In this case? As far as I can tell, you're the only one dragging god in to the equation.

An hypothesis, put in the simplest possible terms, is a testable prediction.

I don't even know how to begin to explain what's wrong with the nonsense that follows. I've heard the phrase "not even wrong" used before. It never made much sense to me, but it's the first thing that springs to mind!

With any luck, you now know what an hypothesis is. I can recommend a few beginner books on logic.

Maybe you should spend less time fighting imaginary battles against imaginary enemies and more time actually learning about science?

So, so dumb...

The hypothesis is the prediction. Of course, that's NOT what you stated in your earlier ridiculous comment:

Do you see how absurd that is? How scientifically illiterate would you have to be to make that statement in earnest?

If you meant something else (as implied by earlier quote) great. Next time, try saying what you mean.

Oh, wow, you really fail at reading. My comment was about the definition of "hypothesis". MacGyver2210 brought up god, but only because he's not terribly competent.

Oh, wow, you ALSO fail at basic science!

You'd think that you'd do some reading before you double-down on such an absurd statement!

That isn't even coherent!

Scratch my recommendation for an undergraduate textbook. Go to your local elementary school library for some books on science that are more your speed.

You're a perfect example of one of the "science cheerleaders" that don't have a clue how science works.

Worse than that, it's not even an hypothesis!

What, exactly, do I want both ways? I don't know where you get "bad hypothesis" from. As I clearly stated in my first post, if it's not testable it's not an hypothesis! You seem to agree with that bit. Then again, judging from the rest of your incoherent rambling, you might not understand what that even means.

And all swans are white because we've never seen a black swan, right?

Congratulations, you've just learned about the limits of induction. If you still don't get it, go pick up any undergraduate textbook on logic.

How's that a hypothesis? For an hypothesis to be scientific requires that it be testable.

Sigh... Why is this so hard for some people? The knowledge claim "I don't know" is a consequence of the claim "it's unknown" or "it's unknowable". They're still separate claims, of course, though only one is relevant to the discussion here.

This is absurdly simple stuff.

For the price, I'd have gone with a cheap laptop. (I grabbed an aspire one 722 with 4gb of RAM and Windows 7 for a about $225 on Amazon a couple months ago as a quick replacement for my wife's work computer. She really seems to like it, so I haven't bothered to pick up anything better.)

A laptop gives you much more utility and it's likely easier to type on than the generally really poor BT keyboards. For schoolwork, a tablet just isn't going to cut it. Most of my wife's work related computer use involves writing documents. She was hoping to use her tablet exclusively, so we tried a few BT keyboards, and a few office suites, but couldn't find anything that wasn't frustrating for her to use.

Remember: Just because you can do something with a tool doesn't mean it's a good tool for the job. I can create documents and spreadsheets on my cell-phone, but it's a poor substitute for a real computer.

If a language is simple and, consequently, easy to learn and use, it WILL be demonized.

Too many programmers are depressingly insecure. They WANT programming to be as difficult as possible -- if learning to program were as simple as it was in the 80's, they wouldn't be special. They've got a lot of their ego wrapped up in a single skill that they *know* any kid can learn in their spare time.

Let's take VB, for example. It's certainly received more that it's fair share of hate over the years. What, exactly, was wrong with it?

"It didn't have some specific feature!" - Okay, but that's true of every language..

"It forced you to write bad code!" - No, you did that all on your own.

"Beginners used it, forcing me to maintain their crap code!" - Do you know who writes bad code? Everyone. Take a look at your own work from a few years back. I guarantee that you'll find a few WTFs.

The truth is tha there wasn't really anything wrong with VB. It worked incredibly well for a broad range of common tasks. For hacking out CRUD apps, it's still unmatched. It was ridiculously easy to use, of course, which would normally be an admirable quality. In the hands of an experienced programmer, it could save countless hours of effort. So why all the hate?

The fact is that insecure programmers hate VB because it's easy to learn and use. So easy, in fact, that people who weren't programmers could use it. That's a HUGE threat to the one-skill-wonders. (They're easy to spot. They're the ones who follow every ridiculous programming fad that comes down the pike.)

If anyone can learn to write computer programs then they can no longer believe that they're above average or have "a special mind". They won't be special or interesting, they'll just be another nobody. They know that they're not smart or ambitious enough to hack math, science, or engineering. However, programming, a skill they picked-up when they were pre-teens, puts them in the same class as those other professionals in the eyes of friends, family, and the lay-public. It makes them feel important.

They don't want to face the truth. That's why they vigorously fight against any tool that comes along that could possibly threaten their delusion.

That's why programming isn't getting easier. I'd argue that it's actually become more difficult. Not because we're doing more complicated things -- this is especially the average developer writing business software. It's become more complicated because developers WANT their tools to become more complex. They need to maintain that priesthood.

Umm, no. That's not what those words mean.

Atheism is a belief statement. To be atheist means that you lack a belief in any god or gods.

Agnosticism is a knowledge statement. To be agnostic, in this context, means that you don't know if any god or gods exist.

You can be an atheist (lacking belief) and also be agnostic (lacking knowledge). An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods, but also would not claim to know that no gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks the belief and claims knowledge that no gods exist.

You make the exact same mistake the parent makes: Proof or the ability to prove need not enter in to it at all. We're dealing with "that" not "why", after all.

Really? I can think of quite a few. From Alfred North Whitehead to John Shelby Spong. In fact, you'll find religious people in virtually every branch of science from the social sciences to physical sciences.

Even among the Catholics, you'll find that many priests, in addition to the normal graduate-level education requirements, often also hold secular masters or doctoral degrees.

In short, being religious isn't a reflection on a persons education or on their ability to think logically or rationally. Equally, being an Atheist says absolutely nothing about a persons education, intelligence, or ability to thing logically or rationally. It's not too difficult to find a below-average atheist -- even among high-profile atheists. Matt Dillahunty is a great example of high-profile yet disturbingly below-average atheist.

You're also a great example of an atheist who seems to lack basic critical thinking skills.

Just ignore them. The average internet Atheist has but about as much (and often less) thought in to their own beliefs as the average religious nut.

The science cheerleaders are the worst. They often lack even a very basic understanding of science, leading them to say some astonishingly absurd things! Don't bother trying to correct them, as the other scientifically illiterate will jump to their defense by posting other (often contradictory) nonsense.

If only Slashdot had a feature that allowed you to preview your post before hitting submit...