As has been mentioned, there's nothing like the media to really blow a medical announcement out of all proportion. I think this stems from the fact that the possible (that's possible not probable) implications are enormous for a condition which has been a sentence to a painful and lingering type of death, and that nothing sells papers like a good old fashioned sensationalist take on a story, especially one that could affect the readers.
That it is a symptomatic treatment rather theat a cure is more due to out lack of knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology rather than a conspiracy to earn more money, although the reality is that a cure would be less lucractive. With the spiralling cost of novel drug creation, an easier and more lucrative target is always going to be the first one a company chooses. Not out of cynacism but out of commercial pressures.
You also mention the 2 assumptions of amyloid involvement in Alzheimers. I think that calling them assumptions is a little unfair as it indicates that there is little or no proof of their involvement in the condition. While there is plenty of proof of their involvement, there is no smoking gun that indicates that they have a direct causal involvement. Yes they are assumed to have a role, but that is because of the supporting data rather than some vague supposition.
That the timing is a little serendipidous if the company were looking for financial investment, so what? They are entitled to tell this news in the way the benefits them the most. In the UK, false promises get you in a whole load of trouble with various authorities, not least the BPPI. The biggest scandal of big pharma is the marketing cost of these products. Companies spend more money advertising these drugs then they do researching them. Drugs should be used on what is best for the patient, not what sticky pad is infront of the doctor or what their sexy rep tells then to prescribe. As doctors are only human this isn't the way it happens.
I was an academic researcher in neurosciences (mostly epilepsy with a little bit of parkinsons and alzheimers) and news like this can only be a good thing.
I don't want to flame you (although having said that it kinda means that I'm going to!) but I don't pick languages for being either "cool" or slow. I pick them for a number of reasons: ease and speed of development, performance, ease of maintenance, vendor independence and scalability amongst others.
Maybe it is great for the admin and DBA work that you specialise in but it seems to be limited to that area. I'm more than happy to be corrected as I've only done some test work in Ruby but it doesn't appear expressive enough for admin scripting nor useful for applications that don't follow a certain set type such as RoR.
As for speed not being an issue, that's blatantly wrong. Speed is always an isssue, it's just what level of speed is acceptable in a trade off to development speed. If I'm working on a web app that will have maybe 1 or 2 concurrent users then speed isn't an issue. If I'm working on an app that will have hundreds of concurrent users, then yes it is an issue. Throwing extra hardware is a lazy solution to this and can lead to other problems (sessions being one of them) and I can't imagine telling the people who pay the bills that the app I originally wrote for 1 to 2 people can't scale up.
If I had mod points I'd certainly mod you informative. Those benchmarks might be synthetic and flawed but as a general illustration of how the various languages differ, that link is fantastic.
Of course I'll just use it for my own ends by convincing my managers that we're using the right languages - "Yes boss you'll see that we use C++ for the stuff that needs to be fast with low memory overhead, Java for the server side stuff, stay the fuck away from Ruby and if you say 'Web 2.0' at me one more time I'll be forced to wham you with a mallet!";-)
So many people go and get W2 jobs at a set salary, but never find ways to exceed their salary in efficiency for their employer
No idea what a W2 is as I work in the UK but I assume that it is a standard salaried job. I think the main reason why this happens is because companies either can't or don't recognise outstanding performance. So there is no incentive for an employee to complete a task in half the time when the only payoff would be a (maybe) 5% raise or bonus - "twice the effort for a a tiny benefit to me, no thanks". This is a management flaw plain and simple, although it is compounded by behaviour at school where longer essays equals better, more time spent on a project equals better, when it should be better equals better!
It's an unusual company that doesn't turn into a monster when it reaches a certain size. The requirement for more management almost always leads to greater inertia and less flexibility. I say almost as there are a few out there that don't. I don't think that necessarily MBA's are the root of all evil either. I've known some bad and some very good MBA's and I think that trouble stems from the hiring process where the mere ownership of an MBA is seen as validation of competence. Just as no one got fired for buying IBM, no one gets fired for hiring an MBA!
The only large AND agile company I've seen close up is Flight Centre but their reward, responsibility and management systems are second to none for a multi-billion dollar company. Too many others allow too much deadwood. If you're interested in what they do, I would do some searches on their CEO Graham "Skroo" Turner.
I think that people just aren't used to the more meritocratic idea where you are paid what you earn, not how many hours it took you. As a contractor, I'm used to the idea of believing in my ability to sell myself and then let my skills make them rehire me. You can only sell at a high rate if you can show that the return is worth it. Too many people either don't believe they are good enough or more commonly are too frightened to take the risk in case they find out they aren't.
most don't understand that responsibility is the key to income, not talent
Interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it as you wrote but I understand what you are trying to say. Disciple, a good work ethic, flexible attitude, anything more than a modicum of talent and a bucket of persistence will take you to the top more often than not and get you a great income. Certainly more often than just pure talent. I guess that is what you were implying but I felt that there was more to it than responsibility.
I've enjoyed this too. This is the first thread on slashdot where I've managed to have this sort of intelligent conversation
I see what you're saying about the Big Bang and can well believe it. Many scientists are wary of dealing with theories that COULD posite an external creator due to the very small (but incredibly vocal) minority of religous zealots who then take this possibility (possible in the scientific interpretation of "not impossible" rather than the everyday interpretation of "slightly probably") as hard proof. The scientists then have to spend all their time correcting people and defending their work rather then doing any new work.
Design has not be shown in evolution. That is not to say that it is not there because as a former scientist, I feel that the correct mindset is to be open but skeptical of all possible explanations: that any theory that isn't known to be false is a possibly valid theory but I require proof for me to accept it as valid. One of the major problems with ID is that for it to be a theory, one would have to change the definition of science to the point at which astrology and the like woulld become a science. This cannot be.
I predict that the next battle of science and religion will be one of the biggest. After Big Bang/Genesis, Evolution/Creation & Design the third one will the the neurophysiological basis of conciousness against the religious idea of the soul. I think that this will have more greater implications than the other likely one of Artificial Intelligence.
By the way, the best Dawkins book is "The Selfish Gene" rather than "The blinfd watchmaker".
Sorry to correct your rant, but he does say in TFA that the offer was so low that it didn't even cover his costs. That would be a good enough reason to say no wouldn't it?
What I struggle with is that people look at science with a view to include a supreme being as you mention "I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction". Science doesn't care about deities, it is neither for or against their existence. It only cares about what can be shown from data, this is why the definition of science does not allow supernatural involvement as this by definition is outside of science. When you allow this, all scientific studies stop. Why is the sky blue? God made it blue. Why do we breathe air? God made us that way. Real scientific endevour comes from seeking out answers from experimental data. Evolution is a product of this, where the data suggested a theory which has then shown to be in agreement and indeed predictive of future findings.
I can't see how the Big Bang theory requires supernatural involvement. It is dragged into theses debates because of it's implications, not the science behind it. There is no real logical difference between asking what created the Big Bang and what created the (undetectable) Supreme Being that created the Big Bang. At no point do you increase your level of knowledge, all you are doing is adding a unproven and undetected element to your theory which the data does not support.
Your comment on Richard Dawkins is a valid one. You say that you "find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit". I would argue that religion is not his area of expertise and his views on it should be seen as such, views. In the same vein, I could say that " I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-science, but I am compelled to examine his religous works on their own merit". Dembski falls into this category, a man who has sacrificed his objectivity for a theistic crusade against "methodological naturalism" (the explaination of observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions)
Peer reviewed journals are the gold standard of scienctific work. Origins of a Species was published as a book because peer-reviewed journals did not exists at that time. Books were the method in which you distributed your finding: Pricipia Mathmatica and Descent of Man being two of the greatest of these. Peer reveiwed journals were created as scientists realised that anybody could publish a book and the mere fact that you had your work printed gave no validation of your work. Peer reviewed journals ensured a mechanism where all printed articles passed a high standard of scientific method and also meant that people could not make unproven claims. That is why all new science is published in journals and all scientific books cite these journal articles when they are published.
It's common for the Creationists/ID'ers to complain that their work is not published as it goes against the scientific establishment, but the truth is they are not published as they are bad and often lazy science. If some work was done, that followed the scientific method and shown evidence for ID or creationism or the existance of God, all the scientific journals would be clamoring to publish your work. The scientific acclaim would be massive and a Nobel prize would be guaranteed along with fame and fortune. True revolutions in science such as quantum physics are published as they are good science. People might not like what is written, but this work will always be published.
If I come across the Demski book, I will give it a try but I find it difficult to give much credence to a book which has been so roundly critised by other Mathmaticians, especially those who are the originators of the theories he uses (No Free Lunch Theorems - Wolpert) but I will read it given your recommendation.
I agree with you on several points. I think you are spot on regarding Behe's attitude. Saying "I don't understand it so it must be God" is nothing more than "arguing from ignorance". Some biochemists have been offended by this and resolved to proove that his "irreducible complexity" arguments are just ignorance, with the result that one of the biochemical pathways that he descirbed as being irreducibly complex has been found in a simpler form doing another job.
I'm not all that knowledgable about Dembski's work as I'm not a maths fiend but I distrust a scientist who has publically stated that Religion should supplant Science. You mention motivation earlier and his is obviously theistic, to the detriment of his scientific work (he has never published an article in a peer reviewed journal supporting ID, the one he did get published that is often said that was has no mention of ID in it).
The Lamarck comment was interesting as most people don't even know of it. Saying that the current situation is the same as his is not correct, I am afraid. Lamarckism lasted only a short time as the central underlying principle of aquired characteristics being passed on can easily be shown to be wrong. A pig with a missing leg does not give birth to piglets with missing legs. Darwinian evolution is very different. The supporting evidence is very strong (q.v. this new fossil species) with no conflicting evidence (like a homo sapien fossil in the stomach of a T.Rex). That's not to say that there is no ambiguous data, but this is data that could be interpreted in different ways, rather then data that is definitively supporting/conflicting.
ID is an awful philosophical construct. It has neither the neccesary credentials to be a science (no supernatural influences allowed) and nor does it make any predictions about future discoveries (such as what features would be expected in a transition species - a job that evolution did very accurately in this case). Different people have different definitions of it but in every case, the only purpose is to attempt to discredit evolution, not further our understanding of the world.
I ask about your educational background as your comments puzzled me. You write as an obviously intelligent person (yes, I'm complimenting you) who is strangely uneducated in evolutionary theory (yes I'm insulting you, but hopefully only a little!).
Your belief in the agnosticism of the scientific method is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. Science should be based on observations not preconceived conclusions with the data then being shaped to fit. I believe that you are also correct in that all people, scientists and priests alike, have their own worldviews and bias. That is the beauty and strength of the scientific method, it doesn't care what you think. As long as you follow this method, your results will be unbiased and the facts will be there for all to see. How people interpret these facts in another matter entirely.
Hopefully I will be able to deal with your 2 examples.
The first one is a classic piece of misdirection that people are often taught in religous cultures: that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodymics states that a closed system will tend towards entropy/disorder. The world we live in is not a closed system (one where the amount of energy is static) but open (where energy enters into the system from outside). In our case it is the sun that provides more than enough energy to combat any tendency towards increased entropy. This can be seen by the fact that nearly all life relies either directly (photosynthesis) or indirectly (consuming plant matter or animals that eat plant matter) on energy derived from the sun. The few that don't are those life-forms around hydrothermal vents which derive their energy from the heat at these vents. To use your analogy, this would be the equivalent of getting a solar powered mechanic for your truck, who replaces worn parts with better ones, thus giving you a better truck!
This is how lower ordered creatures could evolve to higher ordered creatures, they do so with the energy provided by the sun.
You second point deals with a couple of issues: supporting evidence for evolution and the politicisation of evolution.
Supporting evidence for evolution was fairly sketchy at this time. The shape of finches beaks is not a resounding confirmation of a theory but it was the start. You say that virtually no supporting evidence was found and this was probably true in the middle to late 1800's. But what is important is that what evidence there was supported evolution and that as more evidence was found it all agreed with the predictions of this theory. You also mention the contraints of the fossil record. It is fairly obvious that evolution could be shown to be false by the fossil record, and I'm not talking something as extreme as finding the skeleton of a homo sapien in the belly of a T. Rex but even something as subtle as an intermediate species showing traits that neither it's descendents or antecedents possess. Fortunately for evolution, the fossil record is congruent with the predictions of evolutionary theory to the extent that this new fossil species was predicted to have the anatomical features that it did and live in the location it was found in. The current state of the fossil record shows overwhelming support for evolution.
The second part, the politicisation of evolution I will admit to not being too knowledgable on. Not being american I cannot tell you the true significance of abortion to evolution, but I cannot understand you when you go from the 1850's to 1970's in half a sentence and then say that "evolution was seen as dying due to a lack of evidence in the fossil record". You miss things such as the Scopes monkey trial where evolution was argued to be correct.
The true politicisation of evolution has come from the religious right who's world view is threatened by it's undermining of one of it's central tenets, creationism. I disagree that evolution has no place in schools. It is a scientific theory and as such should be taught in science classes. Science shou
Mine is Physiology, mainly Neuro-Physiology and Epileptology.
Scientific Method is the Scientific Method, yes. We have a set of data from which we create a model but scientific progress comes from more data being obtained, it is not a case of examining a single watch and then declaring this area of science 'known'. We then compared our model to this new information to see whether it predicts this data or if this data breaks our model. If it does break it, then we need a new theory, however if it supports our model then our underlying theory can be regarded as being "stronger". This obviously does not equate to "more true" but "more certain that it is true".
Saying a fossil was found that has x, y or z characteristics is fair; arguing, with total certainty (one might be tempted to say arrogance) that it is a 'missing link' or transitional species and absolutely demonstrates evolution is a more of a leap of 'faith.'
Absolutely, but this is not just "a fossil". This is "yet another fossil". Numerous transition species have been found, and in each case their features matched the features predicted by evolution. This is only being reported as more newsworthy as it's a transitional species showing the transition from water dwelling to land dwelling animals, i.e. when animals first came on land. Other equally valid transition species would be pachycetis and ambulocetis which show the transition of large land based quadrapeds to sea based animals, in this case whales, but no farfare was attached to these as it's not as "sexy". And this is not including such things as molecular genetics that have increased the certainty in evolution (A new science, unthought of in Darwins day, that demonstrates the relationship between species in a manner predicted by evolution, how does that not prove it beyond reasonable doubt?).
My 'problem' with evolution is not the theory itself, nor its success or current gaps. My issue is the process; have we placed this particular theory, so symbolic in the great Is There A God debate, on such a pedestal that we have lost/are losing objectivity?
I understand what you are saying, that peoples views of evolution are polarised beyond the science due to the religous implications. Saying that you have a problem with the process of evolution is a little disingenous. I don't know of any evolutionary theorists who don't look at evolution as a product of the scientific method, gradualism and puntuated evolution theories highlighting this. What I do see are religous zealots lying (stating known falsehoods) in an attempt to preserve their world order by saying that evolution is wrong, not by scientific proof but by spin, hype and other machinations as shown by the Dover school trials. To a lesser extent, there are also atheists using evolution as prove that God does not exist.
One of the frustrations with evolution is that despite there being no evidence against this theory and mountains of evidence supporting it (unlike lamarkism or ID), people will still refuse to believe it due to their 'faith'. I do not claim that evolution explains everything but it gets to a point where you realise that you are banging your head against a brick wall of prejudice.
One tends to close one's mind when one 'knows.'
Correct. We tend to disbelieve things that go against our inner beliefs. To a certain extent this is essential as it prevents us from credulously believing everything we are told, but I get your warning that long established theories should not be confused with dogma.
I find it interesting that at both the very big, and the very small, there is a great deal of uncertainty.
I do too, but I've always felt that it comes from the fact that humans aren't good at dealing with anything that isn't at the everyday scale - larger than an ant and smaller than a whale (do we see those everyday?!). We've evolved (and I deliberately use that term) to deal with this intermediate scale where seeing is believing, so a bacterium and the curve of the earth are contentious issues as it involves either indirect proof or blind trust.
I think that you opened the can when you mention "Intelligent Design"! ID is the bastard child of those who cannot stand the athestic property of science where God/god is not disproven, but actually not involved at all. As someone who writes clearly, deliberately and not overstating unproven ideas, I think you do yourself an injustice even mentioning ID. These biochemical features you mentioned, presumably Michael Behe's biochemical cascades, now have fairly established roots in other more "primitive" mechanisms, demonstrating how they may have "micro-evolved" (aweful word, sorry). Again, it's a "God of the Gaps" argument who people believe that gaps in scienctific knowledge equates to proof that science has failed, as opposed to knowledge that science doesn't have yet.
An adult conversation on/. , what is the world coming too!
Which physical science do you study/work in, dsci?
While you philosophical analogy is interesting, I'm not sure that it applies to biology or evolutionary theory in the same way as it would apply to physics.
You're correct in stating that a single feature does not indicate realtionships between species, and similar features have evolved separately (such as eyes) but I believe that this was a specific example rebutting an earlier argument (no water creatures having arms).
Also, I'm not aware of einstein saying that. Surely deeper knowledge leads to better understanding
Sorry but there is a way of knowing if it's a "transitional species" (I dislike the term but I will use it in this context).
If you have an animal, lets call it B, that is a descendant of animal A and an ancestor of animal C, what features would evolution predict versus what features would it posses if it were just another unrelated animal?
Evolution would predict that animal B would possess intermediate features so that a progression can be seen from A to B to C. This can be seen in the skeletal structures of the limbs, not just the appearance of these structures but in their functional abilities. In this case, you are moving from a sea based fish to a land based animal, so this animal should possses the fin structure of a fish limb, but altered in such as way that a wrist exists (wrists are essential for land animals as it allows the support of a body out of water). That the animal is not a true land animal can easily be seen as it lacks the true features of land animals such as fingers and toes (phalanges). This is only one feature of the animal, there are many others. Crucially, all the predicted differences are seen. Where C differs from A, B has all these differences but not the the same extent as C
An animal that has no relation would not show this. It would have any number of differences, from number of limbs to bone structures. It would not share common features and it would certainly not "split the difference" between the 2 creatures either side of it in the fossil record.
This is basic science. One of the strengths of a good theory is that it should be supported by new data. Mantar, I'm curious as to your educational background, would you mind telling me why you believe what you do?
evolution on a cosmic level: This is meaningless, I don't think the poster knows what he is talking about. What does evolution have to do with the cosmos? You are right in saying that biology has nothing to do with it, this is pure physics.
the origins of life on earth: You're talking about Abiogenesis here rather than evolution aren't you. Unlike evolution, abiogenesis is one of the those areas of science which we have little evidence supporting any of the hypotheses. All current indications are that this happened just the once, several billion years ago making this one of the most difficult theories to deal with.
And before any religeous cranks start jumping up and down saying this this is proof of a creator, the theory of abiogensis applies equally to creators too. That would be a "God of the Gaps" arguement and is as valid as saying it's turtles all the way down. I am always amazed that those with (maybe) a high school understanding of science feel confident enough to argue their "ideas" with people who have spent years actively researching subjects like evolution and cosmology. I can't imagine how many people stopped thinking because they were given an answer, without stopping to check whether it was the right one.
At the last place I worked at, the my team looked more like bouncers than developers. We had a physical training instructor, two international sportsmen, a semi-professional motorcycle racer and an ex-gymnast. Average weight of about 200 pounds and average body fat about 9-10%. That was obviously a little unusual but it certainly puts paid to the stereotype of skinny geeks.
Disappointingly, the CTO was the archetypal nerd; arriving at 11am and working until early in the morning with the physique of a pipe cleaner and the complexion of unbaked dough - but boy could he code!
Fair enough:-) I asked as I am a mostly J2EE guy and I was weedling for tips on how not to be an asshole!
What you've described to me sounds more like "code monkeys" to me. Guys that can only churn out code to work in other peoples systems, such as only in app servers. People like yourself (and hopefully myself) are the unseen engines of IT departments, getting involved in everything that helps get the job done, be it hardware, OS, config or development. The point I wanted to make was that this sort of behaviour allows others to confuse "limited" developers (one trick ponys) with "specialist" developers (able to do anything but gurus at one task) and that you are doing yourself no favours. If I see someone "teflon-ing" their work onto someone else, I make sure that their line manager knows, normally by asking what project do I charge my time to (of course when it's one of the good guys it's quid pro quo)
Taking on all these tasks leaves you open to abuse like unpaid overtime and there's no point being a martyr to it. I've done it in the past and found the best way to deal with it was to annouce that I was off on-time today as I had theatre tickets/birthday/appointments so that when someone asks me to do extra, smile sweetly and say "I can't right now, but get it cleared by X and I'll look at it in the morning". I'm not suggesting working rigidly to the clock but to have some perspective, people will respect you a lot more for not being a doormat.
IIT would be Indiana or India Institute of Tech?
PS for all those wondering about sockets in Java, search javaalmanac.com, it has the answer;-)
I can't believe that a contractor got sent to training!
Companies don't but the industry does, you can't measure a compnaies attitude as an individual company is as idiosyncratic as a person, you need to look at a group of them. You will find it much easier to get a job in the industry in which you have specific knowledge and these jobs are much more likely to persist when others have been outsourced
18 months would be my minimum but I would prefer 2 years. For you this might not be a hard and fast rule. I would much rather have a recent grad who worked several small "menial" positions than one who didn't have this work ethic and waited for the work to come to them. At this stage of your career, experience (as long as it's good experience - not replacing copier paper!) is golden and it doesn't really matter how you get it.
I've always felt that only after this point can you honestly say "there were no more challenges for me" and be believed by an interviewer. This shows that you care about your level of knowledge and aren't prepared to be kept back. As too many companies still promote by who's been there the longest (Buggins Turn)you may well have to move companies to get to the next rung in the ladder. Much less than this and you will be seen as someone who leaves because they are not good enough or as someone that makes bad choices.
That said, I am a contractor and move companies with the work and the role which can be anything from 6 weeks to 18 months, but I had 3 years experience under my belt before I started contracting
"Absolutely I know it. By the way, I hope you know that I'm pretty much the only C pound guy around so my rate will be a little higher than you expect!"
only if you are one of those assholes who walks around doing nothing but saying "I only do J2EE".
Why are these guys assholes? Do they consider themselves above other IT professionals or is it that you think they have an easier life than you? If your life is like that then get some backbone and some self-respect and say no to being ripped off.
So what's stopping you from doing it yourself? Seriously, why do you need to work for someone else to create software? I'm not saying become a businessman as your skills may not lie there but I am saying don't just complain about it and then do nothing.
You're absolutely correct in saying "Bring in the innovation!". Too many people appear to switch off when they get a job. Find out what you want to do and do it outstandingly. That way you'll have the job you want and money will not be an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
As has been mentioned, there's nothing like the media to really blow a medical announcement out of all proportion. I think this stems from the fact that the possible (that's possible not probable) implications are enormous for a condition which has been a sentence to a painful and lingering type of death, and that nothing sells papers like a good old fashioned sensationalist take on a story, especially one that could affect the readers.
That it is a symptomatic treatment rather theat a cure is more due to out lack of knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology rather than a conspiracy to earn more money, although the reality is that a cure would be less lucractive. With the spiralling cost of novel drug creation, an easier and more lucrative target is always going to be the first one a company chooses. Not out of cynacism but out of commercial pressures.
You also mention the 2 assumptions of amyloid involvement in Alzheimers. I think that calling them assumptions is a little unfair as it indicates that there is little or no proof of their involvement in the condition. While there is plenty of proof of their involvement, there is no smoking gun that indicates that they have a direct causal involvement. Yes they are assumed to have a role, but that is because of the supporting data rather than some vague supposition.That the timing is a little serendipidous if the company were looking for financial investment, so what? They are entitled to tell this news in the way the benefits them the most. In the UK, false promises get you in a whole load of trouble with various authorities, not least the BPPI. The biggest scandal of big pharma is the marketing cost of these products. Companies spend more money advertising these drugs then they do researching them. Drugs should be used on what is best for the patient, not what sticky pad is infront of the doctor or what their sexy rep tells then to prescribe. As doctors are only human this isn't the way it happens.
I was an academic researcher in neurosciences (mostly epilepsy with a little bit of parkinsons and alzheimers) and news like this can only be a good thing.
I don't want to flame you (although having said that it kinda means that I'm going to!) but I don't pick languages for being either "cool" or slow. I pick them for a number of reasons: ease and speed of development, performance, ease of maintenance, vendor independence and scalability amongst others.
Maybe it is great for the admin and DBA work that you specialise in but it seems to be limited to that area. I'm more than happy to be corrected as I've only done some test work in Ruby but it doesn't appear expressive enough for admin scripting nor useful for applications that don't follow a certain set type such as RoR.
As for speed not being an issue, that's blatantly wrong. Speed is always an isssue, it's just what level of speed is acceptable in a trade off to development speed. If I'm working on a web app that will have maybe 1 or 2 concurrent users then speed isn't an issue. If I'm working on an app that will have hundreds of concurrent users, then yes it is an issue. Throwing extra hardware is a lazy solution to this and can lead to other problems (sessions being one of them) and I can't imagine telling the people who pay the bills that the app I originally wrote for 1 to 2 people can't scale up.
If I had mod points I'd certainly mod you informative. Those benchmarks might be synthetic and flawed but as a general illustration of how the various languages differ, that link is fantastic.
Of course I'll just use it for my own ends by convincing my managers that we're using the right languages - "Yes boss you'll see that we use C++ for the stuff that needs to be fast with low memory overhead, Java for the server side stuff, stay the fuck away from Ruby and if you say 'Web 2.0' at me one more time I'll be forced to wham you with a mallet!" ;-)
Life imitates Art yet again.
So many people go and get W2 jobs at a set salary, but never find ways to exceed their salary in efficiency for their employer
No idea what a W2 is as I work in the UK but I assume that it is a standard salaried job. I think the main reason why this happens is because companies either can't or don't recognise outstanding performance. So there is no incentive for an employee to complete a task in half the time when the only payoff would be a (maybe) 5% raise or bonus - "twice the effort for a a tiny benefit to me, no thanks". This is a management flaw plain and simple, although it is compounded by behaviour at school where longer essays equals better, more time spent on a project equals better, when it should be better equals better!
It's an unusual company that doesn't turn into a monster when it reaches a certain size. The requirement for more management almost always leads to greater inertia and less flexibility. I say almost as there are a few out there that don't. I don't think that necessarily MBA's are the root of all evil either. I've known some bad and some very good MBA's and I think that trouble stems from the hiring process where the mere ownership of an MBA is seen as validation of competence. Just as no one got fired for buying IBM, no one gets fired for hiring an MBA!
The only large AND agile company I've seen close up is Flight Centre but their reward, responsibility and management systems are second to none for a multi-billion dollar company. Too many others allow too much deadwood. If you're interested in what they do, I would do some searches on their CEO Graham "Skroo" Turner.
I think that people just aren't used to the more meritocratic idea where you are paid what you earn, not how many hours it took you. As a contractor, I'm used to the idea of believing in my ability to sell myself and then let my skills make them rehire me. You can only sell at a high rate if you can show that the return is worth it. Too many people either don't believe they are good enough or more commonly are too frightened to take the risk in case they find out they aren't.
most don't understand that responsibility is the key to income, not talent
Interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it as you wrote but I understand what you are trying to say. Disciple, a good work ethic, flexible attitude, anything more than a modicum of talent and a bucket of persistence will take you to the top more often than not and get you a great income. Certainly more often than just pure talent. I guess that is what you were implying but I felt that there was more to it than responsibility.
I've enjoyed this too. This is the first thread on slashdot where I've managed to have this sort of intelligent conversation
I see what you're saying about the Big Bang and can well believe it. Many scientists are wary of dealing with theories that COULD posite an external creator due to the very small (but incredibly vocal) minority of religous zealots who then take this possibility (possible in the scientific interpretation of "not impossible" rather than the everyday interpretation of "slightly probably") as hard proof. The scientists then have to spend all their time correcting people and defending their work rather then doing any new work.
Design has not be shown in evolution. That is not to say that it is not there because as a former scientist, I feel that the correct mindset is to be open but skeptical of all possible explanations: that any theory that isn't known to be false is a possibly valid theory but I require proof for me to accept it as valid. One of the major problems with ID is that for it to be a theory, one would have to change the definition of science to the point at which astrology and the like woulld become a science. This cannot be.
I predict that the next battle of science and religion will be one of the biggest. After Big Bang/Genesis, Evolution/Creation & Design the third one will the the neurophysiological basis of conciousness against the religious idea of the soul. I think that this will have more greater implications than the other likely one of Artificial Intelligence.
By the way, the best Dawkins book is "The Selfish Gene" rather than "The blinfd watchmaker".
Sorry to correct your rant, but he does say in TFA that the offer was so low that it didn't even cover his costs. That would be a good enough reason to say no wouldn't it?
Oh, okay. Now I get the Larmarck comment.
What I struggle with is that people look at science with a view to include a supreme being as you mention "I believe (as a theist) that it is heading in the right direction". Science doesn't care about deities, it is neither for or against their existence. It only cares about what can be shown from data, this is why the definition of science does not allow supernatural involvement as this by definition is outside of science. When you allow this, all scientific studies stop. Why is the sky blue? God made it blue. Why do we breathe air? God made us that way. Real scientific endevour comes from seeking out answers from experimental data. Evolution is a product of this, where the data suggested a theory which has then shown to be in agreement and indeed predictive of future findings.
I can't see how the Big Bang theory requires supernatural involvement. It is dragged into theses debates because of it's implications, not the science behind it. There is no real logical difference between asking what created the Big Bang and what created the (undetectable) Supreme Being that created the Big Bang. At no point do you increase your level of knowledge, all you are doing is adding a unproven and undetected element to your theory which the data does not support.
Your comment on Richard Dawkins is a valid one. You say that you "find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-religion, but I am compelled to examine his scientific works on their own merit". I would argue that religion is not his area of expertise and his views on it should be seen as such, views. In the same vein, I could say that " I find myself suspicious of a man who is openly anti-science, but I am compelled to examine his religous works on their own merit". Dembski falls into this category, a man who has sacrificed his objectivity for a theistic crusade against "methodological naturalism" (the explaination of observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions)
Peer reviewed journals are the gold standard of scienctific work. Origins of a Species was published as a book because peer-reviewed journals did not exists at that time. Books were the method in which you distributed your finding: Pricipia Mathmatica and Descent of Man being two of the greatest of these. Peer reveiwed journals were created as scientists realised that anybody could publish a book and the mere fact that you had your work printed gave no validation of your work. Peer reviewed journals ensured a mechanism where all printed articles passed a high standard of scientific method and also meant that people could not make unproven claims. That is why all new science is published in journals and all scientific books cite these journal articles when they are published.
It's common for the Creationists/ID'ers to complain that their work is not published as it goes against the scientific establishment, but the truth is they are not published as they are bad and often lazy science. If some work was done, that followed the scientific method and shown evidence for ID or creationism or the existance of God, all the scientific journals would be clamoring to publish your work. The scientific acclaim would be massive and a Nobel prize would be guaranteed along with fame and fortune. True revolutions in science such as quantum physics are published as they are good science. People might not like what is written, but this work will always be published.
If I come across the Demski book, I will give it a try but I find it difficult to give much credence to a book which has been so roundly critised by other Mathmaticians, especially those who are the originators of the theories he uses (No Free Lunch Theorems - Wolpert) but I will read it given your recommendation.
I agree with you on several points. I think you are spot on regarding Behe's attitude. Saying "I don't understand it so it must be God" is nothing more than "arguing from ignorance". Some biochemists have been offended by this and resolved to proove that his "irreducible complexity" arguments are just ignorance, with the result that one of the biochemical pathways that he descirbed as being irreducibly complex has been found in a simpler form doing another job.
I'm not all that knowledgable about Dembski's work as I'm not a maths fiend but I distrust a scientist who has publically stated that Religion should supplant Science. You mention motivation earlier and his is obviously theistic, to the detriment of his scientific work (he has never published an article in a peer reviewed journal supporting ID, the one he did get published that is often said that was has no mention of ID in it).
The Lamarck comment was interesting as most people don't even know of it. Saying that the current situation is the same as his is not correct, I am afraid. Lamarckism lasted only a short time as the central underlying principle of aquired characteristics being passed on can easily be shown to be wrong. A pig with a missing leg does not give birth to piglets with missing legs. Darwinian evolution is very different. The supporting evidence is very strong (q.v. this new fossil species) with no conflicting evidence (like a homo sapien fossil in the stomach of a T.Rex). That's not to say that there is no ambiguous data, but this is data that could be interpreted in different ways, rather then data that is definitively supporting/conflicting.
ID is an awful philosophical construct. It has neither the neccesary credentials to be a science (no supernatural influences allowed) and nor does it make any predictions about future discoveries (such as what features would be expected in a transition species - a job that evolution did very accurately in this case). Different people have different definitions of it but in every case, the only purpose is to attempt to discredit evolution, not further our understanding of the world.
I ask about your educational background as your comments puzzled me. You write as an obviously intelligent person (yes, I'm complimenting you) who is strangely uneducated in evolutionary theory (yes I'm insulting you, but hopefully only a little!).
Your belief in the agnosticism of the scientific method is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. Science should be based on observations not preconceived conclusions with the data then being shaped to fit. I believe that you are also correct in that all people, scientists and priests alike, have their own worldviews and bias. That is the beauty and strength of the scientific method, it doesn't care what you think. As long as you follow this method, your results will be unbiased and the facts will be there for all to see. How people interpret these facts in another matter entirely.
Hopefully I will be able to deal with your 2 examples.
The first one is a classic piece of misdirection that people are often taught in religous cultures: that evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodymics states that a closed system will tend towards entropy/disorder. The world we live in is not a closed system (one where the amount of energy is static) but open (where energy enters into the system from outside). In our case it is the sun that provides more than enough energy to combat any tendency towards increased entropy. This can be seen by the fact that nearly all life relies either directly (photosynthesis) or indirectly (consuming plant matter or animals that eat plant matter) on energy derived from the sun. The few that don't are those life-forms around hydrothermal vents which derive their energy from the heat at these vents. To use your analogy, this would be the equivalent of getting a solar powered mechanic for your truck, who replaces worn parts with better ones, thus giving you a better truck!
This is how lower ordered creatures could evolve to higher ordered creatures, they do so with the energy provided by the sun.
You second point deals with a couple of issues: supporting evidence for evolution and the politicisation of evolution.
Supporting evidence for evolution was fairly sketchy at this time. The shape of finches beaks is not a resounding confirmation of a theory but it was the start. You say that virtually no supporting evidence was found and this was probably true in the middle to late 1800's. But what is important is that what evidence there was supported evolution and that as more evidence was found it all agreed with the predictions of this theory. You also mention the contraints of the fossil record. It is fairly obvious that evolution could be shown to be false by the fossil record, and I'm not talking something as extreme as finding the skeleton of a homo sapien in the belly of a T. Rex but even something as subtle as an intermediate species showing traits that neither it's descendents or antecedents possess. Fortunately for evolution, the fossil record is congruent with the predictions of evolutionary theory to the extent that this new fossil species was predicted to have the anatomical features that it did and live in the location it was found in. The current state of the fossil record shows overwhelming support for evolution.
The second part, the politicisation of evolution I will admit to not being too knowledgable on. Not being american I cannot tell you the true significance of abortion to evolution, but I cannot understand you when you go from the 1850's to 1970's in half a sentence and then say that "evolution was seen as dying due to a lack of evidence in the fossil record". You miss things such as the Scopes monkey trial where evolution was argued to be correct.
The true politicisation of evolution has come from the religious right who's world view is threatened by it's undermining of one of it's central tenets, creationism. I disagree that evolution has no place in schools. It is a scientific theory and as such should be taught in science classes. Science shou
I'd rather just see the judge turn to SCO and say, "Bullshit, case dismissed..."
If only, but I hear that they are considering taking this farce on to Broadway as it's still wowing the crowd after all these years!
Mine is Physiology, mainly Neuro-Physiology and Epileptology.
Scientific Method is the Scientific Method, yes. We have a set of data from which we create a model but scientific progress comes from more data being obtained, it is not a case of examining a single watch and then declaring this area of science 'known'. We then compared our model to this new information to see whether it predicts this data or if this data breaks our model. If it does break it, then we need a new theory, however if it supports our model then our underlying theory can be regarded as being "stronger". This obviously does not equate to "more true" but "more certain that it is true".
Saying a fossil was found that has x, y or z characteristics is fair; arguing, with total certainty (one might be tempted to say arrogance) that it is a 'missing link' or transitional species and absolutely demonstrates evolution is a more of a leap of 'faith.'
Absolutely, but this is not just "a fossil". This is "yet another fossil". Numerous transition species have been found, and in each case their features matched the features predicted by evolution. This is only being reported as more newsworthy as it's a transitional species showing the transition from water dwelling to land dwelling animals, i.e. when animals first came on land. Other equally valid transition species would be pachycetis and ambulocetis which show the transition of large land based quadrapeds to sea based animals, in this case whales, but no farfare was attached to these as it's not as "sexy". And this is not including such things as molecular genetics that have increased the certainty in evolution (A new science, unthought of in Darwins day, that demonstrates the relationship between species in a manner predicted by evolution, how does that not prove it beyond reasonable doubt?).
My 'problem' with evolution is not the theory itself, nor its success or current gaps. My issue is the process; have we placed this particular theory, so symbolic in the great Is There A God debate, on such a pedestal that we have lost/are losing objectivity?
I understand what you are saying, that peoples views of evolution are polarised beyond the science due to the religous implications. Saying that you have a problem with the process of evolution is a little disingenous. I don't know of any evolutionary theorists who don't look at evolution as a product of the scientific method, gradualism and puntuated evolution theories highlighting this. What I do see are religous zealots lying (stating known falsehoods) in an attempt to preserve their world order by saying that evolution is wrong, not by scientific proof but by spin, hype and other machinations as shown by the Dover school trials. To a lesser extent, there are also atheists using evolution as prove that God does not exist.
One of the frustrations with evolution is that despite there being no evidence against this theory and mountains of evidence supporting it (unlike lamarkism or ID), people will still refuse to believe it due to their 'faith'. I do not claim that evolution explains everything but it gets to a point where you realise that you are banging your head against a brick wall of prejudice.
One tends to close one's mind when one 'knows.'
Correct. We tend to disbelieve things that go against our inner beliefs. To a certain extent this is essential as it prevents us from credulously believing everything we are told, but I get your warning that long established theories should not be confused with dogma.
I find it interesting that at both the very big, and the very small, there is a great deal of uncertainty.
I do too, but I've always felt that it comes from the fact that humans aren't good at dealing with anything that isn't at the everyday scale - larger than an ant and smaller than a whale (do we see those everyday?!). We've evolved (and I deliberately use that term) to deal with this intermediate scale where seeing is believing, so a bacterium and the curve of the earth are contentious issues as it involves either indirect proof or blind trust.
I think that you opened the can when you mention "Intelligent Design"! ID is the bastard child of those who cannot stand the athestic property of science where God/god is not disproven, but actually not involved at all. As someone who writes clearly, deliberately and not overstating unproven ideas, I think you do yourself an injustice even mentioning ID. These biochemical features you mentioned, presumably Michael Behe's biochemical cascades, now have fairly established roots in other more "primitive" mechanisms, demonstrating how they may have "micro-evolved" (aweful word, sorry). Again, it's a "God of the Gaps" argument who people believe that gaps in scienctific knowledge equates to proof that science has failed, as opposed to knowledge that science doesn't have yet.
An adult conversation on /. , what is the world coming too!
Which physical science do you study/work in, dsci?
While you philosophical analogy is interesting, I'm not sure that it applies to biology or evolutionary theory in the same way as it would apply to physics.
You're correct in stating that a single feature does not indicate realtionships between species, and similar features have evolved separately (such as eyes) but I believe that this was a specific example rebutting an earlier argument (no water creatures having arms).
Also, I'm not aware of einstein saying that. Surely deeper knowledge leads to better understanding
Sorry but there is a way of knowing if it's a "transitional species" (I dislike the term but I will use it in this context).
If you have an animal, lets call it B, that is a descendant of animal A and an ancestor of animal C, what features would evolution predict versus what features would it posses if it were just another unrelated animal?
Evolution would predict that animal B would possess intermediate features so that a progression can be seen from A to B to C. This can be seen in the skeletal structures of the limbs, not just the appearance of these structures but in their functional abilities. In this case, you are moving from a sea based fish to a land based animal, so this animal should possses the fin structure of a fish limb, but altered in such as way that a wrist exists (wrists are essential for land animals as it allows the support of a body out of water). That the animal is not a true land animal can easily be seen as it lacks the true features of land animals such as fingers and toes (phalanges). This is only one feature of the animal, there are many others. Crucially, all the predicted differences are seen. Where C differs from A, B has all these differences but not the the same extent as C
An animal that has no relation would not show this. It would have any number of differences, from number of limbs to bone structures. It would not share common features and it would certainly not "split the difference" between the 2 creatures either side of it in the fossil record.
This is basic science. One of the strengths of a good theory is that it should be supported by new data. Mantar, I'm curious as to your educational background, would you mind telling me why you believe what you do?
Deep waters indeed! I have two points
evolution on a cosmic level: This is meaningless, I don't think the poster knows what he is talking about. What does evolution have to do with the cosmos? You are right in saying that biology has nothing to do with it, this is pure physics.
the origins of life on earth: You're talking about Abiogenesis here rather than evolution aren't you. Unlike evolution, abiogenesis is one of the those areas of science which we have little evidence supporting any of the hypotheses. All current indications are that this happened just the once, several billion years ago making this one of the most difficult theories to deal with.
And before any religeous cranks start jumping up and down saying this this is proof of a creator, the theory of abiogensis applies equally to creators too. That would be a "God of the Gaps" arguement and is as valid as saying it's turtles all the way down. I am always amazed that those with (maybe) a high school understanding of science feel confident enough to argue their "ideas" with people who have spent years actively researching subjects like evolution and cosmology. I can't imagine how many people stopped thinking because they were given an answer, without stopping to check whether it was the right one.
Oops, apologies.. here's that last bit again for the "hard of thinking"...
<joke>but boy could he code!</joke>
I'm with you
At the last place I worked at, the my team looked more like bouncers than developers. We had a physical training instructor, two international sportsmen, a semi-professional motorcycle racer and an ex-gymnast. Average weight of about 200 pounds and average body fat about 9-10%. That was obviously a little unusual but it certainly puts paid to the stereotype of skinny geeks.
Disappointingly, the CTO was the archetypal nerd; arriving at 11am and working until early in the morning with the physique of a pipe cleaner and the complexion of unbaked dough - but boy could he code!
Fair enough :-) I asked as I am a mostly J2EE guy and I was weedling for tips on how not to be an asshole!
What you've described to me sounds more like "code monkeys" to me. Guys that can only churn out code to work in other peoples systems, such as only in app servers. People like yourself (and hopefully myself) are the unseen engines of IT departments, getting involved in everything that helps get the job done, be it hardware, OS, config or development. The point I wanted to make was that this sort of behaviour allows others to confuse "limited" developers (one trick ponys) with "specialist" developers (able to do anything but gurus at one task) and that you are doing yourself no favours. If I see someone "teflon-ing" their work onto someone else, I make sure that their line manager knows, normally by asking what project do I charge my time to (of course when it's one of the good guys it's quid pro quo)
Taking on all these tasks leaves you open to abuse like unpaid overtime and there's no point being a martyr to it. I've done it in the past and found the best way to deal with it was to annouce that I was off on-time today as I had theatre tickets/birthday/appointments so that when someone asks me to do extra, smile sweetly and say "I can't right now, but get it cleared by X and I'll look at it in the morning". I'm not suggesting working rigidly to the clock but to have some perspective, people will respect you a lot more for not being a doormat.
IIT would be Indiana or India Institute of Tech?
PS for all those wondering about sockets in Java, search javaalmanac.com, it has the answer ;-)
I can't believe that a contractor got sent to training!
Companies don't but the industry does, you can't measure a compnaies attitude as an individual company is as idiosyncratic as a person, you need to look at a group of them. You will find it much easier to get a job in the industry in which you have specific knowledge and these jobs are much more likely to persist when others have been outsourced
18 months would be my minimum but I would prefer 2 years. For you this might not be a hard and fast rule. I would much rather have a recent grad who worked several small "menial" positions than one who didn't have this work ethic and waited for the work to come to them. At this stage of your career, experience (as long as it's good experience - not replacing copier paper!) is golden and it doesn't really matter how you get it.
I've always felt that only after this point can you honestly say "there were no more challenges for me" and be believed by an interviewer. This shows that you care about your level of knowledge and aren't prepared to be kept back. As too many companies still promote by who's been there the longest (Buggins Turn)you may well have to move companies to get to the next rung in the ladder. Much less than this and you will be seen as someone who leaves because they are not good enough or as someone that makes bad choices.
That said, I am a contractor and move companies with the work and the role which can be anything from 6 weeks to 18 months, but I had 3 years experience under my belt before I started contracting
"Absolutely I know it. By the way, I hope you know that I'm pretty much the only C pound guy around so my rate will be a little higher than you expect!"
only if you are one of those assholes who walks around doing nothing but saying "I only do J2EE".
Why are these guys assholes? Do they consider themselves above other IT professionals or is it that you think they have an easier life than you? If your life is like that then get some backbone and some self-respect and say no to being ripped off.
So what's stopping you from doing it yourself? Seriously, why do you need to work for someone else to create software? I'm not saying become a businessman as your skills may not lie there but I am saying don't just complain about it and then do nothing.
You're absolutely correct in saying "Bring in the innovation!". Too many people appear to switch off when they get a job. Find out what you want to do and do it outstandingly. That way you'll have the job you want and money will not be an issue.