please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3. no "Nintendo is dying" claims please.
You forgot to add "in the last 2 quarters". Before that both sony and MS made money. It's the R&D for the new consoles that have put both of them in the red. although MS had been in the red a lot before. Sony was rarely in the red.
Your right, Creationism and ID have nothing to do with being an exstermist. It does reflect poorly on your education though. As a baptist who is educated in biology, there isn't a single reason why anyone should not beleive in evolution. You should be dismissed because you don't know enough about the subject beign discussed. Beleif in creationism and ID is a sign of under education and a inability to
hmm.. from +5 insightful to +1 insightful, sure is a lot of spiteful weinie moderators who don't know evolution from abortion.
Actualy, it's the product of having a different set of assumptions than philosophic materialism.
Since the assumptions aren't supported by much, as well as go against what any significant education (university). Then yes It's under-educated people.
Evolution can't, and doesn't, exclude the possibility of "outside help" (i.e. intelligent design). It's simply a record of a process and a proposal for a mechanism driving it (natural selection). But nobody really knows, as much as they like to flatter themselves into thinking they do, what is really behind everything. There is always the possibility that evolution was helped along by an external force. At the very least it's fair to say we don't completely understand evolution. The idea that the most complicated process generating the most complex things in the universe can be summed up in a single phrase (natural selection) is a joke and an example of human arrogance. So let's not denigrate those who keep a little mystery where others fake certainty. It seems to me that there are those who religiously believe in our current theory of evolution just as religiously as those who believe in creationism.
The mechanism is actually quit simple, random changes happen to the genome, these are often fatal, sometimes non-fatal but bad for you, sometimes not beneficial or bad for you, rarely slightly better for you. These happen all the time. A force acts upon the population in some manner to remove certain individuals from the pool. These features ratios of the population change. If it changes enough or in the right ways, it splits the population into two species. Geographic forces come into play two as well as matting preferences.
Thats evolution in a nutshell. Not some complex voodoo. Most people who are against it don't know shit about it.
Well, other than the fossil record and genetic analysis, that is.
The fossil record points to successive revolution, not steady state evolution as theory predicts. There's a multitude of proposed mechanisms to explain this, but none that have any actual proof better than Intelligent Design does. (Assuming an Intelligent Designer or Designers that like to tinker around repeatedly, mass extinction here, entire fully speciated families appearing out of nowhere instantly there, that kind of thing.)
Genetic analysis, well, that shit is just crazy. Suffice it to say that it's pretty certain that what we think we know about evolved inheritance and species succession is almost certainly massively incorrect, on the order of dozens of millions of years in some instances. And in theory, genetic analysis should be more reliable than relying on random fossil finding. So the next few decades as they refine those techniques should be _very_ interesting.
Let's put it this way: The evidence that there is some mechanism affecting speciation other than random mutation is fairly compelling. That said mechanism is an intelligent outside agent of some form, there's no evidence of that; but there's no evidence supporting any other theory either.
I'm well aquianted with both. As I said. No reason what so ever. Your knowledge in this area seems suspect. It's not massive revolution, it's sudden enviromental change (sometimes introduction of preditors, sometimes eqarthquakes ect..) followed by selececting towards an equilibrium followed by a fairly stable equilibruim. Selection, is that enviromental change. It can also be a successful mutation that acts as the selection. On bird has green feathers, other have red, the green one does better ect...
Selection is logical, the features selected for are derived from random mutations. It isn't truly random because some mutations are more common then others. If you read about modern evolution and not high school evolution you'd realize this does not contracdict anything. Highschool evolution is both dumbed down, and very old.
As for philogenetic trees, it points out errors in our classification system as no more. Sometimes we think two birds that look like each other are very closely related when it turns out their not that close. Thats what that points to.
Regardless of whether macroevolution is "scientific" or not (just because you disagree with other scientists, IMHO, it doesn't mean that the concept falls in the domain of ID), my main point was that the origin of the Big Bang requires as much belief as believing in an omniscient and omnipresent creator. Care to comment on that?
As a baptist I whole heartily agree that god cause both the big bang and used evolution to shape us. The big bang happens to be one theory among a few possibly valid ones. It has some support although we don't have enough technology to support it strongly at this time. I do not take it as fact. It's an interesting and fairly reasonable theory given the evidence, but it will be another 20 years before we get some substantial evidence. ID is grbage, macro/micro evolution is as well.
You are mistaken if you think this point of view has me taking it on faith that all scientific theories are right. You give them some thought, read the evidence, and discard any that can't past muster.
The problem isn't that he's banning Evolution, there isn't a possible way any intelligent judge on the supreme court woudl allwo that. It's that he's making two valid sides when in reality there is one.
It's like me teachinggravity in a science high school class. I suggest 1 theory is that gravity is a distortion in time space and that the curvature of space makes it more favorable for all atoms to go "down". Then I teach that it might also be a ancient sleeping god in the middle of the earth, whose malevolent rage forces all matter to fall "down". Most kids will chose to beleive one or the other just because I meantioned them both. Most kids are naive and think since I'm their teacher everythign I say must have some basis. Unfortunatly the second thing I taught is bullshit. So now half my class beleives in bullshit.
Here's an article that sums up macroevolution as an interdisciplinary subject. Yes, macroevolution is a neo-Darwinist concept, but everything I said about macroevolution being thus far unobserved can be transferred to punctuated equilibrium, for example.
Doesn't change the fact that the source of Macro/Micro evolution is not scientific community but the ID/creationist camp. It's a red herring. Consider the idea no further because it does not forward the discussion. Any inhertibale genotypic change and subsequent selection is evolution.
What I expect Christians to appreciate more than the average/.er is that these issues touch on at least three areas: science, theology, and philosophy. Your education in biology maybe qualifies you to speak to the issue from one of these perspectives. (For example, to critique specifically scientific claims.)
Perhaps the parent is thinking irrationally. But just being a baptist with a little education in biology hardly puts you in a position to make that broad determination, particularly when the parent has said so little.
Actually I have a degree in comp sci (logic, a exstention of philosophy), enough credits to get a major in biology as well (they don't allow it because comp sci is a specialization at my University) and enoguh credits for a minor in philosophies and religion. I spent a lot of time at school. I think it has made me a better person. I have had a fairly borad education.
One thing that frustrates the pro-ID folks is that evolution is still a *theory*, but is being taught as fact. That's not a surprising bias, considering that it explains an awful lot (but not all) about how life came to be as it is. And, it's an observable phenomenon. But, there are other theories, ID probably being the most prominent that other people believe.
Actually, ID/creationism gets the most press, but it isn't even remotely close to a viable alternative.
The problem is: how do you teach this? Evolution is an important enough phenomenon all by itself, even if it wasn't the sole mechanism behind life, to be taught in science (and maybe math, anthropology and social studies) class. Beyond that, anything that says "this is how life began" should be taught with a healthy amount of skepticism, because we just don't know for sure.
Nothing in science is known for sure except math. Math only gets that way because it is it's own system and is independant of reality. It's self consitant and needs no physical proof, although physical reality can renforce it, it's not nessacary. All biology/physics/chemistry is a collection of reasonable theories that have withstood the test of the scientific method, ad naseum.
I mean, if every animal (people are animals, too!) decended from the pairs that noah brought on the ark, we'd be horrifically deformed from inbreeding, don't you think? And why didn't noah save the faries and dragons and unicorns?!?!
As much as I agree with your basic point, I'd like to mention that inbreeding does not cause deformities. It magnifies any already in the pool. We have a taboo against incest because our genes want to ensure that certain mutations can possibly be bred out. This is more difficult if we mate with our siblings.
Not everything is reading, writing and arithmetic. Lately it seems like people just want children to learn cold fact with no ability to process them.
Actually I'd say the opposite, english classes have degenerated into "wow jimmy, that was an impressive idea. It doesn't matter that you mispelled every third word and did't use a single period. That just makes you unique." and math and science are some of the weakest for Americans/Canadians. I'd say we could use a swing back the other way.
Note: I am a product of this education, if you look at my posts, they have somewhat poor gramar and often have typos. My ideas are sound, but it makes it hard to convey them if you can't write properly.
Intelligent Design is a collection of holes in evolutionary theory. It is very much scientific. It's not possible to prove that these holes add up to a Designer, but that doesn't mean they have no value. The rational response from those in the evolutionary camp is to poke around at the holes and see if they can't be resolved. Do science! In all likelihood, many of the holes will be filled by new discoveries and the better understanding of our world that comes with time.
Holes in evolutionary theory, there really aren't that many and they're subtle and not huge gaping flaws. It will be refined in time. Evolution does nto rule out god, ID/creationists work under that assumption. Do we discuss the flaws of gravity when we teach it? how about the molecular model that most people get taught in highschool? their all wrong, and we don't teach them the correction because it would be too advanced. The Evolution taught in high school is darwins, it's almost 200 years out of date. But teaching anything more would make american's brains explode? maybe just in Kansas?
Modern evolutionary theory is pretty tight, it's refined here and there but the basic premise and ideas are sound. Just like gravity, just like atomic theory. The modern versions are pretty tight, the ones taught in high school are out of date.
Ok did you just say that teaching varius cultural views in a "These are varius views, please use your own logical mind to make your personal decisions about these views, given all the facts." Will end all reason in society as we know it?
There are no logical mins. People are mostly stupid. If you teach two ideas, one utterly wrong, one is right, the people will split and beleive each 50/50. Thus you have to ensure you don't teach things that are mostly or completely wrong because most people are stupid and will believe what ever you teach.
As far as I understand it, microevolution is very provable & has been observed; macroevolution (which is what you're probably talking about), on the other hand and IMHO, has not been observed. This is fairly controversial & I'm not up on the latest research, so if somebody's got some proof here, I'd be interested to hear it.
I think you got sideswiped by a creationist sometime before this post. There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Everything is just evolution. I've taken 3 years of University genetics, the first time I heard about micro/macro evolution wasn't in university. It was on slashdot, from a ignorant anti-science idiot. I have never heard it meantioned in class, no paper in nature has ever mentioned it either. Don't beleive the lies.
And yet another one - since when has Evolution *every* lended itself to the scientific method? It is UNOBSERVABLE...
Evolutionism is just as much religion as any Christian faith. *Neither* should be taught in the classroom as *neither* can pass scientific muster.
You sir, know abosolutly nothing. Give me a bottle of flies, or a petri dish, and in 3-4 generation I'll show you evolution, give me 35 generations and I'll show you speciation. All observable. You are using a strawman arguement that is both untrue and idiotic. You also gonna throw some bullshit about micro and macro evolution which are only distinctions Creationists use. Also a red herrign argument, it's a idiotic attempt at redefining the arguement away however no one uses those terms except ID/creationists.
I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist. A belief that you do not share does not automatically put someone into a fringe extremist group which is to be feared or summarily dismissed.
Your right, Creationism and ID have nothing to do with being an exstermist. It does reflect poorly on your education though. As a baptist who is educated in biology, there isn't a single reason why anyone should not beleive in evolution. You should be dismissed because you don't know enough about the subject beign discussed. Beleif in creationism and ID is a sign of under education and a inability to think rationally.
1) good programmers write better code than less-good programmers...
2) Always get the best...
Point 1 is obvious but Point 2 is a very bad way to approach a project. Should you need or expect the best garbage man to pick up your garbage? What about the best auto tech to fix your car? Okay, you say, these are non-creative tasks so they are not good examples. Well, then, do you need the best writer to write the docs for your software? In most cases, no. It's just a manual, and doesn't have to win a prize for literature.
Spolsky might like the 'best,' just as he might prefer fine wines or concours automobiles but for most things 'good enough' is the 'best' use of your resources. Besides, just try getting an Ernest Hemingway to write your manual...
He did mention that for a lot of projects this wasn't nessacary (web forms, simple business apps). I'd liken it to painting, more painters don't paint the mona lisa faster, but you don't need 16 Da Vinci's to pain your fence.
I think talent is usually correlated with motivation and desire to succeed, more than anything else. You can become talented by practicing skills enough - the will to practice is all on you, though. I wasn't born understanding pointers or virtual functions, but man, when I discovered them it was so damn interesting I had to understand everything about them.
No, a talent isn't somethign you can aquire. You can have a lot, or very little but talents are intrinsic. You can have a underdevloped talent, you can lack a talent, but you cannot simply aquire one if you didn't have it to start with. I can sing poorly, I sang well before but my talent was underused and is not under developed. My sister can't sing at all, no matter how much she tried, it wasn't her talent. Motives and desires don't help if the natural ability is lacking. Some people think, eat, and breath algorithms, some people struggle with recursion. It's about the different make up of our brains.
But programming is supposed to be a science and a process. If you prepare a precision algorythm and carefully test it before coding with all manner of valid and absurd inputs, then it shouldn't matter what level of so called skill a programmer has when the coding proceeds.
Designing the algrotihm is science. Tracking down the bug that causes the program to return the wrong value once every 13-20 tries on the same dataset is an art.
But it didn't even make this list's top 100? And yet Dune 2 did? Dune 2 may have started the RTS genre, but TA polished the interface until it shined. Games like Starcraft certainly had a much better story (and I like my games to have good stories) but TA had the interface down better than anything that came before and I think anything that came after it. And it was so much fun in multiplayer, and the ability to add units (and Cavedog kept releasing new ones) kept it fresh for a long time...
I know TA has it's loyal fans. The rest of us thought it was alright. Truly, no trolling. The mass tactis is what most RTS players despise and is the core of TA. It was fun for an afternoon with the boys but beyond that we didn't think it was very notable in our group of friends. We liked Warcraft 2 more and dune 2 was more ahead of it's time. When Stracraft ambushed our group of friends, we never played TA again... or saw sunlight.
Eventually, their competitors priced themselves out of the market or found more profitable venues (Midway's arcade division produces gambling machines). With Sony and Microsoft not even close to breaking even after all this time, you know the next generation will be even worse for them. The PS3 is practically a supercomputer in console form, and the 360 will be more powerful than just about any PC you can put together.
Your info on sony is a bit incorrect. They have made back their R&D costs a long time ago, they have been making money hand over fist for about 4 years now. This quater they took a loss because they sunk money into PS3 R&D. Unlike MS which is simply trying to get into the market, Sony is the market leader. Sony has been selling their PS2 for the same amount MS has sold their XBOX for. The PS2 has been making a profit from the hardware itself for at least 4 years. The XBOX is still likley a money losing machine. MS has generally lost money, with a few notable quarters where Halo has pulled them into the black. Their market situation is entirely different and you should not confuse MS and Sony since Sony makes money.
Slashdot Mirror
please bear in mind that Nintendo is the only profitable game company of these 3. no "Nintendo is dying" claims please.
You forgot to add "in the last 2 quarters". Before that both sony and MS made money. It's the R&D for the new consoles that have put both of them in the red. although MS had been in the red a lot before. Sony was rarely in the red.
US cars/trucks are under rated at the moment, they are better then they are percieved to be.
Japanese cars/trucks are spot on. Their perception of quality matches their actual quality.
European cars/trucks are over rated. They have far less quality then is perceived.
Your right, Creationism and ID have nothing to do with being an exstermist. It does reflect poorly on your education though. As a baptist who is educated in biology, there isn't a single reason why anyone should not beleive in evolution. You should be dismissed because you don't know enough about the subject beign discussed. Beleif in creationism and ID is a sign of under education and a inability to
hmm.. from +5 insightful to +1 insightful, sure is a lot of spiteful weinie moderators who don't know evolution from abortion.
Actualy, it's the product of having a different set of assumptions than philosophic materialism.
Since the assumptions aren't supported by much, as well as go against what any significant education (university). Then yes It's under-educated people.
Evolution can't, and doesn't, exclude the possibility of "outside help" (i.e. intelligent design). It's simply a record of a process and a proposal for a mechanism driving it (natural selection). But nobody really knows, as much as they like to flatter themselves into thinking they do, what is really behind everything. There is always the possibility that evolution was helped along by an external force. At the very least it's fair to say we don't completely understand evolution. The idea that the most complicated process generating the most complex things in the universe can be summed up in a single phrase (natural selection) is a joke and an example of human arrogance. So let's not denigrate those who keep a little mystery where others fake certainty. It seems to me that there are those who religiously believe in our current theory of evolution just as religiously as those who believe in creationism.
The mechanism is actually quit simple, random changes happen to the genome, these are often fatal, sometimes non-fatal but bad for you, sometimes not beneficial or bad for you, rarely slightly better for you. These happen all the time. A force acts upon the population in some manner to remove certain individuals from the pool. These features ratios of the population change. If it changes enough or in the right ways, it splits the population into two species. Geographic forces come into play two as well as matting preferences.
Thats evolution in a nutshell. Not some complex voodoo. Most people who are against it don't know shit about it.
Well, other than the fossil record and genetic analysis, that is.
The fossil record points to successive revolution, not steady state evolution as theory predicts. There's a multitude of proposed mechanisms to explain this, but none that have any actual proof better than Intelligent Design does. (Assuming an Intelligent Designer or Designers that like to tinker around repeatedly, mass extinction here, entire fully speciated families appearing out of nowhere instantly there, that kind of thing.)
Genetic analysis, well, that shit is just crazy. Suffice it to say that it's pretty certain that what we think we know about evolved inheritance and species succession is almost certainly massively incorrect, on the order of dozens of millions of years in some instances. And in theory, genetic analysis should be more reliable than relying on random fossil finding. So the next few decades as they refine those techniques should be _very_ interesting.
Let's put it this way: The evidence that there is some mechanism affecting speciation other than random mutation is fairly compelling. That said mechanism is an intelligent outside agent of some form, there's no evidence of that; but there's no evidence supporting any other theory either.
I'm well aquianted with both. As I said. No reason what so ever. Your knowledge in this area seems suspect. It's not massive revolution, it's sudden enviromental change (sometimes introduction of preditors, sometimes eqarthquakes ect..) followed by selececting towards an equilibrium followed by a fairly stable equilibruim. Selection, is that enviromental change. It can also be a successful mutation that acts as the selection. On bird has green feathers, other have red, the green one does better ect...
Selection is logical, the features selected for are derived from random mutations. It isn't truly random because some mutations are more common then others. If you read about modern evolution and not high school evolution you'd realize this does not contracdict anything. Highschool evolution is both dumbed down, and very old.
As for philogenetic trees, it points out errors in our classification system as no more. Sometimes we think two birds that look like each other are very closely related when it turns out their not that close. Thats what that points to.
Regardless of whether macroevolution is "scientific" or not (just because you disagree with other scientists, IMHO, it doesn't mean that the concept falls in the domain of ID), my main point was that the origin of the Big Bang requires as much belief as believing in an omniscient and omnipresent creator. Care to comment on that?
As a baptist I whole heartily agree that god cause both the big bang and used evolution to shape us. The big bang happens to be one theory among a few possibly valid ones. It has some support although we don't have enough technology to support it strongly at this time. I do not take it as fact. It's an interesting and fairly reasonable theory given the evidence, but it will be another 20 years before we get some substantial evidence. ID is grbage, macro/micro evolution is as well.
You are mistaken if you think this point of view has me taking it on faith that all scientific theories are right. You give them some thought, read the evidence, and discard any that can't past muster.
The problem isn't that he's banning Evolution, there isn't a possible way any intelligent judge on the supreme court woudl allwo that. It's that he's making two valid sides when in reality there is one.
It's like me teachinggravity in a science high school class. I suggest 1 theory is that gravity is a distortion in time space and that the curvature of space makes it more favorable for all atoms to go "down". Then I teach that it might also be a ancient sleeping god in the middle of the earth, whose malevolent rage forces all matter to fall "down". Most kids will chose to beleive one or the other just because I meantioned them both. Most kids are naive and think since I'm their teacher everythign I say must have some basis. Unfortunatly the second thing I taught is bullshit. So now half my class beleives in bullshit.
Here's an article that sums up macroevolution as an interdisciplinary subject. Yes, macroevolution is a neo-Darwinist concept, but everything I said about macroevolution being thus far unobserved can be transferred to punctuated equilibrium, for example.
Doesn't change the fact that the source of Macro/Micro evolution is not scientific community but the ID/creationist camp. It's a red herring. Consider the idea no further because it does not forward the discussion. Any inhertibale genotypic change and subsequent selection is evolution.
What I expect Christians to appreciate more than the average /.er is that these issues touch on at least three areas: science, theology, and philosophy. Your education in biology maybe qualifies you to speak to the issue from one of these perspectives. (For example, to critique specifically scientific claims.)
Perhaps the parent is thinking irrationally. But just being a baptist with a little education in biology hardly puts you in a position to make that broad determination, particularly when the parent has said so little.
Actually I have a degree in comp sci (logic, a exstention of philosophy), enough credits to get a major in biology as well (they don't allow it because comp sci is a specialization at my University) and enoguh credits for a minor in philosophies and religion. I spent a lot of time at school. I think it has made me a better person. I have had a fairly borad education.
Kids are smart enough to decide for themselves what makes sense
Not most kids. Perhaps the smart ones. The rest will beleive what ever someone in authority tells them.
One thing that frustrates the pro-ID folks is that evolution is still a *theory*, but is being taught as fact. That's not a surprising bias, considering that it explains an awful lot (but not all) about how life came to be as it is. And, it's an observable phenomenon. But, there are other theories, ID probably being the most prominent that other people believe.
Actually, ID/creationism gets the most press, but it isn't even remotely close to a viable alternative.
The problem is: how do you teach this? Evolution is an important enough phenomenon all by itself, even if it wasn't the sole mechanism behind life, to be taught in science (and maybe math, anthropology and social studies) class. Beyond that, anything that says "this is how life began" should be taught with a healthy amount of skepticism, because we just don't know for sure.
Nothing in science is known for sure except math. Math only gets that way because it is it's own system and is independant of reality. It's self consitant and needs no physical proof, although physical reality can renforce it, it's not nessacary. All biology/physics/chemistry is a collection of reasonable theories that have withstood the test of the scientific method, ad naseum.
I mean, if every animal (people are animals, too!) decended from the pairs that noah brought on the ark, we'd be horrifically deformed from inbreeding, don't you think? And why didn't noah save the faries and dragons and unicorns?!?!
As much as I agree with your basic point, I'd like to mention that inbreeding does not cause deformities. It magnifies any already in the pool. We have a taboo against incest because our genes want to ensure that certain mutations can possibly be bred out. This is more difficult if we mate with our siblings.
Not everything is reading, writing and arithmetic. Lately it seems like people just want children to learn cold fact with no ability to process them.
Actually I'd say the opposite, english classes have degenerated into "wow jimmy, that was an impressive idea. It doesn't matter that you mispelled every third word and did't use a single period. That just makes you unique." and math and science are some of the weakest for Americans/Canadians. I'd say we could use a swing back the other way.
Note: I am a product of this education, if you look at my posts, they have somewhat poor gramar and often have typos. My ideas are sound, but it makes it hard to convey them if you can't write properly.
Intelligent Design is a collection of holes in evolutionary theory. It is very much scientific. It's not possible to prove that these holes add up to a Designer, but that doesn't mean they have no value. The rational response from those in the evolutionary camp is to poke around at the holes and see if they can't be resolved. Do science! In all likelihood, many of the holes will be filled by new discoveries and the better understanding of our world that comes with time.
Holes in evolutionary theory, there really aren't that many and they're subtle and not huge gaping flaws. It will be refined in time. Evolution does nto rule out god, ID/creationists work under that assumption. Do we discuss the flaws of gravity when we teach it? how about the molecular model that most people get taught in highschool? their all wrong, and we don't teach them the correction because it would be too advanced. The Evolution taught in high school is darwins, it's almost 200 years out of date. But teaching anything more would make american's brains explode? maybe just in Kansas?
Modern evolutionary theory is pretty tight, it's refined here and there but the basic premise and ideas are sound. Just like gravity, just like atomic theory. The modern versions are pretty tight, the ones taught in high school are out of date.
Ok did you just say that teaching varius cultural views in a "These are varius views, please use your own logical mind to make your personal decisions about these views, given all the facts." Will end all reason in society as we know it?
There are no logical mins. People are mostly stupid. If you teach two ideas, one utterly wrong, one is right, the people will split and beleive each 50/50. Thus you have to ensure you don't teach things that are mostly or completely wrong because most people are stupid and will believe what ever you teach.
As far as I understand it, microevolution is very provable & has been observed; macroevolution (which is what you're probably talking about), on the other hand and IMHO, has not been observed. This is fairly controversial & I'm not up on the latest research, so if somebody's got some proof here, I'd be interested to hear it.
I think you got sideswiped by a creationist sometime before this post. There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Everything is just evolution. I've taken 3 years of University genetics, the first time I heard about micro/macro evolution wasn't in university. It was on slashdot, from a ignorant anti-science idiot. I have never heard it meantioned in class, no paper in nature has ever mentioned it either. Don't beleive the lies.
And yet another one - since when has Evolution *every* lended itself to the scientific method? It is UNOBSERVABLE...
Evolutionism is just as much religion as any Christian faith. *Neither* should be taught in the classroom as *neither* can pass scientific muster.
You sir, know abosolutly nothing. Give me a bottle of flies, or a petri dish, and in 3-4 generation I'll show you evolution, give me 35 generations and I'll show you speciation. All observable. You are using a strawman arguement that is both untrue and idiotic. You also gonna throw some bullshit about micro and macro evolution which are only distinctions Creationists use. Also a red herrign argument, it's a idiotic attempt at redefining the arguement away however no one uses those terms except ID/creationists.
I take serious amounts of offense to a person believing in Creationism or ID being called an extremist. A belief that you do not share does not automatically put someone into a fringe extremist group which is to be feared or summarily dismissed.
Your right, Creationism and ID have nothing to do with being an exstermist. It does reflect poorly on your education though. As a baptist who is educated in biology, there isn't a single reason why anyone should not beleive in evolution. You should be dismissed because you don't know enough about the subject beign discussed. Beleif in creationism and ID is a sign of under education and a inability to think rationally.
The Average Coder
total = 0;
for(int i = 1; i
Both your coders forgot to throw an exception or avoid dividing by zero. I think you should fire your HR manager.
His points seem to be:
1) good programmers write better code than less-good programmers...
2) Always get the best...
Point 1 is obvious but Point 2 is a very bad way to approach a project. Should you need or expect the best garbage man to pick up your garbage? What about the best auto tech to fix your car? Okay, you say, these are non-creative tasks so they are not good examples. Well, then, do you need the best writer to write the docs for your software? In most cases, no. It's just a manual, and doesn't have to win a prize for literature.
Spolsky might like the 'best,' just as he might prefer fine wines or concours automobiles but for most things 'good enough' is the 'best' use of your resources. Besides, just try getting an Ernest Hemingway to write your manual...
He did mention that for a lot of projects this wasn't nessacary (web forms, simple business apps). I'd liken it to painting, more painters don't paint the mona lisa faster, but you don't need 16 Da Vinci's to pain your fence.
I think talent is usually correlated with motivation and desire to succeed, more than anything else.
You can become talented by practicing skills enough - the will to practice is all on you, though. I wasn't born understanding pointers or virtual functions, but man, when I discovered them it was so damn interesting I had to understand everything about them.
No, a talent isn't somethign you can aquire. You can have a lot, or very little but talents are intrinsic. You can have a underdevloped talent, you can lack a talent, but you cannot simply aquire one if you didn't have it to start with. I can sing poorly, I sang well before but my talent was underused and is not under developed. My sister can't sing at all, no matter how much she tried, it wasn't her talent. Motives and desires don't help if the natural ability is lacking. Some people think, eat, and breath algorithms, some people struggle with recursion. It's about the different make up of our brains.
But programming is supposed to be a science and a process. If you prepare a precision algorythm and carefully test it before coding with all manner of valid and absurd inputs, then it shouldn't matter what level of so called skill a programmer has when the coding proceeds.
Designing the algrotihm is science. Tracking down the bug that causes the program to return the wrong value once every 13-20 tries on the same dataset is an art.
But it didn't even make this list's top 100? And yet Dune 2 did? Dune 2 may have started the RTS genre, but TA polished the interface until it shined. Games like Starcraft certainly had a much better story (and I like my games to have good stories) but TA had the interface down better than anything that came before and I think anything that came after it. And it was so much fun in multiplayer, and the ability to add units (and Cavedog kept releasing new ones) kept it fresh for a long time ...
I know TA has it's loyal fans. The rest of us thought it was alright. Truly, no trolling. The mass tactis is what most RTS players despise and is the core of TA. It was fun for an afternoon with the boys but beyond that we didn't think it was very notable in our group of friends. We liked Warcraft 2 more and dune 2 was more ahead of it's time. When Stracraft ambushed our group of friends, we never played TA again... or saw sunlight.
Eventually, their competitors priced themselves out of the market or found more profitable venues (Midway's arcade division produces gambling machines). With Sony and Microsoft not even close to breaking even after all this time, you know the next generation will be even worse for them. The PS3 is practically a supercomputer in console form, and the 360 will be more powerful than just about any PC you can put together.
Your info on sony is a bit incorrect. They have made back their R&D costs a long time ago, they have been making money hand over fist for about 4 years now. This quater they took a loss because they sunk money into PS3 R&D. Unlike MS which is simply trying to get into the market, Sony is the market leader. Sony has been selling their PS2 for the same amount MS has sold their XBOX for. The PS2 has been making a profit from the hardware itself for at least 4 years. The XBOX is still likley a money losing machine. MS has generally lost money, with a few notable quarters where Halo has pulled them into the black. Their market situation is entirely different and you should not confuse MS and Sony since Sony makes money.