Unity+

There are degrees of inaccuracy. The claim was that, because there is a level of uncertainty in part of the count, the number is a falsehood/lie.

 

I think that's rather strong language. At worst, it would seem to be an imperfect approximation, not something made up out of whole cloth.

I would agree there are degrees of inaccuracy. However, as ydoaPs pointed out, only 20% of states have a caucus. Therefore, you might as well compare this situation to a statistic saying that a majority of people are Group A because the survey was done in a small neighborhood rather than a city-wide/state-wide survey. It is somewhat misleading, to say the least.

That's the obvious implication of your statement, though.

I don't see where he is implying that at all. The only argument I get from it is there is no real count from the caucus, therefore the count could be, and most likely is, inaccurate.

Science in it's entirety and in itself is merely one component of the landscape of existence created by God.

 

That is why Science has not been provided with the capability to prove or disprove His existence.

It would be better to say that if something created the Universe, it's existence would not be provable due to the fact that we would have to use whatever was created to prove the existence of the creator, which is something that can't be done.

^ You don't need to read the entire book, more or less half of the referenced appendix (to which I already provided the link to) should suffice. It should not take more than 15 minutes to read.

I think the issue, which is a valid point, is he is saying he needs some reference frame to see what your argument is addressing in regards to cited readings or articles that back up your argument. I don't think it's an unreasonable request for a particular set of quotes/data points/graphs/etc. that are intended to back up your argument. I would assume you would request the same if he did the same thing.

Did science conclusively rule out the existence of Ra, Odin & Zeus (among others)? Was it ever really necessary? Or was it a case of concluding, with hindsight, that they were all just mythical (and, where applicable, to narrow down the likely cultural history behind these imaginary gods just for good measure)? We all agree that they were imaginary, right? Yet they were once regarded as the indisputable heavenly rulers of their respective earthly empires.

Disproving the existence of man-made mythical beings does not rule out the existence of a creator. In fact, it shouldn't be considered disproving since they couldn't be proven in the first place, scientifically.

 

 

Surely there is no need for scientists to waste time on fiction and/or superstition

There is no reason for scientists to scientifically investigate the existence of what can't be observed, that is true. It is best left to the study of philosophy. Though, the argument you present uses semantics to demean the argument of the existence of a creator. Fiction is not what is in concern, though the state of fiction or non-fiction suits better.

http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report-2014/majors-that-pay-you-back

It ranks 8th at a starter of $59,800 and at a mid of $102,000.

From what I understand, most money is made from developing database management software that is both fast and secure. I worked on a couple of projects for people that required this. Companies are in high demand for this, especially with all the hacking sprees occurring. Knowing about network security would be something to look forward to.

So, what does it do atm exactly? As ydoa said, it's kind of difficult to see how everything works. I can't even get matches to work in it, if it is supposed to. Clearly there is a click event, so something is supposed to happen.

Did you read the article? The students' answers were graded by two teachers. There is no bias toward any field in the study. It only measured the difference in how identical answers were graded.

 

It must have been point allocation somehow. If that were completely objective then two different teachers could not have given different point values. But that didn't happen.

Are you referring to the article located in the first post? Because there isn't anything talking about two teachers grading students' answers.

Welcome back Unity+, long time no see.

 

 

I think this is a good time to set out a couple of observations, additional to the studies linked.

 

1) The difference seems to repeat across societies with quite different educational paths.

 

2) The difference seems to repeat when a society radically changes its educational paths.

 

I started UK secondary education in an all boys grammar school with all male teaching staff.

Before my first national exam we had moved to a different area of the country, where mixed schools were the norm.

In those days the national exams were GCE Ordinary level, followed BY GCE Advanced level.

Then as now, all (grammar) pupils had to take the lower Ordinary level maths exam, but were allowed subject choice in the Advanced exams.

 

So gender comparison at that level is on a pretty sound basis, whether the classes were mixed or not.

 

In my day the norm was to take three subjects at advanced level.

Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology could all have been studied at ordinary level so one would have to be dropped.

At this point then, as now, girls tended to drop maths, boys to drop biology, if they were intending to pursue a science based career.

So there were roughly 50% girls in my Ordinary class and 10% in my Advanced class.

By University the percentage had plummeted further.

 

Today these exams have been replaced with broader based ones, but I think the pattern still persists.

The drop rate at my University in sciences is equal among males and females. I guess it just depends on the area.

I would agree with your other two points. However, even if a gender comparison has a basis, it could be linked on a biological/psychological level or a societal level, and there is no conclusive evidence of the latter.

EDIT: And thanks for the welcome back. University has been taking much of my time, especially now.

 

The effect was measurable, so in that sense it was significant.

What effect was measurable? Teacher or student bias?

 

 

There's no data at all to suggest that this was due to biological differences. When you do a blind test and it differs from the non-blind one, that's evidence of bias. Not a difference in the subjects.

What data? The only data that the article contains is the bias of students towards certain fields.

Could you link the whole project so I can test with it to find the error? I'm having trouble understanding how you are doing the checking function.

I made an ssh client because I was tired of using PuTTy(due to it being limited in interaction with the local computer and the server).

https://github.com/GreggSchaffter/SSH-Studio

You can download both the project and the standalone of SSH Studio there. It has file/folder exploration, uploading and downloading, syncing of files. More information is located on the github project.

It's open source, so anyone can add stuff to it, make branches as well. It's currently in development, so there are issues(like uploading and downloading large files).

 

 

She added: "If you think about maths, there is always a right or a wrong answer. Whereas in some subjects such as English, there aren't always right or wrong answers.

I don't see how this really is a problem. The only thing this study reveals is how boys and girls think differently with respect to the attitude of subject and the abstractness involved in it.

 

 

"So if you can't get that exact answer, the teacher can just say, 'Well you don't know what you're doing, you're not smart.'

This more of a problem with a bad teacher rather than the subject itself. However, I rarely see this happening, especially in University, if at all. In fact, a majority of the time, I see professor cater towards the female audience, both from male and female professors.

 

As with any bias, though, this may vary from culture to culture. But the main point is remembering that biases may exist, and can't be ignored in such discussions.

Of course they shouldn't be ignored, but if there is no significant affect on the population that this bias has on the population, it is pointless to bring it up as a sign of a larger problem.

However, while it may not have played out here, there have been studies that show that overall teachers treat boys and girls differently in these classes.

Whether that is a positive or negative is dependent on the attitude of treatment. For one thing, it could be a result of teacher experience with students in the past. For all we know it could be due to chivalry. Thing is, this study really doesn't lead to any other conclusion besides "girls are afraid of math." The article seems to imply that there is a systematic problem rather than something that is due to biological difference in males and females.

Actually, no software has bugs- the computer does exactly what you tell it to.

The problem is that you are running the wrong software for the job you want to do.

It's a specification problem.

That's more of a semantics argument rather than an argument of the actual concept.

Computer science has nothing to do with useful software.

On the contrary, computer science has everything to do with useful software.

I'm sure the remark was a facetious stab at the fact that computer science spends far too much time concerning itself with theory and too little with practical application.

A majority of theory in computer science is based on the formation of logic and mathematics. Unlike physics, where theory is based on our current understanding of the Universe, computer science concerns itself with the axioms formulated within mathematics to produce algorithms based on such axioms.

Time to start creating space surf boards for gravity surfing(bad joke).

 

No I am merely stating the fact that there is no full reference documentation for javascript itself. This includes various lesser known javascript functions such as liveconnect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI#LiveConnect

There is a lot of documentation on javascript.

http://www.w3schools.com/js/default.asp

 

It is orders of magnitude simpler to decipher assembly code (even though it is almost impossible, in the general case) but I can't see that you are doing anything other than making the problem more difficult, rather than impossible.

 

By looking at the state of every transistor, you can identify the logic gates, latches, etc. From that you can work out the datapaths and control logic, from that you can work out the instructions executed and the data operated on, from that you can piece together the assembly listing.

That makes sense. I wonder what would happen, though, if you had a virtual machine within a virtual machine and you had the same restrictions. Would having an infinite amount of them inside each other make it harder to discern the virtual machines?

 

If you have access to the states of the machine, surely you can work out what program it is running. Either it is running an emulator or it is running something else (Life, accounting program, web browser, whatever). Maybe I am missing something, but I fail to see the problem. (Well, the problem is that it would be nearly impossible in practice, but ...)

 

Imagine someone gave you an assembly code listing of a program and asked you what it was. It would be extremely difficult but you could, in principle, work out what it did. That is the same problem. Except that first, you would have to piece together the assembly program by tracing the instructions executed.

But deciphering assembly code is different from obtaining the state of each transistor in the machine, I would think.

But your original questions implied you had access to the internal states of the "outer" (host) machine, in which case one could tell it was running an emulation of another machine.

 

If I have misunderstood, and you only have access to the states of the inner (emulated) machine then it is, of course, impossible to tell.

Yes, that is what I mean.

In this case, would it be wrong to say that one could never determine whether any computer, given that data, was running an emulated version of itself?

My first thought on reading the title was Conway's game-of-life. Since the game has the capacity of a universal Turing machine it seems to me it would be rather difficult to tell the difference between a game running as a virtual computer and a game running otherwise.

That is the best way, as far as I know, to think of it.

We do exactly this all the time when designing new processors. And when you run a virtual machine, such as VirtualBox. The main way you can tell that it is an emulated processor is because it is slow!

 

If you can see the sequence of states that the host computer is executing then you could, in principle, reverse engineer the code it is running and work out that it is running an emulator. (One clue might be that it is executing many more instructions than are in the program you give it to run.)

I know we do it all the time, just a thought experiment.

 

 

(One clue might be that it is executing many more instructions than are in the program you give it to run.)

That isn't completely useful since there are other programs that could be executing way more functions.

So, the hypothetical here is let's say you have a physical computer that has the possibility of emulating the exact way that the physical computer works digitally. Considering that possibility, let's say that virtual computer can emulate another virtual machine.

The question is if you were only given the data about the schematics of the physical machine and it's sequences of states within the circuitry, would you be able to tell that there is a virtual computer within a computer?

It would be interesting if we were able to implement elements of life, i.e. reduce the salt content of the water and stabilize the atmosphere, and life would start growing all on its own. It would take a long time, but if that happened then we could get a gist of what it used to look like.

Hello All,

 

Getting ready to start Principles of Programming and wanted to know a good beginner forum that is actually active and would be helpful. Anyone got any suggestions?

 

 

You can also start looking at the language you want to "main" first. Once you have decided, start looking through their API and just experiment. The best way to learn to program is to experiment. That's what I learned from my experiences, at least.

True number means God. Only God knows the population of the world. So Holy spirit gives me to understand the population.

What does this even mean?