You're no more than a childish lying abusive irrational troll. You obvious need to have the last word, so go ahead respond to this message and have it.
Re:Software is under the eyes of regulators
on
Geekonomics
·
· Score: 1
Again, errors in books can certainly lead to lost productivity, but is there really any need for more "book security" and "book oversight" and "book regulations" to make sure that the contents of books are robust and error-free?
I've yet to see a flaw in a book steal my, or anyone elses, credit card number, or delete all my other books, have you?
In addition there is book oversight and book regulation, in the form of existing negligence laws, advertising laws etc. Publish a textbook on bridge building that has a flaw which leads to bridges that collapse, and see how quickly you're sued.
"Book oversight" isn't mandatory but it's standard practice to employ an editor.
Any sane and rational human being would agree that I have proven you've lied. None of your words change that. You're incapable of admitting it because you're incapable of following a rational argument.
Yes, thank you. Your "example" does not show I am lying, but that you lack reading skills.
If you use it in your discussion, then you need it for your discussion. What you said was unambiguous. You based at least some of your discussion on the standard of "reasonable doubt" (you even admit this) then denied ever even implying the need of such a standard for any of your discussions. If you didn't need this standard you shouldn't have introduced it into the discussion. You lied. The failure is yours. It doesn't matter what revisionist spin you add now. I can only go on what YOU have written and how YOU have made your argument. Note the use of the word "imply" in your statement. (Shall I dig up the other comment you made that there is "no such thing as a standard of proof. Something is either true or its not" or words similar?) You can argue all you like with your weasel words that you didn't state that you require "reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof, but you certainly did at least imply it. There's no failure from me to read here, there's only your failure to have a clue how to make an argument, or how to be consistent, or how to be honest.
This is typical of you. "What I really meant was" blah, or "I didn't need to say it that way I could have said it this way". Garbage. Deceitful revisionist garbage. Have you considered a career in politics?
If you can find a single example of me lying, sure. Unfortunately for you, you cannot do so.
Fine. Here's a clear example of you lying. I don't have time to sift through your words to find the other half dozen or so fallacies that come to mind, but you said one so here's one.
by pudge (3605) on 05:47 PM -- Sunday January 20 2008 (#22115350) I've already proven beyon any reasonable doubt that you cannot prove right and wrong (despite your claim that provability is all that matters)
by pudge (3605) on 04:23 AM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22117622) I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. None of my statements provide evidence backing up your statements about me that led me to call you a liar. You are, therefore, a liar.
by pudge (3605) on 02:27 PM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22122678) No, in fact, I never said I needed "a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt," or anything that could be taken to imply such a notion. Whatever it is.
I haven't attended a first aid course ever... It would have been fun to practise mouth-to-mouth with the girls in my high school class:)
They don't do that anymore. You practice on a sanitized dummy covered in a piece of throwaway plastic. Way too much chance of whoever runs the first aid course being sued if you catch something transmitted by saliva or blood.
It's worth the weekend doing a first aid course. The stuff you learn is interesting and it could save you or a loved on. I did one when my wife first moved in because she has severe allergies and there is a chance that one day I'll need to do CPR. (I don't need the excuse to kiss her. hehe) I really should go do a refresher. My certificate is no longer valid.
Says you, the person who has introduced numerous -- and oft-repeated -- fallacies into this discussion.
What fallacies? The ones I see are the ones you've introduced by putting words in my mouth.
Shall I act like you and run around chanting liar repeatedly. Child.
And you are just admitting that you are inconsistent. You say -- again, as you have said many times -- that you should have to be able to prove everything you say and believe, or else you are being illogical/irrational. Yet you cannot prove MANY of the things you say and believe....and you have often unattainable, ever changing standards of proof. No one could ever prove anything to you because if they do you bring up some childish metaphysical argument.
You say I can't prove anything but they aren't my standards of proof. By my standards I can prove plenty. You don't understand what a standard of proof is and keep changing the goal posts. Is it fun? Does it feel like musical chairs infant?
If you can live with being that irrational, that's your cross to bear.
Oh _I'm_ being irrational, says the man who claims to be tolerant but hurls abuse and accusation. Says the man who believes nothing can be proved if it can't be expressed mathematically. As if that would bother me. You wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit you on the backside.
False. Indeed, I love science at least as much as you. And I almost surely know more of science than you do, too.
Gimme a break. I'm not sure whether to laugh or vomit. You don't love science. You love twisting the truth and redefining it to be whatever suits you then claiming your opponent can't prove otherwise due to some metaphysical gibberish. You refuse to acknowledge the damage religion has done to scientific endevour but instead choose to focus on occassions where science was fostered by religion. Science had to breeak away to get away from false logic like yours.
Almost all of it cannot be proven.
Again if it can't be proven why do you feel so strongly about it? If neither of us can prove our arguments according to your own babble, then why is the unprovable thing I say a lie, whereas the unprovable thing you say is true and golden? I'll tell you why. Because your mind is feeble and your understanding of logic is weak.
False on both counts. What I say is absolutely, 100 percent consistent, and you have shown yourself incapable of demonstrating otherwise.
I have shown myself incapable of convincing an irrational twit that what he's saying doesn't make sense. You remind me of a man I met on a train last year that insisted I put away my laptop because the Internet is all lies and all the knowledge you need is in your own head. Oh and he wore a UFO hat and t-shirt and was stark raving mad. He had about the same grasp of Relativity that you had.
Nor is it in the least bit impractical. You haven't even TRIED to show it is impractical, except by irrationally arguing against straw men you've created.
How am I suppose to show it impractical if I can't prove anything? It therefore doesn't make sense for you to criticize me for failing to do something you consider impossible. I've created no straw men. Your head is full of straw.
That's a shame, since there is far more to truth than science. This is self-evident truth, since the scientific method ITSELF is a metaphysical, not scientific, idea. Without having truth greater than science, science wouldn't, itself, be capable of existing.
Yes we need metaphysics to explain a method that basically says go out, observe, experiment and generate formal rules that cover all the things you see. You have no concept. Your Metaphysics is impractical and unprovable, so you insist science must be this way too. The fact is mankind hasn't observed laws of physics changing or bending. What we work out holds true in all observered instances. Your metaphysical arguments are nothing more than childish rants. You have
Yes. So? You say that like it is exceptional. People say things all the time that they can't prove. YOU are the only one who thinks that we should have to prove everything we say and believe.
Yeah, just like you don't have to accept that the Earth is round, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, if you want to remain ignorant and make your choices based on fallacies.
So you're an intolerant religious zealot. So what. I did not say you had to prove anything. You're free to hold whatever dillusion based on a metaphyiscal wonderland you wish to. I'm interested in the quest for truth in the form of the best scientific models and ideas available at any given time. You are not. I am free too, and I find your views absurd. You're even free to call me a liar and intolerant while at the same lying and showing intolerance to me. However that makes you a logically inconsistent hypocrite in front of all rational thinking human beings.
What I actually said but you once again felt the need to twist around to your own liking is that if a claim is made, it should be based on the best evidence we have not on unprovable garbage. Some of what I say can be proven. Not to your standards since you hold inconsistent and impractical standards for proof (how do you take someone seriously who bases their argument on the possibility that they could be a disembodied head and all reality is just an illusion, then subsequently uses a phrase like "beyond a resonable doubt"). I have indeed shown up your inconsistencies no matter how many times you deny it or call me a liar.
I don't know why you keep making this logical error over and over and over. I am not restricted to claiming only what is provable, because that is a standard I never acknowledged. That was your standard, and you are bound by it.
You little hypocrite. YOUR words were that FEW things besides mathematics could be proven. When I use that against you, you turn around and one minute you need a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt (your words and your standards), then when you fail that test you say you don't have to adhere to it..
I thought you were interested in a rational discussion since you were bringing concepts such as metaphysics and provability into the equation. My mistake indeed. What you're essentially saying is that you don't have to make any sense, but I do since being rational is important to me and not to you. You're doing a very good job at being irrational and you're absolutely right - if you never accept that anything can be proven EXCEPT what you decide can be proven, if you choose to make up the rules as you go along of course I can't win. That doesn't make you superior to me. It certainly doesn't make you more tolerant (something you claim over and over). It makes you intentionally ignorant, pig headed and worthy of nothing more than contempt or pity.
You don't like me telling you to go away. Fine then. Keep wasting your own time and mine. Have fun living in your delusional metaphysical wonderland. Thank goodness I'm nowhere near you. Thank goodness I haven't experienced what you call religious tolerance, except in your feeble minded posts.
I've personally found that leaving the machine or not the PSU generally goes after a few years and that you periodically have to replace the occasional DVD drive (more common failure) or hard disk (less common).
The circuit boards including the mainboards thankfully don't seem to die quickly. (One exception was a badly designed laptop where the mainboard would wear against the case).
I usually retire a computer when it's too slow for me to bother with any more or if it has a bad bug. My file server is 5 years old and has issues with USB and SATA so I'm hoping to retire it sometime soon.
True. . . but it's also true that, at least for MacGuyver, they were at least responsible enough to leave out critical ingredients or steps for dangerous things, and NOT leave things out for life-savers "improvised" for the show.
Yes they made some rudimentary attempt but that doesn't mean that doing the things he did won't get you into trouble.
I was watching a couple of episodes with my wife last night. The character fixed a brake canister gasket with a piece of PVC. Not recommended even for a temporary fix unless you like driving without brakes. In another episode he was doing some rock climbing using techniques which would get you injured or killed if you tried them for real. I can remember in some other episodes he'd take a compressed gas canister and hammer off the value to turn it into a rocket. Again not safe. Leaving out some key chemicals when doing some of his more dangerous chemical tricks was nice of them but it hardly meant that you could expect reality to work the same way as his stunts in the show, or that it was safe to emulate any of the things the character did.
Mod this guy up he has a valid point. What was 911 taken already? If I was on vacation in Australia and there was an emergency I would dial 911... how the hell would I know about 000?
There should be a single International standard. However take responsibility for your own actions. Traveling internationally and assuming that things work the same way overseas as they do in your country is dangerously stupid. Many countries distribute literature at the airports (welcome to such and such country) that outlines what the emergency numbers are, often outline unusual laws etc. For example if you came to Australia and tried to drive on the right hand side of the street, you'd probably be arrested and "sorry Id didn't know" would be a very bad answer.
I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt.
Shifting the goal posts I see. Why is "beyond a reasonable doubt" good enough for you and your arguments but not good enough for me and my arguments?
Well I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that virgins don't give birth, the earth wasn't created in 6 days. Doesn't seem to sway your kind at all. Copernicus, then Galileo then and finally Kepler could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Look where that got them.
You can call me liar again and again. It doesn't make it true. It just makes a complete mockery out of your argument that you're tolerant. I have shown logical inconsistencies in your argument. You just refuse to acknowledge them like a child with their hands over their ears singing "la la la la" as loud as they can.
Go ahead. Keep calling me a liar while calling yourself a tolerant man. You're a fool.
Why is it ok to send a very large number of people into war zones (where there's a good chance they will be seriously injured or die) but sending a small group of people into space is too dangerous?
Because unfortunately the public isn't rational and is easily swayed by arguments that aren't rational.
Look I personally agree with you. At the same time I don't want to see human space travel continually stall every time there's an accident. It's only going to get tougher too. The chances of getting anyone to Mars without some fatal false starts aren't all that good. This is difficult stuff that's never been attempted. People die doing difficult never before attempted things.
Reducing energy consumption isn't just about saving money, it's about not fucking up the planet too.
Yes but for many companies it is about saving money. If you can't give them a decent incentive for doing it they aren't going to spend money on it. No CEO is going to donate the year's profits to an environment fund. If you can't work within the existing economic framework you're going to fail to elicit change. I'm afraid often it takes legislation. Being in compliance with legislation can save a company much more money in avoiding fines than they spend in complying. Of course not having to comply at all is a bigger cost saving so expect companies to resist in private even if they put on a good public face.
Secondly when energy saving is suggested, environmentalists and groups try to emphasize that the invidual can do their bit without any regard that a lot of users will be greatly inconvenienced and without any regard as to savings that industry can make that are literally many orders of magnitude greater than all the savings individuals can make at great loss of convenience.
Thirdly it's often the same people who suggest energy savings that would greatly inconvience others or affect their lifestyle that won't give up anything themselves. I remember a couple of articles here on/. just before Christmas. One about CFL bulbs and mandatory replacement of incandescents, and the other about going crazy with huge displays Christmas lights set to music. Some of the same people who were suggesting everyone should be forced to use CFLs were suggesting that we can't regulate Christmas displays. People seem to be very inconsistent.
I see the same things with "enviro" shopping bags that people forget to take to the shopping center, cost more to manufacture and are worse for the environment. Same with greenhouse emissions and industry compliance vs forcing people into public transport that's often not up to the task. Same with industrial vs home use of fresh and drinking water. People seem to be brainwashed by ad campaign after ad campaign without ever considering whether what they're being asked to do is actually helpful, and how effective it is compared to similar effort and expenditure in other areas.
You can't mention the downsides of CFLs (expensive, contain mercury which then enters our homes and can contaminate them, only certain CFLs work with a dimmer, some people don't prefer their colour) without some brainwashed sheep calling you an anti-environmentalist.
You can't mention that in the long run "enviro" bags may only benefit the companies that sell them without someone trying to shout you down without hearing you out.
You can't mention that home water usage is a tiny fraction of that industry requires and that we could all keep our luxury showers, high flow nozzles, keep watering our gardens if we could mandate that some industries use grey water. (Never mind that grey water in the home has its problems and requires treatment that negatively affects the environment).
No mentioning these things or having an opinion that goes contrary to paid advertising makes you some kind of monster that wants to kill the planet. Frankly I'm sick of it. I don't want to kill the planet but nor do I want to give up significant chunks of my comfort and convenience while being brainwashed by companies that won't make changes themselves.
All of the above has more to do with saving money by finding an excuse to not provide services people have come to expect without coming off looking like the bad guy. You want enviromentally safe lighting? Well you have to pay 10x as much for it (most of which goes into our pockets thanks). Stop using plastic bags! They're damaging the environment. For just $1 you can do your part by buying OUR bags. Don't you love our funky logo on them. Save water now! We'd love to use your taxes to build another dam, or improve the piping but it'd harm the environment. You can't expect businesses to do anything they drive our economy. No take shorter showers. You too can smell awful for the environment.
Why on earth would you need to access your machine to get your data? Are you actually storing important data on the desktop?
That's a blanket statement if ever I saw one. Granted the GP was talking about documents but in general it depends on the size and nature of the data. I wouldn't store stuff I'm doing video editing with or large scientific datasets on a network drive.
Agreed. White, round and shiny is good if you're buying an egg, not a laptop. Oh great now I have visions of a twit in a black turtleneck pulling an egg out of a manila envelope. Yoke included, but not the eggwhite. Price only $20 per egg. *shudder*
Human beings learn things in lots of different ways. People learn both correct and incorrect behaviour from watching TV for example. The trick is to learning how realistic the information and techniques you are getting are, and when they can actually be applied.
For example it's easy to learn the wrong thing from a TV show. Try and play MacGyver for instance and things might go pear shaped. More subtley here in Australia the number for emergency services is 000, but we have had critically ill people receive delayed medical care because people have dialed 911 after watching American TV.
Why should games be any different? They're interactive so if the simulation is accurate they should be better at teaching us how to react to a situation.
However like television, usually the primary reason people play games is for entertainment not education. I'm not a betting man but I'd be surprised if you couldn't pick up many many more skills by doing a weekend firstaid course than by playing Americas Army.
Once again, you're lying. I never claimed everything had to be absolutely proven: you did
You stated that I was a liar. You stated this as if it were a fact. Your own logic means that you can't prove I'm a liar, however you're happy to call me one.
I am a very good picture of tolerance, yes. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing, I don't know. It's true, nevertheless.
Oh yes an excellent picture. Going around and calling people liars and idiots without any proof.
Yes, I do. And you're ignorant, too, because you for some unfathomable, irrational, reason you believe that my calling you a liar has anything to do with any accepted notion of "tolerance."
Your own beliefs mean you can't prove what I'm saying is untrue. If you were a tolerant person you wouldn't be calling me a liar and hurling abuse, when you can't even prove it. All you can offer me is your personal belief that I am a liar. You can't get around this critical flaw in your own thinking. A tolerant man who can't prove someone a liar would just say "that's your opinion and I disagree" and move on. You on the other hand just keep hurling that insult as if it will change the failure in your thinking. What are you going to do next? Taunt me with "liar liar pants on fire"? Go look up tolerance in a dictionary you child. Your inability to adhere to your own rules and your constant taunts make you nothing more than an intolerant fool. The fact that you have no grasp whatsoever of how logic works, what is or isn't rational and what can and can't be proven is quite clear. The only things "fathomable" to you are the things you choose to accept.
How on earth do you expect to win an argument where you claim to be tolerant on the one hand and hurl abuse at your opponent on the other? Your inconsistent and fanciful logic shows you have a weak and undisciplined mind. Using large words, or pointing to books you've read doesn't help your case at all since you couldn't construct a logically consistent argument to save your life.
Since you don't believe anything but mathematics can be proven (your argument not mine), you can't prove that I am a liar, nor can you prove that any statement I have made is false. Therefore you are calling me a liar without being able to prove it. By your own argument you can only say you BELIEVE me to be a liar. It's sloppy to say that I am when you can't prove it. If you're so interested in truth, provability and saying precise things, you should by rights preface everything with "I believe" or "In my opinion" (Prediction - you'll ignore this paragraph or say something terse and stupid like "incorrect" without offering any solid refutation)
Yet you claim to be more tolerant than I (another thing you can't prove, by your own admission) while calling me a liar. You don't see how vile this is and how BAD it is. This is an example of doing evil because you believe in superstitious unprovable things.
Since according to you neither of us can prove ourselves to be correct, why are we even having this discussion? Are you in the habit of talking to yourself or arguing unprovable things?
You see you don't even understand the underpinnings of the logical arguments you're making, or the methods of logic. You're clearly well read so how you've managed to twist everything around to fit your own inconsistent preconceived notions I don't quite understand. I can only assume you're desperate to hang on to your "faith" that you're able to so completely deceive yourself such that you can't possibly understand the logical extension of your own argument.
You can say "liar", "troll", "incorrect", call me or my views idiotic or intolerant until you go blue. It doesn't change the fact that your own argument completely undermines each and every thing you say. You're just embarrassing yourself here. You should have taken my good wishes and let it go at that, but you're the definition of an extremist. You can't let it go without repeatedly abusing your opponent and treading their belief into the ground. I bet if I let this go on you'd argue this until we both were old and grey. You'd continue to insult me and I you. You'd insult me for not allowing your inconsistent and flawed views while ignoring each and every valid point I make, and misinterpretting everything you could then accuse me of deceit. I'd insult you for your logical inconsistencies, flawed logic, and deceit. I'm so glad that this conversation is the limit of my interaction with you.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think it's somehow natural that 911 should be used.
911 was not the first number used, nor was the US the first country to use such a system. 911 was only announced as the number in 1968.
http://www.911dispatch.com/911/history/
You're no more than a childish lying abusive irrational troll. You obvious need to have the last word, so go ahead respond to this message and have it.
Again, errors in books can certainly lead to lost productivity, but is there really any need for more "book security" and "book oversight" and "book regulations" to make sure that the contents of books are robust and error-free?
I've yet to see a flaw in a book steal my, or anyone elses, credit card number, or delete all my other books, have you?
In addition there is book oversight and book regulation, in the form of existing negligence laws, advertising laws etc. Publish a textbook on bridge building that has a flaw which leads to bridges that collapse, and see how quickly you're sued.
"Book oversight" isn't mandatory but it's standard practice to employ an editor.
Sorry but you haven't shown that at all, and you don't qualify as a sane and rational man.
You're a fool.
Any sane and rational human being would agree that I have proven you've lied. None of your words change that. You're incapable of admitting it because you're incapable of following a rational argument.
Yes, thank you. Your "example" does not show I am lying, but that you lack reading skills.
If you use it in your discussion, then you need it for your discussion. What you said was unambiguous. You based at least some of your discussion on the standard of "reasonable doubt" (you even admit this) then denied ever even implying the need of such a standard for any of your discussions. If you didn't need this standard you shouldn't have introduced it into the discussion. You lied. The failure is yours. It doesn't matter what revisionist spin you add now. I can only go on what YOU have written and how YOU have made your argument. Note the use of the word "imply" in your statement. (Shall I dig up the other comment you made that there is "no such thing as a standard of proof. Something is either true or its not" or words similar?) You can argue all you like with your weasel words that you didn't state that you require "reasonable doubt" as a standard of proof, but you certainly did at least imply it. There's no failure from me to read here, there's only your failure to have a clue how to make an argument, or how to be consistent, or how to be honest.
This is typical of you. "What I really meant was" blah, or "I didn't need to say it that way I could have said it this way". Garbage. Deceitful revisionist garbage. Have you considered a career in politics?
If you can find a single example of me lying, sure. Unfortunately for you, you cannot do so.
Fine. Here's a clear example of you lying. I don't have time to sift through your words to find the other half dozen or so fallacies that come to mind, but you said one so here's one.
by pudge (3605) on 05:47 PM -- Sunday January 20 2008 (#22115350)
I've already proven beyon any reasonable doubt that you cannot prove right and wrong (despite your claim that provability is all that matters)
by pudge (3605) on 04:23 AM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22117622)
I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. None of my statements provide evidence backing up your statements about me that led me to call you a liar. You are, therefore, a liar.
by pudge (3605) on 02:27 PM -- Monday January 21 2008 (#22122678)
No, in fact, I never said I needed "a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt," or anything that could be taken to imply such a notion. Whatever it is.
I haven't attended a first aid course ever... It would have been fun to practise mouth-to-mouth with the girls in my high school class :)
They don't do that anymore. You practice on a sanitized dummy covered in a piece of throwaway plastic. Way too much chance of whoever runs the first aid course being sued if you catch something transmitted by saliva or blood.
It's worth the weekend doing a first aid course. The stuff you learn is interesting and it could save you or a loved on. I did one when my wife first moved in because she has severe allergies and there is a chance that one day I'll need to do CPR. (I don't need the excuse to kiss her. hehe) I really should go do a refresher. My certificate is no longer valid.
Like start bitching anonymously? Or deceive myself that politicians will listen to what I have to say?
Says you, the person who has introduced numerous -- and oft-repeated -- fallacies into this discussion.
...and you have often unattainable, ever changing standards of proof. No one could ever prove anything to you because if they do you bring up some childish metaphysical argument.
What fallacies? The ones I see are the ones you've introduced by putting words in my mouth.
Shall I act like you and run around chanting liar repeatedly. Child.
And you are just admitting that you are inconsistent. You say -- again, as you have said many times -- that you should have to be able to prove everything you say and believe, or else you are being illogical/irrational. Yet you cannot prove MANY of the things you say and believe.
You say I can't prove anything but they aren't my standards of proof. By my standards I can prove plenty. You don't understand what a standard of proof is and keep changing the goal posts. Is it fun? Does it feel like musical chairs infant?
If you can live with being that irrational, that's your cross to bear.
Oh _I'm_ being irrational, says the man who claims to be tolerant but hurls abuse and accusation. Says the man who believes nothing can be proved if it can't be expressed mathematically. As if that would bother me. You wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit you on the backside.
False. Indeed, I love science at least as much as you. And I almost surely know more of science than you do, too.
Gimme a break. I'm not sure whether to laugh or vomit. You don't love science. You love twisting the truth and redefining it to be whatever suits you then claiming your opponent can't prove otherwise due to some metaphysical gibberish. You refuse to acknowledge the damage religion has done to scientific endevour but instead choose to focus on occassions where science was fostered by religion. Science had to breeak away to get away from false logic like yours.
Almost all of it cannot be proven.
Again if it can't be proven why do you feel so strongly about it? If neither of us can prove our arguments according to your own babble, then why is the unprovable thing I say a lie, whereas the unprovable thing you say is true and golden? I'll tell you why. Because your mind is feeble and your understanding of logic is weak.
False on both counts. What I say is absolutely, 100 percent consistent, and you have shown yourself incapable of demonstrating otherwise.
I have shown myself incapable of convincing an irrational twit that what he's saying doesn't make sense. You remind me of a man I met on a train last year that insisted I put away my laptop because the Internet is all lies and all the knowledge you need is in your own head. Oh and he wore a UFO hat and t-shirt and was stark raving mad. He had about the same grasp of Relativity that you had.
Nor is it in the least bit impractical. You haven't even TRIED to show it is impractical, except by irrationally arguing against straw men you've created.
How am I suppose to show it impractical if I can't prove anything? It therefore doesn't make sense for you to criticize me for failing to do something you consider impossible. I've created no straw men. Your head is full of straw.
That's a shame, since there is far more to truth than science. This is self-evident truth, since the scientific method ITSELF is a metaphysical, not scientific, idea. Without having truth greater than science, science wouldn't, itself, be capable of existing.
Yes we need metaphysics to explain a method that basically says go out, observe, experiment and generate formal rules that cover all the things you see. You have no concept. Your Metaphysics is impractical and unprovable, so you insist science must be this way too. The fact is mankind hasn't observed laws of physics changing or bending. What we work out holds true in all observered instances. Your metaphysical arguments are nothing more than childish rants. You have
Yes. So? You say that like it is exceptional. People say things all the time that they can't prove. YOU are the only one who thinks that we should have to prove everything we say and believe.
Yeah, just like you don't have to accept that the Earth is round, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, if you want to remain ignorant and make your choices based on fallacies.
So you're an intolerant religious zealot. So what. I did not say you had to prove anything. You're free to hold whatever dillusion based on a metaphyiscal wonderland you wish to. I'm interested in the quest for truth in the form of the best scientific models and ideas available at any given time. You are not. I am free too, and I find your views absurd. You're even free to call me a liar and intolerant while at the same lying and showing intolerance to me. However that makes you a logically inconsistent hypocrite in front of all rational thinking human beings.
What I actually said but you once again felt the need to twist around to your own liking is that if a claim is made, it should be based on the best evidence we have not on unprovable garbage. Some of what I say can be proven. Not to your standards since you hold inconsistent and impractical standards for proof (how do you take someone seriously who bases their argument on the possibility that they could be a disembodied head and all reality is just an illusion, then subsequently uses a phrase like "beyond a resonable doubt"). I have indeed shown up your inconsistencies no matter how many times you deny it or call me a liar.
I don't know why you keep making this logical error over and over and over. I am not restricted to claiming only what is provable, because that is a standard I never acknowledged. That was your standard, and you are bound by it.
You little hypocrite. YOUR words were that FEW things besides mathematics could be proven. When I use that against you, you turn around and one minute you need a standard of proof that's a reasonable doubt (your words and your standards), then when you fail that test you say you don't have to adhere to it..
I thought you were interested in a rational discussion since you were bringing concepts such as metaphysics and provability into the equation. My mistake indeed. What you're essentially saying is that you don't have to make any sense, but I do since being rational is important to me and not to you. You're doing a very good job at being irrational and you're absolutely right - if you never accept that anything can be proven EXCEPT what you decide can be proven, if you choose to make up the rules as you go along of course I can't win. That doesn't make you superior to me. It certainly doesn't make you more tolerant (something you claim over and over). It makes you intentionally ignorant, pig headed and worthy of nothing more than contempt or pity.
You don't like me telling you to go away. Fine then. Keep wasting your own time and mine. Have fun living in your delusional metaphysical wonderland. Thank goodness I'm nowhere near you. Thank goodness I haven't experienced what you call religious tolerance, except in your feeble minded posts.
I've personally found that leaving the machine or not the PSU generally goes after a few years and that you periodically have to replace the occasional DVD drive (more common failure) or hard disk (less common).
The circuit boards including the mainboards thankfully don't seem to die quickly. (One exception was a badly designed laptop where the mainboard would wear against the case).
I usually retire a computer when it's too slow for me to bother with any more or if it has a bad bug. My file server is 5 years old and has issues with USB and SATA so I'm hoping to retire it sometime soon.
And I certainly wouldn't try to access data like that off-site.
Why not? Ever heard of remote desktop?
True. . . but it's also true that, at least for MacGuyver, they were at least responsible enough to leave out critical ingredients or steps for dangerous things, and NOT leave things out for life-savers "improvised" for the show.
Yes they made some rudimentary attempt but that doesn't mean that doing the things he did won't get you into trouble.
I was watching a couple of episodes with my wife last night. The character fixed a brake canister gasket with a piece of PVC. Not recommended even for a temporary fix unless you like driving without brakes. In another episode he was doing some rock climbing using techniques which would get you injured or killed if you tried them for real. I can remember in some other episodes he'd take a compressed gas canister and hammer off the value to turn it into a rocket. Again not safe. Leaving out some key chemicals when doing some of his more dangerous chemical tricks was nice of them but it hardly meant that you could expect reality to work the same way as his stunts in the show, or that it was safe to emulate any of the things the character did.
Mod this guy up he has a valid point. What was 911 taken already? If I was on vacation in Australia and there was an emergency I would dial 911... how the hell would I know about 000?
There should be a single International standard. However take responsibility for your own actions. Traveling internationally and assuming that things work the same way overseas as they do in your country is dangerously stupid. Many countries distribute literature at the airports (welcome to such and such country) that outlines what the emergency numbers are, often outline unusual laws etc. For example if you came to Australia and tried to drive on the right hand side of the street, you'd probably be arrested and "sorry Id didn't know" would be a very bad answer.
Why cant you aussies just forward 911 to your emergency number like other countries do?
Because our government is a bureaucratic mess.
I can't prove it, but I can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt.
Shifting the goal posts I see. Why is "beyond a reasonable doubt" good enough for you and your arguments but not good enough for me and my arguments?
Well I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that virgins don't give birth, the earth wasn't created in 6 days. Doesn't seem to sway your kind at all. Copernicus, then Galileo then and finally Kepler could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Look where that got them.
You can call me liar again and again. It doesn't make it true. It just makes a complete mockery out of your argument that you're tolerant. I have shown logical inconsistencies in your argument. You just refuse to acknowledge them like a child with their hands over their ears singing "la la la la" as loud as they can.
Go ahead. Keep calling me a liar while calling yourself a tolerant man. You're a fool.
Why is it ok to send a very large number of people into war zones (where there's a good chance they will be seriously injured or die) but sending a small group of people into space is too dangerous?
Because unfortunately the public isn't rational and is easily swayed by arguments that aren't rational.
Look I personally agree with you. At the same time I don't want to see human space travel continually stall every time there's an accident. It's only going to get tougher too. The chances of getting anyone to Mars without some fatal false starts aren't all that good. This is difficult stuff that's never been attempted. People die doing difficult never before attempted things.
Reducing energy consumption isn't just about saving money, it's about not fucking up the planet too.
/. just before Christmas. One about CFL bulbs and mandatory replacement of incandescents, and the other about going crazy with huge displays Christmas lights set to music. Some of the same people who were suggesting everyone should be forced to use CFLs were suggesting that we can't regulate Christmas displays. People seem to be very inconsistent.
Yes but for many companies it is about saving money. If you can't give them a decent incentive for doing it they aren't going to spend money on it. No CEO is going to donate the year's profits to an environment fund. If you can't work within the existing economic framework you're going to fail to elicit change. I'm afraid often it takes legislation. Being in compliance with legislation can save a company much more money in avoiding fines than they spend in complying. Of course not having to comply at all is a bigger cost saving so expect companies to resist in private even if they put on a good public face.
Secondly when energy saving is suggested, environmentalists and groups try to emphasize that the invidual can do their bit without any regard that a lot of users will be greatly inconvenienced and without any regard as to savings that industry can make that are literally many orders of magnitude greater than all the savings individuals can make at great loss of convenience.
Thirdly it's often the same people who suggest energy savings that would greatly inconvience others or affect their lifestyle that won't give up anything themselves. I remember a couple of articles here on
I see the same things with "enviro" shopping bags that people forget to take to the shopping center, cost more to manufacture and are worse for the environment. Same with greenhouse emissions and industry compliance vs forcing people into public transport that's often not up to the task. Same with industrial vs home use of fresh and drinking water. People seem to be brainwashed by ad campaign after ad campaign without ever considering whether what they're being asked to do is actually helpful, and how effective it is compared to similar effort and expenditure in other areas.
You can't mention the downsides of CFLs (expensive, contain mercury which then enters our homes and can contaminate them, only certain CFLs work with a dimmer, some people don't prefer their colour) without some brainwashed sheep calling you an anti-environmentalist.
You can't mention that in the long run "enviro" bags may only benefit the companies that sell them without someone trying to shout you down without hearing you out.
You can't mention that home water usage is a tiny fraction of that industry requires and that we could all keep our luxury showers, high flow nozzles, keep watering our gardens if we could mandate that some industries use grey water. (Never mind that grey water in the home has its problems and requires treatment that negatively affects the environment).
No mentioning these things or having an opinion that goes contrary to paid advertising makes you some kind of monster that wants to kill the planet. Frankly I'm sick of it. I don't want to kill the planet but nor do I want to give up significant chunks of my comfort and convenience while being brainwashed by companies that won't make changes themselves.
All of the above has more to do with saving money by finding an excuse to not provide services people have come to expect without coming off looking like the bad guy. You want enviromentally safe lighting? Well you have to pay 10x as much for it (most of which goes into our pockets thanks). Stop using plastic bags! They're damaging the environment. For just $1 you can do your part by buying OUR bags. Don't you love our funky logo on them. Save water now! We'd love to use your taxes to build another dam, or improve the piping but it'd harm the environment. You can't expect businesses to do anything they drive our economy. No take shorter showers. You too can smell awful for the environment.
Why on earth would you need to access your machine to get your data? Are you actually storing important data on the desktop?
That's a blanket statement if ever I saw one. Granted the GP was talking about documents but in general it depends on the size and nature of the data. I wouldn't store stuff I'm doing video editing with or large scientific datasets on a network drive.
Agreed. White, round and shiny is good if you're buying an egg, not a laptop. Oh great now I have visions of a twit in a black turtleneck pulling an egg out of a manila envelope. Yoke included, but not the eggwhite. Price only $20 per egg. *shudder*
Human beings learn things in lots of different ways. People learn both correct and incorrect behaviour from watching TV for example. The trick is to learning how realistic the information and techniques you are getting are, and when they can actually be applied.
For example it's easy to learn the wrong thing from a TV show. Try and play MacGyver for instance and things might go pear shaped. More subtley here in Australia the number for emergency services is 000, but we have had critically ill people receive delayed medical care because people have dialed 911 after watching American TV.
Why should games be any different? They're interactive so if the simulation is accurate they should be better at teaching us how to react to a situation.
However like television, usually the primary reason people play games is for entertainment not education. I'm not a betting man but I'd be surprised if you couldn't pick up many many more skills by doing a weekend firstaid course than by playing Americas Army.
Once again, you're lying. I never claimed everything had to be absolutely proven: you did
You stated that I was a liar. You stated this as if it were a fact. Your own logic means that you can't prove I'm a liar, however you're happy to call me one.
I am a very good picture of tolerance, yes. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing, I don't know. It's true, nevertheless.
Oh yes an excellent picture. Going around and calling people liars and idiots without any proof.
Yes, I do. And you're ignorant, too, because you for some unfathomable, irrational, reason you believe that my calling you a liar has anything to do with any accepted notion of "tolerance."
Your own beliefs mean you can't prove what I'm saying is untrue. If you were a tolerant person you wouldn't be calling me a liar and hurling abuse, when you can't even prove it. All you can offer me is your personal belief that I am a liar. You can't get around this critical flaw in your own thinking. A tolerant man who can't prove someone a liar would just say "that's your opinion and I disagree" and move on. You on the other hand just keep hurling that insult as if it will change the failure in your thinking. What are you going to do next? Taunt me with "liar liar pants on fire"? Go look up tolerance in a dictionary you child. Your inability to adhere to your own rules and your constant taunts make you nothing more than an intolerant fool. The fact that you have no grasp whatsoever of how logic works, what is or isn't rational and what can and can't be proven is quite clear. The only things "fathomable" to you are the things you choose to accept.
How on earth do you expect to win an argument where you claim to be tolerant on the one hand and hurl abuse at your opponent on the other? Your inconsistent and fanciful logic shows you have a weak and undisciplined mind. Using large words, or pointing to books you've read doesn't help your case at all since you couldn't construct a logically consistent argument to save your life.
I suppose the fact that I'm lying is one of those very other special things along with mathematics huh? Lucky me.
Oh yeah you're the very picture of tolerance.
And you call me a liar.
Go fly a kite.
You're a liar.
Strong words. Prove it.
Since you don't believe anything but mathematics can be proven (your argument not mine), you can't prove that I am a liar, nor can you prove that any statement I have made is false. Therefore you are calling me a liar without being able to prove it. By your own argument you can only say you BELIEVE me to be a liar. It's sloppy to say that I am when you can't prove it. If you're so interested in truth, provability and saying precise things, you should by rights preface everything with "I believe" or "In my opinion" (Prediction - you'll ignore this paragraph or say something terse and stupid like "incorrect" without offering any solid refutation)
Yet you claim to be more tolerant than I (another thing you can't prove, by your own admission) while calling me a liar. You don't see how vile this is and how BAD it is. This is an example of doing evil because you believe in superstitious unprovable things.
Since according to you neither of us can prove ourselves to be correct, why are we even having this discussion? Are you in the habit of talking to yourself or arguing unprovable things?
You see you don't even understand the underpinnings of the logical arguments you're making, or the methods of logic. You're clearly well read so how you've managed to twist everything around to fit your own inconsistent preconceived notions I don't quite understand. I can only assume you're desperate to hang on to your "faith" that you're able to so completely deceive yourself such that you can't possibly understand the logical extension of your own argument.
You can say "liar", "troll", "incorrect", call me or my views idiotic or intolerant until you go blue. It doesn't change the fact that your own argument completely undermines each and every thing you say. You're just embarrassing yourself here. You should have taken my good wishes and let it go at that, but you're the definition of an extremist. You can't let it go without repeatedly abusing your opponent and treading their belief into the ground. I bet if I let this go on you'd argue this until we both were old and grey. You'd continue to insult me and I you. You'd insult me for not allowing your inconsistent and flawed views while ignoring each and every valid point I make, and misinterpretting everything you could then accuse me of deceit. I'd insult you for your logical inconsistencies, flawed logic, and deceit. I'm so glad that this conversation is the limit of my interaction with you.
One more time. Go away.