it didn't sound like he was open to any sort of reasonable discussion
Well, you're right about that. A "reasonable discussion" isn't possible here. Can you have a "reasonable discussion" with a creationist? Neither can I. All you can do is show them the facts. It's up to them to accept reality, just as it's up to you.
Just look at the parent here:
designing complex systems for reliability and maintainability is not
Ah, but it is! (Hell, if it's actually complex, it's not maintainable.) See, most "complex systems" are only complex because of how their designed (poorly). Yes, some things are actually complex but that's generally completely unrelated to programming (see my earlier post).
Personally, I blame the OOP craze for the dramatic increase in unnecessary complexity. We've got two generations, now, of programmers who know nothing about modularity, but believe (inexplicably) that OOP gives them modularity for free.
This shouldn't be controversial. The only explanation I have for the need to believe that programming is difficult is fear.
That's delusional. I've been at this longer than a lot of users here have been alive, yet the only "complex" applications I've seen are either unnecessarily complex or complex for reasons completely unrelated to programming.
It's not like cooking at all. That's just wishful thinking.
Programming is easy. Ridiculously easy. You know this, I know this. Why hide it?
Why not produce easy tools for non-programmers to use? We use programming languages to make writing software easier, after all. Why are modern languages and tools becoming increasingly more complex? Software isn't getting more complex in general, so why are our tools? What are we afraid will happen? That we'll lose our jobs? That people won't admire us for a skill easily attainable by young children?
there's nothing wrong with making tuna casserole (using Hypercard to create a simple database application), but don't try to kid yourself it's basically the same thing as creating a full course meal at a four-star restaurant (writing low-level, high-performance code in C).
But it is! The EXACT same skills and principles apply equally in both cases. (Note: This is not the case for cooking. Your analogy breaks immediately.) The only difference is that you need to know a few additional technical details to use C effectively. That's tangential to programming, no different than something like domain specific knowledge you'd need writing programs for use in different industries.
I don't know why people are so desperate to believe that programming is difficult. How old were you when you (very likely on your own) learned to program? 8 or 9 years old?
I know, I know, if we give the unwashed masses simple and powerful tools they'll write bad code. The horror. Better leave it to the professionals. Surely, they never produce unmaintainable garbage...
Why would anyone, aside from maybe a very small number of fringe "openness" idealists, ever consider Firefox OS if a real Android phone can be obtained for about the same price?
$100 is not about the same as $33. This is particularly true in India, where the average annual income is around $1,500.
And how is that supposed to work for non windows systems?
On Linux: Ctrl+Shift U0246 or Ctrl+Shift+U 0246
On MacOS: Option+U o
You did not post a german umlaut,
I know. I answered the question you asked. Both of them, actually, assuming that you're not an idiot. (Did I give you too much credit?)
How did you get the umlaut oe into/. btw? is that a german one or a special one that just looks a like?
I think I see the confusion:
Obviously the 'rock star programmer' is oblivious about the question behind the question: what 'code' is that?
246 -- it's right there in my previous answer. I'm sorry you missed it, it would have saved you quite a bit of trouble.
(BTW, you're not a native speaker so you might have missed the obvious. My "rock star" post was a joke. A good one, I might add, as it even got a +5 funny. Go read it again, you'll figure it out.)
Thankfully, vivisection is no longer widely practiced. Though you'll still find quite a bit of animal sacrifice in science. Far more, I suspect, that you'll find from all religious groups combined.
There is no evidence that free-will is in fact "free" and that self-awareness is not an epiphenomenon of materialism.
Oops, you forgot that Sam Harris is incompetent... or that Dan Dennet isn't a very good philosopher. Depending on who you read that gave you such a silly idea.
If awareness was epiphenomenal, it wouldn't be possible for us to report on the content of our subjective experience. (The brain wouldn't have access to that content, by definition.)
Dennet knows this, but ignores it to sell pop-philosophy books. Harris might not, so I'll give him a pass.
Who the *f..k* is so idiotic to visit an atheist web site? Do you really believe 'such' web sites are hosted by atheists?
Yes, I do. I'm a big fan of reality, after all. Are you really claiming that all of the various atheist sites, blogs, forums, etc. are all hoaxes created by theists to... do what, exactly?
No, no one has noticed that. Do you indeed have atheist 'groups' in the USA?
Not just in the USA, there are atheist groups all over the world -- including Germany. You can pretend that they don't exist if you like. You don't seem fond of reality.
As an atheist, I really would appreciate, to be left alone
Then why are you participating in the discussion here? Your actions are clearly contrary to your stated goals!
But actual science IS logical and purely rational.
I thought that nonsense belief died with the last of the Vienna Circle. I mean, I understand why you'd want to believe it, but, at this point, it's completely irrational.
Do atheists kneel down every evening and pray - to science?
Not to my knowledge.
Do atheists go to the holy Church of nothing every Sunday and pray - to nothing?
Yes. There are a number of atheist churches -- enough, at least, that one made the news some time ago for breaking-off from their parent church over some silly difference.
Do atheists have radio stations that other atheists preach to them from some book and ask for money? For nothing?
Yes, including television shows. This isn't counting the countless online radio, video streaming, podcasts, video series, and other similar media programs. Yes, some even ask for money.
Do athiests go on missions from their atheist church to convert people - to nothing?
Yes. Yes they do. Not just specific atheists churches, mind you, but outreach is a big part of a number of atheist communities.
That's just for fun. The trouble you're having is in defining religion through superficial trappings. It's like saying something isn't science because there aren't sufficient beakers and lab coats around.
Color 7? That's yellow on the C64; white/gray on the ZX Spectrum, IBM's CGA, and a host of others; and a not quite, but almost, black blue in modern 24-bit RGB.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or god. Nothing else.
Ideally, yes, but we all know that that's not all there is to it these days.
It's not about science, it's not about ethics, it's not about morals, it's not about values.
Then why, when I visit atheist websites sites, atheist discussion forums, and talk with local atheists, that's all they want to talk about?
There's no dogma, no book, no set of "therefore we believe these here other thingamajigs", nothing.
Like hell there isn't! To belong to any atheist community, you need to align with their dogma, have read and agree with their favorite authors, and "other thingamajigs" or you'll be ousted as a troll or worse.
You've probably noticed that there's more than one schism dividing atheists. With various atheist groups at each others throats over things not even remotely related to the existence of god. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
To say that atheism, to most/every atheist (as we're talking about the broader atheist community), is merely "the lack of belief in a god" is either delusional or deliberately dishonest.
I agree. A theory is, after all, a predictive model, and science wouldn't work if any theory was considered unassailable truth. This brings up a couple other problems with the public understanding of science that are often overlooked: The belief that science ultimately leads to truth (a failure of our educations system, no doubt) and the belief that we've got it all just about sorted, with a few details left to be filled-in.
It's worse. Most people who complain about the use of the word 'theory' don't know what it means in a scientific context either, and spread one of several nonsense definitions they saw on a forum or heard on a youtube video.
People seem to want a smart watch that is, at a minimum, as useful as their smart phone. The trouble, of course, is that no one has any idea what such a device would be like.
I was completely surprised that Apple announced a watch. If I were a betting man, I'd have lost my shirt. While they delivered something different, with a novel interface (I do like the 'crown' control, it reminds me of the jog-wheel on my old 7290) they didn't deliver the mythical "wrist computer" that the wearable computing crowd wanted.
I don't blame them for being disappointed. After all, the die-hard Apple fans all but guaranteed that Cupertino could deliver. The sentiment was: "if anyone can do it, Apple can!"
I didn't think that Apple could deliver -- I'm not sure anyone could deliver -- which is why I was struck when they revealed it. I'll give them this: They did better than I expected. We'll see how this influences future watch offerings from Apple and their competitors. If it's at all possible, healthy competition should help crack that nut.
I'm pretty sure that if a payment screen randomly pops up while you're walking down the sidewalk, you'd have to be a complete fucking retard to put your thumb on the sensor instead of hitting cancel.
So you're saying that a sizable percentage of users are vulnerable then?
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh they must be mismeasuring, because the results challenge my assumptions!" is not a hallmark of rationalism.
That's flamebait now? WTF Slashdot!?
it didn't sound like he was open to any sort of reasonable discussion
Well, you're right about that. A "reasonable discussion" isn't possible here. Can you have a "reasonable discussion" with a creationist? Neither can I. All you can do is show them the facts. It's up to them to accept reality, just as it's up to you.
Just look at the parent here:
designing complex systems for reliability and maintainability is not
Ah, but it is! (Hell, if it's actually complex, it's not maintainable.) See, most "complex systems" are only complex because of how their designed (poorly). Yes, some things are actually complex but that's generally completely unrelated to programming (see my earlier post).
Personally, I blame the OOP craze for the dramatic increase in unnecessary complexity. We've got two generations, now, of programmers who know nothing about modularity, but believe (inexplicably) that OOP gives them modularity for free.
This shouldn't be controversial. The only explanation I have for the need to believe that programming is difficult is fear.
That's delusional. I've been at this longer than a lot of users here have been alive, yet the only "complex" applications I've seen are either unnecessarily complex or complex for reasons completely unrelated to programming.
It's not like cooking at all. That's just wishful thinking.
Programming is easy. Ridiculously easy. You know this, I know this. Why hide it?
Why not produce easy tools for non-programmers to use? We use programming languages to make writing software easier, after all. Why are modern languages and tools becoming increasingly more complex? Software isn't getting more complex in general, so why are our tools? What are we afraid will happen? That we'll lose our jobs? That people won't admire us for a skill easily attainable by young children?
there's nothing wrong with making tuna casserole (using Hypercard to create a simple database application), but don't try to kid yourself it's basically the same thing as creating a full course meal at a four-star restaurant (writing low-level, high-performance code in C).
But it is! The EXACT same skills and principles apply equally in both cases. (Note: This is not the case for cooking. Your analogy breaks immediately.) The only difference is that you need to know a few additional technical details to use C effectively. That's tangential to programming, no different than something like domain specific knowledge you'd need writing programs for use in different industries.
They did ... once upon a time. Remember HyperCard?
I don't know why people are so desperate to believe that programming is difficult. How old were you when you (very likely on your own) learned to program? 8 or 9 years old?
I know, I know, if we give the unwashed masses simple and powerful tools they'll write bad code. The horror. Better leave it to the professionals. Surely, they never produce unmaintainable garbage...
Did you respond to the right post? We're talking about epiphenomenalism specifically, which is (pretty obviously) a failed proposition.
SF Bay Area, the birthplace of smartphones,
What?
Why would anyone, aside from maybe a very small number of fringe "openness" idealists, ever consider Firefox OS if a real Android phone can be obtained for about the same price?
$100 is not about the same as $33. This is particularly true in India, where the average annual income is around $1,500.
Nice, I get 2 out of 3.
I'm glad you agree.
You want me to go over the complete history of logical positivism from its inception to its demise?
A bit much for a forum post, yes?
I can direct you to some resources, if you want. Though I suspect that you're not that interested.
And how is that supposed to work for non windows systems?
On Linux: Ctrl+Shift U0246 or Ctrl+Shift+U 0246
On MacOS: Option+U o
You did not post a german umlaut,
I know. I answered the question you asked. Both of them, actually, assuming that you're not an idiot. (Did I give you too much credit?)
How did you get the umlaut oe into /. btw? is that a german one or a special one that just looks a like?
I think I see the confusion:
Obviously the 'rock star programmer' is oblivious about the question behind the question: what 'code' is that?
246 -- it's right there in my previous answer. I'm sorry you missed it, it would have saved you quite a bit of trouble.
(BTW, you're not a native speaker so you might have missed the obvious. My "rock star" post was a joke. A good one, I might add, as it even got a +5 funny. Go read it again, you'll figure it out.)
How did you get the umlaut oe into /. btw?
ALT+0246
öööööööööööööööööööööööö
except, one that has less animal sacrifice,
Thankfully, vivisection is no longer widely practiced. Though you'll still find quite a bit of animal sacrifice in science. Far more, I suspect, that you'll find from all religious groups combined.
Science does not only deal in absolute answers
It doesn't deal in that at all. It wouldn't work if it did!
You must be from a place that tries to restrict what a person thinks
He's from Germany. So... yes.
There is no evidence that free-will is in fact "free" and that self-awareness is not an epiphenomenon of materialism.
Oops, you forgot that Sam Harris is incompetent ... or that Dan Dennet isn't a very good philosopher. Depending on who you read that gave you such a silly idea.
If awareness was epiphenomenal, it wouldn't be possible for us to report on the content of our subjective experience. (The brain wouldn't have access to that content, by definition.)
Dennet knows this, but ignores it to sell pop-philosophy books. Harris might not, so I'll give him a pass.
Who the *f..k* is so idiotic to visit an atheist web site? Do you really believe 'such' web sites are hosted by atheists?
Yes, I do. I'm a big fan of reality, after all. Are you really claiming that all of the various atheist sites, blogs, forums, etc. are all hoaxes created by theists to ... do what, exactly?
No, no one has noticed that. Do you indeed have atheist 'groups' in the USA?
Not just in the USA, there are atheist groups all over the world -- including Germany. You can pretend that they don't exist if you like. You don't seem fond of reality.
As an atheist, I really would appreciate, to be left alone
Then why are you participating in the discussion here? Your actions are clearly contrary to your stated goals!
But actual science IS logical and purely rational.
I thought that nonsense belief died with the last of the Vienna Circle. I mean, I understand why you'd want to believe it, but, at this point, it's completely irrational.
Do atheists kneel down every evening and pray - to science?
Not to my knowledge.
Do atheists go to the holy Church of nothing every Sunday and pray - to nothing?
Yes. There are a number of atheist churches -- enough, at least, that one made the news some time ago for breaking-off from their parent church over some silly difference.
Do atheists have radio stations that other atheists preach to them from some book and ask for money? For nothing?
Yes, including television shows. This isn't counting the countless online radio, video streaming, podcasts, video series, and other similar media programs. Yes, some even ask for money.
Do athiests go on missions from their atheist church to convert people - to nothing?
Yes. Yes they do. Not just specific atheists churches, mind you, but outreach is a big part of a number of atheist communities.
That's just for fun. The trouble you're having is in defining religion through superficial trappings. It's like saying something isn't science because there aren't sufficient beakers and lab coats around.
what color is 1+6?
Color 7? That's yellow on the C64; white/gray on the ZX Spectrum, IBM's CGA, and a host of others; and a not quite, but almost, black blue in modern 24-bit RGB.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or god. Nothing else.
Ideally, yes, but we all know that that's not all there is to it these days.
It's not about science, it's not about ethics, it's not about morals, it's not about values.
Then why, when I visit atheist websites sites, atheist discussion forums, and talk with local atheists, that's all they want to talk about?
There's no dogma, no book, no set of "therefore we believe these here other thingamajigs", nothing.
Like hell there isn't! To belong to any atheist community, you need to align with their dogma, have read and agree with their favorite authors, and "other thingamajigs" or you'll be ousted as a troll or worse.
You've probably noticed that there's more than one schism dividing atheists. With various atheist groups at each others throats over things not even remotely related to the existence of god. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
To say that atheism, to most/every atheist (as we're talking about the broader atheist community), is merely "the lack of belief in a god" is either delusional or deliberately dishonest.
I agree. A theory is, after all, a predictive model, and science wouldn't work if any theory was considered unassailable truth. This brings up a couple other problems with the public understanding of science that are often overlooked: The belief that science ultimately leads to truth (a failure of our educations system, no doubt) and the belief that we've got it all just about sorted, with a few details left to be filled-in.
It's worse. Most people who complain about the use of the word 'theory' don't know what it means in a scientific context either, and spread one of several nonsense definitions they saw on a forum or heard on a youtube video.
I already go to get water, hit the head, or get lunch, several times a day
Damn, how many lunch breaks do you need?
People seem to want a smart watch that is, at a minimum, as useful as their smart phone. The trouble, of course, is that no one has any idea what such a device would be like.
I was completely surprised that Apple announced a watch. If I were a betting man, I'd have lost my shirt. While they delivered something different, with a novel interface (I do like the 'crown' control, it reminds me of the jog-wheel on my old 7290) they didn't deliver the mythical "wrist computer" that the wearable computing crowd wanted.
I don't blame them for being disappointed. After all, the die-hard Apple fans all but guaranteed that Cupertino could deliver. The sentiment was: "if anyone can do it, Apple can!"
I didn't think that Apple could deliver -- I'm not sure anyone could deliver -- which is why I was struck when they revealed it. I'll give them this: They did better than I expected. We'll see how this influences future watch offerings from Apple and their competitors. If it's at all possible, healthy competition should help crack that nut.
I'm pretty sure that if a payment screen randomly pops up while you're walking down the sidewalk, you'd have to be a complete fucking retard to put your thumb on the sensor instead of hitting cancel.
So you're saying that a sizable percentage of users are vulnerable then?