It's possible man's increased hunting efficiency reduced the population of grazing animals such that grass and brush growth increased, triggering side-effects of some kind.
I keep telling deniers: If you really believe it's BS, then you can currently buy south-eastern* beachfront property at a discount, because half the buyers believe it doomed. If climate change turns out to be BS in a decade or two, you'll be very wealthy. That's gets some of them researching it more because money is involved.
* S.E. US beaches are deemed especially vulnerable due to the patterns of sea currents.
Careful! My coworker clicked that link and was never seen from again the next day. At least with goat-se you know what happened to them (after slapping them to consciousness).
If you plan the structure properly first, this doesn't happen.
It's difficult to predict the future. I work for Type A managers who flitter all over the place on a whim.
They're web pages.
They also ask for mobile-friendly, Atom feeds, ADA-compliant, image resizers, CRUD-like features, etc. because they can and they want it. Oh, and it has to be super-duper simple for users because they don't want to spend money on training.
Coding a custom CMS is a start. Programming web-based systems isn't that hard. I do it for a living,...
But there are so many features that customers eventually want that you end up reinventing lots of wheels hand-adding them along the way, eventually ending up with a Big Ball of Mud.
It may be good job security for the original coder, but for the organization it can be a bear to write up contracts and pay for new coding for various features that are add-ons with packaged CMS.
Maybe if OSS community offered kits that allowed easier add-ons to semi-customized CMS, we could approach the best of both. For example, settle on a generic data model so that add-ons can hook directly onto the data model. Custom programming can still be done using that data model.
My personal experience is that repeated recall does re-shape memories to some degree. For example, if my recall is fuzzy on specifics, I tend to focus on the least fuzzy of candidate interpretations, and over time that choice becomes the "new" memory for that event.
When I get a chance to compare such against the "actual" original (such as a photograph or video), it seems my brain has made up details over time. It appears in order to "envision" a memory, my mind needs to make it concrete enough to relate to as a realistic event because contemplating fuzzy notions is too difficult, given our brains are most accustomed to process "reality". (The alternative would probably resemble a probabilistic graph, which is difficult to "compute" with.)
But in order to make the memory realistic enough to relate to, it has to invent details to make it "normal" and plausible.
A fuzzy notion of "room" is hard to work with such that my brain will make a "best guess" to add windows and doors and clutter on the floor etc. to the memory to make it match the fuzzy memory in a "good enough" way: "plausible" compared to reality AND the fuzzy notion.
But over time I lose track of what is "filler" reinforcement and what is part of the actual original memory.
The best analogy may be a really old house that has been rebuilt a couple of times: it may maintain generally the same shape and the same overall configuration, but there has been a fair amount shuffling around since it was built, and perhaps an addon room or two.
Thus, reinforcement via recall is lossy, but not recalling it at all is probably even more lossy since a "repaired" memory at least has a new structure around it instead of JUST the termite-infested original. A recalled & rebuilt memory has a better chance of being recalled later than one left as-is over time (un-recalled). But neither is perfect. The more clues you remember, the more faithful the reconstruction(s) will be.
Like an old house, if you don't repair it with new wood and structures every so often, it eventually succumbs to termites and weather, and crumbles.
"Conscience" is too poorly defined to apply mathematical rigor to, unless you make a working definition for a specific theory. But others don't necessarily have to agree with your working definition.
"Self-aware" is commonly given as a requirement, but that's also ill-defined with a lot gray areas. We can build robots that are "self aware" in that they react or discard features of their own existence, such as shadows, as required by their tasks. But it's questionable whether most would agree that alone is being "conscience".
Well, I've seen some esthetically fantastic websites that had horrid usability scores in terms of practical navigation and reading issues.
Parsimony and functional (practical) clarity are things many artists do not put high value on compared to esthetics, entertainment, and mental titillation.
But a lot of programming language design is about trade-offs and personal preference. When I probe others on why they like a particular feature that I find odd or "bad", it often turns out to be a personal preference. Different people think and process symbols differently.
It may be merely an increase in prima-dona Picasso's rather than real progress. I'd like to see more discussion about features and trade-offs BEFORE new languages are made. Let's document our decision process and boo-boo's to avoid reinventing the wheel and reinventing design mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been to space, MySpace.
It's possible man's increased hunting efficiency reduced the population of grazing animals such that grass and brush growth increased, triggering side-effects of some kind.
Bill O'rockly on Foxosaurus News says that theory is a bunch of brontosaurus droppings.
Dinosaurs tried that also. Didn't work the way they thought.
I keep telling deniers: If you really believe it's BS, then you can currently buy south-eastern* beachfront property at a discount, because half the buyers believe it doomed. If climate change turns out to be BS in a decade or two, you'll be very wealthy. That's gets some of them researching it more because money is involved.
* S.E. US beaches are deemed especially vulnerable due to the patterns of sea currents.
Careful! My coworker clicked that link and was never seen from again the next day. At least with goat-se you know what happened to them (after slapping them to consciousness).
That's okay, we don't trust their hardware either. Tit for tat.
It's difficult to predict the future. I work for Type A managers who flitter all over the place on a whim.
They also ask for mobile-friendly, Atom feeds, ADA-compliant, image resizers, CRUD-like features, etc. because they can and they want it. Oh, and it has to be super-duper simple for users because they don't want to spend money on training.
But there are so many features that customers eventually want that you end up reinventing lots of wheels hand-adding them along the way, eventually ending up with a Big Ball of Mud.
It may be good job security for the original coder, but for the organization it can be a bear to write up contracts and pay for new coding for various features that are add-ons with packaged CMS.
Maybe if OSS community offered kits that allowed easier add-ons to semi-customized CMS, we could approach the best of both. For example, settle on a generic data model so that add-ons can hook directly onto the data model. Custom programming can still be done using that data model.
The Vampire Strategy
My personal experience is that repeated recall does re-shape memories to some degree. For example, if my recall is fuzzy on specifics, I tend to focus on the least fuzzy of candidate interpretations, and over time that choice becomes the "new" memory for that event.
When I get a chance to compare such against the "actual" original (such as a photograph or video), it seems my brain has made up details over time. It appears in order to "envision" a memory, my mind needs to make it concrete enough to relate to as a realistic event because contemplating fuzzy notions is too difficult, given our brains are most accustomed to process "reality". (The alternative would probably resemble a probabilistic graph, which is difficult to "compute" with.)
But in order to make the memory realistic enough to relate to, it has to invent details to make it "normal" and plausible.
A fuzzy notion of "room" is hard to work with such that my brain will make a "best guess" to add windows and doors and clutter on the floor etc. to the memory to make it match the fuzzy memory in a "good enough" way: "plausible" compared to reality AND the fuzzy notion.
But over time I lose track of what is "filler" reinforcement and what is part of the actual original memory.
The best analogy may be a really old house that has been rebuilt a couple of times: it may maintain generally the same shape and the same overall configuration, but there has been a fair amount shuffling around since it was built, and perhaps an addon room or two.
Thus, reinforcement via recall is lossy, but not recalling it at all is probably even more lossy since a "repaired" memory at least has a new structure around it instead of JUST the termite-infested original. A recalled & rebuilt memory has a better chance of being recalled later than one left as-is over time (un-recalled). But neither is perfect. The more clues you remember, the more faithful the reconstruction(s) will be.
Like an old house, if you don't repair it with new wood and structures every so often, it eventually succumbs to termites and weather, and crumbles.
"Conscience" is too poorly defined to apply mathematical rigor to, unless you make a working definition for a specific theory. But others don't necessarily have to agree with your working definition.
"Self-aware" is commonly given as a requirement, but that's also ill-defined with a lot gray areas. We can build robots that are "self aware" in that they react or discard features of their own existence, such as shadows, as required by their tasks. But it's questionable whether most would agree that alone is being "conscience".
I appears they are relatively recent arrivals to Canada. What's the viewership levels like there, do you by chance have a feel for that?
personally, I'm tired of Congress.
That half-buried Statue of Liberty in the corner back-lot is a bit unsettling for some reason.
A whole lotta begatting, good times!
The black holes are where the Kardashian & J.Bieber dolls used to be.
God is MS-Excel? We're fucked
You mean my RC plane is not really governed by regression equations? Shit, there goes my Nobel!
Yes, because they keep getting our spam.
Does this mean the Typing Shakespeare project is on hold?
Because Canada doesn't have FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh spreading plutocrat propaganda to counteract job gaming complaints.
-1 for Truth
Well, I've seen some esthetically fantastic websites that had horrid usability scores in terms of practical navigation and reading issues.
Parsimony and functional (practical) clarity are things many artists do not put high value on compared to esthetics, entertainment, and mental titillation.
But a lot of programming language design is about trade-offs and personal preference. When I probe others on why they like a particular feature that I find odd or "bad", it often turns out to be a personal preference. Different people think and process symbols differently.
It may be merely an increase in prima-dona Picasso's rather than real progress. I'd like to see more discussion about features and trade-offs BEFORE new languages are made. Let's document our decision process and boo-boo's to avoid reinventing the wheel and reinventing design mistakes.
I did. However, I haven't yet told anybody about it except a few guys in robes at the airport. I hope their signs get the word out. -G