This is a tree, but you don't need to understand anything about graph theory to implement this.
That's true for quite a bit. You don't need to have any understanding of the why, just a basic understanding of when {thing} should be used. Implementation is typically trivial, so just discovering that {thing} would be a good fit for your problem (thanks to google) you can get away with knowing even less.
Before you get the wrong idea, I think a strong mathematics background is incredibly helpful. (With a better understanding, there are times when you can go "I can guarantee x, so don't need to account for y so I can simplify this to..." and net a boost in performance and some simpler code.) Though it's certainly not essential for an absurd majority of developers. Out side a few domains, the hard part is already done and printed in every textbook.
I've done quite a bit of 3D graphics work, and I strongly disagree. You need very little. You say "Linear algebra (matrices) and trig" but you don't need much beyond what matrix operations to apply to achieve some goal (you need to actually understand very little, and far less if you use a matrix library) and soa cah toa on the trig side. Just about every major problem you'd encounter has a near standard solution.
Calculus and differential equations are need for doing simulations of physical processes
This is a bit outside my experience, as all I've done there is a 3D physics engine for a game. Even then, I suspect all you need to know are the equations and a few well-understood approaches to integration, actually understanding the math (or the physics) doesn't seem necessary. (Though I'll admit that it is helpful.)
You can be an excellent programmer without strong math skills, even in some areas where a solid understanding of mathematics would seem essential. I'd even argue against the need for a strong background in logic. If Slashdot is any indication, most developers don't understand even basic logic. They've simply confused their rudimentary understanding of Boolean algebra with a complete understanding of formal logic.
This isn't to slight developers, on the contrary. It's art, after all, not engineering. Be proud that you've mastered a skillful discipline.
Braille displays are ridiculously expensive. Most blind computer users just use a screen reader. NVDA is a popular free alternative to the overpriced Window-Eyes and JAWS, well-worth your time if you're interested.
I wonder how long it took you to find contradictory figures. Naturally, they benchmark beta versions and not the final releases. I guess it takes a lot of effort to make chrome look good, eh?
Odd, I've had the same experience, but with Chrome.
Ignoring subjective experience for the moment, the question was to how bloated and performant each was in relation to the other. In that case, the victor is clear. I'll put hard data ahead of wishes and good feelings any day.
But your argument fails on....well content.
I thought it was fair. His comment was nonsense. Quibble if you want, that's fine, but keep in mind that WebVR is not only included in FF Nightly, but Chrome experimental builds as well. Not only is his point irrelevant, it's meaningless to distinguish between the two browsers on that basis as both of them are building implementations of the same fledgling specification.
His comment was both irrelevant and misleading. I think my one-word reply sums that up nicely.
Now you've moved on to a different issue. In this case, the woman is clearly suffering and needs help. (She's living in a barn without electricity or running water.) It doesn't matter if her disease is real or imagined; she's clearly disabled and unable to support herself.
The only question left is should the French government step in an assist her (like any other disabled person) or should they let her suffer?
The problem with science fans is that they don't understand the limits of science and why they're essential for the process of science. They treat science more like a religion, and try to lend credibility to their beliefs (both scientific and otherwise) by calling them scientific of saying that they're based in science. This is bad for the public understanding of science and needs to stop.
Bringing that back in to context, it's pretty clear that there is no evidence for actual EHS. There are no known cases of EHS where the patent can detect the presence of wifi/etc under controlled conditions. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that EHS is a real phenomenon. You're rightly justified in denying it's existence.
This is where things get difficult for the zealous, if under-educated, fans of science. See, when they say EHS doesn't exist, they want that statement backed by the full weight of science. They believe that any belief that is not a scientific belief must necessarily be nonsense. The problem, of course, is that science can't speak to the nonexistence of anything. So, they ignore that uncomfortable fact and do the worst thing they could possibly do, assuming that they actually believe science is important: Insist that their unscientific claim is scientific.
What do you call something attributed to science that is, in reality, unscientific? If you believe that we shouldn't "give pseudoscience an inch", would you accept or reject unscientific statements that claimed to be scientific?
And things that people jailbreak for are usually things that affect suitability of the iPhone for everyone, and would eventually reduce sales.
People end up jailbreaking because they expect certain features that, after purchase, they discover aren't available. Further, things like "the ability to copy a file to and from the phone" aren't going to hurt the "experience" as users who don't need that feature aren't encumbered by it in any way.
What does hurt users, of course, are the missing basic features. Apples stubborn refusal to address these issues is what drives users to jailbreak their phones. That's what I mean by "encourages".
They do their hardest to prevent jailbreaking from happening.
The best way for Apple to prevent jailbreaking is to adequately meet the needs of their users. Making it difficult to jailbreak while still leaving their users wanting doesn't seem to be in Apple's best interest. It'll catch up to them eventually. I already know a few former Apple users that left the platform for basic features available everywhere else.
Okay. Some perspective: It's a forum post. There's no reason to get stressed-out. Who the hell cares what he thinks?
You will notice that it is primarily Chinese users; who have a culture of wanting to rip off basically every bit of software they run on any Device.
Bigotry aside for the moment, can you think of no other reason someone would want to jailbreak their device? The first time someone asked me to jailbreak an iOS device, it was because they wanted to use it as a wifi hotspot. The second time was for a guy who wanted webgl to work on his iPad.
There's a guy here who wanted to jailbreak his device to make it easier for him to transfer files to and from his device. Granted, Apple has improved there a bit, they've got a long way to go if they want to give users the same functionality that they enjoy from practically every other mobile OS out there.
A lot of people buy Apple stuff because it's supposed to be "the best", yet it fails to meet the needs of many users. Jailbreaking solves many common problems users face, so it's an attractive option.
I asked you to consider the question: "What can Apple to do make jailbreaking less attractive?" The answer should be obvious by now, so why hasn't Apple reacted? In that way, Apple encourages jailbreaking. Some blame is justified.
You'd lose it all paying bribes before you managed to build your first factory. Every local official wants whatever they can bleed out of you. The third-world is littered with half-finished hotels and other abandoned construction projects.
You're really upset about this. I can only guess as to why. Relax, Apple doesn't need you to help them. They'll be fine.
Why not direct some of that energy at trying to figure out why so many users want to jailbreak their phones? Why aren't they satisfied with the 'experience' Apple provided? What could they do differently so as to make jailbreaking less attractive?
I get it. You hate systemd and really want to let the world know. Some good advice: you'll most likely find a more receptive audience in the other thread. It's just out-of-place here.
By your argument, since scientific findings are always subject to revision in light of future data, they can never be used for decisionmaking.
That is a very surprising misinterpretation of what I wrote. I think I see where you got confused; the bit with the swans, right? I should have picked a better example, that's my error. The point, of course, is that science has no means to disprove the existence of anything. It is decidedly anti-science (I'll even go as far as to call it pseudoscience) to make an unscientific claim and call it science.
In this specific case, there is no scientific basis for the claim that EHS is bullshit. However, you are completely justified in believing EHS is bullshit given the information we have. That belief, however, has no basis in science as it is not a claim that science can make. (I'm repeating myself.) This isn't terribly complicated.
You wrote: "you can't give pseudoscience an inch." I agree. The difference, of course, is that I think that applies universally, regardless of the subject matter. I find it reprehensible that someone would promote anti-science in the name of science, which is precisely what happens when you give weight to unscientific claims by calling them science.
The fact that you can't prove a negative does not qualify absolutely everything to be science.
Obviously not. Did you read my post?
It's easy to separate pseudo science from science
Only if you don't know the first thing about science. Do a quick search for "demarcation problem". That should help.
The only lack of resolution is from those who wish their beliefs were science
The much larger problem, as I've pointed out, comes from people making claims like "science has shown that..." when no science has been done or worse, can be done to evaluate that claim. You see it most frequently from "fans" of science without any scientific background.
See, it doesn't matter if EHS is bullshit or not. (I certainly won't defend it.) The fact remains that the claim that it is bullshit is not a scientific claim. Saying that science has shown EHS to be bullshit is not only wrong, it's harmful. It's decidedly anti-science.
What would you call someone who said that their claim was supported by science when it was not? Why should your answer change depending on the subject matter?
Any chance you're going to answer my initial challenge, 'why is psychology pseudoscience'? Given what you've written, I'm going to guess the answer is "no". I'll point out why when we get there.
When you start getting contradictory results from tested research, at that moment you need stop what you're doing, go back to the original papers and start over.
I should probably point out that the study you think justifies the rejection of psychology didn't go back to the original papers and repeat the experiments after their initial failed replications. Does that change how you view the study? Why or why not?
There is an odd assumption wrapped up in that statement. The belief that a study either produced truth or it was unscientific. I've explained endlessly why that's absurd, and why science does not and can not deal in truth. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science in your statement here. Again, you'll find contradictory results in every discipline, physics included. How does your understanding of science account for that undeniable fact?
Your point about Ty Cobb is meaningless
I think it illustrates perfectly why your engineer example was completely ridiculous. (It is possible to be the best engineer/batter/etc in the world even with a high failure rate. That 50% number is meaningless.) Oh, yes, in case you didn't know, science and engineering are two completely different things.
Psychology can and never will be science, it's highly educated nut jobs, guessing randomly and scoped about the mental state of another person.
I don't need to do anything here except point out that it makes it painfully clear that don't know the first thing about psychology. From the look of it, you've never even taken an undergraduate course.
Perhaps you should leave science to those with actual credentials.
No, I'm not saying we should discard pseudoscientific theories without inquiry.
I'm guessing you probably meant something else when you wrote that.
I'm saying that after we test them out and find them to be bullshit, as has been done hundreds of times for electromagnetic sensitivity
Has it? Science doesn't work that way. It's simply not possible to say that EHS doesn't exist simply because we haven't found a single person who can be shown to suffer from it under controlled conditions. It's like saying "there are no black swans because we've never seen one, and we've seen countless swans". Now, we're completely justified in our disbelief, don't get me wrong, but we can't go on to say that it's been shown by scientific means to not exist. The best we can do scientifically is to say that no case of actual sensitivity has been found and that there is no known mechanism which could account for one. To claim otherwise is a hallmark of pseudoscience -- dressing up unscientific claims in the trapping of science.
As for how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, that's incredibly difficult. (It's been discussed endlessly, with no resolution is sight.) It's best, for now, to avoid the label entirely least we develop a set of harmful dogmas and taboos. After all, when it comes to science, all dogmas and taboos are harmful.
As for this woman, a test for electromagnetic sensitivity can be carried out quickly and inexpensively. (There's virtually no burden here.) It may very well benefit her in the long-run, particularly if it's purely psychosomatic (which is likely, given our understanding). In either case, she needs help as she is clearly suffering. I think someone here mentioned that she lives in a remote location without electricity, though I haven't been able to verify that.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a tree, but you don't need to understand anything about graph theory to implement this.
That's true for quite a bit. You don't need to have any understanding of the why, just a basic understanding of when {thing} should be used. Implementation is typically trivial, so just discovering that {thing} would be a good fit for your problem (thanks to google) you can get away with knowing even less.
Before you get the wrong idea, I think a strong mathematics background is incredibly helpful. (With a better understanding, there are times when you can go "I can guarantee x, so don't need to account for y so I can simplify this to ..." and net a boost in performance and some simpler code.) Though it's certainly not essential for an absurd majority of developers. Out side a few domains, the hard part is already done and printed in every textbook.
I've done quite a bit of 3D graphics work, and I strongly disagree. You need very little. You say "Linear algebra (matrices) and trig" but you don't need much beyond what matrix operations to apply to achieve some goal (you need to actually understand very little, and far less if you use a matrix library) and soa cah toa on the trig side. Just about every major problem you'd encounter has a near standard solution.
Calculus and differential equations are need for doing simulations of physical processes
This is a bit outside my experience, as all I've done there is a 3D physics engine for a game. Even then, I suspect all you need to know are the equations and a few well-understood approaches to integration, actually understanding the math (or the physics) doesn't seem necessary. (Though I'll admit that it is helpful.)
You can be an excellent programmer without strong math skills, even in some areas where a solid understanding of mathematics would seem essential. I'd even argue against the need for a strong background in logic. If Slashdot is any indication, most developers don't understand even basic logic. They've simply confused their rudimentary understanding of Boolean algebra with a complete understanding of formal logic.
This isn't to slight developers, on the contrary. It's art, after all, not engineering. Be proud that you've mastered a skillful discipline.
Do a quick search for the term "photograph". That should explain it all.
Braille displays are ridiculously expensive. Most blind computer users just use a screen reader. NVDA is a popular free alternative to the overpriced Window-Eyes and JAWS, well-worth your time if you're interested.
Believe it or not, important decisions even in a corporate environment are often based on emotion or "gut instinct" and not on hard-data.
We're not talking about some silly upper-management parody, but highly intelligent people who know better.
People are people, after all, not perfectly rational beings.
It works find in FireFox. Considering it's a flash video, I'd say the problem is on your end.
I wonder how long it took you to find contradictory figures. Naturally, they benchmark beta versions and not the final releases. I guess it takes a lot of effort to make chrome look good, eh?
When you look at how that figure was derived, it's far less astonishing.
Odd, I've had the same experience, but with Chrome.
Ignoring subjective experience for the moment, the question was to how bloated and performant each was in relation to the other. In that case, the victor is clear. I'll put hard data ahead of wishes and good feelings any day.
But your argument fails on ... .well content.
I thought it was fair. His comment was nonsense. Quibble if you want, that's fine, but keep in mind that WebVR is not only included in FF Nightly, but Chrome experimental builds as well. Not only is his point irrelevant, it's meaningless to distinguish between the two browsers on that basis as both of them are building implementations of the same fledgling specification.
His comment was both irrelevant and misleading. I think my one-word reply sums that up nicely.
Nonsense.
They've already done that.
Now you've moved on to a different issue. In this case, the woman is clearly suffering and needs help. (She's living in a barn without electricity or running water.) It doesn't matter if her disease is real or imagined; she's clearly disabled and unable to support herself.
The only question left is should the French government step in an assist her (like any other disabled person) or should they let her suffer?
The problem with science fans is that they don't understand the limits of science and why they're essential for the process of science. They treat science more like a religion, and try to lend credibility to their beliefs (both scientific and otherwise) by calling them scientific of saying that they're based in science. This is bad for the public understanding of science and needs to stop.
Bringing that back in to context, it's pretty clear that there is no evidence for actual EHS. There are no known cases of EHS where the patent can detect the presence of wifi/etc under controlled conditions. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that EHS is a real phenomenon. You're rightly justified in denying it's existence.
This is where things get difficult for the zealous, if under-educated, fans of science. See, when they say EHS doesn't exist, they want that statement backed by the full weight of science. They believe that any belief that is not a scientific belief must necessarily be nonsense. The problem, of course, is that science can't speak to the nonexistence of anything. So, they ignore that uncomfortable fact and do the worst thing they could possibly do, assuming that they actually believe science is important: Insist that their unscientific claim is scientific.
What do you call something attributed to science that is, in reality, unscientific? If you believe that we shouldn't "give pseudoscience an inch", would you accept or reject unscientific statements that claimed to be scientific?
And things that people jailbreak for are usually things that affect suitability of the iPhone for everyone, and would eventually reduce sales.
People end up jailbreaking because they expect certain features that, after purchase, they discover aren't available. Further, things like "the ability to copy a file to and from the phone" aren't going to hurt the "experience" as users who don't need that feature aren't encumbered by it in any way.
What does hurt users, of course, are the missing basic features. Apples stubborn refusal to address these issues is what drives users to jailbreak their phones. That's what I mean by "encourages".
They do their hardest to prevent jailbreaking from happening.
The best way for Apple to prevent jailbreaking is to adequately meet the needs of their users. Making it difficult to jailbreak while still leaving their users wanting doesn't seem to be in Apple's best interest. It'll catch up to them eventually. I already know a few former Apple users that left the platform for basic features available everywhere else.
Okay. Some perspective: It's a forum post. There's no reason to get stressed-out. Who the hell cares what he thinks?
You will notice that it is primarily Chinese users; who have a culture of wanting to rip off basically every bit of software they run on any Device.
Bigotry aside for the moment, can you think of no other reason someone would want to jailbreak their device? The first time someone asked me to jailbreak an iOS device, it was because they wanted to use it as a wifi hotspot. The second time was for a guy who wanted webgl to work on his iPad.
There's a guy here who wanted to jailbreak his device to make it easier for him to transfer files to and from his device. Granted, Apple has improved there a bit, they've got a long way to go if they want to give users the same functionality that they enjoy from practically every other mobile OS out there.
A lot of people buy Apple stuff because it's supposed to be "the best", yet it fails to meet the needs of many users. Jailbreaking solves many common problems users face, so it's an attractive option.
I asked you to consider the question: "What can Apple to do make jailbreaking less attractive?" The answer should be obvious by now, so why hasn't Apple reacted? In that way, Apple encourages jailbreaking. Some blame is justified.
You'd lose it all paying bribes before you managed to build your first factory. Every local official wants whatever they can bleed out of you. The third-world is littered with half-finished hotels and other abandoned construction projects.
You're really upset about this. I can only guess as to why. Relax, Apple doesn't need you to help them. They'll be fine.
Why not direct some of that energy at trying to figure out why so many users want to jailbreak their phones? Why aren't they satisfied with the 'experience' Apple provided? What could they do differently so as to make jailbreaking less attractive?
It's not a bad game at all. With a few tweeks, it's even better.
You're only half right. Think: "how each character is positioned within it's little box" and you'll understand what he means.
I get it. You hate systemd and really want to let the world know. Some good advice: you'll most likely find a more receptive audience in the other thread. It's just out-of-place here.
Read over my comment again, you've completely missed the point of that example.
By your argument, since scientific findings are always subject to revision in light of future data, they can never be used for decisionmaking.
That is a very surprising misinterpretation of what I wrote. I think I see where you got confused; the bit with the swans, right? I should have picked a better example, that's my error. The point, of course, is that science has no means to disprove the existence of anything. It is decidedly anti-science (I'll even go as far as to call it pseudoscience) to make an unscientific claim and call it science.
In this specific case, there is no scientific basis for the claim that EHS is bullshit. However, you are completely justified in believing EHS is bullshit given the information we have. That belief, however, has no basis in science as it is not a claim that science can make. (I'm repeating myself.) This isn't terribly complicated.
You wrote: "you can't give pseudoscience an inch." I agree. The difference, of course, is that I think that applies universally, regardless of the subject matter. I find it reprehensible that someone would promote anti-science in the name of science, which is precisely what happens when you give weight to unscientific claims by calling them science.
The fact that you can't prove a negative does not qualify absolutely everything to be science.
Obviously not. Did you read my post?
It's easy to separate pseudo science from science
Only if you don't know the first thing about science. Do a quick search for "demarcation problem". That should help.
The only lack of resolution is from those who wish their beliefs were science
The much larger problem, as I've pointed out, comes from people making claims like "science has shown that ..." when no science has been done or worse, can be done to evaluate that claim. You see it most frequently from "fans" of science without any scientific background.
See, it doesn't matter if EHS is bullshit or not. (I certainly won't defend it.) The fact remains that the claim that it is bullshit is not a scientific claim. Saying that science has shown EHS to be bullshit is not only wrong, it's harmful. It's decidedly anti-science.
What would you call someone who said that their claim was supported by science when it was not? Why should your answer change depending on the subject matter?
Any chance you're going to answer my initial challenge, 'why is psychology pseudoscience'? Given what you've written, I'm going to guess the answer is "no". I'll point out why when we get there.
When you start getting contradictory results from tested research, at that moment you need stop what you're doing, go back to the original papers and start over.
I should probably point out that the study you think justifies the rejection of psychology didn't go back to the original papers and repeat the experiments after their initial failed replications. Does that change how you view the study? Why or why not?
There is an odd assumption wrapped up in that statement. The belief that a study either produced truth or it was unscientific. I've explained endlessly why that's absurd, and why science does not and can not deal in truth. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science in your statement here. Again, you'll find contradictory results in every discipline, physics included. How does your understanding of science account for that undeniable fact?
Your point about Ty Cobb is meaningless
I think it illustrates perfectly why your engineer example was completely ridiculous. (It is possible to be the best engineer/batter/etc in the world even with a high failure rate. That 50% number is meaningless.) Oh, yes, in case you didn't know, science and engineering are two completely different things.
Psychology can and never will be science, it's highly educated nut jobs, guessing randomly and scoped about the mental state of another person.
I don't need to do anything here except point out that it makes it painfully clear that don't know the first thing about psychology. From the look of it, you've never even taken an undergraduate course.
Perhaps you should leave science to those with actual credentials.
No, I'm not saying we should discard pseudoscientific theories without inquiry.
I'm guessing you probably meant something else when you wrote that.
I'm saying that after we test them out and find them to be bullshit, as has been done hundreds of times for electromagnetic sensitivity
Has it? Science doesn't work that way. It's simply not possible to say that EHS doesn't exist simply because we haven't found a single person who can be shown to suffer from it under controlled conditions. It's like saying "there are no black swans because we've never seen one, and we've seen countless swans". Now, we're completely justified in our disbelief, don't get me wrong, but we can't go on to say that it's been shown by scientific means to not exist. The best we can do scientifically is to say that no case of actual sensitivity has been found and that there is no known mechanism which could account for one. To claim otherwise is a hallmark of pseudoscience -- dressing up unscientific claims in the trapping of science.
As for how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, that's incredibly difficult. (It's been discussed endlessly, with no resolution is sight.) It's best, for now, to avoid the label entirely least we develop a set of harmful dogmas and taboos. After all, when it comes to science, all dogmas and taboos are harmful.
As for this woman, a test for electromagnetic sensitivity can be carried out quickly and inexpensively. (There's virtually no burden here.) It may very well benefit her in the long-run, particularly if it's purely psychosomatic (which is likely, given our understanding). In either case, she needs help as she is clearly suffering. I think someone here mentioned that she lives in a remote location without electricity, though I haven't been able to verify that.