Intelligence without conscience is not admirable.
Brains and internal organs are interesting in general, but I wouldn't find them so interesting smeared around at an accident site.
Having someone who believes that pi is exactly equal to 3 is amusing, except when they force that nonsense into law.
Rush is pure troll. He gets his jollies off of pissing people off.
One general characteristic of games that Wittgenstein considers in detail is the way in which they consist in following rules. Rules constitute a family, rather than a class that can be explicitly defined.[14] As a consequence, it is not possible to provide a definitive account of what it is to follow a rule. Indeed, he argues that any course of action can be made out to accord with some particular rule, and that therefore a rule cannot be used to explain an action.[15] Rather, that one is following a rule or not is to be decided by looking to see if the actions conform to the expectations in the particular form of life in which one is involved. Following a rule is a social activity.
Indeed. We like to think of a solid thing as the opposite of empty space, but is the solid volume merely the place where fields have the greatest probability of interaction?
Are there really solid things out there that exist the way we think of them?
The public option is gone, and single payer never made it to the table.
I don't know if that is directly attributed to a filibuster threat, but its certainly attributed to resistance to those ideas.
I guess those were the victims of too much compromise and/or the power of money and the weakness of lawmakers.
That the thing was passed is sort of a success, but more of a political one than a life changing one.
Indeed, I think we will have gadget printers. You are quite correct though, as they will be printing each other.
The jobs will be in the design.
Until we have jobs making auto correcting and efficiency boosting algorithms.
Until we can then complete the strange loop connecting the algorithms to themselves.
What will we do? Probably make it up as we go along. Al Cap kinda predicted this with the shmoo.
In itself, "Santa is generous" implies that Santa is real, just as if I say "God is good" it's unlikely I'm an atheist, unless I'm writing an essay on Paradise Lost or something
I don't see why it implies that Santa is real.
There is a context beyond the words themselves. Ignoring that context, or thinking that words are exact things, is not seeing the full picture.
If you hear an adult say 'Santa is generous' and honestly think that they mean Santa is real, you might have wandered a bit much in the autistic spectrum.
Oh well this doesn't have to do with imaginary friends then. If you have an imaginary friend, you still have to have a real friendship. Your latest examples are not that, they are just instances of comprehension. And I am all for that: IMHO, it would serve us well to understand Christianity from the inside, so to speak, without actually believing in its dogma.
I agree. You need real friendship. I just don't think there is anything wrong with playing 'pretend' once in a while as long as you don't get carried away. That's what I think what religions are - pretend that got carried away.
I don't know if there is more to the core of Christianity than "Don't be a jerk. There is no specific chosen race - everyone has the same intrinsic value." No harm in studying though.
Think of it as the holodeck of your brain using some spare cycles to make a construct.
You sure your name isn't Bad Analogy Guy?
I suppose a more relevant question is, why Jesus, and in particular, why this absurdly inaccurate version of Jesus?
More importantly, why an imaginary friend instead of a real one? If I ever need help knowing how to not be an asshat, I'd much rather ask a real person than an imaginary friend who might be able to tell me something my subconscious knows.
I'm just trying to find an analogy that you might connect with. Maybe mental model would work better for you?
Why Jesus? There are lots of Christians out there, and it would be a more pleasant experience for me if they tended to act nicer. It would be simple for them to have an imaginary Jesus or angel.
If you do not know that they are imaginary, then you are a loon. Because they are, in fact, imaginary
to everyone else, including the members of your own religion, who imagine them differently. Still,
this case is relatively harmless.
If you do know that they are imaginary, but still go through the motions, then you are just like
the pope and most of the clergy: you don't really believe jack shit, except that you deserve to get
your cut for telling people what you know are lies. For example, pope's complete disregard for
the New Testament ethics is plainly evidenced by his treatment of celibacy, contraceptives, priests who
molest children -- you name it. They are all case 2, and we know they are in it just for the money
and the power. What's the harm, you say?
You are thinking too concretely. Please note the difference :
I believe that unicorns exist
I believe that the idea of unicorns exists
Now consider :
I believe the Ideal Gas Law is true.
I believe the Ideal Gas Law is a reasonable model for simple cases.
If I said 'Santa is generous', I think most people would agree, and not be mislead into thinking that I actually believe there is a Santa. I can believe 'Santa is Generous' without needing to believe that Santa is a real person.
While I agree with you, I don't believe religions are immune from change. The big backlash against this day seems to be from students who feel that their religion is being singled out and picked on, rather than the actual drawing of Mohammad.
Having a draw all relgions event would show that no, we are not singling them out for criticism.
Think of it as the holodeck of your brain using some spare cycles to make a construct.
It may be able to draw conclusions that your conscious mind is not able to at the moment.
As long as you know your friends are imaginary, what is the harm?
Even children know that their imaginary friends exist in a different reality than other people do.
Just imagine a Christian with a reasonably constructed, imaginary Jesus. "Hey Jesus, what should I do? Oh? Not be an asshat? Great!"
I wonder what the reaction would have been if it had 'Draw a Religious Figure Day', that had some of Mohammud but some of any other random religious figure.
I wonder how the counter arguments would be if things were phrased
"Climate change due to increase in ocean temperatures"
It's not sound-bitey enough.
I suppose the challenge for you would be to come up with a reasonable climate model that predicts independently of ocean temperature. Measuring the temperature of the ocean isn't the easiest thing in the world, but its a reasonable undertaking.
What is hard is that we can't have a control group to experiment on. That should kill the whole thing, right? Right?
You bit the wrong place and for entirely the wrong reasons. Its all about the math. For one good American coder you can higher three to five shitty Indian coders. In the mind of a CEO that means he can gut his coders and hire an army of shitty coders while banking on the chance that in an army of shitty coders perhaps one or two may actually be worth their third world rate. This in turn provides leverage to reduce wages of American coders.
Dude, if the CEO is involved in the hiring practice either its a very small company or something is very, very weird.
There are a variety of reasons, but anyone hiring is going to want to have a large number of candidates to choose from. This could be because of salary, or it could be because you want to hire a bunch of good people.
<quote>Usually they whine because "slightly outside of their comfort zone" in management-speak translates "boss asked me to solve the halting problem today" in geek-speak.</quote>
<quote><p>How can we be so short of American programmers and other IT people that we need to import foreigners in the middle of this awful recession?</p><p>We aren't. It's fraud. It's meant to reduce your salary.</p><p>It's the kind of fraud that Indians have ingrained in to their culture and Americans seem to get better at every day.</p></quote>
I'll bite.
Someone with the gumption to search the world for jobs probably has the will to work hard. There are too many native programmers who whine if given a task that falls slightly out of their comfort zone or job description.
Course that's not always the case, but its how many employers see it. The attitude should be "damn, its a recession, I should work harder" rather than "damn, its a recession, let me kick out the competition"
On another note, I stopped reading the article when I hit this:</p>
<quote><p>Today, introductory courses in computer science are too often focused merely on teaching students to use software like word processing and spreadsheet programs, said Janice C. Cuny, a program director at the National Science Foundation.</p></quote>
</quote>
Using spreadsheets and words and getting printers working - this is what people think computer programmers do.
I hate to say it, powerpoint, viseo and the like are very much part of the daily lives of many in the industry who'd rather be programming. The course may be on using Word, but it should also be on communication, esp communication within the IT world.
Don't underestimate the power of spread sheets. I've seen them used to design and model the chemical balance, thermodynamics and structural composition of large commercial power plants. Macro programming is programming. This is somewhat like training a mechanic to race. Probably a good idea if the mechanic will be working on racing cars.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence without conscience is not admirable.
Brains and internal organs are interesting in general, but I wouldn't find them so interesting smeared around at an accident site.
Having someone who believes that pi is exactly equal to 3 is amusing, except when they force that nonsense into law.
Rush is pure troll. He gets his jollies off of pissing people off.
We all know that Duke Nukem is gonna be written in Perl 6 and run on HURD.
Don't be held captive by a mere definition.
(see Wittgenstein's language game : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations
Indeed. We like to think of a solid thing as the opposite of empty space, but is the solid volume merely the place where fields have the greatest probability of interaction? Are there really solid things out there that exist the way we think of them?
The public option is gone, and single payer never made it to the table.
I don't know if that is directly attributed to a filibuster threat, but its certainly attributed to resistance to those ideas. I guess those were the victims of too much compromise and/or the power of money and the weakness of lawmakers.
That the thing was passed is sort of a success, but more of a political one than a life changing one.
Engineers tend to think deeply with full focus, which has got to be the source of their troubles, and their gifts of design.
"MultiTasking" to me is a wrenching experience, where I have to refocus my mind onto something new.
It's not a pleasant experience.
The jobs will be in the design.
Until we have jobs making auto correcting and efficiency boosting algorithms.
Until we can then complete the strange loop connecting the algorithms to themselves.
What will we do? Probably make it up as we go along. Al Cap kinda predicted this with the shmoo.
In itself, "Santa is generous" implies that Santa is real, just as if I say "God is good" it's unlikely I'm an atheist, unless I'm writing an essay on Paradise Lost or something
I don't see why it implies that Santa is real.
There is a context beyond the words themselves. Ignoring that context, or thinking that words are exact things, is not seeing the full picture.
If you hear an adult say 'Santa is generous' and honestly think that they mean Santa is real, you might have wandered a bit much in the autistic spectrum.
Oh well this doesn't have to do with imaginary friends then. If you have an imaginary friend, you still have to have a real friendship. Your latest examples are not that, they are just instances of comprehension. And I am all for that: IMHO, it would serve us well to understand Christianity from the inside, so to speak, without actually believing in its dogma.
I agree. You need real friendship. I just don't think there is anything wrong with playing 'pretend' once in a while as long as you don't get carried away. That's what I think what religions are - pretend that got carried away.
I don't know if there is more to the core of Christianity than "Don't be a jerk. There is no specific chosen race - everyone has the same intrinsic value." No harm in studying though.
Having a draw all relgions event would show that no, we are not singling them out for criticism.
Ah, but we are. Again:
Most religions don't have their followers send death threats because of mere blasphemy...
That is why they're the target.
But then, if they bother to look, they'll find other movements against other religions -- for example, Anonymous vs Scientology.
We are focussing on them now, but as a rule, we also make fun of Christianity, Buddhism, Janism, Judaism, any ism.
Think of it as the holodeck of your brain using some spare cycles to make a construct.
You sure your name isn't Bad Analogy Guy?
I suppose a more relevant question is, why Jesus, and in particular, why this absurdly inaccurate version of Jesus?
More importantly, why an imaginary friend instead of a real one? If I ever need help knowing how to not be an asshat, I'd much rather ask a real person than an imaginary friend who might be able to tell me something my subconscious knows.
I'm just trying to find an analogy that you might connect with. Maybe mental model would work better for you?
Why Jesus? There are lots of Christians out there, and it would be a more pleasant experience for me if they tended to act nicer. It would be simple for them to have an imaginary Jesus or angel.
Personally, I'd have a talking dog, I think.
Let me break it down for you:
If you do not know that they are imaginary, then you are a loon. Because they are, in fact, imaginary to everyone else, including the members of your own religion, who imagine them differently. Still, this case is relatively harmless.
If you do know that they are imaginary, but still go through the motions, then you are just like the pope and most of the clergy: you don't really believe jack shit, except that you deserve to get your cut for telling people what you know are lies. For example, pope's complete disregard for the New Testament ethics is plainly evidenced by his treatment of celibacy, contraceptives, priests who molest children -- you name it. They are all case 2, and we know they are in it just for the money and the power. What's the harm, you say?
You are thinking too concretely. Please note the difference :
Now consider :
If I said 'Santa is generous', I think most people would agree, and not be mislead into thinking that I actually believe there is a Santa. I can believe 'Santa is Generous' without needing to believe that Santa is a real person.
Too subtle? Too nuts?
redundant? This was one of the first comments.
While I agree with you, I don't believe religions are immune from change. The big backlash against this day seems to be from students who feel that their religion is being singled out and picked on, rather than the actual drawing of Mohammad. Having a draw all relgions event would show that no, we are not singling them out for criticism.
Think of it as the holodeck of your brain using some spare cycles to make a construct. It may be able to draw conclusions that your conscious mind is not able to at the moment.
As long as you know your friends are imaginary, what is the harm? Even children know that their imaginary friends exist in a different reality than other people do. Just imagine a Christian with a reasonably constructed, imaginary Jesus. "Hey Jesus, what should I do? Oh? Not be an asshat? Great!"
I wonder what the reaction would have been if it had 'Draw a Religious Figure Day', that had some of Mohammud but some of any other random religious figure.
I know someone who is a Doctor of Aromatherapy! Can't do without that opinion now.
I wonder how the counter arguments would be if things were phrased "Climate change due to increase in ocean temperatures" It's not sound-bitey enough. I suppose the challenge for you would be to come up with a reasonable climate model that predicts independently of ocean temperature. Measuring the temperature of the ocean isn't the easiest thing in the world, but its a reasonable undertaking. What is hard is that we can't have a control group to experiment on. That should kill the whole thing, right? Right?
You might want to look up Operation Ajax.
I'll bite.
You bit the wrong place and for entirely the wrong reasons. Its all about the math. For one good American coder you can higher three to five shitty Indian coders. In the mind of a CEO that means he can gut his coders and hire an army of shitty coders while banking on the chance that in an army of shitty coders perhaps one or two may actually be worth their third world rate. This in turn provides leverage to reduce wages of American coders.
Dude, if the CEO is involved in the hiring practice either its a very small company or something is very, very weird. There are a variety of reasons, but anyone hiring is going to want to have a large number of candidates to choose from. This could be because of salary, or it could be because you want to hire a bunch of good people.
<quote>Usually they whine because "slightly outside of their comfort zone" in management-speak translates "boss asked me to solve the halting problem today" in geek-speak.</quote>
Nah, its mostly "but that's someone else's job".
<quote><p>How can we be so short of American programmers and other IT people that we need to import foreigners in the middle of this awful recession?</p><p>We aren't. It's fraud. It's meant to reduce your salary.</p><p>It's the kind of fraud that Indians have ingrained in to their culture and Americans seem to get better at every day.</p></quote>
I'll bite.
Someone with the gumption to search the world for jobs probably has the will to work hard. There are too many native programmers who whine if given a task that falls slightly out of their comfort zone or job description.
Course that's not always the case, but its how many employers see it. The attitude should be "damn, its a recession, I should work harder" rather than "damn, its a recession, let me kick out the competition"
no idea. Never been to such a course. I've just seen some rather scary things done with spreadsheets.
<quote>
On another note, I stopped reading the article when I hit this:</p>
<quote><p>Today, introductory courses in computer science are too often focused merely on teaching students to use software like word processing and spreadsheet programs, said Janice C. Cuny, a program director at the National Science Foundation.</p></quote>
</quote>
Using spreadsheets and words and getting printers working - this is what people think computer programmers do.
I hate to say it, powerpoint, viseo and the like are very much part of the daily lives of many in the industry who'd rather be programming. The course may be on using Word, but it should also be on communication, esp communication within the IT world.
Don't underestimate the power of spread sheets. I've seen them used to design and model the chemical balance, thermodynamics and structural composition of large commercial power plants. Macro programming is programming. This is somewhat like training a mechanic to race. Probably a good idea if the mechanic will be working on racing cars.