So you admit you're a troll-and-run kind then? Point out how what he said was a fallacy.
If an extremist tells you something is going to happen, and it doesn't, there's no room for middle-ground in stating that their claims were incorrect.
If he had said that the world would end on 1 April 2012 then you could call it "exaggerated alarmism". If the temperature rises more slowly than he expected there's a whole grey area between "exaggerated alarmism" and "pretty near right". Saying that they're the only options is a false dichotomy.
There's also no genetic fallacy that I can see. Genetic fallacies fail to assess claims on merits. If someone tells you the world temperature is going to skyrocket, and it doesn't, their claim was wrong.
Assessing the argument based on whether Lovelock is a credible source is a genetic fallacy. And the question of whether "What they were spouting was political activism that had no basis in reality while abusing their standing as authorities on the matter" has no bearing on whether what they were saying was actually true -- that's the fallacist's fallacy. Can I get back to my beer now?
You could continue to take the very easy road and simply throw out logical fallacies as if you are the more knowledgeable between us.
I don't think that looking for basic flaws in arguments is "the very easy road". Too many seem to find it too difficult for them to bother.
You could continue to pretend I have used them in an argument without pointing to any specific phrase and providing an example of how the fallacies apply. You could do this, you probably will.
Oh, I probably won't. It's not my job to teach you basic logic, and I've got a dinner to cook.
Now, when those "non-credible scientists" as you say are backing down from their completely untenable belief systems, now you wash your hands of what they were saying before?
Make up your minds. Either what they were saying was correct and doom was upon us because we drove SUV's, or it was exaggerated alarmism.
Google for "genetic fallacy", "bifurcation fallacy" and "fallacist’s fallacy". Rejoin the discussion when you understand why they show what you said to be nonsense.
Unfortunately, that's a reality that these guys are going to have to face. No amount of DRM or lawsuits or even infomercials has stopped it from happening yet, and likely never will.
Rather than a version control system, I think it would be more useful to put the law into a requirements management system (after all, what is the law but a set of requirements?) That *might* help lawmakers to see if they are complete (cover what is intended to be covered), consistent and measurable. I don't know of any open source requirements management tools though -- at least, not ones that are still maintained. Perhaps requirements management goes against the hacker ethos (which would reduce the open source effort put into such things, although it wouldn't eliminate it completely of course). If requirements management is against the hacker ethos then I suspect that attempts to hack the law won't work very well.
I certainly know some people who have become outspoken atheists out of hostility to their experiences in Roman Catholic church schools. Whether you call that "rebellion" or "dissatisfaction" is up to you.
No, the vaccine worked. The reason most of the children who got infected also had the vaccines, was that 81% of all children had recieved the vaccine.
No, as I read it it's 81% of those with whooping cough who were infected. I can't see the proportion of the population who were vaccinated. It's an important point, though, and was my first thought. If 99% of the population is vaccinated, 100% of those not vaccinated get whooping cough and only 10% of those vaccinated get it then most kids with whooping cough would be fully vaccinated, by a factor of almost ten to one. Could they really have made such a basic statistical blunder, though?
I suspect the Murdoch Empire (of which The Sun is a part) finds internet porn offensive primarily because it means that people don't bother buying The Sun to get a picture of a girl flashing her tits.
It clearly shows that you are being fed shit.
There is no such thing as "Ceefax has to go because analogue tv ends".
It is a decision made for other reasons.
The sort of stuff that used to be on Ceefax and isn't on the digital text service is now on the BBC website, except that there it's far more extensive and interactive. Ceefax is simply obsolete; it's no longer a sensible way of delivering those services.
What all you Britons should know is that there is no technical reason why you don't get Ceefax after the digital switchover.
The digital system has support for TXT and in many other countries, including the Netherlands, the TXT service has remained in
place after digital switchover, which was completed years ago here.
And including the UK. The digital text service is far more flexible and powerful than Ceefax (and ITVs TELETEXT), and the BBC has been taking advantage of that, so the digital text service is not the same as Ceefax.
Second that. Modern FORTRAN kicks some serious butt and has a huge user and support base. Language snobs dismiss it as antiquated but they're usually referring to versions of the language that haven't been used since the 1980's. There are good reasons that current HPC developers use mostly FORTRAN and C, like good support for parallalization, global memory functions for clustering, and efficient compilers.
It's great that people make new tools and share them with others, but many times that effort could be put into making existing good tools even better.
Hmm. Ok, the last FORTRAN I used in anger was FORTRAN77, but I've have a skim of some online tutorials and although the more recent versions are certainly better they still don't look like modern computer languages. Maybe I'm missing something because I could only skim the tutorials. Does modern FORTRAN support delegates? Anonymous functions? Closures? Reflection?I see that it now has some OO support, but how good is it? Yes, if you are doing number-crunching it is probably a good alternative to C as a low-level language to drop into for speed, but there is a limit to how far you can take a language by bolting new features on; eventually the underlying foundations just won't take the weight and you have to tear down and rebuild.
Pretty much any research (beyond that which puts the blindingly obvious on a formal scientific basis) has potential uses for terrorists -- look at the way bodies such as the USA and the EU include basic medicines in export bans because they might be used to heal the baddies. If this information is released worldwide then it could help a whole lot of other people working on a vaccine, not just the Dutch pharmaceutical companies, and so it could lead to earlier development of a vaccine and a resulting saving of lives.
I think that's MS's biggest misstep - In the process of redesigning their OS, they basically threw the entirety of their existing market out. Their Windows Mobile core userbase was more enterprise-oriented. WP7 was a massive step backwards for many WM6.x users - nearly all of whom went over to Android.
I'm a WM6 user precisely because I'm an enterprise user and it works well with all of the Windows stuff in the enterprise. I now know how to integrate Android with all of that Windows stuff, so that's what I'll be going for next time I change my phone.
I think that "God created the Earth in 7 days" would be a great example of an untestable statement for the test. Partly for the controversy it would cause, and partly because you've just failed that question. There are excellent reasons for believing the statement false, but I'd be fascinated if you could actually come up with a way of testing it.
Slashdot Mirror
So you admit you're a troll-and-run kind then? Point out how what he said was a fallacy.
If an extremist tells you something is going to happen, and it doesn't, there's no room for middle-ground in stating that their claims were incorrect.
If he had said that the world would end on 1 April 2012 then you could call it "exaggerated alarmism". If the temperature rises more slowly than he expected there's a whole grey area between "exaggerated alarmism" and "pretty near right". Saying that they're the only options is a false dichotomy.
There's also no genetic fallacy that I can see. Genetic fallacies fail to assess claims on merits. If someone tells you the world temperature is going to skyrocket, and it doesn't, their claim was wrong.
Assessing the argument based on whether Lovelock is a credible source is a genetic fallacy. And the question of whether "What they were spouting was political activism that had no basis in reality while abusing their standing as authorities on the matter" has no bearing on whether what they were saying was actually true -- that's the fallacist's fallacy. Can I get back to my beer now?
You could continue to take the very easy road and simply throw out logical fallacies as if you are the more knowledgeable between us.
I don't think that looking for basic flaws in arguments is "the very easy road". Too many seem to find it too difficult for them to bother.
You could continue to pretend I have used them in an argument without pointing to any specific phrase and providing an example of how the fallacies apply. You could do this, you probably will.
Oh, I probably won't. It's not my job to teach you basic logic, and I've got a dinner to cook.
Now, when those "non-credible scientists" as you say are backing down from their completely untenable belief systems, now you wash your hands of what they were saying before?
Make up your minds. Either what they were saying was correct and doom was upon us because we drove SUV's, or it was exaggerated alarmism.
Google for "genetic fallacy", "bifurcation fallacy" and "fallacist’s fallacy". Rejoin the discussion when you understand why they show what you said to be nonsense.
Unfortunately, that's a reality that these guys are going to have to face. No amount of DRM or lawsuits or even infomercials has stopped it from happening yet, and likely never will.
What do you mean? It worked wonderfully for the 1980s "Home Taping is Killing Music" campaign.
[opt sarcasm off]
Yes, but with stenography, it's possible to encode the name and address of the party that the file originated from.
I suspect you meant "steganography".
Rather than a version control system, I think it would be more useful to put the law into a requirements management system (after all, what is the law but a set of requirements?) That *might* help lawmakers to see if they are complete (cover what is intended to be covered), consistent and measurable. I don't know of any open source requirements management tools though -- at least, not ones that are still maintained. Perhaps requirements management goes against the hacker ethos (which would reduce the open source effort put into such things, although it wouldn't eliminate it completely of course). If requirements management is against the hacker ethos then I suspect that attempts to hack the law won't work very well.
I certainly know some people who have become outspoken atheists out of hostility to their experiences in Roman Catholic church schools. Whether you call that "rebellion" or "dissatisfaction" is up to you.
Oh, I do hope that was meant to be funny!
What has what a politician says in opposition got to do with what they'll do if they get into power?
When you put the newspaper in a landfill, it takes hundreds of years to decay,
But when you incinerate it...
Anyway, did they really expect dark matter to "shed light"?
They could have responded with "oh, I guess we won't sponsor the olympics then"
That would have meant missing an opportunity to shaft the French, so it was never actually an option.
They were factors, but he couldn't have done it on his own.
No, the vaccine worked. The reason most of the children who got infected also had the vaccines, was that 81% of all children had recieved the vaccine.
No, as I read it it's 81% of those with whooping cough who were infected. I can't see the proportion of the population who were vaccinated. It's an important point, though, and was my first thought. If 99% of the population is vaccinated, 100% of those not vaccinated get whooping cough and only 10% of those vaccinated get it then most kids with whooping cough would be fully vaccinated, by a factor of almost ten to one. Could they really have made such a basic statistical blunder, though?
I suspect the Murdoch Empire (of which The Sun is a part) finds internet porn offensive primarily because it means that people don't bother buying The Sun to get a picture of a girl flashing her tits.
So what you are saying is that today's equipment manufacturers are not as capable as the guys in the past were.
No. Today's equipment manufacturers don't see this as a feature for which they could charge a premium, so it's not worth R&D investment.
Yes, and there also still is page 888, isn't it?
It clearly shows that you are being fed shit. There is no such thing as "Ceefax has to go because analogue tv ends". It is a decision made for other reasons.
The sort of stuff that used to be on Ceefax and isn't on the digital text service is now on the BBC website, except that there it's far more extensive and interactive. Ceefax is simply obsolete; it's no longer a sensible way of delivering those services.
What all you Britons should know is that there is no technical reason why you don't get Ceefax after the digital switchover. The digital system has support for TXT and in many other countries, including the Netherlands, the TXT service has remained in place after digital switchover, which was completed years ago here.
And including the UK. The digital text service is far more flexible and powerful than Ceefax (and ITVs TELETEXT), and the BBC has been taking advantage of that, so the digital text service is not the same as Ceefax.
Second that. Modern FORTRAN kicks some serious butt and has a huge user and support base. Language snobs dismiss it as antiquated but they're usually referring to versions of the language that haven't been used since the 1980's. There are good reasons that current HPC developers use mostly FORTRAN and C, like good support for parallalization, global memory functions for clustering, and efficient compilers.
It's great that people make new tools and share them with others, but many times that effort could be put into making existing good tools even better.
Hmm. Ok, the last FORTRAN I used in anger was FORTRAN77, but I've have a skim of some online tutorials and although the more recent versions are certainly better they still don't look like modern computer languages. Maybe I'm missing something because I could only skim the tutorials. Does modern FORTRAN support delegates? Anonymous functions? Closures? Reflection?I see that it now has some OO support, but how good is it? Yes, if you are doing number-crunching it is probably a good alternative to C as a low-level language to drop into for speed, but there is a limit to how far you can take a language by bolting new features on; eventually the underlying foundations just won't take the weight and you have to tear down and rebuild.
Pretty much any research (beyond that which puts the blindingly obvious on a formal scientific basis) has potential uses for terrorists -- look at the way bodies such as the USA and the EU include basic medicines in export bans because they might be used to heal the baddies. If this information is released worldwide then it could help a whole lot of other people working on a vaccine, not just the Dutch pharmaceutical companies, and so it could lead to earlier development of a vaccine and a resulting saving of lives.
And if a terrorist group uses that research to kill thousands or millions? Will you still feel its justified?
Do you hold the Wright Brothers, Dr Hans Von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle responsible for 9/11?
When the parent opts in, how does that prevent a child from using his PC or iPod Touch from using the same connection?
What child? There are no children in my household.
I think that's MS's biggest misstep - In the process of redesigning their OS, they basically threw the entirety of their existing market out. Their Windows Mobile core userbase was more enterprise-oriented. WP7 was a massive step backwards for many WM6.x users - nearly all of whom went over to Android.
I'm a WM6 user precisely because I'm an enterprise user and it works well with all of the Windows stuff in the enterprise. I now know how to integrate Android with all of that Windows stuff, so that's what I'll be going for next time I change my phone.
This thread seems to have rapidly degenerated into allusions to Japanese tentacle porn. Congratulations!
"Degenerated"???
I think that "God created the Earth in 7 days" would be a great example of an untestable statement for the test. Partly for the controversy it would cause, and partly because you've just failed that question. There are excellent reasons for believing the statement false, but I'd be fascinated if you could actually come up with a way of testing it.