half a century ago.
the author shows by his very writing of the article just how bad science education is in the u.s. that is, he himself is a victim of the very low standards and the lack of teaching and emphasis on philosophy of science. the author should be ashamed and embarassed for being a shining example of everything that is wrong and antiquated with science education in america. his philosophy belongs to the pre-socratics; the sophists. there is nothing new in what he is saying, it is embarrassingly old. and embarrasingly banal.
if the article proves anything it's by way of example: the author is an excellent example of the people that our education system has left behind.
1) they start by using a measure that's not at all even correlated with what they're interested in. 2) they then completely switch the measure, so then you have two completely unrelated filters on the data - and the data (dna) is very high dimensional, so your final result set is of course going to be miniscule and effectively random. and woe and behold, that's what they got. 3) on top of that they looked at the correlation between the first filter and the second and found woe and behold their method has no chance at all of telling them what they want to know - which we already knew in step 1.
so... uh... do they see what's wrong with their methodology? could it be more obvious? this was botched really badly.
okay so there's a public safety issue, and the traffic is prioritized, great. then the program at the other end receives the info and sends out a text message to first responders. and guess what? text messages are treated as low priority, so the overall delay is actually _increased_.
to make matters worse, let's say the public safety thing is spamming the alert, (maybe a design flaw in the program, maybe not), well that spamming is now prioritized, over, again, text messages, maybe even ip telephony, etc.
now you're causing congestion in times when congestion is the last thing you need.
and then a first responder finally gets on sight, and they don't know a medical procedure, so they look it up on the web, but guess what, web traffic takes the slow lane. or maybe its a video hosted by comcast - which isn't paying time warned the royalties it needs to not get throttled.
there's no telling before hand what information is needed, over what channels, over what protocols, and by who.
yes, all bits are of different value. but you don't know what that value is. that's the whole point of net neutrality.
For example, Science by Definition is amoral. It will tell you how to build a bomb, but it does't ask if we should build a bomb.
That's not because of any limit of science, but because it's impossible to answer the question "should" without stating a goal. once you state the goal, the answer is trivial, provided you know the science. e.g. should i remove the squirrel form under my porch? i don't know. do you want it under you porch? yes = leave it, no = remove it. see how that necessarily needs two parts? for a more complicated problem you'd need science. e.g. should we vaccinate? that's a moral question. should you inject a needle into everyone containing a dormant virus? well that depends... what's your goal? okay, lets say our goal is to avoid physical pain. then science tells us the answer is no. what does religion tell us? nothing. it doesn't tell us if it's going to hurt or not. science tells us that. you want to minimize pain in the long run? science tells us we should do it then. religion, again, tells us nothing.
- It claims to have an answer for how the universe began but it has no repeatable experiments to back it up.
i believe someone already pointed out this is false.
- It appeals to "just take it on faith" that the universe "spontaneously" came into existence from nothing, not realizing the physical universe has always existed.
no, as much as i personally think the big bang theory is incredibly presumptions, it doesn't take it on faith.
- It makes claims that there "must" be "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" yet has no way to measure it, let alone see it.
dark matter/energy is a placeholder term for excess gravitational effects that have been observed and measured
- It still doesn't have a clue what gravity is, what consciousness is, what magnetism, why EMF is linked, why time flows in one direction, why we dream, what Lucid Dreaming and the Out-of-Body Experience is, the different types of consciousness, why we even exist in the first place, the purpose of the Universe (Answer: Relationships), etc.
firstly, this is the annoyingly common "god of the gaps" argument. secondly, a whole lot of that is just plain wrong and a whole lot is a bad question. * gravity - yes it does. there's a problem of joining general relativity with quantum physics. that's a mathematical problem, not an empirical one. * consciousness is a word we use to give ourselves pride. it's really not meaningful / useful beyond that. * why we even exist is already assuming way too much and making some serious philosophical blunders. firstly, it's assuming teleology. and anthropocentric teleology at that. * purpose of the universe - same problem, teleology. and anthropocentric teleology at that.
Science is not interested in pursuing ALL answers to questions such as:
+ What happens before Life?
yes it is. there are many facets to that question. do you want to talk about sperm and egg cells? astrology? proto-life? be more specific and yes, since is very interested in that.
+ What happens after Death?
a lot. but usually, there's a funeral, and your body slowly decays or maybe is cremated. here's an experiment: take a plant, don't water it. observe.
Because there are ZERO equations with consciousness in them.
again, not meaningful
Scientists and Science is stuck in the archaic Reductionism and Materialism model that it can't think outside the box and grasp that meta-physical DOES exist, such as Time, Numbers, etc.
Carl Sagan once said
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
PoS more precisely is concerned with how to discover truth. Religion falls cleanly into this territory and is found GREATLY wanting. So while it is not concerned with $DIETY, or $OTHER_DIETY or $YET_ANOTHER_DIETY, the epistemological foundations it constructs says "no".
you said look it up in a dictionary and then you gave a WRONG definition of agnosticism and atheism and then i CORRECTED you and now instead of admitting that you were wrong and that the whole situation is, well, rather IRONIC, you are having a hard time dealing with it and becoming more aggressive.
it's a technique that you often use, maybe, but it so far doesn't seem to be very good at doing anything other than confirming beliefs that you already hold. i.e., to server as specious justification for confirmation bias.
actually mathematics does not depend on depend on mathmatical axioms that simply have to be presumed to be true. firstly, it's pure tautology. it's usefullness comes precisely from its tautological nature. secondly, you can postulate any set of axioms, and you don't have to postulate them to be true, you can postulate them to be false. and then you can work mathematically with an arbitrary set of presumed false axioms. but again, it's tautological. that's different than presumed true.
can i prove or show supporting evidence for that fact that 1+1=2? yes. very easily.
...though i should add that "gnostic", while it literally means "of knowledge" (greek), is popularly associated with "gnosticism", which was a colletion of ancient religion movements that shunned the "material" world in favor of the "spiritiual" world. so the phrase "gnostic atheist" does justifiably give a bit of cognitive dissonance. the atheistic positions are more commonly referred to strong/weak or positive/negative, rather than gnostic/agnostic. "positive" atheism is meant in the sense of "positivism" - that the lack of existence of deities is empirically demonstrable. for instance, by the principle of parsimony, burden of proof, that it is self-disproving because of contradictions, or evidence of absence ("In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."). "negative" or "weak" atheism is not believing in the existence of any dieties, but not positively asserting that there are none. this would be your agnostic atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
actually agnosticism is a position about knowledge, while atheism is a position about theism.
and the prefix a- means essentially not having.
a-gnostic = not having knowledge. a-theist = not having theism.
a-gnostic is the position that you do not have knowledge. most people are agnostic. a lot of atheists are agnostic, _and so are a lot of theists_. though there are some fundamentalist theist who claim to have "knowledge" of god - those would be gnostic theists. likewise some atheists claim that they have positive knowledge that deities do not actually exist (e.g. that they are demonstrably figments of the cognitive biases in the human mind.). those would be _gnostic_ atheists.
and on the topic of abiogenesis, creationism is actually a form of abiogenesis. so you see religious people are also firm believers in abiogenesis. just that their particular, err, less then even a hypothesis -- creationism -- fails the scientific test miserably, and never really explained anything in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
okay so let me get this straight, trump cuts 9.2 billion dollars from the DOE's budget, wants credit for $200M that he didn't even fund - he's just saying that of the money already allocated to grants, this much should go to STEM.
Meanwhile, when obama was president, he proposed a 4 billion dollar inceare in DOE's budget to go specifically to CS education, but that didn't pass because of republicans.
So the net score is: Obama +4 billion (blocked by republicans), Trump -9.2 billion (republicans love it).
And he wants to sell this as him supporting STEM?!?
"Escape analysis and data flow analysis have existed for quite some time..."
Okay, well neither of these things are built in compile-time static analysis of memory allocation to prevent memory leaks efficiently. So I'm not sure why you mention them.
"Lisp allows for..." ...yeah, I'm going to stop you right there.
I agreed with the poster up until the last part, where he suggested that the "massive view controller" problem was a misunderstanding of what constitutes a "view" and a "model". I'd ask poster if he understands what constitutes a "controller" in the MVC model. And from that I surmise that who ever told him he didn't know what he was talking about was probably correct, at least in that particular instance.
But that the poster didn't realize this, throws into doubt earlier things he said, which I agreed with up until I got to that sentence. It strikes me now that those perspectives might really have been the result of the posters "arrogance and ignorance" as the phrase goes. And furthermore that his claims of things being a solved problem for "20 to 50", while I agree this happens a lot, I think we might disagree on what the specific instances of this are.
I would say for instance that, while it didn't need to invent a new language to do it, "Rust" provides a good solution to dynamic memory allocation (namely, compile-time static analysis), that is different and in many ways better than garbage collection and automatic reference counting (ARC). While he might claim this problem was solved decades ago, it is just a fact that compile-time static analysis for dynamic memory allocation did not exist until recently, except in the form of "scope" as opposed to "lifetime", which, while similar, it is different from.
Now there will certainly be a great deal of rediscovery, of re-inventing wheels poorly (for instance i just found someone re-created the java "date object", but made the linux epoch (zero milliseconds) dependent on the time zone.), but it must be noted also that there still are a fair amount of new, interesting ideas.
This isn't a phone, it's a Tricorder made out of Legos.
Is this not, then, Mathematica?
https://reference.wolfram.com/...
Turing already did this back in 1936. It's called a "Turing Machine". See his essay on computable numbers: http://www.dna.caltech.edu/cou...
Meet the new bulb. Same as the old bulb.
why do you use an overly-simplified vb code against overly-complicated js code? it's apples to oranges.
This is what the code really should look like:
for( user : users) user.sendMessage("Hi.");
I've often used "1" as a drop in when dividing by zero. also the logarithm of zero, i usually am working with information units, so it's plnp, and if p = 0, i just say that plnp = 0, and that's kind of like saying ln0 = 1.
i think mathematically infinity or negative infinity would make the most sense, unless its 0/0, in which case you'd apply l'hopital's rule. but i don't think the computers going to do that. another way is you could create another number system, that would run a tally of divides by zeros or multiplies by infinities, minus multiplies by zeros or divides by infinity. (and flipping the sign on negative infinity.)
definitely c ironically the most modern programming language of the bunch.
maybe some day apple will finally get with the times and use an existing popular modern object orientated programming language like c++ or java.
you know, shortcut the whole process f making a feature-incomplete idiosyncratic and verbose programming programing language with inconsistent syntax and skip ahead to what everyone else had half a century ago.
why oh why don't they just use c++ or java?
sigh.
better way both to organize and map skillsets is through understanding how the brain works and data crunching differences.
the author shows by his very writing of the article just how bad science education is in the u.s. that is, he himself is a victim of the very low standards and the lack of teaching and emphasis on philosophy of science. the author should be ashamed and embarassed for being a shining example of everything that is wrong and antiquated with science education in america. his philosophy belongs to the pre-socratics; the sophists. there is nothing new in what he is saying, it is embarrassingly old. and embarrasingly banal.
if the article proves anything it's by way of example: the author is an excellent example of the people that our education system has left behind.
so what i get from the article.
1) they start by using a measure that's not at all even correlated with what they're interested in.
2) they then completely switch the measure, so then you have two completely unrelated filters on the data - and the data (dna) is very high dimensional, so your final result set is of course going to be miniscule and effectively random. and woe and behold, that's what they got.
3) on top of that they looked at the correlation between the first filter and the second and found woe and behold their method has no chance at all of telling them what they want to know - which we already knew in step 1.
so... uh... do they see what's wrong with their methodology? could it be more obvious? this was botched really badly.
okay so there's a public safety issue, and the traffic is prioritized, great. then the program at the other end receives the info and sends out a text message to first responders. and guess what? text messages are treated as low priority, so the overall delay is actually _increased_.
to make matters worse, let's say the public safety thing is spamming the alert, (maybe a design flaw in the program, maybe not), well that spamming is now prioritized, over, again, text messages, maybe even ip telephony, etc.
now you're causing congestion in times when congestion is the last thing you need.
and then a first responder finally gets on sight, and they don't know a medical procedure, so they look it up on the web, but guess what, web traffic takes the slow lane. or maybe its a video hosted by comcast - which isn't paying time warned the royalties it needs to not get throttled.
there's no telling before hand what information is needed, over what channels, over what protocols, and by who.
yes, all bits are of different value. but you don't know what that value is. that's the whole point of net neutrality.
My argument is deductive. That's better than inductive.
For example, Science by Definition is amoral. It will tell you how to build a bomb, but it does't ask if we should build a bomb.
That's not because of any limit of science, but because it's impossible to answer the question "should" without stating a goal. once you state the goal, the answer is trivial, provided you know the science. e.g. should i remove the squirrel form under my porch? i don't know. do you want it under you porch? yes = leave it, no = remove it. see how that necessarily needs two parts? for a more complicated problem you'd need science. e.g. should we vaccinate? that's a moral question. should you inject a needle into everyone containing a dormant virus? well that depends... what's your goal? okay, lets say our goal is to avoid physical pain. then science tells us the answer is no. what does religion tell us? nothing. it doesn't tell us if it's going to hurt or not. science tells us that. you want to minimize pain in the long run? science tells us we should do it then. religion, again, tells us nothing.
- It claims to have an answer for how the universe began but it has no repeatable experiments to back it up.
i believe someone already pointed out this is false.
- It appeals to "just take it on faith" that the universe "spontaneously" came into existence from nothing, not realizing the physical universe has always existed.
no, as much as i personally think the big bang theory is incredibly presumptions, it doesn't take it on faith.
- It makes claims that there "must" be "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" yet has no way to measure it, let alone see it.
dark matter/energy is a placeholder term for excess gravitational effects that have been observed and measured
- It still doesn't have a clue what gravity is, what consciousness is, what magnetism, why EMF is linked, why time flows in one direction, why we dream, what Lucid Dreaming and the Out-of-Body Experience is, the different types of consciousness, why we even exist in the first place, the purpose of the Universe (Answer: Relationships), etc.
firstly, this is the annoyingly common "god of the gaps" argument. secondly, a whole lot of that is just plain wrong and a whole lot is a bad question.
* gravity - yes it does. there's a problem of joining general relativity with quantum physics. that's a mathematical problem, not an empirical one.
* consciousness is a word we use to give ourselves pride. it's really not meaningful / useful beyond that.
* why we even exist is already assuming way too much and making some serious philosophical blunders. firstly, it's assuming teleology. and anthropocentric teleology at that.
* purpose of the universe - same problem, teleology. and anthropocentric teleology at that.
Science is not interested in pursuing ALL answers to questions such as:
+ What happens before Life?
yes it is. there are many facets to that question. do you want to talk about sperm and egg cells? astrology? proto-life? be more specific and yes, since is very interested in that.
+ What happens after Death?
a lot. but usually, there's a funeral, and your body slowly decays or maybe is cremated. here's an experiment: take a plant, don't water it. observe.
Because there are ZERO equations with consciousness in them.
again, not meaningful
Scientists and Science is stuck in the archaic Reductionism and Materialism model that it can't think outside the box and grasp that meta-physical DOES exist, such as Time, Numbers, etc.
Carl Sagan once said
PoS more precisely is concerned with how to discover truth. Religion falls cleanly into this territory and is found GREATLY wanting. So while it is not concerned with $DIETY, or $OTHER_DIETY or $YET_ANOTHER_DIETY, the epistemological foundations it constructs says "no".
you are incouragable and offensive.
you said look it up in a dictionary and then you gave a WRONG definition of agnosticism and atheism and then i CORRECTED you and now instead of admitting that you were wrong and that the whole situation is, well, rather IRONIC, you are having a hard time dealing with it and becoming more aggressive.
no details there... that's plain as day.
it's a technique that you often use, maybe, but it so far doesn't seem to be very good at doing anything other than confirming beliefs that you already hold. i.e., to server as specious justification for confirmation bias.
actually mathematics does not depend on depend on mathmatical axioms that simply have to be presumed to be true. firstly, it's pure tautology. it's usefullness comes precisely from its tautological nature. secondly, you can postulate any set of axioms, and you don't have to postulate them to be true, you can postulate them to be false. and then you can work mathematically with an arbitrary set of presumed false axioms. but again, it's tautological. that's different than presumed true.
can i prove or show supporting evidence for that fact that 1+1=2? yes. very easily.
this is 1 dot: *
this is another dot: *
put them together,
* *
and that's two dots.
Q.E.D.
is that how you typically respond to new information that disagrees with what you've stated? or should i feel special?
oh, and two more links for you buddy:
agnostic theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
agnostic atheism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
so yeah, tone down the rhetoric a bit. get your facts straight first.
...though i should add that "gnostic", while it literally means "of knowledge" (greek), is popularly associated with "gnosticism", which was a colletion of ancient religion movements that shunned the "material" world in favor of the "spiritiual" world. so the phrase "gnostic atheist" does justifiably give a bit of cognitive dissonance. the atheistic positions are more commonly referred to strong/weak or positive/negative, rather than gnostic/agnostic. "positive" atheism is meant in the sense of "positivism" - that the lack of existence of deities is empirically demonstrable. for instance, by the principle of parsimony, burden of proof, that it is self-disproving because of contradictions, or evidence of absence ("In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."). "negative" or "weak" atheism is not believing in the existence of any dieties, but not positively asserting that there are none. this would be your agnostic atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
actually agnosticism is a position about knowledge, while atheism is a position about theism.
and the prefix a- means essentially not having.
a-gnostic = not having knowledge.
a-theist = not having theism.
a-gnostic is the position that you do not have knowledge. most people are agnostic. a lot of atheists are agnostic, _and so are a lot of theists_. though there are some fundamentalist theist who claim to have "knowledge" of god - those would be gnostic theists. likewise some atheists claim that they have positive knowledge that deities do not actually exist (e.g. that they are demonstrably figments of the cognitive biases in the human mind.). those would be _gnostic_ atheists.
thanks for playing, though.
come again.
and on the topic of abiogenesis, creationism is actually a form of abiogenesis. so you see religious people are also firm believers in abiogenesis. just that their particular, err, less then even a hypothesis -- creationism -- fails the scientific test miserably, and never really explained anything in the first place.