I bet you 2, 3 years, we get prohibition back. This time we make it stick. Bet you 2, 3 years prohibition comes back. Absolutely, yeah The trouble was, see, before, too many guys wanted to be top dog. One mob gets to massacring another, the papers play it up big, see, so what happens? Naturally, the papers play it up big, and the public get the idea prohibition’s no good, and if they can get rid of it, prohibition, I mean... so the public votes out prohibition, that’s the end of the mobs. Next time it’ll be different, though. We learned our lesson, alright. Next time the mobs’ll get together.
There is also no reason to believe it is true. "Intelligence" is a mostly meaningless word. There is no consensus definition, and no testable or falsifiable phenomenon associated with it.
Actually my CS honours degree is both IEEE and RCS accredited.
Ugh, the P&P exam for licensing. Pay attention.
You're obviously one of those people that cluelessly usess the word "coding" to describ the entire job of what Software Engineers actually do.
No, I'm obviously one of those people who think software engineering is complete bullshit. I think that the use of the term does a serious disservice to actual engineers. I think that "software engineering" is completely unrelated to actual engineering -- which should be perfectly obvious.
But go ahead and call yourself a "software engineer" if it makes you feel more important. Not only is that not legal in some states, it also let's me and other competent people know that you're very likely otherwise unskilled.
Of course, the term "software engineer" is so meaningless, that anyone not living in a place that has specific rules about the title engineer can call themselves a software engineer.
You call yourself a software engineer, after all. But why stop there? If you want to feed your ego (which is exactly why you use the title) why not go for something better? Pope of software! Software wizard!
Get over yourself. It's pathetic.
Your car engine is controlled by a PCM driven by software, weighing in with probably multiple megabytes of code and lookup tables, designed to increase your fuel efficiency beyond what you could get with a mechanical system alone, where flaws will very likely cause serious mechanical and safety problems.
Yes, some software can be dangerous. That still doesn't make you an engineer.
Did the IEEE ever manage that exam? Not that it matters, that's as close as you'll come to legitimately using that term. Even then, it's laughable to compare software development to actual engineering. You do a disservice to those professionals.
What I got from your comment is that you have absolutely no other skills and desperately want software development to be considered on-par with engineering.
Actual engineers, I'm sure, cringe when they read nonsense like that.
Let's face reality here: Writing software is easy. It's easier today than it was 30 years ago -- and back then it was so easy that millions of children taught themselves! (I'll bet a good number of Slashdot users are among them. How many users here taught themselves how to program before the age of 10? If not a majority, I'll bet it's a very large percentage.)
I'm sorry, but being a competent developer does not make you special. It does not make you an engineer. It does, however, show that you're at least as competent as the average middle-class kid in the 80's. So, congratulations on that.
If you don't like the first example, try the second. Again, it's trivial to describe an infinity of universes where not every potentiality is actualized. Give it a shot yourself, you might even find an example that you like.
You're deeply confused about this, as are, apparently, some others. I blame the T.V. show "Sliders".
The point was that in infinity does not necessitate every possibility. There is no compelling reason to believe otherwise.
I submit that in the absence of such criteria not only may we speculate on all possibilities, we must.
Again, we have absolutely no reason to suspect that every potentiality is actualized. We do, however, have reason to suspect that it's not.
The AC said:
Seems you misunderstand infinity. It does not mean that everything (or anything) which is possible is somewhere actual or true.
Which should be obvious to you by now. It's trivial, after all, to describe an infinity of universes without assuming every potentiality is actualized. (On an interesting note, it is also possible to describe a plurality of universes in which every potentiality is actualized that is not infinite.)
Try a different example. Consider that there are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1. While infinite, none of those values will be 2.
If that's not to your liking, consider something like Penrose tiling where a pattern formed from just two shapes can tile infinitely without repeating.
See, when you ask:
What is your criterion for restricting the variations?
There need not be any such criterion. See, just because a thing is possible does not mean it will necessarily be actualized even given an infinite number of universes.
it will be a dark day in hell before an american corporation/government agency gets me to willingly wear a device that allows them to read thoughts right out of my brain
Don't worry. Your grandchildren will be long dead before that's possible.
If the works had a disclaimer on them when they were unverified it would make it less likely and less forgivable when a newspaper went off half cocked with a report.
Journalists are reporting from press releases, not published articles.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny.
Unfortunately, unlike the surgeon, the added complexity developers suffer from does not offer any actual benefits -- and may even be harmful.
It's all there in the summary.
Women wants to be treated like a woman - and still be equal to men
How dare they demand equality!
It's a matter of perspective. For some people, money is the last factor considered.
That would be ridiculous.
It was the unholy power they gained after their subsequent introduction to the occult. Their success is most likely to do Satanic influence.
Here's a healthy dose of truth for you poor misguided souls
Have seen the movie Key Largo?
I bet you 2, 3 years, we get prohibition back. This time we make it stick. Bet you 2, 3 years prohibition comes back. Absolutely, yeah The trouble was, see, before, too many guys wanted to be top dog. One mob gets to massacring another, the papers play it up big, see, so what happens? Naturally, the papers play it up big, and the public get the idea prohibition’s no good, and if they can get rid of it, prohibition, I mean ... so the public votes out prohibition, that’s the end of the mobs. Next time it’ll be different, though. We learned our lesson, alright. Next time the mobs’ll get together.
So you agree while disagreeing strongly!
That's fun.
At one point it was "proven" that it is impossible to produce the equivalent of a NOR gate with neurons.
You've got it wrong. Single-layer ANN's are not Turing complete. This is well established.
You might be thinking of the XOR problem, but that was solved ages ago thanks to backpropagation. Though there was no proof that it was "impossible".
Either way, you've got your history wrong.
Maybe. We'll know that we're successful if they run away from you, screaming.
There is also no reason to believe it is true. "Intelligence" is a mostly meaningless word. There is no consensus definition, and no testable or falsifiable phenomenon associated with it.
Even worse, he never actually said that!
Actually my CS honours degree is both IEEE and RCS accredited.
Ugh, the P&P exam for licensing. Pay attention.
You're obviously one of those people that cluelessly usess the word "coding" to describ the entire job of what Software Engineers actually do.
No, I'm obviously one of those people who think software engineering is complete bullshit. I think that the use of the term does a serious disservice to actual engineers. I think that "software engineering" is completely unrelated to actual engineering -- which should be perfectly obvious.
But go ahead and call yourself a "software engineer" if it makes you feel more important. Not only is that not legal in some states, it also let's me and other competent people know that you're very likely otherwise unskilled.
Does that make me a software engineer?
No, that does not make you an engineer.
Of course, the term "software engineer" is so meaningless, that anyone not living in a place that has specific rules about the title engineer can call themselves a software engineer.
You call yourself a software engineer, after all. But why stop there? If you want to feed your ego (which is exactly why you use the title) why not go for something better? Pope of software! Software wizard!
Get over yourself. It's pathetic.
Your car engine is controlled by a PCM driven by software, weighing in with probably multiple megabytes of code and lookup tables, designed to increase your fuel efficiency beyond what you could get with a mechanical system alone, where flaws will very likely cause serious mechanical and safety problems.
Yes, some software can be dangerous. That still doesn't make you an engineer.
Did the IEEE ever manage that exam? Not that it matters, that's as close as you'll come to legitimately using that term. Even then, it's laughable to compare software development to actual engineering. You do a disservice to those professionals.
You got that from the article, eh?
What I got from your comment is that you have absolutely no other skills and desperately want software development to be considered on-par with engineering.
Actual engineers, I'm sure, cringe when they read nonsense like that.
Let's face reality here: Writing software is easy. It's easier today than it was 30 years ago -- and back then it was so easy that millions of children taught themselves! (I'll bet a good number of Slashdot users are among them. How many users here taught themselves how to program before the age of 10? If not a majority, I'll bet it's a very large percentage.)
I'm sorry, but being a competent developer does not make you special. It does not make you an engineer. It does, however, show that you're at least as competent as the average middle-class kid in the 80's. So, congratulations on that.
Perhaps it's because no one (importnat) has seen it? Put together a paper for the relevant ACM SIG conferences.
It's not a question of evidence. This isn't a question to which empirical methods are suitable!
If you don't like the first example, try the second. Again, it's trivial to describe an infinity of universes where not every potentiality is actualized. Give it a shot yourself, you might even find an example that you like.
You're deeply confused about this, as are, apparently, some others. I blame the T.V. show "Sliders".
Nope
The point was that in infinity does not necessitate every possibility. There is no compelling reason to believe otherwise.
I submit that in the absence of such criteria not only may we speculate on all possibilities, we must.
Again, we have absolutely no reason to suspect that every potentiality is actualized. We do, however, have reason to suspect that it's not.
The AC said:
Seems you misunderstand infinity. It does not mean that everything (or anything) which is possible is somewhere actual or true.
Which should be obvious to you by now. It's trivial, after all, to describe an infinity of universes without assuming every potentiality is actualized. (On an interesting note, it is also possible to describe a plurality of universes in which every potentiality is actualized that is not infinite.)
This is very simple.
but my possibility is just as valid as yours.
You've still missed the point.
No, it's not.
You've missed the point.
Try a different example. Consider that there are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1. While infinite, none of those values will be 2.
If that's not to your liking, consider something like Penrose tiling where a pattern formed from just two shapes can tile infinitely without repeating.
See, when you ask:
What is your criterion for restricting the variations?
There need not be any such criterion. See, just because a thing is possible does not mean it will necessarily be actualized even given an infinite number of universes.
it will be a dark day in hell before an american corporation/government agency gets me to willingly wear a device that allows them to read thoughts right out of my brain
Don't worry. Your grandchildren will be long dead before that's possible.
I presume he expected you to gain some insight from the article. It's a shame he didn't know that your beliefs are unshakable.
If the works had a disclaimer on them when they were unverified it would make it less likely and less forgivable when a newspaper went off half cocked with a report.
Journalists are reporting from press releases, not published articles.
The auditing process should be sufficient to determine what is and is not valid science.
Do you know how I know you haven't heard of the demarcation problem?