> Please read about the alphabet system of Sanskrit and various modern languages that derives from Sanskrit
The Sanskrit alphabet is very elegant indeed, but Sanskrit doesn't have a writing system. None of the various scripts used to encode Sanskrit (Siddham, Lantsa, Devanagari, Kharoshti etc.) are, in my opinion, anywhere near as well-structured as the Sanskrit alphabet.
>In addition to that, sanskrit alphabets encompasses almost every possible consonant and vowel sounds that a human can generate.
That's nowhere near true; listen to some languages like Xhosa, or even a tonal language like Chinese, and try to transliterate them using Sanskrit.
>Sanskrit grammar is again another beautiful and well thought creation that is considered the best grammar to be used for scientific work.
Sanskrit grammar is highly regular, which is why it is used in some AI applications, but there's no reason to think it is "the best grammar to be used for scientific work." And, as structured as Sanskrit grammar is, it still opens itself up to ambiguities-- it is nowhere near as clean as an artificial language would be.
Sanskrit is a great language, but there's no need to oversell it.
Add to that the 15th Arabic letter ض [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B6] cannot be pronounced in any other language to the point that Arabic is sometimes referred to as the language of ض.
More like geeks like to prove they've already heard of the idea behind something.
Dropping the name Betteridge or Dunning-Kruger or Godwin tells everyone "I heard about this phenomenon before it was cool and even know the name for it".
I don't think so. Geeks like to win arguments and value facts above opinions. Scientific arguments are generally irrefutable. Of course the only scientific of the 3 is the Dunning-kruger effect.
> "Geeks like to win arguments and value facts above opinions."
I'd rephrase that to be "geeks like to win arguments and like to think they value facts above opinions"
In my experience geeks are no more objective than any other messed up human being on this planet. We just have a giant collective superiority complex about our own supposed factualness.
This is related to the many, many posts you see on HN where programmers belittle professionals of other fields as if they were economists, political scientists, biologists, medical doctors, rocket scientists, architects, structural engineers, or what have you.
But his paper “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem” (the one that gave the world the Turing Machine) has a bug in it. In fact, it has two. The first is obvious enough that I spotted it when i read the paper for the first time. The second bug is rather more subtle (but still fixable. It’s okay, the field of computing is not build on sand).
I'd love to see the identification of these-- it seems quite perverse to mention them in a blog posting without at least a footnote giving the details.
Where's the fun in that? The first bug is pretty blatant and will leap out at you if you're reading the paper closely (it's of the order of a syntax error). Describing the second would have taken too much space, diverted from the thrust of the post and, most pertinently, required digging a book out of one of far too many identical, poorly labelled, cardboard boxes.
Someone has to explain to me exactly what we should have done differently here.
I'll give it a shot. What you should have done, in my opinion, is just provide a link alongside a one-line summary, along the lines of "Here's an article we found fascinating."
If the article you are writing is based on a single source, it's not an article-- it's a paraphrase.
We work immensely had to product original content as well as link to original sources when deserved...this case was absolutely no different.
so, which was this? It was more than a link, but it surely doesn't qualify as "original content" by any stretch of the imagination.
But a one line summary is too short to get picked up by Google News -- that's why all the tech blogs try to write at least 70 words on absolutely anything, no matter how thin it is...
Yes, but Bill Evans did the arrangements on Kind of Blue; he is also rumoured to have composed several of the songs (although they are credited to Miles.)
(Lather. Rinse. Repeat.)