Comment Re:Wait, what?? (Score 1) 91
Wow, yeah—first-of-its-kind tech project running behind schedule. Hold the front pages.
I buy products based on price and usability, not 'cool'.
So do I. Which is why I bought an iPad. What makes you think they're incompatible with "cool"?
Apple is better than Android in terms of backwards compatibility.
Really? In the update from Android Honeycomb to ICS, I had a grand total of one app that had a problem. Every minor version update for iOS has killed at least two or three things for me, some of which are never actually fixed by their vendors.
...and your sample size of one user proves what, exactly?
And then the taxing part is plain and simply dumb. You can't control corporations, but that the government actively deters local production? That's like shooting yourself in the foot and wondering why it hurts.
It's likely a throwback to a (failed) attempt to bolster UK component manufacture that's now backfiring on us.
What a lot of people are missing (wilfully in many cases, I suspect) is that Apple aren't claiming any single element of their design, but the amalgamation of most or all aspects of it. They do not claim to own a shape, and there are any number of practical tablet designs incorporating rounded rectangles that Apple would make no claim to.
For the love of all that is sensible, you are maddeningly stupid.
No, you're just massively missing the point. That's your problem, not mine. As is your insistence on acting like a twat while you do it. The point is that science routinely produces non-intuitive results. Historically, innumerable dead-ends have been hit by those tripping over incorrect assumptions based on intuition. And no, science does not advance common sense. It advances learning. Common sense—i.e. that which is common to all—is independent of learning. It is what is all too often cited by those who are ignorant of the salient facts when trying to advance their agendas and beliefs, and what I am saying is that we'd be better off ignoring common sense in favour of actual facts.
That said, some comments on the rest of your response:
An apple will, in fact, fall faster than a leaf from the height of a tree (which is a pretty fucking short distance). See previous.
Sigh. But not because (and solely because) it's heavier. A grain of sand will likely fall faster than a leaf. A cannonball will likely fall at more-or-less the same rate as a pebble. Yet these facts were overlooked for centuries because common sense told us heavier == faster.
And on and on... there is a difference between common sense and religious asshattery. Stop ascribing the results of the latter to the former.
Sorry, but you've got it bass-ackwards. Where did the asshattery come from? Common sense explained the world as it saw it, in terms of gods and monsters, and it took a series of extraordinary people to reveal the less intuitive but more correct truth, with common sense advocates fighting them at every turn.
Wow - you really had to stretch to prove me wrong. And yet you failed nonetheless.
Common sense is what told people the world is flat
Uhm no, what told people the world was flat was a limited perceptive distance beyond which "nobody had ever gone." The Greeks had posited the idea of a round earth as early as the 6th century BC, worked out through observations of polar star movement and altitude differences.
So what; mankind's been around longer than 6th Century BC. And ideas worked out through observations of polar star movement and altitude differences can hardly be called "common sense".
heavy objects fall faster than light objects
Actually, in the resistance of air, "light" objects of sufficient area have a much lower terminal velocity than heavier objects. Thus they do, in fact, fall faster. The idea that gravity is acting on them differently is incorrect, but that's all.
Yes, I know that, I am not a moron. Nonetheless, until the experiments had been done, the notion that over short distances heavier objects would fall faster than light ones was widespread.
time is absolute and particles either go one way or another
For purposes of daily use, treating them as such simplifies the math while remaining useful. In detailed physics, no, but don't underestimate the idea of the useful approximation.
Again, so what? We now know (at least most of us do) that these are useful approximations. But when discovered, they ran counter to what was considered common sense. And to this day, do you really believe that the majority of humans on this planet are aware that they are merely useful approximations? I'll skip a few now...
Common sense tells ME that if it is valid, it can be scientifically tested
No, uncommon sense tells you that.
Common sense tells me also that people like you - who ascribe to "common sense" things that are demonstrably not - are buffoons.
Sorry, but you have not demonstrated that any of the above are not the product of "common sense". You've demonstrated that they are known to be wrong by people who have sufficient learning, but such people are applying that learning, not common sense.
The last thing we need is more common sense; common sense is usually wrong. Common sense is what told people the world is flat, heavy objects fall faster than light objects, time is absolute and particles either go one way or another.
Common sense is what people use to demonstrate that fish can't turn into monkeys, or that you can't evolve an eye. It tells you that if loads of people get better when using homeopathic "remedies", there must be something in it. Common sense is appealed to by those who can't produce any controlled trial basis for their suggested "improvements" to healthcare/whatever but want them implemented anyway, regardless of cost.
Common sense and science are not good friends. And if you still don't believe me, go Google for "agw common sense" and see where it gets you.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
