NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
help them think they understand.
--Larry Wall
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Just to give you a hard time (Score:1)
My counterexample is religion. I can't think of anything else that, given an infinite amount of time, you couldn't understand completely. But, assuming you believe in the Jewish/Protestant God (I'm not sure about others), part of your belief is that you were created unable to understand divine things. The only parts of this argument that are debatable are the truth of religion and whether religion is a "tool". The former must be taken
Re: (Score:1)
Also, your jackassery is indeed awesome.
Re: (Score:1)
For example, I don't understand religion completely, but I understand that it sucks because beliefs become dogma too easily.
Your argument about why religion is a tool has convinced me.
Re: (Score:2)
assuming you believe in the Jewish/Protestant God (I'm not sure about others), part of your belief is that you were created unable to understand divine things
Not quite. First, some divine things are understandable. Second, the only things not understandable are those things which are impossible for any noninfinite, created, being to understand. It's not that we were created unable to understand those things, but that we cannot understand those things because we created.
Not that this has anything to do with anything.
Perfect software systems (Score:1)
It seems like Steve Yegge has been blogging about perfect software systems here: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/01/pinocchio-problem.html [blogspot.com]. Sometimes he writes interesting things. Well, ok, sometimes he misses the point completely. He's not that perfect as well.