Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment So someone is bullshitting (Score 1) 404

No I haven't read the article, but a "study" claiming x is not "intuitive", I find highly suspect.

The reason you can't define intuitive, is because we don't know what the word means yet.

Furthermore it has been used to describe multiple mental processes.

I mean many call the iPhone "intuitive", and I'm pretty fucking sure we weren't born with Apple in our DNA.

Comment Re:CEO 2.0 (Score 1) 307

Ahhhhhhhhh

Oh ok that explains it, bro. Here I was thinking stupidly that his talent and intelligence played a major decisive role too.

I mean who the f-- cares about the truth, feels better to call it timing and placement, right? It's amost as if.. any nerd in his position would just have automatically created a billion dollar company.

We are all amazing and special after all.

Comment Unfortunately.. (Score 2) 64

It will most likely sit in the basement, along with other cool MSR tech, that mostly never see buy-in from MS Product teams.

Pity really. Innovation is not something you put in a department and leave it to one side. It needs to be in the fabric of the organization. Apple has been a good example of this.

Comment Re:"T-Rays"??? Microwave Ovens and Heat Lamps (Score 1) 185

Actually it's a perfectly valid way of reasoning.

Just because you tend to have a more deductive process does not mean, probablistic inference is invalid or "silly".

For example, Let X = Car and Y = Truck and C = Motorvehicles.

When cars use up energy (burn fuel), on average, most of the time, they are travelling forward. The could certainly be stationary and reversing as well, but that is not what the argument is stating. Similarly we might expect the same behavior from trucks.

The two are not deductively linked, however there is a belief that is greater than 0, that get's created. To say, "one can know *nothing*", is dogmatic and untrue. Probabilistic reasoning helps us navigate reality

Does it have errors? Sure, but then so does deduction, eg when someone prides themselves on the logical process, but forgets to use the same rigor on the starting conditions or assumptions.

Both methods have there merits.

Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.

Working...