|
Between the 1970s and the early aughts, the incidence of myopia in the US nearly doubled, to 42 percent. "Can I do it until I need glasses?"
|
|
|
|
|
Because now we all have computers that we "work on".
Nerdinitus.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care about youropia. 
|
|
|
|
|
I went near-sighted long before I touched a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto. It's easy to blame looking at nothing further than 28" away, but I don't think it's the sole problem.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I blame global warming. First, that homeopathic increase in CO2 affects the elasticity of the cornea, and of course that .01C increase in temperature just devastates one's ability to see beyond the tip of one's nose.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Because we no longer need not prey nor we are prey. A short sighted human falls very quickly to his/her death in the natural world, whereas now there is not such a mechanism to decrease both the lifespan and the procreation of genetically defective people.
Luckily, as I have both a lazy eye and myopia.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
If a coffee bean is between the Earth and the Sun, is it a Java Eclipse? -- Sascha Lefèvre
/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
Is computer science even a science at all? I contend that a software engineer has more in common with an artist than a physicist. You know it when you see it
|
|
|
|
|
Yes indeed. Many of our legacy applications remind me of the abstract expressionist artist Jackson Pollock. He was a specialist in the drip and splatter painting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: Often those that say it is art do so as a scapegoat.
I agree with you.
More Objective
Any finite system will be more closely related to science.
We use computer languages which are finite to solve a limited, finite problem set.
There are ways to measure the goodness/badness of the solution and even though numerous solutions will be reasonably equal, it does not mean there is no (mostly) objective answer.
More Subjective
Art however, is as close to infinite as possible in this finite universe.
As soon as you say you've solved art, along comes another possibility simply because you can redefine it to be something else.
Of course, we can transform anything into a subjective view or make it more subjective.
Thought Experiment
How about this one?
Suppose I give you problem that is to be solved that is quite limited.
You are to solve the puzzle by filling in the blanks (underscores with either a or b).
When both are the same letter, then you win.
[_ _]
[a b] lose
[a a] win
[b a] lose
[b b] win
It is an extremely limited system and difficult to put in the art category.
We can write an app to do it calculate the answer, etc.
Our Minds View the Finite System Easily
No one would consider the program which is written to solve that as art. Because our minds can easily see the finite system behind it.
Limited Thinking
However, with a large system -- though still finite -- suddenly the same people will attempt to transform it into "art". That's limited thinking. Just because the problem set is large doesn't mean it has transformed to art.
Transformation Into Art
However, I could reform the entire thing as art and tell you that there is hidden meaning when you render the answer as
[a b]
you are describing the loneliness felt by all humans as they recognize that they are a when others are b.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If I want to put up a giant white canvas and call it art, so be it
How will you explain to the audience ? Oh there is creamy white on that corner, I used smoke white in the middle ...
Believe me, you'll end up admiring your art alone same to your code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it does need to be justified, then it's not an Art to me. You have to have an audience to make sure it is. Else you're some kind of mentally ill(if so you need help) person who claim it as an Art. Same has to go with your code.
Cheers.
modified 19-Feb-16 15:10pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a creative and maybe even an expressive activity, but that doesn't make it art.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an echo in the room???
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
DaedTech: The audience for your code is not the user (that’s the audience for the UI). The audience is the CPU, but much more so, its the next developer who needs to edit your code, or even a future you.
Yes and that is the key point.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and no!
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
If I think a solution to a problem is beautiful I may consider it art yet someone else just as a tool and a means to an end. For some maybe the end result when all that code comes together is beautiful and consider that art.
I don't think you should be to strict in your views and allow yourself to appreciate the code and what it does especially if you like it but in a teaching environment you shouldn't put too much focus on the artsy aspect, just show that it can be beautiful but try to foster increased learning.
|
|
|
|
|
“Gmailify” allows anyone to take advantage of Gmail’s spam protection, inbox organization, Google Now integrations, and more, without having to change their email address. All the great features of Gmail, with only some of the spying
|
|
|
|
|
The men behind Clojure, Scala, and F# explain what functional programming actually is and how the languages are evolving. Lisp has a posse
|
|
|
|
|
I remain curious about the viability of using a functional language base for asynchronous event-driven user-interfaces where there can be many complex interactions between what the user(s) does and underlying objects and data.
Does the necessity to "maintain state," provide undo/redo, manage changing collections of objects, shift from mode to mode where the entire UI changes, etc. ... go "against the grain" of "stateless" functional language ?
Like to read something about that.
thanks, Bill
«In art as in science there is no delight without the detail ... Let me repeat that unless these are thoroughly understood and remembered, all “general ideas” (so easily acquired, so profitably resold) must necessarily remain but worn passports allowing their bearers short cuts from one area of ignorance to another.» Vladimir Nabokov, commentary on translation of “Eugene Onegin.”
|
|
|
|
|
We often see compiler warnings about pieces of code that have potential problems or poor style. Sometimes they point out code that is actually wrong, so don’t ignore them. Those yellows are just polite reds
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
