That's fine for trade schools, but worse than useless for real schools.
That's fine for trade schools, but worse than useless for real schools.
You've watched far too many Thunderf00t videos. You've clearly been influenced by his astonishing ignorance and disturbing bigotry. As a result, you're living in a fantasy world -- but you're too deluded to notice!
You're fighting an imaginary war against an imaginary enemy. You think the danger you see is real and immediate. You're angry and feel powerless, so you act out online. You're compelled to spread the word (er, share your delusions) with the ignorant masses least the imaginary enemy take control and destroy your way of life!
What were you saying again about mental illness?
I want broken classes??? How did you get that out of what I said?
Class-based systems are fundamentally broken. We've known this since the 1980's. Get with the time, man!
Your off your rocker pal. Protoypal inheretance my have its uses but it IS NOT OOP.
No surprise there. You'll find that there's no consensus on what "OOP" actually is or entails. It's an ill-defined and incoherent concept. It's funny, you'll find that there's a lot of disagreement even about what languages are and are not "object oriented" -- which includes languages like Java and C++. If you want to have an "x is not OOP" argument, you can have it with someone else. I'm sure someone just loves that sort of thing, but it's a silly waste of time, as far as I'm concerned.
As for the rest, it doesn't appear that you have the necessary background to make further discussion valuable for either of us.
There are more, but I'm bored.
And horribly wrong, but you don't know that. I'll also note that your complaints are exactly what I expected "I want broken classes" and "I don't like dynamic languages". Ridiculous.
The fat arrow indirection pointer is a huge interpeter hole depending on how its implemented
Nonsense. While I agree that it should never have been added (thanks coffeescript, for your worse-than-useless contribution) there are certainly no fundamental problems with it. God only knows what you mean by "huge interpreter hole", though "depending on how its implemented" implies that it's not a problem with the language. (I would also like to note that problems caused by "how its implemented" applies to every feature of every language ever.) I don't think you've thought this through.
Prototypal inheretance (need I say more?)
only functions can create scope, making js a not very well implemented OOP language
Do you have any complaints about it that don't boil down to "I hate dynamic languages" or "classes are the one true way to do oop".
That's what I thought.
It really is the worlds most misunderstood language.
the boss was giving me shit about coming in late, even though I always came in late
asked me why I was there; why else would I be there but for a paycheck?
I tossed a resignation letter at him and walked out.
Your former employer is undoubtedly very grateful you left on your own.
Ah, I think you've mixed up the users. The person to which you replied was a different user that, aside from his admitted dualism, seems to be in complete agreement with you.
Explain how "Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals" is "woo-woo" or "magical thinking".
It's a belief held without evidence. You might as well posit fairies and elves. There's just as much evidence for their existence as there is for the parents claim.
Everything else evolved from simpler animals, why not consciousness?
I never made any such claim. I didn't say that he was right or wrong, only that there was no evidence to support his wild speculation. You woo woo's don't seem to care about evidence, you just believe whatever makes you feel good. It's sad, really, seeing you live in a fantasy world.
Believing otherwise is as "woo woo" as it gets.
I see. You think that your evidence-free beliefs are unquestionably true and above scrutiny. Do you think Jesus told you or something? You woo woo's are lost cause!
2000 years ago dualists would have put disease, lightning and thunder under the 'not explained by physical reality and constructive math' category
2000 years ago, everyone else would have as well. What nonsense "point" are you failing to regurgitate?
The null hypothesis is not 'god did it'.
Where did this come from? It looks like a desperate attempt to drag god in to the conversation, or you're terribly confused about what "dualism" means and entails. Perhaps both?
Oh, I should probably point out that the parent was agreeing with you. In your rush to fight the enemies of reason (which you are, ironically) you've managed to attack an ally.
When the complexity of the mechanism falls below a certain threshold, it makes sense that consciousness is not generated/emerged/attached/whatever anymore.
Sounds like magical thinking to me.
But you know this already:
current state of research: nobody has a clue
Fascinating research, and may be a first step into finding out what consciousness actually is
It's not a first step towards that at all. Not even a little bit.
Consciousness evolved in much simpler animals (which to be sure have most specialized areas) but massive brain is not required.
Ugh. Why do you woo woo believers always jump to the first "conclusion" that makes you feel good? Why don't you base your beliefs on evidence instead? You'll find reality is more interesting that whatever magical nonsense you're going to promulgate next.
You're the most dangerous type of magical thinker -- you actually believe that there's science behind your wildly speculative beliefs.
Which gstoddart most certainly didn't.
There isn't anything to argue about here. He's the one who introduced God into the conversation. You can verify that by reading his irrational rants above.
Consciousness is the emerging process of all brain process.
Assuming you're a physicalist: If that were true, how is it that we're able to accurately report on the content of our subjective experience?
That is, if consciousness is merely epiphenomenal, and thus supervenes on the brain, the content of such experiences would necessarily be inaccessible to the brain. That you can report on the content of your subjective experience suggests that it is accessible to the brain and, consequently, that your emergent hypothesis is untenable.
(It's a simple argument, but should be enough to keep you too busy to go around making further bold pronouncements unsupported by any actual science for a while.)
There is no such thing as a non-verifiable event.
Of course there is! Here's an easy example: My wife says she saw a mouse in the laundry room.
No mouse droppings, no gathered bits of fluff, no teeth marks on wires, boxes, etc, no smiling cats -- no evidence of mice or mouse-like activity could be found. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a mouse in the laundry room, only that her story could not be verified.
I know, it's probably not what you intended to say. It bugged me for some reason.
The rest of your post is spot on. I couldn't agree more.
... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"