You have the source code. I have all the other documents. Neither one of us was involved in producing any of that, and we can't communicate at all with anyone else.
Is it possible for you to manufacture a new instance of the executable? Yes, you hit compile.
Is it possible for me to manufacture a new instance of the executable? Yes, I have to type a shitload of code, and I can guarantee that my executable will be dramatically different from yours. Mine will probably have a ton of errors in it, even if there were no errors in the documents that I got. I would have to test mine like crazy to get it into working shape.
What you had (the source code) was the design for that single instance of the executable.
Would you rather have also had the documentation as well? Of course! It would make it easier for you to understand and modify the design for the next feature.
Perhaps calling it "the design" is a poor choice in words, but I absolutely agree with his fundamental point about manufacturing being the mechanical equivalent of compilation, and that changing a single line of source code changes the design. And if you want to talk about what is actually produced - the finished library or DLL or executable - the comments and the sketches and the word docs don't make a lick of difference. It is only the source code that the compiler cares about. We humans care about all that other stuff - it's important for us to have a usable, maintainable, extensible design. But it's just like forgetting to tell Larry on the assembly floor to follow a step in manufacturing - you've got a different (and wrong) manufacturing process than you wanted - and the actual design is wrong.
I'm just strongly disagreeing, though I understand that my hindsight is superior to his relatively (1992) inexperienced enthusiasm.
Funny. Did you read his CV?
Jack W. Reeves is a senior software developer with over 30 years experience in the industry. He has worked on systems ranging from simulators for the space shuttle, military command and control systems, air traffic control systems, medical imaging systems, financial data distribution systems, embedded systems, drivers, and utilities. He has exclusively been an OO developer for the last 15 years.
Perhaps slashdot should have a special moderation value for newbies who don't want to do the hard work of RTFA and would rather just bitch.
The compiler doesn't care how much you communicated. Clearly you need to communicate to solve sufficiently large problems. He never said anything different! Everything you do, right up until the point where you type actual code makes no difference to the compiler. Since the finished product (the executable) is what you intend to build, and the compiler actually built it, and the only instructions that matter to the compiler are the source code - clearly your source code is the only design that actually matters to the finished product.
Everything else you do to communicate improves your ability to work with the design.
He's not saying "hack away!" He's saying that testing is a part of Engineering, since it changes the design. Do you really want to argue that point?
He's saying that all activities that influence the source code are a part of design. Since design is important, all of those activities are important!
And you've completely misunderstood the article, and have tried to read it the exact opposite way. For shame.
Jumping straight into coding without a design document that the WHOLE team AND your clients/users can read however is insane.
Did you even read the article? He clearly and specifically addresses this misconception of what he's saying at least three times that I can remember off the top of my head.
To summarize it for you (since you're such a fan of laziness that you won't even try to understand someone's point before you try to shoot it down): everything you call "design" is important - really, really important - but don't trick yourself into believing it's the design. If two people modify two separate things in conflicting ways - one the UML and one the source code - which one do you think is going to actually matter to the finished product? It's the source code, of course. Does that mean UML is unimportant? NO. He doesn't say that, and you're freakishly lazy for presuming he did - since he says otherwise in the article.
I can't read someone else's architectural design. I have no idea how the problem domain works. I have no idea what kinds of generalizations and concepts were used to break the problem down. I have no idea which facets of the problem were important, and which could be ignored. I don't know anything about the material sciences involved. What I don't know could just about fill the Grand Canyon.
Why do you presume that reading a software design (source code) would be any different?
It's hard to read a design - even a good one - until you "get it." Until you grok it. Those other documents you talk about are freaksihly important, and the author doesn't deny that - but they are not the design. They are of fundamental importance to the success of the design, but we shouldn't pretend that they are the design.
You're absolutely right to refer to those things as "documents." They help document. But they are not the design.
He's not saying skip design, he's saying that you do what you have to, in order to think the problem through (some design, some documentation, some testing, etc.), and then you work on the real, actual design (the source code.)
Refering to "the initial programmer" like you do is completely ignoring everything he's saying.
You're perpetuating the idea of office politics for decision making. In order to get anything to happen, you have to convince this non-technical manager you've put in power. How do you convince someone like that? Certainly not on technical merits. More importantly, when two engineers disagree, and this non-technical manager has to resolve it, clearly the manager is going to play politics. It'll probably come down to seniority. Yay. Because older people clearly always know more about new technology. =(
The value of a software company is the ability of the people who work there to create new products similar to the ones that they have previously created.
When you come up with a better definiton for the value of a company, then your argument that people are "*just* employees" might hold some water. Until then, I am left only with the conclusion that you do not understand the process of developing software.
Imagine this thought experiment: split a software company into two pieces - all the software, and all the people. Which one would you rather have in the long run (software or people)? For the people, making the software over again would be relatively easy (they already did it once). Training new people to get up to the same level as the original developers would be expensive... Especially if developing the first product took time and innovation.
Wow. On a politically charged topic, you really see the moderators go to town.
I feel like I've been making fairly consistent posts on the topic (sure, sometimes I've been a jerk, but hey - it's the Internet!), and this is what I've gotten:
Showing me interesting quotes doesn't interest me.
It is impossible to get me to question the leaders I have elected.
I am so jaded that not even a possible listing of purjured quotes will get me to investigate by opening Google and trying to find the original context.
Yes, I will not even open Google. That's asking too much of me.
I am a bad citizen of the most powerful country the world has ever seen.
In a perfect world, no one would ever question their leaders.
Are you seriously appealing to the authority of the United States Senate? Dude, if you polled the Senate, you'd find three Senators who think that desegregation was a bad thing, five who think nationalized health care is a grand idea, and a dozen more who think Elvis is still alive.
I've thought about this some, and I realized something kind of funny.
I bet if you polled the entire country, you'd find more than 3% who think desegregation was a bad thing, more than 5% who think nationalized health care is a grand idea, and 12% or more who think Elvis is still alive.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were 6% racist, 10% socialist, and 24% Elvisist, in the country.
So, on the one hand, we can say that maybe the Senate is a pretty good representation of America. On the other, I'm guessing that maybe the Senate is slightly less crazy than the rest of the country. That would make it slightly easier to find truth there, than by asking a random citizen - say, for instance you or me.
But back to my original point, you didn't disagree that more than a dozen Senators agree that Rice lied, and you discard them out of hand. I suggest that more than 12% of Americans think that Rice lied, and you're discarding them out of hand, too.
What makes you so sure you're right?
I think I might be right, but you're so confident that you're willing to ridicule me publicly.
I'm asking questions to find out if I'm right, and you're telling me to shut up.
How is it exactly that you discover the truth by squelching questions?
I said that it was sad and rather pathetic that the one gentleman who had enough vision to realize that Al Qaeda was not just a annoyance didn't have enough social skills to work and make other people realize the risk.
Again - how do you know that?
I propose that it's possible that the politicians were more interested in U.S. politics than in defense.
I base a lot of that on the fact that Clarke wasn't even granted a meeting with the senior advisors, until what - 9/5/01? That's not a failing of "social skills," that's "completely screwed out of being able to do your job by people who won't stop and listen to you."
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
Now, the...
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.
RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
Where is the word "airplane" or "weapon" anywhere in that conversation? You're so full of bullshit, and you have no desire to find out if you're wrong.
It also did not point to "possible hijackings." According to Dr. Rice, it was entirely historical. Unfortunately for her, the word "determined" means "on an unwavering course of action". That means, "will continue to be." That means, "in the future," or "not just historical." That means, she was wrong or lying.
Who's the moron now, you moron?
They represent a hell of a lot more jobs than I do.
No - the people who work there represent a lot more jobs. Microsoft doesn't represent anything except shareholders.
It's not supposed to be. You're not one of those people who mistakenly thinks everything is about the scientific method, are you?
Facts are clean, and politicians are greasy. The scientific method is the best way I know to determine facts (even facts about opinions). Tell me a better way, and I'll use it.
Until then, Microsoft greases palms, and you're an idiot for thinking they're just exercising their first amendment rights - it's a corporation, not a person. And they're buying votes. The votes that belong only and precisely to you, as a citizen of the democracy that they were elected to represent. If you don't care that you're being screwed, it's because you have no idea what being a citizen means.
When the army that's supposed to defend you starts torturing people, will you sit idly by?
Oh wait, that already happened - and yes, you are sitting idly by.
Does "America" mean anything to you, other than corporate profit and protection from terrorists?
It's our jobs as citizens to question our leaders. That's just about the only thing you and I are expected to do, in a representative democracy.
I think she was lying when she said that the contents of "the memo" didn't say that Bin Laden was determined to attack America, because I know for sure that that was the name of the freaking memo.
Or is this some wacky truth test that I'm a moron to use?
Microsoft, like every other business in America, lobbies the government. Just like I lobby the government.
Secretary: "Senator, Microsoft is on line one, and some internet guy who calls himself 'Leo McGarry' is on line two."
Funny. You most assuredly do not lobby the government "just like" Microsoft does.
They throw around more money than any other corporation, you spent less than a buck on a postcard. Sorry for burtsting your bubble, but in this representative democracy, Microsoft's voice carries more weight than yours.
There are lots of middle-men whose job it is to collect public opinion and communicate it to the representatives in Washington.
Again, "ha." These guys find someone who says that a survey says what they want it to, and feed that to representatives. It's not scientific at all. And if Microsoft, oh, I don't know, pays for those surveys, are you seriously so naive as to be surprised if the outcome of the surveys they tell people about say something that's always in favor of Microsoft? (Feel free to replace "Microsoft" with any corporation's name here, by the way.)
They're dishonest. Duh. Put on your ridicule-retardant pants, because you're in for a beating.
It's bullshit to think that it's some how not nice or just or appropriate or whatever if they don't apologize.
Oh, good lord. The opposite of "nice" isn't "not nice"? See, when I invert a concept, I'm used to being able to put the word "not" in front of it, in order to express myself. I guess I'm just a fucking moron, though.
On September 11, our government didn't have the first damn thing to apologize for.
Really? Security people at the airports didn't fuck up? (Then why did we completely restructure airport security?) The three-letter agencies shared all of the information they should have? (Then why are we wasting our time talking about a new intelligence director?) Jets scrambled fast enough for your taste? (Then why... oh, forget it.)
Just go do what needs to be done to respond to the situation at hand.
How can we respond to the situation now, if we don't try to figure out if we made mistakes then?
Seriously - how?
Richard Clarke thinks he made mistakes, and clearly thinks that we as a country need to learn from his mistakes. As the former top counter-terrorism advisor (aka "terrorism czar"), maybe you should fucking listen to him.
Clarke's job was to advise the President. That's it.
...and......he feels......he didn't do that job as well as it needed to be done.
Why is this a tricky concept for you?
It's not like I think he had terrorist kryptonite, and was the guy who could pray to the moon of Xandor, thus activating it. But of all of the people in the government charged specifically with the task of preventing terrorism in the United States, he had the job at the top of the food chain.
It wasn't his job to investigate terrorism that had already been committed. It wasn't his job to stop terrorism in progress. It was his job to get us to get out in front of terrorism, and actively prevent it.
As to cops preventing crime, I've hard this argument before, and I have a question for you:
Do you think cops walk a beat because it's fun? Do you think they drive around the city every night because it's a joy to burn mileage? No. A large part of the cop job - and they know this very well - is being visible.
Why?
Because when a cop is visible, they prevent crime.
The part where Microsoft greases palms is totally, 100% true.
And more than a dozen (Democratic) senators agree with the grandparent's analysis of what Rice did. That doesn't mean they're right, but you seem to be awfully sure of yourself.
Please change your Slashdot username. I think you're abusing it. =P
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be the fault of the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Good call.
Oh, wait - no - bad call.
I'm not saying he was an angel, I'm just saying that you've leapt to the conclusion that he was to blame, and two politicians who were absolutely detested by opposing sides of the country (Republicans hated Clinton, Democrats hate Bush) were blameless.
It's too bad really. Imagine all of the things that Clarke could have stopped if other people realized that they actually had to work with him.
So, if the cops are on the trail of a serial killer, and catch him one day after another murder - it's "bullshit" to think it's nice if the cops appologize to the last victim's family that they didn't have the luck to catch him one day earlier?
It's "bullshit" to think it's nice?
You're the arbiter of what's bullshit and nice?
Oh, that's right. You were appointed king. I lost the memo. Sorry, your highness.
Let some people appologize if they want to, and let other people think it's nice. How does either action hurt you, you arrogant cock?
People died, and you're lecturing us on personal responsibility?
Responsibility?
Hell, it was Clarke's job to stop the terrorists. That was the exact and only reason why he got paid. He thinks he made a mistake. He feels that he needs to take responsibility for his failure. You could learn a lesson from that.
It's not his fault that the terrorists tried to kill people, but as the guy whose job it was to stop them, he appologized for failing.
And do you know the difference between Christopher Columbus' theory, and the theory of Global Consciousness affecting a random number generator backwards in time?
Columbus had to petition the King, to be given permission to conduct the only experiment which would give him the facts he needed to show that the generally accepted theory (thought to be a fact) of a flat world was wrong. To debunk it.
These guys don't need anyone's permission. I'm begging them to conduct their experiment in the only way which will give them the facts needed to show that the generally accepted theory that ESP is crap and that information can't go backwards in time is wrong. To debunk it.
Don't be a martyr for your cause - prove me wrong. Until then, stop bitching and moaning about the bad scientists who don't believe your bullshit theories. ESP, time travel, and holistic medicine being "better" than modern medicine (chemotherapy, for instance). Collect the facts, and do it in a way that no one can doubt. If the facts are on your side, and your theories are useful, then why is it hard for you to demonstrate them in a way that no one can doubt? It shouldn't be this hard, dude.
Because this victimhood ("the facts are on my side, but no one believes me!") is getting really, really old.
Fine, since you're not going to reply to my first post - I'll throw this other one at you:
Look up the definition of "skeptic" some time.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. 2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Christopher Columbus was a skeptic. He rejected the generally accepted conclusion (which at the time was thought of as a religious question) that the world was flat. Doubting that the world was flat brought him and many others great success. (Note that this is in direct conflict with your stated belief that "Nothing of any use came out of debunking a theory.")
All scientific discovery is based on either accidents, or purposefully rejecting generally accepted conclusions.
These guys are trying to reject the generally accepted conclusion that ESP is not measurable. Unfortunately, they're doing it the wrong way. The right way is to peer review everything. Every step of the way.
These guys have been off the deep end for 20 years.
And you do not understand science at all.
You think you have a pretty firm grip on reality. But you believe in many things which science has not demonstrated. You think your beliefs are still "scientific," and that scientists (or doctors) who don't believe in those same things are "bad scientists."
Nope. You're mistaken. They're doing their job just fine, and your beliefs do not measure up to fact. They don't measure up to peer review. They're wrong. They're useless.
And I predict that it offends you beyond rage that I would dare to insult your beliefs in this way. You can believe anything you want to, but science isn't a word for you to throw around in any way you like - it means something very real, and you're abusing it. Enjoy your beliefs. I'll enjoy my science. And medicine, for that matter.
Please unplug your computer from the internet and return it to the store you bought it from; you don't respect the scientific achievements or the scientific process that made creating either of them possible.
Besides, you can just use astral projection and clairvoyance, anyway, right?
Screw you and your ad hominem attacks. I'm not reciting someone else - I've written what I've written very sincerely, and you rain scorn down upon me for it. I've tried to engage you in a frank and honest discussion, and you tell me that I'm - and I quote - "beneath contempt."
Beneath. Contempt.
I can only imagine that you are responding out of anger because you don't have good answers to my questions.
They didn't "get to me first," they are the only ones who aren't selling crazy. Re-read the way that you've responded to me from the very beginning of this conversation. Scorn. Non-stop. How exactly is it that you are an advocate of your views? I have done everything in my power to take you seriously, and to treat you like a real human with real beliefs. You have not extended the same courtesy to me. From the very beginning. You're probably right that I'm a fool for wasting one moment of thought on you.
You cannot, this is why useless things and ideas can be ignored.
No, no, no. That's not what you said. You said:
If ESP is there, it exists wether you can measure it or not. After accepting this, all that is left is wether you can use it or not.
If it is there, and if it is useful, then it is by definition measurable. So, when any attempt to measure it fails (again and again, for hundreds of years), I think that's fairly good proof that it's not measurable. Or useful. Or real. That's why ESP can be, by your example, "ignored." I'm doing you the courtesy of once again humoring people who can't construct good experiments, out of the absurdly slight possibility that there might be a measurable effect - and I'm saying, "okay - the next step is peer review. That's how you take this and make it a legitimate part of accepted scientific fact - your experiments need to be peer reviewed." And they're not doing it. And you call me an "unthinker." Nice of you.
Anyway, you're the one who's wasting my time by not actually responding to any of my questions. Oh, wait - only one of my questions - and that one you responded to by contradicting yourself.
I mean this quite seriously as an exercise of thought. I am not trying to insult you with it:
Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? There are many people who do believe in him. The reality of the Easter Bunny does not hinge on evidence of him being reported in a peer-reviewed journal, or being observed by anyone... or any thing. You should be able to believe in him without being threatened or offended, at least, if your philosophy was complete, you would be able to.
What's the difference between the Easter Bunny and ESP? I think you would say that one is real, and one is not. But how do you know that? Would believing in the Easter Bunny give you a better understanding of the world? Would it allow you to make better decisions? Would you be able to predict the results of some experiment which only the existance of the Easter Bunny could explain?
Experiments which purport to show the effect of ESP in the real world have always fallen prey to real scrutiny and peer review. I am not lying.
On what basis can you conclude that things in the National Enquirer are false, but ESP is real?
If ESP is there, it exists wether you can measure it or not. After accepting this, all that is left is wether you can use it or not.
How do you propose to "use" something which does not have a measurable effect on the world?
is it useful should be your only concern
Again - how can you "use" something which does not have a measurable effect on the world? This is not some trick question - I honestly do not know how you think it could be of use, if no one, no device, no outside observer, could ever tell if you were succesfully using it or not.
I mean - put it like this. Let's say that some people have ESP, and some do not. Let's say they both try to use it. Some of them are just wasting their time - they don't have ESP! (At least in my theory of a world where some have it, and some do not.) So, how could you tell the difference between the people who are wasting their time, and the people who are not? How could you yourself know if you actually had ESP or not? If you can't measure it - is it just based on faith? And if it is just based on faith, then can't you see that faith in something immeasurable is the same, to any reasonable outside observer, as faith in something which does not factually exist?
I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a way to respectfully respond to your belief in homeopathic treatments which doctors have rejected. Doctors are consumed with patient outcome - and the majority of homeopathic treatments have no measurable impact on patient outcome. I accept that you have faith that they do have a measurable impact on patient outcome. But if they did have a measurable impact on patient outcome, they would become accepted treatments in modern medicine. It really is that simple. Maybe doctors don't always know all of the modern treatments, and maybe the spread of that knowledge is too slow, but that's how it works.
Bad scientists and bad doctors have alot in common, and it all boils down to treating humans as unimportant, imaginary characters in a play set on the stage of a completely random universe run soley by the rules that they are aware of.
That is the very deinition of arrogance.
Sadly, no. Bad scientists and bad doctors do have a lot in common - but it's not what you think. The bad ones believe that measurement, and repeatability, and validation, and peer-review are unimportant.
It is disrespectful of humanity to not do everything in your power to give people the best chance to succeed - or live. If treatment A has a 78.6% positive outcome, and treatment B has a 78.7% positive outcome (and similar side-effects), and treatment C has a monk who insists that his homeopathic treatments work but the outcomes are not up for peer review... I will chose B every day of the week. For myself, for my loved ones, for my children, and if I'm a doctor - for my
Let me try to help you by consolodating all of what you've said into a coherent thesis:
Facts are facts, no matter who comes up with them - and if those facts can be used to help humanity, then the source of that information is unimportant, as long as no one is harmed by the gathering of that information.
(We can debate whether animals should be harmed for research.)
I don't have a problem with that thesis. When I expressed my revulsion at this research, because the "facts" have not been subject to peer review for - again - 20 years worth of work, you seemed completely uninterested in that criticism. In fact, you attacked me for my "bankrupt 'philosophy'". Was that really called for?
You didn't seem to make the slightest attempt to understand that I was demanding the rigour of analysis. Even when I clarified that point, you went off on bizarre tangents, somehow concluding that theories of the physical world are "proved." (They are not - they are only ever disproved.) Theories are not fact. Only that which you can measure is a fact. The acceleration an object experiences when you drop it is a measurable fact - that the acceleration is caused by the curvature of space-time is just a theory. It's a good theory, because it basically hasn't been disproved for a long, long time.
The theory of global consciousness affecting random number generators backwards in time, in correlation with significant events is a bad theory, because no one (outside of a very, very small circle - who named themselves after this theory) has been trying to disprove it at all. Even though this work has been going on for 20 years. That's unforgivable.
It's possible to remedy it (peer review time!), but until then, putting stock in it is silly.
I absolutely do care if ESP is inside the 'scientific' model of reality or not. If ESP produces good measurements, then clearly the current model of understanding is wrong. We will have disproved the notion that ESP has no measurable effects. Get it?
Thousands of people over hundreds of years have attempted to measure ESP - and failed. Now a new group is claiming to do it - as "scientists," and so people get excited. Problem is - they're skipping the most important part of science - peer review.
That makes it bad science. If there are real measurable results in there, yay! Until then, these people should be censured as bad scientists - even if their results have merit, because they haven't shared with their peers and submitted to analysis. They've had 20 years to turn from bad scientists to good scientists, and they haven't done it! Why? Could it be, oh, I don't know, possibly be because they fear critical analysis from their peers?
Well, you learn something new every day. I had no idea of the origins of that racist term, and had I, I might not have used it.
A Google Video search will reveal that the term has been used recently on the TV show Cheers, by Carla. I meant it in the same way she did - as a mildy insulting curse for someone who is kind of clueless.
the only thing that matters is results, not the cause or the belief system in which they may be rooted
The ends justify the means? I suppose a "master race" would be the kind of result worth any means - any belief system or cause. Oh wait. Maybe not.
You adhere to whatever religion you like, science, atheism, darwininsm whatever. If you produce the results in your work, then they (and you) are of use.
So, I can be Josef Mengele, and perform terrible experiments on humans - but if I figure out how to cure for instance, Malaria, then I'm "of use"?
It does matter what belief system you adhere to. Starting out by believing in (and naming your group after "Global Consciousness" makes it far more likely that you'll find "Global Consciousness" as the results of all of your experiments. Call me a skeptic.
noxious poison (chemotherapy)
You think chemotherapy is useless snake oil? I guess we do have a different view of what is useful. See, I think something is useful if it saves a tremendous number of lives. Look up "Norman Borlaug" sometime, if you want to know more about my hero. He made "franken-foods!" Ooh, scary. That's probably just as bad as chemo, in your book. Nevermind that he saved a billion people.
No one cares if ESP is inside the 'scientific' model of realtiy or not.
James Randi, Basava Premanand, Penn and Teller and Harry Houdini all cared a great deal.
The 'scientific' model is the factual one. If ESP were factual, it would be a part of the 'scientific' model. It's really not more tricky than that. Since ESP is not factual (and is therefore completely useless), it is not in the 'scientific' model.
How many hundred years of proof will it take to convince you?
And if you're not convinced - devise an experiment. And once you have, peer review it, or you're useless.
that is the only thing that counts; human beings
So, now I'm an anti-humanist? Wow. You really have gone on a wild roller-coaster ride. First I'm an "unthinker" because I think that outrageous claims require proof. Now I don't care about human beings? Fantastic. Soon, I'll be eating babies.
By the way - a good way to not lose a conversation is to never respond to most of the points your opponent brings up. You seem to be very good at that. Did you learn anything about modus tollens in this conversation? You seemed to have mastered the ad hominem tactic - I thought I'd broaden your horizons a bit, but since you haven't responded at all to the actual meat of the debate, I guess it is kind of fun to keep calling you an idiot. =) (I'm learning to enjoy the ad hominem, thanks to you!)
And if you're so outraged by the term (which I am happy to suggest has lost its original racist meaning), then I recommend you write these guys a letter:
Shrinky Dinks K & B Innovations, Inc. P.O. Box 223 N78 W31401 Kilbourne Road North Lake, WI 53064-0223
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine this mental exercise:
You have the source code. I have all the other documents. Neither one of us was involved in producing any of that, and we can't communicate at all with anyone else.
Is it possible for you to manufacture a new instance of the executable? Yes, you hit compile.
Is it possible for me to manufacture a new instance of the executable? Yes, I have to type a shitload of code, and I can guarantee that my executable will be dramatically different from yours. Mine will probably have a ton of errors in it, even if there were no errors in the documents that I got. I would have to test mine like crazy to get it into working shape.
What you had (the source code) was the design for that single instance of the executable.
Would you rather have also had the documentation as well? Of course! It would make it easier for you to understand and modify the design for the next feature.
Perhaps calling it "the design" is a poor choice in words, but I absolutely agree with his fundamental point about manufacturing being the mechanical equivalent of compilation, and that changing a single line of source code changes the design. And if you want to talk about what is actually produced - the finished library or DLL or executable - the comments and the sketches and the word docs don't make a lick of difference. It is only the source code that the compiler cares about. We humans care about all that other stuff - it's important for us to have a usable, maintainable, extensible design. But it's just like forgetting to tell Larry on the assembly floor to follow a step in manufacturing - you've got a different (and wrong) manufacturing process than you wanted - and the actual design is wrong.
I'm just strongly disagreeing, though I understand that my hindsight is superior to his relatively (1992) inexperienced enthusiasm.
Funny. Did you read his CV?
Jack W. Reeves is a senior software developer with over 30 years experience in the
industry. He has worked on systems ranging from simulators for the space shuttle, military
command and control systems, air traffic control systems, medical imaging systems,
financial data distribution systems, embedded systems, drivers, and utilities. He has
exclusively been an OO developer for the last 15 years.
Perhaps slashdot should have a special moderation value for newbies who don't want to do the hard work of RTFA and would rather just bitch.
The compiler doesn't care how much you communicated. Clearly you need to communicate to solve sufficiently large problems. He never said anything different! Everything you do, right up until the point where you type actual code makes no difference to the compiler. Since the finished product (the executable) is what you intend to build, and the compiler actually built it, and the only instructions that matter to the compiler are the source code - clearly your source code is the only design that actually matters to the finished product.
Everything else you do to communicate improves your ability to work with the design.
He's not saying "hack away!" He's saying that testing is a part of Engineering, since it changes the design. Do you really want to argue that point?
He's saying that all activities that influence the source code are a part of design. Since design is important, all of those activities are important!
And you've completely misunderstood the article, and have tried to read it the exact opposite way. For shame.
Jumping straight into coding without a design document that the WHOLE team AND your clients/users can read however is insane.
Did you even read the article? He clearly and specifically addresses this misconception of what he's saying at least three times that I can remember off the top of my head.
To summarize it for you (since you're such a fan of laziness that you won't even try to understand someone's point before you try to shoot it down): everything you call "design" is important - really, really important - but don't trick yourself into believing it's the design. If two people modify two separate things in conflicting ways - one the UML and one the source code - which one do you think is going to actually matter to the finished product? It's the source code, of course. Does that mean UML is unimportant? NO. He doesn't say that, and you're freakishly lazy for presuming he did - since he says otherwise in the article.
Huh. Funny. So, you're saying that the design department never touched a CNC machine, and somehow they magically produced a correct CNC program?
Of course not. That's because design and manufacturing, in every succesful company, know an awful lot about each other.
How much do you know about your compiler? And when you're done linking source code, how much does your compiler know about your design?
Reminds me of Richard Feynman's Problem-Solving Algorithm:
1) Write down the problem
2) Think very hard
3) Write down the solution
I can't read someone else's architectural design. I have no idea how the problem domain works. I have no idea what kinds of generalizations and concepts were used to break the problem down. I have no idea which facets of the problem were important, and which could be ignored. I don't know anything about the material sciences involved. What I don't know could just about fill the Grand Canyon.
Why do you presume that reading a software design (source code) would be any different?
It's hard to read a design - even a good one - until you "get it." Until you grok it. Those other documents you talk about are freaksihly important, and the author doesn't deny that - but they are not the design. They are of fundamental importance to the success of the design, but we shouldn't pretend that they are the design.
You're absolutely right to refer to those things as "documents." They help document. But they are not the design.
He's not saying skip design, he's saying that you do what you have to, in order to think the problem through (some design, some documentation, some testing, etc.), and then you work on the real, actual design (the source code.)
Refering to "the initial programmer" like you do is completely ignoring everything he's saying.
You're perpetuating the idea of office politics for decision making. In order to get anything to happen, you have to convince this non-technical manager you've put in power. How do you convince someone like that? Certainly not on technical merits. More importantly, when two engineers disagree, and this non-technical manager has to resolve it, clearly the manager is going to play politics. It'll probably come down to seniority. Yay. Because older people clearly always know more about new technology. =(
Hey AC...
The value of a software company is the ability of the people who work there to create new products similar to the ones that they have previously created.
When you come up with a better definiton for the value of a company, then your argument that people are "*just* employees" might hold some water. Until then, I am left only with the conclusion that you do not understand the process of developing software.
Imagine this thought experiment: split a software company into two pieces - all the software, and all the people. Which one would you rather have in the long run (software or people)? For the people, making the software over again would be relatively easy (they already did it once). Training new people to get up to the same level as the original developers would be expensive... Especially if developing the first product took time and innovation.
Isn't that a chimp in the picture?
For being an article about science, they certainly used the wrong word ("monkey" instead of "ape") a lot.
Wow. On a politically charged topic, you really see the moderators go to town.
I feel like I've been making fairly consistent posts on the topic (sure, sometimes I've been a jerk, but hey - it's the Internet!), and this is what I've gotten:
Score 2
Score 3, Interesting
Score 1, Troll
Score 1, Flamebait
Score 4, Insightful
Score 5, Insightful
Score 1, Troll
Score 2
Score 1, Troll
I would suspect the moderations were fairly partisan. Maybe for Political topics, the ratings should be more like:
-1 Republican
-1 Conservative
+1 Democrat
+1 Liberal
Or... You know... The other way. =)
Showing me interesting quotes doesn't interest me.
It is impossible to get me to question the leaders I have elected.
I am so jaded that not even a possible listing of purjured quotes will get me to investigate by opening Google and trying to find the original context.
Yes, I will not even open Google. That's asking too much of me.
I am a bad citizen of the most powerful country the world has ever seen.
In a perfect world, no one would ever question their leaders.
You idiot.
Are you seriously appealing to the authority of the United States Senate? Dude, if you polled the Senate, you'd find three Senators who think that desegregation was a bad thing, five who think nationalized health care is a grand idea, and a dozen more who think Elvis is still alive.
I've thought about this some, and I realized something kind of funny.
I bet if you polled the entire country, you'd find more than 3% who think desegregation was a bad thing, more than 5% who think nationalized health care is a grand idea, and 12% or more who think Elvis is still alive.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were 6% racist, 10% socialist, and 24% Elvisist, in the country.
So, on the one hand, we can say that maybe the Senate is a pretty good representation of America. On the other, I'm guessing that maybe the Senate is slightly less crazy than the rest of the country. That would make it slightly easier to find truth there, than by asking a random citizen - say, for instance you or me.
But back to my original point, you didn't disagree that more than a dozen Senators agree that Rice lied, and you discard them out of hand. I suggest that more than 12% of Americans think that Rice lied, and you're discarding them out of hand, too.
What makes you so sure you're right?
I think I might be right, but you're so confident that you're willing to ridicule me publicly.
I'm asking questions to find out if I'm right, and you're telling me to shut up.
How is it exactly that you discover the truth by squelching questions?
I said that it was sad and rather pathetic that the one gentleman who had enough vision to realize that Al Qaeda was not just a annoyance didn't have enough social skills to work and make other people realize the risk.
Again - how do you know that?
I propose that it's possible that the politicians were more interested in U.S. politics than in defense.
I base a lot of that on the fact that Clarke wasn't even granted a meeting with the senior advisors, until what - 9/5/01? That's not a failing of "social skills," that's "completely screwed out of being able to do your job by people who won't stop and listen to you."
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
Now, the...
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.
RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
Where is the word "airplane" or "weapon" anywhere in that conversation? You're so full of bullshit, and you have no desire to find out if you're wrong.
It also did not point to "possible hijackings." According to Dr. Rice, it was entirely historical. Unfortunately for her, the word "determined" means "on an unwavering course of action". That means, "will continue to be." That means, "in the future," or "not just historical." That means, she was wrong or lying.
Who's the moron now, you moron?
They represent a hell of a lot more jobs than I do.
No - the people who work there represent a lot more jobs. Microsoft doesn't represent anything except shareholders.
It's not supposed to be. You're not one of those people who mistakenly thinks everything is about the scientific method, are you?
Facts are clean, and politicians are greasy. The scientific method is the best way I know to determine facts (even facts about opinions). Tell me a better way, and I'll use it.
Until then, Microsoft greases palms, and you're an idiot for thinking they're just exercising their first amendment rights - it's a corporation, not a person. And they're buying votes. The votes that belong only and precisely to you, as a citizen of the democracy that they were elected to represent. If you don't care that you're being screwed, it's because you have no idea what being a citizen means.
When the army that's supposed to defend you starts torturing people, will you sit idly by?
Oh wait, that already happened - and yes, you are sitting idly by.
Does "America" mean anything to you, other than corporate profit and protection from terrorists?
Ha ha ha. Funny.
It's our jobs as citizens to question our leaders. That's just about the only thing you and I are expected to do, in a representative democracy.
I think she was lying when she said that the contents of "the memo" didn't say that Bin Laden was determined to attack America, because I know for sure that that was the name of the freaking memo.
Or is this some wacky truth test that I'm a moron to use?
Microsoft, like every other business in America, lobbies the government. Just like I lobby the government.
Secretary: "Senator, Microsoft is on line one, and some internet guy who calls himself 'Leo McGarry' is on line two."
Funny. You most assuredly do not lobby the government "just like" Microsoft does.
They throw around more money than any other corporation, you spent less than a buck on a postcard. Sorry for burtsting your bubble, but in this representative democracy, Microsoft's voice carries more weight than yours.
There are lots of middle-men whose job it is to collect public opinion and communicate it to the representatives in Washington.
Again, "ha." These guys find someone who says that a survey says what they want it to, and feed that to representatives. It's not scientific at all. And if Microsoft, oh, I don't know, pays for those surveys, are you seriously so naive as to be surprised if the outcome of the surveys they tell people about say something that's always in favor of Microsoft? (Feel free to replace "Microsoft" with any corporation's name here, by the way.)
They're dishonest. Duh. Put on your ridicule-retardant pants, because you're in for a beating.
Oh, good lord. The opposite of "nice" isn't "not nice"? See, when I invert a concept, I'm used to being able to put the word "not" in front of it, in order to express myself. I guess I'm just a fucking moron, though.
On September 11, our government didn't have the first damn thing to apologize for.
Really? Security people at the airports didn't fuck up? (Then why did we completely restructure airport security?) The three-letter agencies shared all of the information they should have? (Then why are we wasting our time talking about a new intelligence director?) Jets scrambled fast enough for your taste? (Then why... oh, forget it.)
Just go do what needs to be done to respond to the situation at hand.
How can we respond to the situation now, if we don't try to figure out if we made mistakes then?
Seriously - how?
Richard Clarke thinks he made mistakes, and clearly thinks that we as a country need to learn from his mistakes. As the former top counter-terrorism advisor (aka "terrorism czar"), maybe you should fucking listen to him.
Clarke's job was to advise the President. That's it.
Why is this a tricky concept for you?
It's not like I think he had terrorist kryptonite, and was the guy who could pray to the moon of Xandor, thus activating it. But of all of the people in the government charged specifically with the task of preventing terrorism in the United States, he had the job at the top of the food chain.
It wasn't his job to investigate terrorism that had already been committed. It wasn't his job to stop terrorism in progress. It was his job to get us to get out in front of terrorism, and actively prevent it.
As to cops preventing crime, I've hard this argument before, and I have a question for you:
Do you think cops walk a beat because it's fun? Do you think they drive around the city every night because it's a joy to burn mileage? No. A large part of the cop job - and they know this very well - is being visible.
Why?
Because when a cop is visible, they prevent crime.
The part where Microsoft greases palms is totally, 100% true.
And more than a dozen (Democratic) senators agree with the grandparent's analysis of what Rice did. That doesn't mean they're right, but you seem to be awfully sure of yourself.
Please change your Slashdot username. I think you're abusing it. =P
Huh.
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be the fault of the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Good call.
Oh, wait - no - bad call.
I'm not saying he was an angel, I'm just saying that you've leapt to the conclusion that he was to blame, and two politicians who were absolutely detested by opposing sides of the country (Republicans hated Clinton, Democrats hate Bush) were blameless.
It's too bad really. Imagine all of the things that Clarke could have stopped if other people realized that they actually had to work with him.
So, if the cops are on the trail of a serial killer, and catch him one day after another murder - it's "bullshit" to think it's nice if the cops appologize to the last victim's family that they didn't have the luck to catch him one day earlier?
It's "bullshit" to think it's nice?
You're the arbiter of what's bullshit and nice?
Oh, that's right. You were appointed king. I lost the memo. Sorry, your highness.
Let some people appologize if they want to, and let other people think it's nice. How does either action hurt you, you arrogant cock?
People died, and you're lecturing us on personal responsibility?
Responsibility?
Hell, it was Clarke's job to stop the terrorists. That was the exact and only reason why he got paid. He thinks he made a mistake. He feels that he needs to take responsibility for his failure. You could learn a lesson from that.
It's not his fault that the terrorists tried to kill people, but as the guy whose job it was to stop them, he appologized for failing.
And do you know the difference between Christopher Columbus' theory, and the theory of Global Consciousness affecting a random number generator backwards in time?
Columbus had to petition the King, to be given permission to conduct the only experiment which would give him the facts he needed to show that the generally accepted theory (thought to be a fact) of a flat world was wrong. To debunk it.
These guys don't need anyone's permission. I'm begging them to conduct their experiment in the only way which will give them the facts needed to show that the generally accepted theory that ESP is crap and that information can't go backwards in time is wrong. To debunk it.
Don't be a martyr for your cause - prove me wrong. Until then, stop bitching and moaning about the bad scientists who don't believe your bullshit theories. ESP, time travel, and holistic medicine being "better" than modern medicine (chemotherapy, for instance). Collect the facts, and do it in a way that no one can doubt. If the facts are on your side, and your theories are useful, then why is it hard for you to demonstrate them in a way that no one can doubt? It shouldn't be this hard, dude.
Because this victimhood ("the facts are on my side, but no one believes me!") is getting really, really old.
Fine, since you're not going to reply to my first post - I'll throw this other one at you:
Look up the definition of "skeptic" some time.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Christopher Columbus was a skeptic. He rejected the generally accepted conclusion (which at the time was thought of as a religious question) that the world was flat. Doubting that the world was flat brought him and many others great success. (Note that this is in direct conflict with your stated belief that "Nothing of any use came out of debunking a theory.")
All scientific discovery is based on either accidents, or purposefully rejecting generally accepted conclusions.
These guys are trying to reject the generally accepted conclusion that ESP is not measurable. Unfortunately, they're doing it the wrong way. The right way is to peer review everything. Every step of the way.
These guys have been off the deep end for 20 years.
And you do not understand science at all.
You think you have a pretty firm grip on reality. But you believe in many things which science has not demonstrated. You think your beliefs are still "scientific," and that scientists (or doctors) who don't believe in those same things are "bad scientists."
Nope. You're mistaken. They're doing their job just fine, and your beliefs do not measure up to fact. They don't measure up to peer review. They're wrong. They're useless.
And I predict that it offends you beyond rage that I would dare to insult your beliefs in this way. You can believe anything you want to, but science isn't a word for you to throw around in any way you like - it means something very real, and you're abusing it. Enjoy your beliefs. I'll enjoy my science. And medicine, for that matter.
Please unplug your computer from the internet and return it to the store you bought it from; you don't respect the scientific achievements or the scientific process that made creating either of them possible.
Besides, you can just use astral projection and clairvoyance, anyway, right?
Screw you and your ad hominem attacks. I'm not reciting someone else - I've written what I've written very sincerely, and you rain scorn down upon me for it. I've tried to engage you in a frank and honest discussion, and you tell me that I'm - and I quote - "beneath contempt."
Beneath. Contempt.
I can only imagine that you are responding out of anger because you don't have good answers to my questions.
They didn't "get to me first," they are the only ones who aren't selling crazy. Re-read the way that you've responded to me from the very beginning of this conversation. Scorn. Non-stop. How exactly is it that you are an advocate of your views? I have done everything in my power to take you seriously, and to treat you like a real human with real beliefs. You have not extended the same courtesy to me. From the very beginning. You're probably right that I'm a fool for wasting one moment of thought on you.
You cannot, this is why useless things and ideas can be ignored.
No, no, no. That's not what you said. You said:
If ESP is there, it exists wether you can measure it or not. After accepting this, all that is left is wether you can use it or not.
If it is there, and if it is useful, then it is by definition measurable. So, when any attempt to measure it fails (again and again, for hundreds of years), I think that's fairly good proof that it's not measurable. Or useful. Or real. That's why ESP can be, by your example, "ignored." I'm doing you the courtesy of once again humoring people who can't construct good experiments, out of the absurdly slight possibility that there might be a measurable effect - and I'm saying, "okay - the next step is peer review. That's how you take this and make it a legitimate part of accepted scientific fact - your experiments need to be peer reviewed." And they're not doing it. And you call me an "unthinker." Nice of you.
Anyway, you're the one who's wasting my time by not actually responding to any of my questions. Oh, wait - only one of my questions - and that one you responded to by contradicting yourself.
I mean this quite seriously as an exercise of thought. I am not trying to insult you with it:
Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? There are many people who do believe in him. The reality of the Easter Bunny does not hinge on evidence of him being reported in a peer-reviewed journal, or being observed by anyone... or any thing. You should be able to believe in him without being threatened or offended, at least, if your philosophy was complete, you would be able to.
What's the difference between the Easter Bunny and ESP? I think you would say that one is real, and one is not. But how do you know that? Would believing in the Easter Bunny give you a better understanding of the world? Would it allow you to make better decisions? Would you be able to predict the results of some experiment which only the existance of the Easter Bunny could explain?
Experiments which purport to show the effect of ESP in the real world have always fallen prey to real scrutiny and peer review. I am not lying.
On what basis can you conclude that things in the National Enquirer are false, but ESP is real?
If ESP is there, it exists wether you can measure it or not. After accepting this, all that is left is wether you can use it or not.
How do you propose to "use" something which does not have a measurable effect on the world?
is it useful should be your only concern
Again - how can you "use" something which does not have a measurable effect on the world? This is not some trick question - I honestly do not know how you think it could be of use, if no one, no device, no outside observer, could ever tell if you were succesfully using it or not.
I mean - put it like this. Let's say that some people have ESP, and some do not. Let's say they both try to use it. Some of them are just wasting their time - they don't have ESP! (At least in my theory of a world where some have it, and some do not.) So, how could you tell the difference between the people who are wasting their time, and the people who are not? How could you yourself know if you actually had ESP or not? If you can't measure it - is it just based on faith? And if it is just based on faith, then can't you see that faith in something immeasurable is the same, to any reasonable outside observer, as faith in something which does not factually exist?
I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a way to respectfully respond to your belief in homeopathic treatments which doctors have rejected. Doctors are consumed with patient outcome - and the majority of homeopathic treatments have no measurable impact on patient outcome. I accept that you have faith that they do have a measurable impact on patient outcome. But if they did have a measurable impact on patient outcome, they would become accepted treatments in modern medicine. It really is that simple. Maybe doctors don't always know all of the modern treatments, and maybe the spread of that knowledge is too slow, but that's how it works.
Bad scientists and bad doctors have alot in common, and it all boils down to treating humans as unimportant, imaginary characters in a play set on the stage of a completely random universe run soley by the rules that they are aware of.
That is the very deinition of arrogance.
Sadly, no. Bad scientists and bad doctors do have a lot in common - but it's not what you think. The bad ones believe that measurement, and repeatability, and validation, and peer-review are unimportant.
It is disrespectful of humanity to not do everything in your power to give people the best chance to succeed - or live. If treatment A has a 78.6% positive outcome, and treatment B has a 78.7% positive outcome (and similar side-effects), and treatment C has a monk who insists that his homeopathic treatments work but the outcomes are not up for peer review... I will chose B every day of the week. For myself, for my loved ones, for my children, and if I'm a doctor - for my
Let me try to help you by consolodating all of what you've said into a coherent thesis:
Facts are facts, no matter who comes up with them - and if those facts can be used to help humanity, then the source of that information is unimportant, as long as no one is harmed by the gathering of that information.
(We can debate whether animals should be harmed for research.)
I don't have a problem with that thesis. When I expressed my revulsion at this research, because the "facts" have not been subject to peer review for - again - 20 years worth of work, you seemed completely uninterested in that criticism. In fact, you attacked me for my "bankrupt 'philosophy'". Was that really called for?
You didn't seem to make the slightest attempt to understand that I was demanding the rigour of analysis. Even when I clarified that point, you went off on bizarre tangents, somehow concluding that theories of the physical world are "proved." (They are not - they are only ever disproved.) Theories are not fact. Only that which you can measure is a fact. The acceleration an object experiences when you drop it is a measurable fact - that the acceleration is caused by the curvature of space-time is just a theory. It's a good theory, because it basically hasn't been disproved for a long, long time.
The theory of global consciousness affecting random number generators backwards in time, in correlation with significant events is a bad theory, because no one (outside of a very, very small circle - who named themselves after this theory) has been trying to disprove it at all. Even though this work has been going on for 20 years. That's unforgivable.
It's possible to remedy it (peer review time!), but until then, putting stock in it is silly.
I absolutely do care if ESP is inside the 'scientific' model of reality or not. If ESP produces good measurements, then clearly the current model of understanding is wrong. We will have disproved the notion that ESP has no measurable effects. Get it?
Thousands of people over hundreds of years have attempted to measure ESP - and failed. Now a new group is claiming to do it - as "scientists," and so people get excited. Problem is - they're skipping the most important part of science - peer review.
That makes it bad science. If there are real measurable results in there, yay! Until then, these people should be censured as bad scientists - even if their results have merit, because they haven't shared with their peers and submitted to analysis. They've had 20 years to turn from bad scientists to good scientists, and they haven't done it! Why? Could it be, oh, I don't know, possibly be because they fear critical analysis from their peers?
Well, you learn something new every day. I had no idea of the origins of that racist term, and had I, I might not have used it.
A Google Video search will reveal that the term has been used recently on the TV show Cheers, by Carla. I meant it in the same way she did - as a mildy insulting curse for someone who is kind of clueless.
the only thing that matters is results, not the cause or the belief system in which they may be rooted
The ends justify the means? I suppose a "master race" would be the kind of result worth any means - any belief system or cause. Oh wait. Maybe not.
You adhere to whatever religion you like, science, atheism, darwininsm whatever. If you produce the results in your work, then they (and you) are of use.
So, I can be Josef Mengele, and perform terrible experiments on humans - but if I figure out how to cure for instance, Malaria, then I'm "of use"?
It does matter what belief system you adhere to. Starting out by believing in (and naming your group after "Global Consciousness" makes it far more likely that you'll find "Global Consciousness" as the results of all of your experiments. Call me a skeptic.
noxious poison (chemotherapy)
You think chemotherapy is useless snake oil? I guess we do have a different view of what is useful. See, I think something is useful if it saves a tremendous number of lives. Look up "Norman Borlaug" sometime, if you want to know more about my hero. He made "franken-foods!" Ooh, scary. That's probably just as bad as chemo, in your book. Nevermind that he saved a billion people.
No one cares if ESP is inside the 'scientific' model of realtiy or not.
James Randi, Basava Premanand, Penn and Teller and Harry Houdini all cared a great deal.
The 'scientific' model is the factual one. If ESP were factual, it would be a part of the 'scientific' model. It's really not more tricky than that. Since ESP is not factual (and is therefore completely useless), it is not in the 'scientific' model.
How many hundred years of proof will it take to convince you?
And if you're not convinced - devise an experiment. And once you have, peer review it, or you're useless.
that is the only thing that counts; human beings
So, now I'm an anti-humanist? Wow. You really have gone on a wild roller-coaster ride. First I'm an "unthinker" because I think that outrageous claims require proof. Now I don't care about human beings? Fantastic. Soon, I'll be eating babies.
By the way - a good way to not lose a conversation is to never respond to most of the points your opponent brings up. You seem to be very good at that. Did you learn anything about modus tollens in this conversation? You seemed to have mastered the ad hominem tactic - I thought I'd broaden your horizons a bit, but since you haven't responded at all to the actual meat of the debate, I guess it is kind of fun to keep calling you an idiot. =) (I'm learning to enjoy the ad hominem, thanks to you!)
And if you're so outraged by the term (which I am happy to suggest has lost its original racist meaning), then I recommend you write these guys a letter:
Shrinky Dinks
K & B Innovations, Inc.
P.O. Box 223
N78 W31401 Kilbourne Road
North Lake, WI 53064-0223