It doesn't come from "nowhere" but you assert it's a prediction bade on some basis. It's a re-statement of an observation in a testable manner. I call that a "guess". "If I drop an apply it will fall" is a guess (until tested). "If I drop an apple and a feather in a vacuum they will fall at the same rate" is a guess (until tested). Hypotheses are guesses.
Sigh... It's not a mere guess if you have a reason to expect a particular outcome, it's a prediction. Predictions are made on some basis. That is obviously not a requirement for a guess.
You're probably operating under the incorrect assumption that hypotheses "graduate" in to theories -- that particular bit of nonsense seems to have spread like wildfire in skeptical communities. Here's the short, but correct, version: A Theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction. Keep that in mind and you'll do just fine.
Your "Oh, gee maybe this will happen" concept has no place in science. That would reduce the whole enterprise to nothing more than directionless trial and error.
"informed deduction without certainty"
...
I see that you're not familiar with the concept of deduction either.
Yes, I realize it's fiction, but it's the usage of "guess" in common usage that's in question, not the weight of whales
In this case, "guess" is not the right word at all, it's "estimate". An estimate is not an hypothesis and it is not a mere guess.
Words have meaning. Playing fast and loose with the vocabulary is not helpful -- neither to science nor to those you hope to inform.
An hypothesis doesn't come from nowhere. It's a testable prediction. A prediction is made on some basis. For example, theories make predictions which can then be tested.
In your bizarre world, where an hypothesis was just a guess, you'd go around saying things like "when a ball of twine reaches terminal velocity, it'll turn in to a unicorn". No one need ask why you would expect such an outcome -- it's just a guess, after all.
Indeed she did. Apparently, she didn't think ignoring Randi was going to impact her career in any negative way. Sadly, she was right. What does that tell you about Randi's influence?
Big name psychics who swear up and down that they're the real deal don't take his tests, despite being an easy one million dollars to keep or give to charity.
I hate to defend them, but have you considered that Randi just isn't important enough for them to be bothered? He's really only a celebrity in a few niche circles. He isn't exactly a household name.
Ah, there's your idiotic obsession with the stupid challenge again. Once again, running the challenge is not the Foundation's purpose.
Funny, that's the only thing you hear about! Half the discussion here is about the challenge -- the next video in this inane series is all about the challenge.
As for education, they appear to do little to no actual education -- how else do you explain the lack of basic critical thinking skills among Randi's acolytes?
No, but I'm sure I could if I looked.
More irrationality. No need for evidence when you've got faith in the holy Randi!
Hero worship? I approve of what the foundation is doing;
Funny, you admit you'd need to look to find basic information about the organizations activities. You approve of what you think they might be doing. Irrationality abounds!
As long as people like Silvia Brown and the Long Island Medium continue to get TV shows to help support their actual, harmful fraud, I will applaud Randi's activities
And what has Randi done about Silvia Brown? He's made some noise, but has had no measurable impact on her career. His high-profile targets are completely unaffected by his ramblings. Peter Popoff, his only notable success, is back at it and making millions! Uri Geller, who Randi has been after for decades, recently had a successful T.V. show, running three seasons and recently bought an island. Yeah, he's really put the hurt on them! Please. The only people who buy that are his mindless followers.
And your obsession with the utterly unimportant question of how many tests they run each year has to be the stupidest complaint I've heard
What bothers you is that they're not providing any information about their most high-profile activity. Say it isn't important all you want, but you and I both know that's a lie. It's the first thing people mention when they talk about Randi and the JREF. It's often the ONLY reason it's mentioned at all! It's probably how you first heard about Randi and his fraudulent little ministry.
Oh, I see. He missed his own daughter's wedding!
You're talking about the Victim. This poor guy suffered credit problems, frozen bank accounts, been the subject of identity theft investigation himself, etc. for decades all because Randi wanted to keep his pretty young boyfriend around. You'd have us believe that Jose Alvarez was just slightly inconvenienced! (What kind of crazy mental contortions must that take?! Maybe it's easy for irrational woo-woo's like you?)
The only thing more despicable than that is the shameless disregard for Randi's victims expressed by his followers.
Go ahead and and continue to ignore Randi's fraudulent behavior. Go ahead and ignore the shady behavior of JREF. Ignore the total lack of transparency. That's your problem now.
Rational people will continue to call him out for what he his pitiful organization is -- a fraud. When you outgrow your bizarre need to follow a holy leader, we'll still be here.
You wanted to discredit some poster by attacking his credentials instead of his ideas. He happily complied with your weird request, to which you replied:
So, in other words, your qualifications are no more "science" than a baker's or a doctor's.
Because attacking the person is the best way to discredit their ideas/claims/etc. ?
To point out your irrationality, to annoy you a little, and take a jab at established fraudster James Randi I wrote:
Still infinitely better than James Randi's qualifications.
Which is true. At least this guy has a formal education. All of which is beside the point: The original posters credentials aren't relevant. If they were essential, you'd be forced to side with Rupert Sheldrake over Randi the Amaz!ng Fraud on any point of contention. One is a well-credentialed scientist (former Royal Society Research Fellow, no less) the other is a second-rate magician who thinks it's okay to defraud the federal government. What do you think of your credential argument now? Pretty stupid, isn't it? Oh, I hope you can see that!
Of course, rather than recognize your own irrationality and address the parents claims and not the parent's qualifications you decided to defend Randi against... what, exactly? The accusation of not having any scientific credentials?
Bullshit. He's a professional magician and thus eminently qualified to spot and reproduce the kind of nonsense "super naturalists" use to fool the naive.
Obviously, Randi is no scientist. That's what you wanted, wasn't it? You specifically requested scientific credentials. You didn't say "your qualifications are no more 'science' or 'second-rate stage magician' than a baker's or doctor's", did you? Perhaps it was accidental? Do you often confuse scientists and performance artists?
Anyhow, I figured I'd have some fun at a play-pretend skeptics expense and tease you a bit more, mimicking nearly verbatim your ridiculous reply to the parent's credentials, which are clearly irrelevant.
Which brings us to your last comment:
Very clever, ignoring what I said and simply restating your moronic position.
What did I ignore? There wasn't much exchanged, and I believe I've hit all of it.
What exactly is my "moronic position"? That Randi isn't a scientist? Well, he's not a scientist. He's even a climate change denier! What are you disputing here?
You started by complaining about the test, so why not stick to the point and tell us what problem you have WITH THE TEST?
Umm... No. My comment was not about the challenge, but about how it is (not) conducted. The parent's claim "Many have tried" is clearly false, as no one has EVER taken the official test. That his organization doesn't provide basic information about challenge related activities is suspicious.
Their forums are loaded with threads ridiculing applicants, but that's all you get -- assuming that those are even legitimate. We have no way of knowing, as the JREF refuses to provide basic information about their operations to donors and supporters. Hmmm... Do other legitimate organizations operate this way? Only frauds and scammers? I wonder what that makes JREF...
Are you claiming that people with ACTUAL supernatural abilities are somehow denied access to the money
Nope. You may want to read my post again.
See, your problem is that you can't understand why someone wouldn't worship at the feet of James Randi unless they were some superstitious woo-woo. (Or whatever the goofy term is that pastor Randi invented to help bring cohesion to his little flock of followers. Funny how the JREF has all the trappings of a religious group. I presume it was designed that way.)
To be honest with you, my original post (and this one as well) was really just a chance for me to call James Randi, known liar and criminal, a fraud.
He helped his boyfriend Pena defraud the federal government for decades, his organization keeps basic information from donors and supporters, I could go on. All that and he's a climate change denier. Why the alleged skeptical community jumps to this hucksters defense is beyond me!
So... They don't release those numbers because they're all zero, eh?
They don't do any testing at all. Why aren't they up-front about that? Why isn't THAT in their FAQ? I guess it's hard to fleece gullible marks in to supporting your efforts when you flat-out tell them that you're doing nothing at all!
It would be funny if so many innocent, if dim-witted, people weren't dumping their hard-earned money in to Randi's collection plate.
A publicity stunt designed to show that people are still too gullible, perpetrated on Australian media somehow magically becomes "defrauding" the "federal government"? Not only are your facts wrong, but your butt-hurtedness is showing. Which sacred cow of yours did he gore?
Nice try. I'm sure you'll fool lot's of other gullible Randi supporters (that's redundant) with your pitiful attempt to mislead the readers here.
Just in case you're the least competent google user in history: Jose Alvarez was the identity Randi and Deyvi Pena stole so that Pena (Randi's live-in boyfriend) could remain in the country and obtain (and renew!) a Fraudulent U.S. Passport.
It caused the REAL Jose Alvarez quite a bit of trouble! He even missed his own daughter's wedding because of Randi's criminal behavior.
Your hero is a known liar, thief, and criminal. He has no problems committing acts of fraud when it suits him. He clearly has no qualms about defrauding the federal government. What makes you think that he's honest with his donors and supporters?
The Randi Foundation's actual activities are well-documented and publicized.
No, they're not. Have you even looked at their financials? Can you give me basic information about their activities such as "how many notarized applications for the challenge were revived in 2012".
Of course not! The JREF is either incompetently managed or their lack of transparency is purposeful and deceptive. They act an awful lot like a bunch of scammers.
If they weren't, the Foundation would be in serious legal hot water.
Why? Randi's little boyfriend got 6-months house arrest for an obscene list of crimes! Randi wasn't even changed for his involvement in the scam. (Yes, he knew about it. He calls Pena by name in his book The Faith Healers.) A little money and fame goes a long way.
Maybe you should stop the hero worship and start applying those critical thinking skills JREF members think they possess to Randi and his traveling big-tent revival.
Atheism just means not actively supporting bad hypotheses on religious grounds.
What?
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god. That's all. There's nothing extra. No add-ons. There's no "because", further ramifications, or requirements.
The parent is undoubtedly an atheist. He seems to dislike the term, however, likely due to the association with the vile cesspool that is the online atheist community.
Many have tried, but so far nobody has ever been able to do so.
A Randi misdirection. No one has ever taken the official challenge. The JREF is also suspiciously silent on the number of preliminary tests conducted every year. I suspect that it's because they're not being conducted at all. (If they had real numbers, you'd think they'd use them for marketing! That they're completely silent on the activities related to their most well-known and well publicized function speaks volumes.)
When you say "many have tried" you're taking Randi at his word. A bad idea, as he's already shown that he's willing to defraud the federal government (example: Jose Alvarez). What makes you think he'd balk at defrauding his supporters?
Well-known fraud committing fraud? It's not exactly a stretch.
Let's face it, Randi is the Peter Popoff of the skeptic world. Atheism's very own faith healer. That such an obvious fraud can operate so openly among (self-proclaimed) skeptics is an embarrassment.
Price is pretty comparable to all but the cheapest netbooks, and certainly competitive with most laptops that aren't "under-specced" as well.
It's like you're not even trying. Check out laptop prices for similarly spec'd to the average tablet. Notice how hard it is to buy an antique laptop with specs similar to the new iPad?
The original comment I responded to specifically referenced "administering servers," not "writing code" (though it's been established elsewhere in this thread that it's absolutely possible to write code on a tablet, as well).
I can write code on a cell phone as well. That doesn't mean it's just as good as desktop.
If you open a terminal window to administer your server on a laptop, and I open a terminal window to administer my server on a tablet+bluetooth keyboard, the correct answer is, "there is no fucking difference."
I can do the same thing on my cell phone -- I can even connect a blue-tooth keyboard. There's a MASSIVE difference, and not just in screen size!
Tablets suck for anything involving text -- or anything requiring precision for that matter.
Just because you can say "it can be done on..." does not mean "it's just as good as..."
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't come from "nowhere" but you assert it's a prediction bade on some basis. It's a re-statement of an observation in a testable manner. I call that a "guess". "If I drop an apply it will fall" is a guess (until tested). "If I drop an apple and a feather in a vacuum they will fall at the same rate" is a guess (until tested). Hypotheses are guesses.
Sigh... It's not a mere guess if you have a reason to expect a particular outcome, it's a prediction. Predictions are made on some basis. That is obviously not a requirement for a guess.
You're probably operating under the incorrect assumption that hypotheses "graduate" in to theories -- that particular bit of nonsense seems to have spread like wildfire in skeptical communities. Here's the short, but correct, version: A Theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction. Keep that in mind and you'll do just fine.
Your "Oh, gee maybe this will happen" concept has no place in science. That would reduce the whole enterprise to nothing more than directionless trial and error.
"informed deduction without certainty"
...
I see that you're not familiar with the concept of deduction either.
Yes, I realize it's fiction, but it's the usage of "guess" in common usage that's in question, not the weight of whales
In this case, "guess" is not the right word at all, it's "estimate". An estimate is not an hypothesis and it is not a mere guess.
Words have meaning. Playing fast and loose with the vocabulary is not helpful -- neither to science nor to those you hope to inform.
No, you just don't understand basic science!
An hypothesis doesn't come from nowhere. It's a testable prediction. A prediction is made on some basis. For example, theories make predictions which can then be tested.
Here's a rather famous example, which you are now capable of understanding: http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/05/dayintech_0529/
In your bizarre world, where an hypothesis was just a guess, you'd go around saying things like "when a ball of twine reaches terminal velocity, it'll turn in to a unicorn". No one need ask why you would expect such an outcome -- it's just a guess, after all.
Do you see the difference?
Good. Now, stop spreading nonsense.
Unsupported? Then on what grounds would you have to test anything?
Don't be foolish. Spreading nonsense about basic science isn't going to help any one.
Let people with actual scientific training explain things like this.
You know why the "water dowsers" had higher success? Because in most places on Earth, if you dig a few feet, you will find water.
I see that you have absolutely no idea what everyone else is talking about!
They're talking about the higher success rate of water dowsers vs metal dowsers in the test conducted by Randi disputed by which Arthur C. Clarke.
But don't let a little thing like "not knowing the topic of discussion" stop you from posting. It's entertaining.
Sounds like someone doesn't know what a hypothesis is. It's a pre-judgement (or at least a "guess" or "educated guess").
An hypothesis is a testable prediction. It's not a damn guess.
Indeed she did. Apparently, she didn't think ignoring Randi was going to impact her career in any negative way. Sadly, she was right. What does that tell you about Randi's influence?
Do you have a link to this "normal" award terms?
Digging around a bit, all I could find what that the challenge was offered by a fellow named Robert Anton Wilson.
I couldn't find any info about the normal challenge on his website http://www.rawilson.com/
The challenge may be long gone. You could try the wayback machine, my eyes can't handle the blue text on a blue background any longer.
Big name psychics who swear up and down that they're the real deal don't take his tests, despite being an easy one million dollars to keep or give to charity.
I hate to defend them, but have you considered that Randi just isn't important enough for them to be bothered? He's really only a celebrity in a few niche circles. He isn't exactly a household name.
See, here's something that you have somehow forgotten to mention--to take the test you must first pass a preliminary test.
I didn't miss it. I mention it repeatedly. In fact, in the above posts, it's one of the first things I talk about!
I guess it's easier to lie and attack me personally than it is to actually defend Randi the Amaz!ng Fraud.
It's not my fault your hero is obviously a liar and a fraud. Get over it.
Then there's matter that the statistics backed up Randi's judgment.
Clarke's point was that the statistics did not back-up Randi's judgment.
Don't take Clake's word, or my own, for it -- do the analysis yourself.
Ah, there's your idiotic obsession with the stupid challenge again. Once again, running the challenge is not the Foundation's purpose.
Funny, that's the only thing you hear about! Half the discussion here is about the challenge -- the next video in this inane series is all about the challenge.
As for education, they appear to do little to no actual education -- how else do you explain the lack of basic critical thinking skills among Randi's acolytes?
No, but I'm sure I could if I looked.
More irrationality. No need for evidence when you've got faith in the holy Randi!
Hero worship? I approve of what the foundation is doing;
Funny, you admit you'd need to look to find basic information about the organizations activities. You approve of what you think they might be doing. Irrationality abounds!
As long as people like Silvia Brown and the Long Island Medium continue to get TV shows to help support their actual, harmful fraud, I will applaud Randi's activities
And what has Randi done about Silvia Brown? He's made some noise, but has had no measurable impact on her career. His high-profile targets are completely unaffected by his ramblings. Peter Popoff, his only notable success, is back at it and making millions! Uri Geller, who Randi has been after for decades, recently had a successful T.V. show, running three seasons and recently bought an island. Yeah, he's really put the hurt on them! Please. The only people who buy that are his mindless followers.
And your obsession with the utterly unimportant question of how many tests they run each year has to be the stupidest complaint I've heard
What bothers you is that they're not providing any information about their most high-profile activity. Say it isn't important all you want, but you and I both know that's a lie. It's the first thing people mention when they talk about Randi and the JREF. It's often the ONLY reason it's mentioned at all! It's probably how you first heard about Randi and his fraudulent little ministry.
Oh, I see. He missed his own daughter's wedding!
You're talking about the Victim. This poor guy suffered credit problems, frozen bank accounts, been the subject of identity theft investigation himself, etc. for decades all because Randi wanted to keep his pretty young boyfriend around. You'd have us believe that Jose Alvarez was just slightly inconvenienced! (What kind of crazy mental contortions must that take?! Maybe it's easy for irrational woo-woo's like you?)
The only thing more despicable than that is the shameless disregard for Randi's victims expressed by his followers.
Go ahead and and continue to ignore Randi's fraudulent behavior. Go ahead and ignore the shady behavior of JREF. Ignore the total lack of transparency. That's your problem now.
Rational people will continue to call him out for what he his pitiful organization is -- a fraud. When you outgrow your bizarre need to follow a holy leader, we'll still be here.
Let's recap, shall we?
You wanted to discredit some poster by attacking his credentials instead of his ideas. He happily complied with your weird request, to which you replied:
So, in other words, your qualifications are no more "science" than a baker's or a doctor's.
Because attacking the person is the best way to discredit their ideas/claims/etc. ?
To point out your irrationality, to annoy you a little, and take a jab at established fraudster James Randi I wrote:
Still infinitely better than James Randi's qualifications.
Which is true. At least this guy has a formal education. All of which is beside the point: The original posters credentials aren't relevant. If they were essential, you'd be forced to side with Rupert Sheldrake over Randi the Amaz!ng Fraud on any point of contention. One is a well-credentialed scientist (former Royal Society Research Fellow, no less) the other is a second-rate magician who thinks it's okay to defraud the federal government. What do you think of your credential argument now? Pretty stupid, isn't it? Oh, I hope you can see that!
Of course, rather than recognize your own irrationality and address the parents claims and not the parent's qualifications you decided to defend Randi against ... what, exactly? The accusation of not having any scientific credentials?
Bullshit. He's a professional magician and thus eminently qualified to spot and reproduce the kind of nonsense "super naturalists" use to fool the naive.
Obviously, Randi is no scientist. That's what you wanted, wasn't it? You specifically requested scientific credentials. You didn't say "your qualifications are no more 'science' or 'second-rate stage magician' than a baker's or doctor's", did you? Perhaps it was accidental? Do you often confuse scientists and performance artists?
Anyhow, I figured I'd have some fun at a play-pretend skeptics expense and tease you a bit more, mimicking nearly verbatim your ridiculous reply to the parent's credentials, which are clearly irrelevant.
Which brings us to your last comment:
Very clever, ignoring what I said and simply restating your moronic position.
What did I ignore? There wasn't much exchanged, and I believe I've hit all of it.
What exactly is my "moronic position"? That Randi isn't a scientist? Well, he's not a scientist. He's even a climate change denier! What are you disputing here?
A 12-inch pianist?
The article is written in a way that implies the feature is turned on when you get the phone.
Which it is not.
I even double-checked on my wife's phone as she hadn't yet setup BBM. It was off.
You must explicitly turn that feature on.
It's off by default.
This is a non-story.
Implying that this feature is on by default. Bad idea.
That would be a bad idea. Good thing that it's OFF by default.
The article and summary are ridiculous.
So, in other words, his qualifications are no more "science" than a baker's or a doctor's.
Hmmm... that's awful familiar...
You started by complaining about the test, so why not stick to the point and tell us what problem you have WITH THE TEST?
Umm... No. My comment was not about the challenge, but about how it is (not) conducted. The parent's claim "Many have tried" is clearly false, as no one has EVER taken the official test. That his organization doesn't provide basic information about challenge related activities is suspicious.
Their forums are loaded with threads ridiculing applicants, but that's all you get -- assuming that those are even legitimate. We have no way of knowing, as the JREF refuses to provide basic information about their operations to donors and supporters. Hmmm... Do other legitimate organizations operate this way? Only frauds and scammers? I wonder what that makes JREF...
Are you claiming that people with ACTUAL supernatural abilities are somehow denied access to the money
Nope. You may want to read my post again.
See, your problem is that you can't understand why someone wouldn't worship at the feet of James Randi unless they were some superstitious woo-woo. (Or whatever the goofy term is that pastor Randi invented to help bring cohesion to his little flock of followers. Funny how the JREF has all the trappings of a religious group. I presume it was designed that way.)
To be honest with you, my original post (and this one as well) was really just a chance for me to call James Randi, known liar and criminal, a fraud.
He helped his boyfriend Pena defraud the federal government for decades, his organization keeps basic information from donors and supporters, I could go on. All that and he's a climate change denier. Why the alleged skeptical community jumps to this hucksters defense is beyond me!
So, in other words, your qualifications are no more "science" than a baker's or a doctor's.
Still infinitely better than James Randi's qualifications.
No they're not. Nobody has taken the preliminary
So... They don't release those numbers because they're all zero, eh?
They don't do any testing at all. Why aren't they up-front about that? Why isn't THAT in their FAQ? I guess it's hard to fleece gullible marks in to supporting your efforts when you flat-out tell them that you're doing nothing at all!
It would be funny if so many innocent, if dim-witted, people weren't dumping their hard-earned money in to Randi's collection plate.
A publicity stunt designed to show that people are still too gullible, perpetrated on Australian media somehow magically becomes "defrauding" the "federal government"? Not only are your facts wrong, but your butt-hurtedness is showing. Which sacred cow of yours did he gore?
Nice try. I'm sure you'll fool lot's of other gullible Randi supporters (that's redundant) with your pitiful attempt to mislead the readers here.
Just in case you're the least competent google user in history:
Jose Alvarez was the identity Randi and Deyvi Pena stole so that Pena (Randi's live-in boyfriend) could remain in the country and obtain (and renew!) a Fraudulent U.S. Passport.
It caused the REAL Jose Alvarez quite a bit of trouble! He even missed his own daughter's wedding because of Randi's criminal behavior.
Your hero is a known liar, thief, and criminal. He has no problems committing acts of fraud when it suits him. He clearly has no qualms about defrauding the federal government. What makes you think that he's honest with his donors and supporters?
The Randi Foundation's actual activities are well-documented and publicized.
No, they're not. Have you even looked at their financials? Can you give me basic information about their activities such as "how many notarized applications for the challenge were revived in 2012".
Of course not! The JREF is either incompetently managed or their lack of transparency is purposeful and deceptive. They act an awful lot like a bunch of scammers.
If they weren't, the Foundation would be in serious legal hot water.
Why? Randi's little boyfriend got 6-months house arrest for an obscene list of crimes! Randi wasn't even changed for his involvement in the scam. (Yes, he knew about it. He calls Pena by name in his book The Faith Healers.) A little money and fame goes a long way.
Maybe you should stop the hero worship and start applying those critical thinking skills JREF members think they possess to Randi and his traveling big-tent revival.
Atheism just means not actively supporting bad hypotheses on religious grounds.
What?
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god. That's all. There's nothing extra. No add-ons. There's no "because", further ramifications, or requirements.
The parent is undoubtedly an atheist. He seems to dislike the term, however, likely due to the association with the vile cesspool that is the online atheist community.
Many have tried, but so far nobody has ever been able to do so.
A Randi misdirection. No one has ever taken the official challenge. The JREF is also suspiciously silent on the number of preliminary tests conducted every year. I suspect that it's because they're not being conducted at all. (If they had real numbers, you'd think they'd use them for marketing! That they're completely silent on the activities related to their most well-known and well publicized function speaks volumes.)
When you say "many have tried" you're taking Randi at his word. A bad idea, as he's already shown that he's willing to defraud the federal government (example: Jose Alvarez). What makes you think he'd balk at defrauding his supporters?
Well-known fraud committing fraud? It's not exactly a stretch.
Let's face it, Randi is the Peter Popoff of the skeptic world. Atheism's very own faith healer. That such an obvious fraud can operate so openly among (self-proclaimed) skeptics is an embarrassment.
Price is pretty comparable to all but the cheapest netbooks, and certainly competitive with most laptops that aren't "under-specced" as well.
It's like you're not even trying. Check out laptop prices for similarly spec'd to the average tablet. Notice how hard it is to buy an antique laptop with specs similar to the new iPad?
The original comment I responded to specifically referenced "administering servers," not "writing code" (though it's been established elsewhere in this thread that it's absolutely possible to write code on a tablet, as well).
I can write code on a cell phone as well. That doesn't mean it's just as good as desktop.
If you open a terminal window to administer your server on a laptop, and I open a terminal window to administer my server on a tablet+bluetooth keyboard, the correct answer is, "there is no fucking difference."
I can do the same thing on my cell phone -- I can even connect a blue-tooth keyboard. There's a MASSIVE difference, and not just in screen size!
Tablets suck for anything involving text -- or anything requiring precision for that matter.
Just because you can say "it can be done on ..." does not mean "it's just as good as ..."
That's easy. A tablet + keyboard is essentially an overpriced, under-spec'd, and physically broken laptop that won't sit on your lap.
Let's not be ridiculous. A tablet doesn't even come close to a laptop replacement.