Republicans and Libertarians will just defund it half-way through the build cycle. America must simply get used to seeing all complex and expensive next generation technology and science projects that require advanced education and government coordination and funding die. Only the Asians and Europeans will be able to develop such systems in the future. Instead, America must settle instead for a consumer economy based on wingnut ideology, theocratic principles, and advanced weaponry increasingly made abroad. After all, thats the bargain Ruppert Murdoch has with the Chinese, so it must be part of Gods plan.
Neither one. Given the prices they are asking, particularly for upgrades after they have their hooks into you. You might as well sign over a significant percentage of your annual income over to their CEO's retirement package as you become an indentured developer.
Better for the community to seek and develop Open Source Solutions with equivalent functionality via web service architectures. Given the way the global economy and the environment upon which it is based is headed, we need cheaper and more efficient solutions, not ever more expensive ones that lock developers in.
We continue to put our faith and trust in corporations and religions as the approach that will deliver humanity from the growing environmental crises that face it, largely because of the faint hope that we may find ourselves among the favored few. Yet as we watch corporations, their lawyers and the righteous battle it out and stomp on the "little people", its not hard to figure out where this is all headed. If humanity has another 300 years, I would be surprised.
You obviously don' t understand. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, which owns the republican party. The Chinese are shrewed enough to recognize that Murdoch can be easily manipulated by his insatiable greed. To maintain his business in China he has to do what the Chinese want, which is to insure that America's ability to attend to its political and economic problems are overwhelmed by mind numbing, inane "info-tainment" to rile up those incapable of thinking for themselves or support the debt they incur, yet who, by virtue of their numbers, can obstruct progress directed toward solutions of any kind that might set America on a path of "innovation" or "success". America is doomed to being caught between Glenn Beck and the lawyers, who represent Murdoch and his corporate clients. Technical advances in all spheres of human activity will steadily gravitate toward China until about 2020, when the Chinese overtake the US and call in our debts.
I agree. I find writing good object-oriented-code difficult. This problem has led me to looking for a strong multi-language, multi-platform, development API that integrates automated unit testing. I'm finding that for Java at least the Netbeans API is very good and has excellent, yet loose coupling making it relatively easy to implement JUnit tests and test suites. I understand that Eclipse does the same thing, but I have not used it, although I have seen it used. The ins and outs of JUnit are well covered in Tachiev et al., 2010. JUnit in Action published by Manning. I am wading through this now, and it is an epiphany. Clearly, there is a lot to doing this right and there is a significant learning curve. Nonetheless, it looks as if, in the long run, mastering this will lead to higher productivity and sturdier and cleaner code.
The Netbeans API is particular good in that it also provides automation to keep Javadocs and Unit tests co-evolving as the application develops. If you are like me and can only program for brief stints with periods of hiatus that are needed to do other things, this can be a big help in staying organized. Whether this extends to fully continuous integrated builds, I'm not sure, but it does move in that direction with strong support for Ant and Maven. The important thing, which I am just beginning to learn is that learning how to set up automated tests is the key, so that the developer doesn't need to spend unnecessary time montioring/debugging code, particularly for growing applications, where original expectations, designs, and dependencies change during the development process.
IMHO Netbeans would be stronger if it also included better integration between unit testing, documentation, and UML, but sadly the UML component was jettisoned after about ver. 6.4 (although one can buy a sophisticated, but expensive plugin with substantial capability for diagramming and code-generation and reverse engineering). Recently, Oracle has produce a UML modeler as part of a free port of its JDevelopment Studio that its demo seems to suggest it can do. I've downloaded the free version and hope to see how it works, hopefully in close conjunction with Netbeans. This could make a developer's life a lot easier when it comes to automating testing. Anyway, you might want to look into these tools.
Hopefully, open source developers will extend this kind of interaction to help generate more bullet-proof code that must navigate often difficult to predict dependencies as it grows. This is one of the great strengths of the Netbeans API, as it maintains explicit control of how messages can be passed between modules, thereby allowing multi-developer, multi-location, multi-language, and multi-version coding, wherein the various parts of the program life-cycle can be distributed in both time and space and in highly dynamic and heterogeneous hardware/software environments, while still permitting other API's and plugins to be added on top of the underlying 5 basic modules. If you know anything about neurophysiology, it is easy to see why this would make for strong modular communications. Neurons too have numerous, yet tightly coupled messaging systems that direct activity among and between tracts.
One caveat: beware of the fact that there is a lot of proselytizing about the virtues of Test-Driven-Development that are long on platitudes and short on specifics. Although these do contains some good abstract advice (ie TestDriven by Koskela also published by Manning), they can often be poor when it comes to explaining exactly how such tests should be designed and implemented. The same hold true for the on-line blog world and "online press". Obviously, a lot depends on what experience you bring to the table and your specific needs.
Its obvious the school superintendent must be right. All you have to do is read/. if you want proof of the brain damaging effects of electromagnetic radiation.
Its Ailes, Roger Ailes. The hyper-partisan republican hack, who Murdoch uses to extort the wealthy, or anyone else with even a little cash, to drive his advertising rental business.
If you are suffering from past 10 years of that I'm sure you're eager run out and get yourself a paying subscription, at least now you know what ails you.
They have their own cable networks so you can get subscriptions to those as well, even by gift-cards for friends and family.
These people have no limits the insatiable appetite that is their greed knows no bounds. Even governments bow before them.
Lets face it. This woman is simply trying to hide her deranged and dubious political past relationships, since they would simply be too revealing of the kinds of votes she would cast in the Senate. To do that she will use anything, law or no law to get herself elected. Its a ticket to kill, steal, lie, wealth, and power and she has every intention of using it that way.
only I could have the mathematical talent of Perelman, I would be more than happy to live with all the petty name-calling and characterizations anyone might wish to make.
Just think of what beauty he must see that the rest of us miss.
It time for the Piraty-Nerdy Geek Party. Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right?Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? ^C^C^C 404 Error. 404 Error. 404 Error. ^C^C^C...
"Should we reduce CO2 production: This is not science, but a political question - science can only tell us what might happen, not whether we need to do something."
There comes a time in most science that the body of theory and evidence support it becomes good enough to make relatively accurate predictions. When this occurs it becomes an ethical issue as well as a scientific one to convey the consequences of those predictions. I would say doing something about CO2 production is well enough understood that we are transitioning to the point that it would be scientifically unethical not to point out the high probability of adverse consequences of continuing to generate CO2, just as biologists would argue that it would be unethical not to warn of the dangers of rapidly disappearing biodiversity. I am sure that when developing the atomic bomb Oppenheimer and colleagues were quite well sure of the consequences of their discovery, but their ethical dilemma considering the purpose and events surrounding its development made the ethics of such science more problematic.
In this sense science needs to consul public policy very much like a patient would visit the hospital and be diagnoses by a doctor. If a doctor sees that cancer is developing (or actually a very high probability given experience, previous data etc), then it would be unethical not to draw this to the patients attention for fear of making a "political" statement. One can only hope that the patient is wise enough to seek the best professional advise available and give careful consideration to the nature of the advise.
Yes, but the training needs to be mathematical. Only then is it sufficiently rigorous to be useful. Sadly, as science has grown more specialized and complex, the mathematics required become difficult to fathom even for mathematicians. Nonetheless, it is clear that this type of training must be the cornerstone of science education and it must start early. Few have the innate gifts of Carl Frederich Gauss, who taught himself to add and multiply -- at the age of 2.
Integration of on-line resources across all scientific disciplines are urgently needed to help us all with correcting our deficiencies and to catapult the next Gauss, wherever he or she may be growing up, be it in the Carpathians, the Congo, or Chicago. Lets face it, we are going to need his or her help, if humanity is to get itself out of the jam we have created for ourselves.
this is very much a problem and one that the opponents of science, and yes there are antagonists, like to use to sow confusion and doubt as to what science is and what it can and can not do.
it is the responsibility of each of us to expect to do our thinking for ourselves. Perhaps in time technology may change that but not yet.
Yes it helps to have a teacher or someone to explain it to you, but ultimately this is useless unless you the recipient of the knowledge can assimilate the necessary and sufficient elements of consequence. Blaming the messenger, whether it be the audience, the lecturer, the journalist, or others in the room hardly enhances the learning experience or really has anything to do with the content of the science, assuming that is the gem one is after. Fame, publicity, etc. are really ancillary issues, at least with respect to the science. It is a lamentable fact that too few have the abilities to think these things through on their own, but most scientists can nonetheless see the advantages (and disadvantages) of involving the public in the discussion.
Science is hard, especially for scientists. Everyone needs a better infrastructure to support learning science, especially if we expect to survive as a species.
Attacking points 2 and 3 deal largely with intervention early in stage 1.
If anyone hasn't noticed, and most clearly have, both 2 and 3 are not really long term viable options for civilization. Yes, you may not at first make a convincing case, but perhaps the next time you visit your friend you can make notes of the condition of their health and it potential deterioration. Apathy can turn into urgency once threat is perceived. Like science education it is very much a threshold-reaching affair. Again 3 can only be surmounted by repetition and constant updating of the 'argument", since it involves willful ignorance. However, where harm can be shown, people do pay attention or suffer the consequences. Sadly, for some (myself too often included) only the school of hard knocks provides the necessary education.
Sadly demonstration of why scientists need to be trusted may come as a result of failure to heed their warnings. In the case of global warming, biodiversity loss, and the effects of pollution may well prove the last mistakes anyone makes.
Certainly, the public needs to be made aware of the need for good scientific advice. The difficulty arises as you say in the trust factor that is very much a human to human interaction that doesn't really lend itself to science, per say other than scientists making and keeping very good track records of predictions, which of course is extremely difficult for scientists to do, much less anyone else.
Yes at some level there must certainly be neuronal diversity, yet the basic tracks are the same, at least around some mean. The observation is a good one, however, and from my perspective the environmental influences within the brain may be very much a function of the conditioned learning that has gone on previously. If certain key concepts are not well understood, it is essentially impossible to move understanding beyond a certain point. Nonetheless, progress in science and in civilization depend on some measure of communication of science. Its important to look for those means to enable learning so that at least a greater measure of scientific sophistication and appreciation of the value of science can be had across a broader spectrum of the public. It may not be so much a function of differences in thought processes as it is in conditioning, training and extension. Brain work is a little like physical exercise. You can't expect someone who can't lift a 50 lb weight to lift a 100 pound weight. The training needs to be in stages. My perspective (see elsewhere on this post) is that the problem science suffers is analogous to leaky pipes with understanding being lost at various stages of the learning process. In my post, I discuss this in the context of my own personal experiences, but I'm sure they are not particularly unique to me. Leakage can occur in both student and teacher, professional scientist and layman. Its how we plug the leaks that will be the critical endeavor going forward. I fear we may be running out of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans and Libertarians will just defund it half-way through the build cycle. America must simply get used to seeing all complex and expensive next generation technology and science projects that require advanced education and government coordination and funding die. Only the Asians and Europeans will be able to develop such systems in the future. Instead, America must settle instead for a consumer economy based on wingnut ideology, theocratic principles, and advanced weaponry increasingly made abroad. After all, thats the bargain Ruppert Murdoch has with the Chinese, so it must be part of Gods plan.
Neither one. Given the prices they are asking, particularly for upgrades after they have their hooks into you. You might as well sign over a significant percentage of your annual income over to their CEO's retirement package as you become an indentured developer.
Better for the community to seek and develop Open Source Solutions with equivalent functionality via web service architectures. Given the way the global economy and the environment upon which it is based is headed, we need cheaper and more efficient solutions, not ever more expensive ones that lock developers in.
We continue to put our faith and trust in corporations and religions as the approach that will deliver humanity from the growing environmental crises that face it, largely because of the faint hope that we may find ourselves among the favored few. Yet as we watch corporations, their lawyers and the righteous battle it out and stomp on the "little people", its not hard to figure out where this is all headed. If humanity has another 300 years, I would be surprised.
Because they do it largely at everyone else's expense. Who said "success is a right" anyway? Success is not constitutionally mandated.
You obviously don' t understand. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News, which owns the republican party. The Chinese are shrewed enough to recognize that Murdoch can be easily manipulated by his insatiable greed. To maintain his business in China he has to do what the Chinese want, which is to insure that America's ability to attend to its political and economic problems are overwhelmed by mind numbing, inane "info-tainment" to rile up those incapable of thinking for themselves or support the debt they incur, yet who, by virtue of their numbers, can obstruct progress directed toward solutions of any kind that might set America on a path of "innovation" or "success". America is doomed to being caught between Glenn Beck and the lawyers, who represent Murdoch and his corporate clients. Technical advances in all spheres of human activity will steadily gravitate toward China until about 2020, when the Chinese overtake the US and call in our debts.
I agree. I find writing good object-oriented-code difficult. This problem has led me to looking for a strong multi-language, multi-platform, development API that integrates automated unit testing. I'm finding that for Java at least the Netbeans API is very good and has excellent, yet loose coupling making it relatively easy to implement JUnit tests and test suites. I understand that Eclipse does the same thing, but I have not used it, although I have seen it used. The ins and outs of JUnit are well covered in Tachiev et al., 2010. JUnit in Action published by Manning. I am wading through this now, and it is an epiphany. Clearly, there is a lot to doing this right and there is a significant learning curve. Nonetheless, it looks as if, in the long run, mastering this will lead to higher productivity and sturdier and cleaner code.
The Netbeans API is particular good in that it also provides automation to keep Javadocs and Unit tests co-evolving as the application develops. If you are like me and can only program for brief stints with periods of hiatus that are needed to do other things, this can be a big help in staying organized. Whether this extends to fully continuous integrated builds, I'm not sure, but it does move in that direction with strong support for Ant and Maven. The important thing, which I am just beginning to learn is that learning how to set up automated tests is the key, so that the developer doesn't need to spend unnecessary time montioring/debugging code, particularly for growing applications, where original expectations, designs, and dependencies change during the development process.
IMHO Netbeans would be stronger if it also included better integration between unit testing, documentation, and UML, but sadly the UML component was jettisoned after about ver. 6.4 (although one can buy a sophisticated, but expensive plugin with substantial capability for diagramming and code-generation and reverse engineering). Recently, Oracle has produce a UML modeler as part of a free port of its JDevelopment Studio that its demo seems to suggest it can do. I've downloaded the free version and hope to see how it works, hopefully in close conjunction with Netbeans. This could make a developer's life a lot easier when it comes to automating testing. Anyway, you might want to look into these tools.
Hopefully, open source developers will extend this kind of interaction to help generate more bullet-proof code that must navigate often difficult to predict dependencies as it grows. This is one of the great strengths of the Netbeans API, as it maintains explicit control of how messages can be passed between modules, thereby allowing multi-developer, multi-location, multi-language, and multi-version coding, wherein the various parts of the program life-cycle can be distributed in both time and space and in highly dynamic and heterogeneous hardware/software environments, while still permitting other API's and plugins to be added on top of the underlying 5 basic modules. If you know anything about neurophysiology, it is easy to see why this would make for strong modular communications. Neurons too have numerous, yet tightly coupled messaging systems that direct activity among and between tracts.
One caveat: beware of the fact that there is a lot of proselytizing about the virtues of Test-Driven-Development that are long on platitudes and short on specifics. Although these do contains some good abstract advice (ie TestDriven by Koskela also published by Manning), they can often be poor when it comes to explaining exactly how such tests should be designed and implemented. The same hold true for the on-line blog world and "online press". Obviously, a lot depends on what experience you bring to the table and your specific needs.
Now I understand.
Its obvious the school superintendent must be right. All you have to do is read /. if you want proof of the brain damaging effects of electromagnetic radiation.
Its Ailes, Roger Ailes. The hyper-partisan republican hack, who Murdoch uses to extort the wealthy, or anyone else with even a little cash, to drive his advertising rental business.
If you are suffering from past 10 years of that I'm sure you're eager run out and get yourself a paying subscription, at least now you know what ails you.
They have their own cable networks so you can get subscriptions to those as well, even by gift-cards for friends and family.
These people have no limits the insatiable appetite that is their greed knows no bounds. Even governments bow before them.
The egg came first. No doubt about it.
Virtually everyone, but clueless science journalists, knows that dinosaurs were laying eggs tens of millions of years before there were chickens.
Need more be said?
You are merely thinking in slow motion, fleeting seconds before impact.
This is the only thing sustaining the republican party.
In those countries you have to use more of your points. Where as here, you can just watch TV and go shopping.
Probably few complain about being accorded too high a score.
Lets face it. This woman is simply trying to hide her deranged and dubious political past relationships, since they would simply be too revealing of the kinds of votes she would cast in the Senate. To do that she will use anything, law or no law to get herself elected. Its a ticket to kill, steal, lie, wealth, and power and she has every intention of using it that way.
only I could have the mathematical talent of Perelman, I would be more than happy to live with all the petty name-calling and characterizations anyone might wish to make.
Just think of what beauty he must see that the rest of us miss.
Perelman's character and sense of personal integrity is as good as his mathematics, if not better!
Its a bit of a shame he chooses to be so reclusive as so many of us could learn from this man.
It time for the Piraty-Nerdy Geek Party. Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right?Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? Can't be too much more insane that what we have now right? ^C^C^C 404 Error. 404 Error. 404 Error. ^C^C^C ...
"Should we reduce CO2 production: This is not science, but a political question - science can only tell us what might happen, not whether we need to do something."
There comes a time in most science that the body of theory and evidence support it becomes good enough to make relatively accurate predictions. When this occurs it becomes an ethical issue as well as a scientific one to convey the consequences of those predictions. I would say doing something about CO2 production is well enough understood that we are transitioning to the point that it would be scientifically unethical not to point out the high probability of adverse consequences of continuing to generate CO2, just as biologists would argue that it would be unethical not to warn of the dangers of rapidly disappearing biodiversity. I am sure that when developing the atomic bomb Oppenheimer and colleagues were quite well sure of the consequences of their discovery, but their ethical dilemma considering the purpose and events surrounding its development made the ethics of such science more problematic.
In this sense science needs to consul public policy very much like a patient would visit the hospital and be diagnoses by a doctor. If a doctor sees that cancer is developing (or actually a very high probability given experience, previous data etc), then it would be unethical not to draw this to the patients attention for fear of making a "political" statement. One can only hope that the patient is wise enough to seek the best professional advise available and give careful consideration to the nature of the advise.
Yes, but the training needs to be mathematical. Only then is it sufficiently rigorous to be useful. Sadly, as science has grown more specialized and complex, the mathematics required become difficult to fathom even for mathematicians. Nonetheless, it is clear that this type of training must be the cornerstone of science education and it must start early. Few have the innate gifts of Carl Frederich Gauss, who taught himself to add and multiply -- at the age of 2.
Integration of on-line resources across all scientific disciplines are urgently needed to help us all with correcting our deficiencies and to catapult the next Gauss, wherever he or she may be growing up, be it in the Carpathians, the Congo, or Chicago. Lets face it, we are going to need his or her help, if humanity is to get itself out of the jam we have created for ourselves.
this is very much a problem and one that the opponents of science, and yes there are antagonists, like to use to sow confusion and doubt as to what science is and what it can and can not do.
it is the responsibility of each of us to expect to do our thinking for ourselves. Perhaps in time technology may change that but not yet.
Yes it helps to have a teacher or someone to explain it to you, but ultimately this is useless unless you the recipient of the knowledge can assimilate the necessary and sufficient elements of consequence. Blaming the messenger, whether it be the audience, the lecturer, the journalist, or others in the room hardly enhances the learning experience or really has anything to do with the content of the science, assuming that is the gem one is after. Fame, publicity, etc. are really ancillary issues, at least with respect to the science. It is a lamentable fact that too few have the abilities to think these things through on their own, but most scientists can nonetheless see the advantages (and disadvantages) of involving the public in the discussion.
Science is hard, especially for scientists. Everyone needs a better infrastructure to support learning science, especially if we expect to survive as a species.
Attacking points 2 and 3 deal largely with intervention early in stage 1.
If anyone hasn't noticed, and most clearly have, both 2 and 3 are not really long term viable options for civilization. Yes, you may not at first make a convincing case, but perhaps the next time you visit your friend you can make notes of the condition of their health and it potential deterioration. Apathy can turn into urgency once threat is perceived. Like science education it is very much a threshold-reaching affair. Again 3 can only be surmounted by repetition and constant updating of the 'argument", since it involves willful ignorance. However, where harm can be shown, people do pay attention or suffer the consequences. Sadly, for some (myself too often included) only the school of hard knocks provides the necessary education.
Sadly demonstration of why scientists need to be trusted may come as a result of failure to heed their warnings. In the case of global warming, biodiversity loss, and the effects of pollution may well prove the last mistakes anyone makes.
Certainly, the public needs to be made aware of the need for good scientific advice. The difficulty arises as you say in the trust factor that is very much a human to human interaction that doesn't really lend itself to science, per say other than scientists making and keeping very good track records of predictions, which of course is extremely difficult for scientists to do, much less anyone else.
Yes at some level there must certainly be neuronal diversity, yet the basic tracks are the same, at least around some mean. The observation is a good one, however, and from my perspective the environmental influences within the brain may be very much a function of the conditioned learning that has gone on previously. If certain key concepts are not well understood, it is essentially impossible to move understanding beyond a certain point. Nonetheless, progress in science and in civilization depend on some measure of communication of science. Its important to look for those means to enable learning so that at least a greater measure of scientific sophistication and appreciation of the value of science can be had across a broader spectrum of the public. It may not be so much a function of differences in thought processes as it is in conditioning, training and extension. Brain work is a little like physical exercise. You can't expect someone who can't lift a 50 lb weight to lift a 100 pound weight. The training needs to be in stages. My perspective (see elsewhere on this post) is that the problem science suffers is analogous to leaky pipes with understanding being lost at various stages of the learning process. In my post, I discuss this in the context of my own personal experiences, but I'm sure they are not particularly unique to me. Leakage can occur in both student and teacher, professional scientist and layman. Its how we plug the leaks that will be the critical endeavor going forward. I fear we may be running out of time.
Its really a Darwinian race after all, between the consequences of ignorance and the promise of science, which will prevail will determine our fate.