Make me. I dare ya. LOL.

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.

I like drag and drop better but I think the ultimate goal of programming research is to open up application development to as many people as possible. Why I Hate All Computer Programming Languages.

Half a Century of Crappy Computing. It's much worse than people think. Crappy code is all around. Computing started out on the wrong foot. The mathematicians and the Turing Machine worshipers are to blame.

OK, There is potential for good things, too. This thing's got huge commercial potential.

Both CPU and GPU Are Doomed

Why was I downvoted as flamebait? Who did I flamebait? Are some moderators on Slashdot working for Intel, AMD or Nvidia?

Both CPU and GPU Are Doomed

Unless those big dogs wake up soon from their stupor, an unknown startup will sneak behind them and steal their pot of gold.

Hopeless. I tried.

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.

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.

Sorry. Velocity in space is not expressed as v = dx/dx but as v = dx/dt. Why the lame strawman? Dishonesty, maybe?

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.

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.

Forget CDs, DVDs, magnetic media, etc. All data should be stored in solid state devices. Google knows.

Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Funny sig considering that, not too long ago, I wrote an article titled Why I Hate All Computer Programming Languages. LOL.