so thanks again for your response...I acknowledge that you chose your words carefully and did not make hasty generalizations...
but you did say this:
So, science doesn't have to disprove something to suggest that you shouldn't believe it.
You did, at the end say this
At the risk of saying even more than I should say to convey my point, to put it on its head, the point is, if you didn't use science to arrive at your current belief, you shouldn't believe it.
So you're not trying to say too much, but you are saying ***something*** about science that is important to the discussion.
I think you're right in that we are talking past each other with our definitions 'prove' and 'science' and 'scientific' and 'logical'
Beyond that, IDK...I'd like to hear your thoughts...I do understand what you are saying but I still think we may have more to discuss.
look, thanks, genuinely for your comment. I appreciate your thoughts.
however, I see sentence after sentence of false distinctions and old legacy dichotomies from philosophy books from centuries ago...
Look, this isn't about how *you* choose what you believe or what Dawkins thinks is the best way...it's about the boundaries of the entire conversation.
Here is a boundary: Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural god
another boundary: Personal perception is a factor in all human interaction
no one can prove that their way of deciding the things that are **beyond science** is better than another's....
re-read that last statement b/c that directly contradicts your post...if it is a question beyond science, then you can still use **logic** but at some point it becomes **simple opinion** about which unprovable premise is more logical
Rush may be worse...but IMHO it's closer than at first glance
Peel Rush's language away and he's a pure opportunist out to hustle for money/fame/power/recognition. Rush doesn't believe what he spouts.
Now, to Dawkins. He isn't a pure shill, he's an academic with a consistent approach. He's reasonable in conversation.
However, I'd argue that *both* are equally offensive in how they misrepresent **the other viewpoint** not just to make a rhetorical point, but it is foundational to their philosophical orientation.
If science can't prove *or* disprove a supernatural god then what point does Dawkins have? Why would anyone read his books?
He's not saying anything that hasn't been said for centuries...he's just doing it *now* and with University titles, degrees, positions, etc that make his opinion sell to the layman.
Yes, if you're talking about some teaching that is in dispute (existence of a 'god') then you have to look first to **those who believe in the thing** to define what it is they believe.
This is one of Dawkin's *biggest* shills...he pigeonholes anyone who isnt a hard atheist as believing in what Roman Catholics say. He makes *one* religious sect's views representative.
Classic straw man/red herring combo
But to definitions...it's a fools game to try to disprove a definition that is personal to every unique system yet uses the same term...'god'...some Jews teach that Yahweh or Hashim is a conscious entity that interacts with the world. Ex: The Burning Bush.
Some believe that it was an actual shrub that was on fire but did not get consumed, as the literal reading states...that is against science...
which would lead one to think that the literal account of a 'burning bush' was not true!
however, the believer can just put the whole quesiton into a bag, so to speak, and put a "supernatural miracle" label on it
it was a supernatural miracle by a supernatural being that functions beyond the laws of the universe as they see it
they can always that level of abstraction one step up the chain and say, "It was a miracle"
So just don't bother with the whole mess and ignore religious people who believe in God.
Now politics, say teaching Young-Earth creationism...that's **definitely** something we should all speak out against...but not b/c of 'atheism' but instead rally around science & the scientific method. Science and religion are separate things & one should not determine text teaching of the other in any combination!
It's a better argument b/c it avoids the false dictomies used by the opposition.
Don't say "turing" anything b/c that whole thing just muddies the waters & explains nothing.
any physical system's processing of information, whether that is an algorithm on a computer or thoughts in the brain, can always be simulated by a sufficiently large non-deterministic LBA (linearly bounded automaton), which is less powerful than a TM
in order to "simulate" a human brain as described above, you have to *know how the whole system works*
we don't...not even close...we have barely scratched the surface on really understanding the brain and consciousenss...we are just beginning the mission of mapping all brain connections...then we still just have correlations...
in some **far flung** future, where we have materials science unthinkable right now, have mapped brain connections, and understand how all of it works....**even then** we haven't accomplished "simulating" the human brain as you describe
we would have to simulate all the biological processes....we can't even conceive of a non-biological analog to the brain except in abstract b/c we have no idea how it really works
then it becomes a function of **time**
a human brain develops continuously in real time over **years**
all of this...it all makes your point about "universal computability" completely moot...
if you want to create an independent autonomous human brain....you can wait 500-1000 years at least, or you could just...you know....get someone pregnant
He insults everyone who believes in any possible supernatural entity by pigeonholing them into one group and using the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church's dogma as if it represents anyone who is not a hard atheist.
Science hasn't "disproven" the existence of *any* supernatural being, just as it hasn't "proven" the existence either.
Science cannot prove or disprove something that by its definition is *beyond* science...be it Yahweh, God, Buddah, Flying Spagetti Monster, Cthulu, Allah, Xenu, etc...
Science tests hypothesis that can lead to theories that explain our observations of the universe.
Now, Dawkins has an infinitely replentishable resource: Religious extremists who do not understand science.
He's taking that group, stoking them with rhetoric, then commercializing on how we **all** can't stand their ignorance. He's also not a reliable commentator on human rights/philosophy...I don't want to get tawdry but he's made comments that indicate he has a *strongly* Social Darwinistic view of "consent" and human choice.
I see the 'barnstorming roadtrip' in TFA as simply an advert for Dawkin's speaking
well thanks for the thoughtful response but I must disagree on both points ha!
i appreciate hearing about your stepfather's personal experiences, and I don't think that's a good thing at all...the whole idea that to "make it" in academia you needed to find some interest area and then drill down as specifically as possible was/is killing academia
the thing is, even though the idea is wrongheaded, the advice itself isn't always horrible advice, because from a purely practical standpoint it was what your future boss might expect you to do
it's like saying to a young female musician, "Hike that skirt up and act slutty"...it'll *probably* increase album sales...right? but is it really good long-term career advice?
as for talking about strong AI, I philosophically disagree with the premise of "strong AI" as you apply it...and really I disagree with how all of CS applies the Church-Turing Thesis. I do not subscribe to the universal computability function per se, and view programing and machines as absolutely not extant in nature which are objects created by humans and nothing more ever.
but back to academia and learning, I really don't think that there is "too much to learn" I don't know how to prove it in this format but almost every academic I've known had wildly divergent side interests that they were proficient enough in to make a living...art, music, some sort of craft work, writing on some non-academic topic, etc.
I don't know what that means to your point, other than to repeat that I think the "drill down" concept is rooted in a false dichotomy twisted up the ivory tower and perpetuated by the top-down management model & oversized egos. I think any person intelligent enough to do PhD level work can also develop w/e "blue collar" skill they would want. Also, any person who can do "blue collar" work skillfully enough to make it a long-term income requires, in my experience, an understanding of complexity that demonstrates high intelligence.
I guess I'll finish by repeating that I too mourn the fact that PhD's are so 'specialized' that they become almost useless outside their specialize area.
In a world where, within a couple of decades, machines will program themselves,
hold on there cowboy!
everything that machines do is dependent on human choice...humans *chose* to program machines a certain way...
the behavior you describe: "machines will program themselves" is actually not physically possible in the logical sense...it's like saying "gardens will plant themselves"
you're mixing concepts...specifically, the concept of "program" and the concept of "self"
the behavior you *actually* are describing is humans programming machines.
that's a nitpick, but an important one b/c you whole argument is formed along that premise...
I think you're making a false distinction. "teach kids X or Y"
I say "teach kids X and Y"
learn a blue collar skill, learn the concepts of coding so you can apply as needed to specific tasks, learn a science branch, learn literature
This is a great article. It combines about 30 pages of info that I had to scan to learn it down to one.
It also explains how to manipulate Bitcoin mining to guarantee you mine the next block. It's in the section on what happens when two miners have the next block in the blockchain ready at the same time:
Occasionally, a fork will appear in the block chain. This can happen, for instance, if by chance two miners happen to validate a block of transactions near-simultaneously – both broadcast their newly-validated block out to the network, and some people update their block chain one way, and others update their block chain the other way:
This causes exactly the problem we’re trying to avoid – **it’s no longer clear in what order transactions have occurred, and it may not be clear who owns which infocoins.** Fortunately, there’s a simple idea that can be used to remove any forks. The rule is this: if a fork occurs, people on the network keep track of both forks. But at any given time, miners only work to extend whichever fork is longest in their copy of the block chain.
Suppose, for example, that we have a fork in which some miners receive block A first, and some miners receive block B first. Those miners who receive block A first will continue mining along that fork, while the others will mine along fork B. Let’s suppose that the miners working on fork B are the next to successfully mine a block:
**After they receive news that this has happened, the miners working on fork A will notice that fork B is now longer, and will switch to working on that fork.**
And the miners on fork B get paid their 20 BTC for mining the next block!
Presto, in short order work on fork A will cease, and everyone will be working on the same linear chain, and block A can be ignored. Of course, any still-pending transactions in A will still be pending in the queues of the miners working on fork B, and so all transactions will eventually be validated.
Presto indeed!
If you set up inside a city fiber ring and made BTC exchanges and *also* mined BTC blockschain solutions you could game out the transactions and network traffic so that **your BTC** solution was always the first available to the network because it is the closest geographically and by network topology!
If there's a tie, you have the next solution ready to break the tie and get the BTC reward!!!!
There you have it...it's a money machine...well a BTC machine;)
kids don't want to become computer programmers. Because they're not as stupid and gullible as you think.
I completely agree with this, but for a completely different reason which kind of contradicts the premise of your reason.
IMHO, there is a bright future for American computer programmers. We're needed more than ever, and good ones are harder to find per capita. Pay is good.
However, the problem is the **work environment**
Coding work sucks, but all work sucks. I was a snowboarding instructor for 5 seasons and **that** even sucked b/c we had to be teaching fatass Texan rich dudes how to stand up on the board instead of going out and riding to improve our own skills or get footage for sponsors.
All work sucks.
The shit part about coding that makes it wise for kids to want to avoid it is that in most of the industry the coders are highly paid slaves.
REAL CODERS HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.
Just look at Snapchat. Or have a gander at this borderline psychotic but not a joke job ad for a web coder for Penny Arcade. That's why young people don't want to code.
American business rewards all the worst things...the incentives are all going in the wrong direction. As to your personal situation and why you've been scrounging since the dot-com bubble burst...well, it could be alot of things. Maybe your idea of "scrounging" means turning down a job a Microsoft because you dont want to work for the man...maybe youre a true genius who makes everyone even the bosses look bad so is ostracized...hell, idk...but I don't think your experience is representative, however I do agree that the issues you identify in hiring are all legit problems.
I think the problem lies in how we define the act of "coding" and in what context we present the activity, combined with a misunderstanding of what people actually think is "fun".
Coding is a powerful tool. It is how humans control virtually all complex machines.
Kids love complex machines, but I think the break point is what machines we teach them to program and what behaviors the programming automates.
People, especially kids, like playing video games, so it stands to reason that teaching them to program their own game would be an excellent way to get them into coding. It totally makes sense. I'm not saying not to do it, but it's not working as TFA points out. For one thing, making a simple "game" in an artificial environment isn't actually that fun...because teaching kids to make their own version of "Starcraft" is way too complex there aren't many options.
I think coding simple machines is the solution, enabling more creativity and real-world interaction, without losing the coding aspect. For example, coding a basic motion sensor that makes an output.
You can get basic light/motion sensors for fairly cheap actually (toys have them) and combine that with an output that either triggers something to play a sound, turn on a light, etc.
A next step would be using a rasperry pi type interface...then linking it with all kinds of stuff...
Advanced lessons would be making a motion detector that turned on a light, turned on a radio, and triggered a program on a computer to send a tweet...
Something like that would give them the basic tools to really go crazy...
I'm not against screwing around with the lab computer on off hours and make it model "Middle Earth"...that's a fun idea...no, I'm mortified that this became an official research project and was published.
It proves what Peter Higgs was saying in the most weirdly fun yet depressing way....
yes for sure, but there's much more to identify, b/c if you "follow the money" it leads to some interesting places...
for the government...Most of the research grants come from R&D for a specific project (ex: DARPA, a vaccine) or the NSF (ex: archaeology, astronomy, CS, etc)
the government, at least in the US, is another way of saying "the voters"....the US has had enough people fall for the "Austerity" charade that virtually every public university, including the two that employed me, cut their budgets b/c the **STATE** budget was being cut artificially.
Did the gym coach tell you how it was being marked? Because, if he did, then you had a clear success criteria, and you failed to follow instructions.
what?
this isn't education that you're describing here...that's not how "teaching" works
the goal isn't to "do what the teachers says" or "get a good grade"
the purpose is **to learn the subject & to think independently**
we all know what tests are for...to test our knowledge of a subject...verification of learning
if the test doesn't measure what is being taught (health) and instead only measures something abstract then ***it is fully the teachers fault that the student got a bad grade***
this is fully on the teacher for being a bad educator
that doesn't do as I described at all....it just changes the main windown list of songs...unless I'm double clicking my playlist the wrong 'source' column somehow
iTunes is sort of like a stubborn child...it will do everything else before the right thing...
I use iTunes of course;)
One place iTunes still hasn't caught up to Winamp's late 90s releases..."playlist"
See, if you never used Winap by default it had two windows that listed your music files...one was a "library" which listed all your songs (in a file tree if you wanted IIRC). The other was you "playlist" which was...the songs you were playing in order.
You could of course save a cool playlist, and open it...all your saved "playlists" were also listed in the "library" window. You could have two "playlist" windows open at the same time...resizing each as needed...
I know iTunes tried w/ their little "up next" thing but it's 5 abstraction layers and 10 clicks too many...
you can use tricks to print redeemable coins on bits of paper. Using these, you can make transactions enitrely offline... but since the recipient can't know that the paper is worth anything until he uses a computer to check it, you need a bit of trust..
c'mon man...
that's not a replacement for cash
that's the same as an IOU...whether you use BTC or $$$ for the units of the IOU doesn't matter it's still just a fucking IOU
until you can pay bills, taxes, buy a hot dog at the corner vendor, etc with *non-electronic* transfer of physical currency with BTC this whole thing is like a big game of Risk.
Slashdot Mirror
so thanks again for your response...I acknowledge that you chose your words carefully and did not make hasty generalizations...
but you did say this:
You did, at the end say this
So you're not trying to say too much, but you are saying ***something*** about science that is important to the discussion.
I think you're right in that we are talking past each other with our definitions 'prove' and 'science' and 'scientific' and 'logical'
Beyond that, IDK...I'd like to hear your thoughts...I do understand what you are saying but I still think we may have more to discuss.
look, thanks, genuinely for your comment. I appreciate your thoughts.
however, I see sentence after sentence of false distinctions and old legacy dichotomies from philosophy books from centuries ago...
Look, this isn't about how *you* choose what you believe or what Dawkins thinks is the best way...it's about the boundaries of the entire conversation.
Here is a boundary: Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural god
another boundary: Personal perception is a factor in all human interaction
no one can prove that their way of deciding the things that are **beyond science** is better than another's....
re-read that last statement b/c that directly contradicts your post...if it is a question beyond science, then you can still use **logic** but at some point it becomes **simple opinion** about which unprovable premise is more logical
Rush may be worse...but IMHO it's closer than at first glance
Peel Rush's language away and he's a pure opportunist out to hustle for money/fame/power/recognition. Rush doesn't believe what he spouts.
Now, to Dawkins. He isn't a pure shill, he's an academic with a consistent approach. He's reasonable in conversation.
However, I'd argue that *both* are equally offensive in how they misrepresent **the other viewpoint** not just to make a rhetorical point, but it is foundational to their philosophical orientation.
If science can't prove *or* disprove a supernatural god then what point does Dawkins have? Why would anyone read his books?
He's not saying anything that hasn't been said for centuries...he's just doing it *now* and with University titles, degrees, positions, etc that make his opinion sell to the layman.
yes "by definition"
Yes, if you're talking about some teaching that is in dispute (existence of a 'god') then you have to look first to **those who believe in the thing** to define what it is they believe.
This is one of Dawkin's *biggest* shills...he pigeonholes anyone who isnt a hard atheist as believing in what Roman Catholics say. He makes *one* religious sect's views representative.
Classic straw man/red herring combo
But to definitions...it's a fools game to try to disprove a definition that is personal to every unique system yet uses the same term...'god'...some Jews teach that Yahweh or Hashim is a conscious entity that interacts with the world. Ex: The Burning Bush.
Some believe that it was an actual shrub that was on fire but did not get consumed, as the literal reading states...that is against science...
which would lead one to think that the literal account of a 'burning bush' was not true!
however, the believer can just put the whole quesiton into a bag, so to speak, and put a "supernatural miracle" label on it
it was a supernatural miracle by a supernatural being that functions beyond the laws of the universe as they see it
they can always that level of abstraction one step up the chain and say, "It was a miracle"
So just don't bother with the whole mess and ignore religious people who believe in God.
Now politics, say teaching Young-Earth creationism...that's **definitely** something we should all speak out against...but not b/c of 'atheism' but instead rally around science & the scientific method. Science and religion are separate things & one should not determine text teaching of the other in any combination!
It's a better argument b/c it avoids the false dictomies used by the opposition.
Don't say "turing" anything b/c that whole thing just muddies the waters & explains nothing.
in order to "simulate" a human brain as described above, you have to *know how the whole system works*
we don't...not even close...we have barely scratched the surface on really understanding the brain and consciousenss...we are just beginning the mission of mapping all brain connections...then we still just have correlations...
in some **far flung** future, where we have materials science unthinkable right now, have mapped brain connections, and understand how all of it works....**even then** we haven't accomplished "simulating" the human brain as you describe
we would have to simulate all the biological processes....we can't even conceive of a non-biological analog to the brain except in abstract b/c we have no idea how it really works
then it becomes a function of **time**
a human brain develops continuously in real time over **years**
all of this...it all makes your point about "universal computability" completely moot...
if you want to create an independent autonomous human brain....you can wait 500-1000 years at least, or you could just...you know....get someone pregnant
IMHO, Dawkins has become as bad as Rush Limbaugh.
He insults everyone who believes in any possible supernatural entity by pigeonholing them into one group and using the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church's dogma as if it represents anyone who is not a hard atheist.
Science hasn't "disproven" the existence of *any* supernatural being, just as it hasn't "proven" the existence either.
Science cannot prove or disprove something that by its definition is *beyond* science...be it Yahweh, God, Buddah, Flying Spagetti Monster, Cthulu, Allah, Xenu, etc...
Science tests hypothesis that can lead to theories that explain our observations of the universe.
Now, Dawkins has an infinitely replentishable resource: Religious extremists who do not understand science.
He's taking that group, stoking them with rhetoric, then commercializing on how we **all** can't stand their ignorance. He's also not a reliable commentator on human rights/philosophy...I don't want to get tawdry but he's made comments that indicate he has a *strongly* Social Darwinistic view of "consent" and human choice.
I see the 'barnstorming roadtrip' in TFA as simply an advert for Dawkin's speaking
"trust me, dykes can get pregnant"
-Steve Zissou
Military guys in control room: "Who is this guy, what does he want"
Dennis Quaid: "I'm a paleo-climatologist...."
**dramatic pause**
Quaid: "I believe we've reached a critical de-salination point"
**gasps**
well thanks for the thoughtful response but I must disagree on both points ha!
i appreciate hearing about your stepfather's personal experiences, and I don't think that's a good thing at all...the whole idea that to "make it" in academia you needed to find some interest area and then drill down as specifically as possible was/is killing academia
the thing is, even though the idea is wrongheaded, the advice itself isn't always horrible advice, because from a purely practical standpoint it was what your future boss might expect you to do
it's like saying to a young female musician, "Hike that skirt up and act slutty"...it'll *probably* increase album sales...right? but is it really good long-term career advice?
as for talking about strong AI, I philosophically disagree with the premise of "strong AI" as you apply it...and really I disagree with how all of CS applies the Church-Turing Thesis. I do not subscribe to the universal computability function per se, and view programing and machines as absolutely not extant in nature which are objects created by humans and nothing more ever.
but back to academia and learning, I really don't think that there is "too much to learn" I don't know how to prove it in this format but almost every academic I've known had wildly divergent side interests that they were proficient enough in to make a living...art, music, some sort of craft work, writing on some non-academic topic, etc.
I don't know what that means to your point, other than to repeat that I think the "drill down" concept is rooted in a false dichotomy twisted up the ivory tower and perpetuated by the top-down management model & oversized egos. I think any person intelligent enough to do PhD level work can also develop w/e "blue collar" skill they would want. Also, any person who can do "blue collar" work skillfully enough to make it a long-term income requires, in my experience, an understanding of complexity that demonstrates high intelligence.
I guess I'll finish by repeating that I too mourn the fact that PhD's are so 'specialized' that they become almost useless outside their specialize area.
yo, thanks for the response
hold on there cowboy!
everything that machines do is dependent on human choice...humans *chose* to program machines a certain way...
the behavior you describe: "machines will program themselves" is actually not physically possible in the logical sense...it's like saying "gardens will plant themselves"
you're mixing concepts...specifically, the concept of "program" and the concept of "self"
the behavior you *actually* are describing is humans programming machines.
that's a nitpick, but an important one b/c you whole argument is formed along that premise...
I think you're making a false distinction. "teach kids X or Y"
I say "teach kids X and Y"
learn a blue collar skill, learn the concepts of coding so you can apply as needed to specific tasks, learn a science branch, learn literature
all of it
hey man thanks for the response. it was interesting to read your job experiences, especially what happens when you're 'too good' at the job.
as another person pointed out on this thread, you could start your own biz
that's what I'm doing and I got to be honest it feels great!
like the other comment said, since I see an area in biz where the incentives are backwards, I should **capitalize** on it...and I am trying now.
anyhow good luck to you...I do think that you are not alone in some of your work struggles, as I said coders are treated like well paid slaves...
This is a great article. It combines about 30 pages of info that I had to scan to learn it down to one.
It also explains how to manipulate Bitcoin mining to guarantee you mine the next block. It's in the section on what happens when two miners have the next block in the blockchain ready at the same time:
Occasionally, a fork will appear in the block chain. This can happen, for instance, if by chance two miners happen to validate a block of transactions near-simultaneously – both broadcast their newly-validated block out to the network, and some people update their block chain one way, and others update their block chain the other way:
This causes exactly the problem we’re trying to avoid – **it’s no longer clear in what order transactions have occurred, and it may not be clear who owns which infocoins.** Fortunately, there’s a simple idea that can be used to remove any forks. The rule is this: if a fork occurs, people on the network keep track of both forks. But at any given time, miners only work to extend whichever fork is longest in their copy of the block chain.
Suppose, for example, that we have a fork in which some miners receive block A first, and some miners receive block B first. Those miners who receive block A first will continue mining along that fork, while the others will mine along fork B. Let’s suppose that the miners working on fork B are the next to successfully mine a block:
**After they receive news that this has happened, the miners working on fork A will notice that fork B is now longer, and will switch to working on that fork.**
And the miners on fork B get paid their 20 BTC for mining the next block!
Presto, in short order work on fork A will cease, and everyone will be working on the same linear chain, and block A can be ignored. Of course, any still-pending transactions in A will still be pending in the queues of the miners working on fork B, and so all transactions will eventually be validated.
Presto indeed!
If you set up inside a city fiber ring and made BTC exchanges and *also* mined BTC blockschain solutions you could game out the transactions and network traffic so that **your BTC** solution was always the first available to the network because it is the closest geographically and by network topology!
If there's a tie, you have the next solution ready to break the tie and get the BTC reward!!!!
There you have it...it's a money machine...well a BTC machine ;)
I completely agree with this, but for a completely different reason which kind of contradicts the premise of your reason.
IMHO, there is a bright future for American computer programmers. We're needed more than ever, and good ones are harder to find per capita. Pay is good.
However, the problem is the **work environment**
Coding work sucks, but all work sucks. I was a snowboarding instructor for 5 seasons and **that** even sucked b/c we had to be teaching fatass Texan rich dudes how to stand up on the board instead of going out and riding to improve our own skills or get footage for sponsors.
All work sucks.
The shit part about coding that makes it wise for kids to want to avoid it is that in most of the industry the coders are highly paid slaves.
REAL CODERS HAVE TO DO ALL THE WORK.
Just look at Snapchat. Or have a gander at this borderline psychotic but not a joke job ad for a web coder for Penny Arcade. That's why young people don't want to code.
American business rewards all the worst things...the incentives are all going in the wrong direction. As to your personal situation and why you've been scrounging since the dot-com bubble burst...well, it could be alot of things. Maybe your idea of "scrounging" means turning down a job a Microsoft because you dont want to work for the man...maybe youre a true genius who makes everyone even the bosses look bad so is ostracized...hell, idk...but I don't think your experience is representative, however I do agree that the issues you identify in hiring are all legit problems.
Coding can be fun.
I think the problem lies in how we define the act of "coding" and in what context we present the activity, combined with a misunderstanding of what people actually think is "fun".
Coding is a powerful tool. It is how humans control virtually all complex machines.
Kids love complex machines, but I think the break point is what machines we teach them to program and what behaviors the programming automates.
People, especially kids, like playing video games, so it stands to reason that teaching them to program their own game would be an excellent way to get them into coding. It totally makes sense. I'm not saying not to do it, but it's not working as TFA points out. For one thing, making a simple "game" in an artificial environment isn't actually that fun...because teaching kids to make their own version of "Starcraft" is way too complex there aren't many options.
I think coding simple machines is the solution, enabling more creativity and real-world interaction, without losing the coding aspect. For example, coding a basic motion sensor that makes an output.
You can get basic light/motion sensors for fairly cheap actually (toys have them) and combine that with an output that either triggers something to play a sound, turn on a light, etc.
A next step would be using a rasperry pi type interface...then linking it with all kinds of stuff...
Advanced lessons would be making a motion detector that turned on a light, turned on a radio, and triggered a program on a computer to send a tweet...
Something like that would give them the basic tools to really go crazy...
yeah you got me there...this looks like what I was advocating
you can tell I'm a bit disgruntled about the whole experience of working in academia....this is actually good news!
Just a few stores below in my feed, I see this
Physicist Peter Higgs: "I wouldn't be productive enough for today's academic system"
I'm not against screwing around with the lab computer on off hours and make it model "Middle Earth"...that's a fun idea...no, I'm mortified that this became an official research project and was published.
It proves what Peter Higgs was saying in the most weirdly fun yet depressing way....
n/t
yes for sure, but there's much more to identify, b/c if you "follow the money" it leads to some interesting places...
for the government...Most of the research grants come from R&D for a specific project (ex: DARPA, a vaccine) or the NSF (ex: archaeology, astronomy, CS, etc)
the government, at least in the US, is another way of saying "the voters"....the US has had enough people fall for the "Austerity" charade that virtually every public university, including the two that employed me, cut their budgets b/c the **STATE** budget was being cut artificially.
Here's a headline from 2011, "Indiana state government unearths $320 million in unknown tax revenue" http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/09/politics/indiana-missing-money/
2011 is **the same year all State Universities went on a hiring freeze**...Including mine, Ball State University
It's *****ALL BULLSHIT POLITICS******
what?
this isn't education that you're describing here...that's not how "teaching" works
the goal isn't to "do what the teachers says" or "get a good grade"
the purpose is **to learn the subject & to think independently**
we all know what tests are for...to test our knowledge of a subject...verification of learning
if the test doesn't measure what is being taught (health) and instead only measures something abstract then ***it is fully the teachers fault that the student got a bad grade***
this is fully on the teacher for being a bad educator
that doesn't do as I described at all....it just changes the main windown list of songs...unless I'm double clicking my playlist the wrong 'source' column somehow
I totally went and downloaded the latest Winamp after posting that...
ah the good old days **rattles cane**
iTunes is sort of like a stubborn child...it will do everything else before the right thing...
I use iTunes of course ;)
One place iTunes still hasn't caught up to Winamp's late 90s releases..."playlist"
See, if you never used Winap by default it had two windows that listed your music files...one was a "library" which listed all your songs (in a file tree if you wanted IIRC). The other was you "playlist" which was...the songs you were playing in order.
You could of course save a cool playlist, and open it...all your saved "playlists" were also listed in the "library" window. You could have two "playlist" windows open at the same time...resizing each as needed...
I know iTunes tried w/ their little "up next" thing but it's 5 abstraction layers and 10 clicks too many...
if you're asking for more government regulation and transparency I'm all for it...
I am *always* the guy on /. asking for evidence. "post a link" I always say...
well not this time...
spikenerd needs to get up of his/her ass and look it up *for themselves*
I'll give you a pass if you're not a US citizen, otherwise you're sandbagging and it's fucking up our democracy...
Anyone who has been appropriately keeping up on news should know why both Rand and Ron Paul have been discredited as Libertarians in any sense...
Asking for evidence ad infinitum is also a common trolling tactic
c'mon man...
that's not a replacement for cash
that's the same as an IOU...whether you use BTC or $$$ for the units of the IOU doesn't matter it's still just a fucking IOU
until you can pay bills, taxes, buy a hot dog at the corner vendor, etc with *non-electronic* transfer of physical currency with BTC this whole thing is like a big game of Risk.