Nonsense. I have yet to meet anyone who couldn't pick up enough basic coding, on the side, to make their lives easier. And yes, I've gotten lots of people started, from adolescents to masters students to admins a few years from retirement. Witness the creepy joy when someone goes to an Excel workshop and discovers VB script, as shitty a language as that is. Not to mention the popularity of AppleScript and the number of major pieces of software that have built in scripting (Office, Photoshop, practically everything on a Mac).
Oh, and by the way, people used to say similar things about typing.
There's too much centralization in software, it hurts productivity, and it's frustrating. Software developers are crap at predicting everything everybody is going to need to do and uneducated end users are crap at figuring out overly complex pieces of software that try.
Many mental illnesses are at least partly heritable (including the two examples in the summary) and many are associated with measurable physical (as well as chemical) changes in the brain (including the two examples in the summary). At least some mental illness does have biological causes.
"Depression meds work no better than placebo [thedailybeast.com]."
Beware the weasel words. What your link actually says, and what the research shows, is that antidepressants in general have about a 25% effect over and above placebo. They do work. However, you can get 75% of the effect by taking a sugar pill, without all the side effects.
Antidepressants are undoubtedly overprescribed, but they do work.
"the scientific method used in psychology research is crap."
You've shown no evidence for that. Psychiatrists have gotten pill happy, probably at the behest of their patients, just like antibiotics get overprescribed, but that has no bearing on whether antidepressants or antibiotics actually work (both do). It also isn't relevant to whether biologists, psychologists and pharmacologists are doing good science or not.
Um, he's absolutely correct. The British Psychological Society is the one making the statement. It's the first three words of the summary. The British Psychological Society is full of psychologists. Unlike the Royal Psychiatric Society, which has a lot of psychiatrists as members and is obviously a little peeved.
No it's not. Formal logic and algorithms are are things that the majority of programmers have probably heard of, but don't really know and don't use very often. That's like saying the basics of general contracting and construction is physics and chemistry.
Research agrees with you. Some studies have shown that the majority of jobs could be done more efficiently if people knew a bit of basic scripting. Not much, just a little, to be used to write bits of personal code to make repetitive tasks easier.
When I was in elementary school most people couldn't type well. Now it's pretty much taken for granted that everyone can type. Basic coding skills will be like that in ten years.
Those are some unfortunate examples, considering both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are at least partially heritable and there's other good evidence both have a big biological component.
Psychologists have a good point that considering all mental illnesses to be biologically caused and solely pharmaceutically treatable is not a good thing, but these ones seem to have gone overboard the other way.
About three hours? It's currently 3:30 on the east coast of North America so everybody there is still daydreaming off the lunch stupor. The Europeans are home from work or sleeping, and the west coasters are high so they're not attacking anything.
Not sure about C++, but most of the decent C programmers I know don't consider themselves "C programmers." They're "programmers." I've heard with some of the new fangled languages you only learn one.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether an algorithm deserves a patent. In fact, you've just quoted the guidelines by which algorithms are to be judged worthy or not, implying that some ARE worthy.
It's fine and defensible to oppose (or support) patents, but the "when it is about software, particularly so" is just a geek engaging in irrational thinking. The same way the suit rubbing his hands together in greed because "it's on a computer" is.
Algorithms are not "complex equations" any more than a machine is. You're making the same mistake patent examiners have been making, except in the opposite direction. "On a computer" is irrelevant to the patentability of an algorithm. That means "on a computer" has nothing to do with whether an algorithm deserves a patent, and it also has nothing to do with whether it doesn't deserve a patent.
Why should, say, the marching cubes algorithm, which transforms bitmap data into polygonal surface data, not be worthy of a patent when the set of instructions for turning bauxite into aluminum is? Because one uses a silicon chip and electricity and the other uses a pressure vessel and electricity?
Of course algorithms were intended to be patentable. The process for refining aluminum ore efficiently? An algorithm. A lot of machines are just a physical expression of an algorithm too, and the patent on the planetary gear wasn't awarded for the process of making metal gears (although that would be a process, and thus an algorithm, too).
The problem is that software is a much more flexible medium than wood, metal and chemistry, and it's regarded as nearly magical by so many people, including patent examiners, that obvious patents get granted. Thus "on a computer" not being a reason to grant a patent.
Old blood could very well make you old. As a simple example, if the old person's kidneys weren't working well, hooking up your circulatory system to his would make your kidneys work harder. Same with the liver, heart, endocrine glands....
Since it's a natural protein the only way it'll take that long is if it's difficult to synthesize. You'll be able to buy capsules (claiming to be) of this stuff in your health food store any day.
What takes a long time is figuring out whether the stuff really works or not, which is required before you get to claim that it has an effect without using sneaky language.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. I have yet to meet anyone who couldn't pick up enough basic coding, on the side, to make their lives easier. And yes, I've gotten lots of people started, from adolescents to masters students to admins a few years from retirement. Witness the creepy joy when someone goes to an Excel workshop and discovers VB script, as shitty a language as that is. Not to mention the popularity of AppleScript and the number of major pieces of software that have built in scripting (Office, Photoshop, practically everything on a Mac).
Oh, and by the way, people used to say similar things about typing.
There's too much centralization in software, it hurts productivity, and it's frustrating. Software developers are crap at predicting everything everybody is going to need to do and uneducated end users are crap at figuring out overly complex pieces of software that try.
So by insisting that no mental illnesses have physical causes, you're buying into your father's uninformed worldview?
Are you off your meds?
Many mental illnesses are at least partly heritable (including the two examples in the summary) and many are associated with measurable physical (as well as chemical) changes in the brain (including the two examples in the summary). At least some mental illness does have biological causes.
"Depression meds work no better than placebo [thedailybeast.com]."
Beware the weasel words. What your link actually says, and what the research shows, is that antidepressants in general have about a 25% effect over and above placebo. They do work. However, you can get 75% of the effect by taking a sugar pill, without all the side effects.
Antidepressants are undoubtedly overprescribed, but they do work.
"the scientific method used in psychology research is crap."
You've shown no evidence for that. Psychiatrists have gotten pill happy, probably at the behest of their patients, just like antibiotics get overprescribed, but that has no bearing on whether antidepressants or antibiotics actually work (both do). It also isn't relevant to whether biologists, psychologists and pharmacologists are doing good science or not.
Um, he's absolutely correct. The British Psychological Society is the one making the statement. It's the first three words of the summary. The British Psychological Society is full of psychologists. Unlike the Royal Psychiatric Society, which has a lot of psychiatrists as members and is obviously a little peeved.
That sounds like just like me!
Jesus, it's past your bedtime!
Whoooooo!
No it's not. Formal logic and algorithms are are things that the majority of programmers have probably heard of, but don't really know and don't use very often. That's like saying the basics of general contracting and construction is physics and chemistry.
Programmers. After a couple decades being social outcasts, they're new elitists. And the pigs were walking around on two feet.
Research agrees with you. Some studies have shown that the majority of jobs could be done more efficiently if people knew a bit of basic scripting. Not much, just a little, to be used to write bits of personal code to make repetitive tasks easier.
When I was in elementary school most people couldn't type well. Now it's pretty much taken for granted that everyone can type. Basic coding skills will be like that in ten years.
That's because the universities, as far as undergraduate programs go, are essentially all the same.
And when I hear the term "car," I think of a compact, while most Americans seem to think of an SUV. What's your point?
It's a car that flies, so it's a flying car. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your Jetsons dreams.
Those are some unfortunate examples, considering both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are at least partially heritable and there's other good evidence both have a big biological component.
Psychologists have a good point that considering all mental illnesses to be biologically caused and solely pharmaceutically treatable is not a good thing, but these ones seem to have gone overboard the other way.
About three hours? It's currently 3:30 on the east coast of North America so everybody there is still daydreaming off the lunch stupor. The Europeans are home from work or sleeping, and the west coasters are high so they're not attacking anything.
Not sure about C++, but most of the decent C programmers I know don't consider themselves "C programmers." They're "programmers." I've heard with some of the new fangled languages you only learn one.
No more or less than anything else that has been patented is "maths."
And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether an algorithm deserves a patent. In fact, you've just quoted the guidelines by which algorithms are to be judged worthy or not, implying that some ARE worthy.
It's fine and defensible to oppose (or support) patents, but the "when it is about software, particularly so" is just a geek engaging in irrational thinking. The same way the suit rubbing his hands together in greed because "it's on a computer" is.
Mmm. You don't want to know what normal supply chain and retail markup on non-tech items is.
Algorithms are not "complex equations" any more than a machine is. You're making the same mistake patent examiners have been making, except in the opposite direction. "On a computer" is irrelevant to the patentability of an algorithm. That means "on a computer" has nothing to do with whether an algorithm deserves a patent, and it also has nothing to do with whether it doesn't deserve a patent.
Why should, say, the marching cubes algorithm, which transforms bitmap data into polygonal surface data, not be worthy of a patent when the set of instructions for turning bauxite into aluminum is? Because one uses a silicon chip and electricity and the other uses a pressure vessel and electricity?
Of course algorithms were intended to be patentable. The process for refining aluminum ore efficiently? An algorithm. A lot of machines are just a physical expression of an algorithm too, and the patent on the planetary gear wasn't awarded for the process of making metal gears (although that would be a process, and thus an algorithm, too).
The problem is that software is a much more flexible medium than wood, metal and chemistry, and it's regarded as nearly magical by so many people, including patent examiners, that obvious patents get granted. Thus "on a computer" not being a reason to grant a patent.
Why would you store age in a database?
Old blood could very well make you old. As a simple example, if the old person's kidneys weren't working well, hooking up your circulatory system to his would make your kidneys work harder. Same with the liver, heart, endocrine glands....
Since it's a natural protein the only way it'll take that long is if it's difficult to synthesize. You'll be able to buy capsules (claiming to be) of this stuff in your health food store any day.
What takes a long time is figuring out whether the stuff really works or not, which is required before you get to claim that it has an effect without using sneaky language.