Your comment ended up in the wrong place? I have never written a line of VB in my life and haven't programmed a Win computer for more than half a decade.
Sorry, but for being taken seriously with a big claim like that, you need to start with some very good references. Not letting people ask multiple times. Otherwise, you sound mostly like a fanboy.
Are you really claiming that it is not a win to have tail recursion for traversing a list, tree or any bunch of complex data structures in a functional language?! (Didn't Python also lack continuations?)
Sigh - go back and look at where I quoted the "main complaint" from your original link.
First you refuse multiple times to give a relevant answer, then you claim to already have answered -- without a reference. You really is sad even for a troll. (The funniest part is still that atheism is unscientific and as bad as being intellectually dishonest!. At the time, I assumed you could be a complete idiot and not a bad troll, but now I can only say "Get a life, sad troll; you're so bad people just explain facts to you instead of getting angry.".)
Yet again, what you can't give a relevant answer to -- and if you claim to have done that -- linky linky, liar.
In your answer, you pretend I just attacked Gould for his political opinions on another matter. My original point was that scientists in two areas accuse Gould of being intellectually dishonest in his public writing. AFAIK, that do include the PE you discuss.
Also, if some scientist is documented as intellectually dishonest it is no use to read their public work -- because we don't know the subject and can't tell when they are misrepresenting. So again -- give serious references if you want to show that PE is "kosher" among real evolutionary biologists.
This I referenced in grand parent; you still haven't discussed even this content and you obviously never will answer seriously, even if you could. Isn't it sad when people just get bored with your trolling? Try to get a life, instead.
In your answer, you pretend I just attacked Gould for his political opinions on another matter. My original point was that scientists in two areas accuse Gould of being intellectually dishonest in his public writing. AFAIK, that do include the PE you discuss.
Also, if some scientist is documented as intellectually dishonest it is no use to read their public work -- because we don't know the subject and can't tell when they are misrepresenting. So again -- give serious references if you want to show that PE is "kosher" among real evolutionary biologists.
An answer is already in the first two paragraphs in what you commented on, troll. (Is this some homage to Gould -- ignoring what the other side writes looks similar to the link I gave at the top of this garbage thread?)
AFAIK, PE was also overblown in the public writing -- just another way to detract evolution, because the Marxists wanted to lessen the "risk" of evolutionary insights that were negative for Marxist theory. If you have a consensus of modern evolutionary (non-marxist) biologists that contradict that, by all means.
In your answer, you pretend I just attacked Gould for his political opinions on another matter. My original point was that scientists in two areas accuse Gould of being intellectually dishonest in his public writing. AFAIK, that do include the PE you discuss.
Also, if some scientist is documented as intellectually dishonest it is no use to read their public work -- because we don't know the subject and can't tell when they are misrepresenting. So again -- give serious references if you want to show that PE is "kosher" among real evolutionary biologists.
I am a bit shocked that you don't find it disgusting when ideologists lie to make their opinions more popular among the general public. Personally, I have changed my opinions about most everything in my life. And I will change them again. I don't identify with my opinions -- I identify with wanting to be right.
Unless you have something interesting to say, goodbye. I hope I have enlightened someone -- and not wasted time on a troll. (But in that case, it must be a waste of your time when people just patiently gives more details without becoming angry.)
If I really wasn't clear:
Your argument is too strong if it equally shows that Santa Claus exists as much as the supernatural creature you want to exist. It is a traditional problem with a certain type of Ghod "proofs" that they prove everything (including Son Of Sam's God, Santa Claus and the FSM).
If you want someone to hold something for true, you have to show support for your claim. Since the way that supernatural creatures might exist is literally infinite -- like real numbers, not integers (Google for "diagonal argument", if you haven't read those courses). The number of types (according to all religions I know of) of supernatural beings are finite and there are no supporting data for their existence (at least, much less than for that Elvis lives). The probability of a given ones existence is then for all practical purposes zero -- without any support.
As a supporting point:
Consider the way the different theories about supernatural monsters contradict each others. So at most a small subset of those theories can be true. The psychology of belief in the religions are very similar (afaik about theological psychology; I'd be interested in any contradicting references?). All religions I'm aware of claims to be inspired by their ghods. Since the religions are contradicting each others, if one religion is true then the other religions are not inspired by anything or by a devil. Then something other than their god can inspire the same psychology in believers -- which is contradicted by all religions I'm aware of.
All this is well known and discussed. Please go take a beginning course in philosophy, many go over this from the beginning.
Uhm, for all I know, I don't really exist (the old philosophy idea with a brain in a box, see the Matrix; or a simulation). I think Dawkins would agree with that.
As far as we know, the Earth might be flat. It is quite easy to create models that explain all observations. Hell, there are better witnesses that Elvis still lives than there are of any God.
To say that the Muslim/Jewish/Xian/etc/etc/etc God(s) doesn't exist is like saying that the FSM or Santa Claus doesn't exist. So, you also argue that Santa Claus exist.
Somewhere you have to draw the line for low possibilities and use Occam's razor -- the earth isn't flat, Santa Claus and all the other mythological creatures don't exist.
That people still go around making claims without any basis except in their own psychology is disgusting. Being fans of e.g. Tolkien's elves is a quality difference to claiming that angels exist.
You are more or less setting an equal sign between atheism and Gould's lack of intellectual honesty??:-)
Sorry, but I can't take that seriously -- are you trolling? My point was that Dawkins is upset about people having opinions based on dreams or theories which they were psychologically unable to verify. Say, like Son of Sam...
You might as well call it unscientific when I say that I am certain that Son of Sam's "god" doesn't exist. Or Cthulhu. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
AFAIK, PE was also overblown in the public writing -- just another way to detract evolution, because the Marxists wanted to lessen the "risk" of evolutionary insights that were negative for Marxist theory. If you have a consensus of modern evolutionary (non-marxist) biologists that contradict that, by all means.
Yes Gould uspet some big names and he has been attacked politically
The total opposite! The leading names of the field attacked Gould on scientific ground for doing dishonest propaganda for his political opinions in his popular writing.
Uhm, wasn't "Contact" literature?:-)
Besides, you could describe Dawkins as being upset by people having opinions about the world based on wish fulfillment fantasies. I don't have a problem with that.
You mean something like parasite pressure, which should be constant for all living beings and force constant biochemical changes? Running at full speed to stand still? (Everything except maybe some parasites dance that dance, yes?)
Don't mix honours for good public writing with honours for research, see e.g. this. Mayr, Maynard Smith et al each has more weight inside the field than Dawkins and Gould have together. The supporters Gould had in the field was generally extreme left, see this for some of the funnier things I've ever read on that debate.
Tooby/Cosmides description is strengthened by the intelligence researchers's criticism against Gould on his writing on intelligence (far outside his area!). Very similar. (Also a similar thesis as his writing on evolution; Marxism have problems with behaviour being built in/inherited for some reason I don't care about.)
If I want to play games and solve problems with other people, I just work (even) more. To relax, I want to kill people -- preferable those I know. With nice visual effects.
I'm in Scandinavia and there has been multiple Hungarians working where I've been the last year (two places). I asked them why they left (I might be home blind but, frankly, Hungary seems much more interesting than Scandinavia!) and they answered that more or less the same politicians were in government as before 1989. Really bad taxes and everyone good tried to leave.
"Both equally guilty" MIGHT have been believable the first few times in a century which Russia invades and destroys a small neighbor country.
But that is sadly impossible, since we will probably never see a time when Russia hasn't invaded and destroyed a few small countries the preceding century...
I think the main reason people are trying to blame USA for Georgian affair is that, Georgia attacked first. (You sound like you don't know this, however even Georgian PM does not dispute that their army moved into southern Ossetia before the conflict.) This makes no rational sense.
Well.... you are right, this is not coherent.
As I wrote: The Georgians seem to claim they were provoked by shelling. And the Russians had good tank battalions just waiting on the other side of the border, motivated with lies about mass murder. (Sure, both sides are probably also lying, as is traditional in a war.)
The really fun part is that the US really needs Russia, e.g. to keep an united front in the UN and against Iran. The idea that Bush would start a cold war right now is too ridiculous (especially since the claimed win in internal politics is not rational either).
I haven't seen anyone blaming USA here which can't be filed under conspiracy theories. Russia is the only one which earned anything here -- screwing over Georgia. (Also, Putin might want NATO as an external enemy; the traditional way to stop internal criticism.)
For instance, I've seen left wing people (both in Scandinavia and in English media) arguing that the Georgian trouble are the faults of USA. So Russia:
lies about mass murders (according to Human Rights Watch)
might have provoked the whole thing with artillery attacks (both sides claim the other side started; Russia did have lots of good tank units conveniently close)
lies about it all -- Putin claimed in his interview that a small victorious war for Georgia would have influenced the US elections(?!) If Russia hadn't fscked Georgia, voters would have forgotten this now
did another Chechnya on a country they had political/military/economical reasons to rape
It is obvious -- the responsibility lies heavily on the USA! Either they started the whole thing -- or it was something they did in the treatment of the old Soviet union decades ago...
When someone falls and breaks their toe in Europe, Bush is probably blamed!:-)
That said, the Bush administration is IMHO disgusting... but can hardly compare with Putin's restarting the old Russian/Soviet empire building.
I do realize that for people in the USA, it isn't so funny. You can always think that closer to Russia, it might soon not be so funny either...
You really can't discuss the millions of people killed from actions by the Chinese communist party, can you?
1984 is about a police state that controls its population so hard and horribly that it will continue to do so forever. A quote, if I remember correctly, is "history as a foot stomping on a face -- forever". The main reason that isn't so likely anymore is because democracies works better than dictatorships. The rest of the world just hopes that China isn't breaking that trend...
Was that clear enough that you can't stick your head into the sand anymore?
AFAIK, most everyone that did atrocities like mass murders deny them -- except the Germans. For instance Turkey, Japan, Pakistan -- and the Chinese communist party. The big problem with this is of course that it lowers the threshold that it will be done again.
But it is just pathetic to argue that the Japanese WW II government had a worse quality to their atrocities than the communist party -- which did theirs much later! That is just not serious. The whole world has more to fear from the Chinese communist party's refusal to accept their atrocities than from japan, which is democratic.
If you really don't understand what the west is afraid of -- do read 1984. Don't sit and attribute random motives.
But stop being so sensitive for criticism. The turned-inward period of China has passed. It is a good thing industrialization and higher living standards are spreading across the planet. The practical goal of all humane people is to make the world a better place for everyone.
BTW, I don't get the "enemies" stuff about Japan at all. Consider all the fsckups the Chinese Communist party has done; they've killed lots of millions of Chinese trough hunger etc. Many times more than the Japanese ever did. But all dictators like external enemies.
I don't presume to talk for the Americans either. Lots of their foreign policy stuff seems just stupid. But mature democracies don't fight wars with each others -- not even USA. That is the only constant (so far).
And yeah, most people in countries where you will end up killed or in jail if you are politically active -- aren't that interested in politics. You have a "point" there...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
You don't want to see Qt on a phone?
Please don't Google for the words: Qt Nokia :-)
it looks like a large-screen version of an iPod Touch. But with fewer features.
Your comment ended up in the wrong place? I have never written a line of VB in my life and haven't programmed a Win computer for more than half a decade.
Some places DO seem to pay that kind of money. Or the GP lied. Or the really is good (the Perl world has some really smart and interesting people).
The real problem for Perl is the bad hype, which your tro... hrm, guessing without facts, is a typical example of.
Sorry, but for being taken seriously with a big claim like that, you need to start with some very good references. Not letting people ask multiple times. Otherwise, you sound mostly like a fanboy.
Are you really claiming that it is not a win to have tail recursion for traversing a list, tree or any bunch of complex data structures in a functional language?! (Didn't Python also lack continuations?)
First you refuse multiple times to give a relevant answer, then you claim to already have answered -- without a reference. You really is sad even for a troll. (The funniest part is still that atheism is unscientific and as bad as being intellectually dishonest!. At the time, I assumed you could be a complete idiot and not a bad troll, but now I can only say "Get a life, sad troll; you're so bad people just explain facts to you instead of getting angry.".)
Yet again, what you can't give a relevant answer to -- and if you claim to have done that -- linky linky, liar.
An answer is already in the first two paragraphs in what you commented on, troll. (Is this some homage to Gould -- ignoring what the other side writes looks similar to the link I gave at the top of this garbage thread?)
In your answer, you pretend I just attacked Gould for his political opinions on another matter. My original point was that scientists in two areas accuse Gould of being intellectually dishonest in his public writing. AFAIK, that do include the PE you discuss.
Also, if some scientist is documented as intellectually dishonest it is no use to read their public work -- because we don't know the subject and can't tell when they are misrepresenting. So again -- give serious references if you want to show that PE is "kosher" among real evolutionary biologists.
I am a bit shocked that you don't find it disgusting when ideologists lie to make their opinions more popular among the general public. Personally, I have changed my opinions about most everything in my life. And I will change them again. I don't identify with my opinions -- I identify with wanting to be right.
Unless you have something interesting to say, goodbye. I hope I have enlightened someone -- and not wasted time on a troll. (But in that case, it must be a waste of your time when people just patiently gives more details without becoming angry.)
If I really wasn't clear:
Your argument is too strong if it equally shows that Santa Claus exists as much as the supernatural creature you want to exist. It is a traditional problem with a certain type of Ghod "proofs" that they prove everything (including Son Of Sam's God, Santa Claus and the FSM).
If you want someone to hold something for true, you have to show support for your claim. Since the way that supernatural creatures might exist is literally infinite -- like real numbers, not integers (Google for "diagonal argument", if you haven't read those courses). The number of types (according to all religions I know of) of supernatural beings are finite and there are no supporting data for their existence (at least, much less than for that Elvis lives). The probability of a given ones existence is then for all practical purposes zero -- without any support.
As a supporting point:
Consider the way the different theories about supernatural monsters contradict each others. So at most a small subset of those theories can be true. The psychology of belief in the religions are very similar (afaik about theological psychology; I'd be interested in any contradicting references?). All religions I'm aware of claims to be inspired by their ghods. Since the religions are contradicting each others, if one religion is true then the other religions are not inspired by anything or by a devil. Then something other than their god can inspire the same psychology in believers -- which is contradicted by all religions I'm aware of.
All this is well known and discussed. Please go take a beginning course in philosophy, many go over this from the beginning.
Uhm, for all I know, I don't really exist (the old philosophy idea with a brain in a box, see the Matrix; or a simulation). I think Dawkins would agree with that.
As far as we know, the Earth might be flat. It is quite easy to create models that explain all observations. Hell, there are better witnesses that Elvis still lives than there are of any God.
To say that the Muslim/Jewish/Xian/etc/etc/etc God(s) doesn't exist is like saying that the FSM or Santa Claus doesn't exist. So, you also argue that Santa Claus exist.
Somewhere you have to draw the line for low possibilities and use Occam's razor -- the earth isn't flat, Santa Claus and all the other mythological creatures don't exist.
That people still go around making claims without any basis except in their own psychology is disgusting. Being fans of e.g. Tolkien's elves is a quality difference to claiming that angels exist.
Uh, atheism a "scientific mis-adventure"?! :-)
You are more or less setting an equal sign between atheism and Gould's lack of intellectual honesty??:-)
Sorry, but I can't take that seriously -- are you trolling? My point was that Dawkins is upset about people having opinions based on dreams or theories which they were psychologically unable to verify. Say, like Son of Sam...
You might as well call it unscientific when I say that I am certain that Son of Sam's "god" doesn't exist. Or Cthulhu. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
AFAIK, PE was also overblown in the public writing -- just another way to detract evolution, because the Marxists wanted to lessen the "risk" of evolutionary insights that were negative for Marxist theory. If you have a consensus of modern evolutionary (non-marxist) biologists that contradict that, by all means.
The total opposite! The leading names of the field attacked Gould on scientific ground for doing dishonest propaganda for his political opinions in his popular writing.
Uhm, wasn't "Contact" literature? :-)
Besides, you could describe Dawkins as being upset by people having opinions about the world based on wish fulfillment fantasies. I don't have a problem with that.
You mean something like parasite pressure, which should be constant for all living beings and force constant biochemical changes? Running at full speed to stand still? (Everything except maybe some parasites dance that dance, yes?)
Don't mix honours for good public writing with honours for research, see e.g. this. Mayr, Maynard Smith et al each has more weight inside the field than Dawkins and Gould have together. The supporters Gould had in the field was generally extreme left, see this for some of the funnier things I've ever read on that debate.
Tooby/Cosmides description is strengthened by the intelligence researchers's criticism against Gould on his writing on intelligence (far outside his area!). Very similar. (Also a similar thesis as his writing on evolution; Marxism have problems with behaviour being built in/inherited for some reason I don't care about.)
Mod up this instead. Much more interesting.
Life has evolved to be good at evolving? Sounds logical, organisms that increase mutation speed depending on environment should have an advantage.
If I want to play games and solve problems with other people, I just work (even) more. To relax, I want to kill people -- preferable those I know. With nice visual effects.
1/2 :-)
About Hungary...
I'm in Scandinavia and there has been multiple Hungarians working where I've been the last year (two places). I asked them why they left (I might be home blind but, frankly, Hungary seems much more interesting than Scandinavia!) and they answered that more or less the same politicians were in government as before 1989. Really bad taxes and everyone good tried to leave.
"Both equally guilty" MIGHT have been believable the first few times in a century which Russia invades and destroys a small neighbor country.
But that is sadly impossible, since we will probably never see a time when Russia hasn't invaded and destroyed a few small countries the preceding century...
Well.... you are right, this is not coherent.
As I wrote: The Georgians seem to claim they were provoked by shelling. And the Russians had good tank battalions just waiting on the other side of the border, motivated with lies about mass murder. (Sure, both sides are probably also lying, as is traditional in a war.)
The really fun part is that the US really needs Russia, e.g. to keep an united front in the UN and against Iran. The idea that Bush would start a cold war right now is too ridiculous (especially since the claimed win in internal politics is not rational either).
I haven't seen anyone blaming USA here which can't be filed under conspiracy theories. Russia is the only one which earned anything here -- screwing over Georgia. (Also, Putin might want NATO as an external enemy; the traditional way to stop internal criticism.)
I find the anti-US stuff quite funny.
For instance, I've seen left wing people (both in Scandinavia and in English media) arguing that the Georgian trouble are the faults of USA. So Russia:
It is obvious -- the responsibility lies heavily on the USA! Either they started the whole thing -- or it was something they did in the treatment of the old Soviet union decades ago...
When someone falls and breaks their toe in Europe, Bush is probably blamed! :-)
That said, the Bush administration is IMHO disgusting... but can hardly compare with Putin's restarting the old Russian/Soviet empire building.
I do realize that for people in the USA, it isn't so funny. You can always think that closer to Russia, it might soon not be so funny either...
You really can't discuss the millions of people killed from actions by the Chinese communist party, can you?
1984 is about a police state that controls its population so hard and horribly that it will continue to do so forever. A quote, if I remember correctly, is "history as a foot stomping on a face -- forever". The main reason that isn't so likely anymore is because democracies works better than dictatorships. The rest of the world just hopes that China isn't breaking that trend...
Was that clear enough that you can't stick your head into the sand anymore?
AFAIK, most everyone that did atrocities like mass murders deny them -- except the Germans. For instance Turkey, Japan, Pakistan -- and the Chinese communist party. The big problem with this is of course that it lowers the threshold that it will be done again.
But it is just pathetic to argue that the Japanese WW II government had a worse quality to their atrocities than the communist party -- which did theirs much later! That is just not serious. The whole world has more to fear from the Chinese communist party's refusal to accept their atrocities than from japan, which is democratic.
If you really don't understand what the west is afraid of -- do read 1984. Don't sit and attribute random motives.
But stop being so sensitive for criticism. The turned-inward period of China has passed. It is a good thing industrialization and higher living standards are spreading across the planet. The practical goal of all humane people is to make the world a better place for everyone.
BTW, I don't get the "enemies" stuff about Japan at all. Consider all the fsckups the Chinese Communist party has done; they've killed lots of millions of Chinese trough hunger etc. Many times more than the Japanese ever did. But all dictators like external enemies.
I don't presume to talk for the Americans either. Lots of their foreign policy stuff seems just stupid. But mature democracies don't fight wars with each others -- not even USA. That is the only constant (so far).
And yeah, most people in countries where you will end up killed or in jail if you are politically active -- aren't that interested in politics. You have a "point" there... :-)