back to article 'I'll dance on their graves at 1 MILLION operations per second'

Welcome to The Register's new Comments of the Week feature. Here you'll find the best – and worst – of the stuff written below the line by El Reg's bafflingly diverse field of commentards. Just remember: we love you all. Even when your fellow commentards don't. The commentard who wins the “most popular” award this week is …

  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Trollface

    Welcome to The Register's new Comments of the Week feature.

    Oh, FUUUUU....

    Competition is ON NOW!

    1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      I agree, now is the time to put childish things like up-votes and down-votes behind me. I want to be selected by the vulturistas as worthy of repetition.

      1. h4rm0ny

        I'm safe from inclusion. None of my comments are less than eight paragraphs long. ;)

        (Except for this one!)

  2. Mark 85 Silver badge

    So for downvotes...

    Where is Eadon now that he could win?

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: So for downvotes...

      The downvote prize should be named the Eadon Memorial Award in his honor.

  3. gerdesj Silver badge

    Meta comments

    Comments posted here are meta-comments and hence will require a MCotW section opening for them.

    Continue ad-nauseam. Feel free to whitter on about "... elephants all the way down" as required.

    Cheers

    Jon

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Meta comments

      No, no, there is one layer only of elephants. After that it's turtles all the way down.

      Obvious really. Do elephants look suitable for stacking? No. Chelonians? Equally obviously yes.

      There will also need to be a section for completely off topic comments relating to the contents of other comments. Para comments.

  4. ghettomaster

    Perhaps amanfrommars will come back and El Reg can decipher him for us,,,

    1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

      "Perhaps amanfrommars will come back and El Reg can decipher him for us,,,"

      He's gone??

      1. h4rm0ny

        >>"He's gone??"

        Completely. But he's still posting if that's what you mean. ;)

    2. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Decipher? I'm not sure that's entirely possible.

  5. A Known Coward

    Richard Dawkins?

    Why would the atheists/humanists want to upvote a comment that suggests atheism is a 'collective delusion' in order to 'redress the balance'? The balance is already in their favour.

    1. phil dude
      Alien

      Re: Richard Dawkins?

      Sometimes I wonder if the human ability to endure cognitive dissonance is all that it is cracked up to be...

      I am happy to believe there is a master fairy out there. It (no gender) set up the physical laws "just so", wound the clock up with a big bang. Possibly using an infinite number of attempts to get it right. One that creates the conditions for chemical self-replication, that after 4.5 billion years of fortuitous interactions, I came to be born, educated, and not die of disease. Be able to type this on a machine created through an astonishing number of ingenious human improvements.

      The problem is, as much as I might like to believe (aka Mulder), there is no evidence that supernatural *anything* is possible. The physical laws forbid it*, until such time as it is shown that they do not.

      It might just as well be turtles all the way down. It is more enlightening and a lot less damaging-by-division than the other dogmatically unstable fantasies that plague humanity...

      P.

      *energy conservation is mandatory in this universe, not so in Discworld**

      **thaumic conservation laws might apply...

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Richard Dawkins?

        The problem is, as much as I might like to believe (aka Mulder), there is no evidence that supernatural *anything* is possible. The physical laws forbid it*, until such time as it is shown that they do not.

        Er... "supernatural" means, by definition, that the laws of nature do not apply. Nothing "supernatural" (whether any such thing exists is immaterial) is entirely subject to "physical laws"; nor can scientific tests provide compelling evidence for or against it. By definition, the supernatural includes only those things outside scientific epistemology. Anything within scientific epistemology is, again by definition, natural.

        Personally, I don't feel any need to hold or act on any substantive belief in any supernatural entity. But there's no way to introduce objective evidence for or against such a belief. You can only introduce philosophical arguments.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019