Incomprehensible bullshit, eh? If you don't understand it, it must be wrong. Gotcha.
Out of curiosity, what, exactly, did you fail to understand? It's not complicated. I'm amazed that so many people have difficulty with such basic things.
a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
Yeah, unless "all the scientists in the world" suddenly turned in to drooling morons I think that it's unlikely that they'll disagree with me here. It's a laughably bad nonsense definition. I'm amazed on how often this is repeated by the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders. They're not the brightest, or the best educated, but I thought even the slowest among them would recognize at least a few of the many problems from which it obviously suffers!
As to why it's wrong or a better definition? The first will take a while (it's pretty awful) and requires a lot of background that is seriously lacking on this forum.
As to the second, the "bumper sticker" version I like to offer is "a predictive model". Popularly, the conclusion of an inductive inference -- but people seem to have trouble with that one even though it eliminates all of the confusion about the difference between theory and hypothesis that infects "discussions" like this.
Don't forget that observations aren't objective. They are, necessarily, understood in terms of theory. Such evidence can in no way "prove" a theory -- regardless of the quality of the observations -- they can only be neutral to an hypothesis.
To the AC's point, scientists don't go rushing around looking for evidence -- that would be horrible, directly introducing harmful bias.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but it's complete and total nonsense. It's not only completely useless, it's laughably incorrect given a modern understanding of philosophy of science from which such definitions must necessarily be formed.
In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
That's a useless definition that didn't exist until the Dover trial. It's become quite popular among the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.
Reading comprehension, it seems, is difficult for some people. Generally, people will improve that skill very much. Clearly, you've been here a while, and yet you still struggle. I expect it's improved, but it probably started from a low base and then didn't improve very far. This is despite years of practice.
Don't encourage your kids or students to code. It'll make those who do more valuable.
There it is. Fear.
It's the reason you hear nonsense like programming requires a "special mind" and should be reserved for a select few.
It's pathetic. Writing code is easy. Ridiculously easy. Hell, back in the 80's it was common for kids under 10 to teach themselves how to program. Anyone can learn to write code -- and that terrifies some people.
"Oh, but you need to be special to do it well" you cry, hands trembling, desperate to still believe that you're exceptional. All it takes to be a good programmer is practice. It's no different than any other skill. The more you work at it, the better you become. (Even the thickest trend-following, meme-repeating, slashdotter will improve eventually.)
The fewer who want to code, the better for the negotiating power and leverage of coders and technologists going into the future.
The world doesn't owe you a living. You can also improve your employment prospects by killing anyone better, better educated, and more experienced than you. It's just as stupid. It's much more sensible to diversify your skill-set. You might still be a trembling coward, but at least you won't be a one-trick pony.
So... why did they smoke until they became addicted? What do you think happens anyway? "Wow, this does nothing for me! Better keep at it until I'm addicted!"
There must be something good about them. It's not like every teen who tries out a filter-tip instantly becomes addicted. I know a few people who only smoke occasionally, often going weeks or months between cigarettes.
They must get something out of it. Why would they bother otherwise?
Indeed. Apple would be foolish to make an Android phone, just as Blackberry would have been foolish to do so. In BB's case, you don't drop a superior OS in favor of a dramatically inferior one. That's not a recipe for success! Whatever Blackberry's problems were, it wasn't the technology.
If Woz wants Apple to produce Android phone, that can mean only one thing: He wants to see Apple die.
But jQuery can be very useful and Resig has serious chops
No, he really doesn't. Go read c.l.j. before his little melt-down where he forbid his followers from reading the newsgroup. If that's too much effort, give one of his books a quick fact-check. The guy doesn't have a clue.
JQUERY is nothing more than wrappers that make it so much easier to port between browsers and do things you would need to do outside of it.
I take it that you've never used jQuery? That statement is laughable. If you want cross-browser compatibility, jQuery is antithetical to your goals.
I would describe JQUERY as a javascript library that wraps up similar browser specific calls into a standard one call for all browsers.
And you'd be laughably wrong! jQuery is in no one cross-browser. They don't even make that nonsense claim any more. They can't even manage consistancy across the decreasingly few browsers they claim to support.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF?
You need to return your degree. It's defective.
Incomprehensible bullshit, eh? If you don't understand it, it must be wrong. Gotcha.
Out of curiosity, what, exactly, did you fail to understand? It's not complicated. I'm amazed that so many people have difficulty with such basic things.
The nonsense in question:
a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
Yeah, unless "all the scientists in the world" suddenly turned in to drooling morons I think that it's unlikely that they'll disagree with me here. It's a laughably bad nonsense definition. I'm amazed on how often this is repeated by the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders. They're not the brightest, or the best educated, but I thought even the slowest among them would recognize at least a few of the many problems from which it obviously suffers!
Can you defend *any* part of that nonsense?
As to why it's wrong or a better definition? The first will take a while (it's pretty awful) and requires a lot of background that is seriously lacking on this forum.
As to the second, the "bumper sticker" version I like to offer is "a predictive model". Popularly, the conclusion of an inductive inference -- but people seem to have trouble with that one even though it eliminates all of the confusion about the difference between theory and hypothesis that infects "discussions" like this.
Don't forget that observations aren't objective. They are, necessarily, understood in terms of theory. Such evidence can in no way "prove" a theory -- regardless of the quality of the observations -- they can only be neutral to an hypothesis.
To the AC's point, scientists don't go rushing around looking for evidence -- that would be horrible, directly introducing harmful bias.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but it's complete and total nonsense. It's not only completely useless, it's laughably incorrect given a modern understanding of philosophy of science from which such definitions must necessarily be formed.
A justificationist? You are seriously out-of-date.
If you posted that in, say,1950, I could understand. It's 2014 man. You've got no excuse!
In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses.
That's a useless definition that didn't exist until the Dover trial. It's become quite popular among the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.
Well said.
"Oh, but you need to be special to do it well"
First you say that.
Now take a look at your last post. You can puzzle this one out.
Like any skill, it just takes practice!
First you say that.
Reading comprehension, it seems, is difficult for some people. Generally, people will improve that skill very much. Clearly, you've been here a while, and yet you still struggle. I expect it's improved, but it probably started from a low base and then didn't improve very far. This is despite years of practice.
I guess you don't have the mind for it.
Sigh... You can't argue with creationists...
Enjoy your fantasy. The rest of us will continue to live without fear here in reality.
The difference, of course, is that the terrified developers out to improve their future employment prospects are all about the same level as Timmy.
Don't encourage your kids or students to code. It'll make those who do more valuable.
There it is. Fear.
It's the reason you hear nonsense like programming requires a "special mind" and should be reserved for a select few.
It's pathetic. Writing code is easy. Ridiculously easy. Hell, back in the 80's it was common for kids under 10 to teach themselves how to program. Anyone can learn to write code -- and that terrifies some people.
"Oh, but you need to be special to do it well" you cry, hands trembling, desperate to still believe that you're exceptional. All it takes to be a good programmer is practice. It's no different than any other skill. The more you work at it, the better you become. (Even the thickest trend-following, meme-repeating, slashdotter will improve eventually.)
The fewer who want to code, the better for the negotiating power and leverage of coders and technologists going into the future.
The world doesn't owe you a living. You can also improve your employment prospects by killing anyone better, better educated, and more experienced than you. It's just as stupid. It's much more sensible to diversify your skill-set. You might still be a trembling coward, but at least you won't be a one-trick pony.
So ... why did they smoke until they became addicted? What do you think happens anyway? "Wow, this does nothing for me! Better keep at it until I'm addicted!"
Try thinking before posting.
There must be something good about them. It's not like every teen who tries out a filter-tip instantly becomes addicted. I know a few people who only smoke occasionally, often going weeks or months between cigarettes.
They must get something out of it. Why would they bother otherwise?
they claimed it was good for you. It reduced stress and improved digestion you see.
I've run across those ads before. So ... were those claims true or not?
Gene Ray? Is that you?
Indeed. Apple would be foolish to make an Android phone, just as Blackberry would have been foolish to do so. In BB's case, you don't drop a superior OS in favor of a dramatically inferior one. That's not a recipe for success! Whatever Blackberry's problems were, it wasn't the technology.
If Woz wants Apple to produce Android phone, that can mean only one thing: He wants to see Apple die.
But jQuery can be very useful and Resig has serious chops
No, he really doesn't. Go read c.l.j. before his little melt-down where he forbid his followers from reading the newsgroup. If that's too much effort, give one of his books a quick fact-check. The guy doesn't have a clue.
this is a standard and widely used library that is an industry standard (regardless of what you perceive it's quality to be).
Which of the many mutually incompatible versions in common use is the "industry standard"?
I mean, Panasonic uses it on their own site...
That does not in any way suggest that it's suitable for use by apps for their VIERA TVs.
Oh, wait. ASP.NET relies heavily on jQuery as well.
Wow, total fail.
It's starting to look like jQuery and incompetence go hand-in-hand...
welcome to the world of "professional" software development.
No kidding. This is from the second paragraph of the guy's pathetic message-to-Panasonic-turned-fourm-post-turned-Slashdot-article:
Essentially, jQuery implements a Javascript class “$”,
Yeah, we're not dealing with even a minimally competent "developer" here. Judging from the rest of the thread, he's not the exception.
Yeah, I'm sure.
Have a look for yourself. It's like a bad joke.
JQUERY is nothing more than wrappers that make it so much easier to port between browsers and do things you would need to do outside of it.
I take it that you've never used jQuery? That statement is laughable. If you want cross-browser compatibility, jQuery is antithetical to your goals.
I would describe JQUERY as a javascript library that wraps up similar browser specific calls into a standard one call for all browsers.
And you'd be laughably wrong! jQuery is in no one cross-browser. They don't even make that nonsense claim any more. They can't even manage consistancy across the decreasingly few browsers they claim to support.