The Pouakai, or Haast eagle of New Zealand was hunted to extinction by the Maori. But before it lost this battle, it also hunted humans. http://www.nzbirds.com/birds/haasteagle.html
However, if your boss makes you run a crash-happy application don't blame your drinking on 'computers'. There is good software available. It is the decision making in software selection that is often at fault.
Cellular life we know of on Earth is based on complex molecules. Basically carbon is the only atom that can form these complex molecules (with an outside chance that silicon could do similar).
Studying the radiation from other parts of the universe, it seems that stars out there are made of the same basic elements as the ones we are familiar with here. So it follows that if there is complex life out there, it is probably carbon based. So we have a fairly clear idea of what carbon-based cellular living organism looks like.
Once you get a chunk of some substance under the microscope, it shouldn't be too difficult to make a determination about whether it was or is living.
In New Zealand, the Maori traditionally attributed life to fire. I'm sure they were not the only ones. It consumes, reproduces, moves and behaves chaotically.
If the theory does not match the practice, the theory is incomplete. In other words, fix the theory. Don't make vague and stupid generalizations against it. Those generalizations are nothing more than rationalizations for the sake of the idiot makeing them.
Yes, you are right... in theory.
I write software to spec. In theory, that should work. In practice it often does. But often there are gaps in the specification that the guy spec'ing should have seen, but didn't. Perhaps, his kids woke him up 20 times last night, perhaps someone made a bad pot of coffee.
These gaps in the spec become glaringly obvious when writing the code and in the iterative component testing. That's the practice.
Now, if you invest 5 times the effort in the specification, you can probably get it all. But in practice, it's often better to prepare a rough, incomplete functional specification. Make a special effort to specify the interface between interacting parts of the system, especially if they are developed by differnt teams. Then allow the developers more scope to communicate and modify this in the development process.
I'm not saying this is a good idea for building spacecraft. But it makes sense for commercial software development.
Slashdot Mirror
Canadians are so cute when they're angry.
The Pouakai, or Haast eagle of New Zealand was hunted to extinction by the Maori. But before it lost this battle, it also hunted humans.
http://www.nzbirds.com/birds/haasteagle.html
In the bad old days:
Now:
However, if your boss makes you run a crash-happy application don't blame your drinking on 'computers'. There is good software available. It is the decision making in software selection that is often at fault.
Check this BBC article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4555370.stm
Apparently men and women use the Internet for different priorities.
Could this suggest that there is actually a difference in the genders?
The mystery thickens...
Cellular life we know of on Earth is based on complex molecules. Basically carbon is the only atom that can form these complex molecules (with an outside chance that silicon could do similar).
Studying the radiation from other parts of the universe, it seems that stars out there are made of the same basic elements as the ones we are familiar with here. So it follows that if there is complex life out there, it is probably carbon based. So we have a fairly clear idea of what carbon-based cellular living organism looks like.
Once you get a chunk of some substance under the microscope, it shouldn't be too difficult to make a determination about whether it was or is living.
In New Zealand, the Maori traditionally attributed life to fire. I'm sure they were not the only ones. It consumes, reproduces, moves and behaves chaotically.
If the theory does not match the practice, the theory is incomplete. In other words, fix the theory. Don't make vague and stupid generalizations against it. Those generalizations are nothing more than rationalizations for the sake of the idiot makeing them.
Yes, you are right... in theory.
I write software to spec. In theory, that should work. In practice it often does. But often there are gaps in the specification that the guy spec'ing should have seen, but didn't. Perhaps, his kids woke him up 20 times last night, perhaps someone made a bad pot of coffee.
These gaps in the spec become glaringly obvious when writing the code and in the iterative component testing. That's the practice.
Now, if you invest 5 times the effort in the specification, you can probably get it all. But in practice, it's often better to prepare a rough, incomplete functional specification. Make a special effort to specify the interface between interacting parts of the system, especially if they are developed by differnt teams. Then allow the developers more scope to communicate and modify this in the development process.
I'm not saying this is a good idea for building spacecraft. But it makes sense for commercial software development.
Who was it that said:
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not.