I am essentially an atheist. The very concept of the supernatural is nonsensical to me. However, I have to say that I find many aspects of world religions to be fascinating, enlightening and sometimes even useful to the human race. It's something I'd hope we'd always have around in some form or another.
The way I see it is that religion is a great tool for giving meaning to people's lives, and absolutely useless for figuring out how the world works. As long as their beliefs do not directly contradict established scientific consensus then I have no problem with it.
So say someone believes in the Big Bang, the formation of stars, our planet and diverse species evolved from older forms of life; but think some guiding force is behind it in some undefinable way? Well sure, why not? Now I think they're wrong and I have no problem telling them this, but I don't think this makes them a fool. I respect their beliefs, and feel no need to try and convince them otherwise. Just as I'm sure they think I'm wrong, but expect them to respect my beliefs in turn. But where they try to conflate their religious dogma with scientific theory, that's where I start to have a problem.
Are there any parts of any world religions that you respect or admire? Do you feel that believers and non-believers of religion can coexist, or is it an all or nothing proposition for you?
Me personally, I'm fine with dramatic language to describe the event. But dramatic license, i.e. falsehoods? Give me a fucking break.
Every single time I've read a debunking of some false, seemingly true, scientific "fact" I used to believe; the truth turned out to be far more interesting. Any science writer who can't convey this to his or her audience should be looking for another job.
When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-
room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.
They're usually not. In fact, mathematicians can be the worst: they think computer science is a subset of math and it really isn't.
Computer science is, practically by definition, a subset of math. But there are many branches of mathematics out there, and being great at one doesn't necessarily mean a person is great at all of them.
Also, just because someone happens to be a great computer scientist doesn't mean they must also be a great programmer.
This is the hard part. I have no idea why someone would be interested in a person. People aren't interesting, ideas are interesting. Having ideas doesn't seem to make one interesting to other people though, except for rare exceptions. I'm lucky enough to have found one, but in general it seems that being an interesting person has more to do with being able to talk big without actually saying anything.
I think that's the most insight packed into a small paragraph that I've ever seen. Damn.
I have to say that this there is not a big effort to solve this question. For me it's the most important question to answer, and most interesting. Where do you start to answer such a question? Of course many great thinkers have tried to answer the question, but at the moment it's little more than just philosophy.
I think you're answering some of your own questions here. As interesting a topic as it is, it's doubtful that anyone knows a concrete place to start in understanding consciousness. How can you put in big effort to solve something when you don't quite know what that something is? At that point you're kind of stuck at the philosophy stage by necessity.
Also, if you have the capability to wonder whether or not you are conscious then, yes, by definition you are.
Median is also 11%. In short, approximately only one in nine rape accusations is false.
I realize that it's much lower than what the OP was claiming, but a statistic that "only" one in nine rape accusations are shams is still shockingly high.
Oh, but it is. C is actually very, very close to assembly language,
Do tell.
with only the most unimportant CPU-specific details abstracted away
This makes no sense whatsoever. Requiring the programmer to write the "CPU-specific details" is the defining characteristic of assembly language. Without this, no language can be considered remotely close to assembly.
The biggest argument for operator overloading is really that nobody uses it, so we're all familiar with the corner case syntax in the standard library. Think about that: the biggest argument for it is that it never gets used.
Also, Objective C has reference counting with cycle detectors and all
Smart pointers are used in C++ to take care of reference counting. And dereferencing a smart pointer is achieved by operator overloading "->" .
I can remember back when I was reading up on Objective-C about how at that time the counts had to be handled manually with "retain" and "release". My God did that look clunky when compared to the automatic handling of reference counts with RAII in C++. I'm not up on the new handling of Objective-C reference counting though.
Not familiar with how Objective-C does cycle detection. Can you provide a citation?
Right, but the CPU can randomly access any point in memory it needs for reading/writing. It's not like accessing a high address in real memory and then a low address in real memory involves scanning through all the intermediate addresses or anything.
I read up on more on Ada Lovelace, and she did create original algorithms. So yes, real computer science. Point taken.
I still wouldn't consider her or Babbage to be the "Father" (or "Mother") of computer science though. The title isn't just about who came first. What Alan Turing came up with was a general model of computation, and also some limitations of what kind of problems can solved by this model. That and the fact that a single computational machine could be built to simulate a machine to solve any computable problem. This is much more foundational work that Babbage and Lovelace did. Even though the difference engine did turn out to be Turing complete.
If there was anyone else who could instead be considered the father of computer science it would be Alonzo Church. He came up with his model of compuation (the Lambda Calculus), recognized its own limitations, and published his findings before Turing. But since Turing's concept was more grounded a concept of an actual machine, he is given the credit for making it into something more readily practical.
He also figured out that 1) everything inside the machine should be binary, not decimal
Sorry to nitpick, but is that decision all that revolutionary? You need a machine that needs to represent numbers. It's well known that numbers can be reasonably represented with any base above 1. With a machine you can easily represent the concept of two possible states, "on" or "off".
You seem to have a very ingrained mental image of NK being the very soul of evil and the US being the shining city on the hill, never acting in bad faith. This image is incorrect on both accounts.
Well I agree that the view of the US is incorrect, but with each documentary I watch about NK the more convinced I am that if any nation is the very soul of evil it would be them. The way that government treats its own citizens is a crime against humanity.
Just to clarify, when I said that "The Bulletin's conclusion was not obvious," I was talking about the conclusion of the original Slashdot topic (implied through bias). Not the conclusion of the two example articles I brought up.
Where did they detonate it? If they didn't detonate it, how did they know it was a working design?
If I recall correctly, the judgment that it was a working design came through the military from people who actually do design such things.
Those of us who have PhDs in the subject and have worked in environments where radiation safety matters know that the BAS is a political organization, not a scientific one.
What specific article(s) written by them do you, as someone with a PhD in the subject, feel are biased and/or inaccurate. I'm honestly curious.
In other words, they rediscovered something that any professional or serious amateur in the field has known for decades.
Umm. The Bulletin is not, nor does not pretend to be, a scientific journal. Many serious amateurs or all professionals would not use it as a source for the latest information in nuclear science. And whether the conclusion of the article is known by the reader or not is completely irrelevant. The story behind it would definitely be of interest to a serious amateur or professional.
The conclusion regarding depleted uranium ammunition may be obvious to you, but I remember the mainstream media of the time had a lot of knee-jerk scare-stories regarding the harmful effects from "all that radiation". Since the Bulletin had a more informed and balanced article on the topic than other sources at the time, this means that the OP's assessment of it as "scare-mongering" in regards to all things nuclear (and your defense of him) is wrong.
But when you're not completely missing the point I'm sure you can come up with a post with more substance than insults.
Slashdot Mirror
I am essentially an atheist. The very concept of the supernatural is nonsensical to me. However, I have to say that I find many aspects of world religions to be fascinating, enlightening and sometimes even useful to the human race. It's something I'd hope we'd always have around in some form or another.
The way I see it is that religion is a great tool for giving meaning to people's lives, and absolutely useless for figuring out how the world works. As long as their beliefs do not directly contradict established scientific consensus then I have no problem with it.
So say someone believes in the Big Bang, the formation of stars, our planet and diverse species evolved from older forms of life; but think some guiding force is behind it in some undefinable way? Well sure, why not? Now I think they're wrong and I have no problem telling them this, but I don't think this makes them a fool. I respect their beliefs, and feel no need to try and convince them otherwise. Just as I'm sure they think I'm wrong, but expect them to respect my beliefs in turn. But where they try to conflate their religious dogma with scientific theory, that's where I start to have a problem.
Are there any parts of any world religions that you respect or admire? Do you feel that believers and non-believers of religion can coexist, or is it an all or nothing proposition for you?
Me personally, I'm fine with dramatic language to describe the event. But dramatic license, i.e. falsehoods? Give me a fucking break.
Every single time I've read a debunking of some false, seemingly true, scientific "fact" I used to believe; the truth turned out to be far more interesting. Any science writer who can't convey this to his or her audience should be looking for another job.
When I heard the learn'd astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-
room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;
Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.
-Walt Whitman
Computer science is, practically by definition, a subset of math. But there are many branches of mathematics out there, and being great at one doesn't necessarily mean a person is great at all of them.
Also, just because someone happens to be a great computer scientist doesn't mean they must also be a great programmer.
False. Also, it turns out the appendix does currently serve a purpose after all. You ever think of doing some research before making baseless claims?
I think that's the most insight packed into a small paragraph that I've ever seen. Damn.
I think you're answering some of your own questions here. As interesting a topic as it is, it's doubtful that anyone knows a concrete place to start in understanding consciousness. How can you put in big effort to solve something when you don't quite know what that something is? At that point you're kind of stuck at the philosophy stage by necessity.
Also, if you have the capability to wonder whether or not you are conscious then, yes, by definition you are.
I realize that it's much lower than what the OP was claiming, but a statistic that "only" one in nine rape accusations are shams is still shockingly high.
Don't bother. You won't win that fight.
Troll much?
Do tell.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Requiring the programmer to write the "CPU-specific details" is the defining characteristic of assembly language. Without this, no language can be considered remotely close to assembly.
Absolutely. If a Java coder ever asks you for cases where RAII would be useful, just refer him to every finally block he ever wrote.
Smart pointers are used in C++ to take care of reference counting. And dereferencing a smart pointer is achieved by operator overloading "->" .
I can remember back when I was reading up on Objective-C about how at that time the counts had to be handled manually with "retain" and "release". My God did that look clunky when compared to the automatic handling of reference counts with RAII in C++. I'm not up on the new handling of Objective-C reference counting though.
Not familiar with how Objective-C does cycle detection. Can you provide a citation?
A choice between listening to Rush Limbaugh or being burned alive? I choose burn.
If your dog's making reasonable arguments then he's filling a rare ecological niche indeed. Impressive!
Right, but the CPU can randomly access any point in memory it needs for reading/writing. It's not like accessing a high address in real memory and then a low address in real memory involves scanning through all the intermediate addresses or anything.
I read up on more on Ada Lovelace, and she did create original algorithms. So yes, real computer science. Point taken.
I still wouldn't consider her or Babbage to be the "Father" (or "Mother") of computer science though. The title isn't just about who came first. What Alan Turing came up with was a general model of computation, and also some limitations of what kind of problems can solved by this model. That and the fact that a single computational machine could be built to simulate a machine to solve any computable problem. This is much more foundational work that Babbage and Lovelace did. Even though the difference engine did turn out to be Turing complete.
If there was anyone else who could instead be considered the father of computer science it would be Alonzo Church. He came up with his model of compuation (the Lambda Calculus), recognized its own limitations, and published his findings before Turing. But since Turing's concept was more grounded a concept of an actual machine, he is given the credit for making it into something more readily practical.
Sorry to nitpick, but is that decision all that revolutionary? You need a machine that needs to represent numbers. It's well known that numbers can be reasonably represented with any base above 1. With a machine you can easily represent the concept of two possible states, "on" or "off".
Now let's see, whatever should we do????
Great. But what the GP failed to mention is that computer science doesn't necessarily involve actual programming either.
God damn but I wish I had mod points for you right now. My sentiments exactly.
Well I agree that the view of the US is incorrect, but with each documentary I watch about NK the more convinced I am that if any nation is the very soul of evil it would be them. The way that government treats its own citizens is a crime against humanity.
Yes, I know I'm posting way too much stuff about this, but the experiment the article was referring to was this.
The timing of the article makes sense because the experiment was declassified around 2003, which would be about when I was reading from the Bulletin.
Just to clarify, when I said that "The Bulletin's conclusion was not obvious," I was talking about the conclusion of the original Slashdot topic (implied through bias). Not the conclusion of the two example articles I brought up.
If I recall correctly, the judgment that it was a working design came through the military from people who actually do design such things.
What specific article(s) written by them do you, as someone with a PhD in the subject, feel are biased and/or inaccurate. I'm honestly curious.
Umm. The Bulletin is not, nor does not pretend to be, a scientific journal. Many serious amateurs or all professionals would not use it as a source for the latest information in nuclear science. And whether the conclusion of the article is known by the reader or not is completely irrelevant. The story behind it would definitely be of interest to a serious amateur or professional.
The conclusion regarding depleted uranium ammunition may be obvious to you, but I remember the mainstream media of the time had a lot of knee-jerk scare-stories regarding the harmful effects from "all that radiation". Since the Bulletin had a more informed and balanced article on the topic than other sources at the time, this means that the OP's assessment of it as "scare-mongering" in regards to all things nuclear (and your defense of him) is wrong.
But when you're not completely missing the point I'm sure you can come up with a post with more substance than insults.