Mellinia

if a computer offers access through something like sshd, or a network directory through LAN, it is possible to use a program, that you call using the terminal to access the other computer. One thing I use a lot from my terminal is `ssh`, which allows me to access my remote server so I can host my websites on them.

I think you should elaborate by telling us why do you think it shouldnt be called a OOP language.

TLDR : Mining with commerical cards are much more profitable than using specialized hardware due to electrical fees.

Im not sure where to post this as it is a cross disciplinary post.

First posted in biology, but I dont know how to cross-post, so I will copy paste it here too. I came across this perspective when I realize using the CRISPR gene editing technology in the context of synthetic biology is basically doing code/DLL injection. In another way of seeing it, it is akin to installing chrome extensions (though this isn't really accurate because chrome extensions requires explicit permission, but this will be an easier example to use than a computer virus) to add or modify functionality of chrome. Chrome extensions are able to modify and monitor everything you do in the browser, and with what genes we have designed and inserted into the genetic host, we can do something similar. This got me thinking if a new perspective can be drawn to solve biology problems. Computer engineers design one of the most resilient and precise systems known to man (This may sound like a joke to you, but you will realize that the reason why your car and airplanes all work as expected with all the programs in them is because of the effort the engineers made to make them secure and resilient). No matter how much you hammer away or abuse your computer, you don't expect all the billions and trillions of electronic parts to just give up on you. Hospital systems, rocket systems, these are all systems resilient to failure. Modern software OS-s has integrity checks, auto-repair and security schemes designed to protect the information in your computer and prevent all the extra programs you install from going on a rampage. Some times there will be failures, but we can expect the program to be better the next time a security patch rolls out. I do not mention UI/UX because this is pretty subjective, but security systems in of itself it something to behold. There are many parallels that can be drawn from both our human body and computer systems (including the network systems all the way to kernel software). For example, protein networks/reaction chains can be thought of computer ABIs and program flow processes. One can hook onto them by hijacking one part of the flow. In bio systems it would be gene injection as mentioned at the start of this post and in software it can be DLL injection. Take for example, cancer. I know cancer is a bit too complex to be taken as an example, but it is also one of the easiest, IMO to illustrate this. I will skip a lot of details because being nit-picky will only stifle the discussion. Cancer has two main high-level problems : the cancer genetic mutation and the cancer micro-environment. The cancer genetic mutation by external factors can be thought in terms of software memory corruption, which can be caused by a faulty installed program or accidental memory rewriting by another program. In modern software, this is mitigated by integrity checks and auto-repair systems where the system just copy-pasts working environments. If this doesn't work, software engineers can opt to do in-memory patching of the faulty software. In biological terms, integrity checks are performed by our immune system, who also deletes faulty programs/cells. The immune system is also capable of killing cancer cells. However, there is another factor in preventing this, which is the cancer micro-environment. In a summary, the cancer tumor covers itself in a mesh of normal cells, creates an acidic environment and creates interstitial pressure. This is a major design problem that a lot of cancer medicine has to solve in drug delivery. In terms of computer engineering, the corrupted program has barricaded itself behind a locked segment of memory, where high level programs cannot reach (user privileges), where it also faces resistance from the corrupted program which overwrites and shifts its memory footprint dynamically. The easiest way software engineers deal with this is to nuke the memory segment: deleting it from memory. We also do this with cancer tumors by removing the tumour directly. However, the cancer cells / corrupted programs, might still survive within the body. Computers typically have scanning programs that check through all of the memory. These programs are more commonly known as anti-viruses. However, our body does not have a proper full body scan that checks every cell except the over-worked WBCs. Essentially we have developed a highly scalable solution for our computers, why can't we do the same thing for our body, like developing new antivirus programs for our favourite OS-s. Having said all this, I would like to extend this perspective by working with people from both biology and computer engineering fields in suggesting new places where this perspective will help, and spark a new discussion about this.

I came across this perspective when I realize using the CRISPR gene editing technology in the context of synthetic biology is basically doing code/DLL injection. In another way of seeing it, it is akin to installing chrome extensions (though this isn't really accurate because chrome extensions requires explicit permission, but this will be an easier example to use than a computer virus) to add or modify functionality of chrome. Chrome extensions are able to modify and monitor everything you do in the browser, and with what genes we have designed and inserted into the genetic host, we can do something similar. This got me thinking if a new perspective can be drawn to solve biology problems. Computer engineers design one of the most resilient and precise systems known to man (This may sound like a joke to you, but you will realize that the reason why your car and airplanes all work as expected with all the programs in them is because of the effort the engineers made to make them secure and resilient). No matter how much you hammer away or abuse your computer, you don't expect all the billions and trillions of electronic parts to just give up on you. Hospital systems, rocket systems, these are all systems resilient to failure. Modern software OS-s has integrity checks, auto-repair and security schemes designed to protect the information in your computer and prevent all the extra programs you install from going on a rampage. Some times there will be failures, but we can expect the program to be better the next time a security patch rolls out. I do not mention UI/UX because this is pretty subjective, but security systems in of itself it something to behold. There are many parallels that can be drawn from both our human body and computer systems (including the network systems all the way to kernel software). For example, protein networks/reaction chains can be thought of computer ABIs and program flow processes. One can hook onto them by hijacking one part of the flow. In bio systems it would be gene injection as mentioned at the start of this post and in software it can be DLL injection. Take for example, cancer. I know cancer is a bit too complex to be taken as an example, but it is also one of the easiest, IMO to illustrate this. I will skip a lot of details because being nit-picky will only stifle the discussion. Cancer has two main high-level problems : the cancer genetic mutation and the cancer micro-environment. The cancer genetic mutation by external factors can be thought in terms of software memory corruption, which can be caused by a faulty installed program or accidental memory rewriting by another program. In modern software, this is mitigated by integrity checks and auto-repair systems where the system just copy-pasts working environments. If this doesn't work, software engineers can opt to do in-memory patching of the faulty software. In biological terms, integrity checks are performed by our immune system, who also deletes faulty programs/cells. The immune system is also capable of killing cancer cells. However, there is another factor in preventing this, which is the cancer micro-environment. In a summary, the cancer tumor covers itself in a mesh of normal cells, creates an acidic environment and creates interstitial pressure. This is a major design problem that a lot of cancer medicine has to solve in drug delivery. In terms of computer engineering, the corrupted program has barricaded itself behind a locked segment of memory, where high level programs cannot reach (user privileges), where it also faces resistance from the corrupted program which overwrites and shifts its memory footprint dynamically. The easiest way software engineers deal with this is to nuke the memory segment: deleting it from memory. We also do this with cancer tumors by removing the tumour directly. However, the cancer cells / corrupted programs, might still survive within the body. Computers typically have scanning programs that check through all of the memory. These programs are more commonly known as anti-viruses. However, our body does not have a proper full body scan that checks every cell except the over-worked WBCs. Essentially we have developed a highly scalable solution for our computers, why can't we do the same thing for our body, like developing new antivirus programs for our favourite OS-s. Having said all this, I would like to extend this perspective by working with people from both biology and computer engineering fields in suggesting new places where this perspective will help, and spark a new discussion about this.

Actually, going from Java to C++ will not be difficult language features wise, but you might miss the libraries available for Java. While C++ does have some quirks (String^ and std::cout anyone?), it is an OO language in the sense that it allows classes to be use. Unlike Python or Ruby though, everything is not an object in C++. About C++ being hard, you've already learnt Java threads and stuff, right? So you'll get along just fine. Though you may need to wrap your head around how pointers and memory management work (I believe C++ now has GC), and understand what are abstractions in Java, and what is the possibly low level equivalent in C++. Though about JS, it's not about the syntax, it's that when you go from a consistent language (like Python) into JS, you'll mainly go mad because of the implicit magic. I went from C++ into Python and back into Java and found it okay, I guess, though I may only use Java now for Android, and C# or D(this one in particular works to solve C++ inconsistencies) is a better option for compiled languages, I guess , while Python is just so beautiful that looking at Ruby even gives me a headache.

Well, you could try looking into some computer science papers for a start. AFAIK, most papers (even Python ones!) assume a good foundation in maths to understand the algorithms. The point is, computer science, looking into algorithms, understanding pointers, abstractions, (if your CS programme doesn't have it...good luck.) is a little mind-bending, if you never programmed before, but having a foundation of logic (by maths) helps out a lot. Low job prospects probably refer to the fact that since CS is not really easy, most just maybe wander around the so-so part when companies want competent programmers, especially startups who want only the best and brightest (See Joel Spolsky's blog for info on what startups do, and also on lamenting how some CS programmes now teaches Java instead of C)

If you want to learn on how to write programs, I would suggest Python, since with Garbage Collection, terse and readable code, a nice set of libraries, it will ease a lot of the beginner's mind on how to write the program, instead of wrangling with how to make my program work. As you progress along python, you will slowly meet obstacles that would require an in-depth understanding of how memory work, etc. This is done gradually after you have developed a consistent model of how to write a program (this is the most important thing of all) since python is beginner friendly and consistent. As for programs where you'll start to need the speed of compiled languages, try out D, which is essentially C++ done right. D leaves a lot of freedom to the programmer, yet provide a safe place to test their limits. I've used Python and only started C++/Java/D in that order after the need for faster execution. However, I still maintain the coding style I've used in Python: Write by humans, for humans. Python encourages you to focus on the content of the code, not the words(syntax) of it.

Inertia could be seen as more of a fictional property. The object would continue at it's current velocity if there were no net force on the object. It is not an inherent property. Gravity is not an property of matter. Where did you get that idea? In a vacuum very far from any other masses(You can choose many massive objects to show this), the massive object will experience no effects of gravity. Does the matter still exist as matter? Yes. It does not need gravity to prove it is matter.

Thus are you saying that the intrisic charge is related to it's mass? FOR e^2 =4 /PI /EPSILON G M^2, should I take M as eletron mass?

As in E=mc^2 infinite? M is included in your theory as the total mass in the system?

Accelerated electrons emit photons as a consequence of the light speed limit, and mass particles may do the same, but this is a recoil force, describing the energy loss as a consequence of it's own EM field, and not the whole energy of the electron system, so while "self-force" is right (recoil, much?), self-energy...a bit suspicious? Anyhow, e^2 = 4 /pi /epsilon_0 GM^2, what is M? This could be an arbitrary mass? Though I did do some calcs and if e is the elementary charge, and other constants are what they are from the CODATA website, M should be around 1.857e-9 kg....?

Taking a spherical cow...lol jking If I were to simplify this into a point mass, the point mass would exert an gravitational force on anything that enters it's field, but the force won't be exerted on itself, right? Drawing an analogy to EM, would a +ve charge be affected by it's own electric field? How does this cause "self-energy"?