Hey, websites don't magically get money because I download the ads. They get paid for clickthroughs. So if I will never click through an ad, then my downloading them is a waste of bandwidth, and therefore dollars.
Or went to a college that was a good fit for them?
Uhh... how does a "good fit" obviate any of what I described? I'm sorry, but if your college/university experience wasn't stressful and challenging, both personally and financially, then I really don't know what the hell you were doing there.
If a person is that concerned with having lots of money to spend on themselves, they're not ready for a significant relationship.
I absolutely agree, but I think maybe the GP just worded things poorly. Ultimately, the real point is that having a significant other or getting married does not, by definition, lead to being "completely locked down into full 'adult' life". Case in point: my wife and I were married when we were 24, and rather than being "locked down", we've spent that time traveling, buying a house, and generally enjoying ourselves. The idea that getting married *must* translate to a house, two cars, and three kids, is incredible juvenile, and betrays a staggering misunderstanding regarding the nature of a good marriage.
'course, that should be hardly surprising given the divorce rate. The idea that one's spouse should also be one's best friend and favorite companion is, I think, alien to many.
Also, as a husband and a dad, I can say having kids doesn't have to "end your fun".
Umm, of course it does. It just opens the door for different kinds of fun. But if your idea of fun is, say, traveling the world, or regularly going out to R-rated movies with your significant other, or inviting friends over for a bit of drinking and carousing, or any number of other things, then damn right having kids will "end your fun". Or, at least, I hope so.
Hah, only if you're an idiot. I've been out of school for 6 years now and I would never dream of going back (at least not as an undergrad). Late nights, early mornings, incredible stress, terrible teachers, worse TAs, hours upon hours of assignments, labs, and exams, not to mention all the project work, and the only respite the odd drunken party with my friends?
Dibs-the-fuck-out. Anyone who looks wistfully looks back on college/university either a) doesn't remember what it was actually like, or b) didn't work very hard when they were there.
As a TX user of a couple years now, my biggest complaint is centered around the fragility of PalmOS itself, a fragility that seems to be exacerbated by the NVRAM persistence approach they used. The result is a device that will on occasion, randomly crash, or worse entered the dreaded reboot cycle (please dear god reboot correctly this time!). Heck, I've had to hard-reset my TX numerous times, losing all the apps and data on the device, and I've gotten to the point where I keep the software load on mine to a bare minimum (TCPMP for movies, Aeroplayer for audio, PalmFiction for ebooks, Snapper for email, and a couple other utilities)... and I never start up Blazer if I can avoid it (it hangs as often as not). And I avoid putting important data on it, just in case.
On top of all that, the sound quality out of the headphone jack is noisy, particularly if you have low impedance headphones (I get a constant loud his on my Shure plugphones... I need an inline volume adjust to mask it out), and the touchscreen can be annoyingly inaccurate.
The flipside is that it has a nice, big screen, a good form factor, decent battery life, and it's powerful enough to do anything I want on it. It could just be so much *better*!
Essentially, you want a browser that will let you strip out the revenue-generating portion of all of the websites that you visit.
Actually, the irony is, my using AdBlock is actually *better* for these websites. Why? Well, first off, understand that I have *never EVER* purchased an item based on noticing an ad on a website. And I can tell you flat out that I never would. Ever. I simply don't buy products that way.
So, given I will never respond to an online ad, which is better: Downloading ads and wasting the bandwidth of the website I'm using, bandwidth that costs money, just so I can ignore them, or using an adblocking tool so that the ads are never downloaded in the first place?
Meh, that version has a hold slot, much larger lookahead, and it appears to be fairly lax about letting you move and rotate pieces once they've landed (including rotations that would be physically impossible). Still impressive, certainly, but *much* easier than what I consider "classic" Tetris (TetrisDS has the similar properties, and hence it's also not particularly challenging, unfortunately... pity LockJaw is so klunky on the DS, as at least it let's you turn off all those "features":).
That may be, but in the case of vehicles, we're talking decades of use before the hardware finally fails. The same goes with some computer hardware (for example, the firewall I use is an old, extremely inefficient PC, and won't be upgraded any time soon).
As such, if the goal, right now, at this moment, is to move toward more efficient technologies in order to increase energy independence and reduce our impact on the environment, then any trend which encourages continued use of older technology will work precisely against that goal, particularly when you're talking about technology with long lifetimes, such as vehicles.
Incidentally, I'm not saying this is unequivocally a bad thing. I'm just saying that recycling older gear is also not unequivocally a good thing. Or: there are conditions when, over the long term, recycling may actually cause more harm than good.
Yup, the same damn thing was happening way up at the top of the food chain. The big ratings agencies are private firms, and are *paid* to rate investments. Well, lo and behold, that would mean that organizations would shop around for an agency that would give them that coveted AAA rating they were seeking, and of course, the market responded.
Now, the crazier among such might claim that it should be the job of an impartial entity to perform these ratings, to ensure they aren't being gamed. An entity like, say... the government. But, you know, that's government intervention, and that's the sign of evil pinko communists who are trying to steal away your freedom so that they might force you to labour in their underground sugar caves!
However, its simplicity has led some to consider it "not the most secure choice." Makes you wonder if there *is* a government farm that can crack it now!
Did you actually fully read and comprehend that post. To quote:
I believe that within the next five years someone will discover an academic attack against Rijndael. I do not believe that anyone will ever discover an attack that will allow someone to read Rijndael traffic.
In other words, while someone may find an attack that would allow one to break the cipher in less time than pure brute force, he doesn't believe that any such attack will actually be feasible to execute.
Remember that the reason dark matter supposedly exist is because scientists calculated the weight of the visible matter in the entire universe and said "well that doesn't match up with the energy/gravity"
Uhh, no, that's just *one* observation that points to dark matter. Another would be the flat rotation curves of galaxies. Oh, and the Bullet Cluster results. And the MACS_J0025.4-1222 observations.
But, yeah, you're right, I'm sure it's all just aether.:rollseyes:
Yes, what we really need to do is spread out! We need the ex-ex-ex-urban culture! Sure, it's far more expensive, energy intensive, and shitty for the environment, but I say fuck the planet, I want my quiet!
The irony in this is that old cars, electronics equipment, and so forth, are typically far less efficient and/or environmentally friendly. As such, the unfortunate consequence is that the move to greater energy efficiency will likely be greatly hampered by the precise trend you've identified.
Or: while old may not necessarily mean "bad", it sure doesn't necessarily mean "good", either.
What does the free market have to do with taxes being leveled to adjust behavior.
Yup, you really don't understand the free market.
Look up the term "negative externality". Wikipedia's page on Externalities is pretty decent, including examples of where taxes are used to compensate for them. Honestly, just do a *little* research. You might learn something.
They aren't being singled out. From the day this justice system was founded, being convicted of certain crimes has stripped you of some of your fundamental rights, even after you're released. This is justice 101. You're completely out in left field here.
Felons can't even vote, for christ's sake.
Excellent post, but I think you come to the wrong conclusion.
The fact that felons can't vote is just another example of the exact same problem: continued punishment that extends past what would otherwise be the reasonable bounds of a sentence, in the the worst cases indefinitely. And the ultimate effect is a dangerous one: it creates a second class of citizen; individuals convicted of crimes who are then unable to fully reintegrate with society. Not the greatest outcome if your goal is rehabilitation and reduction in recidivism rates.
Of course, this isn't as great a problem for systems where there is some horizon at which point the individual is removed. But life-long registration and tracking is, in my mind, deeply antithetical to a truly effective, just legal system.
Problem is, that isn't the goal of the US criminal justice system. The goal of said system is simply this: revenge.
I think you misunderstood me here. I meant the further we go on the further we realise there are... "cosmic balances" out there.
No, there really aren't. What gives you this silly idea, other than your own wishful thinking? Do you have evidence for these "balances" you claim exist?
Things happen for a reason.
They sure do! Quantum mechanics, relativity, and so forth, are the reason things happen the way they do.
'course, I suspect you're actually appealing to hollow, new-age mysticism, in which case the actual response is, no... things really don't happen for a reason. There is no magic, cosmic intelligence guiding the universe. If there were, we'd find evidence for it, and we don't (unless, of course, you're withholding what would be the greatest discovery in the history of man).
you're fairly angry and hateful when it comes to things like this.
Only because you see it that way. I see it as an attempt to push back the tide of ignorance that's attempting to drown us all. It's these kinds of silly beliefs that cause people to buy magic holy water from Russia, or withhold medical care from their loved one because they believe laying on hands will cure their disease.
I love how we have no explanation for the creation of the universe other than either:...
And yet you quickly jump to discredit anything but your own theory.
Ah, but, you see, here's the difference: my theory is actually a theory. It was formed based on evidence gathered by the tireless efforts of countless astronomers, physicists, and other scientists. And in all that time, never once has evidence appeared to support your "cosmic magic" theory.
And yet you wonder why I jump to discredit other theories? Gee, how 'bout because they aren't theories.
That is not science; you've entered politics.
Quite the contrary. It's precisely science. See, here's how science works:
1) Propose theory. 2) Using theory, make prediction. 3) Based on prediction, conduct experiment to test prediction. 4) Validate or invalidate prediction. 5) If prediction holds true, go to step 2. 6) If prediction does not hold true, throw away theory or otherwise refine it, and return to step 1.
Interestingly enough, no religion has ever gone through these steps. So of course it should be discredited.
By accepting that there is no random, that things happen for a reason (pressures of whatever sort)... Then you are effectively agreeing with me.
I'm sorry, when did I say that? Hell, I said the precise opposite... did you already forget step one in my little primer on natural selection? You know, the random mutation bit?
Besides, your "things happen for a reason" line is based on the idea that a conscious intelligence of some form is "guiding" things. I have never, ever claimed that to be the case. Your attempt to paint my position as such is either a gross misunderstanding of my postings, or a lame attempt to blur the line between science and religion. The former is simply ignorance, and I can accept that. The latter is far more insidious, and is a common tactic used by the religious right to force religion into schools.
but rather that there is some form of "intelligence" (likely the fish itself) pushing it to grow wings.
Phew, so you are just grossly ignorant.
If I jump out a window, is there some "intelligence" causing me to fall to the ground? No. It's simple physics. Evolution is no different.
(I am a skeptic, of everything, and always will be.)
No, you're not. If you were, you wouldn't be spouting new-age "everything happens for a reason" rhetoric.
A true skeptic uses their senses and their mind to evaluate theories based on evidence. I have yet to see you do that. Instead, you would rather live in a world where some magical thing is out there "guiding" things... that's your choice, but it ain't science, and it sure ain't evidence of healthy skepticism.
Interesting, that -- languages and shells seem to have the best documentation, while platforms and big applications seem to have the worst. Do you see this trend too, or is it just my own limited experience?
That does seem to be a common phenomenon. 'course, it may simply be a function of project maturity. Python, Perl, and the Unix manpage system have been around for ages compared to OO or <insert latest web framework>. It's also the case that, generally speaking, large applications have less of a need for proper doc... ie, in the case of Python and Perl, the entire purpose is to provide a programmable API, and such an API *requires* good documentation in order for it to be used. The same isn't true of OO.o.
Of course, that should argue that a project like Plone would have decent doc. Some of those problems may be related to culture (in contrast, in the Perl community, writing POD is strongly encouraged), or the way the project is managed (rapidly evolving projects mean developers are focused on solving nifty problems, instead of documenting their solutions). 'course, my own biases make me wonder if it's just that many of these projects start out as flash-in-the-pan, trendy, buzzword-compliant solutions, which, in the end, have no real long-term project vision, and the result is a mess of code and documentation... but that's probably unfair of me.:)
There are too many coincidences to make it seem like this all happened randomly without any sort of intelligence.
Riiiight. Such as?
But you are deluded, to be honest, if you believe everything happened randomly without reason.
Of course it didn't. Evolution doesn't equate to randomness. Where on earth do you get that idea? Evolution is based on just a couple simple principles:
1) Offspring possess random changes. 2) Pressures (environment, social, reproductive, etc) cause some of those changes to increase or decrease an individual's chances of reproduction.
That's it. Those two statements completely describe natural selection as a principle. And evolution is just natural selection in the large. Now, I draw your attention to the second component. *That* is what makes evolution tick, and it's *far* from random.
The further we get in science the closer we get to believing there is certainly some intelligence in the system.
If you believe that, you don't understand the history of science. The exact *opposite* has been happening since the scientific method was established. Every new discovery pushes back the boundaries of what we consider "religion". Remember, before germ theory, there was a time when people thought illnesses were curses sent down by angry gods.
If there was no intelligence whatsoever, and note that intelligence is used loosely here, how did we end up here?
I'm sorry, what's your point? Just because we don't have an explanation, doesn't meant that an invisible Man in the Sky is the answer. In fact, given the history of religion as a theoretical and explanatory framework, I'd argue we should be avoiding these kinds of appeals to the supernatural, as they've invariably turned out to be wrong.
More or less, exactly what you pointed out:) -- you have to jump around through several different pages, sometimes branching through whole trees, to find out the properties and methods of one single object type.
So? That's why the the great Noodly one invented the Back button.:) Your question was "see if you can quickly understand what properties and methods a TextCursor object has.". The answer is, yes, I can, trivially. It requires a bit of a clicking around, but so what?
'course, I might contend that the software itself seems overly complex (are all those Cursor interfaces really reused anywhere, or are they just over-engineering for the sake of it?). But the API docs seem sane enough.
Here, we have all properties and methods listed on one page, with no need to click and click just to find the names of what properties and methods a Selection object has.
So, ultimately, your complaint is you have to click around.
Might I suggest you're just a little lazy and nitpicky?;)
Truthfully, I do see your point. But I really don't think the OO.o docs are nearly as bad as you make them out to be (trust me, I've seen *far* worse). And the OO.o docs do have one advantage: the methods and properties end up clustered based on the nature of their function. I almost prefer that to the neverending list of methods and properties present on that (and every other) MSDN page you cited.
As much as I quite dislike MS for how they conduct business, their documentation puts just about any FOSS project, and certainly OOo, to shame.
While I agree that's true in general, one should be fair and point out that many FOSS projects do have excellent documentation. Perl and Python, along with their attendant swarms of modules, are generally very well documented. And let's not forget the venerable Unix manpage system, which is awash with useful information (though in an admittedly primitive form, only somewhat obviated by the GNU info system).
But I'll agree that many projects could do *far* better.
Most of the population doesn't have a personality suited to spending hours staring at a screen and concentrating really hard on the problem at hand.
Tell that to an accountant. Or an investment banker. Or if you're willing to treat the "screen" as a metaphor, a mechanic, a carpenter, or an artist. These people spend hours working on problems, day after day.
Anyone who doesn't see this kind of work as "really hard" is too busy impressed with their own perceived intellectual superiority.
Programmers also seem to tend to be introverted
Mmmm... selection bias.
To provide a counterpoint, every programmer I know, myself included, is quite extroverted, as were most of those in my Comp Sci graduating class. And many are even women!
I'd strongly suggest you leave your parent's basement/University research department/dark cubicle and explore the world. You might discover it's far more complex and varied than you realize.
So what I want to know is, what was it about human beings that caused us to develop the capacity to drive cars, build computers and walk on the moon?
Probably has a lot to do with our capacity for developing and using tools, a capability that exists in many other, more primitive primate species, though obviously not to the same degree. This capability leads to increased likelihood of reproductive success, and has been an absolutely vital component in the success of humanity as a species. Remember, tool use allowed humans to:
1) Increase caloric intake via the easier availability of meat. 2) Create clothing and shelter, allowing us to adapt to more environments. 3) Cultivate food, reducing the need to migrate with food sources, which encourages social and cultural development.
Of course, one could go on and on, but these are just a couple ways in which tool use and development has been key to humanity's survival. And the creation of cars and so forth is really just advanced tool creation.
Meanwhile, it's clear that communication and abstract thinking are developed to a unique degree in humanity, and are also a key component of our technological development. But it's pretty obvious that communication skills make it more likely that communities, as an aggregate, will survive, as it allows a group to pass knowledge from generation to generation, allowing refinements and advancements by subsequent generations. And communication and tool development is much easier when coupled with a capacity for abstract thinking.
Note, this is all pretty simplistic, and based on my own cursory knowledge of the subject, but I think it's clear that the only thing which makes humanity unique is our good fortune to be the ones to win the lottery of evolution.
Actually, the formulation in the US is just different, at least as compared to the Canadian version. In both variants, HFCS is used as the primary sweetener (in Canada it's labelled "Sugar/Glucose-Fructose"), and yet the Canadian version has a *markedly* different flavour as compared it's American counterpart, with a taste similar to the Mexican version.
Slashdot Mirror
Have the ads so they'll get funded
Hey, websites don't magically get money because I download the ads. They get paid for clickthroughs. So if I will never click through an ad, then my downloading them is a waste of bandwidth, and therefore dollars.
How is this difficult to understand?
Or went to a college that was a good fit for them?
Uhh... how does a "good fit" obviate any of what I described? I'm sorry, but if your college/university experience wasn't stressful and challenging, both personally and financially, then I really don't know what the hell you were doing there.
Seconded! Err... that is, my wife is awesome, too. :)
If a person is that concerned with having lots of money to spend on themselves, they're not ready for a significant relationship.
I absolutely agree, but I think maybe the GP just worded things poorly. Ultimately, the real point is that having a significant other or getting married does not, by definition, lead to being "completely locked down into full 'adult' life". Case in point: my wife and I were married when we were 24, and rather than being "locked down", we've spent that time traveling, buying a house, and generally enjoying ourselves. The idea that getting married *must* translate to a house, two cars, and three kids, is incredible juvenile, and betrays a staggering misunderstanding regarding the nature of a good marriage.
'course, that should be hardly surprising given the divorce rate. The idea that one's spouse should also be one's best friend and favorite companion is, I think, alien to many.
Also, as a husband and a dad, I can say having kids doesn't have to "end your fun".
Umm, of course it does. It just opens the door for different kinds of fun. But if your idea of fun is, say, traveling the world, or regularly going out to R-rated movies with your significant other, or inviting friends over for a bit of drinking and carousing, or any number of other things, then damn right having kids will "end your fun". Or, at least, I hope so.
Hah, only if you're an idiot. I've been out of school for 6 years now and I would never dream of going back (at least not as an undergrad). Late nights, early mornings, incredible stress, terrible teachers, worse TAs, hours upon hours of assignments, labs, and exams, not to mention all the project work, and the only respite the odd drunken party with my friends?
Dibs-the-fuck-out. Anyone who looks wistfully looks back on college/university either a) doesn't remember what it was actually like, or b) didn't work very hard when they were there.
As a TX user of a couple years now, my biggest complaint is centered around the fragility of PalmOS itself, a fragility that seems to be exacerbated by the NVRAM persistence approach they used. The result is a device that will on occasion, randomly crash, or worse entered the dreaded reboot cycle (please dear god reboot correctly this time!). Heck, I've had to hard-reset my TX numerous times, losing all the apps and data on the device, and I've gotten to the point where I keep the software load on mine to a bare minimum (TCPMP for movies, Aeroplayer for audio, PalmFiction for ebooks, Snapper for email, and a couple other utilities)... and I never start up Blazer if I can avoid it (it hangs as often as not). And I avoid putting important data on it, just in case.
On top of all that, the sound quality out of the headphone jack is noisy, particularly if you have low impedance headphones (I get a constant loud his on my Shure plugphones... I need an inline volume adjust to mask it out), and the touchscreen can be annoyingly inaccurate.
The flipside is that it has a nice, big screen, a good form factor, decent battery life, and it's powerful enough to do anything I want on it. It could just be so much *better*!
Essentially, you want a browser that will let you strip out the revenue-generating portion of all of the websites that you visit.
Actually, the irony is, my using AdBlock is actually *better* for these websites. Why? Well, first off, understand that I have *never EVER* purchased an item based on noticing an ad on a website. And I can tell you flat out that I never would. Ever. I simply don't buy products that way.
So, given I will never respond to an online ad, which is better: Downloading ads and wasting the bandwidth of the website I'm using, bandwidth that costs money, just so I can ignore them, or using an adblocking tool so that the ads are never downloaded in the first place?
Meh, that version has a hold slot, much larger lookahead, and it appears to be fairly lax about letting you move and rotate pieces once they've landed (including rotations that would be physically impossible). Still impressive, certainly, but *much* easier than what I consider "classic" Tetris (TetrisDS has the similar properties, and hence it's also not particularly challenging, unfortunately... pity LockJaw is so klunky on the DS, as at least it let's you turn off all those "features" :).
That may be, but in the case of vehicles, we're talking decades of use before the hardware finally fails. The same goes with some computer hardware (for example, the firewall I use is an old, extremely inefficient PC, and won't be upgraded any time soon).
As such, if the goal, right now, at this moment, is to move toward more efficient technologies in order to increase energy independence and reduce our impact on the environment, then any trend which encourages continued use of older technology will work precisely against that goal, particularly when you're talking about technology with long lifetimes, such as vehicles.
Incidentally, I'm not saying this is unequivocally a bad thing. I'm just saying that recycling older gear is also not unequivocally a good thing. Or: there are conditions when, over the long term, recycling may actually cause more harm than good.
Yup, the same damn thing was happening way up at the top of the food chain. The big ratings agencies are private firms, and are *paid* to rate investments. Well, lo and behold, that would mean that organizations would shop around for an agency that would give them that coveted AAA rating they were seeking, and of course, the market responded.
Now, the crazier among such might claim that it should be the job of an impartial entity to perform these ratings, to ensure they aren't being gamed. An entity like, say... the government. But, you know, that's government intervention, and that's the sign of evil pinko communists who are trying to steal away your freedom so that they might force you to labour in their underground sugar caves!
However, its simplicity has led some to consider it "not the most secure choice." Makes you wonder if there *is* a government farm that can crack it now!
Did you actually fully read and comprehend that post. To quote:
In other words, while someone may find an attack that would allow one to break the cipher in less time than pure brute force, he doesn't believe that any such attack will actually be feasible to execute.
Remember that the reason dark matter supposedly exist is because scientists calculated the weight of the visible matter in the entire universe and said "well that doesn't match up with the energy/gravity"
Uhh, no, that's just *one* observation that points to dark matter. Another would be the flat rotation curves of galaxies. Oh, and the Bullet Cluster results. And the MACS_J0025.4-1222 observations.
But, yeah, you're right, I'm sure it's all just aether. :rollseyes:
it may be time to rethink our way of living.
Yes, what we really need to do is spread out! We need the ex-ex-ex-urban culture! Sure, it's far more expensive, energy intensive, and shitty for the environment, but I say fuck the planet, I want my quiet!
There are more dangerous animals that would hunt and kill you in the middle of New York city
Riiight... it's the GP that's the one who's scaremongering...
The irony in this is that old cars, electronics equipment, and so forth, are typically far less efficient and/or environmentally friendly. As such, the unfortunate consequence is that the move to greater energy efficiency will likely be greatly hampered by the precise trend you've identified.
Or: while old may not necessarily mean "bad", it sure doesn't necessarily mean "good", either.
What does the free market have to do with taxes being leveled to adjust behavior.
Yup, you really don't understand the free market.
Look up the term "negative externality". Wikipedia's page on Externalities is pretty decent, including examples of where taxes are used to compensate for them. Honestly, just do a *little* research. You might learn something.
They aren't being singled out. From the day this justice system was founded, being convicted of certain crimes has stripped you of some of your fundamental rights, even after you're released. This is justice 101. You're completely out in left field here.
Felons can't even vote, for christ's sake.
Excellent post, but I think you come to the wrong conclusion.
The fact that felons can't vote is just another example of the exact same problem: continued punishment that extends past what would otherwise be the reasonable bounds of a sentence, in the the worst cases indefinitely. And the ultimate effect is a dangerous one: it creates a second class of citizen; individuals convicted of crimes who are then unable to fully reintegrate with society. Not the greatest outcome if your goal is rehabilitation and reduction in recidivism rates.
Of course, this isn't as great a problem for systems where there is some horizon at which point the individual is removed. But life-long registration and tracking is, in my mind, deeply antithetical to a truly effective, just legal system.
Problem is, that isn't the goal of the US criminal justice system. The goal of said system is simply this: revenge.
But, taxes should NOT be used to manipulate behavior....that's a bastardization of what a tax is for.
Uhh... what? That's completely backwards. Taxes *should* be used to adjust for negative externalities, in order to correct market inefficiencies.
Jesus, for a nation of people who bow down to the alter of the Free Market, you sure as hell don't seem to understand it very well.
I think you misunderstood me here. I meant the further we go on the further we realise there are... "cosmic balances" out there.
No, there really aren't. What gives you this silly idea, other than your own wishful thinking? Do you have evidence for these "balances" you claim exist?
Things happen for a reason.
They sure do! Quantum mechanics, relativity, and so forth, are the reason things happen the way they do.
'course, I suspect you're actually appealing to hollow, new-age mysticism, in which case the actual response is, no... things really don't happen for a reason. There is no magic, cosmic intelligence guiding the universe. If there were, we'd find evidence for it, and we don't (unless, of course, you're withholding what would be the greatest discovery in the history of man).
you're fairly angry and hateful when it comes to things like this.
Only because you see it that way. I see it as an attempt to push back the tide of ignorance that's attempting to drown us all. It's these kinds of silly beliefs that cause people to buy magic holy water from Russia, or withhold medical care from their loved one because they believe laying on hands will cure their disease.
I love how we have no explanation for the creation of the universe other than either: ...
And yet you quickly jump to discredit anything but your own theory.
Ah, but, you see, here's the difference: my theory is actually a theory. It was formed based on evidence gathered by the tireless efforts of countless astronomers, physicists, and other scientists. And in all that time, never once has evidence appeared to support your "cosmic magic" theory.
And yet you wonder why I jump to discredit other theories? Gee, how 'bout because they aren't theories.
That is not science; you've entered politics.
Quite the contrary. It's precisely science. See, here's how science works:
1) Propose theory.
2) Using theory, make prediction.
3) Based on prediction, conduct experiment to test prediction.
4) Validate or invalidate prediction.
5) If prediction holds true, go to step 2.
6) If prediction does not hold true, throw away theory or otherwise refine it, and return to step 1.
Interestingly enough, no religion has ever gone through these steps. So of course it should be discredited.
By accepting that there is no random, that things happen for a reason (pressures of whatever sort)... Then you are effectively agreeing with me.
I'm sorry, when did I say that? Hell, I said the precise opposite... did you already forget step one in my little primer on natural selection? You know, the random mutation bit?
Besides, your "things happen for a reason" line is based on the idea that a conscious intelligence of some form is "guiding" things. I have never, ever claimed that to be the case. Your attempt to paint my position as such is either a gross misunderstanding of my postings, or a lame attempt to blur the line between science and religion. The former is simply ignorance, and I can accept that. The latter is far more insidious, and is a common tactic used by the religious right to force religion into schools.
but rather that there is some form of "intelligence" (likely the fish itself) pushing it to grow wings.
Phew, so you are just grossly ignorant.
If I jump out a window, is there some "intelligence" causing me to fall to the ground? No. It's simple physics. Evolution is no different.
(I am a skeptic, of everything, and always will be.)
No, you're not. If you were, you wouldn't be spouting new-age "everything happens for a reason" rhetoric.
A true skeptic uses their senses and their mind to evaluate theories based on evidence. I have yet to see you do that. Instead, you would rather live in a world where some magical thing is out there "guiding" things... that's your choice, but it ain't science, and it sure ain't evidence of healthy skepticism.
Interesting, that -- languages and shells seem to have the best documentation, while platforms and big applications seem to have the worst. Do you see this trend too, or is it just my own limited experience?
That does seem to be a common phenomenon. 'course, it may simply be a function of project maturity. Python, Perl, and the Unix manpage system have been around for ages compared to OO or <insert latest web framework>. It's also the case that, generally speaking, large applications have less of a need for proper doc... ie, in the case of Python and Perl, the entire purpose is to provide a programmable API, and such an API *requires* good documentation in order for it to be used. The same isn't true of OO.o.
Of course, that should argue that a project like Plone would have decent doc. Some of those problems may be related to culture (in contrast, in the Perl community, writing POD is strongly encouraged), or the way the project is managed (rapidly evolving projects mean developers are focused on solving nifty problems, instead of documenting their solutions). 'course, my own biases make me wonder if it's just that many of these projects start out as flash-in-the-pan, trendy, buzzword-compliant solutions, which, in the end, have no real long-term project vision, and the result is a mess of code and documentation... but that's probably unfair of me. :)
There are too many coincidences to make it seem like this all happened randomly without any sort of intelligence.
Riiiight. Such as?
But you are deluded, to be honest, if you believe everything happened randomly without reason.
Of course it didn't. Evolution doesn't equate to randomness. Where on earth do you get that idea? Evolution is based on just a couple simple principles:
1) Offspring possess random changes.
2) Pressures (environment, social, reproductive, etc) cause some of those changes to increase or decrease an individual's chances of reproduction.
That's it. Those two statements completely describe natural selection as a principle. And evolution is just natural selection in the large. Now, I draw your attention to the second component. *That* is what makes evolution tick, and it's *far* from random.
The further we get in science the closer we get to believing there is certainly some intelligence in the system.
If you believe that, you don't understand the history of science. The exact *opposite* has been happening since the scientific method was established. Every new discovery pushes back the boundaries of what we consider "religion". Remember, before germ theory, there was a time when people thought illnesses were curses sent down by angry gods.
If there was no intelligence whatsoever, and note that intelligence is used loosely here, how did we end up here?
I'm sorry, what's your point? Just because we don't have an explanation, doesn't meant that an invisible Man in the Sky is the answer. In fact, given the history of religion as a theoretical and explanatory framework, I'd argue we should be avoiding these kinds of appeals to the supernatural, as they've invariably turned out to be wrong.
More or less, exactly what you pointed out :) -- you have to jump around through several different pages, sometimes branching through whole trees, to find out the properties and methods of one single object type.
So? That's why the the great Noodly one invented the Back button. :) Your question was "see if you can quickly understand what properties and methods a TextCursor object has.". The answer is, yes, I can, trivially. It requires a bit of a clicking around, but so what?
'course, I might contend that the software itself seems overly complex (are all those Cursor interfaces really reused anywhere, or are they just over-engineering for the sake of it?). But the API docs seem sane enough.
Here, we have all properties and methods listed on one page, with no need to click and click just to find the names of what properties and methods a Selection object has.
So, ultimately, your complaint is you have to click around.
Might I suggest you're just a little lazy and nitpicky? ;)
Truthfully, I do see your point. But I really don't think the OO.o docs are nearly as bad as you make them out to be (trust me, I've seen *far* worse). And the OO.o docs do have one advantage: the methods and properties end up clustered based on the nature of their function. I almost prefer that to the neverending list of methods and properties present on that (and every other) MSDN page you cited.
As much as I quite dislike MS for how they conduct business, their documentation puts just about any FOSS project, and certainly OOo, to shame.
While I agree that's true in general, one should be fair and point out that many FOSS projects do have excellent documentation. Perl and Python, along with their attendant swarms of modules, are generally very well documented. And let's not forget the venerable Unix manpage system, which is awash with useful information (though in an admittedly primitive form, only somewhat obviated by the GNU info system).
But I'll agree that many projects could do *far* better.
Most of the population doesn't have a personality suited to spending hours staring at a screen and concentrating really hard on the problem at hand.
Tell that to an accountant. Or an investment banker. Or if you're willing to treat the "screen" as a metaphor, a mechanic, a carpenter, or an artist. These people spend hours working on problems, day after day.
Anyone who doesn't see this kind of work as "really hard" is too busy impressed with their own perceived intellectual superiority.
Programmers also seem to tend to be introverted
Mmmm... selection bias.
To provide a counterpoint, every programmer I know, myself included, is quite extroverted, as were most of those in my Comp Sci graduating class. And many are even women!
I'd strongly suggest you leave your parent's basement/University research department/dark cubicle and explore the world. You might discover it's far more complex and varied than you realize.
So what I want to know is, what was it about human beings that caused us to develop the capacity to drive cars, build computers and walk on the moon?
Probably has a lot to do with our capacity for developing and using tools, a capability that exists in many other, more primitive primate species, though obviously not to the same degree. This capability leads to increased likelihood of reproductive success, and has been an absolutely vital component in the success of humanity as a species. Remember, tool use allowed humans to:
1) Increase caloric intake via the easier availability of meat.
2) Create clothing and shelter, allowing us to adapt to more environments.
3) Cultivate food, reducing the need to migrate with food sources, which encourages social and cultural development.
Of course, one could go on and on, but these are just a couple ways in which tool use and development has been key to humanity's survival. And the creation of cars and so forth is really just advanced tool creation.
Meanwhile, it's clear that communication and abstract thinking are developed to a unique degree in humanity, and are also a key component of our technological development. But it's pretty obvious that communication skills make it more likely that communities, as an aggregate, will survive, as it allows a group to pass knowledge from generation to generation, allowing refinements and advancements by subsequent generations. And communication and tool development is much easier when coupled with a capacity for abstract thinking.
Note, this is all pretty simplistic, and based on my own cursory knowledge of the subject, but I think it's clear that the only thing which makes humanity unique is our good fortune to be the ones to win the lottery of evolution.
Actually, the formulation in the US is just different, at least as compared to the Canadian version. In both variants, HFCS is used as the primary sweetener (in Canada it's labelled "Sugar/Glucose-Fructose"), and yet the Canadian version has a *markedly* different flavour as compared it's American counterpart, with a taste similar to the Mexican version.