Again, AC has posted that link saying it somehow is evidence of Democrats being "anti-science"....ITS NOT...
the link is a Nytimes article about GMO crops...opposing or regulating GMO crops is not anti-science in any way...maybe anti-factory farming...but not "science"
this isn't a "two party system issue"...that's a Red Herring...all systems in gov't across nations have two factions, even Europe (majority/minority groups of parties)
we can know who votes for things like Creationism in schools...you can look it up...its ****always Republicans****
saying one group is always wrong doesn't at all excuse any other group...but unless you look at ****policy votes**** this discussion is worthless
The concept is very important, as it introduces a sea change.
For far too long, computing has been about desktops and servers. Smartphones and tablets opened it up slightly
Yeah...just like Telegraph machines "became" telephones...and a whole ***new way of communicating*** was invented!
You sound like a salesman...like a TED Talk...or maybe a "tech evangelist"
First, we don't need to invent a new word to describe "sea change"...the words "sea change" or any number of synonymous phrases used daily work just fine.
2nd, computing has ****never**** been about "just desktops and servers"
3rd, your understanding of "computing" is fundamentally incorrect
we design devices to accomplish user tasks...we use all available technology (and maybe invent some new stuff) mitigated by cost
"the internet of things" is just a B.S. marketing way to say "making devices that use updated technology to its fullest"
stop it...just stop forever...there is absolutely no reason to ever say the words "the internet of things"...or "connectivity meme"....they are redundant concepts that conjure abstractions needlessly so people who don't understand technology can think they sound smart
"the internet of things" is a reductive concept. It's an unnecessary abstraction layer that just puts more barriers between the programmer and the device. We should be **getting rid of** concepts like this in CS not adding them...
**of course** CS programs have the problems TFA listed...here on/. we know CS programs have areas from improvement
what I object to is the entire notion of "the internet of things" as being a concept worth repeating...it's a nothing phrase that just confuses people
when educating, we need to have concrete theory not hype language
Thnx for the comment...I think we're likeminded on this topic
So here's where TFA makes the error:
because there's no conceivable way that, within the next few years, our engineering capabilities or understanding of things like radiation exposure in space are going to advance far enough
then this **isn't** a question of "risk" at all...it's about limitations of engineering and materials science
the assumption/error is when TFA says "there's no conceivable way"...that's B.S.
hundreds...***hundreds*** of studies have been done on radiation exposure and shielding by NASA, JAXA, ESA, Soviets/Russians
there is certainlya conceivable way we could engineer proper radiation shielding
NASA can do alot of things but they suffer from "paralysis by analysis"
It comes from the assumption that "safety" as a concept can be quantified. And that's just the beginning...sure we can use data to examine possible avenues of mission failure but we put too much of our decision making process into raw numbers.
"risk assessment" as applied by NASA is a reductive concept.
Success or failure of a mission is a question of identifying & mitigating all the factors that may cause the conditions we define as "failure"
Identify & mitigate...that's all we ever do with "risk"...NASA is playing a shell game here
I like this research area but the researchers need to dramatically improve their definitions and measures of 'difficulty'
But the new work suggests that another factor is important too — whether the steps are independent and so can be attempted in parallel or whether the steps are dependent and so must be tried in sequence,
parallel steps, by the researchers definition, increase ***complexity*** which is incorrect
parallel steps increase the length of time required, b/c you must use **trial and error** but that is **not more complex**
making a game more difficult by making it more tedious is bad game design...the challenges must increase in complexity as the player progresses
tedious games are like homework...no one plays them
How about being anti-gun and then being arrested by the FBI for being an illegal gun-runner? Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.
I have no clue what FBI "gun runner" you're referring to. You should have linked to some info if you expect discussion.
Do you want to talk about "gun control"? because we certainly can...but we have to set out what we're discussing b/c "gun control" draws the trolls hard
Slashdot Mirror
exactly
that's why we need to **vote out the bad ones** and **vote in the better ones**
and demand candidates be taken from a wider, more qualified pool...
if everyone on /. actually voted it would make a notable difference...especially in how they address tech issues
so who **should** we vote for?
realistically
you're saying that **even if** a true good legislator (however the fuck you define it) was a democrat you **still wouldn't vote*?
you know that your scenario equals a compete Republican takeover, right?
your cynicism is no solution...anyone can simply complain...you have to ***construct*** something positive in this world...it wont just happen
Republicans are out to serve their donors.
If that just so happens to overlap with doing something *some* scientists suggest then so be it
Republicans serve their Oligarch masters & seek to financially enslave anyone else.
LOOK AT POLICY VOTES...that's all that matters to this discussion...Republicans oppose science and prop up Oligarchy
the only time the GOP cares about science is when it can enrich their corporate donors
the GOP votes to:
> put creationism in textbooks
> defund research
> deny global warming
You have no answer for these and the countless other ways Republicans are anti-science
There is not in any way "consensus" that "GMOs are safe"
The EU bans most GMO foods and requires labels on the others....they have plenty of peer reviewed published research to base that decision upon
as the summary points out, it was only for 7 days with 54 people who used wrist mounted light sensors & 'food logs' but it's definitely worth a look
sunlight in the morning has all kinds of physiological benefits...IIRC recently it was linked to higher immune function
yeah...there are alot of good reasons to want to regulate or maybe ban GMO food
"Distrust on the Left" of GMO food, or wanting to label it, is absolutely **Not ant-science**
that link is in no way a counterpoint to my facts about how Republicans virtually always vote in lockstep for true "anti-science" policies
Again, AC has posted that link saying it somehow is evidence of Democrats being "anti-science"....ITS NOT...
the link is a Nytimes article about GMO crops...opposing or regulating GMO crops is not anti-science in any way...maybe anti-factory farming...but not "science"
link above is not counter-evidence
I object to my above comment receiving a "Troll" mod.
I am not trolling at all. I was on topic and I pointed out **facts that could be verified**
that link is about GMO crops...it doesn't have any Democrats being "anti-science" in any way whatsoever...
look at the actual votes on policy...it's always Republicans doing anti-science policy
creationism in schools? Republicans
climate change denial? Republicans
defunding research? Republicans
Congress isn't "all idiots"...for every bullshit anti-science law Congress passes there are Democrats/Progressives who vote against it
Any discussion that does not take these facts into account is pointless and will continue infinitely
this isn't a "two party system issue"...that's a Red Herring...all systems in gov't across nations have two factions, even Europe (majority/minority groups of parties)
we can know who votes for things like Creationism in schools...you can look it up...its ****always Republicans****
saying one group is always wrong doesn't at all excuse any other group...but unless you look at ****policy votes**** this discussion is worthless
I object to the false dichotomy presented by TFA and general media...
Sure, **absolutely** Congress does things that are anti-science...but that's not the end...**who votes for these anti-science policies**???
ITS ALWAYS REPUBLICANS
climate change denial? Republicans
creationism in schools? Republicans
defunding research? Republicans
there is a solution to this...don't vote for Republicans & call out their BS every time
Sounds like a bunch of Windows computers
Yeah...just like Telegraph machines "became" telephones...and a whole ***new way of communicating*** was invented!
You sound like a salesman...like a TED Talk...or maybe a "tech evangelist"
First, we don't need to invent a new word to describe "sea change"...the words "sea change" or any number of synonymous phrases used daily work just fine.
2nd, computing has ****never**** been about "just desktops and servers"
3rd, your understanding of "computing" is fundamentally incorrect
we design devices to accomplish user tasks...we use all available technology (and maybe invent some new stuff) mitigated by cost
"the internet of things" is just a B.S. marketing way to say "making devices that use updated technology to its fullest"
stop it...just stop forever...there is absolutely no reason to ever say the words "the internet of things"...or "connectivity meme"....they are redundant concepts that conjure abstractions needlessly so people who don't understand technology can think they sound smart
"the internet of things" is a reductive concept. It's an unnecessary abstraction layer that just puts more barriers between the programmer and the device. We should be **getting rid of** concepts like this in CS not adding them...
**of course** CS programs have the problems TFA listed...here on /. we know CS programs have areas from improvement
what I object to is the entire notion of "the internet of things" as being a concept worth repeating...it's a nothing phrase that just confuses people
when educating, we need to have concrete theory not hype language
There is absolutely no comparison.
First, all major cities in human history have had homeless people living in them...this isn't about that at all
***population density*** in Detroit/Chicago is much less by several orders of magnitude.
America doesn't have slums like this: http://image.architonic.com/im...
China has **slum cities** with no city sewage services...with >10,000 people living in it
**that** is shitting in the streets
Thnx for the comment...I think we're likeminded on this topic
So here's where TFA makes the error:
then this **isn't** a question of "risk" at all...it's about limitations of engineering and materials science
the assumption/error is when TFA says "there's no conceivable way"...that's B.S.
hundreds...***hundreds*** of studies have been done on radiation exposure and shielding by NASA, JAXA, ESA, Soviets/Russians
there is certainlya conceivable way we could engineer proper radiation shielding
Someone said the following in regards to any "forget the USA, China's all over X b/c the USA has Y failing"
NASA can do alot of things but they suffer from "paralysis by analysis"
It comes from the assumption that "safety" as a concept can be quantified. And that's just the beginning...sure we can use data to examine possible avenues of mission failure but we put too much of our decision making process into raw numbers.
"risk assessment" as applied by NASA is a reductive concept.
Success or failure of a mission is a question of identifying & mitigating all the factors that may cause the conditions we define as "failure"
Identify & mitigate...that's all we ever do with "risk"...NASA is playing a shell game here
I love the subtexts of this question...for the above sentence to make sense all three items below must be true:
> There is an open debate in car design/safety as to wether cameras would be better than mirrors
> There is an organized effort among many stakeholders that all agree cameras are better than mirrors
> They have been trying to ditch the sideview mirror for a long time..."finally"
Lastly...if cameras increase safety...why not have both????
hi Carewolf...interesting...
"trial and error" is only relevant when there **is a goal to try for**
by definition, a "sandbox" game isn't programmed to have accomplishments (of course you can have both in one game ex: GTA)
so a "sandbox" game *cant* have goals...or it wouldn't be "sandbox"
part of this is, gaming became so reductive with the introduction of the "cut scene"...and just lazy game design
from Sveeden!
I like this research area but the researchers need to dramatically improve their definitions and measures of 'difficulty'
parallel steps, by the researchers definition, increase ***complexity*** which is incorrect
parallel steps increase the length of time required, b/c you must use **trial and error** but that is **not more complex**
making a game more difficult by making it more tedious is bad game design...the challenges must increase in complexity as the player progresses
tedious games are like homework...no one plays them
I have no clue what FBI "gun runner" you're referring to. You should have linked to some info if you expect discussion.
Do you want to talk about "gun control"? because we certainly can...but we have to set out what we're discussing b/c "gun control" draws the trolls hard