I've been excited about product launches in the past, I can understand that. I can't understand getting excited about a video of a product that I know nothing about, which may or many not exist just because it's rumored to be some unknown new thing from a company which has produced products that I liked in the past.
That one has me thrown as well. I expected "flamebait" as it's not terribly informative, except to say that philosophy is indeed rigorous. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this discussion, to someone who understands the topic, is like an evolutionary biologist reading conservapedia.
You, apparently, don't have clue if you think it's not. Try publishing a paper in any reputable journal on some philosophical topic and I guarantee that you'll get ripped to shreds by the reviewers.
For the record, I have read the literature
All of it, have you? When do you find the time for Slashdot? Even professionals don't keep up completely outside their specialization! Statements like that just make you look foolish. Of course, were you actually familiar with any of the literature, you wouldn't make obviously uninformed statements about the rigor of the discipline.
Hell, philosophy is what defines rigor in other disciplines! Get a clue.
That's precisely what I'm saying. It's not within the scope of scientific inquiry. To make any sort of claim, one way or the other, on a scientific basis is absurd.
Philosophy is like math but without rigor, or even an equal sign.
Jesus Christ! It's like you're purposefully ignorant! Philosophy is ridiculously rigorous. Maybe you should try reading the literature. Hell, read wikipedia. Anything is better than ignorance.
This is why I don't bother trying to offer corrections -- idiotic posts like this can only come from someone so unfamiliar with the subject that I'd need to write a fucking textbook one post at a time before I could even begin to explain how moronic the post was!
If you don't know anything about the subject, just shut the fuck up. Spreading bullshit like this isn't helping anyone. You know what it's like? It's like listening to a creationist talk about evolution -- pure, unadulterated, willful ignorance.
Now go find an undergrad textbook and start learning. You've got a long way to go.
Look, if you don't understand what I've written, you very likely don't have even a basic understanding of the subject.
Yet here you are, proud of your incredible ignorance -- confident that the subject must be nothing but nonsense and thus you automatically know everything about it.
It'd post something more substantial, but it's a waste of my time. It's like arguing with creationists.
Yeah, why are we wasting time on anything that isn't directly related to curing cancer and AIDS?
I'd say that this was the dumbest argument I've ever seen, but this thread is such a joke that this idiotic comment is practically insightful in comparison...
Ah, you seem to think that science has answered that question. Don't mistake a belief based on a set of metaphysical assumptions to be a belief based on evidence.
Why is it that everyone without even a basic understanding of the subject immediately jump to solipsism?
Jesus, can't anyone take the 10 minutes to find out how little they actually know? I get that most people don't have years to get up to date with the current, but could you at least not assume that you know everything about the subject because you think it's all a bunch of nonsense?
The mix of gross ignorance and confidence in this discussion, it makes me feel like I'm reading the conservapedia entry for evolution.
You're really stretching here. Sorry, but when it takes manpower and possibly complex legal action (to say nothing the expense!) for the Indian gov't to read my messages while it takes virtually no effort for the Indian gov't to read messages on other platforms, my platform is more secure.
It's like saying Fort Knox is just as insecure as my tool-shed because a highly-trained team of tactical and explosive experts explosives could get in if they really tried.
You missed quite a few. It serves far more than just four functions, as a quick google search will confirm. Even worse, things like double-clicking the home button have different functions depending on the context.
Apparently it does so much even an above-average iOS users can't keep track! It's bad design, no matter how you try to spin in.
If you don't care about learning how your device works, you can simply ignore the extra functions and just use the home button as the home button. Nothing wrong with that.
Well, you can't. See, the single-press on the home button doesn't always just bring you to the home screen. That would make sense -- one button, one function. Of course, they've jammed so much in to that one button you can't even ignore the other features! This is exactly the kind of bad design that happens when you start cramming features in to a UI that was never intended to accommodate them.
I don't follow your reasoning? RIM still offers the only secure option, yet somehow they're just as insecure as the rest and thus a level playing field?
Moreover, how does RIM giving in to the Indian gov't on BIS snooping change anything at all about BES before and after they gave it?
Sorry, I just don't see how the playing field has been leveled in any way -- RIM is still way ahead in terms of security. They've been delt a blow, sure, but they've not been knocked down so far as to be on the same level as the rest of the players!
RIM doesn't have the keys to hand over. Again, see the link I sent. If you're referring to a company running BES in India being forced to give the gov't access to their communications, that's completely different and has absolutely nothing to do with RIM.
Still, the point stands. RIM is the only secure option -- the playing field has not be leveled.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, what?
Formally, "begging the question" is a logical fallacy where one of the premises of an argument depends on / assumes the conclusion.
In the "common use" sense, it's generally taken to mean that the statement made demands a particular question be answered.
In either case, you're off the mark.
I'm 100% with you there.
I've been excited about product launches in the past, I can understand that. I can't understand getting excited about a video of a product that I know nothing about, which may or many not exist just because it's rumored to be some unknown new thing from a company which has produced products that I liked in the past.
If you can offer any insight, I'm all ears.
That one has me thrown as well. I expected "flamebait" as it's not terribly informative, except to say that philosophy is indeed rigorous. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this discussion, to someone who understands the topic, is like an evolutionary biologist reading conservapedia.
You, apparently, don't have clue if you think it's not. Try publishing a paper in any reputable journal on some philosophical topic and I guarantee that you'll get ripped to shreds by the reviewers.
For the record, I have read the literature
All of it, have you? When do you find the time for Slashdot? Even professionals don't keep up completely outside their specialization! Statements like that just make you look foolish. Of course, were you actually familiar with any of the literature, you wouldn't make obviously uninformed statements about the rigor of the discipline.
Hell, philosophy is what defines rigor in other disciplines! Get a clue.
That's precisely what I'm saying. It's not within the scope of scientific inquiry. To make any sort of claim, one way or the other, on a scientific basis is absurd.
My apologies. I meant you, not the parent. Insult fail?
Philosophy is like math but without rigor, or even an equal sign.
Jesus Christ! It's like you're purposefully ignorant! Philosophy is ridiculously rigorous. Maybe you should try reading the literature. Hell, read wikipedia. Anything is better than ignorance.
This is why I don't bother trying to offer corrections -- idiotic posts like this can only come from someone so unfamiliar with the subject that I'd need to write a fucking textbook one post at a time before I could even begin to explain how moronic the post was!
If you don't know anything about the subject, just shut the fuck up. Spreading bullshit like this isn't helping anyone. You know what it's like? It's like listening to a creationist talk about evolution -- pure, unadulterated, willful ignorance.
Now go find an undergrad textbook and start learning. You've got a long way to go.
I don't know what happened there. Replace "That" with "Not". I guess I fail English today!
Look, if you don't understand what I've written, you very likely don't have even a basic understanding of the subject.
Yet here you are, proud of your incredible ignorance -- confident that the subject must be nothing but nonsense and thus you automatically know everything about it.
It'd post something more substantial, but it's a waste of my time. It's like arguing with creationists.
Epistemology fail!
Yeah, why are we wasting time on anything that isn't directly related to curing cancer and AIDS?
I'd say that this was the dumbest argument I've ever seen, but this thread is such a joke that this idiotic comment is practically insightful in comparison...
Not true. Do some reading.
Empiricism is the basis of all science, but by itself philosophy is not science, and large tracts of it are readily anti-science
You're an idiot. This is not up for debate. It's pretty obvious that:
1) You clearly don't understand philosophy.
2) You assume that you know everything about philosophy
This is not unusual. Just look at this thread. There's so much ignorance here that it makes Kent Hovind's video series look sensible in comparision!
Ah, you seem to think that science has answered that question. Don't mistake a belief based on a set of metaphysical assumptions to be a belief based on evidence.
Why is it that everyone without even a basic understanding of the subject immediately jump to solipsism?
Jesus, can't anyone take the 10 minutes to find out how little they actually know? I get that most people don't have years to get up to date with the current, but could you at least not assume that you know everything about the subject because you think it's all a bunch of nonsense?
The mix of gross ignorance and confidence in this discussion, it makes me feel like I'm reading the conservapedia entry for evolution.
Wow, you manage to fail both computer science AND philosophy in a single post!
No wonder you're posting as an AC -- I wouldn't that bit of nonsense tied to my account!
We already know that brain is a biological computer with multiple chemical and electrochemical interfaces to the rest of the body
How are things in the 1950's? You know, back when that was still tenable.
That very good at this science thing, are you?
There's a lot more than three functions, and the various ways to press the home key change function depending on context. It's bad design 101.
Take a look at the PlayBook for a suite of tablet gestures done right. It'll be clear, almost immediately, how piss-poor the iOS gestures really are.
That's "the security they STILL offer is unmatched"
Again, BES users are completely unaffected. RIM can't give the keys away because they don't have them!
You're really stretching here. Sorry, but when it takes manpower and possibly complex legal action (to say nothing the expense!) for the Indian gov't to read my messages while it takes virtually no effort for the Indian gov't to read messages on other platforms, my platform is more secure.
It's like saying Fort Knox is just as insecure as my tool-shed because a highly-trained team of tactical and explosive experts explosives could get in if they really tried.
We're talking about you not me.
You missed quite a few. It serves far more than just four functions, as a quick google search will confirm. Even worse, things like double-clicking the home button have different functions depending on the context.
Apparently it does so much even an above-average iOS users can't keep track! It's bad design, no matter how you try to spin in.
If you don't care about learning how your device works, you can simply ignore the extra functions and just use the home button as the home button. Nothing wrong with that.
Well, you can't. See, the single-press on the home button doesn't always just bring you to the home screen. That would make sense -- one button, one function. Of course, they've jammed so much in to that one button you can't even ignore the other features! This is exactly the kind of bad design that happens when you start cramming features in to a UI that was never intended to accommodate them.
I don't follow your reasoning? RIM still offers the only secure option, yet somehow they're just as insecure as the rest and thus a level playing field?
Moreover, how does RIM giving in to the Indian gov't on BIS snooping change anything at all about BES before and after they gave it?
Sorry, I just don't see how the playing field has been leveled in any way -- RIM is still way ahead in terms of security. They've been delt a blow, sure, but they've not been knocked down so far as to be on the same level as the rest of the players!
RIM doesn't have the keys to hand over. Again, see the link I sent. If you're referring to a company running BES in India being forced to give the gov't access to their communications, that's completely different and has absolutely nothing to do with RIM.
Still, the point stands. RIM is the only secure option -- the playing field has not be leveled.