You talk as though rights were absolute. It'sa big cold universe. The only rights we have are the ones we accord each other. As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to leave society. As long as you stay with us, you contribute to the common fund, which is used to secure the nation, maintain a free market by smoothing externalities and imprefections, and prevent anyone from falling too far badly behind the pack.
I'm sorry for the ad hominem attacks, but I find your lack of sympathy for and engagement with the rest of the human race genuinely unsettling and distasteful. If you can't stand up to the occasional insult, then don't argue. Nobody is forcing you to, nor do insults in a post invalidate its other contents (though they may put you off reading it).
I assumed you were an American since I've never met a New Zealander as stupidly Randian as you. I'm an Australian by the way.
I expect one day you might grow out of this "the government is stealing my money" phase and realise that, like it or not, you were born into a society. This is not a free world constantly corrupted by socialism, it is an imperfect world run by the idiots who conceived, bore and raised you, me and our respective cohorts. You haven't lost any freedom you ever had. If you're really concerned about it, I suggest you strike out on your own, because a working majority of your peers seem to support reasonable taxation to prevent the poor from starving to death and to heal the sick.
I think you probably don't realise how good you have it.
>I'm suggesting the government shouldn't be providing the 'services' it does - just defence (not prosecuting wars in foreign countries, e.g. Iraq), police and core government (foreign and local policy, and justice). Everything else can and should be provded for privately.
Good for you, tiger. I understand you've been issued with a vote. I suggest you use it to amend the US constitution so the US can stop being a socialist hellhole that it now is.:rolleyes:
>And that's your privilege. But what do you think gives you the right to pay for such largesse with other peoples money, taken from them by force?
Same thing that gives you the right to live in our country and benefit from our labour, bub. I strongly urge you to find a plot of land not owned and defended by any nation on earth, and run your own fantastic super-society. I'm sure you'll be very happy.
Of course I'll be voting against any government that allows exports to or imports from your shit-tastic, Randian wonderland.
>The thesis that spectral drop-outs could blah blah blah
If only there were some empirical evidence to lead us to this conclusion. The guy isn't trying to explain some radically important empirical finding, he's simply dressing up his idle (and kind of stupid) speculation as scientific enquiry.
" I've always thought that the hard sciences were more immune to that effect than the humanities. I guess not."
That is least likely to occur in the humanities, which are principally concerned with the ideas involved, and have almost nothing to do with experiment.
This shouldn't really be regarded as any form of 'memory' or 'experience' storage. That's pure hype. It's just a diary that exploits advances in storage to add a new layer of media. It won't stop your brain changing over time, and that's the real problem with memory. As the years intervene we become different people, while the meanings of memories change or are lost.
It's also more than a little worrying in the context of Microsoft's recent moves towards greater involvement in our private lives and data.
Is the use of a set-up question and answer format usually a good indicator of a self-important prick? Yes it is. Does that mean you're one? Maybe.
People have a right to know if GM foods are present in their food. However, rather than tagging foods that are genetically modified, why not offer manufacturers the chance to have their food certified "GM Free" by an independent body, giving them the right to label their food as such and thus attract the anti-GM market. That way companies won't take an immediate PR hit for using GM products, they will simply not have the right to add the "GM Free" label.
Regardless, I find your attitude pretty appalling. It's not your faith in the research that matters, it's the faith of individual consumers. I've studied biology and been around biologists all my life, and I too know that research is generally sound and reasonably unbiased, but that doesn't mean that it is perfect. If people don't want to take the risk of consuming modified organisms (however small a risk it really is) then they should be given the opportunity to avoid it. Frankly it's a little bit disturbing that you even had to qualify your assertion about the purity of research by mentioning "colouring of interpretation". That right there is a serious fucking breakdown in the system.
Self citation is perfectly legitimate, and bias does not preclude truth. It is true, for example, that genes held in plasmids are beautifully suited for cross-species transfer.
I understand that (one of my majors is human cognition), but Turing describes a system that we all use, not necessarily the set of all useful systems. In any case, the thrust of the article is practical rather than theoretical. The objection 'but there is a grand narrative set out by Turing' does not apply, because they are talking about a different practical approach to the same theoretical construct. Indeed, everything that Turing said can be found in the tasks of programming, without top-down systematics.
>So, who does the thinking?
Clearly not the guy who has no concept of synthesis. This is not a computer science paper in which the authors set out to test a new hypothesis with the occasional reference to someone else's proof or experiment. It is an attempt to weave two disciplines together.
Another lesson from the Opera House debacle is "Don't sack the architect and hand it over to a government hack simply because you're too provincial to understand his vision, because you'll wind up with a half-assed failure".
Problems associated with Utzon's departure include the exchange of the Opera and Concert Halls, leaving Sydney without the world-class Opera Theatre that had been envisioned, and the complete lousing up of the exterior finishes.
Utzon was not too artsy fartsy to deal with engineering problems, he was beyond them. He is a great architect who demands great engineers to fulfill his vision. I, for one, am glad that his Opera House was attacked not from the perspective of what was buildable, but what was beautiful. My city could have had a stolid, highly buildable shitbox occupying Bennelong point, and instead we got a masterpiece.
Postmodernism is a nonliberal arts field like Computer Science?
Post modernism is not a particular set of methods, it is a questioning, irreverant mood in which to view intellectual constructs. There is no real reason why one cannot turn that mood to 'hard' sciences.
Post-modern math: The derivative of x^3=3x is too narrow of a definition. We need to somehow break free of such rigid rules that prevent expression. Lets try dx/dy x^3=18x on Mondays and dx/dy x^3=5x on Tuesdays.
I think post-modern mathematics might look more like "No formal system can be both consistent and complete".
Post-modern engineering: The concept of the modern suspension bridge is patriarchal in design and form. Instead of being tied down by cables in a seemingly unending pattern, lets have the cables lifted to the air by giant balloons! I have the math right here to prove it will work (see post-modern math)
If it doesn't work, then don't try it again, and feel free to critique the idea the moment it is first mooted.
Post-modern Biology: Sure the lungs are commonly thought to simply process Oxygen and CO2. However, that was simplistic modernistic thinking. Today we will demonstrate neo- objectivism by removing the lungs from this patient and observing their meaninglessness.
Come on, Computer Science is a Science! It has rigid and unavoidable laws, a concept which postmodernism rejects. Fundamentially, when you get down to the heart Computer Science is math and is governed by a ton of mathematical rules.
We have Shannon's laws on Information Theory, Turing-Church Thesis and the Turning Machine describing the limits of computers (see Halting Problem), NP-Completeness, the wide variety of research on various algorithms, etc.
The real problem is not postmodernism, but postmodernists who think that they have to reject everything about the enlightenment. True science is not about fixing things in concrete, but about always questioning and requestioning.
Guess what, fundamentially there is no difference between Perl, C, C++, Ada, LISP, or whatever other language you come up with because at the end of the day they are all Turning Complete.
I thought the anti-postmodernist argument ran that there are meaningful differences between all those languages.
At the end of the day the Turning Machine *IS* the "Grand Narrative". It is the fundamental basis by which all computers and all languages must obey. To use the author's words, it is the "12- note row", the thing that couples everything else together in the sea of chaos.
What proof do you have that Turing said all there is to say about computing?
In any case, what I read of the paper did not seem to be about truth or falsity. It seemed to be more like poststructuralism rather than postmodernism, an alternate approach to a practical task. Postructuralism is the application of postmodernism to the field of history. It is a doctrine by which historians are urged to forget about notions of underlying structures and dynamics, and to regard the surface as all-important. It has produced some revolutionary work, along with a lot of crap.
To shut postmodernism out simply because it doesn't appeal to you, or rejects things that do appeal to you is as grave an error as to push postmodernism as the be-all and end-all of thought.
Of course, a writer may use a Word Processor to write a post-modern play or a animator may use a graphics tool to draw a post-modern animation. But these aren't examples of Computer Science.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Completely irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
A colour exists within an observer, and blackness (the absence of light) produces a colour response just like any other.
By your own, twisted definition, then, you've been mugged. Now stop whining and get back in the game.
>I'll happily pay the levy, but it's the last time I'll buy a music CD, I'll just use P2P instead. Hello broadband usage caps.
You talk as though rights were absolute. It'sa big cold universe. The only rights we have are the ones we accord each other. As far as I'm concerned, you have the right to leave society. As long as you stay with us, you contribute to the common fund, which is used to secure the nation, maintain a free market by smoothing externalities and imprefections, and prevent anyone from falling too far badly behind the pack. I'm sorry for the ad hominem attacks, but I find your lack of sympathy for and engagement with the rest of the human race genuinely unsettling and distasteful. If you can't stand up to the occasional insult, then don't argue. Nobody is forcing you to, nor do insults in a post invalidate its other contents (though they may put you off reading it).
I assumed you were an American since I've never met a New Zealander as stupidly Randian as you. I'm an Australian by the way. I expect one day you might grow out of this "the government is stealing my money" phase and realise that, like it or not, you were born into a society. This is not a free world constantly corrupted by socialism, it is an imperfect world run by the idiots who conceived, bore and raised you, me and our respective cohorts. You haven't lost any freedom you ever had. If you're really concerned about it, I suggest you strike out on your own, because a working majority of your peers seem to support reasonable taxation to prevent the poor from starving to death and to heal the sick. I think you probably don't realise how good you have it.
Good for you, tiger. I understand you've been issued with a vote. I suggest you use it to amend the US constitution so the US can stop being a socialist hellhole that it now is. :rolleyes:
Same thing that gives you the right to live in our country and benefit from our labour, bub. I strongly urge you to find a plot of land not owned and defended by any nation on earth, and run your own fantastic super-society. I'm sure you'll be very happy. Of course I'll be voting against any government that allows exports to or imports from your shit-tastic, Randian wonderland.
I propose that you be left alone first by the collectors of waste.
>The thesis that spectral drop-outs could blah blah blah
If only there were some empirical evidence to lead us to this conclusion. The guy isn't trying to explain some radically important empirical finding, he's simply dressing up his idle (and kind of stupid) speculation as scientific enquiry.
That is least likely to occur in the humanities, which are principally concerned with the ideas involved, and have almost nothing to do with experiment.
It's also more than a little worrying in the context of Microsoft's recent moves towards greater involvement in our private lives and data.
Is the use of a set-up question and answer format usually a good indicator of a self-important prick? Yes it is. Does that mean you're one? Maybe. People have a right to know if GM foods are present in their food. However, rather than tagging foods that are genetically modified, why not offer manufacturers the chance to have their food certified "GM Free" by an independent body, giving them the right to label their food as such and thus attract the anti-GM market. That way companies won't take an immediate PR hit for using GM products, they will simply not have the right to add the "GM Free" label. Regardless, I find your attitude pretty appalling. It's not your faith in the research that matters, it's the faith of individual consumers. I've studied biology and been around biologists all my life, and I too know that research is generally sound and reasonably unbiased, but that doesn't mean that it is perfect. If people don't want to take the risk of consuming modified organisms (however small a risk it really is) then they should be given the opportunity to avoid it. Frankly it's a little bit disturbing that you even had to qualify your assertion about the purity of research by mentioning "colouring of interpretation". That right there is a serious fucking breakdown in the system.
Self citation is perfectly legitimate, and bias does not preclude truth. It is true, for example, that genes held in plasmids are beautifully suited for cross-species transfer.
I understand that (one of my majors is human cognition), but Turing describes a system that we all use, not necessarily the set of all useful systems. In any case, the thrust of the article is practical rather than theoretical. The objection 'but there is a grand narrative set out by Turing' does not apply, because they are talking about a different practical approach to the same theoretical construct. Indeed, everything that Turing said can be found in the tasks of programming, without top-down systematics.
Is it just me, or are there an awful lot of cries of 'redundant'? One would have sufficed...
>So, who does the thinking? Clearly not the guy who has no concept of synthesis. This is not a computer science paper in which the authors set out to test a new hypothesis with the occasional reference to someone else's proof or experiment. It is an attempt to weave two disciplines together.
Another lesson from the Opera House debacle is "Don't sack the architect and hand it over to a government hack simply because you're too provincial to understand his vision, because you'll wind up with a half-assed failure".
Problems associated with Utzon's departure include the exchange of the Opera and Concert Halls, leaving Sydney without the world-class Opera Theatre that had been envisioned, and the complete lousing up of the exterior finishes.
Utzon was not too artsy fartsy to deal with engineering problems, he was beyond them. He is a great architect who demands great engineers to fulfill his vision. I, for one, am glad that his Opera House was attacked not from the perspective of what was buildable, but what was beautiful. My city could have had a stolid, highly buildable shitbox occupying Bennelong point, and instead we got a masterpiece.
Post modernism is not a particular set of methods, it is a questioning, irreverant mood in which to view intellectual constructs. There is no real reason why one cannot turn that mood to 'hard' sciences.
Post-modern math: The derivative of x^3=3x is too narrow of a definition. We need to somehow break free of such rigid rules that prevent expression. Lets try dx/dy x^3=18x on Mondays and dx/dy x^3=5x on Tuesdays.
I think post-modern mathematics might look more like "No formal system can be both consistent and complete".
Post-modern engineering: The concept of the modern suspension bridge is patriarchal in design and form. Instead of being tied down by cables in a seemingly unending pattern, lets have the cables lifted to the air by giant balloons! I have the math right here to prove it will work (see post-modern math)
If it doesn't work, then don't try it again, and feel free to critique the idea the moment it is first mooted.
Post-modern Biology: Sure the lungs are commonly thought to simply process Oxygen and CO2. However, that was simplistic modernistic thinking. Today we will demonstrate neo- objectivism by removing the lungs from this patient and observing their meaninglessness.
Come on, Computer Science is a Science! It has rigid and unavoidable laws, a concept which postmodernism rejects. Fundamentially, when you get down to the heart Computer Science is math and is governed by a ton of mathematical rules. We have Shannon's laws on Information Theory, Turing-Church Thesis and the Turning Machine describing the limits of computers (see Halting Problem), NP-Completeness, the wide variety of research on various algorithms, etc.
The real problem is not postmodernism, but postmodernists who think that they have to reject everything about the enlightenment. True science is not about fixing things in concrete, but about always questioning and requestioning.
Guess what, fundamentially there is no difference between Perl, C, C++, Ada, LISP, or whatever other language you come up with because at the end of the day they are all Turning Complete.
I thought the anti-postmodernist argument ran that there are meaningful differences between all those languages.
At the end of the day the Turning Machine *IS* the "Grand Narrative". It is the fundamental basis by which all computers and all languages must obey. To use the author's words, it is the "12- note row", the thing that couples everything else together in the sea of chaos.
What proof do you have that Turing said all there is to say about computing?
In any case, what I read of the paper did not seem to be about truth or falsity. It seemed to be more like poststructuralism rather than postmodernism, an alternate approach to a practical task. Postructuralism is the application of postmodernism to the field of history. It is a doctrine by which historians are urged to forget about notions of underlying structures and dynamics, and to regard the surface as all-important. It has produced some revolutionary work, along with a lot of crap.
To shut postmodernism out simply because it doesn't appeal to you, or rejects things that do appeal to you is as grave an error as to push postmodernism as the be-all and end-all of thought.
Of course, a writer may use a Word Processor to write a post-modern play or a animator may use a graphics tool to draw a post-modern animation. But these aren't examples of Computer Science.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Completely irrelevant.
Perhaps you would have said the same thing about Ch'an Buddhism back in the Chinese day.
Or perhaps you wouldn't.