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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Not true (Score 1) 392

I posted you a link which clearly shows:
Many states forbid either assault rifles or both kinds of weapons, e.g. New York AFAIK

Ah, I see. You just don't understand what you posted.

Give it another go. You'll figure it out. (Hint: It does support your claim. Quite the opposite, in fact.)

Comment Re:Not true (Score 1) 392

Let's review:

Private citizens can own handguns and assault rifles

This is true.

Many states forbid either assault rifles or both kinds of weapons, e.g. New York AFAIK

This is false.

Your earlier post supports my assertion, as it makes it very clear that the State of New York does not "forbid" "both kinds of weapons".

Comment Re:I'll fix that... (Score 2) 48

Well, it works acceptably on my BlackBerry Z10. Way better than jQuery Mobile at least, but that's not exactly a high-bar.

It works wonderfully on my bargain-basement Windows 7 netbook in Chrome 31, but doesn't work at all in FireFox 25 or IE 11.

I figure by that time it works acceptably in enough places, it'll be useless -- solving a problem no one has any more.

Comment Re:I mean, they are kindergarten kids. (Score 1) 144

There's tons of research. No, they can't write code. (See Jean Piaget)

They can do some code-writing like things. Papert, who had worked with Piaget, worked with Feurzeig's team to developed the logo programming language. There was some research done in the late 1970's- early 1980's with young students (and a bit more done with young deaf students).

The point is that we've got a perfectly good, well researched, language for teaching computer programming concepts to very young children. Why piss around with javascript or ruby?

Comment Re:They don't talk, huh? (Score 1) 70

Well, they are magicians. Cut 'em some slack.

Just look at this:

Tim’s device is Vermeer’s device! I have no doubt. Tim can give you all the doubt you want, but I have none.

It's pretty clear that we're not dealing with rational people here. Which is fine, as they're entertainers, selling to an audience composed of irrational people.

This bit is particularly telling:

The idea of an amateur coming in and understanding things experts can’t see—that’s a very American kind of plotline.

The amateur, outsider, the autodidact -- if they're only smart and clever enough -- can outwit or otherwise make a major contribution to a field they're interested in. It's their very standing as an uneducated amateur that imbibes them with insight far beyond that of the average expert.

It seems silly at first, but there's a lot of money to be made pandering to the egos of the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.

So relax. Their viewers don't care about silly details. The magicians don't care either. The audience doesn't want to question what they're told, and the performers don't want to bother fact-checking everything. It's just not that important to them.

Comment Re:Double down (Score 1) 534

Well, I can't argue with that. The first thing you learn in grad schools is that when an uneducated autodidact boldly asserts, in direct contradiction to all evidence, that you're wrong, you're clearly wrong. When faced with a wikipedia polymath, just bow humbly to their superiority.

Comment Re:Double down (Score 1) 534

Odd. Because you'r the one who brought up homeopathy.

Yes, as an example. A fairly good one, I thought.

You've clearly forgotten the entire point of that discussion! Go back and read. You'll puzzle it out.

You believe I was told something by a magician. Despite the lack of any evidence or even suggestion for that in anything I've said.

Oh, yes there is. Your posts are positively loaded with jref nonsense!

Slashdot Top Deals

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.

Working...