Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical Is Hiring More Mir, Unity Developers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
    I meant along the lines of its ok to reinvent the wheel and come up of new tools that do the samething. Sometimes the new tool is better in the different situtions than the first tool. Even better, we learn that the first tool was biased, thus we learn the truth. Same concept with more than one way to approach or solve a problem. Reducancy is important sometimes.
    Enough with the vague philosophical arguments. What exactly is the benefit of redundancy in this case?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by dee. View Post
      Enough with the vague philosophical arguments.
      OH WOW, a linux user whom doesn't want to talk in entrely vague philosophical terms.

      I nearly dropped my pipette I laughed so hard.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
        OH WOW, a linux user whom doesn't want to talk in entrely vague philosophical terms.

        I nearly dropped my pipette I laughed so hard.
        It's better to be quiet and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

        Now, either cease behaving like an obnoxious tool, stop dodging and answer the question if you can, or shut up and leave the talking to people who actually know what they're talking about.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
          OH WOW, a linux user whom doesn't want to talk in entrely vague philosophical terms.

          I nearly dropped my pipette I laughed so hard.
          You used the wrong word there, pal.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
            I meant along the lines of its ok to reinvent the wheel and come up of new tools that do the samething. Sometimes the new tool is better in the different situtions than the first tool. Even better, we learn that the first tool was biased, thus we learn the truth. Same concept with more than one way to approach or solve a problem. Reducancy is important sometimes.
            And that is has what, exactly, to do with my post you were responding to?

            You said that you found the idea that we might not want to do everything that we are able to do "offensive"? How is that remotely related to your current point that redundancy can sometimes be a good thing?

            Neither you nor I said anything about redundancy. Further, your constant repetition of "sometimes" indicates that you think that redundancy is not always a good thing. So unless you think that we should do redundant things even when it isn't beneficial, then you seem to be agreeing with me that there are situations that we shouldn't do things just because we can.

            And if you really think scientists just going around randomly creating radically new approaches to carrying out standard tasks for no reason then you aren't a very good scientist. Scientists certainly do new things and use new approaches when there is a good reason to do so, but they don't randomly re-create whole, well-established procedures from scratch without a very good reason, and reviewers would rightly reject a paper that tried. It adds too many additional variables that can interfere with the experimental approach. Good scientific practice calls for exactly the opposite, in fact. You need to try to make your experiment as similar as possible to the ones you are basing it off of in order to avoid unexpected confounding factors. The principle of changing the absolute fewest number of variables possible is one of the bedrock principles of science.
            Last edited by TheBlackCat; 06-27-2013, 06:14 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X