Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Warp drive? (Score 1) 405

by narcc (#49635359) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

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.

Comment: Re:Warp drive? (Score 1) 405

by narcc (#49632091) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

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.

Comment: Re:Looks like the prophet's gunmen (Score 1) 1059

by narcc (#49626745) Attached to: Two Gunman Killed Outside "Draw the Prophet" Event In Texas

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.

Comment: Re:News? (Score 4, Interesting) 410

by narcc (#49623047) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

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.

Comment: Re:Does not fit observable facts (Score 1) 410

by narcc (#49621873) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

Why would someone spread the obvious myth that programming requires a 'special mind' or 'in-born talent'? It's clearly delusional, so there must be some other motivation.

The article is another transparent attempt to make people believe coding is like manual labor and hence should be in the cheapest salary class possible.

That explains it! It's just good old fashioned fear and insecurity.

Comment: Re:Flawed article (Score 1) 410

by narcc (#49621791) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

How do you we know whether programming is the kind of job where one can be mediocre and succeed?

Probably because of the countless "mediocre" programmers who are successful.

When one's freedom is on the line, nobody wants a mediocre lawyer; when one's life is on the line, nobody wants a mediocre doctor.

But most of them are mediocre. The world keeps on turning.

There are also some careers where you simply can't succeed at being mediocre, for example any kind of research scientist

Okay, now you're just trolling. Sorry about that. Carry on.

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald Knuth