Yes, I was actually attempting to address both your points:
1) Occam's razor is frequently used as if it is a proven fact, and as if there aren't any exceptions. The claim is indeed only for a tendency. 2) Even that tendency claim is wrong. Rarely is the simplest explanation proven correct in the long run.
How do you know you're only experiencing one universe? What if you're experiencing billions of universes and interpreting it as one for the sake of convenience?
Occam's razor proves nothing (and is often wrong!). Phrase the question differently, which is simpler:
We're in the only universe, which just happens to be perfectly suited and tuned to our existence. There's an infinite number of universes, and we're in one where we're possible.
Let me support this argument with a data point. I went and looked at the picture of the shirt. I thought, wow, that really does look like a bomb. I mean, it pretty much looks exactly like what you see on tv when someone builds a bomb in a crime show. Having never had the opportunity to see an actual bomb, I can well imagine that many people would look at that thing and come to the bomb conclusion.
Generally game development is less lucrative, but more fun (if you're young and without family). Solving the problems you're worrying about is a matter of money. No one wants to spend to develop the solutions, and there's basically no way to break into the market from the outside. Game devs don't have any special magic talent that the rest of the industry lacks. Then there's also the matter of reliability: games are bug ridden. Do you really want your energy management system shutting down and causing blackouts 10 times a day, or routing so much power through one system that it explodes?
The problem is basically that DirectX has a big money backer. Microsoft puts a lot of money into research on the DX apis, and also works with the graphics vendors to make sure that DX will be able to take advantage of all the whiz bang features on every new generation of graphics cards. If you want to write a cutting edge game, it leaves you with no choice. You can't get the same to the metal speed on OGL that you can on DX. As a result, a lot of developers choose to go with DX as their API. Since a lot of developers have chosen DX as their API, MS is able to get away with making OGL an api with very limited support under windows. Since OGL has few windows apps as a result, OGL drivers for windows from the major card makers suck. Because the drivers for OGL suck, no one wants to use it to make games, and now you have a vicious cycle where OGL gets more and more unusable on the windows platform. MS has used their windows platform dominance with tremendous success in this area. OGL would likely have died and been forgotten were it not for Id software choosing to make a stand with the quake engine.
I'm sorry, but law is completely correct, and calling it Moore's law complies with definition (1A!) from websters: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/law 1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community
There's hope for transistor density after atomic level transistors, actually, because density is a measure of transistors per unit volume, not per unit area. We currently talk about the density in terms of transistors per surface area of the chip, we really need to be thinking about the density of transistors you can put in the volume currently occupied by a cpu plus heatsink.
There's probably another 30 doublings that could plausibly be accomplished before the true 3 dimensional density is no longer realistically improvable.
You're assuming that in 10 years they'll have made no optimizations to python? I mean, maybe, I don't much like that language and think it is probably a dead end, but even the currently less popular ruby is getting more than twice as fast at basically everything in the next version. Surely python programmers can get it at least 50% faster?
They were stating their POV and their beliefs. Anyone else's opinion on the matter is irrelevant and unsolicited. NB: Their opinion on the matter is also irrelevant and unsolicited.
Yet another self-important SlashDot post in which the writer elevates himself to the position of critic. I'm afraid that even for a slashdotter, to become a critic is to lower yourself, not to elevate.
The compensation is public. Pay stubs are not compensation. Pay stubs contain fun stuff that may lead to the compromise of the financial security of the individual. Requesting the takedown of the pay stubs was more than reasonable.
For a lot less than the price of that computer, you can get a great 37" 1080p LCD TV. It would give you a much nicer viewing experience, and will last as long as the computer which you would hook up to it. I'm just saying, it's undoubtedly within your budget range.
How much did the cd blanks cost you (yearly)? Oh, and the cd writer too. Multiply by 150 million people. Of course that's just the beginning. There's lots of other places money is made from this stuff.
I didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem " An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. "
Emphasis mine. If you feel like I didn't address the article directly, well, not much I can do about that.
There's also:
* ethically wrong (violating a codified system to which you have agreed, but which is not backed by threat of physical force)
People get that one confused with the other 3 as well. Ethical can be thought of as polar from legal: You don't agree to abide by the legal system, but you're threatened by physical force if you don't comply.
Re:When my pay is ethical, I'll worry about the re
on
When Ethics and IT Collide
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's not uncommon to have a higher ethical obligation to provide food, for, say, a child, which takes precedence over your ethical obligation to quit rather than work unpaid overtime. If the OP is basically incompetent, he may not have any additional job choices which would allow him to fulfill the first obligation in order to satisfy the second.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I would expect there to be a natural number of universes (naturally), so Aleph null.
Yes, I was actually attempting to address both your points:
1) Occam's razor is frequently used as if it is a proven fact, and as if there aren't any exceptions. The claim is indeed only for a tendency.
2) Even that tendency claim is wrong. Rarely is the simplest explanation proven correct in the long run.
How do you know you're only experiencing one universe? What if you're experiencing billions of universes and interpreting it as one for the sake of convenience?
Occam's razor proves nothing (and is often wrong!). Phrase the question differently, which is simpler:
We're in the only universe, which just happens to be perfectly suited and tuned to our existence.
There's an infinite number of universes, and we're in one where we're possible.
Let me support this argument with a data point.
I went and looked at the picture of the shirt. I thought, wow, that really does look like a bomb.
I mean, it pretty much looks exactly like what you see on tv when someone builds a bomb in a crime show. Having never had the opportunity to see an actual bomb, I can well imagine that many people would look at that thing and come to the bomb conclusion.
Generally game development is less lucrative, but more fun (if you're young and without family).
Solving the problems you're worrying about is a matter of money. No one wants to spend to develop the solutions, and there's basically no way to break into the market from the outside. Game devs don't have any special magic talent that the rest of the industry lacks. Then there's also the matter of reliability: games are bug ridden. Do you really want your energy management system shutting down and causing blackouts 10 times a day, or routing so much power through one system that it explodes?
The problem is basically that DirectX has a big money backer.
Microsoft puts a lot of money into research on the DX apis, and also works with the graphics vendors to make sure that DX will be able to take advantage of all the whiz bang features on every new generation of graphics cards.
If you want to write a cutting edge game, it leaves you with no choice. You can't get the same to the metal speed on OGL that you can on DX. As a result, a lot of developers choose to go with DX as their API. Since a lot of developers have chosen DX as their API, MS is able to get away with making OGL an api with very limited support under windows. Since OGL has few windows apps as a result, OGL drivers for windows from the major card makers suck. Because the drivers for OGL suck, no one wants to use it to make games, and now you have a vicious cycle where OGL gets more and more unusable on the windows platform.
MS has used their windows platform dominance with tremendous success in this area. OGL would likely have died and been forgotten were it not for Id software choosing to make a stand with the quake engine.
I'm sorry, but law is completely correct, and calling it Moore's law complies with definition (1A!) from websters:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/law
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community
There's hope for transistor density after atomic level transistors, actually, because density is a measure of transistors per unit volume, not per unit area. We currently talk about the density in terms of transistors per surface area of the chip, we really need to be thinking about the density of transistors you can put in the volume currently occupied by a cpu plus heatsink.
There's probably another 30 doublings that could plausibly be accomplished before the true 3 dimensional density is no longer realistically improvable.
You're assuming that in 10 years they'll have made no optimizations to python? I mean, maybe, I don't much like that language and think it is probably a dead end, but even the currently less popular ruby is getting more than twice as fast at basically everything in the next version. Surely python programmers can get it at least 50% faster?
Quite possibly the best post ever.
There are two articles involved, and they contradict each other. Meanwhile the original data has been hidden, so we can't uncover the truth.
Note to mods. It's not redundant when the post number is lower.
The compensation is public. Pay stubs are not compensation. Pay stubs contain fun stuff that may lead to the compromise of the financial security of the individual. Requesting the takedown of the pay stubs was more than reasonable.
So, what are you, lazy? You could be solving man's spaceflight issues, permanently, and you're whining about how hard it is to scale?
I wouldn't expect you to watch any more tv than you would on your computer screen. Without a different source, what's the difference?
For a lot less than the price of that computer, you can get a great 37" 1080p LCD TV. It would give you a much nicer viewing experience, and will last as long as the computer which you would hook up to it.
I'm just saying, it's undoubtedly within your budget range.
How much did the cd blanks cost you (yearly)? Oh, and the cd writer too. Multiply by 150 million people.
Of course that's just the beginning. There's lots of other places money is made from this stuff.
I didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
"
Emphasis mine. If you feel like I didn't address the article directly, well, not much I can do about that.
That's an ok definition, but a very loose one. What if you guess wrong? What if your sampling technique is off?
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics
The definition itself doesn't require codification, but implies it (consider the use of 'discipline' and 'set', 'theory' or 'system').
There's also:
* ethically wrong (violating a codified system to which you have agreed, but which is not backed by threat of physical force)
People get that one confused with the other 3 as well.
Ethical can be thought of as polar from legal: You don't agree to abide by the legal system, but you're threatened by physical force if you don't comply.
It's not uncommon to have a higher ethical obligation to provide food, for, say, a child, which takes precedence over your ethical obligation to quit rather than work unpaid overtime. If the OP is basically incompetent, he may not have any additional job choices which would allow him to fulfill the first obligation in order to satisfy the second.