If my senses actually reflect some underlying reality then the scientific method will help me learn something about that reality.
However if my senses do not reflect an underlying reality then the scientific method is useless.
p.
p.
I disagree. In either case, science helps you understand and make use of what your senses tell you. It's useful in its applications in either case, whether what you perceive is "real" or not. Even in the latter case, 1) you will never know that your senses are lying to you anyway, so it makes no difference and 2) science as a method of knowledge will remain consistent with itself within that illusion. It will be useful.
Agreed. But no need to go to human engineering to experience such amazement. Scientific study of nature is enough. Case in point: I had the same reaction as you after reading The Selfish Gene.
I think grandparent alluded to people taking for granted the technological miracles that are their iPhone, their TV, etc. In that sense people are jaded, but I agree with you: it's because they do not grasp the beautiful, incredible complexity of those systems, and the decades, centuries of brilliant scientific and engineering work that made them possible.
By 3) you mean abandon engineering and work on the business side of finance i.e. a trader, correct?
Because AFAIK for the majority of software engineers working in banks, the situation is more akin to 2) i.e. work for a big corporation (granted, with better perks than most other industries, but not insane wages).
Still, what's new here? What value has Google added to that existing OSS project - other than marketing power and visibility?
Looking at the Google project's FAQ:
Is this framework related to 'ModernJass' from Sourceforge.net?
Yes, Cofoja is a significant rewrite of ModernJass. We worked closely with the original author of ModernJass (Johannes Rieken) on this.
OK...then why not contributing to the OSS project instead of phagocyting it and re-branding it into another Google product? I guess I'm answering my own question here...
Has anyone found more details? For instance, Modern Jass does not support JML. Is Google going to support it? If not, why didn't they create their own work to implement it?
I'm just saying, until proof to the contrary, this really feels like Google is trying to make geeks' headlines while bringing nothing new or groundbreaking to the table.
The hacks that try to do design by contract at run time tend to avoid expressions which examine big data structures, since they have to run them over the whole data structure every time. Real verifiers prove or disprove such things at compile time. It turns out, though, that a few standard cases for collections cover many of the usual things you want to say.
Very good point, and the irony is that the Google blog uses collections in one of their examples.
The Google project is based on a library called Modern Jass. I'm not familiar with it since the last time I did research on DbC was in 1999/2000 when the only DbC tool for Java that existed might have been Reto Kramer's iContract. Yet, to call it a hack...is it purely because of this absence of static analysis you mention? BTW what kind of static analysis is implemented in Eiffel?
As for concurrency, I agree this would need to be addressed as well. There was an interesting article about a decade ago in JavaWorld about how preconditions would sometimes need to be turned into guard conditions. Anyway, I don't know if any of the many DbC tools for Java address this, but after so long I would hope at least one does.
Very good point. It's been like that in the financial world for a while where some business people manage to make their bonus guaranteed at a minimum amount. It just becomes inflated salary. Source: Cityboy: Beer and Loathing in the Square Mile.
1) is more labor-intensive (programmers are lazy) than 2) (it's risky to catch an exception and not let it fly unless you know exactly what you must do to recover correctly). So, in practice, 1) will generate more bugs. Not because it a worse engineering practice, but simply because it's more error-prone.
Are you TFS? No? Then maybe it'd best to let him/her answer in your stead so he can explain his opinion, don't you think?:-)
Anyway, thanks for the informative tidbit.
But working so close to Unix is no reason to favor it on one's "portable computer" like TFS calls it. There are plenty of reasons to prefer Windows on a laptop (driver support, applications available, etc.). It's unfortunate of course, but what can you do...
You've never seen C++ programs with memory leaks? Unfortunately, not every C++ coder is knowledgeable or disciplined enough to localize pointer memory deallocation in destructors only.
But when it's "done right" like you said, correct C++-style coding in C++ makes for absolute control over resource (de)allocation - and this is applicable not only for memory but other types of shared, limited resources as well. Very elegant, and very useful at times. I regret that in Java there are no destructors, but then again in Java you have no control over destruction of objects. This is convenient but limited. C++ provides control.
.
I think in most cases though, it's best to avoid the risk of programmers forgetting to apply the idiom as they should. Of course, it's still way safer and more elegant than attempting the same thing in C. The Java approach of using a garbage collector doesn't shock me. Sure, it's not applicable to all application types, but it works well in most enterprise computing cases and it makes for increased productivity.
anyway why do I reply to a post I mostly agree with?
We're also helping creators and their heirs hold legal monopolies on innovations for much longer, extending individual copyrights to the life of the author plus 70 years, for instance. Would we lose so many great ideas if the monopoly lasted only until 15 years after the inventor's death?
[...]
You need intellectual-property rules that ensure space for new ideas and uses. You need a tax code that encourages research and development spending. You need, in other words, to furnish people with an environment in which innovation can take place.
Thanks. I laughed so hard reading the joke in reference, it's justified the time spent reading what otherwise amounts to a pretty useless Slashdot discussion.
Autonomous cars are an interesting concept - but Google is doing that? Why? Surely not just because they can (what with the data centre power and their reserves of cash)
Am I the only one slightly worried by Google's efforts in becoming the ultimate mega-corporation?
What's next? Microsoft doing pharmaceutical research?
In Chapter 3, Levitt offers an in-depth discussion of the economic workings of a Chicago drug gang, shattering the common misconception that all drug dealers are wealthy. His analysis of the financial records of a Chicago gang proved that most street-level dealers earned far less than minimum wage. He turns to the socioeconomic context of most gangs for an explanation of the incentives that compel young men to become drug dealers. The influence of gangs is a critical part to the function of the economy because it consistently creates jobs and programs to the fight the prevalent issues.
After having avidly read the previous Slashdot article and TFA, I was struck by this in Kurzweil's response (emphasis mine):
The question we are trying to address is: what is the complexity of this system (that we call the brain) [...]? The original source of that design is the genome (plus a small amount of information from the epigenetic machinery), so we can gain an estimate of the amount of information in this way.
Didn't PZ Myers say first that, on the contrary, DNA is merely giving a hint as to what the result of the "ontegeny" will be? That the real work is done by stochastic processes during development and therefore DNA doesn't tell us much at all about the final product? In which case, how can Kurzweil reduce the complexity of the brain to a what is only starter data?
I read an article in a boxing magazine years ago that claimed that padded leather helmets are bad too: they somehow transform the shock wave from a hit in such a way that it actually damages the brain even more that with no helmet.
The disturbing TFA makes me think I am rather happy not to kickbox anymore.
After having lived for 7 years in the US, I moved to the UK. I was made fun of because I was saying a "rowt" instead of a "route", obviously influenced by the pronounciation of the word by some Americans (I was living in California before).
Also, the pronounciation "rowt" is acknowledged by the (excellent) American dictionnary Meriam-Webster.
Disclaimer: in my native tongue, we say "route" not "rowt", and it's not like I invented the second kind of pronounciation.
Slashdot Mirror
2) Science does work within the "dream". See 1)
If my senses actually reflect some underlying reality then the scientific method will help me learn something about that reality. However if my senses do not reflect an underlying reality then the scientific method is useless.
p. p. I disagree. In either case, science helps you understand and make use of what your senses tell you. It's useful in its applications in either case, whether what you perceive is "real" or not. Even in the latter case, 1) you will never know that your senses are lying to you anyway, so it makes no difference and 2) science as a method of knowledge will remain consistent with itself within that illusion. It will be useful.
I think grandparent alluded to people taking for granted the technological miracles that are their iPhone, their TV, etc. In that sense people are jaded, but I agree with you: it's because they do not grasp the beautiful, incredible complexity of those systems, and the decades, centuries of brilliant scientific and engineering work that made them possible.
On a side note, I don't think philosophers would agree with your claim that their realm is that of the Truth.
Wow. You don't use their product and the onus is on YOU to prove you don't? This is so morally disgusting, I'm going to get sick.
By 3) you mean abandon engineering and work on the business side of finance i.e. a trader, correct? Because AFAIK for the majority of software engineers working in banks, the situation is more akin to 2) i.e. work for a big corporation (granted, with better perks than most other industries, but not insane wages).
When you move to Europe you'll be able to use Spotify. You'll very much enjoy being in Europe.
Thanks so much for this...A trip down memory lane with my Amiga...
Is this framework related to 'ModernJass' from Sourceforge.net?
Yes, Cofoja is a significant rewrite of ModernJass. We worked closely with the original author of ModernJass (Johannes Rieken) on this.
OK...then why not contributing to the OSS project instead of phagocyting it and re-branding it into another Google product? I guess I'm answering my own question here...
Has anyone found more details? For instance, Modern Jass does not support JML. Is Google going to support it? If not, why didn't they create their own work to implement it?
I'm just saying, until proof to the contrary, this really feels like Google is trying to make geeks' headlines while bringing nothing new or groundbreaking to the table.
The hacks that try to do design by contract at run time tend to avoid expressions which examine big data structures, since they have to run them over the whole data structure every time. Real verifiers prove or disprove such things at compile time. It turns out, though, that a few standard cases for collections cover many of the usual things you want to say.
Very good point, and the irony is that the Google blog uses collections in one of their examples.
The Google project is based on a library called Modern Jass. I'm not familiar with it since the last time I did research on DbC was in 1999/2000 when the only DbC tool for Java that existed might have been Reto Kramer's iContract. Yet, to call it a hack...is it purely because of this absence of static analysis you mention? BTW what kind of static analysis is implemented in Eiffel?
As for concurrency, I agree this would need to be addressed as well. There was an interesting article about a decade ago in JavaWorld about how preconditions would sometimes need to be turned into guard conditions. Anyway, I don't know if any of the many DbC tools for Java address this, but after so long I would hope at least one does.
Very good point. It's been like that in the financial world for a while where some business people manage to make their bonus guaranteed at a minimum amount. It just becomes inflated salary. Source: Cityboy: Beer and Loathing in the Square Mile .
I love one of the appreciative comments:
I hope you get 1000 blowjobs this year ;-)
You're referring to the "static initialization fiasco" and other joys? Yes, a bit of a shame for C++ really.
Real men code in Assembler.
1) is more labor-intensive (programmers are lazy) than 2) (it's risky to catch an exception and not let it fly unless you know exactly what you must do to recover correctly). So, in practice, 1) will generate more bugs. Not because it a worse engineering practice, but simply because it's more error-prone.
Anyway, thanks for the informative tidbit.
But working so close to Unix is no reason to favor it on one's "portable computer" like TFS calls it. There are plenty of reasons to prefer Windows on a laptop (driver support, applications available, etc.). It's unfortunate of course, but what can you do...
But when it's "done right" like you said, correct C++-style coding in C++ makes for absolute control over resource (de)allocation - and this is applicable not only for memory but other types of shared, limited resources as well. Very elegant, and very useful at times. I regret that in Java there are no destructors, but then again in Java you have no control over destruction of objects. This is convenient but limited. C++ provides control.
. I think in most cases though, it's best to avoid the risk of programmers forgetting to apply the idiom as they should. Of course, it's still way safer and more elegant than attempting the same thing in C. The Java approach of using a garbage collector doesn't shock me. Sure, it's not applicable to all application types, but it works well in most enterprise computing cases and it makes for increased productivity.
anyway why do I reply to a post I mostly agree with?
If only I had mod points to mod you and GP up.
We're also helping creators and their heirs hold legal monopolies on innovations for much longer, extending individual copyrights to the life of the author plus 70 years, for instance. Would we lose so many great ideas if the monopoly lasted only until 15 years after the inventor's death?
[...]
You need intellectual-property rules that ensure space for new ideas and uses. You need a tax code that encourages research and development spending. You need, in other words, to furnish people with an environment in which innovation can take place.
Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
WYGIWYG, not WYSIWYG! Brilliant. :-)
Autonomous cars are an interesting concept - but Google is doing that? Why? Surely not just because they can (what with the data centre power and their reserves of cash)
Am I the only one slightly worried by Google's efforts in becoming the ultimate mega-corporation?
What's next? Microsoft doing pharmaceutical research?
Yep, and to support this here is the obligatory Freakonomics reference (emphasis mine):
http://www.wikisummaries.org/Freakonomics:_A_Rogue_Economist_Explores_the_Hidden_Side_of_Everything (Chapter 3):
In Chapter 3, Levitt offers an in-depth discussion of the economic workings of a Chicago drug gang, shattering the common misconception that all drug dealers are wealthy. His analysis of the financial records of a Chicago gang proved that most street-level dealers earned far less than minimum wage. He turns to the socioeconomic context of most gangs for an explanation of the incentives that compel young men to become drug dealers. The influence of gangs is a critical part to the function of the economy because it consistently creates jobs and programs to the fight the prevalent issues.
The question we are trying to address is: what is the complexity of this system (that we call the brain) [...]? The original source of that design is the genome (plus a small amount of information from the epigenetic machinery), so we can gain an estimate of the amount of information in this way.
Didn't PZ Myers say first that, on the contrary, DNA is merely giving a hint as to what the result of the "ontegeny" will be? That the real work is done by stochastic processes during development and therefore DNA doesn't tell us much at all about the final product? In which case, how can Kurzweil reduce the complexity of the brain to a what is only starter data?
The disturbing TFA makes me think I am rather happy not to kickbox anymore.
Also, the pronounciation "rowt" is acknowledged by the (excellent) American dictionnary Meriam-Webster.
Disclaimer: in my native tongue, we say "route" not "rowt", and it's not like I invented the second kind of pronounciation.
yours truly in Language Nazism.