Comment Re:why would I write to that? (Score 2) 187
Contrasted with Java which is a kitchen sink language also but has a whole in it to helpfully keep it from filling up with usefulness.
It's the rabid extreme right wing bigots, racists, elitists and misogynists who moan most about people trying to censor them when they read a comment critical of their ramblings.
The [string of ad hominems]s here are a larger group of people who are tired of being labeled [string of ad hominems] because they don't think you alone should be able to declare who deserves "mutual respect" and "tolerance" and who doesn't. Nor that you should be the arbiter of whose ramblings deserve criticisms (not your own of course!) Apparently you think a lot of things deserve to be insulted (not too respectful really) including being "right wing".
Never have I seen such a succinct example of why people get annoyed with what has now become known as "SJW". "I'm just a morally superlative person that believe in mutual respect and you're a dumb, horrible [string of insults] that does nothing but ramble." Brilliant.
... nor did i say that men and women are not different biologically.
No but you did say that thinking these biological differences might cause, you know, differences was ignorant. And that's just a flat out stupid thing to say.
the key is that those difference do not extend to our brains.
Yeah, yeah they do. I mean you can keep repeating that but it makes it about as true as a creationist saying evolution is wrong.
i never said society is evil
No sweat- I was just mocking you.
you get a fail for reading comprehension and logic.
Excuse while I put little weight in the grading of comprehension and logic from someone that believes thinking biological differences could cause differences is ignorant of biology. Seriously- I find the fact that that train of thought could exist in someone's head fascinating.
Girls may like pink because it is associated with "girly" things but that in no way proves or indicates that they like girly things because they are "taught" to. Things are considered girly because girls tend to like them. Colours are a fashionable thing and preferences tend to change seasonally. So you are right to state that there is little reason to think colour choice is strongly influenced by biology. Congrats but that would be a red-herring in the discussion of sexual dimorphism.
Biologically there is considerable sexual dimorphism in almost all primates including their behaviour. Humans are included in this group. Claiming that biology cannot influence differences in the way boys/men and girls/women act is not just ignorant. It's flat out absurd.
That is not the naturalistic fallacy. "Fallacy" is not some word you can just throw around to feel smart. If the discussion is about whether someone/some group/some thing is naturally inclined to behave a certain way it is not a fallacy to posit that it may be natural.
But you go ahead and tell your daughters that liking princesses is bad and they aren't allowed to do it. You sound like a great parent. You should probably prevent them from listening to devil music too. Oh- and dancing with boys. That leads to kissing, nookie and being a house wife (which is super bad, just like liking princesses).
But daddy I like it!
That's a naturalistic fallacy brat! You will like what I tell you to like! Now tell your friends you can't come out to play because you have Knuth to read and big O drills. You will be a woman in tech.
Something changed around 2000 that affected the IT industry? But it was so stable and risk free around that time; I wonder what it could have been.
the notion that it is AT ALL biological is rooted in ignorance. Ignorance of biology
Men and women are biologically different. Stating that differences between the two can be biological in nature is not ignorance of biology. Asserting that any differences are absolutely not biological is ignorance of biology.
Consider that when pink first took on gender connotations,
Well doesn't that just prove that all differences between men and women are because evil society is forcing pink on women.
So how do you measure intelligence if not through IQ tests?
Realistically you don't. It is a hard enough job simply defining "intelligence" so without the parameters to define intelligence how can we objectively measure it? At best we can say that IQ is correlated with intelligence.
I'm not sure not selling phones is a good business plan for a company that was in the process of hemorrhaging market-share. Their drop had nothing to do with this move. If anything the countries in question saw an opportunity to pressure the weakened RIM at that time.
What kind of threat would that be anyway? "Won't sell us phones? Alright, our people will buy iPhones instead which already do what we want".
Who said that philosophers can't identify 'serious' philosophy? I
If they could then there would be some kind of metric. There are plenty of nonsensical and/or completely contradictory philosophies. There are reasons for this, of course. They all boil down to things being "unknowable" though. So philosophers cannot identify serious or "correct" philosophies.
For another, I don't see a problem with imagining that a "respectable" field would be one that you talk about with your friends.
If children were performing science on equal level with tenured professors then yeah I would say it is not exactly respectable. Likewise if my high conversations with friends are indistinguishable from serious topical discussion then it isn't the most respectable.
I guess everything could be defined as "philosophy", in much the same sense that anything can be defined as anything.
That was a complete non-sequitur. Science can be described using philosophy. You might be able to define science as a philosophy but saying science is philosophy is useless.
This whole conversation is about whether science was achieved by philosophy instead of in spite of it. Which you have agreed with. A few philosophers realized they couldn't get meaningful results using traditional philosophy and had to develop better methods. That they were classified as "philosophers" by the context of the time means science no more came from philosophy than it did from theology.
There is virtually no programming problem in a ruby application that makes me grumble because I "have to deal with it" or it will "take years to fix" because it's so easy to fix.
I'm going to have to assume that's because you've never seen Ruby used for anything more complicated than "display this html". Congrats on sounding like you work in a marketing department though. With your nice baseless assertions like:
When I learned that on the fly I could inject or replace a method in a core object at load time and in 3 lines of code solve a system wide problem no matter what design pattern, coding style, or good/bad architectural decision was made by a previous developer it pretty much changed my life as a programmer
I'm also not sure you should be allowed near anything more complicated that "display this html" with an attitude like that. The "bad architectural decisions made by previous developers" that people complain about are usually made by previous developers with that exact attitude.
Lack of organization and ad-hoc development rarely scales well.
the question of how you tell who is a "serious" philosopher, and whether there's such a thing as an "objective metric", is a question for philosophers.
That would be my point."You can't identify which of us is useful or "serious" that's up to us to decide but we can't". You have reduced a so-called "respectable" field into nothing better than what I engage in with my friends while passing left. Philosophy has its place but this current arrogant attitude of it being supremely important because everything can be technically defined as "philosophy" is exactly why it is currently useless.
Chemistry largely came from alchemy but it would be asinine to declare alchemy is an important or insightful field of study because of the gains from chemistry. Likewise it is asinine to claim gains from science as directly from philosophy. Sophistic arguments about how philosophy is an overarching discipline singularly important to everything are pointless.
And I know, there are people who think that philosophy is just a bunch of silly idiots arguing about nonsense that can't be proved or disproved. Ironically, those people are generally subscribing to a specific philosophic viewpoint, and not a very well thought out one.
Which is funny because that is exactly how you just defined it.
Philosophy is of extreme importance to philosophers but it takes a scientist to make anything useful or concrete out of it.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
