Comments by Steve Zara

801. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220252 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #220239 by Quetzalcoatl

I am glad it's not just me who is a bit disturbed by that cat.

Comment #220250 by al-rawandi

The idea of facing you in a hot-dog eating contest is frankly terrifying. In that picture it is like you are so hungry you can't want for your hand to overcome the force of gravity.

802. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220220 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 8:20 am

Comment #220208 by al-rawandi

I am as leftist as they come in this sense. Just not in the knuckle dragging apologetics for Islam and socialism.

I think that people should have basic health care no matter what their religious or political views, providing they are willing to help pay for it when they are able.

803. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220213 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 8:13 am

al-

So if this horrible event takes place and people are out of work all over, where will the state get the tax money to fund the portion of people who are out of work?

It will run itself into debt and destroy its financial system.

The social welfare depends on people working their asses off so the government can dip in. Any of these disasters you speak of would destroy the welfare system itself.

Which is why we develop friendly communities of nations, such as the European Union, that recognise the need of individuals beyond the level of the state.

804. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220190 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 7:46 am

Comment #220184 by al-rawandi

I suspect we are closer than it seems here, but sometimes your language seems far harsher than you probably are.

805. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220176 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 7:28 am

Comment #220175 by al-rawandi

Why must the state be involved?

Because circumstances where there is unforseen need can be up to the national scale and beyond.

There can be droughts, there can be floods and so on. There may be no resources left to rely on friends or neighbours.

Also, the state can fund research that can benefit all.

806. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220172 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 7:23 am

Comment #220162 by al-rawandi

I deeply disagree with you. It is simply wrong to go from a statement that a certain number of people abuse a system to claim that the entire system is broken. It makes no more sense to pick individual cases regarding this and extrapolate than it was for people to pick individual cases in, say, the MMR vaccine issue and extrapolate.

I just don't recognise your description of our system. I support irate and carto. It is the fairest principle I can imagine - that people are helped when they can't help themselves and expected to contribute when they can.

I said "principle" not "system", as implementations are going to be flawed. There are people who will suffer because they are fall through the net, and there are people who will get money and help they don't deserve.

So we work to make it better. This is NOT "socialism" as many would describe it. It does not force equality. It simply states that there is a certain standard of health and education that anyone can expect even if they are unable to pay for themselves or fall onto hard times.

This principle is so important, it is one of the few things I would actually fight for.

807. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220155 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #220146 by al-rawandi

I simply said you are seeing the problem with both allowing immigrants to waltz in the door, then funding their indolence.

I am with irate on this. I have to ask - what immigrants are you talking about?

808. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220154 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 6:41 am

Comment #220115 by denoir

The point is that when you cry out for free health care and that people have a right to work you are not much better than the Muslims that demand respect and admiration.

Absolute rot.

Those are considered important in many civilized societies partly because they enable people to work to earn and fulfil their needs. It is about helping people to stand on their own, and then insisting that they pay their way. People contribute tax and national insurance to help do that. Adults are expected to be responsible and help themselves when they are able.

809. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #220111 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 5:21 am

Comment #220106 by plael

To back Quetz' point.

You need to explain how, if something is supposedly outside of space and time, anything can be caused.

810. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #220101 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 4:58 am

Comment #220097 by fides_et_ratio

The argument for First Cause is that the universe needs a cause, so it must be God. There is then the statement that because God is outside of spacetime, then he does not need a cause. But that fails. If the origin of the universe is considered to be outside of spacetime, then according to the same argument, it does not need a cause. God is not required.

So, if you imply causation outside of spacetime (God made the universe), then you can't avoid the issue of the causation of God.

By the way, perhaps you would like to answer my question about God and the origin of the universe - which is it - God can't do it, or God isn't needed?

811. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220094 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #220089 by Diacanu

Bother. You got me there.

812. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #220093 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 4:44 am

Comment #220085 by fides_et_ratio

If it's outside spacetime does it still demand a cause?

There are two alternatives:

1. You say it demands a cause, but as there can be no cause-and-effect outside of spacetime, therefore God can't have done it.

2. You say it does not demand a cause. In that case, there is no need for God.

So, I'll leave it up to you. Either God can't have caused the universe, or He was not needed.

Which is it?

813. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220090 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 4:40 am

Comment #220083 by Dr Doctor

I have already given a detailed discussion about why I am skeptical. I don't feel the need to repeat it. You may choose to call me prejudiced, but I think I have been clear. I don't feel the need to describe in detail many projects I have dealt with over 30 years that back my point of view.

If that is ALL it is. Download it and see (you can use a Wine variant I presume).

I am afraid I can't take seriously any suggestion that a system designed to lead us into full-cell models at some point should be run on a Windows emulation layer.

If this was intended to operate on any serious infrastructure it would been designed from the start to be scalable and portable. There are clear and obvious ways of doing this that any experienced software developer should be familiar with.

However, I get the sense that whatever I post on this thread will be critiqued, as I am being a party-pooper. So I'll stop.

I will just dispute strongly that I am posting only opinions and prejudice.

814. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220082 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 4:30 am

Comment #220078 by irate_atheist

You are worried about little things like pikes and cacti? What about coral reefs? Those things take thousands of years to grow - there hasn't been enough time since the flood. So, as they would not have survived the dilution of the seas and the submersion, the only possibility is that entire reefs must have been lifted into the Ark. Considering the size of the Barrier Reef, that boat must have been flipping huge.

815. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #220081 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #220079 by fides_et_ratio

If you say that cause and effect apply only to matter and energy (actually, they apply to events within spacetime), then you have destroyed your own argument. You can't say that an act of creation occurred outside of space and time.

You have just shown that a supernatural God outside of space and time is a meaningless concept.

So we are making progress :)

816. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220075 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 4:13 am

Comment #220069 by Dr Doctor

I'm not being snippy. These are real criticisms based on decades of experience, and based on actually looking at the site supposedly promoting this new language.

It is sensible to look at claims of anything new and revolutionary skeptically.

Running LISP on Matlab, and with only a currently a Windows-based deployment available is not (yet) anything to get excited about.

There are some truly revolutionary things going on in science, such as the start-up of the LHC.

817. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220061 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

Irate - PM for you

818. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220046 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 2:37 am

Comment #220044 by dvespertilio

In plain English - I am skeptical for two reasons. First, that these people seem to be discovering techniques that have actually been in use in general software development for decades. Secondly, any statement about a new programming language should raise at least mild concerns, because new programming languages require a huge amount of work to be put in if they are going to be widely used - acceptance can take years if not decades. Even the might of Microsoft can fail in this respect.

819. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220042 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 2:22 am

Comment #220037 by Quetzalcoatl

Well done sir! You have won that debate. When someone starts of claiming that they are sane and reasonable and ends up not responding to your questions but ranting, it shows they have no arguments to refute your points.

It is really sad to see how far-gone Richard Morgan is.

820. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #220038 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 2:03 am

Comment #219987 by Brian English

The problem is that any attempt to show evolution internally inconsistent fails. You can only show that crocodiles haven't changed over 100 million years if you accept the 100 million years. The worst that you have supposedly shown is that crocodiles were created 100 million years ago, which blows any Young Earth idea up completely.

However, if you insist on a Young Earth, you are then in no position to discuss the nature of the long-term evolution of the crocodile.

Any attempt to use this argument to show evolution inconsistent also shows that his own YEC position is inconsistent. He shoots himself in the foot.

821. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220025 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #220023 by Dr Doctor

But given the whole thing was registry based (you "register" the tasks at execution in a network attached registry - at the time SNA based so the example of using a webpage is my modern spin on it), and someone runs the task and it can run anywhere on the plex in whole or in part (A runs main task, B runs subroutine x) and there was no way of describing that in the language environments I was allowed to use at the time that would have been taken up by the people whose problem I was trying to solve. It saved a lot of time and therefore money.

The delights of distributed software! It's all so much easier these days, with systems like LINDA (as in JavaSpaces).

However, I think you are backing up my point about this article to an extent. There are modern languages that can be used by just about anybody that can integrate with existing libraries written in just about anything, which is why I at least raised one eyebrow when I read about the design of a new language in this article.

I guess this may just be my world-weary battle-scarred attitude, resulting from bitter experiences.

822. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220021 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 1:08 am

Why code in italics?

To emphasise that that was a part of the post I hadn't looked at.

But again, you are missing the point. The code was there to demonstrate similarity of layout with COBOL, REXX etc. The idea being that like an iceberg, the "look" of the thing is often only the tip. I'm not a great explainer, so it is probably my fault you aren't getting it.

I assumed the point was that you had written something easy for non-specialists to use that sat above a lot of useful functionality.

My point was that there are already languages that are easy for non-specialists to use - Smalltalk, Python. Python is a particularly good systems language, yet was chosen for the OLPC project because of its ease of use.

823. PZ Myers Desecrates a Eucharist

Comment #220016 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 12:51 am

Comment #219836 by miker80

My detractors in these comments have missed the joke, the point, my intention or all three.

Hmm.. it is bit elitist for an artist to blame the audience. Perhaps you would like to post on this thread on pharyngula:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/carnival_of_the_elitist_bastar.php

824. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220013 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 12:47 am

Comment #220011 by Dr Doctor

"There are plenty of existing languages that allow precisely that already, and in reasonably clear English: Ruby, Python, TCL."

That was written without even looking at your code.

It was written in response to:

The real power is that it allowed people who wouldn't normally program cross-system code to do so without too much understanding.

We could talk in detail about XML. I have been using it since it the late 90s, and have worked with people pioneering its use in chem- and bio-informatics.

But that is wildly off topic...

You may note on that on another thread, I have just agreed with every word of a post of yours :)

825. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220009 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 12:29 am

Comment #220004 by Dr Doctor

Well said.

826. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220008 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 12:27 am

Comment #220003 by Dr Doctor

But that wasn't my point, my point was to provoke your initial reaction and then demonstrate there was more to it than you initially thought just from a cursory look at the syntax and semantics.

I haven't actually said anything at all about the syntax and semantics. It's not really my concern.

My concern is that DSLs are in general a bad thing. I am a very strong supporter of open and widely used standards. The reason is that I have spent so long in my career rescuing projects that were written in specialised and proprietary languages that seemed like a good idea at the time. Either the author decides they don't want to support it any more, or the company selling the language goes bust, or the platforms the language runs on become out-of-date.

This "I'll do my own thing" attitude used to be widespread with data formats too, but I was relieved by the introduction of XML, which allowed not just portability and the use of standards, but also meant that data formats could be extended without breaking existing applications.

If anyone who was in a project I was associated with said "I am going to write my own language" I would probably run away screaming.

You and your language may well be an exception (you certainly seem to have the experience for that to be the case), so good luck to you!

827. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #220002 by Steve Zara on July 28, 2008 at 12:06 am

Comment #220000 by Dr Doctor

Ruby and Python (and my favourite, Groovy) can easily be used in a two-phase commit environment on the JVM. Groovy integrates particularly well. The use of transactions can be made completely transparent to the coder (as in the Groovy web framework Grails)

828. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #219999 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Comment #219997 by Dr Doctor

It is just my view, but I think DSLs (Domain Specific Languages) can be a big problem. What happens when the writer of the DSL leaves the company, or decides not to support it any more?

I have had far too much experience of dealing with proprietary or specialised minority-use languages that have been left unsupported. (I am not implying you wouldn't support your own work)

OK but that is just an example program from memory. The real power is that it allowed people who wouldn't normally program cross-system code to do so without too much understanding.

There are plenty of existing languages that allow precisely that already, and in reasonably clear English: Ruby, Python, TCL.

Oh dear. I think this is just another one of those things we are just going to have to disagree about.

829. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #219996 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Comment #219985 by Dr Doctor

I am not rushing to judgement. I have been a developer since the mid 70s, and I have found the tendency of developers to "roll their own" programming languages and systems has been something of a problem in my view, leading to dead-end and unsupported projects. It also leads to problems with the need to write tools and reliable and tested libraries for each new language.

It is telling that the Little b website only has a download for Windows - nothing obvious for Linux (which is a key system for high-performance computing, a necessity for such a project) and nothing at all for Macs. The tutorial has not been updated for more than 2 years.

The idea of there being a Windows-only installer for something written in such a portable language as LISP is pretty odd.

830. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #219986 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 11:05 pm

txpiper wrote-

If that's all the evolution that happened after 100 million years, you don't have much of a mechanism. You have the same problem with alligators and marine turtles.

Ouch! My head hurts!

This is a young Earth creationist who doesn't believe in evolution because he can't understand how mutations can change things much using 100 million years of fossil record of creatures that don't seem to have changed much to ridicule evolution.

You can't use the fossil record to make a point if you don't believe in the fossil record.

It's equivalent to an atheist saying "I don't believe in God, because when I prayed, God told me not to believe in him".

831. Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language

Comment #219983 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:50 pm

I agree with the skeptics, this is wildly hyped. There is nothing new in modular code that can reveal new features of the system being modelled. Also, the idea of yet another language for this kind of work sounds excessive.

Such "conversational" ways of working have been around for decades, with languages like Smalltalk and Prolog.

What did seem a bit worrying was that these authors seemed (at least according to the article) to think that introducing modularity and abstraction would be innovative, when such concepts have been widely used in general software development since at least the 1960s.

Of course, this could simply be poor reporting.

I recommend anyone interested in this subject to look up the work of Alan Kay, one of the pioneers of modern software development.

832. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #219982 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Comment #219965 by Janus

Or, some could be lying in order to show that they are "good Muslims" and follow their faith.

833. Sydney brothels say Pope's visit will give business a leg-up

Comment #219753 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Comment #219752 by Quetzalcoatl

With KKelly making comments like these, he's probably better suited to be Jack than Will.

More like Karen, I think.

834. Write to UCF

Comment #219717 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Comment #219712 by Mitchell Gilks

That thread illustrates why it is such a delight to debate with intelligent and civilized people like you and Dr D. Even when we disagree completely, we do it with good manners.

835. Write to UCF

Comment #219708 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Comment #219692 by Mitchell Gilks

That was horrible. You handled yourself very well, as did others including Bonzai.

836. Write to UCF

Comment #219680 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 11:13 am

Comment #219638 by Mitchell Gilks

No - I shall look it up.

837. Write to UCF

Comment #219629 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:25 am

Comment #219626 by Dr Doctor

Oh dear. That reminds me of when I upset someone last year by not showing approval of the Rational Response Squad.

838. Write to UCF

Comment #219627 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:24 am

Comment #219623 by Dr Doctor

What might be useful would be to have some of these round table discussions over Skype or something with a bunch of us talking the issues into greater depth - then we can spot nuances.

You are probably overestimating my abilities :)

839. Write to UCF

Comment #219620 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:15 am

Comment #219618 by Mitchell Gilks

As I don't know how I manage to upset people, I have no idea who I have upset :)

840. Write to UCF

Comment #219617 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

Comment #219616 by Mitchell Gilks

I have lost track of what we are talking about. Perhaps that is a good thing.

841. Write to UCF

Comment #219615 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #219611 by Dr Doctor

I have to apologise. This is yet another of those conversations where I have ended up in a certain situation, clearly upsetting people, and not really having a clue what I have said that is unreasonable. But I am willing to accept that this is my fault.

842. Write to UCF

Comment #219613 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #219609 by Mitchell Gilks

Steve, for someone who thinks the best of people, aren't you being uncharitable with this "they" buisness?

How many people have said "oh yes, I think that's true of every single catholic" when you have confronted them? Or have they not attempted to clarify that they did not mean that as DD is trying to now?

For me, this goes to the core of this whole thing.

"Descrating" a eucharist, and saying "it's just a cracker" is not a targetted message. It is saying "you are silly" to every Catholic who takes communion and thinks it has some kind of significance. That is hundreds of millions.

843. Write to UCF

Comment #219610 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:03 am

Comment #219604 by Mitchell Gilks

The geographical locations are mere correlation, not causation.

Most people don't choose their religion. They are raised in a particular culture.

844. Write to UCF

Comment #219608 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #219605 by Dr Doctor

Don't try and hide behind the golden rule. I hope you are not deliberately mixing the issues here.

The Golden Rule is the entire foundation of my belief that most people are decent and reasonable most of the time.

If an entire "demographic" believes something patently false and absurd, then there is reason to call it out for what it is.

And how does that help? It may be true, but how does it help?

845. Write to UCF

Comment #219606 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 9:59 am

Comment #219603 by Dr Doctor

Contains strawmen and generalisations.

If you say so. I can't see any.

So please, with respect again Steve, for I do respect you, please stop putting words into my mouth just so you can have the argument you want to have.

I am honestly not. Perhaps I am being unclear, and if so, I apologise. I have been talking about "crackergate" in general, not just your comments.

846. Write to UCF

Comment #219602 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 9:55 am

Comment #219599 by Dr Doctor

(seems my generalisations based on personal experience are unacceptable whereas yours based on your own personal experience are)

I'm not generalising based on personal experience. The Golden Rule is part of biology.

Which doesn't make it wrong. I never said it wasn't a generalisation, I said it was *reasonable*.

I don't think it is, so I guess we will just have to disagree.

847. Write to UCF

Comment #219601 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 9:53 am

Comment #219596 by Mitchell Gilks

I disagree with you. The Golden Rule is something that is part of our nature, and that of related species.

Those are not equivolent. Catholicism is a set of tenets and dogams that one follows of their own volition. Atheism is a position on a single question, and America is merely a geographical location.

That does not take into account one of the most dramatic presentations Richard Dawkins uses against religion - a map of the world showing the distributions of faith.

Religion is largely a geographical location too!

848. Write to UCF

Comment #219597 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 9:49 am

Comment #219593 by Dr Doctor

"I think we should be just as uncomfortable if someone says "all Catholics" as if they said "all atheists" or "all Americans"."

Do tell.

It wan't aimed specifically at you. There has been much posting (especially on Pharyngula) containing phrases like "These Catholics are.." and "Catholics are.."

849. Write to UCF

Comment #219594 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 9:47 am

Comment #219591 by Dr Doctor

Having an opinion like that is still generalising about something rather specific. It doesn't make it any less of a generalisation for it being an opinion.

My case consists of a lot more than that. See comment #219579. I would particularly like your opinion on the "applying pressure" part.

850. Write to UCF

Comment #219590 by Steve Zara on July 27, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #219587 by Mitchell Gilks

You did it already. Only favorably.

Saying "most people are reasonable" is not quite on the same level as "most Catholics would react in the same way as those who persecuted Cook", is it?