|
..magical thinking; if it has a purpose, then to whom? 
Yes, 42.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Not magical. But logical. To itself of course.
Nah, 43.  At least make it prime!
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Not magical. But logical. To itself of course.
Going from concious to having a purpose is quite a leap. It may set itself goals, but a goal not a purpose make.
How about desires? Why is it more logical for a universe to have a purpose then simply desires? Most of the universe seems quite content to simply exist without having to report a reason for its existence, let alone a goal.
As for being sentient; how important is it for a bacteria in our gut that our host is sentient? Does it make any difference for said bacteria?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: As for being sentient; how important is it for a bacteria in our gut that our host is sentient? Does it make any difference for said bacteria?
This is a wonderful question to ask, an arrow shot into the heart of the anthropomorphic fallacy ! ... I'm sincere.
«Differences between Big-Endians, who broke eggs at the larger end, and Little-Endians gave rise to six rebellions: one Emperor lost his life, another his crown. The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. Big-Endians gained favor in Blefuscu.» J. Swift, 'Gulliver's Travels,' 1726CE
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: This is a wonderful question to ask, an arrow shot into the heart of the anthropomorphic fallacy ! ... I'm sincere.
Even after translating I'm still struggeling with the meaning - but thanks 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Going from concious to having a purpose is quite a leap.
That's quite an assumption! Have you done it? How would you know?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: It may set itself goals
So is this you admitting that the Universe is conscious?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: goal not a purpose make
Sure it does. It's purpose would be, at least, to fulfill it's self-set goals.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Why is it more logical for a universe to have a purpose then simply desires?
Aside from the fact that there's no such thing as a comparative amount of logic because something is either logical or not --- So know you're admitting that it's logical that the universe has a purpose?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Most of the universe seems quite content to simply exist
How do you know? Have you asked it?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: without having to report a reason for its existence
Who says it has to report a reason? And if it did report it would you understand or even be capable of understanding?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: As for being sentient; how important is it for a bacteria in our gut that our host is sentient?
Seems to be the opposite here. We certainly are sentient, the universe may or may not be. If it is, then it's probably orders of magnitude more intelligent than we are. That doesn't make us bacteria. Being that much more intelligent would likely mean the Universe would recognize us as sentient, albeit of a differing kind and order.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Does it make any difference for said bacteria?
Certainly.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: That's quite an assumption! Have you done it? How would you know?
No, that's not an assumption. It is a language-based fact that the two things are not the same.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: So is this you admitting that the Universe is conscious?
No, this is me accepting for a second the assumption that it could be.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Sure it does. It's purpose would be, at least, to fulfill it's self-set goals.
The purpose of our chickens at home was never set as a goal by the chickens 
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Aside from the fact that there's no such thing as a comparative amount of logic because something is either logical or not --- So know you're admitting that it's logical that the universe has a purpose?
On the contrary; living things do not have a set purpose. Purpose is what we, humans, project onto it.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: How do you know? Have you asked it?
There are no reports out there stating alternative observations.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Seems to be the opposite here. We certainly are sentient, the universe may or may not be. If it is, then it's probably orders of magnitude more intelligent than we are. That doesn't make us bacteria. Being that much more intelligent would likely mean the Universe would recognize us as sentient, albeit of a differing kind and order.
So now it is not just aware, but vastly intelligent? Something like a God mayhaps?
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Certainly.
Do your bacteria pray to you?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: It is a language-based fact
Ah so you're playing semantic games.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: the assumption that it could be.
Nice to be openminded.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: The purpose of our chickens at home was never set as a goal by the chickens
How do you know? Have you asked them?
Eddy Vluggen wrote: On the contrary; living things do not have a set purpose. Purpose is what we, humans, project onto it.
Disagree. Things have a purpose whether we recognize it or not. We humans may assign a new purpose or a different one or even the same one, but things have a purpose independent of humans or other sentient beings. A bit of alien tech may land on Earth and be encountered by you and you may not recognize it as alien and assume it's a rock. Notwithstanding you may use it to build or smash something, it has a purpose independent of you.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: So now it is not just aware, but vastly intelligent?
Why not? As long as we are supposing and assuming... 
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Do your bacteria pray to you?
I doubt it, but maybe they do...
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Ah so you're playing semantic games.
Nope, no games. But thanks for the flattery
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: How do you know? Have you asked them?
No need; self-preservation instincts dictate that their set purpose of becoming a great meal would not be among their top-goals.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Disagree.
You're allowed to.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Why not? As long as we are supposing and assuming...
Belongs in the same dustbin as the universe (or an electron for that matter) being sentient.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: I doubt it, but maybe they do...
Maybe you're pregnant. I'd recommend buying a predictor, just to be sure
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: thanks for the flattery
You're welcome. 
Eddy Vluggen wrote: No need; self-preservation instincts
Ah, more assumptions. You're building a house of cards I see.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You're allowed to.
Don't need your permission. I see you failed to answer the rest. Thanks for agreeing.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Belongs in the same dustbin
Ah, not so openminded then.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: pregnant
 
Eddy Vluggen wrote: predictor
[^]
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Ah, more assumptions. You're building a house of cards I see.
Not an assumption, but a fact that you can verify.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Don't need your permission. I see you failed to answer the rest. Thanks for agreeing.
I was not giving you permission, merely observing that we live in a free state and that you are entitled to your 'opinion'.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: Ah, not so openminded then.
My bullshitmeter is indeed limited. Though I am open-minded and will consider many a possibility, I think that we may safely assume that you are not pregnant. Even without checking it.
..at which point you'll be pointing out that that is just an assumption; you do not have any argument, you're merely trying to wordsmith your way. Let it go
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Conservation laws holding at all scales shouldn't be surprising to someone who knows about their connection to symmetry, unless I'm missing something here.
|
|
|
|
|
It interests me to think that are an infinity of symmetries, and wonder if self-similarity, as in fractals, is a symmetry.
«Differences between Big-Endians, who broke eggs at the larger end, and Little-Endians gave rise to six rebellions: one Emperor lost his life, another his crown. The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. Big-Endians gained favor in Blefuscu.» J. Swift, 'Gulliver's Travels,' 1726CE
|
|
|
|
|
ECMAScript 2017 addresses left-pad gate, alongside various improvements Behold the future! String padding!
OK, other stuff is in there too
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to our data retrieval pipeline, source{d} opened the dataset that contains the yearly numbers of bytes coded by each GitHub user in each programming language. Here is your recommended daily dose of graphs
|
|
|
|
|
It’s that time of year again, and today I am kicking off my annual FREE MICROSOFT EBOOK GIVEAWAY extravaganza! Just in time for your summer beach reading
|
|
|
|
|
A survey of 600 IT and business professionals finds more new skills are needed to keep the business up to date and competitive. "What you got - I got the skills to pay the bills"
|
|
|
|
|
It's the "new" skills that are the problem; we need more developers with experience and history.
|
|
|
|
|
lack any formal strategy to address the gap
Agile? 
Organizations are jumping into big data capture, artificial intelligence and machine learning, the Internet of Things and robotics, and they are finding their IT staffs are struggling to make sense of the data generated.
Well duh. When management has no strategy, plan, or interest to give their employees paid time to keep abreast of new technologies, whether in direct training (classes, bootcamps cough, whatever) and no projects (whether immediately useful or not) for them to practice their skills, signing up for a salaried full time position in a company is like being a new car. The minute you drive it off the lot, it depreciates in value. Even if some new Javascript MVC framework is a flash in the pan, exposure to new things at a minimum promotes interest and discussion.
Where I work (as a contractor, 3 days a week) the lunchroom rule (ironically instigated by my "peers") is that we don't discuss work things, or technology even in general. There is no interest from management to promote retooling, so as a result, the company is using 30 year old technology (COBOL) on one side of the fence, and on the C#/Microsoft side of the fence, they're anywhere from 5 to 10 years behind the curve.
If business professionals (how ironic to use the word "professionals") want skilled employees, they need to invest in giving them those skills! 
I for one think that companies would do well to have their tech staff write an article for Code Project at least once every month or so!
Marc
Latest Article - Create a Dockerized Python Fiddle Web App
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Well duh. When management has no strategy, plan, or interest to give their employees paid time to keep abreast of new technologies, whether in direct training (classes, bootcamps cough, whatever) and no projects (whether immediately useful or not) for them to practice their skills, signing up for a salaried full time position in a company is like being a new car. The minute you drive it off the lot, it depreciates in value. Even if some new Javascript MVC framework is a flash in the pan, exposure to new things at a minimum promotes interest and discussion.
You are 100% correct, sir. I have done 1 small MVC app in the last 4 years, before that Windows and Webforms since 2003 and Classic ASP before that. Now I am doing SSRS, SSIS, and system administration, because that is what is important to management, right now. It has been like that for the last few years and I have become disinterested in new technologies, because I don't know when or if I will ever use them. I am not the only person in my organization that feels this way and them problem only seems to be getting worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Foo wrote: I have become disinterested in new technologies, because I don't know when or if I will ever use them. I am not the only person in my organization that feels this way and them problem only seems to be getting worse.
+1
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
On the flip side, I've worked with people who were intent on using the latest, greatest whiz-bang technology and that didn't end well either. (In one case, I came in AFTER the whiz kids had embraced the latest technology and then bailed. I was part of the effort to clean up the mess, except the company wasn't willing to let us do it right.)
At the same time, I get frustrated with developers who claim to use C++11/14/17 and then carve out almost the entire feature set as exceptions. (And, yes, even had the "we use .NET, but you can't use anything past 3.5".)
|
|
|
|
|
We've noticed that.
We're 55 and 56 my wife an I, both fighter pilots from the days of Novell 3.11 it's abends and forward to today. My wife was arguing bitness and the inability of 64 bit windows to run DOS programs with a tech rep from a software company. He should have known better. He also claimed that he could plop an xp image onto a new dell and it would work, My wife said not without drivers and it's likely to not boot. He changed the subject. When she got off the phone we just stared at each other for a while. I said I dunno maybe we do something else (God knows what) because it's getting to be very trying coaching up people who work for other companies that we have to deal with (web guys, email outfits etc) even in their 30s who should, but don't know #$%^! - It's always a debate too. 
|
|
|
|
|
In late 2016 and early 2017 we polled over 5,000 developers to identify the State of Developer Ecosystem. You are here (more or less, assuming you took the survey)
|
|
|
|
|
For the first time, a primitive movie has been encoded in -- and then played back from -- DNA in living cells. DeoxyMoviecleic Acid?
Or:
Don't download that movie, it's a virus!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
