Slashdot Mirror

I wouldn't say they're equivalent of 2600 games but the vast majority are no match for even PSone titles in gameplay or quality.

Which is why the price of the vast majority would be no match for PSone titles. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that something with the depth of an NES game can sell online for $5. An open or semi-open platform gives a developer a chance to build a portfolio to put on his resume while he saves up for the multi-year apprenticeship in Austin, Boston, or Seattle.

Weren't all of your games clones/knock offs of somebody elses game, "Luminesweeper" and those tetris clones with slightly modded rules that you did?

I haven't touched a line of code in a falling block game for several years. Just because a single developer who regularly posts to Slashdot used to make falling block clones and has been working at maturing past that point into other genres doesn't mean that all games from micro-studios are falling block clones. Please be careful.

Not what the GP said. Please visit http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ (in this case, Strawman).

And as it happens, a cooling climate *is* preferable to a warming climate, because it's much easier to counter. All you have to do is burn extra crap to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (or use methane, it's even more potent). But to counter warming, you've got to *reduce* atmospheric CO2/CH4/etcetera, which means you're working against the direction of entropy. Much harder task. Especially when everybody else is increasing their emissions instead.

The mistake is accepting the challenge to "prove them wrong."

It's a logical fallacy to claim that the burden of proof lies not with the anti-vaccers, but with us to disprove their claim. Otherwise, one could simply go claiming all sorts of ridiculous things that are constructed to be difficult or impossible to disprove.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

They're shifting debate because there is no proof vaccines cause autism - what 'evidence' exists has been easily shown as falsified, misunderstood, misinterpreted, or the result of incompetence.

Don't accept the challenge. Put your foot down and say "No, it's not my responsibility to disprove your claim. It's your responsibility to prove your claim in a valid, logical, scientific fashion."

If they object, tell them that God told you the burden is on them. When they say that's nonsense, say "prove God didn't tell me."

Brilliant, no? :)

Your argument is similar to parents who say that kids should always finish their food because people are starving in China. One has little to do with the other. I'm betting there's a named logical fallacy here but I can't identify it.

Couldn't find it? Here ya go:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Sorry, but that is a tu-quoque fallacy.

Your Logical Fallacy is genetic.

I beg to differ, and request that you explain what "begging the question" is, since I obviously seem to misunderstand it. On the site which I refer to, they define it as:

You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.

This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.

I definitely see a parallel in the above explanation and the reasoning behind the "we have root" argument.

Say the question is: "why should we trust Canonical or Ubuntu to have a peek at our personal search results?" The answer from Shuttleworth seems to be, "because we have root, it means you trust us". In other words, the response to the question of trust is trust, posed as a premise.

Also, the additional argument you are describing, we can summarize as "you can trust us with X because you trust us with X-1", which may be better presented as a slippery slope fallacy.

Then again, you are accusing me of misunderstanding logical fallacies, something at which I cannot respond to other than asking you to clarify how I misunderstand, or explain your accusation as a poorly articulated ad hominem attack, as opposed as demonstrating my argument as wrong.

Thank you for your comment and have a nice day.

I beg to differ, and request that you explain what "begging the question" is, since I obviously seem to misunderstand it. On the site which I refer to, they define it as:

You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.

This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.

Example: The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo's Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned.

I definitely see a parallel in the above explanation and the reasoning behind the "we have root" argument.

Say the question is: "why should we trust Canonical or Ubuntu to have a peek at our personal search results?" The answer from Shuttleworth seems to be, "because we have root, it means you trust us". In other words, the response to the question of trust is trust, posed as a premise.

Also, the additional argument you are describing, we can summarize as "you can trust us with X because you trust us with X-1", which may be better presented as a slippery slope fallacy.

Then again, you are accusing me of misunderstanding logical fallacies, something at which I cannot respond to other than asking you to clarify how I misunderstand, or explain your accusation as a poorly articulated ad hominem attack, as opposed as demonstrating my argument as wrong.

Thank you for your comment and have a nice day.

I understand that point. The issue I see with it is that it is taken as an argument to justify what I consider to be a privacy issue. Saying "you should trust us with our data" needs a commitment, a show of *ethics* that actually makes us believe and understand they will be careful with it. Instead, we are presented with "well, you should trust us because... you already trust us, because we are root". It's a fallacy, more specifically begging the question.

I could also construe the whole intervention of Shuttleworth as an appeal to authority, but that would be pushing it a little since, as I said, the Benevolent Dictator doesn't even *need* to appeal to a higher authority. He is, in effect, your root and overlord, and is asserting his power without any shame or guilt. Whee. Also, to be fair, he is making a point that they should think about their responsibilities as admins of all those machines, I just happen to disagree with the path they are taking.

I understand that point. The issue I see with it is that it is taken as an argument to justify what I consider to be a privacy issue. Saying "you should trust us with our data" needs a commitment, a show of *ethics* that actually makes us believe and understand they will be careful with it. Instead, we are presented with "well, you should trust us because... you already trust us, because we are root". It's a fallacy, more specifically begging the question.

I could also construe the whole intervention of Shuttleworth as an appeal to authority, but that would be pushing it a little since, as I said, the Benevolent Dictator doesn't even *need* to appeal to a higher authority. He is, in effect, your root and overlord, and is asserting his power without any shame or guilt. Whee. Also, to be fair, he is making a point that they should think about their responsibilities as admins of all those machines, I just happen to disagree with the path they are taking.

To claim that because one can not provide a detailed description of a deity, therefore a deity can not be defined is really an antithesis for Philosophy.

Ask Popper and Godel.

It simply does not conform to logic, at least in a rational sense.

You keep using these words, yet you operate in realms where they have no meaning. Do you know what does not conform to logic? Claiming that you can define a creator whose creation you're unable to comprehend, let alone define.

Aristotle's work on the Un-caused cause was an abstraction from the work called the Unmade Maker, and I believe conceptually better in terms of a creator.

Aristotle's work is on the universe that already exists and he deals with "unmoved mover," not in any sense a creator, which you claimed. Be aware that Greeks and their predecessors did not have the concept of mathematical limit, so they found paradoxes where there weren't any. Oh, and I ignore your beliefs.

The Universe did come in to existence, or we would not be here typing.

I directed you to the anthropic principle first, so don't play a wise-ass.

You are correct with Pascal's wager, which is why I stated to read his contemporaries for a better perspective on the given statement.

I already said I don't have the time or interest to once more turn the same heap of dung.

Interesting how you inject so much fallacy in to your statement claiming that his opinion is a fallacy.

What's my fallacy? Do you really expect me to write a book here? You claimed to have been well-read in these arguments, so I assumed you'd know what I meant without delving into details.

To believe in a creator is not the same as believing in Theology.

You're muddling again. To believe in a creator is to believe in a theology (stop with the exalted capitals because it looks silly and stick to proper orthography). When you find all existing theologies unacceptable you simply end up with your own.

This means I was correct in my assumption that we disagreed on the definition of atheism.

Which doesn't make you correct overall. It just shows again you don't know what you're talking about.

Your last statement implies that if I disbelieve in a Hindu version of a creator, I am atheist.

This statement proves any discussion with you is pointless, because you can't read. And I don't have time for manipulative analphabets (yes, ad hominem, but a hard-earned one). I wrote antitheist.

Good day, sir (this time for good).

Regarding the original offtopic post: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid. This kind of dishonesty not only undermines rational discourse, it also harms one's own position because it brings your credibility into question.

I love that site.

Drinks with HFCS give me migraines, for example. A sugar placebo would certainly have side effects not even considering the mind over matter aspect of the situation.

I think you might be begging the question here - precluding a nocebo effect based on something that may very well be a nocebo effect.
Or have you been through double blind tests?

For reference: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

False dichotomy there.

those who have no belief in the possibility of a greater being are uncomfortable with the thought of something being inexplicable - ever.

Your logical fallacy is Black-or-white

I for one have no issues with things being inexplicable. But I am curious, and like knowing about the world instead of living in a fairytale. You see, understanding this world makes us able to improve on it in remarkable ways. Those who are uncomfortable are those who refuse to accept well-proven science, not the ones that seek to expand their knowledge no matter what answers they get. The truth may be harsh, but it's far better than the alternative.

And I'll end it with a Tim Minchin quote:
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved".

1. A makes B more likely. That is, the probability of B given A is greater than the probability of B given not A.
2. B makes C more likely, etc.
3. Therefore, A makes C more likely.

To dismiss something as "wrong because it's a fallacy", without making an attempt to show how it is wrong, is also a fallacy.

Since you're a fan of moranic loaded questions and all....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

OK, you believe that we can predict the behaviour of the climate. That's fine, but please give more information to prove your point. At the moment, all I see is that you're claiming belief as fact.

As for my argument, that we cannot consistently predict climate behaviour, this is supported by this information:
http://drtimball.com/2011/ipcc-predictions-scenarios-always-wrong-therefore-science-wrong/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-multi-decadal-regional-climate-predictions-to-by-of-value-to-the-impacts-communities/
http://www.rosettatranslation.com/media/catastrophic-climate-change-or-maybe-not/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/

And, for the argument, I'm not denying that climate change is happening. I believe it is. I'm just not convinced we can accurately predict it.

So you're arguing

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity ...because we /can/ predict the behavior of the climate when it comes to manmade global warming, it's just that you don't understand it so people who believe it is true are exhibiting religion.

Personally, I see both sides as religious zealots.

Your logical fallacy is:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

Your logical fallacies are...
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Stop digging.

Your logical fallacies are...
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Stop digging.

Your logical fallacies are...
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Stop digging.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

The lack of real mobility is a myth.

Hardly - the United States is on par with petty dictatorships for income inequality and mobility. A young member of the working class can look forward to graduating with $25k or more in student loan debt and then struggling to find a job in a shitty economy while hoping they don't need health care. Whereas the rich don't have to worry about health care or student loan debt or housing and can afford to take a year long unpaid internship - or three - before getting a job.

I can say this because I come from a family that emigrated and came to the United States and started off on welfare, living in government projects, and going to very poorly supported schools.

I can say that's a logical fallacy. I know someone who won a lottery. Therefore, winning the lottery is a realistic expectation for the majority of the population.

They convinced me, my siblings, and themselves, that the government handouts were temporary aids for us, and that continuing to live off the government when we have the ability to eventually make it on our own is shameful.

Nice boilerplate pull-up-by-your-bootstraps talking points. And how about when they are six applicants for every open job? At least you have the self-awareness not to join the tea party.

You might be interested in reading some actual analysis - the Rocky Mountain Institute has done great research for years on this. Reinventing Fire What you have above is a good case study of a set of logical fallacies. How many can you find?

Wow, and you are accusing /them/ of being racist.

My girlfriend is Chinese. Never been to the west, doesn't speak English, in every way a normal Chinese person. She and none of the other Chinese people I know think that way.

http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Reality? Fact?

http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal