Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Russian programmers and hackers are famous for being extremely smart. This is also a fame your fellow countryman hold from Chess tournaments and other competitions of the mind.
In your opinion:
- Is this true?
- If so, is it a case of the crème de la crème, say the top 20 best Russian hackers, being much smarter than the top 20 hackers from the rest of the world? Or is it a case of there being many more smart people in general in Russia, compared to other countries?
- If true, would you attribute it to genetics or to education? Or both?
- How are Russian universities, compared to American and European ones?
Some "real world" programming languages already have that feature. The foremost is Objective C, widely used for programming Apple products, which I believe inherited it from Smalltalk. Compare this Objective C fragment:
myColor = [UIColor colorWithRed: 127 green:127 blue:127 alpha:1];
with the equivalent Java code:
myColor = new Color(127, 127, 127, 255);
A singular feature of Objective C, as compared with other languages, is that the method signature is composed of all the intermediate words (adverbs or prepositions) in that particular order. For example the method above is referred to as colorWithRed:green:blue:alpha. You must use them in the same order, otherwise you get a compilation error, because you might be invoking an entirely different method. This is consistent with subject-predicate usage in natural languages, where "tell X by Y to Z" may be different from "tell X to Y by Z"
Other languages, mainly dynamic ones (Python, Groovy, etc.) take a hybrid approach, where you can pass named parameters, but their presence or ordering is not taken into account when choosing which method to invoke. Some of them (Groovy) allow the programmer to give meaning to the position of the arguments, when needed, while others don't.
The reality is that for every 1 person who creates or gets their hands on some interesting content worth of sharing AND which is not already shared AND has the will, time and knowledge to do it properly, there are 10^N people who just want to fetch something that is already out there.
ISOHunt was a fine and very useful service, while it lasted.
Oh but robots did create massive unemployment. Now there are millions, soon to be billions of people out of work, who can play tennis and soccer all day long.
Except they have no food, nor clothes, nor shelter. There are people called "owners" that keep all the food and clothes and shelter produced by the robots, unless you give them something they need in exchange. Which of course you cannot do, because there's nothing you have that they might need, not even your body—unless you are an attractive female, or they need one of your organs. There are already poor people selling their organs to buy food for their families.
That is quite simply what's wrong with the picture. Owners.
Our trajectory going out of any singularity may have a lot to do with our trajectory going into it.
Wrong. A trajectory going into a singularity has nothing to do with the trajectory going out of it—if any is even taken.
The definition of a singularity is a point where a mathematical formula is not defined. Except for the case of removable singularities, any derivatives are also undefined. So if your model ends up at a singularity, your math is simply not up to the task of describing what happens next.
Around an essential singularity, the most interesting and worrisome kind, the formula takes every possible value, infinitely many times. You can approach the singularity from any value and exit with any other value. So "at" the singularity, the formula is even less defined than in a regular "oh noes I divided by zero" kind, where at least you know the value to be infinitely large.
I realize that, by Occam's razor, the journalist may not even know what a singularity is and just threw the word around because it's cool. Sigh.
Consider learning an "executable mathematical notation" such as APL.
It has the advantage of looking like math formulas, naming entire matrices with a single letter and using symbols for the operations, while avoiding the pitfalls and chores of traditional programming languages, such as explicit loops.
APL was designed to allow non-programmers to express complex computations with ease, in a non-ambiguous, reproducible, executable way.
There are excellent commercial implementations (with trial or free-for-personal-use versions) such as AplX and Dyalog. They both have good tutorials. There is even a Try APL online site http://www.tryapl.org/
I'm among those who set their computers and gadgets to English the moment I get my hands on them, among the consternation of friends and family.
But I can attest to the fact that a LOT of programmers don't speak a word of English. They have learned the CS meanings of a few dozen words, but that's as far as they go.
They may know that 'this' refers to the current object in OO programming, but they have no clue how to pronounce it (I have heard things you humans...) let alone that it means 'this' as opposed to 'that.'
They know 'Windows' is the name of the most widely used OS, as most programmers clearly understand what an OS is. But if they came to your house and you asked them to open the windows, they would probably walk to your PC, not to the walls.
So there you go, developer tools need localization like everything else.
If anything, you must put EXTRA effort with developer tools, as opposed to generic software, to find and use the RIGHT translation. You wouldn't be very happy if your browser tool suddenly asked you to "gaze at the fountain" instead of "view the source", now would you?
Damn you, now I'm hooked on the most mind-bending crazy internet mind trip ever http://www.asc-alchemy.com/hudson.html
That's interesting. One's own thoughts then would just be huge MapReduce run over one's own history of moments of consciousness.
Maybe we are finite automata after all.
> This whole business appears to be a Slash-vertisement.
Yes, because a substantial part of Slashdot's readership gets into trouble and needs to do community service on a regular basis. I can totally identify with the "bad boy" on that front page.
The money will always be in the "mainstream", or the particular mainstream of every place and time, by definition.
Megaupload exists because it makes money. It makes money because millions of people watch movies and download shit off it, not because it makes a few hackers "free" to share stuff.
No mainstream = no money = not *existing* in any noticeable capacity.