| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jan 19 01:41PM -0800 Hello... More of my philosophy about: Is software engineers really engineers? I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I have just read the following article about: Is software engineers really engineers ?, i invite you to read it: Are we really engineers ? https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/crossover-project/are-we-really-engineers/ I think the above article is lacking, because i think that what makes the difference between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is not only that software engineering uses discrete math, but it uses Logic(Formal Logic and such) that has been called "the calculus of computer science". The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of Computer Science as disparate as artificial intelligence (automated reasoning), architecture (logic gates), software engineering (specification and verification), programming languages (semantics, logic programming), databases (relational algebra and SQL), algorithms (complexity and expressiveness), and theory of computation (general notions of computability). This is why you are seeing me using my smartness of my fluid intelligence using a sophisticated Logic to find patterns and also proving, and here is some of my thoughts and notice how i am finding patterns and proving with my fluid intelligence: More precision about capitalism and about National Vanguard.. I will be more rigorous, so read again: I have just read the following article from a white supremacist website called National Vanguard: Why Capitalism Fails https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/why-capitalism-fails/ And it is saying the following about why capitalism fails: "Capitalism permits inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a esignated new owner upon the death of the previous owner. And therein is the flaw: inherited wealth isn't earned by its owner, yet it leads to a class segregation of men that has nothing to do with how much wealth they have earned; i.e., nothing to do with how much or how well or how significantly they have worked." I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and i will answer with my fluid intelligence: I think the above article is not taking into account the risk factor and and the smartness factor, so there have to be mechanisms, that are like engines, that "encourage" to or/and "make" a part of the people work by taking risks or great risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and that "encourage" to or/and "make" the smartest to give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich), so i think capitalism has those mechanisms in form of rewards by allowing to become "rich" and in form of rewards by allowing inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner: Since it "encourages" to or/and "makes" a part of the people work by taking risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and it encourages to or/and makes the smartest give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich). And notice that i am also defining taking a "risk" as working "hard". And the above article is saying the following: "Capitalism constantly looks for ways to reduce labor costs. Automation made human labor less necessary than it had been when capitalism first appeared. When automation did appear, people who had the talent, the skills, and the motivation to make contributions began to find no jobs, or to become uncompetitive with mass-production if they tried to employ themselves." I think it is not true, because read the following: https://singularityhub.com/2019/01/01/ai-will-create-millions-more-jobs-than-it-will-destroy-heres-how/ And read the following: Here is the advantages and disadvantages of automation: Following are some of the advantages of automation: 1. Automation is the key to the shorter workweek. Automation will allow the average number of working hours per week to continue to decline, thereby allowing greater leisure hours and a higher quality life. 2. Automation brings safer working conditions for the worker. Since there is less direct physical participation by the worker in the production process, there is less chance of personal injury to the worker. 3. Automated production results in lower prices and better products. It has been estimated that the cost to machine one unit of product by conventional general-purpose machine tools requiring human operators may be 100 times the cost of manufacturing the same unit using automated mass-production techniques. The electronics industry offers many examples of improvements in manufacturing technology that have significantly reduced costs while increasing product value (e.g., colour TV sets, stereo equipment, calculators, and computers). 4. The growth of the automation industry will itself provide employment opportunities. This has been especially true in the computer industry, as the companies in this industry have grown (IBM, Digital Equipment Corp., Honeywell, etc.), new jobs have been created. These new jobs include not only workers directly employed by these companies, but also computer programmers, systems engineers, and other needed to use and operate the computers. 5. Automation is the only means of increasing standard of living. Only through productivity increases brought about by new automated methods of production, it is possible to advance standard of living. Granting wage increases without a commensurate increase in productivity will results in inflation. To afford a better society, it is a must to increase productivity. Following are some of the disadvantages of automation: 1. Automation will result in the subjugation of the human being by a machine. Automation tends to transfer the skill required to perform work from human operators to machines. In so doing, it reduces the need for skilled labour. The manual work left by automation requires lower skill levels and tends to involve rather menial tasks (e.g., loading and unloading workpart, changing tools, removing chips, etc.). In this sense, automation tends to downgrade factory work. 2. There will be a reduction in the labour force, with resulting unemployment. It is logical to argue that the immediate effect of automation will be to reduce the need for human labour, thus displacing workers. 3. Automation will reduce purchasing power. As machines replace workers and these workers join the unemployment ranks, they will not receive the wages necessary to buy the products brought by automation. Markets will become saturated with products that people cannot afford to purchase. Inventories will grow. Production will stop. Unemployment will reach epidemic proportions and the result will be a massive economic depression. And to know more about economy and capitalism, please read my following thoughts: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/wlJu5j1xhPk And more political philosophy about the good taste.. So let us look in the dictionary at what is the taste, it says the following: "The taste is the sense by which the qualities and flavour of a substance are distinguished by the taste buds." Read here in the dictionary to notice it: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/taste But when you are smart you will also notice that there is also the intellectual taste from culture or genetics, i mean that when you are genetically more rational and more smart you will notice that this more rational and more smart is also intellectual taste since with it you are able to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality, and this is also the same for culture, i mean when you enhance more your culture it enhances your intellectual taste and it permits you to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality. So as you are noticing that the intellectual taste is so important.. And you have to also know that i am also doing political philosophy by efficiently finding the patterns with my smartness, i give you an example, look at the following pattern that i am finding with my smartness: -- More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard".. I will be more logically rigorous and explain more, so read my logical proof: I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it: People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s Here is James Gosling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling And here is Lex Fridman: https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, and notice that Lex Fridman says that the "not hard" in the rule means lazy, but this is not logically correct, since if the statistical distribution of the strenght and force of the work is normal in the real world , so i have to discern with my fluid intelligence that it is a system that means "work smart and not hard" and it can mean: "work smart and using an average force or strenght", so then it means that this system or rule doesn't pretty much always fail, also we can generalize and say: since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail. -- I give you another example, look at the following patterns that i am finding with my smartness: --- What is it to be smart ? Read my following thoughts: I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i think i am smart and say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jan 19 10:30AM -0800 Hello.. Now here is more about my education and my Diploma.. My name is Amine Moulay Ramdane, i am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms, and i am a gentleman type of person, and i live in Quebec Canada since year 1989, i am also a Canadian from Morocco, and you have seen me writing my thoughts of my political philosophy here, and now i will talk about my education and my Diploma: my Diploma is a university level Diploma, my school in Morocco where i have studied and gotten my university level Diploma in Microelectronics and informatics was under the control of Paris Academie in France (we call it Académie de Paris), and here it is: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAcad%25C3%25A9mie_de_Paris And i have continued to study one more year of applied mathematics in university of Montreal in Quebec Canada, and i have succeeded this one year in applied mathematics in university of Montreal, so with my Diploma and this one year of applied mathematics i have studied and succeeded 3 years at the university level, after that i have studied Network administration and i have also worked as a network administrator and as software developer consultant, the name of my company was and is Cyber-NT Communications in Quebec Canada, and around years 2001 and 2002 i have started to implement some of my softwares like PerlZip that looked like PkZip of PKware software company, but i have implemented it for Perl , and i have implemented the Dynamic Link Libraries of my PerlZip that permits to compress and decompress etc. with the "Delphi"compiler, so my PerlZip software product was very fast and very efficient, in year 2002 i have posted the Beta version on internet, and as a proof , please read about it here: http://computer-programming-forum.com/52-perl-modules/ea157f4a229fc720.htm And after that i have sold the release version of my PerlZip product to many many companies and to many individuals around the world, and i have even sold it to many Banks in Europe, and with that i have made more money. And after that i have continued to work like a software developer consultant and network administrator, the name of my company was and is CyberNT Communications, Here is my company in Quebec(Canada) called CyberNT Communications, i have worked as a software developer and as a network administrator, read the proof here: https://opencorporates.com/companies/ca_qc/2246777231 Also read the following part of a somewhat old book of O'Reilly called Perl for System Administration by David N. Blank-Edelman, and you will notice that it contains my name and it speaks about some of my Perl modules: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/perl-for-system/1565926099/ch04s04.html And you can find my Open source software projects here in my website: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/ And I have just created a webpage on my website here about my philosophy about human existence, you can read it carefully here: https://scalable68.godaddysites.com/f/my-philosophy-about-human-existence Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jan 19 06:43AM -0800 Hello, Here is another new proverb of mine that shows more what is wisdom.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think i am also a philosopher, and i can also invent proverbs, here is yet another new smart proverb of mine: "There is an important difference between the appearance of a reality and the truth of a reality, this is why in science you have not to be confident with the appearances, since in science you have to understand the truth, so, to be able to understand the truth you have to know how to be patience before understanding the truth and not to rush in like a fool by lack of wisdom " And here is another proverb of mine: "Wich one has to precede, being able to reason correctly or to rush in like a fool without being able to reason correctly? when you are able to answer correctly this question, you will understand a very important principle that makes you much more wise." Here is another new proverb of mine.. "A wise man is by "logical" analogy like the person that knows how to prepare a good meal from ingredients, since a wise man is the one that knows how to prepare a well organized society or well organized global world from the people." And here is my other new proverb: Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection This is the definition of perfection above that I use below in my explanation of my new proverb. Here is all my explanation of my new proverb below: My new proverb comes to me from the essence of morality that I explained to you in my political philosophy that I wrote in English, since in morality we are pushed towards the pretty tomorrow because we are aware of this pretty perfume that is the perfection that pushes us or encourages us to be or allows us to become perfect or greatly perfect. Read about it here on my thoughts of my political philosophy about morality: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4 So here is my new proverb: "Life is like the pretty perfume that calls us to be a pretty tomorrow!" So notice carefully my smart play on words in my new proverb, i think it's smart, and you have to know that the future perfection depends on the present perfection, so when today we are responsibility to be the pretty perfection so that to build the pretty tomorrow, then the pretty perfection of today is part of the pretty tomorrow, and the "pretty perfume" in my new proverb is also the today pretty perfection, but you have to understand the symbolic which allows us to say that being this part of the pretty tomorrow is also like being the pretty tomorrow. It is what makes it a smart proverb. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment