There are certainly a giant pool of ridiculous fanboys such as the article implies, and it's unfortunate that they're so loud and obnoxious. But there's also a huge crowd of long-time fans who have been mac fans for years, who not only will criticize Apple when it does something dumb, they'll also nitpick Apple over the smallest of details.
Back when the G4 Cube was released, most Apple fans agreed that it was an attractive looking design, but it was criticized for being impractical in a lot of ways, as well as overpriced. And who do you think it was that was sending them back after they noticed tiny cracks in the corners of the plastic?
We all know OS9 sucked. We complained about its shortcomings constantly. We were amazed and confounded that Apple couldn't manage to ship a modern OS. Apple has managed to turn it around, but they still make mistakes, and some of the most dedicated Apple fans watch them like hawks, arguing over default colors, system fonts, etc.
A good recent example is with the latest update to OSX, Apple had made some visual changes to the dock, turning it into what looked like a translucent 3D shelf. There were dozens of blog posts and such complaining about this, about how an application's icon doesn't look right anymore, about how the angle of the shelf doesn't match the angle that everyone's been drawing their icons at, detailed analysis of the HIG as pertaining to the dock and icons. Apple made some concessions, and hopefully in the end everyone is a little happier with what they got.
It's kind of incredible isn't it? With the amounts of money and resources that some of these companies have at their disposal, with all the brilliant people they can afford to hire, with all the latest technology they can get their hands on, they produce so much crap.
Sometimes it's amazing to me that the world works at all.
Your british airwars terminal comparison is interesting, but it's important to keep in mind that in a project like that, the majority of the work was spent doing something other than design and construction. When you've got a big public project like that, the amount of politics, meetings with every single person who should be involved, every person that thinks they should involved, and every person who wants to be involved just because they like to complain, it takes forever and it sucks.
Not to say that a factory that produces nuclear reactor parts wouldn't have some politics to deal with, but in a lot of ways, it's much more straight-forward than a public airline terminal.
uhhh, do you mean pre-OSX versions of MacOS? Because that became outdated about 7+ years ago. Maybe in 2003 or 04 your argument would be reasonable, but very few consumer programs get supported for that long.
There's plenty of mac freeware and shareware. You could consider it scarce if you compared it to the amount of stuff floating around the windows world, but nobody really needs 47 ftp clients to choose from, or 39 free tetris clones. Just about any type of shareware/freeware that you can find for windows you can find for the mac. There might only be a couple choices instead of dozens, but there's almost always at least one quality application, and far few pieces of crap to filter out.
Apple will allow you to distribute free applications for the iPhone. I don't understand where you expect all this nickle and dime'ing to come from. As for shutting out hobbyists, I'm just guessing here same as you were, but I haven't seen anything from Apple that leaves me to believe that they'll be particularly selective about who they allow to distribute through iTunes. You just have to make apps that follow their rules.
The mac world has a very strong history of high quality shareware/freeware. I think a hobbyists windows developer trying to make the jump from the windows and/or linux world to the iPhone will have less to worry about in terms of selectiveness from Apple, than they will from end users. Apple users tend to be much more picky about the appearance/interface of their software.
Adorable. Maybe some other game development hobbyist will come up with a similar idea to whatever game you were going to make, release it for the iPhone for a few bucks, and actually get their game played and paid for by a decent number of people.
Ideological discussions about computers sure can be exciting, but in the real world, running a business or making some money doesn't mean you're evil.
That's all very true, the limited hardware out there certainly contributes to the integration with the OS as well as system stability. But that's not the most basic reason.
Apple is a hardware company.
The bulk of their revenue, by a huge margin, comes from selling hardware. The ship lots of computers, music players, and now phones. Through industrial design, OS exclusivity, and marketing, they manage to consistently sell their hardware at margins significantly better than the industry average.
Some people claim that if Apple shut down their hardware division and just sold OS X for generic boxes, then they'd make gazillions of dollars. I guess that's possible (probably unlikely), but it'd certainly be a very risky move. I think Apple would have a hard time justifying that risk, especially since their current business model is bringing them record profits, and their marketshare has finally started to grow again.
They didn't make it illegal to run anything on your phone. They just aren't going to distribute certain types of applications through iTunes. There are already many ways in which you can install anything you want on your iPhone, and Apple really won't give a damn. They won't provide technical support for your changes, but they're not going to kidnap you and throw you in prison either.
Nobody listened to you because most people who pay attention already knew this would happen. It's just that not everyone believes that this is some grave injustice against humanity.
It's always been like this, for everything. You just happen to see it a lot more now because the internet makes it so easy for just about anyone to share their opinion.
People love to argue, competition is intrinsic to humanity.
That's easy to explain, he was probably just feeling lazy. I can cook a complex four course meal when I feel like it, but sometimes I just eat mac&cheese out of a box. This kid probably could've done a better job of covering his tracks, but maybe he just felt sort of untouchable and got careless. It wouldn't be unusual for a teenager.
No, it sounds like a dumb kid doing something stupid.
Just because you're talented or even brilliant at one thing doesn't mean that you're not a total idiot in other ways. There are plenty of smart people running around doing stupid things. The fact that this kid is capable of doing complex tricks with the phone system doesn't mean he'd do something easy and foolish because he thought it'd be funny.
Despite my utter lack of phreaking skills, I'd like to think that at 17 I was smart enough to realize that sending SWAT teams out to random locations was a really bad idea. But the news is full every day of adults doing mind-boggling dumb stuff. I find it much easier to believe that this kid did it than to believe that someone's framing him.
The biggest issue with current electric cars is battery technology, or the lack thereof. You can't just replace a 15 gallon gas tank with a battery of the same size and end up with the same result. The amount of electricity required to drive an electric car a reasonable distance results in huge, very heavy, and expensive batteries. There are also potential issues concerning battery lifetime, environmental impacts of manufacturing/disposal, etc.
So you basically end up with the question, how are we going to store all of that electricity in the car until it's needed. If batteries aren't a viable option, what other forms can we use? Hydrogen is attractive because it has a very high energy density, but it has its share of drawbacks as well. The article is about somebody who claims to be able to overcome some of those drawbacks via nanotechnology. I have no idea if his ideas are feasible.
True, but if you imagine this thing with a pivot in the middle, I think it'd be much easier to "flip" the 50 pound weight to the top than it would be to just lift 50 pounds straight up. Basically, it'd be acting as a lever which would make it easier to move that weight. There's some math you could do to numerically spell it all out, but I'm lazy.
Of course, there's some downsides in this design, in that you'd have to add in some locking safety features to keep the 50 pound weight from flipping back down on its own, plus you'd have to design the pivot, plus probably make the whole tube stronger in order to be able to withstand the flipping process. All that would certainly add to the build costs.
I don't think that you can draw a useful comparison between comics and games in the way that this article seems to be trying to do. Comics are a genre, of literature I guess. Video games are more like literature than comics, in that you're talking about a broader range of things, which can be broken down into genres. (which isn't to say that you can't break down a genre such as comics further.)
You could probably make a decent argument that some genres of video games have already fallen into a 'ghetto'. Flight-sims are only a small slice of the video game market, and adventure games have sort of fallen by the wayside. Either through market shifts, or just certain types of games basically becoming obsolete, genres will grow and wane in popularity, but probably never completely disappear.
It seems to me that it's more of a programming issue than a deficiency in the controller. I think that when creating the boxing game, Nintendo imposed a limit on how fast your character could punch, and that limit is much slower than your average person can move. Beyond that I think they just didn't do a very good job of compensating for all the different ways people might punch. (Some people rotate their fists as they punch, some just lunge straight out, etc.)
Maybe they just didn't have the time to get it right?
While there are certainly many people on/. and in the rest of the world who seem to find these sorts of things impossible to discuss with any civility, that doesn't mean that it's not a discussion that's worth having.
Science as an idea can exist independent of any morality (religious or otherwise), but in the real world, science is meaningless without people. It does not take place in an sealed intellectual box. It has meaning and repercussions beyond experiment and theories, and to try and pretend that it doesn't will only serve to make the unavoidable problems that much more contentious.
It's disappointing to me to see so many people quickly dismiss the Pope as just some nutjob church guy. Not only because I'm Catholic, but more-so because I'm a science loving geek who sees real and useful science suffering at the hands of many real nutjob church people. The Catholic Church doesn't have a spotless record by any means, but as a whole is way more progressive and open-minded in regards to science than many of the other christian denominations. The Church in general does not deny evolution, does not insist that the world is only a 6000 or so years old, etc. I'm not suggesting that the entire scientific world run all their ideas through the vatican before doing any research, but scientists should consider it part of their job to engage the rest of humanity in these moral discussions related to their work. I think there's been a pretty consistent neglect to do so over the past few decades, and the resentment that built up against science as a result of that neglect has recently manifested itself quite strongly (in the USA at least), with all these bizarre arguments over evolution and intelligent design and such.
It must be nice for you to have all the answers, to have everything figured out, to not have any uncertainties in your life. Unfortunately, most people don't know everything, and many of them like hearing the ideas and thoughts of others.
And seriously, this isn't just some random "religious types" trying to cram their lifestyle down your throat. It's the freakin' pope discussing the Church's interpretation of the Catholic religion in regards to modern issues. Doing that kind of thing is his job. If you're not interested in what he has to say, then change the channel. Meanwhile, there are many people out there who want to listen. (Even if they might not agree.)
Yeah, but for many people, the "power" of a computer is not just the sum of all of its tech specs and how quickly it can shuffle electrons around. The appeal of Macs has historically been more about the operating system, and less about the plastic/metal that it's wrapped in. The fact that the case is cool looking is just a bonus.
Of course, when you move into the realm of consumer electronics, the appearance of a device becomes even more significant for most people, particularly when it's something that they carry around in public. But for all its clean curves and sleek colors, the iPod wouldn't have been as successful if it didn't offer compelling functionality.
To take the car analogy a little further, Ferrari doesn't just take a Ford chassis, shove a more powerful engine in it, swap out the logo, and jack up the price. Any old moron could put a big-ass engine on a car. Instead, Ferrari (hopefully, I've never driven one) puts a better steering system, more suitable suspension, better brakes, etc. They're not just selling pretty and powerful, they're also selling drive-able.
Apple skimps a little bit on the powerful, but puts plenty of effort into pretty and drive-able.
Here's another "not the original poster, but still going to answer" answer. I take very little of the old testament to be literal, and even some of the parts that may map to some actual historic event aren't very useful to me in a literal sense, because they took place in a world that looked very different from the world that I live in.
I don't believe that the Adam and Eve story literally happened. And even if it did, I don't find that to be the compelling part of what Jesus was trying to do for us. If I try take it literally and boil it down to a really basic level, this is what I get.
1. God created the heavens and the earth. On the earth, he created a man, and gave him the goal of getting into heaven. One of the rules that God made for this man to get into heaven is that he had to be free from sin.
2. This man breaks that rule, gets tainted by sin. He's no longer worthy of heaven, oh and by the way neither will any of his descendents, they all will suffer because of this mistake
3. Eventually God sends down his son, who dies a horrible death, and so it doesn't matter than man is tainted by sin anymore.
Basically it's like God created a loophole to a rule that he made in the first place. While that's certainly nice of him, in some way, it seems to me like making your own game, and then when the game progresses different than you expected, you tweak the rules to get it back on track. That's not to say that God is some sort of cheater, I'd like to think that existence is more than a game.
I don't know, maybe at the end of the day this means I'm not even really a christian, but I think Jesus was less about flipping some spiritual switch through his death(and resurrection) that all of a sudden made humans acceptable to heaven. I think it was more that God decided that humanity overall wasn't interpreting the old testament properly, and so Jesus was more intended to serve as an education, both through what he said and did, as well as be providing a powerful example through his death. His message had basically nothing to do with interpreting historical facts. It was more about helping people make good moral choices.
I don't think Jesus would give a rats-ass what anybody thinks about evolution. There are more important measures of one's faith and one's "good-ness".
Your entire argument is basically one of semantics. My definition of faith doesn't match what you said. If you ask 100 different people what their definition of "faith" is, you'll probably get close to 100 different answers.
When I was younger, I knew the world wasn't perfect, but I thought that adults were generally competent and honest enough that much of civilization and technology was really refined and well functioning. I just sort of assumed that medicine and construction and industry was all about well established procedures, precision, and organization.
These days, I make a living designing buildings, and I can tell you that I was entirely wrong about all of that. There are tons of full grown, highly educated, very experienced professionals that are just as confused, scatterbrained, and flaky as those dumbass lab partners you'd end up with in high school. And getting them to do their fair share of the work is sometimes harder than the actual project you're trying to accomplish. When something is being designed, it's really really hard to solve all the problems before you actually start building it. Lots of things will go wrong, lots of simple things will get overlooked, lots of stuff that you never expected will happen. Half the time, whoever discovers the problem will either blame someone else, or at least try to shift responsibility for figuring it out away from themselves. The other half of the time the problem will be solved on the spot by whoever happens to notice it. Then there's maybe a 50/50 chance that they'll mention that issue to anyone else involved.
I guess the point is, there are very few jobs/projects where you just sit down and crank out work according to a schedule. Design of almost any sort is less about putting down the answers onto paper/computer/whatever, and more about trying stuff out, seeing what problems arise, and then trying to fix them. Deadlines have a role in the process and are important, but unless someone is producing an exact replica of a game/building/object that they've already done, you shouldn't take a date as anything other than a very rough approximation.
Yes, we get it. You're a real musician, while all us fakers are just crappy little fools completely incapable of understanding what music really is. Thanks for reminding us that we're not real rock stars, and that video games are not the real world. I will stop enjoying my rock band drumsticks immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
There are certainly a giant pool of ridiculous fanboys such as the article implies, and it's unfortunate that they're so loud and obnoxious. But there's also a huge crowd of long-time fans who have been mac fans for years, who not only will criticize Apple when it does something dumb, they'll also nitpick Apple over the smallest of details.
Back when the G4 Cube was released, most Apple fans agreed that it was an attractive looking design, but it was criticized for being impractical in a lot of ways, as well as overpriced. And who do you think it was that was sending them back after they noticed tiny cracks in the corners of the plastic?
We all know OS9 sucked. We complained about its shortcomings constantly. We were amazed and confounded that Apple couldn't manage to ship a modern OS. Apple has managed to turn it around, but they still make mistakes, and some of the most dedicated Apple fans watch them like hawks, arguing over default colors, system fonts, etc.
A good recent example is with the latest update to OSX, Apple had made some visual changes to the dock, turning it into what looked like a translucent 3D shelf. There were dozens of blog posts and such complaining about this, about how an application's icon doesn't look right anymore, about how the angle of the shelf doesn't match the angle that everyone's been drawing their icons at, detailed analysis of the HIG as pertaining to the dock and icons. Apple made some concessions, and hopefully in the end everyone is a little happier with what they got.
It's kind of incredible isn't it? With the amounts of money and resources that some of these companies have at their disposal, with all the brilliant people they can afford to hire, with all the latest technology they can get their hands on, they produce so much crap.
Sometimes it's amazing to me that the world works at all.
Your british airwars terminal comparison is interesting, but it's important to keep in mind that in a project like that, the majority of the work was spent doing something other than design and construction. When you've got a big public project like that, the amount of politics, meetings with every single person who should be involved, every person that thinks they should involved, and every person who wants to be involved just because they like to complain, it takes forever and it sucks.
Not to say that a factory that produces nuclear reactor parts wouldn't have some politics to deal with, but in a lot of ways, it's much more straight-forward than a public airline terminal.
uhhh, do you mean pre-OSX versions of MacOS? Because that became outdated about 7+ years ago. Maybe in 2003 or 04 your argument would be reasonable, but very few consumer programs get supported for that long.
There's plenty of mac freeware and shareware. You could consider it scarce if you compared it to the amount of stuff floating around the windows world, but nobody really needs 47 ftp clients to choose from, or 39 free tetris clones. Just about any type of shareware/freeware that you can find for windows you can find for the mac. There might only be a couple choices instead of dozens, but there's almost always at least one quality application, and far few pieces of crap to filter out.
Apple has pretty much always kept tight control on their products. They're not trying to be the next microsoft, they're continuing to be Apple.
Apple will allow you to distribute free applications for the iPhone. I don't understand where you expect all this nickle and dime'ing to come from. As for shutting out hobbyists, I'm just guessing here same as you were, but I haven't seen anything from Apple that leaves me to believe that they'll be particularly selective about who they allow to distribute through iTunes. You just have to make apps that follow their rules.
The mac world has a very strong history of high quality shareware/freeware. I think a hobbyists windows developer trying to make the jump from the windows and/or linux world to the iPhone will have less to worry about in terms of selectiveness from Apple, than they will from end users. Apple users tend to be much more picky about the appearance/interface of their software.
Adorable. Maybe some other game development hobbyist will come up with a similar idea to whatever game you were going to make, release it for the iPhone for a few bucks, and actually get their game played and paid for by a decent number of people.
Ideological discussions about computers sure can be exciting, but in the real world, running a business or making some money doesn't mean you're evil.
That's all very true, the limited hardware out there certainly contributes to the integration with the OS as well as system stability. But that's not the most basic reason.
Apple is a hardware company.
The bulk of their revenue, by a huge margin, comes from selling hardware. The ship lots of computers, music players, and now phones. Through industrial design, OS exclusivity, and marketing, they manage to consistently sell their hardware at margins significantly better than the industry average.
Some people claim that if Apple shut down their hardware division and just sold OS X for generic boxes, then they'd make gazillions of dollars. I guess that's possible (probably unlikely), but it'd certainly be a very risky move. I think Apple would have a hard time justifying that risk, especially since their current business model is bringing them record profits, and their marketshare has finally started to grow again.
They didn't make it illegal to run anything on your phone. They just aren't going to distribute certain types of applications through iTunes. There are already many ways in which you can install anything you want on your iPhone, and Apple really won't give a damn. They won't provide technical support for your changes, but they're not going to kidnap you and throw you in prison either.
Nobody listened to you because most people who pay attention already knew this would happen. It's just that not everyone believes that this is some grave injustice against humanity.
It's always been like this, for everything. You just happen to see it a lot more now because the internet makes it so easy for just about anyone to share their opinion.
People love to argue, competition is intrinsic to humanity.
That's easy to explain, he was probably just feeling lazy. I can cook a complex four course meal when I feel like it, but sometimes I just eat mac&cheese out of a box. This kid probably could've done a better job of covering his tracks, but maybe he just felt sort of untouchable and got careless. It wouldn't be unusual for a teenager.
No, it sounds like a dumb kid doing something stupid.
Just because you're talented or even brilliant at one thing doesn't mean that you're not a total idiot in other ways. There are plenty of smart people running around doing stupid things. The fact that this kid is capable of doing complex tricks with the phone system doesn't mean he'd do something easy and foolish because he thought it'd be funny.
Despite my utter lack of phreaking skills, I'd like to think that at 17 I was smart enough to realize that sending SWAT teams out to random locations was a really bad idea. But the news is full every day of adults doing mind-boggling dumb stuff. I find it much easier to believe that this kid did it than to believe that someone's framing him.
The biggest issue with current electric cars is battery technology, or the lack thereof. You can't just replace a 15 gallon gas tank with a battery of the same size and end up with the same result. The amount of electricity required to drive an electric car a reasonable distance results in huge, very heavy, and expensive batteries. There are also potential issues concerning battery lifetime, environmental impacts of manufacturing/disposal, etc.
So you basically end up with the question, how are we going to store all of that electricity in the car until it's needed. If batteries aren't a viable option, what other forms can we use? Hydrogen is attractive because it has a very high energy density, but it has its share of drawbacks as well. The article is about somebody who claims to be able to overcome some of those drawbacks via nanotechnology. I have no idea if his ideas are feasible.
True, but if you imagine this thing with a pivot in the middle, I think it'd be much easier to "flip" the 50 pound weight to the top than it would be to just lift 50 pounds straight up. Basically, it'd be acting as a lever which would make it easier to move that weight. There's some math you could do to numerically spell it all out, but I'm lazy.
Of course, there's some downsides in this design, in that you'd have to add in some locking safety features to keep the 50 pound weight from flipping back down on its own, plus you'd have to design the pivot, plus probably make the whole tube stronger in order to be able to withstand the flipping process. All that would certainly add to the build costs.
I don't think that you can draw a useful comparison between comics and games in the way that this article seems to be trying to do. Comics are a genre, of literature I guess. Video games are more like literature than comics, in that you're talking about a broader range of things, which can be broken down into genres. (which isn't to say that you can't break down a genre such as comics further.)
You could probably make a decent argument that some genres of video games have already fallen into a 'ghetto'. Flight-sims are only a small slice of the video game market, and adventure games have sort of fallen by the wayside. Either through market shifts, or just certain types of games basically becoming obsolete, genres will grow and wane in popularity, but probably never completely disappear.
You're just reiterating his point, not contradicting it. I bought my guitar hero guitar because it came with a game appropriate to it.
It seems to me that it's more of a programming issue than a deficiency in the controller. I think that when creating the boxing game, Nintendo imposed a limit on how fast your character could punch, and that limit is much slower than your average person can move. Beyond that I think they just didn't do a very good job of compensating for all the different ways people might punch. (Some people rotate their fists as they punch, some just lunge straight out, etc.)
Maybe they just didn't have the time to get it right?
While there are certainly many people on /. and in the rest of the world who seem to find these sorts of things impossible to discuss with any civility, that doesn't mean that it's not a discussion that's worth having.
Science as an idea can exist independent of any morality (religious or otherwise), but in the real world, science is meaningless without people. It does not take place in an sealed intellectual box. It has meaning and repercussions beyond experiment and theories, and to try and pretend that it doesn't will only serve to make the unavoidable problems that much more contentious.
It's disappointing to me to see so many people quickly dismiss the Pope as just some nutjob church guy. Not only because I'm Catholic, but more-so because I'm a science loving geek who sees real and useful science suffering at the hands of many real nutjob church people. The Catholic Church doesn't have a spotless record by any means, but as a whole is way more progressive and open-minded in regards to science than many of the other christian denominations. The Church in general does not deny evolution, does not insist that the world is only a 6000 or so years old, etc. I'm not suggesting that the entire scientific world run all their ideas through the vatican before doing any research, but scientists should consider it part of their job to engage the rest of humanity in these moral discussions related to their work. I think there's been a pretty consistent neglect to do so over the past few decades, and the resentment that built up against science as a result of that neglect has recently manifested itself quite strongly (in the USA at least), with all these bizarre arguments over evolution and intelligent design and such.
It must be nice for you to have all the answers, to have everything figured out, to not have any uncertainties in your life. Unfortunately, most people don't know everything, and many of them like hearing the ideas and thoughts of others.
And seriously, this isn't just some random "religious types" trying to cram their lifestyle down your throat. It's the freakin' pope discussing the Church's interpretation of the Catholic religion in regards to modern issues. Doing that kind of thing is his job. If you're not interested in what he has to say, then change the channel. Meanwhile, there are many people out there who want to listen. (Even if they might not agree.)
Yeah, but for many people, the "power" of a computer is not just the sum of all of its tech specs and how quickly it can shuffle electrons around. The appeal of Macs has historically been more about the operating system, and less about the plastic/metal that it's wrapped in. The fact that the case is cool looking is just a bonus.
Of course, when you move into the realm of consumer electronics, the appearance of a device becomes even more significant for most people, particularly when it's something that they carry around in public. But for all its clean curves and sleek colors, the iPod wouldn't have been as successful if it didn't offer compelling functionality.
To take the car analogy a little further, Ferrari doesn't just take a Ford chassis, shove a more powerful engine in it, swap out the logo, and jack up the price. Any old moron could put a big-ass engine on a car. Instead, Ferrari (hopefully, I've never driven one) puts a better steering system, more suitable suspension, better brakes, etc. They're not just selling pretty and powerful, they're also selling drive-able.
Apple skimps a little bit on the powerful, but puts plenty of effort into pretty and drive-able.
Here's another "not the original poster, but still going to answer" answer. I take very little of the old testament to be literal, and even some of the parts that may map to some actual historic event aren't very useful to me in a literal sense, because they took place in a world that looked very different from the world that I live in.
I don't believe that the Adam and Eve story literally happened. And even if it did, I don't find that to be the compelling part of what Jesus was trying to do for us. If I try take it literally and boil it down to a really basic level, this is what I get.
1. God created the heavens and the earth. On the earth, he created a man, and gave him the goal of getting into heaven. One of the rules that God made for this man to get into heaven is that he had to be free from sin.
2. This man breaks that rule, gets tainted by sin. He's no longer worthy of heaven, oh and by the way neither will any of his descendents, they all will suffer because of this mistake
3. Eventually God sends down his son, who dies a horrible death, and so it doesn't matter than man is tainted by sin anymore.
Basically it's like God created a loophole to a rule that he made in the first place. While that's certainly nice of him, in some way, it seems to me like making your own game, and then when the game progresses different than you expected, you tweak the rules to get it back on track. That's not to say that God is some sort of cheater, I'd like to think that existence is more than a game.
I don't know, maybe at the end of the day this means I'm not even really a christian, but I think Jesus was less about flipping some spiritual switch through his death(and resurrection) that all of a sudden made humans acceptable to heaven. I think it was more that God decided that humanity overall wasn't interpreting the old testament properly, and so Jesus was more intended to serve as an education, both through what he said and did, as well as be providing a powerful example through his death. His message had basically nothing to do with interpreting historical facts. It was more about helping people make good moral choices.
I don't think Jesus would give a rats-ass what anybody thinks about evolution. There are more important measures of one's faith and one's "good-ness".
Your entire argument is basically one of semantics. My definition of faith doesn't match what you said. If you ask 100 different people what their definition of "faith" is, you'll probably get close to 100 different answers.
When I was younger, I knew the world wasn't perfect, but I thought that adults were generally competent and honest enough that much of civilization and technology was really refined and well functioning. I just sort of assumed that medicine and construction and industry was all about well established procedures, precision, and organization.
These days, I make a living designing buildings, and I can tell you that I was entirely wrong about all of that. There are tons of full grown, highly educated, very experienced professionals that are just as confused, scatterbrained, and flaky as those dumbass lab partners you'd end up with in high school. And getting them to do their fair share of the work is sometimes harder than the actual project you're trying to accomplish. When something is being designed, it's really really hard to solve all the problems before you actually start building it. Lots of things will go wrong, lots of simple things will get overlooked, lots of stuff that you never expected will happen. Half the time, whoever discovers the problem will either blame someone else, or at least try to shift responsibility for figuring it out away from themselves. The other half of the time the problem will be solved on the spot by whoever happens to notice it. Then there's maybe a 50/50 chance that they'll mention that issue to anyone else involved.
I guess the point is, there are very few jobs/projects where you just sit down and crank out work according to a schedule. Design of almost any sort is less about putting down the answers onto paper/computer/whatever, and more about trying stuff out, seeing what problems arise, and then trying to fix them. Deadlines have a role in the process and are important, but unless someone is producing an exact replica of a game/building/object that they've already done, you shouldn't take a date as anything other than a very rough approximation.
Yes, we get it. You're a real musician, while all us fakers are just crappy little fools completely incapable of understanding what music really is. Thanks for reminding us that we're not real rock stars, and that video games are not the real world. I will stop enjoying my rock band drumsticks immediately.
Just another gamer nerd trying to pretend that his ultra cool and elitist hobby hasn't become a mainstream activity for bazillions of ordinary people.