Just a very satisfied customer. iOS and Android left me wanting... significantly.
I suppose that your opinion wasn't formed from actual use, but from forms and blogs?
Next time, try something out before forming "your" opinion. Spend a couple of weeks with BB10 and you'll be sold. Nothing else even comes close. Using iOS and Android after BB10 is like stepping back in time.
Having the best browser on the market is a bonus as well. It (objectively) leaves iOS and Android (metaphorically) in the dust.
So my answer to your moronic inquiry was completely appropriated.
No, it was not. Stupid German pig. My question to you stands alone. Are you embarassed by your comment? If I were a stupid German pig like you, I'd certainly be embarrassed!
I don't know, but most people working with pigs claim they are pretty smart.
That's true. Pigs are smarter than the average German.
No, I saw that. It just didn't make any sense. It does not in any way address my original comment. As I told you earlier. I neither said nor implied ANYTHING about Java.
I know Germans are stupid, so I probably shouldn't have expected you to write anything coherent.
So... Are you saying that it's my fault that you can't manage to write a simple post?
You Germans just love to blame other people for your failings, don't you? Pitiful.
Oh, you STILL haven't managed to address my original comment. Are you implying that scripting is inherently insecure?
I don't blame you for avoiding that question. You'll look foolish no matter how you answer. (Not that it will matter much. You should be used to looking foolish by now.)
Lot's of people think that marriage is important and worthwhile for reasons completely irrelevant to your pitifully naive play-pretend analysis.
Things like "commitment", for example, are awful important to people in "any personal relationship".
The popularity of marriage does not in any way indicate that we're losing our right and freedoms. It's not the governments fault that the biggest commitment you've ever made to a "relationship" is deciding to pay by the minute or by the hour.
I certainly doubt that the Amish are too worried about their correspondence being intercepted and read by the NSA.
What would they read on AmishNet?
My trusted friend Eli,
Your humorous rendering of that unhappy cat made me burst forth with laughte!. I've since shared it with the rest of the community, many of whom have dutifully reproduced your work during their precious few evening hours to share with our bretheren across the country. I trust you'll forgive me for my presumption.
The problem of evil isn't exactly evidence, certainly not in the empirical sense. Besides, if you wanted to use an argument, you could have picked a much better argument than that!
Remember Leibniz'? Do babies with cancer and Tsunamis get you down? All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds!
No, you're more likely to remember "Bevis and Butthead": "You need stuff that sucks to have stuff that's cool".
Or, huge amounts physical evidence has shown what any sane person would consider proof that their parent was a pathological lair.
There's evidence, for example, that god doesn't exist? That would be some pretty big news. (Not just for religious people; think of the consequences for science, philosophy, etc.) Did I miss the Slashdot headline?
Unless your comment was just out of context, and you really do mean that the kid is exposed to evidence that suggests that their parents are pathological liars. That's a different story.
Scientific explanation of the origin of the universe [wikipedia.org] and life [wikipedia.org]. Looks like my confusion isn't an issue here, and that science does work that way.
First, being able to posit a naturalistic explanation does not make that explanation scientific. Science does not work that way.
As to your links, try reading them. You'll quickly discover why the second falls under the above, and the first does not address the parents claim.
On your ridiculous "begging the question" paragraph: You couldn't possibly be more wrong. To commit the fallacy "begging the question" you must be making a logical argument in which one of the premises assumes the conclusion. You used the term in an informal way, but not in such a way as it relates to the (or any other) logical fallacy. Nor was the parent making a logical argument and could therefore not have committed a logical fallacy in the first place.
I blame the late great Carl Sagan for his well-intentioned (but worse than useless) baloney detection kit. It popularized the concept of logical fallacies, but didn't popularize logic! Now, every autodidact science cheerleader on the internet thinks they understand formal logic and what a logical fallacy is (even though they haven't a clue) and misuse them (and those they completely make-up) at every opportunity.
When I see someone say "logical fallacy" on the internet now, I assume that they're a moron. It's worked out well so far. I just wish I could get them to stop spreading anti-scientific nonsense under the guise of "improving" the public understanding of science.
Regardless, this was an objectively verifiable statement. Most people (in western society) are subject to burial or cremation after death. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of empirical observations. That's not science, in that there was no hypothesis, and there was no experiment. It is, however, fact.
Sure, but it does not in any way address the parents comment! Did you not understand him or are you being purposefully obtuse?
Maybe if I'm really lucky I'll even get you to address any of the points I brought up
Oh, you actually think that your post was coherent? Too funny!
Slashdot Mirror
not to mention approaching general AI.
Are you a singularity nut or just a misguided computationalist?
That's not fair, you could just be a time-traveler from the 1970's when people still took those ideas seriously.
I don't believe you. The browser comment is particularly telling as FF on Android is WAY behind the browser on BB10.
If you had actually tried it, you'd know that. Hell, if you did a tiny bit of *reading* you'd know that!
There's just no helping some people... Enjoy living in the past with your second-rate browser, horrible developer tools, and barely functional UI.
Just a very satisfied customer. iOS and Android left me wanting ... significantly.
I suppose that your opinion wasn't formed from actual use, but from forms and blogs?
Next time, try something out before forming "your" opinion. Spend a couple of weeks with BB10 and you'll be sold. Nothing else even comes close. Using iOS and Android after BB10 is like stepping back in time.
Having the best browser on the market is a bonus as well. It (objectively) leaves iOS and Android (metaphorically) in the dust.
Efficiency, utility, the UI ... all best in class.
The only question is "why would buy something else?"
You could say "apps" if you want, but I suspect those users really want a gameboy instead of a phone.
you still did not answer my question either.
Wrong again you filthy German pig!
I'd tell you to learn how to read, but that's clearly beyond your inferior German mind.
So my answer to your moronic inquiry was completely appropriated.
No, it was not. Stupid German pig. My question to you stands alone. Are you embarassed by your comment? If I were a stupid German pig like you, I'd certainly be embarrassed!
I don't know, but most people working with pigs claim they are pretty smart.
That's true. Pigs are smarter than the average German.
You answered to a comment of me that was an answer TO SOMEONE ELSE!!
Yes, I know that. Your comment was absurd nonsense, however, which I felt the need to point out!
I, on the other hand, said nothing about Java. You German pigs are exceptionally stupid!
No, I saw that. It just didn't make any sense. It does not in any way address my original comment. As I told you earlier. I neither said nor implied ANYTHING about Java.
I know Germans are stupid, so I probably shouldn't have expected you to write anything coherent.
So... Are you saying that it's my fault that you can't manage to write a simple post?
You Germans just love to blame other people for your failings, don't you? Pitiful.
Oh, you STILL haven't managed to address my original comment. Are you implying that scripting is inherently insecure?
I don't blame you for avoiding that question. You'll look foolish no matter how you answer. (Not that it will matter much. You should be used to looking foolish by now.)
Your post was: "Are you implying Java is inherently insecure?"
That was YOUR post. You wrote that. Not me.
Are all Germans this stupid, or just you?
Because I think marriage isn't going to bring down the country or turn us in to mindless slaves to the government?
I liked you conspiracy nuts better when you knew that everyone else thought you were crazy.
Lot's of people think that marriage is important and worthwhile for reasons completely irrelevant to your pitifully naive play-pretend analysis.
Things like "commitment", for example, are awful important to people in "any personal relationship".
The popularity of marriage does not in any way indicate that we're losing our right and freedoms. It's not the governments fault that the biggest commitment you've ever made to a "relationship" is deciding to pay by the minute or by the hour.
I certainly doubt that the Amish are too worried about their correspondence being intercepted and read by the NSA.
What would they read on AmishNet?
My trusted friend Eli,
Your humorous rendering of that unhappy cat made me burst forth with laughte!. I've since shared it with the rest of the community, many of whom have dutifully reproduced your work during their precious few evening hours to share with our bretheren across the country. I trust you'll forgive me for my presumption.
Faithfully yours,
Jacob Yoder
There was a neat BBC series called Electric Dreams that took the home in to account as well.
It well worth a watch.
Obviously not! Go read my post until you understand it.
The problem of evil isn't exactly evidence, certainly not in the empirical sense. Besides, if you wanted to use an argument, you could have picked a much better argument than that!
Remember Leibniz'? Do babies with cancer and Tsunamis get you down? All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds!
No, you're more likely to remember "Bevis and Butthead": "You need stuff that sucks to have stuff that's cool".
You let me down.
Are you implying that scripting is inherently insecure?
LOL
Well said. It was way ahead of it's time.
That depends on what you mean by 'evidence', doesn't it? Still, I'm curious as to what you think qualifies.
That would be one screwed up kid.
If you take a moment to think about it, you'll realize that most of the things you believe, you believe without any evidence.
Deny it if you like, but that would put you square in the 'delusional' camp.
You say you can't make them think, because they refuse to believe in the same thing as you do
Where did you get that from?
I can agree with that. I may have been overreaching.
Or, huge amounts physical evidence has shown what any sane person would consider proof that their parent was a pathological lair.
There's evidence, for example, that god doesn't exist? That would be some pretty big news. (Not just for religious people; think of the consequences for science, philosophy, etc.) Did I miss the Slashdot headline?
Unless your comment was just out of context, and you really do mean that the kid is exposed to evidence that suggests that their parents are pathological liars. That's a different story.
Scientific explanation of the origin of the universe [wikipedia.org] and life [wikipedia.org]. Looks like my confusion isn't an issue here, and that science does work that way.
First, being able to posit a naturalistic explanation does not make that explanation scientific. Science does not work that way.
As to your links, try reading them. You'll quickly discover why the second falls under the above, and the first does not address the parents claim.
On your ridiculous "begging the question" paragraph: You couldn't possibly be more wrong. To commit the fallacy "begging the question" you must be making a logical argument in which one of the premises assumes the conclusion. You used the term in an informal way, but not in such a way as it relates to the (or any other) logical fallacy. Nor was the parent making a logical argument and could therefore not have committed a logical fallacy in the first place.
I blame the late great Carl Sagan for his well-intentioned (but worse than useless) baloney detection kit. It popularized the concept of logical fallacies, but didn't popularize logic! Now, every autodidact science cheerleader on the internet thinks they understand formal logic and what a logical fallacy is (even though they haven't a clue) and misuse them (and those they completely make-up) at every opportunity.
When I see someone say "logical fallacy" on the internet now, I assume that they're a moron. It's worked out well so far. I just wish I could get them to stop spreading anti-scientific nonsense under the guise of "improving" the public understanding of science.
Regardless, this was an objectively verifiable statement. Most people (in western society) are subject to burial or cremation after death. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of empirical observations. That's not science, in that there was no hypothesis, and there was no experiment. It is, however, fact.
Sure, but it does not in any way address the parents comment! Did you not understand him or are you being purposefully obtuse?
Maybe if I'm really lucky I'll even get you to address any of the points I brought up
Oh, you actually think that your post was coherent? Too funny!
Science currently explains both of these without resorting to supernatural mysticism.
No, it does not. You're clearly confused. Science does not work that way.
Begging the question. How do you know we have a purpose in life to begin with?
That's completely outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
Usually burial or cremation. Statistics are available.
That's also not a scientific statement. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of metaphysical assumptions. That's not science.
I'm tempted to call you delusional, but I'll stick with "woefully misinformed".