I am expecting to read news here first, not after everyone has already published them.
You've been on this site for, I'd guess, around 14 or 15 years. What, in that time, lead you to believe that you'd ever see news published here in any sort of timely manner, let alone so quickly that you'd be likely to find it here first?
Slashdot has always had a reputation for bringing you yesterday's news tomorrow. If you're really still believe you should be able "to read news here first", the only way this site will meet your misplaced expectations is if you get your news here exclusively, never seeking out other sources.
This is somehow different from any other language... how, exactly?
This is what your comment looks like to everyone else:
"C able to talk to hardware.... What possibly could go wrong?" "Java able to talk to hardware.... What possibly could go wrong?" "Python able to talk to hardware.... What possibly could go wrong?"
There is a flaw in this reasoning since it is based on the idea that a though requires something to carry it.
Lol, wut? There are a number of criticisms, though you'll find this, in particular, is not among them for the simple reason that it is completely incoherent.
Indeed. It's neat to see something surreptitiously installed on Chrome, which is often itself installed the same way.
Wait. Why are we talking about security issues with untrustworthy bundle-ware that replaces your default browser? It's it a given that it's both insecure and will spy on you?
t I do think I have a valid point. Which was: "Your Baloney Detection Kit Sucks" is mostly emotional, opinionated hyperbole and itself does not constitute logical argument.
Try reading it again. Your reply seems to indicate that you didn't quite understand it. It's as though you're replying to what you think it ought to be about, rather than what it is about.
I should probably also point out that the majority of the "logical fallacies" the intellectually lazy are always going on about have absolutely nothing to do with logic. The ad-hominem being a prime example. Rhetoric and logic are, quite obviously, very different things. That the two are so often confused no longer surprises me, but I still find it deeply troubling.
the Standard Model of physics is wrong [...] or more likely, incomplete. But that's an extraordinary claim to make
I don't see that as extraordinary. I'd go, in either case, with 'very likely' or 'most certainly'. This isn't my area, by any stretch, but even I could tell you that.
an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
Never has a more vacuous statement been repeated so often. There is so little meaning here. So little grounding. Why not just say, simply, 'claims require proof'. It doesn't alter the meaning in the slightest. It takes away nothing, save a bit of empty rhetorical punch. Oh, I see. It's the empty rhetoric you're after. That's the whole point of the thing, yes?
Those things defies our current understanding of physics, and while our current understanding might be wrong, it's solid enough so we ask for very strong evidence before even considering it seriously.
That's not the issue. The problem is that an avenue of inquiry is closed-off for political and social, not technical or scientific, reasons.
I'm very curious as to who still finds this informative? There was some confusion 20 years ago, without question, but that hasn't been an issue for a very long time.
People with a mismatch of these two are not well. Abnormal.
They used to say the same thing about homosexuals. We're far more enlightened now.
You're welcome to your regressive beliefs. I can't say or do anything to change them. Just be aware that they'll soon be a relic of a by-gone era, with people excusing statements like yours with a quick "he's just from a different time" or "things were different when he was young, they didn't know any better".
I think you were sold a bill of goods. My guess? Your instructor lied about the attempt to trick his math-challenged students in to wasting a lot of time.
She had just two grandchildren, both girls, I found referenced from an articled dated November 2000. From an article dated January 2006, she mentioned her expanding family included 5 grandchildren, soon to be a 6th. That gives us at least one kid under 10, with 3 more under 16.
She also, apparently, lives with them as she now lives in a mansion once owned by George Lucas purchased because they "needed the space".
At her age, I would have expected her to express concern over her great-grandchildren. I guess when we started seeing grandmothers in their early 30's, you stop thinking about really late-in-life babies...
Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..
Where do you even begin? Environmental protections, food safety, sanitation, building standards, there seems to be no end to the examples.
Note to libertarians: The free market does not have your best interests in mind. Large companies are short-sighted and socially irresponsible. Consumers are not perfectly rational actors. They will bend over, en masse, and happily pay for the privilege. History has taught us that legislation, like the above, is essential.
It's not going to excuse antisocial behavior either.
Instead of fantasizing that you are or could be autistic, how about you work on your maths, social skills, and hygiene. You'll find more fulfillment and success that way.
XML has been a huge success, maximizing billable hours for millions of consultants, solutions providers, and developers alike. A rising tide that raises all boats, it has positively impacted the hardware industry as well, allowing them to sell billions in storage, processors, and memory upgrades.
You mean like using XML as a freakin' database?
This... is... genius! Just a few of these solutions could increase the demand for developers to such a significant degree that salaries would rise even in popular outsourcing nations. The value you could extract from the right clients could easily rival the GDP of a small country.
Slashdot Mirror
So ... you're saying that you didn't pay attention in school?
Color me surprised...
I am expecting to read news here first, not after everyone has already published them.
You've been on this site for, I'd guess, around 14 or 15 years. What, in that time, lead you to believe that you'd ever see news published here in any sort of timely manner, let alone so quickly that you'd be likely to find it here first?
Slashdot has always had a reputation for bringing you yesterday's news tomorrow. If you're really still believe you should be able "to read news here first", the only way this site will meet your misplaced expectations is if you get your news here exclusively, never seeking out other sources.
This is somehow different from any other language ... how, exactly?
This is what your comment looks like to everyone else:
"C able to talk to hardware.... What possibly could go wrong?"
"Java able to talk to hardware.... What possibly could go wrong?"
"Python able to talk to hardware.... What possibly could go wrong?"
Take a few minutes to think about how Android works.
Web apps work offline now. Not just packaged apps, but hosted apps as well. It's been that way for a while.
There is a flaw in this reasoning since it is based on the idea that a though requires something to carry it.
Lol, wut? There are a number of criticisms, though you'll find this, in particular, is not among them for the simple reason that it is completely incoherent.
Indeed. It's neat to see something surreptitiously installed on Chrome, which is often itself installed the same way.
Wait. Why are we talking about security issues with untrustworthy bundle-ware that replaces your default browser? It's it a given that it's both insecure and will spy on you?
I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me,
That's sensible.
t I do think I have a valid point. Which was: "Your Baloney Detection Kit Sucks" is mostly emotional, opinionated hyperbole and itself does not constitute logical argument.
Try reading it again. Your reply seems to indicate that you didn't quite understand it. It's as though you're replying to what you think it ought to be about, rather than what it is about.
I should probably also point out that the majority of the "logical fallacies" the intellectually lazy are always going on about have absolutely nothing to do with logic. The ad-hominem being a prime example. Rhetoric and logic are, quite obviously, very different things. That the two are so often confused no longer surprises me, but I still find it deeply troubling.
Nonsense.
the Standard Model of physics is wrong [...] or more likely, incomplete. But that's an extraordinary claim to make
I don't see that as extraordinary. I'd go, in either case, with 'very likely' or 'most certainly'. This isn't my area, by any stretch, but even I could tell you that.
an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
Never has a more vacuous statement been repeated so often. There is so little meaning here. So little grounding. Why not just say, simply, 'claims require proof'. It doesn't alter the meaning in the slightest. It takes away nothing, save a bit of empty rhetorical punch. Oh, I see. It's the empty rhetoric you're after. That's the whole point of the thing, yes?
Those things defies our current understanding of physics, and while our current understanding might be wrong, it's solid enough so we ask for very strong evidence before even considering it seriously.
That's not the issue. The problem is that an avenue of inquiry is closed-off for political and social, not technical or scientific, reasons.
I'm very curious as to who still finds this informative? There was some confusion 20 years ago, without question, but that hasn't been an issue for a very long time.
Where are you from, southern California?
Around here, I've driven in conditions where 30mph was akin to ludicrous speed.
People with a mismatch of these two are not well. Abnormal.
They used to say the same thing about homosexuals. We're far more enlightened now.
You're welcome to your regressive beliefs. I can't say or do anything to change them. Just be aware that they'll soon be a relic of a by-gone era, with people excusing statements like yours with a quick "he's just from a different time" or "things were different when he was young, they didn't know any better".
I think you were sold a bill of goods. My guess? Your instructor lied about the attempt to trick his math-challenged students in to wasting a lot of time.
+5 insightful, my ass.
The philosophy of the scientific method demands the possibility of falsification
That's a very modern criterion (mid-20th century). Guess where we got it? Philosophy.
Science depends on it, and advances because of it.
Sorry, I didn't check your username before I replied last time. I won't feed you any further.
Any number of reasons. The most obvious being To differentiate their product in a sea of uninteresting clones.
Android isn't terribly good. Competition in this space is badly needed. Why wish for homogeneity?
It's running on a Pi Zero.
She had just two grandchildren, both girls, I found referenced from an articled dated November 2000. From an article dated January 2006, she mentioned her expanding family included 5 grandchildren, soon to be a 6th. That gives us at least one kid under 10, with 3 more under 16.
She also, apparently, lives with them as she now lives in a mansion once owned by George Lucas purchased because they "needed the space".
At her age, I would have expected her to express concern over her great-grandchildren. I guess when we started seeing grandmothers in their early 30's, you stop thinking about really late-in-life babies...
Oh, yes they are. You are deeply confused.
Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..
Where do you even begin? Environmental protections, food safety, sanitation, building standards, there seems to be no end to the examples.
Note to libertarians: The free market does not have your best interests in mind. Large companies are short-sighted and socially irresponsible. Consumers are not perfectly rational actors. They will bend over, en masse, and happily pay for the privilege. History has taught us that legislation, like the above, is essential.
I never understood this bizarre fantasy so many Slashdot users have of being diagnosed with autism. It's not a superpower, it's a disability.
It doesn't make you more logical, rational, or better at maths.
It's not going to excuse antisocial behavior either.
Instead of fantasizing that you are or could be autistic, how about you work on your maths, social skills, and hygiene. You'll find more fulfillment and success that way.
Yeah, that will do ... nothing noticeable most of the time.
B4 4C CD 21
XML has been a huge success, maximizing billable hours for millions of consultants, solutions providers, and developers alike. A rising tide that raises all boats, it has positively impacted the hardware industry as well, allowing them to sell billions in storage, processors, and memory upgrades.
You mean like using XML as a freakin' database?
This ... is ... genius! Just a few of these solutions could increase the demand for developers to such a significant degree that salaries would rise even in popular outsourcing nations. The value you could extract from the right clients could easily rival the GDP of a small country.
God Bless XML!
If by "industry" you mean "slashdot" which has it's own version of reality.