Do you believe in the end of the world tomorrow?
-
DaveAuld wrote:
Next question.
There's no next question :).
In some cases, my signature will be longer then my message... ProgramFOX
-
ProgramFOX wrote:
So, I ask this question: "Do you believe in the end of the world tomorrow?"
You're a programmer? Aren't you supposed to be working with facts and logic?? :mad: Which (rational) argument says the world will end? Niburu? Question to you; do you believe in the tooth-fairy? Would you ask others if they believe, and therewith, give credibility to the idea?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You're a programmer? Aren't you supposed to be working with facts and logic??
That of course is a non-sensical statement. Just because one is a programmer it doesn't mean they are a Vulcan. Matter of fact I have never met a programmer that was a Vulcan. So at least anecdotal evidence would suggest that they all remain human.
-
I saw much posts here in the Lounge about the end of the world. So, I ask this question: "Do you believe in the end of the world tomorrow?"
In some cases, my signature will be longer then my message... ProgramFOX
The world as we currently know it will not exist tomorrow.
Gary Kirkham
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You're a programmer? Aren't you supposed to be working with facts and logic??
That of course is a non-sensical statement. Just because one is a programmer it doesn't mean they are a Vulcan. Matter of fact I have never met a programmer that was a Vulcan. So at least anecdotal evidence would suggest that they all remain human.
..I wasn't referring to Vulcans. I'm just expecting "a bit of reasonable argumentation", given the fact that the job-description includes mainly "logic". Unless you'd like to argue that hope and prayer are a valid software-development method?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
-
I saw much posts here in the Lounge about the end of the world. So, I ask this question: "Do you believe in the end of the world tomorrow?"
In some cases, my signature will be longer then my message... ProgramFOX
Ask me again on Saturday.
-
..I wasn't referring to Vulcans. I'm just expecting "a bit of reasonable argumentation", given the fact that the job-description includes mainly "logic". Unless you'd like to argue that hope and prayer are a valid software-development method?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Unless you'd like to argue that hope and prayer are a valid software-development method?
It's not???? :wtf: I'm always hoping my code doesn't break existing functionality and we all pray when it's released to production. Though we gave it a cool buzzword.. Scrum. :rolleyes:
-
..I wasn't referring to Vulcans. I'm just expecting "a bit of reasonable argumentation", given the fact that the job-description includes mainly "logic". Unless you'd like to argue that hope and prayer are a valid software-development method?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
..I wasn't referring to Vulcans
Those however are the only "logical" beings that I know. Humans are not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
given the fact that the job-description includes mainly "logic".
You do of course realize that "logic" is based on assumptions? And you are clear on what an assumption is?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Unless you'd like to argue that hope and prayer are a valid software-development method?
By that statement one would also suppose that there would be a direct correlation between ones success at being a developer and ones success at relationships. Or ones success at managing finances. Or dealing with death. Or raising children. Or any number of things. But there isn't. I certainly know very good developers that have very strong spiritual convictions.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
..I wasn't referring to Vulcans
Those however are the only "logical" beings that I know. Humans are not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
given the fact that the job-description includes mainly "logic".
You do of course realize that "logic" is based on assumptions? And you are clear on what an assumption is?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Unless you'd like to argue that hope and prayer are a valid software-development method?
By that statement one would also suppose that there would be a direct correlation between ones success at being a developer and ones success at relationships. Or ones success at managing finances. Or dealing with death. Or raising children. Or any number of things. But there isn't. I certainly know very good developers that have very strong spiritual convictions.
jschell wrote:
Those however are the only "logical" beings that I know. Humans are not.
..nor was I referring to "logical beings". If you must, I was thinking of Socrates.
jschell wrote:
You do of course realize that "logic" is based on assumptions? And you are clear on what an assumption is?
Facts, definitions, logical deductions. No, logic is not based on assumptions. Our understanding or reality is.
jschell wrote:
By that statement one would also suppose that there would be a direct correlation between ones success at being a developer and ones success at relationships.
By that statement alone, yes; but I was arguing that someone who writes software is inclined to work with logic, nothing more. You're making "assumptions".
jschell wrote:
I certainly know very good developers that have very strong spiritual convictions.
I still consider myself "Catholic". Shouldn't assume that such makes me a very good developer.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
-
jschell wrote:
Those however are the only "logical" beings that I know. Humans are not.
..nor was I referring to "logical beings". If you must, I was thinking of Socrates.
jschell wrote:
You do of course realize that "logic" is based on assumptions? And you are clear on what an assumption is?
Facts, definitions, logical deductions. No, logic is not based on assumptions. Our understanding or reality is.
jschell wrote:
By that statement one would also suppose that there would be a direct correlation between ones success at being a developer and ones success at relationships.
By that statement alone, yes; but I was arguing that someone who writes software is inclined to work with logic, nothing more. You're making "assumptions".
jschell wrote:
I certainly know very good developers that have very strong spiritual convictions.
I still consider myself "Catholic". Shouldn't assume that such makes me a very good developer.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, logic is not based on assumptions.
You are incorrect. Besides something like the law of identity there is the assumption that logic is valid in the first place.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Our understanding or reality is.
That philosophical argument is specious in this context.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Shouldn't assume that such makes me a very good developer.
That however has nothing to do with the converse.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, logic is not based on assumptions.
You are incorrect. Besides something like the law of identity there is the assumption that logic is valid in the first place.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Our understanding or reality is.
That philosophical argument is specious in this context.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Shouldn't assume that such makes me a very good developer.
That however has nothing to do with the converse.
jschell wrote:
You are incorrect. Besides something like the law of identity there is the assumption that logic is valid in the first place.
Whehe, you're reacting, not reading.
jschell wrote:
That philosophical argument is specious in this context.
No Vorlons in the argument?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
-
jschell wrote:
You are incorrect. Besides something like the law of identity there is the assumption that logic is valid in the first place.
Whehe, you're reacting, not reading.
jschell wrote:
That philosophical argument is specious in this context.
No Vorlons in the argument?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] They hate us for our freedom![^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Whehe, you're reacting, not reading.
Either you did not understand what I wrote - and thus didn't understand my original position. Or you are suggesting that I didn't understand what you said. That however still doesn't invalidate my original position.