WorldWideWayne

Which account? mindcrime and WorldWideWayne both seem to be alive at this time. Oh maybe you just meant banned from submitting stories. That makes sense. Thanks!

It's a really bad example of what the submitter was allegedly trying to point out as you can see from his comment above.

Actually, "nobody said those words in the article or anywhere in the comments".

So, if your purpose was indeed to highlight that, you obviously failed since nobody here seems to be discussing that.

Here are some articles that say what you allegedly wanted to - https://www.google.com/search?q=risks%20building%20on%20some...

I'm guessing that the millions of tech people who make their living off of Microsoft's back would probably disagree that building on a Microsoft platform is a bad idea.

No, but I'm interested in the motivation in relation to their point of view.

But in general, it's beyond me at this stage why people single out Microsoft for being anti-competitive. It's completely unbalanced.

Looking at the submitter's background I don't see any professional experience with Microsoft tech. Maybe someone can explain it to me - I don't understand why a guy has avoided Microsoft for his entire career feels the need to dredge up a 10 year old article that talks about events from over 30 years ago.

Too much pro-Microsoft news for you? Honestly - what's your interest here?

I won't even look at it until it has adblock and other extensions.

I thought my comment above would have played better to the crowd here, who always seemed to be strongly anti-conspiracy theory since they always wanted to mis-apply things like Occam's Razor and other such heuristics, in a debate. Maybe the tide has finally turned. I just like Microsoft and don't get all the hate for them, so I tried branding someone as a conspiracy theorist to see what would happen. Interesting results...

I actually fall into the group of people who can see the possibility of conspiracy everywhere. While I don't believe in lizard people, I do believe in the strong possibility that the US gov't was at least partly behind 9/11. Matter of fact - I believe the lizard people story was put out there to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous. I also believe, for instance, that the CIA runs the illicit drug trade...and I believe that Mao Zedong was a controlled assets of the western elite, just like China is today and that this will all culminate into a really scary new world order with China as the only superpower. My favorite thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that it has actually freed my mind up a bit because I don't sweat the small stuff so much anymore and I have fully accepted the fact that I am going to die one day since I have spent so much time thinking about all the ways I'm going to get killed by the Illuminati :)

I wonder how all of the Microsoft haters who think this is "not a mistake" feel about other conspiracy theories?

What do you know about lizard people?

But that's what happens anyway isn't it? Disney kept getting the law changed to protect their fictional mouse character. The MAFIAA got their terrible DMCA. And so on...

The question is - how can you fight it? If the plebes could get laws made in their interest, they would. But they can't, so some of them do the next best thing - break the law. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Might makes right is the ultimate rule here. If nobody can stop you from doing what you want, then it's OK. That's just how the world works.

I gave you the justification that works for me. If it doesn't work for you, then go do what you want.

And it's continued spending, not past spending...and my justification also reflects on the actions of my adversaries.

I do what I want to primarily because I can. And I'm not going to feel bad about that. Just because a law or contract exists does not make it good or right or moral to me. Look at the world we live in - Might makes Right is the ultimate law in this world. Corporations, governments (all just people really) do what they want and if nobody stops them, then I guess it's fine. That's why it's fine for me to do what I want.

Secondly, I don't care about your moral code or your justifications, I care about mine - but I guarantee you that you personally don't live by the letter of the law or every contract you've ever signed. So, why should anyone listen to you? There are no absolutes and your laws and contracts are basically for people who wish follow them, but they're not for me because I don't live in a fantasy world where everything is perfect and everybody follows the rules.

Absolutely. I've had the "premium" level subscription for at least over a decade, which includes all of the content producers and all of the movies (and music). I've paid roughly $12k to $16k to these bloodsucking corporations in that time and I continue to pay even though I can only take advantage of a small percentage of what I'm paying for via Cable. So I really feel like I'm entitled to watch and listen to what I want to, how and when I want to.

I bet he's paid Comedy Central for thousands of things that he never even asked for if he's ever had a cable bill.

Look at the big picture. We live in a society full of corruption and greed; people are naturally going to "steal" from the big greedy corporations who constantly use their advantage to turn the screws and make society pay for their faulty business plans.

I have been paying more than $100 a month to a cable company for a long time. So, I feel entitled to watch whatever I want, wherever I want because if I haven't already paid for it, I probably will soon.

It's way more conspicuous than those sneakers with the wheels on the bottom and those sneakers really took off in some parts of the US. Did they cause a lot of problems for people?

I don't know, but these hoverboards probably won't be as popular as those sneakers.

No problem! Not annoyed in the slightest, I enjoy exploring this subject. However, since you mentioned the phrase "miraculous healing" I get the feeling that you're ascribing an opinion to me that I do not have. You probably think most people who talk about the mind/body connection to be miracle-believing nut-bags, but that's not me. To me - a miracle is just a misunderstood event.

Saying that things heal in time/nature is just another way of affirming that "your body indeed has the ability to heal itself". But also consider the fact that placebos statistically quicken healing faster than nothing at all (e.g. just the passing of time). There's just no way that placebos would be used as a reliable control measure without having tested them against the theory that the passage of time is enough. I believe that most clinical trials also include or are compared against groups of people that take no placebo and no drug.

It's also been proven that the emotional pain in the mind can cause physical pain. And it's been proven that depression can cause you to actually get sick. So, I don't think it's a far leap to imagine that the mind can directly and significantly affect things in the opposite direction.

Thank you. So, due to the extra work that is required I'm going to say YES - this is one point in favor of not preferring inline docs.

I think all the dissenters missed that part (about it being "one point" in favor/not in favor). I thought programmers were supposed to be good with subtle details, but it seems like the majority of them lose that ability when talking about religious topics.

If the function is nested within another function, then the comments to document the inner function are going to exist inside the outer function. And having nested functions is a very common scenario in JS.

Whatever you could need is right at hand.

Except speed, a really nice IDE and good Windows support.

The Ruby ecosystem is so perfectly suited to web development that one hardly needs to go elsewhere to get what one needs... I think the main problem is that .NET tries to be all things to all devs...

So Ruby is all things to web devs, but it's a bad thing that .NET has the same goal for Windows-centric devs? That doesn't make any sense.

C#...it's pretty damn far from being spectacular.

OK, why? Your response is full of opinion but you don't really back it up with any reasoning - so why should any value your words?

"In fact, I don't even use a mouse anymore--my hands are always on the keyboard or trackpad and I can gesture to my computer and actually have it respond--unlike Windows."

I use a keyboard all day with Windows. I can do every single thing that I need to do with just the keyboard, no problem.

I also use Gnome 3 and OS X and I honestly don't think keyboard support is as good in either of those. So I am sure that I don't know what this gentleman is talking about.

So, is this is a point in favor of not commenting your Javascript code or using inline docs?

Historically, I preferred to use inline JsDoc style comments as the source of documentation for my public APIs. Recently though, I decided that I didn't like them and that I wanted something better. I was hoping to find some tool that parses my JS to AST, figures out what was being exported (e.g. what was public) and writes a JSON document that I could diff over time, to figure out what was documented and what wasn't (in my external docs). So far, I have found this project called `doctor` which sounded close to what I'm looking for, but it still relies on comments ~ https://github.com/jdeal/doctor ~ So, I might have to write it myself using something like Esprima to get the AST...

The "my body" argument is the central thrust of Roe v Wade and it is the very reason that abortion is no longer illegal. So that argument is absolutely worthy of consideration here.

Indeed, the stronger point is "Don't arrest me because I might commit some other crime." If we applied drug law logic to things like politics, we'd be arresting anyone who became a politician because they might be corrupting our society worse than any drug.

And I don't get your seatbelt argument. If I don't wear my seatbelt, I'm not harming anyone else - even if I get in an accident and get hurt or die due to my lack of wearing a seatbelt. Seatbelt laws are as unconstitutional as are the drug laws IMO. (Although, after reading about seatbelt law constitutionality, I see two decent arguments - 1) the driver can become a deadly projectile in an accident and 2) the driver is more likely to retain control of the vehicle with a seatbelt on. Those are good arguments, but I still don't think they're common enough occurrences that they should limit my personal freedom.)

Thank you for the great explanation of an instance where stating a negative is not useful.

However, in this case, I don't think one can say there is there's no scientific data or even a reasonable theory to suggest that "the mind" has any affect on the healing abilities of our bodies given that the placebo effect is our rule of measure for whether a drug works or not.

It's my body, so yes. It's legal to kill an unborn fetus that lives in my body, but it's not legal to grow some poppies and ingest them? That's ridiculous to me. It's my body.

Don't make some substance illegal because I might commit some other crime while pursuing my addiction. Arrest me if and when I commit some other crime. If shit were legal, it'd probably be pretty cheap anyway because we'd be able to grow our own.

People who work towards keeping the drug war going are the people who benefit from it. They do not care about other people's bodies or safety from crime. They just want their money and power. All sorts of money disappears when drugs are made legal. Local police can't just seize money anymore, DEA can't have any funding, CIA can't make any money for black-ops and so on and so forth. They'll never give that money up, so it's just never going to be legal. Maybe pot will, but harder drugs - never.

Just because the understanding of consciousness is rather much in its infancy doesn't give people blank checks to make shit up.

Exactly. That's why you can't say things like "it's just messing with your perception" because you really don't know what "it's just" doing.

I didn't say anything about consciousness existing outside of the physical world. All I said is that "you don't really know". But, whenever I say something like that people tend to project some other argument onto me, like I'm here to defend everything any LSD user ever said.

Stating an unproven negative holds the same value to me as stating an unproven positive. That's a fact and that's exactly what I said.

Stating an unproven negative as if it were a fact is also not the best scientific approach.

(Also, saying something like "the mind has no affect on the body" is a positive statement of fact. Quibbling about the word "no" or "not" is just semantics IMO.)

I did not.

I'm not defending the GP's statement about curing cancer, but could you explain your position that "things that affect the brain/mind" cannot affect "insert body part"?

How do you know that? Are you saying that the brain/mind have no effect on the body?

Please point to the scientific research that states that psychedelics definitely do not affect your rectum. At that point, your statement will be more valuable to me than the GP's. As of now, it's at equal value.

we'd probably end up with a lot of people thinking they now know the answers.

People thinking that they know things that they actually don't is definitely a problem. I find that it happens way more often in people who have never tried LSD though. People use false assumptions and self-lies all the time to survive this world. Here's an example:

It's why a lot of pro-LSD people are simply not taken seriously, because they forget it's just a molecule messing with brains' perceptions.

How do you know that? Science doesn't even know what consciousness is, so what does it mean that you're "messing with perception"? Based on that - I think that you simply don't know and you have no proof of what you're saying.