There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that. --Albert Camus The Myth Of Sisyphus
What are you doing to your equipment? How did these "flappy bits" develop? How is it that every laptop you've claimed to own apparently crumbled at your touch?
You know what? I don't actually believe you. I think you're lying. Are you just trying really hard to justify your overpriced laptop? I have no idea why. Just take the knock to the pocket-book and move on. Everyone makes mistakes.
Perhaps you just like Apple products and are worried about their lack of marketshare? If that's the case, you may want to find a different approach. I've never had a laptop inexplicably disintegrate.
Anecdote: "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay"
Seems to fit your tall-tale well.
Want me to make a list of all the consumer-grade non-Apple equipment that still work perfectly after years of use and punctuate it with the litany of Apple products that I've seen die or otherwise malfunction over a short span of time?
Would that fall under anecdote or data in your mind?
But who cares? Only an idiot would try to generalize from your tiny sample size.
Re:sure you want to go with 'undead' ?
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Slashdot reminds me of the townspeople in "The Simpsons" the way the majority opinion changes.
It wasn't that long ago that Perl was a darling, loved by all, with indecipherable code flowing freely in sigs and comments. Many even seemed to take pride in creating and sharing the most obtuse code imaginable.
Now it's, apparently, the worst thing ever that no one in their right mind would use for even the most trivial task.
I know I was worried. When they changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" and then "Climate Disruption" I was absolutely terrified that I wouldn't get the warming I was promised.
An El Nino plus extra warming? Sign me up! I can hardly wait!
Full disclosure: I'm a rabid pro-global-warming zealot.
Not really. What the parent said was complete and total nonsense. Not just that point, of course, but several others, as I pointed out.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with his conclusion, just pointing out that his argument is shamefully bad. Critical thinking is worthless if you only apply it when you viscerally agree or disagree, after all.
It's not a matter of evolution being true or not. Evolution is simply the scientific theory that explains the phenomena best, so far. There probably isn't any such thing as a universal truth, but it doesn't matter to science.
Holy crap! A Slashdot post that got this right!
Creationism not only doesn't explain the phenomena best (since it fails Occam's Razor) but it doesn't follow scientific method and therefore is not a scientific theory. Therefore it cannot be taught as science, QED.
Then you go and ruin it! The truth of your two premises doesn't even actually matter here as your conclusion does not follow from them. (You need another premise to make your argument valid. Can you guess what it is?)
Pretending you assumed we were all aware of the missing premise: Your application of the law of parsimony doesn't make any sense as it's not a thing that an individual explanation can pass or fail. That bit is about "following the scientific method" is completely incoherent. (What the hell does it mean for a theory to follow the scientific method? For example: Could you explain how, say, the law of gravity follows the scientific method? Of course not! That doesn't make any sense!)
Creationism isn't science, of course, but your argument, even corrected, doesn't get you there.
What would you call faith in the face of evidence to the contrary?
It's been well understood, for centuries, that the scope of science is bounded. We also know some natural phenomenon are likely beyond the scope of science. I don't know what to do with your statement "we will figure it out" as science, in case you didn't know, doesn't deal in truth -- it wouldn't work if it did!
Your bizarre belief that empirical science is the end of epistemology, which will reveal all that is knowable, is very much religious. The worst kind, in fact, as you don't have any doubt!
Let me guess. You're an autodidact, right? Figures.
We've been able to do that for years. I remember a version of Doom, before canvas, that ran just fine, even on those old computers. (I can't find it, but it was around 2002-2004 iirc).
You'd be amazed at what you can do today in the browser these days with webgl and other new API's
Slashdot Mirror
You actually believe that such a fence would keep people out?
Amazing.
There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that. --Albert Camus The Myth Of Sisyphus
Cut him some slack, he's just an undergrad. He won't find out that he doesn't know anything until later.
where larger things are more complex then smaller things
... then larger things again?
(pet peeve)
Still confused, I see. Well, there's not much I can do about it.
Not a very good example.
Looks good from here.
Most people do not think the earth is flat.
Which is why it's an excellent example.
Keep at it. You'll puzzle it out in no time.
I think a better conclusion would be that only and idiot would ignore his own experience.
That's why most people think the earth is flat, right?
People are bad observers.
doesn't have any flappy bits to fall off.
What are you doing to your equipment? How did these "flappy bits" develop? How is it that every laptop you've claimed to own apparently crumbled at your touch?
You know what? I don't actually believe you. I think you're lying. Are you just trying really hard to justify your overpriced laptop? I have no idea why. Just take the knock to the pocket-book and move on. Everyone makes mistakes.
Perhaps you just like Apple products and are worried about their lack of marketshare? If that's the case, you may want to find a different approach. I've never had a laptop inexplicably disintegrate.
Anecdote: "an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay"
Seems to fit your tall-tale well.
Want me to make a list of all the consumer-grade non-Apple equipment that still work perfectly after years of use and punctuate it with the litany of Apple products that I've seen die or otherwise malfunction over a short span of time?
Would that fall under anecdote or data in your mind?
But who cares? Only an idiot would try to generalize from your tiny sample size.
Slashdot reminds me of the townspeople in "The Simpsons" the way the majority opinion changes.
It wasn't that long ago that Perl was a darling, loved by all, with indecipherable code flowing freely in sigs and comments. Many even seemed to take pride in creating and sharing the most obtuse code imaginable.
Now it's, apparently, the worst thing ever that no one in their right mind would use for even the most trivial task.
Oh, Slashdot. When will you build a monorail?
I know I was worried. When they changed the name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" and then "Climate Disruption" I was absolutely terrified that I wouldn't get the warming I was promised.
An El Nino plus extra warming? Sign me up! I can hardly wait!
Full disclosure: I'm a rabid pro-global-warming zealot.
Why?
Global warming has already been mentioned here, sure, but not by deniers.
I think you have a bad case of "talk about the thing I think I know about because I don't understand the current topic".
Not really. What the parent said was complete and total nonsense. Not just that point, of course, but several others, as I pointed out.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with his conclusion, just pointing out that his argument is shamefully bad. Critical thinking is worthless if you only apply it when you viscerally agree or disagree, after all.
You'll note, then, that the theory does not follow the method, scientists do.
Think.
While you're looking up induction, you should also look up ad hominem. :)
It's not a matter of evolution being true or not. Evolution is simply the scientific theory that explains the phenomena best, so far. There probably isn't any such thing as a universal truth, but it doesn't matter to science.
Holy crap! A Slashdot post that got this right!
Creationism not only doesn't explain the phenomena best (since it fails Occam's Razor) but it doesn't follow scientific method and therefore is not a scientific theory. Therefore it cannot be taught as science, QED.
Then you go and ruin it! The truth of your two premises doesn't even actually matter here as your conclusion does not follow from them. (You need another premise to make your argument valid. Can you guess what it is?)
Pretending you assumed we were all aware of the missing premise: Your application of the law of parsimony doesn't make any sense as it's not a thing that an individual explanation can pass or fail. That bit is about "following the scientific method" is completely incoherent. (What the hell does it mean for a theory to follow the scientific method? For example: Could you explain how, say, the law of gravity follows the scientific method? Of course not! That doesn't make any sense!)
Creationism isn't science, of course, but your argument, even corrected, doesn't get you there.
Looks like someone need to learn about induction.
(To be clear: You. You need to learn about induction.)
What would you call faith in the face of evidence to the contrary?
It's been well understood, for centuries, that the scope of science is bounded. We also know some natural phenomenon are likely beyond the scope of science. I don't know what to do with your statement "we will figure it out" as science, in case you didn't know, doesn't deal in truth -- it wouldn't work if it did!
Your bizarre belief that empirical science is the end of epistemology, which will reveal all that is knowable, is very much religious. The worst kind, in fact, as you don't have any doubt!
Let me guess. You're an autodidact, right? Figures.
I feel sad for you. Trapped in a world where you have instant access to information, yet still don't know what the term "cognitive dissonance" means.
You'll be amazed at what you believe without "hard evidence". Take a few minutes to think about it.
Shocking, isn't it? I guess you're delusional as well. Full stop.
Does it give you comfort that your god is punishing them in hell for eternity for what amounted to 1 little mistake?
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about what the parent believes.
2-sides to that coin.
Only in your astonishingly narrow understanding of the world.
Yeah, being an AT&T exclusive is exactly why Apple's iPhone failed.
Yeah, it could be that, but it's actually $650 off-contract.
Yep. I'd switch, but no one has yet matched their UI.
We've been able to do that for years. I remember a version of Doom, before canvas, that ran just fine, even on those old computers. (I can't find it, but it was around 2002-2004 iirc).
You'd be amazed at what you can do today in the browser these days with webgl and other new API's