Hurhur, that's a nice saying... It has a certain, as the French say, "I don't know what" ;) Kind Regards

Hi Hans I think we are then in (almost) complete agreement :) My only contention is that "irrational" can also be defined as "not having reason to support (a given argument)"; in other words, it is not limited to empirical data or hard provable facts, nor even seemingly inadequate reasons: it can simply mean an idea without *any* reason (or more accurately, "thought" behind it). (Irrational can also of course be used to describe a disproportionate response or conclusion, but that of course is in a different context, and is often slightly colloquial) HOWEVER, I don't want to get into a debate about dictionary definitions: its almost as bad as arguing on the internets. :) regards

I don't understand how something that is unfalsifiable is automatically irrational? I think perhaps the general understanding of the definition of "rational" is probably incorrect, amongst many people. (No disrespect intended at all) Anyway, if something is theory it doesn't mean its not true. Also, just because most people believe a theory is true, doesn't make it a fact. Science is full of "facts" that are almost 100% accepted, but can never be fully proved (either in principle, or they can't be proved *yet*) Science is also full of half-truths that are just accepted as they are, because nobody can offer a proper, provable solution to the rest of the problem. However we (the masses) just accept it because, well, what else are we supposed to do? Science, and the world, works just fine like this really. (And some examples: gravity, which is still not understood; theories of what *really* makes aeroplanes fly, also only partially understood/explained)

Interesting question :) My feelings might seem strange to most, but here they are anyway I wouldn't have a problem working for an arms company, if I felt comfortable its product was always distributed correctly (i.e. not into an African country in tribal conflict, for example.... but I know I probably wouldn't know anyway) I would be very unlikely to feel comfortable working for a political party (been there done that was crap), but government itself is ok. I would prefer not to work in tobacco, but certain alcohol companies are fine. I'd be hesitant to work for a major pharmaceutical corp. I wouldn't touch anything in gambling, and finally, definitely nothing in the euphemistically named "Adult Entertainment" industries either - I nearly had to write software for a certain organisation a few years back, but told my boss he needed to find someone else for that project. In the end, the project was dropped anyway. Wow, that was a long post.... :(

-my Dad got given a ZX spectrum when I was about 7 or so, and I started playing on that, writing little games and stuff -in highschool, I started on turbo pascal -after studying for A+, N+ etc, realised I didn't want to spend my life crawling around underneath someone's desk, so I started teaching myself -got 1st job, largely unsupervised: allowed me to continue teaching myself -got "proper" job, with excellent mentoring on some *real* OO and great design practices - my education in "the Art" started here -got another job and learnt about customers, long-hours, business, and some more advanced DB designs (important if you're a developer, not a coder) -got another job (current), and started learning from some of the best, and (*fanfare*) at last started working with more cutting edge tech. In between all this I started my BSc (as yet unfinished) and got a few qualifications on the way. Overall, I would say you HAVE to have certain "hard-coded" skills in you, and after that you really need passion, good mentorship, and some good old fashioned experience. I believe hard-qualifications like degrees can *partially* replace the need for mentors (if the university is any good), but a degree a good programmer does not make.