IOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @boog said:

    But perhaps you could elaborate on how the two comments were "pretty much the same thing".

    I'm sure that I could, but it would be too tedious for words, so I'll just ask you, what if you're wrong about this?

    @boog said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I should have said, "Stop acting like an asshole atheist, please.

    Again, I'm not acting like an atheist.  Seriously, at which point did I deny the existence of a god?

    Where did I say you were denying the existence of God? I just said you were acting like an asshole atheist, in this case by putting up dumb arguments about someone's faith. Perhaps <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile">this link will help.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @ASheridan said:

    That first one about washing his feet in the blood of the wicked, sorry, but that just doesn't seem like a nice, friendly thing to do, irrespective of whose blood it actually is.

    To be sure. What a waste of perfectly nutritious blood. There are starving Gods in China, you know!



  • @nonpartisan said:

    Then I think you're reading too much into the question.  The idea that I would believe there is no God, die, and find out I was wrong scares the snot out of me.
    Then I'm not reading too much into the question - that's the very issue I have with it.  I feel like it's a scare tactic, not an argument.  I don't think any benevolent god (as you assert God to be) would want people to believe simply out of fear of punishment.  Then again:

    @nonpartisan said:

    That's not a basis for why I believe...
    Good for you, like I said, it shouldn't be.

    @nonpartisan said:

    If you hear "What if you're wrong?" and you say "I don't give a flying fuck", well, then fine.
    In my case, it's not about apathy.  I'm open to the idea of a god and I find spirituality to be inspiring, but I constantly question the subject.  I figure if there's a god, one who made me this way even, then it'd be quite a bit of douchebaggery to punish me for not blindly believing.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I'm sure that I could, but it would be too tedious for words, so I'll just ask you, what if you're wrong about this?
    Meh.

    @boomzilla said:

    Where did I say you were denying the existence of God?
    Well, the primary characteristic of atheists is rejecting the belief in the existence of God.  Here's a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism]reference[/url].

    @boomzilla said:

    I just said you were acting like an asshole atheist, in this case by putting up dumb arguments about someone's faith.
    Being that the objective of a simile is to highlight a similarity, I could only assume your choice of the word "atheist" was intended to compare my religious beliefs to those of atheists.  Why else use the word "atheist"; as members of every religion are known for "putting up" arguments contrary to others' faith (or as you so gracefully call them, "dumb arguments"), and considering that this apparently was the behavior on which you wanted to call me out, you could have just as easily told me to stop acting like an asshole Christian, or asshole Hinduist, or asshole Wica, or asshole Vodouisant.  I'm sure you can understand my confusion, but do not concern yourself; it is clear to me now that you simply chose your words without putting any real thought into them.

    @boomzilla said:

    Perhaps this link will help.
    I'm not sure there's any link that will help, but thanks for trying.



  •  Boog,

     I think we're going to need to part ways on this one.  Your faith and your belief, or your lack of faith and your belief, or your . . . whatever . . . faith and your belief, in God is your own.  I've tried to explain my side and I just can't find any new ways to explain it.  I'm not saying you're an atheist.  I'm not saying you're apathetic about the question "what if you're wrong?"  It seems like I can't choose the right combination of words to make my position clear, so thank you for the conversation and I'll just move on from here.  Have yourself a fine day today.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @boog said:

    Why else use the word "atheist"; as members of every religion are known for "putting up" arguments contrary to others' faith (or as you so gracefully call them, "dumb arguments"), and considering that this apparently was the behavior on which you wanted to call me out, you could have just as easily told me to stop acting like an asshole Christian, or asshole Hinduist, or asshole Wica, or asshole Vodouisant.  I'm sure you can understand my confusion, but do not concern yourself; it is clear to me now that you simply chose your words without putting any real thought into them.

    The way I used my words, "asshole" and "atheist" were a package deal. Now you need to stop acting like an illiterate. C'mon, have you never listened to / read someone like Dawkins? The bottom line is that trying to apply logic to faith is TRWTF, and that's what you've been doing. Don't assume that we're all as dumb as you act.

    @boog said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Perhaps this link will help.

    I'm not sure there's any link that will help, but thanks for trying.

    Sadly, I would agree that you're beyond its help.



  • @ASheridan said:

     Sorry, but your god was a bit of a bastard, not what I'd call benevolent.

    He damned humanity when Adam and Eve ate the apple in the garden. Sure they betrayed his trust, but, overreaction much?!

    Then he got pissed off again and killed nearly everyone in the flood of 40 days and nights. Don't get me started on how by doing this he basically forced Noah's family to inbreed in order to continue the human population.

    Then there are some lovely choice quotes from various bits of the bible:

    Nahum 1.2

    The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies. 

    There's a whole list of them here http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/vengeance/3.html 

    That first one about washing his feet in the blood of the wicked, sorry, but that just doesn't seem like a nice, friendly thing to do, irrespective of whose blood it actually is.

     

    You're right.  Those are the descriptions in the Old Testament.  I cannot fully reconcile the differences between the Old and New Testaments.  I lean toward the New Testament mostly because (a) it's more recent than the books of the Old Testament, and (b) it fits more in line with my beliefs.  Do not take that to mean that I outright reject the Old Testament.  It just means that I haven't been able to figure out how it could be that God seemed so vengeful in the Old Testament and is much better in the New.  Perhaps God was still learning how to be a good God in the Old Testament??

     



  • @nonpartisan said:

     Perhaps God was still learning how to be a good God in the Old Testament??

    That would not fit well with the standard definition of the judeo-christian god, an all-knowing entity.  Maybe he hated jews?



  • @nonpartisan said:

    You're right.  Those are the descriptions in the Old Testament.  I cannot fully reconcile the differences between the Old and New Testaments.  I lean toward the New Testament mostly because (a) it's more recent than the books of the Old Testament, and (b) it fits more in line with my beliefs.  Do not take that to mean that I outright reject the Old Testament.  It just means that I haven't been able to figure out how it could be that God seemed so vengeful in the Old Testament and is much better in the New.  Perhaps God was still learning how to be a good God in the Old Testament??
    In the New Testament Jesus took the wrath of God upon himself on our behalf, that is why the New Testament seems so much nicer than the Old.  This is also why it is very important for Christians to study the Old Testament so that they fully understand what Jesus has done and saved them from.



  • @dhromed said:


    <3



  • @nonpartisan said:

    ...thank you for the conversation...
    Likewise.  While you may not realize it, I do respect your choice of religion, I do understand your position, and I have found the discussion to be most interesting.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:
    Why else use the word "atheist"; as members of every religion are known for "putting up" arguments contrary to others' faith (or as you so gracefully call them, "dumb arguments"), and considering that this apparently was the behavior on which you wanted to call me out, you could have just as easily told me to stop acting like an asshole Christian, or asshole Hinduist, or asshole Wica, or asshole Vodouisant.  I'm sure you can understand my confusion, but do not concern yourself; it is clear to me now that you simply chose your words without putting any real thought into them.

    The way I used my words, "asshole" and "atheist" were a package deal.

    My point still stands.

    @boomzilla said:

    The bottom line is that trying to apply logic to faith is TRWTF, and that's what you've been doing.
    Quite the contrary, actually.  I don't suspect you've read any of my comments in their entirety (I know I haven't), but I've been employing logic as a means to argue for the removal of logic from discussions of faith, particularly because it is often flawed.  I've said multiple times that having faith by reason of choice is fine, as nobody can really argue with personal preference.  But if someone suggests that their faith is the result of logical conclusion or proven by statistical improbability (like a given set of coincidences or lack thereof), you can expect jerks like myself to chime in and point out the flaws in such logic.  Which is exactly what happened.

    @boomzilla said:

    Don't assume that we're all as dumb as you act.
    Not at all - no assumption was necessary in your case.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @boog said:

    @boomzilla said:
    The way I used my words, "asshole" and "atheist" were a package deal.

    My point still stands.

    No, but you buttress my assertion of your illiteracy.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:
    My point still stands.
    No...
    Care to explain why not?  Or would that, too, conveniently be too tedious for words?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @boog said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @boog said:
    My point still stands.

    No...

    Care to explain why not?  Or would that, too, conveniently be too tedious for words?

    Here's the simple breakdown. You were saying stuff that's very similar to what a particular group of people say. I labeled those people with the obvious moniker, "asshole atheists." There are many assholes, but you were acting like an "asshole atheist." First, you focused on the "atheist" part of that and denied that you subscribed to the atheist faith. As I said, you were merely engaging in sophistry similar to what prominent asshole atheists do. Then you claimed that it was all about the asshole (asshole Hindus, etc). But that, again, missed the point.

    Either you've been lucky enough to have not been exposed to any asshole atheists, or your communication abilities do not include such literary devices as simile, analogy or metaphor. I suppose you could simply be trolling.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:
    @boomzilla said:
    @boog said:
    My point still stands.

    No...

    Care to explain why not?  Or would that, too, conveniently be too tedious for words?

    Here's the simple breakdown. You were saying stuff that's very similar to what a particular group of people say. I labeled those people with the obvious moniker, "asshole atheists." There are many assholes, but you were acting like an "asshole atheist." First, you focused on the "atheist" part of that and denied that you subscribed to the atheist faith. As I said, you were merely engaging in sophistry similar to what prominent asshole atheists do. Then you claimed that it was all about the asshole (asshole Hindus, etc). But that, again, missed the point.

    Either you've been lucky enough to have not been exposed to any asshole atheists, or your communication abilities do not include such literary devices as simile, analogy or metaphor. I suppose you could simply be trolling.

    The funny thing is, I'm agnostic (not that anyone cares; I sure don't). I used to consider myself atheist, but then I realized something: every atheist I met was a complete piece of shit. The hated themselves, they hated other atheists and they really, really hated non-atheists. They accused everyone who didn't think like them of being narrow-minded. They cruelly attacked people of faith* and then turned around and whined about being oppressed. They were intolerable; spending 10 minutes around one would make you want to take your own life (or theirs).

    The thing is, atheism is just another faith. And while the bitter, rebellious cynicism might be understandable in an unpopular, virginal high school student, it's repugnant in a 40 year-old (virginal or not).

    • By "people of faith" I mean Christians, of course. I can't remember ever hearing an atheist rant about how stupid Hinduism or Buddhism are.


  • @boomzilla said:

    You were saying stuff that's very similar to what a particular group of people say. I labeled those people with the obvious moniker, "asshole atheists." There are many assholes, but you were acting like an "asshole atheist."
    So I'm supposed to keep track of the shit spewed by assholes in your life?  Look, I said a lot of things, and I don't consider any of the things I said to be atheist; skepticism and atheism are far from the same thing.

    @boomzilla said:

    Either you've been lucky enough to have not been exposed to any asshole atheists...
    Or maybe I care so little about what assholes (atheist or otherwise) say that I don't even bother memorizing any of it.

    @boomzilla said:

    ...or your communication abilities do not include such literary devices as simile, analogy or metaphor.
    That I don't understand your awkward reasoning of how some things are like other things when they're really not (like calling me an asshole atheist because at some point I said something that apparently asshole atheists sometimes say even though it had nothing to do with atheism in particular) doesn't mean that I don't know what a simile is.  It just means you suck at writing them.

    @boomzilla said:

    I suppose you could simply be trolling.
    I could easily say the same to you.  :)



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    By "people of faith" I mean Christians, of course. I can't remember ever hearing an atheist rant about how stupid Hinduism or Buddhism are.
     

    Funny you should mention that, I always thought that among major religions Hinduism was probably the worst (though I have to admit their temples look really cool)



  • Alright, this has gone on long enough. I now present the epic fix that will put everything to rest:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s



  • @blakeyrat said:

    iOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger and no way of enabling remote debugging.
    Thanks to Adobe, they soon will. Watch 'em charge you an arm and a leg for it though.



  • @Ragnax said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    iOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger and no way of enabling remote debugging.
    Thanks to Adobe, they soon will. Watch 'em charge you an arm and a leg for it though.

    Ok I didn't get further into the video than the intro, but it sounds like it's just a proxy. The guy doesn't mention JavaScript debugging; he just says you can push JS changes to the mobile device quickly. Well, shit. You can do that with fucking Fiddler.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Ragnax said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    iOS devices (iPods, iPads, iPhones) have no JavaScript debugger and no way of enabling remote debugging.
    Thanks to Adobe, they soon will. Watch 'em charge you an arm and a leg for it though.

    Ok I didn't get further into the video than the intro, but it sounds like it's just a proxy. The guy doesn't mention JavaScript debugging; he just says you can push JS changes to the mobile device quickly. Well, shit. You can do that with fucking Fiddler.

    Watch until the end. The video shows that the current preview for Shadow uses Weinre as a drop-in for remote inspection and execution of simple scripts on the console commandline. With Adobe's new-found interest in web standard technologies as the way forward for rich media interfaces, chances are good that an actual debugger is coming soon as well.

    If anything, a competing company's debugging tool will also put more pressure on Apple to publicly enable the remote debugging feature that's already around inside Mobile Safari's guts.



  • @Ragnax said:

    Watch until the end.

    You know that information would be much more efficiently disseminated in an article rather than a video. sigh. Fine, I'll dig around, find my headphones, grumble grumble.

    Ok I wasted 5 minutes of my life on that shit and he never talks about JavaScript debugging, so I now hate you and want you to die.

    @Ragnax said:

    The video shows that the current preview for Shadow uses Weinre as a drop-in for remote inspection and execution of simple scripts on the console commandline.

    Weinre isn't a JavaScript debugger. We've covered this waaay back at the beginning of the thread.

    @Ragnax said:

    If anything, a competing company's debugging tool will also put more pressure on Apple to publicly enable the remote debugging feature that's already around inside Mobile Safari's guts.

    That would be nice, since that tool does actually include a JavaScript debugger.


Log in to reply