It is right up above you, the part where you pretend that it isn't getting worse every year. Fucking duh. Don't pretend you don't know.
Were you attempting to misrepresent a minor quibble over the wording as a refutation of the thrust of the statement? Yeah, don't expect that to have value to anybody.
Science is the technical system that academics are expected to use these days, but I think people would be much better served by thinking of the general pursuit of knowledge as "natural philosophy" instead. Like Newton and those bumblers did.;)
There is this weird anti-thought culture these days where a lot of people think of themselves as being "pro-science" somehow by being "anti-philosophy."
People who don't know that art is objectively useful should find a journal on physical brain science.:) The anti-art propaganda might have been superseded up by the findings of the physiologists...
I was thinking other day whenever I see someone doing ***real*** programming, they are writing text just like was done in 1980s. The difference is they are using a keyboard that is lower profile and the screen is flat. Other than that it's straight text.
Yeah, but instead of just make and autoconf, now I also have things like rake (a Ruby tool similar to make that is easier to use for most things) Testing frameworks are largely automated; yeah, the test is just text code, but now when you check the code changes into the version control system, a backend automatically tests it for you. That has existed for a long time, but it is easier now, and more integrated into existing tools. Version control is pretty good now at automatically resolving conflicts. Warnings in most languages get better over time; automatically warning me that I may have made a mistake before I even run the code, or a test.
Code is text because "computer languages" are human languages. You're not writing for the computer; you're writing for the engineer who designed the computer! It could be done with flow charts instead, but it would not be semantically different, and it is hard to encode that much complexity into pictures and have it actually be easier to use than words. Otherwise, there would be pressure from literary writers to move back to pictographs.
The compiled code is just reduced down to the language of a different engineer, from the CPU design team. And that in turn actually runs other code inside the CPU, as specified by the other engineer. And that one finally has to go by the physical properties as described by the engineers deeper down than him.
You can run code, even compiled code, using nothing but humans and 3x5 cards. The words are the critical thing involved; not the computer.
The whole idea of a "self-programming computer" makes less and less sense the deeper into the details you get. It is like a "self-driving plow;" you don't have to pull it yourself anymore, but a human still has to decide what to plow, and aim the device. With computers, that "aiming" is the software; and it is just words.
I've seen no attempts at self-programming computers yet
What does it even mean? If I said I was going to sell you a "self-designing house," you might reasonably ask, "how is the house going to know what my needs are?"
How do you point a "self-programming computer" at a problem? It seems to be mostly hand-waving, rather than even science fiction. Meanwhile, my software development environment gets more and more automated every year. And I'm still using emacs and the command line!
The best programming teacher I ever had was in middle school. He was actually trained in math. His answer to almost every question I asked was a physical description of the location of the book or manual that might have the answer; and since the school only had a few computer books, often he referred me to the city's public library.
The thing a lot of people just don't manage to get their heads around is that there is too much ongoing knowledge collection that is required for education to matter. You have to be learning "it all" on your own as you're doing the job and advancing your career. It is not a reasonable field for people that need to "be taught." Even if they learn enough to get started, they'll be behind forever. The only way to make that work would be to specialize in something like cobol that was obsolete before they even started. But then it will turn out that most of the cobol demand is actually for wrapping C libraries, and whoops now they're sinking again.
As somebody who does some R programming, I have to disagree. It would be about equally opaque either way, unless you wrote 5 times as many characters to give the ranges nice symbolic names. The problem with having that sort of code in the spreadsheet is mostly that you have to squash it into one line and it is too hard to read. A programmer would rather have that sort of code in a database procedure, and then have the spreadsheet just get the data through the db interface; but then you can't just email the file. So making the code ugly is the price paid for portability. And in most cases, it is then portable across different spreadsheet software, too.
I also challenge the GP on the assertion that it isn't programming; of course it is.
And in GIS work, you're not called a programmer but writing SQL is often required.
I'm a software guy and I use math *a lot* but I sure as heck don't use it to balance my checkbook. I use a calculator for that.
And I sure as heck don't need to memorize how to do calculus by hand, though I certainly need to know how to use a sin() function, and when to.
Interface programmers probably don't even need that.
What I observe lacking in programmers isn't so much a lack of math skills as a lack of thinking in ordered steps. And the education industry hasn't really figured out how to teach critical thinking skills yet; though they do acknowledge the importance of it.
Because the "show" is the time for other artists and family to come and mingle and meet the artist and the art media. Most of the "art scene" is not actually taking place at "art shows." That includes most of the scene around the art that is shown at the show.;)
In the same way that the opening of a theatrical production has a special significance to the crew, but might not be representative of the intended audience of the production.
BTW, "liberal arts" is a style of education that includes modern 4 year Universities. That isn't a degree. A person who gets a science degree, usually has had a "liberal arts education." The alternative to "liberal arts" is a "trade school." The fact that art history majors have to take math classes? That is "liberal arts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem is STEM is that technology is listed separately from engineering, and then they add in math which is not really that useful to be studying if you're not going to use it in the context of science or engineering. Maybe they should have consulted with the English department first, and they'd have less redundancy, and a clearer thesis?
The M isn't a necessity, it is fucking useless. If you're studying S and E, you already studied a boatload of M. The only people who need to study M are education majors specializing in it.
What I think is missing, as a software developer, is not anything related to coding. That is silly to foist on people who are not interested. It is good to give them a 1 time introduction just so they know that "programs are made of words," and "programming languages are languages that humans use, not ones that computers use."
But what they need is better applications instruction. In 6th grade I took a "computer applications" class, and the teacher (who was trained as a math teacher) taught us not to try to memorize what keys to press, but what the names of the features were, and the purpose of the feature. So that instead of memorizing "press control c to copy highlighted text" you would focus instead on the concepts; the basic semantics of copy/paste and selecting text, and what the features are called. Then when you sit down at a new application, instead of having to be "re-trained" and memorize new shortcuts, you naturally just look in the menus for the features you want. And when you read a guide about switching from one app to the other, you'll understand right away "Oh, instead of saying selecting, they say highlighting." That is much easier to assimilate and work with than, "instead of control-c you have to press alt-insert," which is unfortunately how applications are being taught in many schools.
they could increase their intelligence by probably an order of magnitude if they internalized a few important additional mental patterns
A teacher cannot fill a student's mind the way you would fill a glass of water.
It is a nice, simplistic, happy idea that if the teachers just had the right information, the knowledge would fill the student's mind. But alas, attempting to teach conditional statements to students is not actually enough to raise their IQs. Or even to get them interested in conditionals. They already offer math, which has a directly proven IQ benefit; to students who are interested in it.
I already have the code generators; all the different features that the idiots want are just checkboxes or radio buttons.
Does a new web whatthewhat cost $3000, $5000, $9000, $14000, $35000, or $65000? Yes!
If you pay $35k for a new dynamic web application, I could have done it for $3000. But I wouldn't give out a telephone contact, it would prepaid and email-only.;)
So even here where all the code is written by humans, the only reason that automation doesn't replace 99% of the work is that the people who need the service still assume they're getting something better if they hire people to write a bunch of new bugs on top of the framework that does the actual work. And they want to have somebody to call on the phone and get reassurances that everything is OK, and they want that person to also pretend to be the one writing the code.
There is no way a computer is going to replace project managers any time soon. But automation can already replace most of the programmers. But the clients haven't figured it out yet.
Actually, I'm not following the point of the argument you're making.
And yet you spend words arguing with it, instead of spending additional time pondering what moral or philosophical differences are implied by the different positions. There is no way to get to understanding except by reading the words I wrote, and understanding them literally.
It may be that you can't understand because you have stereotypes about what somebody who disagrees with you would also think.;)
No, you're handwaving and pretending reality is upside down.
The standard conversation is literally, "Black lives matter!" "No, all lives matter"
Without the word no, it would be "Black lives matter!" "Yes, and so do other lives!" "Yeah! Same!"
See it is a totally different thing with the no, or without the no.
Be more honest.
Offering a correction of an inclusive statement like "black lives matter" literally and directly implies that you disagree with it. If you want to also include something else, you do that by extending it to other things, not by disagreeing and offering a replacement.
Right, so as long as you think it is going to help your poor elderly mom, then you could rob a bank, or assist in any other crime, too?
Since you started talking about Jesus without even establishing that you understood the moral issues, and started calling names at that stage, maybe you didn't really think through the moral implications as completely as you thought?
I'll give you a hint, when you're calling people names and ignoring what their actual view was while bringing in mom and completely not even addressing the actual situation discussed... you probably do not have the moral high ground.;)
Maybe think first. Nothing you said even addresses what I said, and yet you're totally exasperated. Well, it isn't going to make more sense by going further off the rails.
You assert that people paying a ransom are victims, but I think there are a lot of people in the world who agree that they are literally assisting the perpetrators to benefit from their crime. Which literally makes them an accomplice under existing law in most places, even if it isn't prosecuted that way. Why is a kidnapping victim under threat in the first place? Because the last asshole's family paid them for doing it.
Yeah but the thing is, according to the numbers your choices only get it to 95%. Why is that? You don't know. I don't know. That part is largely not yet explained. People have wild hand-wavy theories, of course.
Right, the second part is just gamergate trolling, not an actual position that is commonly taken in society.
If it isn't bad enough that you hate for stupid reasons, you hate people that don't exist for stupid reasons, and use that as the basis to insult real people whose views you don't even know because you're not listening.
Thing is, Bob isn't saying "No, all lives matter."
All you did is skip over the explanation and not address it. I'm not going into those weeds; you want to have a discussion, you have to address what I was clearly actually saying.
You want to skip over that important word "no." But that word, "no" is critical to the meaning. I'm not talking about the subjective parts, I'm talking about the literal parts. You have to address head on the fact that he says "no" in response to an inclusive statement, "foo lives matter." Responding with "no" can't be overcome merely by handwaving. If the answer was "yes," it would "yes, and...." not "no,..."
Yes, you do imply that. That statement is offered as a correction of the statement "black lives matter."
That is where your racism is on your sleeve. And yet, you still want to lie because you're not confident enough in your views to admit them. Even when you're coming right out and saying it in a sideways way that everybody can see.
That's the part where I said, "it isn't really worth getting into the dog whistles; most people who can hear them will pretend they can't anyways." You wouldn't even be saying it if it didn't mean anything; and yet you want to pretend it basically had no meaning or context. Just innocent words with no meaning, that just happen to be said at exactly the time where they're totally racist.
Shit, your honor, that moron was stupid enough to walk down my street, he knows we hate his kind. He must have deserved it.
That said, I would support charging anybody who pays a ransom as a accomplice in whatever crime is involved, be it kidnapping, (ocean) piracy, or extortionate encrypting.
I would even support an enhanced sentence for the ransom-payer, maybe double the sentence of the base crime.
Slashdot Mirror
It is right up above you, the part where you pretend that it isn't getting worse every year. Fucking duh. Don't pretend you don't know.
Were you attempting to misrepresent a minor quibble over the wording as a refutation of the thrust of the statement? Yeah, don't expect that to have value to anybody.
Science is the technical system that academics are expected to use these days, but I think people would be much better served by thinking of the general pursuit of knowledge as "natural philosophy" instead. Like Newton and those bumblers did. ;)
There is this weird anti-thought culture these days where a lot of people think of themselves as being "pro-science" somehow by being "anti-philosophy."
People who don't know that art is objectively useful should find a journal on physical brain science. :) The anti-art propaganda might have been superseded up by the findings of the physiologists...
Well, I've already seen flying cars so that is a given.
I was thinking other day whenever I see someone doing ***real*** programming, they are writing text just like was done in 1980s. The difference is they are using a keyboard that is lower profile and the screen is flat. Other than that it's straight text.
Yeah, but instead of just make and autoconf, now I also have things like rake (a Ruby tool similar to make that is easier to use for most things)
Testing frameworks are largely automated; yeah, the test is just text code, but now when you check the code changes into the version control system, a backend automatically tests it for you. That has existed for a long time, but it is easier now, and more integrated into existing tools. Version control is pretty good now at automatically resolving conflicts. Warnings in most languages get better over time; automatically warning me that I may have made a mistake before I even run the code, or a test.
Code is text because "computer languages" are human languages. You're not writing for the computer; you're writing for the engineer who designed the computer! It could be done with flow charts instead, but it would not be semantically different, and it is hard to encode that much complexity into pictures and have it actually be easier to use than words. Otherwise, there would be pressure from literary writers to move back to pictographs.
The compiled code is just reduced down to the language of a different engineer, from the CPU design team. And that in turn actually runs other code inside the CPU, as specified by the other engineer. And that one finally has to go by the physical properties as described by the engineers deeper down than him.
You can run code, even compiled code, using nothing but humans and 3x5 cards. The words are the critical thing involved; not the computer.
The whole idea of a "self-programming computer" makes less and less sense the deeper into the details you get. It is like a "self-driving plow;" you don't have to pull it yourself anymore, but a human still has to decide what to plow, and aim the device. With computers, that "aiming" is the software; and it is just words.
I've seen no attempts at self-programming computers yet
What does it even mean? If I said I was going to sell you a "self-designing house," you might reasonably ask, "how is the house going to know what my needs are?"
How do you point a "self-programming computer" at a problem? It seems to be mostly hand-waving, rather than even science fiction. Meanwhile, my software development environment gets more and more automated every year. And I'm still using emacs and the command line!
I think you'd find it exceptionally hard to articulate advantages of learning that in a class rather than from a book.
And yes, I took those classes.
The best programming teacher I ever had was in middle school. He was actually trained in math. His answer to almost every question I asked was a physical description of the location of the book or manual that might have the answer; and since the school only had a few computer books, often he referred me to the city's public library.
The thing a lot of people just don't manage to get their heads around is that there is too much ongoing knowledge collection that is required for education to matter. You have to be learning "it all" on your own as you're doing the job and advancing your career. It is not a reasonable field for people that need to "be taught." Even if they learn enough to get started, they'll be behind forever. The only way to make that work would be to specialize in something like cobol that was obsolete before they even started. But then it will turn out that most of the cobol demand is actually for wrapping C libraries, and whoops now they're sinking again.
As somebody who does some R programming, I have to disagree. It would be about equally opaque either way, unless you wrote 5 times as many characters to give the ranges nice symbolic names. The problem with having that sort of code in the spreadsheet is mostly that you have to squash it into one line and it is too hard to read. A programmer would rather have that sort of code in a database procedure, and then have the spreadsheet just get the data through the db interface; but then you can't just email the file. So making the code ugly is the price paid for portability. And in most cases, it is then portable across different spreadsheet software, too.
I also challenge the GP on the assertion that it isn't programming; of course it is.
And in GIS work, you're not called a programmer but writing SQL is often required.
I'm a software guy and I use math *a lot* but I sure as heck don't use it to balance my checkbook. I use a calculator for that.
And I sure as heck don't need to memorize how to do calculus by hand, though I certainly need to know how to use a sin() function, and when to.
Interface programmers probably don't even need that.
What I observe lacking in programmers isn't so much a lack of math skills as a lack of thinking in ordered steps. And the education industry hasn't really figured out how to teach critical thinking skills yet; though they do acknowledge the importance of it.
President Obama said that everybody should attend higher education, and that if you don't think traditional college is for you, go to a trade school.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/iss...
Stop trying to lump things together that do not need to be lumped together. It dilutes all of it to the point of mediocrity.
Lumping "technology" and "engineering" together is the pinnacle of said mediocrity. ;)
Because the "show" is the time for other artists and family to come and mingle and meet the artist and the art media. Most of the "art scene" is not actually taking place at "art shows." That includes most of the scene around the art that is shown at the show. ;)
In the same way that the opening of a theatrical production has a special significance to the crew, but might not be representative of the intended audience of the production.
BTW, "liberal arts" is a style of education that includes modern 4 year Universities. That isn't a degree. A person who gets a science degree, usually has had a "liberal arts education." The alternative to "liberal arts" is a "trade school." The fact that art history majors have to take math classes? That is "liberal arts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem is STEM is that technology is listed separately from engineering, and then they add in math which is not really that useful to be studying if you're not going to use it in the context of science or engineering. Maybe they should have consulted with the English department first, and they'd have less redundancy, and a clearer thesis?
The M isn't a necessity, it is fucking useless. If you're studying S and E, you already studied a boatload of M. The only people who need to study M are education majors specializing in it.
What I think is missing, as a software developer, is not anything related to coding. That is silly to foist on people who are not interested. It is good to give them a 1 time introduction just so they know that "programs are made of words," and "programming languages are languages that humans use, not ones that computers use."
But what they need is better applications instruction. In 6th grade I took a "computer applications" class, and the teacher (who was trained as a math teacher) taught us not to try to memorize what keys to press, but what the names of the features were, and the purpose of the feature. So that instead of memorizing "press control c to copy highlighted text" you would focus instead on the concepts; the basic semantics of copy/paste and selecting text, and what the features are called. Then when you sit down at a new application, instead of having to be "re-trained" and memorize new shortcuts, you naturally just look in the menus for the features you want. And when you read a guide about switching from one app to the other, you'll understand right away "Oh, instead of saying selecting, they say highlighting." That is much easier to assimilate and work with than, "instead of control-c you have to press alt-insert," which is unfortunately how applications are being taught in many schools.
they could increase their intelligence by probably an order of magnitude if they internalized a few important additional mental patterns
A teacher cannot fill a student's mind the way you would fill a glass of water.
It is a nice, simplistic, happy idea that if the teachers just had the right information, the knowledge would fill the student's mind. But alas, attempting to teach conditional statements to students is not actually enough to raise their IQs. Or even to get them interested in conditionals. They already offer math, which has a directly proven IQ benefit; to students who are interested in it.
I already have the code generators; all the different features that the idiots want are just checkboxes or radio buttons.
Does a new web whatthewhat cost $3000, $5000, $9000, $14000, $35000, or $65000? Yes!
If you pay $35k for a new dynamic web application, I could have done it for $3000. But I wouldn't give out a telephone contact, it would prepaid and email-only. ;)
So even here where all the code is written by humans, the only reason that automation doesn't replace 99% of the work is that the people who need the service still assume they're getting something better if they hire people to write a bunch of new bugs on top of the framework that does the actual work. And they want to have somebody to call on the phone and get reassurances that everything is OK, and they want that person to also pretend to be the one writing the code.
There is no way a computer is going to replace project managers any time soon. But automation can already replace most of the programmers. But the clients haven't figured it out yet.
Actually, I'm not following the point of the argument you're making.
And yet you spend words arguing with it, instead of spending additional time pondering what moral or philosophical differences are implied by the different positions. There is no way to get to understanding except by reading the words I wrote, and understanding them literally.
It may be that you can't understand because you have stereotypes about what somebody who disagrees with you would also think. ;)
No, you're handwaving and pretending reality is upside down.
The standard conversation is literally, "Black lives matter!" " No , all lives matter"
Without the word no, it would be "Black lives matter!" "Yes, and so do other lives!" "Yeah! Same!"
See it is a totally different thing with the no, or without the no.
Be more honest.
Offering a correction of an inclusive statement like "black lives matter" literally and directly implies that you disagree with it. If you want to also include something else, you do that by extending it to other things, not by disagreeing and offering a replacement.
Right, so as long as you think it is going to help your poor elderly mom, then you could rob a bank, or assist in any other crime, too?
Since you started talking about Jesus without even establishing that you understood the moral issues, and started calling names at that stage, maybe you didn't really think through the moral implications as completely as you thought?
I'll give you a hint, when you're calling people names and ignoring what their actual view was while bringing in mom and completely not even addressing the actual situation discussed... you probably do not have the moral high ground. ;)
Maybe think first. Nothing you said even addresses what I said, and yet you're totally exasperated. Well, it isn't going to make more sense by going further off the rails.
You assert that people paying a ransom are victims, but I think there are a lot of people in the world who agree that they are literally assisting the perpetrators to benefit from their crime. Which literally makes them an accomplice under existing law in most places, even if it isn't prosecuted that way. Why is a kidnapping victim under threat in the first place? Because the last asshole's family paid them for doing it.
Why did you say "again" to some cowherd? He just came in.
Yeah but the thing is, according to the numbers your choices only get it to 95%. Why is that? You don't know. I don't know. That part is largely not yet explained. People have wild hand-wavy theories, of course.
Right, the second part is just gamergate trolling, not an actual position that is commonly taken in society.
If it isn't bad enough that you hate for stupid reasons, you hate people that don't exist for stupid reasons, and use that as the basis to insult real people whose views you don't even know because you're not listening.
Thing is, Bob isn't saying "No, all lives matter."
All you did is skip over the explanation and not address it. I'm not going into those weeds; you want to have a discussion, you have to address what I was clearly actually saying.
You want to skip over that important word "no." But that word, "no" is critical to the meaning. I'm not talking about the subjective parts, I'm talking about the literal parts. You have to address head on the fact that he says "no" in response to an inclusive statement, "foo lives matter." Responding with "no" can't be overcome merely by handwaving. If the answer was "yes," it would "yes, and ...." not "no, ..."
Yes, you do imply that. That statement is offered as a correction of the statement "black lives matter."
That is where your racism is on your sleeve. And yet, you still want to lie because you're not confident enough in your views to admit them. Even when you're coming right out and saying it in a sideways way that everybody can see.
That's the part where I said, "it isn't really worth getting into the dog whistles; most people who can hear them will pretend they can't anyways." You wouldn't even be saying it if it didn't mean anything; and yet you want to pretend it basically had no meaning or context. Just innocent words with no meaning, that just happen to be said at exactly the time where they're totally racist.
Shit, your honor, that moron was stupid enough to walk down my street, he knows we hate his kind. He must have deserved it.
That said, I would support charging anybody who pays a ransom as a accomplice in whatever crime is involved, be it kidnapping, (ocean) piracy, or extortionate encrypting.
I would even support an enhanced sentence for the ransom-payer, maybe double the sentence of the base crime.