Except that those don't exist, which is why people are getting bent over. My company did as good as they could, and we are still seeing at least 10% increases across the board for our health insurance. Many people that are not seeing increases are waived until next year, so see no change.
Why does "affordable care" increase everyone's rates by at least 10%? The examples would be rather lengthy, but here are a couple verifiable ones. Because women receive "Free Contraceptives" and that is a huge mantra from this agency. Woman receive free prenatal care too. The "free" part means not a penny in copay, and that money has to come from the pool so everyone's rates increase. Including those of 50 year old women that had a hysterectomy and are making the same complaints as men, so save your fallacy.
In some cases, you may wish to argue that a person was not insured enough. That argument is idiocy however, since insurance is a gamble. Companies make a lot of money selling it to you hoping you will never use it, and fighting you when they don't want to pay. We pay into these companies as a "just in case".
Claiming further that insurance fixes the health issues in the country is also wrong. The problems there are many and varied, starting with malpractice and ending at the FDA and "IP" on medicine. Making everyone buy insurance does nothing to address the problems. It moves to a select few hands and pretends to do something other than make a few people wealthy at the expense of society.
I agree. I was merely pointing out what I believe is a logical reason for his absence lately. If it's a shill, in a year or two the account will be dusted off and re-used. Until then, it's got a funky odor to it and nobody wants to be near it.
This comment is complete and utter bullshit, which harms people suffering from real racist issues. I do understand that you learned this from people paid to distribute propaganda, and perhaps you are just "one of those people".
Obama is no different than Bush, who was no different than Clinton, who was no different from Bush, etc... Each of these people had no care for US Citizens in general, just their buddies followed by themselves. Those are verifiable facts based on actions these people took, not because of what they said. Nothing is racist by pointing out that they are failing in their duties as representatives of "The People".
Thanks for playing "I'm an idiot!", you win the game!
This is similar in my opinion to the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Whether he's a paid shill or not, the ID is now tarnished with people thinking that they are just a shill. No matter the reason (shill/idiocy/misguided), people stopped paying much attention to what was said and simply replied with a comment regarding the person being a shill. Not arguing their points any longer.
I came to see if NSA took credit for giving TPP reports to Wikileaks, and that's not their claim. I think we'd agree that the NSA is full of sh^$ on their claim of being heros.
That said, NAFTA did more to destroy the US economy than subprime lending and derivatives markets. TPP puts the nail in the coffin if it's passed. Sub-prime lending and derivatives take property from people, NAFTA and TPP make sure they can't afford to replace it or fight the gangsters^Wbankers that take things away.
Currently Fox is seen as incredibly poor and having no ability to tell the truth. CBS was a decent choice from that perspective. Not that they are more credible, but rather "it's not as bad as Fox".
People trying to separate Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS today are missing something very critical. They are _ALL_ controlled by the same group of people.
We were warned about media monopolization when it was happening by a few people. Everyone believed the bullshit about money being the driving factor, and even if money was a portion of the issue look where it got us. There are no big investigative journalists in the US any longer, and no hard hitting reporters. The last of the investigative journalists were fired in the 90s. Today, 99% of what you see on TV that's "News" comes from the AP.
Shows like 60 minutes or "Meet the Press" are all pre-recorded and edited to ensure a message that someone wants you to have. Not a message of reality.
The thing about "Constitutional Rights", especially the first 10, is that they were including as "natural rights",
From a legal standpoint you are incorrect. I won't deny that Natural Rights are important, and that the Philosophy translated into the Constitution. Rather pointing out that legally the US holds no laws called "Natural Rights" and does not separate any amendment as such. Further, breaking the US Constitution is equally illegal no matter what amendment is violated. Denying the right of speech is no different than denying a woman the right to vote from a legal standing. Each carries the same weight and punishment, as it should be for a functioning Republic and functional Justice system (as defined by Socrates).
The moment a agent of government stop defending these rights, and starts infringing upon them, is the moment they have become a traitor and treasonous.
This I fully agree with, which is why Politicians are currently trying to nit-pick the Constitution away with insane definitions.
Well, you have to do a bit of dot connecting but they have control of the media. Outside of 60 minutes which the majority of US citizens don't watch where is Media discussing the issues? Fox/NBC/ABC are all pretty silent, which is better than trying to "spin" anything. These companies are masters at distraction, and distraction is what this became almost immediately.
I'm not trying to back the NSA in any way, I think what they are doing is wrong. I'm pointing out that the same people pushing the NSA into this are controlling the media, and the Justice system as well. Why has nobody gone to jail over not necessarily the spying, but for lying to Congress?
You may have to stretch your logic a bit to connect the dots that far (I don't know what you do obviously) but it's very telling that every Snowden release from the Guardian has been over sensationalized by something else in media. Citizens really have to dig to find information, and even though petitions have gone to the White House nothing has happened in either change or accountability.
Got it AC, you are of the belief that writing a flowchart is the same thing as writing code. As to your last line, simply "duh". As good as Bordland Delphi was (way better than MS Visual C/Basic) I still had to understand "programming" to write a "program".
Oh nifty, we open with an appeal to authority argument. Who am I to tell people what coding is? Someone with 30 years of experience in computer sciences is probably a good start, as would writing and editing thousands of pieces of code in my 30 years experience.
I don't have to return the appeal to emotion and make a claims that you are not qualified to comment. I presented logical explanations for my position, and you respond with fallacies. Read your last line! " If you see a final program in Scratch, it looks very similar to a syntax highlighted C program.". The user does not write Scratch in the "Hour of code", and in fact can not write any code in this hour program.
As for your appeal to emotion, if a user can't type there are no options other than using a mouse to drag and drop icons? Come now, I have worked with people that are disabled and know better. If a person can not use a keyboard they generally can not use a mouse either. A voice recognition program can write just as easy as be told mouse movement instructions.
As to your next post, it's not a valid supposition. First there are IDEs that will help with syntax issues. Second, the user does not have to understand several critical pieces of "coding" in the code.org Hour of Code. Looking at the code the interface writes, the user will see "while (not_finished)". The "not_finished" is not something the user defines, and can't even see how it's defined. I'm not saying the hour long program should teach them multidimensional arrays or hashes of hashes. In this hour the user is not being exposed to the concept of a variable at all, which is a critical concept for programming.
Is it possible that you are confusing "The Hour of Code" with something else? Don't bother with more fallacy to support your position, it wastes my time and surely won't change my position.
The real problem is that there is no longer a Democrat or Republican party, except in title. Playing lip service is as close as it gets, but both are passing policies that move us further and further into tyranny (not even socialism). Whether that comes about as Fascism, Authoritarianism, Oligarchy, etc.. makes no difference to the populace. It only makes a difference to the few that pull the strings in that form of Government.
Anyone that claims Obama is a savior ignores his actual track record. Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iran, et al show that he is not for world peace. TPP shows he does not give a shit about US Citizens welfare (not the check, the term). His extensions to DHS, TSA, and the NSA shows that he does not care about rights domestically. His pursuit of journalists critical of his policies shows he does not care about truth or honesty. His appointments of corporate heads and lobbyists to cabinet posts shows that nothing will change in the right direction.
We could make a very similar list about Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, etc.. going a long way back.
The way out is to remove money from politics and get middle class Americans in these positions. That is the hard part, because a vast amount of people believe what media tells them and believes that they should be lorded over by people the media presents as "perfect". Long road, but we have to make the jump to it sooner or later, and later gets pretty bloody.
I didn't claim it had to be exactly like C, I said it's not programming. It's not basic, it's not shell scripting, it's not Fortran, it's not Perl or Python. The only thing it could be related as "close" to is Visual C/Basic, but even then you have to really know some coding to do any more than create dialogue boxes with "Ok" in them.
I don't give a rats ass what language you compare this to, it is NOT coding. It's logic puzzles and building blocks. Claiming it's coding is like claiming that giving a kid Lego's is the same as the kid being an architect. It is not the same, though some of the principles of Lego's (basic concepts of spacial geometry) are a part of being an architect. Or claiming that teaching a kid the letters of the alphabet is the same as the kid being a journalist.
As I stated, the concepts are good to know and a start at programming logic which is a sight better than using flowcharts like we used to have as a first step. I'm never claimed it was "bad", I'm claiming it's "not coding".
The quality of journalism here? Don't you mean everywhere? Nearly everything you read today is pandering and propaganda. I blame the audience for a good portion of that. It's amazing how many people that think they are intellectuals refuse to even consider that their favorite theory is not "fact". Thirty years ago there were pig-headed people too, but not nearly as bad as today.
I'm not wrong, sorry. I ran the little editor you provided the link to and tried to "write code" but could not do so. Dragging and dropping a "move forward" icon is not writing code. When I do it two or three times it's still not writing "code". I can't edit the code, but the interface shows me the code it will write if I click a button. Yet it keeps telling me "you wrote N lines of code" but I have no opportunity to write anything! I drag and drop icons and an interface writes.
This is not at all like programming in C where I have options like using a while, until, or for loop and learn to choose what's the best type of loop for the task because their interface makes those choices for you. I don't get the opportunity to change an "if" to a "switch" because I plan to extend options later. I won't even get into the underlying sprites that are actually doing things on the screen.
So as I started with, it's giving them some very basic concepts. It's not "writing code", it's using an interface that has some basic programming logic for users to practice "concepts". Could this be used to create nifty things that exercise the brain? Absolutely, but call it something other than "coding".
TFA and the Summary do not match, one claiming "net traffic" and the other claiming "website traffic". With a broken summary, I can see the confusion. Even the generalization "website traffic" is odd, because, well.. generalizations are usually bad when dealing with technical subjects.
The "Hour of Code" and all of this alleged programing was not programming. It's a drag and drop "tutorial" of high level concepts, and the user interface is what writes all the code. Think of the old "Turtle" program where you give the user interface some basic instructions "move left 1", "move forward 2", etc... The hour of code was a fancier version of this, and changed to Angry Birds.
From what I read and saw in Youtube videos of this, it teaches the concepts at a very high level. I never saw any examples of people switching to a source view and editing the code the interface writes so I'm not sure this interface was capable of something that advanced (could be, I didn't run it).
A more accurate summary would be "millions of users run a program which teaches high level concepts and writes code for them.". I guess we could add "Zuckerburg and Gates need to feel better about themselves so sponsor the program."
Seems like we are in more agreement than originally perceived.
There are not other dimensions that we have proven yet. We may never do so, because they may not be there. But we don't know one way of the other yet, and I have never claimed otherwise.
That was what I originally claimed, and why I claimed that this study was not factual or "evidence" as it was posted in TFA. Your argument was that this is evidence and fact originally, and that I was not a Nobel recipient so could not argue that it was all theory or against the theory.
No, stop being obtuse. It's based on what little we have been able to detect and measure. As we detect more and measure more, these theories will either find themselves further validated, or (much more interestingly) something which contradicts a theory will be discovered, at which point the theory will be modified or discarded.
There was no being obtuse, we stated the same thing with different extremes. Numerous versions of String Theory have been discarded, and what we have today is yet another modification trying to make it work. Claiming it's fact is wrong. Having an opinion that it shows promise or failure leads to rational discourse. Seems like we have moved in our dialogue more toward rational discourse so far.
That's unfair to these physicists you refer to, of course, and is not meant to suggest they're wrong. It's good that people are working on different models - models which may well yet turn out to be correct. But do these theories explain our observations of the universe any better than string theory? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm specifically asking you, s.petry, to tell me how these theories compare to string theory and the like.
It's unfair of the physicists and journal to sensationalize the theory as "evidence" and just as unfair for people to claim it's factual.
Look, I think string theory is very interesting. It's made us look at things in ways we never thought to look for before. For example just last week, a nice paper was delivered discussing how Einstein's theories and Quantum entanglement were not out of line. It's a great theory from that regard.
That said, when we look at our influence on particle beams we have two schools of thought for the solution. One, is that we have N dimensions, or alternatively we have another energy that we are not accounting for. The latter is a very rational area to pursue based on sound scientific principles. The first has become a math problem which goes further and further in trying to prove N dimensions. It's some nifty math, but it does not match our observable universe. The nifty math has shown that we can't yet account for everything, but it has not proven that we have N dimensions.
And yes, these pieces of physics do represent our observable universe better than string theory. We can repeat results without tweaking theories and models. Where as String theory has been a constant stream of tweaking both input models and the theory.
I don't, and never have, as you well know. When you treat theories as certainly false without evidence of their falsity, then you're not acting scientifically.
And visa-verse. If you treat the theory as true you are not acting scientifically. My reaction and comments would be very different if people didn't make claims like "Evidence that the Universe is a Holographic representation", or "String theory is true" and "In our N dimensional Universe". Not that you stated all of those things, but you come close to a couple and at least implied that nobody could question the theory.
this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted."
No, it isn't.
I quoted the article to a different person below, perhaps you should give it another read.
You have factually proven that the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc.. dimensions of string theory exist? Hallelujah! String theory is now proven and we can all go home! Fire all of the physicists guys, we don't need them any more!
Oh wait, that never happened. So me questioning the theory based on logical points is "hubris" and I'm a "nutter". What do you call yourself for having that much belief that this theory is proven? Less intelligent than a turnip, far too ignorant for hubris, and challenged beyond being a nutter?
This demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the holographic principle [wikipedia.org] is. The theory is that the entire universe - ourselves included - are the result of a holographic process. That the "lower level" of reality underlying this one has fewer dimensions than we perceive, and our reality is "merely" a projection (note: this is an analogy. It doesn't mean to suggest there is a massive piece of photographic film floating in a lower space with a big lightbulb illuminating it).
What "other dimensions" that we can't see? There are no other dimensions that we can prove. No version of string theory have been proven, but many versions have been proven to be false. It's neat science fiction, but it is not science fact.
There is no logical claim that the Nth dimension is real, it's a hypothetical theory based on our inability to detect and measure what's around us. It's like flat earth all over again, and pitched as this thing that all smart should believe in. Yet numerous physicists and mathematicians have been working on models that don't require magical dimensions to show how the Universe has been expanding and working. They don't rely on magical dark energy or magical dark matter (not to be confused with heavy elements) either.
When you treat a string of theories as factual, it shows that you are either very ignorant or easily manipulated. You show me proof of a 5th dimension, and I'll change my tune. Until then, when you have a theory that claims XY is true and therefor Y is true while Y is an unproven highly controversial theory you have no proof and no fact. Read the work, and this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted." If you don't see the circular logic issue with their work, you are blind.
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere. Extrapolate from that. Voyager indicates that the Universe is not a hologram, and a very real physical space full of objects.
Claiming I need more than observable measurable science is idiocy, especially when you are defending a theory that is based on at least 5 different hypothesis.
As soon as you claim "it has to be true because of string theory", it is a lie because String theory is not proven. String has it's purposes, but it's not factual and not provable which is why there are so many "string theories" being touted as "the answer to everything" (and none of them have been).
Nobel used to mean something to academics. Obama receiving the Nobel Prize has been the icing on the cake to show that it is not about academia, but about money, labels, and sucking up.
Claiming that I must be a Nobel recipient to argue against their hypothesis is an absurd argument. Numerous Physicists and Mathematicians discount string theory because it does not work. Claiming that I need "scientific evidence" not philosophical evidence to discount a theoretical work (based solely on unproven theory and models) is further absurdity. They provided no facts, yet you are treating their work as factual. That didn't even touch on your existentialism comment which was absolutely absurdity.
Yeah, I read the work. Did you read the work, or just assume that it's pretty cool stuff so has to be factual and "evidence"
Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole (hypothetical), the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe) (hypothetical), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory (hypothetical) as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence (hypothetical)
Look, I think fantasy stories are pretty cool myself. When you string a whole lot of hypothetical information together, you get a big old hypothetical result. Not evidence, and not fact. String theory has been discounted over and over and over again, which is why the theory has changed dramatically and drastically every couple of years since it was first mentioned. String theory is not factual, and therefor claiming something is true based on a non-factual piece of data is irrational and illogical.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that those don't exist, which is why people are getting bent over. My company did as good as they could, and we are still seeing at least 10% increases across the board for our health insurance. Many people that are not seeing increases are waived until next year, so see no change.
Why does "affordable care" increase everyone's rates by at least 10%? The examples would be rather lengthy, but here are a couple verifiable ones. Because women receive "Free Contraceptives" and that is a huge mantra from this agency. Woman receive free prenatal care too. The "free" part means not a penny in copay, and that money has to come from the pool so everyone's rates increase. Including those of 50 year old women that had a hysterectomy and are making the same complaints as men, so save your fallacy.
In some cases, you may wish to argue that a person was not insured enough. That argument is idiocy however, since insurance is a gamble. Companies make a lot of money selling it to you hoping you will never use it, and fighting you when they don't want to pay. We pay into these companies as a "just in case".
Claiming further that insurance fixes the health issues in the country is also wrong. The problems there are many and varied, starting with malpractice and ending at the FDA and "IP" on medicine. Making everyone buy insurance does nothing to address the problems. It moves to a select few hands and pretends to do something other than make a few people wealthy at the expense of society.
I agree. I was merely pointing out what I believe is a logical reason for his absence lately. If it's a shill, in a year or two the account will be dusted off and re-used. Until then, it's got a funky odor to it and nobody wants to be near it.
This comment is complete and utter bullshit, which harms people suffering from real racist issues. I do understand that you learned this from people paid to distribute propaganda, and perhaps you are just "one of those people".
Obama is no different than Bush, who was no different than Clinton, who was no different from Bush, etc... Each of these people had no care for US Citizens in general, just their buddies followed by themselves. Those are verifiable facts based on actions these people took, not because of what they said. Nothing is racist by pointing out that they are failing in their duties as representatives of "The People".
Thanks for playing "I'm an idiot!", you win the game!
This is similar in my opinion to the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Whether he's a paid shill or not, the ID is now tarnished with people thinking that they are just a shill. No matter the reason (shill/idiocy/misguided), people stopped paying much attention to what was said and simply replied with a comment regarding the person being a shill. Not arguing their points any longer.
His persistence, and the amount of data he researches to argue his broken points, leads me more to thinking he gets paid to shill.
Don't you mean "they need a paycheck from someone, and shilling is all they are qualified to do"?
I came to see if NSA took credit for giving TPP reports to Wikileaks, and that's not their claim. I think we'd agree that the NSA is full of sh^$ on their claim of being heros.
That said, NAFTA did more to destroy the US economy than subprime lending and derivatives markets. TPP puts the nail in the coffin if it's passed. Sub-prime lending and derivatives take property from people, NAFTA and TPP make sure they can't afford to replace it or fight the gangsters^Wbankers that take things away.
Currently Fox is seen as incredibly poor and having no ability to tell the truth. CBS was a decent choice from that perspective. Not that they are more credible, but rather "it's not as bad as Fox".
People trying to separate Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS today are missing something very critical. They are _ALL_ controlled by the same group of people.
We were warned about media monopolization when it was happening by a few people. Everyone believed the bullshit about money being the driving factor, and even if money was a portion of the issue look where it got us. There are no big investigative journalists in the US any longer, and no hard hitting reporters. The last of the investigative journalists were fired in the 90s. Today, 99% of what you see on TV that's "News" comes from the AP.
Shows like 60 minutes or "Meet the Press" are all pre-recorded and edited to ensure a message that someone wants you to have. Not a message of reality.
The thing about "Constitutional Rights", especially the first 10, is that they were including as "natural rights",
From a legal standpoint you are incorrect. I won't deny that Natural Rights are important, and that the Philosophy translated into the Constitution. Rather pointing out that legally the US holds no laws called "Natural Rights" and does not separate any amendment as such. Further, breaking the US Constitution is equally illegal no matter what amendment is violated. Denying the right of speech is no different than denying a woman the right to vote from a legal standing. Each carries the same weight and punishment, as it should be for a functioning Republic and functional Justice system (as defined by Socrates).
The moment a agent of government stop defending these rights, and starts infringing upon them, is the moment they have become a traitor and treasonous.
This I fully agree with, which is why Politicians are currently trying to nit-pick the Constitution away with insane definitions.
Well, you have to do a bit of dot connecting but they have control of the media. Outside of 60 minutes which the majority of US citizens don't watch where is Media discussing the issues? Fox/NBC/ABC are all pretty silent, which is better than trying to "spin" anything. These companies are masters at distraction, and distraction is what this became almost immediately.
I'm not trying to back the NSA in any way, I think what they are doing is wrong. I'm pointing out that the same people pushing the NSA into this are controlling the media, and the Justice system as well. Why has nobody gone to jail over not necessarily the spying, but for lying to Congress?
You may have to stretch your logic a bit to connect the dots that far (I don't know what you do obviously) but it's very telling that every Snowden release from the Guardian has been over sensationalized by something else in media. Citizens really have to dig to find information, and even though petitions have gone to the White House nothing has happened in either change or accountability.
Got it AC, you are of the belief that writing a flowchart is the same thing as writing code. As to your last line, simply "duh". As good as Bordland Delphi was (way better than MS Visual C/Basic) I still had to understand "programming" to write a "program".
Oh nifty, we open with an appeal to authority argument. Who am I to tell people what coding is? Someone with 30 years of experience in computer sciences is probably a good start, as would writing and editing thousands of pieces of code in my 30 years experience.
I don't have to return the appeal to emotion and make a claims that you are not qualified to comment. I presented logical explanations for my position, and you respond with fallacies. Read your last line! " If you see a final program in Scratch, it looks very similar to a syntax highlighted C program.". The user does not write Scratch in the "Hour of code", and in fact can not write any code in this hour program.
As for your appeal to emotion, if a user can't type there are no options other than using a mouse to drag and drop icons? Come now, I have worked with people that are disabled and know better. If a person can not use a keyboard they generally can not use a mouse either. A voice recognition program can write just as easy as be told mouse movement instructions.
As to your next post, it's not a valid supposition. First there are IDEs that will help with syntax issues. Second, the user does not have to understand several critical pieces of "coding" in the code.org Hour of Code. Looking at the code the interface writes, the user will see "while (not_finished)". The "not_finished" is not something the user defines, and can't even see how it's defined. I'm not saying the hour long program should teach them multidimensional arrays or hashes of hashes. In this hour the user is not being exposed to the concept of a variable at all, which is a critical concept for programming.
Is it possible that you are confusing "The Hour of Code" with something else? Don't bother with more fallacy to support your position, it wastes my time and surely won't change my position.
The real problem is that there is no longer a Democrat or Republican party, except in title. Playing lip service is as close as it gets, but both are passing policies that move us further and further into tyranny (not even socialism). Whether that comes about as Fascism, Authoritarianism, Oligarchy, etc.. makes no difference to the populace. It only makes a difference to the few that pull the strings in that form of Government.
Anyone that claims Obama is a savior ignores his actual track record. Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iran, et al show that he is not for world peace. TPP shows he does not give a shit about US Citizens welfare (not the check, the term). His extensions to DHS, TSA, and the NSA shows that he does not care about rights domestically. His pursuit of journalists critical of his policies shows he does not care about truth or honesty. His appointments of corporate heads and lobbyists to cabinet posts shows that nothing will change in the right direction.
We could make a very similar list about Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, etc.. going a long way back.
The way out is to remove money from politics and get middle class Americans in these positions. That is the hard part, because a vast amount of people believe what media tells them and believes that they should be lorded over by people the media presents as "perfect". Long road, but we have to make the jump to it sooner or later, and later gets pretty bloody.
I didn't claim it had to be exactly like C, I said it's not programming. It's not basic, it's not shell scripting, it's not Fortran, it's not Perl or Python. The only thing it could be related as "close" to is Visual C/Basic, but even then you have to really know some coding to do any more than create dialogue boxes with "Ok" in them.
I don't give a rats ass what language you compare this to, it is NOT coding. It's logic puzzles and building blocks. Claiming it's coding is like claiming that giving a kid Lego's is the same as the kid being an architect. It is not the same, though some of the principles of Lego's (basic concepts of spacial geometry) are a part of being an architect. Or claiming that teaching a kid the letters of the alphabet is the same as the kid being a journalist.
As I stated, the concepts are good to know and a start at programming logic which is a sight better than using flowcharts like we used to have as a first step. I'm never claimed it was "bad", I'm claiming it's "not coding".
The quality of journalism here? Don't you mean everywhere? Nearly everything you read today is pandering and propaganda. I blame the audience for a good portion of that. It's amazing how many people that think they are intellectuals refuse to even consider that their favorite theory is not "fact". Thirty years ago there were pig-headed people too, but not nearly as bad as today.
I'm not wrong, sorry. I ran the little editor you provided the link to and tried to "write code" but could not do so. Dragging and dropping a "move forward" icon is not writing code. When I do it two or three times it's still not writing "code". I can't edit the code, but the interface shows me the code it will write if I click a button. Yet it keeps telling me "you wrote N lines of code" but I have no opportunity to write anything! I drag and drop icons and an interface writes.
This is not at all like programming in C where I have options like using a while, until, or for loop and learn to choose what's the best type of loop for the task because their interface makes those choices for you. I don't get the opportunity to change an "if" to a "switch" because I plan to extend options later. I won't even get into the underlying sprites that are actually doing things on the screen.
So as I started with, it's giving them some very basic concepts. It's not "writing code", it's using an interface that has some basic programming logic for users to practice "concepts". Could this be used to create nifty things that exercise the brain? Absolutely, but call it something other than "coding".
Hmmm "I am love this song! My friend are married to it!" can be perceived as nice compared to a flame/troll, but neither have any actual value.
Stop! There is only one way to look at a thing, and it's "MY" way you insensitive clod!
TFA and the Summary do not match, one claiming "net traffic" and the other claiming "website traffic". With a broken summary, I can see the confusion. Even the generalization "website traffic" is odd, because, well.. generalizations are usually bad when dealing with technical subjects.
I think it's a bit worse than that
The "Hour of Code" and all of this alleged programing was not programming. It's a drag and drop "tutorial" of high level concepts, and the user interface is what writes all the code. Think of the old "Turtle" program where you give the user interface some basic instructions "move left 1", "move forward 2", etc... The hour of code was a fancier version of this, and changed to Angry Birds.
From what I read and saw in Youtube videos of this, it teaches the concepts at a very high level. I never saw any examples of people switching to a source view and editing the code the interface writes so I'm not sure this interface was capable of something that advanced (could be, I didn't run it).
A more accurate summary would be "millions of users run a program which teaches high level concepts and writes code for them.". I guess we could add "Zuckerburg and Gates need to feel better about themselves so sponsor the program."
Seems like we are in more agreement than originally perceived.
There are not other dimensions that we have proven yet. We may never do so, because they may not be there. But we don't know one way of the other yet, and I have never claimed otherwise.
That was what I originally claimed, and why I claimed that this study was not factual or "evidence" as it was posted in TFA. Your argument was that this is evidence and fact originally, and that I was not a Nobel recipient so could not argue that it was all theory or against the theory.
No, stop being obtuse. It's based on what little we have been able to detect and measure. As we detect more and measure more, these theories will either find themselves further validated, or (much more interestingly) something which contradicts a theory will be discovered, at which point the theory will be modified or discarded.
There was no being obtuse, we stated the same thing with different extremes. Numerous versions of String Theory have been discarded, and what we have today is yet another modification trying to make it work. Claiming it's fact is wrong. Having an opinion that it shows promise or failure leads to rational discourse. Seems like we have moved in our dialogue more toward rational discourse so far.
That's unfair to these physicists you refer to, of course, and is not meant to suggest they're wrong. It's good that people are working on different models - models which may well yet turn out to be correct. But do these theories explain our observations of the universe any better than string theory? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm specifically asking you, s.petry, to tell me how these theories compare to string theory and the like.
It's unfair of the physicists and journal to sensationalize the theory as "evidence" and just as unfair for people to claim it's factual.
Look, I think string theory is very interesting. It's made us look at things in ways we never thought to look for before. For example just last week, a nice paper was delivered discussing how Einstein's theories and Quantum entanglement were not out of line. It's a great theory from that regard.
That said, when we look at our influence on particle beams we have two schools of thought for the solution. One, is that we have N dimensions, or alternatively we have another energy that we are not accounting for. The latter is a very rational area to pursue based on sound scientific principles. The first has become a math problem which goes further and further in trying to prove N dimensions. It's some nifty math, but it does not match our observable universe. The nifty math has shown that we can't yet account for everything, but it has not proven that we have N dimensions.
And yes, these pieces of physics do represent our observable universe better than string theory. We can repeat results without tweaking theories and models. Where as String theory has been a constant stream of tweaking both input models and the theory.
I don't, and never have, as you well know. When you treat theories as certainly false without evidence of their falsity, then you're not acting scientifically.
And visa-verse. If you treat the theory as true you are not acting scientifically. My reaction and comments would be very different if people didn't make claims like "Evidence that the Universe is a Holographic representation", or "String theory is true" and "In our N dimensional Universe". Not that you stated all of those things, but you come close to a couple and at least implied that nobody could question the theory.
this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted."
No, it isn't.
I quoted the article to a different person below, perhaps you should give it another read.
You have factually proven that the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc.. dimensions of string theory exist? Hallelujah! String theory is now proven and we can all go home! Fire all of the physicists guys, we don't need them any more!
Oh wait, that never happened. So me questioning the theory based on logical points is "hubris" and I'm a "nutter". What do you call yourself for having that much belief that this theory is proven? Less intelligent than a turnip, far too ignorant for hubris, and challenged beyond being a nutter?
This demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the holographic principle [wikipedia.org] is. The theory is that the entire universe - ourselves included - are the result of a holographic process. That the "lower level" of reality underlying this one has fewer dimensions than we perceive, and our reality is "merely" a projection (note: this is an analogy. It doesn't mean to suggest there is a massive piece of photographic film floating in a lower space with a big lightbulb illuminating it).
What "other dimensions" that we can't see? There are no other dimensions that we can prove. No version of string theory have been proven, but many versions have been proven to be false. It's neat science fiction, but it is not science fact.
There is no logical claim that the Nth dimension is real, it's a hypothetical theory based on our inability to detect and measure what's around us. It's like flat earth all over again, and pitched as this thing that all smart should believe in. Yet numerous physicists and mathematicians have been working on models that don't require magical dimensions to show how the Universe has been expanding and working. They don't rely on magical dark energy or magical dark matter (not to be confused with heavy elements) either.
When you treat a string of theories as factual, it shows that you are either very ignorant or easily manipulated. You show me proof of a 5th dimension, and I'll change my tune. Until then, when you have a theory that claims XY is true and therefor Y is true while Y is an unproven highly controversial theory you have no proof and no fact. Read the work, and this is their claim. "We used string theory to process a model and string theory gave us what string theory predicted." If you don't see the circular logic issue with their work, you are blind.
The fact that we have traveled to external planets should be enough real live proof that things are not illusions outside of our atmosphere. Extrapolate from that. Voyager indicates that the Universe is not a hologram, and a very real physical space full of objects.
Claiming I need more than observable measurable science is idiocy, especially when you are defending a theory that is based on at least 5 different hypothesis.
As soon as you claim "it has to be true because of string theory", it is a lie because String theory is not proven. String has it's purposes, but it's not factual and not provable which is why there are so many "string theories" being touted as "the answer to everything" (and none of them have been).
Nobel used to mean something to academics. Obama receiving the Nobel Prize has been the icing on the cake to show that it is not about academia, but about money, labels, and sucking up.
Claiming that I must be a Nobel recipient to argue against their hypothesis is an absurd argument. Numerous Physicists and Mathematicians discount string theory because it does not work. Claiming that I need "scientific evidence" not philosophical evidence to discount a theoretical work (based solely on unproven theory and models) is further absurdity. They provided no facts, yet you are treating their work as factual. That didn't even touch on your existentialism comment which was absolutely absurdity.
Yeah, I read the work. Did you read the work, or just assume that it's pretty cool stuff so has to be factual and "evidence"
Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole (hypothetical), the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe) (hypothetical), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory (hypothetical) as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence (hypothetical)
Look, I think fantasy stories are pretty cool myself. When you string a whole lot of hypothetical information together, you get a big old hypothetical result. Not evidence, and not fact. String theory has been discounted over and over and over again, which is why the theory has changed dramatically and drastically every couple of years since it was first mentioned. String theory is not factual, and therefor claiming something is true based on a non-factual piece of data is irrational and illogical.