The scientific method doesn't have a part to say "we don't know yet", as according to it at any time the most likely theory is true.
Well, science often provides partial answers, knowing that they are. Often the current answer is "we don't know, but here's a pretty good approximation".
Yes, we sometimes have two or more competing theories who both (or all) offer good approximations. That is true as well.
What it isn't is, is a complete failure.
The process most often used is asking other people.
But that's not a process for generating answers, it is a process for passing already generated answers on to others. You could just as well say "reading a book", or "searching Google".
a) A goal does not have to be reachable. Many spiritual practices aim for enlightenment, but don't consider it a waste of time if you don't reach the goal. You can see the goal in this instance as a kind of limes.
b) The scientific knowledge need not be infinite, even if the total knowledge obtainable about the universe is infinite, it may be describeable with a finite number of math, just like an infinite series can be described in a simple formula.
So I agree that "all the answers" is not something that is an actual point on the roadmap. However, if you view the question from the inverse side, maybe my point becomes clear: There are no answers that science excludes. It is "all the answers" in that sense.
I've dabbled somewhat in the question of immortality, not on the biological questions but on the psychological ones. To the best of my current knowledge, not only the body but also the mind has not evolved to last for much longer than it does. I'm not talking about Alzheimer and other diseases, but the very structure of our mind.
Also, society has not developed methods to deal with really long life.
Just consider all the baggage that you accumulate. The memories, pains and longings, the smaller on bigger mental damages and scars, the guilt and the lost love. Then take the plus side, the joy and love, the experiences, everything. That stuff accumulates. How much experiences of either kind do you think your mind can handle and juggle around while keeping you sane? Try talking to a couple older folks about that, too.
Even if we solve the biological problem, my personal guess is that most people would go crazy before they reach 200.
But real science differs from pop-science in that it doesn't claim or aspire to have all the answers right now. But certainly, the (unlimited-time-in-the-future) goal is all the knowledge.
It is _one_ way to acquire Truth. And like any process, it works well with certain types of inputs, and completely fails at others.
Theoretically, I agree with you, on the part that absolutism is stupid.
However, you make a specific claim. Care to back it up? Name a few examples where science "completely fails". I don't mind stuff where scientists are still working on the answers, that is not failure.
But it is NOT the _only_ process; however it happens to work well, and handle many inputs.
This is the second specific claim you make. Please name a few other processes that also produce results.
Many people ignore the fact that it is an _incomplete_ process. Ignoring the weaknesses of any system is the height of arrogance.
Yes and no. Science is also a meta-process - it can reflect upon itself and improve upon itself. That is the main difference and advantage it has over older time-binding processes (Korzybski terminology), and from a process view, it is its own meta-process. Physics and meta-physics are brothers.
That's something the current philosophers hate, but most of them are idiots (my terminology) - ancient philosophers were also scientists, in their way. You would be hard-pressed to find an ancient philosopher who wrote with such ignorance of his days mathematics, physics, etc. as todays philosophists do.
Science isn't failing us. That is is is the first claim that needs to be proven, long, long before you can get to any "why"s.
And the article hasn't. In fact, the very introduction shows science well at work, not failing. Only if you have such a limited definition of science that blackboards and notebooks are science, but trials and studies are not, then you could come to that conclusion. And nobody outside Hogwash University holds that view.
and tend to only show phones they think might sell.
No, seriously? So, if you strip away all the bullshit bingo words and the nonsensical attitude, the basic message is: "We know nobody wants this crap." ?
Wow. Talk about crash & burn. Nokia is so finished, it really is a shame. They used to make nice phones once.
There is one question that I have in my mind after reading this: Isn't the real problem that these games are back in the store after a week? I mean, what kind of games are that? From the games that I bought, maybe one or two would've suffered that fate, simply because they were utterly horrible.
Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals
It's a strategy. These guys have been playing politics far longer than any of us. Starting with something far beyond even your own maximum target is a good way to get almost everything you were really aiming for out of someone who is naive and aims for a compromise solution.
If you know it, you see it at works in politics pretty much all the time. In fact, I see it over here (Germany) so often that I'm beginning to wonder if they teach anything else in whatever newly elected representatives are getting in training.
Lots and lots of people claim that they are good at multi-tasking. Study after study proves them all wrong - humans are horrible at multi-tasking. What we are excellent in is fooling ourselves with regards to our abilities.
Voice control largely failed because nobody wanted to be caught dead talking to his computer and it just doesn't work at all in office environments.
Putting gesture control into notebooks must have been the winner of the "stupid idea of the year" contest, and for some reason it got mixed up with the actual product plan.
Seriously, on a train, in the airport lounge, on the airplane - that's when you really wish your notebook had gesture controls, right? And when you pitch your product to your business partners and give a crucial presentation, that's exactly the moment where you want to rely on more-or-less reliable gesture controls instead of a mouse or keyboard click or remote control.
Totally. The only place dumber than notebooks would've been the Zune.
What makes you think you have to run all the new crap someone creates?
Because the crap I now use is a full Unix system with a UI that was 5-10 years ahead of anything I found on Linux when I switched, and probably still around that much.
One of the best things about free software is choice.
Choice isn't limited to Free Software.
I'm a huge fan of Free Software. But thinking everything good only happens there is ideological fanatism.
Don't give these fucktards exposure. We (i.e. the sentient, non-scammer people on this world) all wish they would die off, and quickly. You think you do a good think by ridiculing them, but you don't.
Twitter-level knowledge does not entitle one to spread bullshit around.
You are talking about Â86 StGB, though you've almost certainly never heard about nor read it.
There is extensive literature on the reasoning behind, the legality of and the exceptions allowed by this Â. It is not that the shape is illegal. In fact, to this day you find the symbol in all kinds of places, embedded in architecture and the like. No one has ever gone to clean it up. It is also in public display at museums, in history books, etc. etc. etc.
But, you know, we kind of felt like not wanting to have the symbols of an evil cult that caused the death of some 50 mio. or so people around. The guys who wrote the law knew about trolls even though the Internet wasn't yet invented.
It's a good law and very few people inside Germany would want it removed. And to the best of my knowledge, nobody who isn't a Nazi has ever been convicted on it.
Oh, and before you start the usual bullshit about how the USA is so much better and has Free Speech, you should know one more detail about german history: Those early laws of the modern Germany were written shortly after the war, and were massively influenced by the Allies, mostly the Americans.
User training is absolutely necessary, as are better interfaces and a lot of other improvements.
Learning to code is not one of them. Whoever came up with that is of the same mindset of the fucktards who thought every kid must learn to play an instrument. One size does not fit all, and you are doing tremendous damage.
Anecdotal evidence: I could've been a musician - I love music, and have an excellent sense of rhythm, and I self-taught several instruments recently - but the fact that I had to learn some kid-instrument when I was nowhere ready nor felt the desire to do so made me hate any and all of it for years.
Same thing with programming. You will breed a whole generation of people who loathe programming, think they know all about it, and thus loathe and look down upon the people who do it for a living.
Unfortunately, it isn't. Well, at least not on my (german) keyboard. In FF this opens up the FF help, in iCal and others it opens up the help interface, but not the help menu, etc.
Agreed. It's fashionable to decry any new UI ideas as stupid.
That is because they usually are.
If you make the claim that your UI is better than the old one (and if it isn't, then why make it?), then the burden of proof is on you. And you don't prove being better by putting it into your distro. You prove it by doing user tests and studies.
We insist on evidence when someone comes along claiming to speak with the dead, or doubts global warming, or believes in creationism - but really coming up with a new encryption scheme or UI idea isn't all that different - you make a claim, show me the evidence or fuck off.
Reading stuff like that is making me happy I left the Linux-on-the-desktop world years ago.
Where is the research showing that menus are bad and the studies proving this new system is better? Everything else is just geeks doing mental masturbation. Unless you have a seizable number of actual user tests, you are a fucking idiot to put a massive change in user interface into production.
Experiments are cool, and needed to move forward. Don't get me wrong. And as someone who is in love with Quicksilver, this is absolutely an interesting approach.
But you are still a fucking idiot if you confuse "interesting idea" with "ready for production just because we've finished the code".
Don't test UI ideas on your users. As long as you do that, Linux will never be ready for the desktop, because non-geek users hate that.
That has nothing to do with programming and a lot with user training.
The problem with computers is that people list "Excel" in their skill list if they've seen it twice and figured out how to load and save.
Knowing how to use tools is absolutely not the same thing as knowing how to build them. I can drive perfectly well without having to know how an engine works.
If this is a job that needs to be done over and over and over, it is worth investing the time.
If It's a one-time or irregular job, some coder hacking up a script in a few hours that can handle 90% of the cases with the secretary doing the fails and fringe cases manually would still save time.
The failure of the geek: Wants to automate everything The failure of the manager: Mistrusts automation so he wants everything done by hand
That's why usually the 80% solution is the optimal solution.
Slashdot Mirror
The scientific method doesn't have a part to say "we don't know yet", as according to it at any time the most likely theory is true.
Well, science often provides partial answers, knowing that they are. Often the current answer is "we don't know, but here's a pretty good approximation".
Yes, we sometimes have two or more competing theories who both (or all) offer good approximations. That is true as well.
What it isn't is, is a complete failure.
The process most often used is asking other people.
But that's not a process for generating answers, it is a process for passing already generated answers on to others. You could just as well say "reading a book", or "searching Google".
a) A goal does not have to be reachable. Many spiritual practices aim for enlightenment, but don't consider it a waste of time if you don't reach the goal. You can see the goal in this instance as a kind of limes.
b) The scientific knowledge need not be infinite, even if the total knowledge obtainable about the universe is infinite, it may be describeable with a finite number of math, just like an infinite series can be described in a simple formula.
So I agree that "all the answers" is not something that is an actual point on the roadmap. However, if you view the question from the inverse side, maybe my point becomes clear: There are no answers that science excludes. It is "all the answers" in that sense.
Anyone else had pictures in his mind you had hoped you would forget?
I've dabbled somewhat in the question of immortality, not on the biological questions but on the psychological ones. To the best of my current knowledge, not only the body but also the mind has not evolved to last for much longer than it does. I'm not talking about Alzheimer and other diseases, but the very structure of our mind.
Also, society has not developed methods to deal with really long life.
Just consider all the baggage that you accumulate. The memories, pains and longings, the smaller on bigger mental damages and scars, the guilt and the lost love. Then take the plus side, the joy and love, the experiences, everything. That stuff accumulates. How much experiences of either kind do you think your mind can handle and juggle around while keeping you sane? Try talking to a couple older folks about that, too.
Even if we solve the biological problem, my personal guess is that most people would go crazy before they reach 200.
Science is not about explaining everything,
Actually, it is.
But real science differs from pop-science in that it doesn't claim or aspire to have all the answers right now. But certainly, the (unlimited-time-in-the-future) goal is all the knowledge.
It is _one_ way to acquire Truth. And like any process, it works well with certain types of inputs, and completely fails at others.
Theoretically, I agree with you, on the part that absolutism is stupid.
However, you make a specific claim. Care to back it up? Name a few examples where science "completely fails". I don't mind stuff where scientists are still working on the answers, that is not failure.
But it is NOT the _only_ process; however it happens to work well, and handle many inputs.
This is the second specific claim you make. Please name a few other processes that also produce results.
Many people ignore the fact that it is an _incomplete_ process. Ignoring the weaknesses of any system is the height of arrogance.
Yes and no. Science is also a meta-process - it can reflect upon itself and improve upon itself. That is the main difference and advantage it has over older time-binding processes (Korzybski terminology), and from a process view, it is its own meta-process. Physics and meta-physics are brothers.
That's something the current philosophers hate, but most of them are idiots (my terminology) - ancient philosophers were also scientists, in their way. You would be hard-pressed to find an ancient philosopher who wrote with such ignorance of his days mathematics, physics, etc. as todays philosophists do.
Science isn't failing us. That is is is the first claim that needs to be proven, long, long before you can get to any "why"s.
And the article hasn't. In fact, the very introduction shows science well at work, not failing. Only if you have such a limited definition of science that blackboards and notebooks are science, but trials and studies are not, then you could come to that conclusion. And nobody outside Hogwash University holds that view.
Hm, true. When you're a school-kid you are short on money, and have plenty of time. When you're adult it kind of reverses. Hadn't thought of that.
and tend to only show phones they think might sell.
No, seriously? So, if you strip away all the bullshit bingo words and the nonsensical attitude, the basic message is: "We know nobody wants this crap." ?
Wow. Talk about crash & burn. Nokia is so finished, it really is a shame. They used to make nice phones once.
Very informative, thanks.
There is one question that I have in my mind after reading this: Isn't the real problem that these games are back in the store after a week? I mean, what kind of games are that? From the games that I bought, maybe one or two would've suffered that fate, simply because they were utterly horrible.
exactly.
http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Door-in-the-Face%20Technique
Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals
It's a strategy. These guys have been playing politics far longer than any of us. Starting with something far beyond even your own maximum target is a good way to get almost everything you were really aiming for out of someone who is naive and aims for a compromise solution.
It even has a name, it's called the "door in the face" technique.
If you know it, you see it at works in politics pretty much all the time. In fact, I see it over here (Germany) so often that I'm beginning to wonder if they teach anything else in whatever newly elected representatives are getting in training.
No, they aren't skills, they are disabilities.
Lots and lots of people claim that they are good at multi-tasking. Study after study proves them all wrong - humans are horrible at multi-tasking. What we are excellent in is fooling ourselves with regards to our abilities.
Way to kill an excellent concept, MicroIdiots!
Voice control largely failed because nobody wanted to be caught dead talking to his computer and it just doesn't work at all in office environments.
Putting gesture control into notebooks must have been the winner of the "stupid idea of the year" contest, and for some reason it got mixed up with the actual product plan.
Seriously, on a train, in the airport lounge, on the airplane - that's when you really wish your notebook had gesture controls, right? And when you pitch your product to your business partners and give a crucial presentation, that's exactly the moment where you want to rely on more-or-less reliable gesture controls instead of a mouse or keyboard click or remote control.
Totally. The only place dumber than notebooks would've been the Zune.
What makes you think you have to run all the new crap someone creates?
Because the crap I now use is a full Unix system with a UI that was 5-10 years ahead of anything I found on Linux when I switched, and probably still around that much.
One of the best things about free software is choice.
Choice isn't limited to Free Software.
I'm a huge fan of Free Software. But thinking everything good only happens there is ideological fanatism.
Don't give these fucktards exposure. We (i.e. the sentient, non-scammer people on this world) all wish they would die off, and quickly. You think you do a good think by ridiculing them, but you don't.
Twitter-level knowledge does not entitle one to spread bullshit around.
You are talking about Â86 StGB, though you've almost certainly never heard about nor read it.
There is extensive literature on the reasoning behind, the legality of and the exceptions allowed by this Â. It is not that the shape is illegal. In fact, to this day you find the symbol in all kinds of places, embedded in architecture and the like. No one has ever gone to clean it up. It is also in public display at museums, in history books, etc. etc. etc.
But, you know, we kind of felt like not wanting to have the symbols of an evil cult that caused the death of some 50 mio. or so people around. The guys who wrote the law knew about trolls even though the Internet wasn't yet invented.
It's a good law and very few people inside Germany would want it removed. And to the best of my knowledge, nobody who isn't a Nazi has ever been convicted on it.
Oh, and before you start the usual bullshit about how the USA is so much better and has Free Speech, you should know one more detail about german history: Those early laws of the modern Germany were written shortly after the war, and were massively influenced by the Allies, mostly the Americans.
User training is absolutely necessary, as are better interfaces and a lot of other improvements.
Learning to code is not one of them. Whoever came up with that is of the same mindset of the fucktards who thought every kid must learn to play an instrument. One size does not fit all, and you are doing tremendous damage.
Anecdotal evidence: I could've been a musician - I love music, and have an excellent sense of rhythm, and I self-taught several instruments recently - but the fact that I had to learn some kid-instrument when I was nowhere ready nor felt the desire to do so made me hate any and all of it for years.
Same thing with programming. You will breed a whole generation of people who loathe programming, think they know all about it, and thus loathe and look down upon the people who do it for a living.
Unfortunately, it isn't. Well, at least not on my (german) keyboard. In FF this opens up the FF help, in iCal and others it opens up the help interface, but not the help menu, etc.
I agree completely. I didn't mean to blame anyone in particular, if the choice of words was off, my apologies (english isn't my 1st language).
Agreed. It's fashionable to decry any new UI ideas as stupid.
That is because they usually are.
If you make the claim that your UI is better than the old one (and if it isn't, then why make it?), then the burden of proof is on you. And you don't prove being better by putting it into your distro. You prove it by doing user tests and studies.
We insist on evidence when someone comes along claiming to speak with the dead, or doubts global warming, or believes in creationism - but really coming up with a new encryption scheme or UI idea isn't all that different - you make a claim, show me the evidence or fuck off.
Unfortunately, it doesn't have a hotkey. It would be incredibly useful if it had.
Reading stuff like that is making me happy I left the Linux-on-the-desktop world years ago.
Where is the research showing that menus are bad and the studies proving this new system is better? Everything else is just geeks doing mental masturbation. Unless you have a seizable number of actual user tests, you are a fucking idiot to put a massive change in user interface into production.
Experiments are cool, and needed to move forward. Don't get me wrong. And as someone who is in love with Quicksilver, this is absolutely an interesting approach.
But you are still a fucking idiot if you confuse "interesting idea" with "ready for production just because we've finished the code".
Don't test UI ideas on your users. As long as you do that, Linux will never be ready for the desktop, because non-geek users hate that.
That has nothing to do with programming and a lot with user training.
The problem with computers is that people list "Excel" in their skill list if they've seen it twice and figured out how to load and save.
Knowing how to use tools is absolutely not the same thing as knowing how to build them. I can drive perfectly well without having to know how an engine works.
If this is a job that needs to be done over and over and over, it is worth investing the time.
If It's a one-time or irregular job, some coder hacking up a script in a few hours that can handle 90% of the cases with the secretary doing the fails and fringe cases manually would still save time.
The failure of the geek: Wants to automate everything
The failure of the manager: Mistrusts automation so he wants everything done by hand
That's why usually the 80% solution is the optimal solution.