String theory is still pretty young. Yes, it has problems. It's very possible that it will be entirely thrown out and replaced with something else, eventually. I welcome healthy debate over the scientific method (I have to, it's one of the rules of said method), but I think some of this is blown a bit out of proportion. Physics being in "crisis" is a bit much.
We had gravity wrong for almost 300 years. Remember Vulcan (not related to Star Trek)? Somehow I think this will be sorted, we just need hard work, perseverance, and maybe another Einstein or two.
You're absolutely right. But it's also true that Einstein did not like quantum mechanics, and never made his peace with it before he died. One of the reasons he contributed to it so much is he wanted to prove it wrong. He would come up with things that he thought were preposterous, but would be true under quantum mechanics, like "spooky action at a distance".
You should almost never have the mentality of "I don't use such-and-such-a-language", whether it's because you don't like semicolons, hate whitespace requirements, or some other bullshit reason (come at me, I know you're out there:P). That doesn't mean you can't prefer one or the other, or even gripe about it to your co-workers; just don't let it get in your way.
If you've done enough programming and know at least 1-2 languages fluently, you should be able to pick up another very quickly (less than a week). Often, at a particular company or on a particular project, you don't get a choice. If you do, the requirements of the project will force you to choose between 2 or 3. If you happen to be in a situation where you have absolute control and get the final say on what language to use, then you should choose the one that is best for the job.
But when I say "best for the job", I don't necessarily mean in some theoretical, push-your-glasses-up-your-nose sense. I mean what will allow you to do the best you can to achieve the requirements of the task at hand. If the task at hand is to teach yourself something, choose a language you're less familiar with. If it's to meet the requirements of a client in a reasonable amount of time, choose a language you are more familiar with. If the application is computation heavy and speed is a requirement, choose a more efficient language. If you are not the sole developer, choose a language that your co-workers would be more comfortable with using.
Often (read: always), more than one of these factors will be relevant. It's up to you, individually or as part of a team, to weigh them and determine the best choice. That is what it means to be an expert.
Simply put, you should switch languages whenever you deem it necessary to do so. To know when it's necessary, you have to expose yourself to a lot of different languages.
It is also important to disable or block off "undesired functionality", yet that part is rarely found in tutorials.
I often find that when security is discussed the conversation follows the tack of "Well, could someone achieve anything malicious with this functionality?" The implication being that if the answer is "No", then there's no reason to block the access.
To me, this seems totally backwards. The correct tack would be "Does the system require this functionality to work?" If the answer is "No", then it should always be blocked, even if we can't come up with some way it could be used maliciously.
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but this statement shows that you need to learn a lot more about cryptography. It has nothing to do with the medium. Mathematical operations are performed on the data. There is even the concept of perfect secrecy, which has been mathematically proven. The channel can be as insecure as you like, you could shout the ciphertext from the rooftops, it doesn't matter.
Even without this technology, your fingers will leave a heat mark on the ATM keys long enough for a malicious person to take a picture of it with a thermal camera.
Is this a typo? I'm not that knowledgeable about Star Trek, but from what I have seen, this makes no sense. What religion in particular makes it so (heh)?
The real problem is that we don't even understand our own brains very well. How can we create artificial intelligence when we don't understand natural intelligence? We don't even know if we actually have free will or just the illusion of it.
More and more it seems like this started out as marketing speak and shoddy journalism, but unfortunately it looks like at some point the scientists, engineers, and programmers drank their own Kool-Aid.
If they all point in the same direction that would certainly be interesting, but it's not clear.
I thought that was the point of the discovery? It's just that the direction is not a "normal" direction like "towards the sun", but along their worldlines. They all point in the same "direction" in the sense that they all point towards (or away) from their future (or past) in spacetime.
Disclaimer: I may have no idea what I'm talking about.
Completely not. That would be highly counter-productive. The whole point of planning and drilling a well is to produce hydrocarbons at the wellhead, not to have them squirting out of the ground where you can't sell them.
I'm really glad to hear that the hydraulic fracturing industry is the only one in history completely devoid of incompetence, negligence, and corruption. Since that's the only way what you're saying could possibly be true. Whew, what a load off my mind. Thanks!
Isn't another difference in modern hydraulic fracturing that they drill the last portion of the well horizontally before pumping the fluid into it?
My understanding is that this particular innovation made modern fracking more economically viable. I assume it's because it allows you to access more of the gas trapped in the strata without having to drill as many holes. It is also my understanding that this is the reason the gas can potentially vent out of random, unpredictable places in the ground, not just out of the well hole itself.
Stop putting junk mail (literal trash, it goes right in the bin) into my mailbox! Seriously, it's >95% of the mail I receive. I get maybe 2 actual pieces of mail that I want/need every month.
Here's a better, low-tech solution. Only deliver the real mail, say once every week. You do rolling delivery across different regions of a city/county/whatever (i.e. the day you get mail delivered is different depending on where you are). That's it, you've just cut costs significantly, with little-to-no loss of quality of service. Actually, the service is better, because I don't have to clean trash out of my mailbox all the time.
In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism.
If you have kids get them vaccinated. Otherwise you are putting their health and the health of anyone they may come into contact with at serious risk. Your views are not pseudoscience, because pseudoscience is, by definition, claims about things which cannot be tested. Your views are unscientific; they have been tested, and there is absolutely no evidence to support them.
Slashdot Mirror
The last time we had a shooting...
Who is this "we", kemo sabe?
Seriously, what country are you from/taking the perspective of?
String theory is still pretty young. Yes, it has problems. It's very possible that it will be entirely thrown out and replaced with something else, eventually. I welcome healthy debate over the scientific method (I have to, it's one of the rules of said method), but I think some of this is blown a bit out of proportion. Physics being in "crisis" is a bit much.
We had gravity wrong for almost 300 years. Remember Vulcan (not related to Star Trek)? Somehow I think this will be sorted, we just need hard work, perseverance, and maybe another Einstein or two.
You're absolutely right. But it's also true that Einstein did not like quantum mechanics, and never made his peace with it before he died. One of the reasons he contributed to it so much is he wanted to prove it wrong. He would come up with things that he thought were preposterous, but would be true under quantum mechanics, like "spooky action at a distance".
You should almost never have the mentality of "I don't use such-and-such-a-language", whether it's because you don't like semicolons, hate whitespace requirements, or some other bullshit reason (come at me, I know you're out there :P). That doesn't mean you can't prefer one or the other, or even gripe about it to your co-workers; just don't let it get in your way.
If you've done enough programming and know at least 1-2 languages fluently, you should be able to pick up another very quickly (less than a week). Often, at a particular company or on a particular project, you don't get a choice. If you do, the requirements of the project will force you to choose between 2 or 3. If you happen to be in a situation where you have absolute control and get the final say on what language to use, then you should choose the one that is best for the job.
But when I say "best for the job", I don't necessarily mean in some theoretical, push-your-glasses-up-your-nose sense. I mean what will allow you to do the best you can to achieve the requirements of the task at hand. If the task at hand is to teach yourself something, choose a language you're less familiar with. If it's to meet the requirements of a client in a reasonable amount of time, choose a language you are more familiar with. If the application is computation heavy and speed is a requirement, choose a more efficient language. If you are not the sole developer, choose a language that your co-workers would be more comfortable with using.
Often (read: always), more than one of these factors will be relevant. It's up to you, individually or as part of a team, to weigh them and determine the best choice. That is what it means to be an expert.
Simply put, you should switch languages whenever you deem it necessary to do so. To know when it's necessary, you have to expose yourself to a lot of different languages.
It is also important to disable or block off "undesired functionality", yet that part is rarely found in tutorials.
I often find that when security is discussed the conversation follows the tack of "Well, could someone achieve anything malicious with this functionality?" The implication being that if the answer is "No", then there's no reason to block the access.
To me, this seems totally backwards. The correct tack would be "Does the system require this functionality to work?" If the answer is "No", then it should always be blocked, even if we can't come up with some way it could be used maliciously.
people will be living an extra 100++ years
So... 101 years?
I don't know what's worse: that I don't understand what you said, or that I almost understood what you said.
encryption is just some bolted-on technique
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but this statement shows that you need to learn a lot more about cryptography. It has nothing to do with the medium. Mathematical operations are performed on the data. There is even the concept of perfect secrecy, which has been mathematically proven. The channel can be as insecure as you like, you could shout the ciphertext from the rooftops, it doesn't matter.
Haven't you ever heard of numbers stations?
Yeah, I thought this sounded familiar.
Even without this technology, your fingers will leave a heat mark on the ATM keys long enough for a malicious person to take a picture of it with a thermal camera.
Yeah, I've played Splinter Cell too.
It would also make life more difficult for blind users.
You could combine the idea with those new touchscreens that can change texture and create bumps at will, moving the braille along with the numbers.
You lost me when you said Trump is likeable.
non-secular
Is this a typo? I'm not that knowledgeable about Star Trek, but from what I have seen, this makes no sense. What religion in particular makes it so (heh)?
The real problem is that we don't even understand our own brains very well. How can we create artificial intelligence when we don't understand natural intelligence? We don't even know if we actually have free will or just the illusion of it.
More and more it seems like this started out as marketing speak and shoddy journalism, but unfortunately it looks like at some point the scientists, engineers, and programmers drank their own Kool-Aid.
If they all point in the same direction that would certainly be interesting, but it's not clear.
I thought that was the point of the discovery? It's just that the direction is not a "normal" direction like "towards the sun", but along their worldlines. They all point in the same "direction" in the sense that they all point towards (or away) from their future (or past) in spacetime.
Disclaimer: I may have no idea what I'm talking about.
If the universe can be asymmetric
It is, otherwise stars and galaxies could not form.
there is more matter than antimatter
There is, at least as far as we've observed.
other things like time may be asymmetric
It is, as far as we've observed it only travels in one direction.
My understanding is that this is a possible explanation for these observations.
Completely not. That would be highly counter-productive. The whole point of planning and drilling a well is to produce hydrocarbons at the wellhead, not to have them squirting out of the ground where you can't sell them.
I'm really glad to hear that the hydraulic fracturing industry is the only one in history completely devoid of incompetence, negligence, and corruption. Since that's the only way what you're saying could possibly be true. Whew, what a load off my mind. Thanks!
It doesn't matter. She is not a felon. That's a fact. If she's a felon in the future, so be it, but she isn't right now.
Step back for a second and consider what you would do if the roles were reversed.
I'm confused, which roles should be reversed? Do I become Hillary Clinton, does Hillary Clinton become the FBI, or do I become the FBI?
We are human, after all.
Much in common, after all.
That's all I got.
His older brother is named Gondor.
Isn't another difference in modern hydraulic fracturing that they drill the last portion of the well horizontally before pumping the fluid into it?
My understanding is that this particular innovation made modern fracking more economically viable. I assume it's because it allows you to access more of the gas trapped in the strata without having to drill as many holes. It is also my understanding that this is the reason the gas can potentially vent out of random, unpredictable places in the ground, not just out of the well hole itself.
Plus everyone is calling her a felon when she has yet to be convicted, put on trial, or even indicted for anything.
Of course if you listen to people who oppose her, the FBI have been "about to indict her" for the last 6 months.
Stop putting junk mail (literal trash, it goes right in the bin) into my mailbox! Seriously, it's >95% of the mail I receive. I get maybe 2 actual pieces of mail that I want/need every month.
Here's a better, low-tech solution. Only deliver the real mail, say once every week. You do rolling delivery across different regions of a city/county/whatever (i.e. the day you get mail delivered is different depending on where you are). That's it, you've just cut costs significantly, with little-to-no loss of quality of service. Actually, the service is better, because I don't have to clean trash out of my mailbox all the time.
You sound pretty reasonable right up until...
In children, however, sometimes the side effects are different. In particular, some vaccines are strongly linked with causing autism.
If you have kids get them vaccinated. Otherwise you are putting their health and the health of anyone they may come into contact with at serious risk. Your views are not pseudoscience, because pseudoscience is, by definition, claims about things which cannot be tested. Your views are unscientific; they have been tested, and there is absolutely no evidence to support them.