... the question is stupid to try to make children think... and your answer is wrong. Sound waves are produced without any help from an ear, human or otherwise. Sound waves can also affect things without ears. making a sound means producing a sound wave... so yes, sound waves can be produced even if no one hears them, because it can be measured in other ways. If you think your ear somehow helps produce all the sound waves it hears, then you're living in Lala Land™
If you read carefully, you will see that I actually agreed about the programmer still being a programmer.
As for the "sound in a forest question," unfortunately it is you that are wrong. I didn't say that the falling tree wouldn't produce compression waves ("sound waves") in the air. I merely said that it wouldn't produce "sound."
I'm right. It won't, and what's more it can't. Look it up.
As for the "sound in a forest question," unfortunately it is you that are wrong. I didn't say that the falling tree wouldn't produce compression waves ("sound waves") in the air. I merely said that it wouldn't produce "sound."
I'm right. It won't, and what's more it can't. Look it up.
If you are trying to suggest that there is a functional difference between "sound waves" and "sound", you need to be a bit more specific about what it is I should be looking up. I can only guess that you are talking about quantum physics, about observation of quantum events and whatnot; if that is what you are talking about, you are wrong. The quantum reality of how subatomic particles behave under observation is completely irrelavent when talking about sound waves and other events on the scale visible to the naked eye. That's why quantum theory is so weird, because these two real scales of reality (the quantum scale and the ordinary scale) are fundamentally different in how the rules play out.
You are way over-arguing your point here and just look foolish. Most of the people you are arguing against and making fun of here (me for instance) would actually agree with what you're saying above anyway. My point was that in *addition* to the obvious things you state here, Java itself is a failed, useless concept that the end user doesn't need and has instead become an infection vector for the most part.
I'm not making fun of you... I apologize if my words did not convey my meanings properly and hurt your feelings.
I just happen to work with (and support) quite a few "clueless" users (artists mainly), and anytime I'm at my mother in law's, guess who gets asked to solve the PC's issues.
I'm happy to say the Macs at my parents quite work, even though my Mom in particular is sort of technology-averse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
OpenOffice is a steaming pile of excrement that no reasonable person should attempt to use.
Java is half the reason.
Technical magic trick:
1) make a list of all the cross-platform software that primarily uses Java to achieve this
2) make a list of some of the crappiest, ugliest, slowest, hardest to use programs
The lists become magically identical!!!!
I like Java, and I tend to believe people who hate Java fall in three categories:
- people with an agenda
- developers with another religious belief (and well, I've learnt it's not worth fighting the Emacs/Vim war a few years ago already...)
- people who don't understand technology and just think "it doesn't work, so it must be (accuse whatever technology they see the name of in a dialog box)"
I think you're neither the first or the last case, and you're as entitled to freedom of developer religious beliefs, as I am
Recently moved "Internet Plugins" to "Internet Plugins (Disabled)" folder. Never happier. The plugin web is now dead. Some people refuse to accept it, but, there you go.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123
... the question is stupid to try to make children think... and your answer is wrong. Sound waves are produced without any help from an ear, human or otherwise. Sound waves can also affect things without ears. making a sound means producing a sound wave... so yes, sound waves can be produced even if no one hears them, because it can be measured in other ways. If you think your ear somehow helps produce all the sound waves it hears, then you're living in Lala Land™
If you read carefully, you will see that I actually agreed about the programmer still being a programmer.
As for the "sound in a forest question," unfortunately it is you that are wrong. I didn't say that the falling tree wouldn't produce compression waves ("sound waves") in the air. I merely said that it wouldn't produce "sound."
I'm right. It won't, and what's more it can't. Look it up.
If you are trying to suggest that there is a functional difference between "sound waves" and "sound", you need to be a bit more specific about what it is I should be looking up. I can only guess that you are talking about quantum physics, about observation of quantum events and whatnot; if that is what you are talking about, you are wrong. The quantum reality of how subatomic particles behave under observation is completely irrelavent when talking about sound waves and other events on the scale visible to the naked eye. That's why quantum theory is so weird, because these two real scales of reality (the quantum scale and the ordinary scale) are fundamentally different in how the rules play out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You are way over-arguing your point here and just look foolish. Most of the people you are arguing against and making fun of here (me for instance) would actually agree with what you're saying above anyway. My point was that in *addition* to the obvious things you state here, Java itself is a failed, useless concept that the end user doesn't need and has instead become an infection vector for the most part.
I'm not making fun of you... I apologize if my words did not convey my meanings properly and hurt your feelings.
I just happen to work with (and support) quite a few "clueless" users (artists mainly), and anytime I'm at my mother in law's, guess who gets asked to solve the PC's issues.
I'm happy to say the Macs at my parents quite work, even though my Mom in particular is sort of technology-averse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
OpenOffice is a steaming pile of excrement that no reasonable person should attempt to use.
Java is half the reason.
Technical magic trick:
1) make a list of all the cross-platform software that primarily uses Java to achieve this
2) make a list of some of the crappiest, ugliest, slowest, hardest to use programs
The lists become magically identical!!!!
I like Java, and I tend to believe people who hate Java fall in three categories:
- people with an agenda
- developers with another religious belief (and well, I've learnt it's not worth fighting the Emacs/Vim war a few years ago already...)
- people who don't understand technology and just think "it doesn't work, so it must be (accuse whatever technology they see the name of in a dialog box)"
I think you're neither the first or the last case, and you're as entitled to freedom of developer religious beliefs, as I am
Double post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelin74
Without Java there would be no iTunes, no iCloud, no Apple Store... people that think that Java is obsolete are ignorant.
Can you please elaborate and explain how you came to this conclusion?
It's like saying without flash there wouldn't have been youtube....
Well, it's nonsense, so I'm not optimistic about that poster's explanation.