A = a;



  • Just found this in some code and thought I'd share

    <FONT color=#0000ff size=2> 

    short</FONT><FONT size=2> age = -1;
    </FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>if</FONT><FONT size=2> (</FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>short</FONT><FONT size=2>.TryParse(txtAge.Text, </FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>out</FONT><FONT size=2> age))
         age = (</FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>short</FONT><FONT size=2>)age;
    </FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2>else
         </FONT><FONT size=2>age = -1;
    </FONT><FONT size=2><FONT color=#0033ff>end if</FONT>

    </FONT>


  • Sounds like your company has a (short)age of good developers.

    I could also make puns about "out age"s too.  Looks like the TryParse function originally returned a long and somebody changed things?



  • Slightly bizarre, but one possible explanation is that it's old debugging code (and "age = (short)age;" used to have a breakpoint on that line) that never got cleaned up.

    I can't find any sane explanation for the (short) cast, though. :-)



  • Nothing like some good ol' fashioned self-assignment to get your day rolling.

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.



  • I would like to add that this is code that was apparently written yesterday as part of a new app.  Well really a rewrite of a high profile desktop app that is being rewritten as a web app.  And by High profile I mean a $400k app for the state of Massachusetts and countless providers in the state. 



  • Which language is that anyway? Looked C# until I saw the else/end if

    If it is C# (somehow but written wrong :P) this first assignment is useless anyway

    <font color="#0000ff" size="2">short</font><font size="2"> age;
    </font><font color="#0000ff" size="2">if</font><font size="2"> (</font><font color="#0000ff" size="2">!short</font><font size="2">.TryParse(txtAge.Text, </font><font color="#0000ff" size="2">out</font><font size="2"> age))
         age = -1</font><font size="2">;</font>



  • that end if was actually part of a comment.  I just forgot to add the // before it.   it is in c#



  • &@XIU said:

    Which language is that anyway? Looked C# until I saw the else/end if

    If it is C# (somehow but written wrong :P) this first assignment is useless anyway

    <font color="#0000ff" size="2">short</font><font size="2"> age;
    </font><font color="#0000ff" size="2">if</font><font size="2"> (</font><font color="#0000ff" size="2">!short</font><font size="2">.TryParse(txtAge.Text, </font><font color="#0000ff" size="2">out</font><font size="2"> age))
         age = -1</font><font size="2">;</font>

    VB.NET / C# Hybrid.... The NEW way!



  • that end if was actually part of a comment.  I just forgot to add the // before it.   it is in c#



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     



  • I find stuff like that all the time.  hey at least its not as bad as the 1500+ line stored procedure I posted about a few months back.  It was a stored procedure generated by a stored procedure.



  • @pitchingchris said:

    @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     

    Do you know anyone older than 127?



  • @pitchingchris said:

    @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     

     

    why not use unsigned char then ...

     



  • @XIU said:

    @pitchingchris said:
    @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     

    Do you know anyone older than 127?

    Maybe I missed it... but where is the rule that the age is only to refer to the living?

    So to answer your question, yes. I am pretty sure Jesus is a lot older than 127.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @XIU said:
    @pitchingchris said:
    @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     

    Do you know anyone older than 127?

    Maybe I missed it... but where is the rule that the age is only to refer to the living?

    So to answer your question, yes. I am pretty sure Jesus is a lot older than 127.


    Fictional people don't count.



  • @galgorah said:

    <font size="2"></font>

    <font size="2">     age = (</font><font color="#0000ff" size="2">short</font>)age;

    <font size="2"><font color="#0033ff"></font></font>

     

    There's definitely a shortage here somewhere... 



  • @The Vicar said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @XIU said:
    @pitchingchris said:
    @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     

    Do you know anyone older than 127?

    Maybe I missed it... but where is the rule that the age is only to refer to the living?

    So to answer your question, yes. I am pretty sure Jesus is a lot older than 127.


    Fictional people don't count.

    I would agree with that, but seemed like a good universal 'Old dead guy' example.



  • @The Vicar said:

     

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.


    The one who is still alive certainly is, regardless of whether there was a historical one or not. Just like the dead historical Elvis versus the one in the tabloids.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.

    Yeah! He is in the parking lot stealing my hubcaps!

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ammoQ said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.

    Yeah! He is in the parking lot stealing my hubcaps!

     

    I don't think we should be joking about Jesus like that.  Its not just me who would be offended, buts what we tell others about Jesus's name, and it shouldn't be slandered.



  • @pitchingchris said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @ammoQ said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.

    Yeah! He is in the parking lot stealing my hubcaps!

    I don't think we should be joking about Jesus like that.  Its not just me who would be offended, buts what we tell others about Jesus's name, and it shouldn't be slandered.

    Which one are you talking about? There's thousands of people called Jesus around these days. It's a fairly common name for Mexicans and similar Spanish-speaking nations, and probably more than a few are car thieves.



  • @asuffield said:

    @pitchingchris said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @ammoQ said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.

    Yeah! He is in the parking lot stealing my hubcaps!

    I don't think we should be joking about Jesus like that.  Its not just me who would be offended, buts what we tell others about Jesus's name, and it shouldn't be slandered.

    Which one are you talking about? There's thousands of people called Jesus around these days. It's a fairly common name for Mexicans and similar Spanish-speaking nations, and probably more than a few are car thieves.

    Exactly.

    I think you will get over it..

    For reference, it is 'hey seuss".

    http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Hell-Yeah-lyrics-Bloodhound-Gang/B8296C76F0AD2AA9482568C7000A3E5C



  • @pitchingchris said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @ammoQ said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.

    Yeah! He is in the parking lot stealing my hubcaps!

     

    I don't think we should be joking about Jesus like that.  Its not just me who would be offended, buts what we tell others about Jesus's name, and it shouldn't be slandered.


    I, for one, am not joking.

    Through more than a century, scientists have been observing the effects of injury to the human brain. There is now more than sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that everything about your personality, your ability to feel, your ability to reason, and your ability to relate to the world arises strictly from the (purely material) stuff inside your head. When your brain ceases to function, you are dead and gone.

    The only possible role a non-material component -- what is more commonly called the soul -- could possibly play, given what we know, would be approximately that of a black box in an airplane: recording, but having no part in determining your behavior. In that case, attempting to reward or punish the soul for your behavior is approximately like attempting to reward or punish the black box in an airplane after a crash. It has nothing to do with your personality or consciousness.

    Furthermore, any afterlife caused by means of such a soul would not really be for you, any more than you would continue to live if I cloned you and killed the original -- your consciousness dies with your brain, and the being experiencing the afterlife is a completely different entity. Once your brain dies, "you" are gone.

    Therefore anyone who claims that there is an afterlife or a judgement of human beings as such is not just saying something they can't prove, but saying something which is untrue. That includes all the major religions. They're all just plain lies. The sooner we accept this, penalize them for having benefitted from lies, base our laws and morality on our ability to empathize with each other*, and move on, the better it will be for humanity.

    *Actually, we already do this. We just tell ourselves we aren't. Religious people like to claim that religion underlies morality, but this is not true. Every major religion contains contradictory moral teaching. To use Christianity as an example: God (as Jesus) gives us the golden rule, but God (as God) rewards the Israelites for committing genocide time and time again in the Old Testament, and leaves open-ended injunctions to kill in Deuteronomy. This is rationalized by claiming that only one of the verses is what is actually [i]meant[/i], but that means we are using something other than religion to make the choice of which one we believe was actually meant. We usually pick the one which causes less suffering to others, which (surprise!) is what morality constructed from empathy tells us to do.



  • @XIU said:

    @pitchingchris said:
    @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     

    Do you know anyone older than 127?

    short goes to 32767. You're thinking of sbyte.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.

    But I might argue that historicans are fictional.



  • @The Vicar said:


    I, for one, am not joking.

    Through more than a century, scientists have been observing the effects of injury to the human brain. There is now more than sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that everything about your personality, your ability to feel, your ability to reason, and your ability to relate to the world arises strictly from the (purely material) stuff inside your head. When your brain ceases to function, you are dead and gone.

    The only possible role a non-material component -- what is more commonly called the soul -- could possibly play, given what we know, would be approximately that of a black box in an airplane: recording, but having no part in determining your behavior. In that case, attempting to reward or punish the soul for your behavior is approximately like attempting to reward or punish the black box in an airplane after a crash. It has nothing to do with your personality or consciousness.

    Furthermore, any afterlife caused by means of such a soul would not really be for you, any more than you would continue to live if I cloned you and killed the original -- your consciousness dies with your brain, and the being experiencing the afterlife is a completely different entity. Once your brain dies, "you" are gone.

    Therefore anyone who claims that there is an afterlife or a judgement of human beings as such is not just saying something they can't prove, but saying something which is untrue. That includes all the major religions. They're all just plain lies. The sooner we accept this, penalize them for having benefitted from lies, base our laws and morality on our ability to empathize with each other*, and move on, the better it will be for humanity.

    *Actually, we already do this. We just tell ourselves we aren't. Religious people like to claim that religion underlies morality, but this is not true. Every major religion contains contradictory moral teaching. To use Christianity as an example: God (as Jesus) gives us the golden rule, but God (as God) rewards the Israelites for committing genocide time and time again in the Old Testament, and leaves open-ended injunctions to kill in Deuteronomy. This is rationalized by claiming that only one of the verses is what is actually [i]meant[/i], but that means we are using something other than religion to make the choice of which one we believe was actually meant. We usually pick the one which causes less suffering to others, which (surprise!) is what morality constructed from empathy tells us to do.

     

    ...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! ...I think someone already summed that up on a previous topic a little more succinctly...

    @operagost said:

        * Egg and bacon
        * Egg, sausage and bacon
        * Egg and <span>
        * Egg, bacon and <span>
        * Egg, bacon, sausage and <span>
        * <span>, bacon, sausage and <span>
        * <span>, egg, <span>, <span>, bacon and <span>
        * <span>, <span>, <span>, egg, and <span>
        * <span>, <span>, <span>, <span>, <span>, <span>, baked beans, <span>, <span>, <span> and <span>
        * Lobster thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce garnished with truffle paté, brandy and with a fried egg on top and <span>
        * <span>, sausage, <span>, <span>, <span>, bacon, <span>, tomato and <span>



  • @The Vicar said:

    @pitchingchris said:
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @ammoQ said:

    @The Vicar said:

    Fictional people don't count.

    Most historicans would argue that Jesus is not fictional.

    Yeah! He is in the parking lot stealing my hubcaps!

     

    I don't think we should be joking about Jesus like that. Its not just me who would be offended, buts what we tell others about Jesus's name, and it shouldn't be slandered.


    I, for one, am not joking.

    Through more than a century, scientists have been observing the effects of injury to the human brain. There is now more than sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that everything about your personality, your ability to feel, your ability to reason, and your ability to relate to the world arises strictly from the (purely material) stuff inside your head. When your brain ceases to function, you are dead and gone.

    The only possible role a non-material component -- what is more commonly called the soul -- could possibly play, given what we know, would be approximately that of a black box in an airplane: recording, but having no part in determining your behavior. In that case, attempting to reward or punish the soul for your behavior is approximately like attempting to reward or punish the black box in an airplane after a crash. It has nothing to do with your personality or consciousness.

    Furthermore, any afterlife caused by means of such a soul would not really be for you, any more than you would continue to live if I cloned you and killed the original -- your consciousness dies with your brain, and the being experiencing the afterlife is a completely different entity. Once your brain dies, "you" are gone.

    Therefore anyone who claims that there is an afterlife or a judgement of human beings as such is not just saying something they can't prove, but saying something which is untrue. That includes all the major religions. They're all just plain lies. The sooner we accept this, penalize them for having benefitted from lies, base our laws and morality on our ability to empathize with each other*, and move on, the better it will be for humanity.

    *Actually, we already do this. We just tell ourselves we aren't. Religious people like to claim that religion underlies morality, but this is not true. Every major religion contains contradictory moral teaching. To use Christianity as an example: God (as Jesus) gives us the golden rule, but God (as God) rewards the Israelites for committing genocide time and time again in the Old Testament, and leaves open-ended injunctions to kill in Deuteronomy. This is rationalized by claiming that only one of the verses is what is actually [i]meant[/i], but that means we are using something other than religion to make the choice of which one we believe was actually meant. We usually pick the one which causes less suffering to others, which (surprise!) is what morality constructed from empathy tells us to do.

    QFT. Its hard to believe that people still believe there are gods to this day. But, it doesn't surprise me, because think of the power religious groups have. A religion can make a decision and millions follow it more strictly then they do their countries laws without even giving thought to what it is.  Even if there was unquestionable proof that there was no god, no religion would admit they were wrong and lose all the power and money they get from their followers.

     



  • Fascinating. I sparked a debate about religion...

    Next thing you know someone will blow up the thread with a suicide post, and TDWTF will go to war with Slashdot.

    Fantastic. 



  • @bobday said:

    ...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! ...I think someone already summed that up on a previous topic a little more succinctly...
     

    Forget I spoke. After all, religion clearly is clearly totally harmless with no negative effects on the real world.



  • I agree.  Its quite sad



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Maybe I missed it... but where is the rule that the age is only to refer to the living?

     

    age (āj)
    n.

    The length of time that one has existed; duration of life.

    The period of history during which a person lives.

    http://www.answers.com/age?cat=health&nafid=3

     



  • I'll pray for you all.  Just because you base your beliefs on proof, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. How little is your faith !  Just because you can't see air, that doesn't mean its not there. I pray that God will work in someone's life who reads this forum.

     

    For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.



  • ( Am I the only one who finds it oddly fitting that a thread titled "a = a;" would spark a lengthy philosophical debate?

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity )



  • @pitchingchris said:

    I'll pray for you all.  Just because you base your beliefs on proof, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. How little is your faith !  Just because you can't see air, that doesn't mean its not there. I pray that God will work in someone's life who reads this forum.

     

    For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


    I seriously can't tell whether this is sarcasm or not. (Look! It's a discourse WTF.) Are you just jokingly taking the position of a very stupid person, or do you seriously equate "can't be seen but can be detected via three other senses and logically inferred via two others" with "impossible to detect or prove"?


  • @pitchingchris said:

    I'll pray for you all.  Just because you base your beliefs on proof, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. How little is your faith !  Just because you can't see air, that doesn't mean its not there. I pray that God will work in someone's life who reads this forum.

     

    For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Wow... I finally understand why people strap bombs to themselves and blow people like this up.

     

    Want a hug? BOOM



  • Going off of science, you actually can't say that the Jesus who is still alive is fictional - science can only disprove, not prove.  So unless you can somehow conclusively prove that an immortal Jesus does not exist anywhere in the universe (which would require observing the entire universe simultaneously), you cannot say with certainty that the common christian conception of Jesus is fictional.

     Same with God.  Unless you can prove He does not exist anywhere in the universe (which, again, would require observing the entire universe simultaneously), you cannot say with scientific certainty that God does not exist.
     



  • @Heron said:

    [religious stuff] science can only disprove, not prove. [religious stuff] 

    Either IHBT or you're talking bollocks.

    I suspect the former, though given your contribution to these forums thus far (scientifically based on post count - no, mine is no better,) it might be the latter. Or both.

     



  • @pitchingchris said:

    @ShadowWolf said:

    I can't even imagine the thought process of the person who decided to use short in this context.

     maybe to lessen memory requirements because we'll never age to be as old as the limit of a short.

     

    Either do it correctly and use byte or use int.



  • My point was only that you can only disprove with science, so using science to prove anything about religion is impossible - to disprove the existence of God requires observing the entire universe, for example.  Any scientific "proof" that there is no God is based on bad science.

    Basically, science cannot disprove the existence of God, and therefore cannot show the fallacy of various religions.  I'm not saying that means religions are all true or anything, I'm only saying that an appeal to science in an attempt to disprove a particular religion is most likely a waste of time.
     



  • @Heron said:

    Going off of science, you actually can't say that the Jesus who is still alive is fictional - science can only disprove, not prove.  So unless you can somehow conclusively prove that an immortal Jesus does not exist anywhere in the universe (which would require observing the entire universe simultaneously), you cannot say with certainty that the common christian conception of Jesus is fictional.

     Same with God.  Unless you can prove He does not exist anywhere in the universe (which, again, would require observing the entire universe simultaneously), you cannot say with scientific certainty that God does not exist.
     

    No.  Just...No.  Or did I miss the announcement that today was opposite day?  If so, my apologies!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

     (Sorry for double-post but I had to bite)



  • @pitchingchris said:

    I'll pray for you all.  Just because you base your beliefs on proof, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. How little is your faith !  Just because you can't see air, that doesn't mean its not there. I pray that God will work in someone's life who reads this forum.

     

    For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    First, air is a horrible example because there is proof it exists, I can feel it.

     I base my beliefs of proof, because without evidence how else am i supposed to know some guy didnt think this stuff up on an acid trip.

    From my knowledge gods where used to explain concepts by uneducated people. For example natives didnt understand how the moon could move its self, so the idea arose somehow that a mystical person was literally in the sky moving the moon for the people, it was impossible to prove otherwise until we discovered how the moon actually moved. 





  • @PJH said:

    @Heron said:

    [religious stuff] science can only disprove, not prove. [religious stuff] 

    Either IHBT or you're talking bollocks.

    I suspect the former, though given your contribution to these forums thus far (scientifically based on post count - no, mine is no better,) it might be the latter. Or both.

     

    I can't find it now, but I read a wikipedia article (which w all know are always accurate) that talked about this.  It talked about a hypothetical theory, black swans exist.  No matter how many white swans you collect as counter evidence, you can't disprove the existence of  black swans, and it only takes one black one to validate the theory.

    I'm sure I'm butchering the actual meaning of the article with my paraphrase, but it just popped into my head while reading this thread.  Maybe someone else will have better luck finding it. 



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    No.  Just...No.  Or did I miss the announcement that today was opposite day?  If so, my apologies!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

     (Sorry for double-post but I had to bite)

     

    As I pointed out in my second post, I was not trying to say that "Since you cannot *disprove* that God exists, he must therefore exist", I was simply saying "Since you cannot *disprove* that God exists, you cannot say he does not exist" which is an entirely different statement. 



  • @Jetts said:

    @PJH said:

    @Heron said:

    [religious stuff] science can only disprove, not prove. [religious stuff] 

    Either IHBT or you're talking bollocks.

    I suspect the former, though given your contribution to these forums thus far (scientifically based on post count - no, mine is no better,) it might be the latter. Or both.

     

    I can't find it now, but I read a wikipedia article (which w all know are always accurate) that talked about this.  It talked about a hypothetical theory, black swans exist.  No matter how many white swans you collect as counter evidence, you can't disprove the existence of  black swans, and it only takes one black one to validate the theory.

    I'm sure I'm butchering the actual meaning of the article with my paraphrase, but it just popped into my head while reading this thread.  Maybe someone else will have better luck finding it. 

    Are you meaning the Ludic Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

    Heron, you specifically said:

    Same with God.  Unless you can prove He does not exist anywhere in the universe (which, again, would require observing the entire universe simultaneously), you cannot say with scientific certainty that God does not exist.

    Unless you can prove that pink unicorns don't exist anywhere in the universe, you cannot say with scientific certainty that pink unicorns do not exist.

    Perhaps that assists in illustrating the point I was making.

    Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof, which i linked in my first post.



  • @plazmo said:

    @pitchingchris said:

    I'll pray for you all.  Just because you base your beliefs on proof, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. How little is your faith !  Just because you can't see air, that doesn't mean its not there. I pray that God will work in someone's life who reads this forum.

     

    For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    First, air is a horrible example because there is proof it exists, I can feel it.

     I base my beliefs of proof, because without evidence how else am i supposed to know some guy didnt think this stuff up on an acid trip.

    From my knowledge gods where used to explain concepts by uneducated people. For example natives didnt understand how the moon could move its self, so the idea arose somehow that a mystical person was literally in the sky moving the moon for the people, it was impossible to prove otherwise until we discovered how the moon actually moved. 

    You're right, I could have used a much better example.  But I do feel like you are wrong that gods were created for uneducated people. I do not believe in gods but in God (singular).  I'm not trying to be an evangelist here, but sometimes I feel like in the grand essense of things, what did I do to further God's kingdom ?  What did I do to share my testimony with others ? What did I do to help people come to know Jesus Christ and have a personal relationship with him ?

    If yall are not interested, then thats fine, but don't go around making claims that God is made up and all these other ones. 

    “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn. 20:29).



  • I had absolutely no idea when opening this thread that I was playing with pandora's box.  Did we really need to turn this into a philosophical debate debacle of religious debate?

    ...

     and for the record I'm a proud atheist.

     



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    @Heron said:

    Going off of science, you actually can't say that the Jesus who is still alive is fictional - science can only disprove, not prove.  So unless you can somehow conclusively prove that an immortal Jesus does not exist anywhere in the universe (which would require observing the entire universe simultaneously), you cannot say with certainty that the common christian conception of Jesus is fictional.

     Same with God.  Unless you can prove He does not exist anywhere in the universe (which, again, would require observing the entire universe simultaneously), you cannot say with scientific certainty that God does not exist.
     

    No.  Just...No.  Or did I miss the announcement that today was opposite day?  If so, my apologies!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

     (Sorry for double-post but I had to bite)

    When taken to extremes, the only thing that can be proven absolutely is math.  It has no dependence on external senses and exists (or can exist) entirely within the mind even if all that you see and hear is a mirage.  Not that this is a great way to go about life, since my imaginary universe has predictable consequences for my imaginary actions. :-)

     
    And Wikipedia's analogy of criminal proceedings is somewhat flawed.  At least in the US (I think this is different in ... Scotland?), we do not find people "innocent" but rather "not guilty."  Other than that, it was an interesting article.
     



  • Obviously the programmer is an Objectivist and is merely trying to apply Rand's (in)famous statement to programming.

    On a related note, I bet Rand would approve of this thread. 



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof, which i linked in my first post.



    An interesting bit from the page you keep posting


    However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
    "A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".




Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.