No, it's true. Inheritance breaks encapsulation. This is a indisputable fact. It's VERY well established in the literature. The problem, it seems, is that you simply don't understand what that means. Do you have an ACM DL subscription? If not, get one. You'll find plenty has been written about that very subject.
That's exactly the point, just as with Javascript they don't slog through them, they're just not even aware of them and as a result they write wrong code, buggy code, vulnerable code.
Have any evidence? Because I don't think you do. (I think you're making this up as you go along.) Where's the research? Make use of your ACM DL subscription.
That's not fair. I know you can't actually produce anything like that. How about some specific examples like I asked for in an earlier post? Surely, you have something specific in mind?
Now, I will agree that people don't use JavaScript correctly. That was the point of my first post. The problem isn't the language, of course, but people trying to use the language like it's a class-based, not prototype-based. Once you learn the language, you'll find that there's nothing wrong with it. There are no "quirks", as you like to say, it's just different. Give Scheme and Forth a go and you'll find they're just as different, but not poorly designed in any way. (The difference? You can't pretend that Scheme and Forth are just like Java and C# like you can with JavaScript. If there's any problem with JavaScript, it's that the familiar syntax makes naive developers think that there's nothing new to learn.)
More buggy than an equivalently skilled developer would produce with better designed languages
Again, what makes a language poorly designed? What makes a language "better designed"? Is there some ultimate ideal language design? I still don't think you've thought this through.
instead quoting lines from books that are now nearly 20 years old
I did no such thing! (I actually had a much older paper in mind when I told you that inheritance breaks encapsulation.) You had never heard of such a thing and did a google search (as I asked), landing on Wikipedia, where you learned that the subject was mentioned in the GoF book.
you're obviously not willing to learn enough about this topic to have a rational conversation
I'm not willing to learn?!
How about answering the very basic questions about your assertions? Asking questions shows a willingness to learn, doesn't it? I've not asked any difficult questions, after all. If you want me to learn, surely you could take the time to answer them, or at least direct me to the relevant research from which I'm sure you've formed your opinions?
You're not just repeating empty platitudes, right?
That you don't know much about language paradigms? The problem is that the three pillars of OOP are inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism. In Javascript you can't do inheritance without sacrificing encapsulation
Umm... Inheritance is fundamentally incompatible with encapsulation. This isn't exactly a big secret. Google "inheritance breaks encapsulation".
The fact you believe PHP has no underlying quirks that are a result of bad language design and that must be learnt to use even the base language properly without introducing faults speaks volumes
Well, what are they? (Dare I ask after your failure to do the same for JavaScript?) One of the greatest strengths of PHP is that it is incredibly simple to learn and use. What are these mysterious quirks that millions of amateurs are apparently willing to slog through learning before hacking out yet another home-grown CMS?
not have poor design traits that result in inherently more buggy software at all skill levels. Javascript has all too many of those, and that's the problem.
What are these so-called "poor design traits that result in inherently more buggy software". More buggy that what?
Hint: It doesn't matter if learning the language let's you work around these things, the fact I highlighted them demonstrates precisely that I do know the language,
As I pointed out, Your "points" 1 and 4 show that, in fact, you don't understand the language. (This statement isn't even coherent: "This is a relic of the fact that Javascript wants to be both OO and Prototype based". What other conclusion could I draw?)
Points 2 and 3 clearly shows that you don't understand the scoping rules. Once you actually learn the language it becomes clear that there are no issues to "work around". The rules are simple and clear. There are no inconsistencies. Though it looks like you want to introduce some...
Why in a code block like a function would you ever want a variable to become global by default? This is kludgy, it would've been better to only go global if you explicitly declare global.
If you understood the very simple rules, you'd know exactly why that happens. You'd also understand why it would be "kludgy" (inconsistent) to make it work like you suggest!
A good, well designed language, doesn't require you to take extra steps to "learn the language" beyond the concepts necessary to use it at a base level, Javascript does (and so do languages like PHP) and that's exactly why it's kludgy.
Here's something fun: PHP perfectly fits your criteria for a "good, well designed language" as it "doesn't require you to take extra steps to 'learn the language' beyond the concepts necessary to use it at a base level". Why, it's even a better fit than your exemplars: Java and C#.
That's embarrassing!
Here, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself: Following your newly revealed definition for "good, well designed language" how does JavaScript fail to meet your criteria that would not also disqualify languages that you consider well-designed like Java and C#?
No, the constitution recognizes the need for a regulated militia and the right of the people. Otherwise:
1. It would be self contradictory, since regulating your militia is, in turn, regulating arms, which the text says shall not be infringed 2. It wouldn't be located next to the third amendment, which also puts the freedom of the people over soldiers of the union 3. It would be unique, as the fifth amendment also refer to the militia as external to the people 4. It would be misplaced, as rights specifically granted to a government entity (states) that wasn't already addressed in the articles is all the way in the back at amendment ten 5. It would be redundant, since the military is already presumed to exist as in Article 2
Anyone can argue whether they like it or not, but the fact is the second amendment, quite clearly, refers to the right of the people. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken at best and selectively manipulative at worst.
This is an absolutely brilliant post. Clear and concise.
1) You say stop trying to use it like an OO language yet the language supports OO features badly.
No, I said to stop treating it like a class-based OO langauge. JavaScript's objects are prototype-based. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad. Try learning the language before you complain about it.
2) If you don't prefix a previously unused variable it goes into the global scope. What. The. Fuck.
Try learning the scoping rules. It makes perfect sense.
3 try learning the language.
4 is advice given to you by someone else who doesn't understand JavaScript, and also shows clearly that you don't understand 1.
5 Possibly your only legitimate complaint. Just use semicolons all the time, problem solved. Why you don't find similar complains about optional brackets in JS, C, etc.? All the same complaints apply.
7 is unsubstantiated nonsense.
8 Perhaps you don't know what NaN means? (Hint: NaN is a value, not a type) You'll find that in Java, Python, etc. NaN==NaN returns false as well.
Need I go on?
Please don't.
despite it's prevalence one simply cannot argue that it's a "good" language
You might want to learn the language before you make such a pronouncement.
That's a completely different kind of product, you know.
Apple TV is more in line with the Visio CoStar than it is to the Ouya. Sure, you get a bit more bang for your buck with the CoStar, but their intended to be used for similar purposes.
That Apple sells a random product for less than $100 is completely irrelevant to the parents comment.
To be clear, he said "Tabarrok seems to tacitly assume that innovation can be regulated via legislation". Which, to answer your question, he supported by quoting the article: "So, we’ve constructed the patent system: people have a 17 year exclusive right to such public goods. That is, we’ve made them excludable by law".
I honestly don't see how you could possibly still be confused, having read both the article and the parent's posts.
Love the misogyny -- it's very modern. Phil Mason and Richard Dawkins would be proud of your contributions.
Some criticism, to improve your future pro-rape posts:
1) You did a great job calling the victim a "cunt", but instead of "I hope she gets sued" you should have written "I hope she gets raped" or better yet "if I saw her I'd rape her". Bonus points if you address your comments directly at the victim.
2) The victim did contact the police, a fact which has been pointed out numerous times in this discussion. When you distort the truth, make sure that no one can contradict your assertions!
An appeal to authority argument is only a logical fallacy in cases where the person isn't an expert, where there is no consensus, or where the appeal is based on deductive instead of inductive reasoning.
Wow, that's... really, really, wrong.
Perhaps if you had taken a course in logic, instead of reading a few "rationalist" blog sites, you'd understand why.
In the hacker community, the self-taught hacker is often better respected than his academically-shaped peer
That's just something autodidacts tell themselves to make themselves feel important.
and the reason has nothing to do with a disrespect of education
Sure about that? See any of the recent "is college useless" slashdot discussions.
but rather an implicit understanding that you just don't learn as well unless you're interested in the material and follow your own path through it.
That's the biggest problem with autodidacts. They tend to ignore important material that they don't have an interest in, don't immediately understand, or disagree with (because it doesn't appeal to their intuition or runs contrary to their existing beliefs.)
They end up believing themselves experts in a topic, when in reality they're less informed than a hipster Starbucks barista that took an undergrad course in the same subject.
Now, computer programming is a special case. Any kid can teach themselves computer programming -- hell, in the 80's, a lot of kids did! -- and even make a career out of it with very little effort. Just like a backyard mechanic can find work in a repair shop. The difference, of course, is that the mechanics don't fancy themselves engineers.
Programming is the easiest thing I've ever done. That a fact that many (most?) developers know but don't want to state publicly. They've got too much of their self-worth wrapped up in it. They want to continue to pretend that they're special in some way (more rational, intelligent, whatever) because they can write computer programs.
That insecurity is a problem only the autodidacts face. The educated take pride in what they've actually accomplished, not in the knowledge they have or the skills they've acquired. They know that anyone can learn (or learn to do) what they have learned, so they don't believe their knowledge and skills alone make them special or important.
Quote Eric S. Raymond all you want, but you won't find too much respect for autodidact "physicists" in the physics community or any in his silly little list of "academic areas". (I find it laughable that you refer to him as a "social anthropologist". He's not. Not even close. He's just another under-educated autodidact pandering to other under-educated autodidacts. It's sad, really.)
Yeah, because ASM is the only alternative. Eyeroll.
"Grandpa" is right. We've traded an awful lot of bloat for... what, exactly? Vague promises of improved developer productivity? The outright lie of simplicity?
He may not be willing to blame the languages outright, but I'd back him up if he did.
Each instruction contained within it the address of the next instruction--they weren't sequential--and "optimal assembly" was the process of calculating how long each instruction would take so that the next instruction could be placed at the right location on the drum that it would be almost under the head when the last instruction had completed. "Optimal assembly" was the memory placement aspect of it.
Please, a Real Programmer wouldn't even bother with a so-called "optimizing" assembler. Too inefficient. "You never know where it's going to put things, so you'd have to use separate constants."
1. We can demonstrate that while a person is conscious, there is electrical activity in the brain.
Where's the evidence?
I can demonstrate both of these easily, but I'll need a willing participant, an EKG, and a gun.
I'll settle for a journal article.
You're quite right that I have no medical texts at my place of work, nor the inclination to go on a Google search to prove both of the above statements - it would be a waste of my time.
I agree. It's a waste of time as you won't find anything. That's my point.
If you disagree with them, say so. If you agree with them, say so.
I thought we were talking about facts and evidence, not my personal beliefs? What's your obsession with what I personally believe?
Which constituent part of "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain" are you suggesting is incorrect?
Your claim: There exists "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain".
Present some evidence to support that claim. If you're claim is true, this should be really really easy. That's dramatically different from your earlier claims, but I don't expect that you acknowledge a difference, so we'll roll with it for the time being. Once we get you to post something other than pure assertion, we'll work on deconstructing your original post.
Of course, it's impossible for you to meet that simply challenge as no such evidence exists. You won't believe that, of cousre, until your search turns up empty. I suspect by now that you've figured it out, which is why you STILL haven't offered any evidence in support of your claims.
Either you don't know what you believe, or you're too afraid to state it for fear of persecution or simply being provably wrong about something.
What I believe is irrelevant to the discussion. After all, what I believe will not alter my claim: that you presented baseless speculation as fact.
Arguing with you is boring.
What argument? I've only asked you for one thing: present evidence to support your claims which are obviously, as I asserted earlier, baseless speculation. You seem more concerned about my personal beliefs and motivations, which are completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. I suspect it's because you really don't like the conclusion you'll be forced to draw if you face my simple challenge head-on.:)
Everything I've stated is a proven, testable fact. The mechanisms at play are established in current theory.
Absolute nonsense. Go ahead, try to support your assertions with established science. You'll find that it's impossible.
If you refer to results of the scientific process as "baseless speculation" then you have advanced a position - that being that you don't trust the scientific process.
Again, you're confused. Your assertions are NOT in any way the "results of the scientific process". You'll discover this as you try to address the challenge presented above.
Why are so many "defenders of science" scientifically illiterate?
Slashdot Mirror
So... It's a bad idea to play golf?
Wrong.
No, it's true. Inheritance breaks encapsulation. This is a indisputable fact. It's VERY well established in the literature. The problem, it seems, is that you simply don't understand what that means. Do you have an ACM DL subscription? If not, get one. You'll find plenty has been written about that very subject.
That's exactly the point, just as with Javascript they don't slog through them, they're just not even aware of them and as a result they write wrong code, buggy code, vulnerable code.
Have any evidence? Because I don't think you do. (I think you're making this up as you go along.) Where's the research? Make use of your ACM DL subscription.
That's not fair. I know you can't actually produce anything like that. How about some specific examples like I asked for in an earlier post? Surely, you have something specific in mind?
Now, I will agree that people don't use JavaScript correctly. That was the point of my first post. The problem isn't the language, of course, but people trying to use the language like it's a class-based, not prototype-based. Once you learn the language, you'll find that there's nothing wrong with it. There are no "quirks", as you like to say, it's just different. Give Scheme and Forth a go and you'll find they're just as different, but not poorly designed in any way. (The difference? You can't pretend that Scheme and Forth are just like Java and C# like you can with JavaScript. If there's any problem with JavaScript, it's that the familiar syntax makes naive developers think that there's nothing new to learn.)
More buggy than an equivalently skilled developer would produce with better designed languages
Again, what makes a language poorly designed? What makes a language "better designed"? Is there some ultimate ideal language design? I still don't think you've thought this through.
instead quoting lines from books that are now nearly 20 years old
I did no such thing! (I actually had a much older paper in mind when I told you that inheritance breaks encapsulation.) You had never heard of such a thing and did a google search (as I asked), landing on Wikipedia, where you learned that the subject was mentioned in the GoF book.
you're obviously not willing to learn enough about this topic to have a rational conversation
I'm not willing to learn?!
How about answering the very basic questions about your assertions? Asking questions shows a willingness to learn, doesn't it? I've not asked any difficult questions, after all. If you want me to learn, surely you could take the time to answer them, or at least direct me to the relevant research from which I'm sure you've formed your opinions?
You're not just repeating empty platitudes, right?
That you don't know much about language paradigms? The problem is that the three pillars of OOP are inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism. In Javascript you can't do inheritance without sacrificing encapsulation
Umm... Inheritance is fundamentally incompatible with encapsulation. This isn't exactly a big secret. Google "inheritance breaks encapsulation".
The fact you believe PHP has no underlying quirks that are a result of bad language design and that must be learnt to use even the base language properly without introducing faults speaks volumes
Well, what are they? (Dare I ask after your failure to do the same for JavaScript?) One of the greatest strengths of PHP is that it is incredibly simple to learn and use. What are these mysterious quirks that millions of amateurs are apparently willing to slog through learning before hacking out yet another home-grown CMS?
not have poor design traits that result in inherently more buggy software at all skill levels. Javascript has all too many of those, and that's the problem.
What are these so-called "poor design traits that result in inherently more buggy software". More buggy that what?
I don't think you've thought this through.
Hint: It doesn't matter if learning the language let's you work around these things, the fact I highlighted them demonstrates precisely that I do know the language,
As I pointed out, Your "points" 1 and 4 show that, in fact, you don't understand the language. (This statement isn't even coherent: "This is a relic of the fact that Javascript wants to be both OO and Prototype based". What other conclusion could I draw?)
Points 2 and 3 clearly shows that you don't understand the scoping rules. Once you actually learn the language it becomes clear that there are no issues to "work around". The rules are simple and clear. There are no inconsistencies. Though it looks like you want to introduce some...
Why in a code block like a function would you ever want a variable to become global by default? This is kludgy, it would've been better to only go global if you explicitly declare global.
If you understood the very simple rules, you'd know exactly why that happens. You'd also understand why it would be "kludgy" (inconsistent) to make it work like you suggest!
A good, well designed language, doesn't require you to take extra steps to "learn the language" beyond the concepts necessary to use it at a base level, Javascript does (and so do languages like PHP) and that's exactly why it's kludgy.
Here's something fun: PHP perfectly fits your criteria for a "good, well designed language" as it "doesn't require you to take extra steps to 'learn the language' beyond the concepts necessary to use it at a base level". Why, it's even a better fit than your exemplars: Java and C#.
That's embarrassing!
Here, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself: Following your newly revealed definition for "good, well designed language" how does JavaScript fail to meet your criteria that would not also disqualify languages that you consider well-designed like Java and C#?
Good luck.
No, the constitution recognizes the need for a regulated militia and the right of the people. Otherwise:
1. It would be self contradictory, since regulating your militia is, in turn, regulating arms, which the text says shall not be infringed
2. It wouldn't be located next to the third amendment, which also puts the freedom of the people over soldiers of the union
3. It would be unique, as the fifth amendment also refer to the militia as external to the people
4. It would be misplaced, as rights specifically granted to a government entity (states) that wasn't already addressed in the articles is all the way in the back at amendment ten
5. It would be redundant, since the military is already presumed to exist as in Article 2
Anyone can argue whether they like it or not, but the fact is the second amendment, quite clearly, refers to the right of the people. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken at best and selectively manipulative at worst.
This is an absolutely brilliant post. Clear and concise.
1) You say stop trying to use it like an OO language yet the language supports OO features badly.
No, I said to stop treating it like a class-based OO langauge. JavaScript's objects are prototype-based. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad. Try learning the language before you complain about it.
2) If you don't prefix a previously unused variable it goes into the global scope. What. The. Fuck.
Try learning the scoping rules. It makes perfect sense.
3 try learning the language.
4 is advice given to you by someone else who doesn't understand JavaScript, and also shows clearly that you don't understand 1.
5 Possibly your only legitimate complaint. Just use semicolons all the time, problem solved. Why you don't find similar complains about optional brackets in JS, C, etc.? All the same complaints apply.
7 is unsubstantiated nonsense.
8 Perhaps you don't know what NaN means? (Hint: NaN is a value, not a type) You'll find that in Java, Python, etc. NaN==NaN returns false as well.
Need I go on?
Please don't.
despite it's prevalence one simply cannot argue that it's a "good" language
You might want to learn the language before you make such a pronouncement.
Do you have any actual reasons or are you just parroting what you think "smart people" are supposed to believe?
JavaScript is kludgy?
Stop using jQuery and stop trying to force JavaScript to act like a class-based oo language. That should fix most of your JavaScript complaints.
Considering IE 10's score, I seriously doubt that the fact that it's a "preview build" matters. It's not likely to improve much, if at all.
Hell, give it another 10 points and it's still behind a number of televisions.
Get over it.
IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point
Wow, that's ... pitiful.
That's a completely different kind of product, you know.
Apple TV is more in line with the Visio CoStar than it is to the Ouya. Sure, you get a bit more bang for your buck with the CoStar, but their intended to be used for similar purposes.
That Apple sells a random product for less than $100 is completely irrelevant to the parents comment.
To be clear, he said "Tabarrok seems to tacitly assume that innovation can be regulated via legislation". Which, to answer your question, he supported by quoting the article: "So, we’ve constructed the patent system: people have a 17 year exclusive right to such public goods. That is, we’ve made them excludable by law".
I honestly don't see how you could possibly still be confused, having read both the article and the parent's posts.
That would be everyone.
Love the misogyny -- it's very modern. Phil Mason and Richard Dawkins would be proud of your contributions.
Some criticism, to improve your future pro-rape posts:
1) You did a great job calling the victim a "cunt", but instead of "I hope she gets sued" you should have written "I hope she gets raped" or better yet "if I saw her I'd rape her". Bonus points if you address your comments directly at the victim.
2) The victim did contact the police, a fact which has been pointed out numerous times in this discussion. When you distort the truth, make sure that no one can contradict your assertions!
An appeal to authority argument is only a logical fallacy in cases where the person isn't an expert, where there is no consensus, or where the appeal is based on deductive instead of inductive reasoning.
Wow, that's ... really, really, wrong.
Perhaps if you had taken a course in logic, instead of reading a few "rationalist" blog sites, you'd understand why.
In the hacker community, the self-taught hacker is often better respected than his academically-shaped peer
That's just something autodidacts tell themselves to make themselves feel important.
and the reason has nothing to do with a disrespect of education
Sure about that? See any of the recent "is college useless" slashdot discussions.
but rather an implicit understanding that you just don't learn as well unless you're interested in the material and follow your own path through it.
That's the biggest problem with autodidacts. They tend to ignore important material that they don't have an interest in, don't immediately understand, or disagree with (because it doesn't appeal to their intuition or runs contrary to their existing beliefs.)
They end up believing themselves experts in a topic, when in reality they're less informed than a hipster Starbucks barista that took an undergrad course in the same subject.
Now, computer programming is a special case. Any kid can teach themselves computer programming -- hell, in the 80's, a lot of kids did! -- and even make a career out of it with very little effort. Just like a backyard mechanic can find work in a repair shop. The difference, of course, is that the mechanics don't fancy themselves engineers.
Programming is the easiest thing I've ever done. That a fact that many (most?) developers know but don't want to state publicly. They've got too much of their self-worth wrapped up in it. They want to continue to pretend that they're special in some way (more rational, intelligent, whatever) because they can write computer programs.
That insecurity is a problem only the autodidacts face. The educated take pride in what they've actually accomplished, not in the knowledge they have or the skills they've acquired. They know that anyone can learn (or learn to do) what they have learned, so they don't believe their knowledge and skills alone make them special or important.
Quote Eric S. Raymond all you want, but you won't find too much respect for autodidact "physicists" in the physics community or any in his silly little list of "academic areas". (I find it laughable that you refer to him as a "social anthropologist". He's not. Not even close. He's just another under-educated autodidact pandering to other under-educated autodidacts. It's sad, really.)
Yeah, because ASM is the only alternative. Eyeroll.
"Grandpa" is right. We've traded an awful lot of bloat for ... what, exactly? Vague promises of improved developer productivity? The outright lie of simplicity?
He may not be willing to blame the languages outright, but I'd back him up if he did.
Each instruction contained within it the address of the next instruction--they weren't sequential--and "optimal assembly" was the process of calculating how long each instruction would take so that the next instruction could be placed at the right location on the drum that it would be almost under the head when the last instruction had completed. "Optimal assembly" was the memory placement aspect of it.
Please, a Real Programmer wouldn't even bother with a so-called "optimizing" assembler. Too inefficient. "You never know where it's going to put things, so you'd have to use separate constants."
Well said.
Your post puts me in mind of Chuck Moore.
Are you sure? The Atari Mindlink was never actually released -- and read "forehead muscle movement" not "brainwaves".
There were a lots of ads for it though.
Let's start with your first point:
1. We can demonstrate that while a person is conscious, there is electrical activity in the brain.
Where's the evidence?
I can demonstrate both of these easily, but I'll need a willing participant, an EKG, and a gun.
I'll settle for a journal article.
You're quite right that I have no medical texts at my place of work, nor the inclination to go on a Google search to prove both of the above statements - it would be a waste of my time.
I agree. It's a waste of time as you won't find anything. That's my point.
If you disagree with them, say so. If you agree with them, say so.
I thought we were talking about facts and evidence, not my personal beliefs? What's your obsession with what I personally believe?
My guess? You're just avoiding the truth.
Which constituent part of "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain" are you suggesting is incorrect?
Your claim: There exists "plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain".
Present some evidence to support that claim. If you're claim is true, this should be really really easy. That's dramatically different from your earlier claims, but I don't expect that you acknowledge a difference, so we'll roll with it for the time being. Once we get you to post something other than pure assertion, we'll work on deconstructing your original post.
Of course, it's impossible for you to meet that simply challenge as no such evidence exists. You won't believe that, of cousre, until your search turns up empty. I suspect by now that you've figured it out, which is why you STILL haven't offered any evidence in support of your claims.
Either you don't know what you believe, or you're too afraid to state it for fear of persecution or simply being provably wrong about something.
What I believe is irrelevant to the discussion. After all, what I believe will not alter my claim: that you presented baseless speculation as fact.
Arguing with you is boring.
What argument? I've only asked you for one thing: present evidence to support your claims which are obviously, as I asserted earlier, baseless speculation. You seem more concerned about my personal beliefs and motivations, which are completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. I suspect it's because you really don't like the conclusion you'll be forced to draw if you face my simple challenge head-on. :)
There is, however, plenty of scientific evidence that all conscious response is the result of electrical activity in the brain
Then present some. (This may be difficult for you as none actually exists.)
My assertions ARE the result of the scientific process.
Then present the evidence!
Actually, you have asserted something - you believe in life after death.
I made NO such assertion! Like the imaginary evidence you allude to above, you'll find that a quote from me making such an assertion does not exist.
Now, go do some reading. I'd say that you're in for a surprise, but I've already spoiled the ending.
Everything I've stated is a proven, testable fact. The mechanisms at play are established in current theory.
Absolute nonsense. Go ahead, try to support your assertions with established science. You'll find that it's impossible.
If you refer to results of the scientific process as "baseless speculation" then you have advanced a position - that being that you don't trust the scientific process.
Again, you're confused. Your assertions are NOT in any way the "results of the scientific process". You'll discover this as you try to address the challenge presented above.
Why are so many "defenders of science" scientifically illiterate?
However, aren't "you" just a software program that has been installed on some fancy biological hardware?
No, that's very outdated. Computationalism has been dead for a while now.