And construct magical superconducting lines to the rest of the world? I mean, yes you should develop renewables as much as you can, but seriously, until we can have solar stations on a solar orbit, nuclear is a pretty good option for the heavy duty needs.
Yes, this is perfectly normal. A well-rounded engineer (which a CS graduate ought to be) should have a basis in all those domains. Aside from the fact that passing seems to have become too easy, according to you, they are doing what should be done all around the world.
A good engineering program (not one geared towards learning a job, but towards providing intellectual tools to do any job well after a small period of training on the specifics) should do precisely that. And If you are going towards CS rather than, say civil or mechanical engineering, you should get a bit more math (or perhaps slightly different math).
If your university thinks it is their job to help its students fill all the check-boxes on some corporate job-requirement posting, they are a crappy university, and you are wasting your time (and money, if you are a North American).
CS is not programming, CS is a field of math, so taking all the courses in math is wayyy more relevant than anything else.
Programming itself is just syntax, logic, and a good sense of structure and style. Which you can acquire in any engineering design course: there is more resemblance between a well-designed engine or structure and a programme than you'd believe.
Also, if you are doing CS with the goal of becoming a code monkey/senior designer/something in between you must understand that the knowledge around the code, the engineering, science, accounting, etc. is what will allow you to code the things which do what they are supposed to. The requirements will not be in terms of programme structure, but in terms of require functionality in the relevant domain.
My KDE interface is completely scalable. I could very well use a very high resolution screen (and would, if any were actually sold at not-stupid prices).
So it is stupid, inept, proprietary software which is holding the world back. And the HD craze. To be honest, it is more the HD craze than anything, and I am glad the geeks are starting the rebel. I was dissed as a whiner when pointing out last year that reasonably high resolution monitors were disappearing, because of the gullibility of the public.
No, you are confusing axiomatic systems and logic. You pick your axioms (as per Gödel) and an uncountable infinity of theorems are undecidably true and unprovable in your system, provided it can do anything interesting (arithmetic).
This was absolutely proven using logic:)
However, "laws" of physics are expected to be consistent in that they need not form an axiomatic system. Just a set of equations corresponding to a well-chosen algebra. That the underlying math be incomplete does not mean that the output of the equations is undefined, unbounded or undecidable.
At some fundamental level, physics is almost pure mathematics with some constants thrown in. Now, because of that, if the universe obeys a set of self-consistent laws, they are expressible using math, and bound by formal logic. Thus God, if limited by logic, is also limited in the physics he can produce. And thus is clearly not omnipotent.
In the case of the rock, if it were large enough, it would collapse and form a black hole, and be impossible to lift in finite time. Thus such a "rock" could be created by a very powerful being, who could then not lift it. But omnipotence would require being able to change the laws of physics (so the rock could still be lifted, proving omnipotence). But in doing so, the universe would cease to exist, and thus the rock, making it impossible to lift for an omnipotent being bound by logic. Who is then not omnipotent.
I believe, as an atheist, that someone who requires a set of arbitrary rules to behave ethically -- or worse, the threat of eternal damnation -- is a scumbag at heart. Although I believe actions speak louder than words, I also believe doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not sustainable.
Thus I believe that ethical systems based on figuring out which individual behaviour leads to more desirable collective outcomes are better ethical systems than those prescribing the same individual behaviours for arbitrary reasons.
Also, as an individual, ethics are not hard to build: one but needs to think about the consequences of one's actions, and prefer those actions which are better for the greater number of people, as well as those actions which have no more negative outcomes when duplicated by a large fractions of the population. And this is fundamentally consistent with the belief that there is no afterlife and no second chances: your deeds live after you, as well as the memories people have of you. “Heaven”, is therefore when these are maximised.
In fact, if you need the treat of some Hell to act ethically, you are clearly a scumbag at heart. Atheists behave the way they behave because they hold some system of value to be worth acting upon for its own sake.
Such systems typically contain no taboo other than the Golden Rule (don't do onto others what you don't want done onto you). BTW, this is not such an easy rule to follow, because you must think deeply about what you wish, what other people wish and about consequences. I expect people prefer arbitrary rituals and interdicts because they are _easy_.
Actually, the moment a religious fact is deemed a scientific hypothesis, it becomes very easy to disprove -- or prove... In fact, I am pretty certain that this move is ultimately self-defeating: it is saying that humans tend to believe in the intervention of the supernatural (which is true -- humans are like that) and that observation showed that the supernatural was a rather weak explanation (they'll get to it).
We should see this as the first steps towards Enlightenment: start to express beliefs in the form of expected observations. This is how science (the modern kind) was born the first time. It might well happen again.
And presumably Webkit was not nicked from KDE, Apple could develop on their own a compiler, and there is so little need for linux software that Macports and fink are but a figment of my imagination. Oh, and Samba was developed thanks to the foresight of St. Steve. . .
OSX rode the linux wave, and not the reverse. It could not have taken off without Free Software. And closing things down is not going to help, quite the contrary.
shorter: "I have just been exposed to information that made me feel uncomfortable."
He is saying "look, I can do anything, ain't that cool?", and you responded by "I don't want to know". Now, one can debate forever on the merits of this or that behaviour (and this includes bragging about whatever), but realise this:wanting to restrict the flow of information coming your way is a) a losing proposition b) using the internet is the wrong way to go about it.
So civilisation/culture goes in the direction of more information, thus more behaviours becoming common (provided they do no material harm), and thus of more acceptance of said behaviours. He (or she -- who knows?), affirming he enjoys sex with shemales, which is (AFAIK) uncommon, as well as (AFAIK) harmless to anyone marks him as further in culture than you. This is not in any sense a jugement of value: I don't believe in the value of culture as such -- only in the benefits of certain cultural practices.
But this is the point! You cannot beat the value for money of free (as in beer), and you cannot beat free as in freedom for being there to catch the next wave. As for quality of available software... To each his own, but I am not using linux because I was forced to. And yes, I have productive stuff to do. And both OSX and windows are _painful_ to use compared to a well-set-up linux desktop.
The year of the linux desktop has come and gone, now. It is was there a couple years ago. Simply, there is no particular reason for people to switch in droves -- there would be if piracy and sloth were not so rampant:) Slowly, linux numbers grow, but not explosively. It is currently at 2% desktops (again, it is dominant in the server and embedded spaces).
In 5 or so years it might be a big chunk of the desktop. But who cares? we have the best, fastest evolving desktop environment already! Growth in percentage, even if slow, is all that matters: free cannot be killed, so in the long term, it can only win.
But linux _has_ won. The web runs on linux. Its dominance in the embedded space is microsoftian. Android will soon-ish relegate iOS, WP7, etc. to irrelevance.
Because it is open, and because people can tinker with it. The same way IBM compatible became dominant -- and still are.
When your OS is open, you can take advantage of the next big paradigm shift. It happens that in desktop computing, such a shift has not happened in many, many years. But it may yet happen. Linux desktops might well be the next big thing in cloud clients -- it these become relevant. If home robotics are the next big thing, it will run on linux. etc., etc.
Walled gardens are nice, but inherently self-limiting.
Coded from macs. Because currently, there are a lot of devs, which came because of the UNIXy nature of OSX. Which, I believe will leave for freer pastures, as no one likes being subject to the whim of a control-freak.
Also, if the app choice gets reduced to what is available on iOS, well, then yes, OSX is dead.
Not all your users are equally valuable. Network effects are very important for the survival of platforms, and devs are really important for that. If you have the best OS in the world, and a huge userbase, but are a huge pain to work with, because you are not tinker friendly, the devs will not be motivated to start the next great app on your platform.
And that will lose you some marketshare. Iterate, and eventually, you are left with nothing. In the case of apple, this means that you are left with the appliances and iTunes, which is great -- but as a platform, you will have ceased to exist.
The point is that if devs, and future devs (geeks in their mom's basement) don't like your platform and never got to tinker with it, you will soon enough have no one coding for your platform.
At least no one doing anything innovative.
And then, slowly, you will die. Apple managed its come-back because OSX was a UNIX, it was tech-friendly. Hackers, wao, like any humans, love the shiny, flocked to the new OS and made it great. A network of techies helping families and friends sprung up overnight.
But alienate these, and you are slowly sliding back to obscurity.
TARP was decided under the Bush admin, and Obama only did the mistake of keeping it up.
However, the bailouts were necessary. But normally (when designed by moderately-corrupt, reasonable people who care about outcomes), they come with punishing rates, and the condition that boards of directors get dumped on the street with no compensation.
But hey, this was a Republican administration, those guys were rich, and thus the GOOD GUYS. Therefore, clearly, no punishment had to be dished out to them. Now, on the other hand, the situation was fucked up. So someone was guilty: clearly, the poor fucker who is too illiterate to understand the contract the nice man had him sign. He is poor, thus, clearly, A BAD GUY.
On day, someone will realise that failures must occur, and if their consequences need to be softened, the guys in charge need to be held accountable. In fact, I would like the following rule to be enacted: if you are part of the upper management of any corporation which is too-big-to-fail, you are responsible up to 100% of your personal assets for reimbursing the eventual bail-out in priority. if a bail-out is decided, you pay to your last cent, and the government picks up the rest. Thus reestablishing some risk-reward link, and providing strong incentives to keep your corporation small and manageable.
1) Russian planes are fully metric, even their displays. At least were in the time of the USSR.
2) because the altitude is also given in feet does not mean it is not internally metres. Also, the speed is in knots, which is based on nautical, not imperial miles -- not metric, but not your everyday miles.
3) The display mean nothing with respect to the norms for the screws, etc. Airbus is metric.
So you are saying he is right. The US will not be the preeminent power in the world. This will affect you, as a maker of weapons (because as soon as you are not number one, spending gets reduced to "really painful to take over, but not trying to take over anyone" levels). But him, as an ordinary citizen will only enjoy a greater variety of better, cheaper products.
If you think life is worth living only as the only superpower on the planet, well, time to think about how to end your misery. But for ordinary citizens, European powers not being so power hungry was a great improvement in terms of quality of life. It is even quite possible the social democracy is the specific result of freeing so much defense spending and transferring it to social welfare.
If someone makes ups stats on the spot, wildly inaccurate ones at that, and then claim that they were not meant to be factual, he is lying and admitting to it. Now I expect politicians to be lying be quoting actual numbers out of context, or by being vague. This is fair game: as an informed member of the public, I can see through misrepresentation. That, one the other hand, was bringing it to another level. The "I completely gave up on facts when justifying my policies" level.
I also believe that this is wholly unsurprising as the republican discourse has become increasingly divorced from reality. But until now, I gave them the benefit of doubt: maybe they were just deluding themselves, and being bad at logic. Self deception and echo chambers can do that. Now, it is clear that they are not deluding themselves: they simply, baldly, lie. They are not the party of dumb anymore, they are the party of evil.
Slashdot Mirror
And construct magical superconducting lines to the rest of the world? I mean, yes you should develop renewables as much as you can, but seriously, until we can have solar stations on a solar orbit, nuclear is a pretty good option for the heavy duty needs.
Better than coal or gas, at least.
Sorry to disappoint you, but analysing the runtime of an algorithm is not advanced math. It is rather easy calculation :)
Yes, this is perfectly normal. A well-rounded engineer (which a CS graduate ought to be) should have a basis in all those domains. Aside from the fact that passing seems to have become too easy, according to you, they are doing what should be done all around the world.
A good engineering program (not one geared towards learning a job, but towards providing intellectual tools to do any job well after a small period of training on the specifics) should do precisely that. And If you are going towards CS rather than, say civil or mechanical engineering, you should get a bit more math (or perhaps slightly different math).
If your university thinks it is their job to help its students fill all the check-boxes on some corporate job-requirement posting, they are a crappy university, and you are wasting your time (and money, if you are a North American).
CS is not programming, CS is a field of math, so taking all the courses in math is wayyy more relevant than anything else.
Programming itself is just syntax, logic, and a good sense of structure and style. Which you can acquire in any engineering design course: there is more resemblance between a well-designed engine or structure and a programme than you'd believe.
Also, if you are doing CS with the goal of becoming a code monkey/senior designer/something in between you must understand that the knowledge around the code, the engineering, science, accounting, etc. is what will allow you to code the things which do what they are supposed to. The requirements will not be in terms of programme structure, but in terms of require functionality in the relevant domain.
None of these is true. I know, I run both 4.6 at work and trunk (sorry, master, now) at home.
My KDE interface is completely scalable. I could very well use a very high resolution screen (and would, if any were actually sold at not-stupid prices).
So it is stupid, inept, proprietary software which is holding the world back. And the HD craze. To be honest, it is more the HD craze than anything, and I am glad the geeks are starting the rebel. I was dissed as a whiner when pointing out last year that reasonably high resolution monitors were disappearing, because of the gullibility of the public.
No, you are confusing axiomatic systems and logic. You pick your axioms (as per Gödel) and an uncountable infinity of theorems are undecidably true and unprovable in your system, provided it can do anything interesting (arithmetic).
This was absolutely proven using logic :)
However, "laws" of physics are expected to be consistent in that they need not form an axiomatic system. Just a set of equations corresponding to a well-chosen algebra. That the underlying math be incomplete does not mean that the output of the equations is undefined, unbounded or undecidable.
At some fundamental level, physics is almost pure mathematics with some constants thrown in. Now, because of that, if the universe obeys a set of self-consistent laws, they are expressible using math, and bound by formal logic. Thus God, if limited by logic, is also limited in the physics he can produce. And thus is clearly not omnipotent.
In the case of the rock, if it were large enough, it would collapse and form a black hole, and be impossible to lift in finite time. Thus such a "rock" could be created by a very powerful being, who could then not lift it. But omnipotence would require being able to change the laws of physics (so the rock could still be lifted, proving omnipotence). But in doing so, the universe would cease to exist, and thus the rock, making it impossible to lift for an omnipotent being bound by logic. Who is then not omnipotent.
I believe, as an atheist, that someone who requires a set of arbitrary rules to behave ethically -- or worse, the threat of eternal damnation -- is a scumbag at heart. Although I believe actions speak louder than words, I also believe doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not sustainable.
Thus I believe that ethical systems based on figuring out which individual behaviour leads to more desirable collective outcomes are better ethical systems than those prescribing the same individual behaviours for arbitrary reasons.
Also, as an individual, ethics are not hard to build: one but needs to think about the consequences of one's actions, and prefer those actions which are better for the greater number of people, as well as those actions which have no more negative outcomes when duplicated by a large fractions of the population. And this is fundamentally consistent with the belief that there is no afterlife and no second chances: your deeds live after you, as well as the memories people have of you. “Heaven”, is therefore when these are maximised.
In fact, if you need the treat of some Hell to act ethically, you are clearly a scumbag at heart. Atheists behave the way they behave because they hold some system of value to be worth acting upon for its own sake.
Such systems typically contain no taboo other than the Golden Rule (don't do onto others what you don't want done onto you). BTW, this is not such an easy rule to follow, because you must think deeply about what you wish, what other people wish and about consequences. I expect people prefer arbitrary rituals and interdicts because they are _easy_.
Actually, the moment a religious fact is deemed a scientific hypothesis, it becomes very easy to disprove -- or prove... In fact, I am pretty certain that this move is ultimately self-defeating: it is saying that humans tend to believe in the intervention of the supernatural (which is true -- humans are like that) and that observation showed that the supernatural was a rather weak explanation (they'll get to it).
We should see this as the first steps towards Enlightenment: start to express beliefs in the form of expected observations. This is how science (the modern kind) was born the first time. It might well happen again.
So not at all?
And presumably Webkit was not nicked from KDE, Apple could develop on their own a compiler, and there is so little need for linux software that Macports and fink are but a figment of my imagination. Oh, and Samba was developed thanks to the foresight of St. Steve. . .
OSX rode the linux wave, and not the reverse. It could not have taken off without Free Software. And closing things down is not going to help, quite the contrary.
shorter: "I have just been exposed to information that made me feel uncomfortable."
He is saying "look, I can do anything, ain't that cool?", and you responded by "I don't want to know". Now, one can debate forever on the merits of this or that behaviour (and this includes bragging about whatever), but realise this:wanting to restrict the flow of information coming your way is
a) a losing proposition
b) using the internet is the wrong way to go about it.
So civilisation/culture goes in the direction of more information, thus more behaviours becoming common (provided they do no material harm), and thus of more acceptance of said behaviours. He (or she -- who knows?), affirming he enjoys sex with shemales, which is (AFAIK) uncommon, as well as (AFAIK) harmless to anyone marks him as further in culture than you. This is not in any sense a jugement of value: I don't believe in the value of culture as such -- only in the benefits of certain cultural practices.
On the other hand, he probably was just trolling.
But this is the point! You cannot beat the value for money of free (as in beer), and you cannot beat free as in freedom for being there to catch the next wave. As for quality of available software... To each his own, but I am not using linux because I was forced to. And yes, I have productive stuff to do. And both OSX and windows are _painful_ to use compared to a well-set-up linux desktop.
The year of the linux desktop has come and gone, now. It is was there a couple years ago. Simply, there is no particular reason for people to switch in droves -- there would be if piracy and sloth were not so rampant :) Slowly, linux numbers grow, but not explosively. It is currently at 2% desktops (again, it is dominant in the server and embedded spaces).
In 5 or so years it might be a big chunk of the desktop. But who cares? we have the best, fastest evolving desktop environment already! Growth in percentage, even if slow, is all that matters: free cannot be killed, so in the long term, it can only win.
But linux _has_ won. The web runs on linux. Its dominance in the embedded space is microsoftian. Android will soon-ish relegate iOS, WP7, etc. to irrelevance.
Because it is open, and because people can tinker with it. The same way IBM compatible became dominant -- and still are.
When your OS is open, you can take advantage of the next big paradigm shift. It happens that in desktop computing, such a shift has not happened in many, many years. But it may yet happen. Linux desktops might well be the next big thing in cloud clients -- it these become relevant. If home robotics are the next big thing, it will run on linux. etc., etc.
Walled gardens are nice, but inherently self-limiting.
Coded from macs. Because currently, there are a lot of devs, which came because of the UNIXy nature of OSX. Which, I believe will leave for freer pastures, as no one likes being subject to the whim of a control-freak.
Also, if the app choice gets reduced to what is available on iOS, well, then yes, OSX is dead.
Not all your users are equally valuable. Network effects are very important for the survival of platforms, and devs are really important for that. If you have the best OS in the world, and a huge userbase, but are a huge pain to work with, because you are not tinker friendly, the devs will not be motivated to start the next great app on your platform.
And that will lose you some marketshare. Iterate, and eventually, you are left with nothing. In the case of apple, this means that you are left with the appliances and iTunes, which is great -- but as a platform, you will have ceased to exist.
The point is that if devs, and future devs (geeks in their mom's basement) don't like your platform and never got to tinker with it, you will soon enough have no one coding for your platform.
At least no one doing anything innovative.
And then, slowly, you will die. Apple managed its come-back because OSX was a UNIX, it was tech-friendly. Hackers, wao, like any humans, love the shiny, flocked to the new OS and made it great. A network of techies helping families and friends sprung up overnight.
But alienate these, and you are slowly sliding back to obscurity.
and does this job at apple pay well?
TARP was decided under the Bush admin, and Obama only did the mistake of keeping it up.
However, the bailouts were necessary. But normally (when designed by moderately-corrupt, reasonable people who care about outcomes), they come with punishing rates, and the condition that boards of directors get dumped on the street with no compensation.
But hey, this was a Republican administration, those guys were rich, and thus the GOOD GUYS. Therefore, clearly, no punishment had to be dished out to them. Now, on the other hand, the situation was fucked up. So someone was guilty: clearly, the poor fucker who is too illiterate to understand the contract the nice man had him sign. He is poor, thus, clearly, A BAD GUY.
On day, someone will realise that failures must occur, and if their consequences need to be softened, the guys in charge need to be held accountable. In fact, I would like the following rule to be enacted: if you are part of the upper management of any corporation which is too-big-to-fail, you are responsible up to 100% of your personal assets for reimbursing the eventual bail-out in priority. if a bail-out is decided, you pay to your last cent, and the government picks up the rest. Thus reestablishing some risk-reward link, and providing strong incentives to keep your corporation small and manageable.
1) Russian planes are fully metric, even their displays. At least were in the time of the USSR.
2) because the altitude is also given in feet does not mean it is not internally metres. Also, the speed is in knots, which is based on nautical, not imperial miles -- not metric, but not your everyday miles.
3) The display mean nothing with respect to the norms for the screws, etc. Airbus is metric.
So you are saying he is right. The US will not be the preeminent power in the world. This will affect you, as a maker of weapons (because as soon as you are not number one, spending gets reduced to "really painful to take over, but not trying to take over anyone" levels). But him, as an ordinary citizen will only enjoy a greater variety of better, cheaper products.
If you think life is worth living only as the only superpower on the planet, well, time to think about how to end your misery. But for ordinary citizens, European powers not being so power hungry was a great improvement in terms of quality of life. It is even quite possible the social democracy is the specific result of freeing so much defense spending and transferring it to social welfare.
Which is highly desirable.
If someone makes ups stats on the spot, wildly inaccurate ones at that, and then claim that they were not meant to be factual, he is lying and admitting to it. Now I expect politicians to be lying be quoting actual numbers out of context, or by being vague. This is fair game: as an informed member of the public, I can see through misrepresentation. That, one the other hand, was bringing it to another level. The "I completely gave up on facts when justifying my policies" level.
I also believe that this is wholly unsurprising as the republican discourse has become increasingly divorced from reality. But until now, I gave them the benefit of doubt: maybe they were just deluding themselves, and being bad at logic. Self deception and echo chambers can do that. Now, it is clear that they are not deluding themselves: they simply, baldly, lie. They are not the party of dumb anymore, they are the party of evil.
Look, he basically admitted to lying to push his point forward. No point in trying to defend him...