You live in a neighbourhood where you get mails about the fucking grass being too long, or the ( can't believe this ) "mailbox is mildewed" ?? What police state are you living in ?
Google "home owners association". Imagine that you think you're buying a great home in Japan, only to find out later that it's really North Korea and you've peronally insulted Kim Jong Un.
That's what an HOA is like -- living under the thumb of a tyrannical tin-pot dictator who doesn't like you or the specific shade of your roofing shingles.
I'd love to see Ubuntu replace Android. In case you haven't noticed, Android is a bit of a mess. Even Android development is a nightmare compared to iOS and BB10.
Now, if they can ditch the over-engineered pile of garbage that is X and replace it with something sensible we could see the whole of Linux improve dramatically. That's probably not going to happen, sadly. Still, Ubuntu phone is a step in the right direction.
Files in folders is great. I have no problems with it at all. So far, no one has found anything better.
If you have something better, write it up. If nothing else, you'll learn to appreciate the current system.
Nothing yet proposed has matched (or even come close) to the simplicity and utility we have now. Steve's goofy idea didn't make anyone's life easier. The lack of FS access on iOS has done nothing but made simple, common, tasks difficult or impossible . iTunes is about as far from ease-of-use as it gets. The whole library and sync concepts just don't work very well outside a very narrow (and uncommon!) use-case.
Trying to extend that bad idea to other user data like documents, pictures, etc. was one of the biggest mistakes Apple's ever made. Why do you think dropbox is so popular with iOS users? It gives them some of the control they're absolutely desperate to get back. It let's them do simple things like "copy and damn file" and organize their documents, photos, etc. in whatever way suits them best. Dropbox is primarily a workaround for a broken UI.
In this case? As far as I can tell, you're the only one dragging god in to the equation.
An hypothesis, put in the simplest possible terms, is a testable prediction.
I don't even know how to begin to explain what's wrong with the nonsense that follows. I've heard the phrase "not even wrong" used before. It never made much sense to me, but it's the first thing that springs to mind!
With any luck, you now know what an hypothesis is. I can recommend a few beginner books on logic.
Maybe you should spend less time fighting imaginary battles against imaginary enemies and more time actually learning about science?
Every god hypothesis that is in play in the ID movement(which is the context of this conversation, in case you had forgotten)
Oh, wow, you really fail at reading. My comment was about the definition of "hypothesis". MacGyver2210 brought up god, but only because he's not terribly competent.
Noting that such effects are not in evidence is an effective argument against such ideas.
Oh, wow, you ALSO fail at basic science!
You'd think that you'd do some reading before you double-down on such an absurd statement!
If the god hypothesis includes historical interaction, then a lack of interaction does disprove it
That isn't even coherent!
Scratch my recommendation for an undergraduate textbook. Go to your local elementary school library for some books on science that are more your speed.
You're a perfect example of one of the "science cheerleaders" that don't have a clue how science works.
If the god hypothesis is so ill defined as to preclude any falsification, then it is useless.
Worse than that, it's not even an hypothesis!
You can't have it both ways. Either a god hypothesis has a measuable impact upon the universe, in which case it is testable, or it does not, which makes it a bad hypothesis.
What, exactly, do I want both ways? I don't know where you get "bad hypothesis" from. As I clearly stated in my first post, if it's not testable it's not an hypothesis! You seem to agree with that bit. Then again, judging from the rest of your incoherent rambling, you might not understand what that even means.
Sigh... Why is this so hard for some people? The knowledge claim "I don't know" is a consequence of the claim "it's unknown" or "it's unknowable". They're still separate claims, of course, though only one is relevant to the discussion here.
For the price, I'd have gone with a cheap laptop. (I grabbed an aspire one 722 with 4gb of RAM and Windows 7 for a about $225 on Amazon a couple months ago as a quick replacement for my wife's work computer. She really seems to like it, so I haven't bothered to pick up anything better.)
A laptop gives you much more utility and it's likely easier to type on than the generally really poor BT keyboards. For schoolwork, a tablet just isn't going to cut it. Most of my wife's work related computer use involves writing documents. She was hoping to use her tablet exclusively, so we tried a few BT keyboards, and a few office suites, but couldn't find anything that wasn't frustrating for her to use.
Remember: Just because you can do something with a tool doesn't mean it's a good tool for the job. I can create documents and spreadsheets on my cell-phone, but it's a poor substitute for a real computer.
Atheism is a belief statement. To be atheist means that you lack a belief in any god or gods.
Agnosticism is a knowledge statement. To be agnostic, in this context, means that you don't know if any god or gods exist.
You can be an atheist (lacking belief) and also be agnostic (lacking knowledge). An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods, but also would not claim to know that no gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks the belief and claims knowledge that no gods exist.
I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.
You make the exact same mistake the parent makes: Proof or the ability to prove need not enter in to it at all. We're dealing with "that" not "why", after all.
I'm sure atheists would prefer to debate with logical, educated religious people, but unfortunately they don't exist...
Really? I can think of quite a few. From Alfred North Whitehead to John Shelby Spong. In fact, you'll find religious people in virtually every branch of science from the social sciences to physical sciences.
Even among the Catholics, you'll find that many priests, in addition to the normal graduate-level education requirements, often also hold secular masters or doctoral degrees.
In short, being religious isn't a reflection on a persons education or on their ability to think logically or rationally. Equally, being an Atheist says absolutely nothing about a persons education, intelligence, or ability to thing logically or rationally. It's not too difficult to find a below-average atheist -- even among high-profile atheists. Matt Dillahunty is a great example of high-profile yet disturbingly below-average atheist.
You're also a great example of an atheist who seems to lack basic critical thinking skills.
Just ignore them. The average internet Atheist has but about as much (and often less) thought in to their own beliefs as the average religious nut.
The science cheerleaders are the worst. They often lack even a very basic understanding of science, leading them to say some astonishingly absurd things! Don't bother trying to correct them, as the other scientifically illiterate will jump to their defense by posting other (often contradictory) nonsense.
What's to discuss? Your unusual belief that what's good Apple is good for developers and consumers? Reality is obviously very different!
I suppose that's why you're attacking me instead of addressing my points. That's okay. I have a thick-skin. You'll come around when you're ready to face facts.
Slashdot Mirror
You live in a neighbourhood where you get mails about the fucking grass being too long, or the ( can't believe this ) "mailbox is mildewed" ?? What police state are you living in ?
Google "home owners association". Imagine that you think you're buying a great home in Japan, only to find out later that it's really North Korea and you've peronally insulted Kim Jong Un.
That's what an HOA is like -- living under the thumb of a tyrannical tin-pot dictator who doesn't like you or the specific shade of your roofing shingles.
THIS is what people don't understand.
To the the clueless: Hiring you isn't my job. Hiring you is just extra work.
They're already in the fruit business, and they've got plenty of Apples. How about BlackBerry's on Orange?
I would assume that would come after we identify the perpetrator.
I'd love to see Ubuntu replace Android. In case you haven't noticed, Android is a bit of a mess. Even Android development is a nightmare compared to iOS and BB10.
Now, if they can ditch the over-engineered pile of garbage that is X and replace it with something sensible we could see the whole of Linux improve dramatically. That's probably not going to happen, sadly. Still, Ubuntu phone is a step in the right direction.
Files in folders is great. I have no problems with it at all. So far, no one has found anything better.
If you have something better, write it up. If nothing else, you'll learn to appreciate the current system.
Nothing yet proposed has matched (or even come close) to the simplicity and utility we have now. Steve's goofy idea didn't make anyone's life easier. The lack of FS access on iOS has done nothing but made simple, common, tasks difficult or impossible . iTunes is about as far from ease-of-use as it gets. The whole library and sync concepts just don't work very well outside a very narrow (and uncommon!) use-case.
Trying to extend that bad idea to other user data like documents, pictures, etc. was one of the biggest mistakes Apple's ever made. Why do you think dropbox is so popular with iOS users? It gives them some of the control they're absolutely desperate to get back. It let's them do simple things like "copy and damn file" and organize their documents, photos, etc. in whatever way suits them best. Dropbox is primarily a workaround for a broken UI.
The hypothesis in this case is
In this case? As far as I can tell, you're the only one dragging god in to the equation.
An hypothesis, put in the simplest possible terms, is a testable prediction.
I don't even know how to begin to explain what's wrong with the nonsense that follows. I've heard the phrase "not even wrong" used before. It never made much sense to me, but it's the first thing that springs to mind!
With any luck, you now know what an hypothesis is. I can recommend a few beginner books on logic.
Maybe you should spend less time fighting imaginary battles against imaginary enemies and more time actually learning about science?
So, so dumb...
Ah, so when a prediction based upon a hypothesis fails to happen, then that somehow upholds the validity of the hypothesis?
The hypothesis is the prediction. Of course, that's NOT what you stated in your earlier ridiculous comment:
Noting that such effects are not in evidence is an effective argument against such ideas.
Do you see how absurd that is? How scientifically illiterate would you have to be to make that statement in earnest?
If you meant something else (as implied by earlier quote) great. Next time, try saying what you mean.
Every god hypothesis that is in play in the ID movement(which is the context of this conversation, in case you had forgotten)
Oh, wow, you really fail at reading. My comment was about the definition of "hypothesis". MacGyver2210 brought up god, but only because he's not terribly competent.
Noting that such effects are not in evidence is an effective argument against such ideas.
Oh, wow, you ALSO fail at basic science!
You'd think that you'd do some reading before you double-down on such an absurd statement!
If the god hypothesis includes historical interaction, then a lack of interaction does disprove it
That isn't even coherent!
Scratch my recommendation for an undergraduate textbook. Go to your local elementary school library for some books on science that are more your speed.
You're a perfect example of one of the "science cheerleaders" that don't have a clue how science works.
If the god hypothesis is so ill defined as to preclude any falsification, then it is useless.
Worse than that, it's not even an hypothesis!
You can't have it both ways. Either a god hypothesis has a measuable impact upon the universe, in which case it is testable, or it does not, which makes it a bad hypothesis.
What, exactly, do I want both ways? I don't know where you get "bad hypothesis" from. As I clearly stated in my first post, if it's not testable it's not an hypothesis! You seem to agree with that bit. Then again, judging from the rest of your incoherent rambling, you might not understand what that even means.
And all swans are white because we've never seen a black swan, right?
Congratulations, you've just learned about the limits of induction. If you still don't get it, go pick up any undergraduate textbook on logic.
How's that a hypothesis? For an hypothesis to be scientific requires that it be testable.
Sigh... Why is this so hard for some people? The knowledge claim "I don't know" is a consequence of the claim "it's unknown" or "it's unknowable". They're still separate claims, of course, though only one is relevant to the discussion here.
This is absurdly simple stuff.
For the price, I'd have gone with a cheap laptop. (I grabbed an aspire one 722 with 4gb of RAM and Windows 7 for a about $225 on Amazon a couple months ago as a quick replacement for my wife's work computer. She really seems to like it, so I haven't bothered to pick up anything better.)
A laptop gives you much more utility and it's likely easier to type on than the generally really poor BT keyboards. For schoolwork, a tablet just isn't going to cut it. Most of my wife's work related computer use involves writing documents. She was hoping to use her tablet exclusively, so we tried a few BT keyboards, and a few office suites, but couldn't find anything that wasn't frustrating for her to use.
Remember: Just because you can do something with a tool doesn't mean it's a good tool for the job. I can create documents and spreadsheets on my cell-phone, but it's a poor substitute for a real computer.
Umm, no. By that definition, you are an agnostic.
Umm, no. That's not what those words mean.
Atheism is a belief statement. To be atheist means that you lack a belief in any god or gods.
Agnosticism is a knowledge statement. To be agnostic, in this context, means that you don't know if any god or gods exist.
You can be an atheist (lacking belief) and also be agnostic (lacking knowledge). An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods, but also would not claim to know that no gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks the belief and claims knowledge that no gods exist.
I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.
You make the exact same mistake the parent makes: Proof or the ability to prove need not enter in to it at all. We're dealing with "that" not "why", after all.
I'm sure atheists would prefer to debate with logical, educated religious people, but unfortunately they don't exist...
Really? I can think of quite a few. From Alfred North Whitehead to John Shelby Spong. In fact, you'll find religious people in virtually every branch of science from the social sciences to physical sciences.
Even among the Catholics, you'll find that many priests, in addition to the normal graduate-level education requirements, often also hold secular masters or doctoral degrees.
In short, being religious isn't a reflection on a persons education or on their ability to think logically or rationally. Equally, being an Atheist says absolutely nothing about a persons education, intelligence, or ability to thing logically or rationally. It's not too difficult to find a below-average atheist -- even among high-profile atheists. Matt Dillahunty is a great example of high-profile yet disturbingly below-average atheist.
You're also a great example of an atheist who seems to lack basic critical thinking skills.
Just ignore them. The average internet Atheist has but about as much (and often less) thought in to their own beliefs as the average religious nut.
The science cheerleaders are the worst. They often lack even a very basic understanding of science, leading them to say some astonishingly absurd things! Don't bother trying to correct them, as the other scientifically illiterate will jump to their defense by posting other (often contradictory) nonsense.
If only Slashdot had a feature that allowed you to preview your post before hitting submit...
What's to discuss? Your unusual belief that what's good Apple is good for developers and consumers? Reality is obviously very different!
I suppose that's why you're attacking me instead of addressing my points. That's okay. I have a thick-skin. You'll come around when you're ready to face facts.
Ummm... I was addressing your ridiculous argument, not reasserting my good one.
Try to keep up here. It's not complicated.
Yeah, a few top developers are making a killing. It's everyone else that gets screwed!
Again, the numbers are in -- if you want to make money selling apps, iOS is absolutely not the place for you!
I know, you absolutely hate the truth. Get over it. The FACTS are in, and they are NOT in your favor!
Enjoy your outdated UI and clunky half-assed gesture suite. I hope they bring you comfort as the world moves on without you.
Ah, I see you failed to find anything to contradict the study I posted.
Big surprise.
Look, I know that you really can't stand the FACTS, but they are what they are. Get over it.
And you honestly believe that that's good for the consumer?
That's beyond delusional!
Yawn. Maybe if you provide actual research, like I have, I'd be more inclined to indulge in your little play-pretend fantasy!
Sorry, reality and the meme don't match. iOS sucks for developers. That's a FACT.
Developers make more money than anywhere else
That's obviously FALSE. Do a google search. On which platform are developers earning the most money? Oh, NOT Apple's iOS!
Except they make more. Much, much more. Even Google makes more money from iOS than they make from Android!
Sorry, the FACTS contradict your fantasy.
Why do you enjoy getting shafted?