Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering
ElectronicsKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Electronics Forum / Basics / June 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Is Information an Important Science?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
darwinist@gmail.com - 27 Jun 2006 05:45 GMT
- Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
written them properly.
- You can see the direct relationship between real-world problems and
abstract logic.
- You can do science all day for decent money (eg programming).
- The metaphysical problems of the mind/brain relationship don't
seem that mysterious.
- Everyone knows that they benefit daily, if not every minute of the
day, from the area of science that you have chosen.
- Every other science uses computer modelling and programming to
advance it.

This is because the true science is algorithms, not adding-machines,
and computers have allowed us to explore this field more extensively,
more easily and more economically.

"The Development of Useful Algorithms", or what might be described as
the science of information-systems, is the overlap of theory and
practice. At its core electronics, it is the practical superset of
logic, maths and physics (and indeed it is what these different fields
get used for a lot these days). It is also, one might consider, an
interesting approach to psychology.

We all need to learn about these funny abstract entities - algorithms -
which are the core of all information systems. They might seem magical
when you use a complex computer game, but that is just because you
don't need to think about the core api or chipset when you're writing
or using the high-level scripts and you don't need to think about the
brain when you thinking about your strategies or sensory data. Thoughts
have properties and can be manipulated as informational entities, and
the application of this abstract logic to real world problems is the
core of science. It is this world that computer science gives us
various windows (no pun intended) into.

If human self-awareness and the different mental faculties that it's
aware *of*, are themselves a collection of algorithms developed by
evolution, then it's more important still.

In short, the science of algorithms, whatever you want to call it, is
the core of all science, and possibly technology and philosophy. Let us
all benefit. To contribute is as easy as mentioning an idea that you
have found useful to apply in the real world.

I have found this model I've been describing useful in a lot of cases,
simply by framing any problem in terms of the information coming in,
and what procedures from my mind can be applied profitably to it, from
a strategic/evolutionary context. In fact I can't find a place where it
fails, so far.

It seems that specific, apparently background information is remarkably
well picked to be in your mind at that point, in that situation. The
software that runs the human has been a long time in development, it
does not waste resources and its self-awareness is state of the art.
This is the real reason that algorithm science is important, it
describes living.
John  Larkin - 27 Jun 2006 16:01 GMT
>- Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
>prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
>written them properly.

Software has theories?

>- You can do science all day for decent money (eg programming).

Programming is science?

>- Every other science uses computer modelling and programming to
>advance it.

Every other science uses coffee, too.

John
Straydog - 27 Jun 2006 16:29 GMT
>> - Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
>> prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
>> written them properly.
>
> Software has theories?

And, what is this question attempting to determine or contribute to the
discussion?

>> - You can do science all day for decent money (eg programming).
>
> Programming is science?

OK, maybe, for you, programming is religion? or music?

>> - Every other science uses computer modelling and programming to
>> advance it.
>
> Every other science uses coffee, too.

Brilliant comment, just brilliant.

> John
John Larkin - 27 Jun 2006 20:51 GMT
>>> - Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
>>> prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>Brilliant comment, just brilliant.

Well, the average programmer in fact uses a lot more coffee than
he/she uses either math or science. Programming these days is almost
entirely qualitative/ad-hoc/hacked/empirically twiddled until it
doesn't crash too very often.

That's why so many people study "Computer Science" (what an oxymoron!)
these days; it's a lot easier than engineering.

John
mrdarrett@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2006 00:45 GMT
...

> Well, the average programmer in fact uses a lot more coffee than
> he/she uses either math or science. Programming these days is almost
> entirely qualitative/ad-hoc/hacked/empirically twiddled until it
> doesn't crash too very often.

Oh?  How much more coffee does a programmer use than math or science?
Let's say a programmer uses a half liter of coffee per day.  How many
liters of math or science does a programmer use... ?

Sorry, couldn't resist.  ;)

> That's why so many people study "Computer Science" (what an oxymoron!)
> these days; it's a lot easier than engineering.
>
> John

One thing I noticed about engineering, compared with Comp Sci, is the
equations don't change very much.  But programming languages seem to
change every 2 years or so.  C, C++, Java, C#, DOT NET... not to
mention all the different web languages... Perl, PHP, ASP, ...

Michael
Alan B - 28 Jun 2006 01:36 GMT
On 27 Jun 2006 16:45:29 -0700, in message
<1151451929.614300.242070@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mrdarrett@gmail.com scribed:

>One thing I noticed about engineering, compared with Comp Sci, is the
>equations don't change very much.  But programming languages seem to
>change every 2 years or so.  C, C++, Java, C#, DOT NET... not to
>mention all the different web languages... Perl, PHP, ASP, ...

But there are a seemingly infinite number of engineering equations, and a
dizzying array of engineering disciplines.  Almost all engineers use
programming to some extent, whereas a "programmer" in its basic form does
not do engineering.  The array of programming languages is limited, and the
differences between them are not that difficult to span.  For instance, is
there that much difference between java and c#?  I've used BASIC, FORTRAN,
ATLAS, Ada, c, c++, Visual C, Visual Basic, java, html, etc.  Variations on
a theme.

The OP's point seemed to be a thesis on algorithmic thought, which, if you
think about it, is just a latter-day computerized incarnation of
philisophical and scientific thought.  Many computer "algorithms" are
naught more than engineering principles reduced to computerized
implementation.  The coercing of a computational machine to carry out a
scientists or an engineers will.  The ghost in the machine is the human's
will.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

John  Larkin - 28 Jun 2006 05:08 GMT
>...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Sorry, couldn't resist.  ;)

Well, you could normalize both to contact-minutes-per-day; the coffee
wins by a wide margin.

>One thing I noticed about engineering, compared with Comp Sci, is the
>equations don't change very much.  But programming languages seem to
>change every 2 years or so.  C, C++, Java, C#, DOT NET... not to
>mention all the different web languages... Perl, PHP, ASP, ...

Scientific equations are based on reality, so they don't change much
and, if they do change, it's always an incremental improvement.
Computer languages aren't based on much of anything, except maybe
resume padding.

John
phaeton - 28 Jun 2006 05:46 GMT
> Computer languages aren't based on much of anything, except maybe
> resume padding.
>
> John

Each year there are tons and tons of 'fad' languages written and
forgotten.

At the end of the day, the world still runs on C, Perl and assembly.

Go finger.
John Larkin - 28 Jun 2006 21:18 GMT
>> Computer languages aren't based on much of anything, except maybe
>> resume padding.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>At the end of the day, the world still runs on C, Perl and assembly.

A lot of the stuff that matters is coded in ADA, and a lot that
doesn't matter is coded in Java.

John
Alan B - 29 Jun 2006 14:11 GMT
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:18:19 -0700, in message
<2uo5a2pfe8rk4l4d6ncr2t2hob8ve8sfbe@4ax.com>, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> scribed:

>>> Computer languages aren't based on much of anything, except maybe
>>> resume padding.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>A lot of the stuff that matters is coded in ADA, and a lot that
>doesn't matter is coded in Java.

My last company spent an enormous amount of time and money investing int he
future of Ada.  I spent a six-week training course in just that.  I liked
Ada, it's nearly bulletproof to tinkering.  It's one great advantage is
that, if it compiles, it will probably work.  This adds a lot of time to
program development, but saves greatly on integration and maintenance.

Then everybody and their brother started getting waivers to programming in
Ada (probably because poor programmers couldn't use it), and the company
ended up with a figurative ton of applications written in c and c++, much
of which is completely indecipherable, because programmers like to
safeguard their "style."  Even the ones who have no style to speak of.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

mrdarrett@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2006 07:26 GMT
John Larkin wrote:

> >...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Well, you could normalize both to contact-minutes-per-day; the coffee
> wins by a wide margin.

That's a good idea!

> >One thing I noticed about engineering, compared with Comp Sci, is the
> >equations don't change very much.  But programming languages seem to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Computer languages aren't based on much of anything, except maybe
> resume padding.

Ouch, that's harsh.  ;)

> John

Michael Darrett, Plainclothes Engineer
Alan B - 28 Jun 2006 01:29 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:29:28 -0400, in message
<Pine.NEB.4.63.0606271127500.2354@panix1.panix.com>, Straydog
<asd@panix.com> scribed:

>> Programming is science?
>
>OK, maybe, for you, programming is religion? or music?

For me, it was a job, with some potential artistic overtones.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

phaeton - 27 Jun 2006 17:56 GMT
John Larkin wrote:

> >- Every other science uses computer modelling and programming to
> >advance it.
>
> Every other science uses coffee, too.
>
> John

I want in on the science that does beer.*

-phaeton

*(which is not exactly as silly a comment as it appears on its face)
Straydog - 27 Jun 2006 19:07 GMT
> John Larkin wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I want in on the science that does beer.*

How about sex?

> -phaeton
>
> *(which is not exactly as silly a comment as it appears on its face)
Alan B - 28 Jun 2006 01:37 GMT
On 27 Jun 2006 09:56:02 -0700, in message
<1151427362.310826.170290@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "phaeton"
<blahbleh666@hotmail.com> scribed:

>John Larkin wrote:
>
>> >- Every other science uses computer modelling and programming to
>> >advance it.
>>
>> Every other science uses coffee, too.

>I want in on the science that does beer.

Seek ye your local brew master.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

phaeton - 28 Jun 2006 04:22 GMT
> >I want in on the science that does beer.
>
> Seek ye your local brew master.

Which is why my comment wasn't quite so silly upon its face.  Mind you,
I have over a hundred brewpubs and microbrews within 30 minutes of my
house.  It's no small wonder why my great ambitions in this hobby go
neglected at times :eek:

-phaeton
Alan B - 29 Jun 2006 14:16 GMT
On 27 Jun 2006 20:22:37 -0700, in message
<1151464957.407484.158460@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "phaeton"
<blahbleh666@hotmail.com> scribed:

>> >I want in on the science that does beer.
>>
>> Seek ye your local brew master.
>
>Which is why my comment wasn't quite so silly upon its face.

Your subtlety was noted and appreciated.  :-)

>Mind you,
>I have over a hundred brewpubs and microbrews within 30 minutes of my
>house.  It's no small wonder why my great ambitions in this hobby go
>neglected at times :eek:

Are you in Portland by any chance?  Oregon, nay, PNW, crafts are the best.

We have an excellent brew pub in my local area (it's a small town, so one
good brewery is sufficient).  If you join the "beer club," the first beer
of the night is always free, and $1.00 per pint thereafter.  They have
eight styles available at any one time of the season.  Wine is good, beer
is better.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

Ron Peterson - 27 Jun 2006 19:51 GMT
John Larkin wrote:

> >- You can do science all day for decent money (eg programming).

> Programming is science?

Programming (Computer Science) is a mixture of mathematics, science,
and engineering.

It is mathematics in the development of computational algorithms.

It is science when involving human factors.

And, it is engineering when building a large software project.

Signature

  Ron

Straydog - 27 Jun 2006 20:05 GMT
> John Larkin wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Programming (Computer Science) is a mixture of mathematics, science,
> and engineering.

Programming is programming, nothing else.

> It is mathematics in the development of computational algorithms.

Its all logic, not computational algoriths.

> It is science when involving human factors.

And, what is it when it doesn't involve human factors? Witchcraft?

> And, it is engineering when building a large software project.

People management, not engineering.

> --
>   Ron
John Larkin - 27 Jun 2006 20:53 GMT
>John Larkin wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Programming (Computer Science) is a mixture of mathematics, science,
>and engineering.

If it involved any serious amount of any of those, it wouldn't crash
so much.

John
Straydog - 27 Jun 2006 21:06 GMT
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> John

Are you going to tell us that there is perfection in mathematics, no false
hypotheses/data in science, and all engineering is 100%
failsafe/foolproof?
Alan B - 29 Jun 2006 14:25 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:06:16 -0400, in message
<Pine.NEB.4.63.0606271605080.18752@panix1.panix.com>, Straydog
<asd@panix.com> scribed:

>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>hypotheses/data in science, and all engineering is 100%
>failsafe/foolproof?

Your inference is flawed.  His statement, to me, is saying that if
programming involved any serious amount of mathematics, science, and
engineering, it wouldn't crash so much.  "So much" being the phrase that
rules out your faulty inference of "100%" reliability.  If you've ever
studied reliability, you'd know that there is no such thing as 100%
reliability.

John's implication is borne out by my experience.  Programmers, especially
when using c (and its attendant variations), are free to put together heaps
of garbage that are sold to the consumer with nary a thought to quality or
robustness.  Engineering projects, such as bridges, buildings, aircraft
design, etc, tend to stay up and in the air without falling down with
regularity (granting some rare but notable and spectacular failures).  This
is because these projects are held to a higher standard of performance than
your typical Windows application.  The bottom line in much programming is
to produce something that *looks like* it works, and makes money.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

phaeton - 27 Jun 2006 21:26 GMT
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> John

Your computer crashes?  There must be something wrong with it.
Straydog - 27 Jun 2006 21:39 GMT
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Your computer crashes?  There must be something wrong with it.

Tell me about a computer that does not crash, at least once in a while.
John Fields - 27 Jun 2006 22:34 GMT
>Tell me about a computer that does not crash, at least once in a while.

---
OK.

I recently designed a system which dispenses medication three times
a day at prescribed times for a period of 7 days, and it never
crashes.

If the mains go down and it isn't hooked up to a UPS, it remembers
where it was when the mains went down, figures out where it is when
the mains come back up, and delivers the next dose at the
appropriate time.

Signature

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

phaeton - 28 Jun 2006 04:35 GMT
> Tell me about a computer that does not crash, at least once in a while.

How long is 'once in a while'?

I just took a look at a couple of Debian GNU/Linux webservers with
reported uptimes of 340 days and 289 days.  IIRC it was last July that
we had a major power outage for several hours, so that might explain
why they are so low.  I've seen regular reports of linux and unix
machines up for years on end, and only being restarted due to a
hardware change/failure or kernel update.

True, there is little to no financial reward for Linux or BSD UNIX to
make great code or crappy code.  However, keep in mind that both
projects are written and maintained by people who love it.  People who
love things tend to self-educate themselves about it to a very high
level, and tend to make these things to the best of their abilities.
Doesn't mean that there *won't* be bugs in the OS, but it does mean
that there is a great level of care devoted to keeping them all to a
minimum.  Each release of FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD simply IS NOT
RELEASED until it is ready.  There is no pressure on deadlines, only
the desire to make it as good as it can possibly be.

In my personal experience of GNU/Linux, FreeBSD and NetBSD over the
last 7 years I've never had a show-stopping system crash.  *NEVER*.
I won't say it can't happen, but I will say I've never seen it.  As
much as I dislike Windows, i've got to say that 2000 and XP are light
years ahead of all the Win9x crap.  It's got its own security issues,
but as long as nobody fecks with it it's alright.

Apple on the other hand....... naw, I better just keep quiet about that
:-)

-phaeton
John Larkin - 27 Jun 2006 21:47 GMT
>> >John Larkin wrote:
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Your computer crashes?  There must be something wrong with it.

Consider: it has roughly 1e10 transistors and runs about 1e8 lines of
code, but the software fails regularly (or irregularly) and needs
constant maintenance, and the hardware runs perfectly, without even
any patches.

John
John Fields - 27 Jun 2006 22:38 GMT
>On 27 Jun 2006 13:26:19 -0700, "phaeton" <blahbleh666@hotmail.com>

>>Your computer crashes?  There must be something wrong with it.
>
>Consider: it has roughly 1e10 transistors and runs about 1e8 lines of
>code, but the software fails regularly (or irregularly) and needs
>constant maintenance, and the hardware runs perfectly, without even
>any patches.

---
I like to liken hardware to a piano and software to what's done with
the keys.

Pretty much explains that the sour notes aren't the piano's fault.

Signature

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Phil Scott - 27 Jun 2006 23:17 GMT
> On 27 Jun 2006 13:26:19 -0700, "phaeton"
> <blahbleh666@hotmail.com>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> John

My computers and drives used to crash regularly...until I
bought a chinese computer for 198 dollars complete with linux
software  (changed to run MS now)... 7 years ago... it hasnt
had a single misfire yet... MS has its problems though but not
the computer, memory or drives...it runs at 1ghz... the CPU is
half the size of a dime, with a very small fan on it, about a
fifth the size of intels.

a GQC   machine...'great quality computer'.... many are made
in china now as we know. this one though has been unbelievably
reliable...I hear they sell junk to american companies who try
to chizzel their prices even lower.

Phil Scott
Ron Peterson - 27 Jun 2006 22:05 GMT
> >Programming (Computer Science) is a mixture of mathematics, science,
> >and engineering.

> If it involved any serious amount of any of those, it wouldn't crash
> so much.

Anybody can write software, even if they have no ability in math,
science, or engineering. Perhaps your software came from someone who
didn't know what they were doing. I assume you are running Linux, which
has no financial incentive for having bug free software.

Signature

  Ron

John Fields - 27 Jun 2006 23:18 GMT
>> >Programming (Computer Science) is a mixture of mathematics, science,
>> >and engineering.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>didn't know what they were doing. I assume you are running Linux, which
>has no financial incentive for having bug free software.

---
I suggest that the financial incentive is often what _causes_
bug-ridden software to be marketed.  For instance, you've got
stockholders and a launch date you've advertised, and things aren't
going as well as you'd planned, but what the hell, it mostly works
and you'll patch it as complaints come in, so you release it.

Sounds like Microsoft's model, doesn't it?

Like advertise perfection while _knowing_ that problems exist, get
the money up front, and then try to fix the problem when it's
convenient...

Linux is a different trip in that (AIUI) it's open source and anyone
who cares can find out what the code looks like and is free to
change it to make it better.  No pecuniary incentives in most cases,
just the desire to make things better.

Signature

John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

darwinist@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2006 00:58 GMT
[...]
> >Anybody can write software, even if they have no ability in math,
> >science, or engineering. Perhaps your software came from someone who
> >didn't know what they were doing. I assume you are running Linux, which
> >has no financial incentive for having bug free software.
>
> ---
[...]
> Linux is a different trip in that (AIUI) it's open source and anyone
> who cares can find out what the code looks like and is free to
> change it to make it better.  No pecuniary incentives in most cases,
> just the desire to make things better.

I don't know who said this first, but it's a good one:
"Windows is made to be sold. Linux is made to be used"

Alan B - 28 Jun 2006 01:40 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:18:13 -0500, in message
<u9a3a2lniivke7huj5pom6dlbnen6r2fqe@4ax.com>, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> scribed:

>I suggest that the financial incentive is often what _causes_
>bug-ridden software to be marketed.

Were you ever a carpenter?  You seem to have a knack for hitting the nail
on the head.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

John Larkin - 28 Jun 2006 01:06 GMT
>> >Programming (Computer Science) is a mixture of mathematics, science,
>> >and engineering.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>science, or engineering. Perhaps your software came from someone who
>didn't know what they were doing.

Yup, Microsoft.

John
Phil Scott - 27 Jun 2006 23:09 GMT
> On 27 Jun 2006 11:51:03 -0700, "Ron Peterson"
> <ron@shell.core.com>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> John

its the NSA back doors, feed back, masking and reporting
functions that create much of the complexity and crashes
darwinist@gmail.com - 27 Jun 2006 23:52 GMT
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> If it involved any serious amount of any of those, it wouldn't crash
> so much.

Or perhaps it crashes because there's so damn much mathematics and
logic with each different layer of software, and so human mistakes
inevitably creep in.

It's rarely, I think you'd admit, a physics problem these days. For
what we do commonly with software, with the more popular chip
architectures, the practical physics lying at the bottom is tried and
tested, and relatively well understood, but information problems will
never end as long as there's a brain alive.

> John
jasen - 28 Jun 2006 11:22 GMT
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> If it involved any serious amount of any of those, it wouldn't crash
> so much.

when it does it doesn't.

Bye.
  Jasen
darwinist@gmail.com - 27 Jun 2006 23:42 GMT
> John Larkin wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> It is science when involving human factors.

I guess when you're writing algorithms for immediate human use then
it's both. Then again, maths is a science anyway

> And, it is engineering when building a large software project.

Indeed, there is more to a program than the lines of code that meet the
technical specs.
Alan B - 28 Jun 2006 01:39 GMT
On 27 Jun 2006 11:51:03 -0700, in message
<1151434263.791387.148810@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, "Ron Peterson"
<ron@shell.core.com> scribed:

>John Larkin wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>And, it is engineering when building a large software project.

Wild question here.  Would you be the Ron Peterson associated with the
Weber State University ComSci department?

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

Ron Peterson - 28 Jun 2006 05:51 GMT
> Wild question here.  Would you be the Ron Peterson associated with the
> Weber State University ComSci department?

No, and I don't know of any direct relationship. However, we are both
members of ACM.

And, I am not Congressman Ron Peterson of OK although my sister once
lived in his district.

Signature

  Ron

Alan B - 29 Jun 2006 14:35 GMT
On 27 Jun 2006 21:51:04 -0700, in message
<1151470264.370055.54470@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>, "Ron Peterson"
<ron@shell.core.com> scribed:

>> Wild question here.  Would you be the Ron Peterson associated with the
>> Weber State University ComSci department?
>
>No, and I don't know of any direct relationship. However, we are both
>members of ACM.

So you know of him.  I took some courses from him back in the day, and
worked with (athough not alongside) him for some years.

>And, I am not Congressman Ron Peterson of OK although my sister once
>lived in his district.

Well, good to meet you.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

darwinist@gmail.com - 27 Jun 2006 23:39 GMT
John Larkin wrote:

> >- Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
> >prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
> >written them properly.
>
> Software has theories?

Software has very little else. It's information science. Every line of
code is a theory about information and about algorithms.

> >- You can do science all day for decent money (eg programming).
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Every other science uses coffee, too.

Well, brain chemicals (both "natural" and "drugs"), it could be argued,
is an important area of study, and in their relationship to our
thoughts and feelings, they are another part of the broader
information-science.

> John
Alan B - 28 Jun 2006 01:28 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:01:56 -0700, in message
<vth2a2t2bsqsj3979j3cqmanmsr0h5kfpf@4ax.com>, John  Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> scribed:

>Every other science uses coffee, too.

Hear, hear.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

Mark L. Fergerson - 27 Jun 2006 16:14 GMT
> - Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
> prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
> written them properly.

  For some values of "properly".

  In actual "science" that value = "to be congruent with real-world
experience".

  Mark L. Fergerson
darwinist@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2006 00:08 GMT
> > - Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
> > prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>    In actual "science" that value = "to be congruent with real-world
> experience".

What about a computer's inputs and outputs, do they not create or
record real-world experience? What is your point?

>    Mark L. Fergerson
Mark L. Fergerson - 28 Jun 2006 16:26 GMT
>>>- Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
>>>prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>   In actual "science" that value = "to be congruent with real-world
>>experience".

> What about a computer's inputs and outputs, do they not create or
> record real-world experience?

  The map is not the territory; the program's inputs are our
_interpretations_ of real-world experience and are only as useful to the
software as we accurately describe what we see.

  There's opportunity for error here that isn't the program's "fault"-
we can misread instruments or even mistake one physical phenomenon for
another before we tell the program what we saw. The program will
diligently output predictions that aren't congruent with reality, but we
won't know that until we compare the predictions against reality.

  Outputs are not experiences; they're _predictions_ of what a
real-world experience will be, and are as useful to us as the software
accurately models the physical process(es) covered in the software given
accurate input. If the software doesn't frinst know about the linkage
between the EM force and the weak nuclear force or something as simple
as precession/nutation in macro phenomena, it will output blatantly
wrong predictions but again, we won't know until we them against reality.

  If the predictions are congruent, we can trust our observations,
interpretations, and the program _for that iteration_. If not, we have
to re-examine our data-gathering techniques and/or what the program does
with its input.

  (This assumes no software or hardware glitches.)

> What is your point?

  That _scientific_ modeling is not a "once through" process; it's
recursive. We reduce our observed data to something the software can
handle, run it through the software, take its output and compare it (the
software's predictions) against reality, and then use the comparison
(whether it's congruent or not with reality) as new input to refine the
model.

  Bottom line- "properly" is unfortunately asymptotic; we cannot know
if software is written "properly" until we do that comparison (and if
necessary, reiterate until the model's predictions either are congruent
with reality or diverge from it and show no signs of reconverging).

  I'm not saying that computer modeling is a Bad Thing, I'm saying
don't put too much faith in it.

  Mark L. Fergerson
Bill Bowden - 28 Jun 2006 21:35 GMT
> >>>- Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a testable
> >>>prediction, you can test your theories straight away, as soon as you've
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>    I'm not saying that computer modeling is a Bad Thing, I'm saying
> don't put too much faith in it.

Yes, apparently the Greenland glacier is breaking up much faster than
predicted by computer models. Garbage in, garbage out?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/DN-greenl
and_25int.ART.State.Edition1.246b6d4.html


Predictions wrong

The ice sheet seemed such a stolid reservoir of cold that many experts
had been confident of its taking centuries for higher temperatures to
work their way thousands of feet down to the base of the ice cap and
undermine its stability.

By and large, computer models supported that view, predicting that as
winter temperatures rose more snow would fall across the dome of the
ice cap. Thus, by the seasonal bookkeeping of the ice sheet, Greenland
would neatly balance its losses through new snow.

Then the ice sheet began to confound computer-generated
predictions.....

They say if it all melts, the sea level will rise 20 feet. I live about
30 feet above sea level, so if that happens, I may be living on beach
front property.

-Bill

>    Mark L. Fergerson
Phil Scott - 27 Jun 2006 23:07 GMT
>- Because software is a descriptive model, as well as a
>testable
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
> it
> describes living.

 good post.

it is indeed the algoritm that defines the function...the
ensuing fractal though is not predictable as it interacts with
other fractals born of other algorithms unknown and often
unrecognisable to the first.... and as these colide with each
other... the collisions, unknowns, timing and a limitless
range of other forces we do not even realize exist yet affect
the fractals... .these then feed back into the base
algorithms, that we were counting on....    as wild cards.

Phil Scott
darwinist@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2006 00:56 GMT
[...]
>   good post.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the fractals... .these then feed back into the base
> algorithms, that we were counting on....    as wild cards.

Heh, wow that's deep. I never thought of the various possible outcomes
of an algorithm as being like a fractal of effects, that will
inevitably clash with other fractals if they're in the same
environment. It works, though. Good analogy.

> Phil Scott
John Larkin - 28 Jun 2006 01:11 GMT
>[...]
>>   good post.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>inevitably clash with other fractals if they're in the same
>environment. It works, though. Good analogy.

Any decent piece of code isn't fractal, it's a finite state machine.
And any programmer worth the title will take into consideration all
possible states and all possible input parameters and write code that
can't crash. Nobody like that works for Microsoft.

I write embedded, realtime systems that just don't crash.

John
darwinist@gmail.com - 28 Jun 2006 01:35 GMT
> >[...]
> >>   good post.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> possible states and all possible input parameters and write code that
> can't crash. Nobody like that works for Microsoft.

I don't like microsoft either, but their problem is not bad, malicious
or stupid programmers and never has been.

> I write embedded, realtime systems that just don't crash.

Good for you, and you are rightly proud that your systems "just work",
but come back and talk to me about "all possible states" when you're
busy writing user-space, interface-heavy applications.

That's where the fractal analogy becomes clear.

> John
John Larkin - 28 Jun 2006 01:48 GMT
>> >[...]
>> >>   good post.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>> John

VMS was a bulletproof multiuser OS that did treat tasks as finite
state machines, with a clear bitmask event flag structure that was a
rondezvous point that a programmer could focus on. Windows is an
asynchronous mess, hacked in desperation, and designed to be
impentratable. It is arguably fractal, and it's just crap.

John
Phil Scott - 28 Jun 2006 02:32 GMT
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
wrote

Windows is an
> asynchronous mess, hacked in desperation, and designed to be
> impentratable. It is arguably fractal, and it's just crap.
>
> John

of course... in the space program we have lift off... then
entropy....in other systems we have just entropy..
Phil Scott - 28 Jun 2006 02:27 GMT
>>[...]
>>>   good post.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Any decent piece of code isn't fractal, it's a finite state
> machine.

a piece of code itself spins from a base algorithm, it is not
the algorithm... it is the algorithm that spawns the fractal.
and the code..

> And any programmer worth the title will take into
> consideration all
> possible states and all possible input parameters and write
> code that
> can't crash.

Thats not possible of course...because no programmer is
omnicient, or privy to all possible downline effects... a key
error seen with many engineered systems...

yes he can define the inputs...but he cannot define everything
that influences those, so its cobby to say the least. ..that
mentality is what spawned microcrap.

Nobody like that works for Microsoft.

> I write embedded, realtime systems that just don't crash.

That is entirely possible in many closed loop environments..
many apparently closed loop enviroments are actually not
though... the wild cards enter through those and screw up the
glorious program, accounting for all the bugged software and
slow or failed operating systems we see.

Whatever is great today, will be antiquated later, sometimes
two days later...

the best thing you can do for your brain is to assume that all
of what you produce is flawed to the core and in limitless
error at some level... this keeps you from locking into what
will be seen as cave man level insights a hundred years from
now....and worse, expanding from the base of error....thats
how George Bush ended up so badly...

Phil Scott

> John
Bill Bowden - 28 Jun 2006 06:47 GMT
> >[...]
> >>   good post.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> John

So why is Bill Gates the richest man in the world, if his programmers
can't write code?

-Bill
jasen - 28 Jun 2006 11:36 GMT
> So why is Bill Gates the richest man in the world, if his programmers
> can't write code?

his lawyers are good at law, his strategists are good at strategy, and his
marketers are good at marketing.

Bye.
  Jasen
John  Larkin - 28 Jun 2006 15:15 GMT
>> >[...]
>> >>   good post.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>So why is Bill Gates the richest man in the world, if his programmers
>can't write code?

He's rich because he sells you software that's buggy and unstable, and
he sells it to you over and over, because you hope the next version of
Windows or Word or IE will crash less or be less of a security risk.
Microsoft has a dilemma now, in that Windows isn't, after 20 years,
all that bad, so people are getting less inclined to upgrade. So
microsoft is trying to (sneakily... go do a patch upgrade) push the
"genuine advantage" thing where you pay them forever to run their
crappy code. He got rich by writing garbage and being ruthless about
selling it and crushing competitors.

Have you *seen* any Windows source code? I have. It's garbage. No
doubt some of the microserfs are good coders, but Windows fails at the
higher, structural/interface/policy level, which is a symptom of Bill
Gates' hombrew hacking history.

John
phaeton - 28 Jun 2006 17:36 GMT
> Have you *seen* any Windows source code? I have. It's garbage. No
> doubt some of the microserfs are good coders, but Windows fails at the
> higher, structural/interface/policy level, which is a symptom of Bill
> Gates' hombrew hacking history.
>
> John

I haven't seen any of it, but rumor is that it's actually got some
marginally good bits here and there, but they're all stuck together
with several layers of mopish kludge, none of it is documented or
commented, and such.  Any truth to that?

Pervasive licensing/business models aside, word on the street was that
MS admits the Windows code base is too big and too complicated (in the
spaghetti sense) for them to really deal with it and keep it all
straight anymore.  Hence the whole LongWait Project, where they're
(supposedly) starting from scratch.

OTOH, I have looked at stuff like the FreeBSD and Linux kernels.  Some
of it's over my head, but the stuff that I did grasp and see looked
pretty good, esp. in the case of FreeBSD.  I'm no expert, though.

-phaeton
Alan B - 29 Jun 2006 14:40 GMT
On 28 Jun 2006 09:36:46 -0700, in message
<1151512606.610273.157270@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "phaeton"
<blahbleh666@hotmail.com> scribed:

>> Have you *seen* any Windows source code? I have. It's garbage. No
>> doubt some of the microserfs are good coders, but Windows fails at the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>with several layers of mopish kludge, none of it is documented or
>commented, and such.  Any truth to that?

Not much different than some of the projects I've worked on, sad to say.
Anytime the bottom line is cost and schedule as opposed to quality, you'll
get that.  Another problem is that the modern way of doing things is to
have MBA's and professional managers in technical management spots, and so
they tend to be clueless about the process they are managing.  Added to
this is the fact that marginal programmers can be very good at talking a
good game, and hiding defects.  I've seen all this first hand.

Signature

If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten,
and that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

Ron Peterson - 28 Jun 2006 15:16 GMT
> > I write embedded, realtime systems that just don't crash.

> So why is Bill Gates the richest man in the world, if his programmers
> can't write code?

Bill does have good business ability unlike his competitor (was it Gary
Kildall?) who failed to sell IBM a different operating system.

I have a friend who writes embedded software lik John does. Although,
they are smaller software projects, there is a greater need for
reliability and less need for hundreds of features to attract mass
customers.

Microsoft does hire the best comp sci graduates, but corporate goals
get in the way of enabling the workers.

Signature

  Ron

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.