You seem to be confusing free market with communism or some other economic system where everyone shares the wealth and savings are passed on to all citizens in a society. Then you find this egalitarian cost distribution to be lacking, and claim this is a defect in free market, which you mis-identified with some other market system? What ???
This is science fiction. Nothing I've seen in my experience indicates machines are poised to make better decisions in all cases. The reason is that machines using the few dozen or so known natural deductive laws that valid thought obeys, still have to test each case iteratively (does this law lead to conclusion C? no, does the next?). So far they don't have the magic "intuitition" that enables humans to skip the first 12 deductive law tests (for example), and generate a possible solution, before a practical line of reasoning has even been devised, verified and validated.
I'm not talking about machines planning to test hypothesis, either; or pattern matching; I'm talking about how machines use logic to deduce and verify consequences. Inference and implication is not something machines do so well.Humans somehow can do it the other way around, start with a consequence, and find the necessary chain of logic later (the so-called "philosopher's stone" of pragmatic philosophy sought by astronomers and mathematicians in the first half of the 20th century). We've been trying to make computers write code for what, now? Thirty, forty years? Why can't they do it? This is why.
Besides, I know of hardly *a few* linguists and logicians/computer scientists trying to bridge this gap between man and machine, and give machines the magic wand of intuition; until it becomes a major focus, I'm confident humans will continue to out-compete machines in at least quality and ingenuity of solutions - even if not number, quantity and expense of solutions.
The nice thing is that its result is not just spat out of a black box--it gives a pretty accurate confidence measure, and actually links back to the articles that led it to each conclusion.
I'm trying to imagine the scenarios in which a doctor would be forced to resort to using a sophisticated computer to diagnose a patient with cancer, but if he doesn't have the time to refer to a good oncologist, what makes you think the doctor has the time, or is even qualified to understand, the articles in question, so that by referring to them personally the doctor could confirm the diagnosis? Look, I KNOW my family practitioner doesn't have the specialized training to catch cancer. I KNOW that reading articles and reviewing billing practices (a terrible metric if you think about it) would lend any sort of qualified expertise. So, I really, really have doubts that a computer database - no matter how spectacular the algorithm behind the "information compiling" may be - is a better resource than my ignorant family practitioner.
All it takes is one false negative in a case where an oncologist could have made a positive diagnosis, and it proves relying on the computer is unsafe. Are they going to put it through 900 rigorous trials like I just described? Would you trust your wife or daughter's illness to Watson if they don't? Even if they do?
Not sure what the discussion of climate science has to do with the discovery of a diamond planet, except clearly the author is bitter about how the public has scrutinized climate science. Yes, the "method" of science is similar in the disciplines of astrology and climate science - in general - but not even close in practice. Yes, the public has not widely adopted what the majority of scientists believe about global warming (and what the majority of scientists believe depends on which scientist you ask!) But so what? There's good reasons for that.
This whole "If you're not a scientist, then you can't possibly disagree with what a scientist says" mantra is getting really old. It's wrong. Regardless where I stand on man-made global warming, no matter what, scientists and science are not infallible. I don't blindly have to accept whatever Mr. Scientist lists as absolute fact just because I have no degree. More importantly, statistical methods and conclusions from correlated data (as in the global warming debate) just DON'T carry the same logical force as objective, emperical, experimental science - they couldn't possibly.
Besides, the author ignores the fact that the public and media scrutinity occurred because scientists themselves can't agree on the facts. Either side you look at is calling the other side straight up bad scientists. Fake scientists. Or they'll ignore that the other side has scientists at all and say "oh, it's just news pundits and politicians who don't know anything saying we're wrong". However, the media for the most part simply framed debates occurring within the realm of science itself. Scientist vs. scientist, not Stupid Joe Plumber vs. Scientist. Sorry, but scientists brought this one on themselves, and lashing out by calling the public clueless mental midgets like this jerk in the article suggests we've been, that's not going to help you out.
They have those laptops that run Windows, that the screen flips around essentially becoming a basically heavy tablet (but you can use a stylus which is cool). I see those things all the time carried around by doctors in the three hospitals in my area. Whenever they sit down, they'll flip the screen back around and voila, it's a regular laptop again.
So if it spawns touch-screen laptops, andyou're worried about gorrilla arm syndrome, well, I guess they already have a solution for that.
Subscription? To an OS? LOL SoaaS hype flashback to 2008. Ugh. No, you're wrong, that modeld does not attract users, that's why that buzzword doesn't float around much anymore.
That default start screen featured in the article - that's not what they expect me to use on my Desktop is it??
On a small device that looks fine. (I see the little "Desktop" tile... I hope there are multiple desktops....) But on a big screen, on a PC, it looks like an "e-business website template" circa 1995. Something you'd expect to find in a Photoshop 6.0 book, under a section about layer slicing for the web. It would be a horrible UI on the desktop or laptop computer.
Even if it is, I sure hope no public funds go towards this colossal waste of time and money. Federal funds go to this, and I sure damn well better get some use out of it myself./Taxpayer
They've known for a long time that Adderall (specifically its dextro-amp component) is mutagenic, especially if taken before, during, and shortly after puberty; they've known the changes in nucleic acid sequences accounting for this have to do with noradrenaline and associated compounds (pre-metabolites, synthesis, etc). To make matters worse the damage is passed on to offspring. Adderall babies will be an interesting problem in upcoming years.
Disclaimer: I am a gravitational theorist. I think gravity ISN'T entropic. However this paper is nowhere near sufficient to show that. I'd wait a LOT longer for the dust to settle on this one before making a strong statement one way or the other.
You can determine that by reading it? I can't imagine what complexities are involved, but how long did you spend on the paper, and also are there gravitational, like... experimentalists? You know, guys who take these theories and do experiments?
Just what we need, more sites spewing out poorly-designed client-side script badly rendered by any number of JS browser implementations. Like many others, I do everything possible to block JS...why does anyone think the future lies in more client-side code?
While I agree that client-side code is not the proper direction for web focus (it amounts to circumventing doc structure standards with a scripting standard to do things neither standard planned for, the habit of doing this is REALLY why we have "Web Development Language/System of the Day")... I don't know how Opa determines its JS output, and though my glance through the documentation turned up nothing, I imagine its claim to being transparent means there might be some control to what quality of JS is output.
While I am currently merrily digging into its grammar and the more technical details of the language itself, I don't really want to mess around with this language platform, though, because its "integration" of database, server, and client side means a nightmare for development when you traditionally have database team, design team, server-side team, etc. this puts all the eggs into one basket, how do you manage that? This sounds like it'd requiere a whole change in the development methodologies and programming practices, or would only be adopted by cowboy programmers working for small outfits. Our brains can only hold so much information, and getting familiar to this "language" would displace more practical knowledge. Where are the white papers, case studies, best practices, cost analysis, migration analysis... ? The things that would motivate the business minded to adopt, you know?
If you have to walk around with your digital content in order to get work done, something is really wrong with your company's IT decisions. Where my wife works they share their autocad files over a network. An e-mail or IM avoids a walk upstairs; and clients either remote connect or come to the offices. If you're just walking around with your work files because you need to be able to access them 24/7, then I would suggest the utility of the iPad owes more to you not having a social life and less to you having a legitimate use of it. You probably do 30X more productive work than your co-workers because you put in 30X the time.
An app isn't a marketing gimmick... back in the day, we used to call it 'software'. The world as a web page? Now there's something which has made for more crappy (and slow) software than you can think of.
Apps really are just marketing gimmicks. There's no reason for the most part the majority of apps can't simply be offered as a web page, other than to charge money. Half the apps my friends use, I can do the same and better for free by opening my web browser.
Many of the claims here about tablet adoption in professional practice seem dubious. Unrealistic anectdotes from tablet manufacturers/designers perhaps?
Uhhh... What part of the medical industry are we talking here? Do you work with sensitive and confidential medical records on a device and platform that are increasingly known to be vulnerable to security threats? One that is notoriously under protected against these threats? Or are you working with research data that your employer really wouldn't want leaked? I somehow doubt that your IT approved the risk of using a Xoom to do anything important with medical records. Admit it, your post was an advertisement.
I agree. They are pretty much useless to anyone who wants to do anything... useful... with a computing machine. It's straight up a bad design, a physically inefficient means for input, viewing and interaction. In nature, inefficient organisms don't usually out-compete more obviously efficient organisms; I don't think the mobile computer market differs in that respect. Tablet fever has to die down because they're simply not that good at doing things we all use computers to do. Better, cheaper alternatives exist. Hype and envy alone won't drive this market into the future.
Are you encouraging Anonymous attacks RealNetworks in response to their litigation? I fail to see how greenlighting the last part of the post does not imply an endorsement of the submitter's apparent disappointment about the lack of Anonymous intervention...
FTA: "We are writing these things that we can no longer read,"... "We've rendered something illegible. And we've lost the sense of what's actually happening in this world we've made."
So? If you documented your design process, requirements gathering, and especially your code, etc. then you have something other than "the algorithm" to refer to for sense in these matters.
I really don't get what this article is about. Are they saying that A series of steps to accomplish a goal are taking over daily tasks? Haven't this always been the case? And just because a bunch of people make some algorithms that suck, doesn't mean that successful and truly useful algorithms shouldn't become automated by computers whenever possible. Are these the kind of people who freak out when someone uses a calculator to do arithmetic, because it is a black box simplifying computation humans should otherwise be able to do?
The article can be summarized like this: A lot of algorithms suck, and don't work, and many algorithms' programming code implementations are too complex to apprehend when read by humans.
Why even bother with a theology you must admit contains errors? Which part of the Bible contains the facts, and which doesn't? And if you don't know, then what's the point of your faith? Only when it apparently contradicts science you can reject a doctrine, or what is the verification principle at play here for these "Christian" "scientists".
Notice I'm not coming out in favor or against either science or religion here. I'm pointing out, I think these people are nothing more than deep-cover atheists. Their entire movement hinges on reconciling contradictions, by discarding the one assertion (religious dogma) in favor of the other (science), and then claiming the religion saved - which is at worst, a willful deceit, at best (I'm being charitable here) a collosal failure in the history of all rationality, and casts their ability to do logical inquiry into doubt. Neither alternative makes me willing to trust them.
Uh, no, I don't think it's a violation of free speech. Violation of freedom of association, maybe. But the courts don't believe the latter is a constitutional guarantee in all cases (for instance, they can order convicted criminals not to associate, even after incarceration)
I'm sure you're a troll, but let me also point out what was wrong with the ruling. The judges decided that the teacher couldn't be sued for hostile religious remarks, because no law has been created making it clear what remarks constitute religious establishment, and moreover no court cases have been decided which make the division between religious and non-religious remarks clear.
In effect, the judges are saying:
1) "We can't decide if this violates the first amendment, because no law has been passed stating this violates the first amendment."
2) "We can't make a ruling whether this violates the first amendment, because there has been no ruling stating this violates the first amendment."
Problem with 1) is yes there has been a law passed, it's called the First Amendment!. Problem with 2) is, it amounts to preventing judicial precedent ever. The court can't set precedent because no precedent has been set? Wtf is that?
Note that NOTHING I HAVE SAID supports Creationism, Christianity, spaghetti monsters, or detracts from science. In consideration of my views, notice they are restricted in scope to the legal ruling, and nothing else. Don't go associating me with creationists by virtue of the fact I disagree with the ruling for technical reasons.
Look guys, the point isn't whether teachers are liable for teaching perceived truth, i.e. stating "God does not exist" vs. "God does exist". The First Amendment doesn't say government is permitted to take a side on religious issues when it aligns itself with perceived truth (at one time perceived truth was "God exists", remember?) the First Amendment is that government must have no opinion whatsoever.
And for those of you who think this is a science vs. religious issue, bear in mind that religion is outside the scope of science. No hypothesis can be tested that asserts "Adam and Eve were not created by God in six days". No way you can test that. No scientific method can verify it. Thus, any claim to that, has nothing to do with science. Sure, you can argue on the side of "default belief" and "apparent evolution" and what-not, but those are not experiments, those are not scientifically rigorous arguments, they are just philosophical asides. Stating "God does not exist" is not an exercise in science, it is in fact an exercise in religious discourse.
While I am at work, and talking to someone I prefer not to talk to, I reach into my pocket and speed dial my direct extension, the speed dial begins with the "block ID" code. I then answer professionally and say something like, "I suppose I can look into it for you. Oh, you need it now? This could take some time".
I do this once a week at least. *shamed*
and like mat catastrophe I have also had people call me to get out of a situation. Or I've rang myself with another phone while on the line, so they could hear the call waiting blips, knowing that when I say "I have another call" and switch over, I'm not just muting the phone.
I'm a computer programmer. I'm NOT people person.... only thing is I am not rude to anyone's face at any time (unless justifiably aggravated, i.e. by a girlfriend's conniving, interfering family member...) so people generally like me and THINK I'm not socially retarded. What they don't know is that I prefer to have very few people in my life.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be confusing free market with communism or some other economic system where everyone shares the wealth and savings are passed on to all citizens in a society. Then you find this egalitarian cost distribution to be lacking, and claim this is a defect in free market, which you mis-identified with some other market system? What ???
This is science fiction. Nothing I've seen in my experience indicates machines are poised to make better decisions in all cases. The reason is that machines using the few dozen or so known natural deductive laws that valid thought obeys, still have to test each case iteratively (does this law lead to conclusion C? no, does the next?). So far they don't have the magic "intuitition" that enables humans to skip the first 12 deductive law tests (for example), and generate a possible solution, before a practical line of reasoning has even been devised, verified and validated.
I'm not talking about machines planning to test hypothesis, either; or pattern matching; I'm talking about how machines use logic to deduce and verify consequences. Inference and implication is not something machines do so well.Humans somehow can do it the other way around, start with a consequence, and find the necessary chain of logic later (the so-called "philosopher's stone" of pragmatic philosophy sought by astronomers and mathematicians in the first half of the 20th century). We've been trying to make computers write code for what, now? Thirty, forty years? Why can't they do it? This is why.
Besides, I know of hardly *a few* linguists and logicians/computer scientists trying to bridge this gap between man and machine, and give machines the magic wand of intuition; until it becomes a major focus, I'm confident humans will continue to out-compete machines in at least quality and ingenuity of solutions - even if not number, quantity and expense of solutions.
Now I am a huge Microsoft fan, but North Korea, just about all your comments read like adverts for MS development tools. Just sayin' is all.
The nice thing is that its result is not just spat out of a black box--it gives a pretty accurate confidence measure, and actually links back to the articles that led it to each conclusion.
I'm trying to imagine the scenarios in which a doctor would be forced to resort to using a sophisticated computer to diagnose a patient with cancer, but if he doesn't have the time to refer to a good oncologist, what makes you think the doctor has the time, or is even qualified to understand, the articles in question, so that by referring to them personally the doctor could confirm the diagnosis? Look, I KNOW my family practitioner doesn't have the specialized training to catch cancer. I KNOW that reading articles and reviewing billing practices (a terrible metric if you think about it) would lend any sort of qualified expertise. So, I really, really have doubts that a computer database - no matter how spectacular the algorithm behind the "information compiling" may be - is a better resource than my ignorant family practitioner.
All it takes is one false negative in a case where an oncologist could have made a positive diagnosis, and it proves relying on the computer is unsafe. Are they going to put it through 900 rigorous trials like I just described? Would you trust your wife or daughter's illness to Watson if they don't? Even if they do?
Not sure what the discussion of climate science has to do with the discovery of a diamond planet, except clearly the author is bitter about how the public has scrutinized climate science. Yes, the "method" of science is similar in the disciplines of astrology and climate science - in general - but not even close in practice. Yes, the public has not widely adopted what the majority of scientists believe about global warming (and what the majority of scientists believe depends on which scientist you ask!) But so what? There's good reasons for that.
This whole "If you're not a scientist, then you can't possibly disagree with what a scientist says" mantra is getting really old. It's wrong. Regardless where I stand on man-made global warming, no matter what, scientists and science are not infallible. I don't blindly have to accept whatever Mr. Scientist lists as absolute fact just because I have no degree. More importantly, statistical methods and conclusions from correlated data (as in the global warming debate) just DON'T carry the same logical force as objective, emperical, experimental science - they couldn't possibly.
Besides, the author ignores the fact that the public and media scrutinity occurred because scientists themselves can't agree on the facts. Either side you look at is calling the other side straight up bad scientists. Fake scientists. Or they'll ignore that the other side has scientists at all and say "oh, it's just news pundits and politicians who don't know anything saying we're wrong". However, the media for the most part simply framed debates occurring within the realm of science itself. Scientist vs. scientist, not Stupid Joe Plumber vs. Scientist. Sorry, but scientists brought this one on themselves, and lashing out by calling the public clueless mental midgets like this jerk in the article suggests we've been, that's not going to help you out.
Sounds like this post was created by Markov chain/ Dissociated press or something else. Mark V. Shaney strikes Slashdot?
They have those laptops that run Windows, that the screen flips around essentially becoming a basically heavy tablet (but you can use a stylus which is cool). I see those things all the time carried around by doctors in the three hospitals in my area. Whenever they sit down, they'll flip the screen back around and voila, it's a regular laptop again. So if it spawns touch-screen laptops, andyou're worried about gorrilla arm syndrome, well, I guess they already have a solution for that.
Subscription? To an OS? LOL SoaaS hype flashback to 2008. Ugh. No, you're wrong, that modeld does not attract users, that's why that buzzword doesn't float around much anymore.
That default start screen featured in the article - that's not what they expect me to use on my Desktop is it??
On a small device that looks fine. (I see the little "Desktop" tile... I hope there are multiple desktops....) But on a big screen, on a PC, it looks like an "e-business website template" circa 1995. Something you'd expect to find in a Photoshop 6.0 book, under a section about layer slicing for the web. It would be a horrible UI on the desktop or laptop computer.
Even if it is, I sure hope no public funds go towards this colossal waste of time and money. Federal funds go to this, and I sure damn well better get some use out of it myself. /Taxpayer
They've known for a long time that Adderall (specifically its dextro-amp component) is mutagenic, especially if taken before, during, and shortly after puberty; they've known the changes in nucleic acid sequences accounting for this have to do with noradrenaline and associated compounds (pre-metabolites, synthesis, etc). To make matters worse the damage is passed on to offspring. Adderall babies will be an interesting problem in upcoming years.
Disclaimer: I am a gravitational theorist. I think gravity ISN'T entropic. However this paper is nowhere near sufficient to show that. I'd wait a LOT longer for the dust to settle on this one before making a strong statement one way or the other.
You can determine that by reading it? I can't imagine what complexities are involved, but how long did you spend on the paper, and also are there gravitational, like... experimentalists? You know, guys who take these theories and do experiments?
Just what we need, more sites spewing out poorly-designed client-side script badly rendered by any number of JS browser implementations. Like many others, I do everything possible to block JS...why does anyone think the future lies in more client-side code?
While I agree that client-side code is not the proper direction for web focus (it amounts to circumventing doc structure standards with a scripting standard to do things neither standard planned for, the habit of doing this is REALLY why we have "Web Development Language/System of the Day") ... I don't know how Opa determines its JS output, and though my glance through the documentation turned up nothing, I imagine its claim to being transparent means there might be some control to what quality of JS is output.
While I am currently merrily digging into its grammar and the more technical details of the language itself, I don't really want to mess around with this language platform, though, because its "integration" of database, server, and client side means a nightmare for development when you traditionally have database team, design team, server-side team, etc. this puts all the eggs into one basket, how do you manage that? This sounds like it'd requiere a whole change in the development methodologies and programming practices, or would only be adopted by cowboy programmers working for small outfits. Our brains can only hold so much information, and getting familiar to this "language" would displace more practical knowledge. Where are the white papers, case studies, best practices, cost analysis, migration analysis... ? The things that would motivate the business minded to adopt, you know?
If you have to walk around with your digital content in order to get work done, something is really wrong with your company's IT decisions. Where my wife works they share their autocad files over a network. An e-mail or IM avoids a walk upstairs; and clients either remote connect or come to the offices. If you're just walking around with your work files because you need to be able to access them 24/7, then I would suggest the utility of the iPad owes more to you not having a social life and less to you having a legitimate use of it. You probably do 30X more productive work than your co-workers because you put in 30X the time.
An app isn't a marketing gimmick ... back in the day, we used to call it 'software'. The world as a web page? Now there's something which has made for more crappy (and slow) software than you can think of.
Apps really are just marketing gimmicks. There's no reason for the most part the majority of apps can't simply be offered as a web page, other than to charge money. Half the apps my friends use, I can do the same and better for free by opening my web browser.
Many of the claims here about tablet adoption in professional practice seem dubious. Unrealistic anectdotes from tablet manufacturers/designers perhaps?
Uhhh... What part of the medical industry are we talking here? Do you work with sensitive and confidential medical records on a device and platform that are increasingly known to be vulnerable to security threats? One that is notoriously under protected against these threats? Or are you working with research data that your employer really wouldn't want leaked? I somehow doubt that your IT approved the risk of using a Xoom to do anything important with medical records. Admit it, your post was an advertisement.
I agree. They are pretty much useless to anyone who wants to do anything... useful... with a computing machine. It's straight up a bad design, a physically inefficient means for input, viewing and interaction. In nature, inefficient organisms don't usually out-compete more obviously efficient organisms; I don't think the mobile computer market differs in that respect. Tablet fever has to die down because they're simply not that good at doing things we all use computers to do. Better, cheaper alternatives exist. Hype and envy alone won't drive this market into the future.
Are you encouraging Anonymous attacks RealNetworks in response to their litigation? I fail to see how greenlighting the last part of the post does not imply an endorsement of the submitter's apparent disappointment about the lack of Anonymous intervention...
FTA: "We are writing these things that we can no longer read," ... "We've rendered something illegible. And we've lost the sense of what's actually happening in this world we've made."
So? If you documented your design process, requirements gathering, and especially your code, etc. then you have something other than "the algorithm" to refer to for sense in these matters.
I really don't get what this article is about. Are they saying that A series of steps to accomplish a goal are taking over daily tasks? Haven't this always been the case? And just because a bunch of people make some algorithms that suck, doesn't mean that successful and truly useful algorithms shouldn't become automated by computers whenever possible. Are these the kind of people who freak out when someone uses a calculator to do arithmetic, because it is a black box simplifying computation humans should otherwise be able to do?
The article can be summarized like this: A lot of algorithms suck, and don't work, and many algorithms' programming code implementations are too complex to apprehend when read by humans.
We've known this since we invented the computer.
Why even bother with a theology you must admit contains errors? Which part of the Bible contains the facts, and which doesn't? And if you don't know, then what's the point of your faith? Only when it apparently contradicts science you can reject a doctrine, or what is the verification principle at play here for these "Christian" "scientists".
Notice I'm not coming out in favor or against either science or religion here. I'm pointing out, I think these people are nothing more than deep-cover atheists. Their entire movement hinges on reconciling contradictions, by discarding the one assertion (religious dogma) in favor of the other (science), and then claiming the religion saved - which is at worst, a willful deceit, at best (I'm being charitable here) a collosal failure in the history of all rationality, and casts their ability to do logical inquiry into doubt. Neither alternative makes me willing to trust them.
Uh, no, I don't think it's a violation of free speech. Violation of freedom of association, maybe. But the courts don't believe the latter is a constitutional guarantee in all cases (for instance, they can order convicted criminals not to associate, even after incarceration)
I'm sure you're a troll, but let me also point out what was wrong with the ruling. The judges decided that the teacher couldn't be sued for hostile religious remarks, because no law has been created making it clear what remarks constitute religious establishment, and moreover no court cases have been decided which make the division between religious and non-religious remarks clear.
In effect, the judges are saying:
1) "We can't decide if this violates the first amendment, because no law has been passed stating this violates the first amendment."
2) "We can't make a ruling whether this violates the first amendment, because there has been no ruling stating this violates the first amendment."
Problem with 1) is yes there has been a law passed, it's called the First Amendment!. Problem with 2) is, it amounts to preventing judicial precedent ever. The court can't set precedent because no precedent has been set? Wtf is that?
Note that NOTHING I HAVE SAID supports Creationism, Christianity, spaghetti monsters, or detracts from science. In consideration of my views, notice they are restricted in scope to the legal ruling, and nothing else. Don't go associating me with creationists by virtue of the fact I disagree with the ruling for technical reasons.
Look guys, the point isn't whether teachers are liable for teaching perceived truth, i.e. stating "God does not exist" vs. "God does exist". The First Amendment doesn't say government is permitted to take a side on religious issues when it aligns itself with perceived truth (at one time perceived truth was "God exists", remember?) the First Amendment is that government must have no opinion whatsoever.
And for those of you who think this is a science vs. religious issue, bear in mind that religion is outside the scope of science. No hypothesis can be tested that asserts "Adam and Eve were not created by God in six days". No way you can test that. No scientific method can verify it. Thus, any claim to that, has nothing to do with science. Sure, you can argue on the side of "default belief" and "apparent evolution" and what-not, but those are not experiments, those are not scientifically rigorous arguments, they are just philosophical asides. Stating "God does not exist" is not an exercise in science, it is in fact an exercise in religious discourse.
While I am at work, and talking to someone I prefer not to talk to, I reach into my pocket and speed dial my direct extension, the speed dial begins with the "block ID" code. I then answer professionally and say something like, "I suppose I can look into it for you. Oh, you need it now? This could take some time".
I do this once a week at least. *shamed*
and like mat catastrophe I have also had people call me to get out of a situation. Or I've rang myself with another phone while on the line, so they could hear the call waiting blips, knowing that when I say "I have another call" and switch over, I'm not just muting the phone.
I'm a computer programmer. I'm NOT people person.... only thing is I am not rude to anyone's face at any time (unless justifiably aggravated, i.e. by a girlfriend's conniving, interfering family member...) so people generally like me and THINK I'm not socially retarded. What they don't know is that I prefer to have very few people in my life.