Re:Question for the OP
on
Hello World!
·
· Score: 1
Well yes. This is, after all, a book review. I was rather questioning the OP's active push towards one direction. I'm curious if the OP had thought about the possibility of his child being better at other things as well as well as what the rationalization for pushing programming was.
You drew an analogy to parents projecting sports dreams onto their children. Do you see this as a positive phenomenon? Sure, if you value programming as the absolute best thing a child can be familiar with, this makes sense. But what if your child would naturally have favored or have talent in some other area - say physics? The activity you are pursuing with her could lead to relative underdevelopment in physics when naturally she might have become a great physicist.
An article featured on Slashdot a while back, titled "A Mathematician's Lament", described how, instead of prescribing a course for children to follow in Mathematics, a more effective way to teach math would be for each child to organically discover math on their own. I see that you are attempting to do similarly with your child and programming (instead of math). But that article also brought me to wonder, why favor one subject over another? Why not also let the child organically and naturally discover her talents and interests? Best results might come from doing this with "Hello World", as well as doing similar activities with art, music, physics, language, and sports, in equal proportions.
Different mice could be differently suited to certain purposes. For example the Razer mice generally have features that would make sense to gamers but are generally irrelevant or even distracting to non-gamers. I believe the OP was trying to identify mice that seem better suited for use during programming.
You make a good point, but I think you misinterpreted mine. In Eclipse I do not go the Edit->Search to search. I go to Ctrl-F to do that. The difference, in my mind, is that Eclipse has a more comprehensive set of functionality, much of which does streamline the coding process. It seems that these are the ones that one has to use a mouse for.
There are some tasks that, for sure, the mouse is better suited for. For example, instead of typing Ctrl+B, , TAB, ENTER, I can click on the tab that I already see. Another example is highlighting. If I wanted to search for something I see on the screen, I shouldn't have to type it in, nor should I have to navigate to it in some other fashion first.
But that's all examples besides the point. The point is the GP absurdly trolled to disqualify users of modern IDEs. While I agree that in depth knowledge of vi or Emacs is usually indicative of programming skill, usage of Eclipse or Visual Studio is not indicative of the lack of similar skill.
While mildly funny, this reeks of elitism and untruth. You are associating memorization of esoteric editor commands and customization options with programming skill. While there's likely a good correlation, one can have one without the other.
On a separate note, modern IDEs, such as Eclipse, require the use of the mouse. I would argue that this streamlines the coding process, leaving the developer to focus on the actual design and logic.
Speaking as a web developer and user, I agree. I think the distinction we have to make is that HTML is not the best format for application delivery, while the web itself could potentially deliver applications very well. If there could be a different vision of a thin client, it would be one which uses a standard designed specifically for this purpose. The problem with that is it doesn't already have Gmail, Google Maps, etc. all ready to be used out of the box.
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of X tunneling over SSH, which already exists, so my point has already been disproved (by lack of use).
The question has always been inane. We choose to define what is a "dinosaur" or what is an "egg", but nature doesn't care about our definitions. There must've been creatures with very similar reproductive or incubation systems that are not quite eggs. These creatures are also not quite "dinosaurs".
While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states.
Does this sound like they're using real atoms to simulate qubits? Perhaps I'm misinterpretting, but it looks like it's still going to take an exponential amount of resources to "make" each additional qubit.
Yea in a perfect world he would've. The reality is that people don't have enough time to read all the fine print for everything ever. As long as there's a reasonable expectation of a decent privacy policy, most of us just go with it because the time and effort spent looking for a possible alternative is not worth it. Who's to say that he was even provided with a fine print? The article is not very clear that Clear is in the legal "right" here.
This is also why it's so important to raise alarm at these issues, because short of forcing privacy standards or laws, that's all the majority of us can reasonably be expected to do.
I don't think Natal is supposed to be a replacement for traditional control mechanisms. As their researchers have said, it's meant to provide control for tasks that traditional controls aren't optimal for. I'm sure for certain game genres Natal will be great; while for others we can still use the handheld controller.
Just because we use a specific alphabet to represent a concept does not make that concept dependent on the alphabet. I can assure you, if you open up your computer, you will not find "0" and "1" floating from your CPU to your memory. At the same time, I can represent the decimal numbering system with I through X, or with my ten fingers, or toes.
Excuse me, but why does a nation have to produce undergrads who can write SELECT statements? I personally learned query statements, programming, programming languages, and a general feel for the field outside of school. It was my personal interest that drove me to learn these techniques and skills.
That does not mean school was unnecessary. I acquired a completely different experience from school than from my personal work experience. I learned how to rigorously think about issues, was exposed to different ways of solving problems, learned the foundations of my area of study, and met other students and professors with different life experiences. This is extremely valuable to me personally even if it is not completely apparent during the job application process.
Getting an undergraduate degree today is like getting a high school degree of decades past. The level of basic academic training has been raised to the college level. It doesn't necessarily prepare you for your job, but it does prepare you for life in general.
Not sure if I'm parsing your sentence correctly, but from my understanding you're saying that the chances of society pushing for a set of genetic traits is no more likely than society killing or sterilizing people without that set of traits? Well I think the difference is moral responsibility - you're not morally or legally allowed to kill another person. But it's much more moral for you to control your child's traits.
Actually healing the sick (modern medicine) has been suggested to negatively impact evolution. And I agree that it's a valid point, but it's a lot harder to say "don't save that guy" than "don't screen for that guy's genes".
Then again, should something go wrong, we can feign ignorance and ask for a bailout!
I know you say this in jest, but I think we both realize that the emphasis of the matter should be: we cannot ask for a bailout here. That's one of my original points. Humans can merrily go along with traits they think are good, but they don't know for sure. And if we find out the bet is wrong (i.e. those traits weren't good enough), then it's game over, no bailout.
Slashdot Mirror
Well yes. This is, after all, a book review. I was rather questioning the OP's active push towards one direction. I'm curious if the OP had thought about the possibility of his child being better at other things as well as well as what the rationalization for pushing programming was.
You drew an analogy to parents projecting sports dreams onto their children. Do you see this as a positive phenomenon? Sure, if you value programming as the absolute best thing a child can be familiar with, this makes sense. But what if your child would naturally have favored or have talent in some other area - say physics? The activity you are pursuing with her could lead to relative underdevelopment in physics when naturally she might have become a great physicist.
An article featured on Slashdot a while back, titled "A Mathematician's Lament", described how, instead of prescribing a course for children to follow in Mathematics, a more effective way to teach math would be for each child to organically discover math on their own. I see that you are attempting to do similarly with your child and programming (instead of math). But that article also brought me to wonder, why favor one subject over another? Why not also let the child organically and naturally discover her talents and interests? Best results might come from doing this with "Hello World", as well as doing similar activities with art, music, physics, language, and sports, in equal proportions.
Different mice could be differently suited to certain purposes. For example the Razer mice generally have features that would make sense to gamers but are generally irrelevant or even distracting to non-gamers. I believe the OP was trying to identify mice that seem better suited for use during programming.
You make a good point, but I think you misinterpreted mine. In Eclipse I do not go the Edit->Search to search. I go to Ctrl-F to do that. The difference, in my mind, is that Eclipse has a more comprehensive set of functionality, much of which does streamline the coding process. It seems that these are the ones that one has to use a mouse for.
There are some tasks that, for sure, the mouse is better suited for. For example, instead of typing Ctrl+B, , TAB, ENTER, I can click on the tab that I already see. Another example is highlighting. If I wanted to search for something I see on the screen, I shouldn't have to type it in, nor should I have to navigate to it in some other fashion first.
But that's all examples besides the point. The point is the GP absurdly trolled to disqualify users of modern IDEs. While I agree that in depth knowledge of vi or Emacs is usually indicative of programming skill, usage of Eclipse or Visual Studio is not indicative of the lack of similar skill.
While mildly funny, this reeks of elitism and untruth. You are associating memorization of esoteric editor commands and customization options with programming skill. While there's likely a good correlation, one can have one without the other.
On a separate note, modern IDEs, such as Eclipse, require the use of the mouse. I would argue that this streamlines the coding process, leaving the developer to focus on the actual design and logic.
Probably, but that is still an additional hassle. I think most users would rather pay $1 than go through however many log-ins and log-outs.
Speaking as a web developer and user, I agree. I think the distinction we have to make is that HTML is not the best format for application delivery, while the web itself could potentially deliver applications very well. If there could be a different vision of a thin client, it would be one which uses a standard designed specifically for this purpose. The problem with that is it doesn't already have Gmail, Google Maps, etc. all ready to be used out of the box.
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of X tunneling over SSH, which already exists, so my point has already been disproved (by lack of use).
That's just half of it. You have to precisely define what you mean by "chicken" first.
The question has always been inane. We choose to define what is a "dinosaur" or what is an "egg", but nature doesn't care about our definitions. There must've been creatures with very similar reproductive or incubation systems that are not quite eggs. These creatures are also not quite "dinosaurs".
Electronic systems are much easier to manipulate. Just think about your current computer. We have a whole toolbox of knowledge to deal with these.
Well that's my question. Does it scale linearly with the number of qubits? The article is not very clear about that.
Is this in response to my post? I don't see how it's at all related.
With probability 1/2
There's a bunch. Shor's is not the only quantum algorithm. For the search the article mentions, maybe they mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm
While each qubit is actually made up of a billion aluminum atoms, it acts like a single atom that can occupy two different energy states.
Does this sound like they're using real atoms to simulate qubits? Perhaps I'm misinterpretting, but it looks like it's still going to take an exponential amount of resources to "make" each additional qubit.
Can someone explain to me why this phenomenon occurs? Is content loaded serially, one item at a time?
Re-read the sentence. "... would ruin games such as Doom..". Games such as Doom are not all over a decade old. Some aren't even out yet!
Yea in a perfect world he would've. The reality is that people don't have enough time to read all the fine print for everything ever. As long as there's a reasonable expectation of a decent privacy policy, most of us just go with it because the time and effort spent looking for a possible alternative is not worth it. Who's to say that he was even provided with a fine print? The article is not very clear that Clear is in the legal "right" here.
This is also why it's so important to raise alarm at these issues, because short of forcing privacy standards or laws, that's all the majority of us can reasonably be expected to do.
I don't think Natal is supposed to be a replacement for traditional control mechanisms. As their researchers have said, it's meant to provide control for tasks that traditional controls aren't optimal for. I'm sure for certain game genres Natal will be great; while for others we can still use the handheld controller.
Just because we use a specific alphabet to represent a concept does not make that concept dependent on the alphabet. I can assure you, if you open up your computer, you will not find "0" and "1" floating from your CPU to your memory. At the same time, I can represent the decimal numbering system with I through X, or with my ten fingers, or toes.
Excuse me, but why does a nation have to produce undergrads who can write SELECT statements? I personally learned query statements, programming, programming languages, and a general feel for the field outside of school. It was my personal interest that drove me to learn these techniques and skills.
That does not mean school was unnecessary. I acquired a completely different experience from school than from my personal work experience. I learned how to rigorously think about issues, was exposed to different ways of solving problems, learned the foundations of my area of study, and met other students and professors with different life experiences. This is extremely valuable to me personally even if it is not completely apparent during the job application process.
Getting an undergraduate degree today is like getting a high school degree of decades past. The level of basic academic training has been raised to the college level. It doesn't necessarily prepare you for your job, but it does prepare you for life in general.
Not sure if I'm parsing your sentence correctly, but from my understanding you're saying that the chances of society pushing for a set of genetic traits is no more likely than society killing or sterilizing people without that set of traits? Well I think the difference is moral responsibility - you're not morally or legally allowed to kill another person. But it's much more moral for you to control your child's traits.
The part you quoted is not related to Gattaca. It's a separate thread of thought. And it is not an argument. It's outlining a possibility.
Actually healing the sick (modern medicine) has been suggested to negatively impact evolution. And I agree that it's a valid point, but it's a lot harder to say "don't save that guy" than "don't screen for that guy's genes".
Then again, should something go wrong, we can feign ignorance and ask for a bailout!
I know you say this in jest, but I think we both realize that the emphasis of the matter should be: we cannot ask for a bailout here. That's one of my original points. Humans can merrily go along with traits they think are good, but they don't know for sure. And if we find out the bet is wrong (i.e. those traits weren't good enough), then it's game over, no bailout.