|
Yeah, my wife even laughed out loud at this.
Play it again Bryce. 
|
|
|
|
|
"sorry, guys - lots of 'software updates' today"
*chortle*
Bryce
|
|
|
|
|
So, they'll think it's worse than Windows 10 for updates then. You're not making them envious, you're making them glad.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
bryce wrote: to remind everyone what they don't have;
And I hope they are grateful for that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, just unlucky, that is all! 
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps for making unneeded noise, but that's all.. The last thing from Apple I might have bought was the Apple ][.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes one can get bogged down into lengthy argument about minor details going nowhere, as in
"- you said that
- No I mean this and that, it's out of context
- No this is what you said
- bla bla bla..."
It is my personal experience that such discussion only lead to mutual and painful frustration. So, in a recent one, I took it upon myself to just let it go. Despite one's natural urge to argue until your "adversary agree" (which never happen of course).
Now I wonder why is this not a natural behavior. What is the benefit of arguing? Surely if there is such a strong instinct for it there must be some evolutionary benefit!
Does you gain status by shooting louder? Does the mere fact of talking in public look good, whatever the outcome? After all I heard that politician length of time on screen is more important that being right or wrong or whatever they say...
|
|
|
|
|
I would have to agree, But...
It is part of the human flight or fight mechanism, and as such you only tend to notice the fight response and not so much the flight response. (as no argument was forth coming)
Thus the individuals that go straight to "fight mode" tends to have a strong desire to win everything by any means as you mentioned and will carry on until they feel a flight response is more productive or safer. (ie give up or just leave)
And as for politicians. You need to include the lying response to win. Here is an interesting article about that.
The truth is but a side show[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comments Ross... I will have to give it some thoughts...
Yeah, could be a fight or flight thing...
|
|
|
|
|
I would tend to subsume "arguing" as being a manifestation of one aspect, verbal, of the absolute necessity for dealing with conflict among social groups of primates, including Homo Saps.
It is, often, an inherent expression of the struggle-for and tensions-around dominance, control of resources, control of reproductive access (who gets to have sex with whom).
Consider, on one level, "arguing" as stylized social display of power, potential threat, while the "form" of arguing is shaped, governed, by extra-biological social norms, i.e., culture. One culture may have loud and apparently aggressive verbal "contests" as quite a "normal" thing; other cultures, like the one I live in, consider any public display of anger a real violation of the norms, and the one who loses control and gets aggressive loses "face."
On one level, an argument can possibly result in a discharge of tension that perhaps prevents homicide or more serious violence.
Perhaps "ideally" we homo saps can have "discussions about the issues" that are not arguments; but, in actuality, I would argue, there are always levels of competition going on, issues of power, role-maintenance, dominance, control, "face."
But, what a great thing it is when a work group can have high-spirited arguments about the "issues" and allow/tolerate a certain degree of aggression and tension to be manifested without long-term damage to relationships and work-goals ... when, in fact, such arguments actually promote group cohesion ... imho, that's where talented leadership comes into play.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, as you mention, there are good arguments! That might muddle things...
And there are "bad" arguments, which are about dominance, fight or flight...
And if I just drop it my personal output (or "face") will be affected in a culturally sensitive fashion. All good points!
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Surely if there is such a strong instinct for it there must be some evolutionary benefit!
There's where you went wrong. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you did there!
Anyhow it's not entirely incorrect, something also evolve by accident if they are neither harmful or beneficial. Or if they were beneficial at the time....
But your summarily reply is just wrong! 
|
|
|
|
|
You're on the right track here; as the late Stephen Jay Gould brought into focus, to say "evolutionary" is not to imply some form of "progress," or steps toward some ultimate-purpose-driven (teleological) goal.
"Evolution" driven by random mutations embroiders, and discards, and carries along "junk;" while it is selective adaptation that tends to "promote/reinforce" traits that contribute to the continuation/survival of the species, it is important not to personify/deify that dynamic principle (Dawkins likes to use the "blind watchmaker" as a metaphor for the "impersonal" aspect of this ... note that he uses that metaphor to mean exactly the opposite of what it meant when it was first used in the natural sciences) [^].
Could one say that perhaps evolution is as strange as the CodeProject rep system ? Well, I'm not sure I'd go that ... far 
May I suggest you check out Gould's interesting concept of evolutionary "spandrels:" [^].
until the holographic simulation disembodies me, I remain certain there is no certainty, yours, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: But your summarily reply is just wrong!
OK.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: There's where you went wrong.
So Jeezzzuuuusssss wants us to argue for no discernible reason? He's a petty knob gobbler isn't he.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Martin wrote: wants us to argue for no discernible reason?
Nope, but clearly you've based your entire belief system on thinking so. And just proved it now.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Nope, but clearly you've based your entire belief system on thinking so. And just proved it now.
There is no belief system, so nothing is wrong. You, continually attempt to bring the sky fairy in when there is no need for make believe.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just an endorphine and hormone thing.
"Danger" (confrontation presents danger signals) makes your endocrine system up its output, so you get a cocktail of hormones that gives you a kind of high (more of a dull, mind-numbing buzz, really, but with behaviour modifiers involved, telling you to push, push, push!) That's why trolls get so excited when they come across people who'll argue with them.
Then, of course, there are people who are so unevolved that they actually admit to being competitive, and insist on "winning" at everything -- but being that kind of "winner" actually makes you a loser, because too-frequent shots of such "competitive cocktails" can shorten your life, and dying younger sure as Hell ain't winning.
But the good news is that trolls really will eff off and die -- sooner, rather than later.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
According to Schopenhauer, this is indeed human nature
to use whatever arguments to win a discussion ...,
So, being aware of that nasty habit might help to break the circle.
One of my favorite quotes from him
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
|
|
|
|
|
the advantage is, that you must prove our arguments with facts. And by that you better understand what you want. And you also learn WHY others dont have your opinion.
After talking all facts, you should, can and also must end the discussion: one way or the other.
"Louder" => Loosing sympathy and all other positive flair 
Politicans are lyers, because there are enough dumb people to overrule the smart. It doesnt work with family, friends or work. Stay away because lying fires back. We have a german saying: "Lies have short legs"
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, sometimes it's much easier just to accept that the other person is wrong and will never agree with you, however much you show them the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: however much you show them the evidence.
Really, this part is irrelevant, since evidence can be interpreted many different ways. You're still back to the same fundamental issue, that we all see things differently. The way you interpret evidence or even the way the majority interprets evidence is not proof that you are right.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Does you gain status by shooting louder?
Only in the USA. The rest of us settle for shouting instead.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
