Comment Re:What does "breaking bad" mean? (Score 1) 38
It means to speak or act without restraint: "Man, I really broke bad last night
It means to speak or act without restraint: "Man, I really broke bad last night
I had a Sony Ericsson J300A phone at one point. It was tiny little thing, but fast for the time. Despite the tiny display, it was fine for catching up on the news and other light browsing tasks.
Of course, back then, having a "mobile site" meant something completely different than it does today. I can see the Apple Watch being fine for mobile web use in 2005.
Really? You're going to link to a personal website of a
No. I linked to that site because it had a very simple explanation. I thought would be suitable for you as you're clearly unfamiliar with the subject. It would seem we're having two very different discussions.
If you really don't like the link, do a Google search. As I've said before, this is not controversial. Kuhn wrote about this at length in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as has Hempel in Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Most famously, of course, is Hanson in Patterns of Discovery.
Sigh... I doubt this with help you at all, but it's worth a try. This is the simplest summary I could find:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb...
I can suggest additional topics and readings, though I don't think you're actually interested.
The problem with autodidacts is that they tend to focus only on a few small areas, ignoring ancillary topics they find uninteresting or to lessen the importance of topics they find difficult or that challenge their preconceptions.
I think I'll stick with a proper formal education. For obvious reasons.
As far as "basic science" goes, you don't even have a theory before you do the experiment.
Wow, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
I don't even know where to begin explaining basic science to someone so hopelessly misguided. I'd normally suggest some readings to clarify some misconception, but I can't even begin to guess how you came to such an absurd understanding.
It is rather LOL-funny the beliefs of the Sciencey Slashdotters.
I don't find it funny at all. It makes me very sad. Non-credentialed science cheerleaders, like yourself, have done little other than harm to the public understanding of science.
You're causing harm. Please stop.
No, the experiment is the free-standing truth
I'm sorry, but that's simply delusional. All observation is theory-dependent. This is not controversial, it's basic science.
but the truth, the outcome of an experiment, remains untouched by this process
You're forgetting that what you're calling "truth" is theory-dependent.
I understand that the fact that science does not deal in truth is deeply uncomfortable, particularly for non-scientists. It is not intended as a criticism, it's just reality. Further, that fact does not (in any way) diminish science. What is harmful, however, is confusing what science is with what we want it to be. Those sorts of beliefs breed dogma, which (as we've seen) hinders the progress of science.
Unfortunately, it can't seem to maintain compatibility between minor versions, it's syntax is so fundamentally broken that anonymous functions were crippled, and only in the less-popular new versions does something as basic as the print function usable.
The world was better off with VB.
So you believe that causing harm to others, merely for the pleasure of causing harm, is ethical?
You're going to have a difficult time getting anyone to agree with that.
Because you apparently haven't read the post to which you replied, I'll quote it here:
You know, as well as I do, that it's the intention, not the action, that's relevant here.
That's so racist! Not all undocumented extraterrestrial immigrants are Martians, neither are all Martian immigrants undocumented.
Really?
Come on. You know, as well as I do, that it's the intention, not the action, that's relevant here.
Okay, then no one is a programmer because what they do doesn't cross my imaginary demarcation line! You've convinced me. There are no programmers!
I've taught plenty of intro programming classes. You're likely just a terrible instructor. I've not found a single student that was incapable.
. About a third of the population is simply incapable of abstract reasoning.
Citation needed. What backwater pay-to-publish journal did you find someone that denies that 1/3 of the population fails to reach the the formal operational stage of development?
If you think otherwise, I invite you to come to my house, and I will give you a free dinner while you explain "vectors" to my 15 year old daughter. Good luck with that.
I have a few teaching tricks I've picked-up for that. I have little doubt I could teach your otherwise normal child the basics of vectors in an evening. Well, at least well enough to get her through calc.
Teaching, like programming, is a skill. If you want to better help her, do some reading on formative assessment.
How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz