It already was broken down into components when they announced 4. But clearly taste and smell don't work like that, because molecules are not part of a spectrum like light and sound.
Oh, and for those kindergarten teachers who claim there's only 5 senses, what about heat? What about pain? What about sense of time?
I feel like textbooks have stupidified me with their low-cardinal accounting of the obvious.
Yeah, modern bioscience is so advanced, they added another flavor. I wonder when they will get around to adding flavors such as: Apple, pear, cinnamon, nutmeg, grape, cherry, beef, pork, lemon, chicken breast, turkey thigh, cola, chocolate, strawberry, chalk, plastic, metal, wood, carrot, lettuce, orange, bleach, beer, seltzer, coffee, milk, cheese, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, flour, salmon, tuna, calcium disodium EDTA, MSG, sodium tripolyphosphate, vinegar, tomatoes, ethanol, and puke.
I just threw up in my mouth a little...and it's some combination of sweet, sour, salty, umami, and fat! Hooray for modern understanding!
Why do you think there aren't different receptors? If there's only one "sweet" receptor, how come artificial sweeteners taste like chemicals?
I really don't get where this 4-taste nonsense is coming from. The human tongue is extremely sensitive and can detect a whole slew of chemicals in the milligram to microgram range.
Oh, and as a computer person, you should realize "bitter" isn't a taste per se. Any more than "null" is an integer. But it is a valid concept that has meaning.
>The tongue has specific receptors on the tongue, collected together in taste buds, that detect sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami (and, maybe, fat). That is the sensation that is, scientifically, correctly called taste.
Is there a receptor for potassium? If not, how come I can tell the difference between NaCl and KCl?
Is there a receptor for calcium? If not, how come I can tell the difference between NaCl and CaCl?
Oh, I should mention that salts don't volatize, so it's not my nose. And there's certainly no mouthfeel element to eating salt, either.
It's hugely complex and not completely understood, because they're ignoring the obvious, which is that there are receptors for everything. How can there not be?
>I also think being allowed to know---without having to---is what makes open source software what it is.
Sure. But apparently Brooks was operating in a prehistoric era when well-defined interfaces was something to be debated, rather than taken as dogma. Shocking, really. That's like Engineering 101.
After all, you don't have to be an architect to read a blueprint. This concept of divvying up work was invented before software.
Brooks did claim that ample support staff was a better use of the available man-hours than having them all type. The support staff could do research, documentation, or testing. That's like 1 doctor operating on the heart, and a bunch of nurses.
But from experience, it is certainly possible to divide a project into discrete units where multiple developers don't need to know what the others are doing. One doctor on the head, another on the feet. That's exactly what a "well-defined interface" is for.
Do we have their figures? They said they "quadrupled" their staff for "a month" and hired "a dozen people." So I figure they had 4 people, hired 12, for a total of 16.
Those 16 people did in a month what 4 people would have taken...how long? They don't say. However, they got it done during January recess, which is a big win.
Brooks claimed there should be one developer with ample support staff. But what if you do the reverse, and have the developer act as manager, and farm out tasks to an army of typists? Does that also work?
If you want to get a job, you have to be dumber than your boss (or at least appear that way). If you graduate from MIT, you can pretty much only work for people who went to MIT, Caltech, Stanford, or Berkeley.
There's about 2500 four-year schools in the U.S. By going to MIT, you've just reduced your job prospects to 4/2500 = 0.16% of what's out there.
Imagine writing off everybody who went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, and NYU as "substandard." If you're lucky, they'll all work for you.
>They may be smart, they may even be brilliant, but computer science at elite institutions has frak-all to do with software development.
Eh. Not quite, unless you mean that the students don't get any practice. The education itself is all about proper development technique. Something that's rarely found "in the wild."
The elite schools do teach the most difficult things. It's far beyond what you need to get by, though. And the worst thing is, "I know stuff that you don't" is a terrible way to approach a job interview.
That's what you should fear from an elite school: not that the education isn't amazing, but that an amazing education can ruin your prospects.
And yet they're not filing charges. Check out the hypocrisy in this small section of the article:
Law Enforcement: If You're a Gun Owner, You Have to Be Responsible
When Cheyenne fired the gun, Ashe said, her mother, Tina Ann Cronberger, 32, was within three feet of her child. Cheyenne was pronounced dead on arrival at a local hospital.
"We're not looking at criminal intent," Ashe said, adding that no criminal charges have been filed. "There was a terrible lapse of judgment here."
Nobody likes to file charges when the victim is already dead. Why ruin another life?
Oh, that's right, because now this will be used as fodder for the anti-gun crowd. This family gets to keep their gun, and the rest of us lose ours.
Yes!!!! I just spent 2 hours reading this thread and then I find this.
Your article wasn't wrong, bro. As usual, people mistook editorial tone for substance. It's like yelling at someone, "YOU'RE A GREAT PERSON," and they cry and say, "Why did you yell at meeee..."
I remember when people worried about "brick and mortar" going away. Meanwhile, the most recent addition to the mall is a giant fucking bookstore.
And the internet does suck for social interaction. Unfortunately everybody else got online. Now we're the heroes. Imagine that.
I was surprised actually, Newsweek is rather thick and mostly liberal. Maybe it depends on how bent you are. I turned down Time in high school (far too easy), but had no problem reading Time recently...I guess I've mellowed.
The only thing that sucks about Newsweek is the occasional terrorist rant by Fareed Zakaria (a "liberal" half-breed) and a couple of conservative windbags they keep on staff.
Go back a couple more years and it's accurate. In 1992 I had a 2400 baud, and when my friend showed me "the internet," I said "No thanks, I'll stick with BBSes. At least they have color and games."
Of course by 1993 things were quite different already. Mosaic had arrived, and Gopher predicted the invention of search engines.
But unless you were in college, or had a computer job, you probably didn't have access to see these things happening.
1995 is a joke...that's the Netscape IPO. At that point, every high school in America was in the process of getting online, if they weren't already.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it hasn't, even though it's completely obvious. They're still working on if skim milk tastes different.
Yes, you can taste nutrients. THat's the whole frigging point of having taste buds.
It already was broken down into components when they announced 4. But clearly taste and smell don't work like that, because molecules are not part of a spectrum like light and sound.
Oh, and for those kindergarten teachers who claim there's only 5 senses, what about heat? What about pain? What about sense of time?
I feel like textbooks have stupidified me with their low-cardinal accounting of the obvious.
Are you saying you can taste iron? Heresy! There's only SIX flavors you religious zealot!
Yeah, modern bioscience is so advanced, they added another flavor. I wonder when they will get around to adding flavors such as: Apple, pear, cinnamon, nutmeg, grape, cherry, beef, pork, lemon, chicken breast, turkey thigh, cola, chocolate, strawberry, chalk, plastic, metal, wood, carrot, lettuce, orange, bleach, beer, seltzer, coffee, milk, cheese, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, flour, salmon, tuna, calcium disodium EDTA, MSG, sodium tripolyphosphate, vinegar, tomatoes, ethanol, and puke.
I just threw up in my mouth a little...and it's some combination of sweet, sour, salty, umami, and fat! Hooray for modern understanding!
>Thanks for pointing out a better word to use to describe that flavor!
IT'S CALLED CAPSAICIN. C18H27NO3
Why do you think there aren't different receptors? If there's only one "sweet" receptor, how come artificial sweeteners taste like chemicals?
I really don't get where this 4-taste nonsense is coming from. The human tongue is extremely sensitive and can detect a whole slew of chemicals in the milligram to microgram range.
Oh, and as a computer person, you should realize "bitter" isn't a taste per se. Any more than "null" is an integer. But it is a valid concept that has meaning.
>The tongue has specific receptors on the tongue, collected together in taste buds, that detect sweet, salty, sour, bitter and umami (and, maybe, fat). That is the sensation that is, scientifically, correctly called taste.
Is there a receptor for potassium? If not, how come I can tell the difference between NaCl and KCl?
Is there a receptor for calcium? If not, how come I can tell the difference between NaCl and CaCl?
Oh, I should mention that salts don't volatize, so it's not my nose. And there's certainly no mouthfeel element to eating salt, either.
It's hugely complex and not completely understood, because they're ignoring the obvious, which is that there are receptors for everything. How can there not be?
>as the poster correctly said it may be other receptors
Receptors for what?
Is "fat" some combination of sweet, sour, and salty?
They haven't given us enough known receptors for your "combination" theory to work.
>I'll notify the British Journal of Nutrition that their published research is invalid.
Of course it's invalid. They concluded that there's only 6 tastes. That's like saying we can only hear 6 sounds. Utterly brain-dead.
>Remind again why I get half the salary of a PM?
You shouldn't. From the way you describe, you're skilled labor, and he's a secretary. The salary should be the other way around.
Now ask yourself, could you manage the project? I would hope so. Otherwise, you just got your answer.
>I also think being allowed to know---without having to---is what makes open source software what it is.
Sure. But apparently Brooks was operating in a prehistoric era when well-defined interfaces was something to be debated, rather than taken as dogma. Shocking, really. That's like Engineering 101.
After all, you don't have to be an architect to read a blueprint. This concept of divvying up work was invented before software.
Brooks did claim that ample support staff was a better use of the available man-hours than having them all type. The support staff could do research, documentation, or testing. That's like 1 doctor operating on the heart, and a bunch of nurses.
But from experience, it is certainly possible to divide a project into discrete units where multiple developers don't need to know what the others are doing. One doctor on the head, another on the feet. That's exactly what a "well-defined interface" is for.
Do we have their figures? They said they "quadrupled" their staff for "a month" and hired "a dozen people." So I figure they had 4 people, hired 12, for a total of 16.
Those 16 people did in a month what 4 people would have taken...how long? They don't say. However, they got it done during January recess, which is a big win.
Brooks claimed there should be one developer with ample support staff. But what if you do the reverse, and have the developer act as manager, and farm out tasks to an army of typists? Does that also work?
You mean since they teach in Java now? *snort*
I agree, "cut and paste" isn't comp sci.
Right.
If you want to get a job, you have to be dumber than your boss (or at least appear that way). If you graduate from MIT, you can pretty much only work for people who went to MIT, Caltech, Stanford, or Berkeley.
There's about 2500 four-year schools in the U.S. By going to MIT, you've just reduced your job prospects to 4/2500 = 0.16% of what's out there.
Imagine writing off everybody who went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, and NYU as "substandard." If you're lucky, they'll all work for you.
If not, they'll all have jobs, and you won't.
>They may be smart, they may even be brilliant, but computer science at elite institutions has frak-all to do with software development.
Eh. Not quite, unless you mean that the students don't get any practice. The education itself is all about proper development technique. Something that's rarely found "in the wild."
The elite schools do teach the most difficult things. It's far beyond what you need to get by, though. And the worst thing is, "I know stuff that you don't" is a terrible way to approach a job interview.
That's what you should fear from an elite school: not that the education isn't amazing, but that an amazing education can ruin your prospects.
And yet they're not filing charges. Check out the hypocrisy in this small section of the article:
Nobody likes to file charges when the victim is already dead. Why ruin another life?
Oh, that's right, because now this will be used as fodder for the anti-gun crowd. This family gets to keep their gun, and the rest of us lose ours.
I was on Basic from 1986 to 1993, and it was the most meaningful years of my life.
>Can you show a citation supporting your view?
Sure, how about my own?
5+ years deli, qualifies me for deli manager ($50k/year).
3+ years liquor retail, qualifies me for liquor salesman ($35k/year, plus commission, and relocation - read: california).
Point being, what does 4 years at college qualify you for?
I'm looking at something else. But suffice to say, $25/hr for slicing meat is not a bad fallback option. What fallbacks to college grads have?
Typist? I've done that.
Yes!!!! I just spent 2 hours reading this thread and then I find this.
Your article wasn't wrong, bro. As usual, people mistook editorial tone for substance. It's like yelling at someone, "YOU'RE A GREAT PERSON," and they cry and say, "Why did you yell at meeee..."
I remember when people worried about "brick and mortar" going away. Meanwhile, the most recent addition to the mall is a giant fucking bookstore.
And the internet does suck for social interaction. Unfortunately everybody else got online. Now we're the heroes. Imagine that.
I was surprised actually, Newsweek is rather thick and mostly liberal. Maybe it depends on how bent you are. I turned down Time in high school (far too easy), but had no problem reading Time recently...I guess I've mellowed.
The only thing that sucks about Newsweek is the occasional terrorist rant by Fareed Zakaria (a "liberal" half-breed) and a couple of conservative windbags they keep on staff.
Go back a couple more years and it's accurate. In 1992 I had a 2400 baud, and when my friend showed me "the internet," I said "No thanks, I'll stick with BBSes. At least they have color and games."
Of course by 1993 things were quite different already. Mosaic had arrived, and Gopher predicted the invention of search engines.
But unless you were in college, or had a computer job, you probably didn't have access to see these things happening.
1995 is a joke...that's the Netscape IPO. At that point, every high school in America was in the process of getting online, if they weren't already.
>even though computers have made the total amount of labor output greater, we don't have a 4-hour workday
Because people keep pushing out babies? We're certainly not *breeding* like we have robots to do our work for us.
My town has 600 kids in its graduating class and like 1 strip mall for them to work in.
The problem with buying a newspaper over the internet is that it comes with the news, but not the paper.
That's like buying a "bag of chips" with no bag.
I thought it was interesting that he said, "You probably don't remember a single educational film."
Actually, I remember all of the real films they showed us. I certainly don't remember most of the chalkboard discussions we had about anything.
The cartoon show "Home Movies" has suggested that all classroom instruction be done via film.