OMG Firefox vulnerability????

[Yellow Mage]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

I think there may be more Ophelia and Reginald some time in the future.

Well, considering their profession . . .

[Feba]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

The first thought of any intelligent person upon seeing that video should be: "What exactly is burning?" Everyone who had high school physics or chemistry would know that water is usually the end product of combustion, not the fuel.

However, that does not mean it is impossible to use as a fuel, obviously.

There's no excuse for responding with fanciful hope in situation where doubt is needed--ask for insight, plausible mechanism, and an account of the circumstance (e.g. energy input, in this case).

Yes, doubt is needed to approach anything rationally. That, however, does not mean you cannot be hopeful of it.

Pointed questions and doubts are good--defeatists are the fools who surrender their intelligence to settle for a "Well, that sounds nice." Wishful thinking is just another form of defeatism; neither was helpful in getting rockets to the moon.

Goddamn, you really strained to twist it that badly, didn't you? There's nothing defeatist about being interested in new ideas and possibilities. There's everything about it in simply giving up on ideas without exploring their research.

[LilithAngel]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

Lol don't worry overmuch about it Mal, Ophelia and Reginald are both MS Paint byproducts as well (no PS to speak of at all here). However...

I'mma look up some more pics of Time Mages. I think there may be more Ophelia and Reginald some time in the future.

[Malacite]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

=/ and here I thought I was being cute with that poorly edited pick (Photoshop on the fritz, had to use MS Paint)

[Yellow Mage]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

Post re-done:

----

If you really want to debate the Invisible Pink Unicorn, at least look it up first so you see what it comes from.

Well, now I feel like an idiot, though I'm pretty sure that's what you intended; funnily enough, I did get the Spaghetti Monster reference.

There's a difference between criticism and cynicism. The former points out possible flaws and demand remediation, the latter assumes flaws exists and cannot be remedied for the most part.

That's correct. Knowing that, I ask you again to stop your cynicism.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

"Defeatism" certainly isn't what got us to the moon. Defeatists are quitters, and quitting, as Feba said, never got us to the moon.

What I object to is calling "defeatist" those objectively criticize--those who use analytical skills in conjunction with knowledge and understanding to probe weaknesses of new and even old ideas.

I'll be perfectly blunt; thinking that "burning water as fuel might work" is stupid.

The first thought of any intelligent person upon seeing that video should be: "What exactly is burning?" Everyone who had high school physics or chemistry would know that water is usually the end product of combustion, not the fuel. Heck, I learned that in elementary school. There's no excuse for responding with fanciful hope in situation where doubt is needed--ask for insight, plausible mechanism, and an account of the circumstance (e.g. energy input, in this case).

Pointed questions and doubts are good--defeatists are the fools who surrender their intelligence to settle for a "Well, that sounds nice." Wishful thinking is just another form of defeatism; neither was helpful in getting rockets to the moon.

As for wishful thinking, Feba said it's good . . . "up to a point." You're constantly assuming the crossing of said point.

Feba is the person who put up that water burning thread, thus crossed the point a long time ago, but that's neither here nor there.

So let up off of the cynicism, please?

There's a difference between criticism and cynicism. The former points out possible flaws and demand remediation, the latter assumes flaws exists and cannot be remedied for the most part.

[Feba]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

If you really want to debate the Invisible Pink Unicorn, at least look it up first so you see what it comes from.

[Losrase]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

I can understand light very well, and unless it's luminescent (curse you, Mhurron ), there is no possible way whatsoever for something to be pink and invisible at the same time, as being pink would disqualify the requirement of being invisible, and vive-versa: the two are mutually exclusive, no matter how you look at it.

No, you are still right Yellow Mage. For something to be invisible then light needs to either pass through it without reflecting, being absorbed, or it needs to bend around the object. Luminescent means light is being generate at low temperatures. If the object is luminescent then the object is a light source. The object will not be invisible since it is a light source and would emit light waves/particles (I dont remember if they ever proved if light was a wave or a particle because last time I checked, it behaved as both). If it is able to absorb its own light, then it would appear black (i.e. black hole which absorbs all light).

I hope the made sense, I always sucked at "proofs" in school.

[Feba]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

Kerio: You're obviously missing the fact that most people on the internet have absolutely no attention span whatsoever.

Either way, if you want to look more clearly into what it is, just follow the links and do yourself some reading.

[Kerio]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

holy crap, can someone just tell me what's wrong with firefox?? What's up with all this bickering about nonsense things that don't need to even be bickered about?
You know what? I don't care.. just tell me what's wrong with firefox!

[Yellow Mage]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

Itaz, you're being a little harsh, don't you think?

"Defeatism" certainly isn't what got us to the moon. Defeatists are quitters, and quitting, as Feba said, never got us to the moon.

As for wishful thinking, Feba said it's good . . . "up to a point." You're constantly assuming the crossing of said point.

So let up off of the cynicism, please?

EDIT: Feba beat me to it.

[Feba]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

Scientists always question harshly new ideas and new discoveries--

Exactly! Question them, not reject them outright without further inquiry. Yes, it's a long shot, but if a way could be found to turn water into energy, we'd be fools to give it up without looking into it. Critical analysis is a good thing, but not taken to the extreme of giving up on all new ideas before they are explored.

Space travel would never have been attempted if people thought it impossible and stopped trying. Yes, using water as fuel is a long shot. The same can be said of research into cures for most illness that are still around. But we don't stop looking into cancer cures just because their chance of success isn't good.

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

I'd say there's a bit of a gap between 'physics and religion' and 'technology and education'. As to wishful thinking, it is good, up to a point. If everyone were a defeatist, we never would've made it into space, or the moon, and they'd remain science fiction.

We made it to the moon because we know how to calculate forces and trajectories, fuel expenditure to get the forces and trajectories needed, and the engineering to create machines able to achieve those, etc.--science, technology, and education.

Critical analysis got us to the moon, and calling people who employ it "defeatist" is an insult. Scientists always question harshly new ideas and new discoveries--doubt is the tool by which humanity acquired its hard knowledge.

You go sit in a cannon and aim for the moon, if you like wishful, "positive" thinking so much and think science fiction portrays the future. Donate some money to that "burning water" research before you leave earth, too.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

Pretty much what I was about to say, Murphie. Except more awesome, of course.

[Murphie]

Re: OMG Firefox vulnerability????

Yeah, but people who aren't having computer trouble aren't calling you. So your sample is skewed towards the negative.