What you're saying is misleading. Sure, IN GENERAL, those stats facts are true to a GENERAL RULE. HOWEVER, you're +/- 10% does NOT apply to the people in this study, but rather an extrapolation of that data to the general population.
The point is that this study showed what CAN happen. Further study is needed to see what will likely happen (i.e. general rule).
From TFA:
Dr. Jonathan Friedman, an associate professor of surgery and neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine noted that the causal relationship here is not clear.
You might know about stats. But, you suck at interpretation. And reading apparently.
Oh, I forgot to mention that avoiding obesity is certainly NOT difficult. It can easily be avoided by eating half of what you get at a restaurant and reheating the rest the next day. Having reasonable portion sizes. Etc. Essentially, not being functionally retarded when it comes to food.
You're probably getting at loosing the weight once it's on. Which is true. Loosing weight is difficult. BUT, that *very* different from avoidance/prevention. As in, breaking habits is a lot harder than creating good ones in the first place. Want someone to blame? Have a chat with your parents about the messed up eating patterns they allowed you to develop (or they instilled in you).
doing some basic calculation associated with calorie intake versus calorie burn and the increase of calorie burn with added exercise will reveal that exercise is not as effective at controlling weight as is controlling int
I can say with great confidence that those calculations are flawed as they would only include the calories burned during the exercise. What isn't included is the increased metabolism that occurs with regular exercise. What isn't included is the fact that the more muscle you have the more you burn even at rest. Also, the more you exercise the more energy you will have. So, it gets more and more likely that you would want to go out and be active. So, exercise certainly is a great factor in weight loose and preventing obesity.
It is my observation that reducing the intake of food is the most significant thing anyone can do...
This is both stupid and not stupid at the same time. Unfortunately, in North America, we do eat *way* too much. So, a reduction in calorie intake is likely warranted. HOWEVER, what is more important than that is which foods are eaten. Because, if you're eating McDonald's more than once a month, that's *way* too much. Honestly, make yourself a burger at home. It's easy, you control how much of everything, and I have no doubt that you can make one orders of magnitude better than McDonald's can. Fries are quick and easy ot make in a bit (and I do mean a bit, a couple tablespoons) of Olive oil in a frying pan. I personally like doing that with Butternut Squash better. No salt needed (fuck does McDonald's use a lot) and it tastes better than "normal" fries.
Seriously, there is no one "most significant thing" for weight loss. They are all important. Burn more than you eat. Exercise. What you eat needs to be healthy. Etc. ALL of it! Doing one thing is just shooting yourself in your foot. Hell, if you have significantly reduced your calorie intake, then after you start eating normally again (for maintenance) you'll gain back a lot because you'll have screwed up your metabolism. Similarly, if those calories don't have enough health to them. Honestly, you really have to be careful about this stuff. Otherwise, you might be screwing yourself over and not even know it.
Well, if you were actually intelligent you'd realise just how much medicine is run off of merely ANECDOTAL evidence (It's quite shocking actually)! Not to mention all the other studies that have linked obesity, high fat foods (how do you think people get obese in the first place), etc, etc, etc, to lesser mental capacity. Not to mention that this study pretty much confirms common sense and what we see every day.
In fact, I think that if you exercise a lot, obesity almost vanishes as a cause of a lot of problems.
I think you are confusing slightly overweight with obesity. Because, obesity is just plain bad, no matter which way you cut it. But, slightly overweight people can be more healthy than slim people if they exercise enough (there's a study that showed this, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now). That is, in the short term. In the longer term, it's unlikely that the lifestyle choices that make people overweight will do them any kindness down the road. Especially, when that metabolism slows down with getting older and those slightly overweight people start getting bigger.
You seem to be implying that the brain chemistry precedes the obesity. It's actually more than just likely that it's the other way around. History points to that one. Because, this obesity problem is very *very* new and it takes a *long* time for such things to change in such a large number of people. That is, unless you factor in the dietary changes. Hmm. Think that might have something to do with it? You know, the obesity problem linked to peoples diets? There's more than just a correlation there you know.
But, do you honestly think that a well designed study is going to happen to work that particular point out? Especially, when it's a no brainer? Because, that would entail something like taking a few thousand healthy people and getting them to eat.. a lot. And matching there new diet to the diets of the obese. Then seeing what happens in the brian during the feeding. Not exactly an ethical thing to do given how difficult it is to loose weight and the profound health problems that come with along with being overweight.
I personally think that these medical people should look up once in a while. You know, to actually think. Then perhaps they'd get rid of there tunnel vision and see a bigger picture.
Couple that with obese people have more than just a tendency to get there by way of high fat foods and viola! Fat people are of diminished mental capacity. Which, unfortunately, fits my experience. No matter what the job, btw. It's sad.
I have yet to meet a morbidly obese (or even fairly overweight) person that can answer my questions in a timely fashion. It's like after the words leave my mouth, there is a built in delay before there brain can start processing the request, or the brain just works slower. It's very frustrating.
But, you know what. You're right. Because, it's not like there was a study just done that showed the high fat foods have a negative impact on learning/information processing/etc....
We currently have no clue how the brain works and we are just starting to try to figure it out. Just look at when Theoretical Neuroscience began and how much they actually know. Let's just say it's new. As in, we know next to nothing about what goes on in the brain.
Still need convincing? Well, just look at any of the pysch meds out there. The thought is that mental issues are brain chemistry. Well, the drugs change the brain chemistry as soon as they are in the system. Yet, it can take weeks (or months) after reaching an effective dose to get a therapeutic response. So, again, we know next to nothing.
Well, there are a couple assumptions in what you just said. The first being that what is written is written well. I can't tell you how bad of an assumption that is. I mean, just with how many times I've had to unwind what someone wrote just because it was/that/ bad, *and* it was of so called "professional quality." Kind of sad when you think about it.
The second point is that you don't seem to understand what slides are actually for. I haven't watched this video yet, so I can't comment on this specific case, but in general slides are for talking points rather than discussion. They are used in talks because of this very point. Similarly, for the notes. They are written specifically for someone else and thinking that you could fully properly interpret such short hand is rather arrogant.
Seriously, this is a video of a talk given by Theo. You might not like the medium, but since it doesn't exist in another format, bitching about it is rather pointless. And asking for it in another format (implied or otherwise) is rather presumptuous.
You're assuming that the "integration of all submitted components" is required for testing. Are you sure that's a good one? Because, it really *really* isn't (in general). Especially, when such components are part of entirely different (sub)systems.
""" that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase. """
Developers *can* code new features during this phase. There is a difference between developing and committing those change to CVS. Developers don't have to be idle. If they don't want to do that, they can always help with the testing and bug fixing. Just saying that developers can do more than just one little thing.
"""a focus on quality is not the same as a focus on security."""
Kinda is actually. Bug hunting and the fixing there of, regardless of exploitability is the exact reason why comments like "this was fixed 7 months ago in OpenBSD" are commonplace on security mailing lists.
"""Secure by default is a good approach, but is somewhat meaningless, as you are limited in what you can do with it."""
This *statement* is meaningless and completely misses the point. The point of secure by default is that when you turn something on, you have to read how. So, the person turning a service on will (or should) learn about the security implications thereof. So, that person is less likely to f**k up. THAT is the point. It's even stated somewhere on their website.
"""A true metric would be to look at the vulnerabilities of software in the ports tree, of which there is still a lot."""
Ports have been removed for that exact reason. I think it should also be pointed out that EVERY ports tree (or similar) has the same issues. The main problem being that tracking thousands of pieces of software is rather intractable for just a couple of people. That would be the maintainers job and those guys, again in all ports trees (or similar), are necessarily spending each day checking up on things.
"""At the moment, SELinux or RSBAC are far more secure systems, despite those platforms having more vulnerabilities."""
That last part kinda cuts the legs out from under the first part. You should read what you write before hitting submit.
""" the poster is making the assertion that it works, a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project. """
Well, it does work. And guess which people are best able to determine whether things work or not and whether the trade-offs are worth it? That'd be the OpenBSD people.
"1"
Fixed by not allowing features/etc that aren't ready into release.
"2"
I've heard of systems running OpenBSD for *years* *non-stop* *without issue*. Quite impressive. Also, I've never heard anyone complain about there upgrade. Things are very well documented and tested. I did it once (I usually just clean wipe and start over) and only had one or two issues which would have been resolved quickly if I would have read the documentation/before/ I upgraded.
"3"
Unless you have a targeted release. Which OpenBSD does. Go check the releases. There is typically a "this is what we focused on this time 'round" notice. One *can* do such a quick release schedule under these conditions. In fact, OpenBSD PROVES that it can be done.
As for the other comment, I'd consider what you might have to say if it weren't just so bloody inaccurate. Not to mention your "kiddy" lack of capitalisation. Seriously, there *is* a reason for it. Just think back to primary school and you might remember why. In fact, if you do it, you just might come off professional enough to fool people on the tubes that you're actually a professional!
Um, there's kind of other stuff in there as well. Like, Linux (kernel) being written from scratch and using the userland developed from scratch by others and the BSDs coming from a corp and then being subsequently re-written so that no corp code was left in the code base. Lots of suing in there as well (corps don't like such things). Etc, etc, etc.
Also,
""" but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses. """
That is sophistry (at best). The reason why there is more "Linux" out there is because there are more zealots of that nature. But, even then, it's arguable that there aren't. I can't tell you how many "Linux" people I've run into that have a couple "Linux" boxes running apps, yet there entire perimeter is running OpenBSD and then some. The only thing that can really be said is that the "Linux" people are a hell of a lot more loud than the BSD people. And that makes the (anecdotal) numbers quite unreliable.
I could go on about "Linux" being a buzz-word, etc, etc, etc. But, I'll stop there.
""" Mathematicians are plagiarists. We copy theories and proofs all the time. Welcome to the universe. """
There is a difference between copying and using, with attribution, etc, etc, etc and plagiarising. There is more than just a subtle difference between these things. I would suggest, assuming you are a Mathematicians, that you work on you eye to detail. Otherwise, you're really not going to (continue to) be successful.
But, given that you used with word "theories" instead of the correct theorems, I would think that you aren't a Mathematician at all. Not to mention the lack of understanding how the academic/research process works. More likely you're some jackass student with delusions standing.
Yah, that's right, I'm a troll. Because, it's not like kaku stated in the interview that I referenced that we should be looking for ways to escape our Universe to avoid its heat death. Yah, that's right. He explicitly stated in an interview that we should be exploring ways to escape our Universe because it'll die in a "short" period of time. And no, he wasn't kidding. He was very *very* serious. Off... His... Nut.
And for the string "theorists"/proponents in the crowd. Show me the money. Show me the mountain of evidence that shows that this "theory" is an actual theory. Oh wait. It doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of, and I'll be kind here, assumptions and ugly Maths. Assumptions and ugly Maths that don't produce experimentally verifiable predictions. It is this exact reason why there funding is drying up. Because, it's been what, 40 years or so WITHOUT ANY EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE!
Seriously, me being modded down as a troll for what I said is the direct result of clueless children getting mod points. If you people would read instead of just going with what you hear about the most, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. But, that'd be asking just a tad too much from/. crowd now wouldn't it. God forbid someone would actually be remotely knowledgeable about something. Because here, cool equals truth regardless of its actually truthiness.
Exactly what I was going to say. Calling string theory by using the word theory is profoundly insulting to all the actual theories that have actually gone through the massive amount of scrutiny necessary to be called a theory, not to mention Science as a whole.
I really wish that these string "theorists" would crawl under a rock and only come out a scream and shout when they actually have something to say. But, I'll single out kaku as well as I saw him in an interview a couple years back. I don't know when it happened, but that guy has clearly gone off his nut.
Seriously, Universities are for concepts and continuing on to graduate level/research/etc. They are not there to prepare you for industry. Fortunately, what they do teach indirectly prepares the student for industry. Namely, they teach you how to think.
Honestly, it takes no time at all to learn a language and anyone that I know that is actually *really* good at any one language can list at least 1/2 dozen to a dozen other languages that they know well to *really* well as well. It's the nature of the beast. The more languages you learn, the better you are. Why? Because, each language requires a different approach (slightly to significantly) to solving any problem. The more you get of that the better you'll be at solving problems in the most efficient way possible.
It's this one language fits all nonsense that really frustrates people who have a clue. I got questioned by a boss once because I wanted to do a project in PHP and not Perl. He questioned my abilities in Perl and assumed that I just wanted to do it in PHP because I was good at that and sucked a Perl. I informed him that I learned PHP to do the project and did that because the qualities of the language were superior in that instance. Even then he still wasn't convinced (btw, he is a politician with zero programming knowledge) and it took a co-worker and my supervisor to convince him that PHP was the best language for that job.
What I'm getting at here is that if you only know one language, then you are really screwing yourself over. Not only is it going to be more difficult to learn other languages, it makes you less employable and makes the job more difficult because you have less tools in your tool-belt to solve the problems that come across your desk. For that matter, why aren't you doing things on your own? I actually learned several other languages during school and afterwards *on my own*. I also expanded my skill set in other ways as well. Remember that the I in IT stands for INFORMATION. If you limit yours, you might as well throw in the towel now.
I really hope you're joking, because this is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard of. Testing is about WHAT THE STUDENT HAS LEARNED NOT WHO THEY ARE CALLING HAS LEARNED!!!
Name me an OS that doesn't have a PDF or PS reader installed by default. If one wants to bitch about no LaTeX installed by default, then don't write an academic paper. It's a speciality and as such, bitching about having to install something special is rather asinine.
Everything in one file:
LaTeX can do this just as good as HTML i.e. it would requite the same kludge.
Read/edit in the same document:
Bullshit. With HTML you have to open the doc in a browser to see what would be printed. Similarly with LaTeX you would "compile" it and then open that in a relevant viewer (see first comment above).
True. But, people still go into those subjects now don't they. What is the health of Maths at large in society again? Seriously, when it comes to Maths (and Physics for that matter) you're lucky to find 20 or so in any of the majors programs IN ALL YEARS COMBINED (undergrad). Can you say the same for ANY other subject? I think not.
"but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe."
Kinda puts the nail in the coffin of this evidence for string theory now doesn't it. I really wish that they guys would just shut-up, stop grasping at straws and go away. At least until they actually find something useful that fits known Physics and doesn't contradict it in some significant way.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're saying is misleading. Sure, IN GENERAL, those stats facts are true to a GENERAL RULE. HOWEVER, you're +/- 10% does NOT apply to the people in this study, but rather an extrapolation of that data to the general population.
The point is that this study showed what CAN happen. Further study is needed to see what will likely happen (i.e. general rule).
From TFA:
Dr. Jonathan Friedman, an associate professor of surgery and neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine noted that the causal relationship here is not clear.
You might know about stats. But, you suck at interpretation. And reading apparently.
Oh, I forgot to mention that avoiding obesity is certainly NOT difficult. It can easily be avoided by eating half of what you get at a restaurant and reheating the rest the next day. Having reasonable portion sizes. Etc. Essentially, not being functionally retarded when it comes to food.
You're probably getting at loosing the weight once it's on. Which is true. Loosing weight is difficult. BUT, that *very* different from avoidance/prevention. As in, breaking habits is a lot harder than creating good ones in the first place. Want someone to blame? Have a chat with your parents about the messed up eating patterns they allowed you to develop (or they instilled in you).
doing some basic calculation associated with calorie intake versus calorie burn and the increase of calorie burn with added exercise will reveal that exercise is not as effective at controlling weight as is controlling int
I can say with great confidence that those calculations are flawed as they would only include the calories burned during the exercise. What isn't included is the increased metabolism that occurs with regular exercise. What isn't included is the fact that the more muscle you have the more you burn even at rest. Also, the more you exercise the more energy you will have. So, it gets more and more likely that you would want to go out and be active. So, exercise certainly is a great factor in weight loose and preventing obesity.
It is my observation that reducing the intake of food is the most significant thing anyone can do...
This is both stupid and not stupid at the same time. Unfortunately, in North America, we do eat *way* too much. So, a reduction in calorie intake is likely warranted. HOWEVER, what is more important than that is which foods are eaten. Because, if you're eating McDonald's more than once a month, that's *way* too much. Honestly, make yourself a burger at home. It's easy, you control how much of everything, and I have no doubt that you can make one orders of magnitude better than McDonald's can. Fries are quick and easy ot make in a bit (and I do mean a bit, a couple tablespoons) of Olive oil in a frying pan. I personally like doing that with Butternut Squash better. No salt needed (fuck does McDonald's use a lot) and it tastes better than "normal" fries.
Seriously, there is no one "most significant thing" for weight loss. They are all important. Burn more than you eat. Exercise. What you eat needs to be healthy. Etc. ALL of it! Doing one thing is just shooting yourself in your foot. Hell, if you have significantly reduced your calorie intake, then after you start eating normally again (for maintenance) you'll gain back a lot because you'll have screwed up your metabolism. Similarly, if those calories don't have enough health to them. Honestly, you really have to be careful about this stuff. Otherwise, you might be screwing yourself over and not even know it.
Well, if you were actually intelligent you'd realise just how much medicine is run off of merely ANECDOTAL evidence (It's quite shocking actually)! Not to mention all the other studies that have linked obesity, high fat foods (how do you think people get obese in the first place), etc, etc, etc, to lesser mental capacity. Not to mention that this study pretty much confirms common sense and what we see every day.
Seriously, big picture.
In fact, I think that if you exercise a lot, obesity almost vanishes as a cause of a lot of problems.
I think you are confusing slightly overweight with obesity. Because, obesity is just plain bad, no matter which way you cut it. But, slightly overweight people can be more healthy than slim people if they exercise enough (there's a study that showed this, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now). That is, in the short term. In the longer term, it's unlikely that the lifestyle choices that make people overweight will do them any kindness down the road. Especially, when that metabolism slows down with getting older and those slightly overweight people start getting bigger.
You seem to be implying that the brain chemistry precedes the obesity. It's actually more than just likely that it's the other way around. History points to that one. Because, this obesity problem is very *very* new and it takes a *long* time for such things to change in such a large number of people. That is, unless you factor in the dietary changes. Hmm. Think that might have something to do with it? You know, the obesity problem linked to peoples diets? There's more than just a correlation there you know.
But, do you honestly think that a well designed study is going to happen to work that particular point out? Especially, when it's a no brainer? Because, that would entail something like taking a few thousand healthy people and getting them to eat.. a lot. And matching there new diet to the diets of the obese. Then seeing what happens in the brian during the feeding. Not exactly an ethical thing to do given how difficult it is to loose weight and the profound health problems that come with along with being overweight.
I personally think that these medical people should look up once in a while. You know, to actually think. Then perhaps they'd get rid of there tunnel vision and see a bigger picture.
I posted this above: http://blog.taragana.com/n/high-fat-diet-can-adversely-affect-physical-memory-abilities-137299/
Couple that with obese people have more than just a tendency to get there by way of high fat foods and viola! Fat people are of diminished mental capacity. Which, unfortunately, fits my experience. No matter what the job, btw. It's sad.
I have yet to meet a morbidly obese (or even fairly overweight) person that can answer my questions in a timely fashion. It's like after the words leave my mouth, there is a built in delay before there brain can start processing the request, or the brain just works slower. It's very frustrating.
But, you know what. You're right. Because, it's not like there was a study just done that showed the high fat foods have a negative impact on learning/information processing/etc....
http://blog.taragana.com/n/high-fat-diet-can-adversely-affect-physical-memory-abilities-137299/
Oh wait.
We currently have no clue how the brain works and we are just starting to try to figure it out. Just look at when Theoretical Neuroscience began and how much they actually know. Let's just say it's new. As in, we know next to nothing about what goes on in the brain.
Still need convincing? Well, just look at any of the pysch meds out there. The thought is that mental issues are brain chemistry. Well, the drugs change the brain chemistry as soon as they are in the system. Yet, it can take weeks (or months) after reaching an effective dose to get a therapeutic response. So, again, we know next to nothing.
Ten years?!?!? My fucking eye.
Well, there are a couple assumptions in what you just said. The first being that what is written is written well. I can't tell you how bad of an assumption that is. I mean, just with how many times I've had to unwind what someone wrote just because it was /that/ bad, *and* it was of so called "professional quality." Kind of sad when you think about it.
The second point is that you don't seem to understand what slides are actually for. I haven't watched this video yet, so I can't comment on this specific case, but in general slides are for talking points rather than discussion. They are used in talks because of this very point. Similarly, for the notes. They are written specifically for someone else and thinking that you could fully properly interpret such short hand is rather arrogant.
Seriously, this is a video of a talk given by Theo. You might not like the medium, but since it doesn't exist in another format, bitching about it is rather pointless. And asking for it in another format (implied or otherwise) is rather presumptuous.
"""but I expect that is too much hassle to upgrade every day"""
Why? This is something that can be automated quite well. Something that could be run while one is sleeping for instance.
You're assuming that the "integration of all submitted components" is required for testing. Are you sure that's a good one? Because, it really *really* isn't (in general). Especially, when such components are part of entirely different (sub)systems.
"""
that many developers sit around idle when their work is completed early during this phase.
"""
Developers *can* code new features during this phase. There is a difference between developing and committing those change to CVS. Developers don't have to be idle. If they don't want to do that, they can always help with the testing and bug fixing. Just saying that developers can do more than just one little thing.
"""a focus on quality is not the same as a focus on security."""
Kinda is actually. Bug hunting and the fixing there of, regardless of exploitability is the exact reason why comments like "this was fixed 7 months ago in OpenBSD" are commonplace on security mailing lists.
"""Secure by default is a good approach, but is somewhat meaningless, as you are limited in what you can do with it."""
This *statement* is meaningless and completely misses the point. The point of secure by default is that when you turn something on, you have to read how. So, the person turning a service on will (or should) learn about the security implications thereof. So, that person is less likely to f**k up. THAT is the point. It's even stated somewhere on their website.
"""A true metric would be to look at the vulnerabilities of software in the ports tree, of which there is still a lot."""
Ports have been removed for that exact reason. I think it should also be pointed out that EVERY ports tree (or similar) has the same issues. The main problem being that tracking thousands of pieces of software is rather intractable for just a couple of people. That would be the maintainers job and those guys, again in all ports trees (or similar), are necessarily spending each day checking up on things.
"""At the moment, SELinux or RSBAC are far more secure systems, despite those platforms having more vulnerabilities."""
That last part kinda cuts the legs out from under the first part. You should read what you write before hitting submit.
"""
the poster is making the assertion that it works, a lot of people would say their release cycle is a terrible burden on the project.
"""
Well, it does work. And guess which people are best able to determine whether things work or not and whether the trade-offs are worth it? That'd be the OpenBSD people.
"1"
Fixed by not allowing features/etc that aren't ready into release.
"2"
I've heard of systems running OpenBSD for *years* *non-stop* *without issue*. Quite impressive. Also, I've never heard anyone complain about there upgrade. Things are very well documented and tested. I did it once (I usually just clean wipe and start over) and only had one or two issues which would have been resolved quickly if I would have read the documentation /before/ I upgraded.
"3"
Unless you have a targeted release. Which OpenBSD does. Go check the releases. There is typically a "this is what we focused on this time 'round" notice. One *can* do such a quick release schedule under these conditions. In fact, OpenBSD PROVES that it can be done.
As for the other comment, I'd consider what you might have to say if it weren't just so bloody inaccurate. Not to mention your "kiddy" lack of capitalisation. Seriously, there *is* a reason for it. Just think back to primary school and you might remember why. In fact, if you do it, you just might come off professional enough to fool people on the tubes that you're actually a professional!
Um, there's kind of other stuff in there as well. Like, Linux (kernel) being written from scratch and using the userland developed from scratch by others and the BSDs coming from a corp and then being subsequently re-written so that no corp code was left in the code base. Lots of suing in there as well (corps don't like such things). Etc, etc, etc.
Also,
"""
but looking at market share it's pretty clear those are not the priorities for most businesses.
"""
That is sophistry (at best). The reason why there is more "Linux" out there is because there are more zealots of that nature. But, even then, it's arguable that there aren't. I can't tell you how many "Linux" people I've run into that have a couple "Linux" boxes running apps, yet there entire perimeter is running OpenBSD and then some. The only thing that can really be said is that the "Linux" people are a hell of a lot more loud than the BSD people. And that makes the (anecdotal) numbers quite unreliable.
I could go on about "Linux" being a buzz-word, etc, etc, etc. But, I'll stop there.
"""
Mathematicians are plagiarists. We copy theories and proofs all the time. Welcome to the universe.
"""
There is a difference between copying and using, with attribution, etc, etc, etc and plagiarising. There is more than just a subtle difference between these things. I would suggest, assuming you are a Mathematicians, that you work on you eye to detail. Otherwise, you're really not going to (continue to) be successful.
But, given that you used with word "theories" instead of the correct theorems, I would think that you aren't a Mathematician at all. Not to mention the lack of understanding how the academic/research process works. More likely you're some jackass student with delusions standing.
Run along and get a clue.
Yah, that's right, I'm a troll. Because, it's not like kaku stated in the interview that I referenced that we should be looking for ways to escape our Universe to avoid its heat death. Yah, that's right. He explicitly stated in an interview that we should be exploring ways to escape our Universe because it'll die in a "short" period of time. And no, he wasn't kidding. He was very *very* serious. Off... His... Nut.
And for the string "theorists"/proponents in the crowd. Show me the money. Show me the mountain of evidence that shows that this "theory" is an actual theory. Oh wait. It doesn't exist. It's just a bunch of, and I'll be kind here, assumptions and ugly Maths. Assumptions and ugly Maths that don't produce experimentally verifiable predictions. It is this exact reason why there funding is drying up. Because, it's been what, 40 years or so WITHOUT ANY EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE!
Seriously, me being modded down as a troll for what I said is the direct result of clueless children getting mod points. If you people would read instead of just going with what you hear about the most, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. But, that'd be asking just a tad too much from /. crowd now wouldn't it. God forbid someone would actually be remotely knowledgeable about something. Because here, cool equals truth regardless of its actually truthiness.
Exactly what I was going to say. Calling string theory by using the word theory is profoundly insulting to all the actual theories that have actually gone through the massive amount of scrutiny necessary to be called a theory, not to mention Science as a whole.
I really wish that these string "theorists" would crawl under a rock and only come out a scream and shout when they actually have something to say. But, I'll single out kaku as well as I saw him in an interview a couple years back. I don't know when it happened, but that guy has clearly gone off his nut.
Seriously, Universities are for concepts and continuing on to graduate level/research/etc. They are not there to prepare you for industry. Fortunately, what they do teach indirectly prepares the student for industry. Namely, they teach you how to think.
Honestly, it takes no time at all to learn a language and anyone that I know that is actually *really* good at any one language can list at least 1/2 dozen to a dozen other languages that they know well to *really* well as well. It's the nature of the beast. The more languages you learn, the better you are. Why? Because, each language requires a different approach (slightly to significantly) to solving any problem. The more you get of that the better you'll be at solving problems in the most efficient way possible.
It's this one language fits all nonsense that really frustrates people who have a clue. I got questioned by a boss once because I wanted to do a project in PHP and not Perl. He questioned my abilities in Perl and assumed that I just wanted to do it in PHP because I was good at that and sucked a Perl. I informed him that I learned PHP to do the project and did that because the qualities of the language were superior in that instance. Even then he still wasn't convinced (btw, he is a politician with zero programming knowledge) and it took a co-worker and my supervisor to convince him that PHP was the best language for that job.
What I'm getting at here is that if you only know one language, then you are really screwing yourself over. Not only is it going to be more difficult to learn other languages, it makes you less employable and makes the job more difficult because you have less tools in your tool-belt to solve the problems that come across your desk. For that matter, why aren't you doing things on your own? I actually learned several other languages during school and afterwards *on my own*. I also expanded my skill set in other ways as well. Remember that the I in IT stands for INFORMATION. If you limit yours, you might as well throw in the towel now.
I really hope you're joking, because this is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard of. Testing is about WHAT THE STUDENT HAS LEARNED NOT WHO THEY ARE CALLING HAS LEARNED!!!
Portability:
Name me an OS that doesn't have a PDF or PS reader installed by default. If one wants to bitch about no LaTeX installed by default, then don't write an academic paper. It's a speciality and as such, bitching about having to install something special is rather asinine.
Everything in one file:
LaTeX can do this just as good as HTML i.e. it would requite the same kludge.
Read/edit in the same document:
Bullshit. With HTML you have to open the doc in a browser to see what would be printed. Similarly with LaTeX you would "compile" it and then open that in a relevant viewer (see first comment above).
True. But, people still go into those subjects now don't they. What is the health of Maths at large in society again? Seriously, when it comes to Maths (and Physics for that matter) you're lucky to find 20 or so in any of the majors programs IN ALL YEARS COMBINED (undergrad). Can you say the same for ANY other subject? I think not.
... but this quote:
"but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe."
Kinda puts the nail in the coffin of this evidence for string theory now doesn't it. I really wish that they guys would just shut-up, stop grasping at straws and go away. At least until they actually find something useful that fits known Physics and doesn't contradict it in some significant way.
One can when they buy in and support that system.