So far I haven't seen any cases of criticism with a valid argument attached.
Then you can hardly have read the other comments to the article.
The only one who included you among that group is yourself.
No, you did:
If you really must hate read the chapter and then hate on the content.
You know, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. I'd heard of people like you, but I think it's my first time communicating with a live specimen. The kind of nerd with a little job and a little life who comes online to jump into a thread where other people were debating and bicker endlessly about details so he can feel good and superior at something.
And you know what? I have better things to do with my life. So I concede. Congratulations. You win this internet argument. Whatever you're writing is right and true. Feel free to reply to this post any amount of times with more contradictory arguments, or to twist my words even more, or to insult me. I promise I won't steal your thunder by replying anymore. Have a good evening.
"I am discussing this matter in a perfectly civil and neutral manner, while you fanboys"
A bit of a contradiction in terms don't you think?
That is not some random insult. Nobody is calling you a jerk or a fuckwad or other meaningless slam. It is a very specific factual observation of your remark....I wonder where I read this before.
No but they are restricted to certain topics which is why moderators such as myself have an offtopic moderation. This story is about a chapter being released in a new book. If you really must hate read the chapter and then hate on the content.
Who ever said I hate Wheel of Time? Besides, people are criticizing aspects of the series that they've read and expressing disappointment which may influence whether they are willing to read or not read the new chapter. Obviously they can't comment the story within the new installment, since it hasn't been released yet.
Comments about Wheel of Time are definitely not off-topic in a Wheel of Time related article. And you aren't any more of a moderator than I am, since you have chosen (as I did) to post in this article rather than modding it.
If my ideas about what constitutes off-topic are wrong, someone should tell that to everyone who meta-moderates my moderations. I receive a constant stream of mod points.
While the OP's post may admittedly be flamebait and inappropriate, that is no reason to dismiss the opinions of the many OTHER people who are disappointed with the series and who chose to express that throughout this article's comments. The story is of interest to a lot of people; I don't remember slashdot stories being restricted to certain interest groups, and even if they were, it wouldn't be for you to decide who gets or doesn't get to post.
And an added comment about flamebaits:
fuck you for trolling.
Your mom
anal smartasses like yourself.
It's a very relative concept. I am discussing this matter in a perfectly civil and neutral manner, while you fanboys are being aggressive and insulting people just for disagreeing with you. I wonder why I can't take you seriously.
I replied that if they don't read it, they can't know whether they like it or not.
In other words, you are agreeing with me, but implying that both I and the parent wrote the opposite of what we did, and that therefore you are agreeing with the parent.
don't start slamming anyone who calls out people who are basically talking shit about someone's books without actually having read them.
That's not what the parent did, what the parent did was try to dismiss the opinion of those who disliked the book after having read it. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked them not to read it.
When you are replying to something, please read carefully before posting.
Of course, if Jordan hadn't had his good prose, we would never have read the damn series in first place. The people making jokes are those who read the first books, loved them, and then went all the way to book 11 (12 if you include New Spring) and felt betrayed. Some of those descriptive moments were really too much, and you shouldn't need hundreds of pages to narrate a single (and often unimportant!) event. Besides, it was supposed to be a 7 or 9 book series originally?
How can people who never read it know that they don't like it?
It distresses me that fanboys like you are probably here on slashdot waving the flag of freedom of speech in almost every one of the several articles we get every week that deal with censorship, but whenever the subject of your fanboyism comes up you suddenly want to shut up everyone who disagrees with you;)
I also loved The Dark Tower, and coincidentally I'm currently re-reading it after several years (still at The Gunslinger). I don't like large cities either, and have never lived in one, but I think King's portrayal of New York from the eyes of someone completely foreign and removed from (almost everything in) our world and everything we think of as "normal" is interesting and engaging, if not as cool as the Wastelands and the tale of Roland's past:)
As for Wheel of Time, I can understand where the parent is coming from. I have read the first 11 books and they're generally too long and boring and full of highly repetitive and unimaginative plot devices. I'll also add that nearly all of the gigantic cast of characters are extremely annoying and shallow and I have difficulty identifying with them, which doesn't exactly make a re-read *these* books appealing. I don't think I'll buy the new books now that Jordan passed away. I'm tired of seing this saga extended over and over while he was alive, and I definitely don't need to fall back into the same trap now that we don't even have the original author with us.
And then there are games that are unanimously considered awesome, such as Psychonauts, but that most people never heard of. Marketing is also important...
Good old Lords of the Realm... Somehow I liked more than twice as many games in then 90s than in this decade. I wouldn't mind seeing GOOD remakes of them either.
Looking at an original painting is completely different from looking at a print or digital copy on a screen...
As for the entrance prices, they are often necessary to pay for the maintenance and restoration of existing and new exhibits.
That said, not being british or american, I completely side with US law on this one. A photo of a painting is a copy, no matter how you look at it, and shouldn't be subject to copyright.
I was writing from the standpoint of the small website owner, who is not on a local area network. The parent said he doesn't even manage his own server, so I am assuming he's an individual with a direct internet connection and a shared webspace account (and not a corporate user).
Re:Amusingly..
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You'll be fine if you take care of your own computer (which you do indeed manage). This article states that FTP is insecure, but that is based on the assumption that everyone's computer is infected periodically. So if your server is secure and your computer runs a secure OS, or at least a good firewall, a good antivirus, all security patches and is periodically scanned for malware, I don't see what harm the evil spammers can possibly cause.
Personally I barely follow a half of that advice, and yet I am never infected. If you know what you're doing, all it takes is some common sense to keep you safe. Such as not downloading and running suspicious programs, keeping your web browser(s) fully patched and making sure they are not vulnerable (VERY important) and a strong firewall (even if you get infected, it can stop your pet trojan from sending your passwords away).
Exactly! Personally I'd never use it, but it doesn't bother me that it's there. Why would it? No one is forcing me or anyone else to use it at all. They're probably smart enough to include a "number of seconds played automatically" meter so people who truly beat the game can brag to their friends with evidence;)
When we start long bloody wars or we burn heretics, then come and talk.
Until then you are just spouting mindless hyperbole.
I think you should have re-read your first sentence before writing the second.
Also, religious people do not have a monopoly on starting long bloody wars as you seem to be implying. If you really think that, you are seriously deluded.
You are using a fundementally dishonest approach by trying to characterize the pillars of Xian society in decades and centuries gone by as "criminals".
I never heard of that "Xian society" of yours. Is that in China?
You are twisting my words by subtly implying that I am specifically referring to the pillars of my society. Those who I am calling criminals are those who commited crimes. Sometimes they were important, even central people. Sometimes they weren't. We all know there have been corrupt and bloodthirsty religious leaders. When they were responsible for the deaths or torture of large amounts of people, they were criminals.
Your apparent need to disavow your forebears is something that you should find even more disturbing than we do.
If you consider christians, for instance, they are following the doctrine preached by Jesus, which boils down to "love each other and God that created you" (he said so himself). They are not following the doctrine preached by pope XYZ a thousand years later that boiled down to "travel a thousand kilometres and massacre the entire population of a country". Am I really dishonest for accepting the first and rejecting the second? I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing to do with Pope XYZ, and he has nothing to do with me. Do not stereotype us all together.
The most famous religious muslim scientist I can recall (and he was in fact Persian, that is, Iranian) is Avicenna, one of the forefathers of modern medicine.
I'm glad there are still people capable of rational thought around here!
The funny thing is that I also agree with most of what the OP wrote. The mad mullahs of Iran are definitely mad. And I condemn any kind of violence or opression, especially when commited in name or religion.
But the OP is basically stating that *everyone* who is religious doesn't deserve any of the benefits of science, and that includes (and always included throughout history) millions of reasonable, tolerant people, famous philosophers, philantropists, mathematicians, sociologists, scientists and, heck, even good leaders. Hate evil people, don't hate people you classified based on an arbitrary criteria just because some of them are/were batshit insane, murderous fanatics.
And so do I, and everyone else here, I suspect. But there have been and still are thousands of religious people in history who did not oppress anyone, and instead left us a legacy of knowledge and/or charity. The original parent (I don't know if that you or not, since you're posting as an anonymous coward) is hatefully denying the merit of these people's work based on a completely unrelated disagreement, which I find completely unfair.
I replied to the original post, a troll posted anonymously, with a rational, example-supported rebuke in which I recommended tolerance and open-mindedness, and I'm the one who is modded troll and flamebait?
Some of you people who are moderating this discussion are definitely not right in the head.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for double posting.
I also loved Dungeon Keeper.
The more recent games by Molyneux, however, aren't so hot ;)
And you're kinda right about Will Wright.
The original Theme Park was great.
SketchUp, perhaps?
Very classy reply. I think you're right about our disagreement, and I apologize for my previous post.
Nobody is talking about constructive criticism.
I am. Why did you assume otherwise?
So far I haven't seen any cases of criticism with a valid argument attached.
Then you can hardly have read the other comments to the article.
The only one who included you among that group is yourself.
No, you did:
If you really must hate read the chapter and then hate on the content.
You know, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. I'd heard of people like you, but I think it's my first time communicating with a live specimen. The kind of nerd with a little job and a little life who comes online to jump into a thread where other people were debating and bicker endlessly about details so he can feel good and superior at something.
And you know what? I have better things to do with my life. So I concede. Congratulations. You win this internet argument. Whatever you're writing is right and true. Feel free to reply to this post any amount of times with more contradictory arguments, or to twist my words even more, or to insult me. I promise I won't steal your thunder by replying anymore. Have a good evening.
"I am discussing this matter in a perfectly civil and neutral manner, while you fanboys"
A bit of a contradiction in terms don't you think?
That is not some random insult. Nobody is calling you a jerk or a fuckwad or other meaningless slam. It is a very specific factual observation of your remark. ...I wonder where I read this before.
No but they are restricted to certain topics which is why moderators such as myself have an offtopic moderation. This story is about a chapter being released in a new book. If you really must hate read the chapter and then hate on the content.
Who ever said I hate Wheel of Time? Besides, people are criticizing aspects of the series that they've read and expressing disappointment which may influence whether they are willing to read or not read the new chapter. Obviously they can't comment the story within the new installment, since it hasn't been released yet.
Comments about Wheel of Time are definitely not off-topic in a Wheel of Time related article. And you aren't any more of a moderator than I am, since you have chosen (as I did) to post in this article rather than modding it.
If my ideas about what constitutes off-topic are wrong, someone should tell that to everyone who meta-moderates my moderations. I receive a constant stream of mod points.
While the OP's post may admittedly be flamebait and inappropriate, that is no reason to dismiss the opinions of the many OTHER people who are disappointed with the series and who chose to express that throughout this article's comments. The story is of interest to a lot of people; I don't remember slashdot stories being restricted to certain interest groups, and even if they were, it wouldn't be for you to decide who gets or doesn't get to post.
And an added comment about flamebaits:
fuck you for trolling.
Your mom
anal smartasses like yourself.
It's a very relative concept. I am discussing this matter in a perfectly civil and neutral manner, while you fanboys are being aggressive and insulting people just for disagreeing with you. I wonder why I can't take you seriously.
Excuse me?? The parent wrote, and I quote,
you don't like his stuff don't read it.
I replied that if they don't read it, they can't know whether they like it or not.
In other words, you are agreeing with me, but implying that both I and the parent wrote the opposite of what we did, and that therefore you are agreeing with the parent.
don't start slamming anyone who calls out people who are basically talking shit about someone's books without actually having read them.
That's not what the parent did, what the parent did was try to dismiss the opinion of those who disliked the book after having read it. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked them not to read it.
When you are replying to something, please read carefully before posting.
Some of the middle-later books were awful.
Of course, if Jordan hadn't had his good prose, we would never have read the damn series in first place. The people making jokes are those who read the first books, loved them, and then went all the way to book 11 (12 if you include New Spring) and felt betrayed. Some of those descriptive moments were really too much, and you shouldn't need hundreds of pages to narrate a single (and often unimportant!) event. Besides, it was supposed to be a 7 or 9 book series originally?
How can people who never read it know that they don't like it?
It distresses me that fanboys like you are probably here on slashdot waving the flag of freedom of speech in almost every one of the several articles we get every week that deal with censorship, but whenever the subject of your fanboyism comes up you suddenly want to shut up everyone who disagrees with you ;)
I also loved The Dark Tower, and coincidentally I'm currently re-reading it after several years (still at The Gunslinger). I don't like large cities either, and have never lived in one, but I think King's portrayal of New York from the eyes of someone completely foreign and removed from (almost everything in) our world and everything we think of as "normal" is interesting and engaging, if not as cool as the Wastelands and the tale of Roland's past :)
As for Wheel of Time, I can understand where the parent is coming from. I have read the first 11 books and they're generally too long and boring and full of highly repetitive and unimaginative plot devices. I'll also add that nearly all of the gigantic cast of characters are extremely annoying and shallow and I have difficulty identifying with them, which doesn't exactly make a re-read *these* books appealing. I don't think I'll buy the new books now that Jordan passed away. I'm tired of seing this saga extended over and over while he was alive, and I definitely don't need to fall back into the same trap now that we don't even have the original author with us.
And then there are games that are unanimously considered awesome, such as Psychonauts, but that most people never heard of. Marketing is also important...
Good old Lords of the Realm...
Somehow I liked more than twice as many games in then 90s than in this decade. I wouldn't mind seeing GOOD remakes of them either.
Maybe you're asking a little too much from Google. Remember that a significant share of their revenue comes from web advertising...
Maybe because the joke is so good someone thought he deserved karma for it ;)
Looking at an original painting is completely different from looking at a print or digital copy on a screen...
As for the entrance prices, they are often necessary to pay for the maintenance and restoration of existing and new exhibits.
That said, not being british or american, I completely side with US law on this one. A photo of a painting is a copy, no matter how you look at it, and shouldn't be subject to copyright.
I was writing from the standpoint of the small website owner, who is not on a local area network. The parent said he doesn't even manage his own server, so I am assuming he's an individual with a direct internet connection and a shared webspace account (and not a corporate user).
You'll be fine if you take care of your own computer (which you do indeed manage). This article states that FTP is insecure, but that is based on the assumption that everyone's computer is infected periodically. So if your server is secure and your computer runs a secure OS, or at least a good firewall, a good antivirus, all security patches and is periodically scanned for malware, I don't see what harm the evil spammers can possibly cause.
Personally I barely follow a half of that advice, and yet I am never infected. If you know what you're doing, all it takes is some common sense to keep you safe. Such as not downloading and running suspicious programs, keeping your web browser(s) fully patched and making sure they are not vulnerable (VERY important) and a strong firewall (even if you get infected, it can stop your pet trojan from sending your passwords away).
QBasic Bomberman?
Exactly! Personally I'd never use it, but it doesn't bother me that it's there. Why would it? No one is forcing me or anyone else to use it at all. They're probably smart enough to include a "number of seconds played automatically" meter so people who truly beat the game can brag to their friends with evidence ;)
The dishonest one here is you.
When we start long bloody wars or we burn heretics, then come and talk.
Until then you are just spouting mindless hyperbole.
I think you should have re-read your first sentence before writing the second.
Also, religious people do not have a monopoly on starting long bloody wars as you seem to be implying. If you really think that, you are seriously deluded.
You are using a fundementally dishonest approach by trying to characterize
the pillars of Xian society in decades and centuries gone by as "criminals".
I never heard of that "Xian society" of yours. Is that in China?
You are twisting my words by subtly implying that I am specifically referring to the pillars of my society. Those who I am calling criminals are those who commited crimes. Sometimes they were important, even central people. Sometimes they weren't. We all know there have been corrupt and bloodthirsty religious leaders. When they were responsible for the deaths or torture of large amounts of people, they were criminals.
Your apparent need to disavow your forebears is something that you should
find even more disturbing than we do.
If you consider christians, for instance, they are following the doctrine preached by Jesus, which boils down to "love each other and God that created you" (he said so himself). They are not following the doctrine preached by pope XYZ a thousand years later that boiled down to "travel a thousand kilometres and massacre the entire population of a country". Am I really dishonest for accepting the first and rejecting the second? I don't think so. I have absolutely nothing to do with Pope XYZ, and he has nothing to do with me. Do not stereotype us all together.
and that's why myths should not be the guiding principle in any form of government.
That may be so, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote! I am not denying that specific part of the OP's rant.
There are many examples, I merely picked a few.
The most famous religious muslim scientist I can recall (and he was in fact Persian, that is, Iranian) is Avicenna, one of the forefathers of modern medicine.
I'm glad there are still people capable of rational thought around here!
The funny thing is that I also agree with most of what the OP wrote. The mad mullahs of Iran are definitely mad. And I condemn any kind of violence or opression, especially when commited in name or religion.
But the OP is basically stating that *everyone* who is religious doesn't deserve any of the benefits of science, and that includes (and always included throughout history) millions of reasonable, tolerant people, famous philosophers, philantropists, mathematicians, sociologists, scientists and, heck, even good leaders. Hate evil people, don't hate people you classified based on an arbitrary criteria just because some of them are/were batshit insane, murderous fanatics.
And so do I, and everyone else here, I suspect. But there have been and still are thousands of religious people in history who did not oppress anyone, and instead left us a legacy of knowledge and/or charity. The original parent (I don't know if that you or not, since you're posting as an anonymous coward) is hatefully denying the merit of these people's work based on a completely unrelated disagreement, which I find completely unfair.
I replied to the original post, a troll posted anonymously, with a rational, example-supported rebuke in which I recommended tolerance and open-mindedness, and I'm the one who is modded troll and flamebait?
Some of you people who are moderating this discussion are definitely not right in the head.