Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:As a writer of crappy code.. (Score -1) 623

by rebelscience (#31387240) Attached to: Whatever Happened To Programming?

No, it does not work. It sucks. Ask Toyota :-). Look at it this way. If software were any good, our cars would be driving themselves by now. The reason that they don't is that the code gets so complex that it cannot be guaranteed to be 100% reliable. In fact, since the publication of Brooks's No Silver Bullet paper, most people are convinced that there is no hope in finding a solution to the software reliability crisis. Others disagree, of course.

Comment: Re:It is easy to prove that time does not exist (Score 1) 578

by rebelscience (#31294706) Attached to: What Is Time? One Researcher Shares His Exploration

Of course, I am not convinced, especially since it is nonsense. The truth is, unless time is used as an evolution (change) parameter, change cannot be said to occur in physics. This is true by definition. There is only one change parameter in physics and that is time. In your example, dx assumes that some movement with average velocity v = dx/dt occurred. Deny at your own detriment. See you around.

Comment: Re:It is easy to prove that time does not exist (Score 1) 578

by rebelscience (#31293636) Attached to: What Is Time? One Researcher Shares His Exploration

Not true. Change in physics is always denoted with time as the denominator. x = d?/dt is the formula that determines the rate of change. dx/dx has nothing to do with change, in this case, a change in position. So you cannot use dx/dx as a counter-argument. Not even wrong.

Comment: It is easy to prove that time does not exist (Score 1) 578

by rebelscience (#31292210) Attached to: What Is Time? One Researcher Shares His Exploration

It’s very easy to prove that time is abstract. Time cannot change because changing time is self-referential. Why? Because velocity in time would have to be expressed as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical. It’s that simple, folks. But I am tilting at windmills, I know.

The abstract nature of time is the reason that a time dimension is bunk and that nothing can move in spacetime, a revelation that always comes as a surprise to most relativists. But here it is from the mouth of a relativist:

“There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as “moving through” space-time, or as “following along” their world-lines. Rather, particles are just “in” space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.”

From Relativity from A to B by Prof. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

By the way, physics is about to enter a revolutionary phase because Aristotle was right about motion.

Comment: Same with chess programs (Score 3, Insightful) 502

by rebelscience (#31267790) Attached to: Triumph of the Cyborg Composer

Nothing really new here. There will always be human musicians and music writers. People are still learning to play chess even though chess computers can beat almost every chess player in the world, even grandmasters. This music machine was made possible only because humans showed the way. After all, it was programmed by a human.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!

Working...