Recent Posts
...Did I break your record?Well yes, but your attempt was deliberate, so as an example it does not go into my record book. The ones that I spot - and which cause me so much amazement - are accidental, being spontaneous working examples of how apparently otherwise intelligent people actually fail to use reasoning on a day-to-day basis when presenting an argument for something. The one about a logical fallacy being a matter of "opinion" was in my record book for the simple reason that it was an amusing "own goal" - i.e., not only did the speaker use a logical fallacy in making a statement/argument, but they apparently did not comprehend what a logical fallacy was and therefore could not see that they had used one (or two) even when it was pointed out to them - thinking it was a matter of "opinion" (not of fact!), thus demonstrating that very likely they had never been given any training in (or had not learned) the skill of rational thinking or reasoning.-TaoPhoenix (October 17, 2012, 12:32 PM)
... that sounds great but means nothing - e.g., (say) "Hope n'Change!".-IainB (October 17, 2012, 10:01 PM)
How long do you give UEFI before it is hacked?-Carol Haynes (October 17, 2012, 05:32 PM)
My favourites to watch out for are:
- argumentum ad hominem (argument against the person)
- argumentum ad baculum (appeal to fear).
- argumentum ad ignorantiam (forwarding a proposition without any certain proof).
- argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity; to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted).
- argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people/consensus, popular sentiment - appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty).
- argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority; conventional propriety).
- ignoratio elenchi (a "red herring" or genetic fallacy) - assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim discredits the claim itself.
- non sequitur ("it does not follow"; irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly:
The record for me is when I once spotted someone to have made 6 (six!) logical fallacies in one go. At another time, I pointed out that someone had used a logical fallacy or two (and which), and was answered with "That is your opinion" (OWTTE). Go figure.-IainB (October 15, 2012, 08:24 PM)
This is just one "annoyance" aspect - there are others. There has been something really annoying about the Awesome bar's behaviour/functionality in FF v16 and now v17beta (I am on the ß update channel).
It persists in being too clever by half and jumping to conclusions about where you want to go, and it gets it wrong and seems to override what you typed into the A-bar anyway.-IainB (October 16, 2012, 03:34 AM)
yes, I have tried PrivacyChoice/TrackerBlock and I don't like it : it creates a lot of traffic, slows down browsing and I have big doubts about it.
So I'm staying with DNT+ for much the same reasons as f0dder.-joiwind (October 16, 2012, 04:52 AM)
It was inevitable - and the outcome is predictable.-40hz (October 12, 2012, 08:04 AM)
I have nothing polite, constructive, or non-violent to say. Trying to argue with fools only proves that there are 2.-Renegade (October 12, 2012, 02:56 AM)
I personally think TaoPhoenix has a pretty useful insight, and it is one I've subconsciously followed for all of my apps as well. Many apps that are created are something that is easily done in Excel or Access, and as a consequence, they also tend to be apps that have been created a hundred times before in slightly different formats. In only a minority of the cases, these apps actually do something different enough to warrant existing; in the rest of the cases, the Coding Snack guideline of looking for something existing rather than making something new would seem to be a useful one to follow.
But hey, let people contribute what they want! If they have fun with it, and someone else has a use for it.. then that's all that's needed, right?-worstje (October 12, 2012, 02:27 AM)
^ That sounds rather... premature. And a bit negative. But, we'll see.-wraith808 (October 11, 2012, 08:21 PM)
Heh heh. I can't let the major version number exceed 9 or I'd have to rewrite the "check for updates" I use on some of them. It just does a string compare I believe. That keeps me from bumping up the major version every 48 hours.-MilesAhead (October 11, 2012, 06:23 PM)
