I searched for one. All I got was bloggers to the show. Perhaps you'll find something at Discovery Channel, but as I can't see that from work, perhaps you'll do better than I did....
We're finding new chimeras every day, now that DNA testing is becoming more common. Discovery Health even had a program where genetic testing showed a mother's children to be the product of her BROTHER and her husband; though she had no brother. Turned out she was a hermaphrodite- some of her cells, including her EGGS, were male- a fraternal twin that had been absorbed early in the gestation process.
Video games today are about graphics and music, not about actual programming. All of the primary game companies already have set game engines of various types (board game, turn based, side scroller, flight/driving simulator, world simulator, or first person shooter) that can be ported to any platform. The only difference is in the graphics and music.
It isn't 1984 anymore. There is nothing new in video games to warrent actually having a computer science degree. Get the art, learn the tools needed to edit the game on top of the high level engine- and forget about the rest.
I'm not saying it never happens - but does this happen for all types of programmers, and how often does it occur compared with say writing efficient algorithms in the first place?
It's a part of knowing how to write efficient algorithms. Your algorithms will be more efficient if you take into account that certain data types match certain processors better. For instance, a floating point add instruction may take 3 clock cycles to complete, where a single word add will only take one clock cycle (therefore, you should always match the variable type of your for loop to the word size of the intended microprocessor). That sort of thing.
It's one particular type of maths and computer science, but unless you think a computer programmer should know everything there is to know about maths and computer science, this doesn't mean that assembly is a requirement.
I don't think a computer programmer should know everything about math. But he should know everything about computer science, and that would include the kind of math the computer is best at. Not every algorithim you're ever going to need is going to be already in an abstracted dynamic link library. And if you know binary math and boolean algebra, you'll understand how to write a new algorithim in such a way in a higher level language so that the compiler will end up with a very efficient and reusable piece of machine code.
The answer may be Yes to the first two, but this is comparable to saying that a computer programmer should understand maths or computer science. Learning assembly, whilst it may still be useful in some ways, is a lot more specific than that.
I disagree. A good course on assembly and how it relates to machine language IS math AND computer science. It's the junction between the two that brings the relationship into sharp focus.
Which is why I not only say university students should learn assembly- but that it doesn't matter *what* specific architecture they take it on. In fact, for history's sake, those who will be programming in C or.NET should probably take DEC PDP assembly- if for no other reason than to have INC and DEC instructions that map directly to ++ and --.
Close? It is a tautology- most religious beliefs are. One of the big differences between Euclidean Logic and Theology is the truth of the tautology.
Well, yeah. There is so much similarity between evolutionists and Christian in their dogmatism, it's not even funny.
Depends on the set of Christians. Once again, see the link in my sig line. The great heresy today is the idea that God doesn't have to make sense. It's what feeds both atheism and right-wing religious extremeism in Judaeo-Islamic-Christianity. Atheism as a reaction to it, though- which puts rational religion solidly on the side of science in this. For irrational religions- change just doesn't make sense and is seen as a threat. And since evolution is defined by change, of course they're going to be against it.
In the Bible doesn't it have a passage where it is more difficult for the rich to get into heaven?
Yes- but it also gives the answer- the same way you get a camel through the eye of the needle (a rather small gate in the wall of old Jerusalem)- by unloading his material goods.
What I am saying is that humans, like other organisms, are not altruistic. While the actions may look like altruism, there is more to it whether it is a perceived benefit (psychological) or indirect benefit.
True enough as far as it goes- though I'd argue that altruistic behaviors are traditional behaviors for whom the percieved benefit, if actually thought about, ceased to be useful long ago. Noblese Oblige is a good example; the peasants haven't been likely to revolt for several hundred generations now, but it's still seen as a social good for the rich to do.
True enough- survival of the fittest has a tendency to define those who survive as being particularily fit.
Also, unlike what the creationists and atheists would tell you, Darwin's ideas have become quite acceptable within the Roman Catholic Church- the last two Popes have refered to them quite often, and the idea of evolution of culture is behind the current push towards Benedict XVI's "rational religion" (see link in sig line).
Why did Mother Teresa do the good deeds for the poor? It is obvious her actions did not raise her genetic fitness. Would she have acted the same if there wasn't the benefit for her soul in the after life promised in her religion?
I believe so, yes. There's a strong sense in Catholicism that we are co-creators with God- and if our Lord should send us to Hell itself to minister to the poor, we will gladly take up that banner. I believe Mother Theresa's actions were a DIRECT result of how she was raised in Austria before the invasion of the Germans- she did what she did out of a sense of Noblese Oblige- the obligation of the wealthy to help the poor.
But aren't you then taking off from the Darwinism when you talk about evolution and culture/religion?
In a way- I'm admitting that for microevolution, Darwin had a very powerfull idea that goes far beyond mere biology. It's also a useful way of thinking about anthropology in various guises; and it explains the reason why Taker cultures have historically out-competed Leaver cultures DESPITE the fact that the Leaver cultures fit better into their ecological niches.
What is then evolution suppose to be, since it is after all a part of the Western culture?
Not just western culture, but all cultures, and in fact, all species. Evolution is just change and the mechanics of change under pressure from the surrounding environment; nothing more and nothing less.
Well, I'm not sure I agree that they are always anti-your-own-survival. Giving your life to save someone unrelated to you is generally bad in Darwinian terms, but "good" morally.
Thus my emphasis on the evolution of cultures and religions as opposed to individuals or families; "good" morally is about survival of the group, not survival of the individual.
I think humans came up with words to describe the sort of person who would do such altruistic things, and gave them the word "good" or "moral".
Well, to that end, everything we write about is just words that humans "came up with".
I think it's clear that in some cases there are Darwinian benefits to be "moral", but in as many if not more cases, it does not benefit someone. If it benefitted us in all cases, we'd all be moral, and there wouldn't be much need to make up a word for it.
In EVERY case moral behavior does benefit *somebody*. The somebody isn't always readily apparent, but always exists.
If you would believe religious nuts, morality comes from baby jesus and baby jesus alone.
1. Not all religious nuts are illeterate southern baptists.
2. Not all religious nuts are even Christian.
3. The grand plurality of Christians in this world (about 53% of them) would say that morality comes from the Magisterium, as revealed by Jesus Christ the King, to the Apostles, and today is voiced by the Pope in certain very rare circumstances.
Even with religion brought into it, the why is usually a pretty straightforward "it protects the continuation and procreation of the culture". "Bad" moral decisions are simply anti-survival, and there's enough competition between religions and cultures for evolution to do the rest.
*putting on BOFH hat- alwasys been there but apparently sometimes it's invisible*
Simple- just count the number of times upper management uses the phrase "It's not personal, it's just business". Every single deal that is applied to is shaddy to some extent- but thanks to the use of that phrase, the victim is unlikely to complain to regulators for fear of being seen as a bad businessman. It's the way capitalism uses socialism to breed a culture of corruption- where if you peered too closely at *any* board of directors or *any* C-level executive, you'll find the type of pond scum who would sell their own mother for an increase in share price.
Capitalists convincing governments to pass these laws so that it looks like the governments are actually doing something about corporate corruption- while the 10% game (only the worst 10% of cases of business fraud ever get reported, let alone prosecuted) continues on.
See GentleWhisper's comment further down the thread for the real McDonald's suggestion- All American Beef Patties.....much more likely than actually having them work there.
And moasteries do not historically offer "passivity training"- you apparently know very little about the system.
Read the linked wikipedia article- it clearly states that the treatment of Vietnam Vets was the primary motivation for the STTNG episode. In other words, you're completely right- we should look to the past for some of our information. But when you have a set of military technology that enhances human potential- that's science fiction becoming fact. Thus my reason for linking to the episode description in question in the first place.
When I was working in my first job, we had a very glamourous secretary working for us in Las Vegas. Her boyfriend was a Navy Seal, a vetran of Gulf War I. We spent a lot of late nights in that company- it was your standard dot bomb. One day, a very jealous boyfriend came in and accused her of having an affair with one of our salesmen- the salesman was lucky that he was out at the time. The secretary was not- shot and killed- and then the boyfriend committed suicide himeself.
When you have a hammer- every problem looks like a nail.
Mere training, after dosing wth drugs to highten agression and intelligence, as well as experimental implants, will allow a soldier to work in a McDonald's without killing customers?:-)
As for the rest- just more assumption of facts not in evidence.
Speaking of ecology- the Ecotopia series from the 1970s is *very* relevant now, as the reality of alternative fuels economics threatens to split off Cascadia from the rest of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
I searched for one. All I got was bloggers to the show. Perhaps you'll find something at Discovery Channel, but as I can't see that from work, perhaps you'll do better than I did....
We're finding new chimeras every day, now that DNA testing is becoming more common. Discovery Health even had a program where genetic testing showed a mother's children to be the product of her BROTHER and her husband; though she had no brother. Turned out she was a hermaphrodite- some of her cells, including her EGGS, were male- a fraternal twin that had been absorbed early in the gestation process.
Video games today are about graphics and music, not about actual programming. All of the primary game companies already have set game engines of various types (board game, turn based, side scroller, flight/driving simulator, world simulator, or first person shooter) that can be ported to any platform. The only difference is in the graphics and music.
It isn't 1984 anymore. There is nothing new in video games to warrent actually having a computer science degree. Get the art, learn the tools needed to edit the game on top of the high level engine- and forget about the rest.
I'm not saying it never happens - but does this happen for all types of programmers, and how often does it occur compared with say writing efficient algorithms in the first place?
It's a part of knowing how to write efficient algorithms. Your algorithms will be more efficient if you take into account that certain data types match certain processors better. For instance, a floating point add instruction may take 3 clock cycles to complete, where a single word add will only take one clock cycle (therefore, you should always match the variable type of your for loop to the word size of the intended microprocessor). That sort of thing.
It's one particular type of maths and computer science, but unless you think a computer programmer should know everything there is to know about maths and computer science, this doesn't mean that assembly is a requirement.
I don't think a computer programmer should know everything about math. But he should know everything about computer science, and that would include the kind of math the computer is best at. Not every algorithim you're ever going to need is going to be already in an abstracted dynamic link library. And if you know binary math and boolean algebra, you'll understand how to write a new algorithim in such a way in a higher level language so that the compiler will end up with a very efficient and reusable piece of machine code.
The answer may be Yes to the first two, but this is comparable to saying that a computer programmer should understand maths or computer science. Learning assembly, whilst it may still be useful in some ways, is a lot more specific than that.
.NET should probably take DEC PDP assembly- if for no other reason than to have INC and DEC instructions that map directly to ++ and --.
I disagree. A good course on assembly and how it relates to machine language IS math AND computer science. It's the junction between the two that brings the relationship into sharp focus.
Which is why I not only say university students should learn assembly- but that it doesn't matter *what* specific architecture they take it on. In fact, for history's sake, those who will be programming in C or
Pretty close to a tautology, no?
Close? It is a tautology- most religious beliefs are. One of the big differences between Euclidean Logic and Theology is the truth of the tautology.
Well, yeah. There is so much similarity between evolutionists and Christian in their dogmatism, it's not even funny.
Depends on the set of Christians. Once again, see the link in my sig line. The great heresy today is the idea that God doesn't have to make sense. It's what feeds both atheism and right-wing religious extremeism in Judaeo-Islamic-Christianity. Atheism as a reaction to it, though- which puts rational religion solidly on the side of science in this. For irrational religions- change just doesn't make sense and is seen as a threat. And since evolution is defined by change, of course they're going to be against it.
I wonder how Noblese Oblige came about?
Originally? Prevention or revolution.
In the Bible doesn't it have a passage where it is more difficult for the rich to get into heaven?
Yes- but it also gives the answer- the same way you get a camel through the eye of the needle (a rather small gate in the wall of old Jerusalem)- by unloading his material goods.
What I am saying is that humans, like other organisms, are not altruistic. While the actions may look like altruism, there is more to it whether it is a perceived benefit (psychological) or indirect benefit.
True enough as far as it goes- though I'd argue that altruistic behaviors are traditional behaviors for whom the percieved benefit, if actually thought about, ceased to be useful long ago. Noblese Oblige is a good example; the peasants haven't been likely to revolt for several hundred generations now, but it's still seen as a social good for the rich to do.
True enough- survival of the fittest has a tendency to define those who survive as being particularily fit.
Also, unlike what the creationists and atheists would tell you, Darwin's ideas have become quite acceptable within the Roman Catholic Church- the last two Popes have refered to them quite often, and the idea of evolution of culture is behind the current push towards Benedict XVI's "rational religion" (see link in sig line).
Why did Mother Teresa do the good deeds for the poor? It is obvious her actions did not raise her genetic fitness. Would she have acted the same if there wasn't the benefit for her soul in the after life promised in her religion?
I believe so, yes. There's a strong sense in Catholicism that we are co-creators with God- and if our Lord should send us to Hell itself to minister to the poor, we will gladly take up that banner. I believe Mother Theresa's actions were a DIRECT result of how she was raised in Austria before the invasion of the Germans- she did what she did out of a sense of Noblese Oblige- the obligation of the wealthy to help the poor.
But aren't you then taking off from the Darwinism when you talk about evolution and culture/religion?
In a way- I'm admitting that for microevolution, Darwin had a very powerfull idea that goes far beyond mere biology. It's also a useful way of thinking about anthropology in various guises; and it explains the reason why Taker cultures have historically out-competed Leaver cultures DESPITE the fact that the Leaver cultures fit better into their ecological niches.
What is then evolution suppose to be, since it is after all a part of the Western culture?
Not just western culture, but all cultures, and in fact, all species. Evolution is just change and the mechanics of change under pressure from the surrounding environment; nothing more and nothing less.
Good catch! I don't know how I did that- though now that I think about it, I'm not sure "illiterate" would have been right either....
Well, I'm not sure I agree that they are always anti-your-own-survival. Giving your life to save someone unrelated to you is generally bad in Darwinian terms, but "good" morally.
Thus my emphasis on the evolution of cultures and religions as opposed to individuals or families; "good" morally is about survival of the group, not survival of the individual.
I think humans came up with words to describe the sort of person who would do such altruistic things, and gave them the word "good" or "moral".
Well, to that end, everything we write about is just words that humans "came up with".
I think it's clear that in some cases there are Darwinian benefits to be "moral", but in as many if not more cases, it does not benefit someone. If it benefitted us in all cases, we'd all be moral, and there wouldn't be much need to make up a word for it.
In EVERY case moral behavior does benefit *somebody*. The somebody isn't always readily apparent, but always exists.
If you would believe religious nuts, morality comes from baby jesus and baby jesus alone.
1. Not all religious nuts are illeterate southern baptists.
2. Not all religious nuts are even Christian.
3. The grand plurality of Christians in this world (about 53% of them) would say that morality comes from the Magisterium, as revealed by Jesus Christ the King, to the Apostles, and today is voiced by the Pope in certain very rare circumstances.
Even with religion brought into it, the why is usually a pretty straightforward "it protects the continuation and procreation of the culture". "Bad" moral decisions are simply anti-survival, and there's enough competition between religions and cultures for evolution to do the rest.
Mexico has been using this tech for several years now, though this is a bit smaller than the taxi vans.
How would one ascertain that information?
*putting on BOFH hat- alwasys been there but apparently sometimes it's invisible*
Simple- just count the number of times upper management uses the phrase "It's not personal, it's just business". Every single deal that is applied to is shaddy to some extent- but thanks to the use of that phrase, the victim is unlikely to complain to regulators for fear of being seen as a bad businessman. It's the way capitalism uses socialism to breed a culture of corruption- where if you peered too closely at *any* board of directors or *any* C-level executive, you'll find the type of pond scum who would sell their own mother for an increase in share price.
Capitalists convincing governments to pass these laws so that it looks like the governments are actually doing something about corporate corruption- while the 10% game (only the worst 10% of cases of business fraud ever get reported, let alone prosecuted) continues on.
See GentleWhisper's comment further down the thread for the real McDonald's suggestion- All American Beef Patties.....much more likely than actually having them work there.
And moasteries do not historically offer "passivity training"- you apparently know very little about the system.
Read the linked wikipedia article- it clearly states that the treatment of Vietnam Vets was the primary motivation for the STTNG episode. In other words, you're completely right- we should look to the past for some of our information. But when you have a set of military technology that enhances human potential- that's science fiction becoming fact. Thus my reason for linking to the episode description in question in the first place.
When I was working in my first job, we had a very glamourous secretary working for us in Las Vegas. Her boyfriend was a Navy Seal, a vetran of Gulf War I. We spent a lot of late nights in that company- it was your standard dot bomb. One day, a very jealous boyfriend came in and accused her of having an affair with one of our salesmen- the salesman was lucky that he was out at the time. The secretary was not- shot and killed- and then the boyfriend committed suicide himeself.
When you have a hammer- every problem looks like a nail.
Mere training, after dosing wth drugs to highten agression and intelligence, as well as experimental implants, will allow a soldier to work in a McDonald's without killing customers? :-)
As for the rest- just more assumption of facts not in evidence.
Both those places require less agression and concentration, not more...but I suppose you didn't even RTFA OR my link before you posted this.
But what will we do with the overtrained soldiers after the war is over?
Speaking of ecology- the Ecotopia series from the 1970s is *very* relevant now, as the reality of alternative fuels economics threatens to split off Cascadia from the rest of the country.