The flag manifold in question comes from matrix groups; basically, consider some subset of 3x3 matrices which satisfy a certain property. I.e., certain types of transformations of a 3d space. While the space of 3x3 matrices has 3x3=9 dimensions, subsets can have fewer dimensions (in this case, 6).

The two-dimensional projections she discovered are functions of the 6 dimensional matrices.

So here is the occams razor explanation for what is happening. Inside the bee's head is an ODE (ordinary differential equation) solver, basically an analog computer. Just think of the ODE solver as a complicated timer, but with output depending on both time and some hidden variable. These are common objects in biology, and don't require many neurons.

The output of the ODE solver is wired to some neurons which reduce 6 variables to 2, according to the formula she discovered.

This is a fantastic discovery, a triumph of applied math. But the connection to QFT is almost surely coincidence: QFT uses symmetries of matrix groups over 3 dimensions, and the bee (which lives in 3 dimensions) also does.

This phenomenon is called universality. Certain objects repeat across diverse areas simply because it is the only logical way (or the most common logical way) that things could happen.

The part of the article that talks about quantum mumbo-jumbo is prefaced with this:

"At this point Shipman departs from safely grounded scholarship and enters instead the airy realm of speculation."

It also says,

"But she tends not to have much professional company when she reveals what she thinks is responsible for the bees' response."

I'd be happy to put money down that this turns out to be bunk. Not that I know anything more than the person making these claims, but purely informed by history. Many, many scientists (including most famously Roger Penrose) have claimed that quantum phenomena exist in the biological world. None of these claims have been proven.

However, I think over time you'll find that it is not a change you'll regret. I find that in general, you'll get things done faster, and learn new things quicker. It's definitely the platform that I have tended to gravitate to for most of my work.

Plus, the new macbooks are solid.

Since you exist, you should find this interesting, except that it came from me, an entity that is just a figment of your imagination.

Then again maybe not.

As you can see, I'm still working out some bugs with this worldview.

(grin)

I joke because I find the question slightly inane: people are who they are. It's not like they choose a philosophy and suddenly become something besides the emotional, reasoning hominids they've been all their lives. Philosophies can be bent, and people are really good at bending them to suit their predisposed character traits. In my opinion, of course.

Ah. To be a bother; the sacred duty of little sisters everywhere...

Was it worth it? No. You can be fully productive in which ever platform you choose: Windows, Mac, or Linux. Each platform is fully mature. Productivity comes from your commitment to learning your tools and practicing.

There is an advantage to Linux as it allows you to truly learn (freedom). But you do loose time tweaking and yak shaving.

That means eliminating politics stories, because those:

* Appeal to pretty much anyone with an opinion, including lots of non-hacker types.

* Really suck people in. "Someone is wrong on the internet!"

Look at how many comments there were on the Obama/Broadband story. Were any of them really that interesting? I would expect the hacker mind (at least those who are not devout followers of the 'keep the government out of it' school) to have already arrived at the fact that it's some sort of monopoly/oligopoly situation and to cast about for research on what sorts of policy approaches might cause what effects, and have what sort of consequences, both positive and negative. One minute with Google scholar turns up this, for instance: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119176828/abstrac... Most likely, someone who actually knows something about economics might be able to point to others of interest.

But that takes a lot more effort than the simple sorts of debate that tend to surround those stories.

  Eclipse - There is a Mac version.
  UltraEdit - Coda or Textmate.
  SQLYog - Sequel Pro.
  WinSCP - Cyberduck, YummyFTP. Tons of clients. Check out ExpanDrive for some real fun. 
  TortoiseSVN - Syncro SVN.
  Adobe CS3 - There is a Mac version.
  Camtasia Studio - Screenflow. 
  MS Office - There is a Mac version.
  WAMP - There is a similar MAMP. Then again, you are running on a platform 
         that has all those goodies pre-installed and ready-to-go!

PS: Virtualization has a cost associated with it. I only fire mine up for testing. Make sure you max out the RAM you get on the machine.

Python supports both object methods and functions. Ruby only supports object methods. However, Ruby does allow you to define methods outside of an object - these become methods of the Object class. As such, any methods defined like functions become changes to all objects since they inherit from Object.

Python is also very explicit about its namespacing and imports. In Python, you should always be able to know where any name you're using is coming from. In the example from the article, 'to_yaml' is added by requiring rubygems. That isn't so apparent (in the way that 'gem' being added by requiring rubygems would be apparent). Names are reused all the time. Names sometimes aren't related to their package in an apparent way.

With Python, you have three options (one of which Python programmers will flog you for): from package import name, name2 import package from package import * -- should really only be used in an interactive python shell and not in programs

In the first one, you could then call name(something) or name2(something). BUT you can see exactly where those names are coming from -- package. Unlike to_yaml which could come from wherever, it's explicit that it comes from 'package'. In the second one, you can do package.name(something) and the like. Similarly, you can see that it comes from 'package'.

Ruby is really flexible, but I would argue that the author is correct in assessing that the ability to modify all objects implicitly is a bad thing.