Computer Science has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY INTERNET, of "things" or otherwise.
Computer Science needs to change its name so everyone that thinks they know what a computer is can stuff it up their ass. Because CS has nothing to do with computers, and nothing at all to do with software or programming. The "Computer" in "Computer Science" is not, I repeat, is not synonymous with the thing you call "computer" that's on your desk or lap. It means simply "calculator," i.e. one who calculates, or, precisely, that which computes, or to make it really simple for them, that which reckons. They should call it Reckoner Science. Then no one would be confused, no one would fantacize about studying it (because they just love their computer!!) when they go off to college in a year or so, and HR morons would stop requiring CS degreed Windows Administrators or help desk monkeys because that is ridiculous. Mechanics don't need Mechanical Engineering degrees, Nurses don't need an M.D., and corporate america does not need specialized mathematicians furiously installing java browser plugin security updates on all the machines on their network. Think of Computer Sciece as math... then you'll understand how stupid everyone sounds when they say anything about Computer Science. Be a programmer if you want. Programmers do not need a Computer Science degree, or any degree for that matter.
I'm just going put this here:
Computer Science (abbreviated CS or CompSci) is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications. It is the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodicalprocesses (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, andaccess to information, whether such information is encoded as bits in a computer memory or transcribed engines and protein structures in a human cell. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems
Then, humans started coming with very silly ideas about the model actually being the reality it models.
Humans aren't real. They are merely a hodge-podge of organs acting in concert which obey the standard medical model. Organs are simply groups of cells that act in concert, which obey the standard biological model. Cells are made of molecules which obey the standard organic chemical model. Molecules are merely structured atoms obeying the standard chemical model. Atoms are composed of bosons, fermions and hadrons, and hadrons are small clumps of quarks I think, and all these subatomics obey the standard nuclear model (aka the "Standard Model"). Bear in mind, all matter by volume is 99.999%+ empty space, and that none of the models I mentioned are empirically real; they are abstract. We just use them to help explain our observations, and they help the math come out neat. Thus, as humans are comprised of aggregates that are also comprised of more fundamental aggregates, etc., they're mostly just a convenience of language.
Still, does God have a God?
Do Metagods command Metametatrons? I like to think so. And that each, from their individual perspectives, due to scaling self-similarity and relativistic effects, always appear to be and perceive that they are all one.
the number one weight in a car is the wiring for all the electric stuff.
You mean the wiring weighs more than the engine? I doubt that.
It depends on where you park.
may just have led to most young people not having a clue and assuming astrology = astronomy
It is likely both studies were born at the same time. Maybe 10K years before the invention of agriculture and the domestication of maize in southern Mexico, 18K-20K years ago the first scientists looked up at the stars and drew what they saw on a cave wall in Lascaux, France... and at the same time the first astrologer connected the stars like dots, and drew animals, which tell a story to them, which are no doubt related to far older oral traditions about which we'll likely never know anything.
I find it perplexing why, these days, some are so hostile towards studies such as astrology or religion. While science is slicing up brains looking for the mind (and never finding it), other disciplines can tell us more about ourselves without all the ick. Even if astrology is mumbo jumbo, it reveals just enough about humans to be interesting.
there isn't a clear, universally applicable line which distinguishes all schizophrenics from all non-schizophrenics
Depending on the depth of psychosis, actually the opposite is true of accurate schizophrenia diagnoses compared to other common mental disorders. There's a simple and clear test that can determine whether you're schizophrenic: the hollow mask illusion. If you aren't fooled into seeing the concave side of the mask sticks outward, the odds you're schizophrenic increase tangentally. The more psychotic you are, the less you can see the illusion.
I could be wrong, but I thought the Casimir force was due to quantum effects of particles appearing and disappearing?
That's odd... I was certain it had somthing to do with the misfortune that occurs should one bend over in front of a goat.
So the fusion energy amounts to a few percent of the energy in the laser pulse (and much less if you account for the inefficiency of the laser).
The estimates become even more dubious when you account for all the energy expended training, feeding and housing the sharks.
Except Apple aren't king of the hill any more, they have less than 20% of the smartphone market.
Hmm... your strawman is compelling, but it is difficult to ignore that Apple is the king of the stock market by value, the most valuable brand in the world, and with more than $150B in cash and about that much in projected annual revenue, if they're not yet richer than New Zealand (GDP ~$170B), they will be soon. So even if it is perhaps arguable that they lost some specific market battle, if, the point is overshadowed by the fact that Apple decisively won the war.
Even if the bomb detonated over an empty field it would still have made an impression.
Yes, but not the intended impression. I believe there was some conversation (if not a formal debate) prior to Nagasaki and Hiroshima: Why not bomb Mount Fuji, and spare the lives of millions, and still have the effect of displaying military superiority?
Apparently, merely detonating a bomb is not enough. You need to show beyond any doubt that it is what the enemy thinks it is, and that you have the will to use such a thing. Why two bombs? So there can me no mistaking what it was.
President Truman took up to 250,000 human lives within a very short span, and alone carried that responsibility. No other human that has yet lived has ever caused as much death and destruction. The only thing to compare this to is a massive earthquake and resulting tsunami, a natural disaster.
Regardless how one may feel conserning personal politics and a sitting president, being President is no cake walk. Even if one despises a President, one should always have reverence for the Office, and more respect for the man in it. President Truman was a human tsunami, and all Presidents since have the power to do even more damage than he if necessary.
This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian