As someone who's worked on 30-year-old acoustic ray tracing software models, the fact that they're attempting to get a patent make me want to puke.
Fortunately, we can count on the vigilant patriots at the USPTO to view the patent with skepticism, and bring a combination of deep domain knowledge and Rottweiler-like tenacity to look for prior art.
So it seems to me like all fully observant Muslims are required to engage in, or at least approve of, this behavior.
If that's true, then:
(1) Why do so many Muslims renounce such violence? Is it that they can't stomach what appears to be this straight-forward interpretation of the Koran?
(2) If there is some alternative, justifiable interpretation of the Koran, why aren't governments fighting that propaganda war? Does the fact that they're not doing so indicate that no such justifiable interpretation exist?
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
Do you mean that literally in all cases? For example, I'm okay with people having threatened Hitler's life (which obviously isn't what's going on here, but I'm just using an extreme case to make my point.)
I'm not very trained in statistics, but I've read more than my fair share of academic computer science papers over the years.
Even with my limited training in statistics, I've known enough to be appalled by the errant statistical reasoning used. Or even not used. I.e., "We don't know how many times to run a program to get a 'valid' average running time, so we ran it three times. Here's the average:..." The authors seemingly aren't just ignorant of how to get the answer; they often seem to have not thought through what questions they're trying to answer in the first place with their measurements and resulting statistics.
I think a few problems come into play here:
The mathematics of statistics can be hard.
Thinking through the meanings of statistics requires careful thought, especially for experimental design and/or system performance characterization. Many CS practitioners would prefer to not invest mental energy in this aspect of their work because they don't enjoy it; it's a distraction to what they want to do.
Because so many people in CS are bad at statistics, peer reviewers tend to let it slide. This helps foster a culture problem. If I'm under the wire to get a paper published and I'm near deadline, do I take an extra 20 hours to get the statistics right? Especially knowing that I'm judged by the number of published papers, and that the peer reviewers won't notice or care about poor statistical reasoning?
It's easy to make statistical reasoning errors without noticing it. Especially if you're not surrounded by statisticians.
Despite CS majors thinking we're so smart about mathematical issues, I think this might be one area where that confidence is delusional. I suspect most psychology majors who paid attention in their Experimental Design courses are more capable in the appropriate mathematics than are most CS majors.
You question the conscientiousness of the programmers in the first paragraph and assume it in the second.
You should see the crazy type casting that happens in production code to please the IDE and/or compiler. It may or may not be the right thing.
Then there's the cases where it is actually OK if not all objects passed in support all of the methods. Not Applicable might be the right outcome of a method call if the caller is prepared for that possibility.
FWIW, I was never trying to argue that a language like Java is better than a language like Python in every circumstance.
There are tradeoffs, and I'm just saying that for some systems, especially large complicated ones, I've found the benefits of static typing to outweigh the greater effort that's needed to make certain kinds of changes.
As I'm sure we all know, a badly designed program in either kind of language can make the grass on the other side of the fence look greener.
Duck typing is a mixed bag. You can make the requirements clearer in comments and the doc string. It also has great advantages in being more concerned with attributes than declared type or lineage. It allows modules to deal with classes that weren't even imagined when they were written.
The problem is that by an large, code can't be automatically checked against doc strings. (If it could be, then you'd just have a classic type system again.)
As far as supporting unplanned extensibility, it seems to me that interfaces (or pure virtual base classes in the case of C++) provide that functionality in more statically typed languages, so I don't see that as an advantage peculiar to duck-typing.
If speed is not absolutely critical, there's plenty of "scripting" languages that get the job done more easily with less code.
A big problem with duck-typed scripting languages, such as Python, is that the absence of explicitly stated type requirements in the source code. Using types in function signatures and variable declarations is an extremely useful tool for developers to indicate not only how a system is decomposed, but also what potential future usages they intend to support vs. not support.
I've worked on reasonably large Python, C++, and Java projects. The Python code was by far the hardest to make sense of due to the duck typing and other Python idioms (metaclass, i.e. self-modifying code).
Not sure what you mean by a "deep evolutionary pathway".
It seems to me that the pathways exist regardless of how we came to have our current physiology - evolved long ago or just recently. It's not obvious to me that there's a correlation between (a) how long living creatures have had such pathways and (b) how easy/hard it is to treat cancer in someone who has it.
And of course Microsoft now likes to act like they are an open source company that believes in open standards. Maybe they do,
Well, let's test that. Let's ask them to open-source and de-patent (if there are any) the protocols used between the MS SQL client and server, and to perpetually keep that protocol spec completely open and unencumbered.
Sometimes, do we see the discussion turn to towards political hate speech.
Depending on your definition of "hate speech", I may want to attack one of your (possible) premises. It sounds like you're denigrating the concept of "hate speech". I have two problems with that.
First, even using the term "hate speech" seems to me as playing into the hands of authoritarian groups which would like to limit free speech and dissenting thought. At best, using the term "hate speech" seems intended to proscribe certain views as outside the pale of reasonable discussion. At the worst, it's an excuse for bringing criminal charges.
Second, I find it hard to respect someone who doesn't hate certain things. I hate the sexual molestation of children. I hate people who peddle drugs to kids. I hate drunk drivers. I hate politicians who lie to get the votes, knowing they don't plan to fulfill their promises. I hate people who torture their prisoners without literally a ticking-time-bomb dilemma. Is that hate speech? If so, what would you feel about someone who didn't hate those things?
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow this will cause someone to puke.
As someone who's worked on 30-year-old acoustic ray tracing software models, the fact that they're attempting to get a patent make me want to puke.
Fortunately, we can count on the vigilant patriots at the USPTO to view the patent with skepticism, and bring a combination of deep domain knowledge and Rottweiler-like tenacity to look for prior art.
Umm if it had zero effective power it certainly wouldn't be a bully pulpit. In fact it wouldn't even be a regular pulpit.
Agreed. The U.S. federal government is so incredibly goofed up right now that the practical impact of this appointment will be approximately nil.
It's nice to have this analysis. But am I the only wondering to what other use they could have put those DNA Points???
From the small amount of reading I've done
Therein lies your problem.
Oh thank goodness! I assume then that you can point me at something to read which answers my question?
This may come across as a troll, but I promise it's not. I'm looking for a genuine discussion on something.
From the small amount of reading I've done, it seems that the Koran is pretty clear: Islam requires non-Muslims to convert or pay tax or be killed:
http://infidelsarecool.com/200...
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religio...
So it seems to me like all fully observant Muslims are required to engage in, or at least approve of, this behavior.
If that's true, then:
(1) Why do so many Muslims renounce such violence? Is it that they can't stomach what appears to be this straight-forward interpretation of the Koran?
(2) If there is some alternative, justifiable interpretation of the Koran, why aren't governments fighting that propaganda war? Does the fact that they're not doing so indicate that no such justifiable interpretation exist?
Cards, vibrators, air conditioners, vibrators, antibiotics, vibrators, dishwashers, vibrators, ...
From an outside perspective, the things that IT people do might as well be summarized as "Computers".
Just a guess, but perhaps they didn't think to do cluster analysis within each broad job category.
+1 Got It In One. Complete with correct parallel construction.
Meh. Wasn't in iambic pentameter. +0.
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
Do you mean that literally in all cases? For example, I'm okay with people having threatened Hitler's life (which obviously isn't what's going on here, but I'm just using an extreme case to make my point.)
I can only assume the NSA has become self-funding, and is doing so by hacking banks.
I'm not very trained in statistics, but I've read more than my fair share of academic computer science papers over the years.
Even with my limited training in statistics, I've known enough to be appalled by the errant statistical reasoning used. Or even not used. I.e., "We don't know how many times to run a program to get a 'valid' average running time, so we ran it three times. Here's the average: ..." The authors seemingly aren't just ignorant of how to get the answer; they often seem to have not thought through what questions they're trying to answer in the first place with their measurements and resulting statistics.
I think a few problems come into play here:
Despite CS majors thinking we're so smart about mathematical issues, I think this might be one area where that confidence is delusional. I suspect most psychology majors who paid attention in their Experimental Design courses are more capable in the appropriate mathematics than are most CS majors.
You question the conscientiousness of the programmers in the first paragraph and assume it in the second.
You should see the crazy type casting that happens in production code to please the IDE and/or compiler. It may or may not be the right thing.
Then there's the cases where it is actually OK if not all objects passed in support all of the methods. Not Applicable might be the right outcome of a method call if the caller is prepared for that possibility.
FWIW, I was never trying to argue that a language like Java is better than a language like Python in every circumstance.
There are tradeoffs, and I'm just saying that for some systems, especially large complicated ones, I've found the benefits of static typing to outweigh the greater effort that's needed to make certain kinds of changes.
As I'm sure we all know, a badly designed program in either kind of language can make the grass on the other side of the fence look greener.
Duck typing is a mixed bag. You can make the requirements clearer in comments and the doc string. It also has great advantages in being more concerned with attributes than declared type or lineage. It allows modules to deal with classes that weren't even imagined when they were written.
The problem is that by an large, code can't be automatically checked against doc strings. (If it could be, then you'd just have a classic type system again.)
As far as supporting unplanned extensibility, it seems to me that interfaces (or pure virtual base classes in the case of C++) provide that functionality in more statically typed languages, so I don't see that as an advantage peculiar to duck-typing.
A big problem with duck-typed scripting languages, such as Python, is that the absence of explicitly stated type requirements in the source code. Using types in function signatures and variable declarations is an extremely useful tool for developers to indicate not only how a system is decomposed, but also what potential future usages they intend to support vs. not support.
I've worked on reasonably large Python, C++, and Java projects. The Python code was by far the hardest to make sense of due to the duck typing and other Python idioms (metaclass, i.e. self-modifying code).
What good engineer gives a f**k about what language "cool", aside from considering his/her ability to hire hipsters to staff the project?
If you're worried about the "coolness" of a language when doing your day job, you're almost certainly doing your job poorly.
Well, not if Jesus or Mohammed was correct.
Not sure what you mean by a "deep evolutionary pathway".
It seems to me that the pathways exist regardless of how we came to have our current physiology - evolved long ago or just recently. It's not obvious to me that there's a correlation between (a) how long living creatures have had such pathways and (b) how easy/hard it is to treat cancer in someone who has it.
Doesn't adding the keyword "porn" to the Google search stop all of that filtering?
Wait... it is? Seriously? I've got a friend who actually cares about this. I'll "let him know".
How many of them ended up in prison?
Extortion laws ought to apply here as well.
Right, and now. IANAL, but it sounds to me like this already counts as criminal conspiracy.
You can sue for damages. Please provide documentation of monetary damages resulting from being disconnected from the internet.
Actually, I'm contracted with my ISP to provide Internet access. Could Rightscorp be sued for tortuous interference with a business relationship?
Well, let's test that. Let's ask them to open-source and de-patent (if there are any) the protocols used between the MS SQL client and server, and to perpetually keep that protocol spec completely open and unencumbered.
Depending on your definition of "hate speech", I may want to attack one of your (possible) premises. It sounds like you're denigrating the concept of "hate speech". I have two problems with that.
First, even using the term "hate speech" seems to me as playing into the hands of authoritarian groups which would like to limit free speech and dissenting thought. At best, using the term "hate speech" seems intended to proscribe certain views as outside the pale of reasonable discussion. At the worst, it's an excuse for bringing criminal charges.
Second, I find it hard to respect someone who doesn't hate certain things. I hate the sexual molestation of children. I hate people who peddle drugs to kids. I hate drunk drivers. I hate politicians who lie to get the votes, knowing they don't plan to fulfill their promises. I hate people who torture their prisoners without literally a ticking-time-bomb dilemma. Is that hate speech? If so, what would you feel about someone who didn't hate those things?
Yeah, Slashdot articles are really stupid!