Well yeah, it does. Microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution and therefore species splits. This too, we have observed and documented. Crationists just refuse to acknowledge. That's what is fun to laugh at.
Then it failed. It sounded like ultra-vague language to describe something everyone's been doing for decades. Just what about the billing is being moved out? Who the hell writes code to update a billing system when they're routing anyway? the point of structure is to segregate those activities anyway. The example is a non-example. More details would help.
Experience in a deadline oriented world. Been both places, college programming is playtime compared to corporate work. Does failing to meet your projected due date for a utility module get you fired from the program? It can and does in real life.
"Most in the field of physics, especially theoretical physics (and basically science in general),..."
That would be the small group of people he mentioned. While discovering that the NA woods frog goes into extreme hibernation is interesting, it's not NP worthy. Some might see the super fluid aspect in much the same light.
Here's an equation for you: improve esoteric knowledge slightly != "benefit the human kind".
No, no it could not. Conceptual is abstract, a car is not.
"That's the only difference between the two words, one of personal value."
A much bigger difference would be the context in which you use them. Creation as used to define the appearance of a subatomic particle is not the same word as when used to describe the process of writing a play. You conflate the two.
Yes, let's be pedantic. Taking away the right of the copyright owner by distributing the work without permission isn't "theft" or "piracy", it's, ummm.... just "taking it away".
"First off, the human vision system was made to look at diffuse light sources; that is we're meant to look at things that are reflecting light, not emitting it."
The human vision system evolved, wasn't made. An opsin molecule can't tell the difference between a photon that has bounced off of something or one emitted from the source. Come to think of it, there is no friggin' difference. In other words, nonsense.
"There are some strains from that."
What strains? Where documented?
"And especially from vivid colors side by side.
I once saw someone with the apple color scheme - green on red.
Instant migraine."
Lemme get this straight. You believe that the process of designing (or choosing) an algorithm doesn't provide you with the information you then simply type up as a comment?
Explain how that is possible, please.
In a working environ, a dipshit who fills their program with "//set i equal to 1" type shit deserves termination. It ain't for their own amusement, and it ain't amusing
Here's from someone who is skilled and experienced in these methods. Sure, I'll commit to creating a deadline for an arbitrary project and meeting it. I've done it before. In fact, I've committed to numerous projects with deadlines in my career, and normally made them. Why? I know how I work and can project the time needed. That, by the way comes under the phase called analysis. Deadlines are generated there, not before.
This spoken by somebody who's written systems much larger than "Hello, World." Systems that have passed banking audits, by way.
"However (and it's a big however), it still doesn't mean that your solution is correct! "
"Did you get the requirements right? "
You mean you didn't run your interpretation past the client?
"Is your system what the users expected? "
You mean you didn't show the system to the users during development?
"Is the interface layout easy to use? "
You mean you didn't have the users test and comment on the IL during development?
"Is it fast enough to be useful? "
You mean you didn't test it, and on production data?
"Does it add value to the customers toolset? "
You mean the client didn't come to you with the request for a tool that they needed?
Could any of those reasons be why your 'solution' isn't correct?
"These are all questions that formal software techniques don't address."
Yes, they do. Apparently you don't know the techniques.
"And the only way to address them is to 'build, ask, and test.'"
No, it's not. Analysis, design and client inclusion are easy and time-saving steps you could take.
"However, this certainly doesn't fall into the 'normal IT' category."
There is no 'normal' IT category. Development is development. One choses to, or not to, use the analytical, design, test, and implementation techniques that are available. It's a choice, and most of the time, inexperienced IT'rs make the wrong choice. Only oneself is to blame for the decisions made.
I don't get it either. All the great apes, elephants, cetaceans, parrots; will those do? They can all solve complicated problems using the tool sets at their disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
To a scientist it would, to a silopsist it wouldn't.
Well yeah, it does. Microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution and therefore species splits. This too, we have observed and documented. Crationists just refuse to acknowledge. That's what is fun to laugh at.
Then it failed. It sounded like ultra-vague language to describe something everyone's been doing for decades. Just what about the billing is being moved out? Who the hell writes code to update a billing system when they're routing anyway? the point of structure is to segregate those activities anyway. The example is a non-example. More details would help.
Experience in a deadline oriented world. Been both places, college programming is playtime compared to corporate work. Does failing to meet your projected due date for a utility module get you fired from the program? It can and does in real life.
Yes. What do you propose for group authorship?
"Most in the field of physics, especially theoretical physics (and basically science in general), ..."
That would be the small group of people he mentioned. While discovering that the NA woods frog goes into extreme hibernation is interesting, it's not NP worthy. Some might see the super fluid aspect in much the same light.
Here's an equation for you: improve esoteric knowledge slightly != "benefit the human kind".
"The same can be said of conceptual destruction."
No, no it could not. Conceptual is abstract, a car is not.
"That's the only difference between the two words, one of personal value."
A much bigger difference would be the context in which you use them. Creation as used to define the appearance of a subatomic particle is not the same word as when used to describe the process of writing a play. You conflate the two.
Well, I got this nice "social contract" for you that you don't even need to sign.
Apparantly you don't understand "contract". A contract is a binding agreement between two or more persons.
Nothing binding, no contract at your site either.
"... evolution isn't about life forms it's about replicators ..."
Could you please clarify the difference by pointing out some other types of replicators found here on Earth that are not tools used by life forms?
What bacteria would that be?
Bzzt! Thank you for playing our game. Please try again.
Arceobacteria,Proteobacteria, and Cyanobacteria are the oldest, and all have a nucleoid ( non-membrane region containing one circular DNA molecule -- one circular chromosome).
The membrane is not a defining attribute for DNA use. First DNA developed, then the cell evolved a purse to stash it in.
DNA may or may not be the basal component of what constitues life, but once you get past its presence, things look pretty mechanical, not organic.
"A professor's job isn't exclusively to teach, you know."
Then, let them state exactly what they will and won't be doing in the class that I am paying them to teach.
He/she is my employee when I take that class and they make a contract with me, not the other way around.
They tend to forget that.
"If someone, say you, takes something I've composed (I make music as a hobby), I haven't lost anything."
Other than the right to determine distribution, that is. Therefore, your statement is false.
Yes, let's be pedantic. Taking away the right of the copyright owner by distributing the work without permission isn't "theft" or "piracy", it's, ummm.... just "taking it away".
"First off, the human vision system was made to look at diffuse light sources; that is we're meant to look at things that are reflecting light, not emitting it."
The human vision system evolved, wasn't made. An opsin molecule can't tell the difference between a photon that has bounced off of something or one emitted from the source. Come to think of it, there is no friggin' difference. In other words, nonsense.
"There are some strains from that."
What strains? Where documented?
"And especially from vivid colors side by side. I once saw someone with the apple color scheme - green on red. Instant migraine."
You mean like a field of Indian Paintbrush? Red on green, very vivid.
Lemme get this straight. You believe that the process of designing (or choosing) an algorithm doesn't provide you with the information you then simply type up as a comment?
Explain how that is possible, please.
In a working environ, a dipshit who fills their program with "//set i equal to 1" type shit deserves termination. It ain't for their own amusement, and it ain't amusing
"One way to shut up the said checker is to generate comments of this sort."
Yeah, as opposed to providing a valid comment, despite it's being "not necessary".
"Programmers are generally broad-picture thinkers who solve largely complicated problems that regular folks can't possibly wrap their heads around."
And, you don't find that believing this pompous drivel isn't a source of some of the problems?
"... the worst thing that a catastrophic failure can cause is data loss."
You mean like the resolved identity of an incoming high-atmosphere, high-velocity object?
"Software projects are late because of bad management. PERIOD."
Horseshit. Software projects are late or nonfunction just as often because of inept, pompous or arragant programmers.
Here's from someone who is skilled and experienced in these methods. Sure, I'll commit to creating a deadline for an arbitrary project and meeting it. I've done it before. In fact, I've committed to numerous projects with deadlines in my career, and normally made them. Why? I know how I work and can project the time needed. That, by the way comes under the phase called analysis. Deadlines are generated there, not before.
This spoken by somebody who's written systems much larger than "Hello, World." Systems that have passed banking audits, by way.
"However (and it's a big however), it still doesn't mean that your solution is correct! "
"Did you get the requirements right? "
You mean you didn't run your interpretation past the client?
"Is your system what the users expected? "
You mean you didn't show the system to the users during development?
"Is the interface layout easy to use? "
You mean you didn't have the users test and comment on the IL during development?
"Is it fast enough to be useful? "
You mean you didn't test it, and on production data?
"Does it add value to the customers toolset? "
You mean the client didn't come to you with the request for a tool that they needed?
Could any of those reasons be why your 'solution' isn't correct?
"These are all questions that formal software techniques don't address."
Yes, they do. Apparently you don't know the techniques.
"And the only way to address them is to 'build, ask, and test.'"
No, it's not. Analysis, design and client inclusion are easy and time-saving steps you could take.
"However, this certainly doesn't fall into the 'normal IT' category."
There is no 'normal' IT category. Development is development. One choses to, or not to, use the analytical, design, test, and implementation techniques that are available. It's a choice, and most of the time, inexperienced IT'rs make the wrong choice. Only oneself is to blame for the decisions made.
Because extremists on both ends are ultimately out to forcebly control the lives of others.
That usually gets -- and deserves -- an extreme response.
If not, explain why not.
Fire! Fire!
"Freedom is absolute."
So, I have the freedom to blow your brains out if you annoy me? Bullshit.
I don't get it either. All the great apes, elephants, cetaceans, parrots; will those do? They can all solve complicated problems using the tool sets at their disposal.
What does the 'spooky' connotate to you?