Or you could just push them over, slowly walk up a set of stairs, toss a towel over them, or any of a zillion simple ways to significantly disable them that even the fattest mall-cop would easily overcome.
Because Randi's silly challenge is meaningless nonsense?
To clarify my point, I'll offer my own challenge: One Million Dollars to empirically show that it's possible for someone to dream while asleep.
I know that quite a few people claim to dream while they're asleep, but they're clearly either delusional or money-grubbing attention seekers. I mean, if people really could dream, it would be a cinch to win that million dollars, right? I'm not picky. I'll give you every fair advantage. I'll even work with you to find a test protocol that is acceptable to both of us.
Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, so you'll first have to get some media attention before you'll be allowed to apply. I don't have time deal with every mentally ill person who thinks they can dream while they're asleep! I've got to reserve my resources for the big-name crooks and charlatans. Once you make a proper application and it has been accepted and approved, you'll need to pass a preliminary test. You can arrange that with a local university or skeptical group. (Pending my approval, of course.) If you pass that, you can apply to take the official challenge.
Who would turn down a million dollars just to do something they claim not only comes easily, but that they do every night! Even if you don't want or need an extra million dollars, surely you can think of a worthy charity!
Don't doubt my credentials. I'm exceptionally qualified to judge your challenge attempt as I can juggle a bit and know some really keen magic tricks.
That no one has yet to even pass the preliminary challenge speaks volumes!
It's completely unrelated to oft-reported experience. It's as simple as that.
It's no different than this click-bait article from 2007 or, from your definition, spinning around real fast for a bit.
There is nothing that goes out of the body during an OBE.
That's not an assumption anyone is making here. Just you... and the bottom 1% of the "skeptical" community to which the article was intended to appeal.
Just for fun: You have no evidence to support your assertion. Your claim is based solely on an unfounded set of metaphysical assumptions. You're the skeptical equivalent of a creationist. (Skepticism needs to apply to everything, after all, not just what you already assume is nonsense. What good would it be otherwise?)
You've watched far too many Thunderf00t videos. You've clearly been influenced by his astonishing ignorance and disturbing bigotry. As a result, you're living in a fantasy world -- but you're too deluded to notice!
You're fighting an imaginary war against an imaginary enemy. You think the danger you see is real and immediate. You're angry and feel powerless, so you act out online. You're compelled to spread the word (er, share your delusions) with the ignorant masses least the imaginary enemy take control and destroy your way of life!
I want broken classes??? How did you get that out of what I said?
Class-based systems are fundamentally broken. We've known this since the 1980's. Get with the time, man!
Your off your rocker pal. Protoypal inheretance my have its uses but it IS NOT OOP.
No surprise there. You'll find that there's no consensus on what "OOP" actually is or entails. It's an ill-defined and incoherent concept. It's funny, you'll find that there's a lot of disagreement even about what languages are and are not "object oriented" -- which includes languages like Java and C++. If you want to have an "x is not OOP" argument, you can have it with someone else. I'm sure someone just loves that sort of thing, but it's a silly waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.
Still, as I pointed out earlier, it's trivial to implement a class-ical system in a language like JavaScript. It would be stupid, of course, but if you want to use a fundamentally broken system like you find in languages like Java and C#, that's your business.
As for the rest, it doesn't appear that you have the necessary background to make further discussion valuable for either of us.
And horribly wrong, but you don't know that. I'll also note that your complaints are exactly what I expected "I want broken classes" and "I don't like dynamic languages". Ridiculous.
The fat arrow indirection pointer is a huge interpeter hole depending on how its implemented
Nonsense. While I agree that it should never have been added (thanks coffeescript, for your worse-than-useless contribution) there are certainly no fundamental problems with it. God only knows what you mean by "huge interpreter hole", though "depending on how its implemented" implies that it's not a problem with the language. (I would also like to note that problems caused by "how its implemented" applies to every feature of every language ever.) I don't think you've thought this through.
Prototypal inheretance (need I say more?)
It's much much more powerful and flexible than class-based inheritance. Class-based inheritance is fundamentally broken. Just one example, the diamond problem simply doesn't exist with prototypical inheritance. If you really want to force yourself to use a broken and inferior model, you can very easily implement "traditional" classes in JavaScript.
I blame the "new" keyword on this bit of absurdity. JavaScript included the new keyword, as far as I can tell, to make the language seem more familiar to people coming from C++ and Java. (A big mistake.) It was just too easy to pretend that objects in JavaScript were like objects in those languages. This lead a lot of people to think that objects in JavaScript were "broken" when in reality they're simpler, more powerful, don't suffer from the same problems as class-ical objects,... I could go on.
Code reuse in javascript is fake and dumb
This makes absolutely no sense. While it could benefit from a proper module system, code reuse is still significantly simpler in JavaScript than it is in languages like C# and Java. I don't know what you mean by "fake" and "dumb" -- and I suspect that you don't know either.
only functions can create scope, making js a not very well implemented OOP language
This is equally incoherent. JavaScript, at one time, lacked block-level scope; but that had absolutely nothing to do with OOP. (Neither is JavaScript an "OOP language", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's closer to Lisp than it is to Java.) I'd ask you what bizarre reasoning brought you to that conclusion, but I suspect that you're just repeating something you heard and haven't actually thought it through yourself.
Do you have any complaints about it that don't boil down to "I hate dynamic languages" or "classes are the one true way to do oop".
That's what I thought.
That you can just "jump in" and get things done is certainly a testament to the language, but you really need to take the time to learn about it before you can use it effectively. Most people don't take the time to learn it and just jump on the bizarre "JavaScript is horrible" meme. Don't be like them!
If you need an easy introduction, there are quite a few talks by Doug Crockford on youtube. Just search for "Crockford JavaScript". Don't assume that you know JS just because you've used it for years!
It really is the worlds most misunderstood language.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, the iPad is the worst of all possible options by any reasonable criteria you can imagine.
Be objective.
Sounds like Apples approval process isn't terribly strict. Those would appear to violate their own rules.
ToolBook is still around. I remember it being very similar to HyperCard.
It's been a while since I've used it (1996 or so) but may be worth a look if that's the sort of thing you're after.
Don't be stupid. Put on your thinking cap and figure out how you would answer the following questions:
Do some students learn to program with their TI-8x calculators?
What percentage of students learn to program with their TI-8x calculators?
Of the students who learn to program with their TI-8x calculators (if any) are below average, average, or above average?
Perhaps for a brief period of time in some countries, governance was dominated by logic
It was. The results were disastrous.
I believe in the complete legalization of firearms, prostitution, drugs, and gambling. These are clearly things that the right supports, right?
No, just the first. Occasionally the last.
(They often eagerly engage in all of those things, though they tend to publicly denounce the bulk of them.)
Indeed I did, though I had Asimo in mind when I wrote the comment.
Or you could just push them over, slowly walk up a set of stairs, toss a towel over them, or any of a zillion simple ways to significantly disable them that even the fattest mall-cop would easily overcome.
You do realize that "Idiocracy" is not only fictional but built on a faulty premise, right?
Science is a methodology based on logic and rational thought used to arrive at a conclusion
Basic science fail!
Sigh ... I see you have a lot to learn as well.
Do the reading as I recommended. Otherwise, feel free to remain ignorant -- just don't continue to spread nonsense like that around.
You science cheerleaders have done more damage to the public understanding of science than Kent Hovind could ever dream of doing.
This is all Very Wrong! There is nothing in science to believe in
Wow, you really really don't understand science, do you?
Start with David Hume then move on to Karl Popper.
You've got an awful lot to learn.
Because Randi's silly challenge is meaningless nonsense?
To clarify my point, I'll offer my own challenge: One Million Dollars to empirically show that it's possible for someone to dream while asleep.
I know that quite a few people claim to dream while they're asleep, but they're clearly either delusional or money-grubbing attention seekers. I mean, if people really could dream, it would be a cinch to win that million dollars, right? I'm not picky. I'll give you every fair advantage. I'll even work with you to find a test protocol that is acceptable to both of us.
Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, so you'll first have to get some media attention before you'll be allowed to apply. I don't have time deal with every mentally ill person who thinks they can dream while they're asleep! I've got to reserve my resources for the big-name crooks and charlatans. Once you make a proper application and it has been accepted and approved, you'll need to pass a preliminary test. You can arrange that with a local university or skeptical group. (Pending my approval, of course.) If you pass that, you can apply to take the official challenge.
Who would turn down a million dollars just to do something they claim not only comes easily, but that they do every night! Even if you don't want or need an extra million dollars, surely you can think of a worthy charity!
Don't doubt my credentials. I'm exceptionally qualified to judge your challenge attempt as I can juggle a bit and know some really keen magic tricks.
That no one has yet to even pass the preliminary challenge speaks volumes!
It's completely unrelated to oft-reported experience. It's as simple as that.
It's no different than this click-bait article from 2007 or, from your definition, spinning around real fast for a bit.
There is nothing that goes out of the body during an OBE.
That's not an assumption anyone is making here. Just you ... and the bottom 1% of the "skeptical" community to which the article was intended to appeal.
Just for fun: You have no evidence to support your assertion. Your claim is based solely on an unfounded set of metaphysical assumptions. You're the skeptical equivalent of a creationist. (Skepticism needs to apply to everything, after all, not just what you already assume is nonsense. What good would it be otherwise?)
That's not an out-of-body experience.
You have a rather unusual understanding of the term "lock-in". I don't think that you'll find anyone who agrees with you.
I take it you haven't worked with them any time in the past few years. Check them out, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
On your list, if I had to pick the worse of the bunch, Android would very likely come out on top. It's an abomination.
Weren't they supposed to be dead by 2012 then 2013? Now, suddenly, they'll be dead in the next 5 years? I'm starting to see a trend.
Yes, I've used iOS and Android. No thanks. I'll stick to the uncool platform that actually meets my needs.
The excellent developer tools are just icing on an already tasty cake.
In this specific case, it's more like a serial rapist finally getting raped.
I miss car analogies...
That's fine for trade schools, but worse than useless for real schools.
You've watched far too many Thunderf00t videos. You've clearly been influenced by his astonishing ignorance and disturbing bigotry. As a result, you're living in a fantasy world -- but you're too deluded to notice!
You're fighting an imaginary war against an imaginary enemy. You think the danger you see is real and immediate. You're angry and feel powerless, so you act out online. You're compelled to spread the word (er, share your delusions) with the ignorant masses least the imaginary enemy take control and destroy your way of life!
What were you saying again about mental illness?
I want broken classes??? How did you get that out of what I said?
Class-based systems are fundamentally broken. We've known this since the 1980's. Get with the time, man!
Your off your rocker pal. Protoypal inheretance my have its uses but it IS NOT OOP.
No surprise there. You'll find that there's no consensus on what "OOP" actually is or entails. It's an ill-defined and incoherent concept. It's funny, you'll find that there's a lot of disagreement even about what languages are and are not "object oriented" -- which includes languages like Java and C++. If you want to have an "x is not OOP" argument, you can have it with someone else. I'm sure someone just loves that sort of thing, but it's a silly waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.
Still, as I pointed out earlier, it's trivial to implement a class-ical system in a language like JavaScript. It would be stupid, of course, but if you want to use a fundamentally broken system like you find in languages like Java and C#, that's your business.
As for the rest, it doesn't appear that you have the necessary background to make further discussion valuable for either of us.
There are more, but I'm bored.
And horribly wrong, but you don't know that. I'll also note that your complaints are exactly what I expected "I want broken classes" and "I don't like dynamic languages". Ridiculous.
The fat arrow indirection pointer is a huge interpeter hole depending on how its implemented
Nonsense. While I agree that it should never have been added (thanks coffeescript, for your worse-than-useless contribution) there are certainly no fundamental problems with it. God only knows what you mean by "huge interpreter hole", though "depending on how its implemented" implies that it's not a problem with the language. (I would also like to note that problems caused by "how its implemented" applies to every feature of every language ever.) I don't think you've thought this through.
Prototypal inheretance (need I say more?)
It's much much more powerful and flexible than class-based inheritance. Class-based inheritance is fundamentally broken. Just one example, the diamond problem simply doesn't exist with prototypical inheritance. If you really want to force yourself to use a broken and inferior model, you can very easily implement "traditional" classes in JavaScript.
I blame the "new" keyword on this bit of absurdity. JavaScript included the new keyword, as far as I can tell, to make the language seem more familiar to people coming from C++ and Java. (A big mistake.) It was just too easy to pretend that objects in JavaScript were like objects in those languages. This lead a lot of people to think that objects in JavaScript were "broken" when in reality they're simpler, more powerful, don't suffer from the same problems as class-ical objects, ... I could go on.
Code reuse in javascript is fake and dumb
This makes absolutely no sense. While it could benefit from a proper module system, code reuse is still significantly simpler in JavaScript than it is in languages like C# and Java. I don't know what you mean by "fake" and "dumb" -- and I suspect that you don't know either.
only functions can create scope, making js a not very well implemented OOP language
This is equally incoherent. JavaScript, at one time, lacked block-level scope; but that had absolutely nothing to do with OOP. (Neither is JavaScript an "OOP language", whatever that's supposed to mean. It's closer to Lisp than it is to Java.) I'd ask you what bizarre reasoning brought you to that conclusion, but I suspect that you're just repeating something you heard and haven't actually thought it through yourself.
Javascript is a horrible language
Why?
Do you have any complaints about it that don't boil down to "I hate dynamic languages" or "classes are the one true way to do oop".
That's what I thought.
That you can just "jump in" and get things done is certainly a testament to the language, but you really need to take the time to learn about it before you can use it effectively. Most people don't take the time to learn it and just jump on the bizarre "JavaScript is horrible" meme. Don't be like them!
If you need an easy introduction, there are quite a few talks by Doug Crockford on youtube. Just search for "Crockford JavaScript". Don't assume that you know JS just because you've used it for years!
It really is the worlds most misunderstood language.
the boss was giving me shit about coming in late, even though I always came in late
...
asked me why I was there; why else would I be there but for a paycheck?
...
I tossed a resignation letter at him and walked out.
Your former employer is undoubtedly very grateful you left on your own.