Nobody wins, because feminism is in of itself, sexism at it's finest.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and it's comments like this that make people believe (rightfully so) that there exists a sexism issue in tech circles.
A planet or a dwarf planet?
I mean, if Pluto is not allowed to be a planet, then why should such a small object be labelled as one?
The defining characteristics of a planet are:
(1) Large enough for gravity to make it round.
(2) "Dominates" its orbit.
Pluto fails (2) because it's a Kuiper Belt Object and there are many other KBO's in its orbit. It's not gravitationally powerful enough to eject or capture them. This may seem arbitrary because pluto would be considered a planet simply if there weren't any other objects in its orbit, but that's the current definition.
I agree, it's a beautiful theory, like some of the Daoist tracts are beautiful writing, as are parts of the Bhagavad Gita, or even the Psalms of David. Beauty is worthess in science, things aren't *scientific theory* until the science has been done. The experiments say that dark matter is more than marginally wrong time and time again. Can I follow your logic and adopt your language and conclude that they don't have a model, and they're just making shit up?
What? Experiments don't say dark matter is "more than marginally wrong time and time again." What they say is that it hasn't been found, but there are more reasons to believe that dark matter exists than to think it doesn't. Neutrinos could be a candidate for dark matter, but they aren't massive enough. There isn't anything that rules out dark matter like, say, the aether was ruled out, and models that include dark matter make more sense than models that leave it out.
I doubt there is a single physicist that believes general relativity is complete since it says nothing about what happens at the quantum level, and it doesn't include other forces. No scientist holds GR in high regard solely because it's beautiful -- but rather because it's been verified to fantastic precision (like quantum electrodynamics) -- and your bizarre assertion that this is somehow a failing of science shows your misunderstanding of science and in particular, physics.
Knowing C, IMO, is a litmus test for someone who knows how computers work. Pointers, memory, file I/O, etc, aren't directly useful in higher level languages these days. But knowing they exist would help someone write smarter code.
I did an algorithms course a few years ago. The course was about how to write highly optimised searching/sorting/graph-traversin algorithms. Basically the kind of computation jobs that take a long time to complete and where optimisation that yields even a few percent increase in speed get you significant monetary savings. On day some students asked the teacher whether they could write assignments in Python rather than C/C++. The teacher just stood there without knowing what to say, then overcame the urge to humiliate the student and an long and awkward silence just said, NO. Scripting languages are nice but you can't solve everything with scripts.
What? Why would the programming language matter in an algorithms course? If you're talking about trying to squeeze efficiency out of everything, sure, but that doesn't sound like the focus of the course (and shouldn't be in algorithms course, anyway).
Srinivasa Ramanujan was given a brain, a brain that is not that different from the one we have in between our own ears.
The only difference between Srinivasa Ramanujan and 99.99999% of the human race is that he opted to use his brain power as much as it could be sustained.
If only the rest of 99.99999% of the human population can do the same - becoming a galaxy-roaming race wouldn't stay merely a dream for long.
Our brains may all have the same matter, but that doesn't mean we all have the same abilities or aptitudes. Trust me, I hate the misconception that high level mathematics is accessible only to geniuses, but it's also not as simple as "you can be Gauss if only you try." That's not true. Not everyone can come up with calculus; not everyone can come up with general relativity.
As for Ramanujan, the British mathematician G. H. Hardy, when ranking mathematicians based on talent from 1 to 100 placed himself at 25, David Hilbert at 85, and Ramanujan at 100. To get some perspective, Hilbert was an incredibly influential mathematician who almost beat Einstein to general relativity, and he wasn't even a physicist! That's how talented Ramanujan apparently was. So no, the difference between him and "99.99999% of the human race" is NOT that he "opted to use his brain power as much as it could be sustained."
There are even proposals to tie tuition payments to the popularity of courses: charge more for engineering courses and less for liberal arts (which is the opposite of the right way to influence it if you're trying to coax people into the sciences and into engineering).
I haven't heard anything like that, and in fact it seems to be the opposite:
Down in Florida, a task force commissioned by Governor Rick Scott is putting the finishing touches on a proposal that would allow the state's public universities to start charging undergraduates different tuition rates depending on their major. Students would get discounts for studying topics thought to be in high demand among Florida employers. Those would likely include science, technology, engineering, and math (aka, the STEM fields), among others.
link Perhaps this is true in fringe cases, but it doesn't seem to be the norm.
Your method would require knowing how many updates are made before the next major release. What if you committed more than 100 updates? Looks like you should have done X.001 instead. It's far more practical to just let versions of the form X.Y be two distinct numbers, where X refers to major releases and Y refers to updates within X. X and Y are NOT supposed to be part of the same number.
Incidentally, pretty much every math textbook I've seen follows this same pattern. Sections have some form like 1.0, 1.1, 1.2,
Einstein's revolution was sparked by a moment of insight.
Perhaps I'm misreading the intention of this sentence, but Einstein did not have some "eureka moment!" that led to special or general relativity. Special relativity was heavily influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiment and Hendrik Lorentz' work. General relativity was influenced by Riemannian geometry, and Einstein was almost beaten to its discovery by David Hilbert. His discoveries were absolutely incredible, but they were the result years and years of work building upon earlier theories and experiments.
"Actually, I was led to it by steps arising from the individual laws derived from experience."- Einstein on special relativity
With your bare hands?!?
